So I used to think this too. But watching @James_Holzhauer changed me. There are two things happening within any gambling event: the game and the wager. https://twitter.com/longshotaaronv/status/1291513388648996864

In blackjack, for example, the house has a mathematical edge in the game, but does not tax your wager. You lose in the long run because the house rigs the game so they win more than you.

In horseracing, the house does not play the game, but instead taxes your wager. A $100 bet is only actually betting $75-85. Seeing the house has immense single use overhead it pays for to conduct the game, a tax is necessary, but - like all taxes - must be reasonable.

I agree with Aaron in one sense: the game isn’t biased. If you pick winners, you win. But the tax racing levies on wagers is extremely important since the game is really hard.

All bettors - but particularly horseplayers - play both games simultaneously: the game and the wager. For example, I’m a good handicapper but a terrible wagerer. They’re two separate skill sets.

Again using blackjack, the game and wagers are simple, but the game is a losing proposition. In racing, both the game and wagers are extremely complex requiring a high level of skill for both for a player to be successful.

The house may not have a mathematical edge in the game of racing, but takeout reduces wagering power and reduces the value of winning wagers. And in a game as complex as racing, any disadvantages to players can be debilitating to bankrolls.