Compare this to your results

[Boscar Obarra]

   I\'ll bet at least 10 of the regular posters here did better than Dave.


http://thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=49018&subsec=1

\"Racetracks don't understand the exponential effect of rebates on high-volume players,\" contended professional bettor David Cuscuna while touting rebates as a method of pumping up handle.

\"If you're going to give some kind of rebate, you're going to dramatically increase your handle,\" he said, adding that he started one account at a location he did not identify two years ago with about $50,000 and has turned that amount into $1.5-million.

[OPM]

I got a buddy who just moved to Kentucky, who did something on a slightly smaller scale on Monday!!!!!

[Mall]

The Cuscuna comment appears to fall squarely within the don\'t believe everything you read category. One gets the impression that he started with $50k & ended up winning almost $1.5 million, but I am told that what he actually said was that his $50k generated $1.5 million in handle.

Given your location, perhaps you have heard or read something relating to what a horseman told me happened recently at Bay Meadows. For no apparent reason, one day last week trainers noticed that workout times seemed much faster than usual, the most dramatic example being a 46 & change work by a horse named Carthage, which was approx 2 seconds faster than any since the meet started. The trainers approached the track super for an explanation, & were told that he forgot to advise them that a \"stabilizer\" had been added to the dirt surface to reduce cuppiness. Even if you\'ve not heard or read anything, does the story make sense based on what you\'ve seen recently?

[TGJB]

Dave is actually a pretty good guy, for a Raggie (at least the last time I talked to him, which is years ago).

June 98-- I brought a group of friends to the Belmont, only way they could sit us together was at a table without a view of the track. Dave volunteered to give me his seats to watch the race, so I got to watch VG win \"live\".

I have to say, the statements from the track operators are stunning in showing their lack of understanding of the situation. It\'s like the old vaudeville joke about a guy selling apples for $1,000-- \"but I only have to sell one\". They don\'t seem to grasp that a)if they give rebates they\'ll have a couple of points more than the rebate houses to play with, the ones that represent the rebate houses\' profits, b) the big players aren\'t going to buy $1,000 apples, so stopping rebates will either stop them from betting or send them to Betfair or other non-parimutuel sites, and c) giving rebates themselves will increase handle. The reason NYRA and the others haven\'t shown big increases after cutting the takeouts is that they did it at the same time the rebate houses were pulling in the big bettors, who were getting even more there-- try bringing the takeout rates back to where they were and see what happens.

[Boscar Obarra]

  I have to stop believing everything I read. ;-).  And here I was, thinking that the distinguished members of this board had at least a little competition.


  On a serious note, the takeout has been a major problem for the game for many years. I used to bug Crist, when he worked for NYRA about when they were gonna get smart.  Nothing he could  do.

  I fantasize about them trying just a small experiment, run a FEW races with a very low takeout. Say 5%, ALL POOLS. See what happens.  Try it on a big race , where there\'s national interest.  It would cost them NOTHING because I suspect the increased handle would more than make up for the lost revs.

[BitPlayer]

The real question isn\'t whether the big bettors will buy $1,000 apples, but whether racing wants them as customers.  Put simply, there are two groups of people: those who fund racing (cash-flow-negative) and those who make money from racing (cash-flow-positive).  I\'m assuming big bettors are sophisticated enough that they wouldn\'t be big bettors (at least not for long) unless they were cash-flow-positive.  As such, they share with race tracks in the pot created by those who are cash-flow-negative (some might call them \"suckers,\" but since I\'m in this category, I prefer the term \"patrons\").

Unless the big bettors somehow increase the size of the pot by an amount greater than the amount they withdraw, race tracks are better off without them.  The question of whether big bettors meet this test is the real subject of debate, and I don\'t think it has an easy answer.  Arguably, big bettors contribute by subtly increasing the losses of the patrons (the NTRA task force reports people at the track lose 4% more than the nominal takeout).  The counterargument is that the patrons would eventually lose the same amount without the big bettors in the form of increased \"churn.\"

[TGJB]

Other players may be better off without the big (winning) players, but tracks make their money on percentage of handle, so losing the big players-- who account for a very significant chunk of handle-- would be bad news. Unless I\'m missing something.

[TGJB]

Mall-- Paul does BM, says there has been no significant overall change in track speed. Our trackman talked to the super, who said the horseman complained the track was too \"speed favoring\", so he put some \"powder\" on it about 2 weeks ago. Said he had not done this before, no plans to do it again.

[Saddlecloth]

Dumb question, but if tracks take out 17%, why dont they just take out 7%, effectively giving everyone a rebate?

[TGJB]

 You will get a lot of very complicated answers to that, but not so dumb.

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

Short-term, you are certainly right.  Longer term, the argument is that the losing players (pitiful fools) would not be better off, but would react to their decreased loss rate by betting more, thus returning their overall losses to their original level and offsetting the impact on the tracks of losing the big bettors.

Your argument assumes that the losing bettors are largely insensitive to the effective takeout rate.  That may be right, but push it too far and it may also be wrong, and once you\'ve driven a player to poker, it may be hard to win him back.  Without losing players, there is no game.

I think one of the reasons the late odds changes are such a big deal for the tracks is that they make it obvious to the losing players that they\'re being hustled.  The losses then stop being an acceptable price for a day at the track and start being a badge of stupidity.

[asfufh]

Another dumb question.... can the tracks just arbitrarily change the takeout? Don\'t the States the tracks reside in have something to say about it?

[cozzene]

Gentlemen

Bit Player makes sense to me.

Furthermore it doesn\'t matter if he is right but only that I believe he is right.

Lower takeouts for all.  No drugs.

Level the playing field or the game dies.

Cozzene

[Boscar Obarra]

  98% of the smart money is bet undetectably.

[Boscar Obarra]

 Or should I say, not detectably by the public.