Sports Betting Poll. How can it help racing? Brick and Mortar only for 2 years?

[Andy Asaro]

It would have to be brick and mortar only for a couple years to benefit horse racing. Think Casino's, Tracks/OTB's would support that. If not racing loses IMO

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/996046410624585728

[biggestal99]

Its just a matter of time when Monmouth has locked up the brick and mortar business along with the internet money.

Its just a matter of time.

Allan

[thaskalos]

Will the state dictate what the takeout will be...or will this all-important matter be left up to the individual betting institutions? Because if setting the takeout for the track-operated sports bets is left up to the horsemen...then the future of this new gambling venture will be darker than even I could envision.

[Parkview_Pirate]

It would have to be brick and mortar only for a couple years to benefit horse racing. Think Casino's, Tracks/OTB's would support that. If not racing loses IMO

I would have voted for a third option - it won't make any difference. I'm of the opinion that vast majority, 90+ percent, of sports bettors that go to a brick and mortar shop OR wager online will never bet the ponies anyway.

The way racing is marketed and regulated in this country today is not helping to grow the handle, and any law requiring brick and mortar shops, a portion of the handle to go to racing, sports betting at the track only, sports betting managed by the horse racing commissions, etc., will only hurt racing's image that much more. Racing must standalone, or at least appear to stand alone, to survive. Otherwise it's just a parasite.

The racinos have provided an example of how NOT to expand gaming, and the interests behind sports betting will be avoiding the millstone of the ponies if at all possible.

[JustRalph]

Paul Ryan’s phone is on fire right now

[biggestal99]

Will the state dictate what the takeout will be...or will this all-important matter be left up to the individual betting institutions? Because if setting the takeout for the track-operated sports bets is left up to the horsemen...then the future of this new gambling venture will be darker than even I could envision.

Will Hill is in charge at Monmouth

will hill runs the show.

will hill stock up 10%

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/WMH:LN

Allan

[RunForTheRoses]

The fact is the hold on sports betting is fairly low. Corporate casinos tolerate them because they bring in foot traffic but they would prefer the space be dedicated to slot machines. In the short run sports betting can be a loser for the house. Little Caesars in Vegas closed a whole ago.

It can marginally help NJ racing by bringing in younger people plus people from neaeby states that want to wager on spirts. Some of these people will bet on horses which as we know has a very high house hold.

[thaskalos]

Will Hill is in charge at Monmouth

will hill runs the show.

will hill stock up 10%

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/WMH:LN

Allan

William Hill may set the odds and handle the action...but this doesn't mean that they'll get to decide on what the takeout will be. My money says that the horsemen won't go along with sports-betting's lower takeout...because it will cast a negative light on the much higher takeout of their game of choice. And, what happens then?

[BCOURTNEY]

William Hill may set the odds and handle the action...but this doesn't mean that they'll get to decide on what the takeout will be. My money says that the horsemen won't go along with sports-betting's lower takeout...because it will cast a negative light on the much higher takeout of their game of choice. And, what happens then?

Well now we get to find out. The Supreme Court clears the way for states to legalize sports betting today.

[biggestal99]

William Hill may set the odds and handle the action...but this doesn't mean that they'll get to decide on what the takeout will be. My money says that the horsemen won't go along with sports-betting's lower takeout...because it will cast a negative light on the much higher takeout of their game of choice. And, what happens then?


why would the horsemen raise the takeout past the casinos which are the competition?

Its a dog eat dog world out there in sports betting.

Allan

[Andy Asaro]

Will the state dictate what the takeout will be...or will this all-important matter be left up to the individual betting institutions? Because if setting the takeout for the track-operated sports bets is left up to the horsemen...then the future of this new gambling venture will be darker than even I could envision.

My guess is that Tracks will charger more juice than Casino's. Can't wait to read about all the infighting over who will charge what?

[biggestal99]

The fact is the hold on sports betting is fairly low. Corporate casinos tolerate them because they bring in foot traffic but they would prefer the space be dedicated to slot machines. In the short run sports betting can be a loser for the house. Little Caesars in Vegas closed a whole ago.

It can marginally help NJ racing by bringing in younger people plus people from neaeby states that want to wager on spirts. Some of these people will bet on horses which as we know has a very high house hold.

Will Hill figures for Nevada for 2017

Money bet $1,152,700,000
Money won 72,900,000
Hold rate 6.3%

https://www.williamhillplc.com/media/12074/wmh-final-results-presentation-23-feb-18.pdf

Page 13 of 2017 annual report.

Allan

[onefast99]

My guess is that Tracks will charger more juice than Casino's. Can't wait to read about all the infighting over who will charge what?

Untrue. Both racetracks and casinos in NJ will be under the same supervision and once the “official” state tax is decided on we will know the States take! Right now a proposal for an integrity fee by NJ lawmakers and not the sports leagues would require a payment of the lesser of 7.5 million or 2.5% of the sports revenue whichever is lower.

[Andy Asaro]

Untrue. Both racetracks and casinos in NJ will be under the same supervision and once the “official” state tax is decided on we will know the States take! Right now a proposal for an integrity fee by NJ lawmakers and not the sports leagues would require a payment of the lesser of 7.5 million or 2.5% of the sports revenue whichever is lower.

How do you know it's untrue in Ca. ? Anything can happen hear and it's usually not in the best interest of the Customer.

[onefast99]

How do you know it's untrue in Ca. ? Anything can happen hear and it's usually not in the best interest of the Customer.

I stated NJ in my response to you. I have been following NJ SW since 2011. I haven’t seen much on California in regards to how they will regulate it. Are they even ready to move forward now?

[Andy Asaro]

I stated NJ in my response to you. I have been following NJ SW since 2011. I haven’t seen much on California in regards to how they will regulate it. Are they even ready to move forward now?

Don't know. But I do know they will screw it up if you look at their PP's. :lol:

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/996074128703565824

[Poindexter]

imo racing as it currently is doesn't offer a lot to the sports bettor other than the superexotics. Carryovers in super high 5's and pick 5's and pick 6's give the player very competitive pools and a chance to win a lot or a small amount. I think those might appeal to some who haven't tackled horse racing. That being said most of us have played this game much of our life. I guess the question I have is does this game offer the sharp gambling public enough to make them want to make a huge time investment to learn it? Even if it does, will their action sustain or will the constant 20-40% roi drain knock them out of the game before they have a chance to really excel at it.

Also in the whale age, I don't know if the numbers change that much. So new blood comes in and brings up the public betting 20%, but in turn the Whales will up their betting and the game remains similar as we have today. The industry will obviously be smiling at that moment but how long before current and new horse racing customers filter off into sports betting. My guess is too many will filter off too quickly. I don't know how this game can expect to compete with takeouts over 30%(factoring in the whales) against an industry that I assume will have takeouts of 4.5%. Even if they had do to go up to -115 on each side to pay off the leagues they still would only be at a 6.5% takeout in sports betting which is still paltry relative to racing.

It goes back to my $20 burger analogy. Unless I put cocaine in those burgers, I am not going to do a lot of business when IN and Out and Shake Shack are my neighbors. Obviously the $20 vs a $5 burger is more obvious to the public than comparing racing's takeout vs sports betting takeout. But over time they will figure it out.

IMO, if racing thinks they can continue to operate as they do or have in the past, and this will be some kind of unexpected windfall that will save the day, they are sadly mistaken. Today, more than any other time in this sports history is the day they should eliminate rebates and bring takeout down to the right levels(8%wps, 10% exacta, 12% other exotic). But that isn't happening, so I will watch this unfold just like I watch any other movie I have seen 7 times.

What is that quote about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

[AlsoEligible]

IMO, if racing thinks they can continue to operate as they do or have in the past, and this will be some kind of unexpected windfall that will save the day, they are sadly mistaken.

Good post, and unfortunately this is exactly what will happen. Just like the industry did with slot revenue, they'll go their state legislatures hat in hand. Giving the same song and dance about how sports betting can be a rising tide that lifts all boats, and if they can just get a small cut of the revenue (or limit betting to their facilities), then it will boost purses, which in turn will boost field sizes, which will save the game.

All the same arguments we heard a decade earlier. And if legislators fall for it again, a decade from now tracks will have received hundreds of millions in additional revenue with nothing to show for it.

Even as someone inside the industry, I don't want racing to have any part of this. It's 2018, and once CA legalizes sports betting, there is no valid reason why I shouldn't be able to make those bets from my phone or from my home PC. If Golden Gate or Santa Anita wants more foot traffic, then they should come up with another way to get people through the gates without arbitrarily restricting how people can bet on a totally unrelated game.

[RunForTheRoses]

Will Hill figures for Nevada for 2017

Money bet $1,152,700,000
Money won 72,900,000
Hold rate 6.3%

https://www.williamhillplc.com/media/12074/wmh-final-results-presentation-23-feb-18.pdf

Page 13 of 2017 annual report.

Allan

Thinking about it further the volume should be decent being that it is the only place in the northeast megalopolis to have sports legally with the exception of handcuffed Delaware (although i guess this ruling applies to them as well). A lot of people live within a 2 hour drive of Monmouth.

[Valuist]

I stated NJ in my response to you. I have been following NJ SW since 2011. I haven’t seen much on California in regards to how they will regulate it. Are they even ready to move forward now?

From what I've heard the Indian casinos in California will be making a big push. They hold a lot of power in the state.

[AltonKelsey]

Maybe this forces racing to stop robbing the players with high takeouts. Yes, anything over 10% is thievery , and maybe even that is too high.

[biggestal99]

Thinking about it further the volume should be decent being that it is the only place in the northeast megalopolis to have sports legally with the exception of handcuffed Delaware (although i guess this ruling applies to them as well). A lot of people live within a 2 hour drive of Monmouth.

The novelty factor alone should be good for some money alone.

will be the lone entrant in the race for the bucks early.

if Monmouth can some weasel the revenues on internet side of sports betting in New Jersey, that would also be huge. Mobil wagering would be huge. Look at how good the casinos are doing with mobile casinos.

Allan

[biggestal99]

Good post, and unfortunately this is exactly what will happen. Just like the industry did with slot revenue, they'll go their state legislatures hat in hand. Giving the same song and dance about how sports betting can be a rising tide that lifts all boats, and if they can just get a small cut of the revenue (or limit betting to their facilities), then it will boost purses, which in turn will boost field sizes, which will save the game.

All the same arguments we heard a decade earlier. And if legislators fall for it again, a decade from now tracks will have received hundreds of millions in additional revenue with nothing to show for it.

Even as someone inside the industry, I don't want racing to have any part of this. It's 2018, and once CA legalizes sports betting, there is no valid reason why I shouldn't be able to make those bets from my phone or from my home PC. If Golden Gate or Santa Anita wants more foot traffic, then they should come up with another way to get people through the gates without arbitrarily restricting how people can bet on a totally unrelated game.

I disagree with sports betting being totally unrelated. In the UK, sports books are integrated into the race tracks. as I have written before I was truly amazed the first time in a sports book at Wincanton Track in the UK. I was blown away. Of course I was equally blown away at a high street book. They took bets on everything that wasnt nailed down.

Jersey has never profited from the casinos (just some crummy slot subsidies that dried up with the downhill slide of the Jersey casinos)

Sports Books and casinos are exclusive.

Casinos win by the house edge

Sports books win by making a good line and taking even action.

Allan

[dilanesp]

The sports betting operators will charge their traditional takeouts unless required to take more by the state.

However, as I have discussed in earlier threads, there is a trend among sports book operators to adjust lines and takeouts to increase their percentage take. So takeout on sports bets will, over time, rise in one way or another. This will especially be true with football because it will be the most popular sport to bet on and the sports betting market is driven by compulsive gamblers.

Having said that, and despite my general skepticism of takeout cuts as a panacea in horse racing, it seems to me that this sort of competition should offer a decent reason for tracks to cut takeout, because sports betting so directly competes for betting dollars with horse racing among the sorts of bettors who like to "study" and "get an edge" before they bet.

So in my idealized scenarios, trends to increase takeout on sports betting should continue, and tracks should cut takeout to compete, until they converge on some sort of equilibrium.

In the real world, however, tracks are not going to cut takeout unless absolutely forced to, and they will lose business to sports betting.

[AlsoEligible]

I disagree with sports betting being totally unrelated. In the UK, sports books are integrated into the race tracks. as I have written before I was truly amazed the first time in a sports book at Wincanton Track in the UK. I was blown away. Of course I was equally blown away at a high street book. They took bets on everything that wasnt nailed down.

Jersey has never profited from the casinos (just some crummy slot subsidies that dried up with the downhill slide of the Jersey casinos)

Sports Books and casinos are exclusive.

Casinos win by the house edge

Sports books win by making a good line and taking even action.

Allan

I have no issue with racetracks incorporating sports books into their facilities. I personally don't think it will lead to any tangible boost in track handle, but there's no harm in trying, and it should be an option for people who are going to the track anyway.

I just don't want tracks or OTBs to be the only way to make a sports bet. There's no reason that people shouldn't be able to also make bets through a licensed book online (just like an ADW), or even through a local brick and mortar set up for just for sports betting.

The problem with lumping sports into existing OTBs is some jurisdictions (namely CA) are pretty strict on where OTBs can legally operate - for example, there's a reason why there's no OTB in San Francisco, and it's not because the racing industry doesn't want one. There's also a lot of uncertainty surrounding the organization that operates Northern California OTBs (NCOTWINC); it may not be around by the end of this year, and the OTBs could sink with it. Which if that happens, what then? The only place to make a bet north of Bakersfield is Cal Expo or Golden Gate? This is just an example in my own state, but I'm sure similar issues exist in other states (like NYC not having an OTB network anymore).

If someone doesn't give a damn about racing and just wants to bet an NFL game, I don't see why that person should have to deal with all the incompetence and in-fighting that horseplayers put up with. Better to keep sports betting as separate as possible.

Racing finally has a competitor for gambling dollars the likes of which it has never seen before. In theory that should force the industry to confront its own demons and figure out how to survive....or it will go the way of the dodo. Capitalism 101. Personally, I'd rather have the industry's feet held to the fire, then watch them become a parasite on yet another form of gambling.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

All I want is them to fix the HD feed to the picnic area.

Thank you

[Andy Asaro]

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/227529/sports-betting-provides-plenty-of-upside-for-racing

Excerpt:

REVISITING THE CASE FOR FIXED ODDS
The key difference between pari-mutuel and fixed-odds betting is when the odds are set: for fixed-odds, the player locks in the odds at the time the bet is placed; while in pari-mutuel, the odds are set when the race begins. In the U.S., legal sports books will operate with fixed odds and possibly exchange wagering, which enables player-to-player fixed-odds betting. We need to reconsider whether a shift to fixed-odds betting would maximize the appeal of race betting to sports bettors.

In the UK, exchange betting for sports has appealed to younger players and arguably has expanded the universe of bettors. Fixed-odds or exchange betting would also address the concerns many current racing fans have with past-post odds changes (which would be expensive to address through changes to the tote systems) and lack of visibility to odds for exotic bets.

In jurisdictions, such as Australia and the UK that offer pari-mutuel betting in parallel with fixed-odds betting, handle has shifted steadily to fixed-odds. For example, in Australia, fixed-odds now represents 39% of Tabcorp's racing revenues vs. only 14% in 2013. Fixed-odds revenue in Australia has grown at 25% per year since 2013 while pari-mutuel revenue has decreased at 5%.

Although the UK commission on exchange betting is only 2%-5%, there is no barrier to U.S. states setting commissions at 10% or higher, allowing for host fees to tracks that are comparable to those under current pari-mutuel structures. For fixed-odds wagers, the same level of takeout could be accomplished through a royalty or similar fee levied on handle.

In a fixed-odds system the bookmaker takes the financial risk of underwriting bets, which is why sports books set limits on wagers and have sophisticated systems and staff to analyze and manage risk. For U.S. racing, operators would need either to develop those skills or outsource the trading/risk management function.

Operators could offer fixed odds for single-race bets while using pari-mutuel pools for multi-race bets (which have the potential for multi-million-dollar payoffs).

Fixed-odds systems make it easier to bet against a horse and therefore could elevate the risk to competitive integrity. Therefore, a shift to fixed-odds would heighten the need to elevate and standardize testing, monitoring, and enforcement of racing rules.

[Denny]

Does anybody else think the wording of the poll is confusing?
And where did '2 years' come from?

[Andy Asaro]

These Gaming Stocks Are The Big Winners


https://www.investors.com/research/ibd-industry-themes/supreme-court-legalize-sports-betting-casinos/


Excerpt:

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a law largely banning sports betting as unconstitutional, a ruling that will likely spur many states to legalize it.
However analysts have said the difference between expectations and reality means it may not be the revenue bonanza for casino stocks such as of Las Vegas Sands (LVS), Wynn Resorts (WYNN) and MGM Resorts (MGM) than it first appears.

In fact the biggest winners should actually be the strong regional players, such as Caesars Entertainment (CZR), Boyd Gaming (BYD) and Penn National Gaming (PENN). With their vast network of properties, they are the best poised to open sports books around the U.S., especially if states opt to limit the locations were such betting is allowed, rather than following the more laissez-faire approach of the United Kingdom, where bookmakers are an established part of the high street.

Caesars Entertainment shot up 5.5% on the stock market today. Boyd Gaming climbed 3.1%, Penn National Gaming 4.7% and Churchill Downs (CHDN) 4.9%. Penn National and Churchill Downs cleared buy points.
Las Vegas Sands and Wynn Resorts, which get most of their revenue from Chinese gaming mecca Macau, fell 0.8% and 2%, respectively. MGM Resorts, which has a big Macau exposure but is more Vegas-centric than Sands and Wynn, rose 1.6%.

[dilanesp]

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/227529/sports-betting-provides-plenty-of-upside-for-racing

Excerpt:

REVISITING THE CASE FOR FIXED ODDS
The key difference between pari-mutuel and fixed-odds betting is when the odds are set: for fixed-odds, the player locks in the odds at the time the bet is placed; while in pari-mutuel, the odds are set when the race begins. In the U.S., legal sports books will operate with fixed odds and possibly exchange wagering, which enables player-to-player fixed-odds betting. We need to reconsider whether a shift to fixed-odds betting would maximize the appeal of race betting to sports bettors.

In the UK, exchange betting for sports has appealed to younger players and arguably has expanded the universe of bettors. Fixed-odds or exchange betting would also address the concerns many current racing fans have with past-post odds changes (which would be expensive to address through changes to the tote systems) and lack of visibility to odds for exotic bets.

In jurisdictions, such as Australia and the UK that offer pari-mutuel betting in parallel with fixed-odds betting, handle has shifted steadily to fixed-odds. For example, in Australia, fixed-odds now represents 39% of Tabcorp's racing revenues vs. only 14% in 2013. Fixed-odds revenue in Australia has grown at 25% per year since 2013 while pari-mutuel revenue has decreased at 5%.

Although the UK commission on exchange betting is only 2%-5%, there is no barrier to U.S. states setting commissions at 10% or higher, allowing for host fees to tracks that are comparable to those under current pari-mutuel structures. For fixed-odds wagers, the same level of takeout could be accomplished through a royalty or similar fee levied on handle.

In a fixed-odds system the bookmaker takes the financial risk of underwriting bets, which is why sports books set limits on wagers and have sophisticated systems and staff to analyze and manage risk. For U.S. racing, operators would need either to develop those skills or outsource the trading/risk management function.

Operators could offer fixed odds for single-race bets while using pari-mutuel pools for multi-race bets (which have the potential for multi-million-dollar payoffs).

Fixed-odds systems make it easier to bet against a horse and therefore could elevate the risk to competitive integrity. Therefore, a shift to fixed-odds would heighten the need to elevate and standardize testing, monitoring, and enforcement of racing rules.

I don't have the time to type it out, but I have grave reservations about fixed odds betting on horse races in the US. Essentially, I think it could have the potential of making the sport a lot more corrupt than it is already.

I know it frustrates people when odds shift at post time. And I can think of things the sport could potentially do to address that issue. But allowing what is essentially extensive legal bookmaking on horse races would open a much bigger can of worms.

[biggestal99]

I don't have the time to type it out, but I have grave reservations about fixed odds betting on horse races in the US. Essentially, I think it could have the potential of making the sport a lot more corrupt than it is already.

I know it frustrates people when odds shift at post time. And I can think of things the sport could potentially do to address that issue. But allowing what is essentially extensive legal bookmaking on horse races would open a much bigger can of worms.

How does it work in oh let’s say the uk. Where fixed odds betting is the norm and has been for many years.

What do you think the specific problem is with fixed odds betting?

Allan

[clocker7]

Universal sports betting eventually will gravitate to states taking out the maximum rake, and computer algorithms soaking it for more, too.

So horse racing might not suffer as much as people expect.

[Valuist]

These Gaming Stocks Are The Big Winners


https://www.investors.com/research/ibd-industry-themes/supreme-court-legalize-sports-betting-casinos/


Excerpt:

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a law largely banning sports betting as unconstitutional, a ruling that will likely spur many states to legalize it.
However analysts have said the difference between expectations and reality means it may not be the revenue bonanza for casino stocks such as of Las Vegas Sands (LVS), Wynn Resorts (WYNN) and MGM Resorts (MGM) than it first appears.

In fact the biggest winners should actually be the strong regional players, such as Caesars Entertainment (CZR), Boyd Gaming (BYD) and Penn National Gaming (PENN). With their vast network of properties, they are the best poised to open sports books around the U.S., especially if states opt to limit the locations were such betting is allowed, rather than following the more laissez-faire approach of the United Kingdom, where bookmakers are an established part of the high street.

Caesars Entertainment shot up 5.5% on the stock market today. Boyd Gaming climbed 3.1%, Penn National Gaming 4.7% and Churchill Downs (CHDN) 4.9%. Penn National and Churchill Downs cleared buy points.
Las Vegas Sands and Wynn Resorts, which get most of their revenue from Chinese gaming mecca Macau, fell 0.8% and 2%, respectively. MGM Resorts, which has a big Macau exposure but is more Vegas-centric than Sands and Wynn, rose 1.6%.

I disagree with them re: MGM. MGM already has the license for New Jersey. They are the first mover and, barring a catastrophe, should use that to their benefit to add on additional states. How many sports books has PENN owned? I don't see this as good news at all for CHDN, as racing figures to be hurt by the expansion of sports betting.

[dilanesp]

How does it work in oh let’s say the uk. Where fixed odds betting is the norm and has been for many years.

What do you think the specific problem is with fixed odds betting?

Allan

Again, I don't have the time to type out a detailed response, but let's just say that the UK has both a lot less horse racing and a lot different regulatory structure than we do.

And further, the historical reason why the US has pari-mutuel betting in the first place was partly in response to specific, extensive corruption problems that existed when the sport had on-track bookies.

Additionally, Nevada switched from bookmaking to simulcasting as soon as they could, again, because of specific, extensive corruption problems that existed when they made book.

[horses4courses]

In order for sports betting to maximize handle and revenue,
phone and online wagering have to be on board soon.
People can already bet that way offshore, albeit illegally.

Strictly bricks and mortar operations would be like legalizing
alcohol, but only allowing sales in bars. Liquor sales could not
happen in stores and restaurants. Basically, that won't work.

This is not a panacea for horse racing.
There is still much work to be done to improve,
and ultimately save, the sport. Under current conditions,
young people (under 40s) aren't interested. That is not
likely to change, either. Racing is pretty much an acquired
taste - by and large among the over-60 brigade.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I don't have the time to type it out, but I have grave reservations about fixed odds betting on horse races in the US. Essentially, I think it could have the potential of making the sport a lot more corrupt than it is already.

I know it frustrates people when odds shift at post time. And I can think of things the sport could potentially do to address that issue. But allowing what is essentially extensive legal bookmaking on horse races would open a much bigger can of worms.

Many moons ago I had an account at IASBET, which allowed fixed odds wagering for Australia and Hong Kong. At the time, I found it hard to find value in it, and rarely made a bet at fixed odds. The horses I thought were live, and whose odds I thought would drop by post time, almost always offered odds far under the current tote. The horses I thought were live and wanted to bet would sometimes offer at slight premium at post time, possibly as the book was trying to balance things out. After a few months, the novelty of fixed odds wagering sort of wore off, but that was with limited wagering.

It's interesting that in Australia they've had so much growth in fixed odds betting during the last four to five years. Perhaps their punters are as unhappy as Americans when it comes to late odds changes.

As for corruption, it's hard for me to imagine things getting worse here in North America, but I agree that if fixed odds were introduced, and with the current level of oversight, there'd be inclination on the part of unsavory parties to exploit it...

[Tom]

I can't see any good reasons to even involve the track in this.
They bring nothing to the table and will want a cut.
You don't really need ANY buildings - phone or internet betting - cheaper to run, set up, and maintain and you will get far more bets from home than any scenario that makes one go to a place to bet.

Do we only sell lottery tickets at a track?
Hard to sell them over the net, but we sell them everywhere else convenient.

NO race track is convenient.

Do this thing right - leave racing out of it.

[Andy Asaro]

“The ball is in our court,” he said. “The voters of California will now have to make a decision whether or not to authorize sports wagering.”

With its vast amount of space, Santa Anita could physically accommodate sports betting better than any other prospective site in California. "We have a million square feet," Ritvo pointed out. Referring to the Vegas sports books, he said, "That's the kind of rooms we'd want to build."


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/la-sp-sports-betting-santa-anita-20180514-story.html

[biggestal99]

“The ball is in our court,” he said. “The voters of California will now have to make a decision whether or not to authorize sports wagering.”

With its vast amount of space, Santa Anita could physically accommodate sports betting better than any other prospective site in California. "We have a million square feet," Ritvo pointed out. Referring to the Vegas sports books, he said, "That's the kind of rooms we'd want to build."


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/la-sp-sports-betting-santa-anita-20180514-story.html

I heard 2020 for callie if at all. There are major roadblocks.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/14/california-gambling-sports-betting/

Needs 2/3 of callie legislators approval than the voters need to approve.


LOOOOONG process for callie

Allan

[dilanesp]

I heard 2020 for callie if at all. There are major roadblocks.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/14/california-gambling-sports-betting/

Needs 2/3 of callie legislators approval than the voters need to approve.


LOOOOONG process for callie

Allan

We could do it by initiative.That is how we did the lottery and indian casinos.

[RunForTheRoses]

I can't see any good reasons to even involve the track in this.
They bring nothing to the table and will want a cut.
You don't really need ANY buildings - phone or internet betting - cheaper to run, set up, and maintain and you will get far more bets from home than any scenario that makes one go to a place to bet.

Do we only sell lottery tickets at a track?
Hard to sell them over the net, but we sell them everywhere else convenient.

NO race track is convenient.

Do this thing right - leave racing out of it.

You are right. For horse racing to survive they have to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

[Dave Schwartz]

Its just a matter of time when Monmouth has locked up the brick and mortar business along with the internet money.

Its just a matter of time.

Allan

It seems logical to me that Las Vegas becomes the big player in the game.

1. They've already got the pieces on the chessboard and most potential players don't even have a chessboard yet.

2. They've got gigantic resources.

3. They've got the connections in place to professional sports teams.

4. They damn-well BETTER get to the front of the line in a hurry.

[Dave Schwartz]

Many moons ago I had an account at IASBET, which allowed fixed odds wagering for Australia and Hong Kong. At the time, I found it hard to find value in it, and rarely made a bet at fixed odds. The horses I thought were live, and whose odds I thought would drop by post time, almost always offered odds far under the current tote. The horses I thought were live and wanted to bet would sometimes offer at slight premium at post time, possibly as the book was trying to balance things out. After a few months, the novelty of fixed odds wagering sort of wore off, but that was with limited wagering.

It's interesting that in Australia they've had so much growth in fixed odds betting during the last four to five years. Perhaps their punters are as unhappy as Americans when it comes to late odds changes.

As for corruption, it's hard for me to imagine things getting worse here in North America, but I agree that if fixed odds were introduced, and with the current level of oversight, there'd be inclination on the part of unsavory parties to exploit it...

Another very insightful post. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[Hambletonian]

Monmouth is lucky. William Hill is by far the best of the Nevada providers, covering the most games, low bet limits, and the best mobile app. First half, second half, in play wagering, they offer it all.

And they will be first out of the gate.

[AlsoEligible]

I heard 2020 for callie if at all. There are major roadblocks.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/14/california-gambling-sports-betting/

Needs 2/3 of callie legislators approval than the voters need to approve.


LOOOOONG process for callie

Allan

I don't know if it's that far away. The amendment is already written - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180ACA18 - and if approved by the end of next month, it could still make the November ballot for voters to approve.

The amendment itself is pretty bare bones; only stating that California would legalize sports betting, and gives power to the legislature to regulate where and how it's conducted. That shouldn't be hard to get a 2/3 vote on.

Then they have 6 months from now until November to hash out specifics, and get a more specific bill ready for passage as soon as the voters approve the amendment. In theory, CA could have sports betting in place by the end of the year.

Government can move astonishingly fast when they want to. I think the timeline really depends on how ugly the fighting is between the tribes, tracks, casinos, etc.

[castaway01]

The sports wagering money will prop up some tracks for a while the way that casino money did. Then eventually so many locations will have it that it won't matter anymore. Maybe it keeps racing going for a few more years in some places though. I guess that's good, though the way everyone here complains about racinos, not sure how a racebook would be so much better, but....good for Monmouth and other dying tracks anyway.

[chiguy]

I keep questioning why you are involved in this sport. Man you are relentless in your negativity.

[biggestal99]

The nfl had to put up 3,400,000 when they first brought the lawsuit against Monmouth back in 2014, Maybe the courts will release that to Monmouth soon for purses.

Allan

[HalvOnHorseracing]

From what I've heard the Indian casinos in California will be making a big push. They hold a lot of power in the state.

Arizona too. Nobody in the Arizona legislature would get that worked up about it either.

[GMB@BP]

Arizona too. Nobody in the Arizona legislature would get that worked up about it either.

Indians run arizona, its why we have no internet wagering.

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.drf.com/news/california-sports-betting-bill-unlikely-november-ballot

Excerpt:

California is just beginning the process required for state and regulatory approval and may not vote on the measure until 2020, according to Adam Capper, legislative director for Assemblyman Adam Gray.

Excerpt:

Entities such as racetracks, account-wagering providers, card clubs, Native American casinos, European bookmakers, and sports fantasy websites are among the groups expected to seek licenses to conduct sports betting.

Greg Avioli, president and chief executive officer of Thoroughbred Owners of California, said his organization is hoping to restrict the number of groups allowed to accept sports bets to racetracks, offtrack satellites, card clubs, and Native American tribes in an effort to draw customers to existing betting locations.

“That could provide significant reason to come to our facilities,” he said.

[dilanesp]

http://www.drf.com/news/california-sports-betting-bill-unlikely-november-ballot

Excerpt:

California is just beginning the process required for state and regulatory approval and may not vote on the measure until 2020, according to Adam Capper, legislative director for Assemblyman Adam Gray.

Excerpt:

Entities such as racetracks, account-wagering providers, card clubs, Native American casinos, European bookmakers, and sports fantasy websites are among the groups expected to seek licenses to conduct sports betting.

Greg Avioli, president and chief executive officer of Thoroughbred Owners of California, said his organization is hoping to restrict the number of groups allowed to accept sports bets to racetracks, offtrack satellites, card clubs, and Native American tribes in an effort to draw customers to existing betting locations.

“That could provide significant reason to come to our facilities,” he said.

Of course that's what the TOC is going to say.

Isn't the relevant issue what is convenient to the people in California who want to bet on sports, though?

[Andy Asaro]

Of course that's what the TOC is going to say.

Isn't the relevant issue what is convenient to the people in California who want to bet on sports, though?

Daruty said the same thing. It's the only way it benefits horse racing as an opportunity to convert at Brick and Mortar for a couple years.

[Andy Asaro]

Barry Meadow sent me his article. I sent it to the email list so I'm also posting it here.

http://www.trpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Legal-Sports-Betting.pdf


May 2018 – Legal Sports Betting It’s been amusing to me to hear the comments from racing executives about the Supreme Court’s decision to permit states to offer legal sports betting.

Almost nobody has claimed this will be a big boost to horse racing. Instead, their comments have mostly been about staking out territory. Their position: If sports betting is to be allowed, it should be permitted only at venues that already have facilities that take bets. In other words, at our place.

Casinos want the action. So do card rooms. So do sports bars. And just about anybody else who thinks they can make a buck at this.

Each state is free to make its own rules, so about the only thing you can be sure of is that interested parties will be laying lots of cash into the hands of politicians to support their case. With so many interests jockeying for position, it will be quite entertaining to see the various ways that this all plays out.

Only one thing is clear—it’s going to be a long, torturous road before major changes come to American gambling life. In the states where you will have to travel to make a bet, as distinct from using a phone app, the money the states will make from sports betting figures to be way less than the hype you may read. Millions of Americans are quite content to bet with their neighborhood bookie, or some Caribbean online casino, and have no interest in driving an hour to bet $50 on the Patriots.

Then there’s the fact that sports betting is not the cash cow that some think. In 2017, Nevada racebooks accepted more than $4.8 billion in bets and won, as is typical, 5%. Total earnings from the state’s racebooks were a bit shy of $249 million—which averages out to $1.3 million for each of the state’s 183 books. Of course the larger books won many millions, while the tiny ones in rural backwaters took in relatively little. Still, when you figure what it costs to build the book and the betting infrastructure, and pay the salaries of the workers, sports betting is hardly the backbone of Nevada gambling. It’s everywhere, yet still accounts for just 2.1 percent of the state’s gambling win. And that’s before what may take place with widespread legalized sports betting—a requirement to pay each sport approximately 1% of the action on their games, which is either going to narrow the margins further or wind up as an extra tax on players.

Horse racing is pretty much a non-factor in Nevada. In 2007, sports betting handled $2.6 billion compared with $596 million for horse racing; in 2017, contrast that aforementioned $4.8 billion on sports with the measly $280 million in horse-racing handle.

So it’s probably fair to conclude this: People want to bet on sports. They don’t want, so much, to bet on horses. If it turns out that racetracks will be allowed to accept sports bets, things will probably turn out the way they have for racetracks which have been allowed to add slot machines—people come for the slot machines and there’s virtually no crossover into horse betting. Yes, increased profits will probably mean higher purses, but so what—in places like Pennsylvania where slots have boosted purses, the takeouts are still usurious and there’s been no apparent benefit to horseplayers.

Sports betting might be much more of a threat, particularly as gamblers figure out that sports bets offer a 5% takeout compared with horse racing’s 20%. So, maybe, as some believe, sports betting will help horse racing. Maybe, but helping horseplayers? Don’t think so.

[thaskalos]

Basically...Barry Meadow is repeating what I've been writing here.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/998287443567697920


Screw the exclusive for the Indians, unless they’re willing to offer the Customers a deal the same as Vegas when it comes to the juice. Screw the Tracks if they want it and want to raise the price of a bet.

[Andy Asaro]

Did you know? Nevada style casino operated inside the Nevada State Prison for 35 years

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/998306697918599170

That's as "Brick, Mortar, and Steel" as it gets.:pound:

[LemonSoupKid]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/998287443567697920


Screw the exclusive for the Indians, unless they’re willing to offer the Customers a deal the same as Vegas when it comes to the juice. Screw the Tracks if they want it and want to raise the price of a bet.

Haha, let's see, I think you can easily foresee which states will mismanage this the best (worst), and silliest ways ... hmm, lemme guess, California, New York, and Illinois.

I wonder why that was so easy to predict.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/998896915700899840

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/998962918082293760

[Valuist]

Screw the NFL. If the hold is 5%, and the leagues want 1% of the betting revenue, they want 20% of the sportsbook's hold. That won't work. That would get passed on to the public and we'd see something 120 to win 100, or 115 to win 100.

The NFL had better realize that gambling on the game does more to market the game than ALL the other factors combined.

[dilanesp]

Screw the NFL. If the hold is 5%, and the leagues want 1% of the betting revenue, they want 20% of the sportsbook's hold. That won't work. That would get passed on to the public and we'd see something 120 to win 100, or 115 to win 100.

The NFL had better realize that gambling on the game does more to market the game than ALL the other factors combined.

This sort of thing is already happening in Las Vegas sports books. The 11-10 standard is being eroded in the same way 3-2 blackjack got eroded. Lots of bettors don't care.

[Valuist]

This sort of thing is already happening in Las Vegas sports books. The 11-10 standard is being eroded in the same way 3-2 blackjack got eroded. Lots of bettors don't care.

I was just there in March. The only sports betting that wasn't 11-10 was -115 at one book for MLB season win totals. The big players, William Hill, Caesers and the MGM properties, its still 11-10.

[AndyC]

This sort of thing is already happening in Las Vegas sports books. The 11-10 standard is being eroded in the same way 3-2 blackjack got eroded. Lots of bettors don't care.

The segment of the betting public that doesn't care about the vig in sports betting is minuscule. In racing you can't see the vig while in sports betting you pay up front. It's right in your face. Competition will prevent the 11-10 standard from going anywhere but down in the future.

[GMB@BP]

The segment of the betting public that doesn't care about the vig in sports betting is minuscule. In racing you can't see the vig while in sports betting you pay up front. It's right in your face. Competition will prevent the 11-10 standard from going anywhere but down in the future.

no, it will go up and then they can offer rebates to those that wager a lot, its a popular model.

[upthecreek]

https://twitter.com/jpeterjackson/status/999323717879681024

[AndyC]

no, it will go up and then they can offer rebates to those that wager a lot, its a popular model.

Touché

[Denny]

What about another option on the poll.

It will help horseracing no matter what the timetable.

That would be my vote.