Anyone with an IQ above of 'bag of hammers' or 'box of rocks' should be able to see that the Holy Grail is takeout reductions and not screwing up exchange wagering.
The reverse Holy Grail is takeout increases - kicking the can down the road with exchange wagering - and keeping on with doing nothing or next to nothing.
Every study I've ever seen on the impact of takeout in horse racing - strongly endorses lowering takeout. These are done by respectable econimists
And even though all the "smart" studies say the right things about takeout - they fail to look back 100+ years to the betting patterns people displayed when favorable takeout levels existed.
You think Plunger Walton would bet - adjusted for inflation - over a million dollars on a single race if he was playing at a 20% disadvantage? You think Pittsburg Phil ever would have attempted to even bother with horse racing? People came popping out of the woodwork betting eye-popping sums of money. They almost always got involved in horse ownership -- some very heavily so.
The Cummings Report of 2004 mentioned it - but didn't go back to study the old, old, days when Horse Racing was king to see how much of a reality it was:
08-05-2011, 03:34 PM
Threaded Mode