Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stillriledup
"Staying in the game" isnt reasonable because unless you do massive amounts of work and the work you do is correct and your opinion is amazing, you arent going to win. If rebate bettors left the pools and all betting was non rebated, horses who are destined to pay 5.80 are still going to pay 5.80, they're not going to pay 7.00. AND, the pools will be smaller so the 50 and 100 dollar bettor might be depressing his own price more than he would otherwise.
****
WRONG. You are defining the results of todays market based off the consequences of what whales and sharp rebate bettors are doing to the pools. If the public is overlooking a horse like in my previous example, if there were no rebates, 5/2 would be my price on that horse not 9/5. Rebate players without a rebate would have to leave themselves a profit margin. They would have no desire to knock a 9/5 fair value down to 9/5.
**
Personally, i view racing as a fairly efficient market, there isnt "free money" lying around like there used to be and i think that the intelligence of the players and the massive amounts of great information out there is what is making it harder to win. That's the reason its hard to win, the competition is pretty darn good and the takeout is pretty high and that high takeout, combined with a lot of sharp players makes winning a daunting task.
**
If the racing market was totally efficient there would be no whales, they could not make money. The fact that they are pushing millions of dollars through the pools and losing 3% or thereabouts pre rebate on a 16% takeout pool, completely demonstrates that the pools are not efficient. They are now much more efficient thanks to rebates. Once again you are judging todays market based off of the consequences of the bets whales and sharps are making with rebates.
*****
Its very hard to win, so i don't think its a particularly good idea for decent handicappers who are currently not good enough to win to buy into the idea that rebate players are the reason they're losing. 5.80 is 5.80, you're not getting 7 bucks on a horse who is supposed to pay 5.80 if the rebate whales left the game, that's just not the way it works.
|
Sru, I responded to your points in the quote above.
Thanks to the fact that the sharpest players on the planet are rebated, it is extremely hard to win. Take away their rebates the market is less efficient.
$5.80 horse may very well become $7.00 horses in some situations. Who cares what decent handicappers buy into. What matters is what grows the sport. Do you really think relying on Whales is a wise business model?
Bottom line:
The proper strategy is not to chase whales from the game. The proper strategy is to bring the takeout to either 8% or 1% per runner and eliminate rebates and eliminate breakage(I realize that this isn't happening, but this is the only way this sport can grow). I am talking WPS only initially-if that works they may see the light. Whales will be able to bet plenty, win plenty, everyday bettors will not be priced out of the game so badly and newcomers might actually might become attracted to the sport instead of thinking they are donating and quitting. Also this would put racing on par with sports betting and poker, so for once they could actually get a reasonable amount of crossover. Once they have a competitive game than you start talking about marketing and building the sport and everything else. But the current game has most people priced out and they just assume donate to some mindless activity like pulling a lever on a slot machine than to actually engage in by far the most fascinating form of gambling there is. Racing has pocket aces in the gambling world and they do nothing with it. It is truly pathetic.
The problem is this is something that will take some time to build, so even if some track actually experimented with it, unless current players supported it like crazy, they would try if for a season and quit before the idea has a chance to catch on and the game has a chance to grow.
