Keenland fractional wagering

[ShadowRoll]

I'm trying to wrap my head around Keeneland's plan to offer fractional wagering, in terms of what that might mean for the player and the track. Would appreciate other people's takes.

If you haven't heard about it, see this link: http://www.keeneland.com/Lists/News/...m.aspx?ID=7096

Here's my thoughts. Keeneland says that it is offering fractional wagering so that bettors can include more horses in their bets. Assuming that bettors will include more horses in their bets while wagering the same net amount, take this very simple example: a bettor who normally would place a $5 bet on one horse places two bets on two horses for $2.50 each.

This means that there will be more bets spread more widely, which means that there will be more winning bets. The effect of more winning bets dilutes the payout for any individual winning bet, which adversely affects the winning bettor.

On the other hand, because there's more winning bets, and because Keeneland takes breakage on each winning bet, this means more money for Keeneland.

So it seems that fractional wagering is bad for the bettor, good for the track. What am I missing?

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

I'm trying to wrap my head around Keeneland's plan to offer fractional wagering, in terms of what that might mean for the player and the track. Would appreciate other people's takes.

If you haven't heard about it, see this link: http://www.keeneland.com/Lists/News/...m.aspx?ID=7096

Here's my thoughts. Keeneland says that it is offering fractional wagering so that bettors can include more horses in their bets. Assuming that bettors will include more horses in their bets while wagering the same net amount, take this very simple example: a bettor who normally would place a $5 bet on one horse places two bets on two horses for $2.50 each.

This means that there will be more bets spread more widely, which means that there will be more winning bets. The effect of more winning bets dilutes the payout for any individual winning bet, which adversely affects the winning bettor.

On the other hand, because there's more winning bets, and because Keeneland takes breakage on each winning bet, this means more money for Keeneland.

So it seems that fractional wagering is bad for the bettor, good for the track. What am I missing?

In a 10 horse field for every winning wager there are 9 losing wagers. There is no difference.

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

In a 10 horse field for every winning wager there are 9 losing wagers. There is no difference.

Not so sure about that. Let's say there's a three horse field (and although this example doesn't create a fractional payout, assume that it does, so there's breakage).

First scenario: I bet $10 on horse one, you bet $10 on horse two, another guy bets $10 on horse three. Horse one wins, so I get $30. The winner's share of the pool is 100%. The track takes breakage on one winning bet.

Second scenario: I bet $5 on horses one and two, you bet $5 on horses one and three, other guy bets $5 on horses two and three. Horse one wins, you and I get $15 each. Each winner's share of the pool is 50%. But the track gets to take breakage on two winning bets instead of one.

In the second scenario, the payout is diminished for each winner, even though the amount wagered by each bettor ($10) is the same as in the first scenario. The track, on the other hand, potentially takes more in the second scenario because breakage (unlike the track's takeout, which is the same percentage no matter how many wagers are made) is taken whenever a payout includes cents below a certain threshold. For example, if the track pays to the dime, and there's one winning payout of $2.18, the track takes the 8 cents. But if there's two winning payouts, each paying $1.09, the track takes 18 cents.