Who Are You Talking To John?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

The guy is clueless. And he's saying the small-fry bettors he talks with at Hawthorne are clueless as well. So what?

How many suits in this game know anything about horse racing?

Exactly.

Hawthorne is a very interesting crowd, and lets just say that it isnt for the faint of heart. If your rocking some BBQ or ketchup stains, and half your teeth, your part of the IN crowd

[joeydb]

Ugh. It's hard to believe that consistent messaging along the lines of "takeout doesn't matter" is spontaneous. If this sport had a national chairman, I'd say that talking points to this effect were being distributed.

[Revidere]

Originally Posted by Scav

Exactly.

Hawthorne is a very interesting crowd, and lets just say that it isnt for the faint of heart. If your rocking some BBQ or ketchup stains, and half your teeth, your part of the IN crowd

And the men are worse!

[Travis Stone]

At the risk of getting hit with tomatoes, he's partially right.

I'm NOT saying that takeout is not an issue, but I've never heard anyone in our building say, "Your takeout is too high." It is generally an issue left to message boards, blogs and the occasional article.

Not to sound like an industry shill, but the reality is folks who believe the takeout is too high and talk about it out loud are currently receiving rebates, stout ones to boot. Sorry, but it's a fact. Also, many of them refer others to their current ADW and get a slice of their action as well.

So the whole takeout debate, in my opinion, is frustrating because on one hand are legitimate arguments for reduction and on the other are folks clamoring for them, claiming they don't bet this or that, but ultimately, their rebates reduce the takeout down to what they're clamoring for in the first place.

For what it's worth. Again, please don't take this post to mean I'm against takeout reduction, which is not true.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

At the risk of getting hit with tomatoes, he's partially right.

I'm NOT saying that takeout is not an issue, but I've never heard anyone in our building say, "Your takeout is too high." It is generally an issue left to message boards, blogs and the occasional article.

Not to sound like an industry shill, but the reality is folks who believe the takeout is too high and talk about it out loud are currently receiving rebates, stout ones to boot. Sorry, but it's a fact. Also, many of them refer others to their current ADW and get a slice of their action as well.

So the whole takeout debate, in my opinion, is frustrating because on one hand are legitimate arguments for reduction and on the other are folks clamoring for them, claiming they don't bet this or that, but ultimately, their rebates reduce the takeout down to what they're clamoring for in the first place.

For what it's worth. Again, please don't take this post to mean I'm against takeout reduction, which is not true.

I'll let Doug respond to this....I would never throw tomatoes at you Travis, I am a big fan of yours.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

At the risk of getting hit with tomatoes, he's partially right.

I'm NOT saying that takeout is not an issue, but I've never heard anyone in our building say, "Your takeout is too high." It is generally an issue left to message boards, blogs and the occasional article.

Not to sound like an industry shill, but the reality is folks who believe the takeout is too high and talk about it out loud are currently receiving rebates, stout ones to boot. Sorry, but it's a fact. Also, many of them refer others to their current ADW and get a slice of their action as well.

So the whole takeout debate, in my opinion, is frustrating because on one hand are legitimate arguments for reduction and on the other are folks clamoring for them, claiming they don't bet this or that, but ultimately, their rebates reduce the takeout down to what they're clamoring for in the first place.

For what it's worth. Again, please don't take this post to mean I'm against takeout reduction, which is not true.

The people that care about takeout are probably wagering a much (and I would say the majority) of the wagering dollars.

The statement completely ignores long term growth in the game.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

The people that care about takeout are probably wagering a much (and I would say the majority) of the wagering dollars.

The statement completely ignores long term growth in the game.

And many of them "Not complaining" realize that it is falling on deaf ears and have moved offshore for their rebates.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by jms62

And many of them "Not complaining" realize that it is falling on deaf ears and have moved offshore for their rebates.

You don't need to go offshore for rebates.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

You don't need to go offshore for rebates.

You do if you don't live in the "Right" State.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

The people that care about takeout are probably wagering a much (and I would say the majority) of the wagering dollars.

Right... anyone wagering a serious amount of coin is currently receiving a rebate. I think a lot of jaws would drop if people understood how much handle truly comes from big players. 20% of national handle alone comes from five groups, and you can bet they're getting a pretty sweet rebate.

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

The statement completely ignores long term growth in the game.

I'd be willing to bet, given the chance, that he'd make his point with softer language. That's why I said partially right.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Right... anyone wagering a serious amount of coin is currently receiving a rebate.

This is false, as others have pointed out. Rebates are great, but not everyone has access to them and even in states that allow them, the threshold for getting one varies. More importantly, rebates only reward volume betting, they don't reward winning, which is what the industry should be focusing on - returning more of the pools to winning ticket holders, because that's better in the long term for players of all bankroll sizes.

The quote is offensive, but it's just the latest in a long line of offensive rhetoric about horseplayers by the people in charge of the sport. The notion of sophisticated horseplayers who treat the game with the seriousness of any other investment is completely lost on most of the decision-makers in horse racing. Yet these are the people who are supposed to be looking out for our game when dealing with regressive government officials. It makes me appreciate all the more what NYRA has done in the past year, making an effort to listen to all of its customers and rolling out tangible improvements like the 15% Pick 5 as a result.

It's going to take a lot more than that to reform things though, and as long as people like Walsh are making business decisions based on what a few jadrools in the grandstand say, the battle remains a steeply uphill one.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This is false, as others have pointed out. Rebates are great, but not everyone has access to them and even in states that allow them, the threshold for getting one varies. More importantly, rebates only reward volume betting, they don't reward winning, which is what the industry should be focusing on - returning more of the pools to winning ticket holders, because that's better in the long term for players of all bankroll sizes.

The quote is offensive, but it's just the latest in a long line of offensive rhetoric about horseplayers by the people in charge of the sport. The notion of sophisticated horseplayers who treat the game with the seriousness of any other investment is completely lost on most of the decision-makers in this sport. Yet these are the people who are supposed to be looking out for our game when dealing with regressive government officials. It makes me appreciate all the more what NYRA has done in the past year, making an effort to listen to its customers and rolling out tangible improvements like the 15% Pick 5 as a result.

It's going to take a lot more than that to reform things though, and as long as people like Walsh are making business decisions based on what a few jadrools in the grandstand say, the battle remains a steeply uphill one.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This is false, as others have pointed out. Rebates are great, but not everyone has access to them and even in states that allow them, the threshold for getting one varies. More importantly, rebates only reward volume betting, they don't reward winning, which is what the industry should be focusing on - returning more of the pools to winning ticket holders, because that's better in the long term for players of all bankroll sizes.

The quote is offensive, but it's just the latest in a long line of offensive rhetoric about horseplayers by the people in charge of the sport. The notion of sophisticated horseplayers who treat the game with the seriousness of any other investment is completely lost on most of the decision-makers in horse racing. Yet these are the people who are supposed to be looking out for our game when dealing with regressive government officials. It makes me appreciate all the more what NYRA has done in the past year, making an effort to listen to all of its customers and rolling out tangible improvements like the 15% Pick 5 as a result.

It's going to take a lot more than that to reform things though, and as long as people like Walsh are making business decisions based on what a few jadrools in the grandstand say, the battle remains a steeply uphill one.

Had to look jadrool up. Thank you, as I'm always looking to improve my vocabulary.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This is false, as others have pointed out. Rebates are great, but not everyone has access to them and even in states that allow them, the threshold for getting one varies. More importantly, rebates only reward volume betting, they don't reward winning, which is what the industry should be focusing on - returning more of the pools to winning ticket holders, because that's better in the long term for players of all bankroll sizes.

The quote is offensive, but it's just the latest in a long line of offensive rhetoric about horseplayers by the people in charge of the sport. The notion of sophisticated horseplayers who treat the game with the seriousness of any other investment is completely lost on most of the decision-makers in horse racing. Yet these are the people who are supposed to be looking out for our game when dealing with regressive government officials. It makes me appreciate all the more what NYRA has done in the past year, making an effort to listen to all of its customers and rolling out tangible improvements like the 15% Pick 5 as a result.

It's going to take a lot more than that to reform things though, and as long as people like Walsh are making business decisions based on what a few jadrools in the grandstand say, the battle remains a steeply uphill one.

Joey, anyone betting serious money is getting a rebate. It's not a discussion.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

At the risk of getting hit with tomatoes, he's partially right.

I'm NOT saying that takeout is not an issue, but I've never heard anyone in our building say, "Your takeout is too high." It is generally an issue left to message boards, blogs and the occasional article.

Not to sound like an industry shill, but the reality is folks who believe the takeout is too high and talk about it out loud are currently receiving rebates, stout ones to boot. Sorry, but it's a fact. Also, many of them refer others to their current ADW and get a slice of their action as well.

So the whole takeout debate, in my opinion, is frustrating because on one hand are legitimate arguments for reduction and on the other are folks clamoring for them, claiming they don't bet this or that, but ultimately, their rebates reduce the takeout down to what they're clamoring for in the first place.

For what it's worth. Again, please don't take this post to mean I'm against takeout reduction, which is not true.

This is a good point and 100% true in my experience.

[Dunbar]

Crist:

On the contrary, every single long-term experiment with takeout reduction has shown that it increases handle, participation, and customer satisfaction – not necessarily because players are consciously aware of higher returns, but because they find themselves with a bit more money on hand that they reinvest over and over. They stay in action longer, and they receive more positive reinforcement to keep playing the game because their money seems to last longer and go farther.

There have been some stunningly disappointing takeout reductions. When Ellis Park introduced a 4% Pick-4 in 2007, the response was extremely underwhelming. Pools rose briefly to a "whopping" $60K, but then settled into the $25-$40K range. My own modest bets represented 0.5% of the entire Ellis Pick-4 bets that summer.

Here's something I wrote in this thread on 8/1/07: http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15567

...today's pool was an embarrassing $25,000. I say "embarrassing", because I find it embarrassing that the best bet in horseracing can only attract $25,053 worth of bets. Hell, my bet was 1/70th of the entire pool! Aren't there at least a couple hundred horseplayers in the entire country willing to pump some money into this pool?

Is any track going to think about lowering take when Ellis draws a whopping 25,000 with it's 4%?

About the same time, Laurel ran a 10-day meet with reduced takeout. 10% for WPS. A drf article said there was no increase in handle:
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16373

--Dunbar

[randallscott35]

Ellis and Laurel. 2 D+ racetracks. And also these were temporary situations. That's not how you create buzz.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Ellis and Laurel. 2 D+ racetracks. And also these were temporary situations. That's not how you create buzz.

The Ellis reduction was for the entire meet. Granted, it's a low level track. But if reducing takeout will only help at the top tier tracks, then let's narrow the focus when talking about what will "help" racing.

I came away from the Ellis 4% pretty discouraged with horseplayers. In general they'd rather bet into a 25% takeout at a track they're familiar with than take the time to follow horses at another track where the takeout is 4%. And even given that, couldn't the serious players muster some action for the Pick 4, even if they were just throwing darts? It wouldn't have taken much to have sent a better signal to other tracks that reducing takeout helps handle. A $100 bet on random horses in a 4% takeout bet costs $4 on average. But almost all bettors would rather kid themselves that they are beating the 25% takeout at the home track than throw a few bucks at a 4% pick-4.

Even if horseplayers are not smart enough to flock to lower track takeouts, the 2nd part of what Crist wrote still makes good sense:

"...not necessarily because players are consciously aware of higher returns, but because they find themselves with a bit more money on hand that they reinvest over and over. They stay in action longer, and they receive more positive reinforcement to keep playing the game because their money seems to last longer and go farther."

Casinos learned this long ago. If they kept too much of the slot money, then customers didn't win often enough and stayed away.

--Dunbar

[3kings]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Crist:

There have been some stunningly disappointing takeout reductions. When Ellis Park introduced a 4% Pick-4 in 2007, the response was extremely underwhelming. Pools rose briefly to a "whopping" $60K, but then settled into the $25-$40K range. My own modest bets represented 0.5% of the entire Ellis Pick-4 bets that summer.

Here's something I wrote in this thread on 8/1/07: http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15567



About the same time, Laurel ran a 10-day meet with reduced takeout. 10% for WPS. A drf article said there was no increase in handle:

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16373

--Dunbar

These points are valid but I'm not going to just start playing a track I haven't been following and jump into multi-race sequences.