Who Are You Talking To John?

[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.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by jms62

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

Correctumundo.

Travis, unfortunately your post kind of proves the point. The people in the game don't get it. They figure people are dumb and will continue to bet no matter what. That might be true at **** tracks like Hawthorne but it isn't true of big players....Rebates wouldn't need to exist if the track takeout was different to begin with. And 2-4% for WPS gets you down to what like 11-14% for WPS wagers. Excuse me if that doesn't blow my skirt up...If enough players like myself walk, there is no game.

[joeydb]

I've never played a rebate shop yet. I just want to place a regular bet but not get raped on takeout. Is that so unreasonable?

And yeah - assuming people will play the same volume "no matter what" is ridiculous. The casinos here in Atlantic City make the same mistake. They won't lower table minimums and now they are starving. Casinos nearly empty most of the week for all except Borgata.

Not everyone is an addict. In fact most gamblers, even ones who play regularly, have a casual to moderate interest.

Make the takeout high enough and you are more guaranteed to lose. It's like a legitimate card game becoming "Three Card Monty"

[randallscott35]

I was not looking to get into some grand debate on takeout last night until I read the article in the initial post. And then it struck me yet again. The player continues to not mean dick to this industry on a regular basis:

1. Travis and his lovely voice are far far away from the swamps of Jersey. He simply couldn't know that we have few rights if any in this lovely state.

2. Andy, on the other hand, is right across the bridge and surely can see our beautiful shoreline from his penthouse apartment on the river. So it hardens my heart to hear him say that any "serious player" gets a rebate. As if that settles it.

Here in NJ we have one option legally online and that is NJbets which was taken over by TVG. That's it. And Jms, you must be a comedian with your take on TVGs rewards, that whole 2 tenths of 1% is surely not going to cover the formula for my baby girl. Did I mention her name is Andie? This is because Trips and Traps made no sense for a girl. But I digress.

Oh yes, we also have the Big M Club! But please don't think of it like Satin Dolls in the Sopranos. If you bet 20k a month, these are the juicy numbers you have waiting for you in your account. http://www.meadowlandsracetrack.com/...files/gold.pdf
But wait there's more! You know why? B/c you only get the rewards, which are dogsh.it, if you are on track or at 1 of 2 count them 2 simulcast facilities in this state. So please don't think you can have a life and or job and try and bet on track on a regular basis... Good stuff right?

So what to do...Well, I can break the law of course. Here are my options. I can set up an address in another state in order to bet with a better legal operator who won't **** me as bad as TVG. I've reached out to numerous members of the DT family and inquired about these juicy onshore rebate shops. All of them say Jersey is a disaster area. Oh ok....I could go offshore. If I do that I will be helping the game exactly 0 with each bet I make. I won't affect my odds, especially at smaller tracks, which is nice but I want to put a little scratch into Maggie's pocket as well you know. The paddock can be a dangerous place.....

I think Joe and Doug have summed it up quite nicely in other posts. The fact is there is an old guard typified by many of the aged posters on this website who want us youngens to STFU and be happy with whatever we get. They will play till they leave this earth b/c they love the game and think of it strictly as entertainment. I love this game as well. Except I will not bet it if I think I can't beat it. Incidentally I've stunk this year because of my own piss poor handicapping. All the rebates in the world wouldn't have helped me this year. But that isn't the point. I understand what value is and isn't. It's bad enough that we have to put up with questionable trainers and confirmed, though infrequent past posting, the last thing I want to hear is that takeout doesn't matter....The under 35 crowd in here will make a determination as to what this game will be or won't be in the future. They aren't looking to make a donation to the track. Either the parties that be listen, or they will rightfully find something else to do with their money....Here's hoping they listen.

[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.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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

K. I don't know how you can say that, but it wasn't the point of my post, so I'll move on.

http://www.drf.com/news/steven-crist...-sparks-handle

Crist piece today on this very issue as it relates to Belmont Pick 5.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

K. I don't know how you can say that, but it wasn't the point of my post, so I'll move on.

http://www.drf.com/news/steven-crist...-sparks-handle

Crist piece today on this very issue as it relates to Belmont Pick 5.

I say it because it's true....and you stated the opposite.

I'm a horseplayer, I am all for lower takeouts, but it's not a simple discussion, just as Steve suggests. Regardless, don't fall under the illusion that serious players aren't getting rebates. They are.

[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