Roulette is one of the ancient casino games, probably the first table game that still exists today and, when bet correctly, offers the player a fairly decent house edge.
On a single-zero (European) Roulette wheel the house edge is 2.7%, on a double-zero (American) Roulette wheel that increases to 5.26%, on the travesty that is Triple-Zero (Sands) Roulette the house edge increases to 7.69%. Given that the addition of a zero appears to add about 2.5% to the house edge the latest "innovation" from the Stronach group at Santa Anita is the equivalent to Six Zero Roulette
From the Press release:
Following are the basic components and rules comprising Horse Racing Roulette at Santa Anita:
–Two dollar minimum win wager with customary industry-low 15.43 percent takeout
–Horses (minimum six-horse field) will be placed into one of three groups, Red, Black or Green.
–In most cases, the morning line favorite will be part of the Red Group.
–The Green Group will be comprised mainly of longshots.
–The three Groups, in most cases, will not have an equal number of horses.
–Whichever Group contains the race winner, wins that “game” of Horse Racing Roulette.
You read that correctly. "Horse Racing Roulette" offers bettors the chance to get an "industry-low" house edge of 15.43%
Are you kidding me?
It's one thing to understand that the takeouts in horse racing are far in excess of the "vig" in sports betting. It's another thing to tacitly admit that without doing anything about it. But ADVERTISING an inferior game as somehow "gambler friendly"? This is a new level of incompetence even for the horse racing industry.
An industry with a long history of discounting its horseplayers FWIW.
Now, it seems, that they've gone straight to outright insulting them.
The problem with horse racing is not that there are not enough bet types. It's that their payout structure is horrid when you take into account takeout, breakage (the downward rounding of odds at horse tracks, the profits from which are split between the track and the state to the detriment of the bettor) and the fact that you cannot lock in odds as you can with say, sports betting.
In sports betting, when I lay a bet on a 10-1 underdog I know that, regardless of the line moves, I'm going to get a payout of 10-1. If the opposing team's quarterback gets injured and my team drops to 3-1 it doesn't matter. I'm locked in.
In horse racing, due to the pari-mutual system, that 10-1 underdog I selected might take a slew of money due to scratches or track conditions, and might even drop precipitously to 3-1 or even lower. I am forced to take that payout.
If you think there's no option in horse betting you would be incorrect. On the European exchanges you can lock your odds, you can even take action against what you handicap. We see a little bit of this on the BetFair exchange in New Jersey, but other jurisdictions have been loathe to make the leap. In fact, the tracks don't like this because it helps bettors, and hurts their ability to increase their take due to breakage and other methods.
A better answer to the problem of decreased handle is not creating new, bogus, games that try to mimic better paying casino games, but to lower takeout, eliminate breakage by requiring tracks to adopt standard mathematical rounding rules and to investigate and implement exchange systems which allow horse players to lock odds.
But that is too simple, so it will never be seriously considered. Instead we're about to be given a wild array of fancy new bets I'm guessing.
The BlackJack bet: The 2 & 1 Exacta. - options would include "doubling down" (adding on the 3 & 4) and splitting the 2 & 1 on solo win tickets)
The Craps bet: The 2, 3 & 12 - options include the "Pass Line" 7 & 11 and the "Don't pass" all but 7 & 11 at 8/5 odds
And finally...
The Baccarat Daily Double 8 & 9
All with "industry low" 15.43% takeout, which is a full 15% worse than what the casinos offer.
And you wonder why horse-racing is struggling?
No comments:
Post a Comment