My response to Andy C re Whales

[Poindexter]

Responding to this post

We have not argued this point. Perhaps defining terms would help. In my view there are professional players, serious players and recreational players. For the most part people on this forum fall into the serious player category.

If a takeout increase only affected the recreational player then it probably could be done. I doubt that many recreational players could tell you what the takeout rate is or even how the pari-mutuel system works.

You speak from your standpoint and not that of a recreational player. My comments pertained to recreational players at the racetrack. With 30 minutes between races they have little interest in taking a deep dive into the DRF and then the action lasts all of 1-2 minutes. Who could possibly get bored?

Contrast horse betting with sports betting. Everybody has an opinion on the probable outcome of a game. All they need to do is bring their opinions with
them to a sports book. Long losing streaks happen but they are rare because there are only 2 ways to bet, for or against, A or B. With horses it might be 1 through 12. Recreational players lose because it is a hard game.
To suggest that the whales are somehow chasing them away is nonsense.


Let's use your terminology. We have a typical racetrack with $100,000 bet win pool per race. We know breakage exists but I am not accounting for it in this post. The Whales account for about 30% of the money bet, at about break even, but feed nicely off of the the rebates. Then you have the serious players who as a group account for another 30% of the pool at -10% collectively(some are rebated and have a smaller target, some thing they can win but can't win etc, some are typical owners and trainers and fans of the sport who may exceed the public but still lose and some are winning players even without rebate and some are your typical serious player, who talks a good game, but when you look at the end of the year at the final outcome, they do not finish in the black or they need rebates to get them there). Then you have the "recreational players" who account for 40% of the pools. Now the track is going to make it's 16% takeout no matter what, so of that $100,000 bet only $84,000 is going back. The whales will get back $30,000, the serious players will get back $27,000, so that means the recreational players are going to get back $27,000 for their $40,000 bet. As a group they will lose $13,000 on $40,000 bet or 32.5% or over double the takeout.

These are estimates but I am sure they are fairly close to reality. No matter how you fudge the numbers it will not make a huge difference. What is so ridiculous is that racing's future is based off the performance of those that get crushed, the recreational player. These are the ones that racing needs to evolve into serious players in the future. However, they have no chance. They cannot overcome a takeout of that magnitude unless they are exceptional (1 in a 100).

So for the recreational player, it is not that they are worried about whales, they don't even know what a whale is. But when their money disappears at a rate of 30-40%, they certainly feel the effects of what the Whales do. You give them no hope and you give them no desire to even play the game. By the way, whales are not the bad guy here. They are doing what we all want to do. The system/business model is the problem (Rebates and excessive takeout).

Now what if the game was fairly priced at 8% wps(with no rebates). The numbers would look more like this. The whales might bet 20%(less betting opportunities) at +6%, the serious players would be at about -3% with 30% of the pool. The track would give back $92,000 per $100,000 but the whales would get back $21,200, the serious players would bet back $29,100 and thus the recreational player would get $40,700 per $50,000 bet or lose about 18.6%. They are still going to struggle as a group, but the sharpest of that group will evolve into serious players, the sharpest of the serious players will evolve into winning players, pools will get bigger, whales have an endless supply of cash and will just bet more because more is being bet and the game grows. Moreover even the weakest of the recreational players will be a lot more likely to stick around because they are losing at a much slower rate.

In the properly priced game, the recreational player can evolve to the point that he can compete, maybe -0 to -6% roi. He will then up his game, take the game more seriously, look for opportunities at more venues and become a valuable asset to the racing industry. This can and will not happen with the current business model. This would be a fairly frequent occurrence in a properly priced game. The serious player of today would have a fairly good opportunity to evolve into a winning player and those that do will make huge increases in how much they bet. The whales just take advantage of whatever opportunities present themselves. The current model of catering to 25 or so teams of whales at the expense of hundreds of thousands of others is completely backwards. When you rebate whales to the point they can bet every double and exacta and trifecta and superfecta combo to below fair value and make money, everyone else that plays this game suffers over the long run.

[dilanesp]

In every house banked game, recreational players lose a ton and still gamble. Recreational sports bettors and poker players lose a ton and still gamble. Recreational horseplayers in Hong Kong lose a ton and still gamble.

[thaskalos]

In every house banked game, recreational players lose a ton and still gamble. Recreational sports bettors and poker players lose a ton and still gamble. Recreational horseplayers in Hong Kong lose a ton and still gamble.

Yes...but horse racing is a much more disheartening affair to the "losers" than the other gambling forms are. When a poker player loses...he doesn't actually believe that some sinister force separated him from his money.

[Poindexter]

In every house banked game, recreational players lose a ton and still gamble. Recreational sports bettors and poker players lose a ton and still gamble. Recreational horseplayers in Hong Kong lose a ton and still gamble.

Not even comparable. I can throw darts at a scorecard to determine my bets, bet a $100 a game on 200 games a season, go 100 and 100 and lose $1000(that could easily cover an entire nfl or nba season). I can play online poker for months straight, sit and gos, small tourneys, regular game .25/50 no limit and I would not lose $1000, and I am not a good poker player and if you saw the range of hands I play you would laugh. I consider myself a pretty good horseplayer and on any given weekend I can lose $1000.

We cannot compare ourselves to Hong Kong, different culture, different market.

[dilanesp]

Not even comparable. I can throw darts at a scorecard to determine my bets, bet a $100 a game on 200 games a season, go 100 and 100 and lose $1000(that could easily cover an entire nfl or nba season). I can play online poker for months straight, sit and gos, small tourneys, regular game .25/50 no limit and I would not lose $1000, and I am not a good poker player and if you saw the range of hands I play you would laugh. I consider myself a pretty good horseplayer and on any given weekend I can lose $1000.

We cannot compare ourselves to Hong Kong, different culture, different market.

If you go to commerce casino tonight, there will be numerous people playing who have lost $20k or more in a year and some who have lost $50k.

[classhandicapper]

I think what's really happening is that most people are losing around the track take plus breakage (maybe a little more because they avoid heavy favorites that outperform the track take) and there are a handful of very good and excellent players being subsidized by the truly awful players that bet hopeless horses (usually longshots at 20-1 and higher) that should be a LOT higher.

Those are the only people getting totally killed. If you stay away from the truly dead horses you aren't going to lose too much more than the take plus breakage even if you are throwing darts at the remainder.

[thaskalos]

I think what's really happening is that most people are losing around the track take plus breakage (maybe a little more because they avoid heavy favorites that outperform the track take) and there are a handful of very good and excellent players being subsidized by the truly awful players that bet hopeless horses (usually longshots at 20-1 and higher) that should be a LOT higher.

Those are the only people getting totally killed. If you stay away from the truly dead horses you aren't going to lose too much more than the take plus breakage even if you are throwing darts at the remainder.

IMO...the majority of the regular horseplayers have gotten destroyed in this game, to the point where they've cut down drastically on their participation...if they haven't stopped playing altogether. Our tracks and OTBs are virtual ghost-towns...and that ain't because the folks are betting from home. If the majority of the horseplayers were only losing the takeout...then there would still be some signs of life at our brick-and-mortar betting outlets. It takes considerable competence in order to lose just the takeout in this game...IMO.

[Poindexter]

I think what's really happening is that most people are losing around the track take plus breakage (maybe a little more because they avoid heavy favorites that outperform the track take) and there are a handful of very good and excellent players being subsidized by the truly awful players that bet hopeless horses (usually longshots at 20-1 and higher) that should be a LOT higher.

Those are the only people getting totally killed. If you stay away from the truly dead horses you aren't going to lose too much more than the take plus breakage even if you are throwing darts at the remainder.

Thaskalos is dead on in his response. The math doesn't work your way. If 30% of the pool(whales) is about break even and 30% of the pool is well above average (the pa types) the other 40% of the money is getting clobbered. Provide me numbers that make what you think is happening possible.

[classhandicapper]

IMO...the majority of the regular horseplayers have gotten destroyed in this game, to the point where they've cut down drastically on their participation...if they haven't stopped playing altogether. Our tracks and OTBs are virtual ghost-towns...and that ain't because the folks are betting from home. If the majority of the horseplayers were only losing the takeout...then there would still be some signs of life at our brick-and-mortar betting outlets. It takes considerable competence in order to lose just the takeout in this game...IMO.

I think the OTBs are dying because the older fans are slowly dying off and we probably aren't generating enough new young fans to replace them.

But beyond that I think most fans are losing around take plus breakage plus maybe a point or two.

If they happen to be betting into the exotic pools where the takes are much higher and the chances of going on extended losing streaks are much higher, then some individuals may be getting buried.

I mean, if you are bucking a 24% takeout or higher playing longshots you'll probably go broke and quit long before you hit the lottery payoff.

[thaskalos]

I think the OTBs are dying because the older fans are slowly dying off and we probably aren't generating enough new young fans to replace them.

But beyond that I think most fans are losing around take plus breakage plus maybe a point or two.

If they happen to be betting into the exotic pools where the takes are much higher and the chances of going on extended losing streaks are much higher, then some individuals may be getting buried.

I mean, if you are bucking a 24% takeout or higher playing longshots you'll probably go broke and quit long before you hit the lottery payoff.

"PROBABLY?" :)

You seem to be suggesting that most of the fans are win-bettors...and I seriously doubt that this is the case.

[Poindexter]

If you go to commerce casino tonight, there will be numerous people playing who have lost $20k or more in a year and some who have lost $50k.

How do you know? Are you their accountant? If they lost 20-50k in a year it means one of three things.
1) They have the money to blow and are willing to blow it
2) they are putting themselves and their family at financial risk, aka degenerates or compulsive gamblers
3) they think they are good at the game (and either hit a a bad run or they are overrating their own ability to play the game).


Whatever the case, Poker has given them the confidence to chuck down that kind of money each year whether it is from past results, watching the pros on tv or whatever. I don't see how losing 30 to 40% horse racing is going to make them want to shift their money from the poker tables to horse racing pools, but if they were dealing with proper pricing that may very well be an option for them. Even those that are worth many millions and are willing to bet huge money to get their juices flowing, for the most part want to think they have a chance of winning. They may very well be betting horses to and getting rebated also, but if they are not, they certainly will not consider racing a fair game relative to poker. They may be rich and reckless, but likely are not fools.

Also if you compare the non rebated player who is willing to lose $50,000 at 32.5%(means he bets $153,000+ a year) takeout a year and reduce his takeout to 18.5% (per my example above), he might be willing to up the amount bet to half a million a year (even if he loses significantly more-$92,500 instead of $50,000) because he can afford to and he is getting more bang for the buck. If he is currently rebated, you can argue that he plays currently because he is rebated, but there are plenty of perks that could be given that are not detrimental to the betting pools.

[classhandicapper]

Thaskalos is dead on in his response. The math doesn't work your way. If 30% of the pool(whales) is about break even and 30% of the pool is well above average (the pa types) the other 40% of the money is getting clobbered. Provide me numbers that make what you think is happening possible.

I'm adding another category to your list and calling it "truly awful".

Those are people playing hopeless longshots to WPS where they are often wildly overbet. They are playing tough 24% takeout exotics hooking impossible longshots up to each other on tickets that are so unlikely to win they'll be dead before the long run arrives etc..

Those people are getting destroyed.

They may be losing 50% or more on everything they bet because they are playing the worst return bets at the track and chasing dreams on a lot of very low probability tickets. It's kind of like me playing the lotto. I am losing more than the expected take on lotto for the simple reason I'm not going to live long enough to hit it and get myself back to the expected long term loss.

[Poindexter]

I'm adding another category to your list and calling it "truly awful".

Those are people playing hopeless longshots to WPS where they are often wildly overbet. They are playing tough 24% takeout exotics hooking impossible longshots up to each other on tickets that are so unlikely to win they'll be dead before the long run arrives etc..

Those people are getting destroyed.

They may be losing 50% or more on everything they bet because they are playing the worst return bets at the track and chasing dreams on a lot of very low probability tickets. It's kind of like me playing the lotto. I am losing more than the expected take on lotto for the simple reason I'm not going to live long enough to hit it and get back to the expected loss.

I get what you are saying. In the 40% range of recreational players there is a range. On the high end you have those that are hovering around takeout + breakage (top 25% or so) and on the low end you might have the clueless that are losing 50% plus breakage (maybe the bottom 20% of this group). Obviously the rest of the group will fall somewhere in between. That makes total sense.

[thaskalos]

To me...the only way by which the "average" horseplayer can keep from getting destroyed in this game is by either keeping his bets at the "insignificant" level...or by playing the game infrequently. The average horseplayer lacks the desire(ability?) to gain the proficiency needed in order to keep the costs of regular participation in this game to an acceptable level. Without exception...every regular horseplayer that I know has his own horror story to tell...and I've got a few horror stories of my own.

[classhandicapper]

I get what you are saying. In the 40% range of recreational players there is a range. On the high end you have those that are hovering around takeout + breakage (top 25% or so) and on the low end you might have the clueless that are losing 50% plus breakage (maybe the bottom 20% of this group). Obviously the rest of the group will fall somewhere in between. That makes total sense.

Yeah, we agree. I just used to spend a lot of time in NYCOTB. I knew a lot the awful types. :-)

[classhandicapper]

To me...the only way by which the "average" horseplayer can keep from getting destroyed in this game is by either keeping his bets at the "insignificant" level...or by playing the game infrequently. The average horseplayer lacks the desire(ability?) to gain the proficiency needed in order to keep the costs of regular participation in this game to an acceptable level. Without exception...every regular horseplayer that I know has his own horror story to tell...and I've got a few horror stories of my own.

I agree with you.

If you don't mind a small indulgence, I'm a reasonable bright guy with an aptitude for this kind of thing (as you and many others here are). I've been studying this game for over 40 years. I watch replays, read charts, do statistical studies, develop my own metrics and methods that I'm constantly testing and tweaking, made my own figures at times. I'm pretty much a nut. Now I even have a personal database to quicken the pace and produce daily reports.

There's a reason I don't make many bets.

It's not lack of interest. It's lack of opportunity. There aren't many races where I think I'm bringing something to the table that makes me confident I actually have an edge. I'm not in it for action. I'm in it because I love the sport and intellectual challenge. If I'm going to gamble on it too, I want to win. If I was playing a lot of races every day at my favorite track, I'm pretty sure I'd have some horror stories too.

[Maximillion]

IMO...the majority of the regular horseplayers have gotten destroyed in this game, to the point where they've cut down drastically on their participation...if they haven't stopped playing altogether. Our tracks and OTBs are virtual ghost-towns...and that ain't because the folks are betting from home. If the majority of the horseplayers were only losing the takeout...then there would still be some signs of life at our brick-and-mortar betting outlets. It takes considerable competence in order to lose just the takeout in this game...IMO.

You wrote a post a few years ago(?) about your opinion that full-card simulcasting may have killed off or exposed a lot of players...this is what I think happened as well.

[classhandicapper]

Yeah, we agree. I just used to spend a lot of time in NYCOTB. I knew a lot the awful types. :-)

True story.

I knew a guy that used to bet 2K a pop fairly routinely when he came to the OTB in my old neighborhood. He would bet that way right into the smallest pools for the day. His horses would always open up as heavy favorites. Then he used to complain to me that all his horses were going off short even though they were a good price in the morning line. :bang: I tried to explain to him that he was knocking the horses down by betting so much at very small tracks, but it didn't sink in. Finally, I gave up. I started asking him which horses he was going to bet because there almost had to be overlays elsewhere in those races.

[dilanesp]

How do you know? Are you their accountant? If they lost 20-50k in a year it means one of three things.
1) They have the money to blow and are willing to blow it
2) they are putting themselves and their family at financial risk, aka degenerates or compulsive gamblers
3) they think they are good at the game (and either hit a a bad run or they are overrating their own ability to play the game).


Whatever the case, Poker has given them the confidence to chuck down that kind of money each year whether it is from past results, watching the pros on tv or whatever. I don't see how losing 30 to 40% horse racing is going to make them want to shift their money from the poker tables to horse racing pools, but if they were dealing with proper pricing that may very well be an option for them. Even those that are worth many millions and are willing to bet huge money to get their juices flowing, for the most part want to think they have a chance of winning. They may very well be betting horses to and getting rebated also, but if they are not, they certainly will not consider racing a fair game relative to poker. They may be rich and reckless, but likely are not fools.

Also if you compare the non rebated player who is willing to lose $50,000 at 32.5%(means he bets $153,000+ a year) takeout a year and reduce his takeout to 18.5% (per my example above), he might be willing to up the amount bet to half a million a year (even if he loses significantly more-$92,500 instead of $50,000) because he can afford to and he is getting more bang for the buck. If he is currently rebated, you can argue that he plays currently because he is rebated, but there are plenty of perks that could be given that are not detrimental to the betting pools.

1. I know because I have seen a number of them play and because I know more than a few of them.

2. The reality is your categories 1 through 3 describe most gamblers.

3. I think a lot of people make significant mistakes by assuming that gamblers are rational economic actors.

[thaskalos]

You wrote a post a few years ago(?) about your opinion that full-card simulcasting may have killed off or exposed a lot of players...this is what I think happened as well.

It flatters me that you remember. Yes...that's exactly what I think happened. In the old days, the players had learned to manage their money during the day's play. But full-card simulcasting was sprung upon us without any warning...and it was the typical "kid in the candy store" scenario.

[AndyC]

Let's use your terminology. We have a typical racetrack with $100,000 bet win pool per race. We know breakage exists but I am not accounting for it in this post. The Whales account for about 30% of the money bet, at about break even, but feed nicely off of the the rebates. Then you have the serious players who as a group account for another 30% of the pool at -10% collectively(some are rebated and have a smaller target, some thing they can win but can't win etc, some are typical owners and trainers and fans of the sport who may exceed the public but still lose and some are winning players even without rebate and some are your typical serious player, who talks a good game, but when you look at the end of the year at the final outcome, they do not finish in the black or they need rebates to get them there). Then you have the "recreational players" who account for 40% of the pools. Now the track is going to make it's 16% takeout no matter what, so of that $100,000 bet only $84,000 is going back. The whales will get back $30,000, the serious players will get back $27,000, so that means the recreational players are going to get back $27,000 for their $40,000 bet. As a group they will lose $13,000 on $40,000 bet or 32.5% or over double the takeout.

These are estimates but I am sure they are fairly close to reality. No matter how you fudge the numbers it will not make a huge difference. What is so ridiculous is that racing's future is based off the performance of those that get crushed, the recreational player. These are the ones that racing needs to evolve into serious players in the future. However, they have no chance. They cannot overcome a takeout of that magnitude unless they are exceptional (1 in a 100)......[/B]

Your analysis works for the serious players but is off the mark for recreational players. Serious players recognize overlay opportunities and as such are hurt when betting reduces or eliminates any overlay. In order to be hurt by the whales bets you need to be on the right side of the bet, the overlay side. Recreational bettors end up on the right side of a bet by accident and are generally placing their bets on the wrong side, the underlay side. One of the consequences of having a lot of smart money in pools is that they become more efficient. As such, odds become more efficient at both ends of the spectrum with both overlays and underlays. In a parimutuel system it is impossible to bet down odds on some horses and not have the odds go up on others. Those other horses are generally the horses perceived to be on the wrong side by the smart bettors. The very horses that recreational players bet. If players are getting paid more for underlays is that a bad thing for recreational players?

I don't dispute that the poor players are paying the bill for the other players. The facts, however, don't support the case that somehow the whales hasten the process.

[AndyC]

Yes...but horse racing is a much more disheartening affair to the "losers" than the other gambling forms are. When a poker player loses...he doesn't actually believe that some sinister force separated him from his money.

I have not heard too many recreational players claim that sinister forces were the cause of their losses.

[AndyC]

IMO...the majority of the regular horseplayers have gotten destroyed in this game, to the point where they've cut down drastically on their participation...if they haven't stopped playing altogether. Our tracks and OTBs are virtual ghost-towns...and that ain't because the folks are betting from home. If the majority of the horseplayers were only losing the takeout...then there would still be some signs of life at our brick-and-mortar betting outlets. It takes considerable competence in order to lose just the takeout in this game...IMO.

I agree. It isn't a recreational player issue, it is a regular player issue.

[thaskalos]

I have not heard too many recreational players claim that sinister forces were the cause of their losses.

Whenever a favorite languishes, or a longshot wins...all I hear around me are voices that my companions were "robbed". You must be hanging around with a better crowd...

[Poindexter]

Your analysis works for the serious players but is off the mark for recreational players. Serious players recognize overlay opportunities and as such are hurt when betting reduces or eliminates any overlay. In order to be hurt by the whales bets you need to be on the right side of the bet, the overlay side. Recreational bettors end up on the right side of a bet by accident and are generally placing their bets on the wrong side, the underlay side. One of the consequences of having a lot of smart money in pools is that they become more efficient. As such, odds become more efficient at both ends of the spectrum with both overlays and underlays. In a parimutuel system it is impossible to bet down odds on some horses and not have the odds go up on others. Those other horses are generally the horses perceived to be on the wrong side by the smart bettors. The very horses that recreational players bet. If players are getting paid more for underlays is that a bad thing for recreational players?

I don't dispute that the poor players are paying the bill for the other players. The facts, however, don't support the case that somehow the whales hasten the process.

As pointed out by CH, their is a range in the recreational player. Some might be exceptional for their level and lose takeout -5% with a good distribution through takeout + 5 %. Of course it goes up from there. Your point is that when the whales make their bets they help the guys that are losing 45% or 50% roi and yes they likely do. But these playes unless they get better at the game, or have a huge tolerance for losing money or have so much money they do not care, are not part of racing's future. They likely will never evolve into a player that might bet 1/4 million or half million or a million dollars a year or more. So yes for the bottom 30/40 percent of this group, you have a good point, whales probably do not hurt them so what is the difference. But racing needs to convert those within 5% of takeout into more serious players. That is a large group of players.

I am talking about the future of racing. I am talking about providing some 21 year old who goes to Belmont Park for the first time with some friends and finds the game thrilling. He likes to gamble, finds the challenge of determining who will win a horse race an interesting puzzle. He watches you tube videos, picks up some books on the subject and he want to evolve into a serious horse player. This is the future of racing, not whales who come and go as the opportuinites arise, not us dudes in our 50s and 60's and 70's who may have already given the game up, or have a lot fewer years to give the game etc. If racing continue to price out the 21 year old and many others for that matter, there will be no future in racing. Despite their delusions otherwise, the main enternment value of horse racing is solely the gambling aspect. Properly priced this game is ten fold the best gambling game around (I know you disagree Andy C) imo. It becomes beatable, complex and the greatest intellectual challenge (I think that is what Andy Beyer said in one of his books). Right now, if you are not getting hefty rebates it is simply pick your poison, because no matter who you bet there just isn't much value there. For most over the short run they can hope to get lucky and over the long run just add up their losses. At this point I would say that for most they are better off taking a stab at a pick 5 or pick 6 carryover then they are trying to grind out profits in the other pools. Imagine what would happen to the pools if every horse player came to a similar conclusion,

Now Dilane (and the racing industry itself) come from the school of thought that gamblers expect to lose, so what. Some maybe, but overall I disagree with that premise. I get why they feel that way. If you run an adw and you see player X lost 21% in 2010 and 18% in 2011 and 25% in 2012 and 30% in 2013 and 14% in 2014..your reaction is going to be they just don't care. I do not believe it is that simple.

Any game that is beatable blackjack, sports betting, poker, horse racing, fantasy, has a leg up on the rest. All the beatable games are still very tough to beat, so every gambler will go the direction(s) that work best for them, and many will lose consistently in striving to beat these games. But that doesn't mean they want to lose, expect to lose or will continue to allow themselves to lose. In their mind there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Poker and sports betting are largely the same game they were (obviously the competition is more educated in poker), either you climb the mountain or you don't. Racing brought in whales. They basically changed the landscape to the point where that light at the end of the tunnel is gone. What % of current players realize that I am not sure, but they ultimately will find out. Once they realize that, they will exit the game and find another. Plenty already have and it is quite an easy and convenient excuse for this industry to blame competition.

[MadVindication]

It flatters me that you remember. Yes...that's exactly what I think happened. In the old days, the players had learned to manage their money during the day's play. But full-card simulcasting was sprung upon us without any warning...and it was the typical "kid in the candy store" scenario.

Curbing impulsiveness is why I don't do online betting (for horse racing). At least not at this point. I can set myself up for discipline by having to travel to an OTB to make bets. And it won't take large bets. I'd rather learn the sport with comparatively small change and play to stay in the game. Learn to pick my races, become less fresh and excitable about it, and then bet higher and online when it makes sense to me.

Sometimes I just paper play from home for fun. It's still entertaining since I genuinely like the sport and not just the the big ROI opportunity.

[dilanesp]

I am going to put out a contrary hypothesis.

Most people here analyze the decline of horse racing in exclusively betting terms. So it's takeout, or it's whales, or it's something else that affects pools. And I get that. Betting is important.

But try a different approach. When my father was a kid (pre-WW2), the three biggest sports in America were baseball, boxing and horse racing. Baseball isn't quite as big as it was then, but it is still a huge sport.

But the other two have declined.

Meanwhile, pro football was nothing back then, and is now the biggest sport. College football was big but second tier back then, and is now on the first tier. Basketball was nothing back then and is now either the second or third biggest sport. Hockey is a lot bigger now than it was then. There are other sports, such as NASCAR, MMA, and beach volleyball, which have risen up since then.

So what happened? You can't explain all these different things by looking at betting.

What happened is the public's tastes changed.

And if you really want to bring people back to horse racing, THAT, and not any issue of takeout, is your marketing challenge. If you can do THAT, then you can worry about charging them a bit less to bet or getting some of the whales out of the pool or whatever. But if you can't do that, none of the reforms of the betting system are going to matter because horse racing will be a closed system with an ever smaller and older player pool.

[thaskalos]

I am going to put out a contrary hypothesis.

Most people here analyze the decline of horse racing in exclusively betting terms. So it's takeout, or it's whales, or it's something else that affects pools. And I get that. Betting is important.

But try a different approach. When my father was a kid (pre-WW2), the three biggest sports in America were baseball, boxing and horse racing. Baseball isn't quite as big as it was then, but it is still a huge sport.

But the other two have declined.

Meanwhile, pro football was nothing back then, and is now the biggest sport. College football was big but second tier back then, and is now on the first tier. Basketball was nothing back then and is now either the second or third biggest sport. Hockey is a lot bigger now than it was then. There are other sports, such as NASCAR, MMA, and beach volleyball, which have risen up since then.

So what happened? You can't explain all these different things by looking at betting.

What happened is the public's tastes changed.

And if you really want to bring people back to horse racing, THAT, and not any issue of takeout, is your marketing challenge. If you can do THAT, then you can worry about charging them a bit less to bet or getting some of the whales out of the pool or whatever. But if you can't do that, none of the reforms of the betting system are going to matter because horse racing will be a closed system with an ever smaller and older player pool.

You can't compare the other spectator sports to horse-racing...because the racing fan is an active PARTICIPANT...instead of just an observer. Our sport didn't decline because of the advent of football, basketball and the MMA...it declined because it is no longer an affordable gambling game for the majority of the gamblers out there. Horse-racing doesn't have a "marketing" problem; I dare say that almost all of the gamblers out there, regardless of their game of choice, have gotten acquainted with horse-racing at one time or another. But they didn't stay in our game for long...and THAT'S the real problem. Instead of trying to indoctrinate "young players" to our game...the racing industry should be asking themselves why the game has such a difficult time retaining the "older players" that it used to count on.

Now...if you were comparing horse-racing to sports-BETTING...then I would see the commonalities.

[dilanesp]

You can't compare the other spectator sports to horse-racing...because the racing fan is an active PARTICIPANT...instead of just an observer. Our sport didn't decline because of the advent of football, basketball and the MMA...it declined because it is no longer an affordable gambling game for the majority of the gamblers out there. Horse-racing doesn't have a "marketing" problem; I dare say that almost all of the gamblers out there, regardless of their game of choice, have gotten acquainted with horse-racing at one time or another. But they didn't stay in our game for long...and THAT'S the real problem. Instead of trying to indoctrinate "young players" to our game...the racing industry should be asking themselves why the game has such a difficult time retaining the "older players" that it used to count on.

Now...if you were comparing horse-racing to sports-BETTING...then I would see the commonalities.

1. People bet on other sports too. Indeed, sports betting is a big part of the rise of pro football and the NCAA tournament, among other things.

2. If horse racing's decline were exclusively a betting phenomenon, why did boxing decline at the same time? And why did other sports rise up?

3. The racetracks used to be filled with what were called "$2 bettors". Yes, they bet, a little. But their main affinity for the sport was aesthetic, not gambling.

Indeed, for most of horse racing's history as a major, popular sport, it was actually very hard to make a big gambling score. When horse racing was popular, there were very few exotic bets. A daily double, and then later on a handful of exactas. It was a much, much worse gambling game back then than it is now. And yet it was more popular.

And even now, where horse racing still IS successful, it attracts lots of casual bettors. Like at Saratoga or at the TC races.

4. I am sorry if it offends any older posters on this board, but I think it is absolutely stupid and self-destructive for any sport to cater to old people. Old people get sick and die, and they also never make any activity they are involved in hip and trendy and marketable.

You want to have horse races available to bet on for years to come? You need to attract younger people. Period.

[AndyC]

Whenever a favorite languishes, or a longshot wins...all I hear around me are voices that my companions were "robbed". You must be hanging around with a better crowd...

I interpreted your comment to mean that sinister forces were the whales. Those other sinister forces surely exist or nobody would ever lose.

[thaskalos]

4. I am sorry if it offends any older posters on this board, but I think it is absolutely stupid and self-destructive for any sport to cater to old people. Old people get sick and die, and they also never make any activity they are involved in hip and trendy and marketable.

You want to have horse races available to bet on for years to come? You need to attract younger people. Period.

And I, in turn, apologize if it offends the less informed among us...but a gambling game that can't hold on to its existing "older" customer base isn't likely to be able to attract any "younger" customers. In what other business can you say that "it is absolutely stupid and self-destructive" to cater to old customers...because "they get sick and die."? Isn't the old customer's money just as green as anyone else's?

[AndyC]

......I am talking about the future of racing. I am talking about providing some 21 year old who goes to Belmont Park for the first time with some friends and finds the game thrilling. He likes to gamble, finds the challenge of determining who will win a horse race an interesting puzzle. He watches you tube videos, picks up some books on the subject and he want to evolve into a serious horse player. This is the future of racing, not whales who come and go as the opportuinites arise, not us dudes in our 50s and 60's and 70's who may have already given the game up, or have a lot fewer years to give the game etc. If racing continue to price out the 21 year old and many others for that matter, there will be no future in racing. Despite their delusions otherwise, the main enternment value of horse racing is solely the gambling aspect. Properly priced this game is ten fold the best gambling game around (I know you disagree Andy C) imo. It becomes beatable, complex and the greatest intellectual challenge (I think that is what Andy Beyer said in one of his books). Right now, if you are not getting hefty rebates it is simply pick your poison, because no matter who you bet there just isn't much value there. For most over the short run they can hope to get lucky and over the long run just add up their losses. At this point I would say that for most they are better off taking a stab at a pick 5 or pick 6 carryover then they are trying to grind out profits in the other pools. Imagine what would happen to the pools if every horse player came to a similar conclusion,

Now Dilane (and the racing industry itself) come from the school of thought that gamblers expect to lose, so what. Some maybe, but overall I disagree with that premise. I get why they feel that way. If you run an adw and you see player X lost 21% in 2010 and 18% in 2011 and 25% in 2012 and 30% in 2013 and 14% in 2014..your reaction is going to be they just don't care. I do not believe it is that simple.

Any game that is beatable blackjack, sports betting, poker, horse racing, fantasy, has a leg up on the rest. All the beatable games are still very tough to beat, so every gambler will go the direction(s) that work best for them, and many will lose consistently in striving to beat these games. But that doesn't mean they want to lose, expect to lose or will continue to allow themselves to lose. In their mind there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Poker and sports betting are largely the same game they were (obviously the competition is more educated in poker), either you climb the mountain or you don't. Racing brought in whales. They basically changed the landscape to the point where that light at the end of the tunnel is gone. What % of current players realize that I am not sure, but they ultimately will find out. Once they realize that, they will exit the game and find another. Plenty already have and it is quite an easy and convenient excuse for this industry to blame competition.

I agree that a properly priced racing game is the best game around. But part of that pricing needs to be a fixed or stable price that a bettor can rely on when they put their money down.

Nobody wants to lose but they accept losing as part of the cost of participation. It is amazing that many casual bettors will take X number of dollars to the track or the casino and proceed to find a way to lose all of it before finally leaving.

[AndyC]

1. People bet on other sports too. Indeed, sports betting is a big part of the rise of pro football and the NCAA tournament, among other things.

2. If horse racing's decline were exclusively a betting phenomenon, why did boxing decline at the same time? And why did other sports rise up?

3. The racetracks used to be filled with what were called "$2 bettors". Yes, they bet, a little. But their main affinity for the sport was aesthetic, not gambling.

Indeed, for most of horse racing's history as a major, popular sport, it was actually very hard to make a big gambling score. When horse racing was popular, there were very few exotic bets. A daily double, and then later on a handful of exactas. It was a much, much worse gambling game back then than it is now. And yet it was more popular.

And even now, where horse racing still IS successful, it attracts lots of casual bettors. Like at Saratoga or at the TC races.

4. I am sorry if it offends any older posters on this board, but I think it is absolutely stupid and self-destructive for any sport to cater to old people. Old people get sick and die, and they also never make any activity they are involved in hip and trendy and marketable.

You want to have horse races available to bet on for years to come? You need to attract younger people. Period.

I can mostly agree with #1 & #2 but #3 I believe is wrong. I used to go to the racetracks when they were filled with $2 bettors and they weren't there to just look at the pretty horses and the trees. They went to gamble. They went to the races because that was the only game in town. If aesthetics were such a draw the $2 bettors would still be flocking to the track.

As for #4, tell me, Mr. Marketing Director, how would you make racing hip and trendy? Given that old people have more money and more time to spend it wouldn't it be foolish just to kick them to the curb?

[thaskalos]

I can mostly agree with #1 & #2 but #3 I believe is wrong. I used to go to the racetracks when they were filled with $2 bettors and they weren't there to just look at the pretty horses and the trees. They went to gamble. They went to the races because that was the only game in town. If aesthetics were such a draw the $2 bettors would still be flocking to the track.

As for #4, tell me, Mr. Marketing Director, how would you make racing hip and trendy? Given that old people have more money and more time to spend it wouldn't it be foolish just to kick them to the curb?

Just FOOLISH? It would be "absolutely stupid and self-destructive".

[dilanesp]

And I, in turn, apologize if it offends the less informed among us...but a gambling game that can't hold on to its existing "older" customer base isn't likely to be able to attract any "younger" customers. In what other business can you say that "it is absolutely stupid and self-destructive" to cater to old customers...because "they get sick and die."? Isn't the old customer's money just as green as anyone else's?

It's just as green, but there is no future in old people.

Thask, we have been around this merry-go-round before, but you need to separate "what would be convenient for me" from "what is good for the long-term health of the sport". They are two different things.

To put a rather coarse point on it, we are in the midst of the Triple Crown. I don't know if you ever attend any of those races (I have been to the Belmont when a TC was on the line), but they are not marketed to you and what you offer to the sport, at all, and yet they make tons of money for the three tracks that put those races on. And if someone said Churchill shouldn't worry about all the fashionable wealthy young folks who come to the Derby and should focus on its older customer base of gamblers, that would just be obviously crazy advice.

It may be less obviously crazy with respect to other racing days, but it is still crazy.

[thaskalos]

It's just as green, but there is no future in old people.

Thask, we have been around this merry-go-round before, but you need to separate "what would be convenient for me" from "what is good for the long-term health of the sport". They are two different things.

To put a rather coarse point on it, we are in the midst of the Triple Crown. I don't know if you ever attend any of those races (I have been to the Belmont when a TC was on the line), but they are not marketed to you and what you offer to the sport, at all, and yet they make tons of money for the three tracks that put those races on. And if someone said Churchill shouldn't worry about all the fashionable wealthy young folks who come to the Derby and should focus on its older customer base of gamblers, that would just be obviously crazy advice.

It may be less obviously crazy with respect to other racing days, but it is still crazy.

Yes, you are right...we've been through this merry-go-round before...but we still don't understand each other. I'm not just concerned with what's good for me...I'm also deeply concerned with the future of the sport. You've been on this board pretty regularly now...and you've seen what the vast majority of the posters here have been saying in regards to their current participation in this game. Almost to a man, they've said that they currently wager only a small percentage of what they used to in years past...if they haven't stopped betting ALTOGETHER. And they haven't done so because they've "gotten sick or died"; most are still in their 50s and 60s, with plenty of time and disposable income...along with a deep-seeded affection for what this game once was. And you'd compare the patronage of these faithful, regular horseplayers...to the twice-a-year group of "fashionable wealthy young folks"...who only show up for our ultra-glamour races? On which of those two groups should our sport focus on...for its "future"?

Horse racing is tailor-made for the older crowd. Only THEY have the free time to play a game which is run during the time of day when the "young folks" are busy working in order to provide for a growing family. When you have family responsibilities, your weekdays are spent on the job...and your weekends belong to your family. The game should try to attract the younger crowd if it can...but to do so while refusing to cater to the "older folks", for fear that their "marketing efforts" will be in vain because the older folks will soon ''get sick and die', is sheer lunacy...IMO. When the game is in dire straits, as it is now...you can't afford to alienate your most loyal customers.

[chiguy]

I can mostly agree with #1 & #2 but #3 I believe is wrong. I used to go to the racetracks when they were filled with $2 bettors and they weren't there to just look at the pretty horses and the trees. They went to gamble. They went to the races because that was the only game in town. If aesthetics were such a draw the $2 bettors would still be flocking to the track.

As for #4, tell me, Mr. Marketing Director, how would you make racing hip and trendy? Given that old people have more money and more time to spend it wouldn't it be foolish just to kick them to the curb?


Get some figure skaters to host coverage of the Kentucky Derby. That would attract the hip and trendy folks out there.

[dilanesp]

I can mostly agree with #1 & #2 but #3 I believe is wrong. I used to go to the racetracks when they were filled with $2 bettors and they weren't there to just look at the pretty horses and the trees. They went to gamble. They went to the races because that was the only game in town. If aesthetics were such a draw the $2 bettors would still be flocking to the track.

As for #4, tell me, Mr. Marketing Director, how would you make racing hip and trendy? Given that old people have more money and more time to spend it wouldn't it be foolish just to kick them to the curb?

I think Del Mar has the best business model.

Now, is it replicable?

[keenang]

It is strange that the three tracks that seem tom do well are all called "RESORT areas

DELMAR
SARATOGA
OAKLAWN

Maybe we can learn something from this

Geno

[Poindexter]

I agree that a properly priced racing game is the best game around. But part of that pricing needs to be a fixed or stable price that a bettor can rely on when they put their money down.

Nobody wants to lose but they accept losing as part of the cost of participation. It is amazing that many casual bettors will take X number of dollars to the track or the casino and proceed to find a way to lose all of it before finally leaving.

First off if racing corrected it's pricing issue, much lower takeout and no rebates the pricing would be a lot less volatile then it is now. Pools would be much larger and whales would not be able to pound horses down nearly as much and make a profit.

The obvious answer is exchange betting. While I personally would be for exchange betting, I just think racing gives it to Betfair, Betfair makes the money and racing becomes a partner in it's owns game. I just do not see the logic of that.

Regarding age, no matter who you market to, proper pricing gives you a much better chance of attaining and retaining both young and old.

[AndyC]

I think Del Mar has the best business model.

Now, is it replicable?

We have been over this before. Del Mar runs a fall meet where the attendance is just slightly higher than a high school JV basketball game. Is that the business model that should be followed? Any success achieved in the summer doesn't carryover to the fall. Perhaps the $12 beer and $15 Margarita drinkers aren't really interested in becoming horseplayers.

[AndyC]

First off if racing corrected it's pricing issue, much lower takeout and no rebates the pricing would be a lot less volatile then it is now. Pools would be much larger and whales would not be able to pound horses down nearly as much and make a profit.

The obvious answer is exchange betting. While I personally would be for exchange betting, I just think racing gives it to Betfair, Betfair makes the money and racing becomes a partner in it's owns game. I just do not see the logic of that.

Regarding age, no matter who you market to, proper pricing gives you a much better chance of attaining and retaining both young and old.

You are making a lot of assumptions. Pools would be much larger? Doubtful. Less volatile? Doubtful. If pools were much larger it would mean that many new sharp gamblers have entered the game and sharp gamblers would be betting right near the bell. Do you think that ADWs will be lining up to take a substantially lower commission on bets without the ability to pay rebates?

[Poindexter]

You are making a lot of assumptions. Pools would be much larger? Doubtful. Less volatile? Doubtful. If pools were much larger it would mean that many new sharp gamblers have entered the game and sharp gamblers would be betting right near the bell. Do you think that ADWs will be lining up to take a substantially lower commission on bets without the ability to pay rebates?

Of course pools would be larger. Everyone (except whales) would be getting back more money on every bet they collect. Their roi's will be better, their money lasts longer, they see more value opportunities on the board, they enjoy the game more, they stay in the game, they enter the game, they come back to the game....Whales just react to what we do. The more we bet the more they bet so ultimately they will bet more money too. No assumptions, pure logic.

Regarding the volatility, yes most sharps/whale are going to bet late, but the fact they don't make money by hammering a horse they make 2-1 down to 9/5 or even 8/5(depending on what kind of rebate they are getting) limits how much they will pound the horse.

RE adw's two of the biggest are owned by racing companies. I don't have the numbers so I can't give you a solution that works, but I am sure if there was a will it would take all of five minutes to come up with one. Also do you think it makes sense that some ADW is making so much money that the can give up to 20% rebates on some bets at some tracks and still remain profitable. Talk about idiotic. Why have ADW's and certain players become partners at the expense of all other players? How does that make the game sustainable long run? Adw's provide a function and should be compensated for that function only. On marketing gimmicks deals can be discussed.

[AskinHaskin]

what if the game was fairly priced at 8% wps(with no rebates). The numbers would look more like this. The whales might bet 20%(less betting opportunities) at +6%, the serious players would be at about -3% with 30% of the pool. The track would give back $92,000 per $100,000 but the whales would get back $21,200, the serious players would bet back $29,100 and thus the recreational player would get $40,700 per $50,000 bet or lose about 18.6%. They are still going to struggle as a group, but the sharpest of that group will evolve into serious players, the sharpest of the serious players will evolve into winning players, pools will get bigger, whales have an endless supply of cash and will just bet more because more is being bet and the game grows. Moreover even the weakest of the recreational players will be a lot more likely to stick around because they are losing at a much slower rate.

[/B]



LOL - which side of the equation are you even on?


So racing should halve the mutuel take while fully expecting the whales to wager 2/3 of what they now wager, while the serious players bet no more than they do now (in your example). All of this while racing slices its revenue by at least 50% ?


(this already happens in just about every example of lowering takeout known to North American racing in the 2000's, each with somebody trumpeting: "Pools will get bigger!" in a sorry attempt to goad those establishments into another absurd wrong turn)


The net effect of lowering takeout would be a death knell for racing associations everywhere, because of the lack of parity in the pools. The factual reality is that, if you reduce the house cut to that level or further, various factions will come out of the woodwork and suddenly make a go of betting for profit, which in turn would further exacerbate the lack of parity in the mutuel pools (leaving the novices even more buried than they are today).

Do you ever read an old racing story about some shifty character at Aqueduct in the 1960's or 1970's who made a betting coup on a place bet?? (it may have happened a time or two, but do you ever read about it??? )


Chief among the reasons racing thrived back then is that even the whales were there slugging it out with the rank and file, in long wagering lines and with toteboards showing enough money so that the odds didn't change drastically in the last few seconds. Everybody went back and forth all day long, betting win and place, or stacking tickets at the $6 combo window.

Today the whales and their ilk are making bets where they need only net one good score every month the stay well above the water line. The rank and file, who once stood elbow-to-elbow with them in those long lines at Aqueduct, can no longer interact on the same level, and thus they have given up and gone away, never to return.


Fictional characters who might one day read on Twitter that Aqueduct to lower takeout from 20% blended down to 7% blended are not going to materialize and race to the track just to leap on that bandwagon (with a jazz band belting out "Happy Days are here Again" at one of Aqueduct's entrances).

The only reactions to such drastic, last-gasp measures will be those few who in their best current performances, lurk just under the break-even line... leaping up to find a bankroll somewhere with the new and exciting belief that they can now, finally make a living at the races... (and many of them would succeed (if racing didn't go belly-up entirely before it could matter) ).

The net effect would be even greater parimutuel pressure on the stragglers down at the bottom who in even greater numbers would stay home and never reappear.

Collectively, just about every attained desire had by the Pace Advantage sorts over the past 3 or 4 decades has been detrimental to the bottom line of horse racing. For it has been those self-indulgent pursuits which doomed racing's bottom line to where most once-self-sufficient racing entities exist today only because of handouts and subsidies from elsewhere.

In this world where it's quite customary to blame guns... or blame Facebook for whatever problems there are all around you, it has become way too easy to avoid identifying yourselves as the forces behind today's downward/problematic trends.


The most significant problem racing faces in 2018 is that potential newcomers are completely buried before they can even think about entering a wagering establishment for a second time. You (collectively) caused this - it's that simple and concise.

And the first step toward solving past mistakes is to begin to offset all of the advantages which you and the whales have created for yourselves over the past 30 years, on behalf of the little guy who is still getting buried at never-before-seen levels even though takeout hasn't changed markedly in decades.


So that's it:

Guns...

Facebook...


and now Parimutuel takeout




Look in the mirror for the culprits - youuuuuuuuuuu caused this.

[AndyC]

Of course pools would be larger. Everyone (except whales) would be getting back more money on every bet they collect. Their roi's will be better, their money lasts longer, they see more value opportunities on the board, they enjoy the game more, they stay in the game, they enter the game, they come back to the game....Whales just react to what we do. The more we bet the more they bet so ultimately they will bet more money too. No assumptions, pure logic.

Pure fantasy. There would need to be a whole lot of new money bet to make it work. New money is not the churn the track gets from having lower rates. Players would literally have to dig into their pockets and bet more money than usual or a there would have to be a huge throng of new players just waiting to throw their money down. Neither of those scenarios is likely. Losing less money doesn't make most people want to increase their bets size.


Regarding the volatility, yes most sharps/whale are going to bet late, but the fact they don't make money by hammering a horse they make 2-1 down to 9/5 or even 8/5(depending on what kind of rebate they are getting) limits how much they will pound the horse.

So if I am to believe what you wrote in your first paragraph, the whales and sharps will be betting more, not less and betting at the last minute. More bet, less volatility?

RE adw's two of the biggest are owned by racing companies. I don't have the numbers so I can't give you a solution that works, but I am sure if there was a will it would take all of five minutes to come up with one. Also do you think it makes sense that some ADW is making so much money that the can give up to 20% rebates on some bets at some tracks and still remain profitable. Talk about idiotic. Why have ADW's and certain players become partners at the expense of all other players? How does that make the game sustainable long run? Adw's provide a function and should be compensated for that function only. On marketing gimmicks deals can be discussed.

Problems with the contractual arrangements with ADW's has been a constant since the start. I don't think there is a magic wand that takes it all away in 5 minutes.

[Denny]

The game was more popular when it was simpler for the average person.

Simpler bets, simpler PP's without speed and pace figures, less statistics, one track to bet at a time, no computers, etc...

Now it's fractional wagering, jackpots and guaranteed pools.

Pie in the sky.

[Denny]

Horse Racing is the Lottery - with PP'S.

[dilanesp]

We have been over this before. Del Mar runs a fall meet where the attendance is just slightly higher than a high school JV basketball game. Is that the business model that should be followed? Any success achieved in the summer doesn't carryover to the fall. Perhaps the $12 beer and $15 Margarita drinkers aren't really interested in becoming horseplayers.

Doesn't matter really. Drl Mar makes plenty of money. Maybe we shouldn't race in gloomy November. :)

We didn't really do that a lot in racing's heyday.

[Poindexter]

LOL - which side of the equation are you even on?


So racing should halve the mutuel take while fully expecting the whales to wager 2/3 of what they now wager, while the serious players bet no more than they do now (in your example). All of this while racing slices its revenue by at least 50% ?


(this already happens in just about every example of lowering takeout known to North American racing in the 2000's, each with somebody trumpeting: "Pools will get bigger!" in a sorry attempt to goad those establishments into another absurd wrong turn)




The net effect of lowering takeout would be a death knell for racing associations everywhere, because of the lack of parity in the pools. The factual reality is that, if you reduce the house cut to that level or further, various factions will come out of the woodwork and suddenly make a go of betting for profit, which in turn would further exacerbate the lack of parity in the mutuel pools (leaving the novices even more buried than they are today).

Do you ever read an old racing story about some shifty character at Aqueduct in the 1960's or 1970's who made a betting coup on a place bet?? (it may have happened a time or two, but do you ever read about it??? )


Chief among the reasons racing thrived back then is that even the whales were there slugging it out with the rank and file, in long wagering lines and with toteboards showing enough money so that the odds didn't change drastically in the last few seconds. Everybody went back and forth all day long, betting win and place, or stacking tickets at the $6 combo window.

Today the whales and their ilk are making bets where they need only net one good score every month the stay well above the water line. The rank and file, who once stood elbow-to-elbow with them in those long lines at Aqueduct, can no longer interact on the same level, and thus they have given up and gone away, never to return.


Fictional characters who might one day read on Twitter that Aqueduct to lower takeout from 20% blended down to 7% blended are not going to materialize and race to the track just to leap on that bandwagon (with a jazz band belting out "Happy Days are here Again" at one of Aqueduct's entrances).

The only reactions to such drastic, last-gasp measures will be those few who in their best current performances, lurk just under the break-even line... leaping up to find a bankroll somewhere with the new and exciting belief that they can now, finally make a living at the races... (and many of them would succeed (if racing didn't go belly-up entirely before it could matter) ).

The net effect would be even greater parimutuel pressure on the stragglers down at the bottom who in even greater numbers would stay home and never reappear.

Collectively, just about every attained desire had by the Pace Advantage sorts over the past 3 or 4 decades has been detrimental to the bottom line of horse racing. For it has been those self-indulgent pursuits which doomed racing's bottom line to where most once-self-sufficient racing entities exist today only because of handouts and subsidies from elsewhere.

In this world where it's quite customary to blame guns... or blame Facebook for whatever problems there are all around you, it has become way too easy to avoid identifying yourselves as the forces behind today's downward/problematic trends.


The most significant problem racing faces in 2018 is that potential newcomers are completely buried before they can even think about entering a wagering establishment for a second time. You (collectively) caused this - it's that simple and concise.

And the first step toward solving past mistakes is to begin to offset all of the advantages which you and the whales have created for yourselves over the past 30 years, on behalf of the little guy who is still getting buried at never-before-seen levels even though takeout hasn't changed markedly in decades.


So that's it:

Guns...

Facebook...


and now Parimutuel takeout




Look in the mirror for the culprits - youuuuuuuuuuu caused this.

Mr. Askin, the one who loves to criticize, but never has an idea of his own. You missed the point. I was illustrating what would happen takeout wise to different groups of players. What you are missing is that instead of stagnating at 10 to 12 billion handle per year, with the proper model this game can grow to 15, 20, 25, 30...50, 60 billion over time. So yes initially the p&l will not look so good but over time handle will explode and when handle is 50 million and whales are betting 20% of that suddenly a heck of a lot more than they are betting now. We cannot even discuss revenues, because we don't even know what kind of money the tracks are making off this player or that player or this team or that team or with this adw or that adw. It's all a big secret.

re:

The net effect of lowering takeout would be a death knell for racing associations everywhere, because of the lack of parity in the pools. The factual reality is that, if you reduce the house cut to that level or further, various factions will come out of the woodwork and suddenly make a go of betting for profit, which in turn would further exacerbate the lack of parity in the mutuel pools (leaving the novices even more buried than they are today).

What are you talking about? My guess is that 8% wps, 10% exacta/double takeout and a 12% other exotic takeout with no rebate would probably be an increase in takeout for most whales at many locations. Moreover they will not have the luxury of pounding horses or combos down to significantly below fair value knocking all the value out of the pools. In the example I gave you that you were so quick to quote I illustrated how significantly better all players would do with proper pricing (aside from maybe the bottom 10% for reasons Andy C stated). Moreover, you must have missed Ian Meyers stating how teams of Phd's investing millions of dollars before making their first bet, are using wall street money to enter our pools. Is this the "parity" that you are so eager to protect? You can never have parity in a gambling market, but you can certainly lessen it by not giving huge rebates to those most equipped to beat the game while other get no rebates at all.

RE: the rest of what you wrote, it sound like you agree with me that catering to whales is the problem and somehow us at Pace Advantage have something to do with that. I am not sure what your solution is, perhaps you
want to eliminate rebates without lowering takeout. That was fine in 1975, but in 2018, we can all get fairly fat rebates offshore, at many tracks, so I certainly don't see serious horseplayers not shifting their money offshore even if it isn't legal. If takeout was reduced to the levels I suggest, I doubt you would see more than a 3% offshore rebate, and I do not see that attracting very many horseplayers. But more importantly this game at the levels I suggest can compete with all other forms of gambling, at the current levels it cannot compete with any (well maybe Keno). Of course the biggest problem is racing driven so many out of the pools with whales that they need whales to keep the pools tolerable. You can keep whales in the pools with proper pricing, you can't with 1975 pricing and no rebates.

So imo there are only 2 option, the status quo which means this industry will never grow and will ultimately die or they can go with proper pricing and try to grow the industry. There is no in between.

Andy, C, we will have to agree to disagree. As certain as I am that there will be a Sun in the morning and a Moon at night, that if priced properly with no rebates this game would grow like it never has before. You disagree, and more importantly the brain thrust of racing disagrees. You know what they say about opinions. I cannot present my case any clearer than I have in this thread. If you don't see it, you don't see it.

[castaway01]

Horse Racing is the Lottery - with PP'S.

If horse racing was the lottery it would be making billions of dollars in profits a year despite a 40% rake.

[classhandicapper]

Get some figure skaters to host coverage of the Kentucky Derby. That would attract the hip and trendy folks out there.

:lol:

The Preakness coverage could have shown some birds bathing in the mud and I would have found it more interesting than those two.

[classhandicapper]

It is strange that the three tracks that seem tom do well are all called "RESORT areas

DELMAR
SARATOGA
OAKLAWN

Maybe we can learn something from this

Geno

+1

I would add Keeneland.

People still love racing. They just don't love it enough to go to the track all the time to watch battle scarred NW2L claimers and statebreds. It has to be an "event" race or part of a broader vacation of which racing is a part.

[Denny]

If horse racing was the lottery it would be making billions of dollars in profits a year despite a 40% rake.

Isn't that exactly how the Rainbow Six works?

40% or more daily takeout. Track holds everybody's money for weeks/months till mandatory payout day. Then rakes it in big time with five times the handle on that day!

Now other tracks have their own version of jackpots. Thank Stronach group.

It's no different than a lottery except for PP's - which are mostly useless for the impossible bombs that come in. People win with ALL. No handicapping.

[classhandicapper]

Pure fantasy. There would need to be a whole lot of new money bet to make it work. New money is not the churn the track gets from having lower rates. Players would literally have to dig into their pockets and bet more money than usual or a there would have to be a huge throng of new players just waiting to throw their money down. Neither of those scenarios is likely. Losing less money doesn't make most people want to increase their bets size.

I always felt that many losing players vary their handle to match losing whatever they can afford to lose.

The amount they lose each week or month might vary, but let's say they can afford to lose between 2k-3K for the year. If you made the take 30% or 10% they would still lose around $200-$250 a month. They'd just stay in action longer on some days, in some weeks, and months and bet more races at 10%.

[toddbowker]

Now other tracks have their own version of jackpots. Thank Stronach group.Well, technically you can sort of blame Beulah Park. We were the first out of the gate with the bet. I wrote the rules, so I guess you can blame me.

Of course, we "borrowed" the concept from the Poolpote bet in Puerto Rico ... :)

[AndyC]

......... imo there are only 2 option, the status quo which means this industry will never grow and will ultimately die or they can go with proper pricing and try to grow the industry. There is no in between.

Andy, C, we will have to agree to disagree. As certain as I am that there will be a Sun in the morning and a Moon at night, that if priced properly with no rebates this game would grow like it never has before. You disagree, and more importantly the brain thrust of racing disagrees. You know what they say about opinions. I cannot present my case any clearer than I have in this thread. If you don't see it, you don't see it.

What I disagree with you about is the actual chance of implementing any of your opinions. To argue about whether or not your opinions are "facts" as you suggest is useless. The brain trust of racing has to work within the constraints of the industry. They don't have the luxury of being an armchair racetrack operator.

[AndyC]

I always felt that many losing players vary their handle to match losing whatever they can afford to lose.

The amount they lose each week or month might vary, but let's say they can afford to lose between 2k-3K for the year. If you made the take 30% or 10% they would still lose around $200-$250 a month. They'd just stay in action longer on some days, in some weeks, and months and bet more races at 10%.

Exactly. That is why the track needs new money and not just the existing money churned more often.

[Poindexter]

Exactly. That is why the track needs new money and not just the existing money churned more often.

Which is why at a time when Monmouth Park going to be a major player in sports betting in NJ and is talking about introducing the sport to a whole lot of new blood, it sure would have been refreshing to hear Dennis Drazin say that we are going to use 1/2 the money to boost purses and improve the quality of racing in New Jersey and the other 1/2 is going to be used to promote the sport with reduced takeout so not only can we attain new interest in the sport but we can retain these fans long term.

However, all I heard was that all the money is going into purses. This industry will squander away yet another opportunity.

[Poindexter]

What I disagree with you about is the actual chance of implementing any of your opinions. To argue about whether or not your opinions are "facts" as you suggest is useless. The brain trust of racing has to work within the constraints of the industry. They don't have the luxury of being an armchair racetrack operator.

So you now I am little confused about your position. Do you think it is pure fantasy that racing could turn into a huge player in the gambling industry, reaching handle of 30-60 billion somewhere down the line if priced and marketed properly, or do you think it is pure fantasy that racing could ever be priced properly due to constraints, or both?

Whatever the constraints of the industry are, isn't their job to understand what will help their industry succeed and what is killing it? Isn't it their job to try to eliminate whatever constraints are there so their industry can succeed? I do not buy that it is a constraint issue. I believe they (the decision makers) honestly think their ways are the best ways. Much of the betting public pays the price of their misguided decisions.

[AndyC]

So you now I am little confused about your position. Do you think it is pure fantasy that racing could turn into a huge player in the gambling industry, reaching handle of 30-60 billion somewhere down the line if priced and marketed properly, or do you think it is pure fantasy that racing could ever be priced properly due to constraints, or both?

Whatever the constraints of the industry are, isn't their job to understand what will help their industry succeed and what is killing it? Isn't it their job to try to eliminate whatever constraints are there so their industry can succeed? I do not buy that it is a constraint issue. I believe they (the decision makers) honestly think their ways are the best ways. Much of the betting public pays the price of their misguided decisions.

I doubt that racing could be a major player in the gambling industry even if priced right. Too many good alternatives in place would be the primary reason. But I agree that it has no chance for survival being priced wrong.

Who is "their" in their job? Is it the state? The horsemen or the tracks? Everyone (but the bettor) has a seat at the table and nothing gets through unless all are satisfied. I am just referring to California. It may be easier or harder in other states. I am sure Andy Asaro could fill you in on the difficulties of getting things accomplished through the CHRB. The problem is there are too many decision makers. Nobody will give up their seat or position based on somebody's theory about what would be good for the industry.

[dilanesp]

Who is "their" in their job? Is it the state? The horsemen or the tracks? Everyone (but the bettor) has a seat at the table and nothing gets through unless all are satisfied. I am just referring to California. It may be easier or harder in other states. I am sure Andy Asaro could fill you in on the difficulties of getting things accomplished through the CHRB. The problem is there are too many decision makers. Nobody will give up their seat or position based on somebody's theory about what would be good for the industry.

I don't think that's the main problem at all. The CHRB worked just fine and there was enough for all the stakeholders when the sport was more popular. Even now, one of our tracks is very successful and another is not unsuccessful, despite having to deal with the CHRB. Indeed, we do better than most states do.

Get more people interested in horse racing again and believe me, nobody will complain about the bureaucracy.

[thaskalos]

I don't think that's the main problem at all. The CHRB worked just fine and there was enough for all the stakeholders when the sport was more popular. Even now, one of our tracks is very successful and another is not unsuccessful, despite having to deal with the CHRB. Indeed, we do better than most states do.

Get more people interested in horse racing again and believe me, nobody will complain about the bureaucracy.

That's like saying..."Get more people interested in limit holdem again..." :)

Easier said than done.

[dilanesp]

That's like saying..."Get more people interested in limit holdem again..." :)

Easier said than done.

Funny, at Hustler last night, there were about 5 tables of 4-8, 4 tables of 8-16, and 2 tables of 25-50.

So someone's playing limit, thask. :)

[AndyC]

I don't think that's the main problem at all. The CHRB worked just fine and there was enough for all the stakeholders when the sport was more popular. Even now, one of our tracks is very successful and another is not unsuccessful, despite having to deal with the CHRB. Indeed, we do better than most states do.

Get more people interested in horse racing again and believe me, nobody will complain about the bureaucracy.

If the CHRB worked just fine we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So your answer is for everyone to be like Del Mar, but only summer Del Mar.

Getting more people interested in racing will require a lot more than $15 margaritas and a Jackpot Pick 6.

[dilanesp]

If the CHRB worked just fine we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So your answer is for everyone to be like Del Mar, but only summer Del Mar.

Getting more people interested in racing will require a lot more than $15 margaritas and a Jackpot Pick 6.

My answer is to have a lot less racing, so that the remaining meetings are special like summer Del Mar. And then to try to expand the audience.

And to not expect miracles.

[AndyC]

My answer is to have a lot less racing, so that the remaining meetings are special like summer Del Mar. And then to try to expand the audience.

And to not expect miracles.

Would you expect a "yes" vote from the horse owners and trainers?

[dilanesp]

Would you expect a "yes" vote from the horse owners and trainers?

No. But I think the states and the tracks have most of the leverage here.

[classhandicapper]

I doubt that racing could be a major player in the gambling industry even if priced right. Too many good alternatives in place would be the primary reason. But I agree that it has no chance for survival being priced wrong.

If it was less regulated there would probably be more hope.

If a track has to jump through hoops to change the takeout rate or add new bet types and too much of it costs are fixed as a percentage of revenue (as opposed to a percentage of the bottom line) there's isn't going to be much experimentation.

[thaskalos]

If it was less regulated there would probably be more hope.

If a track has to jump through hoops to change the takeout rate or add new bet types and too much of it costs are fixed as a percentage of revenue (as opposed to a percentage of the bottom line) there's isn't going to be much experimentation.

How many hoops did Hayward jump through when he swiftly lowered the NYRA takeout in the aftermath of the takeout scandal of a few years ago?

[Denny]

They were in violation of the law. Hayward had no choice.
Still it cost him his job.
Which is too bad imo.
Now we have 'raise the prices' Kay.
(Saratoga goes up again this year, twice now in less than 5 years)

[dilanesp]

They were in violation of the law. Hayward had no choice.
Still it cost him his job.
Which is too bad imo.
Now we have 'raise the prices' Kay.
(Saratoga goes up again this year, twice now in less than 5 years)

Why wouldn't Saratoga go up?

You have a track that wealthy people travel to as a vacation destination. Staying in the town is very expensive (and in fact dwarfs whatever people pay for admission). It is also, other than the Belmont Stakes, NYRA's only chance to realize significant revenue from live patrons. And Saratoga can probably make even more money they more they charge (up to a point), because it will price out poorer patrons which will give the track a wealthier "feel" as it is filled up with more and more good looking people wearing nice clothes and hats, etc. Plus the track is small and it gets crowded when more than 30,000 people are there anyway.

It's pretty obvious that the correct business model is to charge nothing for Aqueduct, very little for Belmont (except on Belmont day and on a Breeders' Cup if they ever get one again), and a ton for Saratoga. NYRA is following that business model. As they should.

Not every horse racing date is about the regular horseplayer.

[Denny]

Why not raise prices?

Because NYRA is rolling in dough.

Casino dole is paying for everything from purses to salaries to retirement.

Why do they have to charge more for the average family to have a nice day out?

Just because they can?

[Maximillion]

Why wouldn't Saratoga go up?

You have a track that wealthy people travel to as a vacation destination. Staying in the town is very expensive (and in fact dwarfs whatever people pay for admission). It is also, other than the Belmont Stakes, NYRA's only chance to realize significant revenue from live patrons. And Saratoga can probably make even more money they more they charge (up to a point), because it will price out poorer patrons which will give the track a wealthier "feel" as it is filled up with more and more good looking people wearing nice clothes and hats, etc. Plus the track is small and it gets crowded when more than 30,000 people are there anyway.

It's pretty obvious that the correct business model is to charge nothing for Aqueduct, very little for Belmont (except on Belmont day and on a Breeders' Cup if they ever get one again), and a ton for Saratoga. NYRA is following that business model. As they should.

Not every horse racing date is about the regular horseplayer.

If they are old...instead of a senior discount they should get charged double:)

[Denny]

They're going to soak NY taxpayers a couple hundred million to renovate Belmont in a couple of years.

They'll probably jack up prices after that too.

What do they ever do for the horseplayer with the FREE CASINO MONEY?

Ever once think of LOWERING TAKEOUT?

[dilanesp]

Why not raise prices?

Because NYRA is rolling in dough.

Casino dole is paying for everything from purses to salaries to retirement.

Why do they have to charge more for the average family to have a nice day out?

Just because they can?

Average families can have a nice day out at Belmont at very low prices.

Saratoga is something else entirely. It caters to a different crowd. And as I noted, I don't think many "average families" can afford the hotels and restaurants in town anyway.

[Denny]

Isn't NYRA legally set up as a not-for-profit???

[thaskalos]

Why wouldn't Saratoga go up?

You have a track that wealthy people travel to as a vacation destination. Staying in the town is very expensive (and in fact dwarfs whatever people pay for admission). It is also, other than the Belmont Stakes, NYRA's only chance to realize significant revenue from live patrons. And Saratoga can probably make even more money they more they charge (up to a point), because it will price out poorer patrons which will give the track a wealthier "feel" as it is filled up with more and more good looking people wearing nice clothes and hats, etc. Plus the track is small and it gets crowded when more than 30,000 people are there anyway.

It's pretty obvious that the correct business model is to charge nothing for Aqueduct, very little for Belmont (except on Belmont day and on a Breeders' Cup if they ever get one again), and a ton for Saratoga. NYRA is following that business model. As they should.

Not every horse racing date is about the regular horseplayer.

I don't think that anyone could ever accuse the NYRA of operating with the "regular horseplayer" in mind.

[Denny]

Sorry for going off topic. Certain things just rile me up.

how NYRA operates is just one of them.

[Denny]

Average families can have a nice day out at Belmont at very low prices.

Saratoga is something else entirely. It caters to a different crowd. And as I noted, I don't think many "average families" can afford the hotels and restaurants in town anyway.

I have to say something about this.

YOU'RE TOTALLY WRONG.

I spend a lot of time at Saratoga every year. I meet and talk to people from all over the place. From all of New England, from Western NY and beyond, Canada, etc.

College kids and families, retired folk like me.

Mostly average people. Not well-to-do elites as you seem to think.

Those are in the boxes in the Clubhouse. Charge them what you like - not us.
We bet money and buy food and drink. (overpriced as it is)

Why were they able to operate for so many years without raising admission before Kay took over?

[Denny]

And BTW, the "average families" DON"T stay in town. They stay in motels up to half an hour away to avoid those crazy prices they charge in "town".

They make day trips to the track.

They come on tour buses.

They are average people that LIVE in the REGION.

[dilanesp]

I have to say something about this.

YOU'RE TOTALLY WRONG.

I spend a lot of time at Saratoga every year. I meet and talk to people from all over the place. From all of New England, from Western NY and beyond, Canada, etc.

College kids and families, retired folk like me.

Mostly average people. Not well-to-do elites as you seem to think.

Those are in the boxes in the Clubhouse. Charge them what you like - not us.
We bet money and buy food and drink. (overpriced as it is)

Why were they able to operate for so many years without raising admission before Kay took over?

1. Where did you stay and how much did you pay?

If your hotel cost $175, I am sorry, you can afford $20 or $30 to get in.

2. They will make more money, almost certainly, by pricing people out.

[Denny]

If you must know,
I don't stay in a hotel/motel.
I stay with family half an hour away near Schenectady.
A friend stays in a motel in Colonie, 20 minutes away from Saratoga.
Rest of people I know make day trips from 1 1/2 to 2 hours.
Like i also do sometimes.

I also actually talk to people at the track.
Meet people from all over the Northeast, and very few actually stay in Saratoga Springs. It's a gigantic rip-off for the wealthy only.
The Clubhouse crowd.
Is that enough?

Ranting over.