Horse betting vs Dog betting.

I go to poker rooms here in Florida and there is always action in both areas.. and Ive come to a conclusion that horse betting is the more stable type of betting in that theres a little more control and researching available to the races. When you bet on horses your betting on a more expensive sport, someone who rides and controls the horses actions, a stable thats looking at the long term usability of the horse (future races and winnings) and a track record that may fluctuate less.

When you bet on dogs a lot of the same is true, but I feel the dogs actions on the track are much less predictable and more given into the nature of the animal .. such as trying to fight with another dog, stopping for whatever the dog sees, or variations in track lanes. Its not that the dogs are not looked over or cared for equally as much as horses (though I think that is by far a true statement) as even the dog owners look towards the next race and breeding/ect- but I think the actions on the track are more predictable with horses. Of course, when you associate a rider, ect there is more room for unsporting conduct by the rider depending on the personal gain interests thereof (lopsided favorite, personal needs, ect) - ie horse racing has more possibility to influence the outcome in a corrupted way.

I wanted to see others insight on these thoughts and if they had anything they stuck with or stayed away from either horse or dog wise or both.. ie do you only bet horses or only on trotters, or only on certain levels of the dogs or horses ect.

Ive not yet taken a specific bankroll to the track in an effort to see how I do for an entire track session, but im interested in doing this for the pure knowledge of it.

I can only compare UK tracks. Typically dog tracks offer worse odds than horse races (except some races with many runners). The on-track odds are usually affected by BetFair and the like, so there's quite a bit of info already around and bookies can play nearer book. On dogs, there's less info and less market money, so usually they can't take so much risk - also form isn't always a factor as the dogs bump and bash each other.

Naturally if you have some inside info or do a lot of research that may increase your chances, but I would guess it's better to stick to the horses (at least the races usually last longer - unless yours falls at the first). I've also heard it's better to stick to the flat, but I'm no expert so wouldn't know.

A writer with a Fine Arts Degree from Columbia University spent her girlhood interacting with her father at casinos and dog tracks. She was often tasked to watch the dogs and indicate those that had defected prior to the race since her father felt that would make them run faster, but since she was a skinny female she simply checked off the dogs that were skinny females.

I think the betting is going to be motivated by diverse interests but I doubt anyone will ever hear any of this "betterment of the breed" nonsense that is heard about horse races.

The raised betting levels at the poker rooms and the slots and raised levels at the dog tracks has helped stimulate a revival of the industry here in Florida. Perhaps its because greyhounds are more trustworthy than Jai Alai players.

Not exactly a revival. Facilities that have greyhound racing lost $35 million on racing in 2012. They rely on card rooms, which made $39 million in 2012, to offset those losses.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/politics/2013-07-06/story/greyhound-racing-dying-sport-report-legislature-says#ixzz2gtsZd98B

your kidding right? The original question answers itself when you see your first dog race and see 3 dogs get wiped out on the first turn. THere are no penaties or consequences for interference.

dog eacing is the last thing i WOULD BET ON.i WOULD BET THE BIG WHEEL BEFORE i BET ON DOGS.


have I bet on dog races in the past when I was traveling in alabama, or oregon on buainess as a way to pass time? Sure.

but given a choice 3 card monty seems inviting