PDA

View Full Version : Cheap Race Handle


pandy
03-11-2016, 09:06 AM
These stats were sent to me by Michael Antoniades. Pool size was higher in the cheaper races on these days, than in the allowance and higher level races.

A small sample of races from last weekend to illustrate how the betting public views lower level claiming races.

Gulfstream
Saturday Race 8
$6,250 Claiming
Field size 12

POOL TOTALS

WPS 439,039
EX 389,353
TRI 239,339
SUP 162,364
DD 63,452
P3 60,569

T 1,354,116

Tampa Bay
Saturday Race 6
$5,000 Claiming
Field size 9

POOL TOTALS

WPS 183,224
EX 162,084
TRI 110,047
SUP 74,201
DD 17,962
P3 17,410

T 564,928

Santa Anita
Sunday Race 7
$8,000 Claiming
Field size 10

POOL TOTALS

WPS 296,003
EX 190,307
TRI 133,916
SUP 118,965
DD 35,029
P3 115,698

T 889,918

castaway01
03-11-2016, 09:18 AM
Wouldn't we need to see the information from the allowance races to make a comparison?

Stillriledup
03-11-2016, 01:16 PM
We have been sold a bill of goods, we were told that billions in slot money going into the pockets of owners, trainers and jockeys would increase quality of races and bettors bet more on better races, but now we see that bettors bet on bets, not horses.

In the case of the trainer and jockeys share, the money they take from the game doesn't get reinvested in purchasing horses or betting on them, it just goes out of the game to not return.

Think of how much bigger national handle would be if the slot money was all given to bettors in seeded carry overs and just 'REBET' Once in churn.

A trillion in slot money over the decades and not one dollar went to the customers.

Jeff P
03-11-2016, 02:48 PM
Here's a link to an economic study titled An Economic Analysis of a Parimutuel Racetrack-Racebook authored by Dr. Richard Thalheimer of the University Of Louisville:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/economic20analysis.pdf

In layman's terms - Thalheimer identified the drivers of betting handle - which he ranked in order of importance as follows:

1. Special event days - KY Derby, Belmont, Preakness, Breeder's Cup, etc.

2. Takeout rate.

3. Number of races.

4. Average field size.

5. Purse size.


Excerpt from pages 8-9:
Examining the own-elasticities, it can be seen that of the four variables, wagering on a subject racetrack's races is most elastic with respect to its takeout rate, least elastic with respect to its average purse and comparably elastic with respect to number of races and average field size. The median takeout rate elastici~ was found to be -2.30 indicating that wagering is strongly responsive to takeout rate changes. This is consistent with prior findings in the literature (Gruen, 1976; Morgan and Vasche, 1979, 1980, 1982; Suits, 1979; Thalheimer and Ali, 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Ali and Thalheimer, 1997).

The takeout rate of -2.30 indicates that revenue will increase with a drop in takeout rate up to the optimum level where takeout rate elasticity is -1.00. If host fee cost is deducted from the takeout rate the optimum level will occur at an elasticity greater than -1.00. It can be shown that for elasticities of the order of magnitude found in this study, the present level of takeout rate is such that it can be lowered without changing the host track fee, to increase net revenue to the racetrack-racebook (after host fee deduction). ..However, the racetrack-racebook will get a proportionally lower increase in net revenue than the host racetrack. For example, at a takeout rate level of 20% and a host fee of 3%, the net revenue maximizing elasticity is computed to be -1.18 which is still less than the typical elasticity of -2.3 found in this study. Of course, if the host track fee is lowered in proportion to the change in takeout rate, revenue for all parties (host track, racetrack-racebook, horsemen) will in crease in the same proportion.

Median own-elasticities with respect to number of races and average field size were found to be 0.64 and 0.58, respectively. There is no prior study to gauge the magnitudes of these elasticities but it seems wagering is moderately responsive to changes in number of races or field size. Finally, median average purse elasticity was found to be 0.06 which is considerably smaller than elasticity with respect to takeout rate, number of races or field size. This average purse elasticity is quite small and it suggests, for example that wagering would increase by only 6% if purse were doubled. This is a surprising finding considering the importance that is attached to the purse variable in all major policy decisions to increase the wagering in this industry.

Thalheimer's paper was published in 1988.

Yet if you study present day betting handle it becomes painfully obvious these same handle drivers are every bit as important today as they ever were.

Here we are some 28 years later and industry decision makers in nearly every racing jurisdiction you can name apparently would rather bury their collective heads in the sand than acknowledge the findings of Thalheimer and others.



-jp

.

stu
03-11-2016, 04:35 PM
Though 16 months old, I thought that this link was worth re-sharing: http://ua-rtip.org/symposium/sites/ua-rtip.org.symposium/files/KOCH_Symposium_Field%20Size_Dec2014.pdf

Jeff P
03-11-2016, 06:40 PM
I read that study study when it first came out. (And reread it just now.)

According to Thalheimer and others, when it comes to being a determinant of handle, takeout is many times over more important than lesser factors such as average field size and purses mentioned in the Woodbine study.

How can the Woodbine study completely ignore the subject of takeout?

In fact the word takeout does not appear in the Woodbine study. (Not even once.)

Why is that?

Why would Woodbine completely ignore takeout in their own published study?

The only conclusion I am personally able to draw is that I think someone at Woodbine really wanted to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Consider the following...

Woodbine's pick5 takeout is an insane 25%.

But wait, it gets worse.

You see Woodbine has a policy that goes something like this:

When a player on track at Woodbine bets a pick5 run at a host track with a lower pick5 takeout than Woodbine - and literally every track in North America that offers a pick5 has a lower pick5 takeout than Woodbine does... Sam Houston 12.00%, Laurel 12.00%, Pimlico 12.00%, Kentucky Downs 14.00%, California 14.00%, NYRA 15.00%, Monmouth 15.00%, Gulfstream 15.00%, Tampa Bay Downs 15.00%, Arlington 15.00%, Delaware 15.00%, Portland Meadows 15.00%, Turf Paradise 15.00%, Keeneland 19.00%, etc. etc,...

Woodbine charges players 'lucky' enough to on track at Woodbine who bet and cash a low takeout pick5 the 'Woodbine' pick5 takeout rate of 25%!

Speaking strictly for myself, connecting the dots, I have my own opinion as to why the Woodbine study completely ignored the subject of takeout.




-jp

.

NorCalGreg
03-11-2016, 08:20 PM
I read that study study when it first came out. (And reread it just now.)

According to Thalheimer and others, when it comes to being a determinant of handle, takeout is many times over more important than lesser factors such as average field size and purses mentioned in the Woodbine study.

How can the Woodbine study completely ignore the subject of takeout?

In fact the word takeout does not appear in the Woodbine study. (Not even once.)

Why is that?

Why would Woodbine completely ignore takeout in their own published study?

The only conclusion I am personally able to draw is that I think someone at Woodbine really wanted to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Consider the following...

Woodbine's pick5 takeout is an insane 25%.

But wait, it gets worse.

You see Woodbine has a policy that goes something like this:

When a player on track at Woodbine bets a pick5 run at a host track with a lower pick5 takeout than Woodbine - and literally every track in North America that offers a pick5 has a lower pick5 takeout than Woodbine does... Sam Houston 12.00%, Laurel 12.00%, Pimlico 12.00%, Kentucky Downs 14.00%, California 14.00%, NYRA 15.00%, Monmouth 15.00%, Gulfstream 15.00%, Tampa Bay Downs 15.00%, Arlington 15.00%, Delaware 15.00%, Portland Meadows 15.00%, Turf Paradise 15.00%, Keeneland 19.00%, etc. etc,...

Woodbine charges players 'lucky' enough to on track at Woodbine who bet and cash a low takeout pick5 the 'Woodbine' pick5 takeout rate of 25%!

Speaking strictly for myself, connecting the dots, I have my own opinion as to why the Woodbine study completely ignored the subject of takeout.




-jp

.


Wow...that's an eye-opener. This is really disturbing--to the point of forcing the reader to ask him/herself... "Why do I even participate in this farce of a game?"