I agree with what Oaklawn did, but you should keep in mind that when Mr Geiger refers to a reduction in "effective" takeout, he is not talking about actually lowering the rates. In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of track execs, you can take credit for reducing the "effective" takeout by keeping the rates the same & excluding rebate shops.

The NTRA Study makes it clear that the people who support racing the most, financially & otherwise, by actually going to the track, are getting the worst of it from just about every angle. You're lucky if the track will provide an electrical outlet, let alone direct or computer access to the pools. At a bare minimum, no gambler who is paying attention is going to be willing to participate absent a level playing field, which is decidedly not the case when you bet into exacta & double pools where they allow batch wagering. The tracks understand this, which is why, with few exceptions, it is next to impossible to find out which tracks do & do not allow the practice. Unless you have detailed evidence to the contrary for a specific track, the safe & logical assumption is to assume batch wagering is permitted, & avoid exactas & doubles at that track. Woodbine, which is applauded for its efforts in the Report, is an example of the kind of detail you need to know. Its execs, who have argued publicly in the past that all bettors are better off with higher takeout rates because they're just going to lose the money eventually anyway, leveled the playing field by restricting the number of batch wagers to, I want to say, something like 500 different wagers in the last 15 seconds before the race goes off. I'm still interested in meeting the person who can make half that many bets at the track through a mutuel clerk or betting machine.

Also, as many have already pointed out directly & indirectly, it's always a good idea to keep in mind the financial interests of the speaker, or in the case of the NTRA Report, the financial interests of the parties who paid the authors. Notice that one subject which the Report carefully avoids is whose shortsightedness is responsible for the current state of affairs, & whether it is logical to assume that those who are responsible will be able to solve the problems they created. You knew my answer to that question before you began reading this post.