Los Al Done?

[SuperPickle]

Apparently there was a zoning meeting in Cypress to discuss the rezoning of Los Al which would end racing.

I just read about it on Twitter and can't find an article.

Oh and kicker is Doc Alred is asking for the zoning change. Not sure if it's an estate issue or what.

So it looks like once Doc dies racing ends.

Once someone writes an article please post it.

[sharkie187]

I saw the same tweets, another person stated that the plant manager probably wanted support for the redevelopment of the land and possibly didn't like Michelle Yu's question that Doc left Los Al to the church in his will.

[burnsy]

These discussions always crack me up. Zoning, selling for the real estate and all the other "technicalities". Somehow most racing fans and gamblers are these bolstering "market" people until it comes to race tracks. Then its the blues crying like any other "fan".

Here's some real criteria. If they are looking at turning it into something else, its probably not that good to begin with.

Do people show up? Is there any "live" attendance at all?

What about handle? I'm not talking the total. I'm talking the total number of people actually betting it and following it. The guy that bets 2 bucks and 5 bucks is the places life blood. When will they figure this out? That's a fan base.

Are there more than 5 horses in a race? Is it worth following at all?


Here's a hint when conversations like this come up, the place is usually struggling. If it were not for the casino money this kind of talk would be all over the map. But you can read and listen to people yelling at the top of their lungs how great things are going.

Its the Monster Mash...........Its a graveyard smash...... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

But you can read and listen to people yelling at the top of their lungs how great things are going.Really? Where?

[SuperPickle]

Here's the thing. Stabling issue aside I think SoCal Racing is better without Los Al. The quality is awful. You could still cobble together a 7-8 month meet without Los Al.

Everyone will lose it because this is the end year round racing but in the end the top 3-5 guys will open NY divisions and we'll move on.

I hope racing in SoCal can survive as a fall/winter thing.

[Jeff P]

Really? Where?

Go to any monthly CHRB meeting - or listen to the audio. Or sit through any of the CHRB's committee meetings.

You will be treated to a constant parade of speakers representing various Cal racing groups... TOC, CTT, CHRB, OTBs, track management, union reps, etc... all bemoaning the fact that handle is dropping - and as a result - revenue for the budgets of their particular organization keeps shrinking too - and the only 'solution' they can see is to cut dates, cut hours, layoff more workers, etc.

But try talking to them about anything customer oriented - for example suggest that maybe 22.68% exacta takeout might be a bit too much on the high side...

And suddenly they turn into cheerleaders -- and they will tell you how great things are.

I'm not kidding about this. I've experienced it many times.

I first experienced this phenomenon back in 2009 or 2010 at a CHRB meeting when I argued against a takeout increase at Los AL that Doc Alred wanted because he "didn't know what else to do."

I told them their revenue projections were flawed because they wen't accounting for the fall off in handle that would result from higher takeout.

Everyone from every one of the Cal Racing alphabet groups was sure that higher takeout has zero effect on handle.

I experienced this same phenomenon a few months later at Los AL at when the CHRB wanted a follow up meeting because Los Al's on track handle was down 26%-27% vs. the prior year because of their takeout increase. Yet Los Al track management was telling the CHRB "we couldn't be happier" and "we are doing just fine."

I experienced this phenomenon a few months later at a CHRB meeting at Del Mar - where despite Los Al's on track handle being down 26-27% in the 6 months immediately following their takeout increase - Los Al track management once again told the CHRB "we couldn't be happier" and "we are doing just fine" and the Commissioners of the CHRB voted unanimously to make Los Al's takeout increase permanent.

All you have to do to experience this phenomenon yourself is get involved.


-jp

.

[Dave Schwartz]

What about handle? I'm not talking the total. I'm talking the total number of people actually betting it and following it. The guy that bets 2 bucks and 5 bucks is the places life blood. When will they figure this out? That's a fan base.

Not since about 1995 or so.

I mean, in the age of million dollar handle it takes 200,000 $5 bets to make a million dollars. Those $5 players -perhaps actually betting $20 per race on a 9-race card - means that they need 5,500 of them daily.

Sorry, but I do not believe that is THEIR TARGET market.

This is a lot like going to a modern restaurant for dinner for the first time (i.e. where they don't know that you're a great tipper and all-round great guy).

If you announce that you don't want appetizers or alcohol, the server's face glazes over as if they are checking out of the entire process because they know you're just not going to run up the check, and, hence, not much chance of a big payday for them.

Or imagine you're in a casino. You have a problem with someone or some thing. You go to management and the first thing they do is check your player card. If you don't have a reasonable (or higher) amount of action shown on the account, you get that same glazed look.


Same for the track. They just don't care whether you and your $50 total bankroll show up or not.

Is racing worse for this? You bet it is. But it is reality.

[Stillriledup]

Go to any monthly CHRB meeting - or listen to the audio. Or sit through any of the CHRB's committee meetings.

You will be treated to a constant parade of speakers representing various Cal racing groups... TOC, CTT, CHRB, OTBs, track management, union reps, etc... all bemoaning the fact that handle is dropping - and as a result - revenue for the budgets of their particular organization keeps shrinking too - and the only 'solution' they can see is to cut dates, cut hours, layoff more workers, etc.

But try talking to them about anything customer oriented - for example suggest that maybe 22.68% exacta takeout might be a bit too much on the high side...

And suddenly they turn into cheerleaders -- and they will tell you how great things are.

I'm not kidding about this. I've experienced it many times.

I first experienced this phenomenon back in 2009 or 2010 at a CHRB meeting when I argued against a takeout increase at Los AL that Doc Alred wanted because he "didn't know what else to do."

I told them their revenue projections were flawed because they wen't accounting for the fall off in handle that would result from higher takeout.

Everyone from every one of the Cal Racing alphabet groups was sure that higher takeout has zero effect on handle.

I experienced this same phenomenon a few months later at Los AL at when the CHRB wanted a follow up meeting because Los Al's on track handle was down 26%-27% vs. the prior year because of their takeout increase. Yet Los Al track management was telling the CHRB "we couldn't be happier" and "we are doing just fine."

I experienced this phenomenon a few months later at a CHRB meeting at Del Mar - where despite Los Al's on track handle being down 26-27% in the 6 months immediately following their takeout increase - Los Al track management once again told the CHRB "we couldn't be happier" and "we are doing just fine" and the Commissioners of the CHRB voted unanimously to make Los Al's takeout increase permanent.

All you have to do to experience this phenomenon yourself is get involved.


-jp

.

Spot on post, as usual.

I think horsemen view a 'takeout raise' as money directly out of their pocket, they don't understand that when take rises, people bet less, how else could you explain the 'exchange' between Madeline Auerbach and Andy Asaro other than not knowing the takeout/handle relationship?

[Jeff P]

I laughed when I heard the audio of Madeline Auerbach's exchange with Andy.

FYI at my very first CHRB meeting I had a similar exchange with Bo Derek.

Bo tried to argue that racing takeout was lower than slot machine takeout. I shot back that racing takeout was 21% blended and that (nationally) slot machine prize payout percentages were roughly 93% (approximate takeout 7%.)

Before she could answer back (then) CHRB commissioner John Harris grabbed her elbow and stopped her. I can't recall his exact words but it was something like "You're wrong. Slot machine takeout hasn't been that high since the mid 1970's."

You're right about one thing though.

It was (and still is) eye opening (to me) just how little (most of) the commissioners of the CHRB knew/know about the business side of gaming/gambling.

Just as my experience in computer programming, designing and coding algorithms, and my experiences as a significant bettor and horseplayer advocate in no way shape or form qualifies me to own or train horses...

THEIR experiences as horse owners, horse advocates, and/or trainers in no way shape or form qualifies them to make business decisions about the gambling side of a game they were politically appointed to oversee.


-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

I laughed when I heard the audio of Madeline Auerbach's exchange with Andy.

FYI at my very first CHRB meeting I had a similar exchange with Bo Derek.

Bo tried to argue that racing takeout was lower than slot machine takeout. I shot back that racing takeout was 21% blended and that (nationally) slot machine prize payout percentages were roughly 93% (approximate takeout 7%.)

Before she could answer back (then) CHRB commissioner John Harris grabbed her elbow and stopped her. I can't recall his exact words but it was something like "You're wrong. Slot machine takeout hasn't been that high since the mid 1970's."

You're right about one thing though.

It was (and still is) eye opening (to me) just how little (most of) the commissioners of the CHRB knew/know about the business side of gaming/gambling.

Just as my experience in computer programming, designing and coding algorithms, and my experiences as a significant bettor and horseplayer advocate in no way shape or form qualifies me to own or train horses...

THEIR experiences as horse owners, horse advocates, and/or trainers in no way shape or form qualifies them to make business decisions about the gambling side of a game they were politically appointed to oversee.


-jp

.

It's the 'you've never Been on the backside so I know more than you' argument. Shovel a litte hay and scoop a little poop and become a full fledged handicapping and gambling expert! :D

[deathandgravity]

http://www.drf.com/news/part-los-alamitos-property-be-developed-retail-space-senior-housing

[ultracapper]

Go to any monthly CHRB meeting - or listen to the audio. Or sit through any of the CHRB's committee meetings.

You will be treated to a constant parade of speakers representing various Cal racing groups... TOC, CTT, CHRB, OTBs, track management, union reps, etc... all bemoaning the fact that handle is dropping - and as a result - revenue for the budgets of their particular organization keeps shrinking too - and the only 'solution' they can see is to cut dates, cut hours, layoff more workers, etc.

But try talking to them about anything customer oriented - for example suggest that maybe 22.68% exacta takeout might be a bit too much on the high side...

And suddenly they turn into cheerleaders -- and they will tell you how great things are.

I'm not kidding about this. I've experienced it many times.

I first experienced this phenomenon back in 2009 or 2010 at a CHRB meeting when I argued against a takeout increase at Los AL that Doc Alred wanted because he "didn't know what else to do."

I told them their revenue projections were flawed because they wen't accounting for the fall off in handle that would result from higher takeout.

Everyone from every one of the Cal Racing alphabet groups was sure that higher takeout has zero effect on handle.

I experienced this same phenomenon a few months later at Los AL at when the CHRB wanted a follow up meeting because Los Al's on track handle was down 26%-27% vs. the prior year because of their takeout increase. Yet Los Al track management was telling the CHRB "we couldn't be happier" and "we are doing just fine."

I experienced this phenomenon a few months later at a CHRB meeting at Del Mar - where despite Los Al's on track handle being down 26-27% in the 6 months immediately following their takeout increase - Los Al track management once again told the CHRB "we couldn't be happier" and "we are doing just fine" and the Commissioners of the CHRB voted unanimously to make Los Al's takeout increase permanent.

All you have to do to experience this phenomenon yourself is get involved.


-jp

.

Do you see anything, anything at all, that can be said or done, to make these politically appointed guardians of the game see things properly, and then follow through with constructive actions? Is there any angle that can be taken that would overwhelmingly encourage these folks to actually move forward in a constructive manner to improve the health of the industry? Would boycotts actually work? Or, theoretically, it should work, but wouldn't? Are they uneducated, or just self-serving? Is it useless to think they even could be constructive, even if they embraced the actions that are needed? Or is this just a doomed enterprise, and maybe the best thing for themselves and those interested parties that support them to do is to look out for themselves while they have the power to do so? Would this industry survive a big "look out for the customer" effort on their part? Or would the industry collapse without the extraordinary efforts made on behalf of the horsemen's most banal and simple wants and needs? Do those parties require the support they receive to survive in the present environment, both specifically the horse racing environment, and in general, the overall gambling industry environment?

Thanks in advance. I know I threw a hodge-podge of questions and issues out there in a not so articulate manner.

And thanks for your interest and efforts in the game and best of luck in your endeavors. We need many, many more people like yourself involved.

[whodoyoulike]

I guess he's just being prudent. Now, if he sells to CHDN, we'll know his true motives. Sort of sounds like stories before HP was sold.

Los Alamitos track owner Ed Allred said Tuesday that plans are under way to develop property adjacent to the racetrack for retail and senior housing, but that a long-term commitment to live racing remains in place at the Orange County, Calif., racetrack.

Allred said in a phone interview that as much as 70 acres can be developed without disrupting racing. He said property values make operating a racetrack in Southern California economically unfeasible, but that he plans to do so for the sake of the game. ...

[Track Collector]

Do you see anything, anything at all, that can be said or done, to make these politically appointed guardians of the game see things properly, and then follow through with constructive actions? Is there any angle that can be taken that would overwhelmingly encourage these folks to actually move forward in a constructive manner to improve the health of the industry? Would boycotts actually work? Or, theoretically, it should work, but wouldn't? Are they uneducated, or just self-serving? Is it useless to think they even could be constructive, even if they embraced the actions that are needed? Or is this just a doomed enterprise, and maybe the best thing for themselves and those interested parties that support them to do is to look out for themselves while they have the power to do so? Would this industry survive a big "look out for the customer" effort on their part? Or would the industry collapse without the extraordinary efforts made on behalf of the horsemen's most banal and simple wants and needs? Do those parties require the support they receive to survive in the present environment, both specifically the horse racing environment, and in general, the overall gambling industry environment?

Thanks in advance. I know I threw a hodge-podge of questions and issues out there in a not so articulate manner.

And thanks for your interest and efforts in the game and best of luck in your endeavors. We need many, many more people like yourself involved.

Jeff will have a much-more informed response, but I am going to go out on a limb and say many are self-serving, AND, too afraid/embarrassed to admit a mistake when presented with the facts.

Dittos on the thanks for your involvement. :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

Go to any monthly CHRB meeting - or listen to the audio. Or sit through any of the CHRB's committee meetings.

You will be treated to a constant parade of speakers representing various Cal racing groups... TOC, CTT, CHRB, OTBs, track management, union reps, etc... all bemoaning the fact that handle is dropping - and as a result - revenue for the budgets of their particular organization keeps shrinking too - and the only 'solution' they can see is to cut dates, cut hours, layoff more workers, etc.

But try talking to them about anything customer oriented - for example suggest that maybe 22.68% exacta takeout might be a bit too much on the high side...

And suddenly they turn into cheerleaders -- and they will tell you how great things are.

I'm not kidding about this. I've experienced it many times.

I first experienced this phenomenon back in 2009 or 2010 at a CHRB meeting when I argued against a takeout increase at Los AL that Doc Alred wanted because he "didn't know what else to do."

I told them their revenue projections were flawed because they wen't accounting for the fall off in handle that would result from higher takeout.

Everyone from every one of the Cal Racing alphabet groups was sure that higher takeout has zero effect on handle.

I experienced this same phenomenon a few months later at Los AL at when the CHRB wanted a follow up meeting because Los Al's on track handle was down 26%-27% vs. the prior year because of their takeout increase. Yet Los Al track management was telling the CHRB "we couldn't be happier" and "we are doing just fine."

I experienced this phenomenon a few months later at a CHRB meeting at Del Mar - where despite Los Al's on track handle being down 26-27% in the 6 months immediately following their takeout increase - Los Al track management once again told the CHRB "we couldn't be happier" and "we are doing just fine" and the Commissioners of the CHRB voted unanimously to make Los Al's takeout increase permanent.

All you have to do to experience this phenomenon yourself is get involved.


-jp

.

Respectfully......Much appreciated details and passion for this game. Thank you!

[Jeff P]

Do you see anything, anything at all, that can be said or done, to make these politically appointed guardians of the game see things properly, and then follow through with constructive actions?...

It doesn't appear (to me) that they are interested in constructive action.

Prior to the CHRB's approval of the first takeout hike (the one at Los Al) I appeared in front of the CHRB and told them their revenue projections were flawed because they weren't accounting for the fall off in handle that would result from higher takeout. I told them this wasn't just my opinion - but that all of the industry's paid for economic research said that handle would fall.

They ignored me and voted 6-1 to approve Los Al's takeout increase - but on a trail basis only. They made the promise (you can read it on the meeting transcript and hear it on the meeting audio) that if I were correct and handle did fall, they would sunset the takeout increase in six months.

As soon as Los Al's takeout increase went into effect an alarming trend developed: Los Al's ON TRACK handle fell by some 26% to 27%.

Thinking they would honor their promise I constantly updated the CHRB with a spreadsheet that contained a full accounting of Los Al's on track and off track handle numbers. (The CHRB also asked that I meet privately with Los Al track management so their numbers could be reconciled against mine. I was only too happy to do this.)

When the six month time period had passed and the Los AL takeout increase first appeared as an agenda item on the CHRB's website for that month's open to the public CHRB meeting - I showed up at the meeting ready to speak.

Seeing that I was there, laptop and printed copies of my spreadsheet at the ready, the Commissioners of the CHRB decided not to have a vote on whether or not to sunset Los Al's takeout increase. Instead they announced that Los Al "isn't ready to present numbers today" and "needed more time." (I'm going from memory here. The exact words appear on the meeting transcript.)

A motion was then made to table the Los Al takeout increase agenda item for now and revisit it at a future CHRB meeting. A vote then followed and the motion to table the issue and revisit it later was approved.

A few months later the Los AL takeout increase once again appeared as an agenda item on the CHRB's website for that month's open to the public CHRB meeting - and once again I showed up at the meeting ready to speak.

I presented my spreadsheet and told them Los Al's ON TRACK handle had fallen by some 26% to 27% in the six month period immediately following the takeout increase.

Of course none of that mattered. I could tell by glances that were exchanged around the room what they had pre-decided to do.

The commissioners of the CHRB voted 7-0 to make Los Al's takeout increase permanent.

It was at that point that I realized what we horseplayers are up against.

If the facts don't matter to them and if they have zero interest in constructive interaction... What are we left with?

We can do nothing and let the public speak with their feet. Interest in the game slowly dies and total customer spend on the product shrinks by some 4% to 5% per year.

We can (periodically) try some constructive interaction. Who knows? At some point maybe total customer spend on the product will shrink to the point that makes them more open to customer involvement. (I've done this off and on with them. I can say that some of the CHRB commissioners have been receptive to this. But keep in mind there are 7 commissioners on that board and those who have been receptive are clearly a minority.)

We can also boycott when they do something that calls for it. FYI, I have reason to believe that the next one (when it happens) will be more telling than the previous ones.



-jp


.

[Stillriledup]

It doesn't appear (to me) that they are interested in constructive action.

Prior to the CHRB's approval of the first takeout hike (the one at Los Al) I appeared in front of the CHRB and told them their revenue projections were flawed because they weren't accounting for the fall off in handle that would result from higher takeout. I told them this wasn't just my opinion - but that all of the industry's paid for economic research said that handle would fall.

They ignored me and voted 6-1 to approve Los Al's takeout increase - but on a trail basis only. They made the promise (you can read it on the meeting transcript and hear it on the meeting audio) that if I were correct and handle did fall, they would sunset the takeout increase in six months.

As soon as Los Al's takeout increase went into effect an alarming trend developed: Los Al's ON TRACK handle fell by some 26% to 27%.

Thinking they would honor their promise I constantly updated the CHRB with a spreadsheet that contained a full accounting of Los Al's on track and off track handle numbers. (The CHRB also asked that I meet privately with Los Al track management so their numbers could be reconciled against mine. I was only too happy to do this.)

When the six month time period had passed and the Los AL takeout increase first appeared as an agenda item on the CHRB's website for that month's open to the public CHRB meeting - I showed up at the meeting ready to speak.

Seeing that I was there, laptop and printed copies of my spreadsheet at the ready, the Commissioners of the CHRB decided not to have a vote on whether or not to sunset Los Al's takeout increase. Instead they announced that Los Al "isn't ready to present numbers today" and "needed more time." (I'm going from memory here. The exact words appear on the meeting transcript.)

A motion was then made to table the Los Al takeout increase agenda item for now and revisit it at a future CHRB meeting. A vote then followed and the motion to table the issue and revisit it later was approved.

A few months later the Los AL takeout increase once again appeared as an agenda item on the CHRB's website for that month's open to the public CHRB meeting - and once again I showed up at the meeting ready to speak.

I presented my spreadsheet and told them Los Al's ON TRACK handle had fallen by some 26% to 27% in the six month period immediately following the takeout increase.

Of course none of that mattered. I could tell by glances that were exchanged around the room what they had pre-decided to do.

The commissioners of the CHRB voted 7-0 to make Los Al's takeout increase permanent.

It was at that point that I realized what we horseplayers are up against.

If the facts don't matter to them and if they have zero interest in constructive interaction... What are we left with?

We can do nothing and let the public speak with their feet. Interest in the game slowly dies and total customer spend on the product shrinks by some 4% to 5% per year.

We can (periodically) try some constructive interaction. Who knows? At some point maybe total customer spend on the product will shrink to the point that makes them more open to customer involvement. (I've done this off and on with them. I can say that some of the CHRB commissioners have been receptive to this. But keep in mind there are 7 commissioners on that board and those who have been receptive are clearly a minority.)

We can also boycott when they do something that calls for it. FYI, I have reason to believe that the next one (when it happens) will be more telling than the previous ones.



-jp


.

The guardians and gatekeepers of the game in California have failed, the game is in the toilet there all because they refuse to listen to people who know more than they do.

[Track Collector]

Could it be that Los Alamitos "failure" is an underlying objective, so as to take away their T-bred dates and move them back to one of their star tracks?

[Jeff P]

Not likely.

The events surrounding the Los Al takeout hike described in my previous posts took place back in 2010.

Prior to the takeout increase Los Al was still considered one of the premier night time track signals.

One of the first things Los Al did after the takeout increase (the current exacta takeout for their quarter horse meets is 24.02% by the way)(and no that number is not an April Fool's Day joke) was cut dates.

Los Al did away with Monday nights. (In my view the takeout increase in combination with losing Monday nights is when their slide from being one of the premier night time track signals 'officially' began.)

Also, Hollywood Park was not only still open back then - but still going strong - at least relative to what happened in the years following SB1072 - the bill lobbied for by the CHRB and TOC that would later bring higher takeout to Calfornia's thoroughbred tracks.

My understanding is that it wasn't until it had become clear that Hollywood Park would shutter its doors that a plan was adopted to race SOCAL thoroughbreds at Los Al.

So no, I don't think the Los Al takeout increase (and the takeout increases at California's thoroughbred tracks) was some master plan with the hidden agenda of wrecking racing in the Golden State...

However, I do think the resulting fall off in handle and revenue, loss of racing dates, loss of hundreds of jobs at California tracks and otbs, and cuts in hours for those who managed to stay on -- I do think all of that was a highly predictable outcome.


-jp

.

[summersquall]

Here is a link to a recent interview with Dean Towers, who is apparently a colleague of Jeffs' at HANA. Very insightful. https://soundcloud.com/eye-on-gaming/horseplayer-advocate-dean-towers-visits-the-show

[dilanesp]

Takeout is the least of Los Al's problems.

The fact of the matter is that there are periods of time when there aren't enough horses and isn't enough fan interest to sustain racing in California. Los Al tried to fill those periods, but that's basically impossible to do. Fields are short, betting is terrible, and they don't even have a turf course. The course layout is ridiculous with really tight turns. If Hollywood Park couldn't make those dates work (and they couldn't), Los Al's inevitably going to do worse.

Because of this, it's a foregone conclusion that eventually Los Al will stop the bleeding on the thoroughbred meets, and at that point the California horsemen will have to grow up and accept that they either have to create a racing climate full of more-difficult-to-win races with bigger fields (which you would do by collapsing the north and south circuits into one racing circuit, with GGF running when Santa Anita and Del Mar are not), or accept big gaps on the racing schedule.

Los Al doesn't help themselves with takeout, but takeout is not some magic bullet where racetracks suddenly become profitable by lowering it. Del Mar has high takeout and, at least in the summer, makes plenty of money.

Finally, my big worry about this is that if the owner decides that there's enough money to be made using the track as real estate, that could kill quarter horse racing in California, which has a 60 year history and which is basically exclusively at Los Al (the fairs are a drop in the bucket). Thoroughbreds will do fine at Santa Anita and Del Mar; quarters will suffer a real loss if Los Al were to close.

[cj]

Takeout is the least of Los Al's problems.

I wouldn't go that far. They all work together...field size, take out, too many heavy favorites winning. All these things drive bettors away.

[dilanesp]

I wouldn't go that far. They all work together...field size, take out, too many heavy favorites winning. All these things drive bettors away.

It's the least because basically Los Al controls racing dates that have either (1) never been successful in the history of Southern California racing (the second half of the old Hollywood Park fall meeting) or (2) have not been successful in many years (early July, September). Even if Los Al cut takeout, it wouldn't work; it's Hialeah's old problem in Florida of having the wrong dates. And there's no way they ever will or should get any of the right dates; Santa Anita and Del Mar are both much better tracks with a track record of success that Los Al does not have.

[Jeff P]

It's the least because basically Los Al controls racing dates that have either (1) never been successful in the history of Southern California racing (the second half of the old Hollywood Park fall meeting) or (2) have not been successful in many years (early July, September). Even if Los Al cut takeout, it wouldn't work; it's Hialeah's old problem in Florida of having the wrong dates. And there's no way they ever will or should get any of the right dates; Santa Anita and Del Mar are both much better tracks with a track record of success that Los Al does not have.

Hialeah? (Seriously?)

TO AVOID TAKEOUT TAP-OUT, SHOP AROUND
By Andrew Beyer December 10, 1993 --
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1993/12/10/to-avoid-takeout-tap-out-shop-around/2e96a140-b5e3-4b29-a40b-57d0c95c1910/

But even if bettors don't notice an increase in takeout, it will affect them over time. Economist Maury Wolff of Alexandria compiled the definitive studies on the effects of takeout and found that a track that increases its take sharply will almost always suffer a decrease in business. The reason is that boosting the takeout will erode customers' bankrolls and eventually knock many them out of action.

Only a few leaders of the racing industry seem to recognize this phenomenon. Some track owners cannot resist the increase in revenue that higher takeout seems to promise, and they have driven the takeout to levels that were once unimaginable. Earlier this year Hialeah greedily increased its bite from exactas to 28 percent, the highest in the nation.

--and:
Even for an expert, trying to beat a takeout in excess of 25 percent is a likely to be hopeless proposition. Anybody who bets a trifecta at Philadelphia Park may consider himself a sucker.


-jp


.

[Jeff P]

... Los Al doesn't help themselves with takeout...

That's the main point I was trying to get across.

Leading up to 2009 (that was the year Los Al lobbied the California Legislature for a bill to allow higher takeout at quarter horse and fair meets) Los Al certainly had their share of challenges to overcome. Customer interest in their product was falling - and as a result - so too was revenue.

One of my college professors once told me something (that stuck) while I was taking his strategic marketing class.

He said:

"Every successful Fortune 500 company that you can name does the following: They identify their target market. They identify the needs and wants of the customers in their target market. And then they make it their mission to satisfy those needs and wants."

He also said:

"Every failed Fortune 500 company that you can name failed because they failed to do that somewhere along the way."

If you study case histories of companies (both large and small) that have implemented successful turn around strategies you will realize he was right.

Raising prices (takeout) in the face of falling demand is a recipe for disaster - not just in horse racing but in any business.

In Los Al's case, they didn't identify their target market. And they certainly didn't identify the needs and wants of the customers in their target market - let alone make an effort to satisfy those needs and wants.

But they did raise prices (takeout) in the face of falling demand.

Kind of the opposite of what top management at successful Fortune 500 companies would do.


-jp

.

[Tom]

I don't think most race tracks have a clue who their customer are, let alone a target market.

[Tall One]

Jeff, I commend you for trying to help the CHRB get their heads out of their collective asses. I could imagine the looks on their faces which had to resemble you speaking Mandarin Chinese to them.

Don't give up the fight. Your voice is one for the many. :ThmbUp:

[dilanesp]

Lowering takeout is a good idea, but it isn't a magic bullet. It doesn't increase the horse population, it doesn't change the weather, it doesn't turn around the general public's disinterest in horse racing, it doesn't change traffic patterns, etc.

You guys like it because it is more money in your pocket, which is fine, and there's a very good argument for relatively successful tracks to set takeout at levels that maximize handle. But the problems with year round racing in Southern California are structural and have zero to do with takeout.

Los Al shouldn't lower takeout. It should drop daytime thoroughbred racing altogether.

[Tall One]

^^I believe the only solution is to have one thoroughbred track, Santa Anita (sans the fair circuit) as the last one standing in So Cal.

[Track Collector]

^^I believe the only solution is to have one thoroughbred track, Santa Anita (sans the fair circuit) as the last one standing in So Cal.

So you believe that getting rid of Del Mar is a good thing for CA racing?

[Tall One]

Of course not, TC...was just having some "fun" with dilanesp. Lowering takeout, as noted by Jeff from Mr. Beyer's article from circa '93(?) can only help their game out there. 24% on exactas? Goodness gracious.

Should Los Al continue with a TB meet? Probably not.

[dilanesp]

Of course not, TC...was just having some "fun" with dilanesp. Lowering takeout, as noted by Jeff from Mr. Beyer's article from circa '93(?) can only help their game out there. 24% on exactas? Goodness gracious.

Should Los Al continue with a TB meet? Probably not.

I think there's a very strong argument that Del Mar should lower takeout in its summer meet. It would probably not affect its profitability at all (because off track betting handle would increase as a result of the takeout reduction) while making bettors / customers happier.

On the other hand, I suspect Los Al lowering its takeout would just increase its losses, because the product is hopeless and therefore a price cut isn't going to stimulate demand very much.