Bill Finley: "Horseplayers Are Stupid"

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by comet52

He already had the money. You told him to give it back to the customers then collect a % of what he once had all of. It's not a very good analogy to convince someone with.

It should be an ok analogy, because when he walked across the track into his slots parlor, he could count the people in line cashing in their slots points to use the slot machines. He seems to understand that just fine.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

Wrong. The idea of optimal takeout is the rate where the track and horsemen make the most money bottom line.

To simply prove you wrong, if takeout were 98% today instead of 20%, do you honestly believe that racing's bottom line would be the same as it is now?

Wrong. If $10 billion was bet per year....at 20% takeout, racing would have $2 billion for purses and expenses.....at 98%, racing would have $9.8 billion for purses and expenses.

Popesian racing economic studies have shown as price goes up, handle is unaffected.

[Charlie D]

Popesian racing economic studies

Googled and found Ukrainian Weekly, Dave Weeden's blog archive and Daisy's Dead Air blog.

[BillW]

I think he was referencing Fred Pope, the blogger.

[Charlie D]

Just having a bit of fun Bill

[BillW]

I think this whole thread went that way a few posts ago

[JohnGalt1]

Question--

Would you rather bet at 23% take out with a $100k pick four pool (Cal) or bet at 12% take out with a 5k pick four pool (TX)?

If your winning ticket was made up of favorites the pay outs would be similar, but if you had a winner with long shots, wouldn't you have a greater upside?

And I am NOT defending this take out increase that starts in December. I mostly bet to win, but even so, after Oak Tree I will greatly reduce my California betting.

[Charlie D]

I'd sooner play in a 100k pool with a 12% take, but hardly anyone wants to play where there 12% take is offered. They would sooner keep playing at places where the take is 23%, despite moaning almost everyday that Take at rates of 23% is killing them and bad for the game.


Go figure.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Question--

Would you rather bet at 23% take out with a $100k pick four pool (Cal) or bet at 12% take out with a 5k pick four pool (TX)?

If your winning ticket was made up of favorites the pay outs would be similar, but if you had a winner with long shots, wouldn't you have a greater upside?

And I am NOT defending this take out increase that starts in December. I mostly bet to win, but even so, after Oak Tree I will greatly reduce my California betting.

You could say a 30% pick 4 pool with $100,000 instead of 23% and the answer will be the same. A pool that is 20 times greater will win out. However, I would bet four times as much into a $100,000 pool at 15%, then I would at 23%.
My personal preference is to have at least a $7,500 pool shot to shoot for when it comes to pick 3's, 4's and supers.
If Retama got up to those levels, they won't stay there too long and likely double very quickly.

[comet52]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

Wrong. The idea of optimal takeout is the rate where the track and horsemen make the most money bottom line.

To simply prove you wrong, if takeout were 98% today instead of 20%, do you honestly believe that racing's bottom line would be the same as it is now?

If players show up at a track with x dollars and wager it, the takeout rate being lower means lower income for the track. You are talking about some hypothetical scenario where a business prices itself out of existence. The math of vig/income isn't dependent on how much money or knowledge of vig the players arrive at a form of gambling with. And it isn't dependent on a hypothetical pricing model either.

If I can attract a crowd of gamblers to my establishment at 25% vig, then I should. Lowering the vig to 20% only helps me if I subsequently attract an additional 25% more money to be bet. If the same group of gamblers show up at my track every day with a collective 100k to wager, I do better at 25% vig. Lower vig doesn't help me by extending "churn" or "handle", it only helps me if more customers show up with more money in their pockets.

Which brings us to, the majority of American gamblers can't tell you what the vig on any given game they play is. They simply can tell you whether they like the game or not. And often you will find them liking games with high vig.

So getting them to a horsetrack on the basis of saying, "Hey, next time you win $10.00 on a horse at our track, we will pay you $10.25 because we just lowered the takeout!" isn't likely to draw a big crowd.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by comet52

If players show up at a track with x dollars and wager it, the takeout rate being lower means lower income for the track. You are talking about some hypothetical scenario where a business prices itself out of existence. The math of vig/income isn't dependent on how much money or knowledge of vig the players arrive at a form of gambling with. And it isn't dependent on a hypothetical pricing model either.

If I can attract a crowd of gamblers to my establishment at 25% vig, then I should. Lowering the vig to 20% only helps me if I subsequently attract an additional 25% more money to be bet. If the same group of gamblers show up at my track every day with a collective 100k to wager, I do better at 25% vig. Lower vig doesn't help me by extending "churn" or "handle", it only helps me if more customers show up with more money in their pockets.

Which brings us to, the majority of American gamblers can't tell you what the vig on any given game they play is. They simply can tell you whether they like the game or not. And often you will find them liking games with high vig.

So getting them to a horsetrack on the basis of saying, "Hey, next time you win $10.00 on a horse at our track, we will pay you $10.25 because we just lowered the takeout!" isn't likely to draw a big crowd.

Have you ever met a gambler?

If you place your post on the Two plus Two or Stanford Wong board and ask for feedback, it would be a flame session for the ages.

[kid4rilla]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

No difference to them, they're just paying for 'action' and action is a pretty powerful drug, so the price can be raised without too many noticing or even caring.

Even heroin addicts can appreciate when the price of their drug is cheaper down the street. They just have to KNOW it is cheaper.

If the worst action junkies knew which tracks paid better, they would at least try to play in that game.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by kid4rilla

Even heroin addicts can appreciate when the price of their drug is cheaper down the street. They just have to KNOW it is cheaper.

If the worst action junkies knew which tracks paid better, they would at least try to play in that game.

Problem is that they know so little about the game, they can't know tracks pay better. They just bet the next available simo race on the docket.

Now, if tracks would actually CHARGE up front for bets, than people would know the prices. For example, if you bet 2 dollars on a horse to win and the takeout was 20 percent, they can ask for 40 cents 'up front'. People would actually know they're paying 40 cents to wager. But, the way racing does it, sneakily i might add, is taking the 40 cents from the original 2 dollars wagered. You're reallly wagering 1.60 but you think you're wagering 2 dollars.

[comet52]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Have you ever met a gambler?

Yes.

If you place your post on the Two plus Two or Stanford Wong board and ask for feedback, it would be a flame session for the ages.

Why don't you tackle it yourself?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Problem is that they know so little about the game, they can't know tracks pay better. They just bet the next available simo race on the docket.

Now, if tracks would actually CHARGE up front for bets, than people would know the prices. For example, if you bet 2 dollars on a horse to win and the takeout was 20 percent, they can ask for 40 cents 'up front'. People would actually know they're paying 40 cents to wager. But, the way racing does it, sneakily i might add, is taking the 40 cents from the original 2 dollars wagered. You're reallly wagering 1.60 but you think you're wagering 2 dollars.

I don't think it's feasible, but this is an interesting thought, imo.