Canterbury to cut takeout across the board

[cj]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/210913/canterbury-to-cut-takeout-across-the-board

[johnhannibalsmith]

It's about time that someone took advantage of supplementation to take a little risk and try to actually build the core product in anticipation of weaning. Kudos indeed!

[PressThePace]

Hopefully, horseplayers actually play Canterbury. The ball is in the other court now. Time to put up or shut up.

[cutchemist42]

A decent track stepped up and did this. Horseplayers please respond or the wrong message is sent, and its further evidence the experiment doesnt work.

If I wasnt subjected to ASD's rates on American tracks, I'd be loving this.

[maclr11]

Then I hope you went out and voted today cutchemist

[bello]

This is a huge Proof of Concept. If the bettors don't respond by playing Canterbury they will forever literally pay for any and every increased takeout moving forward and deserve what they get

[cutchemist42]

Then I hope you went out and voted today cutchemist

Oh I definitely did. :ThmbUp:

Don't think I heard any racing related points during the election process?

[PaceAdvantage]

This is a huge Proof of Concept. If the bettors don't respond by playing Canterbury they will forever literally pay for any and every increased takeout moving forward and deserve what they getWe hear this kind of thing every time a track decides to offer a lower takeout...

[ronsmac]

This is a huge Proof of Concept. If the bettors don't respond by playing Canterbury they will forever literally pay for any and every increased takeout moving forward and deserve what they getI wouldn't say they deserve it. If it's not a track you normally play, a few points in takeout may not help you if you're unfamiliar with the trainers and other idiosyncrasies of the track. Plus they're a night track which is good for some and bad for others. The players who play Canterbury regularly will increase the size of their wagers hopefully. Unfortunately it's always 3rd tier tracks who try reductions and rarely the major tracks

[bello]

I agree guys and I for one make an effort to support the minor league tracks that do lower their takeouts. I learn them, their idiosyncrasys, trainers, etc and support them all I can. That is the point of what they are doing and why they should get support and get my betting dollars.

Believe me, it is not alwayd easy to bet into very small pools. I tried supporting Tioga harness when they lowered pools but it was a lost cause as the handles proved too putrid to be bet into. Some onus need to be put on the track itself to promote the lower take-outs. If they are well promoted and handle does not increase, those who complain about handles should at least keep it to themselves,

[Poindexter]

We hear this kind of thing every time a track decides to offer a lower takeout...

Rightfully so. If bettors want lower takeout they have to support this type of move. We have the get the ball rolling the other direction and no better way to do it than to support a track that is headed in the right direction. Bean counters are going to want to make up for the lower takeout with enough increased betting to make it a smart decision. If bettors fail to deliver than they will just reverse course and a whole bunch of "I told you so's" will come from the racing industry.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tracks HAVE lowered takeout before. And instituted new lower takeout wagers (Pick 5 in SoCal comes to mind) over the years.

Is there not enough evidence at this point that a properly promoted, lower takeout wager is going to attract significantly more handle?

[bello]

Tracks HAVE lowered takeout before. And instituted new lower takeout wagers (Pick 5 in SoCal comes to mind) over the years.

Is there not enough evidence at this point that a properly promoted, lower takeout wager is going to attract significantly more handle?

Great question...anyone from H.A.N.A have any data?

[ronsmac]

Tracks HAVE lowered takeout before. And instituted new lower takeout wagers (Pick 5 in SoCal comes to mind) over the years.

Is there not enough evidence at this point that a properly promoted, lower takeout wager is going to attract significantly more handle?
In theory probably, in practice not always. I have friends that bet multiple tracks and into insane takeouts. What benefit they would get betting Canterbury would be negated when they bet their Penn national triple. Penn would actualy reap some of the reward of Canterbury"s lower take.

[Poindexter]

Tracks HAVE lowered takeout before. And instituted new lower takeout wagers (Pick 5 in SoCal comes to mind) over the years.

Is there not enough evidence at this point that a properly promoted, lower takeout wager is going to attract significantly more handle?

Pick 5 is just one wager and a low probability wager at that(very hard to churn money on a bet that is so hard to hit). With Canterbury they are reducing takeout in all the pools(18 % to 15% in WPS and 23% to 18% in the other pools). This is quite significant. This is the the type of experiment that every horseplayer should want to see and should want to support. Is it enough? Of course not, but if we do not support a track going to first base, how are we going to get to 2nd base, 3rd base and eventually home.

When a Track raises takeout 2% there are cries for boycotting, so now that one is lowering it 3 to 5 % there should be equally as loud cries for support.

[PressThePace]

Pick 5 is just one wager and a low probability wager at that(very hard to churn money on a bet that is so hard to hit). With Canterbury they are reducing takeout in all the pools(18 % to 15% in WPS and 23% to 18% in the other pools). This is quite significant. This is the the type of experiment that every horseplayer should want to see and should want to support. Is it enough? Of course not, but if we do not support a track going to first base, how are we going to get to 2nd base, 3rd base and eventually home.

When a Track raises takeout 2% there are cries for boycotting, so now that one is lowering it 3 to 5 % there should be equally as loud cries for support.

My thoughts exactly..

[dilanesp]

Tracks HAVE lowered takeout before. And instituted new lower takeout wagers (Pick 5 in SoCal comes to mind) over the years.

Is there not enough evidence at this point that a properly promoted, lower takeout wager is going to attract significantly more handle?

There's plenty of evidence it increases handle.

But it is a much more complicated question as to whether it makes a track more money.

[Track Phantom]

Canterbury is my home track. In the mid '80's, they were on par with Arlington Park as far as quality.

They shut down in 1993 and reopned in 1995. They've been a 2nd tier track for most of the time since. However, as they locked in a deal with Mystic Lake (Indian Tribe down the road), they've slowly been improving the product year by year. Right now, I would put them very near Remington Park and ahead, by a long way, of Arlington Park.

As far as this reduction goes: I think the best way players can support it is to play the track as often as it is convenient to do so. If you're planning on playing at night, and have options like PRM, MNR, PEN, etc, you should be choosing Canterbury as your main focus point. If everyone approached it that way, Canterbury would see a hit from this move and it would send a message.

[Jeff P]

Tracks HAVE lowered takeout before. And instituted new lower takeout wagers (Pick 5 in SoCal comes to mind) over the years.

Is there not enough evidence at this point that a properly promoted, lower takeout wager is going to attract significantly more handle?


Tons of evidence...

Tampa Bay Downs 2001-2009/2010:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/12/tampa-bay-downs-lowers-takeout-again.html

Since 2001, Tampa Bay Downs has been quietly lowering takeout each season or thereabouts (see: HANA 2009 Tampa Report here with Peter Berube interview). This meet they have struck again - takeout has been lowered on several vertical and horizontal wagers.

In 2001 handle per day at Tampa was below $2.0M per day. For the 2009/2010 Meet, Tampa set a per day handle record of almost $4.2M per day, proving that pricing, foresight and customer respect trumps a bad economy any day of the week.


California 14% takeout Pick5:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2013/04/california-racing-update.html

For the calendar quarter just ended March 31, 2013 - the year over year handle numbers at Santa Anita tell the story.

Not only are Santa Anita's year over year handle numbers for the 14% takeout pick five up $5.35 million and 46.9 percent respectively - but, apparently, the low takeout bet is sparking handle growth in the pools of the other wagers on the wagering menu for the races in the pick five sequence.



Kentucky Downs Slashes Takeout Rates:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2012/08/kentucky-downs-slashes-takeout-rates.html

Kentucky Downs Meet Concludes with More Record Numbers:
http://www.thedowneyprofile.com/More_Racing_News/2013/09/25/kentucky-downs-meet-concludes-with-more-record-numbers.684476

Franklin, KY -- Kentucky Downs established purse and handle numbers that set new records for the second straight year at the unique track.

The projected initial purse structure for the meet totaled more than $4 million over five days, compared to a goal of $2.5 million for six days in 2012.

With one day of last year's meet canceled following overnight and morning rains, $2,066,344 was paid out for 43 races, which was a record. This year, Kentucky Downs paid out $4,121,142 in purses and Kentucky Thoroughbred Development Fund money for 50 races. That established a new record and represented an increase of 103.9% percent from a year ago. The purses were augmented by revenue derived from pari-mutuel wagering on historical horse races, which accounted for more than 70% of the total.

Last year, handle from all sources for five days of racing was a record $7,570,730, about double the 2011 total, when there were four race days -- resulting in a 61.3% increase in daily average handle.

This year's handle far surpassed that of 2012. The total over five days was $12,814,966, a year-over-year increase of 69%. The track set new records for daily handle on the first, fourth and fifth days of the meeting. The latter two days fell on Wednesdays.

On-track handle, $550,757 in 2012, jumped to $645,343, which is 19% higher than last year. In 2011, the meet total was $313,561.




The Flawed Logic Behind Higher Takeout:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/08/the-flawed-logic-behind-higher-takeout.html

This was the same flawed logic used by Los Al to justify their takeout increase back in 2010.

This was the same flawed logic used by the CHRB, TOC, and Track Management at Santa Anita-Golden Gate to justify SB1072 and the takeout increase that went into effect at Santa Anita, Golden Gate, Hollywood Park, and Del Mar on January 1, 2011.

This is the same flawed logic used by Churchill Downs this past April to justify their takeout increase.

The logic?

We make more money with higher takeout because our latest handle numbers multiplied by new higher takeout rates is bigger than our latest handle numbers multiplied by older lower takeout rates.

But in the real world it never works out that way.

Why not?

The logic is flawed because it fails to account for the fall off in handle caused by higher takeout rates.

Betting handle and takeout rates share an elastic relationship.

The fact is handle is created by bettors who are price sensitive. This is something that has been studied at length and is very well documented in the economic studies paid for by the thoroughbred racing industry.

We found a link to one such study on the website of the National HBPA: here.

We put a link to a second such study on the HANA website: here (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/economic20analysis.pdf) .

Sadly, this fact has been continually ignored by decision makers within the thoroughbred racing industry.

Fact: Los Al's on track handle was down 27% during the first six months immediately following their takeout increase in 2010.

Fact: Handle at Santa Anita, Golden Gate, Del Mar, and Hollywood Park fell almost $250 million (a quarter of a billion dollars) during the first year of their takeout increase.

Fact: Santa Anita cut one third of its staff (http://arcadiasbest.com/2011/10/santa-anita-cuts-third-of-staff/) as a direct result of the flawed logic used to justify SB1072.

Fact: On page 4 of the 2011 CHRB Annual Report (http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2011_annual_report.pdf) then CHRB Chairman Keith Brackpool cited "the economy" as the reason for California's handle woes.

But SB1072 wasn't the only gambling bill to be passed by the California Legislature in 2010. AB142 authorized the CA Lottery to leverage higher prize payout percentage (http://www.publicgaming.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9590:public-gamin) (lower takeout) to drive an increase in total dollars going to education.

Q. If the economy was so bad, how then did the CA Lottery achieve a completely different result through AB142 and lower takeout than CA Racing did with SB1072 and higher takeout?

Fact: Handle at Churchill Downs was down $49 million vs. the prior year's spring meet (http://www.playersboycott.org/handleupdate06292014.html) in the wake of their takeout increase this past April. Further, Maggi Moss preorted on Twitter that Chruchill will have a 20% purse cut (https://twitter.com/maggimoss/status/494331835271221250) for their upcoming September meet.

Fact: Handle at the current Del Mar meet is down approximately $30 million vs. the prior year - IN PART - because of player reaction to seeing Santa Anita Track Management use this same flawed logic to blame 18% double takeout as causing a net loss to purses of $500k.

My questions to the CHRB:

Have you not learned anything from all from this?

Can you not see how your continued belief in the flawed logic behind SB1072 is causing you to harm the very industry you are sworn to protect?




-jp


.

[barahona44]

I wouldn't say they deserve it. If it's not a track you normally play, a few points in takeout may not help you if you're unfamiliar with the trainers and other idiosyncrasies of the track. Plus they're a night track which is good for some and bad for others. The players who play Canterbury regularly will increase the size of their wagers hopefully. Unfortunately it's always 3rd tier tracks who try reductions and rarely the major tracks
Simple supply and demand.On those occasions I'm at a racebook or OTB, when the NYRA tracks, or to a lesser extent SA, Del Mar, Gulfstream or Keeneland are on, bettors are flocking to the cages and self bet machines for those tracks and there's a great deal of shouting, cursing and people jumping out of their seats as the race progresses.

I rarely hear such hootin' and hollerin' when Ellis Park or Charlestown is running.Nor would I expect to.

Resistence to takeout isn't as strong at the major tracks .

[PaceAdvantage]

Tons of evidence...Yes, I kind of figured there was abundant evidence. It was in some ways a rhetorical question.

Which is why I was commenting on the "horseplayers better embrace this or they deserve whatever comes to them in the future"-type replies we saw here today.

Horseplayers don't need to be threatened by other players to embrace a takeout reduction. Takeout reduction, by its very nature, is almost guaranteed to be embraced, as your evidence shows.

So why don't we see it more often?

[Stillriledup]

personally I won't be betting a penny on Canterbury because I'm not familiar w the track and don't follow it, I'm set in my ways and not going to pick up a new circuit. So you have people who don't care about lower take at CBY because they don't know the track and the current customers aren't going to bet more, if you're 20 dollar a race Bettor that's where you'll stay. This is why it's hard to see a lot of increased handle, are current customers going to bet more? No. Are new customers going to start betting a track they know nothing about? No

Also I don't see too many Canterbury shippers at the tracks I follow so spending time on them won't beget any fruits when a CBY shipper visits the tracks I regularly play.

This doesn't mean fans don't care about lower take, but people aren't going to uproot their lives and 'way of doing things' they're used to just for this.

[cj]

personally I won't be betting a penny on Canterbury because I'm not familiar w the track and don't follow it, I'm set in my ways and not going to pick up a new circuit. So you have people who don't care about lower take at CBY because they don't know the track and the current customers aren't going to bet more, if you're 20 dollar a race Bettor that's where you'll stay. This is why it's hard to see a lot of increased handle, are current customers going to bet more? No. Are new customers going to start betting a track they know nothing about? No

Also I don't see too many Canterbury shippers at the tracks I follow so spending time on them won't beget any fruits when a CBY shipper visits the tracks I regularly play.

This doesn't mean fans don't care about lower take, but people aren't going to uproot their lives and 'way of doing things' they're used to just for this.

You could apply for a track executive position with this thinking. Or, run a horsemen's group!

[dilanesp]

personally I won't be betting a penny on Canterbury because I'm not familiar w the track and don't follow it, I'm set in my ways and not going to pick up a new circuit. So you have people who don't care about lower take at CBY because they don't know the track and the current customers aren't going to bet more, if you're 20 dollar a race Bettor that's where you'll stay.

And this is ultimately the issue with takeout reduction.

Here's a few of banal but basically accurate observations about this:

1. Takeout reduction is going to work best at tracks that currently have high takeouts, for two reasons: (a) they have more room to come down from, and (b) the demand stimulus of reducing, say, a 25 percent takeout to 20 percent is going to be much greater than reducing a 12.5 percent takeout to 10 percent, even though both will reduce revenues per wager by the same percentage from the track's standpoint.

2. Takeout reduction is going to work best at tracks that otherwise have a product that will attract off-track betting. I don't think the Ferndale Fair is going to attract significant handle from cutting its takeout, for instance. On the other hand, major and mid-major circuits, such as Southern California and Northern California, will do better.

Similarly, if the product is not attractive to bet on in the first place, a takeout reduction is not going to make it attractive. A 5 horse field with a 2 to 5 favorite ridden by Russell Baze and trained by Jerry Hollendorfer at Golden Gate isn't suddenly going to turn into a great betting race if Golden Gate drops the WPS takeout from 15 percent to 13 percent.

3. Takeout reduction is going to work best when concentrated on bets that large volume bettors make. Small volume bettors don't care about takeout-- it doesn't hit them nearly as hard. So a takeout reduction in the pick 6 or the superfecta is going to have a much bigger impact than a takeout reduction in the place pick all or the show pool.

4. Takeout reduction is probably going to have little effect on races people want to heavily bet anyway. The Triple Crown and the Breeders' Cup can probably get away with very high takeouts. People are going to bet the Kentucky Derby almost no matter what the track is taking out.

5. Successful tracks which already make money can probably get away with some takeout reduction as a customer service matter, but it probably won't increase their profits much. Thus, Del Mar, for instance, could cut takeout and it's not going to hurt them any-- there will be some increase in the handle, and even if it doesn't completely make up the difference, it's something they can advertise and promote and can build their business goodwill. There's an argument for them doing that sort of thing.

6. Takeout reduction isn't a panacea and is not a substitute for running your track well. You still need to deliver a good racing product, you still need to have good facilities for your live patrons, etc. Low cost crap is still crap.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Canterbury is one of the only tracks trying instead of whining. They've acknowledged the problem of attendance and attracting bodies and have done a great job dealing with it. Now, in a rare move in the industry, they're tackling another glaring problem instead of patting themselves on the back for getting one thing right. My betting drops off in the summer usually, but since I'm happy to admit that a lot of my betting anymore is strictly for fun, I will gladly do go out of my way to have that fun supporting a track that is at least trying to support me and the actual racing industry instead of the playing card manufacturing industry.

[castaway01]

Yes, I kind of figured there was abundant evidence. It was in some ways a rhetorical question.

Which is why I was commenting on the "horseplayers better embrace this or they deserve whatever comes to them in the future"-type replies we saw here today.

Horseplayers don't need to be threatened by other players to embrace a takeout reduction. Takeout reduction, by its very nature, is almost guaranteed to be embraced, as your evidence shows.

So why don't we see it more often?

Because with 90% of the money being bet off track, the host track gets only their signal fee for all money not bet on track. If they cut the takeout by 3% on a bet, it takes money out of the pocket of the companies/tracks who take their signal (any ADW), who then bitch and moan at the host track for cutting into their profits. Sure, if wagering went up 50%, then even a signal fee of 5% of win pool handle would make a lot more money, but that's mostly a fantasy in this day and age.

Yes, I know it's oversimplified, but the fact that the track fighting for the takeout reduction doesn't see much direct benefit is why there isn't more incentive for them to do so.

[EMD4ME]

Canterbury is one of the only tracks trying instead of whining. They've acknowledged the problem of attendance and attracting bodies and have done a great job dealing with it. Now, in a rare move in the industry, they're tackling another glaring problem instead of patting themselves on the back for getting one thing right. My betting drops off in the summer usually, but since I'm happy to admit that a lot of my betting anymore is strictly for fun, I will gladly do go out of my way to have that fun supporting a track that is at least trying to support me and the actual racing industry instead of the playing card manufacturing industry.

When Hastings dropped their takeout, I made them my B track. Emerald of course being #1.

We SHOULD go out of our way (SRU-i knew nothing about Hastings till their takeout decrease) to play them.

Stay away from ALL PA tracks. They are a disease and support CBY. I'm proud of them.

[Jeff P]

Yes, I kind of figured there was abundant evidence. It was in some ways a rhetorical question.

Which is why I was commenting on the "horseplayers better embrace this or they deserve whatever comes to them in the future"-type replies we saw here today.

Horseplayers don't need to be threatened by other players to embrace a takeout reduction. Takeout reduction, by its very nature, is almost guaranteed to be embraced, as your evidence shows.

So why don't we see it more often?


The HANA Blog piece titled "The Flawed Logic behind higher takeout (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/08/the-flawed-logic-behind-higher-takeout.html) " in my above post touches on the bolded question at the bottom of your post.

From the article:
I think horseplayers everywhere deserve to understand how Ludt, as a representative of track management for Santa Anita, came up with that $500,000 number as the net loss to purses he claims resulted from 18% takeout on doubles.

HANA has obtained a spreadsheet from the CHRB which you can download here (http://www.playersboycott.org/CHRB-SA-DD.xls) .

Believe it or not, the spreadsheet contains the following columns:

1. A column listing handle on doubles.

2. A column listing handle on doubles multiplied by 22.68%.

3. A column listing handle on doubles multiplied by 18.00%.

Incredibly, the $500,000 number given out by Ludt as the supposed net loss to purses because of 18% takeout on doubles was arrived at by subtracting handle on doubles multiplied by 18.00% from handle on doubles multiplied by 22.68%.

Incredibly, the CHRB swallowed the $500,000 number given out by Ludt hook, line, and sinker - because they approved Del Mar's application to go to 20% double takeout for their current meet.

This was the same flawed logic used by Los Al to justify their takeout increase back in 2010.

This was the same flawed logic used by the CHRB, TOC, and Track Management at Santa Anita-Golden Gate to justify SB1072 and the takeout increase that went into effect at Santa Anita, Golden Gate, Hollywood Park, and Del Mar on January 1, 2011.

This is the same flawed logic used by Churchill Downs this past April to justify their takeout increase.

The logic?

We make more money with higher takeout because our latest handle numbers multiplied by new higher takeout rates is bigger than our latest handle numbers multiplied by older lower takeout rates.

But in the real world it never works out that way.

Why not?

The logic is flawed because it fails to account for the fall off in handle caused by higher takeout rates.


Based on my experiences in dealing with them, and based on their actions: Their thinking really does appear limited in depth to the same flawed logic presented in the aforementioned spreadsheet and article.

The logic?

We make more money with higher takeout because our latest handle numbers multiplied by new higher takeout rates is bigger than our latest handle numbers multiplied by older lower takeout rates.



-jp

.

[EMD4ME]

Because with 90% of the money being bet off track, the host track gets only their signal fee for all money not bet on track. If they cut the takeout by 3% on a bet, it takes money out of the pocket of the companies/tracks who take their signal (any ADW), who then bitch and moan at the host track for cutting into their profits. Sure, if wagering went up 50%, then even a signal fee of 5% of win pool handle would make a lot more money, but that's mostly a fantasy in this day and age.

Yes, I know it's oversimplified, but the fact that the track fighting for the takeout reduction doesn't see much direct benefit is why there isn't more incentive for them to do so.

Great point Castaway, you beat me to it. The takeout reduction hurts the ADW or track taking the bet. I don't see why more small tracks don't do it. They're going to get their 3% anyway, why not advertise a lower takeout? Doesn't cost them a thing :lol:

[Lemon Drop Husker]

3% WPS and 5% on all other wagers is a significant reduction in takeout. Kudos. I will most certainly be looking to play some races there again. :ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

I didn't know they were a night signal. I dig those and will definitely play a few races. It's so hard for me to look at other signals on weekend days. They just seem to get lost.

[GatetoWire]

personally I won't be betting a penny on Canterbury because I'm not familiar w the track and don't follow it, I'm set in my ways and not going to pick up a new circuit. So you have people who don't care about lower take at CBY because they don't know the track and the current customers aren't going to bet more, if you're 20 dollar a race Bettor that's where you'll stay. This is why it's hard to see a lot of increased handle, are current customers going to bet more? No. Are new customers going to start betting a track they know nothing about? No

Also I don't see too many Canterbury shippers at the tracks I follow so spending time on them won't beget any fruits when a CBY shipper visits the tracks I regularly play.

This doesn't mean fans don't care about lower take, but people aren't going to uproot their lives and 'way of doing things' they're used to just for this.

In an all-star list of stupid posts you have made, this one has to be top 5.

Current customers will bet more because over time their bankrolls will not diminish and they will have more to bet with. Slot machines have this down to a science. Optimal takeout to keep the player engaged but winning enough to not bankrupt them too quickly.
The regulars will naturally increase their handle as they win more money on their bets.

I think you are going to be surprised at how many new people start to look at playing Canterbury because of the takeout just like they started playing Kentucky Downs.
Today's customer is more savvy than in the past and realizes they need an edge. I only play NYRA because I am a Win/Exacta player and NY offers me the best takeout. Because of this I also play some races from Keeneland and Kentucky Downs.

I had never played the races at Kentucky Downs before their takeout drop and based on their handle growth so did a lot of other people.
Now I play their cards daily when they are running.

The Canterbury meet starts on May 20th so you have plenty of time to learn about the trainer colony. They also have free replays on their site and free streaming of their live races too.

I have never played Canterbury but like Kentucky Downs....this meet fits perfectly to add into the mix.

[HuggingTheRail]

When Hastings dropped their takeout, I made them my B track. Emerald of course being #1.

We SHOULD go out of our way (SRU-i knew nothing about Hastings till their takeout decrease) to play them.

Stay away from ALL PA tracks. They are a disease and support CBY. I'm proud of them.


Hastings opening day handle this past Sunday was up over $300,000 from opening day last year....I thought it may have been you ;)

[Stillriledup]

In an all-star list of stupid posts you have made, this one has to be top 5.

Current customers will bet more because over time their bankrolls will not diminish and they will have more to bet with. Slot machines have this down to a science. Optimal takeout to keep the player engaged but winning enough to not bankrupt them too quickly.
The regulars will naturally increase their handle as they win more money on their bets.

I think you are going to be surprised at how many new people start to look at playing Canterbury because of the takeout just like they started playing Kentucky Downs.
Today's customer is more savvy than in the past and realizes they need an edge. I only play NYRA because I am a Win/Exacta player and NY offers me the best takeout. Because of this I also play some races from Keeneland and Kentucky Downs.

I had never played the races at Kentucky Downs before their takeout drop and based on their handle growth so did a lot of other people.
Now I play their cards daily when they are running.

The Canterbury meet starts on May 20th so you have plenty of time to learn about the trainer colony. They also have free replays on their site and free streaming of their live races too.

I have never played Canterbury but like Kentucky Downs....this meet fits perfectly to add into the mix.

Why is it stupid to avoid a track I don't follow?

[Clocker]

I didn't know they were a night signal. I dig those and will definitely play a few races. It's so hard for me to look at other signals on weekend days. They just seem to get lost.

Canterbury runs 4 days a week. Nights on Thur-Fri, afternoons on Sat-Sun.

[Zydeco]

You could apply for a track executive position with this thinking. Or, run a horsemen's group!

Lol CJ....

[Oracle]

At the new takeout rates and projected field sizes, not playing Canterbury Park is a missed opportunity to find some good wagering opportunities. Last year, favorites won only 34% of the thoroughbred races, below the national average by 3 percentage points. Racing quality has been increasing each year since the purse agreement.

Turf and dirt racing offered, time to get involved.

[GatetoWire]

Why is it stupid to avoid a track I don't follow?

That part wasn't stupid. That was just your preference.

This part was stupid

"So you have people who don't care about lower take at CBY because they don't know the track and the current customers aren't going to bet more, if you're 20 dollar a race Bettor that's where you'll stay. This is why it's hard to see a lot of increased handle, are current customers going to bet more? No. Are new customers going to start betting a track they know nothing about? No


This doesn't mean fans don't care about lower take, but people aren't going to uproot their lives and 'way of doing things' they're used to just for this."

Take a look at what happened at Kentucky Downs and the other examples that Jeff listed.
Handle has increased at these tracks. Why? Because people already betting will bet more and the low takeout will attract new people to bet Kentucky Downs and Canterbury.
What you said just simply isn't true.

[Stillriledup]

That part wasn't stupid. That was just your preference.

This part was stupid

"So you have people who don't care about lower take at CBY because they don't know the track and the current customers aren't going to bet more, if you're 20 dollar a race Bettor that's where you'll stay. This is why it's hard to see a lot of increased handle, are current customers going to bet more? No. Are new customers going to start betting a track they know nothing about? No


This doesn't mean fans don't care about lower take, but people aren't going to uproot their lives and 'way of doing things' they're used to just for this."

Take a look at what happened at Kentucky Downs and the other examples that Jeff listed.
Handle has increased at these tracks. Why? Because people already betting will bet more and the low takeout will attract new people to bet Kentucky Downs and Canterbury.
What you said just simply isn't true.

Canterbury is it's own little world, that ky downs track was chock full of shippers from tracks people follow, I bet ky downs due to having a clue about the horses and jocks. My point was that people aren't going to raise their bets just due to the knowledge of a lower rake, if people are betting more it's due to them having more, but they can have more if they do well (even if the takeout doesn't change)

[jballscalls]

I had the VP of Racing from Canterbury on my show this morning to talk about the takeout reduction and racing from CP. If anyone is interested here's the link, interview starts about 2:30 in.

https://www.betamerica.com/extra/barn-episode-41916/

[DeanT]

Canterbury runs 4 days a week. Nights on Thur-Fri, afternoons on Sat-Sun.

Thanks. I'll try 2 of 4.

[DeanT]

I had the VP of Racing from Canterbury on my show this morning to talk about the takeout reduction and racing from CP. If anyone is interested here's the link, interview starts about 2:30 in.

https://www.betamerica.com/extra/barn-episode-41916/

Good job J.

[pandy]

I've never followed Canterbury, I will this year. I'll try to post some free picks on my website.

[bello]

Lots of good buzz already with the interviews and the press. Looks like we are still a month away from opening day. Let's get the same buzz as we get closer to the opener. Horseplayers have short memories. At least this one does.

[Track Collector]

My point was that people aren't going to raise their bets just due to the knowledge of a lower rake, if people are betting more it's due to them having more, but they can have more if they do well (even if the takeout doesn't change)

It is irrelevant whether or not folks make a conscious decision to bet more because a track's choice to lower takeout. Studies emphatically show they DO bet more money.

If it is your belief that a person who wins and then chooses to wager more will also be one source where a track's handle is increased, that belief is not correct. Why is that so? It is because winners do so at the expense of losers, and to some degree, to the expense of fellow winners, whose payouts get diluted/lowered a little bit. The corresponding action of winners betting more (because they have more) is that losers will bet less (because they HAVE less), thus making it a wash with regard to track handle over the long term.

[comet52]

You could apply for a track executive position with this thinking. Or, run a horsemen's group!

Touche!

[davew]

It is irrelevant whether or not folks make a conscious decision to bet more because a track's choice to lower takeout. Studies emphatically show they DO bet more money.

If it is your belief that a person who wins and then chooses to wager more will also be one source where a track's handle is increased, that belief is not correct. Why is that so? It is because winners do so at the expense of losers, and to some degree, to the expense of fellow winners, whose payouts get diluted/lowered a little bit. The corresponding action of winners betting more (because they have more) is that losers will bet less (because they HAVE less), thus making it a wash with regard to track handle over the long term.


The guys that lose will churn more before they are tapped out.

That CA group needs to try 50% takeout for awhile, it shows even better return to them than 22%.

[Ruffian1]

You could apply for a track executive position with this thinking. Or, run a horsemen's group!

As a former horseman, sad but true CJ.

[EMD4ME]

You guys are forgetting the best part of CBY!!!

An excellent and vibrant track announcer!

Plus they have the Tampa guy fill on sometimes and a female announcer.

[classhandicapper]

I might start looking at Canterbury if I can play with a 15% take on WPS.

In my mind, this is the 64K question.

If I do start playing Canterbury, is my total betting handle going to rise enough to matter or is it simply going to shift from some other track to Canterbury?

I only have X amount of time to handicap and wager. I direct it towards wherever I get the best deal based on takeout, field size, efficiency of pools (gambling competition), entertainment of races, my own handicapping skills etc...

If it's mostly just a shift, then it will stop working if all the other tracks follow suit.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I never followed it much before but will be now as a result of the lowered take. alot of horse players I know said the same. At the least, it has people taking notice and talking about it. I for one will be a new customer. Should add nicely into my Monmouth, NYRA rotation on the weekends.

[elhelmete]

Not strictly germaine to the takeout issue, but seeing CBY being discussed recently (and positively) made me add it to the A-list of tracks to visit with my brother soon, probably this year.

I'm spoiled living near DMR and SA (and my brother near SAR) so we like picking a place we've only seen on TV.

[GatetoWire]

You guys are forgetting the best part of CBY!!!

An excellent and vibrant track announcer!

Plus they have the Tampa guy fill on sometimes and a female announcer.

That is Paul Allen who is the play by play man for the Minnesota Vikings radio and the Track Announcer at Canterbury

[AndyC]

personally I won't be betting a penny on Canterbury because I'm not familiar w the track and don't follow it, I'm set in my ways and not going to pick up a new circuit. So you have people who don't care about lower take at CBY because they don't know the track and the current customers aren't going to bet more, if you're 20 dollar a race Bettor that's where you'll stay. This is why it's hard to see a lot of increased handle, are current customers going to bet more? No. Are new customers going to start betting a track they know nothing about? No

Also I don't see too many Canterbury shippers at the tracks I follow so spending time on them won't beget any fruits when a CBY shipper visits the tracks I regularly play.

This doesn't mean fans don't care about lower take, but people aren't going to uproot their lives and 'way of doing things' they're used to just for this.

I completely agree. For me to play CBY with my style of handicapping it would take extensive preparation. Preparation I am not willing to put in for the opportunity to bet a minor league track that has subsidized purses.

[ronsmac]

I completely agree. For me to play CBY with my style of handicapping it would take extensive preparation. Preparation I am not willing to put in for the opportunity to bet a minor league track that has subsidized purses.
I agree with everything you just said except the subsidized purses. How does this alter your wagering? I've bet Oaklawn the last 6 years. Is there something I should know about subsidized purses. A friend bets NY and Gulfstream. I'd pass the info to him also on why not to bet tracks with subsidized purses.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

You guys are forgetting the best part of CBY!!!

An excellent and vibrant track announcer!

Plus they have the Tampa guy fill on sometimes and a female announcer.

And don't forget the Corgi's.

They'll be racing some Corgi's this year as well. ;)

[Redboard]

Bold move. For those who have not played this track, I've attached are a couple of past performances from a couple of Friday cards last summer, to give you a feel for what it's like. (races 1 & 2 are Corgis)
Good luck Canterbury.

[AndyC]

I agree with everything you just said except the subsidized purses. How does this alter your wagering? I've bet Oaklawn the last 6 years. Is there something I should know about subsidized purses. A friend bets NY and Gulfstream. I'd pass the info to him also on why not to bet tracks with subsidized purses.

It doesn't but what happens when the subsidy goes away? I am very skeptical of the longevity of any subsidy. I don't want to hitch my wagon to a track that relies on subsidies as an integral part of their business success. The following article from 2015 talks about the headwind for subsidies going forward.
http://www.mcall.com/news/mc-horse-racing-worries-over-casino-subsidy-cuts-20150904

[castaway01]

It doesn't but what happens when the subsidy goes away? I am very skeptical of the longevity of any subsidy. I don't want to hitch my wagon to a track that relies on subsidies as an integral part of their business success. The following article from 2015 talks about the headwind for subsidies going forward.
http://www.mcall.com/news/mc-horse-racing-worries-over-casino-subsidy-cuts-20150904

Who cares about the subsidies and the long-term future right now? We all know Canterbury isn't a major track. However, if they cut takeout and handle rises 40%, that gives us hard, 2016, real-life evidence that might encourage other tracks to cut takeout.

[whodoyoulike]

Heard of the track but have never played it. So, it's in Minnesota. Looked at a turf race and the track looked very nice but, I see it's probably what I would consider a "C" track. Since, I usually don't handicap or bet "C" tracks I'm uncertain if I'll spend much time there. But, their approach to attracting bettors is commendable. Now, they just need to attract and encourage competitive fields and "they/we/I" will come.

[whodoyoulike]

It doesn't but what happens when the subsidy goes away? I am very skeptical of the longevity of any subsidy. I don't want to hitch my wagon to a track that relies on subsidies as an integral part of their business success. The following article from 2015 talks about the headwind for subsidies going forward.
http://www.mcall.com/news/mc-horse-racing-worries-over-casino-subsidy-cuts-20150904

Your link is invalid or no longer available.

[ronsmac]

It doesn't but what happens when the subsidy goes away? I am very skeptical of the longevity of any subsidy. I don't want to hitch my wagon to a track that relies on subsidies as an integral part of their business success. The following article from 2015 talks about the headwind for subsidies going forward.
http://www.mcall.com/news/mc-horse-racing-worries-over-casino-subsidy-cuts-20150904I hear what you're saying but doesn't that eliminate damn near 90% of all tracks. Even Keeneland is getting instant racing money now.

[AndyC]

Who cares about the subsidies and the long-term future right now? We all know Canterbury isn't a major track. However, if they cut takeout and handle rises 40%, that gives us hard, 2016, real-life evidence that might encourage other tracks to cut takeout.

I care. There are more variables other than the take-out rate as to why some people will or won't play certain tracks. I certainly agree that positive results would certainly help in moving some tracks to follow suit.

How would horse owners be convinced to give up part of their earmarked take-out in a non-subsidized state? It's pretty simple when the casino funds artificially inflate the purses.

[AndyC]

Your link is invalid or no longer available.

Try this one: http://www.poconorecord.com/article/20150904/news/150909764

[AlBundy33]

Heard of the track but have never played it. So, it's in Minnesota. Looked at a turf race and the track looked very nice but, I see it's probably what I would consider a "C" track. Since, I usually don't handicap or bet "C" tracks I'm uncertain if I'll spend much time there. But, their approach to attracting bettors is commendable. Now, they just need to attract and encourage competitive fields and "they/we/I" will come.


Looking at their condition book, if I were a Chicago-area based trainer I would give Canterbury a very hard look. Especially those who run in Allowance/Optional claiming races.

They may be the next Tampa, which is ironic since Grunder is a jockey agent/one of the three-headed backup announcers (Angela Hermann and Kevin Gorg) there.

At the very least, they should do well on Thursday and Friday nights. Saturday and Sunday might be a tougher nut to crack since you have everyone and their brother and sister running (especially on Saturday). But handle should increase, just for the fact that Arlington is heading down the toilet. Something that I never thought I would say.

[whodoyoulike]

... Of the 40 states with legalized gambling, 20, including Massachusetts, funnel a slice of revenues from casinos and slots parlors to prop up a largely dying industry: horse racing. ...

Twenty states divert a slice of casino and slots parlors revenue to help boost horse racing prize money, according to the American Gaming Association. Bigger purses, the thinking goes, will draw the top level horses and generate more track bets, helping revive the once-popular industry. ...

Louis Raffetto, a longtime racing executive, says the subsidy is a small price to pay to preserve thousands of jobs at tracks and farms.
"It's minuscule, in the grand scheme of things. The economic benefit is well worth those short dollars," says Raffetto, ...

This is one of my concerns regarding track subsidies. The subsidies are being used to just increase purses which they are hoping in effect will preserve jobs and farms which is probably the only reason politicians are involved. But, this increase isn't drawing "the top level horses and generating more track bets" because the races at these tracks aren't competitive however you wish to define it. So, tracks like Cby needs to figure out how to field competitive races which is counter to the owners and trainers objectives.

[Oracle]

This is one of my concerns regarding track subsidies. The subsidies are being used to just increase purses which they are hoping in effect will preserve jobs and farms which is probably the only reason politicians are involved. But, this increase isn't drawing "the top level horses and generating more track bets" because the races at these tracks aren't competitive however you wish to define it. So, tracks like Cby needs to figure out how to field competitive races which is counter to the owners and trainers objectives.

Canterbury has horse quality similar to Tampa Bay Downs. They average 8 horses per race and run on turf and dirt. the percentage of winning favorites last year was 34%. That's pretty competitive racing in my book.

[MNslappy]

Not strictly germaine to the takeout issue, but seeing CBY being discussed recently (and positively) made me add it to the A-list of tracks to visit with my brother soon, probably this year.

I think you'll be shocked at how well they draw at CBY if you come up here. Crowds are usually pretty big, young, vocal. It's a vibrant place. I think to a lot of people here it's kind of more of a sporting event than a bet. And that's always been their problem, the on track handle is small, most people bet $2/race, and the rest of the country doesn't bet on it at all. Hopefully this big takeout reduction will change the last part.

[EMD4ME]

Has any track ever had a no takeout race?

While they are it.......Maybe it's best they try 1 of those as well (with good advertisements in advance)?

[therussmeister]

I think you'll be shocked at how well they draw at CBY if you come up here. Crowds are usually pretty big, young, vocal. It's a vibrant place. I think to a lot of people here it's kind of more of a sporting event than a bet. And that's always been their problem, the on track handle is small, most people bet $2/race, and the rest of the country doesn't bet on it at all. Hopefully this big takeout reduction will change the last part.
I get the feeling that Canterbury's business model is to, at best, break even on the betting and make a profit on admission and concessions.

[whodoyoulike]

Canterbury has horse quality similar to Tampa Bay Downs. They average 8 horses per race and run on turf and dirt. the percentage of winning favorites last year was 34%. That's pretty competitive racing in my book.

I agree those two metrics provide some indication of competitiveness. But, I also include the speed of races which indicates the racing quality since this is about racing. Before making my comment, I did look at a couple of past days charts and I realize it was only a few races but they were randomly selected dates. I saw some good races but a lot of them were slow e.g., 6f races finishing in 73 + seconds, 6.5f in 80 + and 8.5f in 110 + which are not races I usually follow. I also like the horses to show some consistency in their performances because I really try to minimize the gambling aspect.

But, there were a number of cl2500 races so, I guess I shouldn't expect too much in horse quality. I did see some races which I liked and will probably check them out.

[Stillriledup]

Has any track ever had a no takeout race?

While they are it.......Maybe it's best they try 1 of those as well (with good advertisements in advance)?

racing doesn't do 'loss leaders'.

although, in their defense, certain carryovers are actually not only 0 takeout, but positive expectation takeout, and you have them every day at assorted tracks across the nation. not the same thing, but you can still bet races with very low or 0 effective takeout.

[ronsmac]

Has any track ever had a no takeout race?

While they are it.......Maybe it's best they try 1 of those as well (with good advertisements in advance)?Didn't tvg run no or extremely low DD takeout on Hollywood a couple of times the year before they closed.

[DeanT]

Sweet, to the point ad in the Horseplayer Monthly emag by Canterbury. "Come play". I dig that ad.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgmRP5JWgAIHONJ.jpg

[chadk66]

I' mentioned this before I think but it bares repeating. I know the owners very well. They have been horse owners for many years. Breeders for many years. Super good people. One thing they absolutely aren't is greedy. They bought Canterbury to bring racing back to MN because they race/raised horses. And they are some of the most down to earth people you'll ever meet. Blue collar as it comes. The dad got very lucky many yea'rs ago and patented a part for the communications industry (he worked in it) and damned if he isn't still receiving royalties for it. The son the manages Cby (Randy) was an accountant for years and when they bought the track rolled over into that position. They have really tried to make it a fun place to be for people/families of all ages. Paul Allen the announcer is very interactive with the crowd and they all love him. He is the voice of the Vikings radio shows and is totally into that roll and it spills over to Cby fans. Paul Allen used to stop in the grandstand and talk to trainers (myself included) and ask about horses we had in, etc. Very into the racing/gambling on horses and flat loves them. Everybody's heart is into this track for all the right reasons. The track superintendent used to be a gallop boy at the track back in the 80's & 90's. The guy that runs the horse pool and eurosizer in the barn area used to be a gallop boy in the 80's & 90's. Everybody came back because they love it there.

[Capper Al]

Thanks CJ. Good for Canterbury fans.

[JohnGalt1]

Canterbury opened in 1985 and was part owned by Santa Anita. It cost about $85 million. I don't know what that would be in today's dollars. The facility is annually improved inside and out.

Because CBY is not in a circuit ( Calif. FL, NY Chi), and for those not familiar with betting on CBY races-- most horses, trainers and jockeys ship from Tampa Bay, Oaklawn, Chicago, Prairie Meadows, Texas, Fonner, Turf Paradise, and California. Kentucky and New York connections will ship in for Stakes.

So if you are a strictly northeast better, you will find unfamiliar connections, but it's still horse racing.

Personally I like playing unfamiliar tracks periodically. I only play the entire Pimlico card Preakness day. That's why I buy a par book.

One thing I most like betting Breeder's Cup races is that horses come from all over. I like the same challenge betting early at CBY, because horses do come from all over.

I hope trainers fill the early cards with race ready horses. Greeting the new betters they are trying to attract with nine 6 horse fields won't leave a good first impression.

And depending on the Spring weather, some years the first turf race is run Memorial Day weekend. Though last year they ran on the urf opening weekend.

If anybody can add or correct anything I wrote, feel free to do so.

[chadk66]

Canterbury opened in 1985 and was part owned by Santa Anita. It cost about $85 million. I don't know what that would be in today's dollars. The facility is annually improved inside and out.

Because CBY is not in a circuit ( Calif. FL, NY Chi), and for those not familiar with betting on CBY races-- most horses, trainers and jockeys ship from Tampa Bay, Oaklawn, Chicago, Prairie Meadows, Texas, Fonner, Turf Paradise, and California. Kentucky and New York connections will ship in for Stakes.

So if you are a strictly northeast better, you will find unfamiliar connections, but it's still horse racing.

Personally I like playing unfamiliar tracks periodically. I only play the entire Pimlico card Preakness day. That's why I buy a par book.

One thing I most like betting Breeder's Cup races is that horses come from all over. I like the same challenge betting early at CBY, because horses do come from all over.

I hope trainers fill the early cards with race ready horses. Greeting the new betters they are trying to attract with nine 6 horse fields won't leave a good first impression.

And depending on the Spring weather, some years the first turf race is run Memorial Day weekend. Though last year they ran on the urf opening weekend.

If anybody can add or correct anything I wrote, feel free to do so.that's a pretty good statement. When cby first opened they ran from the last weekend of April to the first weekend of Oct. I believe. 130 days roughly. It's about 85 days now I think. Some of the best trainers in the country came there the first two years thanks to the SA connection. Avg attendance the first two years was 10-13K a day. Right around a million $ a day bet. Plummeted by year three.

[Clocker]

Avg attendance the first two years was 10-13K a day. Right around a million $ a day bet. Plummeted by year three.

They have some problems for the non-casual player. General admission is $7 unless you qualify for a discount. Racing on Friday night and then Saturday afternoon is a tough turn-around. And Minnesota residents can't bet Cby through an ADW.

[foodog8]

You can get pass for the entire season for $50, or $20 worth of MVP points.

http://canterburypark.com/LiveRacing/TicketInformation/tabid/85/Default.aspx

[chadk66]

They have some problems for the non-casual player. General admission is $7 unless you qualify for a discount. Racing on Friday night and then Saturday afternoon is a tough turn-around. And Minnesota residents can't bet Cby through an ADW.there's def. some things that would be great to change. but that's true everywhere I think. They were a millimeter away from having off track betting back in the 80's too.

[chadk66]

back in the early days horsemen could get a certain number of free passes to give out. I think it was two or four per day. few took advantage of it. not sure if that still goes on.

[ronsmac]

They have some problems for the non-casual player. General admission is $7 unless you qualify for a discount. Racing on Friday night and then Saturday afternoon is a tough turn-around. And Minnesota residents can't bet Cby through an ADW.A number of adw's didn't offer Canterbury last year because Churchill negotiated their signal fee and distribution. N.Y.state otbs didn't have Canterbury last year either but I believe they worked out their differences with Churchill.

[billyball]

Only place in Minnesota you can bet Canterbury is at the track----need to get wagering outlets throughout the state--Indian casino's would be a good place to start

[rgustafson]

Only place in Minnesota you can bet Canterbury is at the track----need to get wagering outlets throughout the state--Indian casino's would be a good place to start

If "the track" includes Running Aces harness track then you are correct. :)

[JohnGalt1]

A couple of things to add.

If you are unfamiliar with CBY check out their website and scan last year's jockey and trainer records and see if you recognize anybody.

Also, in claiming races, a Minnesota bred will run 2 class levels higher than out of state bred horses. TuP and Prm also have higher claiming prices for their state bred horses.

[chadk66]

Only place in Minnesota you can bet Canterbury is at the track----need to get wagering outlets throughout the state--Indian casino's would be a good place to startwould be nice but state law doesn't allow for it. that needs to change.

[MNslappy]

As a MN resident, I sure wish CBY and the Sampsons would push even half as hard for residents to be able to bet through ADWs as they did for slots for so many years. I don't really see them making any sort of real, sustained effort to get the law changed. I make the trip to the track 6-8 times a summer, but if I could bet through my ADW I would play it 3-4 days a week.

[ribjig]

Been said already, if track, say, with
casino $$ undersupport, would give :10:%
takeout a chance, response would be
overwhelming to point that handle
would be world's largest & therefore
races would soon become a parade
of ALL-GRADED-ALL-THE-TIME!!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[ronsmac]

Been said already, if track, say, with
casino $$ undersupport, would give :10:%
takeout a chance, response would be
overwhelming to point that handle
would be world's largest & therefore
races would soon become a parade
of ALL-GRADED-ALL-THE-TIME!!! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Unfortunately a track like Canterbury even with 10% takeout wouldn't become the largest in the country. Big bettors are already getting less than 10% effective takeout on most of their wagers so they aren't going to jump on Canterbury. Small bettors who are ignorant to takeout won't bet Canterbury regardless of takeout. Now if Ny or Gulfstream went to 10% or less for all bettors then that would be a different story.

[VigorsTheGrey]

How do you get your local simulcast outlet to carry Canterbury or another track for that matter? Everyone I talk to just has blank stares on their faces and tells me "that's just the way it is" don't want to bet Golden Gate or Los Al anymore...there is no point to.

[barahona44]

Similar to Indiana Grand (finally stopped calling it 'Downs'), Canterbury usually runs one quarter horse race per card, almost always the first race.

[billyball]

My bad forgot about RA

[ribjig]

Big bettors are already getting less than 10% effective takeout on most of their wagers
Rebates, right?
How "big" must betting be?
Give, if possible, example on win betting,
how rebate lowers eff.take. to <10%...

[ronsmac]

Rebates, right?
How "big" must betting be?
Give, if possible, example on win betting,
how rebate lowers eff.take. to <10%...Yes rebates. Handle requirements vary .

[rgustafson]

Similar to Indiana Grand (finally stopped calling it 'Downs'), Canterbury usually runs one quarter horse race per card, almost always the first race.

Yes, for a number of years now Canterbury has run a mixed meet, thoroughbreds and quarter horses. For a long time the quarter horse races were the last two races on the card, but eventually someone noticed that after the last thoroughbred race was run many in the crowd headed for the exits and of course the handle on the quarter horse races was significantly less. The last three meets, 2013, 2014, and 2015 the powers that be said ok, will run the quarter horse races as the first two races on the card instead. Maybe that helped handle, I don't know, just came to the track a little later, I didn't bet them whether they were at the beginning or the end of the card. Looking at the first condition book on the Canterbury website for 2016, they have again positioned the quarter horse races at the end of the card. At least somebody out there figured if the idea was to attract as much off track out of state wagering as possible (slashing the takeout) some bettors, especially those out east, where very little quarter horse racing takes place might just be ready to wager at the start of the card, see a race or two carded for quarter horses and decide to spend their money elsewhere.

[ronsmac]

Yes, for a number of years now Canterbury has run a mixed meet, thoroughbreds and quarter horses. For a long time the quarter horse races were the last two races on the card, but eventually someone noticed that after the last thoroughbred race was run many in the crowd headed for the exits and of course the handle on the quarter horse races was significantly less. The last three meets, 2013, 2014, and 2015 the powers that be said ok, will run the quarter horse races as the first two races on the card instead. Maybe that helped handle, I don't know, just came to the track a little later, I didn't bet them whether they were at the beginning or the end of the card. Looking at the first condition book on the Canterbury website for 2016, they have again positioned the quarter horse races at the end of the card. At least somebody out there figured if the idea was to attract as much off track out of state wagering as possible (slashing the takeout) some bettors, especially those out east, where very little quarter horse racing takes place might just be ready to wager at the start of the card, see a race or two carded for quarter horses and decide to spend their money elsewhere.I've been thinking about it and there was maybe a 25% chance I was going to bet Canterbury. One of the reasons was the 2 quarter horse races at the beginning of the card. This would fit my schedule easier on Thursdays and Fridays.

[rgustafson]

I've been thinking about it and there was maybe a 25% chance I was going to bet Canterbury. One of the reasons was the 2 quarter horse races at the beginning of the card. This would fit my schedule easier on Thursdays and Fridays.

In what way?

[ronsmac]

In what way?1st throughbred race would start approximately 1 hour later.

[dilanesp]

Wayne Lukas used to be featured on an ad for quarter horse racing at Hollywood Park. He said it was the best kind of racing because it takes the two most exciting parts of the race, the start and the finish, and takes out all the boring parts in the middle. :)

[barn32]

Why is it stupid to avoid a track I don't follow?It's not stupid to avoid a track you don't follow, but it is stupid to not start following a track you've been avoiding.

[ronsmac]

After seeing the Churchill Tvg fiasco I wonder if Tvg or Tvg2 will show Canterbury. I know Churchill used to negotiate for Canterbury, I'm pretty sure this is still the case. At least Ny State Otbs will offer Canterbury this year, they were blacked out last year. That should help handle some.

[andtheyreoff]

Opening day entries for Canterbury Park are out. 68 horses spread out over eight races. First post time on Friday night is 7:40 PM EDT.

[Track Phantom]

I've been following this track since 1986 (as it was my home track when I lived in Minnesota). The reason I stuck with it was I'm a class player. I like tracks that have a legitimate moves up and down from significant class positions.

When I look at a track like Turf Paradise, Hawthorne or Prairie Meadows, a $5,000 maiden claimer can compete just fine with MSW (or mdn opt clm) company. That hurts me in the way I handicap.

However, MSW droppers have a huge advantage at tracks like Canterbury, Oaklawn Park and Sam Houston, despite their form. In addition, a $10,000 claimer will beat a $5,000 claimer every time at those tracks. Not so at TUP, PRM or HAW and others like them.

If Canterbury can get, and keep, fields of 9 or more, that is a track you can make money at. The pools need to grow in order to treat it seriously long term. I think they will.

Feel free to email me if you want a free analysis sheet for opening day Friday. (thephantom@trackphantom.com).

[ronsmac]

I've been following this track since 1986 (as it was my home track when I lived in Minnesota). The reason I stuck with it was I'm a class player. I like tracks that have a legitimate moves up and down from significant class positions.

When I look at a track like Turf Paradise, Hawthorne or Prairie Meadows, a $5,000 maiden claimer can compete just fine with MSW (or mdn opt clm) company. That hurts me in the way I handicap.

However, MSW droppers have a huge advantage at tracks like Canterbury, Oaklawn Park and Sam Houston, despite their form. In addition, a $10,000 claimer will beat a $5,000 claimer every time at those tracks. Not so at TUP, PRM or HAW and others like them.

If Canterbury can get, and keep, fields of 9 or more, that is a track you can make money at. The pools need to grow in order to treat it seriously long term. I think they will.

Feel free to email me if you want a free analysis sheet for opening day Friday. (thephantom@trackphantom.com).I hope you're right about their field sizes. It appears they've gone down slightly in each of the last two seasons. Maybe they can reverse the trend.

[Track Phantom]

I hope you're right about their field sizes. It appears they've gone down slightly in each of the last two seasons. Maybe they can reverse the trend.

I'm confused by that. I've heard the stalls are full and the purses are larger. Why wouldn't the fields be bigger? No idea what the deal is...but I guess we'll see. They, more than anyone, know how important full fields and big payoffs will be, especially as all eyes are on their product right now.

[DeanT]

lots of Canterbury stats and stuff in the mag this month. http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html

Dave, you're doing selections for free for opening night? We can pass those around if they're available. We'd like to help them out.

[Thomas Roulston]

But how does Canterbury get 14-horse fields on a 70-foot-wide turf course?

Didn't the Breeders' Cup make both Santa Anita and Del Mar widen their turf courses because of this?

[rgustafson]

But how does Canterbury get 14-horse fields on a 70-foot-wide turf course?

Didn't the Breeders' Cup make both Santa Anita and Del Mar widen their turf courses because of this?

I don't know where you got the idea they run a 14 horse field on the turf course. In the past, at least, they haven't even run 14 horse fields in 6 furlong dirt sprints. When I questioned this with an email last year, I was told that they did not have enough qualified personnel on the gate crew to do so which seems like a lame excuse, but look at the opening night card. In the 5th race they are listing also eligible 13,14,15,16.

[bello]

Opening Night tonight.....Going to start a handicapping thread in the handicapping section. Please give selections and comments.

[AltonKelsey]

Not sure what normal is for this track , but so far, WIN pool with 15% take far outhandling the EXACTA.

[Track Phantom]

lots of Canterbury stats and stuff in the mag this month. http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html

Dave, you're doing selections for free for opening night? We can pass those around if they're available. We'd like to help them out.

Didn't see this until now. One of those weird nights. The winner was in my top two selections in all 8 races (3 on top), had the tri cold in the last, had the 25-1 runner-up selected 3rd in the 2nd race (and my value play) and, overall, it felt like a bad night. I guess that's what happens when the highest priced winner is 5-2.

Tomorrow will be different. Very tough card, especially late in the day.

[DeanT]

Didn't see this until now. One of those weird nights. The winner was in my top two selections in all 8 races (3 on top), had the tri cold in the last, had the 25-1 runner-up selected 3rd in the 2nd race (and my value play) and, overall, it felt like a bad night. I guess that's what happens when the highest priced winner is 5-2.

Tomorrow will be different. Very tough card, especially late in the day.

Pretty chalky, but I thought the track played fair. I found the near mile Turf race kind of cool. I think I'll play this place Thursday and Friday evenings, because I am looking for something to play those evenings.

Pool size was good tonight. They were up 34% year over year, so a few folks gave them a look. Good for them.

I thought you had a few really nice plays. 7 in the 5th ended up getting bet, but much the best.

[cj]

Pretty chalky, but I thought the track played fair. I found the near mile Turf race kind of cool. I think I'll play this place Thursday and Friday evenings, because I am looking for something to play those evenings.

Pool size was good tonight. They were up 34% year over year, so a few folks gave them a look. Good for them.

I thought you had a few really nice plays. 7 in the 5th ended up getting bet, but much the best.

Really hoping this succeeds of course! That said, they probably lost some people already with that chalkfest. Horseplayers are a fickle group. There was a lot of buzz for Canterbury yesterday. I'm not giving up on them by any means, but they have to do better or the buzz will die off pretty quickly.

[chenoa]

Really hoping this succeeds of course! That said, they probably lost some people already with that chalkfest. Horseplayers are a fickle group. There was a lot of buzz for Canterbury yesterday. I'm not giving up on them by any means, but they have to do better or the buzz will die off pretty quickly.

They are just building the chalk players bankroll to boost their confidence.

No worries though, they will take that back by the end of the weekend. AND THEN SOME!!!!! :lol: :lol:

[pandy]

I didn't have a chance to look at it yesterday but just based on my Diamond System and a new rating I'm testing, yesterday's card looked chalkier on paper than today's.

[bello]

P 3 pool race 1 not yet 1k.

Horseplayers are total hypocrites

[Track Phantom]

Really hoping this succeeds of course! That said, they probably lost some people already with that chalkfest. Horseplayers are a fickle group. There was a lot of buzz for Canterbury yesterday. I'm not giving up on them by any means, but they have to do better or the buzz will die off pretty quickly.
I actually agree that it was a major turn-off yesterday...but what is the track supposed to do? Bigger fields will help increase payoffs, I guess.

If memory serves, same exact thing happened last year. It started with about 20 3-1 or less winners and then all of a sudden it was 4 or 5 bombs. Later in the card today will be long prices.

[DeanT]

Good opener: +39% from simo players, which might be a bit of a trend on the night cards. Harder to gain with Saturday day cards with so many other tracks, but they're doing well again today.

I actually don't mind handicapping it at all. But I am used to playing a lot of smaller tracks.

Story on the opening night via Frank Angst.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/211794/bettors-support-canterbury-park-opener

[iwearpurple]

By my rough calculations, CBY handle is up roughly $480,000 for the first 3 nights compared to last year, and net take out is up by $97,904.

1st 3 nights
2015 WPS - 660,535 x .17 = 112,291
2015 Exotic - 887,859 x .23 = 204,208
Total - 316,499

2016 WPS - 875,487 x .15 = 148,833
2016 Exotic - 1,154,651 x .18 = 265,570
Total - 414,403

Difference 97,904 / 3 dates x 69 day meeting = 2,251,792

If this trend continues, it seems to me that everyone wins. The track AND the players.

[chadk66]

I was at Cby the opening weekend. wow. They had amazing attendance. Probably the highest since 1986. And the age of the crowd was very young. youngest crowd I can recall. The atmosphere was excellent. They have done a bunch of remodeling and it looked really nice. They are certainly doing the right things. Another thing I found out which is another step in the right direction. Announcer Paul Allen, Vikings offensive coordinator Norv Turner, Vikings trainer (name eludes me), one of the vikings offensive linemen and I believe Norv's son all went together and bought a horse. It's getting some media attention and should trigger some more interest.

[OTM Al]

I was at Cby the opening weekend. wow. They had amazing attendance. Probably the highest since 1986. And the age of the crowd was very young. youngest crowd I can recall. The atmosphere was excellent. They have done a bunch of remodeling and it looked really nice. They are certainly doing the right things. Another thing I found out which is another step in the right direction. Announcer Paul Allen, Vikings offensive coordinator Norv Turner, Vikings trainer (name eludes me), one of the vikings offensive linemen and I believe Norv's son all went together and bought a horse. It's getting some media attention and should trigger some more interest.
They had great attendance when I was there last year but they couldn't have been betting much at all. It is a fun and welcoming place and I liked it a lot, but I wonder how their real bottom line is doing. Hope better but pools still small.

[OTM Al]

By my rough calculations, CBY handle is up roughly $480,000 for the first 3 nights compared to last year, and net take out is up by $97,904.

1st 3 nights
2015 WPS - 660,535 x .17 = 112,291
2015 Exotic - 887,859 x .23 = 204,208
Total - 316,499

2016 WPS - 875,487 x .15 = 148,833
2016 Exotic - 1,154,651 x .18 = 265,570
Total - 414,403

Difference 97,904 / 3 dates x 69 day meeting = 2,251,792

If this trend continues, it seems to me that everyone wins. The track AND the players.

These are grosses, not nets. Much of the increase is coming off track of which they get to keep far less. ADWs likely doing better but hard to say about the track.

[the little guy]

They had great attendance when I was there last year but they couldn't have been betting much at all. It is a fun and welcoming place and I liked it a lot, but I wonder how their real bottom line is doing. Hope better but pools still small.


We could quite easily point out all the reasons this isn't really helping Canterbury, but at the end of the day, they are not just trying, they are REALLY trying. They not only have made real takeout reductions to hopefully encourage players into their pools, but they seem to be doing an excellent job of getting fans out there, even the young ones that this industry so desperately covets. Of course most of them aren't betting much, but some will, and even if at the end of the day it's one out of fifty, that will be one more horseplayer that will exist that otherwise would not have. Some may think this is insignificant, but I strongly disagree, as we need to start somewhere, and making our customers ( bettors ) happier, and increasing their numbers in any way has to be the goal we continue to focus on.

[johnhannibalsmith]

We could quite easily point out ...

Very sharp post. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

It may not quite be an impending rescue boat, but at least they aren't content to be the Titanic.

[OTM Al]

We could quite easily point out all the reasons this isn't really helping Canterbury, but at the end of the day, they are not just trying, they are REALLY trying. They not only have made real takeout reductions to hopefully encourage players into their pools, but they seem to be doing an excellent job of getting fans out there, even the young ones that this industry so desperately covets. Of course most of them aren't betting much, but some will, and even if at the end of the day it's one out of fifty, that will be one more horseplayer that will exist that otherwise would not have. Some may think this is insignificant, but I strongly disagree, as we need to start somewhere, and making our customers ( bettors ) happier, and increasing their numbers in any way has to be the goal we continue to focus on.
I am not disagreeing about any of this. If anything I am saying we need to give more support. That is because we need this to work. But if we are putting out completely inaccurate figures to support our arguments and we are not paying attention to what the real bottom line is, then this is going to fail JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER EXPERIMENT HAS. What's happening so far is good, but if you want others to follow suit, it isn't nearly good enough, at least not yet.

[therussmeister]

I am not disagreeing about any of this. If anything I am saying we need to give more support. That is because we need this to work. But if we are putting out completely inaccurate figures to support our arguments and we are not paying attention to what the real bottom line is, then this is going to fail JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER EXPERIMENT HAS. What's happening so far is good, but if you want others to follow suit, it isn't nearly good enough, at least not yet.
Canterbury says a 30% increase in off-track handle and a 5% increase in on-track handle is needed to break even on the deal.

[JohnGalt1]

And for those who despise the "evil ten cent super," Canterbury's new high five has a fifty cent minimum. The bet is offered only on turf races.

It has been slow to catch on.

Friday had 2-1 winner, that paid winner/all/all/all/all.

The next race went winner/all/all/all/all that paid about $40. Of course betters collected $40 for each horse they had in the other spots.

A few years ago I scooped up a whole pick 3 pool ($1600) with 2 favorites and a 17-1.

The above are examples of who we are playing against.

[OTM Al]

And for those who despise the "evil ten cent super," Canterbury's new high five has a fifty cent minimum. The bet is offered only on turf races.

It has been slow to catch on.

Friday had 2-1 winner, that paid winner/all/all/all/all.

The next race went winner/all/all/all/all that paid about $40. Of course betters collected $40 for each horse they had in the other spots.

A few years ago I scooped up a whole pick 3 pool ($1600) with 2 favorites and a 17-1.

The above are examples of who we are playing against.

Pick 3 seems to be the best bet, felt that way last year anyway, though if 7 wins the next I'll win but lose money doing it!

[OTM Al]

Canterbury says a 30% increase in off-track handle and a 5% increase in on-track handle is needed to break even on the deal.
For them, perhaps but if overall industry net revenue does not increase, we've merely shifted deck chairs on the Titannic.

[cj]

For them, perhaps but if overall industry net revenue does not increase, we've merely shifted deck chairs on the Titannic.

I'd rather the money shift to the low takeout deck. Wouldn't you?

[Tom]

Seriously, who gives a crap about the industry?
I have only one focus - the bettors.

[OTM Al]

I'd rather the money shift to the low takeout deck. Wouldn't you?
No. Because then you get into the prisoners' dilemma type situation. Then other tracks would need to lower but overall they would all do worse. We win in the short run, but in the long run the industry loses even faster than they are now, and then we are worse off too.

BTW, must have misread the will pays and struck for a big $1.05 profit on a 3x1x2 p3. Beats losing.

[no breathalyzer]

take out crap is overrated. give me superior product of a couple pt takeout any day!

[OTM Al]

Seriously, who gives a crap about the industry?
I have only one focus - the bettors.
Because the argument is that lowered takeout brings in new money. Why would they consider lowering if it really doesn't make them better off. So, you should care quite a bit if you want your situation to improve.

[Tom]

No one is forcing me to bet on races.
If the industry is happy to screw its customers, I am happy to stop betting.
No one needs to support this pathetic game.

The list of tracks I will bet now is longer than the one of tracks I will.

Racing is no longer the only game in town.
It is probably the worst one, though.

Because of the attitude you just expressed.

[OTM Al]

No one is forcing me to bet on races.
If the industry is happy to screw its customers, I am happy to stop betting.
No one needs to support this pathetic game.

The list of tracks I will bet now is longer than the one of tracks I will.

Racing is no longer the only game in town.
It is probably the worst one, though.

Because of the attitude you just expressed.
What, that I'd rather it was healthy so I could also be better off?

[Tom]

That we take whatever table scraps they throw to us and be happy about it.

[cj]

No. Because then you get into the prisoners' dilemma type situation. Then other tracks would need to lower but overall they would all do worse. We win in the short run, but in the long run the industry loses even faster than they are now, and then we are worse off too

I have no idea why you assume others tracks would do worse by lowering takeout. At the very least more churn is produced so there is more money being bet. It is also possible you would have more winners and actually attract more gamblers. How can the sport possibly grow at the current rake? It is not going to survive as a spectator sport which seems to be the goal of many in charge. They are the ones thinking short term, not gamblers.

[whodoyoulike]

No. Because then you get into the prisoners' dilemma type situation. Then other tracks would need to lower but overall they would all do worse. We win in the short run, but in the long run the industry loses even faster than they are now, and then we are worse off too.. ..

Wouldn't this be the effect of a truly competitive business?

Those which do well will survive and prosper. I suspect you work for or you are dependent on the tracks maintaining a status quo or a slow downward spiral until you can retire.

Every product I can think of has been improved by true competition e.g., cell phones, cars, tv's, internet access etc.

[OTM Al]

I have no idea why you assume others tracks would do worse by lowering takeout. At the very least more churn is produced so there is more money being bet. It is also possible you would have more winners and actually attract more gamblers. How can the sport possibly grow at the current rake? It is not going to survive as a spectator sport which seems to be the goal of many in charge. They are the ones thinking short term, not gamblers.
An industry as a whole can be price inelastic even if all the individual firms are price elastic. Consumers move around the industry gravitating toward the low price firms but if all firms lower price, the distribution of customers and how much they buy in total is the same, thus the firms all just gets less in the end. It is essential that lowering the prices in fact does bring in more consumer dollars. Churn doesn't count as no new money is created. It is absolutely obvious that a firm lowering its price should increase sales, perhaps also leading to increased revenue and profit if the old price was too high. But for it to really work, the new sales can't be wholly from cannibalizing other firms' sales. Industry as a whole must show increase.

[OTM Al]

Wouldn't this be the effect of a truly competitive business?

I suspect you work for or you are dependent on the tracks maintaining a status quo or a slow downward spiral until you can retire.

Every product I can think of has been improved by true competition e.g., cell phones, cars, tv's, internet access etc.
I'm a dean at a university who studied economics, so you would be wrong. I've also seen plenty of short sighted behavior from tracks. I'm waiting for the day that someone actually models this problem and shows what is really happening rather than parroting what others have repeated from something someone else said. See what I just wrote and think about the industry as a whole and how tracks interact rather than the effects on a single track. Can things grow, as we hope, or do we simply switch deck chairs while the boat sinks? That is the real question.

[cj]

An industry as a whole can be price inelastic even if all the individual firms are price elastic. Consumers move around the industry gravitating toward the low price firms but if all firms lower price, the distribution of customers and how much they buy in total is the same, thus the firms all just gets less in the end. It is essential that lowering the prices in fact does bring in more consumer dollars. Churn doesn't count as no new money is created. It is absolutely obvious that a firm lowering its price should increase sales, perhaps also leading to increased revenue and profit if the old price was too high. But for it to really work, the new sales can't be wholly from cannibalizing other firms' sales. Industry as a whole must show increase.

You are saying (best I can tell) that people will bet the same amount in total regardless of price. I don't agree with that and neither does every study I've ever seen done. Racetracks have for the most part ignored these studies, many they funded themselves, and thus find themselves in the poor position they are in today. Forgive me if I have no sympathy for any of them and love seeing somebody try something new.

You should put these posts together and get a resume update. Churchill would snap you up in a second. :)

[whodoyoulike]

... See what I just wrote and think about the industry as a whole and how tracks interact rather than the effects on a single track. Can things grow, as we hope, or do we simply switch deck chairs while the boat sinks? That is the real question.

Sorry for the mischaracterization of your background. It was based on your postings. But, if there was true competition in this industry, the end product would have improved years ago and I think still can. And, I'm not talking about 50+/- tracks doing pretty much similar things and thinking this is what their customers want.

Actually, I'm thinking the tracks customers are the owners and trainers and not the bettors because they are accommodating the owners/trainers all the time. They forget that the bettors are just the third party which helps fund a majority of the activities in this industry.

[OTM Al]

You are saying (best I can tell) that people will bet the same amount in total regardless of price. I don't agree with that and neither does every study I've ever seen done. Racetracks have for the most part ignored these studies, many they funded themselves, and thus find themselves in the poor position they are in today. Forgive me if I have no sympathy for any of them and love seeing somebody try something new.

You should put these posts together and get a resume update. Churchill would snap you up in a second. :)
I'm saying it's possible, not that it is true. I'm also saying this could be used as a perfect test case since this place was making so little it had nothing to lose really trying. The pool size is still brutal, so hoping that bigger players come in as the horses show running lines at the track. Made and hit two bets there today in P3s, total of $3 played in each, and made a total of $5. So people that know what they are doing are already in the pools. Just doesn't pay right now to make bigger bets.

[OTM Al]

Sorry for the mischaracterization of your background. It was based on your postings. But, if there was true competition in this industry, the end product would have improved years ago and I think still can. And, I'm not talking about 50+/- tracks doing pretty much similar things and thinking this is what their customers want.

Actually, I'm thinking the tracks customers are the owners and trainers and not the bettors because they are accommodating the owners/trainers all the time. They forget that the bettors are just the third party which helps fund a majority of the activities in this industry.
That's why I'm saying we need the knowledge so we don't make easy characterizations. True competition in any industry is rare to nonexistant. This industry may be better characterized as an asymmetric oligopoly or a monopolistic competition with a couple really big players and several small ones. It becomes even more complicated due to the use of ADWs and simulcasting which actually may make it better for some tracks to hype the product of other tracks. Thus they aren't exactly competitors at all. Then throw in the government. The bettor is the only real customer. Trainers and owners are really suppliers, who also come in many different sizes, so that side of the equation is also quite complex. But as you know, a business does have to cater to suppliers as well as customers.

I would say in my experience, and I do have a bit with them, that the vast majority of the people who work at tracks genuinely do care about customers. There are executives that feel that way too, but I will agree there are also enough that don't care about it more than a pay check that make it all look bad.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I like reading your stuff Al. Can we entertain the notion of competition within the gambling industry rather than solely within the horse racing industry? By that, I mean, I'd like to hear you expand on the effect that you describe might also have as racing competes with other forms of gambling for customers that are going to gamble and which may be/are price sensitive. Basically, do you see an upside in which the racing industry under the scenario you lay out could - while potentially creating internal problems or unexpected outcomes - also in the broader sense pull money in from the outside competition by competing on that front as well and not merely against the other tracks?

I hope that made some sense because the mind is on 23 RPMs right now.

[dilanesp]

You are saying (best I can tell) that people will bet the same amount in total regardless of price. I don't agree with that and neither does every study I've ever seen done. Racetracks have for the most part ignored these studies, many they funded themselves, and thus find themselves in the poor position they are in today. Forgive me if I have no sympathy for any of them and love seeing somebody try something new.

The basic problem with all these arguments is that "lowering price increases demand", while generally true in almost every field (total demand inelasticity is very rare), doesn't prove that it is PROFITABLE to lower the price.

THAT depends on the slope of the demand curve at the price point you are at. In plain English, it's not enough that people will bet more at the lower takeout-- they must bet ENOUGH more that the total track share of the takeout increases despite the cut in the percentage.

And the studies thrown about by horseplayers do not really prove that, or at least do not really prove it in all instances.

I suspect, for instance, that you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that lowering the takeout of the Kentucky Derby would be profitable. If anything, I bet Churchill could get away with raising the takeout on the race, because the handle is so gigantic and the desire to bet it is so strong that they would make even more money at the higher takeout. (Similar to the pricing of tickets for the Derby.)

On the other hand, there are situations where lowering takeout plausibly could increase handle. If there's a track that offers the type of racing product that could attract simulcasting bettors, but where takeout is set ridiculously high currently, a reduction in takeout could have a positive effect. It's possible Canterbury is such a track; the track I kind of think of as the paradigmatic example of it is Lone Star.

There's one other thing about this-- there are tracks that have a good image and which could get away with a takeout decrease as a customer service gesture. Del Mar or Saratoga, for instance. It might or might not pay off the in the sort term, but it would reinforce the message that they are customer-friendly racetracks.

But any time a poster here says "lowering takeout increases handle"-- that's a person who failed economics 101. It does, usually, increase handle. And I assure you that tracks know this. But that doesn't prove that it's profitable to do it.

[cj]

The basic problem with all these arguments is that "lowering price increases demand", while generally true in almost every field (total demand inelasticity is very rare), doesn't prove that it is PROFITABLE to lower the price.

THAT depends on the slope of the demand curve at the price point you are at. In plain English, it's not enough that people will bet more at the lower takeout-- they must bet ENOUGH more that the total track share of the takeout increases despite the cut in the percentage.

And the studies thrown about by horseplayers do not really prove that, or at least do not really prove it in all instances.

I suspect, for instance, that you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that lowering the takeout of the Kentucky Derby would be profitable. If anything, I bet Churchill could get away with raising the takeout on the race, because the handle is so gigantic and the desire to bet it is so strong that they would make even more money at the higher takeout. (Similar to the pricing of tickets for the Derby.)

On the other hand, there are situations where lowering takeout plausibly could increase handle. If there's a track that offers the type of racing product that could attract simulcasting bettors, but where takeout is set ridiculously high currently, a reduction in takeout could have a positive effect. It's possible Canterbury is such a track; the track I kind of think of as the paradigmatic example of it is Lone Star.

There's one other thing about this-- there are tracks that have a good image and which could get away with a takeout decrease as a customer service gesture. Del Mar or Saratoga, for instance. It might or might not pay off the in the sort term, but it would reinforce the message that they are customer-friendly racetracks.

But any time a poster here says "lowering takeout increases handle"-- that's a person who failed economics 101. It does, usually, increase handle. And I assure you that tracks know this. But that doesn't prove that it's profitable to do it.

Of course lowering takeout increases handle and of course it doesn't guarantee profit. What we have learned without a doubt is that raising takeout isn't the answer either. It is a crutch that never works. The argument is always something like this...we handle 100k a day on the early double at 18% so lets raise it to 20% and we'll get an extra 2k a day on that bet alone. The people that implement takeout raises not only didn't pass Econ 101, they are too dumb to even get admitted to the class.

What would takeout be without all these subsidies we see all over the country, 95%?

[OTM Al]

I like reading your stuff Al. Can we entertain the notion of competition within the gambling industry rather than solely within the horse racing industry? By that, I mean, I'd like to hear you expand on the effect that you describe might also have as racing competes with other forms of gambling for customers that are going to gamble and which may be/are price sensitive. Basically, do you see an upside in which the racing industry under the scenario you lay out could - while potentially creating internal problems or unexpected outcomes - also in the broader sense pull money in from the outside competition by competing on that front as well and not merely against the other tracks?

I hope that made some sense because the mind is on 23 RPMs right now.
In brief as I just gorged on the delicious bbq pulled pork I had stewing all day so my head is now about 1 1/2 rpm, you certainly can expand industry definition. It's like going from the market for just colas to that for all soft drinks. Products become less similar so there will generally be less cross price effect, i.e. Change in the price of Pepsi has less effect on orange juice than it does on Dr. Pepper. The trick becomes how do you make a Pepsi drinker want orange juice?

Racing totally missed the boat here, at least in my opinion. They went after the young demo, who never really played horses. For a hundred years there have been articles about horseplayers dying out as if no 30 year olds will ever make it to 50. Slots parlors catered to the older demographic, those that have the money and time for racing, and got them in. In this larger market setting I'd rely much more on marketing analysis than economic theory. This is where the money is that you need to have flow into racing, but may well be too late.

[lamboguy]

the state of this game is very sad. my guess is that lowering the take at Canterburry will have a drastic effect this year and the handle will plunge due to the lower take. simple reason is most of the business at that place comes from rebate players. you get a rebate win or lose in this game. there are plenty of other places to stick your money that give higher rebates.

i happen to love the concept. if by chance i am wrong and see bigger pools, i will be more than happy to bet more money into bigger pools with less rebate. highly doubt that will happen though.

[OTM Al]

the state of this game is very sad. my guess is that lowering the take at Canterburry will have a drastic effect this year and the handle will plunge due to the lower take. simple reason is most of the business at that place comes from rebate players. you get a rebate win or lose in this game. there are plenty of other places to stick your money that give higher rebates.

i happen to love the concept. if by chance i am wrong and see bigger pools, i will be more than happy to bet more money into bigger pools with less rebate. highly doubt that will happen though.
The rebate angle is an added level of complexity to be sure.

[dilanesp]

Of course lowering takeout increases handle and of course it doesn't guarantee profit. What we have learned without a doubt is that raising takeout isn't the answer either. It is a crutch that never works. The argument is always something like this...we handle 100k a day on the early double at 18% so lets raise it to 20% and we'll get an extra 2k a day on that bet alone. The people that implement takeout raises not only didn't pass Econ 101, they are too dumb to even get admitted to the class.

What would takeout be without all these subsidies we see all over the country, 95%?

I suspect raising the takeout of certain races, especially the Kentucky Derby, would actually be incredibly profitable.

But you are right, a general increase in takeout is sometimes posited as a panacea for failing tracks and circuits, and it is not one. And since high takeouts tick customers off, it's a good idea to lower them when you can.

[ronsmac]

the state of this game is very sad. my guess is that lowering the take at Canterburry will have a drastic effect this year and the handle will plunge due to the lower take. simple reason is most of the business at that place comes from rebate players. you get a rebate win or lose in this game. there are plenty of other places to stick your money that give higher rebates.

i happen to love the concept. if by chance i am wrong and see bigger pools, i will be more than happy to bet more money into bigger pools with less rebate. highly doubt that will happen though.The biggest rebate players should bet slightly more at Canterbury. The lower takeout with a lower rebate would be a very slight net gain for them since it's shown they lose less than the takeout. I am talking very very slight net gain but net gain nonetheless.

[EMD4ME]

You are saying (best I can tell) that people will bet the same amount in total regardless of price. I don't agree with that and neither does every study I've ever seen done. Racetracks have for the most part ignored these studies, many they funded themselves, and thus find themselves in the poor position they are in today. Forgive me if I have no sympathy for any of them and love seeing somebody try something new.

You should put these posts together and get a resume update. Churchill would snap you up in a second. :)


Good Matchmaker!!!!!!!!!!!!! great post CJ :)

[Tom]

I looked at the results today and the entries for tomorrow, an alleged holiday, and see a whole bunch of over-priced crap at every track. I will not be wasting a minute of my time swallowing the garbage the industry is serving up.

Used to be they mucked out the stalls.
Now they saddle it.
And give you 8-5 on it.

[DeanT]

simple reason is most of the business at that place comes from rebate players.

No, not most. CDI handles the signal. Rebates for most were crap last year, and are this year. The largest players net takeout is the same, because the price of the signal fee hasn't moved.

About 40% of handle on weekends comes from on-track, which is quite good; in fact most tracks would kill for that. Simo on weekends is weak and has always been that way, like a lot of small tracks.

CBY is a small track trying to get noticed, not unlike Mountaineer in the late 90's when they embarked upon their journey into simulcasting. So far so good, but we'll see how they are doing a year or two down the road.

[RXB]

I think Canterbury is doing a great thing and hopefully it works out. People need to think long term as well as short term. High takeout is partly responsible for the slow death of enthusiasm for wagering on horse races.

On a different issue, they think they're doing a favour by highlighting the favourite's odds in blue for their on-screen graphics but all they're really doing is making those odds more difficult to read.

[OTM Al]

I think Canterbury is doing a great thing and hopefully it works out. People need to think long term as well as short term. High takeout is partly responsible for the slow death of enthusiasm for wagering on horse races.

On a different issue, they think they're doing a favour by highlighting the favourite's odds in blue for their on-screen graphics but all they're really doing is making those odds more difficult to read.
Write them about it rather than posting on the message board. Have heard they are pretty responsive.

[precisionk]

This is a great thing for Canterbury. Residing in MN myself, they are taking advantage of the Ojibwe Casino money from Mystic they received and trying to do all they can to bring the bettors in. They can handle the lower takeout at least for now as they have a 10 year/75 Million agreement to not chase the racino dream. Funny thing is if you reside in MN, you can't bet on your local tracks. The good news is there is a bill on the Gov's desk to fix that and just awaiting his signature.

[DeanT]

Ah, the hodge podge of state by state rules :(

Good card tomorrow, imo. I like a few guys and will be playing. Friday night handles have been good this meet, too, so pick 4 size should be workable.

[therussmeister]

Ah, the hodge podge of state by state rules :(

Good card tomorrow, imo. I like a few guys and will be playing. Friday night handles have been good this meet, too, so pick 4 size should be workable.
Thunderstorms in the area Friday P.M.

[precisionk]

Ah, the hodge podge of state by state rules :(

Good card tomorrow, imo. I like a few guys and will be playing. Friday night handles have been good this meet, too, so pick 4 size should be workable.

Funny thing, shortly after I wrote my post. Governor signed the bill, but I guess individual tracks could impose their own restrictions. I have no idea why they would do that as you would assume handle is handle.

[DeanT]

FYI for those playing Thursday, each Thursday the boys put up a post with some stats and picks. CJ, Dave Valento's Thursday sheet (for free), rail bias notes, Jcapper picks and other analysts picks and pick 4's.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2016/06/canterbury-park-picks-stats-and-more.html

Good luck if you're playing!

[DeanT]

Boy they've had a tough time with weather -- off turf tonight. FYI.

Also, pretty comprehensive betting guide with the past 3 years stats by Lenny, available here via a PDF if interested.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/cbyguide.pdf

That's great work. Thanks Lenny.

[JohnGalt1]

Two points--

Unfortunately all charts in DRF, Bris, & Equibase do not show the new turf only fifty cent hi 5 payoffs and pools. I contacted Cby to let them know. Many winners are A/all/all/all/all and A/B/all./all/all. I'm certain the pools are small, but if one can even get the third place horse, they can win the pool in many races.

It always takes betters a while to figure out new bets.

And for those attending Canterbury in person, you can bet the following day's races. If you attend Saturday, you can bet Sunday's races and watch them on the computer from home.

Since I can't play Canterbury at home, this is the next best thing.

[therussmeister]

Two points--

Unfortunately all charts in DRF, Bris, & Equibase do not show the new turf only fifty cent hi 5 payoffs and pools. I contacted Cby to let them know. Many winners are A/all/all/all/all and A/B/all./all/all. I'm certain the pools are small, but if one can even get the third place horse, they can win the pool in many races.

It always takes betters a while to figure out new bets.

And for those attending Canterbury in person, you can bet the following day's races. If you attend Saturday, you can bet Sunday's races and watch them on the computer from home.

Since I can't play Canterbury at home, this is the next best thing.
The few hi 5 pools I've seen were all $350 or less. I've considered buying one ticket per race to try to scoop the pool by picking the first two finishers.

[bello]

I find the feed painfully difficult to watch and that does not bode well to increase handle from off track. It is very dark, gloomy and difficult to follow your horse.

[SuperPickle]

I've been to Canterbury several times and love the track and really HOPE they grow handle but I'l sum up the track experience this way.

I went last summer on a Thursday night and they had 8,000 people there. It was like something out of 1972. I was floored by the crowd.

Here's the kicker even with 8,000 people they didn't do a million dollars. The people up there simply don't bet.

And here's the funniest part. I cashed a $300 ticket. The kid (and I use that correctly because he looked 16 and couldn't be older than 19) reacted the same way a teller from Belmont or Del Mar would have if I was cashing for $30,000. He literally exclaimed "whoooo!" and excused himself to get more money. He didn't even have $300 in the drawer.

[DeanT]

That's an awesome story :)

They bet about $30 a person. They tell me it's up this meet. Prolly a few more dollars in the pockets of the locals with lower juice.

[Track Phantom]

I've been to Canterbury several times and love the track and really HOPE they grow handle but I'l sum up the track experience this way.

I went last summer on a Thursday night and they had 8,000 people there. It was like something out of 1972. I was floored by the crowd.

Here's the kicker even with 8,000 people they didn't do a million dollars. The people up there simply don't bet.

And here's the funniest part. I cashed a $300 ticket. The kid (and I use that correctly because he looked 16 and couldn't be older than 19) reacted the same way a teller from Belmont or Del Mar would have if I was cashing for $30,000. He literally exclaimed "whoooo!" and excused himself to get more money. He didn't even have $300 in the drawer.
Great story.

I think this is a good problem to have for Canterbury. Would you rather be trying to convince established bettors to come to the track or convince a crowd of 8,000 to wager on your product?

[SuperPickle]

Great story.

I think this is a good problem to have for Canterbury. Would you rather be trying to convince established bettors to come to the track or convince a crowd of 8,000 to wager on your product?

I'm pretty sure they've never bet but I don't go back to the 80's and 90's there.

I'll tell you for atmosphere though it's worth the trip. Outside of Keeneland, Saratoga or Del Mar it was only time I've seen a full tarmac of people watching a race outside on a non stakes card.

Also really good concessions. They had a Famous Dave's in the track as well as a Buffalo Wild Wings Truck outside AND a craft beer bar! Not to mention a full sit down restaurant. And everyone was open on a week night.

[JohnGalt1]

Update on the turf hi-5.

I checked the charts for Friday's races and the pools and payoffs are now listed. I guess it pays to contact someone at the track.

The final hi-5 went A/B/all/all/all. The pool was just over 1k and it paid $880, so one person took down the whole pool, which was more at 18% take out than the previous 23%.

I was also informed that a TRADITIONAL pick 5 will soon be offered. We'll see what their version of a traditional pick 5 will look like, but it won't be a SUCKER jackpot bet.

I will be going for the first time Sunday because I couldn't make before now, due to two birthdays, (do these people not believe in winter birthdays?) and minor health issues.

[mnmark]

The cards are getting better. Tomorrow is a very nice card the 7th race is very nice turf race they are carding a lot more turf races this year.

[JohnGalt1]

Canterbury announced today that two changes will be made starting Thursday 6/16.

A $.50 pick 5 will be offered on the last 5 races. It will NOT be a jackpot bet. If no one hits all five, then 50% will be paid to betters with the most winners, and 50% will carryover to the next day.

They are tweaking the turf hi-5. If no one gets all five horses, 50% will be carried over to the next turf hi-5.

[RXB]

http://www.drf.com/news/too-early-gauge-lower-takeouts-effect

All-sources total handle on the meet that began May 20 was $10,587,069, up 4.9 percent from $10,095,092 for the same number of days at the start of the 2015 racing season. Out-of-state handle on Canterbury’s races, the area the track hoped would most greatly expand because of its well-publicized takeout reduction, was $7,186,452, up 4.4 percent from $6,884,845. Ontrack handle is up 5.9 percent, from $3,210,247 to $3,400,617.

Canterbury’s blended takeout went from 20.5 percent in 2015 to 16 percent this year, so $1,411,393 was taken from handle last year compared with $1,149,832 from the same period this year.

[dilanesp]

http://www.drf.com/news/too-early-gauge-lower-takeouts-effect

All-sources total handle on the meet that began May 20 was $10,587,069, up 4.9 percent from $10,095,092 for the same number of days at the start of the 2015 racing season. Out-of-state handle on Canterbury’s races, the area the track hoped would most greatly expand because of its well-publicized takeout reduction, was $7,186,452, up 4.4 percent from $6,884,845. Ontrack handle is up 5.9 percent, from $3,210,247 to $3,400,617.

Canterbury’s blended takeout went from 20.5 percent in 2015 to 16 percent this year, so $1,411,393 was taken from handle last year compared with $1,149,832 from the same period this year.

So far, not good. That last number is the one that needs to go up-- the issue isn't whether lowering takeout increases handle but whether it increases it enough to increase revenues.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I hope this works in so much that other tracks may follow suit. I think the bottom line is the customers preference for certain racing circuits. It is like anything else, you can lower the price all you want but if people dont care for it in the first place, it really doesnt matter.

[EMD4ME]

Check out race 4's Objection review (on the grass). The track lights are in the way (of actually seeing the horses bump eachother in the lane). You would think they would have a head on that is lower/without obstruction.

[chadk66]

attendance was 21k yesterday with 1.3m bet:ThmbUp:

[therussmeister]

attendance was 21k yesterday with 1.3m bet:ThmbUp:
They always do big business on July 3rd. I assume the special 4 PM post time has a lot to do with it. So why don't they try it more often?

[OTM Al]

They always do big business on July 3rd. I assume the special 4 PM post time has a lot to do with it. So why don't they try it more often?
I would assume it is the fireworks show afterward more than the racing itself. Probably get a fair number of once a year bettors for that day.

[EMD4ME]

Why not do a 4 pm post with fireworks afterwards more often? :lol:

[chadk66]

i'm sure both helped a bunch

[OTM Al]

i'm sure both helped a bunch
The 4 pm start was only for the fireworks. The crowd was all for the fireworks. 21K with 1.3 million bet total. On track was 464k. That's a little more than $20 a person. I love this track and do play it as I find it very formful, but let's be real about what is happening here. They lowered the take considerably. Everyone cheered, and then they just kept betting at the same places they always did. 2 months in and this track is losing money still. They did what we keep clamoring for and they are losing money. If people don't start taking interest in this track, this experiment will fail and it will be that much harder to have anyone lower take in the future. Sorry if no one wants to hear this but it is what is happening.

[EMD4ME]

I normally dont play CBY that often but I wagered about 7500 here in June. Its important to support something like this. You are 100% right OTMAL

[therussmeister]

I would assume it is the fireworks show afterward more than the racing itself. Probably get a fair number of once a year bettors for that day.
No, that's not my point. They get a huge amount of out-of-state handle on these days. Much more than a typical Sunday.

[OTM Al]

No, that's not my point. They get a huge amount of out-of-state handle on these days. Much more than a typical Sunday.
800K off track. Guess it's huge for them so maybe the 4pm (CT) start helps with that though clearly not the intent. Of course Churchill, "the great enemy", was up 3.8% during much the same period and averaged over 10 million a day, though that is skewed greatly by Oaks/Derby weekend. Still, bet they did way better than 1.3 million every day of their meet.

[castaway01]

Al speaks the truth here.

[chadk66]

The 4 pm start was only for the fireworks. The crowd was all for the fireworks. 21K with 1.3 million bet total. On track was 464k. That's a little more than $20 a person. I love this track and do play it as I find it very formful, but let's be real about what is happening here. They lowered the take considerably. Everyone cheered, and then they just kept betting at the same places they always did. 2 months in and this track is losing money still. They did what we keep clamoring for and they are losing money. If people don't start taking interest in this track, this experiment will fail and it will be that much harder to have anyone lower take in the future. Sorry if no one wants to hear this but it is what is happening.yes I agree with all that but some of those 21k will turn into regulars. You can go anywhere for fireworks

[PaceAdvantage]

Fireworks at the track...now there's a boneheaded concept if there ever was one...

Nothing like huge booms to keep already easily spooked animals tranquil in their tiny stalls... :rolleyes:

[OTM Al]

yes I agree with all that but some of those 21k will turn into regulars. You can go anywhere for fireworks
They have a lot of people that are regulars there. It is a fun place to go. There ain't a whole lot else around there. But most of them don't spend on betting. Here's some comments from people on Tripadvisor from 2013 if you want a feel for what the general audience is that goes to this track

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g43519-d267108-r166827801-Canterbury_Park-Shakopee_Minnesota.html

I love the one that thinks the food is pricey.

[dilanesp]

Fireworks at the track...now there's a boneheaded concept if there ever was one...

Nothing like huge booms to keep already easily spooked animals tranquil in their tiny stalls... :rolleyes:

Plus, it's not like there's any flammable material at racetracks or that they ever catch fire or something....

[EMD4ME]

Fireworks at the track...now there's a boneheaded concept if there ever was one...

Nothing like huge booms to keep already easily spooked animals tranquil in their tiny stalls... :rolleyes:

That skipped my mind....Great point!

[chadk66]

They have a lot of people that are regulars there. It is a fun place to go. There ain't a whole lot else around there. But most of them don't spend on betting. Here's some comments from people on Tripadvisor from 2013 if you want a feel for what the general audience is that goes to this track

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g43519-d267108-r166827801-Canterbury_Park-Shakopee_Minnesota.html

I love the one that thinks the food is pricey.I know all about it I spent eight years there training horses

[OTM Al]

I know all about it I spent eight years there training horses
Then how is now any better than then? Sounds like very little if anything has changed. People become fans/players when the see it live, sure, that's why it is bad when tracks close. But if they aren't going to bet more than they have and are, nothing has been accomplished.

[chadk66]

Then how is now any better than then? Sounds like very little if anything has changed. People become fans/players when the see it live, sure, that's why it is bad when tracks close. But if they aren't going to bet more than they have and are, nothing has been accomplished.it' better in so many ways. purses are huge there now. attendance is higher than it's been since 85. The base continues to grow. The atmosphere there now is amazing. They operate year round now so people don't forget about the place. It's probably the only track in the country with attendance on the rise. Will this lead to a huge success? Who knows. But if it don't than I think the sport is about toast. But like you mentioned they don't bet much per capita. which means the reduced takeout means very little and it probably won't stick around much unless people show they appreciate it

[Track Phantom]

Here's the reality: No one is going to become a horse player unless they are exposed to the sport of horse racing. Currently, with the exception of Canterbury, I know of no other tracks going over and above to get people in the door. In 15-20 years, odds say some reasonable percentage of these people will start betting and become lifers.

How are other venues going to increase their horseplayer population? When many of the lifetime players die off, who is there to replace them?

Make fun of $2 bettors all you want....you have to start somewhere. Name me one person that started as a $100-$200 bettor.

[chadk66]

Here's the reality: No one is going to become a horse player unless they are exposed to the sport of horse racing. Currently, with the exception of Canterbury, I know of no other tracks going over and above to get people in the door. In 15-20 years, odds say some reasonable percentage of these people will start betting and become lifers.

How are other venues going to increase their horseplayer population? When many of the lifetime players die off, who is there to replace them?

Make fun of $2 bettors all you want....you have to start somewhere. Name me one person that started as a $100-$200 bettor.exactly

[pandy]

Here's the reality: No one is going to become a horse player unless they are exposed to the sport of horse racing. Currently, with the exception of Canterbury, I know of no other tracks going over and above to get people in the door. In 15-20 years, odds say some reasonable percentage of these people will start betting and become lifers.

How are other venues going to increase their horseplayer population? When many of the lifetime players die off, who is there to replace them?

Make fun of $2 bettors all you want....you have to start somewhere. Name me one person that started as a $100-$200 bettor.

I interviewed Barry Lefkowitz recently. He was long time harness racing P.R. guy and G.M. He said that tracks should have young people, twenty somethings, working in marketing. He said you have to get young people in the door and you need to hire younger people because they have a better understanding of what the younger generation wants. He also said that tracks should be doing more focus groups and surveys of customers and people in the community. And, he said that racing may need to make changes to the sport or betting to adapt it so that younger people get more interested.

It reminded me of when I first saw more interactive slot machines at Atlantic City years ago. They brought in all of these cool slot machines where you had to play a game by touching the screen. They were much better machines and more appealing to anyone who is either young, or has played video games. They lasted about a year. The casinos said that it was taking people too long to lose their money. Here they had a good thing, something more modern and interactive, and they got rid of it!

[Track Phantom]

...And, he said that racing may need to make changes to the sport or betting to adapt it so that younger people get more interested....
This is the exact solution (although the specific changes are hard to identify). There is an antiquated factor to the game that just doesn't appeal to most under the age of 30. My gut feeling is the biggest turnoff is the 26-30 minutes between races. That is just far too long to hold the attention of younger people in this day and age.

[pandy]

This is the exact solution (although the specific changes are hard to identify). There is an antiquated factor to the game that just doesn't appeal to most under the age of 30. My gut feeling is the biggest turnoff is the 26-30 minutes between races. That is just far too long to hold the attention of younger people in this day and age.

I agree. If I managed a track I'd probably be trying to figure out what else they could be doing between races to fill the gap.

[OTM Al]

This is the exact solution (although the specific changes are hard to identify). There is an antiquated factor to the game that just doesn't appeal to most under the age of 30. My gut feeling is the biggest turnoff is the 26-30 minutes between races. That is just far too long to hold the attention of younger people in this day and age.
Time and disposable income seem to be the real issues. Older people have it and younger people don't. The focus should not be on young people. By all means tracks should promote family days to provide introduction to the animals and the game as a cheap day out, but the real focus should be on capturing older people before they wander off to the slot parlor and are lost for good. Young people today who are introduced to a positive experience become the older horseplayer of the future. It has always been so and nothing will change it as the root cause is purely economic, not one of attitude. Forget the twenty somethings other than for the party days like the Derby and Preakness.

[rastajenk]

Right on, Al. The biggest population bubble ever has reached the empty-nest years, and is the best bridge to the future, whatever that may be.

Who are these young adults that we should be targeting? New parents, recent home buyers? Veterans of a club scene or plain ol' partiers? Geeks and nerds? I'm not coming up with any kind of young-adult subculture that racing can point to and say, "There's our new market" without it being a total waste of time and resources.

[pandy]

Time and disposable income seem to be the real issues. Older people have it and younger people don't. The focus should not be on young people. By all means tracks should promote family days to provide introduction to the animals and the game as a cheap day out, but the real focus should be on capturing older people before they wander off to the slot parlor and are lost for good. Young people today who are introduced to a positive experience become the older horseplayer of the future. It has always been so and nothing will change it as the root cause is purely economic, not one of attitude. Forget the twenty somethings other than for the party days like the Derby and Preakness.


Gee, I don't know Al. When I first went to the track I was 18, I did not have disposable income and I was going to college and working nights, so I had a lot less free time than I do now, but I still went to the track on a regular basis. I agree that the tracks have to try to put out the best product they can, from a gambling and entertainment viewpoint, to appeal to people who already like to bet horses. But there also has to be an attempt to entice the younger generations if the sport is going to survive in the long term.

Many businesses and industries have fallen apart because they failed to adapt to modern times. Kodak had the market on photo processing all to itself and their management, a bunch of old guys, laughed at the idea that people wouldn't want to use film.

[rastajenk]

I did, too, probably at about the same time you did, pandy, but it was not because of any special effort by tracks to get me to do it. The grandstands were always full, with many colorful characters, you spent 3/4's of your time in lines before simultaneous cash-and-bet came into being, it was a different time back then that we will never get back to with full-card simulcasting, betting from home or from anywhere.

The Kodak comparison is interesting. Digital photography, and the ensuing smartphone capabilities, allowed more people to take more photos, good and bad, without going through all that development crap, learning about f-stops and apertures, the whole thing.

A similar shortcut to become a racing fan simply doesn't exist. Being able to fire off bets anywhere and anytime won't make one a better bettor, it will just tap out someone quicker before he really learns anything about it.

[OTM Al]

Gee, I don't know Al. When I first went to the track I was 18, I did not have disposable income and I was going to college and working nights, so I had a lot less free time than I do now, but I still went to the track on a regular basis. I agree that the tracks have to try to put out the best product they can, from a gambling and entertainment viewpoint, to appeal to people who already like to bet horses. But there also has to be an attempt to entice the younger generations if the sport is going to survive in the long term.

Many businesses and industries have fallen apart because they failed to adapt to modern times. Kodak had the market on photo processing all to itself and their management, a bunch of old guys, laughed at the idea that people wouldn't want to use film.
This happens. Some people always go beyond the standards of their demographic, but tell me, were you the exception or the rule where you were? I'm not saying some people will start young. There are always some. But most young people in your situation will spend their time in a different way. I'm just saying that this is not the group to focus major effort on because it will bear very little fruit.

[OTM Al]

Right on, Al. The biggest population bubble ever has reached the empty-nest years, and is the best bridge to the future, whatever that may be.

Who are these young adults that we should be targeting? New parents, recent home buyers? Veterans of a club scene or plain ol' partiers? Geeks and nerds? I'm not coming up with any kind of young-adult subculture that racing can point to and say, "There's our new market" without it being a total waste of time and resources.

Like I said, I think in that age group the best thing is to devote Sundays to family days. Have available picnicing areas so people can bring their own food. Have pony rides for the kids and demonstrations with real horses, things that can connect the kids with animals. It gives a working family a cheap day out and different levels of entertainment for the full family. Mom and dad may come back with friends. Kids will remember and have it in mind as they grow up. This is so cheap to do. Stuff aimed at twenty somethings just aren't worth it.

[pandy]

I did, too, probably at about the same time you did, pandy, but it was not because of any special effort by tracks to get me to do it. The grandstands were always full, with many colorful characters, you spent 3/4's of your time in lines before simultaneous cash-and-bet came into being, it was a different time back then that we will never get back to with full-card simulcasting, betting from home or from anywhere.

The Kodak comparison is interesting. Digital photography, and the ensuing smartphone capabilities, allowed more people to take more photos, good and bad, without going through all that development crap, learning about f-stops and apertures, the whole thing.

A similar shortcut to become a racing fan simply doesn't exist. Being able to fire off bets anywhere and anytime won't make one a better bettor, it will just tap out someone quicker before he really learns anything about it.



I think we're giving racetrack management too much credit. The people who manage most of these tracks are not looking towards the future, and overall the management isn't that good.

One of the things I would do is have computer handicapping seminars at the tracks. The younger generation is not going to buy a Racing Form or program. They're going to want to look at the info on their phones or other electronic devices. Something like Trakus is a step in the right direction. If I ran a track, I'd take it a step further and hire a team to create a website and ap that quickly generates statistics, graphs, etc., on pertinent information such as track bias, post position stats, trainer and jockey stats.

I also think that there should probably be a more sophisticated betting platform, similar to Betfair, but perhaps even more advanced, with hedging and parlay options. The younger generation will get more involved in horseracing if they view it as a trading platform, similar to Forex.

That's just some of my ideas. I think there are a lot of things that should be tried, and I think it's time to sit down with some of the younger generation and get some feedback from them.

[OTM Al]

I think we're giving racetrack management too much credit. The people who manage most of these tracks are not looking towards the future, and overall the management isn't that good.

One of the things I would do is have computer handicapping seminars at the tracks. The younger generation is not going to buy a Racing Form or program. They're going to want to look at the info on their phones or other electronic devices. Something like Trakus is a step in the right direction. If I ran a track, I'd take it a step further and hire a team to create a website and ap that quickly generates statistics, graphs, etc., on pertinent information such as track bias, post position stats, trainer and jockey stats.

I also think that there should probably be a more sophisticated betting platform, similar to Betfair, but perhaps even more advanced, with hedging and parlay options. The younger generation will get more involved in horseracing if they view it as a trading platform, similar to Forex.

That's just some of my ideas. I think there are a lot of things that should be tried, and I think it's time to sit down with some of the younger generation and get some feedback from them.

I think we need to stop bashing the straw man known as "management" constantly and look at ourselves a little bit too. I've seen plenty of people in management who are devoted to the customers and work their asses off to try to provide them with a great time at the track. In return they have been called the vilest of names to their faces. They try to do something positive for the people and then face complaints of why didn't you do something else. You can't leave stuff out because people will steal everything not nailed down. Not to mention about how patrons trash the facilities. I've also seen a few people in management who are everything you say they are, but they are really the exception. So having seen both sides of this thing, I think we all have room for improvement. To get back on topic, this thread is a case in point. "Management" has given us exactly what we've been asking for. Where are we in holding up our end of the deal?

[johnhannibalsmith]

...You can't leave stuff out because people will steal everything not nailed down. ...

I often wonder if there's a page on Craigslist or wherever that has 10,000 remote controls for obsolete Zannyoo 13" televisions courtesy of that upscale looking guy that spends all day long in the grandstand just waiting to strike at the temporarily empty table and add to his collection.

[OTM Al]

I often wonder if there's a page on Craigslist or wherever that has 10,000 remote controls for obsolete Zannyoo 13" televisions courtesy of that upscale looking guy that spends all day long in the grandstand just waiting to strike at the temporarily empty table and add to his collection.
My favorite one was up at Saratoga where they had posted some paper signs around a table where there would be a jockey autograph signing the next day. Someone tore one of the jockey pictures off the sign. It wasn't even like a professional print job, just off a regular color printer. We didn't understand why they didn't just take the whole sign as it was just held in place with scotch tape.

[dilanesp]

My favorite one was up at Saratoga where they had posted some paper signs around a table where there would be a jockey autograph signing the next day. Someone tore one of the jockey pictures off the sign. It wasn't even like a professional print job, just off a regular color printer. We didn't understand why they didn't just take the whole sign as it was just held in place with scotch tape.

Closing day at Hollywood Park, they had 3 security guards at the exit gate doing nothing but retrieving stuff that patrons had stolen from the track.

[OTM Al]

Closing day at Hollywood Park, they had 3 security guards at the exit gate doing nothing but retrieving stuff that patrons had stolen from the track.
How much did the guards walk off with one wonders :)

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Does anyone know if they made any press release or did anyone comment on the pros and cons of this takeout change? I have been looking but cant seem to find anything.

[DeanT]

Does anyone know if they made any press release or did anyone comment on the pros and cons of this takeout change? I have been looking but cant seem to find anything.

Crunk analyzed the numbers here.

http://crunktrunk.tumblr.com/post/150618545053/no-empty-handed-man-can-lure-a-bird

[AskinHaskin]

Does anyone know if they made any press release or did anyone comment on the pros and cons of this takeout change? I have been looking but cant seem to find anything.


The 'con' was the $500,000 of raw revenue lost in the on-track arena due to the reduction in takeout.

The handle gain off-track was mostly insignificant as Cby had to reduce the price of their signal before garnering the usual pittance of revenue from off-track wagers on their live product.

Can't imagine they'd be foolish enough to take that hit, which was roughly 20% of their on-track revenue from handle, for a second season in a row.

[HuggingTheRail]

Does anyone know if they made any press release or did anyone comment on the pros and cons of this takeout change? I have been looking but cant seem to find anything.


I started a thread, now on page 2 - this link just has a couple of sentences from CBY, and others

http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/9-27-16/takeout-rates-discussed.html

[MonmouthParkJoe]

The 'con' was the $500,000 of raw revenue lost in the on-track arena due to the reduction in takeout.

The handle gain off-track was mostly insignificant as Cby had to reduce the price of their signal before garnering the usual pittance of revenue from off-track wagers on their live product.

Can't imagine they'd be foolish enough to take that hit, which was roughly 20% of their on-track revenue from handle, for a second season in a row.

I know all this but thank you, just looking to see if they made any statement. Ive been tracking their numbers over the season.