Where did all the horses go?

[PaceAdvantage]

Santa Anita had to cancel Thursday because of a lack of entries.

SANTA ANITA!

And looking over the Mountaineer card tonight, FOUR of the NINE races are FIVE horse fields!! Mountaineer used to have pretty decent-sized fields...

Guess that foal shortage is really starting to kick in these days...:rolleyes:

Would love to hear from the folks who say we shouldn't be thinking CONSOLIDATION in the racing industry...we need MORE TRACKS! :lol::lol::lol:

[menifee]

It's incredible. You cannot bet or watch this product. I've seen more 2 and 3 horse races in the past few months than I can ever remember.

[PhantomOnTour]

Apparently they all went to Evangeline Downs :D

[cj]

Santa Anita had to cancel Thursday because of a lack of entries.

SANTA ANITA!

And looking over the Mountaineer card tonight, FOUR of the NINE races are FIVE horse fields!! Mountaineer used to have pretty decent-sized fields...

Guess that foal shortage is really starting to kick in these days...:rolleyes:

Would love to hear from the folks who say we shouldn't be thinking CONSOLIDATION in the racing industry...we need MORE TRACKS! :lol::lol::lol:

And Mountaineer just cut days and still can't put even a mediocre card out.

[lamboguy]

as small as these fields are they will only get smaller with contraction. when you have to close up tracks all you have is a very unhealthy game that will eventually go kaput.

if you get rid of the smaller tracks you won't have any place to go with the horses that don't make the bigger circuits. if you have no place to go then people will stop buying horses, if they stop buying horses then the breeders will stop breeding them.

this is really a vicious circle that seems to be ending up in a death spiral .

40 years ago there were 25k people at a race track on a weekday afternoon and that was with a population 1/3 rd of what it is today. with all source marketing now in racing you have about 1/3rd the amount of people interested in the game.

[Jeff P]

At some point track management, the CHRB, and the TOC will have to face reality.

THEY created this.

It started in 2009 when the above named entities lobbied the CA Legislature and Governor for a bill that (as a trial balloon) brought 24.02% exacta takeout to Los Al and the Cal Fair circuit.

During the first six months of that (first) takeout increase ON TRACK handle at Los Al dropped 27% vs. the prior year.

And when I pointed that out to the above named entities:

They said the drop in on track handle didn't matter and that "We're doing just fine."

And based on the words that I quoted ("We're doing just fine.") which were spoken by Los Al track management to the Commissioners of the CHRB during a public CHRB meeting: The Commissioners of the CHRB voted 7 to 0 to make the takeout increase at Los Al and the Cal Fairs permanent.

The following year the above named entities (track management, the CHRB, and the TOC) doubled down on the idea that the customer doesn't matter.

They lobbied the CA Legislature and Governor for a bill (SB1072) that brought 22.68% exacta takeout to Santa Anita, now closed Hollywood Park, Golden Gate Fields, and Del Mar.

When the SB1072 takeout increase went into effect on Jan 01, 2011 the result was predictable:

Handle fell.

Purses went down (not up as promised.)

Total revenue for tracks fell. (To the point that hundreds of jobs were cut.)

Demand for Cal Breds has fallen.

At this point it's painfully obvious.

SB1072 has been a colossal failure.

You see THEY (track management, the CHRB, and the TOC) are still operating under the belief system that the customer doesn't matter and that it's ok to raise prices in the face of falling demand.

At some point track management, the CHRB, and the TOC will have to face reality.

You see the number of horses bred each year is a function of demand.

As in total customer spend and demand for your racing product.

Ignore that, and you get where Cal Racing finds itself today.


-jp

.

[PaceAdvantage]

as small as these fields are they will only get smaller with contraction. when you have to close up tracks all you have is a very unhealthy game that will eventually go kaput.

if you get rid of the smaller tracks you won't have any place to go with the horses that don't make the bigger circuits. if you have no place to go then people will stop buying horses, if they stop buying horses then the breeders will stop breeding them.

this is really a vicious circle that seems to be ending up in a death spiral .

40 years ago there were 25k people at a race track on a weekday afternoon and that was with a population 1/3 rd of what it is today. with all source marketing now in racing you have about 1/3rd the amount of people interested in the game.Who said anything about getting rid of just smaller tracks?

[lamboguy]

Jeff's right but takeout is only scratching the surface. if you want to cut down the interest in this sport this game sure has found the way. 3 breeders cups ago 1/3rd of the races were won by either Chad Brown, Bob Baffert and Wesley Ward.

the biggest asset this sport had was that the star of the sport was the horse, today its the trainer and only a few of them. people want to handicap horses, not trainers, the game got it in reverse these days.

one would have thought that the internet and computers could only help grow the game. so everyone tried computerized numbers that included pace and statistics. today those numbers mean squat, its the trainers that rule this game now not the numbers that people like to see. add in the takeout and the breakage and you have a real disaster.

this is the perfect way for this game to die a slow painful death.

[lamboguy]

Who said anything about getting rid of just smaller tracks?for every 1 good horse there is probably something like 300 bad ones. the bad ones got to go somewhere and not to the killers.

[PaceAdvantage]

for every 1 good horse there is probably something like 300 bad ones. the bad ones got to go somewhere and not to the killers.Things can't remain the same. Some tracks have gotta go...no two ways about it.

It's cold, hard, business fact.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Jeff's right but takeout is only scratching the surface. if you want to cut down the interest in this sport this game sure has found the way. 3 breeders cups ago 1/3rd of the races were won by either Chad Brown, Bob Baffert and Wesley Ward.

the biggest asset this sport had was that the star of the sport was the horse, today its the trainer and only a few of them. people want to handicap horses, not trainers, the game got it in reverse these days.

one would have thought that the internet and computers could only help grow the game. so everyone tried computerized numbers that included pace and statistics. today those numbers mean squat, its the trainers that rule this game now not the numbers that people like to see. add in the takeout and the breakage and you have a real disaster.

this is the perfect way for this game to die a slow painful death.

Well said. I feel like the next 5-10 years will be a pivotal time frame for the industry, especially if decoupling happens which is a real possibility. It is hard to be optimistic given the current climate of the industry, but I always view things in a positive light.

[elhelmete]

Things can't remain the same. Some tracks have gotta go...no two ways about it.

It's cold, hard, business fact.

This.

Plus remaining tracks and players have to be OK with writing races for the horse population that's left. That means no more complaining from horseplayers when an A-level track cards a bunch of cheap claiming races on a frequent basis.

[lamboguy]

Things can't remain the same. Some tracks have gotta go...no two ways about it.

It's cold, hard, business fact.
opposite way around, you need more people interested in the game from lower levels to keep this game alive. football and basketball get their players from colleges, major league baseball gets theirs from colleges and the minor leagues. often times people rather watch the college games before the professional ones. spring training and minor league baseball has plenty of interest in it these days and that is specifically what keeps that game ticking.

[johnhannibalsmith]

It's just too bad that the cure for short fields seems to be to eliminate more active participants, both human and equine, because that is what happens. I'm really surprised that this gets argued in a strictly 'for or against' proposition since the game can stand to lose tracks, but not the participants. That's the tough eye to thread, retaining the population so that it does actually shift to other locations rather than just giving up altogether.

[Peter Berry]

And Mountaineer just cut days and still can't put even a mediocre card out.
Our numbers will pick up now that Mahoning Valley has closed. And turf racing resumes May 1. We are the only track in this part of the country with a turf course. That's our ace in the hole.

[Track Phantom]

I'll qualify my somewhat pessimistic comments with the fact that I've been following the game for 30 years, love the game, and it will always be in my blood.

The current situation reminds me of the scene in the movie "As Good as it Gets" when Jack Nicholson says that very line to the people looking to "improve" themselves waiting outside the psychiatrists office. They all look bewildered, as if the thought of things not improving for them never even crossed their mind.

It's very possible that this is as "good as it gets" for racing in the US. Indicators suggest the game will continue to fall precipitously unless dramatic action (voluntary or involuntary) occurs.

I don't believe there are any quick fixes to this issue and also don't believe the blame is to be laid anywhere in particular. The desire to understand the litany of complexities in order to compete in a parimutuel environment is just not desirable to the masses. They have other, less taxing, options. In addition, the cost of owning horses is substantial. If one isn't interested in the wagering, or sport, of horse racing, it's unlikely they'll be involved in the ownership side.

Adding to the problem, the top 10% of the trainers are training the majority of the horses. They may have 10-15 horses that meet a condition but will enter just 1 (maybe 2) in a given race. If those 10-15 horses were spread out to different trainers, many races would have bigger fields.

There are a million ways to attack the crumbling foundation. There are so many holes that it's hard to know where to begin. If I were in charge (whatever that means) I would make forming a National Horse Racing Alliance with a governing body the #1 priority. It has to happen.

It's interesting that all of the major sports have a commissioner, and all are prosperous. Boxing draws the most direct parallel to horse racing, without centralized authority. Interestingly, both boxing and horse racing dominated newspapers in the '50's and '60's, and now both struggle to find a modicum of coverage.

In my opinion, it's rather simple. Without unified leadership and track participation, the game will continue to erode to unthinkable depths. Major tracks, beyond Hollywood Park, will start to shutter. If de-coupling happens, where tracks aren't buoyed by slot money, we could be looking at days, not months/years, before we see major venues go away. When that starts happening, it could have a domino effect.

I once thought the idea of horse racing gone completely was absurd. I felt there would always be major racing, and the minor racing would come and go. Sadly, there is a path to extinction and it appears US racing is on it.

[betovernetcapper]

IMO the loss of horses started several years ago when the Feds changed the tax code so that in order to take a deduction, you had to show a profit every 3 years. You had to run it as a business. Prior to that time there were a lot of doctors, lawyers, brokers and such with extra cash & a need for deductions. They could buy a horse or two & enjoy social benefit & if they broke even or lost a bit, they were happy. Those people are not buying as many horses these days.

The cost of hay has gone up (why?) and this has hurt the small operations.

The tracks & horseman are late to the Internet party & still don't get it. Some announcer was offering one $1 draft to veterans on a given day if they brought there documentation. Who thinks this crap up?

There are solutions such as changing the Tax code, limiting the number of tracks & making Internet betting easier & more profitable (rebates). Speaking of the tax code, why not make winnings untaxable? Other countries do it & the sky hasn't fallen.

If the illegals are deported (which I favor) & the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour (which I oppose), there is going to be a very lonely backstretch for awhile. Then again if we cut back to a dozen tracks, we could make it on domestic labor.

Just my 2$

[VigorsTheGrey]

Good posts above with excellent points made...
Yes, the masses shy away from throwing their cash at ponies...without the requisite skills, time, and labor to properly evaluate things, the casual player no doubt reasons after losing skads of cash "been there, done that" ....even the sharks of wagering struggle to stay ahead with lifetimes of experience behind them...so one can understand why the public is staying away...and from a purely mental aspect...where is the novelty in racing...? Horses run around in circles, race after race, after watching a few hundred races (if that), the average bloke probably gets real bored...they don't look at and see racing the way we do...

One problem is that the US is a large country with many states and a lot of venues...so it is difficult to apply the Hong Kong model or Japan model to all our venues....yet these foreign venues deserve to be looked at seriously...the PASSION for racing needs to be reignited somehow like it was here in the past and over there now....

Yet, tax incentives for owning and training racehorses maybe the only way back now, and no taxation on gambling winnings nor deductions for gambling losses...maybe someone with political clout can pass this along to Trump and he can do an Executive Order tomorrow... BOOM...! Problem solved...! Let's get the Donald on this ASAP...turning around racing would add jobs and increase his base and popularity....easy fix for the Donald....!

[horses4courses]

Santa Anita had to cancel Thursday because of a lack of entries.

SANTA ANITA!

And looking over the Mountaineer card tonight, FOUR of the NINE races are FIVE horse fields!! Mountaineer used to have pretty decent-sized fields...

Guess that foal shortage is really starting to kick in these days...:rolleyes:

Would love to hear from the folks who say we shouldn't be thinking CONSOLIDATION in the racing industry...we need MORE TRACKS! :lol::lol::lol:

It seems to be becoming a worse investment by the year.
Putting money into bloodstock is a pretty sure way of kissing it goodbye.
Less owners willing to take the risk - who could blame them?

Consolidation will happen.

[Nitro]

Good posts above with excellent points made...
Yes, the masses shy away from throwing their cash at ponies...without the requisite skills, time, and labor to properly evaluate things, the casual player no doubt reasons after losing skads of cash "been there, done that" ....even the sharks of wagering struggle to stay ahead with lifetimes of experience behind them...so one can understand why the public is staying away...and from a purely mental aspect...where is the novelty in racing...? Horses run around in circles, race after race, after watching a few hundred races (if that), the average bloke probably gets real bored...they don't look at and see racing the way we do...

One problem is that the US is a large country with many states and a lot of venues...so it is difficult to apply the Hong Kong model or Japan model to all our venues....yet these foreign venues deserve to be looked at seriously...the PASSION for racing needs to be reignited somehow like it was here in the past and over there now....

Yet, tax incentives for owning and training racehorses maybe the only way back now, and no taxation on gambling winnings nor deductions for gambling losses...maybe someone with political clout can pass this along to Trump and he can do an Executive Order tomorrow... BOOM...! Problem solved...! Let's get the Donald on this ASAP...turning around racing would add jobs and increase his base and popularity....easy fix for the Donald....!
That’s B.S.! We live in a free and capitalistic society. If any one (large or small) of our stateside racing jurisdictions (with some entrepreneurial spirit) were smart enough and had the creativity to embark on using the Hong Kong racing model, they would be greatly rewarded in the long run. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why their product draws patronage from all over the world.

Hong Kong racing reflects the exact opposite of every negative comment posted on this thread. It’s no wonder why their typical 10 race daily pools are larger than even events like the BC, or any of the TC race series.

[ReplayRandall]

The responses in this thread are echoes of the thread I started over 2 years ago----->Contraction

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116948

[PaceAdvantage]

Hong Kong racing reflects the exact opposite of every negative comment posted on this thread. It’s no wonder why their typical 10 race daily pools are larger than even events like the BC, or any of the TC race series.Oh please. Stop with this nonsense. Every jurisdiction in the USA could take up the "Hong Kong Model," whatever that really is, and things wouldn't be all that different then they are right now.

Oh wait, they can't take on the "Hong Kong Model" because that would place almost ALL legal gambling activities (Horse Racing, Lotteries, Mahjong, etc) under JOCKEY CLUB control, CUTTING our racing venues down to TWO nationwide, and only allowing them to race something like 80 days out of the year.

Good luck with that.

[Fager Fan]

Jeff's right but takeout is only scratching the surface. if you want to cut down the interest in this sport this game sure has found the way. 3 breeders cups ago 1/3rd of the races were won by either Chad Brown, Bob Baffert and Wesley Ward.

the biggest asset this sport had was that the star of the sport was the horse, today its the trainer and only a few of them. people want to handicap horses, not trainers, the game got it in reverse these days.

one would have thought that the internet and computers could only help grow the game. so everyone tried computerized numbers that included pace and statistics. today those numbers mean squat, its the trainers that rule this game now not the numbers that people like to see. add in the takeout and the breakage and you have a real disaster.

this is the perfect way for this game to die a slow painful death.

Maybe the trainers are getting the press because Brown, Pletcher and Baffert are hard to avoid (as much as I'd like to avoid all three), but the stars remain the horses. No one gives a sh** about the trainers. Jockeys have some appeal but it's hard to market tiny little men who most women are bigger than.

I'm definitely in favor of breaking up the big stables. It's simple, really. If the horses aren't physically with you at the track (other than shipping in for a race), then the trainer of record is the assistant trainer who is caring for that horse. And that trainer gets the 10%.

[AlsoEligible]

The desire to understand the litany of complexities in order to compete in a parimutuel environment is just not desirable to the masses.

I don't see this get mentioned enough in "what's wrong with racing" threads, but I think it's a very underrated reason for a lack of new faces at the track.

As a millennial, if I want to play a game of skill, I have so many options. Whether it's straight up sports betting on leagues and teams that I know inside and out, or daily fantasy sites picking individual athletes, or card games like poker/blackjack.

Why on earth would I pass on all of those, and instead devote myself to learning a game that:

a) buries me in an overwhelming amount of information and statistics, leaving me to try and differentiate signals from noise. I understand the challenge of handicapping will appeal to some, but to most they'll take a look at a daily racing form, throw their hands up and stick with a sport they're already familiar with.

b) forces me to either go to a physical location to participate; locations that are often run down, in bad neighborhoods, and feature less than savory characters. Or it requires me to choose an ADW to sign up with, where funding is often a struggle, not to mention waiting to get your money back out.

c) features an overly complex betting menu, with nuances and rules that vary from track to track, and sometimes are just made up on the spot (jackpot pick pools, carryovers, etc.)

d) even if I can somehow overcome all of the above, I'm still looking at a product of declining quality (smaller fields), an increasingly high takeout, constant stories of crooks and drugs on the backside, industry in-fighting that can randomly leave me shut out from betting on certain tracks....the list goes on.

Sure, on Breeder's Cup or a Triple Crown day, you'll see higher casual interest. But outside of those 4-5 days, can someone please try and convince me why I should play the horses over literally any other available option?

[Fager Fan]

I'll qualify my somewhat pessimistic comments with the fact that I've been following the game for 30 years, love the game, and it will always be in my blood.

The current situation reminds me of the scene in the movie "As Good as it Gets" when Jack Nicholson says that very line to the people looking to "improve" themselves waiting outside the psychiatrists office. They all look bewildered, as if the thought of things not improving for them never even crossed their mind.

It's very possible that this is as "good as it gets" for racing in the US. Indicators suggest the game will continue to fall precipitously unless dramatic action (voluntary or involuntary) occurs.

I don't believe there are any quick fixes to this issue and also don't believe the blame is to be laid anywhere in particular. The desire to understand the litany of complexities in order to compete in a parimutuel environment is just not desirable to the masses. They have other, less taxing, options. In addition, the cost of owning horses is substantial. If one isn't interested in the wagering, or sport, of horse racing, it's unlikely they'll be involved in the ownership side.

Adding to the problem, the top 10% of the trainers are training the majority of the horses. They may have 10-15 horses that meet a condition but will enter just 1 (maybe 2) in a given race. If those 10-15 horses were spread out to different trainers, many races would have bigger fields.

There are a million ways to attack the crumbling foundation. There are so many holes that it's hard to know where to begin. If I were in charge (whatever that means) I would make forming a National Horse Racing Alliance with a governing body the #1 priority. It has to happen.

It's interesting that all of the major sports have a commissioner, and all are prosperous. Boxing draws the most direct parallel to horse racing, without centralized authority. Interestingly, both boxing and horse racing dominated newspapers in the '50's and '60's, and now both struggle to find a modicum of coverage.

In my opinion, it's rather simple. Without unified leadership and track participation, the game will continue to erode to unthinkable depths. Major tracks, beyond Hollywood Park, will start to shutter. If de-coupling happens, where tracks aren't buoyed by slot money, we could be looking at days, not months/years, before we see major venues go away. When that starts happening, it could have a domino effect.

I once thought the idea of horse racing gone completely was absurd. I felt there would always be major racing, and the minor racing would come and go. Sadly, there is a path to extinction and it appears US racing is on it.

Everyone knows there has to be a central organization, but the problem is there is no way to form one. The state regulatory boards aren't going to cede their power to a central organization. Neither will the tracks.

[foregoforever]

can someone please try and convince me why I should play the horses over literally any other available option?

Not me. Seems like you've pretty much figured it out. Even older people who've made it over the hurdles you listed are leaving the game.

And for e), consider that you're talking about a business that doesn't give a rat's ass for you as a customer. Racing today exists on hand-outs from casino subsidies. Trying to keep the customer satisfied doesn't fit into the model.

[Hambletonian]

It is not takeout, it just is a result of transforming horse betting into and offtrack endeavor. Even the racinos put little effort into bringing fans in.

If nobody is showing up to watch, there is no need for the number of racetracks we have now.

How about an A circuit of 5-8 tracks racing primarily on weekends (two or three at any one time). A B circuit of 10-12 tracks splitting between weekdays and weekends, so that there are two or three signals a weekday for simulcasting purposes, and a C circuit of any other tracks that can survive locally.

This will result in a severe contraction of the industry for sure, but perhaps by condensing the product it can be invigorated. I hate saying this, since i love fairs and small tracks the best, but things will have to change and soon.

[wisconsin]

Why does Pennsylvania have to run 2 tracks at once, 3 in the fall, competing with Delaware, Laurel and Charles Town? You could have one hell of an Atlantic Coast circuit if tracks would simply find a way to come together and race 2 months apiece, with maybe some limited summertime night track carryover.

Sure, "live" racing would suffer, I guess, but you would have full fields and the same amount of betting money at worst, but mostly of the simulcast variety, which is worth more than live handle anyway. Tracks that I ignore with those great 5, 6 and 7 horse fields would once again become playable.

[Jeff P]

The current power structure of North American racing is horsemen driven.

And it's a power structure that insists on keeping the status quo intact.

Because of that - until we change the power structure:

Almost everything the Hong Kong Jockey Club gets right will never see the light of day.

Allow me to play what if for a second...

What if - you could go to the US Jockey Club website and get free basic running line info for today's runners - just like the Hong Kong Jockey Club site? (Wouldn't that help in the making it easier to wager slash attracting and keeping new fans department?)

What if - you could go to the US Jockey Club website and click a link that would get you a short history of veterinary procedures performed on each of today's runners - just like you can at the Hong Kong Jockey Club site? (Wouldn't that help in the transparency slash attracting and keeping new fans department?)

What if - instead of continually giving trainers who are caught cheating through the use of drugs a slap on the wrist... the recent case at Tampa Bay Downs where Mandy Ness's name appeared in the program instead of Jamie Ness comes to mind...

What if, instead we adopted and enforced the same medication rules as the Hong Kong Jockey Club?

By the way, I just now Googled the phrase "2017 trainer standings Hong Kong" and found a page on the DRF.com site that has links to free pdf Trainer Standing reports for both Happy Valley and Sha Tin.

For the Happy Valley 04-20-2017 card the highest trainer win pct was J. Size at 18.9% and the second highest trainer win pct was J. Moore at 14.4%.

I ask you -- How do those numbers stack up (from a playability standpoint) vs. the current trainer numbers you will find for most North American tracks?

Wouldn't adopting and enforcing the same medication rules as the Hong Kong Jockey Club send a better integrity matters message to the public at large than the one we are currently sending?

And wouldn't a better integrity message help in the attracting and keeping new fans department?


What if - instead of outright refusal to suspend a rider for an obvious lack of effort... The Lousiana Racing Commisssion's refusal to suspend Kevin Smith for this ride (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132534&highlight=kevin+smith) comes to mind...

What if, instead we adopted and enforced the same standards for riding as the Hong Kong Jockey Club?

And what if our racing commissioners were perfectly willing to hand out rider suspensions for an obvious lack of effort - like the Hong Kong Jockey Club?

Wouldn't that send a better integrity message to the public at large? And wouldn't that help in the attracting and keeping new fans department?

I submit to you the idea that a lot of the game's current woes are self made and driven by a power structure that insists on the status quo.

But what if that power structure was willing to exercise a little vision...

And adopt at least some of the things that Hong Kong gets right?

I would argue the longer we wait to do that:

The longer this game continues its downward slide.


-jp

.

[burnsy]

I'll qualify my somewhat pessimistic comments with the fact that I've been following the game for 30 years, love the game, and it will always be in my blood.

It's very possible that this is as "good as it gets" for racing in the US. Indicators suggest the game will continue to fall precipitously unless dramatic action (voluntary or involuntary) occurs.

Adding to the problem, the top 10% of the trainers are training the majority of the horses. They may have 10-15 horses that meet a condition but will enter just 1 (maybe 2) in a given race. If those 10-15 horses were spread out to different trainers, many races would have bigger fields.

There are a million ways to attack the crumbling foundation. There are so many holes that it's hard to know where to begin. If I were in charge (whatever that means) I would make forming a National Horse Racing Alliance with a governing body the #1 priority. It has to happen.

It's interesting that all of the major sports have a commissioner, and all are prosperous. Boxing draws the most direct parallel to horse racing, without centralized authority. Interestingly, both boxing and horse racing dominated newspapers in the '50's and '60's, and now both struggle to find a modicum of coverage.

In my opinion, it's rather simple. Without unified leadership and track participation, the game will continue to erode to unthinkable depths.

I once thought the idea of horse racing gone completely was absurd. I felt there would always be major racing, and the minor racing would come and go. Sadly, there is a path to extinction and it appears US racing is on it.

Many of the same thoughts I have put on here. The problem is that most of the industry won't "fess up" to the problems or admit how deep it is. There has to be some re-organization. Like any real major, professional sport. The tracks are actually killing each other, the demand is no where in line with the supply. There has to be rotating seasons with different levels of tracks.........just like Baseball or Hockey. Having 5 and under horse fields is great for everyone at the track, except the customer, who pays for keeping the limping place open. Its become a joke, some of these cards. Or should I say, non cards. :p

I don't think it will go extinct because eventually there will be no other choices to make. Like you said, "It has to happen."

Its so painfully obvious when there are half a dozen races going off (almost simultaneously) with less than 7 horses in everyone of them. That's the business model of a real "dreamer" and that's a compliment. There's gotta be a "set circuit" with different levels of competition. People will have to travel more but its reality at this point. Is horse racing just suddenly going to wake up? Again, Dreamer......is an understatement.

And a limit so 3 people don't train all the horses....how can that be a good thing?

[whodoyoulike]

At some point track management, the CHRB, and the TOC will have to face reality.

THEY created this.

It started in 2009 when the above named entities lobbied the CA Legislature and Governor for a bill that (as a trial balloon) brought 24.02% exacta takeout to Los Al and the Cal Fair circuit. ...

You see THEY (track management, the CHRB, and the TOC) are still operating under the belief system that the customer doesn't matter and that it's ok to raise prices in the face of falling demand.

At some point track management, the CHRB, and the TOC will have to face reality.

You see the number of horses bred each year is a function of demand.

As in total customer spend and demand for your racing product.

Ignore that, and you get where Cal Racing finds itself today.


-jp

.

I remember when this was occurring and your and other's efforts to help the industry etc. The resulting reaction and responses from the above entities confirmed my suspicions about their views of the "customers" who are funding this game. And, it was the beginning of the start of my reduction in my participation on the wagering side.

Btw, this may seem a little late and I may not have voiced it previously but, I appreciated your and the others efforts in the opposition to the t/o increase. But, you were facing a stacked deck. Just look where the CHRB chairman ended up.

Before that even occurred, I was in favor of the CHRB reporting to the State Attorney General (for ethics etc.) instead of the governor's office.

[Nitro]

Oh please. Stop with this nonsense. Every jurisdiction in the USA could take up the "Hong Kong Model," whatever that really is, and things wouldn't be all that different then they are right now.

Oh wait, they can't take on the "Hong Kong Model" because that would place almost ALL legal gambling activities (Horse Racing, Lotteries, Mahjong, etc) under JOCKEY CLUB control, CUTTING our racing venues down to TWO nationwide, and only allowing them to race something like 80 days out of the year.

Good luck with that.

Nonsense! The real nonsense are threads like this that do nothing more than create more controversy and just allow some more venting. Does anyone really think that the principals involved in racing are reading this stuff?

Apparently, you haven’t been paying attention to any of my previous responses to threads like this. The solution is very simple: FIRST STEP - Create a SINGLE Horseracing Organization that regulates and controls ALL racing circuits around the country. Gee, If MLB, and the NFL, and the NHL, and the NBA can do it (With how many teams involved?) why not Horse racing?

Heaven forbid someone should offer a solution. Of course, if that ever became reality what would anyone have to gripe about?

Why do you even mention the HK Model because apparently, you don’t know very much about it. The scope of the “Model” goes way beyond just 2 tracks and 80+ days of racing.
It’s rather obvious that some people look at HK racing as some sort of fictional plateau. When in fact its making the horse racing in the rest of the world look trivial in every respect by comparison.

[whodoyoulike]

This.

Plus remaining tracks and players have to be OK with writing races for the horse population that's left. That means no more complaining from horseplayers when an A-level track cards a bunch of cheap claiming races on a frequent basis.

That's exactly what is going on now, just look at my posts in the NYRA thread. Although the sample size is small, they're carding mostly "B and "C" horses at an "A" track like Aqueduct. But, the purse structure still remains at the "A" level.

Consolidation to me doesn't mean to eliminate the "C" and "D" tracks but to reduce the number of races to meet the type of horse populations available. Instead of five "A" tracks running, the horse population is only enough for two tracks running 2 or 3 days a week or maybe 30 races instead of 160 (5x4x8) and on down the line.

[whodoyoulike]

Why does Pennsylvania have to run 2 tracks at once, 3 in the fall, competing with Delaware, Laurel and Charles Town? You could have one hell of an Atlantic Coast circuit if tracks would simply find a way to come together and race 2 months apiece, with maybe some limited summertime night track carryover.

Sure, "live" racing would suffer, I guess, but you would have full fields and the same amount of betting money at worst, but mostly of the simulcast variety, which is worth more than live handle anyway. Tracks that I ignore with those great 5, 6 and 7 horse fields would once again become playable.

I see you're advocating for a Central Commission to control and schedule. You're not alone.

Now, is anyone listening?

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I see you're advocating for a Central Commission to control and schedule. You're not alone.

Now, is anyone listening?


It really makes you wonder if something like this will ever get done. I just hope it does before we are past the point of no return.

[Tom]

Why is SA running the totally absurd long meet to begin with?

[Tom]

It really makes you wonder if something like this will ever get done. I just hope it does before we are past the point of no return.

I think that is in our rear view mirror.

The game will never be the same as we remember it.
It is downhill from here on.

Four horse fields and horses running twice a year.
Seven trainers will train ALL the horses and Bob Baffert will fill his own races. Favorites will win 86% of the races.

Saratoga will race nine months. Keeneland will race two days in April and two in October. Because Churchill will race year round.

Late odds changes will occur for two days after the race. You will be billed the difference.

Track programs will stop publishing racing coverage.

The triple crown will be contested at 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5 furlongs.
Each race will be run two months apart. Message boards will call for the brutal schedule to be fixed.

[PhantomOnTour]

Why is SA running the totally absurd long meet to begin with?

Cuz Hollywood Park is closed

[Fager Fan]

I see you're advocating for a Central Commission to control and schedule. You're not alone.

Now, is anyone listening?

Did you read my post, or am I talking to myself? It's not a question of anyone listening, because it's been said thousands of times, everyone's heard it, and everyone's said it. No one can make it happen because they run up against 1) the state regulatory bodies, and 2) the tracks. No one has come up with how to get those entities to cede control to them.

[whodoyoulike]

Did you read my post, or am I talking to myself? It's not a question of anyone listening, because it's been said thousands of times, everyone's heard it, and everyone's said it. No one can make it happen because they run up against 1) the state regulatory bodies, and 2) the tracks. No one has come up with how to get those entities to cede control to them.

I'm sorry. I read your post after my response because I respond in the order which I read these posts. And, you're correct.

Regarding the state regulatory bodies, they don't want to concede control for some reason.

Sometimes, I don't think they even like horse racing (because of the gambling aspect) but, tolerate it because of the local employment, payroll, sales and other taxes generated and the general economic effects e.g.,local jurisdiction taxes etc., (some towns depend on it) within their respective states.

I think in Cali, I remember reading the CHRB wants to make sure the t/o covers the Commission's annual expenses and they're fine with it. And, I don't think they're going down.

[Nitro]

Everyone knows there has to be a central organization, but the problem is there is no way to form one. The state regulatory boards aren't going to cede their power to a central organization. Neither will the tracks.

If everyone knows this, then the obvious “problem” should really become an opportunity.
The only reason the state regulatory commissions exist is because there is no Central Horse Racing organization that regulates the game as a free enterprise. The tracks would have no choice, if the horse owners and trainers nationwide united toward a common goal. This goal would include considerable attention to its fans and players alike and an active pursuit of commercial sponsors (beyond just Breeders).

The tracks may put on the show, but without the participants there is no show.
Without a show there’s no patronage or gambling.

And guess which state and tracks might take notice of a huge revenue losses?

A concrete business plan with all of these things and many others in mind would not be that difficult to create. The pie is certainly big enough for all parties to realize a fair share, especially if the pie is getting bigger instead of following its current trend toward insolvency.

[thaskalos]

I think that is in our rear view mirror.

The game will never be the same as we remember it.
It is downhill from here on.

Four horse fields and horses running twice a year.
Seven trainers will train ALL the horses and Bob Baffert will fill his own races. Favorites will win 86% of the races.

Saratoga will race nine months. Keeneland will race two days in April and two in October. Because Churchill will race year round.

Late odds changes will occur for two days after the race. You will be billed the difference.

Track programs will stop publishing racing coverage.

The triple crown will be contested at 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5 furlongs.
Each race will be run two months apart. Message boards will call for the brutal schedule to be fixed.

Things are going in strict accordance to the plan that the horsemen concocted when the racinos first burst onto the scene:

The casino side would subsidize the racing...and the horseplayers would be pushed to the wayside...next to the toilets, where they belong. If the track doesn't run a co-existent casino, then that racetrack is doomed...unless it runs a "specialized", abbreviated meet. The word is that the Arlington Park managers are getting dressed up to go to a funeral.

With the slots putting up the bulk of the purse money, the horseplayers' needs could be safely ignored...and the attention could be focused squarely on the needs of the horsemen, where it belongs. Aqueduct started the ball rolling by offering $60,000 purses for 3 and 4-horse fields...and the horsemen couldn't be happier with the latest developments. $60,000 match-races are the next item to be featured on the racing menu...and the horsemen are salivating at the mouth.

[Track Phantom]

44 horses running in the 9 races combined at Mountaineer Park tonight (4.89 horses per race). Two four horse races and two three horse races and the other five are six runners each.

I wish I could think of a good analogy. Maybe if you were to go to the poker room and faced off against one other player in Texas Hold 'Em.

Never thought I'd see the day when you classified a field of six as a "full field". By the way, why do horses constantly scratch from certain tracks and not at others. You can set your watch to the fact that Mountaineer Park will scratch between 20% and 30% of the horses listed in the program on race day. Why?

[elhelmete]

If everyone knows this, then the obvious “problem” should really become an opportunity.
The only reason the state regulatory commissions exist is because there is no Central Horse Racing organization that regulates the game as a free enterprise. The tracks would have no choice, if the horse owners and trainers nationwide united toward a common goal. This goal would include considerable attention to its fans and players alike and an active pursuit of commercial sponsors (beyond just Breeders).

The tracks may put on the show, but without the participants there is no show.
Without a show there’s no patronage or gambling.

And guess which state and tracks might take notice of a huge revenue losses?

A concrete business plan with all of these things and many others in mind would not be that difficult to create. The pie is certainly big enough for all parties to realize a fair share, especially if the pie is getting bigger instead of following its current trend toward insolvency.

For a long time on Steve Byk's show, Satish Sanan was beating this drum and actually putting his time and effort into building a foundation for this to happen. Then he seemed to disappear. IIRC, Steve said he (Satish) knew his work was a sisyphean task so he stepped back.

[Tom]

Things are going in strict accordance to the plan that the horsemen concocted when the racinos first burst onto the scene:

Amen.
Tracks have no clue who their customers are.
They think it is the owners.

The industries should be regulated by the feds.
Or inter-state wagering banned. That should put a hurt on them.

Casino funding should certainly be banned.

Owner-paid for drug testing on every horse, every race is a must.

Odds frozen before the gates open - no matter what the cost to the track is.

The only thing worse than the federal government trying to run anything is letting the race tracks run themselves.

[Tom]

44 horses running in the 9 races combined at Mountaineer Park tonight (4.89 horses per race). Two four horse races and two three horse races and the other five are six runners each.

I've seen bigger Memorial Day parades.

[Fager Fan]

I'm sorry. I read your post after my response because I respond in the order which I read these posts. And, you're correct.

Regarding the state regulatory bodies, they don't want to concede control for some reason.

Sometimes, I don't think they even like horse racing (because of the gambling aspect) but, tolerate it because of the local employment, payroll, sales and other taxes generated and the general economic effects e.g.,local jurisdiction taxes etc., (some towns depend on it) within their respective states.

I think in Cali, I remember reading the CHRB wants to make sure the t/o covers the Commission's annual expenses and they're fine with it. And, I don't think they're going down.

Thanks, Who.

I agree with you. It sure doesn't seem they like horse racing, yet they love the control. The best example that I've seen of recent where they flexed that muscle and showed how difficult it would be for us to have a central office is when the KY racing commission overruled Keeneland (I think it was KEE) when they tried to hold some lasix-free races. The KY racing commission said that only they can dictate what drugs are used in racing. It was a shocking defeat, I thought.

[lamboguy]

For a long time on Steve Byk's show, Satish Sanan was beating this drum and actually putting his time and effort into building a foundation for this to happen. Then he seemed to disappear. IIRC, Steve said he (Satish) knew his work was a sisyphean task so he stepped back.the really sad thing is that for years the players were always regarded as dopes, today they ring circles over the people running this game now.

[Fager Fan]

If everyone knows this, then the obvious “problem” should really become an opportunity.
The only reason the state regulatory commissions exist is because there is no Central Horse Racing organization that regulates the game as a free enterprise. The tracks would have no choice, if the horse owners and trainers nationwide united toward a common goal. This goal would include considerable attention to its fans and players alike and an active pursuit of commercial sponsors (beyond just Breeders).

The tracks may put on the show, but without the participants there is no show.
Without a show there’s no patronage or gambling.

And guess which state and tracks might take notice of a huge revenue losses?

A concrete business plan with all of these things and many others in mind would not be that difficult to create. The pie is certainly big enough for all parties to realize a fair share, especially if the pie is getting bigger instead of following its current trend toward insolvency.


You're right, the owners (particularly) could control racing if they join together. Here's the problem: How do they exercise that control? When you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, you can join together and claim that you're going to boycott Belmont (for example) if they don't do X, but what if they don't do X? We can't really expect the owners to pull their horses from Pletcher, Brown, and all the other NY trainers. Can we expect those same trainers and all their workers to abandon NY? Where are they going to go? Where will they get stalls? We're talking about severing of owner/trainer relationships, and/or tremendous upheaval in the lives of the trainers and their staffs (and it may not even be possible for them to go somewhere else).

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Nonsense! The real nonsense are threads like this that do nothing more than create more controversy and just allow some more venting. Does anyone really think that the principals involved in racing are reading this stuff?

Apparently, you haven’t been paying attention to any of my previous responses to threads like this. The solution is very simple: FIRST STEP - Create a SINGLE Horseracing Organization that regulates and controls ALL racing circuits around the country. Gee, If MLB, and the NFL, and the NHL, and the NBA can do it (With how many teams involved?) why not Horse racing?

Heaven forbid someone should offer a solution. Of course, if that ever became reality what would anyone have to gripe about?

Why do you even mention the HK Model because apparently, you don’t know very much about it. The scope of the “Model” goes way beyond just 2 tracks and 80+ days of racing.
It’s rather obvious that some people look at HK racing as some sort of fictional plateau. When in fact its making the horse racing in the rest of the world look trivial in every respect by comparison.

They read it. They also ignore it. And why shouldn't they? Horseplayers have one tool in the toolbox. Refuse to play under the conditions track managers have set. And yet if there was a slogan pertinent to horseplayers, it would be "playas gotta play." Let somebody else boycott. I've gotta bet the horses. While you can argue about the success of boycotts, in the long run they haven't been hurtful enough to cause tracks to get the point. You know how many professional horseplayers have been invited to HBPA, ARCI, or the other acronym associations that run racing? Not many. And if we sit and wait by the phone, the call will never come. Either we force our way onto the agenda or we continue to do nothing more than fail or talk to each other.

Let me ask you. When you say "regulates and controls all racing circuits," be specific. What looks different than the way things look now? Most jurisdictions have adopted the RMTC list of controlled therapeutic medications, so that wouldn't be a big change. You've got all the state enabling legislation that would have to be modified. You could make all the take out rates equivalent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you could standardize purses (good luck with that), but I'm not clear what it is you hope to accomplish with your central authority, other than to claim you had a genius idea that was step one to save racing, details notwithstanding.

The NBA, NHL, and MLB have 30 teams. NFL is 32. There are 100 or so racetracks in North America. Professional sports are franchised. Racetracks are privately owned like professional teams, but essentially licensed by the state, which is going to take it's percentage off the top regardless of the central authority. And, oh yeah, one guy can't own multiple teams in one sport. Major league sports have a commissioner with few limitations on their power to "act in the best interest of the game." I'm wondering how that works in racing. Baseball even has an exemption from antitrust laws.

I know quite a bit about the Hong Kong model. Certainly enough to know that one of the keys to their success is that they essentially have a gambling monopoly on everything and they only need about 1200 horses stabled at any given time. The competition for starting spots is fierce enough that marginal horses don't see the light of day. What is it you think you know about Hong Kong that the rest of us don't? Why would you think not only having a monopoly, but not having an oversupply of racing - or alternative gambling opportunities - doesn't put them in a far better position than the U.S. is in?

Perhaps you think the Lasix ban is the clincher, as if the U.S. would be having the Lasix debate if we only had 20 or so thoroughbred tracks.

7 million people in a culture that loves to gamble, a monopoly on gambling, and a small supply of racing days.Yeah, they make the rest of the world look trivial.

[Nitro]

For a long time on Steve Byk's show, Satish Sanan was beating this drum and actually putting his time and effort into building a foundation for this to happen. Then he seemed to disappear. IIRC, Steve said he (Satish) knew his work was a sisyphean task so he stepped back.
Well at least he and probably many others over the years have raised similar potential solutions. I can imagine how overwhelming this daunting task must have felt and perhaps even a hopeless cause.
But I would also suggest that there are ways to go about it, and if properly presented could generate substantial interest among those with an entrepreneurial spirit. After all there’s big money involved and potential for turning this entire industry in the right direction.

[Nitro]

They read it. They also ignore it. And why shouldn't they? Horseplayers have one tool in the toolbox. Refuse to play under the conditions track managers have set. And yet if there was a slogan pertinent to horseplayers, it would be "playas gotta play." Let somebody else boycott. I've gotta bet the horses. While you can argue about the success of boycotts, in the long run they haven't been hurtful enough to cause tracks to get the point. You know how many professional horseplayers have been invited to HBPA, ARCI, or the other acronym associations that run racing? Not many. And if we sit and wait by the phone, the call will never come. Either we force our way onto the agenda or we continue to do nothing more than fail or talk to each other. Who’s mentioned ANYTHING about boycotts? I’m not a big fan. I mentioned organizing the owners and trainers first because their livelihoods and those they employ are at stake. They put on the show while dealing with all of the expenditures. They have far more invested in this game then your average horse player, and those with higher vested interests make a professional player’s yearly speculation minute by comparison.

Let me ask you. When you say "regulates and controls all racing circuits," be specific. What looks different than the way things look now? Most jurisdictions have adopted the RMTC list of controlled therapeutic medications, so that wouldn't be a big change. You've got all the state enabling legislation that would have to be modified. You could make all the take out rates equivalent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you could standardize purses (good luck with that), but I'm not clear what it is you hope to accomplish with your central authority, other than to claim you had a genius idea that was step one to save racing, details notwithstanding. This (Central Organization) is not a unique idea by any stretch of the imagination!
You claim to know something about HK racing. Then why don’t you explain how they can run their horses competitively (and frequently) into their 8th and even 9th years WITHOUT ANY DRUGS! It wasn’t that long ago we had similar regulations here in the States. And believe it or not the horses were doing just fine. In fact, running horses with less than 21 and even 14 days between races was considered a soon sign! And guess what? The field sizes were much larger on average than they are these days!

The NBA, NHL, and MLB have 30 teams. NFL is 32. There are 100 or so racetracks in North America. Professional sports are franchised. Racetracks are privately owned like professional teams, but essentially licensed by the state, which is going to take it's percentage off the top regardless of the central authority. And, oh yeah, one guy can't own multiple teams in one sport. Major league sports have a commissioner with few limitations on their power to "act in the best interest of the game." I'm wondering how that works in racing. Baseball even has an exemption from antitrust laws. I was just referring to the tip of the iceberg when it comes to organized sports. Sorry for leaving out the few teams involved in NCAA football, baseball, and basketball. I’m not disputing the shares of the money pie at stake, be it State, the tracks or otherwise. What I’m saying is (and I think most would agree) that the pie here is shrinking. Of course, the horse racing industry is a unique entity and has to be treated as such only because it’s the player who ultimately supports the racing portion of the game. There are many organizational considerations that would have to be made in order to accommodate all those entities and individuals involved in this State-side game. It’s certainly a challenging task, but considering what’s at stake there may not be a viable alternative.

I know quite a bit about the Hong Kong model. Certainly enough to know that one of the keys to their success is that they essentially have a gambling monopoly on everything and they only need about 1200 horses stabled at any given time. The competition for starting spots is fierce enough that marginal horses don't see the light of day. What is it you think you know about Hong Kong that the rest of us don't? Why would you think not only having a monopoly, but not having an oversupply of racing - or alternative gambling opportunities - doesn't put them in a far better position than the U.S. is in? Starting spots in HK may be as fierce as you suggest, especially considering the value of their purses. Perhaps that’s why they have average fields of 10 to 14 entries in every race. I’ve also heard about this so-call gambling monopoly theme before. It seems that some believe these people live in a vacuum without the ability to play anything besides the horses. They also seem to think that the only money in the HK pools is being generated by the locals. This couldn’t be further from the truth!

If you know so much about the Hong Kong Model why not mention its real attributes - from the perspective of its patrons? Why in the world would they want to participate to the degree that they do on such consistent basis? Is it because they don’t race for breeding purposes? No, actually they race for the sake of racing and the participating interest of their patrons obviously takes priority. The integrity and transparency of their game is a refreshing change from what we have here in the States. You don’t have to go much further then the PA forum to read about all the negativity about the local game. It’s no wonder that any newcomer reading so many of these threads might just think twice about getting involved in a game with so many faults!

Perhaps you think the Lasix ban is the clincher, as if the U.S. would be having the Lasix debate if we only had 20 or so thoroughbred tracks.No, I wouldn’t think that just a Lasix ban is the clincher, but absolutely NO RACING ON DRUGS IS. It completely levels the playing field, and makes the trainers totally accountable for any infractions.

7 million people in a culture that loves to gamble, a monopoly on gambling, and a small supply of racing days.Yeah, they make the rest of the world look trivial.Yes, in fact they do, as exemplified by the resulting size of their betting pools! Unfortunately, there are many (perhaps like yourself) who fail to acknowledge the ingredients required for a healthy and thriving game. They might want to thoroughly investigate for themselves why the HK game is doing so well, and our local game is going in the opposite direction.

[PaceAdvantage]

When in fact its making the horse racing in the rest of the world look trivial in every respect by comparison.It's easy to run a tight ship when you only have to oversee two tracks and 80 something days of racing, isn't it?

In fact it's downright simple compared to overseeing around 60 (just counting Thoroughbreds) in the USA with a combined 364 days of racing (I'm going to assume nobody is running on Christmas).

Think about it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Hong Kong: Where do the horses go when they are not in racing season....?

[Murph]

If everyone knows this, then the obvious “problem” should really become an opportunity.
The only reason the state regulatory commissions exist is because there is no Central Horse Racing organization that regulates the game as a free enterprise. The tracks would have no choice, if the horse owners and trainers nationwide united toward a common goal. This goal would include considerable attention to its fans and players alike and an active pursuit of commercial sponsors (beyond just Breeders).

The tracks may put on the show, but without the participants there is no show.
Without a show there’s no patronage or gambling.

And guess which state and tracks might take notice of a huge revenue losses?

A concrete business plan with all of these things and many others in mind would not be that difficult to create. The pie is certainly big enough for all parties to realize a fair share, especially if the pie is getting bigger instead of following its current trend toward insolvency.The horse owners are noticing where they see greater opportunity. It is currently in KY, OH and IN. Standardbred, thoroughbred and quarter horse (debatable hmd) run for a true class purse. CHRB has not understood for nearly a generation. NYRA has figured out their position in time to compete with the trend. Good news for FL!.

Things are going in strict accordance to the plan that the horsemen concocted when the racinos first burst onto the scene:

The casino side would subsidize the racing...and the horseplayers would be pushed to the wayside...next to the toilets, where they belong. If the track doesn't run a co-existent casino, then that racetrack is doomed...unless it runs a "specialized", abbreviated meet. The word is that the Arlington Park managers are getting dressed up to go to a funeral.

With the slots putting up the bulk of the purse money, the horseplayers' needs could be safely ignored...and the attention could be focused squarely on the needs of the horsemen, where it belongs. Aqueduct started the ball rolling by offering $60,000 purses for 3 and 4-horse fields...and the horsemen couldn't be happier with the latest developments. $60,000 match-races are the next item to be featured on the racing menu...and the horsemen are salivating at the mouth.Indiana will never run again under doubtful conditions. Maywood is dead, Flambro is irrelevant, Mountaineer is suffering. Indiana is benefiting from this scenario.

44 horses running in the 9 races combined at Mountaineer Park tonight (4.89 horses per race). Two four horse races and two three horse races and the other five are six runners each.

I wish I could think of a good analogy. Maybe if you were to go to the poker room and faced off against one other player in Texas Hold 'Em.

Never thought I'd see the day when you classified a field of six as a "full field". By the way, why do horses constantly scratch from certain tracks and not at others. You can set your watch to the fact that Mountaineer Park will scratch between 20% and 30% of the horses listed in the program on race day. Why?ANALOGY = Offer race conditions that reflect the current economy.

Amen.
Tracks have no clue who their customers are.
They think it is the owners.

The industries should be regulated by the feds.
Or inter-state wagering banned. That should put a hurt on them.

Casino funding should certainly be banned.

Owner-paid for drug testing on every horse, every race is a must.

Odds frozen before the gates open - no matter what the cost to the track is.

The only thing worse than the federal government trying to run anything is letting the race tracks run themselves.At my home track they know who I am. From the GM to the program lady, I present my self much like I do here. Folks remember that sort of thing.

the really sad thing is that for years the players were always regarded as dopes, today they ring circles over the people running this game now.I like it when posters enjoy to point out how 'dopey' I appear to be.

Well at least he and probably many others over the years have raised similar potential solutions. I can imagine how overwhelming this daunting task must have felt and perhaps even a hopeless cause.
But I would also suggest that there are ways to go about it, and if properly presented could generate substantial interest among those with an entrepreneurial spirit. After all there’s big money involved and potential for turning this entire industry in the right direction.
Look at what is working well today. GP is national handle leader. OP had a very successful meeting. Indiana is set to break records in Standard bred and Thoroughbred meetings this year.

Now that we are marked with a significant purse structure, Indiana will never agree to a 'national' program designed to award the failures in PA, CA and NJ! Forget you guys. It will NEVER happen in my lifetime.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I agree, there will never be a national "Program" unless it is a Super Syndicate where the owners of all the race tracks agree to be in complete control of their respective franchise...which would cut out all private individual ownership of horses that race at their tracks...I wrote about this over a year ago....
Each track would own and train their own horses who race pretty much at their own tracks, except for a few "big show days" when the best are allowed to compete for the trophies of "Glory Days"....
Trainers, jocks, and vets would all be employed by the track, and they will all be paid the same amount per start...there will be no more Bob Bafferts, Mike Smiths, and the better horses will be weight handicapped to insure some sort of parity of performance, for more chaotic outcomes for wagering draw purposes...
The farms will breed horses strictly for the tracks they serve and bloodlines will be patented by each franchise....
The public will not always be invited to attend race days onsite and the facilities will look more like institutional compounds, gated and guarded...

The viewing of races will be done remotely thru an ever increasing array of electronic devices and pay-to-play accounts....

[Murph]

Vigors, your imagination is a wonderful place. My friends and neighbors will always be the owners of the horses where I live. I will always serve at their pleasure in the fields and stalls as needed and directed. Expect the mid-west to be the central racing venue for the next generation. It's been long enough coming. Thank you CDSN, from mid western horsemen all over my region. We've stuck together and we are winning today. Keep it up until we are so tired of winning.

I agree, there will never be a national "Program" unless it is a Super Syndicate where the owners of all the race tracks agree to be in complete control of their respective franchise...which would cut out all private individual ownership of horses that race at their tracks...I wrote about this over a year ago....
Each track would own and train their own horses who race pretty much at their own tracks, except for a few "big show days" when the best are allowed to compete for the trophies of "Glory Days"....
Trainers, jocks, and vets would all be employed by the track, and they will all be paid the same amount per start...there will be no more Bob Bafferts, Mike Smiths, and the better horses will be weight handicapped to insure some sort of parity of performance, for more chaotic outcomes for wagering draw purposes...
The farms will breed horses strictly for the tracks they serve and bloodlines will be patented by each franchise....
The public will not always be invited to attend race days onsite and the facilities will look more like institutional compounds, gated and guarded...

The viewing of races will be done remotely thru an ever increasing array of electronic devices and pay-to-play accounts....

[menifee]

I've concluded a long time ago that the only way to reform racing is to reform the Interstate Horseracing Act. It is such an outdated and bad law, but Congress has failed to touch it for years.

Theoretically, racing could be managed by a centralized commission if Congress had the will to do so. Jurisdictionally, they have the authority. The IHA for example could create a nationalized commission with a Commissioner that regulates medication rules, wagering and simulcasting, animal welfare, licensing, centralized stewards and scheduling of meets. The state racing commissions would still have a role, but would be less powerful. The centralized racing commission would be funded by a tax on the industry.

A track could try to opt out, but it would be their death knell as Congress could prohibit them from accepting wagers outside of the state they are located in.

The state regulators have been pushing uniformity in a number of areas, but they are still way behind the times. They have not been able to accomplish uniformity in all areas and there has been no indication the tracks (NYRA, Churchill, Stronach, Hollywood and the smaller tracks) have any desire to collaborate on racing days/post times, etc. Honestly, consolidation is tough given that some state laws mandate minimum #'s of racing days. Only federal law could trump this.

In terms of consolidation, the industry would work so much better if the tracks had shortened limited meets (30 days or so) and had a year round seasonal circuit. The notion that state legislators mandate racing days (100 day minimums, etc.) is anachronistic and handcuffs you given the change in horse population. Do we really need 6 months of racing at Aqueduct? Does Florida really need to race in the summer? Why do we have Penn, CT, Mountain, Laurel, MVR, Parx all racing 5k claimers at the same time of year?

The only way to get Congress to intervene and modify the IHA is if concern about the welfare of the equines pushes Congress to act. The medication issue has done this to a certain extent, but has not pushed them enough to change the law. The tracks won't change because they are too addicted to the slot money. The horsemen/trainers won't push change because they like racing in small fields and don't want reform. No one cares about the customers (the gamblers). The horse racing media (DRF, Bloodhorse) don't have a big enough voice to push change.

[menifee]

On the IHA, this is a pretty good article that covers the history of it:

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/new-racing-economics-show-inadequacies-1978-interstate-horse-racing-act/

[Murph]

Your reforms only address an equalization method to prop up failing state programs. None of this type of agreement is mentioned until it is realized the mid west KY CD network is the only viable model. I think that it is realistic to assume Indiana horse industry will survive on lower purses generated locally as has been done for generations with or without pari-mutuel wagering. Whether the governer approved or not we found a way to bet on those races.

It can't be any different if anyone would expect KY to help CA re build their failed horse industry. Short of NY 'selling the store' to KY there will not be an amicable consolidation. We'll be busy for a couple of years as it is necessary to attend to problems in IL with Arlington Park. They won't be left behind.
I've concluded a long time ago that the only way to reform racing is to reform the Interstate Horseracing Act. It is such an outdated and bad law, but Congress has failed to touch it for years.

Theoretically, racing could be managed by a centralized commission if Congress had the will to do so. Jurisdictionally, they have the authority. The IHA for example could create a nationalized commission with a Commissioner that regulates medication rules, wagering and simulcasting, animal welfare, licensing, centralized stewards and scheduling of meets. The state racing commissions would still have a role, but would be less powerful. The centralized racing commission would be funded by a tax on the industry.

A track could try to opt out, but it would be their death knell as Congress could prohibit them from accepting wagers outside of the state they are located in.

The state regulators have been pushing uniformity in a number of areas, but they are still way behind the times. They have not been able to accomplish uniformity in all areas and there has been no indication the tracks (NYRA, Churchill, Stronach, Hollywood and the smaller tracks) have any desire to collaborate on racing days/post times, etc. Honestly, consolidation is tough given that some state laws mandate minimum #'s of racing days. Only federal law could trump this.

In terms of consolidation, the industry would work so much better if the tracks had shortened limited meets (30 days or so) and had a year round seasonal circuit. The notion that state legislators mandate racing days (100 day minimums, etc.) is anachronistic and handcuffs you given the change in horse population. Do we really need 6 months of racing at Aqueduct? Does Florida really need to race in the summer? Why do we have Penn, CT, Mountain, Laurel, MVR, Parx all racing 5k claimers at the same time of year?

The only way to get Congress to intervene and modify the IHA is if concern about the welfare of the equines pushes Congress to act. The medication issue has done this to a certain extent, but has not pushed them enough to change the law. The tracks won't change because they are too addicted to the slot money. The horsemen/trainers won't push change because they like racing in small fields and don't want reform. No one cares about the customers (the gamblers). The horse racing media (DRF, Bloodhorse) don't have a big enough voice to push change.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Centralizing power only ever makes things worse. So I don't see a central body solving things

The bottom line is you need to make it worth one's time and money to be a horse owner, a bettor or a jockey/trainer/stable worker

If you only make it worthwhile for one of these 3 groups then the whole thing collapses

As far as the Hong Kong model goes, well HK is dependent on all the other countries supplying them with horses, jockeys and trainers. If the other racing countries go bust then HK and Singapore go bust too. Hong Kong racing is not self sufficient which is a huge weakness in its model

[rastajenk]

This thread is disappointing. So many people purporting to love racing, who grew to love it in its current format, now trying to kill it with excessive control.

In a time when the president was elected to roll back federal control of our lives, you want more federal control. When one asks if we really need this or that, it sounds like Bernie Sanders asking if we really need yachts and 23 kinds of deodorant, when what we really need is a federal agency to tell us what we really need. Tossing around words like Control so cavalierly smells a lot like fascism to me. Will there be any politics involved in forming and maintaining a Central Committee? NO! shout the naive and gullible. It will be all about efficiency, and rapid response to customer demands!

Contraction will run off the small timers and good people that make racing such an egalitarian, humbling and enjoyable experience, but the super-trainers and all the other evils will survive and be concentrated in fewer places. I agree fully with Lambo that contraction will increase the rate of the death spiral; when you tell thousands of horse owners their services will not be needed anymore, they're not just taking their horses home to turn out somewhere, they're taking their own handle and their friends' interest and handle. Yet some are led to believe that will lead to growth.

One can't compare major league sports franchises to racetracks. They must be compared to the thousands of horse owners, each with their own business plans, who currently are free to ship to wherever their horses fit, as water finds its own level. But a competent Racing Czar can herd those cats, we are to assume.

This entire thread is predicated on the notion that there is a huge amount of money on the sidelines just waiting for the right combination of ethical animal welfare, full fields, low take, technological savvy and marketing skill to get it back in the game. Where is the evidence for that?

If you want to nationalize racing, you must nationalize the handle. If NYRA, for example, is sucking all the wagers away from smaller businesses, they should be expected to give some back. Spread out the best horses and the best jockeys, and let other regions enjoy building some local favoritism.

It is often assumed that horseplayers are an against-the-grain lot, but most of what I read on here is a lockstep reliance on "Studies say.." and "Experts agree...", not to mention the old standby "Racing management is so stupid..." I grow weary of it.

I could go on and on, just based on this thread alone, but I must start my day, and go out and save racing from itself.

[thaskalos]

This thread is disappointing. So many people purporting to love racing, who grew to love it in its current format, now trying to kill it with excessive control.

In a time when the president was elected to roll back federal control of our lives, you want more federal control. When one asks if we really need this or that, it sounds like Bernie Sanders asking if we really need yachts and 23 kinds of deodorant, when what we really need is a federal agency to tell us what we really need. Tossing around words like Control so cavalierly smells a lot like fascism to me. Will there be any politics involved in forming and maintaining a Central Committee? NO! shout the naive and gullible. It will be all about efficiency, and rapid response to customer demands!

Contraction will run off the small timers and good people that make racing such an egalitarian, humbling and enjoyable experience, but the super-trainers and all the other evils will survive and be concentrated in fewer places. I agree fully with Lambo that contraction will increase the rate of the death spiral; when you tell thousands of horse owners their services will not be needed anymore, they're not just taking their horses home to turn out somewhere, they're taking their own handle and their friends' interest and handle. Yet some are led to believe that will lead to growth.

One can't compare major league sports franchises to racetracks. They must be compared to the thousands of horse owners, each with their own business plans, who currently are free to ship to wherever their horses fit, as water finds its own level. But a competent Racing Czar can herd those cats, we are to assume.

This entire thread is predicated on the notion that there is a huge amount of money on the sidelines just waiting for the right combination of ethical animal welfare, full fields, low take, technological savvy and marketing skill to get it back in the game. Where is the evidence for that?

If you want to nationalize racing, you must nationalize the handle. If NYRA, for example, is sucking all the wagers away from smaller businesses, they should be expected to give some back. Spread out the best horses and the best jockeys, and let other regions enjoy building some local favoritism.

It is often assumed that horseplayers are an against-the-grain lot, but most of what I read on here is a lockstep reliance on "Studies say.." and "Experts agree...", not to mention the old standby "Racing management is so stupid..." I grow weary of it.

I could go on and on, just based on this thread alone, but I must start my day, and go out and save racing from itself.

Do you wager...or do you only pontificate?

Have you noticed that the game is virtually UNPLAYABLE from Monday to Thursday?

[pandy]

Why are the purses so low at Mountaineer? Doesn't anyone go to the casino?
Evangeline Downs and Indiana Grand seem to have plenty of horses, but they have higher purses.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Steady decline over the years. Looks like the average purse in 2015 was just under $15k. Interesting to see the decline since this state was the one that started the whole racino thing.

[ultracapper]

You can't forget about the value of the property many of these tracks sit on either. It seems many track ownership groups are doing just the minimum needed to keep racing going until they can either get the political leverage to close down and sell, or are waiting for a key person or two to pass away, and then sell out. Longacres virtually closed upon the death of founder Joe Gottstein's widow, Luella, passing away. The Alhadeffs couldn't get into Boeing's boardroom quick enough after Mrs. Gottstein's death.

[ultracapper]

This thread is disappointing. So many people purporting to love racing, who grew to love it in its current format, now trying to kill it with excessive control.

In a time when the president was elected to roll back federal control of our lives, you want more federal control. When one asks if we really need this or that, it sounds like Bernie Sanders asking if we really need yachts and 23 kinds of deodorant, when what we really need is a federal agency to tell us what we really need. Tossing around words like Control so cavalierly smells a lot like fascism to me. Will there be any politics involved in forming and maintaining a Central Committee? NO! shout the naive and gullible. It will be all about efficiency, and rapid response to customer demands!

Contraction will run off the small timers and good people that make racing such an egalitarian, humbling and enjoyable experience, but the super-trainers and all the other evils will survive and be concentrated in fewer places. I agree fully with Lambo that contraction will increase the rate of the death spiral; when you tell thousands of horse owners their services will not be needed anymore, they're not just taking their horses home to turn out somewhere, they're taking their own handle and their friends' interest and handle. Yet some are led to believe that will lead to growth.

One can't compare major league sports franchises to racetracks. They must be compared to the thousands of horse owners, each with their own business plans, who currently are free to ship to wherever their horses fit, as water finds its own level. But a competent Racing Czar can herd those cats, we are to assume.

This entire thread is predicated on the notion that there is a huge amount of money on the sidelines just waiting for the right combination of ethical animal welfare, full fields, low take, technological savvy and marketing skill to get it back in the game. Where is the evidence for that?

If you want to nationalize racing, you must nationalize the handle. If NYRA, for example, is sucking all the wagers away from smaller businesses, they should be expected to give some back. Spread out the best horses and the best jockeys, and let other regions enjoy building some local favoritism.

It is often assumed that horseplayers are an against-the-grain lot, but most of what I read on here is a lockstep reliance on "Studies say.." and "Experts agree...", not to mention the old standby "Racing management is so stupid..." I grow weary of it.

I could go on and on, just based on this thread alone, but I must start my day, and go out and save racing from itself.

A well run centralized body is the solution. As poorly and corruptly as the NYRA is managed, it's still the best product out there. Can you imagine if it were run efficiently with sincere purpose? It would be the model for all to follow.

[castaway01]

A well run centralized body is the solution. As poorly and corruptly as the NYRA is managed, it's still the best product out there. Can you imagine if it were run efficiently with sincere purpose? It would be the model for all to follow.

I know you're being sincere, but if you're talking about a national centralized body, what possible reason would anyone have to believe that could do better than our current situation? Who is giving this "centralized body" control over all of these independently owned and operated entities? Who picks who runs this "centralized body"?

The two comparisons I keep seeing are the four major sports and Hong Kong. Well, I can own a major league team but I need at least most of the rest of the teams to have games and a league. There is no horse racing "league". The tracks are often separate entities even in the same state, and the participants are also owned by individuals. So that doesn't work.

And the second is Hong Kong. As Halvonhorseracing broke down well and as I and others have explained many times, Hong Kong owns all the gambling in the country and runs two tracks at a time. To picture how far away this is from our system, we'd have to give the federal government control of two tracks, shut down ALL of the others, and then give the feds control of EVERY state lottery and private casino in the country too. Do you think that group might be profitable? Well those are the resources Hong Kong horse racing has. Then some here bow before them and praise the "clean game" they run. Yeah, it's JUST like the American system, we'll just switch right over to a tiny, government-run horse racing industry.

I wish I had an answer. But these two aren't it.

[mountainman]

44 horses running in the 9 races combined at Mountaineer Park tonight (4.89 horses per race). Two four horse races and two three horse races and the other five are six runners each.

I wish I could think of a good analogy. Maybe if you were to go to the poker room and faced off against one other player in Texas Hold 'Em.

Never thought I'd see the day when you classified a field of six as a "full field". By the way, why do horses constantly scratch from certain tracks and not at others. You can set your watch to the fact that Mountaineer Park will scratch between 20% and 30% of the horses listed in the program on race day. Why?

Ill explain a few things that cause those scratches when I can, pal. Just too busy right now. we actually closed entries this afternoon..so i must prepare for tonite's show. Hope all is well.

[menifee]

I know you're being sincere, but if you're talking about a national centralized body, what possible reason would anyone have to believe that could do better than our current situation? Who is giving this "centralized body" control over all of these independently owned and operated entities? Who picks who runs this "centralized body"?

The two comparisons I keep seeing are the four major sports and Hong Kong. Well, I can own a major league team but I need at least most of the rest of the teams to have games and a league. There is no horse racing "league". The tracks are often separate entities even in the same state, and the participants are also owned by individuals. So that doesn't work.

And the second is Hong Kong. As Halvonhorseracing broke down well and as I and others have explained many times, Hong Kong owns all the gambling in the country and runs two tracks at a time. To picture how far away this is from our system, we'd have to give the federal government control of two tracks, shut down ALL of the others, and then give the feds control of EVERY state lottery and private casino in the country too. Do you think that group might be profitable? Well those are the resources Hong Kong horse racing has. Then some here bow before them and praise the "clean game" they run. Yeah, it's JUST like the American system, we'll just switch right over to a tiny, government-run horse racing industry.

I wish I had an answer. But these two aren't it.

I thought I explained this above. As with state racing commissions, there could be a federal racing commission. Congress could give control because they ultimately control legislation regarding simulcasting. The tracks could opt out, but then they could not take in wagers from other states. They would not survive. The executive branch could appoint the commission. There are 100s of federal commissions in the United States.

Racing is controlled by the government right now. It's just done at the state level. State legislatures/gaming commissions set minimums for racing days, takeout rates, rules, etc. What is the issue with consolidating that power into one nationalized commission? I'm a small government proponent, but there are 50 different state racing commission managing racing in the United States. Wouldn't it be more efficient and better for the customer and the horse if that power were consolidated?

[Track Phantom]

Thanks Mark. I know it's a tough situation and working with a short deck. I wish you and all of the people at MNR the best of luck. I've supported MNR for years with my wagering dollars and continue to do so. As the product improves and the races become more intriguing, my handle will rise up with it.

[elhelmete]

Going back for a moment to PA's initial post regarding Santa Anita...thought I'd share a couple things to illustrate the complexity of the problem.

Let's put aside for a moment the effect of takeout increases in California, which IMHO were ill-advised and poorly sold...but I digress...

So many thoughts and comments here on what would fix racing, and suggestions that "NOBODY DOES THIS!! EVERYONE IS STUPID!!" which many seem to agree with. So let me give you my Santa Anita experience.

1) It's gorgeous. Physically, it's an amazing place to spend a day, indoors or out. Love him or hate him, Uncle Frank whips out his checkbook a lot upgrading this joint.

2) Good food, reasonable $ for SoCal and lots of options.

3) Clean.

4) Just getting a player's card (free) I can get free clubhouse admission and free parking for probably 75% of the calendar. Thursdays and Fridays are already free general admission and parking, IIRC.

5) On weekends there are free handicapping seminars and pleasant, suit-jacketed wagering docents all over the place. If they see you staring at your program they will approach you and offer help.

6) Always stuff for the kids in the infield on weekends.

7) Tons of non-racing events throughout the year, car shows, chili cook-offs, Asian food fairs, wine tasting, craft beer festivals, bands, Easter egg hunts, I could go on and on.

8) OK, I'll be a little crass...hot chicks on weekends. No, it's not opening day at DMR, but there's some eye candy.

So nobody can say that Santa Anita at least hasn't tried these things that many of you say "NEVER GET TRIED!!! EVERYONE IS DUMB!!!"

...and yet...they can't fill cards.

I'll write more later from my perspective as a partnership owner/member.

[cj]

Going back for a moment to PA's initial post regarding Santa Anita...thought I'd share a couple things to illustrate the complexity of the problem.

Let's put aside for a moment the effect of takeout increases in California, which IMHO were ill-advised and poorly sold...but I digress...

So many thoughts and comments here on what would fix racing, and suggestions that "NOBODY DOES THIS!! EVERYONE IS STUPID!!" which many seem to agree with. So let me give you my Santa Anita experience.

1) It's gorgeous. Physically, it's an amazing place to spend a day, indoors or out. Love him or hate him, Uncle Frank whips out his checkbook a lot upgrading this joint.

2) Good food, reasonable $ for SoCal and lots of options.

3) Clean.

4) Just getting a player's card (free) I can get free clubhouse admission and free parking for probably 75% of the calendar. Thursdays and Fridays are already free general admission and parking, IIRC.

5) On weekends there are free handicapping seminars and pleasant, suit-jacketed wagering docents all over the place. If they see you staring at your program they will approach you and offer help.

6) Always stuff for the kids in the infield on weekends.

7) Tons of non-racing events throughout the year, car shows, chili cook-offs, Asian food fairs, wine tasting, craft beer festivals, bands, Easter egg hunts, I could go on and on.

8) OK, I'll be a little crass...hot chicks on weekends. No, it's not opening day at DMR, but there's some eye candy.

So nobody can say that Santa Anita at least hasn't tried these things that many of you say "NEVER GET TRIED!!! EVERYONE IS DUMB!!!"

...and yet...they can't fill cards.

I'll write more later from my perspective as a partnership owner/member.

All of that is great, but until they start putting out a product that is good for bettors, it is putting a band aid on a water break. Fields are too short and many noncompetitive and takeout is too high. You can fool people for a little while, but they figure out something is a bad bet pretty quickly.

Don't get me wrong here. I've loved Santa Anita the few times I've went. But that doesn't get people to bet. It used to be my favorite track to play via simulcast. Those days are long gone.

[elhelmete]

All of that is great, but until they start putting out a product that is good for bettors, it is putting a band aid on a water break. Fields are too short and many noncompetitive and takeout is too high. You can fool people for a little while, but they figure out something is a bad bet pretty quickly.

Don't get me wrong here. I've loved Santa Anita the few times I've went. But that doesn't get people to bet. It used to be my favorite track to play via simulcast. Those days are long gone.

I totally agree. I was just pointing out that SA does a lot of things that many posters here claim no racetrack does. They do it in spades. And still they're decaying. California racing is, IMHO, a case study in what can doom a racing jurisdiction.

Everything feeds on everything else:
High cost of ownership...
Not enough horses overall...
"Your" horse only runs every six weeks (maybe)...
Short fields...
High cost of living overall...
No temporary relief from slot $ (note how I phrased that)...

[Andy Asaro]

When was the last time anyone did anything for the long term in California Racing?

Even though Hollywood Park was on the verge of closing for years they were caught flat footed when it did close. The long term solution would have been for the Stronach Group to make a deal with the Agricultural district so Pomona could put in a one mile turf or a mile and one eighth turf course (for Training and to run live races a few times per year) with a 7 furlong dirt course inside ala Woodbine. Would have been a great place to put a state of the art Vet Clinic (because of the L.A. county fair) that would have been great public relations. And 2000 stalls. But noooooooooooooooo.

Jim Henwood jerked California Racing off for years and not one of these so called "Experts" did any due diligence on him. Read the article below.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fair-assn-executive-quits-20160330-story.html

Liebau was for Los Alamitos (which is a short term solution), so was the TOC and Mike Pegram, and so was Brackpool among others. The California Trainers Group was for Pomona and so was Del Mar. As usual the politically connected won out and true to form did the wrong thing by not pursuing Pomona.

In short they are resigned to going out of business IMO cuz of what they're not doing.

[Nitro]

I know you're being sincere, but if you're talking about a national centralized body, what possible reason would anyone have to believe that could do better than our current situation? Who is giving this "centralized body" control over all of these independently owned and operated entities? Who picks who runs this "centralized body"?

The two comparisons I keep seeing are the four major sports and Hong Kong. Well, I can own a major league team but I need at least most of the rest of the teams to have games and a league. There is no horse racing "league". The tracks are often separate entities even in the same state, and the participants are also owned by individuals. So that doesn't work.

And the second is Hong Kong. As Halvonhorseracing broke down well and as I and others have explained many times, Hong Kong owns all the gambling in the country and runs two tracks at a time. To picture how far away this is from our system, we'd have to give the federal government control of two tracks, shut down ALL of the others, and then give the feds control of EVERY state lottery and private casino in the country too. Do you think that group might be profitable? Well those are the resources Hong Kong horse racing has. Then some here bow before them and praise the "clean game" they run. Yeah, it's JUST like the American system, we'll just switch right over to a tiny, government-run horse racing industry.

I wish I had an answer. But these two aren't it.
I could literally rip this entire comment to shreds! It reeks of a closed mined individual with limited creativity and foresight. But why bother? I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers, but perhaps a few suggestions to improving an industry in dire need of a new direction.

Some people just don’t get it and are not willing to accept new ideas even in their infancy! Instead all that’s being done is misconstruing very basic concepts and comparing them to existing business platforms that in many cases would not even apply to a properly structured single regulating body that would oversee the entire horse racing industry in the U.S.

I’m certainly NOT calling for any direct U.S. government involvement, but rather a free enterprise regulating body. Yes, that’s one area where the HK model would certainly differ. But why shouldn’t it? Does anyone here really think that the Chinese government control of the HK Jockey Club would be the same as a corporate structured U.S. Jockey Club or Commission based on the concepts of free enterprise?

Anyone that implies that the current state of affairs with regards to the horse racing industry in the U.S. is fine and better left alone has got their head in the sand as far as I’m concerned.

[Greyfox]

Joe Friday: "Just the facts Mam."

The facts are:

Thoroughbred Foals By Year

1990 40,333
1991 38,151
1992 35,051
1993 33,822
1994 32,118
1995 31,884
1996 32,243
1997 32,119
1998 32,947
1999 33,844
2000 34,728
2001 34,721
2002 32,986
2003 33,976
2004 34,800
2005 35,050
2006 34,905
2007 34,358
2008 32,332
2009 29,612
2010 25,953
2011 22,644
2012 21,463
2013 21,405
2014 21,334
2015 20,850*
2016 20,850*

Source: http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2

Fewer foals = Smaller fields

For whatever reasons, breeders have found it unrewarding to stay in the thoroughbred market.
The decline has been going on for almost 3 decades.
The downturn in the economy in 2009 accelerated the drop.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Interesting thing is that alot of people complain about field size being the issue. Reality is that the number of starts per horse has declined dramatically.

1975: 68,210 races run, avg field size 8.82, avg starts per runner 10.23
1985: 75,687 races run, avg field size 9.03, avg starts per runner 8.28
1995: 68,248 races run, avg field size 8.20, avg starts per runner 7.73
2005: 57,495 races run, avg field size 8.17, avg starts per runner 6.45
2015: 42,219 races run, avg field size 7.18, avg starts per runner 6.18

Its not like the purse money isnt there. Purses have increased pretty steadily over the last couple decades despite a drastic decrease in races run. Barns just dont seem to be running as often. Function of trying to boost their % ITM? The lucrative stallion business might affect this but at the same time its not like that many horses are of that caliber to retire early for it. Add to that we on average run about 60% of all races at the claiming level.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Joe Friday: "Just the facts Mam."

The facts are:

Thoroughbred Foals By Year

1990 40,333
1991 38,151
1992 35,051
1993 33,822
1994 32,118
1995 31,884
1996 32,243
1997 32,119
1998 32,947
1999 33,844
2000 34,728
2001 34,721
2002 32,986
2003 33,976
2004 34,800
2005 35,050
2006 34,905
2007 34,358
2008 32,332
2009 29,612
2010 25,953
2011 22,644
2012 21,463
2013 21,405
2014 21,334
2015 20,850*
2016 20,850*

Source: http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2

Fewer foals = Smaller fields

For whatever reasons, breeders have found it unrewarding to stay in the thoroughbred market.
The decline has been going on for almost 3 decades.
The downturn in the economy in 2009 accelerated the drop.

Of those 21000 foals, how many actually start in a race....? I read here at PA that there is something like 60 tracks running in the US...is that correct...? Anyway, that is NOT enough starters by far to have decent products to bet on....

There should not have to be a runner shortage...many more horses can be bred and raised for racing...

Of those 21,000 foals, how many owners...? It just doesn't make sense for 10,000 owners to race 2 horses each....there simply must be some economy of scale being built into any future method....and the only entities that have the barns, land for training and stabling, and other related resources are the large breeders and the tracks....but they have always wanted to go at it alone, because it was profitable...breeders don't want to go further than selling foals and stud service, and race track owners don't want to breed and raise horses....

And the thousands of your "go at it on your own" owners can no longer foot the bill when things don't go the right way....many hidden costs get absorbed by owners who get into racing without understanding how truly expensive it can be just to own a few horses that race fairly infrequently...

Even D Wayne Lukas has put together owner clubs I suppose to make it more cost effective to own racehorses for more people...

[Dahoss9698]

I could literally rip this entire comment to shreds! It reeks of a closed mined individual with limited creativity and foresight. But why bother? I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers, but perhaps a few suggestions to improving an industry in dire need of a new direction.

Some people just don’t get it and are not willing to accept new ideas even in their infancy! Instead all that’s being done is misconstruing very basic concepts and comparing them to existing business platforms that in many cases would not even apply to a properly structured single regulating body that would oversee the entire horse racing industry in the U.S.

I’m certainly NOT calling for any direct U.S. government involvement, but rather a free enterprise regulating body. Yes, that’s one area where the HK model would certainly differ. But why shouldn’t it? Does anyone here really think that the Chinese government control of the HK Jockey Club would be the same as a corporate structured U.S. Jockey Club or Commission based on the concepts of free enterprise?

Anyone that implies that the current state of affairs with regards to the horse racing industry in the U.S. is fine and better left alone has got their head in the sand as far as I’m concerned.

Except that he didn't say it's fine and better left alone. He just explained why it's kind of dumb to compare Hong Kong to here. I realize you get your panties in a bunch anytime someone mentions Hong Kong, but it's the truth.

I think we'd all like to see change. But the sad reality is the people in control don't seem to think like we do.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I thought I explained this above. As with state racing commissions, there could be a federal racing commission. Congress could give control because they ultimately control legislation regarding simulcasting. The tracks could opt out, but then they could not take in wagers from other states. They would not survive. The executive branch could appoint the commission. There are 100s of federal commissions in the United States.

Racing is controlled by the government right now. It's just done at the state level. State legislatures/gaming commissions set minimums for racing days, takeout rates, rules, etc. What is the issue with consolidating that power into one nationalized commission? I'm a small government proponent, but there are 50 different state racing commission managing racing in the United States. Wouldn't it be more efficient and better for the customer and the horse if that power were consolidated?

All I can say is that the dictionary definition of desperation must be turning to the Congress to solve a problem, although it is an effective strategy for getting people to move off the dime.

It's pretty amazing to think of how many people would ardently support the tenth amendment - you know, the one that says any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - have no problem suggesting the federal horse racing commission. That's kind of a problem, eh.

The problem with appointed commissions - we already know because that is what we already have - is that they are very often populated with people who know very little about how horse racing works, how therapeutic drugs are used, or how parimutuel wagering works. If the President appointed them, we might wind up with all the Trump relatives who didn't get appointments in the first round of doling out offices in the West Wing. A clear problem with state commissions is that none of them seem to care about the horseplayer. I'm not sure why a federal commission would be any different.

Of course, I've said that you can have government rulemaking bodies - as you said, that is very common - but you are never going to "make racing great again" until you do the most important thing that bogs it down - lower the take. And one of the keys to that might be to treat racing as you treat any business - you tax them on profits after expenses instead of extracting money as soon as I make a bet. Imagine other businesses having to function under those rules.

By the way, there aren't 50 different state racing commissions since there are only 31 states where racing occurs. 31 can give you a hodgepodge, but which of the critical rules in racing varies wildly from one state to another? Not drug/medication policy. Almost all the states adopt the RMTC controlled therapeutic substance recommendations. You don't need a federal commission to have a centralized inquiry/objection decision panel. You just need state compacts. Same with any other large inconsistency. Fix the state rule and you have consistency. I keep wondering what the federal commission is going to do so much better - or different - than a state commission. It might be cheaper than thirtysomething separate commissions, but let's not bet serious money the feds won't find a way to make the budget bigger than 31 commission budgets added together. The one thing a federal commission could do is what you mentioned - decide who gets racing days, when and how many. Of course, you'd have to amend state legislation that requires a minimum number of racing days - that's one of those things apparently reserved to the states after all - so the commission could come up with the perfect national schedule.

A federal commission is one of those ideas that really needs a lot of detail plastered onto it before we could pronounce it viable.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Anyone that implies that the current state of affairs with regards to the horse racing industry in the U.S. is fine and better left alone has got their head in the sand as far as I’m concerned.

The one thing nobody is doing is suggesting racing doesn't need a serious look at how things are done. I suggested 10 ways to fix horseracing and posted in on this site. The only thing people are trying to tell you is that while there are reasons why Hong Kong has done so well, many of the underlying conditions (like owning a monopoly on gambling and not having any proximate competition for the gambling dollar) are not replicable here. And for the most part you've most gotten pissy with anyone who dares point that out to you, without putting much meat on the "how we copy Hong Kong" bone. Definitely is a touchy subject for you.

[jdhanover]

Interesting thing is that alot of people complain about field size being the issue. Reality is that the number of starts per horse has declined dramatically.

1975: 68,210 races run, avg field size 8.82, avg starts per runner 10.23
1985: 75,687 races run, avg field size 9.03, avg starts per runner 8.28
1995: 68,248 races run, avg field size 8.20, avg starts per runner 7.73
2005: 57,495 races run, avg field size 8.17, avg starts per runner 6.45
2015: 42,219 races run, avg field size 7.18, avg starts per runner 6.18

Its not like the purse money isnt there. Purses have increased pretty steadily over the last couple decades despite a drastic decrease in races run. Barns just dont seem to be running as often. Function of trying to boost their % ITM? The lucrative stallion business might affect this but at the same time its not like that many horses are of that caliber to retire early for it. Add to that we on average run about 60% of all races at the claiming level.

In addition to $ and cents, didn't the reproductive mare syndrome hit just as the economy tanked?

Horses are becoming more fragile over the years (IMO) - maybe due to inbreeding?
In the end there is excess capacity....too many tracks/races. I expect more consolidation in the next few years. Might not be a bad thing.

[thespaah]

as small as these fields are they will only get smaller with contraction. when you have to close up tracks all you have is a very unhealthy game that will eventually go kaput.

if you get rid of the smaller tracks you won't have any place to go with the horses that don't make the bigger circuits. if you have no place to go then people will stop buying horses, if they stop buying horses then the breeders will stop breeding them.

this is really a vicious circle that seems to be ending up in a death spiral .

40 years ago there were 25k people at a race track on a weekday afternoon and that was with a population 1/3 rd of what it is today. with all source marketing now in racing you have about 1/3rd the amount of people interested in the game.

I don't think there will ever be any kind of forced contraction in the business. Tracks will though their management( or lack thereof) close ( contract) themselves.
Unless there is a tectonic shift in the over all business model of horse racing, closure of tracks is an inevitability.

[Nitro]

Except that he didn't say it's fine and better left alone. He just explained why it's kind of dumb to compare Hong Kong to here. I realize you get your panties in a bunch anytime someone mentions Hong Kong, but it's the truth.

I think we'd all like to see change. But the sad reality is the people in control don't seem to think like we do.
Where did I mention that HE said that? Why not try comprehending the written word before stick your foot in your mouth. (Or perhaps on your keyboard)

Of course it’s “dumb” to compare HK racing to what’s going on in the States.
THAT’s the POINT!
The idea which apparently went right over your head is to use the HK model to improve our local game. What’s really dumb is how blind some can be when the obvious is staring them right in the face.

BTW, why would I get upset about anyone mentioning HK? When in fact, I’m usually the one who brings it up to begin with? Why because I’ve been playing there for the last 4 years and thoroughly enjoy every minute of it. It makes most of the current state-side racing programs and all their indiscretions look like minor league. Topics of course that your average bettor could really care less about.

You’re right, it is all about making positive changes and perhaps the people in control need to either recognize it and accept that reality, or get out of the way of those who would like to restore this game to its proper status.

[thespaah]

for every 1 good horse there is probably something like 300 bad ones. the bad ones got to go somewhere and not to the killers.

That notion is predicated on the idea that large more successful tracks will not entertain the idea of carding one or two additional races per day to accommodate at least some of the 'less expensive' stock.

[Fager Fan]

That notion is predicated on the idea that large more successful tracks will not entertain the idea of carding one or two additional races per day to accommodate at least some of the 'less expensive' stock.

There will be a contraction in the numbers being bred as well. There will still be horses at the bottom, but they'll be better bred horses at the bottom.

[jdhanover]

I think there will still be the lower level 'smaller' tracks....just not as many of them

On a given day you can have tracks like Arapahoe, Fairmont, Turf Paradise, Mountaineer, Penn Nat'l, all running etc....consolidation simply takes a couple of those out. Then the 'bottom' horse are concentrated at fewer tracks. And thus bigger fields.

[menifee]

All I can say is that the dictionary definition of desperation must be turning to the Congress to solve a problem, although it is an effective strategy for getting people to move off the dime.

It's pretty amazing to think of how many people would ardently support the tenth amendment - you know, the one that says any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - have no problem suggesting the federal horse racing commission. That's kind of a problem, eh.

The problem with appointed commissions - we already know because that is what we already have - is that they are very often populated with people who know very little about how horse racing works, how therapeutic drugs are used, or how parimutuel wagering works. If the President appointed them, we might wind up with all the Trump relatives who didn't get appointments in the first round of doling out offices in the West Wing. A clear problem with state commissions is that none of them seem to care about the horseplayer. I'm not sure why a federal commission would be any different.

Of course, I've said that you can have government rulemaking bodies - as you said, that is very common - but you are never going to "make racing great again" until you do the most important thing that bogs it down - lower the take. And one of the keys to that might be to treat racing as you treat any business - you tax them on profits after expenses instead of extracting money as soon as I make a bet. Imagine other businesses having to function under those rules.

By the way, there aren't 50 different state racing commissions since there are only 31 states where racing occurs. 31 can give you a hodgepodge, but which of the critical rules in racing varies wildly from one state to another? Not drug/medication policy. Almost all the states adopt the RMTC controlled therapeutic substance recommendations. You don't need a federal commission to have a centralized inquiry/objection decision panel. You just need state compacts. Same with any other large inconsistency. Fix the state rule and you have consistency. I keep wondering what the federal commission is going to do so much better - or different - than a state commission. It might be cheaper than thirtysomething separate commissions, but let's not bet serious money the feds won't find a way to make the budget bigger than 31 commission budgets added together. The one thing a federal commission could do is what you mentioned - decide who gets racing days, when and how many. Of course, you'd have to amend state legislation that requires a minimum number of racing days - that's one of those things apparently reserved to the states after all - so the commission could come up with the perfect national schedule.

A federal commission is one of those ideas that really needs a lot of detail plastered onto it before we could pronounce it viable.

You make some fair points. Let me address them.

There are 50 different sets of rule making bodies in the states when it comes to horse racing. Some are active - some are not. They may not be racing commissions per se. Some are gambling commissions, some are racing commissions, some might be legislative committees, some may fall under the purview of the state police. Someone has to be in control within each individual state because it is gambling. It has to be regulated somehow. Some states have multiple commissions (e.g., Alabama). Some states have dormant commissions, but they are there.

I get the point about the RMTC and I understand the ARCI's model rules of racing. I have read the model rules. They are ok. As I stated before, the industry has gotten better about uniformity by crafting model rules which have been adopted by the commissions. But state compacts and model rules, won't touch the main problem with racing.

You have actors (mainly the tracks acting in their own self-interest) who do not care about the customer or the sport. Normally, I would not have a problem with actors acting in their own economic interest, but it is a detriment to the sport and the horse. It becomes exaggerated and a real problem when most of these tracks do not want to be in the horse racing business anyway and simply want to be in the casino business. Does anyone really think Churchill and Hollywood really want to be in the racing business? Why is Kee a great experiences for its customers? Because the nonprofit that controls that track actually wants to be in the racing business.

How could a federal commission with a strong commissioner be different and be a positive force? Well for example, it could solve problems that state commissions could never resolve. Right now we have a horse shortage. 50 state commissions are not going to coordinate on scheduling to ensure that we don't have 3 horse fields running daily. NYRA and the New York State Gaming Commission are not going to tell the NY horsemen that 6 months of racing at Aqueduct is unnecessary and a terrible product. A federal commissioner could simply not provide the days for racing. Look at the Belmont card on Friday compared to the Aqueduct cards that have been run over the past few months? Which is better for the long term health of the game?

A federal commission could regulate that tracks running the same condition within a certain distance to each other (the Mountain and MVR) should not be racing at the same time. Do you think the Ohio Racing Commission and the West Virginia Racing Commission will ever coordinate on something like that?

Does it really make sense for 50 state legislatures through their commissions to set racing policy? In 2017, people in Texas and other states cannot bet with an ADW? How does that help the industry? The industry needs a policy on ADW's. We have nothing.

In no way do I think a federal commission with a powerful commissioner would be a panacea, but I do think it would ensure the viability of the sport.

[Dahoss9698]

Where did I mention that HE said that? Why not try comprehending the written word before stick your foot in your mouth. (Or perhaps on your keyboard)

Of course it’s “dumb” to compare HK racing to what’s going on in the States.
THAT’s the POINT!
The idea which apparently went right over your head is to use the HK model to improve our local game. What’s really dumb is how blind some can be when the obvious is staring them right in the face.

BTW, why would I get upset about anyone mentioning HK? When in fact, I’m usually the one who brings it up to begin with? Why because I’ve been playing there for the last 4 years and thoroughly enjoy every minute of it. It makes most of the current state-side racing programs and all their indiscretions look like minor league. Topics of course that your average bettor could really care less about.

You’re right, it is all about making positive changes and perhaps the people in control need to either recognize it and accept that reality, or get out of the way of those who would like to restore this game to its proper status.

Your post was directed to him, no? You went off on another tangent and ended it with that. Who else would you have been talking to?

We get it...you love Hong Kong. But as Halvey said, that model here cannot work. And you just keep saying use it to improve our game without really saying how to use a model that cannot work will be able to improve our game.

So basically you've talked in circles.

[thespaah]

I'll qualify my somewhat pessimistic comments with the fact that I've been following the game for 30 years, love the game, and it will always be in my blood.

The current situation reminds me of the scene in the movie "As Good as it Gets" when Jack Nicholson says that very line to the people looking to "improve" themselves waiting outside the psychiatrists office. They all look bewildered, as if the thought of things not improving for them never even crossed their mind.

It's very possible that this is as "good as it gets" for racing in the US. Indicators suggest the game will continue to fall precipitously unless dramatic action (voluntary or involuntary) occurs.

I don't believe there are any quick fixes to this issue and also don't believe the blame is to be laid anywhere in particular. The desire to understand the litany of complexities in order to compete in a parimutuel environment is just not desirable to the masses. They have other, less taxing, options. In addition, the cost of owning horses is substantial. If one isn't interested in the wagering, or sport, of horse racing, it's unlikely they'll be involved in the ownership side.

Adding to the problem, the top 10% of the trainers are training the majority of the horses. They may have 10-15 horses that meet a condition but will enter just 1 (maybe 2) in a given race. If those 10-15 horses were spread out to different trainers, many races would have bigger fields.

There are a million ways to attack the crumbling foundation. There are so many holes that it's hard to know where to begin. If I were in charge (whatever that means) I would make forming a National Horse Racing Alliance with a governing body the #1 priority. It has to happen.

It's interesting that all of the major sports have a commissioner, and all are prosperous. Boxing draws the most direct parallel to horse racing, without centralized authority. Interestingly, both boxing and horse racing dominated newspapers in the '50's and '60's, and now both struggle to find a modicum of coverage.

In my opinion, it's rather simple. Without unified leadership and track participation, the game will continue to erode to unthinkable depths. Major tracks, beyond Hollywood Park, will start to shutter. If de-coupling happens, where tracks aren't buoyed by slot money, we could be looking at days, not months/years, before we see major venues go away. When that starts happening, it could have a domino effect.

I once thought the idea of horse racing gone completely was absurd. I felt there would always be major racing, and the minor racing would come and go. Sadly, there is a path to extinction and it appears US racing is on it.
I have for a long time advocated for a national racing alliance. One governing body for all tracks that wish to participate.
With that said.....
I will lay out what I believe to be the major roadblocks
1. The individual state's governments would need assurances that any revenue stream from PM wagering and taxes will continue.
2. Horsemen's associations and BPA's have to fall into line. No more pissing contests with tracks and states. No more entry box boycotts. No more shut downs.
3. Track managements would obviously have to sign on as well. They all must get used to not operating on top of each other.
In my opinion one of horse racing's most glaring issues is too many tracks in close geographic proximity operating simultaneously while competing for the same racing stock. The issues seen in the Phila/Wimington market with Parx and Delaware running at each other. Monmouth has gotten killed by NYRA and Delaware.
And to a lesser extent, although they seem to be getting along better Maryland racing has been affected by Delaware and Parx.
4. if one does not exist, The need for a national license for all horsemen, owners, trainers, grooms, and other back stretch personnel is a must.
5 all medication rules must be conforming throughout the alliance.
6. all stewards MUST be members of the alliance. and at any point with a reasonable notice, can be assigned to another track or even another state. i think moving officials about creates an image of integrity. This would at least offer the perception that the officials are not getting too 'cozy'....

[Nitro]

The one thing nobody is doing is suggesting racing doesn't need a serious look at how things are done. I suggested 10 ways to fix horseracing and posted in on this site. The only thing people are trying to tell you is that while there are reasons why Hong Kong has done so well, many of the underlying conditions (like owning a monopoly on gambling and not having any proximate competition for the gambling dollar) are not replicable here. And for the most part you've most gotten pissy with anyone who dares point that out to you, without putting much meat on the "how we copy Hong Kong" bone. Definitely is a touchy subject for you.
I read your “10 Ways” and I thought that at least someone is both concerned and interested in suggesting some changes. I’m not going to critique your ideas, but as far as I’m concerned they didn’t nearly go far enough.

Apparently you believe that the only reason that HK racing is so successful is because the local population has nothing better to do then inflate the betting pools to the point of making them look obscene when compared to state-side racing. Well, I’ve got some breaking news! They’re not the only people betting on their game. And for good reason! It doesn’t take someone very long to recognize the attributes and veracity of their product. It is without a doubt presented with their patronage in mind. (It’s something definitely lacking here in the States for a long time).

You see the integrity of their game is its biggest asset. The world-wide speculation that follows is simply an acknowledgment of that fact. If this single characteristic could be replicated and properly demonstrated in the states, it would create a major change in the perception of not only existing players and horsemen alike, but those outside the game who want to get involved in one way or another.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You make some fair points. Let me address them.

There are 50 different sets of rule making bodies in the states when it comes to horse racing. Some are active - some are not. They may not be racing commissions per se. Some are gambling commissions, some are racing commissions, some might be legislative committees, some may fall under the purview of the state police. Someone has to be in control within each individual state because it is gambling. It has to be regulated somehow. Some states have multiple commissions (e.g., Alabama). Some states have dormant commissions, but they are there.

I get the point about the RMTC and I understand the ARCI's model rules of racing. I have read the model rules. They are ok. As I stated before, the industry has gotten better about uniformity by crafting model rules which have been adopted by the commissions. But state compacts and model rules, won't touch the main problem with racing.

You have actors (mainly the tracks acting in their own self-interest) who do not care about the customer or the sport. Normally, I would not have a problem with actors acting in their own economic interest, but it is a detriment to the sport and the horse. It becomes exaggerated and a real problem when most of these tracks do not want to be in the horse racing business anyway and simply want to be in the casino business. Does anyone really think Churchill and Hollywood really want to be in the racing business? Why is Kee a great experiences for its customers? Because the nonprofit that controls that track actually wants to be in the racing business.

How could a federal commission with a strong commissioner be different and be a positive force? Well for example, it could solve problems that state commissions could never resolve. Right now we have a horse shortage. 50 state commissions are not going to coordinate on scheduling to ensure that we don't have 3 horse fields running daily. NYRA and the New York State Gaming Commission are not going to tell the NY horsemen that 6 months of racing at Aqueduct is unnecessary and a terrible product. A federal commissioner could simply not provide the days for racing. Look at the Belmont card on Friday compared to the Aqueduct cards that have been run over the past few months? Which is better for the long term health of the game?

A federal commission could regulate that tracks running the same condition within a certain distance to each other (the Mountain and MVR) should not be racing at the same time. Do you think the Ohio Racing Commission and the West Virginia Racing Commission will ever coordinate on something like that?

Does it really make sense for 50 state legislatures through their commissions to set racing policy? In 2017, people in Texas and other states cannot bet with an ADW? How does that help the industry? The industry needs a policy on ADW's. We have nothing.

In no way do I think a federal commission with a powerful commissioner would be a panacea, but I do think it would ensure the viability of the sport.

There were three states I was sure wouldn't have a racing commission: Hawaii, Alaska and Utah. Amazingly, Utah and Alaska do have racing commissions. I'm still not sure Hawaii does. Hawaii's big issue seemed to be worrying about foreign horses - a lot of horses would have to be shipped in - bringing in some exotic disease. But, your point is generally well taken - there are horse racing commissions in places where there isn't horseracing, at least the kind we think of as horseracing.

I've been one of the consistent voices for tracks recognizing that the base of the horseracing pyramid are the people betting the money. And no, Churchill and Hollywood would be more than happy to not have to subsidize horseracing.

I think for me, for a federal racing commission to have the sort of powers that would improve the sport would be an extremely heavy lift, especially anything that would control racing days. And in the end, it is really just an imposed form of contraction that may not get at some of the real issues - old plants that have ridiculous fixed operating costs, for example. Tracks have to cut expenditures to accomplish the number one goal of racing fans - lowering the take. And that may include cutting out some of the purse competition. As much as I understand why horsemen need good purses to keep a racing operation going, tracks trying to attract horses by cannibalizing them from other venues through purse competition cannot be good for the sport. But that puts the commission in a pretty difficult position - somebody is going to be really unhappy with decisions and sue...and you get the idea.

I wouldn't inherently be against the idea - I'd serve on the commission if asked in a heartbeat - but I'd have to see the full breadth of how a commission (ostensibly in D.C.) would be fair to tracks in Idaho or Colorado, or not favor CD or NYRA. Like everything else in D.C., the big money carries a lot of weight. But I get your point. We're not exactly kicking the problems in the ass under the current organization.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I read your “10 Ways” and I thought that at least someone is both concerned and interested in suggesting some changes. I’m not going to critique your ideas, but as far as I’m concerned they didn’t nearly go far enough.

Apparently you believe that the only reason that HK racing is so successful is because the local population has nothing better to do then inflate the betting pools to the point of making them look obscene when compared to state-side racing. Well, I’ve got some breaking news! They’re not the only people betting on their game. And for good reason! It doesn’t take someone very long to recognize the attributes and veracity of their product. It is without a doubt presented with their patronage in mind. (It’s something definitely lacking here in the States for a long time).

You see the integrity of their game is its biggest asset. The world-wide speculation that follows is simply an acknowledgment of that fact. If this single characteristic could be replicated and properly demonstrated in the states, it would create a major change in the perception of not only existing players and horsemen alike, but those outside the game who want to get involved in one way or another.

I probably could have come up with 12 or maybe 50 ways to improve horseracing, but 10 seems to be the standard number for writing articles. That article was distributed to everyone on the HBPA mailing list.

I think the combination of things that make Hong Kong racing what it is are additively the explanation for their success. But from an economic perspective, you have a culture (Asians) that loves to gamble, you have one entity that controls gambling, you don't have real competition from casinos, and yes, you have a perception of HK being squeaky clean, although I've heard from people who know a little about the inner workings of the HKJC that things may not be as perfect as the public statistics might suggest. You cannot underestimate the contribution of their gambling monopoly and control of gambling supply to the handle Hong Kong does, even if it is not the sole reason. It may sound cynical, but if I controlled all the information that emanated from horseracing, it would be a lot easier to create a perception of integrity. Here, racing commissions can't wait to tell Ray Paulick about the latest trainer positive. I'm not as sure the information escapes the PR people in Hong Kong quite as easily.

Hong Kong is not drug free. This is the drug rules for Hong Kong. http://www.hkjc.com/english/racinginfo/horsemen/handbook_vet.asp?part=5

The biggest issue is and will continue to be Lasix. But I happen to believe that even if you went to the Hong Kong medication thresholds, racing's problems here are far more systemic. Whether or not that would have a big impact, I'm not sure it's on any state's agenda.

[menifee]

There were three states I was sure wouldn't have a racing commission: Hawaii, Alaska and Utah. Amazingly, Utah and Alaska do have racing commissions. I'm still not sure Hawaii does. Hawaii's big issue seemed to be worrying about foreign horses - a lot of horses would have to be shipped in - bringing in some exotic disease. But, your point is generally well taken - there are horse racing commissions in places where there isn't horseracing, at least the kind we think of as horseracing.

I've been one of the consistent voices for tracks recognizing that the base of the horseracing pyramid are the people betting the money. And no, Churchill and Hollywood would be more than happy to not have to subsidize horseracing.

I think for me, for a federal racing commission to have the sort of powers that would improve the sport would be an extremely heavy lift, especially anything that would control racing days. And in the end, it is really just an imposed form of contraction that may not get at some of the real issues - old plants that have ridiculous fixed operating costs, for example. Tracks have to cut expenditures to accomplish the number one goal of racing fans - lowering the take. And that may include cutting out some of the purse competition. As much as I understand why horsemen need good purses to keep a racing operation going, tracks trying to attract horses by cannibalizing them from other venues through purse competition cannot be good for the sport. But that puts the commission in a pretty difficult position - somebody is going to be really unhappy with decisions and sue...and you get the idea.

I wouldn't inherently be against the idea - I'd serve on the commission if asked in a heartbeat - but I'd have to see the full breadth of how a commission (ostensibly in D.C.) would be fair to tracks in Idaho or Colorado, or not favor CD or NYRA. Like everything else in D.C., the big money carries a lot of weight. But I get your point. We're not exactly kicking the problems in the ass under the current organization.

Believe it or not, there was a push to get horse racing in Hawaii a few years ago. See the attached article. http://westhawaiitoday.com/sports/local-sports/debate-exists-over-horse-racing-hawaii

In any event, ARCI has been around for years and has had a positive impact on the industry. They have no authority, but their model rules have been adopted by a lot of states. You might not need a federal commission, the federal legislation could theoretically give ARCI the authority (which is comprised of state racing commission members). Believe it or not, ARCI's outgoing chair is a horseplayer. She won the 2001 National Horseplayers Championship. ARCI model rules are an interesting read if anyone has the time and the will:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2HwTiDKu_FHVTFhTU0yU3pmT3M/view

[Murph]

I wouldn't inherently be against the idea - I'd serve on the commission if asked in a heartbeat - but I'd have to see the full breadth of how a commission (ostensibly in D.C.) would be fair to tracks in Idaho or Colorado, or not favor CD or NYRA. Like everything else in D.C., the big money carries a lot of weight. But I get your point. We're not exactly kicking the problems in the ass under the current organization.
I can't debate the fine points with you folks on this subject but may I pose a question?

Could the issues begin to be addressed with an overhaul or restructuring of a 'national simulcasting' contract? Something with terms to address the expansion of opportunities in all gambling which have long included pari-mutuel laws pro or con in every state? Terms that might address each states concerns with access to the tote and signal fees ect? Start with this as some kind of equalizer?

You are all working hard to present a common ground. Thank you.

[EasyGoer89]

I can't debate the fine points with you folks on this subject but may I pose a question?

Could the issues begin to be addressed with an overhaul or restructuring of a 'national simulcasting' contract? Something with terms to address the expansion of opportunities in all gambling which have long included pari-mutuel laws pro or con in every state? Terms that might address each states concerns with access to the tote and signal fees ect? Start with this as some kind of equalizer?

You are all working hard to present a common ground. Thank you.

'Signal fee' overhauls end up taking more money out of the pockets of the players, Santa Anita 'charges' a lot for their signal, and right now, their signal isn't worth what it used to be. It's easy for gamblers to just say no at those prices.

[Murph]

'Signal fee' overhauls end up taking more money out of the pockets of the players, Santa Anita 'charges' a lot for their signal, and right now, their signal isn't worth what it used to be. It's easy for gamblers to just say no at those prices.
It's difficult for me to debate the point it is so complicated. I cannot make a helpful comment about signal fees.

Less than 1% of my handle has gone to CA for a long time now, since the last boycott for sure. I think the horse economy in California is way out of balance. Compare to any neighboring state.

[depalma113]

Here is a radical crazy idea.

How about they stop giving stalls to owners and trainers who have no intention of racing their horses during the meet.

[lamboguy]

Here is a radical crazy idea.

How about they stop giving stalls to owners and trainers who have no intention of racing their horses during the meet.
in some places they charge stall rent and they give back the money when the horse runs.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I can't debate the fine points with you folks on this subject but may I pose a question?

Could the issues begin to be addressed with an overhaul or restructuring of a 'national simulcasting' contract? Something with terms to address the expansion of opportunities in all gambling which have long included pari-mutuel laws pro or con in every state? Terms that might address each states concerns with access to the tote and signal fees ect? Start with this as some kind of equalizer?

You are all working hard to present a common ground. Thank you.

Almost no one actually understands the economics of racing, from running a racetrack to setting up a simulcasting system. In a Darwinian sense, tracks that use economic muscle (big purses) cause other tracks to adapt by cutting costs or simply dying - and the cutting of costs often drives more horsemen away - and that is what the trend seems to be. It's kind of the reverse Was-Mart model. Keep prices so low that you drive the competition out of business. In the case of racing, it provides higher purses to drive competition out of business. Those tracks with casino subsidized purses may wind up surviving and driving tracks with better reasons to stay open out of business. Look at the thread about Monmouth Park.

The current structure of simulcasting allows for rebates, and my question is, would reducing the take instead of distributing rebates increase handle? Obviously the danger is that the handle from the whales goes down because they lose the rebate, and that has to be weighed against increasing handle because of lower take.

The signal is clearly underpriced. Let's be realistic. The cost of running an electronic ADW is minuscule compared to running a track, and giving an ADW a relatively cheap signal cost undervalues the product.

Someone needs to undertake a study of racetrack economics, including simulcasting. Job one is still getting the take reduced.

[AndyC]

Almost no one actually understands the economics of racing, from running a racetrack to setting up a simulcasting system.........

Completely illogical to believe that nobody involved in racing understands the economics. An economic genius would have a difficult if not impossible task of implementing the best economic decisions at a racetrack simply because decisions must win approval of both horsemen and government agencies.

[classhandicapper]

One thing for certain, the economics of racing suck.

Many tracks need casino subsidies to stay open, most owners are losing money, and almost all horseplayers lose gambling. I don't know enough about how trainers, jockeys, and breeders are doing, but I don't feel like I'm going too far out on a limb if I say a lot of not making a good living or are also losing money.

I don't see how you can fix some of that unless you drive way more handle into way fewer tracks and gain some operating leverage at the surviving tracks. If the remaining tracks had significant free cash flow, they could make the investments they need, market more, raise purses, and lower the take.

The downside of course is way less employment and way fewer tracks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Completely illogical to believe that nobody involved in racing understands the economics. An economic genius would have a difficult if not impossible task of implementing the best economic decisions at a racetrack simply because decisions must win approval of both horsemen and government agencies.

The word almost implies something greater than none. There are lots of horseplayers out there. The "almost no one understands racetrack economics" applies to most of them and most of the racing commissions. And as Class points out, if people understood the economics of betting, there should be fewer losers. The take is tough to overcome, but remember tracks redistribute 70-85% of all money bet. That leaves players with prospects at least.

A second, more important piece of evidence is that if tracks understood racetrack economics, they wouldn't make some of the dumb decisions they do. Which tracks have shown they understand the relationship between the take and betting handle? It's a pretty short list. You think the product is priced correctly to maximize revenues? You think they've nailed the simulcast signal cost? You think they've minimized operating costs at racing plants?

I'd say it would be illogical to believe racing is being well managed.

This from a 1998 study at the University of Louisville

Median own-takeout rate elasticity was found to be -2.30 [this means a 1% increase in the takeout rate results in a 2.3% loss of handle] indicating that wagering is strongly responsive to takeout rate changes. This is consistent with prior findings in the literature. Median elasticities with respect to number of races and field size were found to be 0.64 and 0.58, respectively. There are no prior studies by which to gauge the magnitudesof these elasticities but it seems wagering is moderately responsive to changes in number of races and field size. Finally, median purse elasticity was found to be 0.06 which is considerably lower than elasticity with respect to takeout rate, number of races or field size. This elasticity is quite small and it suggests, for instance, that wagering at the racetrack-racebook would increase by a very small 6% if average purses were doubled. With the exception of the median cross-race elasticity of -0.41, the remaining cross-elasticities were, in general,statistically insignificant or small relative to their corresponding own-elasticities. This suggests that competing racetrack groups are moderate substitutes for the subject racetrack group.

It might be illogical, but the proof is in the pudding. As you can read, pretty much the only thing that makes a real difference in handle is the take. It's great that you have faith in the people running racing. They'll appreciate the vote of confidence.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You now have a model where the passionate participant has been pushed aside for the elite management participant. You follow the money around the continent, which generally means the casino tracks. These people make the decisions, the money chasers, because they are the participants. We get more short-sighted decisions. From everywhere. Because this is the new model.

This is simplified all to hell, but I think that the discussion of racing economics overlooks the real obvious at times. I don't even know how you can 'fix the economics of racing' - from a centralized or decentralized position - when the whole thing is predicated on a ridiculous premise of chasing new casino properties around and sticking around just long enough to leave a carcass. And for most of these places, the betting and customers on that side of equation aren't even part of the equation. They are irrelevant.

[lamboguy]

the simple answer to where all the horses are going is to places like Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Korea and other places throughout the world where horse racing is growing. those places have rules in place that are more conducive to level playing fields than North American racing.

those horses were selling big yesterday at OBS, and they were full of foreign buyers.

[onefast99]

in some places they charge stall rent and they give back the money when the horse runs.Palm Meadows does this it is $15 a day to rent the stall you get back $450 when you race, only one $450 per month is allowed so you cant race a horse every week(like guys did at MP when they paid $1000 for running from 5th to last place)it is a good idea.

[thaskalos]

I probably could have come up with 12 or maybe 50 ways to improve horseracing, but 10 seems to be the standard number for writing articles. That article was distributed to everyone on the HBPA mailing list.


I've read your list, and I could find no disagreement with any of the points that you've made there...other than to state that this isn't OUR game to fix. But it's been said here that important racing officials visit this site and actually read its contents...and if this is indeed true...then the "industry" has read similar lists before. There is nothing new under the sun, it's all been said before...and, alas, the words didn't bring forth the desired actions. Heck...I was here suggesting "boycotts" over a DECADE ago...when Andy Asaro was posting as "Andymays".

It used to be that the horseplayer wielded considerable power in the game...and he could affect the decision-making process by voting with his wagering dollars...the way consumers affect the running of ORDINARY "business". But horse racing isn't an ordinary business...and the emergence of the racino has forever changed the rules...to the detriment of the wagering racing fan. The game no-longer depends on the horseplayer for its survival...so the horseplayer, and his needs, could be safely ignored by the industry. The horseplayer can still cry and bitch...but the "industry" is focused on other plans, and other needs.

Yes...it's hard to imagine that horse racing will eventually die in this country. That's what I thought, while living in the Chicagoland area for over 40 years. But I'd like everybody to know that horse racing is currently on LIFE-SUPPORT in the Chicago-area. And if this could happen in Chicago...it could happen anywhere.

[AndyC]

The word almost implies something greater than none. There are lots of horseplayers out there. The "almost no one understands racetrack economics" applies to most of them and most of the racing commissions. And as Class points out, if people understood the economics of betting, there should be fewer losers. The take is tough to overcome, but remember tracks redistribute 70-85% of all money bet. That leaves players with prospects at least.

A second, more important piece of evidence is that if tracks understood racetrack economics, they wouldn't make some of the dumb decisions they do. Which tracks have shown they understand the relationship between the take and betting handle? It's a pretty short list. You think the product is priced correctly to maximize revenues? You think they've nailed the simulcast signal cost? You think they've minimized operating costs at racing plants?

I'd say it would be illogical to believe racing is being well managed.......



........It might be illogical, but the proof is in the pudding. As you can read, pretty much the only thing that makes a real difference in handle is the take. It's great that you have faith in the people running racing. They'll appreciate the vote of confidence.

I am not suggesting that racing is well-managed. I am suggesting that racing can't be well-managed given the operational structure. Racetrack owners can be 100% on board with the studies regarding take-out percentage and handle but their hands are tied to implement such a strategy. I am of the opinion that racing needs major surgery at this point and something as logical as take-out optimization won't stop the downward cycle.

If people understood the economics of betting horses, there would be fewer losers, not because they would be playing smarter, but because they would be leaving the game at an accelerated pace.

[lamboguy]

just for the heck of it i decided to look up the racing in other places than North America and Hong Kong. what i am finding is that most of these other tracks follow the same type of rules that Hong Kong has. these countries seem to have their own separate lotteries and many also offer legalized sports betting.http://www.turfclub.com.sg/Pages/Homepage.aspx

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've read your list, and I could find no disagreement with any of the points that you've made there...other than to state that this isn't OUR game to fix. But it's been said here that important racing officials visit this site and actually read its contents...and if this is indeed true...then the "industry" has read similar lists before. There is nothing new under the sun, it's all been said before...and, alas, the words didn't bring forth the desired actions. Heck...I was here suggesting "boycotts" over a DECADE ago...when Andy Asaro was posting as "Andymays".

It used to be that the horseplayer wielded considerable power in the game...and he could affect the decision-making process by voting with his wagering dollars...the way consumers affect the running of ORDINARY "business". But horse racing isn't an ordinary business...and the emergence of the racino has forever changed the rules...to the detriment of the wagering racing fan. The game no-longer depends on the horseplayer for its survival...so the horseplayer, and his needs, could be safely ignored by the industry. The horseplayer can still cry and bitch...but the "industry" is focused on other plans, and other needs.

Yes...it's hard to imagine that horse racing will eventually die in this country. That's what I thought, while living in the Chicagoland area for over 40 years. But I'd like everybody to know that horse racing is currently on LIFE-SUPPORT in the Chicago-area. And if this could happen in Chicago...it could happen anywhere.

You're right. A return to the good old days isn't going to happen.

Some people are predicting the demise of football. I don't agree, but I think a lot of the better athletes will start to consider other sports. Parents simply are not allowing their kids to play from an early age, and maybe not at all. It will become more of a gladiatorial game, where the less fortunate in society see it as a way out, but it isn't going away.

Similarly horseracing may be a different game in the future, but it won't disappear entirely. At some point the muscular players in horseracing will be forced to come to grips with the fact that using casinos to save racing is like eating a candy bar at halftime. You get a rush from the sugar, but eventually you feel worse. Sooner or later, the casinos may convince legislatures that the state can get more money by going with the casinos alone and cutting racing loose.

Perhaps the horsemen will have more power to influence the legislature than we might think. It will almost certainly never die in Kentucky. Maybe Florida and New York are in that boat as well. But otherwise, I agree that it could happen anywhere. Racing needs to reestablish the partnership with the fans and most certainly change their model

[Jeff P]

I've read your list, and I could find no disagreement with any of the points that you've made there...other than to state that this isn't OUR game to fix. But it's been said here that important racing officials visit this site and actually read its contents...and if this is indeed true...then the "industry" has read similar lists before. There is nothing new under the sun, it's all been said before...and, alas, the words didn't bring forth the desired actions. Heck...I was here suggesting "boycotts" over a DECADE ago...when Andy Asaro was posting as "Andymays".

It used to be that the horseplayer wielded considerable power in the game...and he could affect the decision-making process by voting with his wagering dollars...the way consumers affect the running of ORDINARY "business". But horse racing isn't an ordinary business...and the emergence of the racino has forever changed the rules...to the detriment of the wagering racing fan. The game no-longer depends on the horseplayer for its survival...so the horseplayer, and his needs, could be safely ignored by the industry. The horseplayer can still cry and bitch...but the "industry" is focused on other plans, and other needs.

Yes...it's hard to imagine that horse racing will eventually die in this country. That's what I thought, while living in the Chicagoland area for over 40 years. But I'd like everybody to know that horse racing is currently on LIFE-SUPPORT in the Chicago-area. And if this could happen in Chicago...it could happen anywhere.

re: The bolded part of the above quote:

For the most part, when it comes to ignoring the customer - racing jurisdictions with slots and casino fueled purses have been among the worst offenders.

No better example than Pennsylvania...

Billions of dollars handed to racing over the years... literally all of it going to purses... with virtually no other attempt made to grow the game... resulting in almost no on track business relative to purses paid out... all the while horsemen and track management mandating some of the highest takeouts imaginable, etc...

More recently those same horsemen lobbying the Legislature and Governor for: A. source market fee... and B. veto power over who the Governor is allowed to appoint to the racing commission.

To my way of thinking that's totally insane.

I agree that a player boycott of Pennsylvania racing -- while well deserved -- would be completely ineffective.

Simply put: They have no handle to begin with. Causing what little handle they do have to (say) be cut in half would fall on deaf ears and have no effect.

But a thought occurred to me.

Sometimes an insane situation deserves an equally insane response.

Most horseplayers are registered voters.

What if, instead of a player boycott:

Horseplayers who are fed up with the way racing is run by the horsemen in a state like Pennsylvania became organized?

And recruited thousands of other registered voters to lobby the Legislature and Governor with the following message:

Horse racing in this state is being sorely mismanaged.

Instead of wasting Billions of dollars on racing over the next 20 years we would rather see that money go to Education.

If that actually happened in a state like Pennsylvania I bet it would be a thousand times more effective than a player boycott.


-jp

.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If people understood the economics of betting horses, there would be fewer losers, not because they would be playing smarter, but because they would be leaving the game at an accelerated pace.

I think one of the reasons the good old days were as good was that you could get a lot of action and not have to lose a lot of money.

I knew a guy who loved to scuba. Went on two or three major trips a year. I figure it cost him at least a couple of thousand each time. Yet he couldn't understand why someone might spend a similar amount entertaining himself at the track every weekend of the year. The point was that you could have a great time at the track for your set aside entertainment money, mainly because you were betting into pools where you had a reasonable expectation of return. Even at 17% take you could win often enough to get good action.

I'm convinced a lot of people don't understand the economics of betting, or at least many don't bet into the right pools given their capitalization. So they have a low hit rate and burn through a lot of money, and eventually leave the game.

It's a lot of fun hitting a big horizontal bet, and you don't get the same excitement hitting a 7/2 shot, but you could certainly last a lot longer in the game.

[EasyGoer89]

re: The bolded part of the above quote:

For the most part, when it comes to ignoring the customer - racing jurisdictions with slots and casino fueled purses have been among the worst offenders.

No better example than Pennsylvania...

Billions of dollars handed to racing over the years... literally all of it going to purses... with virtually no other attempt made to grow the game... resulting in almost no on track business relative to purses paid out... all the while horsemen and track management mandating some of the highest takeouts imaginable, etc...

More recently those same horsemen lobbying the Legislature and Governor for: A. source market fee... and B. veto power over who the Governor is allowed to appoint to the racing commission.

To my way of thinking that's totally insane.

I agree that a player boycott of Pennsylvania racing -- while well deserved -- would be completely ineffective.

Simply put: They have no handle to begin with. Causing what little handle they do have to (say) be cut in half would fall on deaf ears and have no effect.

But a thought occurred to me.

Sometimes an insane situation deserves an equally insane response.

Most horseplayers are registered voters.

What if, instead of a player boycott:

Horseplayers who are fed up with the way racing is run by the horsemen in a state like Pennsylvania became organized?

And recruited thousands of other registered voters to lobby the Legislature and Governor with the following message:

Horse racing in this state is being sorely mismanaged.

Instead of wasting Billions of dollars on racing over the next 20 years we would rather see that money go to Education.

If that actually happened in a state like Pennsylvania I bet it would be a thousand times more effective than a player boycott.


-jp

.

Good points. billions of dollars in gaming revenue and not one penny of it went to the unreplacable part, the bettors. Bettors are not replacable, you have to essentially pay them to stay. Trainers and jocks got large chunks of slots money through sharing in purses w owners and yet if any individual jock or trainer retired tomorrow the game doesn't lose anything , easily replacable people, their horses and mounts would just go to others and nobody would miss a beat.

If a Bettor retires? There's not a young one in the wings to replace.

[onefast99]

re: The bolded part of the above quote:

For the most part, when it comes to ignoring the customer - racing jurisdictions with slots and casino fueled purses have been among the worst offenders.

No better example than Pennsylvania...

Billions of dollars handed to racing over the years... literally all of it going to purses... with virtually no other attempt made to grow the game... resulting in almost no on track business relative to purses paid out... all the while horsemen and track management mandating some of the highest takeouts imaginable, etc...

More recently those same horsemen lobbying the Legislature and Governor for: A. source market fee... and B. veto power over who the Governor is allowed to appoint to the racing commission.

To my way of thinking that's totally insane.

I agree that a player boycott of Pennsylvania racing -- while well deserved -- would be completely ineffective.

Simply put: They have no handle to begin with. Causing what little handle they do have to (say) be cut in half would fall on deaf ears and have no effect.

But a thought occurred to me.

Sometimes an insane situation deserves an equally insane response.

Most horseplayers are registered voters.

What if, instead of a player boycott:

Horseplayers who are fed up with the way racing is run by the horsemen in a state like Pennsylvania became organized?

And recruited thousands of other registered voters to lobby the Legislature and Governor with the following message:

Horse racing in this state is being sorely mismanaged.

Instead of wasting Billions of dollars on racing over the next 20 years we would rather see that money go to Education.

If that actually happened in a state like Pennsylvania I bet it would be a thousand times more effective than a player boycott.


-jp

.
Parx was the perfect marriage for racing and a casino. Now Parx Casino offers over 3500 slots, 130 table games and 80 poker tables. The original casino was housed in the racing building until the new casino was built and another 15000 square feet was added to it a few years ago. If the rumors are correct 2018 will be the final year for the purse subsidies and that could spell an end to racing as we know it at Parx. Personally I don't think that will ever happen.

[whodoyoulike]

I have for a long time advocated for a national racing alliance. One governing body for all tracks that wish to participate.
With that said.....
I will lay out what I believe to be the major roadblocks
1. The individual state's governments would need assurances that any revenue stream from PM wagering and taxes will continue.
2. Horsemen's associations and BPA's have to fall into line. No more pissing contests with tracks and states. No more entry box boycotts. No more shut downs.
3. Track managements would obviously have to sign on as well. They all must get used to not operating on top of each other.
In my opinion one of horse racing's most glaring issues is too many tracks in close geographic proximity operating simultaneously while competing for the same racing stock. The issues seen in the Phila/Wimington market with Parx and Delaware running at each other. Monmouth has gotten killed by NYRA and Delaware.
And to a lesser extent, although they seem to be getting along better Maryland racing has been affected by Delaware and Parx.
4. if one does not exist, The need for a national license for all horsemen, owners, trainers, grooms, and other back stretch personnel is a must.
5 all medication rules must be conforming throughout the alliance.
6. all stewards MUST be members of the alliance. and at any point with a reasonable notice, can be assigned to another track or even another state. i think moving officials about creates an image of integrity. This would at least offer the perception that the officials are not getting too 'cozy'....

In #4 need to add national licensing of vets. And, if they are in violation .... permanently ban them nationwide for a minimum 10 years from having any access to any race track or affiliated venue.

Btw, good start for a list to improve this game.

[classhandicapper]

Are there enough horse players in any of the key states that if they were organized well enough they could sway a state election?

There are only 3 ways I know of to impact a politician.

1. The power to get him/her booted from office in an election
2. Bribe him/her with payoffs, kickbacks, and corruption
3. Threaten to expose #2

We aren't going to do 2 or 3. In fact, we may be competing with 2 and 3. But 1 may be possible in some places.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

re: The bolded part of the above quote:

For the most part, when it comes to ignoring the customer - racing jurisdictions with slots and casino fueled purses have been among the worst offenders.

No better example than Pennsylvania...

Billions of dollars handed to racing over the years... literally all of it going to purses... with virtually no other attempt made to grow the game... resulting in almost no on track business relative to purses paid out... all the while horsemen and track management mandating some of the highest takeouts imaginable, etc...

More recently those same horsemen lobbying the Legislature and Governor for: A. source market fee... and B. veto power over who the Governor is allowed to appoint to the racing commission.

To my way of thinking that's totally insane.

I agree that a player boycott of Pennsylvania racing -- while well deserved -- would be completely ineffective.

Simply put: They have no handle to begin with. Causing what little handle they do have to (say) be cut in half would fall on deaf ears and have no effect.

But a thought occurred to me.

Sometimes an insane situation deserves an equally insane response.

Most horseplayers are registered voters.

What if, instead of a player boycott:

Horseplayers who are fed up with the way racing is run by the horsemen in a state like Pennsylvania became organized?

And recruited thousands of other registered voters to lobby the Legislature and Governor with the following message:

Horse racing in this state is being sorely mismanaged.

Instead of wasting Billions of dollars on racing over the next 20 years we would rather see that money go to Education.

If that actually happened in a state like Pennsylvania I bet it would be a thousand times more effective than a player boycott.


-jp

.

Jeff

I think anyone who comes up with ideas to improve horseracing should be lauded.

I think too many horseracing commissions are full of political appointees who have little insider knowledge about what it takes to run a racetrack, parimutuel wagering, or drugs/medications. While I think it would be looney to give one interest group veto power over appointments, I would agree that the legislation that creates racing commissions should be revised. I think it is funny that racing commissions often have requirements for not having more than a majority of one by political party, as if Democrat/Republican or progressive/conservative was functional in horseracing.

The commissions should be revised so that their membership includes: a representative of horseplayers, a representative of horsemen, a representative of the racetrack, a veterinarian, and one at large member. Both the horseplayer and the horsemen's rep would be certified as qualified. If we want to lobby, that would be a good thing to lobby for.

Arapahoe Park in Colorado tried to get slots at the track, and the sale was that the state share of the revenue would go to education. The measure flopped, although you could probably autopsy the campaign and come up with a lot of mistakes they made. Just a point that education doesn't always carry the day.

What a horseplayers organization needs are a few things. One, a reliable funding source. Two, a presence in all the states with active horseracing tracks. Three, an active membership that has incentives for horseplayers to join the group. Four, a lobbying presence at both the state level and the national level, and a presence at major meetings of the groups that regulate horseracing like ARCI or HBPA.

[pandy]

I think one of the reasons the good old days were as good was that you could get a lot of action and not have to lose a lot of money.

I knew a guy who loved to scuba. Went on two or three major trips a year. I figure it cost him at least a couple of thousand each time. Yet he couldn't understand why someone might spend a similar amount entertaining himself at the track every weekend of the year. The point was that you could have a great time at the track for your set aside entertainment money, mainly because you were betting into pools where you had a reasonable expectation of return. Even at 17% take you could win often enough to get good action.

I'm convinced a lot of people don't understand the economics of betting, or at least many don't bet into the right pools given their capitalization. So they have a low hit rate and burn through a lot of money, and eventually leave the game.

It's a lot of fun hitting a big horizontal bet, and you don't get the same excitement hitting a 7/2 shot, but you could certainly last a lot longer in the game.



Yes, in harness racing in NY years ago, Roosevelt and Yonkers, the horses were consistent, the takeout wasn't that bad, and the favorites won at 34%. A good handicapper had a good shot and even an average handicapper could make a lot of bets over the course of the year without really getting hurt. There were no horizontal bets except the Early Double. But the win and exacta pools were huge and a lot of people played the trotters in N.Y. on a regular basis, because they were getting enough winners to keep it interesting and entertaining. You need churn and the racing industry has done everything it can to hurt churn.

[classhandicapper]

It's a lot of fun hitting a big horizontal bet, and you don't get the same excitement hitting a 7/2 shot, but you could certainly last a lot longer in the game.

I agree.

I'm not going to argue the merits of a sharp player choosing any one pool over another, but "on average" people are getting totally buried and at a faster rate playing exotics because of the higher take.

When you are getting totally buried due to both a higher take and the longer negative swings that are part of exotic wagering it can be so discouraging, some people just quit.

[AndyC]

I agree.

I'm not going to argue the merits of a sharp player choosing any one pool over another, but "on average" people are getting totally buried and at a faster rate playing exotics because of the higher take.

When you are getting totally buried due to both a higher take and the longer negative swings that are part of exotic wagering it can be so discouraging, some people just quit.

Yes some people might quit but more importantly how many will join in if the betting options are scaled back? Currently and for quite awhile racing has not been able to reload their business with new bettors. The opportunity to make a $2 win bet every 1/2 hour just doesn't have the lure it once had. Casinos don't have a problem offering a myriad of bets. Patrons come in and they bet where they are most comfortable. Why should racing be different? Expand the menu don't contract the menu. If people are going broke betting exotics it is because they like betting exotics.

[classhandicapper]

Yes some people might quit but more importantly how many will join in if the betting options are scaled back? Currently and for quite awhile racing has not been able to reload their business with new bettors. The opportunity to make a $2 win bet every 1/2 hour just doesn't have the lure it once had. Casinos don't have a problem offering a myriad of bets. Patrons come in and they bet where they are most comfortable. Why should racing be different? Expand the menu don't contract the menu. If people are going broke betting exotics it is because they like betting exotics.


I hear you. I have no problem with as diverse a menu as possible and see the benefit of attracting the "lottery" type players that want to make a big score. I just don't think the flip side gets much attention.

A reasonable solution would be to lower the exotic take down to the same level as WPS. Then even though the average player would be dealing with greater volatility, the rate of loss would be the same. But every time we talk about lowering the take we are just talking to ourselves. No one is listening.

[thaskalos]

I hear you. I have no problem with as diverse a menu as possible and see the benefit of attracting the "lottery" type players that want to make a big score. I just don't think the flip side gets much attention.

A reasonable solution would be to lower the exotic take down to the same level as WPS. Then even though the average player would be dealing with greater volatility, the rate of loss would be the same. But every time we talk about lowering the take we are just talking to ourselves. No one is listening.

It isn't necessarily true that the exotics have "greater volatility" than the win-bets. With the 10-cent supers and the 50-cent trifectas currently offered...the "average player" could spread out enough to control the "volatility" inherent in exotics wagering. In fact...I think the vast majority of the exotics bettors started betting the exotics because they couldn't handle the "volatility" associated with win-betting.

[Andy Asaro]

When SB1072 was passed the TOC got a windfall for purses (Customer subsidized purse welfare). At the time they could have restructured the way purses are paid to help the smaller barns survive like making win 55% instead of 60%. They also should have had participation bonuses on a sliding scale. What happened is the most successful barns (10%) win 85% of the purse money. With that money they go out and by faster and more expensive horses while some barns have trouble buying feed. This is the direct fault of the TOC and Mike Pegram. They never represented all owners they represented the top 10% of Owners. Expenses are too high for the small barns to break through. People like Pegram, Baffert, et al who sit on the TOC executive board could care less about the small barns. They believe they're entitled to all the money.

We had a Triple Crown Winner recently. Where are all the fans/gamblers who were supposed to fall in love with horse racing? It was meaningless as far as growing the game.

From 2011: http://www.drf.com/news/raffetto-named-lead-troubled-toc

Excerpt:

When pressed on the issue by horseplayer Andy Asaro, Pegram said the takeout would not be lowered. "I'm not willing to take an 18 percent cut," Pegram said.
"This was about increasing purses and becoming competitive in California with other jurisdictions," Pegram said. "It was a collection of all horsemen that supported this bill. I know it's controversial. I understand."


In horse racing the best environment is one where people can work hard, improve their skills, and become successful. That is now harder than ever in California.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes some people might quit but more importantly how many will join in if the betting options are scaled back? Currently and for quite awhile racing has not been able to reload their business with new bettors. The opportunity to make a $2 win bet every 1/2 hour just doesn't have the lure it once had. Casinos don't have a problem offering a myriad of bets. Patrons come in and they bet where they are most comfortable. Why should racing be different? Expand the menu don't contract the menu. If people are going broke betting exotics it is because they like betting exotics.

If you go to the track with $250 and divide it up $125 win, $65 exactas, and $60 anything else, you have a good chance of winning some bets, being able to churn, taking a few lottery bet flyers, and maybe even making some serious money. On the other hand, if you are making a $2 bet every half hour, I'm not really taking to you. Besides, if you are into the very popular fantasy sports, you don't have action even every half hour. It's often more like one entry a day, and it seems to have enthralled millennials.

Casinos are losing gaming revenue as well, especially slots. As I've mentioned, they are looking more and more at alternative revenue streams. I believe the latest statistics show that only 50% of revenues come from the gambling side. Games of skill - like daily fantasy sports - are the wave of the future for all the reasons horseracing should be proliferating. It's parimutuel, it requires superior skill and knowledge, the gambler perceives that he controls the outcome (unlike slots where the machines are set to pay at a given rate), and rooting a horse or team home gives an adrenaline rush.

If you have an edge and you win enough to keep in the game, you'll play the game. And it has nothing to do with having a Cheesecake Factory sized betting menu. The proposal I made keeps most of the bet types on the table, and just focuses on fewer circus bets and more high churn bets. If you're going to critique my proposal, represent it accurately.

[thaskalos]

Yes some people might quit but more importantly how many will join in if the betting options are scaled back? Currently and for quite awhile racing has not been able to reload their business with new bettors. The opportunity to make a $2 win bet every 1/2 hour just doesn't have the lure it once had. Casinos don't have a problem offering a myriad of bets. Patrons come in and they bet where they are most comfortable. Why should racing be different? Expand the menu don't contract the menu. If people are going broke betting exotics it is because they like betting exotics.

The problem, of course, is that NOT ENOUGH patrons "come into the game", so they could "bet where they are most comfortable". Not only is the game unable to attract enough new players...it's even losing the lost-standing customers that it has had for many years.

IMO...the vast majority of today's gamblers need no "introduction" to horse racing. They've already been introduced to this game...and they haven't found it to their liking. And it's the GAME'S responsibility to discover WHY...if the game is to survive in some respectable form in the future. Otherwise...horse racing in the future will be what HARNESS racing is today.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It isn't necessarily true that the exotics have "greater volatility" than the win-bets. With the 10-cent supers and the 50-cent trifectas currently offered...the "average player" could spread out enough to control the "volatility" inherent in exotics wagering. In fact...I think the vast majority of the exotics bettors started betting the exotics because they couldn't handle the "volatility" associated with win-betting.

It's an interesting perspective. I tend to think the small minimums attract people to those pools, and they wind up losing their money faster and ultimately minimizing their action.

Perhaps it is a fools errand to believe people should - or even can - be saved from going broke at the races, even if the ultimate intent is to save horseracing from it's possible demise.

[thaskalos]

If you go to the track with $250 and divide it up $125 win, $65 exactas, and $60 anything else, you have a good chance of winning some bets, being able to churn, taking a few lottery bet flyers, and maybe even making some serious money. On the other hand, if you are making a $2 bet every half hour, I'm not really taking to you. Besides, if you are into the very popular fantasy sports, you don't have action even every half hour. It's often more like one entry a day, and it seems to have enthralled millennials.

Casinos are losing gaming revenue as well, especially slots. As I've mentioned, they are looking more and more at alternative revenue streams. I believe the latest statistics show that only 50% of revenues come from the gambling side. Games of skill - like daily fantasy sports - are the wave of the future for all the reasons horseracing should be proliferating. It's parimutuel, it requires superior skill and knowledge, the gambler perceives that he controls the outcome (unlike slots where the machines are set to pay at a given rate), and rooting a horse or team home gives an adrenaline rush.

If you have an edge and you win enough to keep in the game, you'll play the game. And it has nothing to do with having a Cheesecake Factory sized betting menu. The proposal I made keeps most of the bet types on the table, and just focuses on fewer circus bets and more high churn bets. If you're going to critique my proposal, represent it accurately.

IMO...the biggest misconception in horse racing is that today's "millennials" don't have the internal fortitude needed to seriously apply themselves in a "complicated" gambling game...even if they find such a game "appealing". They are supposedly unwilling to invest serious time and effort in order to master a "complicated" gambling game...choosing instead to patronize the "mindless" and "unbeatable" games that the casinos offer. This blatant lie has been exposed not only by the popularity of the fantasy sports that you mention above...but also by the widespread popularity of POKER...when that game was still easily accessible.

The young gamblers of today have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are willing to seriously apply themselves in a gambling game that they deem "desirable"...and the remaining question to be asked is why they consider horse racing to be so UNDESIRABLE.

[Andy Asaro]

Joe Morris worried about lack of entries. Wants to start a Conversation. LOL

http://www.drf.com/news/santa-anita-officials-horsemen-discuss-entry-issues

[thaskalos]

It's an interesting perspective. I tend to think the small minimums attract people to those pools, and they wind up losing their money faster and ultimately minimizing their action.

Perhaps it is a fools errand to believe people should - or even can - be saved from going broke at the races, even if the ultimate intent is to save horseracing from it's possible demise.

Perhaps you have an idealized view of what the "average" win-bettor is really like. You might think that he is the cautious-sort of individual...who keeps within strict limits as far as bets and bet sizes are concerned.

IMO...the "average" win-bettor can go broke betting to win just as easily as the "average" exotics player can go broke betting the exotics.

[Saratoga_Mike]

IMO...the "average" win-bettor can go broke betting to win just as easily as the "average" exotics player can go broke betting the exotics.

I can attest to that.

[dilanesp]

Perhaps you have an idealized view of what the "average" win-bettor is really like. You might think that he is the cautious-sort of individual...who keeps within strict limits as far as bets and bet sizes are concerned.

IMO...the "average" win-bettor can go broke betting to win just as easily as the "average" exotics player can go broke betting the exotics.

My inclination would be to say that while you are basically right, "can" does a fair amount of work in that sentence.

Win betting is, by definition, lower variance than exotic betting. But all betting on live animals is very high variance.

[AndyC]

If you go to the track with $250 and divide it up $125 win, $65 exactas, and $60 anything else, you have a good chance of winning some bets, being able to churn, taking a few lottery bet flyers, and maybe even making some serious money. On the other hand, if you are making a $2 bet every half hour, I'm not really taking to you. Besides, if you are into the very popular fantasy sports, you don't have action even every half hour. It's often more like one entry a day, and it seems to have enthralled millennials.

Casinos are losing gaming revenue as well, especially slots. As I've mentioned, they are looking more and more at alternative revenue streams. I believe the latest statistics show that only 50% of revenues come from the gambling side. Games of skill - like daily fantasy sports - are the wave of the future for all the reasons horseracing should be proliferating. It's parimutuel, it requires superior skill and knowledge, the gambler perceives that he controls the outcome (unlike slots where the machines are set to pay at a given rate), and rooting a horse or team home gives an adrenaline rush.

If you have an edge and you win enough to keep in the game, you'll play the game. And it has nothing to do with having a Cheesecake Factory sized betting menu. The proposal I made keeps most of the bet types on the table, and just focuses on fewer circus bets and more high churn bets. If you're going to critique my proposal, represent it accurately.

If a person goes to the track with $250 they will play for 4 hours and bet maybe $250 to $400. A person goes to a casino and they are betting that much in an hour at the tables. Constant action, no waiting around.

Living in So Cal I see that just about every casino in San Diego county is currently expanding their casinos because gaming revenue is skyrocketing.

Given that less than 5% of bettors have an edge a wide menu is needed just to keep interest up. It's not the edge that thrills the players it's the action.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

IMO...the biggest misconception in horse racing is that today's "millennials" don't have the internal fortitude needed to seriously apply themselves in a "complicated" gambling game...even if they find such a game "appealing". They are supposedly unwilling to invest serious time and effort in order to master a "complicated" gambling game...choosing instead to patronize the "mindless" and "unbeatable" games that the casinos offer. This blatant lie has been exposed not only by the popularity of the fantasy sports that you mention above...but also by the widespread popularity of POKER...when that game was still easily accessible.

The young gamblers of today have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are willing to seriously apply themselves in a gambling game that they deem "desirable"...and the remaining question to be asked is why they consider horse racing to be so UNDESIRABLE.

I did an article called Gambling, Skill and Millennials. I agree with what you said.
http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2406

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Perhaps you have an idealized view of what the "average" win-bettor is really like. You might think that he is the cautious-sort of individual...who keeps within strict limits as far as bets and bet sizes are concerned.

IMO...the "average" win-bettor can go broke betting to win just as easily as the "average" exotics player can go broke betting the exotics.

Going broke isn't hard no matter what sort of bettor you are. All you have to do is bet when you don't have an edge. I don't think amount is critical. Betting $2 or $200 isn't important as long as you are betting a horse with odds higher than its probability of winning. It's that calculation that is tough, but less tough than calculating the edge in a complicated exotic.

It's certainly simpler to learn how to bet to win. Most of us were conditioned to answer the question, "who do you like?" with a single horse in a respective race.

I think you can learn to be good at betting in any pool. I'd say my view is that most people don't take the time to do so.

[thaskalos]

I did an article called Gambling, Skill and Millennials. I agree with what you said.
http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2406

This is my own, personal definition of "gambling":

If a person places money at risk with the EXPECTATION of long-term gain...but WITHOUT knowing precisely when that "gain" will be realized...then he is GAMBLING, and not "investing".

The "winning" horseplayer and the "winning" poker player are both DECEIVING themselves when they call themselves "investors"...because they both admittedly play only with "money that they could safely afford to lose". And that proves conclusively that they acknowledge the "gamble" in their respective endeavors.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If a person goes to the track with $250 they will play for 4 hours and bet maybe $250 to $400. A person goes to a casino and they are betting that much in an hour at the tables. Constant action, no waiting around.

Living in So Cal I see that just about every casino in San Diego county is currently expanding their casinos because gaming revenue is skyrocketing.

Given that less than 5% of bettors have an edge a wide menu is needed just to keep interest up. It's not the edge that thrills the players it's the action.

If you need that constant action, I guess either you wait for a simulcast day with 20 tracks running, or start pulling the slot handles. Losing your money faster doesn't appeal to everyone, and if you read my millennial article, it especially doesn't appeal to them.

I'm not sure what the wide menu is at a casino. Slot machines with different pictures on the wheels? After you get by slots, craps, blackjack, the poker room and some exotic games like pai gow, it's all just variations on the minimum bet.

I'm not going to challenge the statement that gaming revenue is exploding. Perhaps people were satisfying their urges in Vegas, but now have a local product to play at. But Vegas is losing gaming revenue each year and trying to replace it with secondary revenue streams (restaurants, e.g.)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is my own, personal definition of "gambling":

If a person places money at risk with the EXPECTATION of long-term gain...but WITHOUT knowing precisely when that "gain" will be realized...then he is GAMBLING, and not "investing".

The "winning" horseplayer and the "winning" poker player are both DECEIVING themselves when they call themselves "investors"...because they both admittedly play only with "money that they could safely afford to lose". And that proves conclusively that they acknowledge the "gamble" in their respective endeavors.

Well, the glass is either half-empty or half-full based on your perspective. I've been successful enough as a horseplayer that I believe anyone can beat the game with the right approach, even if there is always an uncertainty big enough to call it a gamble.

[thaskalos]

Well, the glass is either half-empty or half-full based on your perspective. I've been successful enough as a horseplayer that I believe anyone can beat the game with the right approach, even if there is always an uncertainty big enough to call it a gamble.

Yes...you've BEEN "successful enough as a horseplayer". But...how confident are you that you will win money in this game THIS YEAR...or well into the more distant FUTURE?

The "past" isn't the "gamble". The FUTURE is where the gamble resides.

Let's say that you've spent your entire bankroll while renovating your home...and the "highly profitable" spring and summer-racing months find you without the "ammunition" necessary for your usual style of betting. Would you consider borrowing serious money in order to bet in "full-force"? And..if not...WHY NOT?

[whodoyoulike]

When SB1072 was passed the TOC got a windfall for purses (Customer subsidized purse welfare). At the time they could have restructured the way purses are paid to help the smaller barns survive like making win 55% instead of 60%. They also should have had participation bonuses on a sliding scale. What happened is the most successful barns (10%) win 85% of the purse money. With that money they go out and by faster and more expensive horses while some barns have trouble buying feed. This is the direct fault of the TOC and Mike Pegram. They never represented all owners they represented the top 10% of Owners. Expenses are too high for the small barns to break through. People like Pegram, Baffert, et al who sit on the TOC executive board could care less about the small barns. They believe they're entitled to all the money.

We had a Triple Crown Winner recently. Where are all the fans/gamblers who were supposed to fall in love with horse racing? It was meaningless as far as growing the game.

From 2011: http://www.drf.com/news/raffetto-named-lead-troubled-toc

Excerpt:

When pressed on the issue by horseplayer Andy Asaro, Pegram said the takeout would not be lowered. "I'm not willing to take an 18 percent cut," Pegram said.
"This was about increasing purses and becoming competitive in California with other jurisdictions," Pegram said. "It was a collection of all horsemen that supported this bill. I know it's controversial. I understand."


In horse racing the best environment is one where people can work hard, improve their skills, and become successful. That is now harder than ever in California.

Good points. Re: the bold portion, I think AndyC* concluded something similar while you were gone. The TOC really doesn't care about the betting horse players.

* In case AndyC and others think I'm name dropping, I remember his post a while back mentioning just how much influence and the focus of the TOC in Cali. At the time there was an effort by other owners to start another owners group.

What happened to that one because there were a couple of well known owners who wanted to improve Cali racing?

[acorn54]

Well, the glass is either half-empty or half-full based on your perspective. I've been successful enough as a horseplayer that I believe anyone can beat the game with the right approach, even if there is always an uncertainty big enough to call it a gamble.

there's alot more to growth of money. there is the difficulty of getting ones's capital to grow at a reasonable rate, with reasonable effort.
i think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that the venue of capital input into the parimutuel pools is not more difficult for growth of one's money, than say the vanguard index fund, where one can just put money into the fund and forget about the money, and get a return of 9 percent.
with payouts on horseracing you have TRIPLE taxation

1-dime breakage

2-capital gains

3-takeoout

with an ira your money will grow tax free, plus you will get dividends

you only get taxed once on ira money

[thaskalos]

there's alot more to growth of money. there is the difficulty of getting ones's capital to grow at a reasonable rate, with reasonable effort.
i think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that the venue of capital input into the parimutuel pools is not more difficult for growth of one's money, than say the vanguard index fund, where one can just put money into the fund and forget about the money, and get a return of 9 percent.
with payouts on horseracing you have TRIPLE taxation

1-dime breakage

2-capital gains

3-takeoout

with an ira your money will grow tax free, plus you will get dividends

you only get taxed once on ira money

True. But the horseplayer is looking for a much greater return than just 9% annually. A modest 1.10 ROI is enough to DOUBLE the ambitious player's bankroll...in a mere THREE MONTHS, or even LESS. And I've seen several posters here who've boasted of an ROI much higher than 1.10

[dilanesp]

Going broke isn't hard no matter what sort of bettor you are. All you have to do is bet when you don't have an edge. I don't think amount is critical. Betting $2 or $200 isn't important as long as you are betting a horse with odds higher than its probability of winning. It's that calculation that is tough, but less tough than calculating the edge in a complicated exotic.

Well, no. Risk of ruin (the statistical term for going broke) increases not only based on the the size of your skill deficit (i.e., not simply that you don't have an edge, but how far from having an edge you are), but also the variance of the game, and the size of the bankroll, of course. It is entirely possible to go broke betting a game that you have an edge in (happens to poker players all the time) simply because the player runs bad and/or is inadequately rolled. And in contrast, in a high variance game, it can take a very long time for results to converge on the mean, which means it is possible to beat the game or stay afloat for a very long time without having an edge. (The classic example of this is the stock market-- according to the efficient markets hypothesis, nobody likely beats the market except by using inside information or arbitrage, but of course plenty of people have outperformed the market for substantial lengths of time, because there's so much variance in the financial markets that it's possible to get lucky and run good for a very long period of time.)

And the key point about horse racing is that any game with live animals has a ridiculous amount of variance. Which increases risk of ruin. Exotic bets increase the variance (any outcome that depends on two high variance events happening will have greater variance than an outcome dependent on the occurrence of a single such event) further, thereby increasing risk of ruin even more.

[Tom]

Thanks Mark. I know it's a tough situation and working with a short deck. I wish you and all of the people at MNR the best of luck. I've supported MNR for years with my wagering dollars and continue to do so. As the product improves and the races become more intriguing, my handle will rise up with it.

I am sure there are reasons.
But I don't care what they are.
If I go to a restaurant, and they are out of potatoes, out of beer, out of steak.........I don't care. I go elsewhere.

I am the customer. I am all that matters.
Unless someone else is paying my way.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes...you've BEEN "successful enough as a horseplayer". But...how confident are you that you will win money in this game THIS YEAR...or well into the more distant FUTURE?

The "past" isn't the "gamble". The FUTURE is where the gamble resides.

Let's say that you've spent your entire bankroll while renovating your home...and the "highly profitable" spring and summer-racing months find you without the "ammunition" necessary for your usual style of betting. Would you consider borrowing serious money in order to bet in "full-force"? And..if not...WHY NOT?

I don't want to give away my financial position, but capitalization is not an issue. But the answer is that if I was having to choose between paying the rent and playing the ponies, the rent wins. I would probably confine myself to either cutting way back on my bets or doing something like not playing most of the year and playing Saratoga in my normal way unless things were really desperate.

However, there were times in my life when I had to depend on winning at the track to have enough income. Thankfully I've been lucky I never defaulted!

[thaskalos]

I don't want to give away my financial position, but capitalization is not an issue. But the answer is that if I was having to choose between paying the rent and playing the ponies, the rent wins. I would probably confine myself to either cutting way back on my bets or doing something like not playing most of the year and playing Saratoga in my normal way unless things were really desperate.

However, there were times in my life when I had to depend on winning at the track to have enough income. Thankfully I've been lucky I never defaulted!

I don't want you to give away your financial position...and I am not suggesting that you are undercapitalized. I was speaking hypothetically.

The point that I was trying to make is that what we are doing is GAMBLING, and not "investing"...because we are not taking out loans to finance our play. There is an inherent RISK in what we do...and this causes us to take certain safety precautions during our play. They call that "gambling"...IMO.

[classhandicapper]

It isn't necessarily true that the exotics have "greater volatility" than the win-bets. With the 10-cent supers and the 50-cent trifectas currently offered...the "average player" could spread out enough to control the "volatility" inherent in exotics wagering. In fact...I think the vast majority of the exotics bettors started betting the exotics because they couldn't handle the "volatility" associated with win-betting.

If you are spreading enough to reduce the volatility of exotic wagering so it's equal to win betting you are eliminating the attraction of exotics to those novice players - which is to make a score.

If I bet $100 win on a 7/2 shot and someone else bets a load of combinations for $100 and winds up getting 7/2, the volatility is the same, but why bother?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Well, no. Risk of ruin (the statistical term for going broke) increases not only based on the the size of your skill deficit (i.e., not simply that you don't have an edge, but how far from having an edge you are), but also the variance of the game, and the size of the bankroll, of course. It is entirely possible to go broke betting a game that you have an edge in (happens to poker players all the time) simply because the player runs bad and/or is inadequately rolled. And in contrast, in a high variance game, it can take a very long time for results to converge on the mean, which means it is possible to beat the game or stay afloat for a very long time without having an edge. (The classic example of this is the stock market-- according to the efficient markets hypothesis, nobody likely beats the market except by using inside information or arbitrage, but of course plenty of people have outperformed the market for substantial lengths of time, because there's so much variance in the financial markets that it's possible to get lucky and run good for a very long period of time.)

And the key point about horse racing is that any game with live animals has a ridiculous amount of variance. Which increases risk of ruin. Exotic bets increase the variance (any outcome that depends on two high variance events happening will have greater variance than an outcome dependent on the occurrence of a single such event) further, thereby increasing risk of ruin even more.

The thing about horseracing is that your competition is the guy standing next to you at the rail. Which is to say it is pretty much a truism that the if there are winners, the highest probability is that they will be some combination of the best handicappers and best bettors.

While I said going broke is easy, and on any given day the guy betting trifectas based on his kid's birthdays can be a winner, in the long run for the best players to lose would take severe bad luck or lots of mistakes (like betting when you are on tilt or betting when you have no advantage or betting a lot to make a little).

The last point I'll make is that a certain percentage of the variance can be overcome by the more skilled player. You can't necessarily overcome a crappy ride, but you can know that Jockey X can't hold a horse on a line around the turn. The difference between horseracing and poker is that once you become a superior poker player, if you play in big events, you often wind up playing against your equals in terms of playing skill, in which case luck (or variance) and player strategy (like knowing how and when to bluff) becomes a much larger determinant of how well you finish. But in horseracing, the percentages are not fixed in the same way they are in poker, which means skill at calculating overlays is at a huge premium. The market is only really efficient a third of the time, and by definition any non-favorite that wins must have been an overlay. Horseracing is harder than poker, but the potential for payoffs that far exceed true odds is also higher.

[acorn54]

True. But the horseplayer is looking for a much greater return than just 9% annually. A modest 1.10 ROI is enough to DOUBLE the ambitious player's bankroll...in a mere THREE MONTHS, or even LESS. And I've seen several posters here who've boasted of an ROI much higher than 1.10

i can agree with what you say taskalos. the 65 million dollar question is does a person want to utilize their much greater share of time to get that uncertain chance that they will get 1.10. its a VERY big question of oppy cost on the part of the player.

[Lose The Juice]

Isn't the thread title an old Pete Seeger song?

:mad:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If I bet $100 win on a 7/2 shot and someone else bets a load of combinations for $100 and winds up getting 7/2, the volatility is the same, but why bother?

Such a simple concept, but incredible how few people I run into that get it.

I don't know if the TVG guys actually get it, but I can't tell you how many times they give out their Pick-4 with a 5/2 single, which is the same as betting the equivalent amount to win on the single. So if you have a $40 P4 with 50 cent tickets, the P4 would have to pay $560 for $2 to be the equivalent of the win bet.

[thaskalos]

If you are spreading enough to reduce the volatility of exotic wagering so it's equal to win betting you are eliminating the attraction of exotics to those novice players - which is to make a score.

If I bet $100 win on a 7/2 shot and someone else bets a load of combinations for $100 and winds up getting 7/2, the volatility is the same, but why bother?

It's not as simple as you make it sound. The exotics bettor may get 7/2 with this particular outcome...but the possibility may have existed for him to collect ten TIMES that...with the same wager.

The win-bettor's win expectation is known...but the exotic player's isn't.

[AndyC]

If you need that constant action, I guess either you wait for a simulcast day with 20 tracks running, or start pulling the slot handles. Losing your money faster doesn't appeal to everyone, and if you read my millennial article, it especially doesn't appeal to them.

I personally don't need the constant action, but it sure seems like a major factor with many people who go to the track. They get bored very easily.

[VigorsTheGrey]

What would happen if the large breeding farms made a deal with the tracks to supply them with a sufficient amount of racehorses to make for full fields...?

[JustRalph]

What would happen if the large breeding farms made a deal with the tracks to supply them with a sufficient amount of racehorses to make for full fields...?

I often wondered why some tracks didn't own their own horses?

Hire trainers to train them, as employees. Not contractors etc. I would have thought that some track might have tried that model sometime.

I'm sure you would have to implement bonus structures for trainers etc......but some place like Los Al might have been able to pull this off back in the day.

Imagine a horse gets a positive, the trainer gets fired. No ?'s asked because he's an employee of the track etc.

Tracks could buy from the sales or breed their own, but I'm thinking tracks could keep the prices down on horses this way.

But we are long past that. No way they could afford to implement that model now

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What would happen if the large breeding farms made a deal with the tracks to supply them with a sufficient amount of racehorses to make for full fields...?

You'll have to give us the details on how that would work. Somebody still has to own the horses, and the breeding operations make a lot of money selling yearlings. And it's not like there is no cost to producing a foal.

[thespaah]

In #4 need to add national licensing of vets. And, if they are in violation .... permanently ban them nationwide for a minimum 10 years from having any access to any race track or affiliated venue.

Btw, good start for a list to improve this game.

Thanks

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I often wondered why some tracks didn't own their own horses?


Well for one thing it would cost money, and potentially a lot of money if you are thinking about Vigor's idea of buying directly from a breeding farm, unless you're just going to pick up the horses that would go for cheap. For another, they'd have to pay the trainer, which I suppose they could do out of purses if they won enough races. Although I have a feeling horseplayers and other trainers would not react so well to the track winning too many races. You'd have to have someone on staff or hire someone to manage the stable, and it just sounds like there would be opportunities for conflicts. Like could you count on the stewards to be fair on an inquiry if the horse in question was "owned" by the track? And given the conspiracy theory nature of horseplayers, I can't imagine we wouldn't hear all kinds of speculation. We're probably better off just criticizing tracks for how bad they run racing now.

[VigorsTheGrey]

You'll have to give us the details on how that would work. Somebody still has to own the horses, and the breeding operations make a lot of money selling yearlings. And it's not like there is no cost to producing a foal.
Field size continues to shrink. Without full fields, bettors stay away. Small time owners with one or two horses can no longer function cost effectively. We must progress to a new model if American racing is to survive. Solve one problem at a time... Full fields will attract more wagering/ handle...things flow from that crucial nexus...the tracks can no longer rely on the current owner/ trainer relationship model to supply them with full fields....
There must be economies of scale built into the industry...it is too expensive to run under the current model...there is too much duplication of effort...we need to focus on increasing the number of starters across the nation....the only way this can be done is to call upon the breeders to accept this new paradigm....Individual owners will still be an integral part of racing but the crisis of these times demands that many more starters become available as soon as possible....

[JustRalph]

Well for one thing it would cost money, and potentially a lot of money if you are thinking about Vigor's idea of buying directly from a breeding farm, unless you're just going to pick up the horses that would go for cheap. For another, they'd have to pay the trainer, which I suppose they could do out of purses if they won enough races. Although I have a feeling horseplayers and other trainers would not react so well to the track winning too many races. You'd have to have someone on staff or hire someone to manage the stable, and it just sounds like there would be opportunities for conflicts. Like could you count on the stewards to be fair on an inquiry if the horse in question was "owned" by the track? And given the conspiracy theory nature of horseplayers, I can't imagine we wouldn't hear all kinds of speculation. We're probably better off just criticizing tracks for how bad they run racing now.

No outside horses allowed. Every horse in every race is owned by the track. Could be interesting

[VigorsTheGrey]

No outside horses allowed. Every horse in every race is owned by the track. Could be interesting
All horses with common owners to be automatically coupled, no exceptions...no entry fees for non-track horses...offer purse bonus to defeat track horses...entry priority given to non-track horses...if no non- track horses are entered, then track horses can decouple....or a portion of the card can be for all track horses de-coupled...

[EasyGoer89]

All horses with common owners to be automatically coupled, no exceptions...no entry fees for non-track horses...offer purse bonus to defeat track horses...entry priority given to non-track horses...if no non- track horses are entered, then track horses can decouple....or a portion of the card can be for all track horses de-coupled...

Why are horses w common owners coupled? Why just owners? If A top trainer has 2 speed horses in the same race for different owners, are they going to be raced as separate interests or are they going to have their running styles manipulated by the jocks?

[rastajenk]

No outside horses allowed. Every horse in every race is owned by the track. Could be interesting
Why would anyone be interested in something like that? I honestly don't get the appeal. It's like trying to make the wagering opportunity as clinical and sterile as a roll of the dice or a flip of a card. Remember, racing was a sport first, and a gambling product for the masses later.

[lamboguy]

Why would anyone be interested in something like that? I honestly don't get the appeal. It's like trying to make the wagering opportunity as clinical and sterile as a roll of the dice or a flip of a card. Remember, racing was a sport first, and a gambling product for the masses later.my friend actually did this 30 years ago at Lakes Region Greyhound Park. he needed to run a dog meet in order to get simulcasting, he couldn't get anyone to come up to his location to run for peanuts, so he bought the dogs and paid trainer's a weeks pay to run the dogs there, he ran for 60 days and had an average local product dog handle under $50,000 per card. he had telephone betting and was the very first to rebate and did over $10 million in handle per day for a long time. he was the pioneer of the adw business.

My friends name was Rick Heart. he ran the place with his family for about 10 years until he got in trouble in the Gregory Martin fiasco. he got aquitted but lost his license and sold the place, then Lakes Region went down in flames.

[Andy Asaro]

California is where it is because the people with authority over the years have made decisions in their own short term interest at the expense of the long term health of the sport/gambling game.

[classhandicapper]

It's not as simple as you make it sound. The exotics bettor may get 7/2 with this particular outcome...but the possibility may have existed for him to collect ten TIMES that...with the same wager.

The win-bettor's win expectation is known...but the exotic player's isn't.

Yes, he may get 7/2 on one ticket, 10-1 on another ticket, 100-1 on a another ticket, but he may get 2-1 on another, and 1-1 on another. His volatility will be related to "net" price over a series of bets. If the net is 7/2 long term then his volatility will be approximately equal to a win better that plays some 7/2 shots, some 10-1 shots, some 100-1 shots, some 2-1 shots etc... It's all the same. The volatility is dependent on the odds range.

Setting this aside, I think the whole idea of going for "scores" is idiotic.

Every win and exotic bet has a probability of coming in and a payoff. You should play overlays and not worry about where along the spectrum the payoff might be. I would gladly take 2.70 to place with a 80% chance of cashing for the rest of my life. I couldn't care less about making scores. But if I have 2 live longshots in the same race I'll box those also. I think mostly exotic players horrible misplay them because of all the respected but bad literature out there, but that's another story.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Field size continues to shrink. Without full fields, bettors stay away. Small time owners with one or two horses can no longer function cost effectively. We must progress to a new model if American racing is to survive. Solve one problem at a time... Full fields will attract more wagering/ handle...things flow from that crucial nexus...the tracks can no longer rely on the current owner/ trainer relationship model to supply them with full fields....
There must be economies of scale built into the industry...it is too expensive to run under the current model...there is too much duplication of effort...we need to focus on increasing the number of starters across the nation....the only way this can be done is to call upon the breeders to accept this new paradigm....Individual owners will still be an integral part of racing but the crisis of these times demands that many more starters become available as soon as possible....

There is a lot of cost associated with owning a racehorse, but think of the advantages of Ralph's idea of having all horses owned by the track. You could essentially make purses zero. Oh, you'd still have to pay the trainers and make sure it was enough to cover all the people who care for the horse, including the vets, unless the track just put everyone on a payroll. Sort of like doctors who work for hospitals instead of going into private practice. You'd have to get rid of the claiming races so you didn't have some outside trainer come in and grab your horses and take them elsewhere. And you also might take some of the incentive away from jockeys and trainers trying as hard, unless maybe you offered bonuses based on wins.

Another question. Wouldn't the breeding operations keep the best horses for themselves, and only sell the crap? And who would pay the breeding fee? Do you pay up front and get the foal that comes from a contract, or do you wait and pay for the horses they are willing to sell you? And does the breeder always set the price? Lots of details to work out.

Finally, you'd probably need 1,600 or so horses for a meet. If you wanted to run 10 races a day, four days a week, you'd need 400 horses a week. They all aren't going to come from breeding operations. You'd probably have to buy a lot of horses from the pool of animals already running. Lot of cost there potentially.

You know why we have fewer foals from the high years don't you? It had a lot to do with the last time the feds got rid of a lot of tax deductions. It was profitable to own horses because of the tax advantages, and when those went away, investors went away. There is plenty of space for horses at the track if there were horses to run, but there is no incentive to breed more horses and the system has stabilized at about 20,000 foals a year.

Do you know what the relationship is for increasing the number of starters? For every 1% increase in starters you get a 1.58% increase in handle (although it isn't a straight line function). If you could move the average number of starters from 7 to 10, on average you'd get a 30% increase in handle. That would be a big deal.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes, he may get 7/2 on one ticket, 10-1 on another ticket, 100-1 on a another ticket, but he may get 2-1 on another, and 1-1 on another. His volatility will be related to "net" price over a series of bets. If the net is 7/2 long term then his volatility will be approximately equal to a win better that plays some 7/2 shots, some 10-1 shots, some 100-1 shots, some 2-1 shots etc... It's all the same. The volatility is dependent on the odds range.

Setting this aside, I think the whole idea of going for "scores" is idiotic.

Every win and exotic bet has a probability of coming in and a payoff. You should play overlays and not worry about where along the spectrum the payoff might be. I would gladly take 2.70 to place with a 80% chance of cashing for the rest of my life. I couldn't care less about making scores. But if I have 2 live longshots in the same race I'll box those also. I think mostly exotic players horrible misplay them because of all the respected but bad literature out there, but that's another story.

Anyone who actually wants to understand betting horses to make money should commit the above to memory.

The strategy for making money is simple. Bet horses (or combinations of horses) with a probability of winning is greater than their tote odds. It's not easy because the calculation of probability of winning is not like calculating the odds of catching a queen on the river in Hold 'Em. There are a lot of more artful than statistical factors when calculating a horse's probabilities. But if you get good at it, you have a better than average chance of being a winner.

And Class hit the nail on the head. If you have the Ralph Kramden approach to betting the horses - always looking for the big score - you'll be up, you'll be down, and mostly you'll be down. I've always been of the opinion that there are a lot of good handicappers out there, and about 2% of them (that's a hyperbolic, made up statistic to make a point) understand how to make money parimutuelly.

[AndyC]

.......Setting this aside, I think the whole idea of going for "scores" is idiotic.

Every win and exotic bet has a probability of coming in and a payoff. You should play overlays and not worry about where along the spectrum the payoff might be. I would gladly take 2.70 to place with a 80% chance of cashing for the rest of my life. I couldn't care less about making scores. But if I have 2 live longshots in the same race I'll box those also. I think mostly exotic players horrible misplay them because of all the respected but bad literature out there, but that's another story.


I think the whole idea of grinding it out is idiotic, but it may be right for you. I think you can be successful either way.

[ReplayRandall]

I would gladly take 2.70 to place with a 80% chance of cashing for the rest of my life. I couldn't care less about making scores.
Happiness is when your talent can meet your expectations.....If you're happy being a "place bet grinder" at the NYRA, then more power to you in your "safe zone". However, those who have the patience, bankroll and perseverance to withstand the variance that comes with making long-term +ROI exotic scores, IMO are living a much fuller and richer overall experience, which carries over into dealing with everyday life stresses/struggles and its more complex problems/solutions.

[Nitro]

Happiness is when your talent can meet your expectations.....If you're happy being a "place bet grinder" at the NYRA, then more power to you in your "safe zone". However, those who have the patience, bankroll and perseverance to withstand the variance that comes with making long-term +ROI exotic scores, IMO are living a much fuller and richer overall experience, which carries over into dealing with everyday life stresses/struggles and its more complex problems/solutions.
Thank you! I couldn't have phrased it much better myself!

Thank goodness that Vertical betting is alive and well!
It sure does make the game more interesting!

[dilanesp]

Happiness is when your talent can meet your expectations.....If you're happy being a "place bet grinder" at the NYRA, then more power to you in your "safe zone". However, those who have the patience, bankroll and perseverance to withstand the variance that comes with making long-term +ROI exotic scores, IMO are living a much fuller and richer overall experience, which carries over into dealing with everyday life stresses/struggles and its more complex problems/solutions.

I think this is 100 percent precisely wrong.

Players looking for big scores generally have no idea if they have even outrun variance, and are far more likely to have discipline / compulsion issues. If they are "happier" (and they are only happier when running good), it's because they are satiating their brain's desire for action, not because they are necessarily making +EV plays.

[elhelmete]

You'll have to give us the details on how that would work. Somebody still has to own the horses, and the breeding operations make a lot of money selling yearlings. And it's not like there is no cost to producing a foal.

My dad, a small-ish owner (about 8-10 claimers) and devoted horseplayer tells me the Adena/Stronach does just this in Florida. He puts horses in the hands of low % trainers to keep the stalls full.

As is often the case with dad, he's infuriatingly short on details. But in my experience eventually he's proven correct on these sorts of crazy assertions.

Certainly there ARE significant costs and uncertainty along the path of bringing a foal to a racing ready 2yo.

And given what we know about the % of foals that actually make it to their 1st race, never mind their first win, it would take a large overall boost to the foal crop to make a difference down the line in the race-ready population.

And we're seeing strength in the upper ends of the sales but softness in the middle and lower-middle (from what I read), so somehow there's money there.

Something tells me a clever person could figure this out...work on the supply side of bringing more foals into the mix.

[ReplayRandall]

I think this is 100 percent precisely wrong.

Players looking for big scores generally have no idea if they have even outrun variance, and are far more likely to have discipline / compulsion issues. If they are "happier" (and they are only happier when running good), it's because they are satiating their brain's desire for action, not because they are necessarily making +EV plays.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's 100% wrong..;)

[AndyC]

I think this is 100 percent precisely wrong.

Players looking for big scores generally have no idea if they have even outrun variance, and are far more likely to have discipline / compulsion issues. If they are "happier" (and they are only happier when running good), it's because they are satiating their brain's desire for action, not because they are necessarily making +EV plays.

We are not speaking generally, we are speaking personally and specifically. Personally, I find that +EV plays are much easier to uncover in exotic pools.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Happiness is when your talent can meet your expectations.....If you're happy being a "place bet grinder" at the NYRA, then more power to you in your "safe zone". However, those who have the patience, bankroll and perseverance to withstand the variance that comes with making long-term +ROI exotic scores, IMO are living a much fuller and richer overall experience, which carries over into dealing with everyday life stresses/struggles and its more complex problems/solutions.

Set aside X dollars for playing the races. Ostensibly the amount you can "afford" to lose. Bet any way you want. If at the end of the year you have any amount of money left in the bankroll, you should be happy.

On the other hand, if your goal is to have more money in the bankroll than when you started, you better have a plan that will get you there.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but there is no reason you can't have it both ways. You can grind and churn in the safer pools and play the more complex exotics.

I've never known anyone who made money at the track to be anything other than happy.

[Murph]

We are not speaking generally, we are speaking personally and specifically. Personally, I find that +EV plays are much easier to uncover in exotic pools.
Yes but only with the proportional risk level. I'd need the place price at 2.80 for the 80% rate. Risk averse.

[Murph]

Set aside X dollars for playing the races. Ostensibly the amount you can "afford" to lose. Bet any way you want. If at the end of the year you have any amount of money left in the bankroll, you should be happy.

On the other hand, if your goal is to have more money in the bankroll than when you started, you better have a plan that will get you there.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but there is no reason you can't have it both ways. You can grind and churn in the safer pools and play the more complex exotics.

I've never known anyone who made money at the track to be anything other than happy.
I would say that anyone who can play both sides of this fence at a certain level of contentment is playing at the very top of their game. I find myself going back and forth between the two styles. I do not maintain proper bankroll discipline to track the results properly so I make it more difficult on myself to find a balance.

It's always something.

[Nitro]

Set aside X dollars for playing the races. Ostensibly the amount you can "afford" to lose. Bet any way you want. If at the end of the year you have any amount of money left in the bankroll, you should be happy.

On the other hand, if your goal is to have more money in the bankroll than when you started, you better have a plan that will get you there.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but there is no reason you can't have it both ways. You can grind and churn in the safer pools and play the more complex exotics.

I've never known anyone who made money at the track to be anything other than happy.

End of the YEAR?
Heck I try to reach my goals by the end of the MONTH!:jump:

This game is NOT about Picking Winners!
It's ALL about making Winning Plays!

[Andy Asaro]

Live tweets from this mornings CHRB meeting. Jeremy Balan works for BloodHorse

Jeremy Balan‏ @BH_JBalan 27m27 minutes ago
More
"Pig races" have been mentioned at the California Horse Racing Board meeting.

Jeremy Balan‏ @BH_JBalan 7m7 minutes ago
More
In a discussion with Santa Anita execs about the current meet, the CHRB didn't ask a question about the track not filling today's card.

Jeremy Balan‏ @BH_JBalan 38m38 minutes ago
More
Alameda County Fair CEO Jerome Hoban just offered the CHRB commissioners free admission to see Wynonna Judd in concert this year.

Jeremy Balan‏ @BH_JBalan 51m51 minutes ago
More
Well, we just learned Jesse Choper's daily wagering budget is $300

Jeremy Balan‏ @BH_JBalan 54m54 minutes ago
More
11 minutes and counting on tickets getting jammed in tote machines at the CHRB meeting.

Jeremy Balan‏ @BH_JBalan 44m44 minutes ago
More
The NorCal fairs have been approved to operate as one meet, rather than six separate, which enables carryovers from location to location.

Jeremy Balan‏ @BH_JBalan 12m12 minutes ago
More
Madeline Auerbach questioning Santa Anita execs on mixed messages about new meet or one big meet. Says was "not fair" to horsemen.

[ultracapper]

Yes...you've BEEN "successful enough as a horseplayer". But...how confident are you that you will win money in this game THIS YEAR...or well into the more distant FUTURE?

The "past" isn't the "gamble". The FUTURE is where the gamble resides.

Let's say that you've spent your entire bankroll while renovating your home...and the "highly profitable" spring and summer-racing months find you without the "ammunition" necessary for your usual style of betting. Would you consider borrowing serious money in order to bet in "full-force"? And..if not...WHY NOT?

I've never even considered this scenario. What a profound question to be put to a gambler.

I know my answer is an unequivical "NO, NO, NO". As relatively successful as I've been the past 8 years, and as much confidence as I have in my game, I know borrowing money to gamble would be the ruin of me. "Borrowing to gamble", for whatever reason, just seems so desperate, regardless of the reason for the shortage of bankroll.

[Track Phantom]

Having confidence and agility from the mental aspect allows for clearer decision making. Borrowing money might influence negative behavior in decision making.

[ultracapper]

There is a lot of cost associated with owning a racehorse, but think of the advantages of Ralph's idea of having all horses owned by the track. You could essentially make purses zero. Oh, you'd still have to pay the trainers and make sure it was enough to cover all the people who care for the horse, including the vets, unless the track just put everyone on a payroll. Sort of like doctors who work for hospitals instead of going into private practice. You'd have to get rid of the claiming races so you didn't have some outside trainer come in and grab your horses and take them elsewhere. And you also might take some of the incentive away from jockeys and trainers trying as hard, unless maybe you offered bonuses based on wins.

Another question. Wouldn't the breeding operations keep the best horses for themselves, and only sell the crap? And who would pay the breeding fee? Do you pay up front and get the foal that comes from a contract, or do you wait and pay for the horses they are willing to sell you? And does the breeder always set the price? Lots of details to work out.

Finally, you'd probably need 1,600 or so horses for a meet. If you wanted to run 10 races a day, four days a week, you'd need 400 horses a week. They all aren't going to come from breeding operations. You'd probably have to buy a lot of horses from the pool of animals already running. Lot of cost there potentially.

You know why we have fewer foals from the high years don't you? It had a lot to do with the last time the feds got rid of a lot of tax deductions. It was profitable to own horses because of the tax advantages, and when those went away, investors went away. There is plenty of space for horses at the track if there were horses to run, but there is no incentive to breed more horses and the system has stabilized at about 20,000 foals a year.

Do you know what the relationship is for increasing the number of starters? For every 1% increase in starters you get a 1.58% increase in handle (although it isn't a straight line function). If you could move the average number of starters from 7 to 10, on average you'd get a 30% increase in handle. That would be a big deal.

I've also had this idea floating around in my head for a number of years, though I may never have stated it on this forum. The track could then sell sponsorships to individual horses, or group plans where a sponsor has a "stable" of horses. The horses are assigned to the trainers, and the trainers are employed by the track, and assessed just like any other employee in any other industry, with the health and welfare of the horse being the most major of all job assessment criteria. Purses would still be raced for, and distributed between sponsors, trainers and jockeys. The stakes programs would be open to private individuals, therefore still preserving the Bafferts and Pletchers and their ownership groups. Horses that Baffert has that don't cut it would be sold to the tracks and distributed to employed trainers, and horses that the track owns that start showing exceptional promise would be sold to private ownership groups to be run in the graded stakes programs.

Pie in the Sky, I'm well aware of that, but I believe it would be a workable model.

[ReplayRandall]

Yes...you've BEEN "successful enough as a horseplayer". But...how confident are you that you will win money in this game THIS YEAR...or well into the more distant FUTURE?

The "past" isn't the "gamble". The FUTURE is where the gamble resides.

Let's say that you've spent your entire bankroll while renovating your home...and the "highly profitable" spring and summer-racing months find you without the "ammunition" necessary for your usual style of betting. Would you consider borrowing serious money in order to bet in "full-force"? And..if not...WHY NOT?
This is a great "state of mind" question, Thask. An example would be a player has a $20K bankroll and has to spend it all to renovate his home. But now he has nothing left for betting. Now the home renovation could have been financed, making payments, and the player would still have his $20K bankroll for his most profitable time of the year, betting wise.

Bottom-line, the question asked by Thask is an important one.....What difference does it make if you borrow $20K to bet OR you finance your home renovations for $20K? The answer is--->There is NO difference, but because a person's perception says, "It's OK to borrow $20K to renovate my house, but I would never borrow $20K to bet the horses, thus the deep seated problem is revealed. What is revealed is this: "You can't win if you put perceptual pressure on yourself needlessly by thinking that you borrowed to bet/gamble."........It's ALL in your state of mind, the result will be nothing but your own perception, which will fulfill its own destiny, win or lose.

[whodoyoulike]

I think the whole idea of grinding it out is idiotic, but it may be right for you. I think you can be successful either way.

It's not idiotic if you pick your spots.

[thaskalos]

This is a great "state of mind" question, Thask. An example would be a player has a $20K bankroll and has to spend it all to renovate his home. But now he has nothing left for betting. Now the home renovation could have been financed, making payments, and the player would still have his $20K bankroll for his most profitable time of the year, betting wise.

Bottom-line, the question asked by Thask is an important one.....What difference does it make if you borrow $20K to bet OR you finance your home renovations for $20K? The answer is--->There is NO difference, but because a person's perception says, "It's OK to borrow $20K to renovate my house, but I would never borrow $20K to bet the horses, thus the deep seated problem is revealed. What is revealed is this: "You can't win if you put perceptual pressure on yourself needlessly by thinking that you borrowed to bet/gamble."........It's ALL in your state of mind, the result will be nothing but your own perception, which will fulfill its own destiny, win or lose.

Here's what I really mean...in a nutshell:

We sometimes see posters here who are averse to the words "gambler" and "gambling". "A gambler is someone who expects to lose...whereas the long-term winner is INVESTING!"...these posters say. I've asked these posters why they are not "gamblers"...and they reply that they play with a "positive expectation"...and they are confident that they will "win money long-term". There is no "gamble" in what they do...they tell me.

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If I am positive that I am a "long-term winning player"...and I am smart enough to calculate my ROI in the game...then I know what my long-term profitability will be. So...why SHOULDN'T I borrow some money from the bank at 5-6% interest...if I am "sure" that I will double this money in a year's time? Why should I play only with "money that I could safely afford to lose"...if my edge in this game is indeed REAL?

Mind you...I am NOT advocating that people should bet the horses with borrowed money. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hate the idea of calling themselves "gamblers"...even as they fully recognize the great financial risk in what they do.

We are ALL "gamblers"...whether we admit it, or not. YES...some of us might have proven to ourselves that we could win...but that was in the PAST. And the "gamble" lurks in the FUTURE.

[EasyGoer89]

Here's what I really mean...in a nutshell:

We sometimes see posters here who are averse to the words "gambler" and "gambling". "A gambler is someone who expects to lose...whereas the long-term winner is INVESTING!"...these posters say. I've asked these posters why they are not "gamblers"...and they reply that they play with a "positive expectation"...and they are confident that they will "win money long-term. There is no "gamble" in what they do...they tell me.

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If I am positive that I am a "long-term winning player"...and I am smart enough to calculate my ROI in the game...then I know what my long-term profitability will be. So...why SHOULDN"T I borrow some money from the bank at 5-6% interest...if I am "sure" that I will double this money in a year's time? Why should I play only with "money that I could safely afford to lose"...if my edge in this game is indeed REAL?

Mind you...I am NOT advocating that people should bet the horses with borrowed money. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hate the idea of calling themselves "gamblers"...even as they fully recognize the great financial risk in what they do.

We are ALL "gamblers"...while we admit it, or not. YES...some of us have proven that we could win...but that was in the PAST. And the "gamble" lurks in the FUTURE.

Michael Wrona suggests we are investors, I'll go with that. :D

[whodoyoulike]

There is a lot of cost associated with owning a racehorse, but think of the advantages of Ralph's idea of having all horses owned by the track. You could essentially make purses zero. Oh, you'd still have to pay the trainers and make sure it was enough to cover all the people who care for the horse, including the vets, unless the track just put everyone on a payroll. Sort of like doctors who work for hospitals instead of going into private practice. You'd have to get rid of the claiming races so you didn't have some outside trainer come in and grab your horses and take them elsewhere. And you also might take some of the incentive away from jockeys and trainers trying as hard, unless maybe you offered bonuses based on wins.

Another question. Wouldn't the breeding operations keep the best horses for themselves, and only sell the crap? And who would pay the breeding fee? Do you pay up front and get the foal that comes from a contract, or do you wait and pay for the horses they are willing to sell you? And does the breeder always set the price? Lots of details to work out.

Finally, you'd probably need 1,600 or so horses for a meet. If you wanted to run 10 races a day, four days a week, you'd need 400 horses a week. They all aren't going to come from breeding operations. You'd probably have to buy a lot of horses from the pool of animals already running. Lot of cost there potentially.

You know why we have fewer foals from the high years don't you? It had a lot to do with the last time the feds got rid of a lot of tax deductions. It was profitable to own horses because of the tax advantages, and when those went away, investors went away. There is plenty of space for horses at the track if there were horses to run, but there is no incentive to breed more horses and the system has stabilized at about 20,000 foals a year.

Do you know what the relationship is for increasing the number of starters? For every 1% increase in starters you get a 1.58% increase in handle (although it isn't a straight line function). If you could move the average number of starters from 7 to 10, on average you'd get a 30% increase in handle. That would be a big deal.

This just made me think that we can probably estimate the number of tracks which would make racing viable long term given the foal count.

Of the :1: 20k foals, how many make it to race some # of times say 5 times before disappearing?

:2: Maybe 50% at 2 and 3?

Given an average racing career of say 5 years would give us a racing population of 50k +/-.

So, how many tracks would be needed to support 50k horses actively racing each year at say your numbers of 1600 (I think it probably s/b 2500) per meet and 400 p/wk (:3: 10 horse fields)?

:1:, :2: and :3: would change and fluctuate within a small range.

So, it looks like 20 - 30 tracks should be running for full fields instead of the 50+/-.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.


I think the phrase, I bet with money I am willing to lose, is a euphemism for, playing the horses is my entertainment, just like scuba diving, traveling, or golf is someone's entertainment. I mean, no matter how good a golfer you were, if you couldn't afford to play maybe you should just practice until you could afford it. I might pay for a Europe trip on the installment plan, but I probably wouldn't do it over and over.

I'd simply say I wouldn't be willing to go into very much debt to play the races, no matter how confident I was in my ability. But that's just me. I'd cut back on play, or cut back on the size of my bets, or wait until I had sufficiently built my bankroll. That is a function of my belief that one should never bet scared money because it affects your decision-making ability. We've all seen people who cheaped out on a bet because they were trying to save a buck or two. I just never want to put myself in the position of even thinking about playing that way.

Of course, it's a little like asking someone what they would do if a thief tried to rob them on the street. Even if you say you know what would happen, you may not know exactly what you would do until that exact moment arises. I hope I'm never too broke to play the horses and I hope nobody tries to rob me on the street.

[SuperPickle]

Things can't remain the same. Some tracks have gotta go...no two ways about it.

It's cold, hard, business fact.

Exactly PA.

Lambo the idea contracution will make it worse is silly. No one is talking about just eliminating one type of track. The problem is you have multiple tracks competing for the same horses.

For example Laurel, Delaware, Parx, Monmouth, Laurel and even Penn Nat to a lesser degree want the same animals. So if 1-2 went away who does that harm?

Then you have Finger Lakes, Presque Isle, Mountaineer and the Ohio tracks all after the same horses. Same deal.

I'm floored someone could argue this is bad.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So, it looks like 20 - 30 tracks should be running for full fields instead of the 50+/-.

In an interesting coincidence, in my 10 Ways to Improve Horseracing, I suggested 22 tracks. You need enough time zone distribution, distribution of which days of the week tracks race, and distribution of post times (like early afternoon, late afternoon, evening tracks).

[Andy Asaro]

"We expect to draw on schedule and as planned through the rest of the year," Morris said, reinforcing similar comments made by Santa Anita racing secretary Rick Hammerle April 23.

"There's a little bit of a sickness going around, which can happen on occasion when 2-year-olds come in from different places, so that's not helping the situation. ...

The rain earlier this year is part of it, too, but it's never one thing.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/221242/santa-anita-officials-confident-future-cards-will-fill

[SuperPickle]

Things can't remain the same. Some tracks have gotta go...no two ways about it.

It's cold, hard, business fact.

PA one of the things people aren't talking about is Keeneland. They're struggling to fill mid-week. Why?

The answer is the Oaklawn slots. A lot of guys who historically ran minimally at Oaklawn ran more because of the purses. Look at how few horses guys like Tom Amoss have run at Keeneland. The answer is he ran hard at Fair Grounds and Oaklawn and he's racing less as a result. Same with Ron Moquett.

So we're back to slots just moving the toothpaste around the tube versus solving big problems. Oaklawn slots helped them but they are hurting Keeneland and Hawthorne so where's the net gain?

[SuperPickle]

"We expect to draw on schedule and as planned through the rest of the year," Morris said, reinforcing similar comments made by Santa Anita racing secretary Rick Hammerle April 23.

"There's a little bit of a sickness going around, which can happen on occasion when 2-year-olds come in from different places, so that's not helping the situation. ...

The rain earlier this year is part of it, too, but it's never one thing.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/221242/santa-anita-officials-confident-future-cards-will-fill

Also the dog ate his homework and he didn't know their was a test today.

[ReplayRandall]

In an interesting coincidence, in my 10 Ways to Improve Horseracing, I suggested 22 tracks. You need enough time zone distribution, distribution of which days of the week tracks race, and distribution of post times (like early afternoon, late afternoon, evening tracks).
In an interesting coincidence, the thread I started over 2 years ago for Contraction in racing, called for 10 super-hub tracks. Here's the thread, it's worth the read:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116948

[Andy Asaro]

Also the dog ate his homework and he didn't know their was a test today.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/Ante-Post/comments/decoupling-almost-a-done-deal-in-florida/#comments

Excerpt:

Jicha: "“Daring Daschunds race for glory this weekend at Santa Anita"


Included was a picture of wiener dogs frolicking on the Santa Anita turf course…the same course where there would be no horses on Thursday and goodness knows how many more Thursdays.

Does anybody in the Santa Anita front office think before sending out a release so open to ridicule?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In an interesting coincidence, the thread I started over 2 years ago for Contraction in racing, called for 10 super-hub tracks. Here's the thread, it's worth the read:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116948

I took a look at it. Things haven't evolved so much since then.

The right number of tracks, at least in my opinion, has to be based first on answering one question: do we want to have year round racing in America? If the answer is yes, that will affect the total number.

My concept was to have racing seven days a week. All tracks would run either three or four days, and on any given day maybe five tracks would run, either nine or ten races. That would be up to 10 tracks in a week, between 90 and 100 total races. The boutique meets (Saratoga, Del Mar, Kentucky Downs, maybe Oaklawn) would continue to run their own schedules. The post times would be spaced so that there would be racing from around noon until about 10 p.m eastern time. This would allow people to play multiple tracks without a lot of overlapping race post times, and not been an overwhelming handicapping task.

I don't think you could do that with ten tracks. I think you would need closer to 20. But you don't need 50. But, there are multiple ways to skin that cat.

[Andy Asaro]

Del Mar Ship and Win Bonus Structure Pic attached.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I took a look at it. Things haven't evolved so much since then.

The right number of tracks, at least in my opinion, has to be based first on answering one question: do we want to have year round racing in America? If the answer is yes, that will affect the total number.

My concept was to have racing seven days a week. All tracks would run either three or four days, and on any given day maybe five tracks would run, either nine or ten races. That would be up to 10 tracks in a week, between 90 and 100 total races. The boutique meets (Saratoga, Del Mar, Kentucky Downs, maybe Oaklawn) would continue to run their own schedules. The post times would be spaced so that there would be racing from around noon until about 10 p.m eastern time. This would allow people to play multiple tracks without a lot of overlapping race post times, and not been an overwhelming handicapping task.

I don't think you could do that with ten tracks. I think you would need closer to 20. But you don't need 50. But, there are multiple ways to skin that cat.

Someone posted awhile back that California tracks and simulcast outlets are protectionist in nature...they apparently only allow 50 TB races per day to be wagered on....they will carry 6 horse fields at Golden Gate while only carry three or four races from other tracks, races that have full fields and are even in the local DRF...the simulcast operators apparently have no control over which races they get...very bad for bettors as I often will pass on Golden Gate and some SA as well...they lose handle when they do this....I guess they only can afford to carry so many signals....but they very often exclude great race cards elsewhere...bad policy IMO....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Someone posted awhile back that California tracks and simulcast outlets are protectionist in nature...they apparently only allow 50 TB races per day to be wagered on....they will carry 6 horse fields at Golden Gate while only carry three or four races from other tracks, races that have full fields and are even in the local DRF...the simulcast operators apparently have no control over which races they get...very bad for bettors as I often will pass on Golden Gate and some SA as well...they lose handle when they do this....I guess they only can afford to carry so many signals....but they very often exclude great race cards elsewhere...bad policy IMO....

Obviously fixing racing involves fixing state rules that prevent desired outcomes.

[Nitro]

Here's what I really mean...in a nutshell:

We sometimes see posters here who are averse to the words "gambler" and "gambling". "A gambler is someone who expects to lose...whereas the long-term winner is INVESTING!"...these posters say. I've asked these posters why they are not "gamblers"...and they reply that they play with a "positive expectation"...and they are confident that they will "win money long-term". There is no "gamble" in what they do...they tell me.

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If I am positive that I am a "long-term winning player"...and I am smart enough to calculate my ROI in the game...then I know what my long-term profitability will be. So...why SHOULDN'T I borrow some money from the bank at 5-6% interest...if I am "sure" that I will double this money in a year's time? Why should I play only with "money that I could safely afford to lose"...if my edge in this game is indeed REAL?

Mind you...I am NOT advocating that people should bet the horses with borrowed money. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hate the idea of calling themselves "gamblers"...even as they fully recognize the great financial risk in what they do.

We are ALL "gamblers"...whether we admit it, or not. YES...some of us might have proven to ourselves that we could win...but that was in the PAST. And the "gamble" lurks in the FUTURE.
I'm glad you're speaking for yourself!

I don’t believe that a gambler can be defined as someone “Expecting to Lose”. In the truest meaning of the term, I think of them as people simply looking for action – win or lose. Claiming that the horse player population is made-up of people “Expecting to Lose” is a very convenient explanation considering 95% of them are in fact long term losers. The problem the majority face is unadulterated speculation based on a subjective appraisal of the information they’re using.
I also believe that a true gambler will tend to risk more at times without regard to the existence of a limited bank roll. Money management is generally the furthest thing from their mind when taking a plunge.

On the other hand, those who carefully manage their bankrolls might be considered “Investors” . This is only because they’re creating situations where the bets they’re laying are based on their personal history of similar conditions where they've been the most successful. From a horse player’s perspective this could be any combination of preferable circumstances from the type of race played to the type of bet that’s made. A personal track record doesn’t happen overnight. This type of player generally bets within his means understanding that there will always be another race or betting situation that falls within the parameters of their previously successful outcomes. Going outside of those boundaries inevitably creates greater risk and represents a “gamble”.

There’s no need to borrow money to enhance the betting when there’s a growing bankroll. There’s also no need to borrow money when there’s a recognized and acceptable hit frequency. The combination of both can lead to betting in what I call the comfort zone. Because winning or losing at any given point is simply a static observation of that single event. An continual assessment of all events presents a dynamic and realistic picture which can create not only a “positive expectation”, but a reduction in the apprehension of losing. Anyone who continually plays under that type of anxiety will inevitably lose, because 9 times out of 10 they’re second guessing their decisions on both sides of the game: selecting and betting.

In contrast, a true gambler’s only anxiety could be the absence of any action regardless of selection quality or concern of bet size.

Sorry, but in all the years I've been playing, I’ve never considered my myself a gambler.

[Parkview_Pirate]

In many ways, horse racing is a microcosm of the decline of industrial society. The middle class (hourly wage earners) have been squeezed relentlessly for the last 40 years, and have less discretionary income to play the ponies. IMHO, that's the most influential factor to explain where we are today.

The trends are clear, and even if Glenda The Good Witch of the North waved her magic wand tomorrow and incorporated many of the changes suggested in this thread, it would only slow down the decline of the sport, but not change the destination.

Predictions:

There will not be a "national" horse racing authority to save it - at best the Feds eventually toss a few crumbs in, but they will be busy with bigger fish to fry. Some states, like Arkansas and Kentucky, will benefit near-term as they provide a friendlier venue for all parties, but overall contraction is unavoidable. Some states like Illinois will simply kill the patient without mercy, due to financial conditions.

The horseplayer will continue to ride at the back of the bus, behind the politicians, horsemen, track owners, and the affluent owners. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

The decline of the sport of horse racing will take hold in other countries, including Hong Kong, as the scramble for entertainment dollars (or pounds, or Euros, etc.) heats up to get a slice of a shrinking pie, on a global scale. We've already seen similar trends in other sports, with NASCAR, the NFL, the NBA and even ESPN now seeing the limits of "infinite growth", and now in the early stages of decline.

We are at "peak" handicapping tournaments today, with the NHC purse at $2.5M or so this year. Expect that to be half of that by 2022, and ten years from now we'll be back to a handful of local tournaments, assuming the sport is still around.

Ten years from now there will only be a handful of venues left, of which they'll look more like a sold "C" level track today, numbers wise. The rest of the country will have limited fair racing, and perhaps Louisiana will return to the days of "back road" quarter horse races....

I hope I'm wrong, but I that's how I see it....:pout:

[AndyC]

It's not idiotic if you pick your spots.

Do you think that if someone is playing an exotic they aren't picking their spots? I would expect that any serious player picks their spots to make bets.

[whodoyoulike]

Do you think that if someone is playing an exotic they aren't picking their spots? I would expect that any serious player picks their spots to make bets.

I interpreted your grinding comment that the individuals are betting more races than they should be doing.

Sometimes from my vantage point a lot of exotics players throw in a "hail mary" bet which makes the wager expensive.

[Track Phantom]

In many ways, horse racing is a microcosm of the decline of industrial society. The middle class (hourly wage earners) have been squeezed relentlessly for the last 40 years, and have less discretionary income to play the ponies. IMHO, that's the most influential factor to explain where we are today.

The trends are clear, and even if Glenda The Good Witch of the North waved her magic wand tomorrow and incorporated many of the changes suggested in this thread, it would only slow down the decline of the sport, but not change the destination.

Predictions:

There will not be a "national" horse racing authority to save it - at best the Feds eventually toss a few crumbs in, but they will be busy with bigger fish to fry. Some states, like Arkansas and Kentucky, will benefit near-term as they provide a friendlier venue for all parties, but overall contraction is unavoidable. Some states like Illinois will simply kill the patient without mercy, due to financial conditions.

The horseplayer will continue to ride at the back of the bus, behind the politicians, horsemen, track owners, and the affluent owners. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

The decline of the sport of horse racing will take hold in other countries, including Hong Kong, as the scramble for entertainment dollars (or pounds, or Euros, etc.) heats up to get a slice of a shrinking pie, on a global scale. We've already seen similar trends in other sports, with NASCAR, the NFL, the NBA and even ESPN now seeing the limits of "infinite growth", and now in the early stages of decline.

We are at "peak" handicapping tournaments today, with the NHC purse at $2.5M or so this year. Expect that to be half of that by 2022, and ten years from now we'll be back to a handful of local tournaments, assuming the sport is still around.

Ten years from now there will only be a handful of venues left, of which they'll look more like a sold "C" level track today, numbers wise. The rest of the country will have limited fair racing, and perhaps Louisiana will return to the days of "back road" quarter horse races....

I hope I'm wrong, but I that's how I see it....:pout:

I disagree wholeheartedly about lack of discretionary income. I truly believe horseplayers, and most any gamblers, will always find a way to play and are impervious to normal societal financial conditions. We are a different breed. While the rest of the society drives 15 miles out of the way to save .12c per gallon of gas, we think nothing of tossing $60 into a field of $3,500 claimers at Turf Paradise, half of which are making their first start since 2015.

I agree about horse racing tournaments. Great idea but it always felt like a bit of a fad to me.

Horse racing, to me, is like a girl with a beautiful face but ugly warts on her forearms. There is so much to love about the game and a few things that are blood-curdling.

There is hope for this game but not in its current state. From the mid '80's until about two years ago, I think I saw maybe 10 races with 3 or less horses (not including turf races moved to the main track due to rain). I've seen about 15 such races in the last month.

Not sure what can be done but the sheer fact that organizations in the industry can't unite for a common goal is bad news for the long-term health of the sport. The only chance may be "rising from the ashes" once it is reduced to an unrecognizable state.

[classhandicapper]

I think the whole idea of grinding it out is idiotic, but it may be right for you. I think you can be successful either way.

I don't think in terms of trying to either trying "grind it out" or "go for a score". IMO, it's 100% about overlays and it doesn't matter what odds range or which pool you find them in.

I had a season where I was getting 7% rebates on WPS at one site and was able to bet with a 5% take offshore at another as long as I didn't bet more than about $100. I was betting at both places and killing them betting selective odds-on horses to place.

For awhile an exchange I was playing on off shore was very inefficient. I was able to book bets on the exchange & bet the same horses offshore and net a guaranteed profit.

Right now I'm betting mostly win/pace and exactas, but on the rare occasions I think it's correct to play a triple or super I will. I would gladly play Pick 3s, 4s etc.. but it rarely makes sense to me in terms of value given my handicapping opinions.

My feeling is that in general people are so attracted to the adrenaline rush and bragging rights of making a score, they wind up going into higher take exotic pools that are actually making it more difficult for them to win long term because of the higher take. They just don't know it.

Obviously, there are terrific opportunities from time to time in those exotic pools, I just don't see many people playing them in a way that I personally consider correct. People spread way too much and get involved in horizontals that include races where they have no value oriented opinion.

Of course they will get hot from time to time and feel heroic.

[classhandicapper]

Here's what I really mean...in a nutshell:

We sometimes see posters here who are averse to the words "gambler" and "gambling". "A gambler is someone who expects to lose...whereas the long-term winner is INVESTING!"...these posters say. I've asked these posters why they are not "gamblers"...and they reply that they play with a "positive expectation"...and they are confident that they will "win money long-term". There is no "gamble" in what they do...they tell me.

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If I am positive that I am a "long-term winning player"...and I am smart enough to calculate my ROI in the game...then I know what my long-term profitability will be. So...why SHOULDN'T I borrow some money from the bank at 5-6% interest...if I am "sure" that I will double this money in a year's time? Why should I play only with "money that I could safely afford to lose"...if my edge in this game is indeed REAL?

Mind you...I am NOT advocating that people should bet the horses with borrowed money. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hate the idea of calling themselves "gamblers"...even as they fully recognize the great financial risk in what they do.

We are ALL "gamblers"...whether we admit it, or not. YES...some of us might have proven to ourselves that we could win...but that was in the PAST. And the "gamble" lurks in the FUTURE.

I agree with everything you are saying.

I think what people that refer to themselves as "investors" are actually saying is that they have the self control to only wager when they've calculated themselves to have an edge (as opposed to people that are attracted to the action and talk themselves into a bet practically race).

The problem of course, as you've been alluding to, is that their calculations could easily be wrong and they know it. So they are in fact gambling on some level. They are gambling on their skill level. Since they know that, they don't run around borrowing money and betting heavier.

My own approach includes a margin of safety.

For example, if I think the fair value on a horse is about 2-1, I don't bet him if he's 5/2. I know that at times my information is inaccurate/incomplete or I might be misunderstanding something. So I try to take some of the "gamble" out of it by increasing my margin of safety and insisting on 3-1 or 7/2 or higher.

[pandy]

In reality, there's no such thing as an investment. Maybe a high interest government backed security can be called an investment. Otherwise the word itself is a misnomer. Buying stocks, real estate, or betting on horses, that's gambling, no matter how you try to spin it.

[AndyC]

In reality, there's no such thing as an investment. Maybe a high interest government backed security can be called an investment. Otherwise the word itself is a misnomer. Buying stocks, real estate, or betting on horses, that's gambling, no matter how you try to spin it.

An investor is any person who commits capital with the expectation of financial returns. It doesn't mean guaranteed financial gains. Most horse bettors hope for but do not expect to win. Using the term "investor" by its widely used definition, many things fall into the investment category, albeit poor investments.

[lamboguy]

you can make money in just about anything in life if you put the effort and hard work into it.

i lose money in horse racing today because the game has overwhelmed me with the many tracks running at the same and the lack of effort i can put into a smaller number of horses. the best reason for this is that you can watch for a horse that has been training and running in New York, and all of a sudden the horse shows up in Lone Star, or Fair Grounds or where ever. the guys with the strong numbers and computer programs have figured out how to outperform people like me. they aren't going to get me in 2 year old races though and that is what i am going to focus most of my time with.

[dilanesp]

I'm glad you're speaking for yourself!

I don’t believe that a gambler can be defined as someone “Expecting to Lose”. In the truest meaning of the term, I think of them as people simply looking for action – win or lose. Claiming that the horse player population is made-up of people “Expecting to Lose” is a very convenient explanation considering 95% of them are in fact long term losers. The problem the majority face is unadulterated speculation based on a subjective appraisal of the information they’re using.
I also believe that a true gambler will tend to risk more at times without regard to the existence of a limited bank roll. Money management is generally the furthest thing from their mind when taking a plunge.

On the other hand, those who carefully manage their bankrolls might be considered “Investors” . This is only because they’re creating situations where the bets they’re laying are based on their personal history of similar conditions where they've been the most successful. From a horse player’s perspective this could be any combination of preferable circumstances from the type of race played to the type of bet that’s made. A personal track record doesn’t happen overnight. This type of player generally bets within his means understanding that there will always be another race or betting situation that falls within the parameters of their previously successful outcomes. Going outside of those boundaries inevitably creates greater risk and represents a “gamble”.

There’s no need to borrow money to enhance the betting when there’s a growing bankroll. There’s also no need to borrow money when there’s a recognized and acceptable hit frequency. The combination of both can lead to betting in what I call the comfort zone. Because winning or losing at any given point is simply a static observation of that single event. An continual assessment of all events presents a dynamic and realistic picture which can create not only a “positive expectation”, but a reduction in the apprehension of losing. Anyone who continually plays under that type of anxiety will inevitably lose, because 9 times out of 10 they’re second guessing their decisions on both sides of the game: selecting and betting.

In contrast, a true gambler’s only anxiety could be the absence of any action regardless of selection quality or concern of bet size.

Sorry, but in all the years I've been playing, I’ve never considered my myself a gambler.

I think this is the correct distinction, although in practice, many who consider themselves investors are actually gamblers who lack proper discipline and self-awareness.

[dilanesp]

I don't think in terms of trying to either trying "grind it out" or "go for a score". IMO, it's 100% about overlays and it doesn't matter what odds range or which pool you find them in.

I had a season where I was getting 7% rebates on WPS at one site and was able to bet with a 5% take offshore at another as long as I didn't bet more than about $100. I was betting at both places and killing them betting selective odds-on horses to place.

For awhile an exchange I was playing on off shore was very inefficient. I was able to book bets on the exchange & bet the same horses offshore and net a guaranteed profit.

Right now I'm betting mostly win/pace and exactas, but on the rare occasions I think it's correct to play a triple or super I will. I would gladly play Pick 3s, 4s etc.. but it rarely makes sense to me in terms of value given my handicapping opinions.

My feeling is that in general people are so attracted to the adrenaline rush and bragging rights of making a score, they wind up going into higher take exotic pools that are actually making it more difficult for them to win long term because of the higher take. They just don't know it.

Obviously, there are terrific opportunities from time to time in those exotic pools, I just don't see many people playing them in a way that I personally consider correct. People spread way too much and get involved in horizontals that include races where they have no value oriented opinion.

Of course they will get hot from time to time and feel heroic.

In addition to this (which i agree with), the other thing exotic bettors do is cover too many combinations because they want to cash the ticket. You should only be betting positive expected value combinations. Which, when done properly, should make your cashes less frequent. But having chosen exotics, bettors don't want the long droughts so they over-cover which can easily eliminate any edge they have.

[Nitro]

I agree with everything you are saying.

I think what people that refer to themselves as "investors" are actually saying is that they have the self control to only wager when they've calculated themselves to have an edge (as opposed to people that are attracted to the action and talk themselves into a bet practically race).

The problem of course, as you've been alluding to, is that their calculations could easily be wrong and they know it. So they are in fact gambling on some level. They are gambling on their skill level. Since they know that, they don't run around borrowing money and betting heavier.

My own approach includes a margin of safety.

For example, if I think the fair value on a horse is about 2-1, I don't bet him if he's 5/2. I know that at times my information is inaccurate/incomplete or I might be misunderstanding something. So I try to take some of the "gamble" out of it by increasing my margin of safety and insisting on 3-1 or 7/2 or higher.
A bettor’s skill level over a period of time when properly recorded should provide the means to acknowledge both the weaknesses and strengths for the entire selection and betting approach that’s being used. Anyone with half a brain that’s in the game for the long haul should continually focus on where their history proves to be the most successful.

The problem is that once a player strays outside of this boundary for any reason the risk factor increases dramatically. Laying a bet of $2 or $2,000 in that situation can certainly be considered more of a gamble.

Your “margin of safety” is one-sided at best. It only looks at the Value of the return on the bet. If your approach doesn’t include a realistic hit frequency based on a recorded history of bets (made over a period of time), the odds parameter for play is meaningless. Insisting on a 3/1 shot is great if you’re hitting better than once out of every 4 attempts (25%) with the same amount played. Otherwise just hitting once at those odds is simply a break even return and shouldn’t be considered a great achievement.

Complete accountability of the hit frequency scenario is further compounded when consideration is also given to the type of race conditions that are shown to provide the best success. These race conditions can be based on any single factor or a group of factors that have shown the best results.

An individual’s realistic calculated “edge” is not based on a single event, but rather on a complete recorded history over a period of time that can clearly demonstrate a winning play pattern.

[Nitro]

An investor is any person who commits capital with the expectation of financial returns. It doesn't mean guaranteed financial gains. Most horse bettors hope for but do not expect to win. Using the term "investor" by its widely used definition, many things fall into the investment category, albeit poor investments.
An Excellent and explicit articulation of what the term “Investor” or investing really means. :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

An investor is any person who commits capital with the expectation of financial returns. It doesn't mean guaranteed financial gains. Most horse bettors hope for but do not expect to win. Using the term "investor" by its widely used definition, many things fall into the investment category, albeit poor investments.

The correct word to use in this instance is "speculator"...which is a synonym of "gambler".

[thaskalos]

An Excellent and explicit articulation of what the term “Investor” or investing really means. :ThmbUp:

When we are placing money at risk with the expectation of gain but also with a fear of loss, it is rightly called "speculating"...and not "investing". If we are looking for "excellent and explicit articulation"...that is.

[thaskalos]

A bettor’s skill level over a period of time when properly recorded should provide the means to acknowledge both the weaknesses and strengths for the entire selection and betting approach that’s being used. Anyone with half a brain that’s in the game for the long haul should continually focus on where their history proves to be the most successful.

The problem is that once a player strays outside of this boundary for any reason the risk factor increases dramatically. Laying a bet of $2 or $2,000 in that situation can certainly be considered more of a gamble.

Your “margin of safety” is one-sided at best. It only looks at the Value of the return on the bet. If your approach doesn’t include a realistic hit frequency based on a recorded history of bets (made over a period of time), the odds parameter for play is meaningless. Insisting on a 3/1 shot is great if you’re hitting better than once out of every 4 attempts (25%) with the same amount played. Otherwise just hitting once at those odds is simply a break even return and shouldn’t be considered a great achievement.

Complete accountability of the hit frequency scenario is further compounded when consideration is also given to the type of race conditions that are shown to provide the best success. These race conditions can be based on any single factor or a group of factors that have shown the best results.

An individual’s realistic calculated “edge” is not based on a single event, but rather on a complete recorded history over a period of time that can clearly demonstrate a winning play pattern.

And yet...we insist on calling this a "dynamic" game rather than a "static" one...which implies that we acknowledge that the game undergoes continuous CHANGES as the time passes. If this is indeed a "dynamic" game, then...how accurate can the past be in determining our current "edge"?

[AndyC]

The correct word to use in this instance is "speculator"...which is a synonym of "gambler".

Being a speculator is sure within the spectrum of investing. All investing has an element of risk or a gamble involved.

[thaskalos]

I'm glad you're speaking for yourself!

I don’t believe that a gambler can be defined as someone “Expecting to Lose”. In the truest meaning of the term, I think of them as people simply looking for action – win or lose. Claiming that the horse player population is made-up of people “Expecting to Lose” is a very convenient explanation considering 95% of them are in fact long term losers. The problem the majority face is unadulterated speculation based on a subjective appraisal of the information they’re using.
I also believe that a true gambler will tend to risk more at times without regard to the existence of a limited bank roll. Money management is generally the furthest thing from their mind when taking a plunge.

On the other hand, those who carefully manage their bankrolls might be considered “Investors” . This is only because they’re creating situations where the bets they’re laying are based on their personal history of similar conditions where they've been the most successful. From a horse player’s perspective this could be any combination of preferable circumstances from the type of race played to the type of bet that’s made. A personal track record doesn’t happen overnight. This type of player generally bets within his means understanding that there will always be another race or betting situation that falls within the parameters of their previously successful outcomes. Going outside of those boundaries inevitably creates greater risk and represents a “gamble”.

There’s no need to borrow money to enhance the betting when there’s a growing bankroll. There’s also no need to borrow money when there’s a recognized and acceptable hit frequency. The combination of both can lead to betting in what I call the comfort zone. Because winning or losing at any given point is simply a static observation of that single event. An continual assessment of all events presents a dynamic and realistic picture which can create not only a “positive expectation”, but a reduction in the apprehension of losing. Anyone who continually plays under that type of anxiety will inevitably lose, because 9 times out of 10 they’re second guessing their decisions on both sides of the game: selecting and betting.

In contrast, a true gambler’s only anxiety could be the absence of any action regardless of selection quality or concern of bet size.

Sorry, but in all the years I've been playing, I’ve never considered my myself a gambler.

Is there a way of tracking your Hong Kong selections here...in order to determine how good of an "investor" you are? I tried to determine your Hong Kong "edge" on my own, based on your released picks here...but my attempt was in vain.

[thaskalos]

Being a speculator is sure within the spectrum of investing. All investing has an element of risk or a gamble involved.

Is the word "speculator" a synonym of "gambler"...or is it not?

Give us a straight answer for once Andy. Is a "speculator" really INVESTING...or is he GAMBLING?

[Nitro]

The correct word to use in this instance is "speculator"...which is a synonym of "gambler".
Perhaps from your perspective, but there are many other synonyms associated with “speculator”: entrepreneur or opportunist. All seem to fall under the general category of Risk-taker.

I believe any term associated with investor has to also include the degree of risk involved.

I think there’s an obvious difference when comes to actual gambling between spinning a wheel or rolling dice as compared to playing the horses.

But anyone can split hairs all day long on these definitions. What’s the point when one man’s comfort zone is another mans apprehension?

[thaskalos]

Perhaps from your perspective, but there are many other synonyms associated with “speculator”: entrepreneur or opportunist. All seem to fall under the general category of Risk-taker.

I believe any term associated with investor has to also include the degree of risk involved.

I think there’s an obvious difference when comes to actual gambling between spinning a wheel or rolling dice as compared to playing the horses.

But anyone can split hairs all day long on these definitions. What’s the point when one man’s comfort zone is another mans apprehension?

You stated in a prior post that you don't consider yourself a "gambler"...because the past has determined clearly that you are a "winner".

How sure are you that you will show a profit in this game, THIS YEAR.

[AndyC]

Is the word "speculator" a synonym of "gambler"...or is it not?

Give us a straight answer for once Andy. Is a "speculator" really INVESTING...or is he GAMBLING?

Yes speculation is a synonym for gambling but it is also a synonym for investing.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/investment

Why do people think that investing is done without risk (gamble)?

[PaceAdvantage]

Good point.

What investment, anywhere in the world (assuming no foul play or cheating), comes without zero risk? Point me to it! I will know where to put all of my money for a risk-free return.

[classhandicapper]

Your “margin of safety” is one-sided at best. It only looks at the Value of the return on the bet. If your approach doesn’t include a realistic hit frequency based on a recorded history of bets (made over a period of time), the odds parameter for play is meaningless. Insisting on a 3/1 shot is great if you’re hitting better than once out of every 4 attempts (25%) with the same amount played. Otherwise just hitting once at those odds is simply a break even return and shouldn’t be considered a great achievement.

.

I mentioned in my example that I calculated the horse's fair value at 2-1.

[Nitro]

You stated in a prior post that you don't consider yourself a "gambler"...because the past has determined clearly that you are a "winner".

How sure are you that you will show a profit in this game, THIS YEAR.
To be honest things are looking pretty good so far this year.
And also because in the last 7 years I've never had to refuel my ADW accounts.

[classhandicapper]

Yes speculation is a synonym for gambling but it is also a synonym for investing.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/investment

Why do people think that investing is done without risk (gamble)?

When I was younger I played quite a few pool matches where technically I was gambling, but I was 100% sure I had the edge.

Where does that fit?

The problem with horse racing is that our ability to make accurate odds lines is not refined enough and the pools so efficient we are rarely in a position to be close to certain we have an edge and are not gambling.

The best you can do is to insist on a larger margin of safety before you get involved like my example above.

However, if it was possible to get 5-1 on Arrogate in his next race, that would technically be gambling, but not really. It would be like getting 5-1 on a coin flip. That's not gambling IMO. That's stealing. :-) The problem is he'll be somewhere between 1/5 and 3/5 depending on the race and whether that's value or not will be hazy.

[thaskalos]

Good point.

What investment, anywhere in the world (assuming no foul play or cheating), comes without zero risk? Point me to it! I will know where to put all of my money for a risk-free return.

I'll answer your question with one of my own:

In what other form of "investment" are "investors" as reluctant to borrow the money to "invest"...choosing instead to only "invest" the funds that they could "easily afford to lose"?

[PaceAdvantage]

I'll answer your question with one of my own:

In what other form of "investment" are "investors" as reluctant to borrow the money to "invest"...choosing instead to only "invest" the funds that they could "easily afford to lose"?I never claimed my horse race betting was an investment...:lol:

I believe there does exist INVESTORS in act of betting on horse races.

Just like I believe there are GAMBLERS throwing their money away by buying and selling stocks.

[thaskalos]

"Gambler" isn't a curse-word, folks...and, not all gamblers die broke. In fact...there are plenty of folks around who list their occupation as "professional gambler". Take my word for it.

There is no need to get alarmed when someone calls you a "gambler" instead of an "investor". As Shakespeare famously asked..."What's in the name?"

[classhandicapper]

I'll answer your question with one of my own:

In what other form of "investment" are "investors" as reluctant to borrow the money to "invest"...choosing instead to only "invest" the funds that they could "easily afford to lose"?


Would you borrow money to bet on Arrogate at 5-1 in his next start assuming he's healthy and runs etc..?

I have no need to, but assuming I did, I would.

The degree of certainty is what determines where on the scale you are in terms of gambling and investing. I don't see it as much more complicated than that.

Horse players like action and get involved in many races with a very thin "margin of safety", but it doesn't have to be like that if you are willing to sit around and make very very few bets.

[AndyC]

When I was younger I played quite a few pool matches where technically I was gambling, but I was 100% sure I had the edge.

Where does that fit?

The problem with horse racing is that our ability to make accurate odds lines is not refined enough and the pools so efficient we are rarely in a position to be close to certain we have an edge and are not gambling.

The best you can do is to insist on a larger margin of safety before you get involved like my example above.

However, if it was possible to get 5-1 on Arrogate in his next race, that would technically be gambling, but not really. It would be like getting 5-1 on a coin flip. That's not gambling IMO. That's stealing. :-) The problem is he'll be somewhere between 1/5 and 3/5 depending on the race and whether that's value or not will be hazy.

Definition of investing: "Investing is the act of committing money or capital to an endeavor with the expectation of obtaining an additional income or profit."
Source investopedia.

If someone invests in stocks or real estate, there is no way of telling whether they have put their money on an overlay or not. But if you have a history of being profitable, more often than not, you can reasonably have an expectation of obtaining additional income in your future "investments".

[thaskalos]

Would you borrow money to bet on Arrogate at 5-1 in his next start assuming he's healthy and runs etc..?

I have no need to, but assuming I did, I would.

The degree of certainty is what determines where on the scale you are in terms of gambling and investing. I don't see it as much more complicated than that.

Horse players like action and get involved in many races with a very thin "margin of safety", but it doesn't have to be like that if you are willing to sit around and make very very few bets.

I'll say it one more time...and then I'll bow out of this discussion...because I'm sure that it's becoming tiresome for the viewers here:

We borrow money to buy real-estate...we borrow money to start businesses of all kinds...and we even borrow money to trade stocks with. But universal wisdom dictates that we should never borrow money in order to bet on the horses. "Bet the horses only with money that you can afford to lose"...we tell each other...even when we say that we have a "positive expectation" in the game.

We act in this way because we fully understand the dangers that horse-betting is associated with. It is an "extremely risky" form of investment...and we treat it as such. Otherwise...we wouldn't keep our money in the bank at zero interest...nor would a horseplayer with a "1.20 ROI" choose to put his money in the stock market...looking for comparatively meager returns.

[classhandicapper]

I'll say it one more time...and then I'll bow out of this discussion...because I'm sure that it's becoming tiresome for the viewers here:

We borrow money to buy real-estate...we borrow money to start businesses of all kinds...and we even borrow money to trade stocks with. But universal wisdom dictates that we should never borrow money in order to bet on the horses. "Bet the horses only with money that you can afford to lose"...we tell each other...even when we say that we have a "positive expectation" in the game.

We act in this way because we fully understand the dangers that horse-betting is associated with. It is an "extremely risky" form of investment...and we treat it as such. Otherwise...we wouldn't keep our money in the bank at zero interest...nor would a horseplayer with a "1.20 ROI" choose to put his money in the stock market...looking for comparatively meager returns.

I understand everything you are saying and agree with it.

I'm trying to add to it.

The reason we behave that way is that we are typically less certain we have an edge, but if we could get horses like Arrogate at 5-1 on a daily basis, we'd all be on maximum margin. ;)

[Nitro]

I'll say it one more time...and then I'll bow out of this discussion...because I'm sure that it's becoming tiresome for the viewers here:

We borrow money to buy real-estate...we borrow money to start businesses of all kinds...and we even borrow money to trade stocks with. But universal wisdom dictates that we should never borrow money in order to bet on the horses. "Bet the horses only with money that you can afford to lose"...we tell each other...even when we say that we have a "positive expectation" in the game.

We act in this way because we fully understand the dangers that horse-betting is associated with. It is an "extremely risky" form of investment...and we treat it as such. Otherwise...we wouldn't keep our money in the bank at zero interest...nor would a horseplayer with a "1.20 ROI" choose to put his money in the stock market...looking for comparatively meager returns.

Well let’s talk about borrowing money for a moment and the so-called risks involved as related to "positive expectations".

A good retired friend of mine owns a home worth about $675K. A few years back he took out a reverse mortgage which entitled him to 70% of the value of his home or $472K. So he decided to take $400K which was deposited into a fund that earns 4.75% interest. He initially withdrew $50K for all sorts of things including “investing”. In the meantime, his $350K is earning that interest or $16.6K in just the first year. After 3 years, his interest earning has already basically covered his withdrawal.

Would he fall into your definition of a “gambler/speculator” ?

[AndyC]

.........We borrow money to buy real-estate...we borrow money to start businesses of all kinds...and we even borrow money to trade stocks with. But universal wisdom dictates that we should never borrow money in order to bet on the horses. "Bet the horses only with money that you can afford to lose"...we tell each other...even when we say that we have a "positive expectation" in the game.

We act in this way because we fully understand the dangers that horse-betting is associated with. It is an "extremely risky" form of investment...and we treat it as such. Otherwise...we wouldn't keep our money in the bank at zero interest...nor would a horseplayer with a "1.20 ROI" choose to put his money in the stock market...looking for comparatively meager returns.

The more risk an investment has the less likely you are to find somebody to loan you the money to make the investment. I do know of players who finance their gambling on horses. One in particular has had to do so because his cash reserves were being transferred to the IRS via withholding. For example, he would win $200,000 in a month on exotics subject to withholding and he would lose $180,000 giving him a gain for the month of $20,000 but a reduction in available bankroll of $30,000. Of course the only loans available were the ones requiring collateral.

Any smart investor would also invest in the stock market, bond market or real estate simply because diversification is a smart investment practice.

[thaskalos]

Any smart investor would also invest in the stock market, bond market or real estate simply because diversification is a smart investment practice.

I strongly advocate "diversification". That's why I also bet on baseball, basketball and poker...in addition to horse racing. You can't put all your eggs in one basket.

[dilanesp]

I strongly advocate "diversification". That's why I also bet on baseball, basketball and poker...in addition to horse racing. You can't put all your eggs in one basket.

I think that's very bad gambling advice.

Diversification works in the stock market because different investments perform well in different sorts of market conditions. It's the equivalent of hedging. It's variance reduction.

But playing different gambling games suggests a gigantic discipline problem. The fact of the matter is that in just about every gambling game where advantage play is even possible, only a tiny percentage of people beat the game. (In poker, we have the numbers from online play-- it was about 4 percent of players.)

The vast majority of players lose, including the vast majority of players who think they are good enough to win. And the players that win devote vast amounts of study to the activity in order to do it.

The odds that ANY gambler is skilled enough and has studied enough to put themselves in that 4 percent in two totally different games is basically close enough to zero to be rounded down to it.

(Also anecdotally, the number of poker players I know who make a profit betting sports is zero, and I know a lot of very smart poker players who bet sports.)

[AndyC]

I strongly advocate "diversification". That's why I also bet on baseball, basketball and poker...in addition to horse racing. You can't put all your eggs in one basket.

Have you thought about doing standup? I welcome the humor.

[whodoyoulike]

I strongly advocate "diversification". That's why I also bet on baseball, basketball and poker...in addition to horse racing. You can't put all your eggs in one basket.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at with your recent posts but I suspect your risk tolerance is very different than most on here and most places.

Do you know when to quit each session of play?

I'm treating your above post as your way of making a joke. Btw, a very good one, IMO.

[thaskalos]

I think that's very bad gambling advice.

Diversification works in the stock market because different investments perform well in different sorts of market conditions. It's the equivalent of hedging. It's variance reduction.

But playing different gambling games suggests a gigantic discipline problem. The fact of the matter is that in just about every gambling game where advantage play is even possible, only a tiny percentage of people beat the game. (In poker, we have the numbers from online play-- it was about 4 percent of players.)

The vast majority of players lose, including the vast majority of players who think they are good enough to win. And the players that win devote vast amounts of study to the activity in order to do it.

The odds that ANY gambler is skilled enough and has studied enough to put themselves in that 4 percent in two totally different games is basically close enough to zero to be rounded down to it.

(Also anecdotally, the number of poker players I know who make a profit betting sports is zero, and I know a lot of very smart poker players who bet sports.)

I offered DIVERSIFICATION as "advice". Betting multiple gambling games wasn't an "advice"...it's what I do. And...such a practice may well mean a "gigantic discipline problem" for almost everybody else...but it doesn't present a problem for me. All "modesty" aside...I bet sports, poker AND the horses...and I exercise discipline in ALL of them. And...although I suffer the same "losing streaks" as everybody else...I consider ALL of them to be attractive wagering opportunities for me.

The reason you haven't met a poker player who is profitable betting sports is because, you haven't yet met ME.

[thaskalos]

I'm really not sure what you're getting at with your recent posts but I suspect your risk tolerance is very different than most on here and most places.

Do you know when to quit each session of play?

I'm treating your above post as your way of making a joke. Btw, a very good one, IMO.

It was PHRASED as a "joke"...but it reflects REALITY.

[whodoyoulike]

It was PHRASED as a "joke"...but it reflects REALITY.

Well, then your risk tolerance is even worse than I was initially thinking.

Because most of your activities are very risky gambles, every way I view it.

[thaskalos]

Well, then your risk tolerance is even worse than I was initially thinking.

Because most of your activities are very risky gambles, every way I view it.

Yes...my "risk tolerance" level is very high...but I wouldn't call it "worse". I am who I am...and there is no "better or "worse" about it. If I determine that my best "edge" is in gambling...then, why should I invest my money in municipal bonds?

Of course...I would never advise others to do as I do.

[whodoyoulike]

Yes...my "risk tolerance" level is very high...but I wouldn't call it "worse". I am who I am...and there is no "better or "worse" about it. If I determine that my best "edge" is in gambling...then, why should I invest my money in municipal bonds?

Of course...I would never advise others to do as I do.

No, it was worse than I suspected not as you expected.

Only a few people have a high risk tolerance for certain activities and a lot of them IMO are just adrenaline junkies.

You know there was a saying which I came across years ago which I always liked. It was .... Gambling is not the Problem .... Losing Is!!

[dilanesp]

I offered DIVERSIFICATION as "advice". Betting multiple gambling games wasn't an "advice"...it's what I do. And...such a practice may well mean a "gigantic discipline problem" for almost everybody else...but it doesn't present a problem for me. All "modesty" aside...I bet sports, poker AND the horses...and I exercise discipline in ALL of them. And...although I suffer the same "losing streaks" as everybody else...I consider ALL of them to be attractive wagering opportunities for me.

The reason you haven't met a poker player who is profitable betting sports is because, you haven't yet met ME.

I usually don't have to say this, because most "professional" gamblers meet their doom on the discipline question, not strategy, but strategy is important. Sports betting pools are dominated by extremely sophisticated bettors who have extremely sophisticated models and encyclopedic knowledge- it is highly suspect that anyone would be able to profit in that sort of market over a statistically significant number of wagers doing anything less than full time, extremely intensive study of the subject matter.

[thaskalos]

I usually don't have to say this, because most "professional" gamblers meet their doom on the discipline question, not strategy, but strategy is important. Sports betting pools are dominated by extremely sophisticated bettors who have extremely sophisticated models and encyclopedic knowledge- it is highly suspect that anyone would be able to profit in that sort of market over a statistically significant number of wagers doing anything less than full time, extremely intensive study of the subject matter.

True. If it were easy...then EVERYBODY would do it. :ThmbUp:

[ReplayRandall]

I usually don't have to say this, because most "professional" gamblers meet their doom on the discipline question, not strategy, but strategy is important. Sports betting pools are dominated by extremely sophisticated bettors who have extremely sophisticated models and encyclopedic knowledge- it is highly suspect that anyone would be able to profit in that sort of market over a statistically significant number of wagers doing anything less than full time, extremely intensive study of the subject matter.
Quick questions Dilan; If I make more money than the line-maker's salary, shouldn't I be one of the best in the business, and just work for myself?...And if I scour through 10 different online sports-books looking for the best value against my lines, don't I only have to beat the worst opinion of the 10 to be successful?

[dilanesp]

Quick questions Dilan; If I make more money than the line-maker's salary, shouldn't I be one of the best in the business, and just work for myself?...And if I scour through 10 different online sports-books looking for the best value against my lines, don't I only have to beat the worst opinion of the 10 to be successful?

I don't understand the first question. I'd take the vigorish side over any sports bettor, even a good one, because it is possible to set a line in a game theory optimal manner that makes a loss impossible with a guaranteed 2 1/2 percent winrate, which is better than any actual sports bettor achieves long term.

As for the second, nothing wrong with arbitrage when you can obtain it, but arbitrage is only going to get you fairly small variations in the line. That would be the equivalent of a takeout decrease of a couple of percentage points in horse racing- it helps, but it isn't going to change the basic math of the game that makes most players losers.

Further, the REASON for line variations is because the linemaker moves off the game theory optimal position to exploit bettors. In other words, this practice increases the books' winrate. For that reason, it is perverse to assume that these variations can actually be effectively capitalized on by players. You aren't exploiting them- they are exploiting you!

Finally, one meta-comment. The variance in sports results is immense. Everything from freak plays to garbage time scores affect the results. You are probably looking at 50,000 or 100,000 contests to get a significant sample. And nobody bets that much (nor should they, as the vast majority of contests should see lines that are within a 2 1/2 percent probability of being correctly set, depriving the sports bettor of any +EV play).

The efficient markets hypothesis is a real bugger, RR. Or as one successful poker pro I know puts it, the world runs on delusion and arrogance:

http://jessetakesashot.blogspot.com/2013/04/delusion-and-arrogance.html?m=1

[AndyC]

...Further, the REASON for line variations is because the linemaker moves off the game theory optimal position to exploit bettors. In other words, this practice increases the books' winrate..

Give me an example of how this would apply to a football line.