if you always wanted to go to the races in California...

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I have no problem with horse vs horse betting. But unlike betting whether Lebron James is going to score over or under 31 point in a game, it
has extremely limited appeal to the masses. To be interested, you have to know racing and you have to see something that you feel can be exploited. That is why it appeals to you. You think of all the times there are two horses in a race at near equal odds and you have a strong opinion that one horse is better than the other.

This type of bet is a gravy type of bet. You have to build the sport to the point enough people might actually care and then you start to put up these wagers and over time they build some momentum. For the racing industry to book them at a profit at -115 will be a challenge to say the least (even though you feel it is a given). For these types of bet to create passion for this game, I would consider highly unlikely. Also, even though you prefer the grinding game and have been successful with it, a lot of horse players and sports bettors for that matter (8 team parlays etc) prefer going for scores. This type of wagering is not exactly what they play this game for.


Btw, to Askin Haskin, I am going to let the brilliance of your post stand unchallenged. I can't imagine the excitement of betting this game with the assumption that AI can solve the question of how much each horse has, that information being provided to everyone alive and we all get to lose the track take. Fun stuff.

My position is that we're probably missing out on offering some potential bets. Our higher win rate bets are frankly terrible, place and show payoffs for example are a total guess. Final win payoffs we can project fairly well off the DD probables matrix, keep that in mind for later. What I believe needs to be focused on is generating some bets that can be made similar to what the sports gamblers are currently interested in. So for starters target 50/50 on win rate, and fixed odds. See how it goes. If it doesn't fly then at least we tried, kill it off without too much damage and move on.

I do think there's a lot of potential in evenly matched horse vs horse but there may also be other bet types of interest. For example I was playing around with some DB queries, the horse ranked 6th on final odds in 9 horse fields, 5th or better 50% of the time. So what do you know it's another -115 candidate. Anyway maybe my % is off there, anyone else with a DB? Guys feel free to check on that one for me, I've had a really long week even though I didn't have to work Monday.

So then it follows the same horse 6th or worse is another -115 candidate, it's like an over/under for the horse, right? Ranked 5th in an 11 horse field, same deal 50% to finish 5th or better. Maybe they'll have to tighten this up with other odds criteria but I can see where this type of bet at -115 might be compelling for me sometimes. More gravy for ya. And for those who say yes but you don't know what the final odds are, ok true, but I do know what the DD probables matrix tells me they're likely to be.

[denniswilliams]

When do we get around to the part about full fields? People really think that 3 horse dirt races are going to take business away from SPORTS?


How about turf courses that actually drain?
How about free data? I mean, Formula 1, even, has a data library on Python.



US horse racing game is behind the times and beyond repair.

[mountainman]

I am routinely propositioned to critique fixed odds on mnr races. Evidently, such wagering is available in Europe and glaring inefficiencies abound.

So what? Sting them several x and they hit the ejector button, right?

Besides, as a racing official I just can't engage in that kind of enterprise.

On a deeper level, the irony of, in some cases (transformative factors such as late(ish) scratches and emergent biases notwithstanding) capitalizing on inaccuracies I can spot in my OWN morning line is not lost on me. And boy, would THAT open a potentially stinky can of worms.

In fact, multiple cans.

[Candybag]

Mountainman:

The idea I am trying to get in front of important racing people is an idea that did make the platform of Steve Smith when he ran for Governor of your state. It was included in the "West Virginia Can't Wait" platform and may have been the only idea on his platform that funded itself. Unfortunately for me, Mr. Smith finished second in the primaries. Mr. Smith and I have never met. A citizen told him about my idea, and he had his campaign people checked it out.

I could argue that racing can't wait. And racing certainly cannot dismiss any ideas that look creditable on the surface, especially ideas where someone is putting up all the money to prove the point.

I have reached out to a few people in the racing industry, and I not heard back from anyone yet. Cold calling is tough stuff, I am a complete unknown.

To be sure, Medicaid and racing are not related. Medicaid money will not be going to racing, although legally the savings can. But money talks. A lot of money, if the same materializes in their state coffers, should talk loudly and buy 10 minutes with important people to promote ideas that could help racing.

The "promise" of big money got me on Steve Smith's platform, and he does not know me from Adam. He listened to campaign people who knew that I knew after having some conversations. In this racing proposal, the important people can wait and see what money shows up before doing a thing to reciprocate toward racing.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

When do we get around to the part about full fields? People really think that 3 horse dirt races are going to take business away from SPORTS?


How about turf courses that actually drain?
How about free data? I mean, Formula 1, even, has a data library on Python.



US horse racing game is behind the times and beyond repair.

It's a good point. Consider getting rid of conditions and assemble 10-12 horse fields every race based upon class ratings. Maybe the purse structure needs to be reworked. It wouldn't hurt to get rid of the drugstore that has led to horses needing two months between races to recover either. Weight horses more like handicaps to bring them all together. There's a lot they can look at doing differently. There's a lot if started from scratch someone probably would do differently.

Turf courses I can't speak to but data I can.

If the industry wants to give each of the people who actually make product a worthwhile monthly stipend I would be more than willing to give away the whole product for free. It would have to be arranged with Trackmaster/Equibase.

Regardless, sports bettors demonstrate every week they are keen on coin flip bets at low vig fixed odds so it should be high time to take stock of what there is to match that experience while working inside the confines of this game.

The supers the horizontals, the full fields needed to drive them etc, those bets are for people you already do have and yes we need to keep them satisfied too as well as bring back others we've lost in the past couple of decades but courting other types of gamblers might require other types of bets being offered as part of the roadmap.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Candybag

I have reached out to a few people in the racing industry, and I not heard back from anyone yet.

Shocking

[classhandicapper]

If done well, I personally think exchange wagering is much better than any other option. I don’t know why it failed in limited experiments here. I wasn’t able to bet in NJ and didn’t pay close attention. But I can tell you that years back when E-Horse Exchange was up and running, it was far and away the best gambling experience of my life. I could lock in a price on a horse I liked, often at odds higher than available at the track. I could also book bets when I had a negative opinion on a horse but no positive opinion on anyone else in the race. The pools eventually got more efficient and closer to the track than when it first opened up, but it was still better than guessing about odds changes and I could still book bets.

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If done well, I personally think exchange wagering is much better than any other option. I don’t know why it failed in limited experiments here. I wasn’t able to bet in NJ and didn’t pay close attention. But I can tell you that years back when E-Horse Exchange was up and running, it was far and away the best gambling experience of my life. I could lock in a price on a horse I liked, often at odds higher than available at the track. I could also book bets when I had a negative opinion on a horse but no positive opinion on anyone else in the race. The pools eventually got more efficient and closer to the track than when it first opened up, but it was still better than guessing about odds changes and I could still book bets.

Repole likes prop bets. Here is how I see it happening:

I have a request in currently with the Repole alliance, Mr. Cummings, Executive Director. We talk, Mr. Cummings contacts his legislator if he likes what he hears, who puts me in front of the New York State Medicaid administrators.

Of note: CMA, the Medicaid authority in New York City, was flying in to meet my company a few years back. On the day of the meeting, the CEO's mom died and canceled the meeting. CMA never rescheduled.

We do a New York State pilot project of my Medicaid idea, my expense. If the Governor is happy with the $$$$ saving results, Repole pushes for his racing prop bets, fixed odds wagering and exchange betting legislation for the NYRA tracks.

BetMakers handles the betting aspects as performed in New Jersey. BetMakers and my company expands the concept to other racing jurisdictions. I also have an email in with BetMakers.

[Poindexter]

One thing that gets ignored in the fixed odds betting talk is a lot of folks will get suckered too. No different than betting an nfl dog at plus 5 only to see the line up to plus 7 at game time.Not unusual to see long shots drift from 12 up to 23 to one after off. How many folks might jump on these hoses at 16 or 17 to 1. When the caw is getting ready to hammer a horse from 5/2 down to 4/5, you think they may be gobbling up 9/5 and 8/5 and 7/5 on the exchange.Fixed odds wagering sounds awesome, but it is often an opportunity for sharps to exploit the not so sharp. I loved ehorsex, but I was suckered a few times myself and that was a long time ago.Late odds move are far greater than they were back then. I remember one incident. There was an obvious horse that looked to be a need the lead type in a hot pace. He was 4-1 late in the betting and I felt like I was scooping up easy money booking him at 5/2. Well he gets hit to 8/5 at the bell. Jock took hold immediately and he rated like a champ and won easily. That was my introduction into taking on the caw/sharps. That is why I actually remember it. I felt like such a sucker and that hit my ego hard.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If done well, I personally think exchange wagering is much better than any other option. I don’t know why it failed in limited experiments here. I wasn’t able to bet in NJ and didn’t pay close attention. But I can tell you that years back when E-Horse Exchange was up and running, it was far and away the best gambling experience of my life. I could lock in a price on a horse I liked, often at odds higher than available at the track. I could also book bets when I had a negative opinion on a horse but no positive opinion on anyone else in the race. The pools eventually got more efficient and closer to the track than when it first opened up, but it was still better than guessing about odds changes and I could still book bets.

As far as exchange wagering in NJ, I gave it a shot, and the problems were that it wasn't popular enough, and they didn't have the major American tracks on board (not surprising, because they didn't want NJ to take money out of their mutuel pools, but unfortunate). It was a vicious cycle. When it was new, there understandably wasn't much liquidity in the pools. You couldn't get any meaningful amounts down because there wasn't enough money on the other side. Because of that, attempts to really use it were frustrating. I imagine people tried it a few times, saw you couldn't really bet anything at decent odds (because no one else was offering anything at decent odds) and gave up on it.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

When do we get around to the part about full fields? People really think that 3 horse dirt races are going to take business away from SPORTS?


How about turf courses that actually drain?
How about free data? I mean, Formula 1, even, has a data library on Python.



US horse racing game is behind the times and beyond repair.

I do agree that free data is long overdue. Of course you can get it in other ways from other sources, but tracks should be supplying this to everyone. Pay whoever and give top-of-the-line info to all gamblers. At the bare minimum the racinos should be the one doing this. I imagine 0.00001% of their casino revenue would cover everything.

Full fields are a bigger issue that has been covered many times and not something anyone can wave a magic wand to fix.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by castaway01

As far as exchange wagering in NJ, I gave it a shot, and the problems were that it wasn't popular enough, and they didn't have the major American tracks on board (not surprising, because they didn't want NJ to take money out of their mutuel pools, but unfortunate). It was a vicious cycle. When it was new, there understandably wasn't much liquidity in the pools. You couldn't get any meaningful amounts down because there wasn't enough money on the other side. Because of that, attempts to really use it were frustrating. I imagine people tried it a few times, saw you couldn't really bet anything at decent odds (because no one else was offering anything at decent odds) and gave up on it.

This is far off from the topic of this thread, but one of the big problems with a lot of the stuff advantage players want is there's a limited supply of fish. This is true not only in horse racing but in all forms of player-against-player gambling.

And where this really plays out is in any configuration of the game that isn't the one the fish are used to playing in. So for instance, in poker, you can find lots of fish playing reasonable limits of no limit hold 'em in most American markets, because that's the most popular game. But if you are a really good stud or Omaha or lowball player, it's really hard to find fish, and if you find them, they may not be playing a high enough limit to allow you to make a significant profit.

I think that's what happened to exchange wagering. It's a new form of wagering. The fish who still bet on horse racing play in the traditional pools-- win/place/show, exactas, trifectas, etc., and stay away from this newfangled form of wagering that has to be explained to them. So over time, you had a pool with a lot of knowledgeable players and very few fish, which regressed prices to the mean.

Now to be clear, this isn't inevitable. I.e., no limit hold 'em itself took over a poker market dominated by stud. And fantasy sports made significant inroads in sports betting. Sometimes the fish do gravitate towards the new game. But there's no guarantee that it will happen, and that's one of the reasons why professional gambling is so often a speculative proposition.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

You plainly cannot understand what you're talking about.


It's that concise.


Take a sport and an industry that has simply been torn apart by opportunists right in front of everybody's nose (or head, or neck) at 20% blended takeout, and then reduce said takeout by, say, half (to 10%).

What do you envision taking place just as soon as that brainless idea is implemented?


The opportunists will multiply exponentially in an arena where the suckers on-track are already too few to keep supporting the present day opportunists.

The on-track bettors, it has been proven so many times over, do not give a sh*t about takeout. They, most significantly, are the ones who have been ignored since horse racing was conceived by kings so long ago.

Racing will need to actually do something that relates to its core product for those in attendance each day, for the first time in its long existence, in order to begin to reverse all that the sport has done unto itself.

The Hawthorne takeout idiocy was a bloodbath, so much so that they won't even come out and summarize the net effects of their own stupidity.

All that matters on the bottom line is revenue from handle, even though there are certain people here who can't tell the difference between reported "handle" and the revenue it provides.






Perhaps it might be time to stop and think. During the time you missed, opportunists have rendered horse racing on the verge of its demise thanks in largest part due to racing's own choices and decisions while steadily ignoring its on-site patrons.

This win-probability thing at Laurel is a more advanced step in the appropriate direction than would be takeout reduction. Telling the fans who is likely to win, when the field is at the Quarter Pole, might just be the first step toward doing so while the runners are still in the paddock and when it can have a positive effect on handle.

Chronic Moron

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

When do we get around to the part about full fields? People really think that 3 horse dirt races are going to take business away from SPORTS?


How about turf courses that actually drain?
How about free data? I mean, Formula 1, even, has a data library on Python.



US horse racing game is behind the times and beyond repair.

WRONG

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I do.

Horse Racing is part of the fabric of our society.

You do think people weren't saying the same thing 50 years ago?

Oaklawn was days away from closing the doors until the advent is simulcasting.

Later it was saved by Instant Racing.

Now it's couldn't survive without the casino.

There's always going to be something. Perhaps the race tracks will make less $$$ but the sport dying is NOT going to happen. Too large of a core that loves racing. And don't say their fan base is going to die off. People have been saying that for three generations.

Hollywood Park closing didn't kill So Cal. Bay Meadows closing didn't kill SF. Arlington?? Well that's another story and it remains to be seen.

And I can GARE ON TEE you the CAW's aren't going anywhere. They bring an insane amount of handle.

As I said before I think the answer is contraction. Will I feel bad for the smaller venues that won't survive? Yes 100%.

But more money would be bet Nationwide by far if there were only 5 signals in the winter and maybe twice that in the summer. MTH would be one. Field size would go up. Quality of the signals would go up. And people would adapt.

In the winter there could be three eastern signals. NYRA, Gulfstream & KY. Sorry Jason. OAKLAWN can handle central time and we can wrap up the day with So.Cal.

Part of what's damaging racing is their inability to cull the weak links from the crop!

A bunch of truth.

We are in an economic and cultural recession.

Contraction is the reality.

If one has to go to New York or Saudi or Japan etc.. then that's reality.

Game isn't dying, the market is moving.

Chatgpppt bs style is all I can type on this tablet. Thx