The real question isn't whether the big bettors will buy $1,000 apples, but whether racing wants them as customers. Put simply, there are two groups of people: those who fund racing (cash-flow-negative) and those who make money from racing (cash-flow-positive). I'm assuming big bettors are sophisticated enough that they wouldn't be big bettors (at least not for long) unless they were cash-flow-positive. As such, they share with race tracks in the pot created by those who are cash-flow-negative (some might call them "suckers," but since I'm in this category, I prefer the term "patrons").

Unless the big bettors somehow increase the size of the pot by an amount greater than the amount they withdraw, race tracks are better off without them. The question of whether big bettors meet this test is the real subject of debate, and I don't think it has an easy answer. Arguably, big bettors contribute by subtly increasing the losses of the patrons (the NTRA task force reports people at the track lose 4% more than the nominal takeout). The counterargument is that the patrons would eventually lose the same amount without the big bettors in the form of increased "churn."