PDA

View Full Version : Santa Anita lowers DD takeout to 18%


Stillriledup
12-20-2013, 06:53 PM
Not sure if its all the DDs, but some of them, was reading this on Paulick.

I didnt realize SA's WPS was raised to 15.73, i always thought it was 15.43 (15.73 according to Paulick Article).

Hoofless_Wonder
12-20-2013, 07:23 PM
Hmmm. 18% means it's now only about 8% too high.... :p

Exotic1
12-20-2013, 07:31 PM
Not sure if its all the DDs, but some of them, was reading this on Paulick.

I didnt realize SA's WPS was raised to 15.73, i always thought it was 15.43 (15.73 according to Paulick Article).

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/82505/santa-anita-reducing-takeout-on-daily-double?source=rss

Exotic1
12-20-2013, 07:52 PM
Off topic:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/videos/13057/ramsey-farm-2013-ken-ramsey-and-kittens-joy

You have to twist Ramsey's arm to get him to talk.

Stillriledup
12-20-2013, 07:59 PM
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/82505/santa-anita-reducing-takeout-on-daily-double?source=rss
Hmmm so they raised the WPS .30 i didnt even realize that.

Vigorish
12-20-2013, 09:33 PM
Hmmm so they raised the WPS .30 i didnt even realize that.


I am huge fan of daily doubles and was hoping they would push through this takeout reduction, which was previously considered and rejected. When I first read the new Blood Horse article, I was stoked. However, I thought there was a misprint when they said takeout on WPS was 15.73%. Furthermore, it just dawned on me that Santa Anita is engaging in a sleight-of-hand trick. This move may result in a higher blended takeout for the average customer, since WPS is a basic wager and is offered on every race, unlike the new double. I just wrote Santa Anita and I encourage all horseplayers to follow suit.

Here are my two comments on Bloodhorse's site (before and after I realized what really happened)

First comment:

"This is a fabulous move by Santa Anita. The racing industry often seems trapped in a 1980's time warp when it comes to access, price, pool integrity, and innovation. However, I have to laud Santa Anita's efforts to institute a significant takeout reduction on a popular bet. If they adopt (or surpass) the pricing models of venues like Tampa Bay, Kentucky Downs, and Keeneland, they will generate more handle and attract price-conscious fans who want more bang for their buck. "

Second comment:

I was initially very excited by this development. However, then I came back down to reality after reading between the lines. The blended takeout may actually stay the same or be slightly increase as it appears they raised the takeout on WPS. Furthermore, by eliminating rolling doubles, they limit their exposure to the lower takeout wager (if they had doubles in every race it might cannibalize the pools of other high takeout wagers such as exactas and pick 3's).

There are almost always strings attached to positive developments in racing - at least as they relate to takeout. I wish they would have been honest about the reality of the 'takeout reduction.' Furthermore, the guaranteed pools are pretty much a sham as the betting public invariably exceeds them by a large margin."

Big Sal
12-20-2013, 09:47 PM
Any takeout reduction is a good thing...but this isn't a very inspiring one. Even less so, if the WPS rate was raised slightly as a marketing ploy style trick.

Pick a pool, either place or show, but it would be a nice if a track (preferably a somewhat relevant thoroughbred track) could slash it's takeout rate to 5% in either the place or show pool.

Every competitive business offers deals to value conscious customers. The place pool and show pool are flirting with being relics from the past.

Because of the churn factor and their relative lack of popularity, they're the most obvious bet to experiment a sharp reduction with.

I wonder if such a reduction would cause a huge backlash against a simulcast signal?

Vigorish
12-20-2013, 10:14 PM
I just went to the Santa Anita website and composed a letter expressing my disappointment. Hopefully, I sent it to the correct department (I sent it to the executive offices). Anyway, here is a possible template for others interested in expressing their disapproval.

Greetings,

My name is Jeffrey Johnson and I am a serious horseplayer. I wanted to offer some feedback on your recent adjustments to takeout. At first, I was extremely enthusiastic after reading articles that stated you were cutting the takeout on the daily double to 18% (which is a substantial decrease from 22.68%). In fact, I boycotted your track for a year after you implemented the takeout increases on exotics for 2011.

With the introduction of the 14% pick 5, you regained some of my business. Furthermore, I started to wager again, although at a reduced level, on your 15.43% WPS wagers. While I should be excited about the new takeout reduction, I am actually disappointed because you lost an opportunity to regain the majority of my betting handle. Unfortunately, it appears that you wanted to gain the horseplayer's favor by using a sleight-of-hand trick. If you consider the new pricing plans in a wider context, the blended takeout rate actually stays the same or is increased.

There are three reasons I use this strong language. First of all, it has been noted that you have INCREASED takeout on WPS to 15.73%. While this might seem like a trivial amount, it's not. The takeout is applied to every single race (on top of breakage). However, you have eliminated rolling doubles, only allowing customers to exploit the 18% takeout on three races each day. The reason you did this seems obvious: you were worried that price-conscious players would spend more money on doubles at the expense of pic 3's and exactas (which have 23.68 and 22.68% takeouts, respectively). Furthermore, I have noticed you are marketing high guarantees on the pick 4 pools. Unfortunately, the guarantees are so low that there is no realistic chance that they would ever be met. Thus, the horseplayer is paying the same high 23.68% takeout. I realize that it's hard to push through takeout reductions, and that horsemen are often the biggest culprits in ensuring their defeat. However, it is highly disappointing that you lost a major opportunity to capture a huge chunk of my handle. Furthermore, the advertising is a bit disingenuous and misleading.

A more bold and honest plan would have been to keep WPS where it currently is: at 15.43%. Furthermore, you could have lowered the takeout on doubles to 18% and made them available for all races. At the very least, you could have reduced doubles to three races per day WITHOUT a concurrent takeout hike on the most basic wagers. Furthermore, you could either make real takeout reductions in the pick 4 pools, or drop the 'guarantee language,' which creates a false perception that the player is getting a better deal.

Thank you,


PS: if the articles are wrong in stating that WPS takeout is 15.73% (and not the current rate of 15.43%), please accept my strong apologies.

Vigorish
12-20-2013, 10:52 PM
Any takeout reduction is a good thing...but this isn't a very inspiring one. Even less so, if the WPS rate was raised slightly as a marketing ploy style trick.

Pick a pool, either place or show, but it would be a nice if a track (preferably a somewhat relevant thoroughbred track) could slash it's takeout rate to 5% in either the place or show pool.

Every competitive business offers deals to value conscious customers. The place pool and show pool are flirting with being relics from the past.

Because of the churn factor and their relative lack of popularity, they're the most obvious bet to experiment a sharp reduction with.

I wonder if such a reduction would cause a huge backlash against a simulcast signal?

Greetings Sal,

I agree that any takeout reduction is good. However, it appears that many of the new takeout reductions are basically gimmicks. The tracks have a strong aversion to lowering takeout on core wagers. Many small tracks goof around with promotional wagers like a 15% high five or a 18% pick 5 (that has a carryover of $592 dollars). When I read the HANA takeout chart, I often wonder whether or not these low takeout exotics exist to justify high takeouts in the other pools. The horsemen say, 'Aha, nobody is interested in low takeout, look at what happened when we offered 15% pick 3's last summer!"

Part of the problem is that the takeout sensitive players are too smart to be fooled by the gimmicks. We aren't going to construct $48 dollar pick 4's when the pool has $1200 dollars in it. Furthermore, the promotional bets often result in no rebate. When players have significant rebates, they often get a 'promotional bet' in every pool. Next, the tracks are unwilling to seed the pools or offer meaningful guarantees. Finally, there is very little promotion. You can't simply offer a low takeout exotic for 5 weeks, give it no promotion, and expect hoardes of fans to bet your track.

With respect to your argument that takeout should be lowest in the place and show pools, I could not agree more. These pools should be the most heavily promoted (along with win wagers, quinellas, exactas, and doubles) as they produce the most churn and reinforcement. I think you identified one major reason why tracks will not decrease takeout on place or show: the ADW's and OTB's would refuse to carry the signal. If I remember correctly, Keeneland unsuccessfully tried to reduce WPS to 12.5% a few years ago. People threatened to pull the signal and that idea was axed. Furthermore, lower takeout on place and show would make it harder to compensate for losses on minus pools (which could be remedied by rounding down to the nearest penny, making $2.01 the lowest payout).

iwearpurple
12-20-2013, 11:25 PM
I just took the handle from the last week of last years Santa Anita meeting for WPS wagers and Daily Double Wagers. I only used for doubles the handle on races 2,5 and the last race, since they will no longer offer rolling doubles on all races (the doubles will be on races 1-2, 4-5, and the last 2 races).

USING LAST YEARS TAKEOUT
WPS 9,101,959 x .1543 = 1,404,432
DD 723,440 x .2368 = 171,311
Total - 1,575,743

USING THIS YEARS TAKEOUT
WPS 9,101,959 x .1573 = 1,431,738
DD 723,440 x .18 = 130,219
Total - 1,561,957

This years takeout would be $13,786.00 less - Big deal
But, I am certain that the breakage is much much higher on WPS (especially show bets), than it is on Daily doubles, so I am fairly certain they will come out ahead.

On top of that, they are taking the opportunity to bet daily doubles on any 2 consecutive races away, and then act like they are doing us a big favor.

I also note that they didn't tell anyone that they were raising the takeout on WPS wagers.

Vigorish
12-21-2013, 12:08 AM
A person in the Blood Horse thread claims they contacted a Santa Anita executive regarding this matter. The executive allegedly told them the takeout had not changed and was still 15.43%.

Hopefully, Santa Anita will respond to my email and clarify whether or not they raised the takeout from 15.43 to 15.73. This number is quoted in a few articles, including the Santa Anita press release, which states "All win, place and show wagers feature a 15.73 percent takeout (one of the nation’s lowest) with a $2 minimum investment."

Stillriledup
12-21-2013, 12:12 AM
A person in the Blood Horse thread claims they contacted a Santa Anita executive regarding this matter. The executive allegedly told them the takeout had not changed and was still 15.43%.

Hopefully, Santa Anita will respond to my email and clarify whether or not they raised the takeout from 15.43 to 15.73. This number is quoted in a few articles, including the Santa Anita press release, which states "All win, place and show wagers feature a 15.73 percent takeout (one of the nation’s lowest) with a $2 minimum investment."

Good Work Vig, hopefully we will get to the bottom of this takeout situation, SA opens in less than a week.

iwearpurple
12-21-2013, 12:34 AM
A person in the Blood Horse thread claims they contacted a Santa Anita executive regarding this matter. The executive allegedly told them the takeout had not changed and was still 15.43%.

Hopefully, Santa Anita will respond to my email and clarify whether or not they raised the takeout from 15.43 to 15.73. This number is quoted in a few articles, including the Santa Anita press release, which states "All win, place and show wagers feature a 15.73 percent takeout (one of the nation’s lowest) with a $2 minimum investment."

Did they get a lot of heat on this and change their mind after the fact, or was it a sloppy typo that was not checked?

Fingal
12-21-2013, 12:58 AM
That's what I thought of at first is that it was a typo, I mean 15.43 to 15.73 ? But it sure made me look twice as the conspiracy side of me could see the TOC ( Thoroughbred Owners Of California ) wanting something in return for giving up some of that Daily Double takeout.

lamboguy
12-21-2013, 02:18 AM
the breakage one loses in the double pools is no where near as much as you will lose in the win pools due to the bump up in %.


the win, place and show pools in total have to be about 7 times the size of a double pool in California.

classhandicapper
12-21-2013, 09:34 AM
Any takeout reduction is a good thing...but this isn't a very inspiring one. Even less so, if the WPS rate was raised slightly as a marketing ploy style trick.

Pick a pool, either place or show, but it would be a nice if a track (preferably a somewhat relevant thoroughbred track) could slash it's takeout rate to 5% in either the place or show pool.

Every competitive business offers deals to value conscious customers. The place pool and show pool are flirting with being relics from the past.

Because of the churn factor and their relative lack of popularity, they're the most obvious bet to experiment a sharp reduction with.

I wonder if such a reduction would cause a huge backlash against a simulcast signal?

One of the problems with lowering the take on a selective basis is that money would shift to that pool, but the overall handle might not change enough to impact the bottom line positively.

The same thing is even true doing on a track by track basis.

For example, suppose some guy bets 100k a year at NYRA tracks and California changes all their takes to 5%. He might just shift the 100K to CA, raise it to 300K, and leave NY.

On a net basis there is little to no change for the industry. CA just stole market share from NY and at the lower take didn't make much more than NY even though the handle rose sharply.

If we had a real free market, my guess is that eventually some of the smaller tracks with lower quality racing and less liquid pools would lower their takes to try to attract money away from NY, CA, FL, and KY. The majors would respond and then we'd have another round of the same thing until the smaller tracks couldn't cut any more. But the majors could always get away with a slightly higher take because of the quality of the racing and more liquid pools.

What we have now is a dysfunctional mess where managements can't always do what they want even if they are the rare bird that actually is highly competent.

badcompany
12-21-2013, 11:11 AM
There are three reasons I use this strong language. First of all, it has been noted that you have INCREASED takeout on WPS to 15.73%. While this might seem like a trivial amount, it's not. The takeout is applied to every single race (on top of breakage). However, you have eliminated rolling doubles, only allowing customers to exploit the 18% takeout on three races each day.

Look at the bright side. They could've lowered the takeout and eliminated the bet completely. :)

takeout
12-21-2013, 01:14 PM
Too little and waaay too late.

Vigorish
12-21-2013, 08:55 PM
Good Work Vig, hopefully we will get to the bottom of this takeout situation, SA opens in less than a week.


Greetings SRU and Iwearpurple,

The poster on Bloodhorse, who claimed to have spoken with a Santa Anita executive regarding the 15.73% snafu, almost certainly received accurate information. If you look at the article, they changed the takeout figure (without mentioning there was a typo in the original) back to 15.43%.

One poster made an interesting remark to the effect that it is pretty bad when we get excited about paying 18.00% takeout! Anyway, the new takeout structure is what it is. My suspicion is that the person who originally entered the figure inadvertently typed a '15.73' instead of 15.43.' This is a relatively easy error as '4' is adjacent to '7' on the key pad. If they had a horseplayer in their promotions department, I doubt this error would have stood for so long. The average person, unconcerned about the finer nuances of horse betting, would find it insane to care about three tenths of a percent. I still haven't received a response to the email I sent, but I realize it is the weekend. If they respond, I will give everybody an update.

proximity
12-21-2013, 09:29 PM
Greetings Sal,

I agree that any takeout reduction is good. However, it appears that many of the new takeout reductions are basically gimmicks. The tracks have a strong aversion to lowering takeout on core wagers. Many small tracks goof around with promotional wagers like a 15% high five or a 18% pick 5 (that has a carryover of $592 dollars). When I read the HANA takeout chart, I often wonder whether or not these low takeout exotics exist to justify high takeouts in the other pools. The horsemen say, 'Aha, nobody is interested in low takeout, look at what happened when we offered 15% pick 3's last summer!"

Part of the problem is that the takeout sensitive players are too smart to be fooled by the gimmicks. We aren't going to construct $48 dollar pick 4's when the pool has $1200 dollars in it. Furthermore, the promotional bets often result in no rebate. When players have significant rebates, they often get a 'promotional bet' in every pool. Next, the tracks are unwilling to seed the pools or offer meaningful guarantees. Finally, there is very little promotion. You can't simply offer a low takeout exotic for 5 weeks, give it no promotion, and expect hoardes of fans to bet your track.

With respect to your argument that takeout should be lowest in the place and show pools, I could not agree more. These pools should be the most heavily promoted (along with win wagers, quinellas, exactas, and doubles) as they produce the most churn and reinforcement. I think you identified one major reason why tracks will not decrease takeout on place or show: the ADW's and OTB's would refuse to carry the signal. If I remember correctly, Keeneland unsuccessfully tried to reduce WPS to 12.5% a few years ago. People threatened to pull the signal and that idea was axed. Furthermore, lower takeout on place and show would make it harder to compensate for losses on minus pools (which could be remedied by rounding down to the nearest penny, making $2.01 the lowest payout).

i'd make the lowest payout $2.02 so odd amounts could be bet, but that was a very, very good post.

the red section really hit home because just last week a horseman asked me why we (players) always complain about takeout on p.a. but didn't support a certain low takeout wager. i think your answer explains it well.

core wagers, likelihood of cashing, staying liquid.... key concepts. next they'll come up with a 0% takeout pick 9 to finally prove conclusively that takeout doesn't matter. :rolleyes:

ronsmac
12-21-2013, 09:48 PM
i'd make the lowest payout $2.02 so odd amounts could be bet, but that was a very, very good post.

the red section really hit home because just last week a horseman asked me why we (players) always complain about takeout on p.a. but didn't support a certain low takeout wager. i think your answer explains it well.

core wagers, likelihood of cashing, staying liquid.... key concepts. next they'll come up with a 0% takeout pick 9 to finally prove conclusively that takeout doesn't matter. :rolleyes:
A horseman looking at P.A., remember we said " We're being watched".

Big Sal
12-21-2013, 10:24 PM
My suspicion is that the person who originally entered the figure inadvertently typed a '15.73' instead of 15.43.' This is a relatively easy error as '4' is adjacent to '7' on the key pad. If they had a horseplayer in their promotions department, I doubt this error would have stood for so long.

You'd be surprised how frequent this type of "fat-finger" error occurs in the fractions and final times published by Equibase Chart-Callers.

The chart-callers at Golden Gate, Penn National, Delta, and Mountaineer are the worst at making fat-finger errors of the tracks I had. Fair Grounds was a place where Fat-fingers would very rarely occur...though, there was one instance last year, where the final time of a race was reported incorrectly by exactly 3 full seconds.

Golden Gate was truly the worst. At one point, the chart caller there was working on a Joe DiMaggio like streak of days with at least one fat-finger error in the fractions or final time.

cj
12-21-2013, 10:33 PM
Golden Gate was truly the worst. At one point, the chart caller there was working on a Joe DiMaggio like streak of days with at least one fat-finger error in the fractions or final time.

They are so bad at Delta I'm not even sure it is fat fingering. I think they just guess sometimes rather than look at the tote.

goatchaser
12-21-2013, 11:30 PM
HEY YOU GUYS!!!! Quit Bashing my Home track Santa Anita. Their not all that bad.... I mean...If you use your Thoroughbreds Card and bet a 100.00 4 days in a row you get a back Pack. Now what track can beat that? Iv'e also sent a mail to Operations. On many different issues. Oh and don't forget to be here for the Whiskey tasting day...That's one way to get the younger betters in.:lol:

Al Gobbi
12-22-2013, 03:09 PM
Golden Gate will also offer the 18% takeout doubles, and their pick 5 will move to races 1-5 starting 12/26.

http://www.goldengatefields.com/race-info/news/golden-gate-fields-opens-101-day-winterspring-meeting-thursday

Big Sal
12-23-2013, 12:47 AM
I've only been annoyed enough to write one "Letter to the Editor" and it was to the DRF.

It came just over 10 years ago.

http://www.drf.com/news/letters-editor-188

At the time, you had Hollywood Park president Rick Baedeker defending takeout increases as some kind of savior for Hollywood Park.

In New York, you had Barry Schwartz trying to do everything he could for the benefit of New York racing, only to get stonewalled at every turn.

I've been a professional horseplayer virtually all of my adult life. And it's hard to imagine how much struggle goes with that when you're in your early 20's.

To survive as a fulltime horseplayer in your early 20's, you have to be a savant, you have to be incredibly stubborn, you have to have an enormous ego, and you especially have to have a complete disregard for the opinions of family and friend, who will try everything they can to talk you into getting an education, going to work for a boss, or just "not throwing your life away."

Even when you're making a little profit, and have some money, there's such a hopelessness to that struggle in the beginning. In your teenage years and early 20's, you have to rely on other big bettors to be, sugar daddies almost, in order to get a comfortable position.

You get no respect from family and friends. They all know "it's only a matter of time" until you fail. They're all so sure of it.

Tell people, when you're a teenager or in your early 20's, that you bet horses for a living. They laugh in your face. You get mocked. That wasn't always the case in America.

When you're living that experience -- and you're having a racing exec argue takeout increases as a positive -- it's pretty maddening.

Hollywood Park closing is sad. I'm a huge fan of racing history and I have a great appreciation for the significance of that track. However, horrible decisions, like takeout raises, will ALWAYS have a very nasty long-term effect on the sport.

I'm not so sure people in this industry realize how negative the public stigma is when you're a teenage horseplayer -- that isn't going to school, and doesn't have a job.

Al Gobbi
12-23-2013, 01:55 PM
also the Place Pick All is being removed from the Santa Anita wagering menu.

Stillriledup
12-23-2013, 03:27 PM
also the Place Pick All is being removed from the Santa Anita wagering menu.

Please tell me the Quinellas are going the way of the dodo bird?