Canterbury Park closes meet with slightly higher handle figures

[Afleet]

http://www.drf.com/news/canterbury-park-closes-meet-slightly-higher-handle-figures

This doesn't bode well for the KEE boycott. Thought for sure their handle would be down

Canterbury Park concluded its 67-day 2017 race meet Saturday with modest handle gains by several statistical measures despite threats of a boycott from a segment of the horseplaying population.
Canterbury experimented during its 2016 meet with lowering takeout well below industry standards, but while Canterbury did experience handle increases last year, they were insufficient to offset the takeout decrease and resulted in reduced revenue at the Twin Cities-area track.
While proponents of a lowered-takeout regime insisted the plan needed more than one season to bear fruit, Canterbury, saying it could not sustain the 2016 takeout level without support from other actors in the racing industry, reverted to its previous takeout levels.
That decision triggered an outcry from a vocal segment of the wagering population but did not stop Canterbury from showing several handle-related increases this year.


Racing two fewer days than in 2016, Canterbury’s gross handle rose 0.8 percent to $43,670,000 this season. Average daily handle was up 4 percent to $651,791, while per-race handle increased 2 percent to $67,391. Canterbury ran 648 races this year and 655 last year, including 150 grass races at both meets. All handle figures include Quarter Horse races, of which there were 105 this year compared with 110 in 2016.

[cj]

It was a bad meet no matter how Canterbury tries to frame it. Last year's cards were a disaster. They had bigger fields and less off the turf races.

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/909420696610250753

Also, handle at nearby tracks was up WAY more:

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/909433402599895040

[ukbro00]

Using "Handle by Betting Interest" as a comparison? I guess takeout truthers will go to any limits to try to prove their point.

[cj]

Using "Handle by Betting Interest" as a comparison? I guess takeout truthers will go to any limits to try to prove their point.

The point is the fields were much better this year. Handle should have went up much more than the tiny bit it did if takeout didn't matter.

Takeout truthers...that is funny. Maybe you should just play tris at Parx.

[Valuist]

I tried betting some of their cards in 2016 and there was way too many unplayable races due to short fields, as well as poor quality. Whatever "gains" they have are illusionary.

[cj]

http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2017/09/canterbury-parks-cautionary-handle-tale.html?spref=tw

[elhelmete]

The point is the fields were much better this year. Handle should have went up much more than the tiny bit it did if takeout didn't matter.

Takeout truthers...that is funny. Maybe you should just play tris at Parx.

Before I comment more, can I ask if I have this right...handle $ per betting interest is simply the day's handle divided by the # of horses racing that day?

So absent any handle increase, an increase in field size would initially lower this figure?

Conversely, a decrease in field size would make that # go up?

[cj]

Before I comment more, can I ask if I have this right...handle $ per betting interest is simply the day's handle divided by the # of horses racing that day?

So absent any handle increase, an increase in field size would initially lower this figure?

Conversely, a decrease in field size would make that # go up?

Yes. If handle remained exactly the same and the number of horses that ran went down, the handle per betting interest would go up. That isn't very realistic though. Generally, handle goes up as field size goes up, and vise versa.

[elhelmete]

Yes. If handle remained exactly the same and the number of horses that ran went down, the handle per betting interest would go up. That isn't very realistic though. Generally, handle goes up as field size goes up, and vise versa.
Thanks!
Again, just curious, would it be fair to assume that a handle increase might lag in time a little bit even with an increase in field size? Along the lines of "I have $200 with me to bet at the track today" regardless of how many horses may be entered?

[GMB@BP]

If you are not up in this economy you are never going to be up, not sure what they are going to do in the next downturn in about 3 years.

[Afleet]

Using "Handle by Betting Interest" as a comparison? I guess takeout truthers will go to any limits to try to prove their point.

Do you think communism would work, but it just hasn't been implemented correctly yet?

[AskinHaskin]

Handle should have went up much more than the tiny bit it did if takeout didn't matter.




ROFL - handle went up a tiny bit... last year... when takeout mattered, remember??



The takeout nonsense continues to have been whitewashed at every game-day opportunity to date.

Christ, the handle on the Hialeah pick-4's went up markedly despite the takeout skyrocketing after their one-season failed experiment.


Why has this been the trend, rather than the exception?


Because takeout has been effectively the same for decades, and thus it is a constant, and not, really, a variable (except in the eyes of the clueless among you).

The reason horse racing is dying IS quite prominent at HANA, but it has zero to do with takeout... which has been an effective constant while horse racing's decline has been a steady variable in front of that constant for 30 years. Simple logic (although too complex for some of you) assures, yet again, that takeout can not be the cause of racing's decline over the past 30 years.


The whole premise that is racing looking for its optimum price point would be cause for pause if only any of the blowhards among you could cite actual evidence that racing hasn't already landed on optimum takeout.


When you race around and attempt (in vain) to taint any raw experiment by passing around those cerebral HANA selections (to the rest of the disinterested among you) and you still can't right your sinking ship then all you unearth are the fissures in the HANA infrastructure... (to the surprise of no one, really)

[AskinHaskin]

Do you think communism would work, but it just hasn't been implemented correctly yet?


Maybe HANA should change its company endeavors?

(they could get nearer to the pin with that one)

[cj]

ROFL - handle went up a tiny bit... last year... when takeout mattered, remember??

Handle was down big everywhere else in the area, the opposite of this year.

As usual, you're nothing but a blowhard that says nothing with a lot of words.

[Track Phantom]

ROFL - handle went up a tiny bit... last year... when takeout mattered, remember??



The takeout nonsense continues to have been whitewashed at every game-day opportunity to date.

Christ, the handle on the Hialeah pick-4's went up markedly despite the takeout skyrocketing after their one-season failed experiment.


Why has this been the trend, rather than the exception?


Because takeout has been effectively the same for decades, and thus it is a constant, and not, really, a variable (except in the eyes of the clueless among you).

The reason horse racing is dying IS quite prominent at HANA, but it has zero to do with takeout... which has been an effective constant while horse racing's decline has been a steady variable in front of that constant for 30 years. Simple logic (although too complex for some of you) assures, yet again, that takeout can not be the cause of racing's decline over the past 30 years.


The whole premise that is racing looking for its optimum price point would be cause for pause if only any of the blowhards among you could cite actual evidence that racing hasn't already landed on optimum takeout.


When you race around and attempt (in vain) to taint any raw experiment by passing around those cerebral HANA selections (to the rest of the disinterested among you) and you still can't right your sinking ship then all you unearth are the fissures in the HANA infrastructure... (to the surprise of no one, really)
What is this incoherent babble?