Ritvo era begins at Santa Anita. “Takeout is too high, no question about it"

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.drf.com/news/ritvo-town-changes-are-way

Excerpt:

Takeout

“Takeout is too high, there’s no question about it,” Ritvo said. “It’s the scariest thing in the world [for racetracks] because our revenue streams are so limited. We can’t take 20 percent from a customer and expect them to bet day in and day out. The introduction of new bets with reduced takeout brings down the blend a little bit, but it’s not the answer.”

The pick-five takeout at Santa Anita is 14 percent; it is higher for other exotic wagers. Takeout for two-horse exotic wagers is 22.68 percent; three or more is 23.68 percent.

Wagering

Ritvo is interested in fractional wagering, which allows small-bankrolled bettors access to wagers that typically require a high outlay. For example, a $2 pick six with two horses in each leg costs $128. Allowing bettors to wager on the pick six in 25-cent increments would reduce the outlay for the above ticket to $16.
Ritvo said he and other Santa Anita officials are discussing fractional wagering and that the tote system is capable of handling the change.

[cj]

Always good to hear takeout is too high from someone on that side of the game. Not sure fractional wagering is the answer. What is that going to do to carryovers in a P6?

[Andy Asaro]

Always good to hear takeout is too high from someone on that side of the game. Not sure fractional wagering is the answer. What is that going to do to carryovers in a P6?

He's throwing stuff out there. It keeps certain people (TOC) off balance. This is the last best hope for meaningful change IMO. I'm gonna do all I can to support him.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Always good to hear takeout is too high from someone on that side of the game. Not sure fractional wagering is the answer. What is that going to do to carryovers in a P6?
I am not sure carryovers are a good thing in the long run...better to pay out all each day.....more returns in the hands of the bettors means, ultimately, more churn (increased handle).... And do away with Jackpots where only 1 ticket wins, just a gimmick for the tracks that doesn't benefit the bettors at all and everybody knows this is true....I would for sure play the pick 6 if it was affordable versus the number of horses needed to be included to have a decent shot at hitting it...otherwise you are asking bettors to just throw money away trying with a limited number of combos....that is the reality of the bet...at $2 average folks can't afford it...so that's kind of elite, racing needs to be geared to the commonalty....regardless...

[Andy Asaro]

I am not sure carryovers are a good thing in the long run...better to pay out all each day.....more returns in the hands of the bettors means, ultimately, more churn (increased handle).... And do away with Jackpots where only 1 ticket wins, just a gimmick for the tracks that doesn't benefit the bettors at all and everybody knows this is true....

I believe the P5 should be 50 cents in Ca. On a daily average basis handle would go up significantly.

As far as a jackpot goes I am against but if they did it they should make the take 18% take with 5% to jackpot. And no 5 of 6 payout.

[cj]

He's throwing stuff out there. It keeps certain people (TOC) off balance. This is the last best hope for meaningful change IMO. I'm gonna do all I can to support him.


Yeah, mine was a minor point. Anybody talking takeout being too high is good by me.

[AndyC]

I am not sure carryovers are a good thing in the long run...better to pay out all each day.....more returns in the hands of the bettors means, ultimately, more churn (increased handle).... And do away with Jackpots where only 1 ticket wins, just a gimmick for the tracks that doesn't benefit the bettors at all and everybody knows this is true....I would for sure play the pick 6 if I t was affordable versus the number of horses needed to he included to have a decent shot at hitting it...otherwise you are asking bettors to just throw money away trying with a limited number of combos....that is the reality of the bet...at $2 average folks can't afford it...so that's kind of elite, racing needs to be geared to the commonality....regardless...

Carryovers were a great thing for a very long run. It was the only positive expectation bet at the track. The non-jackpot P-6 with a carryover requires a $2 minimum to be effective. There are enough pools for the "commonality" to swim in so ruining a good bet for the sake of making everyone feel included is ridiculous.

[AndyC]

Always good to hear takeout is too high from someone on that side of the game. Not sure fractional wagering is the answer. What is that going to do to carryovers in a P6?

Doesn't fractional betting already exist at every track? What kind of fractions are needed? Pennies?

[cj]

Doesn't fractional betting already exist at every track? What kind of fractions are needed? Pennies?

I'm not sure, but it would be a big deal in SoCal where they live for P6 carryovers I would think.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Carryovers were a great thing for a very long run. It was the only positive expectation bet at the track. The non-jackpot P-6 with a carryover requires a $2 minimum to be effective. There are enough pools for the "commonality" to swim in so ruining a good bet for the sake of making everyone feel included is ridiculous.

It is not about feeling included.... It is about the reasonable chance of hitting it versus its affordability... The deep pockets require the little guys bets, a lot of little guy bets, to have any leverage...they are leveraging their capital in order to siphon away from the non-leveraged...I say level of the playing field so all can have the same odds of hitting it...not just Mr deep pockets

[VigorsTheGrey]

What would be interesting would be for Santa Anita to make public the combination amounts for winning pick6 tickets so we could get a feel for how many combinations are, generally, reasonable to wager.....I know this depends greatly on field sizes...but on days with 8 plus field for most races....then are the combinations costs of winning tickets likely to be in the $500 range or what....?

[AndyC]

It is not about feeling included.... It is about the reasonable chance of hitting it versus its affordability... The deep pockets require the little guys bets, a lot of little guy bets, to have any leverage...they are leveraging their capital in order to siphon away from the non-leveraged...I say level of the playing field so all can have the same odds of hitting it...not just Mr deep pockets

Why must every bet be affordable for every player? What other business does that? Should Mercedes have to sell their cars at an "affordable" price to all drivers? Should no-limit poker tables be outlawed? It's OK to have bets that suit certain types of players. The betting menu is large enough to accommodate everybody.

[AndyC]

What would be interesting would be for Santa Anita to make public the combination amounts for winning pick6 tickets so we could get a feel for how many combinations are, generally, reasonable to wager.....I know this depends greatly on field sizes...but on days with 8 plus field for most races....then are the combinations costs of winning tickets likely to be in the $500 range or what....?

Most serious P-6 players don't just play 1 ticket so I am not sure how a track could disseminate accurate information regarding the number of combinations played.

[Spalding No!]

Why must every bet be affordable for every player? What other business does that? Should Mercedes have to sell their cars at an "affordable" price to all drivers? Should no-limit poker tables be outlawed? It's OK to have bets that suit certain types of players. The betting menu is large enough to accommodate everybody.
Mercedes doesn't have to do anything if their business is profitable.

Is that the case with Santa Anita?

[AndyC]

I believe the P5 should be 50 cents in Ca. On a daily average basis handle would go up significantly.

What makes 50 cents better than 25 cents or 10 cents? I think they should test varying amounts to find where the optimal size is.

[Delta Cone]

I believe the P5 should be 50 cents in Ca. On a daily average basis handle would go up significantly.


Did you mean pick 6?

The pick 5 minimum already is at 50 cents in California.

[jay68802]

He's throwing stuff out there. It keeps certain people (TOC) off balance. This is the last best hope for meaningful change IMO. I'm gonna do all I can to support him.

Right with you on this. Look at Gulfstreams Rainbow 6. Following its carryover, it might take longer to build but gets big. But the best thing is if the track wants the carryover, they have to increase field size to achieve that...

[AndyC]

Mercedes doesn't have to do anything if their business is profitable.

Is that the case with Santa Anita?

Are you suggesting that alienating lifelong P-6 players by changing to a 10 cent minimum is going to change Santa Anita into a thriving profitable racetrack? Trying to be all things to all bettors is a losing business model. Mercedes knows their market and they serve it well.

[Poindexter]

Why dont they just have 2 pick sixes? Races 2 to 7, 20 cent minimum (no jackpot pleeeeeeeeease). Races 3 to 8, the current $2 minimum(to preserve carryovers). Small players can play the 20 cent one and those who want to play the $2 minimum can do so. Start on races 3 and 4 if they have 9 races cards. I see no reason why they can't do both (at least on the Saturday and Sunday cards).

[elhelmete]

Why dont they just have 2 pick sixes? Races 2 to 7, 20 cent minimum (no jackpot pleeeeeeeeease). Races 3 to 8, the current $2 minimum(to preserve carryovers). Small players can play the 20 cent one and those who want to play the $2 minimum can do so. Start on races 3 and 4 if they have 9 races cards. I see no reason why they can't do both (at least on the Saturday and Sunday cards).

Way too much pool cannibalization.

[AndyC]

Way too much pool cannibalization.

Absolutely, plus it ties up too much betting capital for too many races.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Most serious P-6 players don't just play 1 ticket so I am not sure how a track could disseminate accurate information regarding the number of combinations played.
On many days, the pick 6 has few winning tickets and really it is the days that the wager pays over 25k that interests me....it would be fairly easy for the track to show the number of combinations included on winning tickets....just show the tickets with the highest number of combinations, and indicate if the winning combination was included on the ticket.
Are the larger pick 6's routinely won with tickets that show 1000 distinct combinations or more...? Such tickets cost $2000 and more...I would speculate that sharks and whales have figured out how to take down the lion's share of seasonal pick 6's using large combination tickets and absorbing short term losses in process...of course without knowing the ticket structures that routinely take down the pools, its all just speculation.... So in the interests of transparency, while the industry says that it is trying to improve its image as being on the up and up, this would go a long way in demonstrating to the public just how these giant pools are won....

[AndyC]

....it would be fairly easy for the track to show the number of combinations included on winning tickets....just show the tickets with the highest number of combinations, and indicate if the winning combination was included on the ticket........

Why would it matter if the winning combination was on a $216 ticket when the total amount played by the bettor was $7,000?

If you are serious about playing the P-6, handicap the races each day and put together want-to-bet P-6 tickets utilizing an unlimited bankroll. See if you can be successful betting large amounts. It is a myth to believe that it is only the lack of bankroll that prevents most bettors from being successful P-6 players. Hence the call for 10 cent betting.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Why would it matter if the winning combination was on a $216 ticket when the total amount played by the bettor was $7,000?

If you are serious about playing the P-6, handicap the races each day and put together want-to-bet P-6 tickets utilizing an unlimited bankroll. See if you can be successful betting large amounts. It is a myth to believe that it is only the lack of bankroll that prevents most bettors from being successful P-6 players. Hence the call for 10 cent betting.

You make important points here and my perception has been altered by them, thank you...lower buy ins might just mean the triumph of gross mediocrity over handicapping skill...I wouldn't want that...but then again, higher bankrolls have the same impact...

[toddbowker]

Just so everyone is clear here. Fractional wagering is not lowering the minimum base value of a wager.

Fractional wagering is a customer developing their ticket and saying "I want this bet for (x) dollars". Then the tote determines the % of the winning dollars that bet would collect if it's a winner.

In the earlier example of a P6 with 2 horses in each leg, instead of paying $128, a customer could bring that bet to a window and say "I want this for $32" and would collect 25% of the $2 price.

[Poindexter]

Just so everyone is clear here. Fractional wagering is not lowering the minimum base value of a wager.

Fractional wagering is a customer developing their ticket and saying "I want this bet for (x) dollars". Then the tote determines the % of the winning dollars that bet would collect if it's a winner.

In the earlier example of a P6 with 2 horses in each leg, instead of paying $128, a customer could bring that bet to a window and say "I want this for $32" and would collect 25% of the $2 price.

How is this different? If it is $2 pick six and I want to play it for 10%, then it becomes a 20 cent pick six for me, if want to play it for 5% then it becomes a 10 cent pick six for me. Now maybe they can stipulate that you can only do so if you play 50 or more combos and you cant go below x %, but it in essence is basically lowering the minimum bet amount, no matter how you spin it.

[VigorsTheGrey]

How is this different? If it is $2 pick six and I want to play it for 10%, then it becomes a 20 cent pick six for me, if want to play it for 5% then it becomes a 10 cent pick six for me. Now maybe they can stipulate that you can only do so if you play 50 or more combos and you cant go below x %, but it in essence is basically lowering the minimum bet amount, no matter how you spin it.
Which might be better for the wagerer as this often would mean the cashing value would be below the tax threshold for withholding, and they can always hit the repeat button as often as they wish...

[AndyC]

Just so everyone is clear here. Fractional wagering is not lowering the minimum base value of a wager.

Fractional wagering is a customer developing their ticket and saying "I want this bet for (x) dollars". Then the tote determines the % of the winning dollars that bet would collect if it's a winner.

In the earlier example of a P6 with 2 horses in each leg, instead of paying $128, a customer could bring that bet to a window and say "I want this for $32" and would collect 25% of the $2 price.

Technically you are certainly correct but practically lowering the minimum does essentially the same thing.

[Andy Asaro]

What makes 50 cents better than 25 cents or 10 cents? I think they should test varying amounts to find where the optimal size is.

California is different than most jurisdictions. They've been fighting like hell to keep it at $2. Fifty cents is the lowest they'll go.

Only 10 cent wager should be a Pick 8 Jackpot at Del Mar instead of a place pick all. 15% take with 10% to jackpot

IMO of course.

[Andy Asaro]

Did you mean pick 6?

The pick 5 minimum already is at 50 cents in California.

Yes, my bad.

[JohnGalt1]

Reading this thread is the best example I've seen of why this game is heading in the crapper. Even people connected with the game don't make sense to me.

Mr. Bowker said we can make a $2 pick six wager at twenty cent increments to collect 10% of the pot.

A better at Gulfstream can make $2 pick six and collect 10 times the pot if not the only winner of the sucker jackpot bet.

Apples to apples.

And why does everyone want lower minimums on everything.

Today $2 win bet in the 1930's would be worth twelve cents more or less today. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Tracks have screwed around with take out, their betting menus, and the minimum unit and pay out structures, (sucker jackpots,) so much that I'm about 85% win and exacta player now.

It's all about winning and churn.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/AuerHeat/status/872501600354394112

https://twitter.com/AuerHeat/status/872505424548814848

[Andy Asaro]

Reading this thread is the best example I've seen of why this game is heading in the crapper. Even people connected with the game don't make sense to me.

Mr. Bowker said we can make a $2 pick six wager at twenty cent increments to collect 10% of the pot.

A better at Gulfstream can make $2 pick six and collect 10 times the pot if not the only winner of the sucker jackpot bet.

Apples to apples.

And why does everyone want lower minimums on everything.

Today $2 win bet in the 1930's would be worth twelve cents more or less today. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Tracks have screwed around with take out, their betting menus, and the minimum unit and pay out structures, (sucker jackpots,) so much that I'm about 85% win and exacta player now.

It's all about winning and churn.

Right on. Concentrate on selling higher churn wagers. Pay penny breakage on WPS to start. Lower exacta take to 16%. Monitor, adjust, monitor, adjust. And always be innovating.

[AndyC]

California is different than most jurisdictions. They've been fighting like hell to keep it at $2. Fifty cents is the lowest they'll go.

Only 10 cent wager should be a Pick 8 Jackpot at Del Mar instead of a place pick all. 15% take with 10% to jackpot

IMO of course.

I was speaking about the P-5, P-4 and P-3. Keep the $2 P-6. What matters with the minimums is the effect on handle. If 10 cents is the magic number then so be it.

[Andy Asaro]

I was speaking about the P-5, P-4 and P-3. Keep the $2 P-6. What matters with the minimums is the effect on handle. If 10 cents is the magic number then so be it.

Lowest is 50 cents IMO. There would be so much backlash, especially in races where short fields are the new normal, would be severe.

[AndyC]

If the racetracks are willing to take the gamble on lowering takeout & wager minimums, IMO the Horseman should also be willing to try. 1/2
— Harris D. Auerbach (@AuerHeat) June 7, 2017


Unfortunately this attitude is about 15 years too late to make a difference. Many of the customers have already died or moved on to better gambles. I doubt that many (of the live ones) would reverse course and come back based on even a large take-out decrease.

I would expect that exchange wagering will be welcomed in about 2025.

[AndyC]

Lowest is 50 cents IMO. There would be so much backlash, especially in races where short fields are the new normal, would be severe.

When you can test for the best there is no reason to rely on opinion. Where would the backlash come from?

[Andy Asaro]

Unfortunately this attitude is about 15 years too late to make a difference. Many of the customers have already died or moved on to better gambles. I doubt that many (of the live ones) would reverse course and come back based on even a large take-out decrease.

I would expect that exchange wagering will be welcomed in about 2025.

Yes, I doubt exchange wagering will happen in this decade. The Stronach Group can turn it around if they want to. That won't be up to Ritvo it will be up to Belinda.

[RobertCalifornia]

Minimum bets might be a problem, $2 was a lot of money 50 years ago, but not today. The people bet $2 that can easily spend $1000 on a slot machine. Raise expectations. Plus say $10 win bet posting bigger numbers is sexier compared to other tracks posting $2 winners.

[Track Phantom]

Lowering the minimum is wrong-minded. I would go the other way. $5 pick 6 at 10% takeout. Whether the small player plays a $64 pick 6 at $2 min or a $60 ticket at $5 min, it's basically a "Hail Mary" or a "Lottery" investment. Chances are virtually nothing they will hit either. These are dreamer bets (which I've made my share). Making it harder for the syndicate type wagers to hit would create the carryovers So Cal desperately wants.

[Poindexter]

Lowering the minimum is wrong-minded. I would go the other way. $5 pick 6 at 10% takeout. Whether the small player plays a $64 pick 6 at $2 min or a $60 ticket at $5 min, it's basically a "Hail Mary" or a "Lottery" investment. Chances are virtually nothing they will hit either. These are dreamer bets (which I've made my share). Making it harder for the syndicate type wagers to hit would create the carryovers So Cal desperately wants.

That just gives a much bigger edge to the syndicate player that you are trying to get out of the pool. The general public will be stuck playing even less combos and the syndicate player will get value on a whole lot more combinations then they every did before. They will just come up with more money to bet. The general public can't.

[VigorsTheGrey]

The best way to go is to NOT HAVE CARRYOVERS and pay out the pool on the spot....this is the fairest thing to do...the Pick 6 that I agree to bet today should not be allowed to become the Pick 6 tomorrow....I may not like that card or maybe wont even be able to bet...

I'm betting a specific sequence of racing today only and expect to be rewarded today if I am successful against other bettors that are here today as well....If no one gets 6 then pay out to 5 and so on, BUT PAY OUT TODAY!

There would be less incentive for whales to get involved and possibly less shenanigans knowing that some huge pool is just ripe for the pickings....more of the bettors' money would be returned to MANY MORE of them immediately to do with as they please, most likely creating more churn....

[Dahoss9698]

The best way to go is to NOT HAVE CARRYOVERS and pay out the pool on the spot....this is the fairest thing to do...the Pick 6 that I agree to bet today should not be allowed to become the Pick 6 tomorrow....I may not like that card or maybe wont even be able to bet...

I'm betting a specific sequence of racing today only and expect to be rewarded today if I am successful against other bettors that are here today as well....If no one gets 6 then pay out to 5 and so on, BUT PAY OUT TODAY!

There would be less incentive for whales to get involved and possibly less shenanigans knowing that some huge pool is just ripe for the pickings....more of the bettors' money would be returned to MANY MORE of them immediately to do with as they please, most likely creating more churn....

Please stop

[whodoyoulike]

... “We’ve been so entrenched in the old way of doing things,” he said. “We have to look at ourselves first. :1: We have to give the customer what they want, not what we want.”

Ritvo discussed subjects such as :2: takeout rates and fractional wagering, an innovation that essentially drops the minimum bet size to as low as pennies for wagers such as the pick six. :3: He discussed base purses that synchronize with field size – the bigger the field, the higher the purse. He addressed modernization of the racing department, inventory control, and a variety of other subjects that can be addressed as the remainder of 2017 unfolds.

Below are Ritvo’s thoughts on a number of issues facing Santa Anita. Ritvo doesn’t have all the answers yet, but just that he is willing to discuss a subject such as takeout is important. ...

:4:Critics allege that racing offices are unaware of available horse inventory. It is tough to keep track of some 3,000 horses and the races in which they could run without technology. Most of the work is done by hand. Ritvo envisions change.

“We have to do a much better job of inventory control,” he said. :5: We are going to do a better data analysis.”

Ritvo wants a centralized racing office able to receive entries online. “At 11, tell [the horsemen] what races are going, one last shot to go in, and that’s it. Not – who is in there? How many horses do I have to beat? That stuff has got to end.”

Interviews have begun for a data analyst, a computer-skilled employee who can execute modernization of the racing department. ...

Each one of the 5 points highlighted above has been discussed on here many months ago and probably several times. Hopefully, he really believes these ideas and will work to make the necessary changes.

Thanks for providing the link.

[Andy Asaro]

Each one of the 5 points highlighted above has been discussed on here many months ago and probably several times. Hopefully, he really believes these ideas and will work to make the necessary changes.

Thanks for providing the link.

The TOC will fight like hell against him behind the scenes.

[whodoyoulike]

The TOC will fight like hell against him behind the scenes.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The race tracks are the greedy ones. The TOC are the innocents just going along with the track greed. It's been apparent for a number of years.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Often when you read these threads you'll hear, lower the minimums and you'll increase handle. The question is, who has done the optimal pricing study and what did it conclude? And I've commented that 100,000 combinations at 10 cents is the same as 10,000 combinations at a dollar, and considering there are far fewer combinations covered at a dollar, the payoffs could be more attractive. But if we weren't guessing and there was a study that showed a dime or a quarter or a half dollar maximized handle, I'd adjust my thinking. Still, it's a low churn bet and that alone is enough to make me think a dollar minimum is a better plan.

My feeling is leave the bets like the Pick-6 to the whales and the syndicates. Put them in those pools, maybe see the higher churn potential pools populated by the smaller bettors, and make the minimum for the P6 high enough to scare the guys with nothing larger than a few twenties in their pockets into sticking with the bets they have a real chance of hitting.

It sounds like Ritvo is at least throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks. But I can't say I am wildly optimistic.

[ronsmac]

http://www.drf.com/news/ritvo-town-changes-are-way

Excerpt:

Takeout

“Takeout is too high, there’s no question about it,” Ritvo said. “It’s the scariest thing in the world [for racetracks] because our revenue streams are so limited. We can’t take 20 percent from a customer and expect them to bet day in and day out. The introduction of new bets with reduced takeout brings down the blend a little bit, but it’s not the answer.”

The pick-five takeout at Santa Anita is 14 percent; it is higher for other exotic wagers. Takeout for two-horse exotic wagers is 22.68 percent; three or more is 23.68 percent.

Wagering

Ritvo is interested in fractional wagering, which allows small-bankrolled bettors access to wagers that typically require a high outlay. For example, a $2 pick six with two horses in each leg costs $128. Allowing bettors to wager on the pick six in 25-cent increments would reduce the outlay for the above ticket to $16.
Ritvo said he and other Santa Anita officials are discussing fractional wagering and that the tote system is capable of handling the change.
I'm sure Ritvo means well and any comment about the takeout being too high is good, but I keep reading how he turned Md racing around when it was the casino money that turned around Md racing. Here are some of the takeouts at Lrl and Pim. Wps 18% Ex 21% Tri 25.75% P3 25.75% P4 25.75% P5 12%.If you blended the takeout on all the bets it may be higher than Santa Anita.

[Andy Asaro]

I'm sure Ritvo means well and any comment about the takeout being too high is good, but I keep reading how he turned Md racing around when it was the casino money that turned around Md racing. Here are some of the takeouts at Lrl and Pim. Wps 18% Ex 21% Tri 25.75% P3 25.75% P4 25.75% P5 12%.If you blended the takeout on all the bets it may be higher than Santa Anita.

Ca. Racing is much different than any other jurisdiction. Requires different solutions IMO

[Dave Schwartz]

Interesting read at LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-santa-anita-ritvo-20170605-story.html

The word "Takeout" is never mentioned.

[Andy Asaro]

Interesting read at LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-santa-anita-ritvo-20170605-story.html

The word "Takeout" is never mentioned.

Brad Free article was posted yesterday where he mentions takeout.

[Dave Schwartz]

Brad Free article was posted yesterday where he mentions takeout.

My take on the DRF article re: takeout was that the EXOTICS were too high and needed to be lowered.

But I do admit that I am reading between the lines.

Was your take different?

[toddbowker]

Technically you are certainly correct but practically lowering the minimum does essentially the same thing.

How is this different? If it is $2 pick six and I want to play it for 10%, then it becomes a 20 cent pick six for me, if want to play it for 5% then it becomes a 10 cent pick six for me. Now maybe they can stipulate that you can only do so if you play 50 or more combos and you cant go below x %, but it in essence is basically lowering the minimum bet amount, no matter how you spin it.

Only to the extent of the price of the minimum wager. Unless you can lower the minimum bet to a fraction of a penny, it's more than just "technically" different.

With fractional betting you could in theory bet 100% off all of the available P6 combinations for $1.00 (or less even) as long as the rules allowed.

[dilanesp]

The best way to go is to NOT HAVE CARRYOVERS and pay out the pool on the spot....this is the fairest thing to do...the Pick 6 that I agree to bet today should not be allowed to become the Pick 6 tomorrow....I may not like that card or maybe wont even be able to bet...

I'm betting a specific sequence of racing today only and expect to be rewarded today if I am successful against other bettors that are here today as well....If no one gets 6 then pay out to 5 and so on, BUT PAY OUT TODAY!

There would be less incentive for whales to get involved and possibly less shenanigans knowing that some huge pool is just ripe for the pickings....more of the bettors' money would be returned to MANY MORE of them immediately to do with as they please, most likely creating more churn....

They tried a no carryover format in the late '80's, and handle went down.

[Andy Asaro]

My take on the DRF article re: takeout was that the EXOTICS were too high and needed to be lowered.

But I do admit that I am reading between the lines.

Was your take different?

More specifically exacta takeout is too high. 18.5% at Belmont but 22.68% at Santa Anita.

I am pushing to lower exacta take below that of Belmont to an eye catching 16% and to pay to the penny on WPS breakage and to make the minimum show payoff $2.05. This helps churn, sends home more winners and that helps positive word of mouth. Those should be the first steps to take. The math of it makes handle go up (if everything else stayed the same, which it won't) handle would have to go up approximately 30% on exactas. I think that's an easy mark to hit. Additionally it may cannibalize tri's/supers. However the gamblers who download the Ca PP's would increase and withing a relatively short amount of time revenue would be up including on Tri's/Supers.

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20170609/santa-anita-park-cancels-two-more-days-of-upcoming-horse-races

Excerpt:

Ritvo has stressed since his arrival that the Stronach Group’s main objective, while re-energizing the track’s business, is to cater to the customers.

“The customer is the economic engine of the sport,” Ritvo said in an interview with the Southern California News Group this week. “Everybody thinks they’re irreplaceable, but the guy who’s irreplaceable is the customer. When he’s gone, everything else will stop.”

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/873522346555957248

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/873939863254335489

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/873940683907776512

[Andy Asaro]

Ritvo Weighs in on So Cal Horse Population | TDN |

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/ritvo-weighs-in-on-so-cal-horse-population/

[whodoyoulike]

I've mentioned a couple of times already that we've discussed these concerns a number of times the last couple years.

I suspect he is a member on here or at least reads our posts maybe he'll be willing to participate in a "Live Chat Room" on here. It would be like a "brainstorming session".

I see some positives by doing so BUT, it could also result in a number of people being banned.

[AltonKelsey]

It's actually imbecilic to have a higher takeout on a harder bet like the exacta/tri/super. Takeout should be the same as win. The reason they do it , is they think they are 'hiding' the ripoff behind a large payout.

I can see the justification for higher take on the horizontals, but they do the opposite, in lowering those takeouts. If you play a pick 5 , you can theoretically churn only once and have action on multiple races.

[VigorsTheGrey]

It's actually imbecilic to have a higher takeout on a harder bet like the exacta/tri/super. Takeout should be the same as win. The reason they do it , is they think they are 'hiding' the ripoff behind a large payout.

I can see the justification for higher take on the horizontals, but they do the opposite, in lowering those takeouts. If you play a pick 5 , you can theoretically churn only once and have action on multiple races.

I agree with you here...if they really want to see handle make a dramatic increase all they need to do is make the take-out lower on the exotics than the win pools....handle would go thru the roof...a no-brainer...makes one wonder...

[elhelmete]

I agree with you here...if they really want to see handle make a dramatic increase all they need to do is make the take-out lower on the exotics than the win pools....handle would go thru the roof...a no-brainer...makes one wonder...

...sigh....

[whodoyoulike]

A question I have is regarding the TOC letter which states about 2200 horses available around SA but, Ritvo mentions a 3300 number is available.

A big discrepancy without using a calculator that's close to 50% which to me is huge. There should be some way to count how many horses are registered and stabled around SA surroundings ..... SA, Los Al, San Luis Rey and a couple of other locations??

Doesn't even count shippers into SA. Maybe shippers out cancels shippers in.

This clarification would go a long ways to figure out the small fields problem.

[AndyC]

It's actually imbecilic to have a higher takeout on a harder bet like the exacta/tri/super. Takeout should be the same as win. The reason they do it , is they think they are 'hiding' the ripoff behind a large payout.

I can see the justification for higher take on the horizontals, but they do the opposite, in lowering those takeouts. If you play a pick 5 , you can theoretically churn only once and have action on multiple races.

There is nothing like the action thrill you get in the P-5 watching the 2nd through 5th legs your horse runs out in the first leg. There is no justification for higher takeouts on horizontals.

With your logic you could also say that you have action in the win and place slots with an exacta but only churn once.

[AndyC]

I agree with you here...if they really want to see handle make a dramatic increase all they need to do is make the take-out lower on the exotics than the win pools....handle would go thru the roof...a no-brainer...makes one wonder...

I wouldn't be so sure. There would be a decrease by whales betting with rebates and I doubt that the regulars would significantly hike their action due to a 2-5% cut. The belief is that bettors who have avoided racing because of the high rates would be drawn in by the lower rates. Perhaps some would see an opportunity but I doubt many would make the commitment to become horseplayers.

[VigorsTheGrey]

I wouldn't be so sure. There would be a decrease by whales betting with rebates and I doubt that the regulars would significantly hike their action due to a 2-5% cut. The belief is that bettors who have avoided racing because of the high rates would be drawn in by the lower rates. Perhaps some would see an opportunity but I doubt many would make the commitment to become horseplayers.
Alton is right...it is more difficult to hit exotics, so the take- out should be equal to OR LESS than straight wagers....the tracks ARE hiding behind the larger payouts...its not right when you think about it...we have always just looked the other way, shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, that's just how it is...it is time to change...Ritvo is right, without the customer, we got nothing....AND the customer WANTS only 15% take-out maximum on ALL wagers, regardless of how they are structured....whether or not THEY listen AND implement downward movement in take-out rates remains to be seen.....they know what WE want.....

[AndyC]

Alton is right...it is more difficult to hit exotics, so the take- out should be equal to OR LESS than straight wagers....the tracks ARE hiding behind the larger payouts...its not right when you think about it...we have always just looked the other way, shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, that's just how it is...it is time to change...Ritvo is right, without the customer, we got nothing....AND the customer WANTS only 15% take-out maximum on ALL wagers, regardless of how they are structured....whether or not THEY listen AND implement downward movement in take-out rates remains to be seen.....they know what WE want.....

Please re-read my post. I disagreed with him regarding horizontals.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Please re-read my post. I disagreed with him regarding horizontals.

I'm ok with what you posted...I was just sort of responding to the topic of the whys and wherefores of higher take-out for exotics...You know, I have never really put much thought into it...but the more I do the less I like being charged more for what is a more difficult bet to hit...

Let's see now..the track offers a win bet say at 15% take...and they are ok with that...but they got this trifecta bet over here that might pay considerably more but is way harder to hit..

...SO THEY CHARGE YOU MORE TO PLAY THAT BET...!!!! What...? What kind of backward logic is that anyway...?

Pay more to take a bigger risk...? I don't get it....I know, nobody is forcing anyone to make any bets...BUT don't be surprised if fewer people buy your product.

So Alton is right...the tracks are hiding behind the largess of the exotics payouts and counting on the bettors to just play along with the higher take-out anyway (since they really can't do anything about it anyway)...hoping to make a bigger score than just WIN or PLACE money....

I hear that few pro bettors nowadays bet WIN primarily....What percentage of the total pool money is straight betting versus exotics...?

[AskinHaskin]

Alton is right...it is more difficult to hit exotics, so the take- out should be equal to OR LESS than straight wagers....the tracks ARE hiding behind the larger payouts...its not right when you think about it...we have always just looked the other way, shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, that's just how it is...it is time to change...Ritvo is right, without the customer, we got nothing....AND the customer WANTS only 15% take-out maximum on ALL wagers, regardless of how they are structured....whether or not THEY listen AND implement downward movement in take-out rates remains to be seen.....they know what WE want.....


LOL - this is absurd.

98% of the customers don't give a flying f*ck what the takeout is, and those are the ones who have been alienated for decades by fools like Ritvo choreographing his entire customer relations stance to/for 2% of his audience.

Takeout has nothing to do with the decline of racing. Takeout has been an approximate constant for decades, and not the variable required for takeout alone to be any part of the reason for said decline.

Until Ritvo and his ilk direct their marketing back toward the 98% of the customers who have been fully overlooked for decades, North American racetracks will continue to circle the drain as they are in 2017.

Racing has for far too long been giving all of you all of the advantages, and for that it has paid dearly while being run by persons too stupid to understand the reality right before their eyes.

At this point Ritvo is just tailoring his rhetoric to soothe the tiny sliver of the fanbase who gives a f*ck about takeout when instead he should be directing his attention toward the forgotten vast majority.

Now you can sit here wholly lacking objectivity while attempting to somehow justify your own weak positions in this equation, or you can open your eyes to the reality right in front of you - that which you created for yourselves and for everybody else, with Tim Ritvo's assist.


So you and Tim Ritvo owe one another a debt of gratitude. Collectively you probably deserve one another.


You cannot be any part of the solution until you collectively cease to be the majority of the problem which inhibits racing improving its North American image.

The lottery does not have the problems you created. Keno does not have the problems you created. Roulette does not have the problems you created. Slot machines do not have the problems you created. Blackjack does not have the problems you created.

Now how about you people cease creating and representing those problems?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Wow...!
So what are your fresh ideas here to get us all back on track, Askin...?

And just WHO are these 98% of the neglected for decades are you referring to...?

I do think it is important to KNOW just WHO the customer REALLY IS..?

Which customer is Tim Ritvo referring to when he speaks about "Without the customer, we don't have anything"...?

[AndyC]

...You know, I have never really put much thought into it...but the more I do the less I like being charged more for what is a more difficult bet to hit......

...SO THEY CHARGE YOU MORE TO PLAY THAT BET...!!!! What...? What kind of backward logic is that anyway...?

Pay more to take a bigger risk...? I don't get it....I know, nobody is forcing anyone to make any bets...BUT don't be surprised if fewer people buy your product....

If the take-out is too high why do you and other players make the exotics the most popular bets at the track? Simple. Greed. You want to make a big score. Why lower the take-out when the demand is high?

[Jeff P]

LOL - this is absurd...

You cannot be any part of the solution until you collectively cease to be the majority of the problem which inhibits racing improving its North American image.

The lottery does not have the problems you created. Keno does not have the problems you created. Roulette does not have the problems you created. Slot machines do not have the problems you created. Blackjack does not have the problems you created.

Now how about you people cease creating and representing those problems?

Ok.

Pretend I am a three year old. And then describe the problems (as you put it) that we horseplayers have created.

I'm all ears.



-jp

.

[VigorsTheGrey]

If the take-out is too high why do you and other players make the exotics the most popular bets at the track? Simple. Greed. You want to make a big score. Why lower the take-out when the demand is high?

A perfect and legit question and the one I was waiting for somebody to ask...

GREED ah yes, greed...But the greed spins both ways....The track knows this about the bettor and therefore takes advantage of that all too universal greed....greed begets greed...

The demand can only get HIGHER when the takeout goes lower...because people will see that the payouts are bigger and will want to be in even MORE than they are now....

But it is worth looking at: The track is ok with straight betting at 15%...it DOESN'T say to the bettor "15% for favorites and contenders, but if you bet a 50-1 or 75-1 shot we are going to charge you more for that bet, even though we know that the chances of you cashing on these long shots are slim....THIS IS WHAT they do with exotics....

We are told that the track doesn't really care who wins at what price, because it is parimutuel wagering...the track doesn't care if you cash a $2 WIN ticket for 6 bucks or 80 bucks....they charge you the same for making the bets....

Why should they care that the exotics pay higher...as well....The message I get is that..."because YOU win MORE on these special tickets, WE WANT MORE, from you, just because WE CAN, so you see, it is not the same "parimutuel" as the earlier WIN wagers...it is parimutuel with DOUBLE SKIM, instead of single skim...single skim is not enough because of GREED....so it is not only the bettors who are greedy...in this respect, the track clearly shows that it is taking advantage of a psychological pathos that IT NEED NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF...

It needs to be more of a neutral steward in this regard, it needs to be FAIR with the public's wagering capital in this regard...It is NOT IN THE TRACKS BEST INTEREST TO CAPITALIZE ON THE PUBLIC'S GREED....

[Poindexter]

A perfect and legit question and the one I was waiting for somebody to ask...

GREED ah yes, greed...But the greed spins both ways....The track knows this about the bettor and therefore takes advantage of that all too universal greed....greed begets greed...

The demand can only get HIGHER when the takeout goes lower...because people will see that the payouts are bigger and will want to be in even MORE than they are now....

But it is worth looking at: The track is ok with straight betting at 15%...it DOESN'T say to the bettor "15% for favorites and contenders, but if you bet a 50-1 or 75-1 shot we are going to charge you more for that bet, even though we know that the chances of you cashing on these long shots are slim....THIS IS WHAT they do with exotics....

We are told that the track doesn't really care who wins at what price, because it is parimutuel wagering...the track doesn't care if you cash a $2 WIN ticket for 6 bucks or 80 bucks....they charge you the same for making the bets....

Why should they care that the exotics pay higher...as well....The message I get is that..."because YOU win MORE on these special tickets, WE WANT MORE, from you, just because WE CAN, so you see, it is not the same "parimutuel" as the earlier WIN wagers...it is parimutuel with DOUBLE SKIM, instead of single skim...single skim is not enough because of GREED....so it is not only the bettors who are greedy...in this respect, the track clearly shows that it is taking advantage of a psychological pathos that IT NEED NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF...

It needs to be more of a neutral steward in this regard, it needs to be FAIR with the public's wagering capital in this regard...It is NOT IN THE TRACKS BEST INTEREST TO CAPITALIZE ON THE PUBLIC'S GREED....




Accordind to your logic a show bet is better than a place bet wihich is better than a win bet which is better than an exacta/double, which is better than a trifecta/pick 3, which is better than a superfecta/pick 4, which is better than a penta/pick 5.

Truth be told, the more betting opitons the better it is for the player. There may be no value in the win pool, but good value in connecting a cold deck tri or even tri box. There could be little value in 4 consecutive races, but the pick 4 somethimes can make

[Poindexter]

Accidentally submitted my last post before finishing. So am posting again.

According to your logic a show bet is better than a place bet wihich is better than a win bet which is better than an exacta/double, which is better than a trifecta/pick 3, which is better than a superfecta/pick 4, which is better than a penta/pick 5.

Truth be told, the more betting options the better it is for the player. There may be no value in the win pool, but good value in connecting a cold deck tri or even tri box. There could be little value in 4 consecutive races, but the pick 4 somethimes can make a good play. Often at SA they open the card with 5 horrible 5 and 6 horse races but you can often connect the winners for about $32 to $48 bucks and not unusual to get a pretty sweet couple hundred dollar payout in th process. The reason that I prefer the pick 4 to the pick 3, double and win bet has nothing to do with greed. It has to do with the fact that I consitently get better value in these pools.

Racing has a huge problem with takeout. It is way too high for the masses. But no question imo that the takeout should be higher for the exotics than they are for wps pools. As I have stated before 8% wps seems about right and 12% exotics seem about right(relataive to other popular forms of gambling). I don't even have a problem with 14 or 15% on the super exotics(pick 6's on up-when you have 200,000 possible winning combos an extra couple of percent is not going to kill you).


ps this is my opinion as a seasoned player. What works for me may not work best for the masses. The masses may have trouble with the affordability of pick 4's and pick 5's and pick 6's and superfectas and super high 5's.......They can develop bad habits, long losing streaks, go into the chase mode.......... all things that can lead to financial ruin and the loss of this player as a customer either for the short run or the long run. But exceessive takeout coupled with rebates is a far bigger problem in that regard than this is.

[thaskalos]

Ok.

Pretend I am a three year old. And then describe the problems (as you put it) that we horseplayers have created.

I'm all ears.



-jp

.

And what "advantages" has racing been giving us for "far too long"...while "ignoring the vast majority..."?

If AskinHaskin's post isn't the most idiotic that I've ever read here...it is certainly in the top two.

[thaskalos]

If the take-out is too high why do you and other players make the exotics the most popular bets at the track? Simple. Greed. You want to make a big score. Why lower the take-out when the demand is high?

If the tracks are satisfied with the way that their business is going...then, you are absolutely right. They SHOULDN'T endeavor to lower the takeout.

[Andy Asaro]

Whenever we get into the takeout thing it's natural to go into everyone's theory of what should be done in a perfect world. Whatever is done TODAY has to be sold to the track(s) and the Horseman. Once they are sold then you have to sell the public. Coming up with the right starting point and the best number isn't easy. Do you want an eye catching number on a certain wager (exacta) to start? Do you want to address a long standing Horseplayer grievance like breakage? How much free publicity will the changes offer? Will lowering an exacta to say 16% takeout cannibalize tri's and supers and to what extent and for how long. How many new Customers will shift their play to the first jurisdiction to move on 16% exactas and penny breakage? Will that shift cause handle and revenue on all wagers to increase over time? What will the effects of increased churn have on handle revenue?


There are a lot smarter people than me on the board but most of the discussions fail to address the "what will sell" factor IMO.

And it's a given that......... Pool Size - Field Size - Takeout... are ALL important factors

[AndyC]

If the tracks are satisfied with the way that their business is going...then, you are absolutely right. They SHOULDN'T endeavor to lower the takeout.

I was merely explaining why exotic takeout was more than W-P-S takeout. In my view racing is too far gone to be revived by even a large takeout reduction.

[elhelmete]

Whenever we get into the takeout thing it's natural to go into everyone's theory of what should be done in a perfect world. Whatever is done TODAY has to be sold to the track(s) and the Horseman. Once they are sold then you have to sell the public. Coming up with the right starting point and the best number isn't easy. Do you want an eye catching number on a certain wager (exacta) to start? Do you want to address a long standing Horseplayer grievance like breakage? How much free publicity will the changes offer? Will lowering an exacta to say 16% takeout cannibalize tri's and supers and to what extent and for how long. How many new Customers will shift their play to the first jurisdiction to move on 16% exactas and penny breakage? Will that shift cause handle and revenue on all wagers to increase over time? What will the effects of increased churn have on handle revenue?


There are a lot smarter people than me on the board but most of the discussions fail to address the "what will sell" factor IMO.

And it's a given that......... Pool Size - Field Size - Takeout... are ALL important factors

First off, there are more less-smart-than-you people here...

Second...this post hits it on the head. The biggest problem you see with suggestions here is that most people suggest something super simple and make the immediate leap that it will, in and of itself, show benefits almost immediately. That's a fallacy. Everything's inter-related and requires careful forethought and action. Look at Canterbury's experiment last year.

I think of the problem as something like this. You have a patient who has the following maladies:

Pneumonia
Cancer
Sprained ankle
Spear through the leg

You can't just address one at a time and expect to simply move on to the next like a shopping list. Addressing one malady affects every other. Simple solutions do not exist...but you HAVE TO start somewhere.

[cj]

Second...this post hits it on the head. The biggest problem you see with suggestions here is that most people suggest something super simple and make the immediate leap that it will, in and of itself, show benefits almost immediately.

Isn't this exactly what tracks and horsemen did to lead us down this path? Need more money, raise takeout. There was no consideration given to the impact, and the conclusions reached about the effect of a takeout raise were moronic.

Yet, you expect more from fans?

[elhelmete]

Isn't this exactly what tracks and horsemen did to lead us down this path? Need more money, raise takeout. There was no consideration given to the impact, and the conclusions reached about the effect of a takeout raise were moronic.

Yet, you expect more from fans?

I think for the most part you're right about tracks and the horsemen. But why would doing the same shortsighted thing in reverse be a useful response?

The opposite of dysfunction = dysfunction.

[cj]

I think for the most part you're right about tracks and the horsemen. But why would doing the same shortsighted thing in reverse be a useful response?

The opposite of dysfunction = dysfunction.

It isn't, I'm just saying what do you expect? The people that should know better don't.

[elhelmete]

It isn't, I'm just saying what do you expect? The people that should know better don't.

Yeah, I really don't expect any different from any party. All sides seem to be dug into the idea that "if it benefits me it must be a good idea."

[Poindexter]

First off, there are more less-smart-than-you people here...

Second...this post hits it on the head. The biggest problem you see with suggestions here is that most people suggest something super simple and make the immediate leap that it will, in and of itself, show benefits almost immediately. That's a fallacy. Everything's inter-related and requires careful forethought and action. Look at Canterbury's experiment last year.

I think of the problem as something like this. You have a patient who has the following maladies:

Pneumonia
Cancer
Sprained ankle
Spear through the leg

You can't just address one at a time and expect to simply move on to the next like a shopping list. Addressing one malady affects every other. Simple solutions do not exist...but you HAVE TO start somewhere.

I can't speak for other, but regarding myself, I have always been perfectly clear. Racing has two options.

1) It can stay in the status quo giving competive pricing to huge bettors and thus driving small bettors out of the game and leaving zero hope for a successful future. Also as the game loses it's fish, it will utlimately start to lose it's whales and when that happens it is light out because this industry has chosen to put all of it eggs in the whale basket instead of creating a market of mini whales.

2) They can make a major change, which means eliminating rebates bringing takeout down to a competitive rate (8% wps, 12% exotic) and they have to ride it out as long as it takes (which easily could be 2 or 3 years) before the benefits of doing this kicks in and racing starts seeing serious growth in popularity (also marketing itself like crazy would speed this process up some-but it is still a slow road)

There is no in between. I know some want these little 2 and 3% takeout reductions here and there, but they will not benefit racing enough to pay for the loss in revenue. You either compete, or you don't. Like in my burger analogy, my $25 burger isn't going to compete because I bring it down to $19.99. Not with In and Out and Shake Shack and Five Guys............around the corner. I may as wells stick with $25 and maximize my profits for those crazy enough to spend it.

The sad part is that racing with casinos had an influx of money that they could have made the changes I talk about above, but no, it all goes to purses and horsemen. Absolutely brilliant. So meanwhile the sport continues to die and there is no hope in sight, but no problem, big fat purses. Will see what happens when that money dries up. Then what?

Andy A, I am not disagreeing with you but you can't sell these people on something as risky as #2 above would be. They would have to have vision and they don't They only see the risk, and are not will to take that chance, even though their current state is perilous. Maybe one desperate track one day might do it, but they likely will be fields of $2,000 claimers which just do not appeal to a lot of horseplayers. I disagree with the notion that 2 % takeout cuts here or there will do anything. They just provide evidence to the racing industry that there foolish ways are the right way. I am not suggesting they further gouge customer either by raising takeout more than it already is (however down the road they will have little choice), but does anyone really think that racetracks with 25% takeouts in trifecta pools and superfecta pools and pick 4 pools are going to suddenly become beatable for a whole bunch of regular player because they drop the takeout down so say 22%. The players will still get pummeled and leave the game. These band aid take out reductions will do zero to the long run growth of the game.

[Andy Asaro]

I can't speak for other, but regarding myself, I have always been perfectly clear. Racing has two options.

1) It can stay in the status quo giving competive pricing to huge bettors and thus driving small bettors out of the game and leaving zero hope for a successful future. Also as the game loses it's fish, it will utlimately start to lose it's whales and when that happens it is light out because this industry has chosen to put all of it eggs in the whale basket instead of creating a market o mini whales.

2) They can make a major change, which means eliminating rebates bringing takeout down to a competitive rate (8% wps, 12% exotic) and they have to ride it out as long as it takes (which easily could be 2 or 3 years) before the benefits of doing this kicks in and racing starts seeing serious growth in popularity (also marketing itself like crazy would speed this process up some-but it is still a slow road)

There is no in between. I know some want these little 2 and 3% takeout reductions here and there, but they will not benefit racing enough to pay for the loss in revenue. You either compete, or you don't. Like in my burger analogy, my $25 burger isn't going to compete because I bring it down to $19.99. Not with In and Out and Shake Shack and Five Guys............around the corner. I may as wells stick with $25 and maximize my profits for those crazy enough to spend it.

The sad part is that racing with casinos had an influx of money that they could have made the changes I talk about above, but no, it all goes to purses and horsemen. Absolutely brilliant. So meanwhile the sport continues to die and there is no hope in sight, but no problem, big fat purses. Will see what happens when that money dries up. Then what?

Andy A, I am not disagreeing with you but you can't sell these people on something as risky as #2 above would be. They would have to have vision and they don't They only see the risk, and are not will to take that chance, even though their current state is perilous. Maybe one desperate track one day might do it, but they likely will be fields of $2,000 claimers which just do not appeal to a lot of horseplayers. I disagree with the notion that 2 % takeout cuts here or there will do anything. They just provide evidence to the racing industry that there foolish ways are the right way. I am not suggesting they further gouge customer either by raising takeout more than it already is (however down the road they will have little choice), but does anyone really think that racetracks with 25% takeouts in trifecta pools and superfecta pools and pick 4 pools are going to suddenly become beatable for a whole bunch of regular player because they drop the takeout down so say 22%. The players will still get pummeled and leave the game. These band aid take out reductions will do zero to the long run growth of the game.

There is very little risk with those suggestions. Can you come up with a suggestion that will have both an immediate and long term measurable benefit that can be changed to be more optimal within a week if not working?

If everything else stayed the same exacta handle would have to go up 30% to be near revenue neutral

[Andy Asaro]

Just to add something to my previous post.

The Tracks and the Horsemen are going to expect an immediate result and that's why the 16% is important. It's a banner add that just about every horseplayer would click on for a major jurisdiction. Easy to sell.

The right way would be go make adjustments at .5% at a time and arrive at the optimal level over 5 or 10 years with Zero immediate benefit.

[Andy Asaro]

I've posed this question in other threads for the simple fact that's it's the most pressing problem that needs to addressed immediately:

Don't the ADW's really control the game and the takeout now? Can you think of anyone else who bettors and track mgt are more dependent on for the continued survival of the game than the ADW's?

In Ca. it's the Tracks and the TOC.

[dilanesp]

On the rebates versus takeout issue, I am afraid every microeconomics textbook in America says that price discrimination increases profits or cuts losses compared to charging one price to everyone.

Try convincing airlines that they should charge the same fare to everyone on the plane.

[Poindexter]

There is very little risk with those suggestions. Can you come up with a suggestion that will have both an immediate and long term measurable benefit that can be changed to be more optimal within a week if not working?

If everything else stayed the same exacta handle would have to go up 30% to be near revenue neutral

If you want to go short run and flexible, here are a couple of options.

1) Loss Leader-You know when you shop your neighborhood big box store and they sell their 200 best sellers at near cost, to give you the illusion that they are cheaper than they really are. Racing can try and borrow that, with say leaving exotic takeout where it is and as a promotion bring wps takeout to 10%. Exotic bettors are not going anywhere. But value sensitive players can shift their focus on the wps pools. If racing find this works it opens up some opportunity. New bettors can be trained to focus their attention on the wps pools, which will increase their longevity. Also with a 10% wps takeout, a legitimate chance of getting some customers form dfs, sport betting and poker players, thus giving yourself a chance to grow. You are still gouging your exotics players but at least your opening up some opportunity in this game for players. if it really works maybe racing will begin to see the light. The loss leader principle comes in because horseplayers would now be perceiving more value in their everyday play (it would be subtle and they may not even be cognizant of it but over time they will perceive more value).

2) The other thing is seeding pools. $50,000 early pick 4 carryover every weekend. This will partially pay for itself with increased betting, will bring some excitement into the card, get people capping from everywhere and that should mean more handle in those 4 races. Most horse players if they cap 4 races even if they play a pick4 are likely to find something to bet in those 4 races(especially if their pick 4 goes down early).

[Andy Asaro]

If you want to go short run and flexible, here are a couple of options.

1) Loss Leader-You know when you shop your neighborhood big box store and they sell their 200 best sellers at near cost, to give you the illusion that they are cheaper than they really are. Racing can try and borrow that, with say leaving exotic takeout where it is and as a promotion bring wps takeout to 10%. Exotic bettors are not going anywhere. But value sensitive players can shift their focus on the wps pools. If racing find this works it opens up some opportunity. New bettors can be trained to focus their attention on the wps pools, which will increase their longevity. Also with a 10% wps takeout, a legitimate chance of getting some customers form dfs, sport betting and poker players, thus giving yourself a chance to grow. You are still gouging your exotics players but at least your opening up some opportunity in this game for players. if it really works maybe racing will begin to see the light. The loss leader principle comes in because horseplayers would now be perceiving more value in their everyday play (it would be subtle and they may not even be cognizant of it but over time they will perceive more value).

2) The other thing is seeding pools. $50,000 early pick 4 carryover every weekend. This will partially pay for itself with increased betting, will bring some excitement into the card, get people capping from everywhere and that should mean more handle in those 4 races. Most horse players if they cap 4 races even if they play a pick4 are likely to find something to bet in those 4 races(especially if their pick 4 goes down early).

The 14% take P5 was/is considered a loss leader by the tracks because they get a much smaller cut of the P5 take than goes to purses. In first two years handle in vertical wagers through the sequence went way up.

10% isn't close to realistic and can't be done. Remember we're talking about things that have a shot at being implemented. Exactas at 16% take. And pay penny breakage is similar to a small WPS takeout reduction. Monitor, adjust, monitor, adjust.

And even though 16% take exactas aren't a loss leader they would have just as big or bigger an impact as any other true loss leader IMO

[Poindexter]

On the rebates versus takeout issue, I am afraid every microeconomics textbook in America says that price discrimination increases profits or cuts losses compared to charging one price to everyone.

Try convincing airlines that they should charge the same fare to everyone on the plane.

When I fly to New York, it doesn't cost me anything if the guy in first class got a free upgrade or the guy next to me go his flight for free because he is a frequent flyer. You cannot compare these other industries with racing. I am sure not one of your micoeconomic textbooks covers pari-mutuel wagering.

[Poindexter]

The 14% take P5 was/is considered a loss leader by the tracks because they get a much smaller cut of the P5 take than goes to purses. In first two years handle in vertical wagers through the sequence went way up.

10% isn't close to realistic and can't be done. Remember we're talking about things that have a shot at being implemented. Exactas at 16% take. And pay penny breakage is similar to a small WPS takeout reduction. Monitor, adjust, monitor, adjust.

And even though 16% take exactas aren't a loss leader they would have just as big or bigger an impact as any other true loss leader IMO

As I said nothing is going to change. I dont know if 16% takeout in exactas will be a net positive or net negative, but I don't see it offerring enough to transform players from losing to winning and I don't see it being a draw, so I would guess that without a huge pump from Hana, it probably will be a net negative. Also doesn't solve the stupidity of sending rebated bettors from states that they can't get rebates in offshore because they do not bet a million dollars a year. As if they don't need players that bet $150,000 a year or $300,000 a year.

[Andy Asaro]

As I said nothing is going to change. I dont know if 16% takeout in exactas will be a net positive or net negative, but I don't see it offerring enough to transform players from losing to winning and I don't see it being a draw, so I would guess that without a huge pump from Hana, it probably will be a net negative. Also doesn't solve the stupidity of sending rebated bettors from states that they can't get rebates in offshore because they do not bet a million dollars a year. As if they don't need players that bet $150,000 a year or $300,000 a year.
It goes with the marketing plan from the article. Industry (Americas Best Racing, Jockey Club, NTRA) implements program using California as a test jurisdiction for selling horse racing as a gambling game of skill. The Industry targets newbies with WPS and exacta wagering so they cash more often and make it through the learning curve. Jockey Club and NTRA have already said that if Santa Anita and the TOC ask they would participate.

[whodoyoulike]

Whenever we get into the takeout thing it's natural to go into everyone's theory of what should be done in a perfect world. Whatever is done TODAY has to be sold to the track(s) and the Horseman. Once they are sold then you have to sell the public. :1: Coming up with the right starting point and the best number isn't easy. Do you want an eye catching number on a certain wager (exacta) to start? Do you want to address a long standing Horseplayer grievance like breakage? How much free publicity will the changes offer? Will lowering an exacta to say 16% takeout cannibalize tri's and supers and to what extent and for how long. How many new Customers will shift their play to the first jurisdiction to move on 16% exactas and penny breakage? Will that shift cause handle and revenue on all wagers to increase over time? What will the effects of increased churn have on handle revenue?


:2: There are a lot smarter people than me on the board but most of the discussions fail to address the "what will sell" factor IMO.

And it's a given that......... Pool Size - Field Size - Takeout... are ALL important factors

Why would this be so difficult?

:1: There's plenty of historical data on the betting amounts or handle for each of the betting menu items. I would think it should be possible to calculate an ideal takeout %.

But, first one has to calculate an acceptable return for tracks and owners. A reasonable level for purses and not pay out to the last place but instead to the way it was to 4th place. And a reasonable return for the tracks for capital expenditures and the other recurring daily costs.

:2: Thank you, but we all have noticed that you are trying.

And, I never understood why exotics has to have a significantly higher takeout % than WPS.

[Andy Asaro]

Why would this be so difficult?

:1: There's plenty of historical data on the betting amounts or handle for each of the betting menu items. I would think it should be possible to calculate an ideal takeout %.

But, first one has to calculate an acceptable return for tracks and owners. A reasonable level for purses and not pay out to the last place but instead to the way it was to 4th place. And a reasonable return for the tracks for capital expenditures and the other recurring daily costs.

:2: Thank you, but we have noticed that you are trying.

And, I never understood why exotics has to have a significantly higher takeout % than WPS.

It shouldn't be difficult because it's not a long term commitment. Can change numbers in week 2 if they wish.

[dilanesp]

When I fly to New York, it doesn't cost me anything if the guy in first class got a free upgrade or the guy next to me go his flight for free because he is a frequent flyer. You cannot compare these other industries with racing. I am sure not one of your micoeconomic textbooks covers pari-mutuel wagering.

When you fly to New York, you are actually getting the rebate. The last minute business traveler is subsidizing you.

[whodoyoulike]

First off, there are more less-smart-than-you people here...

Second...this post hits it on the head. The biggest problem you see with suggestions here is that most people suggest something super simple and make the immediate leap that it will, in and of itself, show benefits almost immediately. That's a fallacy. Everything's inter-related and requires careful forethought and action. :1: Look at Canterbury's experiment last year.

I think of the problem as something like this. You have a patient who has the following maladies:

Pneumonia
Cancer
Sprained ankle
Spear through the leg

You can't just address one at a time and expect to simply move on to the next like a shopping list. Addressing one malady affects every other. Simple solutions do not exist...but you HAVE TO start somewhere.

:1: I'm guessing you're referring to their lower takeout last meet.

Are they now raising takeout?

I take it you played CBY, what did you think of their racing?

I looked at their first card and planned to bet there because of the lower t/o but, the card lineup was crap and never looked at CBY the rest of the meet.

[whodoyoulike]

On the rebates versus takeout issue, I am afraid every microeconomics textbook in America says that price discrimination increases profits or cuts losses compared to charging one price to everyone.

Try convincing airlines that they should charge the same fare to everyone on the plane.

And, how are the majority of airlines doing?

I think people (customers) know when they're being ripped off.

[cj]

:1: I'm guessing you're referring to their lower takeout last meet.

Are they now raising takeout?

I take it you played CBY, what did you think of their racing?

I looked at their first card and planned to bet there because of the lower t/o but, the card lineup was crap and never looked at CBY the rest of the meet.

The weather was terrible and the cards weren't much better.

[Andy Asaro]

What works at a major jurisdiction with huge pools and what works at a C track are two different universes IMO. The whole C track lower take thing wrecked any significant takeout changes at the major tracks IMO.

[ReplayRandall]

What works at a major jurisdiction with huge pools and what works at a C track are two different universes IMO. The whole C track lower take thing wrecked any significant takeout changes at the major tracks IMO.
Don't get ahead of yourself Andy, it's a rebate issue CONTROLLED by the ADW's.....

[dilanesp]

And, how are the majority of airlines doing?

I think people (customers) know when they're being ripped off.

Airlines are making record profits.

[Andy Asaro]

Don't get ahead of yourself Andy, it's a rebate issue CONTROLLED by the ADW's.....

The Canterbury thing killed me. I was apprehensive about it but went all in promoting it and even though they outperformed other tracks in their area/category by a mile the headline was all that mattered. It was a waste of time and money because no matter what the takeout was the pools were too small to matter IMO

[Poindexter]

When you fly to New York, you are actually getting the rebate. The last minute business traveler is subsidizing you.

1) that business traveler may have his costs reimbursed by a 3rd pary(his company the person who invited him out etc)

2) even if he is paying the bill, he doesn't have an option. He has to get to NY in 24 hours and Amtrak isn't going to do it, nor is the bus. Racing used to be the only game in town. That ship has sailed.

When the on track racing patron subsidizes the Whales (and in actuality they do-just like the business traveler-as I explained the last time we had this discussion) their is a much bigger cost. A customer is often lost. The business traveler, does not have the luxury of bringing their business to a non airline. but the Gambler certainly has the option of playing other gambling games with their money. Most people can walk to their corner 7/11 to gamble or call a local bookie, or play dfs or local or online casinos....... After they get their head handed to them enough, the next time they go to the track, they may just go straight to the casino portion and bypass the racetrack. Stop assuming what works for other industries will work for racing. Racing can provide whales all the perks they want other than rebates. Hookers, drinks, food, hotel rooms, massages, spas, tickets to games, golf club memberships...............but as long as they rebate they are costing the non rebated bettor too much and they are stunting the growth of the game. I get why racing stubbornly holds on to what they are doing(they see no other option), I just don't see why you think this works. Why do you assume that gamblers are so comfortable losing such large chunks of capital every time they gamble, and then come to the conclusion Americas taste has changed. No racing has been changing America's taste, leaving a bad taste in their mouth every time they set foot in a racetrack for what is approaching 20 years now.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The Canterbury thing killed me. I was apprehensive about it but went all in promoting it and even though they outperformed other tracks in their area/category by a mile the headline was all that mattered. It was a waste of time and money because no matter what the takeout was the pools were too small to matter IMO

Canterbury was a success in my opinion. The handle went up, and that was really the significant metric. The fact that profit wasn't the same was important to Canterbury, but I thought it was like a person going on a diet, losing two pounds in a week and saying, the diet doesn't work because I didn't lose all the weight I wanted. It would have taken more than one season to label their experiment a failure or success.

Three things struck me beyond not giving the experiment enough time. One, after the initial rollout I don't remember a continuing marketing effort. Two, horseplayers have habits and it was going to take time to change those habits. If I don't know the trainers, jockeys, or tendencies at a respective track, why would I switch away from a track I've spent years understanding? Three, yes, the pools weren't big enough to attract even the medium sized bettors. If I bet $100 on a horse and it impacts the odds in any significant way, I'm not looking to make that track a prime betting place.

I believe to legitimately evaluate the effect of take on handle you have to have the larger handle tracks do it simultaneously. Dropping the take may not overcome crappy racing, but it certainly gives the marketing people something to distract fans with.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yeah, I really don't expect any different from any party. All sides seem to be dug into the idea that "if it benefits me it must be a good idea."

On this board though, a lot of the "if it benefits me" is in the vein of trying to revive the sport. In the case of bigger purses, the only argument beyond it benefitting one group is that it could keep some owners in the game, and that is tentative.

Racing is a three legged stool - the owners, the trainers and the bettors. If one of the legs fails, the stool falls. For racing to thrive, all three legs have to be winners in the design of the game, but not one at the expense of the others.

What about the track? To paraphrase the Magnificent Seven, the track always wins.

[whodoyoulike]

Airlines are making record profits.

I had to look this up.

An article from 01/17:

The U.S. airline industry has enjoyed three straight years of surging profits and has poured much of that windfall into buying shiny new planes, building swankier airport lounges for VIP customers and paying big dividends to investors. ...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airline-turbulence-20170117-story.html

But, a more recent one from 05/17:

Airlines in the United States made more than $4.2 billion in baggage fees, accounting for 2.5% of revenue last year, though the industry still saw overall profits significantly decrease.

Baggage fees were the highest area of profit growth, according to a release Tuesday from the Department of Transportation. Baggage-fee profit went up 10% in 2016 compared to 2015, an increase of about $372 million, according to the DOT.

The airline with the highest baggage-fee profits, American Airlines, made more than $1 billion in 2016, according to the report.

However, airline profits in the U.S. were down over $11 billion in 2016, bringing in $13.5 billion in 2016 compared to $24.8 billion in 2015. The Department of Transportation said in the release that while fuel costs decreased, labor rates went up by nearly as much and airlines also made less through fees for changing reservations. Fares ended up making $91.2 billion, only about a 1% increase from 2015, according to the report. ...

http://fortune.com/2017/05/03/airline-profit-baggage-fee/

I'm surprised of the recent results since I haven't followed them in years because I've pretty much written them off.

[Andy Asaro]

Canterbury was a success in my opinion. The handle went up, and that was really the significant metric. The fact that profit wasn't the same was important to Canterbury, but I thought it was like a person going on a diet, losing two pounds in a week and saying, the diet doesn't work because I didn't lose all the weight I wanted. It would have taken more than one season to label their experiment a failure or success.

Three things struck me beyond not giving the experiment enough time. One, after the initial rollout I don't remember a continuing marketing effort. Two, horseplayers have habits and it was going to take time to change those habits. If I don't know the trainers, jockeys, or tendencies at a respective track, why would I switch away from a track I've spent years understanding? Three, yes, the pools weren't big enough to attract even the medium sized bettors. If I bet $100 on a horse and it impacts the odds in any significant way, I'm not looking to make that track a prime betting place.

I believe to legitimately evaluate the effect of take on handle you have to have the larger handle tracks do it simultaneously. Dropping the take may not overcome crappy racing, but it certainly gives the marketing people something to distract fans with.

What we make of the facts doesn't matter. The perception is that it was a failure and they changed back to high takeout affirming the perception that it was a failure. The rest of the industry used that perception as an excuse for the status quo. Giving a factual analysis in this industry is often meaningless. That's what most people have a hard time understanding cuz it doesn't make sense unless you've met with many of these execs/industry leaders. Once you've been through that you'll know what I'm talking about even though it isn't logical.

[dilanesp]

1) that business traveler may have his costs reimbursed by a 3rd pary(his company the person who invited him out etc)

2) even if he is paying the bill, he doesn't have an option. He has to get to NY in 24 hours and Amtrak isn't going to do it, nor is the bus. Racing used to be the only game in town. That ship has sailed.

When the on track racing patron subsidizes the Whales (and in actuality they do-just like the business traveler-as I explained the last time we had this discussion) their is a much bigger cost. A customer is often lost. The business traveler, does not have the luxury of bringing their business to a non airline. but the Gambler certainly has the option of playing other gambling games with their money. Most people can walk to their corner 7/11 to gamble or call a local bookie, or play dfs or local or online casinos....... After they get their head handed to them enough, the next time they go to the track, they may just go straight to the casino portion and bypass the racetrack. Stop assuming what works for other industries will work for racing. Racing can provide whales all the perks they want other than rebates. Hookers, drinks, food, hotel rooms, massages, spas, tickets to games, golf club memberships...............but as long as they rebate they are costing the non rebated bettor too much and they are stunting the growth of the game. I get why racing stubbornly holds on to what they are doing(they see no other option), I just don't see why you think this works. Why do you assume that gamblers are so comfortable losing such large chunks of capital every time they gamble, and then come to the conclusion Americas taste has changed. No racing has been changing America's taste, leaving a bad taste in their mouth every time they set foot in a racetrack for what is approaching 20 years now.

I agree that rebates are corrosive to the sport. Indeed, there's no reason regulators should permit them. The principle that everyone betting in the pool should pay the same takeout is a good one and is consistent with how gaming regulation is supposed to work.

But I also have an inkling of why tracks go along with them. They are a form of price discrimination in favor of more cost-sensitive customers, and microeconomic theory says that this sort of thing usually helps your bottom line. To put it another way-- if tracks really believed rebates were hurting their customer base in the way you posit, they would take more steps than they do currently to disallow them. The more likely truth is that rebates contribute to the slow decline in the sport, but in the meantime, tracks get plenty of additional handle because they exist.

At any rate, don't look for tracks to get rid of them without a regulatory intervention.

[Poindexter]

I agree that rebates are corrosive to the sport. Indeed, there's no reason regulators should permit them. The principle that everyone betting in the pool should pay the same takeout is a good one and is consistent with how gaming regulation is supposed to work.

But I also have an inkling of why tracks go along with them. They are a form of price discrimination in favor of more cost-sensitive customers, and microeconomic theory says that this sort of thing usually helps your bottom line. To put it another way-- if tracks really believed rebates were hurting their customer base in the way you posit, they would take more steps than they do currently to disallow them. The more likely truth is that rebates contribute to the slow decline in the sport, but in the meantime, tracks get plenty of additional handle because they exist.

At any rate, don't look for tracks to get rid of them without a regulatory intervention.


This is progress. :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

Unless somebody finds a couple thousand decent horses, there is no progress, it's all talk

[elhelmete]

:1: I'm guessing you're referring to their lower takeout last meet.

Are they now raising takeout?

I take it you played CBY, what did you think of their racing?

I looked at their first card and planned to bet there because of the lower t/o but, the card lineup was crap and never looked at CBY the rest of the meet.

I played it a tiny bit, which was up from my previous years of zero play.

It appears I'm not the only one who had this reaction.

[elhelmete]

On this board though, a lot of the "if it benefits me" is in the vein of trying to revive the sport. In the case of bigger purses, the only argument beyond it benefitting one group is that it could keep some owners in the game, and that is tentative.

Racing is a three legged stool - the owners, the trainers and the bettors. If one of the legs fails, the stool falls. For racing to thrive, all three legs have to be winners in the design of the game, but not one at the expense of the others.

What about the track? To paraphrase the Magnificent Seven, the track always wins.

(The track owners are a 4th leg, no?)

I should have been more precise in what I was trying to convey.

In a nutshell, there is no one-size-fits-all solution or set of solutions for racing.

Horizontal bettors have slightly different priorities than vertical bettors. On-track vs. ADW. $1000/day players vs $20/day vs. $100,000/day, etc. You can't make a change that doesn't affect each sub-population differently.

Suffolk Downs' management needs a different set of tools than does Saratoga's. Del Mar doesn't have an attendance issues. Presque Isle does.

And so on.

[Gentz]

I've been a horse racing fan for 45 years. While there are a lot of excellent points and ideas in this thread, does anyone actually believe that horse racing can be saved. It seems on many, if not all fronts, this sport is done.

[AndyC]

I agree that rebates are corrosive to the sport. Indeed, there's no reason regulators should permit them. The principle that everyone betting in the pool should pay the same takeout is a good one and is consistent with how gaming regulation is supposed to work.

At any rate, don't look for tracks to get rid of them without a regulatory intervention.

So flying in big bettors to Vegas and showering them with rooms, meals, shows, etc. is not how gaming regulation should work?

The last time I checked rebates were not being paid out of the mutuel pools so every dollar does have the exact same takeout rate. If ADWs want to spend their revenues on rebates that should be their decision. Tracks do the exact same thing. Should there be a regulation against the Del Mar "ship and win" payments made to owners to lure horses away from other tracks?

I would argue that it is because of regulation that the tracks are in the mess that they are in. Some regulation is needed, of course, just not the kind that prevents tracks from making changes that could be beneficial to their existence.

[AndyC]

On this board though, a lot of the "if it benefits me" is in the vein of trying to revive the sport. In the case of bigger purses, the only argument beyond it benefitting one group is that it could keep some owners in the game, and that is tentative.

Racing is a three legged stool - the owners, the trainers and the bettors. If one of the legs fails, the stool falls. For racing to thrive, all three legs have to be winners in the design of the game, but not one at the expense of the others.

What about the track? To paraphrase the Magnificent Seven, the track always wins.

"If it benefits me" is probably a bad way to make public policy but it's a great way for a consumer to think and act.

As a bettor, I am the customer, the consumer. If the tracks cannot give me a product that I want, one that benefits me, I am out. If Costco can't provide me with goods and services that benefit me I won't shop there.

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.sgvtribune.com/sports/20170615/saving-santa-anita-is-more-than-a-one-man-job?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Excerpt:

ARCADIA — No one, not even folks in the know, can say for certain if Santa Anita will still be standing in 10 years. The iconic race track that once was home to the legendary Seabiscuit, the world’s first hundred-grand horse race and a couple of guys named Shoemaker and Whittingham could eventually face the same fate as the now-defunct Hollywood Park.

In fact, Jack Liebau, who served as Hollywood Park’s president for its final eight years, told the Southern California News Group that Santa Anita would probably have already been bulldozed if it was owned by the Bay Meadows Land Company — the same group of investors who made up Hollypark’s parent company.

[dilanesp]

So flying in big bettors to Vegas and showering them with rooms, meals, shows, etc. is not how gaming regulation should work?

The last time I checked rebates were not being paid out of the mutuel pools so every dollar does have the exact same takeout rate. If ADWs want to spend their revenues on rebates that should be their decision. Tracks do the exact same thing. Should there be a regulation against the Del Mar "ship and win" payments made to owners to lure horses away from other tracks?

I would argue that it is because of regulation that the tracks are in the mess that they are in. Some regulation is needed, of course, just not the kind that prevents tracks from making changes that could be beneficial to their existence.

Andy:

There actually ARE regulations on what other sorts of gaming enterprises can do in terms of comps. For instance, here in California no casino or racetrack can give you free booze.

Saying that takeout has to be consistent and can't be rebated would fall in that category.

I don't buy your technical argument that a rebate doesn't reduce takeout, either. It has the exact same effect.

And there's a lot more caveat emptor in horse ownership than in betting.

[dilanesp]

"If it benefits me" is probably a bad way to make public policy but it's a great way for a consumer to think and act.

As a bettor, I am the customer, the consumer. If the tracks cannot give me a product that I want, one that benefits me, I am out. If Costco can't provide me with goods and services that benefit me I won't shop there.

The threat that racing could decline and become less bettable or unbettable renders this different than Costco.

[whodoyoulike]

I've been a horse racing fan for 45 years. While there are a lot of excellent points and ideas in this thread, does anyone actually believe that horse racing can be saved. It seems on many, if not all fronts, this sport is done.

Like you, I'm also a long term fan. I'm not going to give up unless they close the tracks closest to me.

And, it appears Los Al is on the ropes and now SA??, WTH SA!! btw, Dmr is the closest track. Hell, first Caliente then Bay Meadows and HP closed (didn't care for Fairplex). I can see the writing on the bathroom walls. Lately, that is one of my first stops.

[AndyC]

The threat that racing could decline and become less bettable or unbettable renders this different than Costco.

Betting on an event is their product. If Costco products decline in value to me, I will shop there less or not at all. One of the most basic axioms of business is to provide customers a product that they want at a price they are willing to pay. Currently the racing product is lacking and the price is too high.

[AndyC]

Andy:

There actually ARE regulations on what other sorts of gaming enterprises can do in terms of comps. For instance, here in California no casino or racetrack can give you free booze.

Saying that takeout has to be consistent and can't be rebated would fall in that category.

I don't buy your technical argument that a rebate doesn't reduce takeout, either. It has the exact same effect.

And there's a lot more caveat emptor in horse ownership than in betting.

The reason for disallowing free booze is in no way comparable to rebates.

I believe you are the one making the technical argument. I am arguing facts.

You won't find me at any pity parties for horse owners or horse bettors either.

[cj]

The reason for disallowing free booze is in no way comparable to rebates.

I believe you are the one making the technical argument. I am arguing facts.

You won't find me at any pity parties for horse owners or horse bettors either.

I remember a guy (Leonard Tose) lost the Philadelphia Eagles and blamed it on free booze at the Atlantic City casinos. He lost in court trying to recoup some of his losses.

[thaskalos]

I remember a guy (Leonard Tose) lost the Philadelphia Eagles and blamed it on free booze at the Atlantic City casinos. He lost in court trying to recoup some of his losses.

Tose lost his case against one casino...even though he presented sworn testimony in court that the casino had two cocktail waitresses, whose sole responsibility was to keep his liquor glass full throughout his stay there.

[dilanesp]

Tose lost his case against one casino...even though he presented sworn testimony in court that the casino had two cocktail waitresses, whose sole responsibility was to keep his liquor glass full throughout his stay there.

Americans hate dramshop liability. Don't know the reason for this, but it mystifies torts theorists.

[cj]

Americans hate dramshop liability. Don't know the reason for this, but it mystifies torts theorists.

Casinos never lose in New Jersey.

[Andy Asaro]

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/

Excerpt:

Ritvo is certainly talking the talk. Let’s see given all the barriers he’ll have to break through whether or not he’ll be able to walk the walk.

[lamboguy]

Ritvo claims he wants to lower the takeout rate to 12%. its already 9% to rebate players so for them he wants to raise the rates. what he doesn't mention is the hidden killer, the breakage. instead of changing the takeout, why doesn't he cut the breakage in half just like the sharp guys did in NYRA long ago?

with a haircut in breakage he will get at least a 10% boost in handle and not have to change the takeout and boost the straight mutuel pools automatically.

[cj]

Ritvo claims he wants to lower the takeout rate to 12%. its already 9% to rebate players so for them he wants to raise the rates. what he doesn't mention is the hidden killer, the breakage. instead of changing the takeout, why doesn't he cut the breakage in half just like the sharp guys did in NYRA long ago?

with a haircut in breakage he will get at least a 10% boost in handle and not have to change the takeout and boost the straight mutuel pools automatically.

Breakage is 1% on average. Sure, if you are betting favorites to show it is more, but in general it isn't nearly as a big a deal as takeout.

Cutting takeout to 12% doesn't raise the rates on rebate players. It just changes how they get they get there. If you 9% is correct, a player betting into a 20% pool is getting an 11% rebate. If the take is changed to 12%, they'd most likely get a 3% rebate. The net is the same.

[Ian Meyers]

Breakage is 1% on average. Sure, if you are betting favorites to show it is more, but in general it isn't nearly as a big a deal as takeout.


On average breakage to an ADW or host track is ~ 25-35bp on handle. .


Cutting takeout to 12% doesn't raise the rates on rebate players. It just changes how they get they get there. If you 9% is correct, a player betting into a 20% pool is getting an 11% rebate. If the take is changed to 12%, they'd most likely get a 3% rebate. The net is the same.


Most big players I know believe that their net win will INCREASE if takeout was reduced, as the lower take enhances pool liquidity and allows them to wager more.

Just to be clear, large rebate players are NOT the reason takeout has remained at historically high levels.

[cj]

On average breakage to an ADW or host track is ~ 25-35bp on handle. .





Most big players I know believe that their net win will INCREASE if takeout was reduced, as the lower take enhances pool liquidity and allows them to wager more.

Just to be clear, large rebate players are NOT the reason takeout has remained at historically high levels.

What is bp, as in ~25-35 bp on handle?

I agree about a takeout reduction helping rebate players. That has always been my argument as well and was the reason I posted what I did. Rebate players should not be against takeout reductions as lambo implied.

[AndyC]

What is bp, as in ~25-35 bp on handle?

I agree about a takeout reduction helping rebate players. That has always been my argument as well and was the reason I posted what I did. Rebate players should not be against takeout reductions as lambo implied.

A bp is a basis point. A basis point is 1/100 of a percent. So 25 bp is 1/4 of a percent.

[cj]

A bp is a basis point. A basis point is 1/100 of a percent. So 25 bp is 1/4 of a percent.

Thanks. The 1% I was thinking of came from win bets only, not all pools. My mistake.

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20170622/takeout-at-the-racetrack-prompts-varying-points-of-view

Excerpt:

Tim Ritvo, chief operating officer of Santa Anita’s parent company, The Stronach Group, is one of the few racing executives who will admit that SB1072 was a mistake, and he believes takeout is too high.


“First of all, I don’t want to knock the people who instituted (SB1072) because as I operate, people look back at my agreements and say why did you do that at that time?” Ritvo said in a recent interview. “You never know what was going on at that time. I know horsemen don’t like to hear it a lot of times, but purse money doesn’t create good betting venues. There’s all the purse money in the world in New York and they still have six-horse fields and $100,000 maiden special weights. Whether a maiden special weight is $56,000 or $52,000 I think is insignificant to the customer. So purses do not drive a better racing product.

[Andy Asaro]

Leave it to Liebau. The kind of the short term solutions that helped bring Ca. to it's knees.

It's Pool size

It's takeout

It's field size

Not always in that order.

[lamboguy]

just to put things into proper prospective, Ritvo is not trying to lower takeout, he is trying to raise it! if you are a rebate player you are paying about 9% for California racing. he wants takeout to go to 12%. that is a raise because there will be no rebate once he gets done with it.

2 things he can do that will make everyone happy. first lower the breakage and pay the dime just like NYRA does. secondly, make sure the system doesn't accept wagers after the the race starts or finishes. getting rid of after the bell is more than takeout.

this is pretty elementary, the game sucks now and without improvement its just going to die.

[AlsoEligible]

secondly, make sure the system doesn't accept wagers after the the race starts or finishes. getting rid of after the bell is more than takeout.

If you think the odds shifting during the race is because people are still wagering, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The late odds shift is an issue, and certain acronyms in the industry are working to fix that...but I'm not sure I would call it one of the top two problems in California.

Wagers being accepted after the race is off is simply not an issue. It is quite possibly the only thing that every single person in this industry agrees on, and we all go to great lengths to make sure it doesn't happen. And if those safeguards do fail for some reason (which happens in less than .1% of races), then there are processes and procedures to quickly identify those wagers and get them out of the pools, so there's still no impact on the players.

Anyone suggesting that this happens on a regular basis because "they know a guy" who always gets in late, or they talked to a teller who can bet from their till as the horses come down the stretch...it's crap.

[cj]

just to put things into proper prospective, Ritvo is not trying to lower takeout, he is trying to raise it! if you are a rebate player you are paying about 9% for California racing. he wants takeout to go to 12%. that is a raise because there will be no rebate once he gets done with it.

So much wrong here, but since I already stated why I'm not going to rehash it.

[lamboguy]

If you think the odds shifting during the race is because people are still wagering, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The late odds shift is an issue, and certain acronyms in the industry are working to fix that...but I'm not sure I would call it one of the top two problems in California.

Wagers being accepted after the race is off is simply not an issue. It is quite possibly the only thing that every single person in this industry agrees on, and we all go to great lengths to make sure it doesn't happen. And if those safeguards do fail for some reason (which happens in less than .1% of races), then there are processes and procedures to quickly identify those wagers and get them out of the pools, so there's still no impact on the players.

Anyone suggesting that this happens on a regular basis because "they know a guy" who always gets in late, or they talked to a teller who can bet from their till as the horses come down the stretch...it's crap.please don't be naive. i can't pin point it in throroghbred's but i know someone has to be getting into the pools after the bell has rung.

this happened a few years ago with an exacta at Yonkers that everyone complained about, in 12 seconds flat i responded right on this board where it came from. 6 months later it was verified and to this day they are still gate punching at this particular venue.


i happen to be someone that gate punched for over 25 years until the end of the last century. there were articles about me in the New York Daily News and Post when co-mingled simulcasting first started. it took those articles to stop me at New York tracks after 2 years of swinging away at them. there were still other tracks that had a wide open bell. i doubt that there is any afterthebell going on at racetracks any longer, but i would guess that someone that bets with the Isle of Mann hub is getting down into the race.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There is no shortage of solutions to racing's problems.

At Santa Anita you have a blended take a little over 18%, and those percentages are essentially fixed. When you have around 7% going to the state, city and UC Davis for testing, there isn't enough left for purses and track expenses at 12%. What everyone has to realize is that under current conditions if you drop the take in one pool without changing the mandated percentages, you have to make up for it in another pool, and if you want to drop percentages across the board, the people with their hands out have to start giving up revenue.

Liebau makes one good point. Field size matters. I suspect many horseplayers given a choice between keeping take the same and having 14 horse fields, or dropping take to 12% and having six horse fields, would opt for the former. Ideally, 10-12 horse fields and lower take would be horseracing nirvana.

As for low minimums, that is just one more thing where the benevolence of the track barons really works against the small bettor, but everyone knows my feelings on that. One person I talked to suggested as the bets get more complex, the minimums can drop, so pick-3's would be $2, pick-4's $1 and pick-5's 50 cents. And superfectas shouldn't be less than 50 cents.

I won't belabor the argument, but whether or not the average tourist in the stands knows what take is, I am sure of two things. People betting real money know EXACTLY what take is, and those guys who don't understand take do understand they aren't going home with any money. To quote Liebau, "Anybody who wants to argue that doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about."

And of course he shows the same sensitivity that most track executives do for the bettor

“Everybody started blaming the tracks, track management, for what’s perceived as racing being in dire straits. There are other segments of the industry that have just as big a stake, maybe a bigger stake like the owners and trainers, organized labor ... and you would hope that everybody would work together."

That is to say, they are an afterthought in the decision making process. Simply a revenue source to pay for owners, trainers, organized labor and the track. Here's something you can quote. "Anybody who wants to argue that doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about."

[lamboguy]

Breakage is 1% on average. Sure, if you are betting favorites to show it is more, but in general it isn't nearly as a big a deal as takeout.

Cutting takeout to 12% doesn't raise the rates on rebate players. It just changes how they get they get there. If you 9% is correct, a player betting into a 20% pool is getting an 11% rebate. If the take is changed to 12%, they'd most likely get a 3% rebate. The net is the same.if you bet your $2 to win or a horse that should pay $10.39 to win and breakage adjusted it goes down ti $10.20 you are losing the same .19 on every $2 that you bet, the same as if the horse should pay $3.39 and it only pays $3.20.

[lamboguy]

if history means anything, there have been plenty of ADW's and racetracks that tracknet didn't allow to give rebates to their players. most of the smaller adw's are out of business or scooped up because they had to pay higher fees than the big boys. my guess would be if takeout goes lower they will cut out rebates altogether on those tracks. it may not be such a bad idea either in the long run.

[elhelmete]

People that are playing solely because they're getting rebates are the type of people that will end up moving on to a new game eventually. At least the whales, and this is just IMHO.

[thaskalos]

The elimination of the rebates is a good thing for the average player...for two reasons:

1.) The Whales will become extinct...and we won't have to deal with that suspicious late tote-board action any longer.

2.) Without the Whale-money in the pools, the waning betting interest of the average horseplayer will become much more evident...and this might wake the industry up from its deep sleep.

[AndyC]

if you bet your $2 to win or a horse that should pay $10.39 to win and breakage adjusted it goes down ti $10.20 you are losing the same .19 on every $2 that you bet, the same as if the horse should pay $3.39 and it only pays $3.20.

You would make a great politician making 2 quite different outcomes seem equal. In the first case you are giving up 2.2646% of your winnings (.19/8.39) and in the second case it is 13.669% (.19/1.39).

[AndyC]

If you think the odds shifting during the race is because people are still wagering, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The late odds shift is an issue, and certain acronyms in the industry are working to fix that...but I'm not sure I would call it one of the top two problems in California.

Wagers being accepted after the race is off is simply not an issue. It is quite possibly the only thing that every single person in this industry agrees on, and we all go to great lengths to make sure it doesn't happen. And if those safeguards do fail for some reason (which happens in less than .1% of races), then there are processes and procedures to quickly identify those wagers and get them out of the pools, so there's still no impact on the players.

Anyone suggesting that this happens on a regular basis because "they know a guy" who always gets in late, or they talked to a teller who can bet from their till as the horses come down the stretch...it's crap.

Gosh, that's reassuring. I will feel much better the next time a horse is bet at 3-1 as the gate opens and is 7-5 when it hits the stretch. While I agree for the most part that the tote is secure, the fact that the odds changes are so dramatic makes certain bets unplayable. It's a dual problem, perception and reality.

[lamboguy]

You would make a great politician making 2 quite different outcomes seem equal. In the first case you are giving up 2.2646% of your winnings (.19/8.39) and in the second case it is 13.669% (.19/1.39).i am not playing politics, think about it, if you walk up to the window in vegas to bet a baseball game and the vigorish is 10% you pay the same vig no matter what the odds are on the game. its the same in horse racing

[AndyC]

The elimination of the rebates is a good thing for the average player...for two reasons:

1.) The Whales will become extinct...and we won't have to deal with that suspicious late tote-board action any longer.

2.) Without the Whale-money in the pools, the waning betting interest of the average horseplayer will become much more evident...and this might wake the industry up from its deep sleep.

If Yogi Berra was still around he might call that a win-win situation that people wouldn't want to win.

[lamboguy]

The elimination of the rebates is a good thing for the average player...for two reasons:

1.) The Whales will become extinct...and we won't have to deal with that suspicious late tote-board action any longer.

2.) Without the Whale-money in the pools, the waning betting interest of the average horseplayer will become much more evident...and this might wake the industry up from its deep sleep.great idea

[AndyC]

i am not playing politics, think about it, if you walk up to the window in vegas to bet a baseball game and the vigorish is 10% you pay the same vig no matter what the odds are on the game. its the same in horse racing

You are lumping breakage in with vig which isn't correct.

[Andy Asaro]

Gosh, that's reassuring. I will feel much better the next time a horse is bet at 3-1 as the gate opens and is 7-5 when it hits the stretch. While I agree for the most part that the tote is secure, the fact that the odds changes are so dramatic makes certain bets unplayable. It's a dual problem, perception and reality.

I believe it's that some people are able to cancel a couple seconds into the race rather than betting more seconds into the race. Think Oaklawn has/had a 7 second cancel delay.

[lamboguy]

You are lumping breakage in with vig which isn't correct.i only used the example that the most they take for breakage is .19, but that may not be the case with larger payoffs in certain places the breakage can even be more.

not wanting to argue any longer, with the age of the computer, why not get rid of breakage all together? this way it wouldn't matter if i am right or wrong on it.

[AndyC]

i only used the example that the most they take for breakage is .19, but that may not be the case with larger payoffs in certain places the breakage can even be more.

not wanting to argue any longer, with the age of the computer, why not get rid of breakage all together? this way it wouldn't matter if i am right or wrong on it.

Yes, I concur on eliminating breakage.

I call this an enthusiastic discussion, not an argument.

One example and then I will end the breakage discussion.
Take a win pool with exactly $100,000 bet and a takeout % of exactly 15%.
To have a horse pay $3.39 there would have to be $50,148 on it leaving $34,852 for the winning tickets to split. (100,000 - 15,000 - 50148 =34,582)
Because of breakage the track will only pay $30,088, or $4,764 less than the amount available. The effective takeout for that bet is 19.764%. (15,000 + 4,764)/100,000.

Same pool and takeout rate. To have a horse pay $10.39 there would have to be $16,362 bet on it leaving $68,638 for the winning tickets to split (100,000 - 15,000 -16,362 = 68,638). Because of breakage the track will only pay $67,084, or $1,554 less than the amount available. The effective takeout for that bet is 16.554%. (15,000 + 1,554)/100,000

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Breakage is a revenue stream for the track. In 2014-15, breakage was worth $7.9 million in CA.

According to the CHRB, a total of $3,095,263,930 was wagered by fans of California racing during FY 2014-15, and of the money, 79 percent ($2,450,117,734) was returned to winning ticket holders. That appears to make the blended takeout 21%. How anyone who understands takeout doesn't think that is outrageous mystifies me.

The track has multiple revenue streams beyond handle and breakage, from admission to parking to programs.

The point is that if you delete any revenue stream, unless you can equivalently reduce expenditures, some other part of the total revenue stream has to make up the difference. The problem for horseplayers is really intractable.

[Andy Asaro]

Breakage is a revenue stream for the track. In 2014-15, breakage was worth $7.9 million in CA.

According to the CHRB, a total of $3,095,263,930 was wagered by fans of California racing during FY 2014-15, and of the money, 79 percent ($2,450,117,734) was returned to winning ticket holders. That appears to make the blended takeout 21%. How anyone who understands takeout doesn't think that is outrageous mystifies me.

The track has multiple revenue streams beyond handle and breakage, from admission to parking to programs.

The point is that if you delete any revenue stream, unless you can equivalently reduce expenditures, some other part of the total revenue stream has to make up the difference. The problem for horseplayers is really intractable.

Gotta start with WPS to the penny. If I remember right WPS amounts to about 30% of handle.

Then....

Let ADW's/self serve machines have a "keep the change" option and an option to donate more if you make a score. Some of breakage goes to backstretch workers and permanently disabled jockeys which are great causes. The donation option would more than make up for the revenue from WPS breakage and allow them to pay to the penny. And if they don't want to pay pennies they can give the tellers a few rolls of nickels and round up at the windows.

[thaskalos]

Isn't Ritvo the guy who crowed about how great a bet the Rainbow-6 is for the horseplayer? How come he wasn't making these anti-takeout declarations when he was at Gulfstream? My feeling is that he is just "talking"...hoping that the horseplayers will get excited just from the CONVERSATION about the possible lowering of the SA takeouts.

Ta SAY something is easy...but actually DOING it is something else entirely. With the speed that things move in this game, even if the desire for real change is there (which I doubt)...Santa Anita could be dead and BURIED before any real action is taken on the takeout issue. I predict another band-aid cure in California...as in another "low-takeout" sucker bet like the Rainbow-6.

[AlsoEligible]

please don't be naive. i can't pin point it in throroghbred's but i know someone has to be getting into the pools after the bell has rung.

this happened a few years ago with an exacta at Yonkers that everyone complained about, in 12 seconds flat i responded right on this board where it came from. 6 months later it was verified and to this day they are still gate punching at this particular venue.


i happen to be someone that gate punched for over 25 years until the end of the last century. there were articles about me in the New York Daily News and Post when co-mingled simulcasting first started. it took those articles to stop me at New York tracks after 2 years of swinging away at them. there were still other tracks that had a wide open bell. i doubt that there is any afterthebell going on at racetracks any longer, but i would guess that someone that bets with the Isle of Mann hub is getting down into the race.

It's not naivety, it's a decade of experience working with tote systems all over the world. Including the Isle of Mann, which contrary to popular opinion, is not some lawless utopia where whales get special access to data and pools unavailable to the public, or get to wager on races that took place last week.

Seems that you're talking about gate punching in the 90s, at the very beginning of simulcasting. I don't doubt that this was a much more prevalent issue then. But not today. The way these systems are all interconnected now, not to mention independent auditors who review the close times from every hub for every race...no system has a secret "past-post betting" switch, and if they do stay open late (which is usually only due to a hardware/software or network failure), the host knows about it and removes that money from the co-mingled pools.

I believe it's that some people are able to cancel a couple seconds into the race rather than betting more seconds into the race. Think Oaklawn has/had a 7 second cancel delay.

I think cancel delays are pretty much a thing of the past now, but I can't confirm it for every track. You may be right about Oaklawn still having one. But that's not really contributing to the late shifts. It's boils down to two separate but related causes:

First, that we allow betting right up to second horses break from the gate. At that point, the host tote has to send a stop betting signal to every other tote all over the world. Then those remote totes have to send back their final pool totals for the race. The host then has to re-calculate the final odds, and send those odds back to the tote board. It just takes time to complete that process, and no matter how fast the tote network is, it'll never be instantaneous.

Second, odds are only updated every 45-60 seconds. So when horses are loading, you may be looking at odds that are up to a minute old..and a lot of money can make it's way in during those final 60 seconds, especially from the whales. So when the pools lock, and all of that last-minute money is calculated, the final odds can be dramatically different.

The solution being proposed around the country - and already in place at several tracks - is to increase how often the odds update as post time approaches. Every 10-15 seconds, rather than every 45-60. You still get a lot of last-minute money coming in, but the theory is that if the odds are being updated more frequently, you won't see such dramatic shifts on the tote board. The data we've seen so far would seem to back that up.

[dilanesp]

I think cancel delays are pretty much a thing of the past now, but I can't confirm it for every track. You may be right about Oaklawn still having one. But that's not really contributing to the late shifts. It's boils down to two separate but related causes:

First, that we allow betting right up to second horses break from the gate. At that point, the host tote has to send a stop betting signal to every other tote all over the world. Then those remote totes have to send back their final pool totals for the race. The host then has to re-calculate the final odds, and send those odds back to the tote board. It just takes time to complete that process, and no matter how fast the tote network is, it'll never be instantaneous.

Second, odds are only updated every 45-60 seconds. So when horses are loading, you may be looking at odds that are up to a minute old..and a lot of money can make it's way in during those final 60 seconds, especially from the whales. So when the pools lock, and all of that last-minute money is calculated, the final odds can be dramatically different.

The solution being proposed around the country - and already in place at several tracks - is to increase how often the odds update as post time approaches. Every 10-15 seconds, rather than every 45-60. You still get a lot of last-minute money coming in, but the theory is that if the odds are being updated more frequently, you won't see such dramatic shifts on the tote board. The data we've seen so far would seem to back that up.

I have a better idea, a more radical one, that would never happen but would take care of the whole thing.

Give the starter, who can't see the tote board and is licensed by the state, a switch, and allow him or her to hit it and cut off betting worldwide at any point after the first horse is loaded.

If you did that, there would simply be no way to pull these shenanigans, and the last click of the tote board would likely happen before or at the start. Further, if anyone is timing their bets to go in at the last second, they would be flustered, because they wouldn't know when the last second was. They would have to bet earlier and other players would get to see their action.

Sure, some folks would be shut out at the windows, but that's a risk they take.

[AndyC]

Gotta start with WPS to the penny. If I remember right WPS amounts to about 30% of handle.......

And probably about 60% of the breakage.

[whodoyoulike]

Breakage is a revenue stream for the track. In 2014-15, breakage was worth $7.9 million in CA.

According to the CHRB, a total of $3,095,263,930 was wagered by fans of California racing during FY 2014-15, and of the money, 79 percent ($2,450,117,734) was returned to winning ticket holders. That appears to make the blended takeout 21%. How anyone who understands takeout doesn't think that is outrageous mystifies me.

The track has multiple revenue streams beyond handle and breakage, from admission to parking to programs.

The point is that if you delete any revenue stream, unless you can equivalently reduce expenditures, some other part of the total revenue stream has to make up the difference. The problem for horseplayers is really intractable.

Another interesting report from the CHRB is their annual Statistical Report of Operation under the Statistics Tab. I looked at SA statistics for 2014 - 2015.

Takeout Summary Report
Date range: 12/26/2014 – 12/25/2015
Race type: All Races
Hosts: Santa Anita
Locations: All locations
Tracks: All Tracks / On Track

.. Total to Purses $ 43,638,347.28
.. Tot to track 36,280,812.49 $79,919,159.77 8.57%

.. Commingle Guests 76,312,712.70 76,312,712.70 8.18%

.. Interstate Hosts 5,498,946.57 5,498,946.57 0.06%

.. Other * 10,355,171.09
.. Total Sim Distrib 18,352,864.27
.. Owner's Premium 287,982.76
.. Tot Breeder/Sires 3 ,106,481.86 32,102,499,98 3.44%

.. Retained from Public $193,833,319.02 $193,833,319.02 20.78%

.. Payable to Public $ 739,061,627.98

.. Total Handle $ 932,894,947.00
.. SB 16 Saving $4,501,612.30

Also, SB 16 License Relief was $10,379,780.34 offsets License fees, breakage, exotic license etc.

I don't know how this breakage is related to the reported breakage under Purses and Total to Track.

Other * includes … CHRB Support, Equine Lab, Workers Comp, City Taxes and F and E Fund – 19614 (d).

Questions which I have are:

What is the Commingle Guests Takeout?
It appears to be double the Purse / Track takeout.

Is it Funding for next year’s Purses and Track expenses?
So, it appears the current payouts are shorted by this Commingled Guest amount.

How does this impact the ability to offer Rebates?

[whodoyoulike]

Another interesting report from the CHRB is their annual Statistical Report of Operation under the Statistics Tab. I looked at SA statistics for 2014 - 2015.

Takeout Summary Report
Date range: 12/26/2014 – 12/25/2015
Race type: All Races
Hosts: Santa Anita
Locations: All locations
Tracks: All Tracks / On Track

.. Total to Purse................$ 43,638,347.28
.. Tot to track......................36,280,812.49.......... $79,919,159.77.....8.57%

.. Commingle Guests............76,312,712.70..........76,312,71 2.70.....8.18%

.. Interstate Hosts................5,498,946.57..............5,4 98,946.57.....0.06%

.. Other *............................10,355,171.09
.. Total Sim Distrib................18,352,864.27
.. Owner's Premium..................287,982.76
.. Tot Breeder/Sires................3,106,481.86.............32,1 02,499,98.....3.44%

.. Retained from Public........$193,833,319.02.........$193,833,319 .02....20.78%

.. Payable to Public..............$739,061,627.98

.. Total Handle.....................$932,894,947.00
.. SB 16 Saving.......................$4,501,612.30

Also, SB 16 License Relief was $10,379,780.34 offsets License fees, breakage, exotic license etc.

I don't know how this breakage is related to the reported breakage under Purses and Total to Track.

Other * includes … CHRB Support, Equine Lab, Workers Comp, City Taxes and F and E Fund – 19614 (d).

Questions which I have are:

What is the Commingle Guests Takeout?
It appears to be double the Purse / Track takeout.

Is it Funding for next year’s Purses and Track expenses?
So, it appears the current payouts are shorted by this Commingled Guest amount.

How does this impact the ability to offer Rebates?

Tried to reformat my post, hopefully it works.

Also have additional questions.

:1:What is SB 16 License Relief and where does the money go?

:2: I still don't understand the Commingle Guests Takeout. Is it a slush fund which the custodian (Track) can do with as they wish?

I understand slush fund.

I calculated the SA amounts taken out from 2012 - 2016 and it amounted to $376,481,439.13 which is still 8.2% of the total handle of $4,596,286,657.71.

The Purse & Track distribution is $407,710,068.56 or 8.9%.

[redlandb]

How about not having 30 minutes in between each fricking race. No "new" casual fan can spend 5 hours going to the track to watch all the card. Golf and baseball have the same problem. Our lives are too busy for the time commitment. You think I am full of BS? You try taking your kids to the "slower than hell" racetrack. I went to Lone Star today and left after 5 races, because I couldn't take it, and I love racing.

[lamboguy]

How about not having 30 minutes in between each fricking race. No "new" casual fan can spend 5 hours going to the track to watch all the card. Golf and baseball have the same problem. Our lives are too busy for the time commitment. You think I am full of BS? You try taking your kids to the "slower than hell" racetrack. I went to Lone Star today and left after 5 races, because I couldn't take it, and I love racing.you are right about the dragged on day's in racing. on regular overnight races its pretty boring to watch. but i did like the way the Royal Ascot was run, they had plenty of time between races but they only had 6 races a day. it was a very exiting week of racing there this year.

[thaskalos]

How about not having 30 minutes in between each fricking race. No "new" casual fan can spend 5 hours going to the track to watch all the card. Golf and baseball have the same problem. Our lives are too busy for the time commitment. You think I am full of BS? You try taking your kids to the "slower than hell" racetrack. I went to Lone Star today and left after 5 races, because I couldn't take it, and I love racing.

How about visiting the track's simulcast center...where races are shown from every track in the country, in rapid-fire fashion? Of all the "complaints" about the current "racetrack experience"...this "time in-between races" gripe is the one that I find totally incomprehensible. You DO know that full-card simulcasting has been offered nationwide for about 20 years now...right?

[Jeff P]

...You DO know that full-card simulcasting has been offered nationwide for about 20 years now...right?

Actually, without knowing it you've touched on yet another of California's many (self inflicted) problems:

Horsemen and track management refuse to allow actual full-card simulcasting.

They purposely limit the number of out of state races that can be bet at their brick and mortar simulcast centers.



-jp

.

[ronsmac]

How about not having 30 minutes in between each fricking race. No "new" casual fan can spend 5 hours going to the track to watch all the card. Golf and baseball have the same problem. Our lives are too busy for the time commitment. You think I am full of BS? You try taking your kids to the "slower than hell" racetrack. I went to Lone Star today and left after 5 races, because I couldn't take it, and I love racing.Try 6 hours at Saratoga. 11 or 12 race cards that take forever to run. Some of the races are 36 or 37 minutes apart.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

How about not having 30 minutes in between each fricking race. No "new" casual fan can spend 5 hours going to the track to watch all the card. Golf and baseball have the same problem. Our lives are too busy for the time commitment. You think I am full of BS? You try taking your kids to the "slower than hell" racetrack. I went to Lone Star today and left after 5 races, because I couldn't take it, and I love racing.

The solution is not to have a lot less time between races, but to consume the time between races. One of the issues is that serious players want to watch the replays - that takes some time. A second issue is that serious players want to make sure the odds stabilize (or at least come close) before they bet. That takes some time. A third issue is that a number of people like to look at the horses pre-race to get a sense of their readiness.

Tracks like Belmont and Saratoga have a lot of expert commentary - I can tell you stories of people who hit races they wouldn't have hit if they hadn't been listening to Maggie Wolfendale. And whatever you think of Andy Serling, he is knowledgable and entertaining. I would agree that 36-37 minutes is too long, but on the other hand, they do keep prompt post times once they are set. When I am at a track like Saratoga, the time between races goes by pretty quickly. They always have entertainment going on, mainly music. Tracks either can't or won't invest in entertaining expert commentary or just entertainment. If you attend a live baseball game, there is always something entertaining between batters or innings. I'm never bored at a live baseball game.

It isn't that people are too busy for the time commitment, it is that racing isn't really a priority for them. How many of those same "busy" people will spend from noon to midnight on a Sunday watching pre-game shows, football games, and postgame shows?

A racetrack isn't really a venue for kids. You want kids to be entertained? Spend your five hours at Six Flags.

[AlsoEligible]

How about visiting the track's simulcast center...where races are shown from every track in the country, in rapid-fire fashion? Of all the "complaints" about the current "racetrack experience"...this "time in-between races" gripe is the one that I find totally incomprehensible.

The guy was talking specifically about new/casual players, who aren't coming to the track to sit in a simulcast center watching fifteen different television screens. Nor would I recommend it, unless you want them to burn through their bankroll in less than 2 hours, leave discouraged, and never come back.

The new/casual crowd are coming to see live horses, watch live races, hear the roar of the crowds, all that jazz...and with the exception of a few tracks, there's not much to do when you're trying to kill 30 minutes between races. I don't really know how you fix that. But assuming they're not already die-hard players, telling them "well go inside and watch more racing!" isn't a good answer.

You DO know that full-card simulcasting has been offered nationwide for about 20 years now...right?

Wrong. If you're going to be a dick about it, then you DO know that full-card simulcasting hasn't been offered in California for that same 20 years....right? Since this thread is specifically talking about California, I think that's relevant.

[thaskalos]

The guy was talking specifically about new/casual players, who aren't coming to the track to sit in a simulcast center watching fifteen different television screens. Nor would I recommend it, unless you want them to burn through their bankroll in less than 2 hours, leave discouraged, and never come back.

The new/casual crowd are coming to see live horses, watch live races, hear the roar of the crowds, all that jazz...and with the exception of a few tracks, there's not much to do when you're trying to kill 30 minutes between races. I don't really know how you fix that. But assuming they're not already die-hard players, telling them "well go inside and watch more racing!" isn't a good answer.



Wrong. If you're going to be a dick about it, then you DO know that full-card simulcasting hasn't been offered in California for that same 20 years....right? Since this thread is specifically talking about California, I think that's relevant.

I beg to differ...the guy WASN'T "talking specifically about new/casual players". That's YOUR interpretation...because you needed something to support the lame point that you are trying to make. The guy stated that he HIMSELF found the waiting in-between races to be so excruciatingly BORING...that he HIMSELF could not bear to watch more than 5 live races. He said that he HIMSELF left the track after 5 races...even though he purportedly "loves the game". THAT'S why I suggested to him that he visit the simulcast center...as a cure to the "boredom" that live racing burdens him with.

You say that you wouldn't "recommend" that players bet out-of-town tracks while watching them on television screens. Do you "recommend" that these same players leave after 5 races...because they are excruciatingly BORED?

PS...

I know full well that this thread is about California...but the post that I responded to WASN'T. And THAT'S what I consider "relevant".

[dilanesp]

I think 20-25 minutes is the magic number. That's what many fair meets do (and they cater to casual fans).

But it's worth noting that the long downtime isn't the obvious deterrent to casual fans that people claim it is. The biggest racecards, the TC and Breeders' Cup, all of which draw tons of casual fans, all have much longer downtime, especially before the feature races. If fans are having a good time, getting drunk, spending time with friends, etc., I don't think they mind the downtime at all.

[Andy Asaro]

Will be interviewed on WS Radio this morning (starts 8:00 AM PST). Will try to find out what time he comes on.

www.wsradio.com

Studio B

[Andy Asaro]

Ritvo on in a couple minutes. My mistake about yesterday.

www.wsradio.com Studio B

[oughtoh]

Andy Thank you for posting the site. Listening to it now.

[jimmyb]

I detect a New England accent.

[lamboguy]

I detect a New England accent.he's from here and he married Kathy Petro.

[Andy Asaro]

Andy Thank you for posting the site. Listening to it now.

THX

Good job by both Ritvo and Felix. Sure he will be on again.

[dilanesp]

he's from here and he married Kathy Petro.

Kathy's an excellent trainer who did a great job with Mucho Macho Man.