Incisive article on gambling

[fmhealth]

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/racing-is-not-delivering-what-the-younger-demographic-craves/#.VgyCISwCZsw.twitter

Author produces some interesting insights. I believe it's worth a read.

Be Well,
fmhealth

[MJC922]

Much appreciated. :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

Horse racing will have to cut its takeout by at least two thirds for it to become an attractive game. Plus it get rid of its image of too many shenanigans going on. Good luck on getting either of those done.

[thespaah]

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/racing-is-not-delivering-what-the-younger-demographic-craves/#.VgyCISwCZsw.twitter

Author produces some interesting insights. I believe it's worth a read.

Be Well,
fmhealth
The article is 100% spot on..
I have a friend who goes to Vegas a few times per year.
He plays black jack 80% of the time. Craps the other 20%..
If he walks up to a black jack table with an auto shuffler or 6/5 blackjack, he leaves.
IN fact, he has pretty much given up on the touristy strip hotels as they have the largest house edges on games, use auto shufflers on black jack tables and are generally too stuffed with players who have no clue what it is they are doing and less of a clue they are getting far less value for their gambling dollar.

[NorCalGreg]

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/racing-is-not-delivering-what-the-younger-demographic-craves/#.VgyCISwCZsw.twitter

Author produces some interesting insights. I believe it's worth a read.

Be Well,
fmhealth

well worth the read--ty sir :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

Great article Dean. :ThmbUp:

[Capper Al]

Good article.

[lamboguy]

the similarities between fantasy sports betting and horse race betting is that you pay your takeout when you win. according to the article the takeout for fantasy sports is 8%. in horse racing the takeout for w-p-s is roughly 18% on many tracks. when the players get rebates in horse racing they might get up to 10% on that type of w-p-s takeout tracks on the initial $2 bet win or lose.

i guess what the article is communicating is that if the takeout is lowered for everyone in racing there will be more interest.

what i have seen lately the only time interest in racing goes up is when there are large amounts of money being bet into those pools. people seem to come out of the wood works on big stake day programs or large carryover pools.

on a real good stakes day other than breeders cup or triple crown the handles are close to $30 million for the day which to me is very short of what it should attract.

a lot of the points in the article i agree with. the biggest one being that racing is not a beatable game. but i can tell you that neither is Fantasy Sports. when guys like Billy Walters have figured out how to make $20 million a year at the game, its unbeatable to most everyone else. sort of the same as horse racing.

what the article boils down to is that the main problem with racing is the takeout and that if you lowered it to the same as Fantasy Sports, more people would be interested in it. i doubt it.

[Stillriledup]

the similarities between fantasy sports betting and horse race betting is that you pay your takeout when you win. according to the article the takeout for fantasy sports is 8%. in horse racing the takeout for w-p-s is roughly 18% on many tracks. when the players get rebates in horse racing they might get up to 10% on that type of w-p-s takeout tracks on the initial $2 bet win or lose.

i guess what the article is communicating is that if the takeout is lowered for everyone in racing there will be more interest.

what i have seen lately the only time interest in racing goes up is when there are large amounts of money being bet into those pools. people seem to come out of the wood works on big stake day programs or large carryover pools.

on a real good stakes day other than breeders cup or triple crown the handles are close to $30 million for the day which to me is very short of what it should attract.

a lot of the points in the article i agree with. the biggest one being that racing is not a beatable game. but i can tell you that neither is Fantasy Sports. when guys like Billy Walters have figured out how to make $20 million a year at the game, its unbeatable to most everyone else. sort of the same as horse racing.

what the article boils down to is that the main problem with racing is the takeout and that if you lowered it to the same as Fantasy Sports, more people would be interested in it. i doubt it.

What's amazing to me is all the extra money on 'big days' where's this money on all the other days? Why are serious gamblers only betting horse racing a few days a year and not betting a single dollar on the other 360 days.

[thespaah]

the similarities between fantasy sports betting and horse race betting is that you pay your takeout when you win. according to the article the takeout for fantasy sports is 8%. in horse racing the takeout for w-p-s is roughly 18% on many tracks. when the players get rebates in horse racing they might get up to 10% on that type of w-p-s takeout tracks on the initial $2 bet win or lose.

i guess what the article is communicating is that if the takeout is lowered for everyone in racing there will be more interest.

what i have seen lately the only time interest in racing goes up is when there are large amounts of money being bet into those pools. people seem to come out of the wood works on big stake day programs or large carryover pools.

on a real good stakes day other than breeders cup or triple crown the handles are close to $30 million for the day which to me is very short of what it should attract.

a lot of the points in the article i agree with. the biggest one being that racing is not a beatable game. but i can tell you that neither is Fantasy Sports. when guys like Billy Walters have figured out how to make $20 million a year at the game, its unbeatable to most everyone else. sort of the same as horse racing.

what the article boils down to is that the main problem with racing is the takeout and that if you lowered it to the same as Fantasy Sports, more people would be interested in it. i doubt it.
I agree...However, mention lowering takeout to Horsemen's associations and their hair catches on fire.
And now with most states having slots to inflate purses, the horsemen could not give two shites about the PM handle. That is as long as they get their desired cut of the dwindling pie.....
Now, Horsemen's associations are the inmates running the asylum. They have far too much power. If I were ruler of the horse racing world for a day, my solution is to have a balance. The track management and horsemen's group having EQUAL standing with neither party having the ability to walk away and shut down. All disputes to be settled in binding arbitration. No lawsuits. No shut downs. None of this "I'm taking my ball and going home" nonsense...Track managements would also be barred from lockouts and any retaliatory actions against the horsemen.

[thespaah]

What's amazing to me is all the extra money on 'big days' where's this money on all the other days? Why are serious gamblers only betting horse racing a few days a year and not betting a single dollar on the other 360 days.
I have not the foggiest notion. I guess like anything else, everyone wants to see the stars of the show. And given the propensity of Americans to want to be part of the action, their cash is the vessel by which they feel as though they are part of the thing.

[Robert Fischer]

What's amazing to me is all the extra money on 'big days' where's this money on all the other days? Why are serious gamblers only betting horse racing a few days a year and not betting a single dollar on the other 360 days.

People can't afford to bet a significant amount 365 days a year.

[Stillriledup]

People can't afford to bet a significant amount 365 days a year.

I get that part, I was wondering why they bet ZERO. Even if all these 'big day warriors' were 2 dollar bettors it would help.

[lamboguy]

I agree...However, mention lowering takeout to Horsemen's associations and their hair catches on fire.
And now with most states having slots to inflate purses, the horsemen could not give two shites about the PM handle. That is as long as they get their desired cut of the dwindling pie.....
Now, Horsemen's associations are the inmates running the asylum. They have far too much power. If I were ruler of the horse racing world for a day, my solution is to have a balance. The track management and horsemen's group having EQUAL standing with neither party having the ability to walk away and shut down. All disputes to be settled in binding arbitration. No lawsuits. No shut downs. None of this "I'm taking my ball and going home" nonsense...Track managements would also be barred from lockouts and any retaliatory actions against the horsemen.i don't think you know how exciting it is to watch Ramon Preciado win 6 or 7 races in Parx on a Saturday along with his win in the Stake race at Keeneland. this brings lots of people to this game.

[davew]

I get that part, I was wondering why they bet ZERO. Even if all these 'big day warriors' were 2 dollar bettors it would help.

They bet when they go and they sometimes only go on big days or to see a big name horse.

[thespaah]

i don't think you know how exciting it is to watch Ramon Preciado win 6 or 7 races in Parx on a Saturday along with his win in the Stake race at Keeneland. this brings lots of people to this game.
DAMN!!!! I gotta get my (rear end) to PARX!!!!!!

[lansdale]

The article is 100% spot on..
I have a friend who goes to Vegas a few times per year.
He plays black jack 80% of the time. Craps the other 20%..
If he walks up to a black jack table with an auto shuffler or 6/5 blackjack, he leaves.
IN fact, he has pretty much given up on the touristy strip hotels as they have the largest house edges on games, use auto shufflers on black jack tables and are generally too stuffed with players who have no clue what it is they are doing and less of a clue they are getting far less value for their gambling dollar.

The comments on blackjack and table games in the article and by yourself here, are generally true - conditions are getting worse and have been for years. However, you (or your friend) have some mistaken ideas about how some conditions may affect the value of the game.

First, there's no reason for anyone not to play ASMs (automatic shuffling machines) which simply automate the shuffling of six or eight deck shoes, thus avoiding down time at the table while the dealer shuffles. Also, for any recreational or basic strategy players, there is no reason to avoid CSMs (continuous shuffling machines) which continually shuffle a de facto infinite-deck game. Obviously, anyone counting (maybe your friend?) will want to avoid the latter, though. But the 6/5 game, as your friend rightly recognizes, is a horrible game that no one should be playing - it raises the edge on the average 6-deck game from .4% to 1.7%.

Re quality of games on the Strip - the reverse of what your friend thinks is actually the case, certainly as far as blackjack goes - the MGM casinos, the Bellagio, Mirage, Treasure Island, MGM Grand offer the best games - Fremont St. generally the worst. However, worth mentioning that some off-Strip places which cater mainly to locals, such as those in the Station chain offer blackjack games with good rules and conditions.

BTW, surprised that the writer didn't mention that the reason that the millenial demographic isn't gambling much is the same reason they're not buying cars - most of them are broke.

[Robert Goren]

The comments on blackjack and table games in the article and by yourself here, are generally true - conditions are getting worse and have been for years. However, you (or your friend) have some mistaken ideas about how some conditions may affect the value of the game.

First, there's no reason for anyone not to play ASMs (automatic shuffling machines) which simply automate the shuffling of six or eight deck shoes, thus avoiding down time at the table while the dealer shuffles. Also, for any recreational or basic strategy players, there is no reason to avoid CSMs (continuous shuffling machines) which continually shuffle a de facto infinite-deck game. Obviously, anyone counting (maybe your friend?) will want to avoid the latter, though. But the 6/5 game, as your friend rightly recognizes, is a horrible game that no one should be playing - it raises the edge on the average 6-deck game from .4% to 1.7%.

Re quality of games on the Strip - the reverse of what your friend thinks is actually the case, certainly as far as blackjack goes - the MGM casinos, the Bellagio, Mirage, Treasure Island, MGM Grand offer the best games - Fremont St. generally the worst. However, worth mentioning that some off-Strip places which cater mainly to locals, such as those in the Station chain offer blackjack games with good rules and conditions.

BTW, surprised that the writer didn't mention that the reason that the millenial demographic isn't gambling much is the same reason they're not buying cars - most of them are broke.There is not horse player anywhere that would not love 1.7% takeout. I can not even hazard a guess what the handle would be with kind of takeout.

[Chaka26]

From someone who became interested in racing in 2011 when Nehro ran a handful of exciting finishes,i can say takeout had nothing to do with how much i wanted to be invested in the game and while i continue to learn takeout is not a priority..its trying to find overlays and be a more disciplined educated handicapper


Horses dont race enough to garner a following unlike the primary major sports where one can follow daily or at least weekly -football. Exception being the triple crown /breeders cup days

Wagering outside of wps is complicated to the layman. Racing form has too much info for the newbie who doesnt want to spend a year + learning how to play
A simplified handicapping method should be created- perhaps even a separate newbie race form- w/o all the details. A free play program with incentives for bringing more friends and family to the track would be more viable to,entice people to come.

New people i meet at the track are for most part playing program favs.. Which is no diffferent than when i started maybe a structured rebate program for those playing higher odds horses

Im still learning race levels conditions and proper exotic wager structures new people need introduction to reading the programs

New generation is instant gratification but races are 30 min apart, other than post parade only winners photos are likely to be recognized..digital programs with pre race pics could be loaded to daily program..give the fan something visual to relate to other than a name

More education and fan interaction needs to be done promoting the trainers, jockeys, horses running in the local stables at each track. Get some people interested in the experience, some for horses, some for trainer, some for certain jockeys some for the big payday etc
Perhaps even have quik pick tickets like powerball for each race or an entire card
Structured on how much the player has to spend.
Ie $10 a race all win or wp or wps
Or $2 win place show with a random exacta bx

Take all the thinking out and just let them enjoy the day and maybe catch a winner but let them experience the paddock without all the deciphering of layers of numbers and rushing to the window

Just my .02

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I was and still am that "unicorn" the industry is trying to target. The 25-35 young professional making more money than they should and having a decent disposable income.

I got into this game like many people. I was dragged kicking and screaming as little kid to the Meadowlands. Then growing up through and into college I would sometimes to back to the Meadowlands with my cousins who were hooked. I still wasn't at the time. I enjoyed the drinking and hanging out with my family. Then my first trip to Monmouth happened.....

The thing I loved about Monmouth was the atmosphere, the sights, the smells, the day drinking, and sure a winner here and there. I had no idea about takeout or the big payday with exotics. To me, there was nothing better than a lazy summer day sitting in the backyard there with an ice cold Rolling Rock! Fast forward ten years.

I take the game much more serious now. My wagering strategies are different, I am sensitive to takeout, and I have kids. I still don't think there is a better way to spend a summer day than at Monmouth, unless its Saratoga.

Maybe I am different, but I LIKE having 25-30 minutes between races. I LIKE making a complete day of it. One of my favorite things about Saratoga is the fact the entire day, for me at least, is based around the track. Getting up at 6am to secure my spot for the day, watching the morning works, back in time for the gate to open, the marathon race cards, followed by maybe a night at the harness track!

The thing is having been to a lot of tracks around the country, I can honestly say that if my home track was a place like Pimlico for example, or Mountaineer, I may never have become hooked. While the betting aspect is the main reason I go, and of course day drinking, I also enjoy spending the day with people I have some to know over the years, and some are on this site. Year after year the same people in the same spots, its become like season ticket holders at games. Now I make several trips to Saratoga with these same people. Race track people are some of the nicest I have ever met in my life.

As for the way to get new people into the game, I am working on something that I hope to present at Symposium this year. I bet on everything, but give the option I take horses everytime!

[Redboard]

From someone who became interested in racing in 2011 when Nehro ran a handful of exciting finishes,i can say takeout had nothing to do with how much i wanted to be invested in the game and while i continue to learn takeout is not a priority..its trying to find overlays and be a more disciplined educated handicapper


Horses dont race enough to garner a following unlike the primary major sports where one can follow daily or at least weekly -football. Exception being the triple crown /breeders cup days

Wagering outside of wps is complicated to the layman. Racing form has too much info for the newbie who doesnt want to spend a year + learning how to play
A simplified handicapping method should be created- perhaps even a separate newbie race form- w/o all the details. A free play program with incentives for bringing more friends and family to the track would be more viable to,entice people to come.

.................................

Just my .02

The DRF does have a simplified version of its PPs. EasyForm . I've never bought one though.

[dilanesp]

The slot machine issue shows Vegas being stupid. People are getting 17 spins a minute rather than 10, so they are losing their money faster.

Everyone who knows anything about slot machines knows that the way the casino makes a profit is by churn-- the machine gives the player enough coins back over time to keep the player interested and playing. So now the machines take that money almost twice as fast, and the idiots in Vegas didn't realize that this meant they had to lower the takeout to compensate?

That's just so obviously dumb. Nobody plays a slot machine that runs through their money in 3 minutes. It's got to be designed to keep the player there while slowly draining the money, and the old ones always were.

[Stillriledup]

The slot machine issue shows Vegas being stupid. People are getting 17 spins a minute rather than 10, so they are losing their money faster.

Everyone who knows anything about slot machines knows that the way the casino makes a profit is by churn-- the machine gives the player enough coins back over time to keep the player interested and playing. So now the machines take that money almost twice as fast, and the idiots in Vegas didn't realize that this meant they had to lower the takeout to compensate?

That's just so obviously dumb. Nobody plays a slot machine that runs through their money in 3 minutes. It's got to be designed to keep the player there while slowly draining the money, and the old ones always were.

No doubt.

[thespaah]

The comments on blackjack and table games in the article and by yourself here, are generally true - conditions are getting worse and have been for years. However, you (or your friend) have some mistaken ideas about how some conditions may affect the value of the game.

First, there's no reason for anyone not to play ASMs (automatic shuffling machines) which simply automate the shuffling of six or eight deck shoes, thus avoiding down time at the table while the dealer shuffles. Also, for any recreational or basic strategy players, there is no reason to avoid CSMs (continuous shuffling machines) which continually shuffle a de facto infinite-deck game. Obviously, anyone counting (maybe your friend?) will want to avoid the latter, though. But the 6/5 game, as your friend rightly recognizes, is a horrible game that no one should be playing - it raises the edge on the average 6-deck game from .4% to 1.7%.

Re quality of games on the Strip - the reverse of what your friend thinks is actually the case, certainly as far as blackjack goes - the MGM casinos, the Bellagio, Mirage, Treasure Island, MGM Grand offer the best games - Fremont St. generally the worst. However, worth mentioning that some off-Strip places which cater mainly to locals, such as those in the Station chain offer blackjack games with good rules and conditions.

BTW, surprised that the writer didn't mention that the reason that the millenial demographic isn't gambling much is the same reason they're not buying cars - most of them are broke.
He avoids the CSM's....The reason. These create hands where the cards dealt are random. This all but eliminates basic strategy and yes, he does basic card count.
I do as well. I make mental notes of the approximate number of face cards that have been dealt through the shoe.

[thaskalos]

He avoids the CSM's....The reason. These create hands where the cards dealt are random. This all but eliminates basic strategy and yes, he does basic card count.
I do as well. I make mental notes of the approximate number of face cards that have been dealt through the shoe.
If the cards are machine-shuffled...this negates basic strategy?

[cj]

If the cards are machine-shuffled...this negates basic strategy?

I wouldn't think so. Basic strategy was built on a full deck, right? It negates counting. Casinos love people to come in and just play basic strategy as I'm sure you know.

[thaskalos]

I wouldn't think so. Basic strategy was built on a full deck, right? It negates counting. Casinos love people to come in and just play basic strategy as I'm sure you know.
Well, if the player uses perfect basic strategy, then the takeout against him gets reduced to less than half of a percentage point...so, I doubt that the casinos "love" it when that happens. The casinos probably expect the player to lose his money a little faster than that. :)

[cj]

Well, if the player uses perfect basic strategy, then the takeout against him gets reduced to less than half of a percentage point...so, I doubt that the casinos "love" it when that happens. The casinos probably expect the player to lose his money a little faster than that. :)

Well they'd prefer you just play like an idiot I guess, but that isn't realistic. They want people to have the illusion they can win. If they were worried about basic strategy, they wouldn't be fine with having dealers tell it to players while betting at the table.

[thaskalos]

Well they'd prefer you just play like an idiot I guess, but that isn't realistic. They want people to have the illusion they can win. If they were worried about basic strategy, they wouldn't be fine with having dealers tell it to players while betting at the table.
You'd be surprised how few of the players play perfect basic strategy. And the dealers don't really tell you basic strategy at the table; they'll just try to correct the most obvious mistakes.

[Robert Goren]

The one day fantasy sports sites are spending a lot of money promoting their games. Heaven forbid, that horse racing would spend a dime on advertising. Daily fantasy sports is now taking over the place in the gambling world that internet poker once held. It is growing by leaps and bounds, while horse racing just sits on its hands claiming they have no money to spend on marketing while running 80k maiden races. The powers that be in racing could not be dumber.

[cj]

You'd be surprised how few of the players play perfect basic strategy. And the dealers don't really tell you basic strategy at the table; they'll just try to correct the most obvious mistakes.

I know many don't, but if anyone asks the dealer will always answer the correct basic strategy play, at least as far as I've seen.

[Robert Goren]

I know many don't, but if anyone asks the dealer will always answer the correct basic strategy play, at least as far as I've seen. I guarantee if he does not, someone else at the table will. The last thing most blackjack players want to see happen is someone take a card when they should not have and have it cost them a winner. I know it doesn't make any difference and it gets as many winners as it cost you, but try explaining it to a table of players some time.

[thaskalos]

The one day fantasy sports sites are spending a lot of money promoting their games. Heaven forbid, that horse racing would spend a dime on advertising. Daily fantasy sports is now taking over the place in the gambling world that internet poker once held. It is growing by leaps and bounds, while horse racing just sits on its hands claiming they have no money to spend on marketing while running 80k maiden races. The powers that be in racing could not be dumber.

The racing industry couldn't care less about the horseplayer. Our game is putting all its eggs in one basket...and is betting that racinos will be instituted throughout the land. Even disgraced Arlington Park is betting that it can "persuade" the Illinois politicians to legalize slots in order to save horse racing in Illinois. My money says that Arlington will succeed.

With racinos operating throughout the country, the casino players will be funding the purses while gambling in relative luxury...while the horseplayers will be totally ignored, as they are squeezed into some remote racetrack corner next to the bathrooms. Yes, the horseplayers will bitch and moan at the obvious injustice perpetrated against them by the institution, and many of them will flee the game thus sinking the mutuel handle to unprecedented lows...but this will play right into the racing industry's plans. With the pesky horseplayers out of the way...the horsemen can conduct their business without having to aggravate themselves with the constant complaining about the illegal drugs...the short fields...the incompetent stewards...and the onerous takeouts.

No one will be watching or betting the races anymore, of course...but who cares? The purses will still be intact...and that's the only thing that matters. :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

The racing industry couldn't care less about the horseplayer. Our game is putting all its eggs in one basket...and is betting that racinos will be instituted throughout the land. Even disgraced Arlington Park is betting that it can "persuade" the Illinois politicians to legalize slots in order to save horse racing in Illinois. My money says that Arlington will succeed.

With racinos operating throughout the country, the casino players will be funding the purses while gambling in relative luxury...while the horseplayers will be totally ignored, as they are squeezed into some remote racetrack corner next to the bathrooms. Yes, the horseplayers will bitch and moan at the obvious injustice perpetrated against them by the institution, and many of them will flee the game thus sinking the mutuel handle to unprecedented lows...but this will play right into the racing industry's plans. With the pesky horseplayers out of the way...the horsemen can conduct their business without having to aggravate themselves with the constant complaining about the illegal drugs...the short fields...the incompetent stewards...and the onerous takeouts.

No one will be watching or betting the races anymore, of course...but who cares? The purses will still be intact...and that's what matters. :ThmbUp:

Don't you just love being shuttled in some remote corner of the track or OTB with piles of low lives and 3 Sam machines while major sections of the track are roped off?

[dilanesp]

The one day fantasy sports sites are spending a lot of money promoting their games. Heaven forbid, that horse racing would spend a dime on advertising. Daily fantasy sports is now taking over the place in the gambling world that internet poker once held. It is growing by leaps and bounds, while horse racing just sits on its hands claiming they have no money to spend on marketing while running 80k maiden races. The powers that be in racing could not be dumber.

One gigantic difference is that the underlying sport (football -and the vast majority of the fantasy revenue comes from football ) is enormously popular.

Ours is not.

[Robert Goren]

One gigantic difference is that the underlying sport (football -and the vast majority of the fantasy revenue comes from football ) is enormously popular.

Ours is not.7 years ago there was no such thing as daily fantasy sports. These companies started with nothing. Yet today their venture capital investors are spending millions on something that has probably not shown a profit. Horse racing has been around a long time and has not promoted itself since 1960s. I have got to believe if racing spent as much money promoting itself as daily fantasy does, there would be huge pools. I am not sure, but I do not believe that daily fantasy site are not yet profitable because of all money being spent on marketing, but they are building a user base which can be profitably exploited. Horse racing could do the same thing if they were not so shorted sighted. I suppose the horse racing industry is hoping that the daily fantasy companies will develop a game based on racing and that they can partner in on get a piece of the action. But with no national governing body to deal with, that is unlikely to happen.

[lansdale]

He avoids the CSM's....The reason. These create hands where the cards dealt are random. This all but eliminates basic strategy and yes, he does basic card count.
I do as well. I make mental notes of the approximate number of face cards that have been dealt through the shoe.

If you both count, as you say, then you shouldn't play CSMs. But there's no reason for anyone who is just playing basic strategy not to play them - the difference in HA between an 8-deck shoe and a CSM is negligible for such a player.

[lansdale]

There is not horse player anywhere that would not love 1.7% takeout. I can not even hazard a guess what the handle would be with kind of takeout.

It might seem that way, but as dilanesp says above, the casinos make their money on low-HA games like blackjack (slots, video poker, baccarat, etc.) through churn, although they also offer some games with a much more heinous HA, such as keno (-25%). I would guess the average $20 horseplayer loses at about the same rate-per-hour as his counterpart at the blackjack table.

[lansdale]

Re basic strategy, most players seem to have a sense of this in the bigger casino locations, Vegas, et. al. and I would guess are 60-70% correct in their play - players who have a better grasp of it will often be helping their friends. In more rural areas in and in many foreign locations the players are generally much worse. Thask and cj are both right about dealers giving correct advice on basic, - this will happen most often when a player looks confused or when the he/she is making a very bad decision - e.g. not doubling down on 11 v. 6. Don't forget, except for the psychotics, most dealers want players to win, both so they get toked and so that the players won't verbally abuse them for giving them bad cards. They want a happy table. Of course, they know that in the long run 99.9% of players lose.

[dilanesp]

7 years ago there was no such thing as daily fantasy sports. These companies started with nothing. Yet today their venture capital investors are spending millions on something that has probably not shown a profit. Horse racing has been around a long time and has not promoted itself since 1960s. I have got to believe if racing spent as much money promoting itself as daily fantasy does, there would be huge pools. I am not sure, but I do not believe that daily fantasy site are not yet profitable because of all money being spent on marketing, but they are building a user base which can be profitably exploited. Horse racing could do the same thing if they were not so shorted sighted. I suppose the horse racing industry is hoping that the daily fantasy companies will develop a game based on racing and that they can partner in on get a piece of the action. But with no national governing body to deal with, that is unlikely to happen.

That's not the right way to look at fantasy football.

The correct way to look at fantasy football is that football is the most popular sport in America, a sport everyone cares about and that even casual fans watch all the time. A sport which is on in every sports bar and discussed in every office in America. And a sport which handles hundreds of millions of dollars of gambling every Sunday, despite the fact that most of that gambling is illegal.

Fantasy sports are a legal way of gambling on that most popular sport. Yes it is being marketed, but the marketing is "here's this sport you already care about, and now you can legally enter contests based on your knowledge of it and make money". It wouldn't work if people didn't already love football.

In contrast, VERY FEW AMERICANS LIKE OUR SPORT. Period. You need to understand that. There's no "marketing" that cures that. People don't like our sport. They like football.

They once liked our sport. And when they did, our sport was the most gambled upon sport in America. But that is not true anymore. The great and good American people know that horses run around racetracks, and they don't want to watch them. Not because we are poorly marketed, but because tastes have changed.

And they want to bet on the sport they do like-- football. And so they do.

You will not get anywhere until you accept our status as a minor niche sport. Unless and until the public changes its mind and decides to make us big again, we're lucky to get the betting handle we do.

And don't compare us to football. That's just stupid. Heck, don't even compare baseball or basketball to pro football. Pro football smashes everything.

[Steve 'StatMan']

That's not the right way to look at fantasy football.

The correct way to look at fantasy football is that football is the most popular sport in America, a sport everyone cares about and that even casual fans watch all the time. A sport which is on in every sports bar and discussed in every office in America. And a sport which handles hundreds of millions of dollars of gambling every Sunday, despite the fact that most of that gambling is illegal.

Fantasy sports are a legal way of gambling on that most popular sport. Yes it is being marketed, but the marketing is "here's this sport you already care about, and now you can legally enter contests based on your knowledge of it and make money". It wouldn't work if people didn't already love football.

In contrast, VERY FEW AMERICANS LIKE OUR SPORT. Period. You need to understand that. There's no "marketing" that cures that. People don't like our sport. They like football.

They once liked our sport. And when they did, our sport was the most gambled upon sport in America. But that is not true anymore. The great and good American people know that horses run around racetracks, and they don't want to watch them. Not because we are poorly marketed, but because tastes have changed.

And they want to bet on the sport they do like-- football. And so they do.

You will not get anywhere until you accept our status as a minor niche sport. Unless and until the public changes its mind and decides to make us big again, we're lucky to get the betting handle we do.

And don't compare us to football. That's just stupid. Heck, don't even compare baseball or basketball to pro football. Pro football smashes everything.

Great points, I was thinking similar when I got to this post. Most everyone already knows and has followed football. Many have played it in school, or at least on the sandlot. They already know enough about the game and the various stats and angles, they don't have the learning curve of a new sport.

For example, while a few on the board might know about Jai Alai betting, I suspect it would be very difficult to get enough of the public interested in Fantasy Jai Alai compared to Fantasy Football.

[no breathalyzer]

You can only bet pro football about 20 weeks out of the yr.People do like the sport more then you think. Al tho No buddy has interest in nickel claimers running at Fl or FP anymore. Horse racing is too watered down in the current market. because there is too many other forms of gambling available in todays world.

[lansdale]

I guarantee if he does not, someone else at the table will. The last thing most blackjack players want to see happen is someone take a card when they should not have and have it cost them a winner. I know it doesn't make any difference and it gets as many winners as it cost you, but try explaining it to a table of players some time.

Players who try to bully others at the table (unfortunately a common phenomenon) are obnoxious jerks who lack any understanding of the math of the game. As you say, cards dealt to the other players have zero effect on your results. This is especially hypocritical behavior since the overwhelming majority of all players are playing a losing game.

[dilanesp]

Players who try to bully others at the table (unfortunately a common phenomenon) are obnoxious jerks who lack any understanding of the math of the game. As you say, cards dealt to the other players have zero effect on your results. This is especially hypocritical behavior since the overwhelming majority of all players are playing a losing game.

Most people who gamble either do not understand math at all or buy into fallacies and delusions that cancel out their understanding of it.

And horse race bettors, of all people, can't complain about it. In any system where people gamble against the rest of the public, you want those people in the pool.

[Jeff P]

...In contrast, VERY FEW AMERICANS LIKE OUR SPORT. Period. You need to understand that. There's no "marketing" that cures that. People don't like our sport. They like football.

They once liked our sport. And when they did, our sport was the most gambled upon sport in America. But that is not true anymore. The great and good American people know that horses run around racetracks, and they don't want to watch them. Not because we are poorly marketed, but because tastes have changed...

I think we have to ask WHY tastes have changed.

Over the past few decades there has been plenty of paid for market research conducted by economic consulting firms (Mackenzie & Co., Penn Schoen Berland, Will Cummings, and Richard Thalheimer just to name a few off the to of my head) where how to adapt to reasons why tastes have changed has been looked at.

The authors of these (and other) studies have come up with some solid common sense recommendations.

And yet almost ALL of those recommendations appear to have been willfully ignored by industry decision makers.

In my opinion, some of the recommendations would appear to be ridiculously easy to implement if not for the egos involved.

For example on race days when two or more tracks are running a stakes race: An increase in handle, revenue, and purses for all parties concerned is there for the taking simply by spacing out the races and not running stakes races on top of each other.

But for some reason we can't even get racing decision makers to agree to do that.

In my opinion, it boggles the mind the way most industry decision makers (track management at most tracks, leadership at most horsemen's alpha-bet groups, commissioners at most state regulatory bodies, and politicians) have buried their heads in the sand when it comes to addressing WHY tastes have changed when it comes to thoroughbred racing.

In one of his studies (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/economic20analysis.pdf) , Dr. Richard Thalheimer identified the drivers of handle, in order of importance, as follows:

1. Special Event Days (KY Derby Day, Preakness Day, Belmont Day, and Breeders Cup.)

2. Takeout Rates

3. Number of races

4. Field Size

and lastly-

5. Purses

These findings from Thalheimer's work in 1998 are consistent with virtually all of the economic studies/research that has been conducted both before and since.

Yet oddly enough (and even though many of today's industry decision makers ARE aware of Thalheimer's work) these findings continue to be all but ignored by all but a few of today's industry decision makers.

Examples:

1. Takeout increases at Churchill Downs, Santa Anita, now closed Hollywood Park, Del Mar, Golden Gate, Los Al, Northern Ca. Fair Circuit, and elsewhere.

Predictable result? Accelerated declines in public interest in racing, handle, revenue, and purse money generated by handle. Also, layoffs and cuts in hours for workers at Santa Anita as well as declines in budget money for various California alpha-bet groups.

2. $Billions of dollars in slot subsidies over the years in states such as PA (and elsewhere) being poured solely into purses combined with almost zero other attempt to grow public interest in the game.

Predictable result? Continued decline in public interest in racing along with continued declines in handle, revenue, and purse money generated by handle.

Despite this - there HAVE been a few bright spots.

KY Downs comes to mind. I know they have a short meet but three years ago they went against the grain and LOWERED their exacta takeout from 19.00% to 18.25%.

In the three years since they went to lower exacta takeout they have seen a complete reversal of fortune. Not only have they announced record handle in each of the last three years - but they have more than doubled their total handle in the process.

I humbly submit to anyone reading the idea that yes, the NFL is far and away more popular than present day thoroughbred horse racing.

But I also humbly submit to anyone reading the ideas that:

1. Present day thoroughbred horse racing's level of popularity is not solely the result of public whim.

2. Most if not all of present day thoroughbred horse racing ill's are self made - or at the very least made worse then they otherwise would be - because industry decision makers have failed to adapt to changes in the marketplace and failed to recognize (let alone satisfy) the needs and wants of present day horseplayers and new would be horseplayers.

I also humbly submit the idea that just like any other business, present day thoroughbred horse racing DOES have the ability to adapt and reverse its downward trends in public popularity, handle, and purse money generated from handle.

Thoroughbred horse racing might be down on its luck. But that doesn't mean thoroughbred horse racing has to take it lying down.

In my opinion reversing the downward trend successfully means that decision makers for present day thoroughbred horse have to consider adopting at least some of the recommendations handed to them over the years by their own paid for economic experts.

Obviously you have to start somewhere.

Pick ONE THING recommended to you by your economic experts (or the NTRA Player's Panel, or HANA, or any of the hundreds of suggestions posted by horseplayers on the pages of this message board) and IMPLEMENT IT!

You can go forward from there.



-jp

.

[Cratos]

That's not the right way to look at fantasy football.

The correct way to look at fantasy football is that football is the most popular sport in America, a sport everyone cares about and that even casual fans watch all the time. A sport which is on in every sports bar and discussed in every office in America. And a sport which handles hundreds of millions of dollars of gambling every Sunday, despite the fact that most of that gambling is illegal.

Fantasy sports are a legal way of gambling on that most popular sport. Yes it is being marketed, but the marketing is "here's this sport you already care about, and now you can legally enter contests based on your knowledge of it and make money". It wouldn't work if people didn't already love football.

In contrast, VERY FEW AMERICANS LIKE OUR SPORT. Period. You need to understand that. There's no "marketing" that cures that. People don't like our sport. They like football.

They once liked our sport. And when they did, our sport was the most gambled upon sport in America. But that is not true anymore. The great and good American people know that horses run around racetracks, and they don't want to watch them. Not because we are poorly marketed, but because tastes have changed.

And they want to bet on the sport they do like-- football. And so they do.

You will not get anywhere until you accept our status as a minor niche sport. Unless and until the public changes its mind and decides to make us big again, we're lucky to get the betting handle we do.

And don't compare us to football. That's just stupid. Heck, don't even compare baseball or basketball to pro football. Pro football smashes everything.
A very good post

[Stillriledup]

I think we have to ask WHY tastes have changed.

Over the past few decades there has been plenty of paid for market research conducted by economic consulting firms (Mackenzie & Co., Penn Schoen Berland, Will Cummings, and Richard Thalheimer just to name a few off the to of my head) where how to adapt to reasons why tastes have changed has been looked at.

The authors of these (and other) studies have come up with some solid common sense recommendations.

And yet almost ALL of those recommendations appear to have been willfully ignored by industry decision makers.

In my opinion, some of the recommendations would appear to be ridiculously easy to implement if not for the egos involved.

For example on race days when two or more tracks are running a stakes race: An increase in handle, revenue, and purses for all parties concerned is there for the taking simply by spacing out the races and not running stakes races on top of each other.

But for some reason we can't even get racing decision makers to agree to do that.

In my opinion, it boggles the mind the way most industry decision makers (track management at most tracks, leadership at most horsemen's alpha-bet groups, commissioners at most state regulatory bodies, and politicians) have buried their heads in the sand when it comes to addressing WHY tastes have changed when it comes to thoroughbred racing.

In one of his studies (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/economic20analysis.pdf) , Dr. Richard Thalheimer identified the drivers of handle, in order of importance, as follows:

1. Special Event Days (KY Derby Day, Preakness Day, Belmont Day, and Breeders Cup.)

2. Takeout Rates

3. Number of races

4. Field Size

and lastly-

5. Purses

These findings from Thalheimer's work in 1998 are consistent with virtually all of the economic studies/research that has been conducted both before and since.

Yet oddly enough (and even though many of today's industry decision makers ARE aware of Thalheimer's work) these findings continue to be all but ignored by all but a few of today's industry decision makers.

Examples:

1. Takeout increases at Churchill Downs, Santa Anita, now closed Hollywood Park, Del Mar, Golden Gate, Los Al, Northern Ca. Fair Circuit, and elsewhere.

Predictable result? Accelerated declines in public interest in racing, handle, revenue, and purse money generated by handle. Also, layoffs and cuts in hours for workers at Santa Anita as well as declines in budget money for various California alpha-bet groups.

2. $Billions of dollars in slot subsidies over the years in states such as PA (and elsewhere) being poured solely into purses combined with almost zero other attempt to grow public interest in the game.

Predictable result? Continued decline in public interest in racing along with continued declines in handle, revenue, and purse money generated by handle.

Despite this - there HAVE been a few bright spots.

KY Downs comes to mind. I know they have a short meet but three years ago they went against the grain and LOWERED their exacta takeout from 19.00% to 18.25%.

In the three years since they went to lower exacta takeout they have seen a complete reversal of fortune. Not only have they announced record handle in each of the last three years - but they have more than doubled their total handle in the process.

I humbly submit to anyone reading the idea that yes, the NFL is far and away more popular than present day thoroughbred horse racing.

But I also humbly submit to anyone reading the ideas that:

1. Present day thoroughbred horse racing's level of popularity is not solely the result of public whim.

2. Most if not all of present day thoroughbred horse racing ill's are self made - or at the very least made worse then they otherwise would be - because industry decision makers have failed to adapt to changes in the marketplace and failed to recognize (let alone satisfy) the needs and wants of present day horseplayers and new would be horseplayers.

I also humbly submit the idea that just like any other business, present day thoroughbred horse racing DOES have the ability to adapt and reverse its downward trends in public popularity, handle, and purse money generated from handle.

Thoroughbred horse racing might be down on its luck. But that doesn't mean thoroughbred horse racing has to take it lying down.

In my opinion reversing the downward trend successfully means that decision makers for present day thoroughbred horse have to consider adopting at least some of the recommendations handed to them over the years by their own paid for economic experts.

Obviously you have to start somewhere.

Pick ONE THING recommended to you by your economic experts (or the NTRA Player's Panel, or HANA, or any of the hundreds of suggestions posted by horseplayers on the pages of this message board) and IMPLEMENT IT!

You can go forward from there.



-jp

.

Great post.

The biggest problem as to why things don't get implemented is because the game is run strictly for the horsemen, the bettors are a necessary evil, tracks don't do anything because the customers want it, hence, exchange wagering, everyone wants it except trainers and owners, so it's not

Horsemen dont view gamblers and bettors advocates as being on the same side, they view any talk about takeout reductions as reductions that will cost them money, obviously they don't know how betting and takeouts work, but that's what they believe.

[Stillriledup]

Most people who gamble either do not understand math at all or buy into fallacies and delusions that cancel out their understanding of it.

And horse race bettors, of all people, can't complain about it. In any system where people gamble against the rest of the public, you want those people in the pool.

Do you think the low takeout of 5 pct in NFL betting is a factor and do you think if horse racing takeouts were 5 pct things would be different?

[dilanesp]

I think we have to ask WHY tastes have changed.

While I don't disagree with this in toto, one thing I have noticed from being a fan of SEVERAL sports that aren't as big as they once were (I'm also a track and field fan, for instance), is that nobody who loves a sport can possibly understand that public taste is somewhat faddish and unpredictable and not really susceptible to marketing.

Track fans say the same sorts of things you guys do. They just need better marketing. Figure out how to appeal to the changing tastes of America.

The problem is, that's not something that anyone knows how to do, or even that anyone can prove is even possible.

Over the past few decades there has been plenty of paid for market research conducted by economic consulting firms (Mackenzie & Co., Penn Schoen Berland, Will Cummings, and Richard Thalheimer just to name a few off the to of my head) where how to adapt to reasons why tastes have changed has been looked at.

The authors of these (and other) studies have come up with some solid common sense recommendations.

I think people should be careful using the term "studies" for this sort of thing. These are, at best, hypotheses. Marketing proposals, written by people who want to be paid money for their advice. Now, that doesn't make them wrong. But it does make them UNSCIENTIFIC. They aren't "studies" in the sense that someone looked at a statistically significant unbiased sample of data and determined which marketing appeals worked and which didn't. Rather, people who make their money selling advice to people created a bunch of plausible sounding advice to get people to pay their expensive fees for their services.

For example on race days when two or more tracks are running a stakes race: An increase in handle, revenue, and purses for all parties concerned is there for the taking simply by spacing out the races and not running stakes races on top of each other.

That may very well be a good idea. And you are correct that the industry is uncoordinated. But how is this, exactly, going to get a person who lives and breathes football-- and is therefore willing to bet money on it-- to bet money on horse racing instead?

In my opinion, it boggles the mind the way most industry decision makers (track management at most tracks, leadership at most horsemen's alpha-bet groups, commissioners at most state regulatory bodies, and politicians) have buried their heads in the sand when it comes to addressing WHY tastes have changed when it comes to thoroughbred racing.

While I'm sure there's some heads in the sand, what you overlook is that nobody knows "why" tastes change. It isn't as though the NFL is this perfectly run enterprise that makes none of the mistakes that horse racing did. The NFL repeatedly didn't expand fast enough, which almost resulted in the league getting destroyed by the AFL in the 1960's. They played football games on the Sunday after JFK's assassination when the public wanted to mourn. They suspended Paul Hornung, one the most popular players at the time, for relatively harmless associations with gamblers. They made Joe Namath sell his nightclubs. They actually didn't want to name the Super Bowl the "Super Bowl"-- they wanted to call it the "World Championship Game". They had an absurd television blackout policy for years which slashed their television ratings in major cities in order to protect live attendance which wasn't nearly as lucrative. They played games with replacement players when they could have easily satisfied player demands with all the money that was coming in. They locked out their referees and then watched as games were marred by terrible officiating.

Shall I go on?

The NFL isn't run by marketing geniuses. The NFL succeeded because the public fell in love with professional football, starting in the days when Red Grange barnstormed the country, continuing through the 1958 Giants-Colts overtime championship game, through the development of the quarterback as the essential offensive position and the vertical passing game in the 1960's, and coinciding with the rise of television.

It happened DESPITE the people in charge, not because of them.

Horse racing is certainly run by a large number of idiots. But horse racing failed because the public, which is totally aware of horse races, doesn't like the sport as much as it used to. They still like a triple crown winner, and the pageantry of the Kentucky Derby, but day to day, they don't care like they used to.

Just as people still love the Olympics but don't go to track meets anymore. And people still love a Pacquiao-Mayweather spectacle but no longer support the Friday Night fights. And people watch more basketball on television and less baseball. And newer sports like beach volleyball and the X games and NASCAR have had their moments.

That's how it works. People don't like gladiatorial contests anymore either. 2,000 years ago they were the biggest sport in the world, and could sell out a 60,000 seat amphitheater in Rome.

And 100 years from now, there's no guarantee people will love professional football. Maybe they will like something else.

The key point, though, is that the public is NOT dumb. They are NOT marks to be manipulated. They are actual intelligent people who make intelligent decisions about what they like and dislike. They like football and they don't like horse racing as much. There isn't any marketing flim-flam that solves that. You can't sell someone something they fundamentally don't want to buy.

In one of his studies (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/economic20analysis.pdf) , Dr. Richard Thalheimer identified the drivers of handle, in order of importance, as follows:

1. Special Event Days (KY Derby Day, Preakness Day, Belmont Day, and Breeders Cup.)

2. Takeout Rates

3. Number of races

4. Field Size

and lastly-

5. Purses

"Drivers of handle" aren't really the metric of PUBLIC interest in the sport. Handle is produced mostly by people who are already into the sport, and most of that handle is actually produced by a fairly moderate number of big bettors. I agree with this guy that you could drive up handle somewhat with some changes to the sport. But that's not the same thing as getting the public interested. The public likes football.

1. Takeout increases at Churchill Downs, Santa Anita, now closed Hollywood Park, Del Mar, Golden Gate, Los Al, Northern Ca. Fair Circuit, and elsewhere.

Someday I will do a thread on takeout. Takeout is complicated. Hollywood Park didn't close because of takeout, and Del Mar is doing pretty well. Santa Anita is not going anywhere. Golden Gate was doing terribly even before the takeout increase, the fairs were moribund (other than Sonoma) and Los Al was a dumb idea all along, as most of the people who follow racing down here could have told you.

On the other hand, takeout clearly affects the betting of bettors who care about takeout-- i.e., whales who bet a lot on the sport. And that matters.

Predictable result? Accelerated declines in public interest in racing, handle, revenue, and purse money generated by handle. Also, layoffs and cuts in hours for workers at Santa Anita as well as declines in budget money for various California alpha-bet groups.

There's no way John Q. Public cares one bit what the takeout is on his or her wagers at Santa Anita, the California lottery, FanDuel, or anything else. That's just completely irrelevant to public interest in the sport. As you mention, Churchill's takeout went up-- did it affect the Kentucky Derby, at all?

Again, BIG bettors care about takeout. And maybe some regular smaller bettors. But the general public? $2 bettors? Football fans who no longer pay attention to racing? They don't care at all. Indeed, here in California, Del Mar, by far, draws the most casual fans. It also charges, by far, the highest prices. Casual fans will spend money for a day's entertainment, IF they want to go to the track. Takeout has nothing to do with it.

2. $Billions of dollars in slot subsidies over the years in states such as PA (and elsewhere) being poured solely into purses combined with almost zero other attempt to grow public interest in the game.

Slots are another thing worthy of their own thread. But, suffice to say, I don't think you can complain about slots in the same post where you claim that racing is blowing it on marketing. Like it or not, slots ARE an example of marketing to non-racing fans. The idea is you put slot machines in at the track and you draw some people who wouldn't otherwise come to a racetrack. Maybe it doesn't work-- as I said, marketing is hard and goes up against fundamental realities about public tastes-- but at least the people who came up with the slots experiment were trying to put butts into the seats.

Despite this - there HAVE been a few bright spots.

KY Downs comes to mind. I know they have a short meet but three years ago they went against the grain and LOWERED their exacta takeout from 19.00% to 18.25%.

In the three years since they went to lower exacta takeout they have seen a complete reversal of fortune. Not only have they announced record handle in each of the last three years - but they have more than doubled their total handle in the process.

Do you think any of those football fans we are talking about care about the races at Kentucky Downs any more than they did before?

I mean, good for them, they were a failing track and they cut takeout and brought in some more betting money. That's not something to sneer at. But it's not like they've found the magic bullet to attract the general public to the sport.

1. Present day thoroughbred horse racing's level of popularity is not solely the result of public whim.

Nothing is "solely" anything. But it is mostly that. Along with (a) more competition for the gambling dollar; (b) growing concerns about animal welfare; (c) a decline in the racetrack experience (which is, by the way, caused in part by chasing betting handle, as simulcasting has left tracks with empty grandstands which are no fun to sit in); (d) an oversaturation of product; and (e) more entertainment options. And of those things, there are probably minor things that can be done to make some progress on (b) (but the sport's never going to really be humane, and animal rights really poses a big-time threat to the long-term existence of the sport) and something could certainly be done about (d). All the rest is beyond anyone's power to change.

2. Most if not all of present day thoroughbred horse racing ill's are self made - or at the very least made worse then they otherwise would be - because industry decision makers have failed to adapt to changes in the marketplace and failed to recognize (let alone satisfy) the needs and wants of present day horseplayers and new would be horseplayers.

That's not true at all. Horse racing has done many things for horseplayers. Simulcasting. Online betting. A multiplicity of new exotic wagers. Lower minimum bets. (When I first started going to the track, Santa Anita had 9 races a day, one $2 daily double, and three $5 exacta races. And $5 was a lot more money then than it is now! The track averaged 24,000 a day in attendance and was hugely profitable.) Wide availability of the races on cable television and the internet. (Trip handicappers used to have to go to the track and watch the races live, every day, plus maybe one or two replays.)

Maybe they haven't done enough, or everything they could have done. But horseplayers have literally never had it so good.

That's not the problem, fundamentally. The problem is that there are fewer people out there who want to watch horse races.

[Cratos]

While I don't disagree with this in toto, one thing I have noticed from being a fan of SEVERAL sports that aren't as big as they once were (I'm also a track and field fan, for instance), is that nobody who loves a sport can possibly understand that public taste is somewhat faddish and unpredictable and not really susceptible to marketing.

Track fans say the same sorts of things you guys do. They just need better marketing. Figure out how to appeal to the changing tastes of America.

The problem is, that's not something that anyone knows how to do, or even that anyone can prove is even possible.



I think people should be careful using the term "studies" for this sort of thing. These are, at best, hypotheses. Marketing proposals, written by people who want to be paid money for their advice. Now, that doesn't make them wrong. But it does make them UNSCIENTIFIC. They aren't "studies" in the sense that someone looked at a statistically significant unbiased sample of data and determined which marketing appeals worked and which didn't. Rather, people who make their money selling advice to people created a bunch of plausible sounding advice to get people to pay their expensive fees for their services.



That may very well be a good idea. And you are correct that the industry is uncoordinated. But how is this, exactly, going to get a person who lives and breathes football-- and is therefore willing to bet money on it-- to bet money on horse racing instead?



While I'm sure there's some heads in the sand, what you overlook is that nobody knows "why" tastes change. It isn't as though the NFL is this perfectly run enterprise that makes none of the mistakes that horse racing did. The NFL repeatedly didn't expand fast enough, which almost resulted in the league getting destroyed by the AFL in the 1960's. They played football games on the Sunday after JFK's assassination when the public wanted to mourn. They suspended Paul Hornung, one the most popular players at the time, for relatively harmless associations with gamblers. They made Joe Namath sell his nightclubs. They actually didn't want to name the Super Bowl the "Super Bowl"-- they wanted to call it the "World Championship Game". They had an absurd television blackout policy for years which slashed their television ratings in major cities in order to protect live attendance which wasn't nearly as lucrative. They played games with replacement players when they could have easily satisfied player demands with all the money that was coming in. They locked out their referees and then watched as games were marred by terrible officiating.

Shall I go on?

The NFL isn't run by marketing geniuses. The NFL succeeded because the public fell in love with professional football, starting in the days when Red Grange barnstormed the country, continuing through the 1958 Giants-Colts overtime championship game, through the development of the quarterback as the essential offensive position and the vertical passing game in the 1960's, and coinciding with the rise of television.

It happened DESPITE the people in charge, not because of them.

Horse racing is certainly run by a large number of idiots. But horse racing failed because the public, which is totally aware of horse races, doesn't like the sport as much as it used to. They still like a triple crown winner, and the pageantry of the Kentucky Derby, but day to day, they don't care like they used to.

Just as people still love the Olympics but don't go to track meets anymore. And people still love a Pacquiao-Mayweather spectacle but no longer support the Friday Night fights. And people watch more basketball on television and less baseball. And newer sports like beach volleyball and the X games and NASCAR have had their moments.

That's how it works. People don't like gladiatorial contests anymore either. 2,000 years ago they were the biggest sport in the world, and could sell out a 60,000 seat amphitheater in Rome.

And 100 years from now, there's no guarantee people will love professional football. Maybe they will like something else.

The key point, though, is that the public is NOT dumb. They are NOT marks to be manipulated. They are actual intelligent people who make intelligent decisions about what they like and dislike. They like football and they don't like horse racing as much. There isn't any marketing flim-flam that solves that. You can't sell someone something they fundamentally don't want to buy.



"Drivers of handle" aren't really the metric of PUBLIC interest in the sport. Handle is produced mostly by people who are already into the sport, and most of that handle is actually produced by a fairly moderate number of big bettors. I agree with this guy that you could drive up handle somewhat with some changes to the sport. But that's not the same thing as getting the public interested. The public likes football.



Someday I will do a thread on takeout. Takeout is complicated. Hollywood Park didn't close because of takeout, and Del Mar is doing pretty well. Santa Anita is not going anywhere. Golden Gate was doing terribly even before the takeout increase, the fairs were moribund (other than Sonoma) and Los Al was a dumb idea all along, as most of the people who follow racing down here could have told you.

On the other hand, takeout clearly affects the betting of bettors who care about takeout-- i.e., whales who bet a lot on the sport. And that matters.



There's no way John Q. Public cares one bit what the takeout is on his or her wagers at Santa Anita, the California lottery, FanDuel, or anything else. That's just completely irrelevant to public interest in the sport. As you mention, Churchill's takeout went up-- did it affect the Kentucky Derby, at all?

Again, BIG bettors care about takeout. And maybe some regular smaller bettors. But the general public? $2 bettors? Football fans who no longer pay attention to racing? They don't care at all. Indeed, here in California, Del Mar, by far, draws the most casual fans. It also charges, by far, the highest prices. Casual fans will spend money for a day's entertainment, IF they want to go to the track. Takeout has nothing to do with it.



Slots are another thing worthy of their own thread. But, suffice to say, I don't think you can complain about slots in the same post where you claim that racing is blowing it on marketing. Like it or not, slots ARE an example of marketing to non-racing fans. The idea is you put slot machines in at the track and you draw some people who wouldn't otherwise come to a racetrack. Maybe it doesn't work-- as I said, marketing is hard and goes up against fundamental realities about public tastes-- but at least the people who came up with the slots experiment were trying to put butts into the seats.



Do you think any of those football fans we are talking about care about the races at Kentucky Downs any more than they did before?

I mean, good for them, they were a failing track and they cut takeout and brought in some more betting money. That's not something to sneer at. But it's not like they've found the magic bullet to attract the general public to the sport.



Nothing is "solely" anything. But it is mostly that. Along with (a) more competition for the gambling dollar; (b) growing concerns about animal welfare; (c) a decline in the racetrack experience (which is, by the way, caused in part by chasing betting handle, as simulcasting has left tracks with empty grandstands which are no fun to sit in); (d) an oversaturation of product; and (e) more entertainment options. And of those things, there are probably minor things that can be done to make some progress on (b) (but the sport's never going to really be humane, and animal rights really poses a big-time threat to the long-term existence of the sport) and something could certainly be done about (d). All the rest is beyond anyone's power to change.



That's not true at all. Horse racing has done many things for horseplayers. Simulcasting. Online betting. A multiplicity of new exotic wagers. Lower minimum bets. (When I first started going to the track, Santa Anita had 9 races a day, one $2 daily double, and three $5 exacta races. And $5 was a lot more money then than it is now! The track averaged 24,000 a day in attendance and was hugely profitable.) Wide availability of the races on cable television and the internet. (Trip handicappers used to have to go to the track and watch the races live, every day, plus maybe one or two replays.)

Maybe they haven't done enough, or everything they could have done. But horseplayers have literally never had it so good.

That's not the problem, fundamentally. The problem is that there are fewer people out there who want to watch horse races.
You continue to do a good job with your responses and yet keep them unbias.

[no breathalyzer]

HOW DO I MULTI QUOTE HERE?

[Jeff P]

...There's no way John Q. Public cares one bit what the takeout is on his or her wagers at Santa Anita, the California lottery, FanDuel, or anything else...It's not as if lottery takeout is low. But you might want to rethink the above statement.

The truth is: Lottery takeout (or prize payout percentage) DOES matter:
http://cpr.ca.gov/cpr_report/issues_and_recommendations/chapter_1_general_government/increasing_state_revenues/gg06.html

Increasing prize payouts
A proven strategy for lotteries across the country to generate additional funding for their beneficiaries has been to increase prize payouts. Higher payouts generate more winning experiences for players. This makes the games more entertaining and increases sales dramatically. Every lottery in the U.S. that has increased prize payouts has increased sales. [3] The most successful lotteries in the country have one major thing in common, a prize payout of at least 60 percent. There are 39 state lotteries, 36 of which allocate 60 percent or more of ticket sales to prizes. Two of the poorest performing lotteries, California and Louisiana, have a limited prize payout of only 50 percent of ticket sales. [4]

The Massachusetts State Lottery is the most successful lottery in the nation. It also has the highest prize payouts in the nation ranging from 60 percent to 79 percent of ticket sales. With a population of only 6.4 million, compared to California's population of over 35 million, Massachusetts out-produced California in 2002 total revenues by approximately $1.3 billion. [5]


In 2009 AB142 was signed into law by then CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

You might be surprised to learn that unlike SB1072 (which mandated higher takeout for CA racing) AB142 gave the CA Lottery discretion to increase the prize payout percentage (translation: lower the takeout) for lottery games.

Here's a link to an article where the director of the CA Lottery was interviewed after numbers for 2011 (the first fiscal year after AB142 had been in place) were finalized:
http://www.publicgaming.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9590:public-gamin

"Increasing the prize payout percentage improves the product's value to the consumer, provides us with a powerful message that gets consumer attention, and gives us a tool to drive sales and profits.

A relatively small increase in prize payout percentage can be leveraged into a much more significant increase in top-line sales.

Although the increase in prize payout percentage leaves a smaller percentage to be transferred to education, the total dollars going to our beneficiary goes up. And at the end of the day, you can spend a dollar, but you can't spend a percentage. So these changes have resulted in increased funding to education and that's what our constituents care most about and the reason the Lottery was created in 1984."


Contrast that to the first few lines from then CHRB Chairman Kieth Brackpool in the CHRB's 2011 Annual Report. FYI, that was the first fiscal year where SB1072 (the bill mandating higher takeout for CA racing) had been in place.

Link to the 2011 CHRB Annual Report:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2011_annual_report.pdf

Handle continued to suffer as the economy continued to struggle. This is a national phenomenon and one that won’t change substantially for the better without a real bounce in the economy.

Quite a difference in results produced by two strategies at polar opposite ends of the spectrum during the same time period/economy no?


Look, I'm not saying racing can turn things around and be the NFL.

What I am saying is that racing decisions makers DO have the ability to make incremental improvements.

Why not borrow a page from State Lotteries?

THEY took a risk AND ACTED on advice handed them by THEIR paid for economic experts. They began using increased prize payouts to leverage increased sales and revenue to state coffers and money flowing to Education.

If THEY can do it racing can.



-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

Calif has what, 40 million people and there are about ' 5 ' places to bet horses. The lottery has thousands.

[whodoyoulike]

HOW DO I MULTI QUOTE HERE?

Use [ quote= (name or no name is optional) ] at the beginning of the quote and [ /quote ] at the end of your quote (no spaces within brackets). Hope this helps.

[Jeff P]

...Slots are another thing worthy of their own thread. But, suffice to say, I don't think you can complain about slots in the same post where you claim that racing is blowing it on marketing...

I think slots are VERY relevant to this discussion.

Instead of pouring $Billions of dollars of Pennsylvania slot subsidies solely into purses all these years... At some point it becomes apparent the money has become nothing more than welfare and that the slots subsidy clearly isn't doing what its proponents originally intended it to do: Ignite public interest in racing, bring increases in field size, handle, revenue, and purse money generated from handle, etc.

Once you realize that (as a decision maker) shouldn't it occur to you that maybe it's time to alter your approach?... Maybe in addition to making purses competitive with nearby racing jurisdictions try a few of the things your hired economic consulting firms have been trying to tell you?


I realize I'm fighting an uphill battle here...

In the 1970's slot machine vigorish in Las Vegas was what? (25% or so?)

At some point between 1970 and present day there had to be a decision maker in the casino industry somewhere who questioned the then industry mantra that higher takeout/lower prize payout percentages generated max bottom line dollars for the house (as opposed to lower takeout/higher prize payout percentages.)

I don't know for sure but I'll make an educated guess that whoever it was in the casino industry who first adopted lower takeout/higher prize payout percentage for their slot machines did so because an economic consulting firm suggested they give it a try.

The first casino operator who did that undoubtedly had vision, took a risk, made the change, monitored results going forward - and benefited from it.

Fast forward to present day and now vigorish for slot machines in Las Vegas is what? (6% or so) instead of the 25% or so prevalent 30 years ago.

Why do you think that is?

Because 25% vigorish from the 1970's was well above the optimal price point and today's prize vigorish (on the order of 6%) is much closer to the optimal price point for slot machine games.

Hint: The closer you are to your optimal price point the more likely it is that you maximize total revenue for the house.

Racing could learn a thing or two from the casino industry.

Racing is shrinking at the rate of about 4% per year yet I have seen very little in the way of vision and risk taking from racing's decision makers over the past 10-15 years.

North American thoroughbred racing handle peaked at $15.9 Billion in 2003.

We are currently on track to do $11 billion or so for calendar year 2015.

All of the economic literature I have read suggests that the optimal price point for racing takeout is well below the current 22% blended takeout level that we have.

How much more does racing have to shrink before its decision makers decide to exercise a little vision, take some risks, and a implement suggestion or two?



-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Calif has what, 40 million people and there are about ' 5 ' places to bet horses. The lottery has thousands.

The Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 says we can bet horses from our cell phones.

If only 50% of those 40 million Calif residents are of legal age and if only half of them have cell phones that would translate to 10 million potential ADW account holders.

I would love to see racing decision makers figure out a way to reach 10 million new Calif resident ADW account holders and see them happily betting $2.00 each into Santa Anita's win pool each race. :D



-jp

.

[Cratos]

The Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 says we can bet horses from our cell phones.

If only 50% of those 40 million Calif residents are of legal age and if only half of them have cell phones that would translate to 10 million potential ADW account holders.

I would love to see racing decision makers figure out a way to reach 10 million new Calif resident ADW account holders and see them happily betting $2.00 each into Santa Anita's win pool each race. :D



-jp

.
Jeff,
I am not taking sides in this debate, but the poster "dilanesp" wrote the best thought provoking and straight forward posts about the state of horse racing in this thread.

Therefore his posts might not be perfect, but they were good for conversation about the changes needed in horseracing that should move the discussion from the redundant cry of reducing the "take" to a more optimistic outlook of changing the culture.

[Track Phantom]

While I don't disagree with this in toto, one thing I have noticed from being a fan of SEVERAL sports that aren't as big as they once were...

Dilanesp, I really like reading your posts. Well thought out and not full of overused but under-verified talking points.

I agree with most of what you said. Probably all of it.

I also feel that marketing horse racing to a higher degree, hell, even at the rate FanDuel and DraftKings market, would have almost no impact. Like you said, people are aware of horse racing and know they ARE NOT INTERESTED beyond special days and an occasional "day out". The reason for why they aren't interested more is open for debate and likely a bunch of conjecture.

My personal opinion is, if you're trying to pull an audience from other forms of entertainment, you have to improve your product (then market the new product to all audiences). Before you spend time improving your product, you have to fully understand what could move the needle. Right now, there is too much noise from the self-serving crowds from all sides (horsemen, horseplayers, tracks, etc).

The first thing I would look at is the actual optics of the game. When a person watches a race from either the stands or from home on TV or computer, it should be a flawless, exciting experience. But, if you're in the stands at Arlington Park, 45% of the race is blocked by the trees they've put in the infield. Want to get serious about a stakes race at Kentucky Downs? Better be practicing the silks colors like the announcer does since they often have the same saddle cloth colors. It takes an expert eye to even identify where "your" horse is. There is limited to no HDTV being used. Online viewing is often poor. Think about it. Would football be as popular if both teams wore the same colored jersey and you couldn't tell who was who? How about if it wasn't in HD? I find it simply ridiculous that horse racing viewing isn't cutting edge and elite. I know there are costs but getting this right would move the needle. I would experiment with neon-like saddle cloth colors that are unmistakable. I would bring in experts or consultants to really get this area right. It would make a difference to the average or marginal fan.

One other comment as it relates to "studies". I am dead-certain that anyone investing any time into really understand the good and bad of horse racing (as perceived by the public) has to have a deep understanding of the game from a player/fan perspective. Talk to anyone about gambling habits and they bundle horse racing in with all other gambling endeavors. The attraction to horse racing is uniquely different and can only be assessed properly by those that understand the nuances of the sport and can apply it to mass data.

[thaskalos]

That's not the problem, fundamentally. The problem is that there are fewer people out there who want to watch horse races.

Who can blame them?

It's no fun spending hours handicapping at home the night before...so you can lose your money the next day. The gambling public has spoken...and has stated unequivocally that they prefer other forms of gambling instead of horse race betting. "Marketing" is good at introducing your product...but then your product has to pull its OWN weight. Marketing won't help you when your product is roundly rejected.

[Track Phantom]

Who can blame them?

It's no fun spending hours handicapping at home the night before...so you can lose your money the next day. The gambling public has spoken...and has stated unequivocally that they prefer other forms of gambling instead of horse race betting. "Marketing" is good at introducing your product...but then your product has to pull its OWN weight. Marketing won't help you when your product is roundly rejected.

I don't think it is quite that dire as there is still massive appeal but not enough sustainable appeal. There might be ways to address this by altering the delivery of the product but it would require serious out-of-the-box thinking.

The answer to why horse racing is less popular is multi-faceted and complex.

[olddaddy]

Who can blame them?

It's no fun spending hours handicapping at home the night before...so you can lose your money the next day. The gambling public has spoken...and has stated unequivocally that they prefer other forms of gambling instead of horse race betting. "Marketing" is good at introducing your product...but then your product has to pull its OWN weight. Marketing won't help you when your product is roundly rejected.


And then when you find out after a long period of handicapping, that you are only given a minuscule amount of information compared to others, you end up doing the same thing as when playing cards against a stacked deck, you walk.

[thaskalos]

I don't think it is quite that dire as there is still massive appeal but not enough sustainable appeal. There might be ways to address this by altering the delivery of the product but it would require serious out-of-the-box thinking.

The answer to why horse racing is less popular is multi-faceted and complex.

I disagree...I think the reason is very simple and straight-forward:

A gambling game with a 17%-30% takeout cannot afford to be mired in scandal and distrust...and our game has shown no inclination to really deal with its shady reputation. It remained popular in spite of its checkered past...because it was the only legalized form of gambling around. The product was NEVER what you could call "desirable"...but people played it because it was the only game in town. It is STILL the most convenient gambling game in town, because it's the only one that a gambler can play from his home...but it's too late. The gamblers have decided that they would rather inconvenience themselves by driving to a casino...instead of attending a track or an OTB.

My house is strategically placed between an OTB and a full-blown casino. Both are 5 minutes away from me. The casino is full every day...while the OTB, which used to be busy, can now be confused for a morgue. And the three biggest horse-bettors that I know, are now playing baccarat.

[Track Phantom]

I disagree...I think the reason is very simple and straight-forward:

A gambling game with a 17%-30% takeout cannot afford to be mired in scandal and distrust...and our game has shown no inclination to really deal with its shady reputation. It remained popular in spite of its checkered past...because it was the only legalized form of gambling around. The product was NEVER what you could call "desirable"...but people played it because it was the only game in town. It is STILL the most convenient gambling game in town, because it's the only one that a gambler can play from his home...but it's too late. The gamblers have decided that they would rather inconvenience themselves by driving to a casino...instead of attending a track or an OTB.

My house is strategically placed between an OTB and a full-blown casino. Both are 5 minutes away from me. The casino is full every day...while the OTB, which used to be busy, can now be confused for a morgue. And the three biggest horse-bettors that I know, are now playing baccarat.

Cannot argue with your first premise. But, do you think if the takeout was 8% - 15% that players would be coming in droves? I don't. I think there is a segment of current and potential players that takeout is the main, overarching issue. I think there are many, many more people that are (or would) be consistent followers that don't prioritize takeout as the #1 influencer (me included). Of course I would like to be paid more when I win and do think rates in many cases are extreme. But, being honest, I'd play the game with high takeout and a smile on my face, if other things were addressed.

I do think the lack of interest in horse racing from the general population is multi-faceted. There is no quick fix. I think it involves the complexity of the game, the meandering of time between races, the dirtbags that hover around the track, the visual presentation, the takeout, the idiotic tax laws, the shady people calling themselves trainers, animal welfare, and on and on.

[Stillriledup]

The Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 says we can bet horses from our cell phones.

If only 50% of those 40 million Calif residents are of legal age and if only half of them have cell phones that would translate to 10 million potential ADW account holders.

I would love to see racing decision makers figure out a way to reach 10 million new Calif resident ADW account holders and see them happily betting $2.00 each into Santa Anita's win pool each race. :D



-jp



.

But that would require people to 'sign up' and give SS numbers and other info. You don't have to surrender an SS when you buy a lottery ticket.

[Stillriledup]

I disagree...I think the reason is very simple and straight-forward:

A gambling game with a 17%-30% takeout cannot afford to be mired in scandal and distrust...and our game has shown no inclination to really deal with its shady reputation. It remained popular in spite of its checkered past...because it was the only legalized form of gambling around. The product was NEVER what you could call "desirable"...but people played it because it was the only game in town. It is STILL the most convenient gambling game in town, because it's the only one that a gambler can play from his home...but it's too late. The gamblers have decided that they would rather inconvenience themselves by driving to a casino...instead of attending a track or an OTB.

My house is strategically placed between an OTB and a full-blown casino. Both are 5 minutes away from me. The casino is full every day...while the OTB, which used to be busy, can now be confused for a morgue. And the three biggest horse-bettors that I know, are now playing baccarat.

One of the best things ever said on any horse race message board is the high price of the takeout while not having a squeaky clean game.

If you're charging filet mignon prices, you have to serve filet mignon, ESPECIALLY in an investment game where insider trading isn't illegal.

[thaskalos]

Cannot argue with your first premise. But, do you think if the takeout was 8% - 15% that players would be coming in droves? I don't. I think there is a segment of current and potential players that takeout is the main, overarching issue. I think there are many, many more people that are (or would) be consistent followers that don't prioritize takeout as the #1 influencer (me included). Of course I would like to be paid more when I win and do think rates in many cases are extreme. But, being honest, I'd play the game with high takeout and a smile on my face, if other things were addressed.

I do think the lack of interest in horse racing from the general population is multi-faceted. There is no quick fix. I think it involves the complexity of the game, the meandering of time between races, the dirtbags that hover around the track, the visual presentation, the takeout, the idiotic tax laws, the shady people calling themselves trainers, animal welfare, and on and on.

You misunderstood my point. OF COURSE the takeout isn't the main culprit; the game's INTEGRITY PROBLEM is the main culprit. But, instead of doing something to rectify the problem...the racing industry has priced its wares as if this game is the most desirable game in town.

Horse racing is considered a "crooked game" by almost all of the gambling public...and its a shame that the industry has shown such an unwillingness to fully address such an obvious problem.

[AndyC]

.....Horse racing is considered a "crooked game" by almost all of the gambling public...and its a shame that the industry has shown such an unwillingness to fully address such an obvious problem.

Racing has been considered a crooked game since the day I started betting in the early 70s. I learned the term boat race and a stiff job before I was old enough to bet legally.

[thaskalos]

Racing has been considered a crooked game since the day I started betting in the early 70s. I learned the term boat race and a stiff job before I was old enough to bet legally.

Yes...and you can half-way get away with such a reputation when you are the only legal game in town.

In the great poker book The Biggest Game in Town, author Al Alvarez tells the story of when the late poker great Jack Straus was once spotted sitting in a poker game which everybody knew was crooked. When a friend chastised him for taking part in such a game...Straus shrugged his shoulders and responded solemnly: "What do you want me to do? It's the only game in town."

But when the gambling options increase...then the "crooked games" find themselves in big trouble.

[Track Phantom]

But when the gambling options increase...then the "crooked games" find themselves in big trouble.

I think there are varying levels of crookedness. Some are game crushing, others are game altering:

1. Cheating trainers (PED's) - This is rampant, we know that. However, with data and tote fluctuations, this can be incorporated into handicapping and reduce the impact. I'd say this is game altering and disgusting, but not totally a game crusher.

2. Race fixing - Doubt this happens very often and, as we saw with Fairmount Park, even the best laid plans still go sideways. I think there is some funny business but not enough to stop the game.

3. Toteboard/Past Posting - The jury is out on how often this occurs. I would not be surprised if a report surfaced at some point that indicates in a high number of cases, some of the betting is occurring after the start (or even after the finish) of races. If this is true, it will stop the game in its tracks. Period. Pool integrity is the #1 priority and if the public (both daily players and peripheral fans) lose confidence here...party over!

[Dr Gonzo]

Dilanesp, I really like reading your posts. Well thought out and not full of overused but under-verified talking points.

I agree with most of what you said. Probably all of it.

I also feel that marketing horse racing to a higher degree, hell, even at the rate FanDuel and DraftKings market, would have almost no impact. Like you said, people are aware of horse racing and know they ARE NOT INTERESTED beyond special days and an occasional "day out". The reason for why they aren't interested more is open for debate and likely a bunch of conjecture.

My personal opinion is, if you're trying to pull an audience from other forms of entertainment, you have to improve your product (then market the new product to all audiences). Before you spend time improving your product, you have to fully understand what could move the needle. Right now, there is too much noise from the self-serving crowds from all sides (horsemen, horseplayers, tracks, etc).

The first thing I would look at is the actual optics of the game. When a person watches a race from either the stands or from home on TV or computer, it should be a flawless, exciting experience. But, if you're in the stands at Arlington Park, 45% of the race is blocked by the trees they've put in the infield. Want to get serious about a stakes race at Kentucky Downs? Better be practicing the silks colors like the announcer does since they often have the same saddle cloth colors. It takes an expert eye to even identify where "your" horse is. There is limited to no HDTV being used. Online viewing is often poor. Think about it. Would football be as popular if both teams wore the same colored jersey and you couldn't tell who was who? How about if it wasn't in HD? I find it simply ridiculous that horse racing viewing isn't cutting edge and elite. I know there are costs but getting this right would move the needle. I would experiment with neon-like saddle cloth colors that are unmistakable. I would bring in experts or consultants to really get this area right. It would make a difference to the average or marginal fan.

One other comment as it relates to "studies". I am dead-certain that anyone investing any time into really understand the good and bad of horse racing (as perceived by the public) has to have a deep understanding of the game from a player/fan perspective. Talk to anyone about gambling habits and they bundle horse racing in with all other gambling endeavors. The attraction to horse racing is uniquely different and can only be assessed properly by those that understand the nuances of the sport and can apply it to mass data.

I think Valento makes a good point regarding HD. Since signing up at NYRA, I've become much more interested in races at Belmont. With HD, I can see the horses clearly and make appearance judgements in the paddock and post parade.

Call me new or naive, but I haven't seen any signs of the races being crooked at Belmont. Trainer manipulations, yes. Outright thievery, no.

Contrast this with the crooked PA tracks that I cut my teeth on. You not only get a blurry transmission from PEN and PARX, but also a steady diet of odds-on favorites or horses you couldn't find with a GPS unit. Not to mention the scandals at PEN and Juan Vasquez allowed to enter horses at PARX.

I'd like to see racing do something about late money drastically changing odds while the race is running. How can I intelligently play this game if I don't know the real odds on the horses?

Doc

[AndyC]

Yes...and you can half-way get away with such a reputation when you are the only legal game in town.

In the great poker book The Biggest Game in Town, author Al Alvarez tells the story of when the late poker great Jack Straus was once spotted sitting in a poker game which everybody knew was crooked. When a friend chastised him for taking part in such a game...Straus shrugged his shoulders and responded solemnly: "What do you want me to do? It's the only game in town."

But when the gambling options increase...then the "crooked games" find themselves in big trouble.

Your point may very well be correct. I am blind to the bad things in racing because I have grown up with them. It's part of my handicapping.

[Stillriledup]

I think Valento makes a good point regarding HD. Since signing up at NYRA, I've become much more interested in races at Belmont. With HD, I can see the horses clearly and make appearance judgements in the paddock and post parade.

Call me new or naive, but I haven't seen any signs of the races being crooked at Belmont. Trainer manipulations, yes. Outright thievery, no.

Contrast this with the crooked PA tracks that I cut my teeth on. You not only get a blurry transmission from PEN and PARX, but also a steady diet of odds-on favorites or horses you couldn't find with a GPS unit. Not to mention the scandals at PEN and Juan Vasquez allowed to enter horses at PARX.

I'd like to see racing do something about late money drastically changing odds while the race is running. How can I intelligently play this game if I don't know the real odds on the horses?

Doc

The only way to play it is to become an expert on what final prices should be and bet as late as possible. The 'game' needs to get better at updating odds, not taking 45 seconds to 1 minute to update that's dinosaur speed, if they're not going to offer fixed odds wagering, they need to get better at updating odds.

[ultracapper]

I don't know that losing in and of itself is a problem with horse racing. Whenever somebody gambles, at any game, they know there is a good chance they're going to lose. The problem with horse racing is that, after putting in all the work, many think they still don't even have a chance to win because there are things out of their control that prevent them from really having a chance. The idea that horse racing is "crooked" is ingrained in the American public's psychy. That is probably the first and foremost thing that must be addressed, and will be a huge undertaking to even make a dent in. The effort would have to be so visible, and advertised so loud and clear, that every breathing human in the country would have to be aware of it. If not, the damaging "word-of-mouth" that is prevalent that the game is crooked will overwhelm the effort.

[Stillriledup]

Great post UC I agree that the game has done nothing to really dispel the notion that the races are rigged for insiders. People need to justify losses and they don't ever want to admit they just got beat fair n square by more informed gamblers. If they convince themselves they lost due to crookedness, they can keep playing with the hopes that one day the game will turn honest.

[ultracapper]

I do not understand how anybody could even consider putting a dime on a race at PENN. The last time I even watched a race from there was a number of years ago. It was a stake race, maybe 6 entrants. Huge favorite with a bridge jumper in the show pool. This horse had won a number of consecutive stakes and was an obvious single/winner. The jock rode the horse perfect, out of the gate, at least 2 lanes wider than any other horse in the field, and won by 5. However, there was a slight bump out of the gate, and, to the track's delight, that horse finished 4th. You got it, the stewards took down the winner and moved her to 4th, based on that slight bump. The only time in the entire race the winner was within 10 feet of another horse. I didn't know PENN's rep at the time, but it was dumbfounding that they took that winner down, and for anybody that knew anything about what was going on, it was obvious the track didn't want to make the negative show pool good. They weren't paying out that evening. That decision was made before the race was run. It was unbelievable.

[pandy]

Who can blame them?

It's no fun spending hours handicapping at home the night before...so you can lose your money the next day. The gambling public has spoken...and has stated unequivocally that they prefer other forms of gambling instead of horse race betting. "Marketing" is good at introducing your product...but then your product has to pull its OWN weight. Marketing won't help you when your product is roundly rejected.

I've written about this exact subject, pertaining to harness racing. People keep saying that harness racing has to spend more on marketing. But marketing isn't the problem, it's the product, which is not as good as it was when the handle was much higher. Marketing a weak product is a waste of money. First, improve the product, then market.

[thaskalos]

I don't know that losing in and of itself is a problem with horse racing. Whenever somebody gambles, at any game, they know there is a good chance they're going to lose.

Yes...all gamblers know that "there is a good chance they are going to lose". But, they've apparently decided that it's more fun to lose at the casino...rather than at the race track. And I can't say that I blame them.

[thaskalos]

Your point may very well be correct. I am blind to the bad things in racing because I have grown up with them. It's part of my handicapping.
I've grown up with these bad things too, Andy...but I can't turn a blind eye to them. People here sometimes criticize me for my "anti-racing" views...but I remain a very active supporter of this game, at the BETTING WINDOWS...where it COUNTS. I firmly believe that this is the world's best gambling game when it's run right...but it becomes the worst gamble known to man when it's run wrong.

And it is now being run terribly wrong.

[Stillriledup]

I've written about this exact subject, pertaining to harness racing. People keep saying that harness racing has to spend more on marketing. But marketing isn't the problem, it's the product, which is not as good as it was when the handle was much higher. Marketing a weak product is a waste of money. First, improve the product, then market.

The harness product isn't as good simply because less horses have a chance. Decades ago, horses could come from the back, there weren't fancy aerodynamics silkies and lightweight athletic catch drivers who drive parallel to the ground to lift drag off the horse, you had 230 lb trainers sitting straight up, and for one reason or another, that created better betting races.

Harness racing should outlaw catch drivers and go back to the wooden sulky.

[Dr Gonzo]

The only way to play it is to become an expert on what final prices should be and bet as late as possible. The 'game' needs to get better at updating odds, not taking 45 seconds to 1 minute to update that's dinosaur speed, if they're not going to offer fixed odds wagering, they need to get better at updating odds.

The other day, in a race at PARX, a horse was 5/2 with 0 minutes left to post. He was 2-1 in the gate, 8/5 down the backstretch and 6/5 with a furlong to go.

How does a player compensate for this, other than not playing races at PARX ?

[thaskalos]

Harness racing committed suicide.

[thaskalos]

The other day, in a race at PARX, a horse was 5/2 with 0 minutes left to post. He was 2-1 in the gate, 8/5 down the backstretch and 6/5 with a furlong to go.

How does a player compensate for this, other than not playing races at PARX ?
And the main problem is...this doesn't just happen at Parx.

[Stillriledup]

The other day, in a race at PARX, a horse was 5/2 with 0 minutes left to post. He was 2-1 in the gate, 8/5 down the backstretch and 6/5 with a furlong to go.

How does a player compensate for this, other than not playing races at PARX ?

The key is that you needed to surmise that this 5-2 shot was really a 6/5 shot who was badly mispriced at the gate load. There's no other way, but this stuff is really bad for perception even if the money is coming in legitimately.

[thaskalos]

The key is that you needed to surmise that this 5-2 shot was really a 6/5 shot who was badly mispriced at the gate load. There's no other way, but this stuff is really bad for perception even if the money is coming in legitimately.
IMO...this money is coming in ILLEGITIMATELY.

[Jeff P]

I don't know that losing in and of itself is a problem with horse racing. Whenever somebody gambles, at any game, they know there is a good chance they're going to lose. The problem with horse racing is that, after putting in all the work, many think they still don't even have a chance to win because there are things out of their control that prevent them from really having a chance. The idea that horse racing is "crooked" is ingrained in the American public's psychy. That is probably the first and foremost thing that must be addressed, and will be a huge undertaking to even make a dent in. The effort would have to be so visible, and advertised so loud and clear, that every breathing human in the country would have to be aware of it. If not, the damaging "word-of-mouth" that is prevalent that the game is crooked will overwhelm the effort.

Agree 100%.

Integrity is another area where horse racing could benefit (in my opinion greatly) if racing's decision makers would borrow a page from the competition. (In this case the competition being the casino industry.)

The casino has the eye in the sky. Casino gaming in Nevada is also regulated by a true independent third party - The Nevada Gaming Commission.

It doesn't matter whether you are a pit boss, dealer, or player. Get caught cheating at cards, dice, slots, etc. in a casino and there is every expectation your actions are recorded on video. Further, there is every expectation that you will be charged criminally and that video footage of your actions will be used against you as evidence in court - and that if convicted you will be going to jail.

Further, casino operators know that the Nevada Gaming Commission will pull their license if the house gets caught cheating the customers at cards, dice, slots, etc.

Because the eye in the sky and the Nevada Gaming Commission have been around long enough and written about enough - the idea that 'cheaters go to jail' is now firmly woven into the fabric of public perception about casino gaming.

Because of this the public (and by that I mean the general population) has an easy time buying into the idea that casino games are run on the up and up.

Contrast that to what we have in horse racing - and it isn't that hard to see why the public (and by that I mean the general population) has a hard time buying into the idea that horse racing is on the up and up.



-jp

.

[cj]

Agree 100%.

Integrity is another area where horse racing could benefit (in my opinion greatly) if racing's decision makers would borrow a page from the competition. (In this case the competition being the casino industry.)

The casino has the eye in the sky. Casino gaming in Nevada is also regulated by a true independent third party - The Nevada Gaming Commission.

It doesn't matter whether you are a pit boss, dealer, or player. Get caught cheating at cards, dice, slots, etc. in a casino and there is every expectation your actions are recorded on video. Further, there is every expectation that you will be charged criminally and that video footage of your actions will be used against you as evidence in court - and that if convicted you will be going to jail.

Further, casino operators know that the Nevada Gaming Commission will pull their license if the house gets caught cheating the customers at cards, dice, slots, etc.

Because the eye in the sky and the Nevada Gaming Commission have been around long enough and written about enough - the idea that 'cheaters go to jail' is now firmly woven into the fabric of public perception about casino gaming.

Because of this the public (and by that I mean the general population) has an easy time buying into the idea that casino games are run on the up and up.

Contrast that to what we have in horse racing - and it isn't that hard to see why the public (and by that I mean the general population) has a hard time buying into the idea that horse racing is on the up and up.



-jp

.

Exactly, no way to advertise an honest game until you actually have one.

[AndyC]

Exactly, no way to advertise an honest game until you actually have one.

Call me skeptical but even if you could clean up drugs and the tote, the perception of an honest game would not prevail.

In my experience, I have heard more bettors complain about inexplicable rides from jockeys than about the tote or drugs. So when a speed horse is taken back in an attempt to rate is that perceived as being honest? When horses are given races in an attempt to prepare for future races is that being honest? The tote and drug issues are conceptually solvable but I doubt that racing strategy issues will ever reach an honesty level much higher than professional wrestling.

[pandy]

Call me skeptical but even if you could clean up drugs and the tote, the perception of an honest game would not prevail.

In my experience, I have heard more bettors complain about inexplicable rides from jockeys than about the tote or drugs. So when a speed horse is taken back in an attempt to rate is that perceived as being honest? When horses are given races in an attempt to prepare for future races is that being honest? The tote and drug issues are conceptually solvable but I doubt that racing strategy issues will ever reach an honesty level much higher than professional wrestling.


True. A certain percentage of horseplayers are idiots who really don't understand what they're watching and every time they lose they have to blame the jockey or say the race was fixed. Of course, the main problem is that they don't know how to handicap. It's so ironic, I've seen many horseplayers complaining, but they didn't even handicap the race. They were using the entries in the newspaper to pick their horses. Laughable.

[dilanesp]

It's not as if lottery takeout is low. But you might want to rethink the above statement.

The truth is: Lottery takeout (or prize payout percentage) DOES matter:
http://cpr.ca.gov/cpr_report/issues_and_recommendations/chapter_1_general_government/increasing_state_revenues/gg06.html




In 2009 AB142 was signed into law by then CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

You might be surprised to learn that unlike SB1072 (which mandated higher takeout for CA racing) AB142 gave the CA Lottery discretion to increase the prize payout percentage (translation: lower the takeout) for lottery games.

Here's a link to an article where the director of the CA Lottery was interviewed after numbers for 2011 (the first fiscal year after AB142 had been in place) were finalized:
http://www.publicgaming.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9590:public-gamin



Contrast that to the first few lines from then CHRB Chairman Kieth Brackpool in the CHRB's 2011 Annual Report. FYI, that was the first fiscal year where SB1072 (the bill mandating higher takeout for CA racing) had been in place.

Link to the 2011 CHRB Annual Report:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2011_annual_report.pdf



Quite a difference in results produced by two strategies at polar opposite ends of the spectrum during the same time period/economy no?


Look, I'm not saying racing can turn things around and be the NFL.

What I am saying is that racing decisions makers DO have the ability to make incremental improvements.

Why not borrow a page from State Lotteries?

THEY took a risk AND ACTED on advice handed them by THEIR paid for economic experts. They began using increased prize payouts to leverage increased sales and revenue to state coffers and money flowing to Education.

If THEY can do it racing can.



-jp

.

Take a step back on the lottery.

If takeout were really the all-important force you think it is, NOBODY WOULD PLAY THE LOTTERY AT ALL. At 40 percent OR 50 percent takeout. The mere existence of the lottery is a testament to the fact that many gamblers don't care about takeout.

Second, the most popular lottery games in America-- Powerball and Mega Millions-- have 50 percent takeouts. And not only that, they are clearly takeout-inelastic, for the basic reason that most of their big jackpots are produced by carryovers and by a flat payout table at the bottom end, meaning that a decrease in takeout really wouldn't increase the big jackpots very much, and it's the big jackpots that drive sales-- sales multiply three or fourfold when the jackpot gets high enough.

Now it is true that some REGULAR lottery players who bet significant sums care somewhat about takeout, which is why you can increase sales of some games (NOT POWERBALL) by decreasing takeout.

But that's exactly the same as horseracing. Big bettors care a lot about takeout and patronize rebate shops. Most bettors just go to the track or on xpressbet and don't care that much, and casual racing fans really don't care at all and will gladly spend a lot of money at Del Mar for a day's entertainment. And of course the people who don't play the horses at all don't care at all.

I'm all in favor of takeout reduction. But it's not going to draw any NEW fans. At best, it will generate additional handle among some groups of existing fans.

[dilanesp]

Call me skeptical but even if you could clean up drugs and the tote, the perception of an honest game would not prevail.

In my experience, I have heard more bettors complain about inexplicable rides from jockeys than about the tote or drugs. So when a speed horse is taken back in an attempt to rate is that perceived as being honest? When horses are given races in an attempt to prepare for future races is that being honest? The tote and drug issues are conceptually solvable but I doubt that racing strategy issues will ever reach an honesty level much higher than professional wrestling.

I'm sort of halfway in agreement with you.

It's true that there will always be elements of the sport open to judgment, and therefore there will always be accusations of cheating.

But that is mitigated by one thing:

Blatant cheating really can harm horse racing. I'm very aware of this point because Southern California was once a center of harness racing. Big race days drew 25,000 fans, and Niatross actually came out to run here. Later on, it was somewhat smaller but still drew crowds comparable to quarter horses at Los Alamitos, to the point that Los Al didn't run quarters all year so they could capture some of the harness market.

Now, there is NO harness racing in Southern California, and what killed the sport here was a race fixing scandal. So there really is a difference between conspiracy theories about shady people stiffing horses, and actual overt cheating. Overt cheating can drive people away from gambling.

[Stillriledup]

True. A certain percentage of horseplayers are idiots who really don't understand what they're watching and every time they lose they have to blame the jockey or say the race was fixed. Of course, the main problem is that they don't know how to handicap. It's so ironic, I've seen many horseplayers complaining, but they didn't even handicap the race. They were using the entries in the newspaper to pick their horses. Laughable.

But what about the games greatest players who really know what's going on, what if THEY complain?

[whodoyoulike]

I think there are varying levels of crookedness. Some are game crushing, others are game altering:

1. Cheating trainers (PED's) - This is rampant, we know that. However, with data and tote fluctuations, this can be incorporated into handicapping and reduce the impact. I'd say this is game altering and disgusting, but not totally a game crusher.

2. Race fixing - Doubt this happens very often and, as we saw with Fairmount Park, even the best laid plans still go sideways. I think there is some funny business but not enough to stop the game.

3. Toteboard/Past Posting - The jury is out on how often this occurs. I would not be surprised if a report surfaced at some point that indicates in a high number of cases, some of the betting is occurring after the start (or even after the finish) of races. If this is true, it will stop the game in its tracks. Period. Pool integrity is the #1 priority and if the public (both daily players and peripheral fans) lose confidence here...party over!

I've never bet Hong Kong or Dubai etc., but I've read about their reputation for an honest game.

Why can't US racing implement whatever they are doing?

Treat offenders the same way.

[whodoyoulike]

... Further, there is every expectation that you will be charged criminally and that video footage of your actions will be used against you as evidence in court - and that if convicted you will be going to jail. ...

I thought if you're caught cheating in a Nevada casino, not only will you go to prison but you can also be banned from entering casinos at least that's what a TV report on Vegas implied.

[whodoyoulike]

True. A certain percentage of horseplayers are idiots who really don't understand what they're watching and every time they lose they have to blame the jockey or say the race was fixed. Of course, the main problem is that they don't know how to handicap. It's so ironic, I've seen many horseplayers complaining, but they didn't even handicap the race. They were using the entries in the newspaper to pick their horses. Laughable.

This is kinda unfair since he no longer posts here.

I'm on a roll....

[whodoyoulike]

Call me skeptical but even if you could clean up drugs and the tote, the perception of an honest game would not prevail.

In my experience, I have heard more bettors complain about inexplicable rides from jockeys than about the tote or drugs. So when a speed horse is taken back in an attempt to rate is that perceived as being honest? When horses are given races in an attempt to prepare for future races is that being honest? The tote and drug issues are conceptually solvable but I doubt that racing strategy issues will ever reach an honesty level much higher than professional wrestling.

Pro wrestling isn't honest?? After all who bets on pro wrestling more than once or twice?

[Poindexter]

But that's exactly the same as horseracing. Big bettors care a lot about takeout and patronize rebate shops. Most bettors just go to the track or on xpressbet and don't care that much, and casual racing fans really don't care at all and will gladly spend a lot of money at Del Mar for a day's entertainment. And of course the people who don't play the horses at all don't care at all.

I'm all in favor of takeout reduction. But it's not going to draw any NEW fans. At best, it will generate additional handle among some groups of existing fans.

Unfortunately a lot of decision makers in this industry share your view and that is why this sport is never going to go anywhere. Next time you are at the card room ask your fellow poker players if they bet horses. If not, why not? They obviously have nothing against gambling and I assume a decent percentage of them are there to make money. So why are they at the card club and not playing the races. Obviously they perceive racing to be a much tougher game to beat.

You are right in the respect that if Santa Anita announced that the takeout is being reduced to 8% immediately you will not see lines of gamblers driving to Santa Anita Thursday to bet the races. That being said over time gamblers from all walks(poker, sports, fantasy,day traders.....will have another gambling/investing vehicle that they will perceive as beatable and many will convert into horseplayers-some once in a while, some often some will love the game like most of us). In the meantime the horseplayers who through existing marketing find the racetrack now and again will start to do better and become more interested in the sport. Existing horseplayers will all do better, churn more, have a lot longer longevity and those that can transform into winning players will grow bankrolls and churn a lot more................It doesn't happen overnight, just like this sport did not lose public interest overnight. But in a country where gambling is available just about everywhere now, Racing holds something that most forms of gambling do not. It is beatable. Very hard to beat under today's conditions (so hard that most people do not even bother to try and those that do try usually get their head handed to them pretty quickly) but very beatable if the takeout was appropriate.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

One big difference between casinos and fantasy sports and horseracing is that the first two are not paying taxes on handle but on profits after expenses. In the real world when someone grabs a set amount before any profits, it's called the protection racket. In order to reduce takeout, it is concomitantly necessary to reduce expenses. This could be done by substituting casino money when available, instead of just using it to supplement purses. This could also be done by turning the racetrack into a private entity, just like a casino, licensed by the state and regulated by a commission with rulemaking and enforcement authority (think something like the state board of health) and paid for by general fund revenues. Racetracks would pay taxes like everyone else. On profits after expenses. One potential outcome may be that tracks can compete (with other forms of gambling if not each other) by offerring better pricing on their wagers.

That being said, the problem of horseracing being a difficult game does not go away and I'm not sure how that gets solved. However, a first step is making it competitive with other betting opportunities and emphasizing that skill can pay off in a big way. Not so many games where you can make $6,000 in a day without risking $5,000. Having a hard game just means a higher potential for those who get skilled at it.

The whole point of the article on gambling and millenials was that they want to bet on their skill where the percentages are seen as fair.

[AndyC]

Pro wrestling isn't honest?? After all who bets on pro wrestling more than once or twice?

I have a system. It's on sale this week only. 10% off for PA members. ;)

[thaskalos]

Unfortunately a lot of decision makers in this industry share your view and that is why this sport is never going to go anywhere. Next time you are at the card room ask your fellow poker players if they bet horses. If not, why not? They obviously have nothing against gambling and I assume a decent percentage of them are there to make money. So why are they at the card club and not playing the races. Obviously they perceive racing to be a much tougher game to beat.

You are right in the respect that if Santa Anita announced that the takeout is being reduced to 8% immediately you will not see lines of gamblers driving to Santa Anita Thursday to bet the races. That being said over time gamblers from all walks(poker, sports, fantasy,day traders.....will have another gambling/investing vehicle that they will perceive as beatable and many will convert into horseplayers-some once in a while, some often some will love the game like most of us). In the meantime the horseplayers who through existing marketing find the racetrack now and again will start to do better and become more interested in the sport. Existing horseplayers will all do better, churn more, have a lot longer longevity and those that can transform into winning players will grow bankrolls and churn a lot more................It doesn't happen overnight, just like this sport did not lose public interest overnight. But in a country where gambling is available just about everywhere now, Racing holds something that most forms of gambling do not. It is beatable. Very hard to beat under today's conditions (so hard that most people do not even bother to try and those that do try usually get their head handed to them pretty quickly) but very beatable if the takeout was appropriate.

When I was in my early 20s, I started playing in a Saturday night poker game...which was held in a neighboring basement. It was a lively game which generated relatively large pots...so, nobody cared when the host would reach into the pot and remove a few dollar bills during every hand. He would slide the money into a drawer that he had attached to the stool that he was sitting on.

The game would last for about 8-9 hours, and when it would finish by early morning the next day...we the players would gather outside the place...and try to get an accounting of the game's results. There were always about a thousand dollars in total losses...but only a couple of hundred dollars of the winnings could be accounted for. Arguments would ensue on the man's lawn at 7:30 in the morning...as the players would accuse one another of lying to cover up their nightly poker profit.

"Why don't you tell us how much you really won, you ASSHOLE...nobody is taking the money away from you"...the losers would yell at those who appeared to have won the majority of last night's pots.

"I swear I only won $150"...the accused player would say.

"And I won $120 more"...the only other "winner" would declare.

It was then and there that I was introduced to the lethal effects of the takeout. And I realized that, the fact that we ignore the takeout doesn't make its effect any less lethal.

[Jeff P]

Take a step back on the lottery.

If takeout were really the all-important force you think it is, NOBODY WOULD PLAY THE LOTTERY AT ALL. At 40 percent OR 50 percent takeout. The mere existence of the lottery is a testament to the fact that many gamblers don't care about takeout.

Second, the most popular lottery games in America-- Powerball and Mega Millions-- have 50 percent takeouts. And not only that, they are clearly takeout-inelastic, for the basic reason that most of their big jackpots are produced by carryovers and by a flat payout table at the bottom end, meaning that a decrease in takeout really wouldn't increase the big jackpots very much, and it's the big jackpots that drive sales-- sales multiply three or fourfold when the jackpot gets high enough.

Now it is true that some REGULAR lottery players who bet significant sums care somewhat about takeout, which is why you can increase sales of some games (NOT POWERBALL) by decreasing takeout.

But that's exactly the same as horseracing. Big bettors care a lot about takeout and patronize rebate shops. Most bettors just go to the track or on xpressbet and don't care that much, and casual racing fans really don't care at all and will gladly spend a lot of money at Del Mar for a day's entertainment. And of course the people who don't play the horses at all don't care at all.

I'm all in favor of takeout reduction. But it's not going to draw any NEW fans. At best, it will generate additional handle among some groups of existing fans.

I agree with part of what you are saying. When the Powerball jackpot grows beyond a certain point: ticket sales ARE inelastic. FYI, that's a tangent topic worthy of its own thread. The greater the ability a wager has to generate a life changing score the lower the price elasticity and the higher the vigorish the market for that bet will support.

Conversely, for churn type bets (win-place-show, exacta, instant scratchers games, hands of 21, etc.) the greater the price elasticity and the lower the vigorish the market for that bet will support.

But Powerball or other mega jackpot games are not the most popular games (using total sales dollars as the metric) in America.

Instant or scratchers games are. And instant or scratchers games are what I was talking about in my previous post.

If you look at the the California Lottery 2014 Annual Report you will find that instant or scratchers games account for approximately 2/3rds of all ticket sales - while at the same time ticket sales for Lotto/Powerball (and other mega jackpot games) account for a much smaller slice of the total pie.

At the bottom of this post is an image of a graph taken from p52 of the California Lottery 2014 Annual Report that shows sales by product over the past 10 years.

Note that instant or scratchers games (shown in orange) account for the bulk of the revenue.

Also note the current upward growth trend beginning with fiscal year 2011. FYI, that was the first year the California Lottery was given discretion by statute (AB142 which became state law Jan 01, 2010) to use lower takeout for lottery games.

Historically, many states had mandated prize payout percentages by statute for all of their lottery games (including instant games) at 50% or so. They did this under the mistaken belief that the lower the prize payout percentage (the higher the takeout) the higher total revenue dollars would be for the state.

You might be surprised to learn that a 30+ year real world case history exists where lottery commissions in state after state have discovered that increasing prize payout percentages (or lowering the takeout) for instant games DOES IN FACT GENERATE MORE TOTAL REVENUE dollars for state coffers than the historical (often mandated by statute) lower prize payout percentage (higher takeout) structure they had been using.

Link here:
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1410/OK_Lottery_Case_Studies.PDF

Massachusetts (in 1984) was the first state I ever read about where the state lottery commission was allowed to lower the takeout to generate an increase in total dollar revenue for the state. (Some of the individual state annual reports that I've read say that some of the more successful instant games have a takeout in the 27% to 29% range.)

Based on the success of lower takeout for instant lottery games in Massachusetts - other states including Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, New York, Texas, and even California followed. (California eventually followed with the signing of AB142 in 2009.)

My point?

There are 30+ years of real world case history where lotteries in state after state have switched from high takeout to low takeout - and in so doing - generated increases in total dollar revenue for their stakeholders.

I can't help but think if it's been working for state lotteries for the past 30 years there's a high likelihood it'll work for racing too.



-jp

.

[pandy]

I've never bet Hong Kong or Dubai etc., but I've read about their reputation for an honest game.

Why can't US racing implement whatever they are doing?

Treat offenders the same way.


That's what I always ask. Hong Kong and Japan can both be used as models.

[pandy]

I agree with part of what you are saying. When the Powerball jackpot grows beyond a certain point: ticket sales ARE inelastic. FYI, that's a tangent topic worthy of its own thread. The greater the ability a wager has to generate a life changing score the lower the price elasticity and the higher the vigorish the market for that bet will support.

Conversely, for churn type bets (win-place-show, exacta, instant scratchers games, hands of 21, etc.) the greater the price elasticity and the lower the vigorish the market for that bet will support.

But Powerball or other mega jackpot games are not the most popular games (using total sales dollars as the metric) in America.

Instant or scratchers games are. And instant or scratchers games are what I was talking about in my previous post.

If you look at the the California Lottery 2014 Annual Report you will find that instant or scratchers games account for approximately 2/3rds of all ticket sales - while at the same time ticket sales for Lotto/Powerball (and other mega jackpot games) account for a much smaller slice of the total pie.

At the bottom of this post is an image of a graph taken from p52 of the California Lottery 2014 Annual Report that shows sales by product over the past 10 years.

Note that instant or scratchers games (shown in orange) account for the bulk of the revenue.

Also note the current upward growth trend beginning with fiscal year 2011. FYI, that was the first year the California Lottery was given discretion by statute (AB142 which became state law Jan 01, 2010) to use lower takeout for lottery games.

Historically, many states had mandated prize payout percentages by statute for all of their lottery games (including instant games) at 50% or so. They did this under the mistaken belief that the lower the prize payout percentage (the higher the takeout) the higher total revenue dollars would be for the state.

You might be surprised to learn that a 30+ year real world case history exists where lottery commissions in state after state have discovered that increasing prize payout percentages (or lowering the takeout) for instant games DOES IN FACT GENERATE MORE TOTAL REVENUE dollars for state coffers than the historical (often mandated by statute) lower prize payout percentage (higher takeout) structure they had been using.

Link here:
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/griffin/NEWSon6/PDF/1410/OK_Lottery_Case_Studies.PDF

Massachusetts (in 1984) was the first state I ever read about where the state lottery commission was allowed to lower the takeout to generate an increase in total dollar revenue for the state. (Some of the individual state annual reports that I've read say that some of the more successful instant games have a takeout in the 27% to 29% range.)

Based on the success of lower takeout for instant lottery games in Massachusetts - other states including Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, New York, Texas, and even California followed (California eventually followed with the signing of AB142 in 2009.)

My point?

There are 30+ years of real world case history where lotteries in state after state have switched from high takeout to low takeout - and in so doing - generated increases in total dollar revenue for their stakeholders.

I can't help but think if it's been working for state lotteries over the past 30 years there's a high likelihood it'll work for racing too.



-jp

.


I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I don't think that the big payoff lotteries, like the Powerball, are actually the smartest way to design a lottery for maximum sales. I think the states are being fooled into thinking that's the way to go because sales increase when the jackpot hits a certain level.

But, what they don't understand is that the handle is lower than it should be when there isn't a massive jackpot and there are better models.

For instance, years ago in NY they had Lotto, where you simply had to pick the correct 6 numbers out of 48 numbers. The game was twice a week. I bet the same numbers all the time and I hit 5 of 6 for $1600.

But then they thought that it would be better if people had less of a chance to win so they increased the total numbers to 52, which made it much tougher to cash.

This is how I would structure a lottery. I would set the takeout at 35%, which would make the the most attractive lottery in the country. I would have 48 numbers or so and you have to pick 6. But, after the 35% vig is taken out, I would have multiple million dollar winners. For instance, say that after the vig, there is 50 million left. I would then start to draw the winning numbers. There would be no state tax on the winnings and each winners would win exactly $1 million after the 39% federal tax, so about $1.8 million. That would mean that a 50 mil pot would result in about 25 new millionaires, tax free. And, best of all, there are 25 winning tickets, not one. This greatly increased each player's chances of hitting big, and no one is going to complain about getting 1 million tax free, especially since with the 35% takeout and all of the extra winning tickets, it would easily be the best lottery bet in the country. If they did it this way, the pools would be enormous, bigger than the power ball, because people would know that the bigger the pool, the more chances they have of becoming a tax free millionaire.

Lotteries are run by state governments, and we all know that most of them are clueless.

[Cratos]

One big difference between casinos and fantasy sports and horseracing is that the first two are not paying taxes on handle but on profits after expenses. In the real world when someone grabs a set amount before any profits, it's called the protection racket. In order to reduce takeout, it is concomitantly necessary to reduce expenses. This could be done by substituting casino money when available, instead of just using it to supplement purses. This could also be done by turning the racetrack into a private entity, just like a casino, licensed by the state and regulated by a commission with rulemaking and enforcement authority (think something like the state board of health) and paid for by general fund revenues. Racetracks would pay taxes like everyone else. On profits after expenses. One potential outcome may be that tracks can compete (with other forms of gambling if not each other) by offerring better pricing on their wagers.

That being said, the problem of horseracing being a difficult game does not go away and I'm not sure how that gets solved. However, a first step is making it competitive with other betting opportunities and emphasizing that skill can pay off in a big way. Not so many games where you can make $6,000 in a day without risking $5,000. Having a hard game just means a higher potential for those who get skilled at it.

The whole point of the article on gambling and millenials was that they want to bet on their skill where the percentages are seen as fair.
A very good post

[whodoyoulike]

That's what I always ask. Hong Kong and Japan can both be used as models.

I don't get it. So, why isn't US racing implementing the same enforcement rules as those countries? All I want is a fair game. I don't mind fair competition. I've sorta have come to the conclusion the US tracks don't really want a fair game but only want to take their customer's money. S-L-O-W-L-Y was fine with them until a couple of years ago then their greed came to light and most of the tracks quickly followed (again an example of their greed). Maybe 18% + etc., takeout is okay because I understand Hong Kong is now around that amount. But, the product seems to be on the up and up (but, probably a scandal will now surface).

I'd bet HK races but for 1) the inconvenient times, 2) difficulty using the available PP's, 3) the race is in the metric system (who can understand that??) and 4) they race the wrong way!! I'm used to knowing where each horse is on the track based on the fractional times relative to the finish.

[Robert Goren]

One big difference between casinos and fantasy sports and horseracing is that the first two are not paying taxes on handle but on profits after expenses. In the real world when someone grabs a set amount before any profits, it's called the protection racket. In order to reduce takeout, it is concomitantly necessary to reduce expenses. This could be done by substituting casino money when available, instead of just using it to supplement purses. This could also be done by turning the racetrack into a private entity, just like a casino, licensed by the state and regulated by a commission with rulemaking and enforcement authority (think something like the state board of health) and paid for by general fund revenues. Racetracks would pay taxes like everyone else. On profits after expenses. One potential outcome may be that tracks can compete (with other forms of gambling if not each other) by offerring better pricing on their wagers.

That being said, the problem of horseracing being a difficult game does not go away and I'm not sure how that gets solved. However, a first step is making it competitive with other betting opportunities and emphasizing that skill can pay off in a big way. Not so many games where you can make $6,000 in a day without risking $5,000. Having a hard game just means a higher potential for those who get skilled at it.

The whole point of the article on gambling and millenials was that they want to bet on their skill where the percentages are seen as fair.In reality, horse racing pays very little of its handle in taxes. It almost always less than one percent which used to fund the racing commissions and rules enforcement. This was not always the case. In 1960s when takeouts were 12-13%, the governments got around 5%, The other 7-8% was split between the tracks and the horsemen. The greatest myth about horse racing is that the state governments are getting rich at horse racing expense. In fact, most states actually lose money on horse racing. The industry will tell you that taxes from the workers in the industry more than make up for it. Maybe? Maybe not? Most of the workers in the industry make so little money they do not pay income taxes, at least that is case here in Nebraska.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who can blame them?

It's no fun spending hours handicapping at home the night before...so you can lose your money the next day. The gambling public has spoken...and has stated unequivocally that they prefer other forms of gambling instead of horse race betting. "Marketing" is good at introducing your product...but then your product has to pull its OWN weight. Marketing won't help you when your product is roundly rejected.Where is this game where a great preponderance of it's players are raking in fistfuls of cash?

Most, if not all gambling ventures result in most of the players losing most of their money. Horse racing is not unique in this regard.

[dilanesp]

Where is this game where a great preponderance of it's players are raking in fistfuls of cash?

Most, if not all gambling ventures result in most of the players losing most of their money. Horse racing is not unique in this regard.

Correct.

More broadly, to beat any gambling game that is beatable (without cheating or insider trading) requires a great deal of knowledge and study.

It's true that anyone can play poker or blackjack or the lottery or a football point spread without having to sit down a read a racing form and carfully study the bet. But to actually beat the game long term, in each case, requires a tremendous amount of study. The poker players who actually win study the math of the game just as intensely and carefully as good horseplayers study horse racing.

The size of gambling pools is predicated on the number of people who think they can get rich quick. But the only people who actually make money honestly in the pools are the people who treat it like any other job that you have to get really good at.

[pandy]

I know with regular NFL wagering, for instance, I think that most people who bet the NFL don't put enough work in. They watch a few games a make snap decisions on bets. You can't win that way. It's just like horse race handicapping. You have to study the stats, watch games, and have some sort of logical and consistent method of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the match ups and point spread. For some reason, people think you can just glance at the point spreads and make snap decisions without getting your head handed to you.

[AndyC]

I know with regular NFL wagering, for instance, I think that most people who bet the NFL don't put enough work in. They watch a few games a make snap decisions on bets. You can't win that way. It's just like horse race handicapping. You have to study the stats, watch games, and have some sort of logical and consistent method of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the match ups and point spread. For some reason, people think you can just glance at the point spreads and make snap decisions without getting your head handed to you.

Most people think they know football. And furthermore they think they know exactly why their team is successful or unsuccessful. What better way to show off your knowledge than betting on a game?

On the flip side, most people have no such delusions about horse racing so betting on racing isn't nearly as tempting.

[dilanesp]

I know with regular NFL wagering, for instance, I think that most people who bet the NFL don't put enough work in. They watch a few games a make snap decisions on bets. You can't win that way. It's just like horse race handicapping. You have to study the stats, watch games, and have some sort of logical and consistent method of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the match ups and point spread. For some reason, people think you can just glance at the point spreads and make snap decisions without getting your head handed to you.

I like to joke sometimes to poker players that the best book ever written about poker was "Death of a Salesman".

But it's only a half-joke. Willy Loman epitomizes the get-rich-quick; anyone-can-do-this; I'm-just-as-smart-as-anyone delusion that American capitalism in general runs upon. But gambling REALLY runs on it. Gambling creates this appearance that it's the way to get rich without working; in fact, it rewards the smart, diligent, hard workers (and the people with the insider connections :) ) just like any other vocation.

[thaskalos]

Where is this game where a great preponderance of it's players are raking in fistfuls of cash?

Most, if not all gambling ventures result in most of the players losing most of their money. Horse racing is not unique in this regard.
The great gambling laboratory better known as Las Vegas has given us conclusive proof that horse racing cannot hold its own, as far as player interest is concerned, when it is asked to directly compete alongside the other forms of gambling out there. Only a miniscule part of Vegas's gambling action is generated by their racebooks...and it has been thus for many years.

Yes...almost all the gamblers lose, in every gambling venture...but it is obvious, to me at least, that the vast majority of the gambling public would rather lose while playing some game other than horse racing.

I am a horseplayer, and have been one for many years. But this fact doesn't mean that I must keep my head in the sand.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In reality, horse racing pays very little of its handle in taxes. It almost always less than one percent which used to fund the racing commissions and rules enforcement. This was not always the case. In 1960s when takeouts were 12-13%, the governments got around 5%, The other 7-8% was split between the tracks and the horsemen. The greatest myth about horse racing is that the state governments are getting rich at horse racing expense. In fact, most states actually lose money on horse racing. The industry will tell you that taxes from the workers in the industry more than make up for it. Maybe? Maybe not? Most of the workers in the industry make so little money they do not pay income taxes, at least that is case here in Nebraska.

You are right that most states are not getting rich, and that is part of the problem. They look for more money by passing takeout increases. I'm not sure I can reconcile your less than one percent number with the actual distribution of takeout. This is what California takes out of handle on average.

on-track off-track
State licensing fee 6.24% 3.53%
UC Davis 0.10% 0.10%
City Tax 0.33% 0.33%

Total to State 6.67% 3.96%

CTBA gets a cut. The track gets 6.23 % of the on-track handle for revenues, and 5.15% for purses. The cut is slightly less for off-track revenues. Based on that, they are STILL getting a little under 12% and the state is doing slightly better.

You might be right that the commission is getting less than 1% for operations, but my point stays the same. The state takes its cut before looking at profit and expenses, and that cut is over 36% of the total takeout. If California is losing money after taking 6.67% of what California does in handle (in 2013 that was $257 million just on-track, and almost that much in off-track wagers) I might suggest they should look at their expenditures. For states like Nebraska or Colorado or Arizona where handle is far lower, it makes sense that racetrack regulation feels like a money losing nuisance.

The problem is still that taxes should be tied to profits, not revenues.

[castaway01]

I don't get it. So, why isn't US racing implementing the same enforcement rules as those countries? All I want is a fair game. I don't mind fair competition. I've sorta have come to the conclusion the US tracks don't really want a fair game but only want to take their customer's money. S-L-O-W-L-Y was fine with them until a couple of years ago then their greed came to light and most of the tracks quickly followed (again an example of their greed). Maybe 18% + etc., takeout is okay because I understand Hong Kong is now around that amount. But, the product seems to be on the up and up (but, probably a scandal will now surface).

I'd bet HK races but for 1) the inconvenient times, 2) difficulty using the available PP's, 3) the race is in the metric system (who can understand that??) and 4) they race the wrong way!! I'm used to knowing where each horse is on the track based on the fractional times relative to the finish.

How are you going to socialize the tracks, i.e., have the government run them? The government controls all gambling in Hong Kong. It's nothing like the United States. I imagine if you gave one group here ownership of all casinos, racetracks, and lotteries they'd manage to turn a profit. And Hong Kong still has similar takeout levels to here, so it's not as if they're giving it all back to the players. They just control every aspect of gaming.

[Poindexter]

Where is this game where a great preponderance of it's players are raking in fistfuls of cash?

Most, if not all gambling ventures result in most of the players losing most of their money. Horse racing is not unique in this regard.

it seems like when I read the poker forums 99% of the poker players are raking in fistfuls of cash :lol: :lol: :lol: (it is not whether they actually can win or not, it is whether they think they can win that drives the action-same with sports betting......).

It is not a matter of enabling everybody to win fistfuls of cash, it is a matter of enabling the layman to lose at a rate that will not drive him away because he soon discovers he has no chance (and rather than blame himself for lack of effort or ability it becomes the races are crooked, the trainers are all using drugs, past posting, the whales are too sharp......not saying these aren't factors just saying when you can't beat the game it becomes the reason you can't beat the game and the perception of the gambling public).
Moreover if you enable maybe the upper 10% or so to earn and churn, rather than just the upper 1% to 1/4% mostly via crw and rebates(putting others at a further disadvantage) it is much easier to change the perception that the game is unbeatable. People talk. So in so starts making $20,000 a year betting horses he tells his friends, who now join in the pursuit. In a social media driven society, word of mouth is worth a lot more than it used to be........

As Thaskalos mentioned in his previous post, Horse racing has never stacked up well against other forms of gambling in Vegas. It's ace in the hole was that it was pretty much the only legal game in town. Those days are long gone and if it doesn't reinvent itself as the game for sharp gamblers to earn, it doesn't have a fighting chance.

I apologize for being so redundant, but you guys keep drawing me back in. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[whodoyoulike]

I have a system. It's on sale this week only. 10% off for PA members. ;)

Wait a sec! You must think I'm a gullible rube. But, before I left home my Pappy told me to always ask you "City Folks" questions when haggling with you guys.

Do you need a computer to use it and if I pay cash can I get more than 10% off?

[whodoyoulike]

How are you going to socialize the tracks, i.e., have the government run them? The government controls all gambling in Hong Kong. It's nothing like the United States. I imagine if you gave one group here ownership of all casinos, racetracks, and lotteries they'd manage to turn a profit. And Hong Kong still has similar takeout levels to here, so it's not as if they're giving it all back to the players. They just control every aspect of gaming.


Why can't State Racing Commissions, race tracks and horse owners follow the lead of HK, Japan, Dubai etc.?

They already have examples to follow.

Ban offenders for years or for life and give them a huge fine in penalties to deter others.

I've mentioned previously that I just don't think "they" want to make these changes for some reason. They always "talk" but can't "walk the talk".

HK I've read is very aware of presenting an honest game and takes appropriate measures because it involves huge amounts of money over there.

[Stillriledup]

Most people think they know football. And furthermore they think they know exactly why their team is successful or unsuccessful. What better way to show off your knowledge than betting on a game?

On the flip side, most people have no such delusions about horse racing so betting on racing isn't nearly as tempting.

This is a good point, I think that not only do they think they know football, but they feel they're getting full disclosure with all the sideline reporters, studio shows and injury reports to name a few. They're betting with the 'knowledge' that they have enough info to make an informed betting decision, in racing they don't feel the same way. Also they know in racing the participants are betting the races, in football they're not too worried that the players are betting.

[Robert Fischer]

Most people think they know football. And furthermore they think they know exactly why their team is successful or unsuccessful. What better way to show off your knowledge than betting on a game?

On the flip side, most people have no such delusions about horse racing so betting on racing isn't nearly as tempting.

Football also actually has a broadcast effort. That factor alone makes it difficult to draw any comparisons to Horse Racing whatsoever.

[Cratos]

Why can't State Racing Commissions, race tracks and horse owners follow the lead of HK, Japan, Dubai etc.?

They already have examples to follow.

Ban offenders for years or for life and give them a huge fine in penalties to deter others.

I've mentioned previously that I just don't think "they" want to make these changes for some reason. They always "talk" but can't "walk the talk".

HK I've read is very aware of presenting an honest game and takes appropriate measures because it involves huge amounts of money over there.
In a word: POLITICS

[whodoyoulike]

In a word: POLITICS

You're probably correct that POLITICS is involved.

We know certain politicians are against gambling in any form and maybe their intent is to insinuate that all forms of gambling really is evil not only for themselves but they are looking out for everyone else's interests whether you people realize it or not. And, they can prove it if you'll just give them time and contribute to their campaign(s) so they can have a job or until they can retire with a government pension.

My point is there is no excuse for not cleaning up horse racing. They're already spending millions of their takeout monies on tests etc. I don't think "they" really want to have a clean game.

Don't get me started on what I think of politicians!! They're a bunch of ....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Why can't State Racing Commissions, race tracks and horse owners follow the lead of HK, Japan, Dubai etc.?

They already have examples to follow.

Ban offenders for years or for life and give them a huge fine in penalties to deter others.

I've mentioned previously that I just don't think "they" want to make these changes for some reason. They always "talk" but can't "walk the talk".

HK I've read is very aware of presenting an honest game and takes appropriate measures because it involves huge amounts of money over there.

While it is not perfectly correlative, Congress at one time thought assigning draconian penalties to drug offenses below major distribution. The Administration just announced many of the people that received those penalties will be getting early release.

The point is that the punishments need to fit the crimes. I agree wholeheartedly that a major distributor could merit a harsh penalty, and I agree wholeheartedly that trainers found guilty of administering real performance enhancing drugs should get severe penalties.

From my perspective racing commissions have trouble discriminating between substances that deserve hard time and those that deserve something short of lifetime bans, same as Congress.

When well meaning people go too far the result is punishment beyond all proportion. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I think racing commissions are more and more assessing harsher and harsher penalties. They are as likely to get rid of trainers who are basically good guys as banning the rotten ones.

I would wholeheartedly agree with long bans and large fines if the system was set up to provide real due process instead of the current system.

[MJC922]

The player's end of the bargain is well known to anyone who actually wins or has won, it's simply to set better probabilities than virtually anyone else. I shouldn't have to do a damn thing more than that. We all know this is going to take a lot of effort, it's a job.

Any gambling outsider looking to get into this situation (soon enough that's possibly a nice slice of these fantasy sports buffs so pay attention) will scoff right away at these odds changes after the race is underway and if you've ever read some of the boards which serious gamblers frequent and look at old threads where racing is mentioned it's that late money avalanche and the takeout, those are the two things that are absolute deal breakers preventing them getting involved.

These serious gamblers make a sensible choice to stay away, the only people sticking it out are those of us with a lifetime already IN here before it got bad, waiting for a turnaround like exchange wagering, anything to bring more stability to the odds, more high-percentage options. There's a good reason nearly every big name handicapper of note seems to be on some industry payroll in one form or another and it has nothing to do with them not doing the work or being poor handicappers.

Granted a few of the older guard have managed to adapt, but for them, as good as they are it seems be a quest to churn huge money for rebates. There's no hope to get new people interested in something like that.

You look at fantasy sports and what do you see in a 50/50 game, I suspect way more than half of these people are going to bet again next week, they're involved all day with one 'bet'. Poindexter makes a great point, bets have to kill people slowly. There's huge churn potential with the fantasy stuff, even if you're a know-nothing you're going to be in there every week with a shot and die a slow but exciting death. People have the perception they can win because every other week they probably do. What happens with the horses? Most people hemorrhage money and are on their way home after 5 or 6 races.

Design some bets that kill people slowly whether it's one race or over an extended sequence of races, and I mean even the people who start out knowing absolute zero. You only want 15% of the money that people wager in a day and then you might have them back tomorrow for another 15%. AND you should have as Poindexter said at least a small percentage of people who DO win something annually, the ones who do the full days work should be winning obviously enough to any close observer, they don't have to be millionaires. Word travels fast when you have real winners every year even if they're busting ass to do it.

So IMO the game will have to change a few things about the types of bets it offers and consider cleaning up a bit. The other option is to do nothing and continue in this death spiral... because if nothing changes I suspect within a couple of decades we get ourselves down to just a half dozen super-tracks and no real industry left.

[whodoyoulike]

...
The point is that the punishments need to fit the crimes. I agree wholeheartedly that a major distributor could merit a harsh penalty, and I agree wholeheartedly that trainers found guilty of administering real performance enhancing drugs should get severe penalties.

From my perspective racing commissions have trouble discriminating between substances that deserve hard time and those that deserve something short of lifetime bans, same as Congress.

When well meaning people go too far the result is punishment beyond all proportion. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I think racing commissions are more and more assessing harsher and harsher penalties. They are as likely to get rid of trainers who are basically good guys as banning the rotten ones. ...

I'm looking at it this way regarding PED's, and cheating in general. Their intent is to CHEAT me out of my money if I'm betting that race and it's on another entry.

When they do this, these cheaters are CHEATING most of the other bettors, other owners, trainers and jockeys of their money. They're risking the lives and livelihood of the jockeys they employ who just want to do their jobs. And, any other jockey who happens to become involved in any mishap resulting from PED's which effect the horse's ability to race normally. For what ---- Money?

What kind of POS values money over life?

My punishments would fit the crime.


I would wholeheartedly agree with long bans and large fines if the system was set up to provide real due process instead of the current system.

What exactly is wrong with the current due process in practice?

There is one in place, they should use it and have it applicable everywhere in the US instead of only at that track's local jurisdiction. There's been a number of recent cases of vets, trainers, jockeys and owners cheating ..... ban 'em everywhere in the US from practicing.

And, I realize the State Commissions are not really a part of the judicial system even though they act like they are.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What exactly is wrong with the current due process in practice?

There is one in place, they should use it and have it applicable everywhere in the US instead of only at that track's local jurisdiction. There's been a number of recent cases of vets, trainers, jockeys and owners cheating ..... ban 'em everywhere in the US from practicing.

And, I realize the State Commissions are not really a part of the judicial system even though they act like they are.

I haven't found a lawyer (including prosecuting attorneys) yet who would agree that horseracing even approaches due process. The system says guilty until proven innocent, and lacks any useful interest in finding the truth or investigating violations. Racing commissioners are substantially unqualified to hear cases, and they defer to administrative staff and their lawyers who often see themselves above the fray or have their own agenda which involves making a name. Due process in horseracing just means they had the hearing they are supposed to have before they hang you. Justice has little to do with it.

The difference between us is that I've spent hundreds of hours talking to people at all levels, from the bottom to the top. Horsemen and the attorneys that represent them, grooms, owners, racing commissioners, stewards, track executives, and racing commission staff. I've looked under the rock and it ain't pretty.

[whodoyoulike]

I haven't found a lawyer (including prosecuting attorneys) yet who would agree that horseracing even approaches due process. The system says guilty until proven innocent, and lacks any useful interest in finding the truth or investigating violations. Racing commissioners are substantially unqualified to hear cases, and they defer to administrative staff and their lawyers who often see themselves above the fray or have their own agenda which involves making a name. Due process in horseracing just means they had the hearing they are supposed to have before they hang you. Justice has little to do with it.

The difference between us is that I've spent hundreds of hours talking to people at all levels, from the bottom to the top. Horsemen and the attorneys that represent them, grooms, owners, racing commissioners, stewards, track executives, and racing commission staff. I've looked under the rock and it ain't pretty.

As I mentioned and this is off the top of my head, the State Commissions attempt to portray their process as if they were a part of our judicial system which I don't believe they are.

Their system of procedures and justice to me is similar to a Condo or other housing HOA's. They're authorized to assess fines and restrictions e.g., re: vets, jockeys, owners and trainers ..... they can fine and ban them from knocking on doors in a certain area but it doesn't prevent them from just going to another Condo etc., and knock on doors there.

The commissioners are generally unqualified to do what they're doing regarding legal issues because I believe they're appointed by the State Governor probably in most cases without consideration of their required knowledge to act effectively.

[dilanesp]

I'm not the biggest fan of due process when it comes to horsemen. Horsemen exploit due process. Jockeys exploit due process.

And the reality is, this is a state licensed enterprise, connected to gambling and the public's money, and where maintaining the integrity of the game really is paramount.

I prefer the trainer responsibility rule. You're the trainer, you are responsible for everything that happens to the horse. You don't want that responsibility? Fine, find another profession.

And I also don't think jockeys should be allowed to stay their suspensions without a very serious showing that the suspension is invalid. Nor should there be a designated race rule. You miss a big race? Too bad. It's part of the penalty.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm not the biggest fan of due process when it comes to horsemen. Horsemen exploit due process. Jockeys exploit due process.

And the reality is, this is a state licensed enterprise, connected to gambling and the public's money, and where maintaining the integrity of the game really is paramount.

I prefer the trainer responsibility rule. You're the trainer, you are responsible for everything that happens to the horse. You don't want that responsibility? Fine, find another profession.

And I also don't think jockeys should be allowed to stay their suspensions without a very serious showing that the suspension is invalid. Nor should there be a designated race rule. You miss a big race? Too bad. It's part of the penalty.

Whether horseracing or criminal justice, everyone should have the right to a fair hearing. When the stewards investigate, then hold a hearing where they may have already reached a conclusion on guilt or innocence, it is nothing like the criminal justice system where you have the right to an unbiased judge and jury. The racing commission is the accuser, the investigator, the jury and the judge. How in the world you can equate that with due process or suggest trainers and jockeys exploit it is at the very least puzzling.

Even if maintaining the integrity of the game is paramount, there is a right and fair way to do it. The trainer responsibility rule has to be accompanied by racetracks taking their part of the responsibility. Test results should be available in 3-5 days, not two months. Video surveillance should be mandatory on the backside, and should be stored through the end of any case. The accused should have an absolute right to representation at all meetings and hearings. Commissions should have some level of responsibility for investigating offenses. Does it help horseracing to have a trainer accused of a nikethamide violation without ever trying to find out where the nikethamide came from? Have you been on a backside? Do you know how easy it would be for someone to mess with another trainer's horse if he got it in his mind to do so? And if he does, should the trainer be the only one to suffer the consequences? I have a very hard time believing if you were subject to the vagaries of a system like trainers and jockeys face. I hope you would be as accepting of its punishment.

Baseball players are allowed an appeal and a stay until they get a hearing. So are most other athletes. Criminals are allowed bail, walking around free until they get a trial. Why do jockeys deserve something less?

Punish the guilty fairly. Is that such a horrible idea?

[Stillriledup]

Whether horseracing or criminal justice, everyone should have the right to a fair hearing. When the stewards investigate, then hold a hearing where they may have already reached a conclusion on guilt or innocence, it is nothing like the criminal justice system where you have the right to an unbiased judge and jury. The racing commission is the accuser, the investigator, the jury and the judge. How in the world you can equate that with due process or suggest trainers and jockeys exploit it is at the very least puzzling.

Even if maintaining the integrity of the game is paramount, there is a right and fair way to do it. The trainer responsibility rule has to be accompanied by racetracks taking their part of the responsibility. Test results should be available in 3-5 days, not two months. Video surveillance should be mandatory on the backside, and should be stored through the end of any case. The accused should have an absolute right to representation at all meetings and hearings. Commissions should have some level of responsibility for investigating offenses. Does it help horseracing to have a trainer accused of a nikethamide violation without ever trying to find out where the nikethamide came from? Have you been on a backside? Do you know how easy it would be for someone to mess with another trainer's horse if he got it in his mind to do so? And if he does, should the trainer be the only one to suffer the consequences? I have a very hard time believing if you were subject to the vagaries of a system like trainers and jockeys face. I hope you would be as accepting of its punishment.

Baseball players are allowed an appeal and a stay until they get a hearing. So are most other athletes. Criminals are allowed bail, walking around free until they get a trial. Why do jockeys deserve something less?

Punish the guilty fairly. Is that such a horrible idea?

His point I believe is that 95 pct of the time it's a fake appeal and they're just using the appeal to select their own days. What needs to happen is if you want fair treatment, there needs to be addl punishment if you lose the appeal as well as not being able to take your days the moment you drop the appeal. Have a system where if a jock drops an appeal, his suspension starts 2 weeks from that day, that way he won't know what mounts he's missing until its too late.

Also, none of this you get to ride designated races stuff, that needs to go.

[AndyC]

Also, none of this you get to ride designated races stuff, that needs to go.


Don't agree. Many suspensions are for heinous crimes such as failing to maintain a straight course or the like. It seems unfair that a punishment could be far more severe for one jockey versus another solely based on the timing of the suspension.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

His point I believe is that 95 pct of the time it's a fake appeal and they're just using the appeal to select their own days. What needs to happen is if you want fair treatment, there needs to be addl punishment if you lose the appeal as well as not being able to take your days the moment you drop the appeal. Have a system where if a jock drops an appeal, his suspension starts 2 weeks from that day, that way he won't know what mounts he's missing until its too late.

Also, none of this you get to ride designated races stuff, that needs to go.

Actually most jursdictions do exactly what you suggested for trainers and jockeys who appeal. The penalty for perturbing the commission is usually pretty steep. Appeal at your own risk.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about jockeys not getting to ride designated races. I don't know that I see the need to suspend jockeys for most riding infractions. I think fines are probably good enough to send the message. If you look at driving infractions, going 10 miles over on the freeway gets you a fine and some points, but that's it. Accumulate too many points and you might lose your license for a a short time. On the other hand, DUI is an immediate loss of your license (but not until due process has taken place). I think the same sort of scale could apply to riding.

[TonyK@HSH]

His point I believe is that 95 pct of the time it's a fake appeal and they're just using the appeal to select their own days. What needs to happen is if you want fair treatment, there needs to be addl punishment if you lose the appeal as well as not being able to take your days the moment you drop the appeal. Have a system where if a jock drops an appeal, his suspension starts 2 weeks from that day, that way he won't know what mounts he's missing until its too late.



Many jurisdictions do penalize a jockey for exercising their right to appeal. For example, a suspension may be given for 5 day with no appeal and 7 days if the jock appeals (and loses the appeal). This action is taken to discourage frivolous appeals.

[highnote]

I guarantee if he does not, someone else at the table will. The last thing most blackjack players want to see happen is someone take a card when they should not have and have it cost them a winner. I know it doesn't make any difference and it gets as many winners as it cost you, but try explaining it to a table of players some time.


You're right and that is one of the reasons I don't like blackjack. I was a card-counter and sometimes I made the correct play which was different than basic strategy. If I drew a card that would have caused the dealer to bust if the dealer would have taken that card then it pissed off the other players. So I didn't find the environment very fun to operate in. Not to mention the noise, smoke and darkness. There are better ways to try to make a buck.

One better way is horse racing. You can have an edge and bet from the comfort of your home. Or you can have a pleasant day outside at the track or even at a track restaurant. You can hang out with friends and have a nice conversation between races.

I would think there will always be a large demographic that will always be attracted to racing.