It's on! The Official Boycott Keeneland Thread.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/playersboycott/status/904713786069803016

[reckless]

Count me in.

Keeneland is out of the mix.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/CocoBudCapper/status/905452530791989250

[Mike_412]

Other than Saratoga there wasn't a meet that I looked forward to more than Keeneland Fall/Spring. Not anymore. Enough is enough. Count me in.

[Afleet]

I'm in

everyone should be in

[luisbe]

I'm all in.

[GMB@BP]

I wont play there out of principle.

[jimmyb]

In

[Andy Asaro]

All in

[thaskalos]

Keeneland WHO?

[Copyroomjim]

I'm in, (bad enough meet at Saratoga I need time to reline my pockets anyway, lol)

[linrom1]

I would rather boycott incompetent race track racing secretaries who despite large pool of horses and high purse structure manage to card totally absurd race cards.

These guys should take a look at what the racing secretary at GP does with far less during their winter meet to make it the most successful racing meet in the country.

As far as Kee is concerned, their racing secretary consistently puts out a great product to bet on unlike the dufus in NYRA.

I will NOT partake in any boycott of KEE, but I would look with an open mind to boycotting NYRA race structure. Look at the dearth of bettable P-4 they offer as they will invariably stick some NY-breds maiden or claimer in the sequence, why?

[AltonKelsey]

If you don't boycott tracks that raise takeout, then there is no disincentive for them to do it again and again .

If you don't care what you pay for something, then you probably have too much money.

[linrom1]

If you don't boycott tracks that raise takeout, then there is no disincentive for them to do it again and again .

If you don't care what you pay for something, then you probably have too much money.

No, they don't even give me a product that I can wager on by choice because they rather cater to shills.

There are so many instances where these large wagering pools are won by insiders, it's just sickening.

Take out is a secondary issue.

[JustRalph]

No, they don't even give me a product that I can wager on by choice because they rather cater to shills.

There are so many instances where these large wagering pools are won by insiders, it's just sickening.

Take out is a secondary issue.

I ordered a new pickup truck this morning. Had to make 3-4 decisions that all had to do with price. You know, the secondary issue.........

[cj]

I ordered a new pickup truck this morning. Had to make 3-4 decisions that all had to do with price. You know, the secondary issue.........

You're such a Texan now! :)

[Mulerider]

I ordered a new pickup truck this morning. Had to make 3-4 decisions that all had to do with price. You know, the secondary issue.........

I hope you acknowledged, when it came to your powerplant decision, that real pickup trucks don't have spark plugs...;)

[JustRalph]

I hope you acknowledged, when it came to your powerplant decision, that real pickup trucks don't have spark plugs...;)

I'd have to wait to get that option. It's coming (no pun intended:lol: ) but not for a while

[Franco Santiago]

Just out of curiosity...does the Keeneland rate hike make it higher than all other tracks? If not, shouldn't those tracks that are higher also be boycotted? A track doesn't get a pass just because it has had a high takeout rate forever, does it?

[lamboguy]

Just out of curiosity...does the Keeneland rate hike make it higher than all other tracks? If not, shouldn't those tracks that are higher also be boycotted? A track doesn't get a pass just because it has had a high takeout rate forever, does it?that's a great point! there are certain pools that are higher from 1 track to the other, but the signal fees are not as high as Keeneland. this time around, they not only hiked the takeout, they raised up the signal fees to go with it to insure that they are a higher echelon takeout track.

i am not boycotting Keeneland, i have taken a breather from all the tracks and have not made a bet since tuesday. i like not betting so much now that i may not attempt a comeback this spring like i planned!

[Parkview_Pirate]

Just out of curiosity...does the Keeneland rate hike make it higher than all other tracks? If not, shouldn't those tracks that are higher also be boycotted? A track doesn't get a pass just because it has had a high takeout rate forever, does it?

Here's a link to an article with the details.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/keeneland-raises-takeout-and-ire-of-horseplayers/

Keeneland's takeout is more "middle of the pack" now, as they raised it on a couple of pools and lowered it on the pick 5.

[Afleet]

Just out of curiosity...does the Keeneland rate hike make it higher than all other tracks? If not, shouldn't those tracks that are higher also be boycotted? A track doesn't get a pass just because it has had a high takeout rate forever, does it?

Most players know to stay away from all circuits in PA due to astronomical takeout on the trifectas, pick 3's etc. Generally speaking KY circuit always had the lowest all round takeout but that is changing w/CD raising the takeout and now KEE. That's why you should boycott KEE. It will never end if you don't take a stand.

[oughtoh]

Even though I have been waiting for KEE, I am also going to boycott them for what they did. Also doing the same at Los Al.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I don't play them to begin with.

I have seen a number of boycott threads on here for different tracks. Has anyone been able to measure the impact?

[Jeff P]

There's a Handle Updates link (http://www.playersboycott.org/HandleUpdatesIndex.html) on the Playersboycott.org site (http://www.playersboycott.org/).

In 2014, outside of the Derby, Churchill was down a solid 25% vs. the previous year:
http://playersboycott.org/handleupdate06292014.html

In 2014, Arlington was down 18% vs. the previous year:
http://playersboycott.org/handleupdateapx06292014.html

From 12-26-2010 to 03-20-2011, Santa Anita was down more than $130M vs. the previous year:
http://www.playersboycott.org/handleupdate03232011.html





-jp

.

[AstrosFan]

I guess my question is this. . . at what point, do we the horseplayer, stop worrying about the takeout, if a track like Keeneland claiming they "invest in racing's future since 1936" is raising the takeout to keep them in the game (as in level) with casino tracks around them

Or do we just boycott any track, even if we like them and do well betting them, just to prove a point. I don't see any tracks saying "the people have spoken, let us lower the rate!"

[Jeff P]

I'm boycotting because:

In my opinion, Keeneland isn't acting in the best interest of racing here.

Higher takeout in the name of bigger purses has been tried before. And it has failed rather badly.

Consider:

• In 2010, during the six months immediately following the takeout increase at Los Al: On track handle was down 27%. They've since cut dates and purses. And their handle today looks nothing like it did before their takeout increase.

• In 2011, nine months after the SB1072 takeout increase went into effect for California's thoroughbred tracks: There were not only purse cuts but Santa Anita announced they were 'reorganizing' and laying off one third of their staff.

The so called racing press didn't cover it.

But the local paper in Arcadia, CA where Santa Anita is located did.

Santa Anita cuts third of staff:
http://arcadiasbest.com/2011/10/santa-anita-cuts-third-of-staff/

October 6, 2011 by Scott Hettrick

The first of what is said to be several phases of severe cutbacks at Santa Anita Park will result in layoffs of about a third of the approximately 300 employees at the track.


• In 2014, Churchill raised takeout for their Spring meet. Handle outside of the Derby was down a solid 25%. As direct result: Churchill announced a 20% purse cut for their 2014 Fall meet.

The so called racing press didn't cover it.

But Maggi Moss reported it here on her Twitter account: http://twitter.com/maggimoss/status/494331835271221250

In my opinion Keeneland is doubling down on the same bad idea.

Why would anyone in their right mind think the results will different this time?

I'm boycotting because I believe a boycott is the best way for players to convince not only Keeneland -- but all tracks everywhere -- that Higher Takeout in the name of Bigger Purses isn't the answer and only serves to compound the many already existing problems racing faces and needs to address.

I'm boycotting because I believe a boycott is the best way for players to convince Keeneland to reverse their decision.


-jp

.

[Fager Fan]

I ordered a new pickup truck this morning. Had to make 3-4 decisions that all had to do with price. You know, the secondary issue.........

You weren't thinking too much about price/value if you ordered a new one.

:p

[Parkview_Pirate]

I ordered a new pickup truck this morning. Had to make 3-4 decisions that all had to do with price. You know, the secondary issue.........

Price (takeout) is one factor. ROI is where the rubber meets the road.

Last year at Keeneland my ROI was $1.38, and the year before $1.18. Not statistically meaningful with just a few hundred wagers, but Keeneland is one of a handful of tracks I show a profit at over the last decade. With all the "sharps" on the sidelines participating in a boycott this fall, I wouldn't be surprised to see my ROI unaffected by the takeout increase.

Count me out of this particular boycott.

[JustRalph]

Price (takeout) is one factor. ROI is where the rubber meets the road.

I don't get it when I read stuff like this.

The price you pay for a product is always the most important factor. Only horse players ignore it like it's a non factor. The sarcastic point I was making about ordering a pickup and making price decisions was an attempt to emphasize that there is no difference no matter what you are purchasing. Yet horse players seem to never get it.

[chiguy]

I really don't get the whole boycott thing at all when it comes to racing. Just like any other good or product, the retailer can charge what he likes. If he ends up out of business because his price point is to high then he is out of business. These tracks must have a calculation that says they can do this without too much affect on the bottom line. If it made business sense for them to reduce takeout I don't doubt they would. Many moons ago I worked in the jewelry business and I was floored by the difference between wholesale cost of stones and the retail price. The market will charge what the market will bear.

[Andy Asaro]

I really don't get the whole boycott thing at all when it comes to racing. Just like any other good or product, the retailer can charge what he likes. If he ends up out of business because his price point is to high then he is out of business. These tracks must have a calculation that says they can do this without too much affect on the bottom line. If it made business sense for them to reduce takeout I don't doubt they would. Many moons ago I worked in the jewelry business and I was floored by the difference between wholesale cost of stones and the retail price. The market will charge what the market will bear.

Without the boycott Ca. wouldn't have the 14% takeout P5 starting in the first race and WPS would have been raised to 17%. Additionally we got CHRIMS to give us access to handle reports and most importantly it was a deterrent for a while. Failure to act the last few years has emboldened the Industry to raise takeout. If Keeneland isn't hurt by a boycott this time more will follow including Ca. raising WPS takeout IMO.

[jimmyb]

I really don't get the whole boycott thing at all when it comes to racing. Just like any other good or product, the retailer can charge what he likes. If he ends up out of business because his price point is to high then he is out of business. These tracks must have a calculation that says they can do this without too much affect on the bottom line. If it made business sense for them to reduce takeout I don't doubt they would. Many moons ago I worked in the jewelry business and I was floored by the difference between wholesale cost of stones and the retail price. The market will charge what the market will bear.

Wouldn't be the first time an industry died in this country. Horse racing may end up the way of textiles, electronics, automobiles, bikes etc. They are pricing themselves out IMO.

[Cholly]

I'm in.

(might as well, can't remember the last time I picked a winner at Keeneland)

[Parkview_Pirate]

I don't get it when I read stuff like this.

The price you pay for a product is always the most important factor. Only horse players ignore it like it's a non factor. The sarcastic point I was making about ordering a pickup and making price decisions was an attempt to emphasize that there is no difference no matter what you are purchasing. Yet horse players seem to never get it.

Horse racing is hardly the same as buying a truck - it's more like buying a stock. You're equating one factor to "price" and not considering the big picture.

If your ROI at Lowtakeout Downs (15%) is 0.57 on the dollar (my return at Kentucky Downs last year on 10 wager), and it's 1.25 at Boycott Raceway (17.5% takeout), you're going to go broke "paying a lower price".

Getting a 15% takeout at a track where you pick more losers is never a bargain.

[JustRalph]

Horse racing is hardly the same as buying a truck - it's more like buying a stock. You're equating one factor to "price" and not considering the big picture.

If your ROI at Lowtakeout Downs (15%) is 0.57 on the dollar (my return at Kentucky Downs last year on 10 wager), and it's 1.25 at Boycott Raceway (17.5% takeout), you're going to go broke "paying a lower price".

Getting a 15% takeout at a track where you pick more losers is never a bargain.

But it's a bigger issue than that. Every business has competitors. You react to your competitors or you bury your head in the sand and get run over.

If horse players react to Keeneland with a boycott, it sends a signal albeit often ignored in the business but never totally forgotten. Other jurisdictions may then think twice about raising the take, or finding another way.

The fact that 90% of horse players cannot even tell you what the rake is or how it's calculated etc is a damn shame. The tracks love that they can hide it with double-talk and other bullshit. I like to think of it as basic margin-profit.

My example of buying a truck is applicable if you consider the use and quality of the product, how long it lasts etc. just like everything else. I personally believe that Dodge/Chrysler makes some of the shittiest vehicles. Toyota, the best. How long they last including Maint. Etc is the ROI in the equation. I have been driving my Tundra almost 8 yrs now and have done nothing but oil changes and put tires on it. At 75k miles (few months ago) it got new brake pads. Very economical for a very very nice beast of a truck. That's what I consider a great ROI. But if there were something better out there, I'd damn sure buy it. compared to my Dodge driving friends, my ROI is much higher. I just think you have to look at price in all situations. How much higher would your ROI be without the increase by Keeneland? That's the real number you should be calculating.

But alas, our sport is in a business where the same customer who will shop all over town for a better price on gas, doesn't even know what he's paying to play an exacta

[AndyC]

Horse racing is hardly the same as buying a truck - it's more like buying a stock. You're equating one factor to "price" and not considering the big picture.

If your ROI at Lowtakeout Downs (15%) is 0.57 on the dollar (my return at Kentucky Downs last year on 10 wager), and it's 1.25 at Boycott Raceway (17.5% takeout), you're going to go broke "paying a lower price".

Getting a 15% takeout at a track where you pick more losers is never a bargain.

Econ 101, perfect analysis.

I think the example you provided happens quite frequently either in reality or perception for many players. I would gladly give up a % point on a track where I am consistently making profits versus playing the lower takeout track where I can't find a winner.

[AskinHaskin]

It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.

[cj]

It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.

Who are you talking to, in the "you and your ilk"? What wagering formats did they cause that doomed racing?

[Poindexter]

It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.

I would comment, but as usual I need cliff notes to figure out what your points are. It seems line your points are

1) All tracks that lower takeout fail to make up for it in increased betting (thus making it negative revenue).

This is sort of common sense. I have addressed this before, but lowering takeout is a long term gig(and I mean loooooong term gig) and require more than 1 or 2 points to be effective and more importantly these experiments are always short term and often done at venues that players are not familiar with and the quality of horses racing is suspect. Not exactly the same as if Del Mar announced that they would for now on be charging a 12% takeout in the WPS pools.

2) I guess you feel that the shift from WPS to exotics and super exotics has had a huge negative effect on the overall success in racing. I certainly think handle suffers when small capital players have a $72 investment in the early pick 5. Chances are they lose the $72, they have action for at least for 2 or 3 races typically, and they typically collect zero and are unable to churn the money they get back. Much better imo that they invest $15 to in on 5 different horses, typically 1 or 2 will win and they get back a good chunk of their $72. I still think that the MUCH bigger problem is rebates which puts the non rebated player at a ridiculous disadvantage and of course being one of the higher priced gambling games around. Please explain to me why you think pricing is unimportant when racing thrived at a time that it was basically the only game around. Now there is competition and they fail to compete for the mainstream gambling dollar, they just go after the sharpest money they can find, reward them(rebates) and can't figure out why handle goes down every year.

3) I guess the sand box has to do with the players that have dropped out of the game. Sadly a lot of have passed away, or do not have the desire or the cashflow or even the mental aptitude currently to take this game on. There is a whole new world of youngsters out there. That is your target racing, not the 75 year old who got tired of losing 10 years ago and is struggling to get by.

To me racing is 100 fold the best gambling game around(and that is even with it's ridiculously high takeout). I see something in this game that the masses obviously don't. Now maybe I am just really strange(certainly possible), or maybe the masses see the obvious, the game is too tough to beat (I have been playing it for almost 50 years and can hold my own so that is not concern to me).

I am of the strong belief that racing could actually put itself on the map again if it eliminated rebates and priced itself properly. But you are 100% right about that being a pipe dream. So now all I can do is make futile posts here and boycott every time I see a track doing the wrong thing and raising it's already ridiculously overpriced product. Because if Keeneland gets away with it the mindless(and I do mean mindless) sheep will follow.

[GMB@BP]

I always think its funny when we see a statement like this:

Featuring a horseplayer friendly 15% takeout and offering a $0.20 minimum entry point, the cross-continent Pick-5 will feature three turf stakes from Woodbine and two turf events from Belmont Park.

In essence what they are saying is we know the normal takeout aint so friendly.

[Afleet]

It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.

It will be interesting to see what Canterbury's handle is this year. If its up I would be shocked

[Afleet]

Since no one attends the races in person anymore, generally speaking(not counting Saratoga, the Derby, etc., why not lower the on-track take to 10% across the board nationwide.

Oaklawn lowered take out on track for the show pool only and wagering went up dramatically in that pool.
I will bet my 401k that total national on-track handle will go up.

[Afleet]

Who are you talking to, in the "you and your ilk"? What wagering formats did they cause that doomed racing?

his posts are written like he is inebriated

[Fager Fan]

The tracks are selling a product. Most products have a 100% markup. What is racing's?

It's always interesting to me to hear gamblers grousing. I've yet to hear one, including Andy who apparently is quite involved in the details of these things, who has actually searched out the costs of running a track and made a thoughtful decision based on these facts. Driving a track out of business does you no good.

I learned the economics of movie theaters a long time ago. They get very little of ticket revenue, and it's the popcorn and drink sales that keep them afloat. I like my neighborhood theater, and so I splurge and buy popcorn and a drink instead of begrudging the cost because I hope they remain in business for my own entertainment.

For others, they'll support Mom and Pop stores instead of the megastores, even though they pay more, because they want the Mom and Pop to remain in business.

If a business is raking in the big bucks, and then wants to stick it to me at every turn, then it's those businesses I label as greedy and don't wish to give them my business (though sometimes I may want their product enough to do so anyway).

So, how does racing compare to others in what they make as way of "markup" on the product they sell? Are the tracks being greedy, and trying to stick it to you at every turn? I'd say that Churchill was greedy, and still is greedy, but I don't know that I think that of any other track.

And it just makes good old common sense to me that if lowering takeout really improves the tracks' bottom line then the tracks would be doing it.

If I could wave a magic wand and do one thing that I do think would increase the track's bottom line, which they could pass on to the handicappers, it'd be doing away with all ADWs except for ones that are track/industry owned. The percentage given away to ADWs is one that could be going to handicappers (or the track). This is why I only bet through Xpressbet when not on track.

[cj]

his posts are written like he is inebriated

Good, was hoping it wasn't just me.

[cj]

The tracks are selling a product. Most products have a 100% markup. What is racing's?

It's always interesting to me to hear gamblers grousing. I've yet to hear one, including Andy who apparently is quite involved in the details of these things, who has actually searched out the costs of running a track and made a thoughtful decision based on these facts. Driving a track out of business does you no good.

I learned the economics of movie theaters a long time ago. They get very little of ticket revenue, and it's the popcorn and drink sales that keep them afloat. I like my neighborhood theater, and so I splurge and buy popcorn and a drink instead of begrudging the cost because I hope they remain in business for my own entertainment.

For others, they'll support Mom and Pop stores instead of the megastores, even though they pay more, because they want the Mom and Pop to remain in business.

If a business is raking in the big bucks, and then wants to stick it to me at every turn, then it's those businesses I label as greedy and don't wish to give them my business (though sometimes I may want their product enough to do so anyway).

So, how does racing compare to others in what they make as way of "markup" on the product they sell? Are the tracks being greedy, and trying to stick it to you at every turn? I'd say that Churchill was greedy, and still is greedy, but I don't know that I think that of any other track.

And it just makes good old common sense to me that if lowering takeout really improves the tracks' bottom line then the tracks would be doing it.

If I could wave a magic wand and do one thing that I do think would increase the track's bottom line, which they could pass on to the handicappers, it'd be doing away with all ADWs except for ones that are track/industry owned. The percentage given away to ADWs is one that could be going to handicappers (or the track). This is why I only bet through Xpressbet when not on track.

It really isn't the problem of the customers what it costs to put on the show. Tracks are in the gambling business, and you put out a product that is a bad gamble, people are going to find something else to do. Fields are shrinking and takeout is going up. It is a deadly combination. That is why people have left the game in droves.

My suggestion would be to cut the cost of putting on the show. There is lots of stuff tracks are overspending on.

[AndyC]

The tracks are selling a product. Most products have a 100% markup. What is racing's?

It depends on the product and industry. Costco marks up their products by no more than 14%, should we use them as the barometer?

It's always interesting to me to hear gamblers grousing. I've yet to hear one, including Andy who apparently is quite involved in the details of these things, who has actually searched out the costs of running a track and made a thoughtful decision based on these facts. Driving a track out of business does you no good.

Keeping a poorly-run losing business around helps nobody.

I learned the economics of movie theaters a long time ago. They get very little of ticket revenue, and it's the popcorn and drink sales that keep them afloat. I like my neighborhood theater, and so I splurge and buy popcorn and a drink instead of begrudging the cost because I hope they remain in business for my own entertainment.

People act in their own best interests and racing is no different.


So, how does racing compare to others in what they make as way of "markup" on the product they sell? Are the tracks being greedy, and trying to stick it to you at every turn? I'd say that Churchill was greedy, and still is greedy, but I don't know that I think that of any other track.

And it just makes good old common sense to me that if lowering takeout really improves the tracks' bottom line then the tracks would be doing it.

A comparison would be other gambling businesses. How much do casinos make on each dollar bet? Far less than a racetrack. How about a sports book? 4-5% It isn't the bettors job to prop up businesses that are unable to compete although that's what bettors keep doing with racing. A good consumer allocates capital efficiently.

[JustRalph]

" A good consumer allocates capital efficiently........"

After all the bullshit i wrote..... this sums it up perfectly.

Hat tip AndyC

[Fager Fan]

It depends on the product and industry. Costco marks up their products by no more than 14%, should we use them as the barometer?



Keeping a poorly-run losing business around helps nobody.



People act in their own best interests and racing is no different.




A comparison would be other gambling businesses. How much do casinos make on each dollar bet? Far less than a racetrack. How about a sports book? 4-5% It isn't the bettors job to prop up businesses that are unable to compete although that's what bettors keep doing with racing. A good consumer allocates capital efficiently.

Casinos make most of their profit from things other than gambling, like hotel rooms, shows, drinks and food, etc., all things that one can only do by actually GOING to the casino. You guys want to bet from the comfort of your jammies at home on the computer, most of the time through ADWs that go to profit some third party more than the track/sport.

People act in their best interests and racing is no different. Alright then, the tracks are acting in their best interest by raising prices.

Handicappers want it all. They want to have a voice and a seat at the table, yet they don't give a damn (as you just stated) about the sport as a whole. Handicappers fuss about paying to park, or paying admission, or paying a high dollar on a big day, or paying for the program, or the price of the track food. So you rarely as a whole help the sport profit from all the aforementioned items, then fuss about the takeout on the funds you push thru some third party ADW. Handicappers probably have a bigger voice in racing than anywhere I can think of, they even get an Eclipse (which is absurd), for being nothing more than a customer.

It seems to me that if you're a group who intends to make inroads, then you desperately need to understand and have a really good grasp on the numbers and what the tracks have to deal with to keep afloat. Only then can you know if your demands, wishes and desires are reasonable or unreasonable. And really, maybe try actually giving a damn about the sport and supporting it. One really easy way is to at least use only industry-owned ADWs.

[JustRalph]

The best thing players could do is stop playing. Kill off as many tracks as possible. Forced contraction.

It won't matter though. In five years there won't be enough horses left to run except a few tracks. It might take ten years, but it depends on how hard they squeeze the available stock.

[Poindexter]

The tracks are selling a product. Most products have a 100% markup. What is racing's?

It's always interesting to me to hear gamblers grousing. I've yet to hear one, including Andy who apparently is quite involved in the details of these things, who has actually searched out the costs of running a track and made a thoughtful decision based on these facts. Driving a track out of business does you no good.

I learned the economics of movie theaters a long time ago. They get very little of ticket revenue, and it's the popcorn and drink sales that keep them afloat. I like my neighborhood theater, and so I splurge and buy popcorn and a drink instead of begrudging the cost because I hope they remain in business for my own entertainment.

For others, they'll support Mom and Pop stores instead of the megastores, even though they pay more, because they want the Mom and Pop to remain in business.

If a business is raking in the big bucks, and then wants to stick it to me at every turn, then it's those businesses I label as greedy and don't wish to give them my business (though sometimes I may want their product enough to do so anyway).

So, how does racing compare to others in what they make as way of "markup" on the product they sell? Are the tracks being greedy, and trying to stick it to you at every turn? I'd say that Churchill was greedy, and still is greedy, but I don't know that I think that of any other track.

And it just makes good old common sense to me that if lowering takeout really improves the tracks' bottom line then the tracks would be doing it.

If I could wave a magic wand and do one thing that I do think would increase the track's bottom line, which they could pass on to the handicappers, it'd be doing away with all ADWs except for ones that are track/industry owned. The percentage given away to ADWs is one that could be going to handicappers (or the track). This is why I only bet through Xpressbet when not on track.

When in the last 40 years have racetracks had an 8% takeout? A 10% takeout? A 12% takeout? How about never. So what give you the confidence and the good old common sense that 15 to 30% takeouts are optimal or that the decision makers even have a clue what optimal takeout is. Because they condescendingly gloat that the public doesn't even know what the takeout is? Why do you and the entire racing industry assume that if the racing industry blew up the current model and started over with no rebates and an 8% wps takeout and a 12% exotic takeout that they could not transform this sport into something special, generating profits and patronage that far exceed what they see today. It would likely take some heavy duty marketing and education of the public, but I believe that is very possible. With our current model, there is only one direction for this sport, the same direction it has gone over the last 15 years. You see the difference is that under the current system, doesn't matter how well they market, the public loses their money too fast and they never come back. Since you are such a big fan of retail and markups, you might want to look at Costco and Walmart as your examples, not Sears.

I have posted on this subject maybe 100 times by now. Not once have you ever seen me post "gee I sure wish that the takeout was lower so I can beat this game". Let me make this very clear, for my sake I do not give two flying ***** what racing does. It really doesn't matter. I love the game and I am not going to stop playing the game whatever they do. If they raise the takeout too much, I might shift my focus some, but I am not going anywhere. I am just not looking forward to the day that every harness track cannot get to a million dollars a night(we are almost there now) and that the big thoroughbred tracks start handling less than 5 million a day even on weekends.

This is about seeing a game that I love becoming a shadow of what it once was, for no other reason that the decision makers in this industry (despite your false confidence in their abilities) are clueless and/or self serving. I want to see this game thrive, they have other motivations, yet they are the ones with everything to lose. The irony.

[castaway01]

The best thing players could do is stop playing. Kill off as many tracks as possible. Forced contraction.

It won't matter though. In five years there won't be enough horses left to run except a few tracks. It might take ten years, but it depends on how hard they squeeze the available stock.

It's sort of a side note in the "is boycotting right/effective" debate, but this point should not be overlooked. It is not profitable to breed and race horses in the United States now. The lack of horses has been hurting field size and the quality of racing and unless something changes it's not going to get better. Tracks that are struggling and scrambling to hang on are going to go away no matter what their takeout.

[Dahoss9698]

Very fitting that Fager Fan, a non gambler by his own admission, thinks gamblers need to care more about the sport and is lecturing us about supporting it.

:lol::lol::lol:

Its also amusing that he feels we need to care about how much it takes to run a track and make our decisions based on that. Spoken like someone with no business experience. :ThmbUp:

I cancelled my trip to Keeneland for opening weekend a few weeks ago and plan on betting ZERO dollars there this meet. I encourage everyone to do the same. This is our chance to take a stand. The only way to show Keeneland and the other tracks that we're not going to take it anymore is to stick it to them.

[Fager Fan]

Poin, I appreciate your post. Thanks.

[Fager Fan]

Very fitting that Fager Fan, a non gambler by his own admission, thinks gamblers need to care more about the sport and is lecturing us about supporting it.

:lol::lol::lol:

Its also amusing that he feels we need to care about how much it takes to run a track and make our decisions based on that. Spoken like someone with no business experience. :ThmbUp:

I cancelled my trip to Keeneland for opening weekend a few weeks ago and plan on betting ZERO dollars there this meet. I encourage everyone to do the same. This is our chance to take a stand. The only way to show Keeneland and the other tracks that we're not going to take it anymore is to stick it to them.

The odds were 1-9 that you'd be along to make a snide comment about me. Try being less predictable and actually add something meaningful to a discussion.

I'll be betting KEE this meet to cancel out any effect you have. I figure that's about $10 a day.

[Hambletonian]

Spitting in the wind is very popular here.

Fact is, the last windfall (racinos) went to the owners, trainers, jockeys and vets.

Many tracks are now vastly overpaying purses compared to horse value, we have maiden races with purses equaling stakes races.

So the above groups are getting fat and happy.

If the tracks wanted to they could have take a portion of their share of racino profits and lowered takeout just because, but they know what the situation is.

Live racing is too expensive to put on, too real estate intensive and too labor intensive. Most tracks could save a lot of money by discouraging as many people as possible from attending. Zero on track would be a preferable number for most of them. You could at least reduce labor costs.

Most tracks should be enhanced for the modern age, but there is no money in reconstructing the amenities.

How much profit does DEL, PRX, CT, MNR and PENN make from racing as compared to slots? My guess is the number is so insignificant that investing any additional funds to the racing end of the enterprise would be foolish.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Racing 20 years from now will be much different from what we all grew up with.

[Dahoss9698]

The odds were 1-9 that you'd be along to make a snide comment about me. Try being less predictable and actually add something meaningful to a discussion.

I'll be betting KEE this meet to cancel out any effect you have. I figure that's about $10 a day.

Do you consider what you added meaningful? You have no idea what you're talking about and got corrected by three people.

Brilliant stuff!

I'm just glad I was able to get you going again. Goal is another full meltdown. Don't disappoint me.

[AndyC]

Casinos make most of their profit from things other than gambling, like hotel rooms, shows, drinks and food, etc., all things that one can only do by actually GOING to the casino. You guys want to bet from the comfort of your jammies at home on the computer, most of the time through ADWs that go to profit some third party more than the track/sport.

Actually many casinos are making their profits online. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-casinos-states-are-winning-big-from-online-gambling_us_5936b246e4b0cca4f42d9d5d


People act in their best interests and racing is no different. Alright then, the tracks are acting in their best interest by raising prices.

I have no issue with tracks or any business making decisions that they believe are in their own best interests. But those decisions don't happen in a vacuum. The decisions can/will affect the behavior of their customers. Time will tell if the decisions prove to be a benefit or detriment. But for me, my decision, to quote Roberto Duran, was No Mas!

Handicappers want it all. They want to have a voice and a seat at the table, yet they don't give a damn (as you just stated) about the sport as a whole. Handicappers fuss about paying to park, or paying admission, or paying a high dollar on a big day, or paying for the program, or the price of the track food. So you rarely as a whole help the sport profit from all the aforementioned items, then fuss about the takeout on the funds you push thru some third party ADW. Handicappers probably have a bigger voice in racing than anywhere I can think of, they even get an Eclipse (which is absurd), for being nothing more than a customer.

Really? I am just a customer. If not for customers would any business exist? I am not just a customer of racing I am a customer of hundreds of things. Businesses are created to fill the needs and wants of people. Those that are unable to do so at an agreeable price soon become former businesses.

ADWs were not created by horseplayers and horseplayers did not negotiate the deals between the tracks and the ADWs. I am not sure what voice you refer to that handicappers have but it sure isn't one that makes business decisions. Their voice is what they bet and how they bet and basically how they act as a customer.

It seems to me that if you're a group who intends to make inroads, then you desperately need to understand and have a really good grasp on the numbers and what the tracks have to deal with to keep afloat. Only then can you know if your demands, wishes and desires are reasonable or unreasonable. And really, maybe try actually giving a damn about the sport and supporting it. One really easy way is to at least use only industry-owned ADWs.

Should I have a good grasp of the numbers for grocery stores, gas stations, clothing stores, etc.? They all provide products at a price that they believe is in their best interest. I will buy their products if their product and pricing meet my needs. You seem to suggest that a racetrack should operate differently. What you are reading and witnessing is a business whose products are no longer desired by many at the price offered.

[cutchemist42]

So looks like the reason for the takeout is taking shape.

Feel bad for Kentucky Downs.....put out a good product and you all you do is get stomped out.

[thaskalos]

It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.

This is the 3rd time that I've seen this post by AskinHaskin...and I still don't know how "we, and our ilk, caused today's wagering formats"...or how we "buried this industry", by "chasing away 80% of the public".

I hope that next time he posts this...he'll explain himself a little further.

[Afleet]

This is the 3rd time that I've seen this post by AskinHaskin...and I still don't know how "we, and our ilk, caused today's wagering formats"...or how we "buried this industry", by "chasing away 80% of the public".

I hope that next time he posts this...he'll explain himself a little further.

dont hold your breath

[Afleet]

Playing KEE through Derbywars and Horsetourneys won't have any effect on the boycott-right?

[Afleet]

The time to affect change is fast approaching

[LemonSoupKid]

I always think its funny when we see a statement like this:

Featuring a horseplayer friendly 15% takeout and offering a $0.20 minimum entry point, the cross-continent Pick-5 will feature three turf stakes from Woodbine and two turf events from Belmont Park.

In essence what they are saying is we know the normal takeout aint so friendly.

If PA had a "Post of the Day" emoji, you'd get it GMB.

Great stuff. I was laughing immediately, because ... it's so true and obvious. They admit it, out and out! LOL

[Lono]

Like Amarillo Slim I'm all in.

[Afleet]

Like Amarillo Slim I'm all in.

thank you spread the word

[NJ Stinks]

As I sit here pondering what happened to the bettor's former best friend (Keeneland), I can say with certainty that Keeneland's management team today doesn't understand me. Here is a quote from Bob Elliston, Keeneland’s vice president of racing and sales when the takeout increase was announced. The quote comes from the Daily Racing Form:

“I hope the wagering public understands that this is going to our purses to keep us competitive, it’s not going into our pockets,” Elliston said. “You have to look at it comparatively. We’re going to be on par with New York, with Oaklawn, and we think we will continue to offer bettors a good product, if you look at depth of field and the quality of the fields.”

First and foremost, I don't care at all if the best horses in the country come to Keeneland or not. All I want are races that are competitive. As opposed to watching a great horse like Wise Dan run in five Grade One races in a row at Keeneland and never go off at even money or greater in any of them. What horseplayer wants to invest anything in that?

Tomorrow they are running the Phoenix, a Grade Two with a $250,000 purse. Back in 2010 the truly-terrific Wise Dan won the race when it was a $175,000 Grade Three event. Do I care if the Phoenix is a Grade Two or Grade Three? No. I couldn't care less as a horseplayer. Furthermore, I don't want to pay more in takeout to make the Phoenix a Grade Two. If Keeneland wants the Phoenix to be a Grade Two so much, let them charge the owners more to enter their horses in the race. After all, it's an owner who is going to benefit from the higher Grade and purse - not the horseplayer.

My narrative above may not be well-stated but I hope my point is clear. I'll be watching Keeneland because it's on TVG. But I'm not betting on Keeneland no matter how much Todd begs me. :ThmbDown:


Here's the link to the DRF article quoted above:

http://www.drf.com/news/keeneland-boosts-takeout-across-board

[upthecreek]

Article on boycott about 1/2 way down page


http://www.horseraceinsider.com/Ante-Post/comments/what-about-star-power-drives-sports-does-racing-not-understand/#comments

[lamboguy]

i just heard that Keeneland tripled the price of their box seats this year.

just from past experience, usually when the takeout gets hiked the handle's have initially gone up lately, then after a few weeks it comes down hard.

since Keeneland is a very short meet the boycott may have a minimal effect on their handle. and what they hope is that you forget the increase next year and go back to giving them the business. a boycott will have little effect unless you plan to continue on in April and then again October of 2018.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I'm with you guys on this. :headbanger:

[Jeff P]

Yesterday afternoon we posted a press release on the HANA Blog.
Joint Press Release from HANA and Playersboycott.org
Horseplayer Boycott of Keeneland:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2017/10/hana-and-playersboycottorg-announce.html

We also posted the press release on the HANA site.
HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA (HANA) AND PLAYERSBOYCOTT.ORG ANNOUNCE HORSEPLAYER BOYCOTT OF KEENELAND:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/pressrelease10052017.html

We also posted it on the Playersboycott.org site.
HANA and Playersboycott.org Announce Horseplayer Boycott of Keeneland:
http://www.playersboycott.org/pressrelease10052017.html



The Blood Horse picked it up last night.
Horseplayers Association Initiates Keeneland Boycott:
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/223989/horseplayers-association-initiates-keeneland-boycott

DRF picked it up this morning.
Bettors group calls for month-long boycott of Keeneland:
http://www.drf.com/news/bettors-group-calls-month-long-boycott-keeneland



If you are a HANA member you should have an email about the Keeneland Boycott sitting in your inbox this morning.

If you'd like to become a HANA member (and get on the mailing list) visit the HANA site at http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/ and click the white Become a Member link on the nav bar.


-jp

.

[oughtoh]

Just receive an email from DRF bets that I could get 1% back on winnings of WPS bets and 3% on exotics at Keneland. Emailed them back and said no thank you. I am not betting anything at that track.

[outofthebox]

I will enjoy watching them..But no wagering from me.....

[SG4]

Anyone know why there are no payouts listed on either DRF or Equibase charts for the early pick 4 on Keeneland's opening day, concluding in race 5? Was there a completely successful boycott & $0 in that pool?

[theiman]

Keeneland Race 5 Payout for the Pick 4
$0.50 Pick-4 (5/8/6/5,11,12,13,14) Paid $488.60 (4OF4)

Pool was $188K

[NJ Stinks]

Anyone know why there are no payouts listed on either DRF or Equibase charts for the early pick 4 on Keeneland's opening day, concluding in race 5? Was there a completely successful boycott & $0 in that pool?

According to 4NJBETS, the Pick 4 ending in Race 5 paid as follows:

$1.00 PICK 4 4 OF 4 5/8/6/5,11,12,13,14 $977.20

It didn't say what the Total Pick 4 Pool was.

[NJ Stinks]

Keeneland Race 5 Payout for the Pick 4
$0.50 Pick-4 (5/8/6/5,11,12,13,14) Paid $488.60 (4OF4)

Pool was $188K

You beat me to it with better info. :ThmbUp:

[lamboguy]

opening day handle between last year and this year looked very close to me. that should be a major disappointment to Keeneland management. the field sizes looked bigger and new withholding rules took effect.

i believe that not only will this takeout hike effect Keeneland, it will wind up hurting the whole industry from all over.

Keeneland needs to be a showcase meet in order to generate interest in the game so that horses are bred and sold. if by the end of the short meet you see a 5% decline in handle it will tell you that the game is in big trouble thanks to the people in this game that make the corporate decisions.

[tanner12oz]

It looked like prices on everything went up at the track

[Lono]

If we stick to our guns we MAY win this thing, only problem I see is Keeneland may be run by Liberals now and they would gladly run it into the ground before crossing the isle. Like Amarillo Slim I'm all in and not even watching Keeneland.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I cant find total handle figures on equibase yet, and chrims doesn't have the data as of 7:30am. Really curious to see the effect. The boycott has been pretty well advertised, at least in my opinion.

[oughtoh]

I am not watching racing on tv till the Keeneland meet is over.

[Lono]

that's the spirit, now all together.

[ReplayRandall]

I cant find total handle figures on equibase yet, and chrims doesn't have the data as of 7:30am. Really curious to see the effect. The boycott has been pretty well advertised, at least in my opinion.

Can't find anything either.....I guess no one plays the $1 Pick-6 at Kee, as the carryover was only $6768, based on pool of only $11,577...

[PaceAdvantage]

opening day handle between last year and this year looked very close to me. that should be a major disappointment to Keeneland management. the field sizes looked bigger and new withholding rules took effect.Field sizes weren't bigger...pretty much the same...my inside source (:lol:) tells me 98 betting interests vs. 96.

[pandy]

For those of you who like to follow the high priced auction babies, Mark Casse has two running at Keeneland today, Conquisador in the third, sold for $2.45 million and worked a furlong in 9.3 seconds....and in the 10th, he has Curlins Honor, sold for $1.5 million and worked a furlong in 10 flat. Both have plenty of pedigree and are good lookers, I watched the replays of their blow outs and the auction videos.

[NJ Stinks]

A few points going into Day 2 of the Keeneland boycott.

This is a perfect example of why horseracing is loved in the UK and not loved here.

Over there the Racing Post and Sporting Life would be all over this taking extra money from the punters by the tracks or bookmakers. Daily and weekly reminders in articles online and in the Racing Post print edition would abound. And the main horseracing broadcast on ITV each Saturday would discuss why the additional fee for betting is justified or not justified. Hell, the daily newspapers in the UK would be discussing this fleecing too.

As opposed to what we get here....DRF tells us the raise is coming back in August and adds something about gamblers probably being unhappy. Thanks for nothing DRF....TVG not only will not tell us about the increase in takeout but they are encouraging me to be a sucker by making 2 races from Keeneland today "Money Back Special Races" if my pick finishes 2nd or third at Keeneland today. Thanks for absolutely nothing TVG. And it goes without saying "Thanks for nothing Keeneland" is the order of the day.

So let's review. I'm drunk and fumbling for my keys in the pub. DRF says I may be better off not having another drink but it's up to me. TVG offers me a couple more free drinks - I guess to keep me from leaving the bar. And Keeneland mugged me on the way into the bar so they know it will be much less lucrative to mug me on the way out.


Day 2 and I'm still not playin' Keeneland. :ThmbDown:

[magwell]

Could you imagine how often TVG would be telling us if they lowered the take at Keeneland it would be none stop......:rolleyes:

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/916623949689180161

[elhelmete]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/916623949689180161

Trying to figure out if that is a strange metric or not...:confused:

[BIG49010]

Just wondering watching a bunch of favorites win today at Keeneland, will that help or hurt boycott?

[Dahoss9698]

I was forced to watch Keeneland because some of their races are in a tournament I'm in. The stakes have been flat out embarrassing just like the track and the scumbags running it.

[cj]

I was forced to watch Keeneland because some of their races are in a tournament I'm in. The stakes have been flat out embarrassing just like the track and the scumbags running it.

G1 mile turf race on firm goes 24 and change and top 2 early run 2-1. Great "racing".

[burnsy]

A few points going into Day 2 of the Keeneland boycott.

This is a perfect example of why horseracing is loved in the UK and not loved here.

Over there the Racing Post and Sporting Life would be all over this taking extra money from the punters by the tracks or bookmakers. Daily and weekly reminders in articles online and in the Racing Post print edition would abound. And the main horseracing broadcast on ITV each Saturday would discuss why the additional fee for betting is justified or not justified. Hell, the daily newspapers in the UK would be discussing this fleecing too.

As opposed to what we get here....DRF tells us the raise is coming back in August and adds something about gamblers probably being unhappy. Thanks for nothing DRF....TVG not only will not tell us about the increase in takeout but they are encouraging me to be a sucker by making 2 races from Keeneland today "Money Back Special Races" if my pick finishes 2nd or third at Keeneland today. Thanks for absolutely nothing TVG. And it goes without saying "Thanks for nothing Keeneland" is the order of the day.

So let's review. I'm drunk and fumbling for my keys in the pub. DRF says I may be better off not having another drink but it's up to me. TVG offers me a couple more free drinks - I guess to keep me from leaving the bar. And Keeneland mugged me on the way into the bar so they know it will be much less lucrative to mug me on the way out.


Day 2 and I'm still not playin' Keeneland. :ThmbDown:

Welcome to Amerika and "Thee Corporation" media. This crosses every subject reported on in this country. Ahh, you wanted actual journalism, and critical information? An honest consumers point of view.........good luck around these parts! :lol::bang:

[Tom]

I wouldn't play KEE with your money if you drove me there and bought me lunch. I've been boycotting them for decade.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/916799990785298432

[JustRalph]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/916799990785298432

Ouch!

[Lafecs]

I was forced to watch Keeneland because some of their races are in a tournament I'm in. The stakes have been flat out embarrassing just like the track and the scumbags running it.


Agree 100%. I'm boycotting TVG for pushing this garbage, too

[SG4]

Equibase has been reporting the 15 & 16 scratched from Keeneland's finale today since 11:15 AM, yet KEE's website doesn't show this & track feed & betting outlets show these horses running as well. Equibase trying to hurt handle here also?

[Jeff P]

Sunday 10-08-2017 prelim Kee boycott numbers:

6.58M vs. 9.53M same Sunday last year

Down about 30.9%

Had some help from the weather today. But still...



-jp

.

[JustRalph]

Sunday 10-08-2017 prelim Kee boycott numbers:

6.58M vs. 9.53M same Sunday last year

Down about 30.9%

Had some help from the weather today. But still...



-jp

.

Boom Shaka locka!

[lamboguy]

don't worry about them, they will make it up by raising the price of beer some more there.

[elhelmete]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/916799990785298432

yikes!

[Jeff P]

Handle Update

Keeneland Fall Meet 2016 vs. 2017, the first three days:
http://www.playersboycott.org/handleupdate10082017.html

DOWN $4.97 Million (-14.61%)

The first three days of the Keeneland Fall 2017 meet are in the books:

Even though we're off to a decent enough start and Sunday saw them down 30%, I fully expect them to use "It had nothing to do with the boycott" and "the weather" and "field size was down" as excuses.

So let's keep to the task at hand and remember what we're boycotting for.

We're boycotting because we're trying to send a clear message.

We're boycotting because other tracks are waiting to see what happens and we want them to think twice before having takeout increases of their own.

Between now and Wednesday, I'm asking each of you to take it upon yourselves to reach out to other horseplayers.

Tell them about the boycott.

Ask them to join us.

Together we can convince Keeneland to reverse their decision.

--Jeff Platt, HANA President


-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

EDIT (Deleted quoted post of a known troll)

Laughably, in just a few short years, horse owners will be collecting only ribbons after their horse finishes in the money.....There will be NO bettors, except for trainers, grooms and owner's family members banking the game between themselves. You see, that's "horse racing's way", down the toilet, though it might take a few flushes to get it all down the hole.....Next.

EDIT (I left this part because it can stand on its own)

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/917162638869712896

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/917364091479646209

[Not4Love]

Count me in. Nothing wrong with Gulfstream!!!

[GMB@BP]

Count me in. Nothing wrong with Gulfstream!!!

Santa Anita has been awesome so far......minus the timing issues.

[jay68802]

:):ThmbUp::jump:

[alhattab]

Handle Update

Keeneland Fall Meet 2016 vs. 2017, the first three days:
http://www.playersboycott.org/handleupdate10082017.html




-jp

.

The Saturday number is meaningful. The Sunday one not so much. Regarding the Saturday number, I can't see any reasonable spin other than it is just one day. Attendance was a little higher. Last year even featured a dreaded 4:00 conflict with UK football, whereas for 2017 the game was at 7:30 (both were home games). As far as I could tell, there were no minus pools or other anomalies last year. The only thing that stuck out was the handle on the First Lady was off $560k vs. 2016, with the 2016 renewal featuring Tepin.

By my calc, the expected decline would be about $200k and change, with all else being equal other than the rake hike. I took last years total handle of $15.9 million, assumed 25% of that was Exacta handle exposed to additional 3% rake and that 40% was WPS handle exposed to additional 1.5% rake:

$15.9*.25*.03= $120k
$15.9*.4*.015= $95k

[Jeff P]

Kentucky Downs Handle Update:
http://www.playersboycott.org/handleupdate10122017.html

Oh, I almost forgot. Last night I had a conversation with a fellow horseplayer who asked me:

"Jeff, If there's one thing you would tell Keeneland they need to be doing different what would that be?"

I thought about it for a minute and said: "Lower takeout. But do it incrementally. And measure the response."

But after I got off the phone it hit me. I really should have said: "Tell them they need to be doing exactly what Kentucky Downs did back in 2013.

They more than tripled their handle over the past five years by taking the novel approach of asking a horseplayers association to help them promote a three quarter point drop in exacta takeout."



-jp

.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/918227700606816256

[NJ Stinks]

So yesterday I'm sitting at a car dealership for a couple hours waiting for my car to go through a 10,000 mile service appointment. Sounds like a bit of a pain but I have the Daily Racing Program for Wednesday with me so this appointment is actually a good thing. I should be home by 3:00pm and hopefully ready to play a few Pick 3's and maybe a Pick 4 from somewhere.

Obviously, with Belmont being dark yesterday the place to handicap was Keeneland. Except I - a guy who flew to Keeneland to play for the first time a month after 9-11 and several times since then - can't bet there this fall.

How the hell did Keeneland ever lose a guy like me? :bang:

Anyway, I played and lost a few hundred yesterday. The most expensive beat was when Whoop Ti Do failed to win the 8th at Gulfstream and sank my Pick 4 ticket so carefully crafted at the auto dealership. But still, the toughest loss yesterday was having to avoid an old friend.

Keeneland.

[thaskalos]

So yesterday I'm sitting at a car dealership for a couple hours waiting for my car to go through a 10,000 mile service appointment. Sounds like a bit of a pain but I have the Daily Racing Program for Wednesday with me so this appointment is actually a good thing. I should be home by 3:00pm and hopefully ready to play a few Pick 3's and maybe a Pick 4 from somewhere.

Obviously, with Belmont being dark yesterday the place to handicap was Keeneland. Except I - a guy who flew to Keeneland to play for the first time a month after 9-11 and several times since then - can't bet there this fall.

How the hell did Keeneland ever lose a guy like me? :bang:

Anyway, I played and lost a few hundred yesterday. The most expensive beat was when Whoop Ti Do failed to win the 8th at Gulfstream and sank my Pick 4 ticket so carefully crafted at the auto dealership. But still, the toughest loss yesterday was having to avoid an old friend.

Keeneland.

To me, the most puzzling question isn't "how did Keeneland lose a guy like you?". The most perplexing question is..."how could you develop the sort of friendship with a racetrack that leaves you guilt-ridden about joining a justified boycott against it?"

"Never smile at a crocodile", a wise friend advised me...when I suggested to him that I considered my bookie to be a "friend" of mine.

[jay68802]

It's sad to see your bookie drive up in his perpetually new Caddy, knowing that you paid for it, yet your name is nowhere to be found on the title...:cool:

But at least he sends me a good bottle of scotch for Christmas.

[NJ Stinks]

To me, the most puzzling question isn't "how did Keeneland lose a guy like you?". The most perplexing question is..."how could you develop the sort of friendship with a racetrack that leaves you guilt-ridden about joining a justified boycott against it?"

"Never smile at a crocodile", a wise friend advised me...when I suggested to him that I considered my bookie to be a "friend" of mine.

You ask a very good question, Dr. Thaskalos. :)

Believe me, I don't have the same fondness for all the tracks I've been to - just most of them!

I guess it's just that Keeneland seems like a shrine to horse racing in the USA....hard to explain I guess....

[Fager Fan]

I lost faith in KEE when I found out we don't really know who owns it or receives money (through salaries or any other way) from KEE.

As much as I dislike Churchill, at least we know who is who. Same for the other tracks, every one of them except for KEE, who makes upwards of $25 million a year from horse sales.

I'm glad that a track is self-supporting, but how they collected up the stock years ago and then went private, with no one knowing who in Lexington is monetarily benefitting has a bit of a curious smell to it.

[highnote]

Santa Anita has been awesome so far......minus the timing issues.

I don't play Santa Anita. SA takeout is too high and my adw does not give a rebate on SA Win/Place/Show bets.

I'd rather play Penn National or Remington where the rebate makes the effective takeout on WPS about 11 to 12 percent vs. SA's 15.43 percent.

It's all about money.

[Afleet]

How was handle today?

[Jeff P]

Today they were up 2.6% with 96 runners vs. 86 for the same Fri last year.

But overall, they're down about 5.5M - or roughly 10.45% - after the first six days of their meet.

Link to a day by day handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/kee-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

Today they were up 2.6% with 96 runners vs. 86 for the same Fri last year.

But overall, they're down about 5.5M - or roughly 10.45% - after the first six days of their meet.

Link to a day by day handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/kee-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

Just a quick question Jeff, why do those who post at HTR bad-mouth you/Hana so much?....I find it strange.

[Jeff P]

FYI, Belmont is up about $5.5M or about 11.96% over the prior year for those same six days.

Link to handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/bel-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

[GMB@BP]

FYI, Belmont is up about $5.5M or about 11.96% over the prior year for those same six days.

Link to handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/bel-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

Do you know how SA is doing, they have had overly large fields for that circuit?

[Jeff P]

Although they have run only 5 dates, Santa Anita is up about $3.38M or about 9.87% over the prior year for the same time period.

Link to handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/sax-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

Just a quick question Jeff, why do those who post at HTR bad-mouth you/Hana so much?....I find it strange.

Never mind, I figured it out by your non-reply......

[alhattab]

Although they have run only 5 dates, Santa Anita is up about $3.38M or about 9.87% over the prior year for the same time period.

Link to handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/sax-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

Jeff do you know the correlation of field size to handle? I know it exists but only in the qualitative sense not quantitatively. It would be interesting to know the expected handle value given variability in field size to see the effects of coordinated player actions.

[Jeff P]

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

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

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

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


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Just a quick question Jeff, why do those who post at HTR bad-mouth you/Hana so much?....I find it strange.

When we asked HANA membership whether or not we should boycott, the results were:

63% Yes
28% No
9% Other

After popping over to the HTR board - and first finding - and then reading the thread:

I don't think anyone over there is really bad mouthing me.

I think it more likely that they fall into the 28% no boycott camp.

I will say this:

Boycotts aside, the HTR players I've met in person at various tracks and tournaments are good people.



-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

The 28% just seem to post more, I guess....

[CincyHorseplayer]

Watching races for BC. No bets. **** them.

[alhattab]

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

Excerpt from pages 8 - 9:



-jp

.

Thanks very much Jeff. I'm not a statistician, but drawing by analogy to Thalheimer's example that a 100% increase in purse yields a 6% increase in handle, then similarly a 100% increase in field size would yield a 58% increase in handle.

So we can interpolate- for a rough estimate- the effect of any change in field size to an expected increase or decrease in handle. For example, a 10% increase in field size would yield a 5.8% increase in handle.

I understand this is rough and simplistic, and overly linear. For example, Monmouth Park's average field size increases from 7.5 to 8.3- roughly 10%- it may experience a larger than 5.8% increase in handle. Conversely, Saratoga's average field size increases from 9.8 to 10.8 maybe the increase isn't quite has high, because the 9.8 average field size was already very attractive to day-to-day Saratoga players as well as those shopping for large fields to play.

I think in assessing the impact of the boycott initiative as well as anything else it is important to adjust for other independent, relevant variables and what you shared helps do that.

[lamboguy]

at the end of this meed i am sure that no matter what the spokesmen from Keeneland will have their reasons why this meet was such a success no matter how the handle does.

in my mind it is already very successful, it's so boring i have had no problem staying away from it.

[Afleet]

Watching races for BC. No bets. **** them.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Saving my money for Woodbine tomorrow

[Track Collector]

I don't play Santa Anita. SA takeout is too high and my adw does not give a rebate on SA Win/Place/Show bets.

I'd rather play Penn National or Remington where the rebate makes the effective takeout on WPS about 11 to 12 percent vs. SA's 15.43 percent.

It's all about money.

The EFFECTIVE takeout rates are lower at Penn National and Remington because Santa Anita charges your ADW significantly more for their "Host" fees.

As to the Kee fall meet, I do not expect to make and wagers there.

[highnote]

The EFFECTIVE takeout rates are lower at Penn National and Remington because Santa Anita charges your ADW significantly more for their "Host" fees.

As to the Kee fall meet, I do not expect to make and wagers there.

As Warren Buffet says, "Price is what you pay. Value is what you get."

I get the most value betting tracks with the lowest effective takeout.

The track that I bet makes no difference to me.

It's all about the money.

[One Eye]

I am one of those people who used to make an annual pilgrimage to Keeneland. There was always something special about the wooded grounds, library, and drive-thru betting operations. The vibe was positive and the takeout was reasonable (especially if you had rebates). They ruined all the good will they built up for the last two decades with their inexplicable take-out hike.

Up until late 2014, I was able to get decent rebates and offset the most eggregious takeout rates. Unfortunately, now that I live in Las Vegas, I am forced to pay full freight. Why would I want to pay 1/5th of my wagers in juice without any relief? Recently, I examined the updated rebate schedules and noticed the industry is continually raising the signal fee. The racing industry had a unique opportunity to exploit its position as the legal and accessible online alternative to casino gaming. They totally flunked out through short-sightedness and unwillingness to give consumers what they want.

[highnote]

I am one of those people who used to make an annual pilgrimage to Keeneland. There was always something special about the wooded grounds, library, and drive-thru betting operations. The vibe was positive and the takeout was reasonable (especially if you had rebates). They ruined all the good will they built up for the last two decades with their inexplicable take-out hike.

Up until late 2014, I was able to get decent rebates and offset the most eggregious takeout rates. Unfortunately, now that I live in Las Vegas, I am forced to pay full freight. Why would I want to pay 1/5th of my wagers in juice without any relief? Recently, I examined the updated rebate schedules and noticed the industry is continually raising the signal fee. The racing industry had a unique opportunity to exploit its position as the legal and accessible online alternative to casino gaming. They totally flunked out through short-sightedness and unwillingness to give consumers what they want.

The only businesses that do not need to listen to their customers are those with monopolies. Racetracks lost their monopolies on legalized gambling some years ago, but they operate like they still have them.

Rule #1: The customer is always right.

Rule #2: if the customer is wrong see Rule #1.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/919345197200412672

[Afleet]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/919345197200412672

thought for sure the boycott would knock off 10-15%; appears disappointing so far

[cj]

thought for sure the boycott would knock off 10-15%; appears disappointing so far

I'm not so sure...they've had bigger fields and mostly good weather, plus they ran an extra race on Make a Wish day this year.

[Afleet]

I am one of those people who used to make an annual pilgrimage to Keeneland. There was always something special about the wooded grounds, library, and drive-thru betting operations. The vibe was positive and the takeout was reasonable (especially if you had rebates). They ruined all the good will they built up for the last two decades with their inexplicable take-out hike.

Up until late 2014, I was able to get decent rebates and offset the most eggregious takeout rates. Unfortunately, now that I live in Las Vegas, I am forced to pay full freight. Why would I want to pay 1/5th of my wagers in juice without any relief? Recently, I examined the updated rebate schedules and noticed the industry is continually raising the signal fee. The racing industry had a unique opportunity to exploit its position as the legal and accessible online alternative to casino gaming. They totally flunked out through short-sightedness and unwillingness to give consumers what they want.

Been to KEE a few times to see horse that i owned race-its a very cool place. Loved being in the paddock-I bet I was the poorest person there. My goal is still to win a race there as an owner. Had a filly run a game 2nd getting clipped on the wire in an allowance race. The worse loss I've had.

[Jeff P]

thought for sure the boycott would knock off 10-15%; appears disappointing so far

That's what I thought...

At first.

Today they were down slightly vs. the same Saturday last year. This, despite field size of 9.8 runners per race today vs. 8.5 runners per race last year.

If takeout doesn't matter they should have been up today big time.

Kee handle update after 7 days here:
http://playersboycott.org/kee-sidebyside-7days.html

Down $5.6M roughly -8.67%

Like I said this doesn't seem so bad... at first.

Consider the fact that the other "A" tracks are up during the same time period. It's obvious to me money that would have landed on Keeneland is going elsewhere.

In business the relevant question isn't: "Where are we?"

It's: "Where are we vs. where should we be given our recent changes in strategy?"

Keeneland should be setting handle records like Kentucky Downs:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2017/10/kentucky-downs-handle-update.html

Kentucky Downs has seen record handle in each of the ensuing five years 2013-2014-2015-2016-2017 and has more than tripled their handle in that time.

Keep in mind that this came about by taking the novel approach of asking a horseplayers association to help them promote a three quarter point drop in exacta takeout.

Yesterday a horseplayer asked me: "If there's one thing you could tell Keeneland they need to be doing different what would that be?"

I would tell Keeneland they need to be doing exactly what Kentucky Downs did back in 2013.

Really hard for me to imagine Keeneland doesn't see this - even if they won't admit it publicly.

But instead they decided to have a takeout increase.



-jp

.

[highnote]

That's what I thought...

At first.

Today they were down slightly vs. the same Saturday last year. This, despite field size of 9.8 runners per race today vs. 8.5 runners per race last year.

If takeout doesn't matter they should have been up today big time.

Kee handle update after 7 days here:
http://playersboycott.org/kee-sidebyside-7days.html

Down $5.6M roughly -8.67%

Like I said this doesn't seem so bad... at first.

Consider the fact that the other "A" tracks are up during the same time period. It's obvious to me money that would have landed on Keeneland is going elsewhere.

In business the relevant question isn't: "Where are we?"

It's: "Where are we vs. where should we be given our recent changes in strategy?"

Keeneland should be setting handle records like Kentucky Downs:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2017/10/kentucky-downs-handle-update.html



Really hard for me to imagine Keeneland doesn't see this - even if they won't admit it publicly.

But instead they decided to have a takeout increase.



-jp

.

The only thing I can say in Keeneland's defense is that track management feels they have to kowtow to horsemen, not horseplayers.

Fortunately, horseplayers do not have to kowtow to any track. They have a choice of betting venues. As a horseplayer, I go to the track that provides the best value. Keeneland is not the best value. So I don't bet Keeneland.

A horseplayer's decision is pretty easy. Racetrack management has to play politics.

[cj]

The only thing I can say in Keeneland's defense is that track management feels they have to kowtow to horsemen, not horseplayers.

Fortunately, horseplayers do not have to kowtow to any track. They have a choice of betting venues. As a horseplayer, I go to the track that provides the best value. Keeneland is not the best value. So I don't bet Keeneland.

A horseplayer's decision is pretty easy. Racetrack management has to play politics.

Were horsemen complaining about purses?

[BIG49010]

Were horsemen complaining about purses?

Horseman and Owners always complain about purses! Keeneland was always a good place to visit as a fan, but something has changed since they got a taste of the big money from the Breeder's Cup!

[JustRalph]

Horseman and Owners always complain about purses! Keeneland was always a good place to visit as a fan, but something has changed since they got a taste of the big money from the Breeder's Cup!

The decision process went south when they decided to put in plastic. I made my last pilgrimage the first year they had poly. After several years of going twice a year, I bailed. No reason to care now.....

[highnote]

Were horsemen complaining about purses?

If they were not complaining then why didn't the track lower the takeout? The track didn't lower rates because they knew the horsemen would complain and take their business elsewhere -- just like me.

Your ADW should have been able to increase your rebate according to this quote from DRF:

"Several racetrack executives who spoke on the condition of anonymity because simulcast negotiations are confidential said over the past several days that Keeneland notified them last week that the new takeout rates would go into effect this fall. The executives said that Keeneland has offered to share the additional revenue with the simulcast outlets on a 50-50 basis."

If your rebate increased then you may have less incentive to boycott. However that is shortsighted. Lower takeout benefits everyone in the long run. Rebate bettors may win in the short run but there might not be a racetrack in the long run. Then everybody loses.

Best scenario is to lower rates drastically so that every better gets the same rate. The best bettors will still win. The worst will last longer. Handle will increase. Horsemen will get higher purses.

[cj]

If they were not complaining then why didn't the track lower the takeout? The track didn't lower rates because they knew the horsemen would complain and take their business elsewhere -- just like me.

Your ADW should have been able to increase your rebate according to this quote from DRF:

"Several racetrack executives who spoke on the condition of anonymity because simulcast negotiations are confidential said over the past several days that Keeneland notified them last week that the new takeout rates would go into effect this fall. The executives said that Keeneland has offered to share the additional revenue with the simulcast outlets on a 50-50 basis."

If your rebate increased then you may have less incentive to boycott. However that is shortsighted. Lower takeout benefits everyone in the long run. Rebate bettors may win in the short run but there might not be a racetrack in the long run. Then everybody loses.

Best scenario is to lower rates drastically so that every better gets the same rate. The best bettors will still win. The worst will last longer. Handle will increase. Horsemen will get higher purses.



The complain wasn't about "not lowering" takeouts, it was about raising them. The purses argument was nothing but a not so clever ruse to jack rates up.

As to ADWs, splittling the difference 50/50 means your net takeout still goes up.

I don't remember the numbers, but use this example:

old takeout: 16%
new takeout: 18%
signal fee: 8%
rebate: 4%

I guess "sharing" means Keeneland keeps 1%, ADWs get 1%. So maybe the signal fee is now 9%, it doesn't go up the full two. That is the split. Signal fees did not go down.

ADW has 8% to play with the old way. Now they have 9% to play with. Even if they give players the extra 1%, this happens:

old net takeout: 16 - 4 = 12%
new net takeout: 18 - 5 = 13%

ADWs are going to lose out too with less churn. It is an economic fact. There is no guarantee they are passing the new 1% onto customers, or if they are that they will continue to do so.

[lamboguy]

The complain wasn't about "not lowering" takeouts, it was about raising them. The purses argument was nothing but a not so clever ruse to jack rates up.

As to ADWs, splittling the difference 50/50 means your net takeout still goes up.

I don't remember the numbers, but use this example:

old takeout: 16%
new takeout: 18%
signal fee: 8%
rebate: 4%

I guess "sharing" means Keeneland keeps 1%, ADWs get 1%. So maybe the signal fee is now 9%, it doesn't go up the full two. That is the split. Signal fees did not go down.

ADW has 8% to play with the old way. Now they have 9% to play with. Even if they give players the extra 1%, this happens:

old net takeout: 16 - 4 = 12%
new net takeout: 18 - 5 = 13%

ADWs are going to lose out too with less churn. It is an economic fact. There is no guarantee they are passing the new 1% onto customers, or if they are that they will continue to do so.sorry, when you are regular day to day average rebate player the adw only cuts your rates, i have never seen them raise them. however if you happen to be betting roughly $25 million per year i am told they will raise the rates for those guys.

this Keeneland shenanigan stinks to high holy hell, that's the bottom line. i was never in favor of any track boycott until this one. i am pretty sick of certain trainers that could never get a job in any other industry in like that make more than $1 million a year and complain they need purse hikes. i think they all need to be lowered by about 75% along with their crazy day rates, vet bills and van rides.

[highnote]

The complain wasn't about "not lowering" takeouts, it was about raising them. The purses argument was nothing but a not so clever ruse to jack rates up.

As to ADWs, splittling the difference 50/50 means your net takeout still goes up.

I don't remember the numbers, but use this example:

old takeout: 16%
new takeout: 18%
signal fee: 8%
rebate: 4%

I guess "sharing" means Keeneland keeps 1%, ADWs get 1%. So maybe the signal fee is now 9%, it doesn't go up the full two. That is the split. Signal fees did not go down.

ADW has 8% to play with the old way. Now they have 9% to play with. Even if they give players the extra 1%, this happens:

old net takeout: 16 - 4 = 12%
new net takeout: 18 - 5 = 13%

ADWs are going to lose out too with less churn. It is an economic fact. There is no guarantee they are passing the new 1% onto customers, or if they are that they will continue to do so.

I saw the takeout raise as a preemptive move to placate horsemen.

Bottom line is that horseplayers lose if they accept the higher rates.

Horseplayers should bet where they get the lowest effective takeout.

It's all about the money.

[cj]

I saw the takeout raise as a preemptive move to placate horsemen.

Bottom line is that horseplayers lose if they accept the higher rates.

Horseplayers should bet where they get the lowest effective takeout.

It's all about the money.

We agree about the last three lines.

The first one, nobody was complaining about purses at Keeneland. It wasn't even on the radar. It was just a convenient excuse to raise takeout making the same mistake every other jurisdiction does. They think handle will remain the same and revenue will go up. Sometimes it does short term, and it may very well here, but it will be a loser long term. It always is. And when that happens, purses will go down, not up. It happens every time.

What also happens is you lose customers that don't come back.

[cj]

Keeneland arguing meet is great for horseplayers because of high average payout. They must think horseplayers are idiots.

https://twitter.com/TVG/status/919607228872646657

[GMB@BP]

Keeneland arguing meet is great for horseplayers because of high average payout. They must think horseplayers are idiots.

https://twitter.com/TVG/status/919607228872646657

Deep down many of them think just like Jeff Mullins.....at least he had the balls to say it.

[highnote]

Keeneland arguing meet is great for horseplayers because of high average payout. They must think horseplayers are idiots.


the track mgmt point of view is that larger purses will attract more horsemen. More horsemen means more horses. More horses means a more popular betting event. And that means an increase in handle.

They might be right. Big bettors who get rebates are not going to boycott. In fact, big bettors benefit by the boycott because there is more dumb money in the pools when semi-serious players don't bet. Recreational horseplayers are not going to boycott. They probably don't even know there is a boycott. The only players boycotting are the semi-serious ones.

Ultimately, track mgmt decision is driven by their belief that they have to appeal to the needs of the horsemen. They know that cutting rates in order to raise handle and use the extra handle to fund purses is not a popular strategy with horsemen. Horsemen and track mgmt are more comfortable raising takeout in order to fund purses.

[cj]

the track mgmt point of view is that larger purses will attract more horsemen. More horsemen means more horses. More horses means a more popular betting event. And that means an increase in handle.

They might be right. Big bettors who get rebates are not going to boycott. In fact, big bettors benefit by the boycott because there is more dumb money in the pools when semi-serious players don't bet. Recreational horseplayers are not going to boycott. They probably don't even know there is a boycott. The only players boycotting are the semi-serious ones.

Ultimately, track mgmt decision is driven by their belief that they have to appeal to the needs of the horsemen. They know that cutting rates in order to raise handle and use the extra handle to fund purses is not a popular strategy with horsemen. Horsemen and track mgmt are more comfortable raising takeout in order to fund purses.

But they aren't right. We've seen it over and over again. Purses don't drive field size, and they don't drive betting. If anything, bigger purses hurt field size.

I don't know what in the world you are talking about at there is more dumb money in the pools if semi-serious players don't bet. There may be a higher percentage of money, but there is less money to divy up among the sharks. You can only bet so much and that gets smaller as pool size shrinks.

I also disagree that big bettors aren't boycotting. I know for a fact some are not playing Keeneland this meet that usually do.

[highnote]

But they aren't right. We've seen it over and over again. Purses don't drive field size, and they don't drive betting. If anything, bigger purses hurt field size.

From track mgmt point of view purse size drives field size.

I don't know what in the world you are talking about at there is more dumb money in the pools if semi-serious players don't bet. There may be a higher percentage of money, but there is less money to divy up among the sharks. You can only bet so much and that gets smaller as pool size shrinks.

Correct. On a percentage basis. I should have been more specific. For bettors still betting Keeneland it should be easier to win.

I also disagree that big bettors aren't boycotting. I know for a fact some are not playing Keeneland this meet that usually do.

some might be boycotting. Hard to know everyone who is boycotting. Game theory. Some could say they are boycotting even if they are not.

[cj]

I don't think it would be easier to win, because on a percentage basis the "whale" percentage of money in the pool is going up in your scenario...not down.

[highnote]

I don't think it would be easier to win, because on a percentage basis the "whale" percentage of money in the pool is going up in your scenario...not down.

You're right that it will not be easier for the dumb money bettors to win.

I have been talking it being easier to win for big bettors who get rebates.

For big bettors who get rebates and are still betting at keeneland it should be easier for them to win since the semi-serious players may be boycotting. That is, there will be less competition from semi-serious bettors.

If big bettors who are getting rebates are also boycotting then it will be easier still for those big bettors who are getting rebates who are still betting at keeneland to win at keeneland.

And the reason is because the percentage of dumb money in the pool may have increased due to the lack of semi-serious players and big bettors with rebates who are boycotting.

Of course, this is all supposition. Who can say for sure?

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/919727465353961473

Those average payouts though! :liar:

[highnote]

Those average payouts though! :liar:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because average payouts are higher does not mean the amount of money being won is greater. The track payback is only 83%. They can't payout more than the track payback.

Also the chances of a horse with 10 to 1 odds winning in a 12 horse race is the same as a 10 to 1 shot in a 6 horse race.

[cj]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because average payouts are higher does not mean the amount of money being won is greater. The track payback is only 83%. They can't payout more than the track payback.

Also the chances of a horse with 10 to 1 odds winning in a 12 horse race is the same as a 10 to 1 shot in a 6 horse race.

Of course, Keeneland is just throwing out a red herring to make the product sound great. That is what the video I posted was referencing.

The example I used was if every race had 20 horses and takeout was 30%, average payout would be even higher.

[PaceAdvantage]

Never mind, I figured it out by your non-reply......For the record, I would have ignored your (rather silly) question as well.

[Jeff P]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/919727465353961473

Those average payouts though! :liar:

Here they are touting their "successful meet" because of the big average payouts...

But wouldn't their average payouts be even bigger without the takeout increase?

The irony.




-jp

.

[cj]

Here they are touting their "successful meet" because of the big average payouts...

But wouldn't their average payouts be even bigger without the takeout increase?

The irony.




-jp

.

As funny (sort of) is the average payouts were higher on polytrack. You know, if the goal was higher payouts, why go back to dirt? LOL.

[NY Racing Fan]

Here they are touting their "successful meet" because of the big average payouts...

But wouldn't their average payouts be even bigger without the takeout increase?

The irony.




-jp

.


Jeff, as a high volume bettor and HANA supporter, I applaud your efforts. It isn't easy to go on a crusade like this without assistance from some of the more influential (NTRA) horse racing organizations. I am absolutely supportive of the Keeneland boycott.

However, I don't agree with your leadership in a couple of areas. Firstly, you have implored your supporters to boycott for Keeneland for just this month's meet. Doesn't this encourage Keeneland's braintrust to think that they just have to survive the handle decline for this meet? Won't they think that people's short memories come into play and will "forget" about the takeout increase once the Spring Meet rolls around?

Also, why not constantly remind your supporters via email blasts about the tracks with high takeout/poor value when their respective meets open? Your track rating chart on your site is fantastic and has tremendously valuable and detailed information. Unfortunately, I don't think that enough people know that it exists.

Takeout couldn't be a more vital topic to bettors & the future health of horse racing. The handle numbers that are coming out of this short Keeneland meet are crucial. Everyone is watching.

[Afleet]

Jeff, as a high volume bettor and HANA supporter, I applaud your efforts. It isn't easy to go on a crusade like this without assistance from some of the more influential (NTRA) horse racing organizations. I am absolutely supportive of the Keeneland boycott.

However, I don't agree with your leadership in a couple of areas. Firstly, you have implored your supporters to boycott for Keeneland for just this month's meet. Doesn't this encourage Keeneland's braintrust to think that they just have to survive the handle decline for this meet? Won't they think that people's short memories come into play and will "forget" about the takeout increase once the Spring Meet rolls around?

Also, why not constantly remind your supporters via email blasts about the tracks with high takeout/poor value when their respective meets open? Your track rating chart on your site is fantastic and has tremendously valuable and detailed information. Unfortunately, I don't think that enough people know that it exists.

Takeout couldn't be a more vital topic to bettors & the future health of horse racing. The handle numbers that are coming out of this short Keeneland meet are crucial. Everyone is watching.

I have to agree w/this and the boycott should be revisited in the Spring

[Afleet]

http://www.drf.com/news/keeneland-handle-declines-leveling

Bob Elliston, Keeneland’s vice president of racing and sales, said Monday that the handle figures do not yet clearly demonstrate that the boycott and lower payouts are having a dramatic impact on handle, noting that of the eight days of the meet so far, four have posted lower handle numbers than the corresponding date last year, three have posted higher handle numbers, and the other was “essentially a wash,” in reference to an insignificant decline on the opening Friday, Oct. 6. On one of the days in which handle was up, Keeneland ran 10 races, rather than nine.

“How do you make any single-value causal relationship with that data?” Elliston said. “There are a lot of variables out there, although I will say that there is some number, some part of that 8.6 [decline] that can be attributed” to the takeout increase.

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/keeneland-handle-declines-leveling

Bob Elliston, Keeneland’s vice president of racing and sales, said Monday that the handle figures do not yet clearly demonstrate that the boycott and lower payouts are having a dramatic impact on handle, noting that of the eight days of the meet so far, four have posted lower handle numbers than the corresponding date last year, three have posted higher handle numbers, and the other was “essentially a wash,” in reference to an insignificant decline on the opening Friday, Oct. 6. On one of the days in which handle was up, Keeneland ran 10 races, rather than nine.

“How do you make any single-value causal relationship with that data?” Elliston said. “There are a lot of variables out there, although I will say that there is some number, some part of that 8.6 [decline] that can be attributed” to the takeout increase.


I have two days close to break even though slightly negative (the one at 0.0 was really -0.02% down), four days clearly down, and two days clearly up. The down days are much more down than the up days are up. Not sure how he figured three days are higher.

10/15 - 7.0%
10/14 - 0.5%
10/13 + 2.6%
10/12 + 7.2%
10/11 -20.7%
10/8 -30.9%
10/7 -14.4%
10/6 - 0.0%

This Friday should be an interesting comparison if dry. It was sloppy and all but one race off the turf last year.

[linrom1]

Jeff, as a high volume bettor and HANA supporter, I applaud your efforts. It isn't easy to go on a crusade like this without assistance from some of the more influential (NTRA) horse racing organizations. I am absolutely supportive of the Keeneland boycott.

However, I don't agree with your leadership in a couple of areas. Firstly, you have implored your supporters to boycott for Keeneland for just this month's meet. Doesn't this encourage Keeneland's braintrust to think that they just have to survive the handle decline for this meet? Won't they think that people's short memories come into play and will "forget" about the takeout increase once the Spring Meet rolls around?

Also, why not constantly remind your supporters via email blasts about the tracks with high takeout/poor value when their respective meets open? Your track rating chart on your site is fantastic and has tremendously valuable and detailed information. Unfortunately, I don't think that enough people know that it exists.

Takeout couldn't be a more vital topic to bettors & the future health of horse racing. The handle numbers that are coming out of this short Keeneland meet are crucial. Everyone is watching.

This is really insidious for any NYRA fanboy to support the boycott. I find NYRA venue with Chad and his boys to be most corrupt place for any bettor. You mean to tell me that Chad Brown's uncoupled entries and his legions of dependent jocks and brothers riding in tandem aren't a BIGGER threat to racing integrity and thus avoid than a race track raising its fees by a token amount., but spotless racing?

[GMB@BP]

Everyone is up and they are talking about how they are breaking even on a few days...cant make this stuff up.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is really insidious for any NYRA fanboy to support the boycott. I find NYRA venue with Chad and his boys to be most corrupt place for any bettor. You mean to tell me that Chad Brown's uncoupled entries and his legions of dependent jocks and brothers riding in tandem aren't a BIGGER threat to racing integrity and thus avoid than a race track raising its fees by a token amount., but spotless racing?Spotless...:lol:

He said spotless.

[NY Racing Fan]

This is really insidious for any NYRA fanboy to support the boycott. I find NYRA venue with Chad and his boys to be most corrupt place for any bettor. You mean to tell me that Chad Brown's uncoupled entries and his legions of dependent jocks and brothers riding in tandem aren't a BIGGER threat to racing integrity and thus avoid than a race track raising its fees by a token amount., but spotless racing?

Many people are concerned about the integrity of the game in many jurisdictions/racetracks. But Chad Brown being crooked?? Cmon. You can do better than that. The Ortiz brothers riding in tandem??? These are the issues that concern you?

[jms62]

I have two days close to break even though slightly negative (the one at 0.0 was really -0.02% down), four days clearly down, and two days clearly up. The down days are much more down than the up days are up. Not sure how he figured three days are higher.

10/15 - 7.0%
10/14 - 0.5%
10/13 + 2.6%
10/12 + 7.2%
10/11 -20.7%
10/8 -30.9%
10/7 -14.4%
10/6 - 0.0%

This Friday should be an interesting comparison if dry. It was sloppy and all but one race off the turf last year.

I can see the suits at Keenland thinking this will blow over and wait it out. Any real chance at reform will probablyrequire a Spring boycott. Hope I am wrong.

[Redboard]

I’m all in with this boycott, it’s a great thing. But I just can’t boycott Keenland forever. To try to extend it would be a mistake and dilute the power of future boycotts IMO. Keenland ‘s rake is comparable to the other major tracks; it doesn’t make sense to punish them just because they used to have a lower takeout. From here on out, we should use the HANA Track Ratings to decide where to spend our money.

We made our point and hopefully it will be a warning to other tracks. I applaud HANA for being proactive and leading this, and I just made a donation to them. I’ll follow other boycotts that they feel are necessary, even if they think just boycotting a certain bet at a track is appropriate, for a certain period of time.

I know I’m in risk of giving solace to the enemy, but I think we all knew we were “up against it.”

[Lono]

Would not want to be in a Foxhole with you.

[cj]

I’m all in with this boycott, it’s a great thing. But I just can’t boycott Keenland forever. To try to extend it would be a mistake and dilute the power of future boycotts IMO. Keenland ‘s rake is comparable to the other major tracks; it doesn’t make sense to punish them just because they used to have a lower takeout. From here on out, we should use the HANA Track Ratings to decide where to spend our money.

We made our point and hopefully it will be a warning to other tracks. I applaud HANA for being proactive and leading this, and I just made a donation to them. I’ll follow other boycotts that they feel are necessary, even if they think just boycotting a certain bet at a track is appropriate, for a certain period of time.

I know I’m in risk of giving solace to the enemy, but I think we all knew we were “up against it.”

What good is a boycott if it doesn't result in the desired change? If handle winds up significantly down and takeout doesn't change, why go back?

[NY Racing Fan]

I’m all in with this boycott, it’s a great thing. But I just can’t boycott Keenland forever. To try to extend it would be a mistake and dilute the power of future boycotts IMO. Keenland ‘s rake is comparable to the other major tracks; it doesn’t make sense to punish them just because they used to have a lower takeout. From here on out, we should use the HANA Track Ratings to decide where to spend our money.

We made our point and hopefully it will be a warning to other tracks. I applaud HANA for being proactive and leading this, and I just made a donation to them. I’ll follow other boycotts that they feel are necessary, even if they think just boycotting a certain bet at a track is appropriate, for a certain period of time.

I know I’m in risk of giving solace to the enemy, but I think we all knew we were “up against it.”

This is EXACTLY how racetracks project that the bettors (consumers) will respond to takeout increases. Short term reluctance and long term acceptance. If this is true and I am a competing track operator, I can live with this and increase takeout to the maximum levels within my jurisdiction as well.

Yes, you can argue that the Keeneland takeout is comparable to others and their product is superior to most but you have to use the most powerful voice that you can to shout out that takeout increases in this environment is unacceptable and that you demand to be heard!

Reading posts like this makes me feel like people like me are simply outnumbered and I fear that tracks are correct in their assumption that the betting public are suckers and will eat whatever they are fed.

[JustRalph]

Reading posts like this makes me feel like people like me are simply outnumbered and I fear that tracks are correct in their assumption that the betting public are suckers and will eat whatever they are fed.

Therein lies the real problem. If players took one entire weekend off.......nobody bets anything, anywhere......what do you suppose would happen?

From the early days of HANA discussions on this board
This has been the problem.

[thaskalos]

This is EXACTLY how racetracks project that the bettors (consumers) will respond to takeout increases. Short term reluctance and long term acceptance. If this is true and I am a competing track operator, I can live with this and increase takeout to the maximum levels within my jurisdiction as well.

Yes, you can argue that the Keeneland takeout is comparable to others and their product is superior to most but you have to use the most powerful voice that you can to shout out that takeout increases in this environment is unacceptable and that you demand to be heard!

Reading posts like this makes me feel like people like me are simply outnumbered and I fear that tracks are correct in their assumption that the betting public are suckers and will eat whatever they are fed.

The tracks have been at this game for a very long time...and they understand the horseplayers pretty well. We horseplayers like to bitch and moan...but the truth is that the vast majority of us aren't motivated enough by the takeout when we place our wagers...and this renders our boycott threats rather ineffective. Case in point: Parx and Indiana Grand are running against each other...and Parx has a 30% trifecta takeout, while Indiana Grand's trifecta takeout is "only" 21.5%. You wanna guess which of these two tracks does more trifecta business? And it isn't even CLOSE! The other tracks see this "apathy" of the players...and it tells them all that they need to know about "horseplayer psychology".

When it comes right down to it...we horseplayers have no-one to blame but OURSELVES when it comes to the game's controversial issues.

[FakeNameChanged]

The tracks have been at this game for a very long time...and they understand the horseplayers pretty well. We horseplayers like to bitch and moan...but the truth is that the vast majority of us aren't motivated enough by the takeout when we place our wagers...and this renders our boycott threats rather ineffective. Case in point: Parx and Indiana Grand are running against each other...and Parx has a 30% trifecta takeout, while Indiana Grand's trifecta takeout is "only" 21.5%. You wanna guess which of these two tracks does more trifecta business? And it isn't even CLOSE! The other tracks see this "apathy" of the players...and it tells them all that they need to know about "horseplayer psychology".

When it comes right down to it...we horseplayers have no-one to blame but OURSELVES when it comes to the game's controversial issues.
Don't you think the much larger population base of Philadelphia accounts for the higher handle vs. Indiana? And I didn't know the answer to your question, just a wild guess. Even though I rarely visit tracks anymore, I still prefer tracks close to home.

[thaskalos]

Don't you think the much larger population base of Philadelphia accounts for the higher handle vs. Indiana? And I didn't know the answer to your question, just a wild guess. Even though I rarely visit tracks anymore, I still prefer tracks close to home.

Both these tracks get the vast majority of their mutuel handle from the out-of-state betting outlets...as is the case with virtually every other track in the USA.

[Fager Fan]

This is EXACTLY how racetracks project that the bettors (consumers) will respond to takeout increases. Short term reluctance and long term acceptance. If this is true and I am a competing track operator, I can live with this and increase takeout to the maximum levels within my jurisdiction as well.

Yes, you can argue that the Keeneland takeout is comparable to others and their product is superior to most but you have to use the most powerful voice that you can to shout out that takeout increases in this environment is unacceptable and that you demand to be heard!

Reading posts like this makes me feel like people like me are simply outnumbered and I fear that tracks are correct in their assumption that the betting public are suckers and will eat whatever they are fed.

You don't see this as an issue?

Let's see, same price for a superior product, yet the customer's unhappy.

Maybe KEE and others just think that with handicappers, you're damned if you don't and damned if you do, so what's the point?

I've pretty much stayed out of the discussion, but now that I'm in it, I think you'd make far more progress, even get owners and others to join you, if you targeted something that I believe is equally if not more important and that's cheating/drugs. Would you ever consider that?

[Jeff P]

PTP
October 11, 2017
When Customers Tell You There's a Fly in the Soup, There's a Fly in the Soup:
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2017/10/when-customers-tell-you-theres-fly-in.html

Yesterday on twitter there was a conversation about why some people are withholding money from Keeneland this meet. A simple question, with a simple answer ("they raised prices and I don't think that's good for me, or for horse racing") gets twisted and mulched and argued. It's suddenly turned into Swahili.

Then the goalposts get moved around, and no one listens to something that's really not hard to understand in the first place.

It's not like this in other businesses. If you found a fly in your soup at Pete's, and moved your business over to Sue's across the street, the conversation is pretty simple.

"Why did you move your business?"

"I found a fly in my soup"

"OK"

The fact that Sue's soup is 50 cents more a bowl, or they play Fox News instead of CNN, or the waiter's ties are bland isn't a concern.

Keeneland put a fly in the soup and some people don't like it so they're eating someone else's soup. The end.


-jp

.

[cj]

You don't see this as an issue?

Let's see, same price for a superior product, yet the customer's unhappy.

Maybe KEE and others just think that with handicappers, you're damned if you don't and damned if you do, so what's the point?

I've pretty much stayed out of the discussion, but now that I'm in it, I think you'd make far more progress, even get owners and others to join you, if you targeted something that I believe is equally if not more important and that's cheating/drugs. Would you ever consider that?

The problem is the price of the other products sucks. So even if your product is superior that doesn't mean it isn't overpriced if it matches the others.

I thought you didn't bet.

[FakeNameChanged]

Both these tracks get the vast majority of their mutuel handle from the out-of-state betting outlets...as is the case with virtually every other track in the USA.I was simply contending that Philadelphia is the Largest MSA(Metro. stat. area) with a 150 mile radius at 39.2 million people in the US. New york City is 2nd at 36.2 mil, LA 3rd at 22.1 mil, then DC, Chicago, Boston, Detroit. So the out of state handle for Philly comes from NY NJ Del, DC, Md(balt), Conn, & Va. Just comparing to Indiana Grand who sits close to the outer MSA for Chicago at 17.3 mil. I have no proof, but would speculate that out of state interest may come from the nearest population centers in their general region.(edit) MSA data is from 2010, couldn't find anything newer.

[hopbet]

ALCON:
I came to this web site initially (like many) to IMPROVE my overall handicapping(horses). I have GAINED knowledge on this website. I must honestly also admit , I ENJOY the occasional bantering between posters. I'm 100% ALL IN, I will NOT wager at KEENELAND. This is a NO BRAINER.

HOPBET

[thaskalos]

I was simply contending that Philadelphia is the Largest MSA(Metro. stat. area) with a 150 mile radius at 39.2 million people in the US. New york City is 2nd at 36.2 mil, LA 3rd at 22.1 mil, then DC, Chicago, Boston, Detroit. So the out of state handle for Philly comes from NY NJ Del, DC, Md(balt), Conn, & Va. Just comparing to Indiana Grand who sits close to the outer MSA for Chicago at 17.3 mil. I have no proof, but would speculate that out of state interest may come from the nearest population centers in their general region.(edit) MSA data is from 2010, couldn't find anything newer.

The out-of-state betting is not confined by geographical boundaries, in my opinion...it could come from ANYWHERE. The fact that I may be geographically closer to Philadelphia does not obligate me to bet Parx instead of Santa Anita.

My point is that the trifecta pool-sizes at Parx are a shining testament to the ignorance that today's horseplayers are immersed in. With a 30% takeout...Parx shouldn't be doing any trifecta business at all.

[Afleet]

The out-of-state betting is not confined by geographical boundaries, in my opinion...it could come from ANYWHERE. The fact that I may be geographically closer to Philadelphia does not obligate me to bet Parx instead of Santa Anita.

My point is that the trifecta pool-sizes at Parx are a shining testament to the ignorance that today's horseplayers are immersed in. With a 30% takeout...Parx shouldn't be doing any trifecta business at all.

I never think twice about playing Parx because I am a trifecta player and their take is criminal. I will have horses that I own running there in the future but won't bet into the trifecta pool or bet at all. Pennsylvania has good breeders awards, but terribly over priced product.

[proximity]

a lot of parx triple betting is probably HEAVILY rebated.

[Jeff P]

The out-of-state betting is not confined by geographical boundaries, in my opinion...it could come from ANYWHERE. The fact that I may be geographically closer to Philadelphia does not obligate me to bet Parx instead of Santa Anita.

My point is that the trifecta pool-sizes at Parx are a shining testament to the ignorance that today's horseplayers are immersed in. With a 30% takeout...Parx shouldn't be doing any trifecta business at all.

I suspect a substantial percentage of trifecta handle at Parx really isn't at 30%...

Factor in rebates and I'd guess a lot that handle is somewhere in the 9% to 13% range (net effective takeout.)

EDIT: proximity beat me to it.


-jp

.

[turfnsport]

a lot of parx triple betting is probably HEAVILY rebated.

Why yes it is...I get a huge rebate if I bet Parx...But a track that has purses fueled by slots that charges a 30% take is downright criminal. No horseplayer, rebated or not, should support a dump like Parx or Penn. Ever.

[Afleet]

I suspect a substantial percentage of trifecta handle at Parx really isn't at 30%...

Factor in rebates and I'd guess a lot that handle is somewhere in the 9% to 13% range (net effective takeout.)

EDIT: proximity beat me to it.


-jp

.

I'm probably naive, but charging two different prices for the same product, to different customers, seems criminal. You would think there would be a class action lawsuit for discrimination.

[lamboguy]

I'm probably naive, but charging two different prices for the same product, to different customers, seems criminal. You would think there would be a class action lawsuit for discrimination.
i walk into home depot and the price is marked $100. i go to the register and give them my job name and they give me 15% off for being a regular customer. the same thing when i go to plumbing supply houses or appliance stores.

[Poindexter]

Interesting. Assuming 30% takeout in a $30,000 trifecta pool with 60% being bet by players getting averaging rebates of 17% (based off info in Jeff P's post), lets assume the 60% of rebated money is working on 0% net in aggregate. So in a $30,000 pool, they bet $18,000 make a profit of 0(of course in reality they are likely at closer to +5%). 17% of their $18,000 bet is coming back in rebates $3060, so they are contributing $3060 of the $9000 total takeout in the pool. Of course that means the unsuspecting public (you know the innocent people spending a day at the track that racing is trying to win over as future customers) is contributing $5940 to the takeout on their $12,000 bet. Only -49.5% Now That's Entertainment.

Afleet, the only thing criminal is how stupid the decision makers in this industry are.

[Track Collector]

I suspect a substantial percentage of trifecta handle at Parx really isn't at 30%...

Factor in rebates and I'd guess a lot that handle is somewhere in the 9% to 13% range (net effective takeout.)

EDIT: proximity beat me to it.


-jp

.

At most ADWs (who offer rebates) and over the spectrum of different tracks on their wagering menu, the EFFECTIVE takeout rates for a given player are going to be in a relatively close range of each other. Two very critical aspects which will lead to exceptions are when tracks have significantly different Host Fees, and/or when Source Market Fees apply.

I am sure it would not be the sole reason, or even the main reason, to account for the large differences in trifecta pool amounts between Parx and Indiana Downs, but I can not help but wonder if for certain price-sensitive players, Parx offers the much better value. For example, I am aware of one specific ADW where my EFFECTIVE takeout rate on trifectas with Parx is more than 8.5% lower than on trifectas than with Indiana Downs. :eek:

Me thinks the above two mentioned aspects are major contributors here.

[proximity]

i know amwager doesn't even take indiana; possibly others don't too so that could make a difference as well?

[linrom1]

So let's get this straight! There are individuals who support the boycott of Keenland, but are okay with betting on Parx because they get huge rebates.

I think that sums that mindset of many bettors! Perhaps if they lobbied for elimination of rebates, then we could have lower takeout for everyone.

[GMB@BP]

So let's get this straight! There are individuals who support the boycott of Keenland, but are okay with betting on Parx because they get huge rebates.

I think that sums that mindset of many bettors! Perhaps if they lobbied for elimination of rebates, then we could have lower takeout for everyone.

I agree with this entire post.

the whole rebate thing skews the discussion.

[cj]

I agree with this entire post.

the whole rebate thing skews the discussion.

Why would you boycott a track where you get a good rate? You are getting much better "net" betting tracks with higher takeouts than Keeneland than you are betting Keeneland. It actually does make sense. Keeneland raised the takeout and has high signal fees.

I'm not defending rebates. I think they are terrible for the game. If lower takeout is so great, than it should be great for everyone. But that is about 10 steps removed from something your everyday horseplayer can do anything about. Why tracks realize that lower take for whales generates more churn and more revenue but don't realize it would for everyone is something I can't explain or even fathom.

[One Eye]

I agree with this entire post.

the whole rebate thing skews the discussion.


Rebates are a still a dirty secret, especially with special deals between high volume players and tracks. The lack of transparency is another reason to doubt the credibility of the game. One major reason I dropped almost 90% of my wagering activity is my inability to obtain rebates (I live in Las Vegas). Of course, I could set up dual residence in another state, but it seems like too much work.

One problem I have with special rebates is the nature of the parimutuel system. The assumption is everybody is getting the same odds. Most players are astounded when I tell them some players obtain 20% rebates on trifectas or superfectas at PARX.

However, I do not think it is hypocritical to argue for lower takeout while receiving rebates. There is a difference between what is realistic and what is ideal. Most players spearheading takeout movements genuinely want EVERYBODY to have lower takeout. They realize it would help themselves, newer and inexperienced players, and the industry as a whole. However, to stay in the game they gladly take rebates.

If the game is to truly grow, it needs to focus on universal takeout reductions, thus reducing or eliminating the need for special rebate deals. Alternatively, they could allow exchange wagering, so players could bypass the parimutuel system and pay lower juice.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/920762338227163137

Thought for sure they'd be up with a P6 carryover.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/920764172694097920

[Afleet]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/920762338227163137

Thought for sure they'd be up with a P6 carryover.

Is that right? I also thought there would be no way they would be down today w/a pick 6 carryover

[proximity]

i brought up the rebates (and my own adw not taking ind) as part(s) of a possible explanation as to why parx could possibly have a higher triple handle than ind, NOT to be vilified for betting a track (parx) that I don't even play.

I do confess to betting penn national but I don't think that makes me a bad person. I grew up there, pen exposed me to OUR game, and i'm a night person who enjoys playing night tracks.

I apologize for any confusion.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/921133863656673280

[Afleet]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/921133863656673280

I thought handle was getting ready to turn positive for the last week of the meet. That is good news and a little surprising to me.

[GMB@BP]

I thought handle was getting ready to turn positive for the last week of the meet. That is good news and a little surprising to me.

they are getting their butts kicked, they should be up 10% so this is a substantial amount of loss when you factor that in.

Just need to carry this over in the spring meet and it will send a real message.

[NJ Stinks]

Played a round of golf this afternoon in gorgeous weather here in NJ.

It's getting easier with each passing day to skip Keeneland.

[JustRalph]

Played a round of golf this afternoon in gorgeous weather here in NJ.

It's getting easier with each passing day to skip Keeneland.

Good for you!

[NJ Stinks]

Good for you!

Thanks, Ralph. :)

[NY Racing Fan]

they are getting their butts kicked, they should be up 10% so this is a substantial amount of loss when you factor that in.

Just need to carry this over in the spring meet and it will send a real message.

I keep asking Jeff from HANA about pushing for an even stronger Keeneland Spring boycott and have yet to hear him respond to it. Again....very disappointed in them.

[Jeff P]

Matt Heggarty's recent DRF article appeared under a headline that reads Keeneland handle declines leveling off:
http://www.drf.com/news/keeneland-handle-declines-leveling

Bob Elliston, Keeneland’s vice president of racing and sales, said Monday that the handle figures do not yet clearly demonstrate that the boycott and lower payouts are having a dramatic impact on handle, noting that of the eight days of the meet so far, four have posted lower handle numbers than the corresponding date last year, three have posted higher handle numbers, and the other was “essentially a wash,” in reference to an insignificant decline on the opening Friday, Oct. 6. On one of the days in which handle was up, Keeneland ran 10 races, rather than nine.


But Thursday's results (down $2M 28.48%) on a day with perfect weather and comparable field size vs. the same Thurs last year were more encouraging - and tell a different story.

I believe we can build on that - by asking players who are currently boycotting to reach out to other players who might not even know there's a boycott.

We're obviously doing some of that.

But if we can do more of that that:

I really think we can have a lot more days like Thursday and convince Keeneland to reverse their decision.

I keep asking Jeff from HANA about pushing for an even stronger Keeneland Spring boycott and have yet to hear him respond to it. Again....very disappointed in them.

Let me put it this way:

I'm in this for as long as it takes. I haven't bet a dime on Keeneland and I won't until they reverse their decision.

But I'm only as good as the other players supporting this.

Even if we have a lot more days like Thursday between now and the end of the Keeneland meet, there's a very good chance Keeneland will hope players will forget about the boycott between now and next April.

To that end, allow me to float an idea:

There IS another meet immediately following Keeneland.

Churchill.

Remember those guys?

What do other players think about keeping the boycott going once Keeneland ends?



-jp

.

[SandyW]

I'm with you JP, have not and will not place a bet with Churchill or Keeneland this year and will not until they rescind their higher takeout rates.
My daily handle at these tracks has been moved over to more customer friendly race tracks.

[AskinHaskin]

But Thursday's results (down $2M 28.48%) on a day with perfect weather and comparable field size vs. the same Thurs last year were more encouraging - and tell a different story.



.



ROFL !!

What say you tell the whole story instead of "a different story"


How clueless do you think people are, when buying this stuff, while you compare a day with a carryover of $300K+ to a random and insignificant day perhaps depleted even further by Kee having had a carryover a day before?


You're on your way to getting buried, just as you did with the Canterbury pipe dream despite announcing wild, day-over-day gains of 48% on that first Sunday of the meet while excitedly comparing a sloppy-track day one year with a fast-track corresponding day the next year.

Besides, all that matters in this equation is revenue-from-handle, which you conveniently never dare to report.

Beyond that, how many years has it been at SA...? and you still haven't convinced them to "reverse their decision (to raise takeout)".


You are simply not thinking correctly about this entire equation.

[NY Racing Fan]

Matt Heggarty's recent DRF article appeared under a headline that reads Keeneland handle declines leveling off:
http://www.drf.com/news/keeneland-handle-declines-leveling




But Thursday's results (down $2M 28.48%) on a day with perfect weather and comparable field size vs. the same Thurs last year were more encouraging - and tell a different story.

I believe we can build on that - by asking players who are currently boycotting to reach out to other players who might not even know there's a boycott.

We're obviously doing some of that.

But if we can do more of that that:

I really think we can have a lot more days like Thursday and convince Keeneland to reverse their decision.



Let me put it this way:

I'm in this for as long as it takes. I haven't bet a dime on Keeneland and I won't until they reverse their decision.

But I'm only as good as the other players supporting this.

Even if we have a lot more days like Thursday between now and the end of the Keeneland meet, there's a very good chance Keeneland will hope players will forget about the boycott between now and next April.

To that end, allow me to float an idea:

There IS another meet immediately following Keeneland.

Churchill.

Remember those guys?

What do other players think about keeping the boycott going once Keeneland ends?



-jp

.

I am not saying that I think that continuing the boycott onto Churchill is a bad idea, however, the increase @ Keeneland is new and fresh and when you add additional components to a boycott (Churchill), don't you think it waters down the entire effect? If we keep pounding Keeneland, they have to respond. From my perspective, the numbers coming out of Keeneland this meet confirm that the boycott is indeed working. Personally, I won't bet CHU for the same reasons why I won't be wagering on KEE until reform is made. I just worry about the unity and resolve of the masses.

[NY Racing Fan]

ROFL !!

What say you tell the whole story instead of "a different story"


How clueless do you think people are, when buying this stuff, while you compare a day with a carryover of $300K+ to a random and insignificant day perhaps depleted even further by Kee having had a carryover a day before?


You're on your way to getting buried, just as you did with the Canterbury pipe dream despite announcing wild, day-over-day gains of 48% on that first Sunday of the meet while excitedly comparing a sloppy-track day one year with a fast-track corresponding day the next year.

Besides, all that matters in this equation is revenue-from-handle, which you conveniently never dare to report.

Beyond that, how many years has it been at SA...? and you still haven't convinced them to "reverse their decision (to raise takeout)".


You are simply not thinking correctly about this entire equation.

Jeff can respond to this better than I can but revenue from handle is a loaded topic. Even if your revenue increases with a decrease in handle because of the takeout increase, it still paints a bad picture of an organization if you are showing declining profit margins from revenue. In addition to that, you are reducing your customer base with the lower handle. It's just a more complicated picture to paint.

Is see your complaints but what are your suggestions?

[Jeff P]

https://twitter.com/grayposse/status/921158382752591874


-jp

.

[DeanT]

Jeff can respond to this better than I can but revenue from handle is a loaded topic. Even if your revenue increases with a decrease in handle because of the takeout increase, it still paints a bad picture of an organization if you are showing declining profit margins from revenue.

"Revenue from handle" is often used when handle goes down, when takeout goes up (mainly from insiders), but yes, it is a really poor way to look at things. It's short term.

Hong Kong - a near monopoly for racing in their jurisdiction - could raise billions in revenue tomorrow by increasing takeout, but they won't. Australia's juice is 10.41% blended. I'm sure they could raise revenue tomorrow by going to 15%. They don't either.

They don't because they know that the short term revenue bump will not continue as their players get ground down over time. The same thing happens here - and has happened for generations. Then they look up one day and see both handle and revenue down, and almost inexplicably wonder what happened. Then, they do the exact same thing over again.

[Jeff P]

ROFL !!...

You're on your way to getting buried...

Besides, all that matters in this equation is revenue-from-handle, which you conveniently never dare to report...

You are simply not thinking correctly about this entire equation.





Getting buried?... really?

Keeneland during the 1st 10 days of their fall 2017 meet:
http://www.playersboycott.org/kee-sidebyside-10days.html
Down 8.1M -9.76%


Belmont during the 1st 10 days of Keeneland's fall 2017 meet:
http://www.playersboycott.org/bel-sidebyside-10days.html
Up 6.6M +8.61%


Santa Anita during the 1st 10 days of Keeneland's fall 2017 meet:
http://www.playersboycott.org/sax-sidebyside-10days.html
Up 6.1M +11.73%


Total revenue from handle?

The other A tracks are UP an average of 10.1%

I submit to you the idea that Keeneland would be UP a similar amount had they not had a takeout increase.

In absolute terms they are 20% below where they should be.

The takeout increase doesn't make up for that.



-jp

.

[Track Collector]

I see your complaints but what are your suggestions?I second this.

Sincere question...........do you really care that handicappers have to play into a higher takeout at Keeneland? If yes, then I am sure the HANA would be more than welcome to hear and consider your suggestions. I am sure that their "goal" is not to look good and further personal egos but to help fight and achieve positive changes for the horseplayer. I have spoken to Jeff via phone a number of times and found him to be sincere and very helpful.

Let's see some helpful ideas here, otherwise, what motives do you have for these Keeneland-related postings other than to perhaps let off some steam?

[thaskalos]

Isn't AskinHaskin the guy who keeps telling us that "we and our ilk" are responsible for the state that the game currently finds itself in? Has he ever clarified what he meant by that...even though we have asked him to do so time and again? What makes us think that he'll be any more forthcoming with an explanation this time?

IMO...he is the classic drive-by shooter...who isn't NEARLY as clever as he thinks he is.

[DeanT]

Jerod Dinkin (he presented on the Horseplayer panel at Equestricon) on the boycott and assorted horseplayer issues, if anyone is interested. I think he did a good job, but I'm biased. He's a buddy.

https://5minutestopost.com/2017/10/20/getting-to-know-hana-board-member-jerod-dinkin/

He touched a little bit about the KEE action in the interview.

[NY Racing Fan]

Getting buried?... really?

Keeneland during the 1st 10 days of their fall 2017 meet:
http://www.playersboycott.org/kee-sidebyside-10days.html



Belmont during the 1st 10 days of Keeneland's fall 2017 meet:
http://www.playersboycott.org/bel-sidebyside-10days.html



Santa Anita during the 1st 10 days of Keeneland's fall 2017 meet:
http://www.playersboycott.org/sax-sidebyside-10days.html



Total revenue from handle?

The other A tracks are UP an average of 10.1%

I submit to you the idea that Keeneland would be UP a similar amount had they not had a takeout increase.

In absolute terms they are 20% below where they should be.

The takeout increase doesn't make up for that.



-jp

.

The figures are tremendously supportive of the boycott and other ramifications that resulted from the Keeneland takeout increase. HANA definitely deserves some credit and thanks from the horseplayers for the results shown thus far. Just want to see it continue.

[jay68802]

The figures are tremendously supportive of the boycott and other ramifications that resulted from the Keeneland takeout increase. HANA definitely deserves some credit and thanks from the horseplayers for the results shown thus far. Just want to see it continue.

I second this comment.

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/921504077468626944

Last year was a washout with sloppy tracks and only the stakes race staying on turf. I'm really, really surprised they weren't up today total.

[NJ Stinks]

ROFL !!

What say you tell the whole story instead of "a different story"


How clueless do you think people are, when buying this stuff, while you compare a day with a carryover of $300K+ to a random and insignificant day perhaps depleted even further by Kee having had a carryover a day before?


You're on your way to getting buried, just as you did with the Canterbury pipe dream despite announcing wild, day-over-day gains of 48% on that first Sunday of the meet while excitedly comparing a sloppy-track day one year with a fast-track corresponding day the next year.

Besides, all that matters in this equation is revenue-from-handle, which you conveniently never dare to report.

Beyond that, how many years has it been at SA...? and you still haven't convinced them to "reverse their decision (to raise takeout)".


You are simply not thinking correctly about this entire equation.

See if you can grasp this. I rarely play Santa Anita nowadays but I used to play SA a lot. "That" takeout issue got me out of the habit. And I haven't made one bet at Keeneland this fall and before this meet I bet more money there than I did at NY tracks when Keeneland was open.

You can sit there and tell me Keeneland is rolling in cash this meet despite losing my action. My response is simply this. I seriously doubt there are thousands of people in this country that bet as much as I do. Losing a life-long horseplayer like me if you run a racetrack because of an increase in takeout reminds me of other idiots in my past. Namely, bookies who were sure there were enough fools out there with a need to bet football games even if the price to play was 6-5 rather than 11-10.

[Afleet]

Matt Heggarty's recent DRF article appeared under a headline that reads Keeneland handle declines leveling off:
http://www.drf.com/news/keeneland-handle-declines-leveling




But Thursday's results (down $2M 28.48%) on a day with perfect weather and comparable field size vs. the same Thurs last year were more encouraging - and tell a different story.

I believe we can build on that - by asking players who are currently boycotting to reach out to other players who might not even know there's a boycott.

We're obviously doing some of that.

But if we can do more of that that:

I really think we can have a lot more days like Thursday and convince Keeneland to reverse their decision.



Let me put it this way:

I'm in this for as long as it takes. I haven't bet a dime on Keeneland and I won't until they reverse their decision.

But I'm only as good as the other players supporting this.

Even if we have a lot more days like Thursday between now and the end of the Keeneland meet, there's a very good chance Keeneland will hope players will forget about the boycott between now and next April.

To that end, allow me to float an idea:

There IS another meet immediately following Keeneland.

Churchill.

Remember those guys?

What do other players think about keeping the boycott going once Keeneland ends?



-jp

.

I'm in thats a good idea. Remember Kee and CD trying to take down Ky Downs and you know they are behind them not getting any extra meet days. I say f'em!!

[Afleet]

Isn't AskinHaskin the guy who keeps telling us that "we and our ilk" are responsible for the state that the game currently finds itself in? Has he ever clarified what he meant by that...even though we have asked him to do so time and again? What makes us think that he'll be any more forthcoming with an explanation this time?

IMO...he is the classic drive-by shooter...who isn't NEARLY as clever as he thinks he is.

you are correct sir-same person

[Afleet]

ROFL !!

What say you tell the whole story instead of "a different story"


How clueless do you think people are, when buying this stuff, while you compare a day with a carryover of $300K+ to a random and insignificant day perhaps depleted even further by Kee having had a carryover a day before?


You're on your way to getting buried, just as you did with the Canterbury pipe dream despite announcing wild, day-over-day gains of 48% on that first Sunday of the meet while excitedly comparing a sloppy-track day one year with a fast-track corresponding day the next year.

Besides, all that matters in this equation is revenue-from-handle, which you conveniently never dare to report.

Beyond that, how many years has it been at SA...? and you still haven't convinced them to "reverse their decision (to raise takeout)".


You are simply not thinking correctly about this entire equation.

What is the trend for SA handle in the last 20 years?

[rastajenk]

Isn't AskinHaskin the guy who keeps telling us that "we and our ilk" are responsible for the state that the game currently finds itself in? Has he ever clarified what he meant by that...even though we have asked him to do so time and again? What makes us think that he'll be any more forthcoming with an explanation this time?
When it comes right down to it...we horseplayers have no-one to blame but OURSELVES when it comes to the game's controversial issues.

Seems to me that you do know what he means.

:p

[MONEY]

Post #226 is reporting that Keeneland's handle is down 9.3%

I'm not a mathematician, some one that is a mathematician with all of the proper pool information should do the math.

Here's my math.

Last Year the take out on win bets was 16%, this year it's 17.5%

On 10/20 the Win handle was
2,484,951 times take out 17.5% = $434,866

Add 9.3%
Last years handle might have been
2,716,051 times takeout 16% = $434,568

That's a positive $265.00 for Keeneland on win bets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about exactas

Last year the takeout was 19%, this year it's 22%

On 10/20 the Ex. handle was
1,592,337 times takeout 22% = $350,314

Add 9.3%
Last years handle might have been
1,740,424 times takeout 19% = $330,680

That's a positive $19,634 for Keeneland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks to me that Keeneland is making more money on handle this year than last year and that was their goal.

I don't know how the raise in takeout is affecting the attendance.
If attendance is significantly down, Keeneland could lose lots of money on parking and concessions
which could washout the profits on handle.

[GMB@BP]

Post #226 is reporting that Keeneland's handle is down 9.3%

I'm not a mathematician, some one that is a mathematician with all of the proper pool information should do the math.

Here's my math.

Last Year the take out on win bets was 16%, this year it's 17.5%

On 10/20 the Win handle was
2,484,951 times take out 17.5% = $434,866

Add 9.3%
Last years handle might have been
2,716,051 times takeout 16% = $434,568

That's a positive $265.00 for Keeneland on win bets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about exactas

Last year the takeout was 19%, this year it's 22%

On 10/20 the Ex. handle was
1,592,337 times takeout 22% = $350,314

Add 9.3%
Last years handle might have been
1,740,424 times takeout 19% = $330,680

That's a positive $19,634 for Keeneland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks to me that Keeneland is making more money on handle this year than last year and that was their goal.

I don't know how the raise in takeout is affecting the attendance.
If attendance is significantly down, Keeneland could lose lots of money on parking and concessions
which could washout the profits on handle.

Can you run the numbers on what they make when their customer goes broke?

[thaskalos]

Seems to me that you do know what he means.

:p

I don't think so...because he also blames us for driving the "common folk" away from the game. We hurt the track, and we hurt the other players...he says.

[castaway01]

I don't think so...because he also blames us for driving the "common folk" away from the game. We hurt the track, and we hurt the other players...he says.

You've posted similar things many times, it's one of your recurring themes. Maybe you should ask Askin Haskin out for coffee, make a date of it. :kiss:

[thaskalos]

You've posted similar things many times, it's one of your recurring themes. Maybe you should ask Askin Haskin out for coffee, make a date of it. :kiss:

Hitting-and-running ain't my M.O.

I wouldn't presume to dissuade YOU from doing it, though. :kiss:

[therussmeister]

Post #226 is reporting that Keeneland's handle is down 9.3%

I'm not a mathematician, some one that is a mathematician with all of the proper pool information should do the math.

Here's my math.

Last Year the take out on win bets was 16%, this year it's 17.5%

On 10/20 the Win handle was
2,484,951 times take out 17.5% = $434,866

Add 9.3%
Last years handle might have been
2,716,051 times takeout 16% = $434,568

That's a positive $265.00 for Keeneland on win bets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about exactas

Last year the takeout was 19%, this year it's 22%

On 10/20 the Ex. handle was
1,592,337 times takeout 22% = $350,314

Add 9.3%
Last years handle might have been
1,740,424 times takeout 19% = $330,680

That's a positive $19,634 for Keeneland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks to me that Keeneland is making more money on handle this year than last year and that was their goal.

I don't know how the raise in takeout is affecting the attendance.
If attendance is significantly down, Keeneland could lose lots of money on parking and concessions
which could washout the profits on handle.

The problem with analysis such as this is Keeneland only gets the listed takeout rate on bets placed through them. Otherwise they get whatever their signal fee is. Did they raise that this year too?

[startngate]

It looks to me that Keeneland is making more money on handle this year than last year and that was their goal.

Those numbers are only true if the handle you are reporting are 100% on-track. Keeneland only gets the host fee for all off-track bets, which would be substantially less revenue than you are reporting.

Having said that, I still suspect the end result will be handle down 8-10%, and revenue will be level or slightly up.

[thaskalos]

IMO...it's important for this boycott to have a noticeable effect, because the other tracks are observing the player reaction to the recent Keeneland takeout hike...and this player-reaction is likely to effect the track takeouts in the future. Taking the Keeneland takeout on its own...it's hard for me to generate any real "animosity" against Keeneland...because I can see their side of the argument. They have a marquee meet, with classy racing and full fields...and they still top the HANA takeout chart even AFTER the takeout hike (Kentucky Downs doesn't count, IMO). In view of this...how can the player get legitimately "mad" at Keeneland...while continuing to support tracks like Aqueduct...where a much-inferior product is priced even HIGHER?

[Jeff P]

...and they still top the HANA takeout chart even AFTER the takeout hike

Thask,

I'm not sure what you're looking at...

Goto the 2017 HANA Track Ratings on our site - here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/2017Sortable.html

Click the column labeled "Takeout Score"

Which should cause the page to sort the tracks by Takeout Score...

You should be able to see that, after the takeout hike, Keeneland has a takeout score of 1.72

Which puts them about 30th among the 60+ tracks that we covered.

The only A track with a lower takeout score than Keeneland is Churchill.



-jp

.

[thaskalos]

Thask,

I'm not sure what you're looking at...

Goto the 2017 HANA Track Ratings on our site - here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/2017Sortable.html

Click the column labeled "Takeout Score"

Which should cause the page to sort the tracks by Takeout Score...

You should be able to see that, after the takeout hike, Keeneland has a takeout score of 1.72

Which puts them about 30th among the 60+ tracks that we covered.

The only A track with a lower takeout score than Keeneland is Churchill.



-jp

.

Forgive me, Jeff...I googled for the HANA track chart...and I evidently found an old one. I haven't bet Keeneland for years...for the same reason that I don't bet Saratoga. Short meets with many shippers and an overabundance of grass races don't appeal to me, betting-wise.

I wish I could erase my prior post...:blush:

[Jeff P]

No worries. :cool:


-jp

.

[Afleet]

what were their numbers today?

[Jeff P]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/921886166634450946


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Also... based on initial chart data:

Belmont UP +3.5M +36.5%

Santa Anita UP +793k +11.89%



-jp

.

[Charli125]

Otherwise they get whatever their signal fee is. Did they raise that this year too?

Yes. 1.1% is what I'm hearing from every source I've been able to check.

[NY Racing Fan]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/921886166634450946


-jp

.

Jeff,

I'm hoping that with whatever public relations resources that you possess, you can promote the heck out of not only the Keeneland handle reduction but, just as importantly, the increase in handle of the other respective circuits during the same period

I believe that the new IRS rules are bumping up national handle, which overstates the already poor Keeneland handle.

You have some really good ammo here. I hope you take full advantage of the opportunity to display the negative effects of increased takeout. I'm sure that many of us here would be glad to assist if you can let us know how we would be able to.

[ronsmac]

Post #226 is reporting that Keeneland's handle is down 9.3%

I'm not a mathematician, some one that is a mathematician with all of the proper pool information should do the math.

Here's my math.

Last Year the take out on win bets was 16%, this year it's 17.5%

On 10/20 the Win handle was
2,484,951 times take out 17.5% = $434,866

Add 9.3%
Last years handle might have been
2,716,051 times takeout 16% = $434,568

That's a positive $265.00 for Keeneland on win bets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about exactas

Last year the takeout was 19%, this year it's 22%

On 10/20 the Ex. handle was
1,592,337 times takeout 22% = $350,314

Add 9.3%
Last years handle might have been
1,740,424 times takeout 19% = $330,680

That's a positive $19,634 for Keeneland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks to me that Keeneland is making more money on handle this year than last year and that was their goal.

I don't know how the raise in takeout is affecting the attendance.
If attendance is significantly down, Keeneland could lose lots of money on parking and concessions
which could washout the profits on handle.Although your example only pertains to on track handle , the point is made. When Churchill raised their takeout, not only did the take increase, but they got the double whammy of a tax break from the state. Previously they paid 3.5% to the state and the increase in takeout actually allowed them to lower their cut to the state to 1.5%. Someone please correct me if i'm wrong. So basically at 19%, the track and horseman and breeders i'm guessing split 15.5% of on track exotic handle. After the increase they split 20.5% of on track exotic handle. That's more than a 30% increase and it will take a monumental drop in handle for them to ever think about going back to the old rates. Especially with the Derby being such a big part of their handle. Hopefully Keeneland will consider the negative publicity of the takeout increase and go back to the previous takeout and signal fees because I know there's no turning back at Churchill.

[upthecreek]

https://twitter.com/Ubercapper/status/922093679774494720

[linrom1]

https://twitter.com/Ubercapper/status/922093679774494720

Since I am Pick -4 player only, Keenland's increased takeout of 22% is STILL LOWER than NYRA's 24%! Further, I prefer their product over the incessant NY bred races that are carded for 'whale bettors' only, that's what NYRA cares about.

Any venue that can bury a race with Songbird somewhere early on their program, has gone absolutely corrupt.


If you look at 10/22 Kee late Pick-4 pool, it shows a total of $443K for a sequence made up of MSW, 2 ALWs and a Stake race with total purse value of $449k and then look at Bel late Pick 4 pool of $545k for a sequence of races made of 3 Stake and MSW race with purse value of $690K, it shows that Kee is a much more popular venue than Bel.

Now Kee early p4 pool was $237k vs Bel $254., this despite NYRA carding their best races in the early sequence.