Beyer On The Money

[RICH]

and while I am in the mood, what happened to our friend from GSachs, haven\'t heard from him in awhile?

[PapaChach]

I shouldn\'t jump in here since I seem to post about twice a year, while bombed, and usually succeed only in making an a$$ outta myself, but, what the hell. Wine\'s the better part of discretion, or something like that, and I\'ll crawl back under my rock tomorrow, I promise.

Agree on Christie as the classic bully, and, to engage in some amateur psychoanalysis, seems like there\'s a whole lotta \"morbidly obese wit da cock-flap burying the joint from view overcompensation syndrome\" going on with his behavior (I believe there\'s a clinical term for this but I\'d have to ask the wife and she\'s asleep at the moment and I sure as hell ain\'t gonna chance waking her up at two a.m. to find out if I\'m right).

I\'ve been to a casino once in my life - I believe it was Foxwoods (is there an s on the end there?) on New Year\'s Day, 2009, and I found it to be a profoundly depressing experience.  I went with my best friend, a confirmed dope fiend, and, well, to side-track here, we knew security in these places gets tight, so we actually brought a couple of empty toilet paper tubes (or whatever you call those things) and a box of dryer sheets so we had something to blow our bat hits into, because we knew they weren\'t going to tolerate anything other than drinking and gambling, even if we confined it to a bathroom of a $250-a-night room on the fourteenth floor. Disney-ized versions of sin, only, please.

Getting off the elevator on the ground floor and walking out into the floor of slot machines, just after having hit the pipe a bit, was unnerving. I knew we\'d sinned, and I assumed security had been trained to instantly recognize the baked patrons. The machines let out a continuous, spooky, droning sound, and the people sat in front of them looked like ghosts, like desiccated shells of formerly human beings.

The highlight of the trip was definitely the trip to Kraftsteak, or something like that, a steak house where we dropped close to half a yard including tip on a meal and drinks that were good, but not five-hundred-dollar good (for my money, if you\'re going to blow that much on a dinner and decent but affordable wine, and you want great atmosphere, try something like the Dupuy Canal House in High Falls), and had the, um, pleasure of dining a few tables away from the esteemed KC (and entourage) of KC and the Sunshine Band fame.

My best friend is a poker nut and got involved at a table right after dinner. I wandered around observing the action. First of all, there is nothing, and I mean, nothing, going on in these places other than what seemed to be small stakes gambling. I doubt Don Juan himself could have gotten laid in there. Thousands of people around, and almost no human interaction taking place; I found it amazing. They had all the usual games: dice, blackjack, poker, whatever, but it struck me as sad and hopelessly boring. There was some sort of game involving what looked dominoes played at tables packed with Oriental men chain-smoking and jabbering excitedly in languages I don\'t speak, but that was pretty much it. I got involved at a $4/$8 (I think - it was definitely small stakes) poker table for awhile but compared to the afternoons I used to spend at the 711 Central Avenue, where people bet and drank and screamed and yelled at television monitors and, more frequently, at each other, it was cold and lonely and just plain f\'ing borrrrrrring. Cards got shuffled, cards got dealt, hands got played, no one said anything, and for the most part I sat there thinking about my dead wife or how pathetic and inhuman it was that I couldn\'t get a drink at two-fifteen in the morning.

The only reason I yammer on about my trip is that, in my view, it shows how hopelessly doomed horse racing is.

I\'m a weirdo, a psycho, whatever. I love handicapping and betting on horse racing. But out of the thousands of people I saw pissing away their money on games rigged to favor the house that night, I doubt more than 5% of them had any interest in horse racing, or could be convinced to take it up. To those people, who I have to assume reflect the collective face of the current American gambler, horse racing is boring. It\'s hard to read a Racing Form (\"looks like hieroglyphics to me\" one friend of mine put it), let alone a Thorograph sheet. There\'s a long time between races and it can be an eternity between hits. People wanna gamble, any student of human nature or the current zeitgeist can figure that out without a whole lot of effort; the same student can figure out that people want easy, not hard. Life\'s tough, especially these days, even if you avoid disasters like early widowhood or whatever; more people want gambling smack than gambling speed or LSD. They wanna drown it all out, dull it out, and horse racing is not a form of gambling that\'s gonna give \'em that.

So this whole casino-style games subsidizing horse racing thing, I don\'t possibly see how it can last. The politicians, desperate to avoid pissing off their lifeblood, their masters, the zillionaire super-PAC donors, will look under every rock out there for every regressive tax they can find. They\'re not gonna look to balance budgets by taxing their owners, they\'re gonna look to balance budgets by crushing the little guy, and eventually, the day\'s gonna come when to keep that jig going, they\'re gonna have to squeeze every penny they can from the gambling racket, and when that day comes, and I guess it has in some places, they\'re gonna say, why are we donating any of the slots rake to the horses when we can send it straight on up to Albany or whatever state capital.

Racing will lose that dough eventually, no doubt about it. It\'s only a matter of time. And then it will have to stand on it\'s own two feet. Personally, based on what I saw on that trip to Foxwoods and on lots of other signs, I think racing will wobble and fall rather than stand, but who knows, I\'m wrong plenty. Hope I am  this time.

[alm]

Papa

Hang around...you are definitely a more interesting guy than the Adam Smith types who think racing NEEDS to stand on its own,  like the auto industry does---oops, let me think of another...how about agriculture, which feeds us off government subsidy---oops, not that one either...how about the pharmaceuticals who crave medicare reimbursements for killer drugs---oops, find another...how about retail which needs Federal mortgage subsidies so we can borrow against houses we can\'t afford---oops, that almost crushed the world...wait, I\'m getting this all wrong.  Subsidies are the problem ALL around, right?  So let\'s learn to live without them, starting with horseracing first.  That\'ll show the fat f--ks in Washington or in the state houses around the country.  We\'ll show them how to run the country by running for small purses, going broke doing something we love, right?

Papa, keep posting.

[ajkreider]

Damn.  That\'s \"I want to party with you, cowboy\" worthy, (though my heart would give out by 2 AM, so maybe not.)

On the survival of racing thing.  This is the first year in a while that I\'ve been sorta hopeful.  Very diverse demographic - especially in terms of age.  Never seen so many kids in my life at a track.  All newbies.  At the rail, heard (from adults) a lot of \"Why are they running on the grass\", \"Wow this is a really short race\" (when the gate was a pole behind the finish line), and \"Oh my God! There\'s an ambulance on the track!\"

I\'m sure some of these were there for the casino, but they weren\'t in the casino - they were on the rail.  And who brings kids to a casino (though admittedly, the track wouldn\'t be my first choice for kids either)?

Racing may be okay.

[richiebee]

Consistently large live, diverse crowds at venues such as Keeneland, Saratoga
and Oaklawn prove that Racing still has mass appeal.

It is a sport/business which is so strong that it has survived the passing of
wealthy caretakers -- Vanderbilt, Mellon, Whitney, etc. -- who have been
replaced by overcompensated clueless clowns.

Some enlightened leadership, some unification, some crafty marketing and some
controlled contraction are all that is needed.

[P-Dub]

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Consistently large live, diverse crowds at venues
> such as Keeneland, Saratoga
> and Oaklawn prove that Racing still has mass
> appeal.
>
> It is a sport/business which is so strong that it
> has survived the passing of
> wealthy caretakers -- Vanderbilt, Mellon, Whitney,
> etc. -- who have been
> replaced by overcompensated clueless clowns.
>
> Some enlightened leadership, some unification,
> some crafty marketing and some
> controlled contraction are all that is needed.

I enjoy reading the many viewpoints from people on this site.  Love reading Richiebee, Miff, Alm, Sight among others.  PapaChach is definitely on that list. Please feel free to post more than twice a year sir.

I agree with Richie, horse racing still has appeal.  His ideas, while generalities, are right on the mark.

I work in a card room/casino, and I\'ll inject racing into the conversation from time to time. I\'m asked which do I like better, poker or racing??  I tell them if I had ti choose, I would never play another hand of poker in my life. I get a stunned look every time. Every time.

Why do people love to play poker, and why has its popularity exploded??  
- They watch it on television, and learn - to varying degrees, how to play.
- You play a new hand every couple minutes
- You can obviously win money...or lose for that matter.

One of the biggest deterrents to attracting new people to the sport, from a wagering perspective, is the ease - or lack thereof - of playing.

Poker is easy. I have 2 cards, I get 5 more on the board, I can easily figure out what I have.  With a little math I can figure out if the \"odds\" are correct to call or raise. The better players, and the average players for that matter, are into the odds. Is it correct to call?? Fold?? etc...

How do we get people to make informed decisions, similar to the decisions made in poker, while wagering on horses??  

IMO, the DRF is not the way to go.  Only the most diligent, experienced players can consistently make heads or tails out of that data. Players need easy to decipher information, for many tracks, to play. There are many products out there, from Thorograph, accurate pace figures, reports, etc...that would enable players to quickly assess if the odds warrant a play.  You need this so that players can play multiple tracks, similar to playing hand after hand.

When I see poker players play 2-3-5 No Limit, and buy in for $500.  Lose that, buy another $500.  Thats $1000 in play at a poker table.  I imagine what they could do with a similar sized bankroll if they had the adequate tools to wager on horse racing. I\'ve seen players make just gawd awful calls, calling $200 on a hand that is just gonna lose.

What if they used that to structure a well thought out Trifecta, Superfecta, Pick 3/4??  Put that $200 on a 10/1 shot that has a real chance of winning?? Not to mention the adrenaline rush that goes with a winning wager??

Poker players are not dumb. Well, some aren\'t as smart as others. Kinda like people at the track. I deal to business professionals, attorneys, doctors.  I deal to the common man.  You know, the same eclectic group of people that visit and wager on horse racing.

Horse racing doesn\'t have to die a slow death.  As Richie says, get rid of the incompetence, hire someone competent, market appropriately, streamline the product.

All of us had a first time at the racetrack. All of us love it.  There are a lot more of us out there, it just needs to be harvested.

[TGJB]

Pdub-- dead on the money. You could throw a lot of people who day trade into the same conversation. Making the game understandable to new players is a huge problem. And if poker players understood they could 5 or 10-1 on a \"hand\" at the track, they might never play poker again either.

[MO]

I have always been of the belief that there are only 2 games where one can actually make a living playing - horses and poker.

IMO the biggest difference bewtween the 2 and the reason I play poker regularly and horses only occassionally is that poker has fewer variables. A horse can win a race by 10 and you still might not get paid, but a royal flush is always the nuts. And yeah, while you wont get 5-1 on many hands, at least you always know what your payoff is going to be and you never have to settle for less than even money unless you are stealing the blinds. How many time have you loved a horse thats 6-1 ML in a 6 horse field and he opens up the  9-5 fav and never picks up a hoof (Excelsior Hcp)

In poker, the variables are the other players. A set of jacks is always a set of jacks and if it wins the hand, it can not be disqualified for bumping the player next to him.

In racing, the variables are stewards, drugs, buzzers, bulimea, track conditions, odds, post position, weight carried, wind speed and direction, can the jock read a racing form? And we haven\'t even considered the horses physical and mental condition. (In harness racing you have the added pain in the ass of a horse breaking stride).

Then, should all the conditions be just right and your horse wins at 6-1, your wager still might only return 4-1. The variables add up and create frustration which leads to \"giving up\" for many players, and they never return.


So it should be no surprise why poker is more popular.

[P-Dub]

MO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always been of the belief that there are
> only 2 games where one can actually make a living
> playing - horses and poker.
>
> IMO the biggest difference bewtween the 2 and the
> reason I play poker regularly and horses only
> occassionally is that poker has fewer variables. A
> horse can win a race by 10 and you still might not
> get paid, but a royal flush is always the nuts.

A horse may win by 10 and you still won\'t get paid. Well, nobody said that the length of victory should equate to the size of a mutuel.

A Royal Flush is always the nuts. No kidding. So is the horse in a 1 horse race.  How many times do you get a Royal Flush?? In 5 years, I\'ve dealt maybe 2.  So that example isn\'t relevant to any point you\'re trying to make. Its simply too rare to matter.

> And yeah, while you wont get 5-1 on many hands, at
> least you always know what your payoff is going to
> be and you never have to settle for less than even
> money unless you are stealing the blinds.

You will hardly ever get 5/1 on many hands. Extremely extremely rare. You need a minimum of 5 players going all the way to the river, and each one of them calling you down. It happens in limit occasionally, extremely rare in No Limit.  You don\'t know what your payoff is going to be. You have no idea how many people will call after you.




> How many time have you loved a horse thats 6-1 ML in a 6
> horse field and he opens up the  9-5 fav and never
> picks up a hoof (Excelsior Hcp)

Betting on 9/5 shots is the same as playing a suited connector for a re-raise against 2 players. Why would you do it??  Occasionally, you\'ll drag a pot or win the race. Long term, you\'ll lose money. Its poor strategy and a lack of patience that doom players, poker or racing, that creates losing players.

If you love a horse that is bet down, its simple.  Pass the race.

If your favorite hand is 8-9 suited, and its 3 bets to go and most have folded....let the hand go.  If its NL and you have 77 and are looking at a re-raise.....let the hand go.

Now, if there are 5 players, and its cheap enough to see a flop...thus creating the proper odds to call, then see a flop. If that horse you love is still sitting at 6 or 8/1, then fire away. Its odds and probability, whether its poker or racing.

>
> In poker, the variables are the other players. A
> set of jacks is always a set of jacks and if it
> wins the hand, it can not be disqualified for
> bumping the player next to him.
>
> In racing, the variables are stewards, drugs,
> buzzers, bulimea, track conditions, odds, post
> position, weight carried, wind speed and
> direction, can the jock read a racing form? And we
> haven\'t even considered the horses physical and
> mental condition. (In harness racing you have the
> added pain in the ass of a horse breaking
> stride).

Cmon MO, this is just disingenuous. There are stewards at the poker table, its called the dealer. Drugs, buzzers, bulimia - really, this matters how??  You are now getting into conspiracy theories and paranoia. Odds and probability. Every random thing you\'ve mentioned can be dealt with by the tote board.

As for track conditions, post position, weight, wind......these are factors that go into making a decision. Just like a poker hand.

You play poker. There are variables to that game too, that you have conveniently left out.  Who is in my game??  Is the guy to my left an aggressive player, more often than not raising??  Is he a passive player, more prone to just making a call??  Is he tight, seeing few hands??  Is he tight aggressive??  How about the guy 3 seats to my right??  How does he play??  Does he like to limp re-raise?? There is variable after variable for a serious poker player. Poker players that don\'t think that deeply, that don\'t try and put players on hands, that don\'t know the tendencies of their fellow players, are average at best. These \"variables\" are just as important to the success of a poker player as are the variables you describe at the track.

Poker players that don\'t pay attention to these and other variables are average to below average players. Just as horse players that don\'t pay attention to track condition, bias, etc...  Its all part of either game.

Don\'t tell me that poker has few variables. Its simply not true.  The variables of each game are different, but for a student of either game, they exist.


>
> Then, should all the conditions be just right and
> your horse wins at 6-1, your wager still might
> only return 4-1. The variables add up and create
> frustration which leads to \"giving up\" for many
> players, and they never return.

Frustration??  You mean like the guy that hits his gut shot on the river cracking your set of Jacks??  The guy who is all in on a draw, and manages to go runner runner 2 pair to beat your big pocket pair??  I could go on and on about frustration at a poker table. Believe me, there is plenty of it to go around.  Horse racing doesn\'t have a monopoly on frustration.

 
> So it should be no surprise why poker is more
> popular.

I\'ve stated why poker is more popular, and a few things that need to happen to change that percentage.  

Most poker players are losing players. They just don\'t admit it. Poker isn\'t popular because more people win at it. Percentage wise, its probably a tick higher.

Its more popular because its easier to play, and people think they know how to play it well enough to win, even when their bottom line tells them otherwise.

[MO]

Please don\'t put words in my mouth.

I clearly posted \"poker has FEWER VARIABLES than racing\".

I clearly posted \"horse can win a race by 10 and you still MIGHT NOT
> get paid, but a royal flush is always the nuts.\"

Whether or not I get a royal flush or my horse wins by 10 is not the point. The point is that despite the fact a horse may win by 10, there are VARIABLES that can affect whether or not you get paid. If I get a royal flush, there ARE NO variables. I get ALWAYS paid.

To your quote \"You will hardly ever get 5/1 on many hands. Extremely extremely rare. You need a minimum of 5 players going all the way to the river, and each one of them calling you down. It happens in limit occasionally, extremely rare in No Limit. You don\'t know what your payoff is going to be. You have no idea how many people will call after you\".  Yes It is rare to get 5-1 on a poker hand. It is NOT extremely rare. Depends on the players.

You make the point of 5 players going to the river in order to do so. While I agree with you there, I disagree that \"you don\'t know what your payoff is going to be\". Simple addition, sparky. The small blind and big blind folded to the guy under the gun. Thats $3. He bets $10 and gets 2 callers. Now there\'s $33 in the pot. I know exactly how much is in the pot at all times. I know exactly how much I will get paid should my hand hold up at showdown. And I NEVER am offered less than even money on any bet unless I\'m stealing the blinds, a point you failed to address.

As for your point about frustration and hands getting beat, once the gates open, your money is out of your control. In poker, your money is always in your control with the exception of the showdown.

It is not disingenuous to point out what has to be considered when placing a wager on a race vs. a poker hand. There is FAR LESS to consider when playing a poker hand. Far less. And this is why poker will always attract more players than racing and its why slot machines will always attract more players than both games combined. These are my observations having been a horse player and a poker player for over 30 years with a lifetime profit from both intact, thanks very much.

[P-Dub]

MO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 
> Whether or not I get a royal flush or my horse
> wins by 10 is not the point. The point is that
> despite the fact a horse may win by 10, there are
> VARIABLES that can affect whether or not you get
> paid. If I get a royal flush, there ARE NO
> variables. I get ALWAYS paid.

And my point is you are using an example that rarely occurs, so why mention it.

 
> You make the point of 5 players going to the river
> in order to do so. While I agree with you there, I
> disagree that \"you don\'t know what your payoff is
> going to be\". Simple addition, sparky. The small
> blind and big blind folded to the guy under the
> gun. Thats $3. He bets $10 and gets 2 callers. Now
> there\'s $33 in the pot. I know exactly how much is
> in the pot at all times. I know exactly how much I
> will get paid should my hand hold up at showdown.
> And I NEVER am offered less than even money on any
> bet unless I\'m stealing the blinds, a point you
> failed to address.

First of all, stealing blinds is a relatively insignificant part of profits. Thats why it wasn\'t addressed. So, yet again, you are using an example that hardly matters to the main discussion.

I don\'t need lessons in simple addition from you, no matter how much of an \"expert\" poker player you claim to be.

If you are the expert you claim to be, you should know about implied odds. You are using a rudimentary odds calculation that beginning and barely average players use. Also, if you are FIRST TO ACT, you have NO IDEA how many will call...or raise behind you.  Yes, you know how much is in the pot AT THAT MOMENT. But, again, you have no idea how much will be in the pot at the conclusion of the hand.

Its really a ridiculous part of the discussion.  You are making a big deal about \"knowing how much\" you will get paid. Its just absolutely silly.  Ever see an exacta grid?? How about, I don\'t know, a tote board??  Its simple math Sparky.

8/1 means you get 8 times your money. Minimum. You might get a bonus, maybe 8.2 or 8.8 on every dollar. Really, knowing how much to the exact dollar is that big of a deal?? Really??

 

>
> As for your point about frustration and hands
> getting beat, once the gates open, your money is
> out of your control. In poker, your money is
> always in your control with the exception of the
> showdown.
>
> It is not disingenuous to point out what has to be
> considered when placing a wager on a race vs. a
> poker hand. There is FAR LESS to consider when
> playing a poker hand. Far less. And this is why
> poker will always attract more players than racing
> and its why slot machines will always attract more
> players than both games combined. These are my
> observations having been a horse player and a
> poker player for over 30 years with a lifetime
> profit from both intact, thanks very much.

This makes absolutely no sense. None.  You mentioned frustration. Frustration has absolutely nothing to do with when you can bet money.  Whether its getting beat at the wire, or getting DQ\'d......after your money is bet, or getting rivered........BEFORE you can bet more money......what exactly is the difference?? Its still frustration, regardless of whether or not you can still bet.

There are more variables than you let on at a poker table. Your claims at profiting at both notwithstanding.

Again, its odds and probability. Period. If you want to let buzzers, of all things, clutter your mind and claim that as a variable, then its amazing you win at anything. Seriously. Coming up with every little nuance and claiming it as a variable is silly.

Odds and probability. If you want to clutter that up with buzzers, bulimia, and the wind, go ahead.  

And yes MO....getting 5/1 is extremely rare at a poker table.  Unless your regular game is played by loose drunks that play every hand and call down.

I\'m done. Save it for a poker forum. You aren\'t making a whole lotta sense.

[MO]

You\'re done because you can\'t win the argument.Aren\'t you the guy who complains about Dutrow and Pletcher? Are you saying drugs and trainers who use them illegally  are not a variable?

What about the newbie who comes to the track with some friends for the first time, bets a horse, the horse wins by daylight. \"Oh goody, how much did I win?\"

\"YOU LOST!! The horse was disqualified for bumping another horse.\"

\"Oh, well, that\'s no fun. I bet my money, the horse wins and I dont get paid? Well, I\'ll never play this game again. At least in poker, when I have the best hand at showdown, I get paid.\"

That\'s my point, which you either deliberately or incoherantly missed.

Poker has fewer variable than horse racing. Deal with it.

[P-Dub]

No.

I\'m done because I no longer wish to debate whether or not a jockey yakking is relevant, or any of the other miniscule variables you cite.