Tracks with sports betting

[cj]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/1039117997825314816

[alydar]

Interesting, I wonder what Charlestown's experience is?

[cj]

Interesting, I wonder what Charlestown's experience is?

Just opened September 1st, probably a little soon to try to guess.

[the little guy]

Off the top of my head, always dangerous, I would be careful with Monmouth, as they don't race that many dates, and it seems to me weather played a very important ( negative ) role for them over the past six weeks or so. Even more, perhaps, because of the added dates ( which definitely did not work out ). Their early numbers, before they expanded to four days a week, told a very positive story....and they had sports betting during that period as well.

[o_crunk]

Off the top of my head, always dangerous, I would be careful with Monmouth, as they don't race that many dates, and it seems to me weather played a very important ( negative ) role for them over the past six weeks or so. Even more, perhaps, because of the added dates ( which definitely did not work out ). Their early numbers, before they expanded to four days a week, told a very positive story....and they had sports betting during that period as well.

I would not say the early part of the meet was as positive as the press made it out to be. MTH was stuffing the box with horses and their per entry was down significantly both before sports betting and after. Increasing field size is as sure a handle increasing measure as you will find and MTH did that throughout the meet and particularly up to Haskell day, yet was down between 5 and 10% during that time, week to week, which foretold where their overall handle eventually went.

Also keep in mind, the same trend is taking place at DEL, where it is magnified.

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/1038117899318296579

[lamboguy]

monmouth had an ugly looking meet. there were to many races at bottom claiming prices and big trainers got most of the wins at very short prices.

if 80% of all the races are won by a little more than a handful of trainers, your track is going to have some problems.

[biggestal99]

Off the top of my head, always dangerous, I would be careful with Monmouth, as they don't race that many dates, and it seems to me weather played a very important ( negative ) role for them over the past six weeks or so. Even more, perhaps, because of the added dates ( which definitely did not work out ). Their early numbers, before they expanded to four days a week, told a very positive story....and they had sports betting during that period as well.

Monmouth didnt have enough horses to carry a 4 day race week.

I image they will cut back to 3 days next year. 4 just way too many.

and the weather didnt help. scratches galore.

as an X player it doesnt matter but pair-mutuelly speaking.....

It tamps down PM handle.

we shall see how they do this weekend at the Big M?

Looks like the rain might hold off.

Allan

[lamboguy]

another thing not taken into consideration is that this was the first year that Monmouth offered exchange wagering and i wonder how much of a bearing it had on the numbers.

we will need further studies to make better conclusions of this matter.

[o_crunk]

another thing not taken into consideration is that this was the first year that Monmouth offered exchange wagering and i wonder how much of a bearing it had on the numbers.

we will need further studies to make better conclusions of this matter.

MTH has offered exchange wagering since May 2016. That's over two year ago. Volume has flat lined since launch and my experience and data lead me to believe that actual handle on the exchange that originates from NJ and not from overseas is tiny.

[TheGarMan]

On a related matter, yesterday I found myself daydreaming about where I could go to make a few legal NFL bets.

I (briefly) considered driving a few hours to Delaware Park to see what their sports book atmosphere was like.. (I came to my senses and stayed home) :D

The point I suppose, is thus: I never in 15 years in the horse game even considered driving to Del Park to see their live race card. The draw of sports betting is alive and real. I bet there were 100's of "new faces" at Del Park yesterday, and not many of them even noticed the racetrack. Long term I think it this come at a cost to the hardcore horse players.

Time will tell.

[Inner Dirt]

Interesting, I wonder what Charlestown's experience is?


I am curious about CT. I live only 120 miles from there. I would just wonder if the lines are similar to Las Vegas, as others in here have complained about having to lay -120 and -115 on both sides when sports betting at tracks. Looking forward to going, my bank is a joke so I wouldn't even try to fund an off shore account, and I also had a friend not get paid on a $4k season bet on WSEX.


My only sports betting is with that same friend who most of the time won't bet unless I give him extra points. He takes advantage of the fact sometimes I just need action. I hit the first one, I took Redskins and GAVE 3 yesterday.

[Poindexter]

I would start looking at numbers from yesterday forward. NFL week 1 (yesterday) is really when the party (if there is going to be a party) began. Whatever initial effect sports betting will have on these racetracks should be measured starting yesterday through say the end of the NFL season to get an accurate measure of the initial effect of sport betting. At that point you will have a much better read as to whether sports betting can benefit horse racing or not.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I was at Monmouth yesterday for closing day, saddest time of the year. I was alive in that pick 6 to the last leg (would have hit it 6 times based on my ticket structures) but instead got nosed out by a horse I never in a million years would have used. Sums up my meet.

Yes, the racing product leaves something to be desired but I still enjoyed getting out there. That may change though, I am sad to say. Way too much has changed from the restricted BYOB areas, to picnic table politics, miserable tellers and other things.

Place was packed with sports betting yesterday. I really hope it helps the place out. But they really starting to alienate a lot of their regulars.

[thaskalos]

How much of the sports-booking profit does the racetrack end up with?

[thaskalos]

I am curious about CT. I live only 120 miles from there. I would just wonder if the lines are similar to Las Vegas, as others in here have complained about having to lay -120 and -115 on both sides when sports betting at tracks. Looking forward to going, my bank is a joke so I wouldn't even try to fund an off shore account, and I also had a friend not get paid on a $4k season bet on WSEX.


My only sports betting is with that same friend who most of the time won't bet unless I give him extra points. He takes advantage of the fact sometimes I just need action. I hit the first one, I took Redskins and GAVE 3 yesterday.

You are way better off laying the -120 at the track.

[v j stauffer]

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/1039117997825314816

Let me get this straight. You're saying that even though MTH & DEL have on track sports gambling their "on track" horse handle decreased?

[thaskalos]

This ain't "news" to me. How could it be otherwise?

[the little guy]

Comparing total handle at tracks with sports betting makes no sense to me. Shouldn't on-track handle, on both the host signal and simulcast tracks, be all that matters? Monmouth ( and especially Delaware ) seem like tricky places to use as examples because their on-track numbers are probably pretty minimal, but regardless, total handle seems like a wholly irrelevant number.

[v j stauffer]

This ain't "news" to me. How could it be otherwise?

I thought the idea was an influx of "players" funneled to the tracks would have a positive impact on the horse handle.

[horses4courses]

I thought the idea was an influx of "players" funneled to the tracks would have a positive impact on the horse handle.

It might be the theory for some, but it's a complete fantasy.

I've seen the younger generations betting sports in NV books for over 30 years.
They are not the slightest bit interested in horses. That will hold anywhere else.

Why would they want to wager on something with a 20% takeout which they
know nothing about? The overlap, I would estimate, between sports bettors
under the age of 40 who will wager on horses is in the region of 5%.

[Andy Asaro]

If tracks are gonna benefit it has to be brick and mortar only for a couple of years to get people to the tracks to bet. Any other way won't work. Not even close.

[stlseeeek]

How the hell could anyone bet monmouth?

[GMB@BP]

Small fields with Navarro in every race, how do you bet that? Hard for me to believe sports betting had much to do with the crap product we were given to bet.

[thaskalos]

I thought the idea was an influx of "players" funneled to the tracks would have a positive impact on the horse handle.

People go to the track with a set amount of money in their pocket...and any money that they bet on sports must necessarily be kept out of action for several hours, until the sporting event is decided. This scenario can't possibly have a positive impact on horse handle.

[cj]

Small fields with Navarro in every race, how do you bet that? Hard for me to believe sports betting had much to do with the crap product we were given to bet.

Nothing different that years past though, right?

[GMB@BP]

Sports betting will not help increase betting in the slightest, thinking that is fools gold.

What it may do is provide enough revenue to keep tracks afloat while they are required to still maintain race dates.

I don't think racinos did a thing for bringing more people into racing and in the long run has hurt racing.

Sports betting is the same thing. It may be worse, it has a better chance to pull peoples capital away from racing.

[GMB@BP]

Nothing different that years past though, right?

not sure, i only looked this year as i play all tracks now.

Its like sports betting, in any form or place, is likely to hurt racing. Maybe its a "get it while we can" attitude.

[alhattab]

Comparing total handle at tracks with sports betting makes no sense to me. Shouldn't on-track handle, on both the host signal and simulcast tracks, be all that matters? Monmouth ( and especially Delaware ) seem like tricky places to use as examples because their on-track numbers are probably pretty minimal, but regardless, total handle seems like a wholly irrelevant number.

Absolutely true re the inbound simulcasts. An article from the Asbury Park Press on 6/18 addressed racing handle in light of the first weekend of sports betting, which was 6/16 and 6/17. It said "The racing numbers were up across the board on Sunday, including $1,211,030 bet on the in-house simulcast, up 8 percent from a year earlier, $973,402 bet on the live racing program, a 17-percent increase, and $4,886,393 bet on the Monmouth Park signal, up 18 percent." So on that day, there was almost 25% more bet on inbound simulcasts than there was on the live product, by people at Monmouth Park. This is part of the reason why the Monmouth per capita is so low- people are betting the simulcasts (and yes others are squatting in the picnic area not betting at all, or, now, are in the sports betting area).

Also you and others noted, adding Thursdays was a killer. Here are the numbers through July 21 as per an article in the July 22 Press:

"According to figures released by Monmouth Park on Sunday (7/23), live handle, the amount of money wagered on Monmouth Park races at the track, is up 8 percent over the same period a year ago, with $11,513,732 wagered. Total handle jumped 10 percent to $94,574,544." These numbers included only 2 Fridays vs 7 in 2017, and also included Derby Day in 2018 but not 2017, with total handle of $3.1 million.

So the Thursdays+Fridays combined (this year Fridays began on 7/13 vs in June in 2017) and some bad weather especially on those days resulted in huge average declines. I really think as a lower-tier track you have to set a schedule at the beginning of the meet and stick with it. On-track player awareness is low and simulcast players are set in their ways.

So while I agree the meet was not very bettable or aesthetically pleasing, the comps are apples and oranges in my view.

[biggestal99]

People go to the track with a set amount of money in their pocket...and any money that they bet on sports must necessarily be kept out of action for several hours, until the sporting event is decided. This scenario can't possibly have a positive impact on horse handle.

Lol.every sports book in jersey has in game wagering. You can trade in and out of your bets and don’t have to wait until the end of the game. Just trade out of your position and take your profit (or loss). It’s like the x. You can cash out anytime. Hell I cashed out of the grand national mid race for megabucks.

Of course if I had held out until the very end I would have made more.

In game wagering is the future.

Allan

[biggestal99]

Sports betting will not help increase betting in the slightest, thinking that is fools gold.

What it may do is provide enough revenue to keep tracks afloat while they are required to still maintain race dates.

I don't think racinos did a thing for bringing more people into racing and in the long run has hurt racing.

Sports betting is the same thing. It may be worse, it has a better chance to pull peoples capital away from racing.

I disagree, it just has to be marketed correctly.

Allan

[o_crunk]

Absolutely true re the inbound simulcasts. An article from the Asbury Park Press on 6/18 addressed racing handle in light of the first weekend of sports betting, which was 6/16 and 6/17. It said "The racing numbers were up across the board on Sunday, including $1,211,030 bet on the in-house simulcast, up 8 percent from a year earlier, $973,402 bet on the live racing program, a 17-percent increase, and $4,886,393 bet on the Monmouth Park signal, up 18 percent." So on that day, there was almost 25% more bet on inbound simulcasts than there was on the live product, by people at Monmouth Park. This is part of the reason why the Monmouth per capita is so low- people are betting the simulcasts (and yes others are squatting in the picnic area not betting at all, or, now, are in the sports betting area).

Also you and others noted, adding Thursdays was a killer. Here are the numbers through July 21 as per an article in the July 22 Press:

"According to figures released by Monmouth Park on Sunday (7/23), live handle, the amount of money wagered on Monmouth Park races at the track, is up 8 percent over the same period a year ago, with $11,513,732 wagered. Total handle jumped 10 percent to $94,574,544." These numbers included only 2 Fridays vs 7 in 2017, and also included Derby Day in 2018 but not 2017, with total handle of $3.1 million.

So the Thursdays+Fridays combined (this year Fridays began on 7/13 vs in June in 2017) and some bad weather especially on those days resulted in huge average declines. I really think as a lower-tier track you have to set a schedule at the beginning of the meet and stick with it. On-track player awareness is low and simulcast players are set in their ways.

So while I agree the meet was not very bettable or aesthetically pleasing, the comps are apples and oranges in my view.

There's a lot to unpack here.

First thing is we do not know what the overall simulcast numbers look like as Monmouth has selectively been releasing numbers. Not surprisingly they've been releasing numbers that make them look good. For instance, the article you cite addressing on-track handle on 6/16 & 6/17 of this year paints a very positive picture. But if you look a little deeper at the compare they are making, it kind of falls apart. For one, they ran 4 more races on those days vs 2017. For another those two days had 68 more betting interests vs 2017 (222 vs 154). That juices the overall number quite a bit. Again, at the per interest level, both on track and overall, the handle numbers were consistently down this year, sports betting or not. That, to me at least, is the KEY number, especially in a parimutuel environment of late that has seen modest increases nationwide, particularly on those signals where field size has improved.

I will not argue that adding Thursdays in August in place of Fridays in June was a bad move. For the most part, historically, these days are comparable though Fridays tend to have slightly more handle.

Second, conflating on track and overall handle numbers is pretty sound. Those numbers are historically correlated, particularly at MTH. For the last 10 years at MTH, when the overall handle went down, so did the on-track number, often right in line with each other. So to have one overall top number up 2.2% and another overall number down 2.2% is out of line with historic trends.

Weather is the weather. People like to say it rained and that's the end of any sort of critical analysis. But again, we have the per interest number that is very reliable to see which way the handle wind is blowing. For instance, at SAR this summer, despite really bad weather, the per interest was up 4% over the previous summer, which would make that a record number for SAR.

I've maintained that it's still very early days but it's hard to look at the numbers we do have and say it's "good".

[jay68802]

A quick question, is part of the sports betting going to fund purses at Monmouth or Delaware?

[o_crunk]

A quick question, is part of the sports betting going to fund purses at Monmouth or Delaware?

In Delaware - yes as it's part of the law allowing sports betting. In New Jersey - unknown. It's not part of the law allowing sports betting. Meaning any revenue derived by the tracks is not ear marked for purses. That's the law. Both MED and MTH execs have been very cryptic about this though they both say they'd like to fund purses and increase days if they get revenue. My feeling is that if it's not part of the law, it's probably going to be limited as this is a low margin business to begin with.

[alhattab]

There's a lot to unpack here.

First thing is we do not know what the overall simulcast numbers look like as Monmouth has selectively been releasing numbers. Not surprisingly they've been releasing numbers that make them look good. For instance, the article you cite addressing on-track handle on 6/16 & 6/17 of this year paints a very positive picture. But if you look a little deeper at the compare they are making, it kind of falls apart. For one, they ran 4 more races on those days vs 2017. For another those two days had 68 more betting interests vs 2017 (222 vs 154). That juices the overall number quite a bit. Again, at the per interest level, both on track and overall, the handle numbers were consistently down this year, sports betting or not. That, to me at least, is the KEY number, especially in a parimutuel environment of late that has seen modest increases nationwide, particularly on those signals where field size has improved.

I will not argue that adding Thursdays in August in place of Fridays in June was a bad move. For the most part, historically, these days are comparable though Fridays tend to have slightly more handle.

Second, conflating on track and overall handle numbers is pretty sound. Those numbers are historically correlated, particularly at MTH. For the last 10 years at MTH, when the overall handle went down, so did the on-track number, often right in line with each other. So to have one overall top number up 2.2% and another overall number down 2.2% is out of line with historic trends.

Weather is the weather. People like to say it rained and that's the end of any sort of critical analysis. But again, we have the per interest number that is very reliable to see which way the handle wind is blowing. For instance, at SAR this summer, despite really bad weather, the per interest was up 4% over the previous summer, which would make that a record number for SAR.

I've maintained that it's still very early days but it's hard to look at the numbers we do have and say it's "good".

Crunk the point of including the 6/16-17 info was to show how much people at Mth bet on inbound simulcasts as compared w/ the Mth product. At least I think that is what the $1.2 million number cited reflects.

Also re. the comps, 6/17 was Father's Day with 23,000+ on track vs. 2017 with 18,000+ on track. Sports betting has something to do with the increase but I believe 2017 weather wasn't great or at least the forecast was bad- 18,000 is very low for Mth Father's Day- so there were many more people to bet both on and off track.

[thaskalos]

Lol.every sports book in jersey has in game wagering. You can trade in and out of your bets and don’t have to wait until the end of the game. Just trade out of your position and take your profit (or loss). It’s like the x. You can cash out anytime. Hell I cashed out of the grand national mid race for megabucks.

Of course if I had held out until the very end I would have made more.

In game wagering is the future.

Allan

If in-game sports wagering is the future...then horse racing will become the past...IMO. The more engrossed the gambler gets in his sports bets, the less attention he will give to the horses. Even the most hardcore horseplayer will admit that his fondness for sporting events predates his affection for horse racing. Plus...you may be forgetting that the average gambler isn't the big winner that you are. The more wagering opportunities the average gambler gets, the quicker he runs out of money...and the longer he stays out of action altogether. These things don't exist in a vacuum; they interact upon one another.

[v j stauffer]

If in-game sports wagering is the future...then horse racing will become the past...IMO. The more engrossed the gambler gets in his sports bets, the less attention he will give to the horses. Even the most hardcore horseplayer will admit that his fondness for sporting events predates his affection for horse racing. Plus...you may be forgetting that the average gambler isn't the big winner that you are. The more wagering opportunities the average gambler gets, the quicker he runs out of money...and the longer he stays out of action altogether. These things don't exist in a vacuum; they interact upon one another.

Some think there's already in game horse wagering as well.

[thaskalos]

Some think there's already in game horse wagering as well.

Yes...and some think that there is legal online poker somewhere, as well. The main point is that these forms of "21-st century gambling opportunities" won't have the desired effect if they are confined within strict geographical perimeters. We can't all reside in NJ.

[o_crunk]

Crunk the point of including the 6/16-17 info was to show how much people at Mth bet on inbound simulcasts as compared w/ the Mth product. At least I think that is what the $1.2 million number cited reflects.

Also re. the comps, 6/17 was Father's Day with 23,000+ on track vs. 2017 with 18,000+ on track. Sports betting has something to do with the increase but I believe 2017 weather wasn't great or at least the forecast was bad- 18,000 is very low for Mth Father's Day- so there were many more people to bet both on and off track.

Sure, I get that. At the KEE symposium last week, the MTH exec said that their nightly simulcast (after 5PM) was up 21%, which was about a $300K increase from the year-over-year period of June 16 through Labor Day. The reason why I'm skeptical of these type of numbers is because they are not the whole picture. I would expect if the overall simulcast was as good, MTH would be sharing that with the press and saying how good that is. It makes sense to me that people standing around the track at midnight would be betting racing since last year they were not standing around the track betting racing at all because the track was closed. The exec clearly stated that - their hours and staff have had to accommodate the extended hours that sports betting demands with games running late on the west coast.

I don't know. I can only analyze the numbers that I have. I'm of the opinion that MTH, like many tracks these days, are fumbling around with the attendance numbers. They simply are too close together year over year to be believable and the spiky handle number of on-track in light of that leads me to believe attendance numbers are mostly made up. Who knows though.

[alhattab]

Sure, I get that. At the KEE symposium last week, the MTH exec said that their nightly simulcast (after 5PM) was up 21%, which was about a $300K increase from the year-over-year period of June 16 through Labor Day. The reason why I'm skeptical of these type of numbers is because they are not the whole picture. I would expect if the overall simulcast was as good, MTH would be sharing that with the press and saying how good that is. It makes sense to me that people standing around the track at midnight would be betting racing since last year they were not standing around the track betting racing at all because the track was closed. The exec clearly stated that - their hours and staff have had to accommodate the extended hours that sports betting demands with games running late on the west coast.

I don't know. I can only analyze the numbers that I have. I'm of the opinion that MTH, like many tracks these days, are fumbling around with the attendance numbers. They simply are too close together year over year to be believable and the spiky handle number of on-track in light of that leads me to believe attendance numbers are mostly made up. Who knows though.

Agree completely on attendance. It is largely irrelevant at almost all the tracks. Think of Monmouth- spinners on Haskell Day, people betting from the Blu Grotto (ok just a handful) that aren't counted, now sports bettors that are counted (in case you weren't aware, everyone paid admission on racing days. If you bet sports you'd get a parking and admission voucher for your next trip), and of course the picnic area squatters and food truck aficionados.

For whatever reason, I don't recall Mth ever publicizing the inbound simulcast figs. I was surprised to see it in the article I referenced, and you're probably right it was put there for a reason. I've always hypothesized or backed into the inbound number.

[biggestal99]

Yes...and some think that there is legal online poker somewhere, as well. The main point is that these forms of "21-st century gambling opportunities" won't have the desired effect if they are confined within strict geographical perimeters. We can't all reside in NJ.

It’s called states rights, look at Kentucky. They had to fight the governor and other local politicos who are anti-gambling to present historical racing. Now the more pro gambling forces are trying to get though a sports betting bill.

Good luck with that.

Allan