- So what was Faraldo thinking when he penned an incendiary column the other day criticizing what
he called "cartel wagering" at the Meadowlands? Was his calculator on the fritz? The handle from the player didn't triple. It increased by 700 percent
- The primary reason why betting on race horses is not more popular is because the takeout is so enormous that, really, no one can win. There just aren't enough people out there willing to consistently lose their shirts, especially when every other gambling game but the lottery offers fairer odds. By
giving the player a rebate you are essentially reducing the takeout and making the game beatable.
I remember back in 2008, talking about Ontario and how (when slots were introduced and the 7% parimutel tax was taken off wagering pools) they blew it not giving that 7% back as a rebate, or takeout reduction.
I harken back to a friend of a friend who posted this in in the comments section of that takeout article:
- Because of a rebate I found a way to make place bets profitable. I wound up with a 3.2% loss, but a rebate of 7%. It actually was a rebate of 6.2% as they did not give a rebate on 2.20 horses. Now the kicker is, I went from betting about 30 to 50k to 1.3 million that year. It made the churn factor possible. If takeout is lowered it may have the same affect.
We need more people upping their handles by 2600% or 700% like those two people did.
Why does the industry cling to higher prices which results in lower handle and fewer people enjoying the sport of racing and the fine art of handicapping? I honestly don't know.