No doubt, slot players don't want to figure out how to play horses, but then why would they? "You want me to figure out a hard game and pay 17-32% for the privilege of bumbling along at the beginning? I can put my mind on a mini vacation and hopefully win money and only pay 9%", the slot player would say.
How can you argue with that logic? The answer is you can't. Let's go to the virtual blackboard:
Bad Luck Luc goes to Chester Philadelphia with $40. He decides to play $20 on the horses and $20 on the slots. He decides he is going to make only $2 superfecta wagers on the horses and pull of the slots. In this fictional example, he loses on each $2 bet only the expense of playing the game (takeout) which is 32% for the horses and 9% for the slots. How long would he last playing each game?
Since he has a self imposed $2 minimum wager, he's done with the horses after his 29th wager and is going home with $1.44 left in his pocket from the horses and $14.78 left from the slots. But he says to himself, let me see how much longer I can play the slots with the $14.78. So it continues....
Since Luc sticks to his $2 wager on the slots, he is done after his 101st wager. So after completing his experiment, he realizes his $20 allowed him to make 28 wagers while the same $20 allowed him to make 101 wagers on the slots; 72 more wagers. Hmmm, what do you think he is going to play next time?
Of course it doesn't go this way in real life as there are a lot more variables. What Luc's fictional experiment shows us is the cost of playing each game. But the point is made, you are going to get less action for the money playing the horses. So if you are a newcomer to gaming, and someone tells you how much more 'action' you can get playing the slots than the horses, which game are you going to play?