Chicago Barn to Wire Breeders' Cup Handicapping Tournaments
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


October 31, 2014, 05:58:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: REBATES WHAT R U GETTING  (Read 1581 times)
sam
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 11938

have fun win money




Ignore
« on: September 06, 2011, 02:52:11 PM »

IF YOU ARE NOT U ARE A FOOL   SMART HANDICAPPERS  ARE  GETTING AT LEAST 5%
Report to moderator   Logged

may the horse be with you
Maymoral
Guest

« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2011, 05:40:33 PM »

6% on show
3% win place
Report to moderator   Logged
imeyers
Full Member
***
Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2011, 05:58:07 PM »

Smart handicappers are getting MUCH more than that as long as they aren't betting minus pools. Tought to pay on minus pools because ADWs lose money on the wager.   On average they're getting

7-9% WPS
10-12% 2 horse
15%+ on 3 horse.

Rates on TB tracks average a little less because the signal fee on TB's is higher.

If you're not getting these rates but want to just send me a PM.  100% reputable outfit (some well known on this board play there), all U.S. based, either phone or internet.

Ian
Report to moderator   Logged
jrstark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6235



« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2011, 06:07:47 PM »

IF YOU ARE NOT U ARE A FOOL   SMART HANDICAPPERS  ARE  GETTING AT LEAST 5%

Some of us prefer to bet at the track and support the purses.
Report to moderator   Logged
imeyers
Full Member
***
Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2011, 06:26:00 PM »

Some of us prefer to bet at the track and support the purses.


I hear you but that's unrealistic for anyone that has a regular job and/or a family.  Speaking for myself, as the father of a 13 year old boy, I could bet maybe 3 or 4 times a month if I had to go to a track to do it.  And FWIW, UNLESS you're betting the live product the guest site makes out better from ADW's than they do from other racetracks.  They typically get 3% more for their signals from ADW's.

That is of course if there is even a live venue anywhere near you.  Some of us are spoiled, myself included.  Many in this country live 100+ miles one way from the nearest brisk and mortar facility.
Report to moderator   Logged
handsomeharry76
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2884




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2011, 07:14:11 PM »

I hear you but that's unrealistic for anyone that has a regular job and/or a family.  Speaking for myself, as the father of a 13 year old boy, I could bet maybe 3 or 4 times a month if I had to go to a track to do it.  And FWIW, UNLESS you're betting the live product the guest site makes out better from ADW's than they do from other racetracks.  They typically get 3% more for their signals from ADW's.

That is of course if there is even a live venue anywhere near you.  Some of us are spoiled, myself included.  Many in this country live 100+ miles one way from the nearest brisk and mortar facility.

disagree

many legal wagering facilities (TVG for example) allow you to open a wagering account where you can wager on-line or via phone with all the funds wagered going into the pools, easy to deposit and withdraw

look at it this way, if everyone wagered with facilities that didn't go into the pools, harness racing would have substantially less money for purses causing a downward spiral, less owners and less capital invested all around

Report to moderator   Logged
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2011, 08:53:30 PM »

disagree

many legal wagering facilities (TVG for example) allow you to open a wagering account where you can wager on-line or via phone with all the funds wagered going into the pools, easy to deposit and withdraw

look at it this way, if everyone wagered with facilities that didn't go into the pools, harness racing would have substantially less money for purses causing a downward spiral, less owners and less capital invested all around




Unbelievable.

Rebates are fine,

but not when you need rebates to comp losing breakeven sucker bets like

those posted here, endlessly.




Much ado about nothing.







Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
imeyers
Full Member
***
Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2011, 09:54:24 PM »

disagree

many legal wagering facilities (TVG for example) allow you to open a wagering account where you can wager on-line or via phone with all the funds wagered going into the pools, easy to deposit and withdraw

look at it this way, if everyone wagered with facilities that didn't go into the pools, harness racing would have substantially less money for purses causing a downward spiral, less owners and less capital invested all around



Harry,

I don't think you understand.  With ADWs ALL wagers go into the pools.  The guest site (the ADW, TVG in your example) pays the track running the race (the host site) a fee for taking the wager.  The ADW keeps all the takeout from the bet.  The only thing the track gets is the host fee (on average 4-7% on harness signals).  That's it.  ALL they get is the host fee anywhere you bet it where it is co-mingled.  The ONLY place they get the entire takeout is if you are at the live venue.

If you bet with a off-shore bookmaker (e.g. BoDog) the money is NOT co-mingled into the pool and the track doesn't even get the host fee, the bookmaker keeps the wager (and takes all the risk).  You are mixing metaphors here if you will.  What you are talking about is co-mingling, i.e transmitting the wagers to the on-track pools.  All legal ADWs, TVG, TwinSpires, XpressBet, etc. do that but the site taking the wager NOT the tracks keeps the takeout.

There isn't much I know about harness racing but simulcasting/co-mingling, trust me that I know.  All too well sometimes I fear.  Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
imeyers
Full Member
***
Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 06, 2011, 10:00:45 PM »


Unbelievable.

Rebates are fine,

but not when you need rebates to comp losing breakeven sucker bets like

those posted here, endlessly.




Much ado about nothing.









That is something entirely different.  I have argued that jurisdictions should do away with show minimums.  In most venues that's $2.10 bit in Colorado, Massachusetts, West Virginia and Iowa it's $2.20.  In Ireland the minimum is $2.00, I believe the U.K. is $2.02 though it might be $2.00 there as well.  I say eliminate the minimum altogether.  If you got back $1.40 for a $2.00 wager enough times you'd stop betting minus pools.

As far as playing without rebates...Nobody can beat the game long-term betting into a 21% blended takeout.  All of the best/biggest harness (and thoroughbred) players in North America are getting substantial rebates.  Many read (and a few post) on this board so they know of what I speak.
Report to moderator   Logged
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2011, 10:25:22 PM »

Harry,

I don't think you understand.  With ADWs ALL wagers go into the pools. 

The guest site (the ADW, TVG in your example) pays the track running the race (the host site) a fee for taking the wager.  The ADW keeps all the takeout from the bet.  The only thing the track gets is the host fee (on average 4-7% on harness signals).  That's it.  ALL they get is the host fee anywhere you bet it where it is co-mingled.  The ONLY place they get the entire takeout is if you are at the live venue.


It's probable that is what happens.  The host track (or whoever) should have no problem  calculating the mutual.



If you bet with a off-shore bookmaker (e.g. BoDog) the money is NOT co-mingled into the pool and the track doesn't even get the host fee, the bookmaker keeps the wager (and takes all the risk).  You are mixing metaphors here if you will.  What you are talking about is co-mingling, i.e transmitting the wagers to the on-track pools.  All legal ADWs, TVG, TwinSpires, XpressBet, etc. do that but the site taking the wager NOT the tracks keeps the takeout.



I think Harry gets it.  When you bet off-shore, your wager is booked, and the track and horsemen not to mention the State,  get zip.

Sure the book takes risk, but it can go into bankruptcy. And never has. I say it is  academic the book has risk.





Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2011, 10:30:28 PM »

That is something entirely different.  I have argued that jurisdictions should do away with show minimums.  In most venues that's $2.10 bit in Colorado, Massachusetts, West Virginia and Iowa it's $2.20.  In Ireland the minimum is $2.00, I believe the U.K. is $2.02 though it might be $2.00 there as well.  I say eliminate the minimum altogether.  If you got back $1.40 for a $2.00 wager enough times you'd stop betting minus pools.

As far as playing without rebates...Nobody can beat the game long-term betting into a 21% blended takeout.  All of the best/biggest harness (and thoroughbred) players in North America are getting substantial rebates.  Many read (and a few post) on this board so they know of what I speak.

Argued where ?
Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2011, 10:34:28 PM »


As far as playing without rebates...Nobody can beat the game long-term betting into a 21% blended takeout.

Really?  Why not?

All of the best/biggest harness (and thoroughbred) players in North America are getting substantial rebates.  Many read (and a few post) on this board so they know of what I speak.


Name 5.  Name the 5 biggest.  I got to hear this.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 10:50:57 PM by 7474505B » Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
sam
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 11938

have fun win money




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2011, 12:43:04 AM »


Unbelievable.

Rebates are fine,

but not when you need rebates to comp losing breakeven sucker bets like

those posted here, endlessly.
YOUR SILLY BETS




Much ado about nothing.








Report to moderator   Logged

may the horse be with you
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2011, 05:34:27 AM »

That is something entirely different.  I have argued that jurisdictions should do away with show minimums.  In most venues that's $2.10 bit in Colorado, Massachusetts, West Virginia and Iowa it's $2.20.  In Ireland the minimum is $2.00, I believe the U.K. is $2.02 though it might be $2.00 there as well.  I say eliminate the minimum altogether.  If you got back $1.40 for a $2.00 wager enough times you'd stop betting minus pools.


It is impossible to get $1.40 back on a winning $2.00 bet.
Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
imeyers
Full Member
***
Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2011, 07:14:04 AM »

It's probable that is what happens.  The host track (or whoever) should have no problem  calculating the mutual.


I am in the business.  It's not probable, that's what happens.

Really?  Why not?

Because the takeout is too punishing.  It's hard enough to beat football with 5-10% takes.  On the TB side it's virtually impossible, on the harness side with pool size I don't believe anyone that says they bet more than $500,000 annually and wins on the up.



Name 5.  Name the 5 biggest.  I got to hear this.

There's no reason to post it publicly.  These people like their privacy.  If someone wants to 'out 'himself' he can do that.  My friend that has developed his private handicapping database is one.  My guess is he's 1-2-3 in terms of annual wagering handle.  Some on this board already know who he is.

It is impossible to get $1.40 back on a winning $2.00 bet.

NOW it's impossible.  That's why there are minus pools.  The bet taker makes up the difference between the theoretical $1.40 payout and the $2.10 (or $2.20 minimum).  With the advent of net pool pricing some of these wagers create a 35% loss for the guest site.  IF these bets returned $1.40 and you could hit your bet and lose money on it, minus pool wagering would stop.  I understand why guys do it because it's a form of risk arb but long-term it's bad for business.




Report to moderator   Logged
NIATROSS
Guest

« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2011, 10:19:26 AM »

As far as playing without rebates...Nobody can beat the game long-term betting into a 21% blended takeout.  All of the best/biggest harness (and thoroughbred) players in North America are getting substantial rebates.  Many read (and a few post) on this board so they know of what I speak.

You CANNOT say for certainty 100% that nobody has or can beat the 21% takeout.
Report to moderator   Logged
imeyers
Full Member
***
Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2011, 10:36:38 AM »

You CANNOT say for certainty 100% that nobody has or can beat the 21% takeout.


HAS, yes.  I know a number of people that have.  That's when the there was more liquidity in the pools.   CAN, now for anything other than say a max of $50k in handle?  I really doubt it. Not now when the square money has all but vanished.  Being in the business I know what % of players win.  With rebates its fewer than 10%, on the up, a fraction of that.  If someone is winning betting volume without rebates, God bless them.  But why would you want to play at full price when discounts are available?
Report to moderator   Logged
NIATROSS
Guest

« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2011, 01:24:15 PM »

I don;t believe anyone wants to pay full price for anything without a benefit for them.
The entire ADW system is not set up for the benefit of racing or there would not be as many ADW's as there are legal or not.
Report to moderator   Logged
ontarioslasher
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1053




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2011, 01:37:36 PM »

most times they say a handicapper that is losing 5% is a very good handicapper because it is the vig that is beating him he is actually a 15% winner if you eliminate the takeout hence why the real smart guys bet with the bookie if they can so they get 100% action on their money
Report to moderator   Logged
imeyers
Full Member
***
Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2011, 02:05:44 PM »

I don;t believe anyone wants to pay full price for anything without a benefit for them.
The entire ADW system is not set up for the benefit of racing or there would not be as many ADW's as there are legal or not.

I agree that the ADW situation is a mess but the tracks let it get that way.  THEY gave away distribution of their product and are only moderately interested in doing what is needed to take it back.  This is not my opinion, I have spoken to a number of those most qualified to do so either informally or via a formal presentation.  We have proposed a better solution for the tracks, both harness and thoroughbred where one or more of them own the ADW, pay a nominal servicing fee and keep the takeout a la TwinSpires, TVG, Xpressbet. Basically an ADW in a box concept.   A year later, we are still waiting for takers.

The tracks themselves don't have the human capital or technology to do it themselves as they are currently constituted.  I concur that long term many tracks will not survive without a fix.
Report to moderator   Logged
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2011, 09:00:59 PM »

I agree that the ADW situation is a mess but the tracks let it get that way.  THEY gave away distribution of their product and are only moderately interested in doing what is needed to take it back.  This is not my opinion, I have spoken to a number of those most qualified to do so either informally or via a formal presentation.  We have proposed a better solution for the tracks, both harness and thoroughbred where one or more of them own the ADW, pay a nominal servicing fee and keep the takeout a la TwinSpires, TVG, Xpressbet. Basically an ADW in a box concept.   A year later, we are still waiting for takers.

Seems you would not be discussing this if the axe of which you speak were not soon to fall.  Keep in mind, of course, we have no idea who or more cogently what you are and that places us at a debater's disadvantage.


The tracks themselves don't have the human capital or technology to do it themselves as they are currently constituted.  I concur that long term many tracks will not survive without a fix.

On the surface, from your tone, keeping small operations in business doesn't seem anything you'd consider as your principle concern.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 09:11:19 PM by 7474505B » Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
imeyers
Full Member
***
Posts: 159




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2011, 10:03:48 PM »


On the surface, from your tone, keeping small operations in business doesn't seem anything you'd consider as your principle concern.

We are a small operation as well.  We very much have an interest in small tracks staying afloat.  I have been betting on horses for 35 years and I as well as my partners have owned/trained/bred thoroughbreds.  We believe that the tracks need to have a channel they own to distribute their product since now 40% of all handle is ADW and that percentage grows each year.  Without controlling this revenue stream the tracks are that mercy of what large ADW's are willing to pay them for their signal.  None of the small tracks we spoke to really disagreed with that premise.  Neither did the large and small breeders we spoke to in Kentucky.  They simply were unable (in most) and unwilling (in some) to invest anything into a project like this and frankly many were more concerned about lobbying for slots in their state.

IMHO, slots are not a long-term fix.  As more states legalize them, we see the law of diminishing returns kicking in.  Further, many states are beginning to claw-back through tax increases what percentage of slots revenues the racetracks keep.  Finally, you have the situation that has come about in Massachusetts where there will be three full-fledged casino licenses and a single slots license available through auction.  Those licenses are open to anyone willing to bid enough to get them.  I have a pretty good idea who will end up with licenses and perhaps one of them goes to a a racetrack.  Only 7% of slots parlor revenues will go to purses.  The three casino operators will contribute noting to racing under the proposed law.  Expanded gaming simply will not save all tracks in states where their is enabling legislation.  This year saw the bankruptcy of Indiana Downs parent and purses have been slashed dramatically in West Virginia.  The overhead associated with building a casino can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars and there is no guarantee that a track operator will ever make money on that investment.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to talk to you about it.  Just PM and I can give you contact information.
Report to moderator   Logged
HarnessTheDream
Full Member
***
Posts: 191




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2011, 10:34:24 PM »

Take a look @ my #s in the selections, only post 1 day a week but have turned my 500$ bankroll into 2100+ in only 4 days of wagering, (@ 1 per week) not hitting any crazy exotics either, simply doing good capping and staying disciplined, not that hard, rebates are essential for good cappers to break even but not essential for the gifted to make sweet $ without having to wait for wire transfers, screen freeze ups, etc.

Sorry
Nick
Report to moderator   Logged
HarnessTheDream
Full Member
***
Posts: 191




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2011, 03:31:29 AM »

Totals-
Starting bankroll: 500$
Bet: 456$
Returned: 1,018.5$
Profit: 562.5
ROI%: 223%
Current bankroll: 1062.5$

day 2
starting bankrol- 1062.5
bet- 1386
returned- 1254
Current bankroll- 930.5$
Profit- - 132

Day 3
Starting Bankroll- 930.5
Bet- 1303$
Returned- 1996.5$
Profit- 693.5$
Current Bankroll- 1624$
ROI%- 153%

3 Day Totals-
Bet- 3145
Returned- 4269
Profit- 1124$
ROI- 135.7%

4th day-
NFLD- 
R1 25$ ex 1-9, 13$ ex 9-1 +34.5
R2- 20 win 6 -20
R5- 240$ win 1 -240
R11- 160$ win 2 +304
BLMP
R4- 5$ ex box (2,8) -10
R6 5$ (4, 8 -10
R7 40$ win 9 +48
R9 35$ win 5 + 72
GRVR-
R4 25$ win 10 (if entered, might not race)
R5 40$ win 7 (if even money or better) -40
CT 
R7 140$ win 5, 20$ dbl, 5 (r7) 1 (R8) -160
R8 35$ win 1 -35
Rem- 
R7 160$ win 4 +208
Har-
R1- 65$ Win 1+96
R5 120$ win 2 + 264
R13 65$ win 3 -65
Indy- 
R5 
30$ win 2 +30

Total- 476.50$
(will calculate ROI's+total bet/returned after dog walk
4 day total= +1600.50$-

 you can see all my posts the past 4 weeks in the selections section. The numbers speak for themselves. answer me this rebate crew- say I've bet around 4500$ this past month- is an extra 5% going to really make that big of a difference next to the profits? Next to 1600.50, 225 really isn't that big of a deal, is it? I'm batting about 1.40$ per 1$. Why don't you 1/9 show bettors just invest in bonds? You're an A+ rebate shopper and a D- Handicapper. Remember that Sam


Nick
Report to moderator   Logged
HarnessTheDream
Full Member
***
Posts: 191




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2011, 03:34:42 AM »

Totals-
Starting bankroll: 500$
Bet: 456$
Returned: 1,018.5$
Profit: 562.5
ROI%: 223%
Current bankroll: 1062.5$

day 2
starting bankrol- 1062.5
bet- 1386
returned- 1254
Current bankroll- 930.5$
Profit- - 132

Day 3
Starting Bankroll- 930.5
Bet- 1303$
Returned- 1996.5$
Profit- 693.5$
Current Bankroll- 1624$
ROI%- 153%

3 Day Totals-
Bet- 3145
Returned- 4269
Profit- 1124$
ROI- 135.7%

4th day-
NFLD- 
R1 25$ ex 1-9, 13$ ex 9-1 +34.5
R2- 20 win 6 -20
R5- 240$ win 1 -240
R11- 160$ win 2 +304
BLMP
R4- 5$ ex box (2,8) -10
R6 5$ (4, 8 -10
R7 40$ win 9 +48
R9 35$ win 5 + 72
GRVR-
R4 25$ win 10 (if entered, might not race)
R5 40$ win 7 (if even money or better) -40
CT 
R7 140$ win 5, 20$ dbl, 5 (r7) 1 (R8) -160
R8 35$ win 1 -35
Rem- 
R7 160$ win 4 +208
Har-
R1- 65$ Win 1+96
R5 120$ win 2 + 264
R13 65$ win 3 -65
Indy- 
R5 
30$ win 2 +30

Total- 476.50$
(will calculate ROI's+total bet/returned after dog walk
4 day total= +1600.50$-

 you can see all my posts the past 4 weeks in the selections section. The numbers speak for themselves. answer me this rebate crew- say I've bet around 4500$ this past month- is an extra 5% going to really make that big of a difference next to the profits? Next to 1600.50, 225 really isn't that big of a deal, is it? I'm batting about 1.40$ per 1$. Why don't you 1/9 show bettors just invest in bonds? You're an A+ rebate shopper and a D- Handicapper. Remember that Sam
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.143 seconds with 17 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Breeders' Cup
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Breeders' Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy