Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter
Let's use your terminology. We have a typical racetrack with $100,000 bet win pool per race. We know breakage exists but I am not accounting for it in this post. The Whales account for about 30% of the money bet, at about break even, but feed nicely off of the the rebates. Then you have the serious players who as a group account for another 30% of the pool at -10% collectively(some are rebated and have a smaller target, some thing they can win but can't win etc, some are typical owners and trainers and fans of the sport who may exceed the public but still lose and some are winning players even without rebate and some are your typical serious player, who talks a good game, but when you look at the end of the year at the final outcome, they do not finish in the black or they need rebates to get them there). Then you have the "recreational players" who account for 40% of the pools. Now the track is going to make it's 16% takeout no matter what, so of that $100,000 bet only $84,000 is going back. The whales will get back $30,000, the serious players will get back $27,000, so that means the recreational players are going to get back $27,000 for their $40,000 bet. As a group they will lose $13,000 on $40,000 bet or 32.5% or over double the takeout.
These are estimates but I am sure they are fairly close to reality. No matter how you fudge the numbers it will not make a huge difference. What is so ridiculous is that racing's future is based off the performance of those that get crushed, the recreational player. These are the ones that racing needs to evolve into serious players in the future. However, they have no chance. They cannot overcome a takeout of that magnitude unless they are exceptional (1 in a 100)......[/B]
|
Your analysis works for the serious players but is off the mark for recreational players. Serious players recognize overlay opportunities and as such are hurt when betting reduces or eliminates any overlay. In order to be hurt by the whales bets you need to be on the right side of the bet, the overlay side. Recreational bettors end up on the right side of a bet by accident and are generally placing their bets on the wrong side, the underlay side. One of the consequences of having a lot of smart money in pools is that they become more efficient. As such, odds become more efficient at both ends of the spectrum with both overlays and underlays. In a parimutuel system it is impossible to bet down odds on some horses and not have the odds go up on others. Those other horses are generally the horses perceived to be on the wrong side by the smart bettors. The very horses that recreational players bet. If players are getting paid more for underlays is that a bad thing for recreational players?
I don't dispute that the poor players are paying the bill for the other players. The facts, however, don't support the case that somehow the whales hasten the process.
