MVR handle decline...

[tcasolo]

According to Paulick Report:

"Hollywood Gaming at Mahoning Valley Race Course in Austintown, Ohio, concluded its winter-spring season on Wednesday, April 24, with solid wagering and racing during the 62-day meet. Wagering per race was down 8% to $116,745 per race despite the track experiencing a number of inclement weather days in both January and February."

“Field size remained strong with 8.12 wagering interests per race, identical to the 2018 number,” said vice president of racing Mark Loewe. “As we look to the fall meet, we are excited by the reception we have received throughout the simulcast network and on track.”

This is the first handle decline since the track opened 5 years ago

I'm not buying the bad weather excuse, nor the claim that the wagering was solid.

This year's weather was no worse than last year when they ran a 25% increase. Plus any cancellations are made up. When comparing similar dates from last year to this year, the daily handle was down for 50% of the racing dates. This with an identical field size both years.

I'm guessing the honeymoon is over.

[46zilzal]

Track makes no sense...Tried it several days over two seasons.ILLOGICAL

[jeebus1083]

Track makes no sense...Tried it several days over two seasons.ILLOGICAL

Hi Tim,

Playing MVR is like playing low-stakes no-limit Texas Hold’em: the potential for some hokey results that defy both logic and commonsense. In other words, if someone raises preflop, calling said raise with 8-7 offsuit is a negative -EV move, especially when the preflop raiser has been a rock for a solid 2 hours in the session.

Of course, the donkey calls, flops 8-10-Q, calls my continuation bet, then turns the case 8 to make a set. River dry, and my KK gets cracked by a set of 8s that had no business playing the hand in the first place. “But it’s my lucky hand!” He said... a sure sign that either 1) this was not an ideal table for me to play at or 2) playing $1/$2 blind structure is simply a -EV venture in itself due to the fact that it’s “cheap action” (many players limp in for the minimum, then call a raise or 3bet (re-raise) anyway to see the flop: more players in a hand = danger!) and it attracts a variety of skill levels.

As it relates to racing, the stock quality of the runners is so inconsistent at some tracks - be it due to the track surface, medications, or horse soundness - that you’re destined to lose money betting on it. Not to mention that the pool sizes are anemic and that a single wager can throw the tote askew.

[098poi]

Hi Tim,

Playing MVR is like playing low-stakes no-limit Texas Hold’em: the potential for some hokey results that defy both logic and commonsense. In other words, if someone raises preflop, calling said raise with 8-7 offsuit is a negative -EV move, especially when the preflop raiser has been a rock for a solid 2 hours in the session.

Of course, the donkey calls, flops 8-10-Q, calls my continuation bet, then turns the case 8 to make a set. River dry, and my KK gets cracked by a set of 8s that had no business playing the hand in the first place. “But it’s my lucky hand!” He said... a sure sign that either 1) this was not an ideal table for me to play at or 2) playing $1/$2 blind structure is simply a -EV venture in itself due to the fact that it’s “cheap action” (many players limp in for the minimum, then call a raise or 3bet (re-raise) anyway to see the flop: more players in a hand = danger!) and it attracts a variety of skill levels.

As it relates to racing, the stock quality of the runners is so inconsistent at some tracks - be it due to the track surface, medications, or horse soundness - that you’re destined to lose money betting on it. Not to mention that the pool sizes are anemic and that a single wager can throw the tote askew.


I was gonna post that exact thing! You beat me to it.

[lamboguy]

the united states population has gone from 130 million people in 1960 to around 340 million people today.

in 1960 there were over 25,000 people at Belmont race track in 1960 on a friday afternoon, today there isn't 250 people there.

maybe more than 250 for opening day.

[baconswitchfarm]

[QUOTE=tcasolo;2456951]According to Paulick Report:

vice president of racing Mark Loewe.






When you see that you can be sure nothing good is to come :puke:

[Robert Fischer]

-8% could mean something or could be meaningless

my own play there was meaningless
109bets , hit fourteen of them (12.84%) ,Bet $529.30 Ret $557.62 ($+28.32) $1.05ROI :bang:

[Thomas Roulston]

the united states population has gone from 130 million people in 1960 to around 340 million people today.

in 1960 there were over 25,000 people at Belmont race track in 1960 on a friday afternoon, today there isn't 250 people there.

maybe more than 250 for opening day.


This is what they get for opening the spring meeting in April instead of the Memorial Day weekend the way they used to. Win or lose, who wants to freeze to death at the racetrack?

NYRA should also bring back the Aqueduct summer meeting, last held in 1976 - but I suppose that's a suitable topic for a different thread.

[Some_One]

I was gonna post that exact thing! You beat me to it.

And this series of 3 posts in exactly why polytrack surfaces were ripped out across America. A track/surface is so unpredictable it must be the surface and surely not the capper.

[porchy44]

They have a "good thing" going. For several months a year, the only 2 tracks running (early card)on Mondays and Tuesdays are Parx and Mahoning.

[tcasolo]

So, Parx with one of the highest takeouts in the industry, and overseen by the corrupt Pennsylvania Racing Commission, has Mondays and Tuesdays to just themselves and MVR for a couple months, yet, MVR and its 8+ field size average is losing share to them.

Not to worry. Mark Loewe says all is well. LOL

[porchy44]

So, Parx with one of the highest takeouts in the industry, and overseen by the corrupt Pennsylvania Racing Commission, has Mondays and Tuesdays to just themselves and MVR for a couple months, yet, MVR and its 8+ field size average is losing share to them.

Not to worry. Mark Loewe says all is well. LOL

I guess without any perspective you may scoff at that.
Yes, Ex Beulah park (type) horses that were running for 2500 purses now running for
9900 to 32,000 purses with +$100,000 betting action per race. Yes they are doing much better than they deserve.

[dilanesp]

Hi Tim,

Playing MVR is like playing low-stakes no-limit Texas Hold’em: the potential for some hokey results that defy both logic and commonsense. In other words, if someone raises preflop, calling said raise with 8-7 offsuit is a negative -EV move, especially when the preflop raiser has been a rock for a solid 2 hours in the session.

Of course, the donkey calls, flops 8-10-Q, calls my continuation bet, then turns the case 8 to make a set. River dry, and my KK gets cracked by a set of 8s that had no business playing the hand in the first place. “But it’s my lucky hand!” He said... a sure sign that either 1) this was not an ideal table for me to play at or 2) playing $1/$2 blind structure is simply a -EV venture in itself due to the fact that it’s “cheap action” (many players limp in for the minimum, then call a raise or 3bet (re-raise) anyway to see the flop: more players in a hand = danger!) and it attracts a variety of skill levels.

As it relates to racing, the stock quality of the runners is so inconsistent at some tracks - be it due to the track surface, medications, or horse soundness - that you’re destined to lose money betting on it. Not to mention that the pool sizes are anemic and that a single wager can throw the tote askew.

Well, first of all, that's trips, not a set, and second, the implied odds and stack sizes matter here. If he gets away cheaply when your kings hold up and gets your stack when they don't, it might not be such a bad play....

[dilanesp]

the united states population has gone from 130 million people in 1960 to around 340 million people today.

in 1960 there were over 25,000 people at Belmont race track in 1960 on a friday afternoon, today there isn't 250 people there.

maybe more than 250 for opening day.

This is basically why, no matter what NYRA says about handle, I think they did a horrible job for decades and should have been replaced as the manager of the tracks. It should be possible in New York City to find several thousand people who would like to attend the races. NYRA consistently can't despite having excellent facilities.

[Saratoga_Mike]

This is basically why, no matter what NYRA says about handle, I think they did a horrible job for decades and should have been replaced as the manager of the tracks. It should be possible in New York City to find several thousand people who would like to attend the races. NYRA consistently can't despite having excellent facilities.

Racing is in secular decline. Do you know Ron Geary? He's a great handicapper and presumably loves racing. He's a CPA by training, and he was the CEO of ResCare (built into a large company, at least for that industry; ultimately sold). With all his business successes, he couldn't really turn the business around at Ellis Park. Why is that? Now you may say, "that's an irrelevant point, as Ellis isn't located next to a population base of 10 mm or so people." True, but why couldn't he meaningfully turn the business? He tried a number of different things, including lowering takeout, but nothing was a magic bullet.

Here's my point: you and others like to imply that "if only you were running XYZ track, racing would prosper." I don't buy it. The secular forces are too much to overcome. Are there areas for improvement at most tracks, including NYRA? Absolutely.

But please list everything you'd change at NYRA. Don't go back in time. I want to know what you'd do differently now. Again, there are areas for improvement at any track, or business for that matter, but there's no magic elixir.

[dilanesp]

Racing is in secular decline. Do you know Ron Geary? He's a great handicapper and presumably loves racing. He's a CPA by training, and he was the CEO of ResCare (built into a large company, at least for that industry; ultimately sold). With all his business successes, he couldn't really turn the business around at Ellis Park. Why is that? Now you may say, "that's an irrelevant point, as Ellis isn't located next to a population base of 10 mm or so people." True, but why couldn't he meaningfully turn the business? He tried a number of different things, including lowering takeout, but nothing was a magic bullet.

Here's my point: you and others like to imply that "if only you were running XYZ track, racing would prosper." I don't buy it. The secular forces are too much to overcome. Are there areas for improvement at most tracks, including NYRA? Absolutely.

But please list everything you'd change at NYRA. Don't go back in time. I want to know what you'd do differently now. Again, there are areas for improvement at any track, or business for that matter, but there's no magic elixir.

I agree horse racing is in decline. The problem, though, is that even a declining sport should be able to find fans in the New York City metropolitan area. That area is so big that they can get 20,000 people to attend a dog show every year.

I honestly don't know WHY NYRA so definitively alienated its customers. But I do know it happened earlier than it did in Southern California-- I went back there several times in the late 1980's and there was nobody at the track for big races, and this was at a time when Southern California tracks were still averaging 25,000 a day and drawing 50,000+ for big races.

[bob60566]

I agree horse racing is in decline. The problem, though, is that even a declining sport should be able to find fans in the New York City metropolitan area. That area is so big that they can get 20,000 people to attend a dog show every year.

I honestly don't know WHY NYRA so definitively alienated its customers. But I do know it happened earlier than it did in Southern California-- I went back there several times in the late 1980's and there was nobody at the track for big races, and this was at a time when Southern California tracks were still averaging 25,000 a day and drawing 50,000+ for big races.

How many own racehorse in that area.

[castaway01]

Racing is in secular decline. Do you know Ron Geary? He's a great handicapper and presumably loves racing. He's a CPA by training, and he was the CEO of ResCare (built into a large company, at least for that industry; ultimately sold). With all his business successes, he couldn't really turn the business around at Ellis Park. Why is that? Now you may say, "that's an irrelevant point, as Ellis isn't located next to a population base of 10 mm or so people." True, but why couldn't he meaningfully turn the business? He tried a number of different things, including lowering takeout, but nothing was a magic bullet.

Here's my point: you and others like to imply that "if only you were running XYZ track, racing would prosper." I don't buy it. The secular forces are too much to overcome. Are there areas for improvement at most tracks, including NYRA? Absolutely.

But please list everything you'd change at NYRA. Don't go back in time. I want to know what you'd do differently now. Again, there are areas for improvement at any track, or business for that matter, but there's no magic elixir.

Right now horse racing is the opposite of an "in" mainstream thing. It has a retro comeback every so often, and a lot of people like to dress up and drink on Derby day. But that's about it. And while horse racing has screwed up many, many things, it is also a relatively complicated, slow-moving form of gambling in an era where gambling competition has vastly, dramatically expanded. Gambling is more mainstream than ever, but horse racing is not. That's reality.

And it's not just takeout. Lotteries have insane takeout and does multi-billions in business. Why? Because it's what people do with their spare money (and not spare money). You throw a few bucks at it for a shot at $100 million. Casinos are (generally) doing just fine and you're not going to find many long-term video poker or slot machine winners. But the same senior citizens who 50 years ago would be throwing their money away at the track on a random Wednesday are now in front of the video poker machine.

How does racing get that back? I have no idea. Like you said, smart people have tried. You might need a time machine to make the right moves to keep mainstream relevance when they lost it, a real visionary who would bring horse racing into your home and establish it as a TV product. Track attendance would still be low, but handle would be a lot higher than it is now. But maybe the moment has just passed. Just like no one is making boxing one of the three biggest sports in the country again, and no one is making baseball surpass the NFL as the biggest sport again, there's no way to snap our fingers and market horse racing back to its salad days.

[Jeff P]

Actually, despite all the headlines created by Mega Millions and Powerball jackpot games --

A chart on p23 of the California Lottery 2016-2017 Annual Report (https://static.www.calottery.com/~/media/Publications/Financial_Reports/2016-17%20CSL%20Comprehensive%20Annual%20Financial%20Re port%20Final.pdf) shows that Scratchers Tickets (not giant jackpot games) accounted for 73.4% of total lottery sales in California during the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

Fyi, when you look at state lottery ticket sales nationally you will find similar numbers when it comes to instant/scratchers games vs. giant jackpot games.

Additionally, many states (including California) have engineered successful turnarounds for their state lotteries by passing statutes that gave their lottery commissions the authority to increase the prize payout percentages for their games - as opposed to the outdated model where significantly lower prize payout percentages had historically been mandated by state law.

In California, the specific statute was AB142.

Unlike horse racing (which took the opposite approach and raised racing takeout with SB1072) the CA Lottery has been able to leverage LOWER TAKEOUT to drive brand recognition and generate significant increases in both sales and total revenue for Education.

Here's a quote from Linh Nguyen, Acting Director, California Lottery:

"Increasing the prize payout percentage improves the product's value to the consumer, provides us with a powerful message that gets consumer attention, and gives us a tool to drive sales and profits.

A relatively small increase in prize payout percentage can be leveraged into a much more significant increase in top-line sales.

Although the increase in prize payout percentage leaves a smaller percentage to be transferred to education, the total dollars going to our beneficiary goes up. And at the end of the day, you can spend a dollar, but you can't spend a percentage. So these changes have resulted in increased funding to education and that's what our constituents care most about and the reason the Lottery was created in 1984."

Read more at the link: Public Gaming Interviews Linh Nguyen Acting Director, California Lottery (http://www.publicgaming.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9590:public-gamin)

I know nobody in racing wants to hear it, but...

You get the idea.






-jp

.
.

[rrpic6]

Keeneland's handle for the 2019 Spring Meet was down 5.4% from last year. Since I work for both MVR and Keeneland, I'll accept most of the blame for the handle decreases.;) Mark McGwire hit 49 home runs in 1987. In 1988 he hit 32. In 1998 he hit 70. In 1999 he hit 65. Stats fluctuate in all sports. Garbage in, garbage out.


RR

[Robert Fischer]

Saratoga is a nice social atmosphere, and some of the big race days do draw a nice crowd.

$ignificant off-track/computer handle

You have to go to an event day, and preferably a beautiful day, and you can have the social thing.

Could NYRA do more in general to create a social population of players? Probably. Incentive based, and deprioritized NotImportant/notUrgent womp womp...

but sure, there is some market for creative ideas and execution. :ThmbUp: I'm all for it.


This is basically why, no matter what NYRA says about handle, I think they did a horrible job for decades and should have been replaced as the manager of the tracks. It should be possible in New York City to find several thousand people who would like to attend the races. NYRA consistently can't despite having excellent facilities.

[dilanesp]

Actually, despite all the headlines created by Mega Millions and Powerball jackpot games --

A chart on p23 of the California Lottery 2016-2017 Annual Report (https://static.www.calottery.com/~/media/Publications/Financial_Reports/2016-17%20CSL%20Comprehensive%20Annual%20Financial%20Re port%20Final.pdf) shows that Scratchers Tickets (not giant jackpot games) accounted for 73.4% of total lottery sales in California during the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

Fyi, when you look at state lottery ticket sales nationally you will find similar numbers when it comes to instant/scratchers games vs. giant jackpot games.

Additionally, many states (including California) have engineered successful turnarounds for their state lotteries by passing statutes that gave their lottery commissions the authority to increase the prize payout percentages for their games - as opposed to the outdated model where significantly lower prize payout percentages had historically been mandated by state law.

In California, the specific statute was AB142.

Unlike horse racing (which took the opposite approach and raised racing takeout with SB1072) the CA Lottery has been able to leverage LOWER TAKEOUT to drive brand recognition and generate significant increases in both sales and total revenue for Education.

Here's a quote from Linh Nguyen, Acting Director, California Lottery:



Read more at the link: Public Gaming Interviews Linh Nguyen Acting Director, California Lottery (http://www.publicgaming.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9590:public-gamin)

I know nobody in racing wants to hear it, but...

You get the idea.






-jp

.
.

I have heard this argument before, and it isn't very good.

First, the famous lottery games with 50 percent takeouts still bring in tons of money when the jackpots are high.

Second, "low" lottery takeouts are still like 30 percent or so. Which means this proves at most that 50 percent takeouts are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. Which is academic because we don't have any of those.

[Jeff P]

I submit to you the idea that racing has plenty of takeouts on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

I also submit to you the idea that being on the right side of the curve is even more important in today's environment than in years past because of increased competition on many fronts for the wagering dollar.

Yet, racing is still priced as if it were a monopoly.

At least state lotteries had the good sense to address their pricing problems. And (unlike racing) many (including California) were able to turn things around as a result.



-jp

.

[Tom]

I have heard this argument before, and it isn't very good.

First, the famous lottery games with 50 percent takeouts still bring in tons of money when the jackpots are high.

Second, "low" lottery takeouts are still like 30 percent or so. Which means this proves at most that 50 percent takeouts are on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve. Which is academic because we don't have any of those.

Comparing lottery betting to racing betting is not apples to apples.
One spend far less on lottery tickets than they do on racing.
Takeout mean nothing to lottery players. If you bet $10 in tickets and hit for $800 dollars, are you going to whine because you think you should have hit for $950?

And a lot of people just automatically buy a ticket or two to three every week or so when they shop. The lose 51 weeks a year and are happy as clams when they hit one week for $50, even though they lost $30 over the over the year.

[dilanesp]

I submit to you the idea that racing has plenty of takeouts on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.

I also submit to you the idea that being on the right side of the curve is even more important in today's environment than in years past because of increased competition on many fronts for the wagering dollar.

Yet, racing is still priced as if it were a monopoly.

At least state lotteries had the good sense to address their pricing problems. And (unlike racing) many (including California) were able to turn things around as a result.



-jp

.

My guess is that from a Laffer curve perspective, some takeouts are too high- specifically on races people don't want to bet on. Other takeouts- on the Kentucky Derby, for instance, are too low.

But the lottery's experience doesn't really tell us much here.

[Jeff P]

No, the lottery experience doesn't tell us where on the curve takeout for individual wagers belongs.

However (Imo) it absolutely does tell us we need to be smart enough to look.



-jp

.

[castaway01]

My guess is that from a Laffer curve perspective, some takeouts are too high- specifically on races people don't want to bet on. Other takeouts- on the Kentucky Derby, for instance, are too low.

But the lottery's experience doesn't really tell us much here.

It tells us that horse racing's attempt at creating huge jackpots through lottery-style bets that rarely pay off has achieved zero mainstream success because it's horse racing and the general public has zero interest in it, not because takeout is too high or the idea itself is bad. You could come up with 100 similar (no, not perfectly exact, but similar) analogies---for example, a store could offer a great deal on fashion that is 10 years out of style, but people aren't going to buy it because it's not the thing to buy. Horse racing is something most people don't want to buy right now. It's Fanta in a Coke world.

I will say that I've been receiving these "I am horse racing" links via email. It's a PR campaign out of California that profiles people in various areas in the industry. It's quite well done. But again, I'm already a fan. How you get the general public to watch and then change its overall opinion on horse racing---that is the trick.

[thaskalos]

If we conducted a survey on this very site...I am confident we would discover that over 90% of the posters here are now betting WAY less than they did in years past. And these are confirmed horseplayers...who have already decided that horseracing is a worthwhile game to play. Even the hardcore horseplayers are either abandoning the game altogether, or have greatly reduced their betting handle in recent years. Ask them why they have now lost interest in the game that they once were dedicated to...and the answer, however complicated, will reveal itself in short order.

[jay68802]

Yesterday at Fonner, I overheard a guy ranting about hitting a tri and it did not pay enough. He said he should go back to playing Keno because at least he knew what he would win. I told him he would eventually loose at Keno because the odds never change. In horse racing you can wait until the odds are in your favor and at least have a chance at winning in the long run.

[Jeff P]

If we conducted a survey on this very site...I am confident we would discover that over 90% of the posters here are now betting WAY less than they did in years past. And these are confirmed horseplayers...who have already decided that horseracing is a worthwhile game to play. Even the hardcore horseplayers are either abandoning the game altogether, or have greatly reduced their betting handle in recent years. Ask them why they have now lost interest in the game that they once were dedicated to...and the answer, however complicated, will reveal itself in short order.

Gus, when HANA was first formed back in 2009 we did exactly that.

And afterwards, we put the full survey results up on our site - here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/articlefall2009hanasurvey.html

And we wrote about them on our blog (many times.)

And we posted about them here at Paceadvantage (many times.)

We also emailed a synopsis of the results out to our membership as well as to a number of industry alphabet groups.

Several years later, McKinsey & Company did a similar survey of their own design for The Jockey Club.

Strangely enough, both surveys (ours and the one by McKinsey) identified three core issues that horseplayers overwhelmingly identified as having potential to drive them from the game and/or cause them to bet less than they otherwise would.

In no particular order of importance those three core issues were:


Parimutuel takeout rates

Drugs (seen as an integrity issue)

Tote System/Odds that change after the bell (also seen as an integrity issue)



Here we are ten years later. It's really hard for me to ask this next question with a straight face but I'm going to try.

What if anything have our industry stakeholders done to address the three elephants sitting in the room? (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes?)

What if anything has changed about horseracing over the past decade that would make the three elephants sitting in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and late odds changes) any less important today than they were ten years ago?



-jp

.

[bob60566]

Maybe 2029 before it is to late, Because very very little has been done in the last ten years and now going through the same motions as in the past.

Talk is cheap so sad

[thaskalos]

Gus, when HANA was first formed back in 2009 we did exactly that.

And afterwards, we put the full survey results up on our site - here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/articlefall2009hanasurvey.html

And we wrote about them on our blog (many times.)

And we posted about them here at Paceadvantage (many times.)

We also emailed a synopsis of the results out to our membership as well as to a number of industry alphabet groups.

Several years later, McKinsey & Company did a similar survey of their own design for The Jockey Club.

Strangely enough, both surveys (ours and the one by McKinsey) identified three core issues that horseplayers overwhelmingly identified as having potential to drive them from the game and/or cause them to bet less than they otherwise would.

In no particular order of importance those three core issues were:


Parimutuel takeout rates

Drugs (seen as an integrity issue)

Tote System/Odds that change after the bell (also seen as an integrity issue)



Here we are ten years later. It's really hard for me to ask this next question with a straight face but I'm going to try.

What if anything have our industry stakeholders done to address the three elephants sitting in the room? (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes?)

What if anything has changed about horseracing over the past decade that would make the three elephants sitting in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and late odds changes) any less important today than they were ten years ago?



-jp

.

Jeff...I have spent a fair amount of my time here making the exact same point. People keep talking about how difficult it is to attract "new blood" to this game...but this "difficulty" doesn't address the mass exit orchestrated by those of us who started off as being the game's most enthusiastic followers. How can you hope to attract "new blood" to a game which can't even maintain the fan-base that it already has?

[Jeff P]

Imo, it's worse than not being able to maintain the fan-base we already have.

It's not that the game doesn't have the ability attract at least some new fans to make those all important first few track visits.

It's that when that happens, and as the new would be fan begins the same process whereby you and I made the jump from new would be fan to actual horseplayer --

The elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes) start to become every bit as important to them as they are to the existing hard core horseplayer.

Imo, until or unless our industry stakeholders make an effort to address the elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes) this game's fortunes will continue to suffer.


-jp

.

[Gorrex]

Some of the totes have sped up their cycles BUT given how they are interconnected it really takes all of them to make a truly noticeable change. This includes international totes running outdated systems, poor connections etc..

The CHRB proposal to require totes to calculate final odds within 5 seconds could force the outliers but only something like that will.

Investment in the core technologies that run our industry have always been far low and of all the fees coming out of takeout the tote fee is the one that is actually far to low. The industry pays huge subsidies to entities that do next to nothing for it but can't manage a even a fraction of that for the actual backbone that runs it all.

[thaskalos]

It gets worse than that.

Imo, it's not that the game doesn't have the ability attract at least some new fans to make those all important first few track visits.

It's that when that happens, as those new would be fans begin the same process whereby you and I made the jump from new would be fan to actual horseplayer --

The elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes) start to become every bit as important to them as they are to the existing hard core horseplayer.

Imo, until or unless our industry stakeholders make an effort to address the elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes) this game's fortunes will continue to suffer.


-jp

.

Question for you, Jeff...since I know that you actually sit down and talk with racetrack dignitaries whom the rest of us have no access to:

Do these track officials mention these late odds changes as being a threat to the game...due to the deep frustration that they generate among the game's general customer population? Because, from what I see...these late odds changes are hardly mentioned as an aggravating factor by the "mouthpieces" of this game.

[Tom]

Maybe 2029 before it is to late, Because very very little has been done in the last ten years and now going through the same motions as in the past.

Talk is cheap so sad

Oh come on.
We got a starting gate implemented.
Common saddle cloth colors only took 10 years.

What more do you want from the pea brains who run racing????
More turf races carded? :lol::lol::lol:

[bob60566]

Unless our industry stakeholders make an effort to address the elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes)

Jeff

Any idea why it is taking these people so long. ?? in a billion dollar industry.

[AndyC]

....
It's not that the game doesn't have the ability attract at least some new fans to make those all important first few track visits.

It's that when that happens, and as the new would be fan begins the same process whereby you and I made the jump from new would be fan to actual horseplayer --......

I agree that new horseplayers would be upset with drugs, takeout and late odds changes but there are not more than a very small number beginning the process from going from fan to new horseplayer. Even if all of the 3 major concerns listed were fixed or eliminated I doubt that there would be an increase of fans making the jump to horseplayer.

[Jeff P]

It's probably better if I break my comments out into two parts.

Question for you, Jeff...since I know that you actually sit down and talk with racetrack dignitaries whom the rest of us have no access to:

Back in 2008 (before HANA was officially formed) a signal dispute (https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/150884/crunch-time-for-horsemen-horses-in-ohio) was going on that would eventually turn out to be the catalyst that lead to the formation of HANA.

The TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of CA) and another alphabet group known as THG (https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/150884/crunch-time-for-horsemen-horses-in-ohio) (The Horsemen's Group) were demanding higher signal fees - with the result being that many track signals were blacked out from ADW lineups that fall.

I became aware of it one day after downloading data and trying to bet a race at Hollywood Park only to discover (much to my dismay) that Hollywood Park was no longer being carried by any of the ADWs where I had accounts.

As the signal impasse dragged on - at some point it hit me that if the dispute didn't get resolved soon:

There was a possibility that horseplayers might not be able to bet the 2009 Kentucky Derby via ADW.

So one afternoon I picked up the phone, called the main switchboard at Hollywood Park, and asked to speak to the CEO. It took being transferred a few times and explaining that I was a horseplayer who was fed up with the signal dispute - but inside of a few minutes I found myself actually speaking with Jack Liebau.

Fyi, I wrote about that experience here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/article110801.html

I also picked up the phone, called the main switchboard of the TOC (their offices are located at Santa Anita) and asked to speak with their President. Once again, after giving the switchboard operator my name and explaining that I was a horseplayer who was fed up with the signal dispute - I found myself speaking with Drew Cotou (President of the TOC and Vice President of the THG.)

Fyi, I wrote about that experience here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/article110802.html

My point in posting this?

With just a little persistence you might be pleasantly surprised how accessible many of the top people on the ladder can be. Imo, that goes double if you treat them like human beings and if you truly believe you have something important to discuss with them.



Do these track officials mention these late odds changes as being a threat to the game...due to the deep frustration that they generate among the game's general customer population? Because, from what I see...these late odds changes are hardly mentioned as an aggravating factor by the "mouthpieces" of this game.
More often than not, if I decide it's time to talk about something players see as a hot button issue - I'll send an email and ask when might be a good time to have a 20 minute phone conversation. Sometimes the phone conversations run a bit longer than that, but generally both parties tend to stay on topic.

Every once in a while, I might get a similar email request from one of them, asking for a brief phone conversation to discuss something they've read here on Paceadvantage (or every once in a while on our site or blog.)

Most of the time those requests center on takeout or drugs - but every once in a while it'll be about late odds changes.

To answer your question: Yes. They are aware... and believe it or not, a surprising number of people in the industry read the pages here on Paceadvantage.

As to (as you put it) the "mouthpieces" of this game --

I tend to butt heads with them.

Imo, I think mostly because after my one and only appearance on Night School (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2012/09/night-school-town-hall-recap.html), I expressed an opinion (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2012/09/night-school-town-hall-recap.html) that I think this game doesn't need cheerleaders. It needs leaders with the vision to tackle the three elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes.)



-jp

.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I honestly don't know WHY NYRA so definitively alienated its customers. But I do know it happened earlier than it did in Southern California-- I went back there several times in the late 1980's and there was nobody at the track for big races, and this was at a time when Southern California tracks were still averaging 25,000 a day and drawing 50,000+ for big races.

In 1970, off track betting was legalized in NY. By the mid 70s, NYC was saturated with OTBs. Off track betting wasn't legalized in California until 1987. I see no mystery in your observation.

[dilanesp]

In 1970, off track betting was legalized in NY. By the mid 70s, NYC was saturated with OTBs. Off track betting wasn't legalized in California until 1987. I see no mystery in your observation.

I've never bought that explanation, for two reasons.

1. In the mid-1970's, after OTB reached maximum saturation, New York tracks were still drawing very well. The decline hit sometime in the early 1980's.

2. As everyone here likes to point out, takeout matters. OTB had a takeout surcharge! So there was still a significant benefit to going to the track.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I've never bought that explanation, for two reasons.

1. In the mid-1970's, after OTB reached maximum saturation, New York tracks were still drawing very well. The decline hit sometime in the early 1980's.

2. As everyone here likes to point out, takeout matters. OTB had a takeout surcharge! So there was still a significant benefit to going to the track.

1) Similar to some of your claims about the BCC at Dmr, I don't think you have the actual data. If you do, please post it.

1a) Please include Nassua/Suffolk County OTB numbers.

2) There are/were price insensitive players, as evidenced by NYC's OTB very large handle in its glory days. For many, convenience trumped the absurd surcharge.

On the bolded portion, when did the live video feed hit NY OTBs? 1984. Prior to that, they just offered an audio feed.

[dilanesp]

1) Similar to some of your claims about the BCC at Dmr, I don't think you have the actual data. If you do, please post it.

1a) Please include Nassua/Suffolk County OTB numbers.

2) There are/were price insensitive players, as evidenced by NYC's OTB very large handle in its glory days. For many, convenience trumped the absurd surcharge.

On the bolded portion, when did the live video feed hit NY OTBs? 1984. Prior to that, they just offered an audio feed.

1. NYRA's big races used to be on television So I remember several Marlboros and JCGC's and Woods with 30,000+ on track from my childhood. I know when the drop occurred.

2. The live TV feed seems to me to be a reasonable point. That, I am sure, made OTB more attractive.

Having said that I still come back to the fact that the NY metropolitan area is so damned large and there were so many transportation options to Belmont and Aqueduct. How could NYRA possibly not find people to come out? You only need 1/1000th of the population or so.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Having said that I still come back to the fact that the NY metropolitan area is so damned large and there were so many transportation options to Belmont and Aqueduct. How could NYRA possibly not find people to come out? You only need 1/1000th of the population or so.

But can't you say the same thing about almost any track located near a major metro area? I was at Santa Anita in January, and there were maybe 500 people outside/and in the grandstand area. It was a sunny day and in the uppers 60s (I believe it was a Thursday). I suspect there's no mass transit directly to SA?, but most drive in LA anyway. If you take avg track attendance divided by the population located within a 30 mile radius, I don't know that Belmont's numbers are any worse than other tracks (beyond premium meets like Saratoga and Del Mar)?

[dilanesp]

But can't you say the same thing about almost any track located near a major metro area? I was at Santa Anita in January, and there were maybe 500 people outside/and in the grandstand area. It was a sunny day and in the uppers 60s (I believe it was a Thursday). I suspect there's no mass transit directly to SA?, but most drive in LA anyway. If you take avg track attendance divided by the population located within a 30 mile radius, I don't know that Belmont's numbers are any worse than other tracks (beyond premium meets like Saratoga and Del Mar)?

Santa Anita's decline happened in the 1990's, at the same time Del Mar, which was always a backwater which used to average 15,000 less a day than SA and HOL, was rising in attendance. (My understanding is that something similar happened with Saratoga-- back when Aqueduct drew 45,000 for big races in the 1960's, Saratoga's crowds were far smaller than they became the 1990's and 2000's.)

And yes, I think Santa Anita's decline was due in part to mismanagement and that you ought to be able to get 1/500th of the population of the LA metropolitan area to come to your beautiful track.

[highnote]

You mean a decrease in takeout that caused an increase of payouts for customers increased sales and revenue for CA Lottery?

What a great concept!

Maybe racing should try it?

Is there an emoji for "DUH"?



Actually, despite all the headlines created by Mega Millions and Powerball jackpot games --

A chart on p23 of the California Lottery 2016-2017 Annual Report (https://static.www.calottery.com/~/media/Publications/Financial_Reports/2016-17%20CSL%20Comprehensive%20Annual%20Financial%20Re port%20Final.pdf) shows that Scratchers Tickets (not giant jackpot games) accounted for 73.4% of total lottery sales in California during the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

Fyi, when you look at state lottery ticket sales nationally you will find similar numbers when it comes to instant/scratchers games vs. giant jackpot games.

Additionally, many states (including California) have engineered successful turnarounds for their state lotteries by passing statutes that gave their lottery commissions the authority to increase the prize payout percentages for their games - as opposed to the outdated model where significantly lower prize payout percentages had historically been mandated by state law.

In California, the specific statute was AB142.

Unlike horse racing (which took the opposite approach and raised racing takeout with SB1072) the CA Lottery has been able to leverage LOWER TAKEOUT to drive brand recognition and generate significant increases in both sales and total revenue for Education.

Here's a quote from Linh Nguyen, Acting Director, California Lottery:



Read more at the link: Public Gaming Interviews Linh Nguyen Acting Director, California Lottery (http://www.publicgaming.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9590:public-gamin)

I know nobody in racing wants to hear it, but...

You get the idea.






-jp

.
.

[highnote]

Great post. It shows why Jeff is the right person to lead HANA. I hope he is getting compensated for his work on behalf of horseplayers!


It's probably better if I break my comments out into two parts.



Back in 2008 (before HANA was officially formed) a signal dispute (https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/150884/crunch-time-for-horsemen-horses-in-ohio) was going on that would eventually turn out to be the catalyst that lead to the formation of HANA.

The TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of CA) and another alphabet group known as THG (https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/150884/crunch-time-for-horsemen-horses-in-ohio) (The Horsemen's Group) were demanding higher signal fees - with the result being that many track signals were blacked out from ADW lineups that fall.

I became aware of it one day after downloading data and trying to bet a race at Hollywood Park only to discover (much to my dismay) that Hollywood Park was no longer being carried by any of the ADWs where I had accounts.

As the signal impasse dragged on - at some point it hit me that if the dispute didn't get resolved soon:

There was a possibility that horseplayers might not be able to bet the 2009 Kentucky Derby via ADW.

So one afternoon I picked up the phone, called the main switchboard at Hollywood Park, and asked to speak to the CEO. It took being transferred a few times and explaining that I was a horseplayer who was fed up with the signal dispute - but inside of a few minutes I found myself actually speaking with Jack Liebau.

Fyi, I wrote about that experience here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/article110801.html

I also picked up the phone, called the main switchboard of the TOC (their offices are located at Santa Anita) and asked to speak with their President. Once again, after giving the switchboard operator my name and explaining that I was a horseplayer who was fed up with the signal dispute - I found myself speaking with Drew Cotou (President of the TOC and Vice President of the THG.)

Fyi, I wrote about that experience here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/article110802.html

My point in posting this?

With just a little persistence you might be pleasantly surprised how accessible many of the top people on the ladder can be. Imo, that goes double if you treat them like human beings and if you truly believe you have something important to discuss with them.




More often than not, if I decide it's time to talk about something players see as a hot button issue - I'll send an email and ask when might be a good time to have a 20 minute phone conversation. Sometimes the phone conversations run a bit longer than that, but generally both parties tend to stay on topic.

Every once in a while, I might get a similar email request from one of them, asking for a brief phone conversation to discuss something they've read here on Paceadvantage (or every once in a while on our site or blog.)

Most of the time those requests center on takeout or drugs - but every once in a while it'll be about late odds changes.

To answer your question: Yes. They are aware... and believe it or not, a surprising number of people in the industry read the pages here on Paceadvantage.

As to (as you put it) the "mouthpieces" of this game --

I tend to butt heads with them.

Imo, I think mostly because after my one and only appearance on Night School (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2012/09/night-school-town-hall-recap.html), I expressed an opinion (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2012/09/night-school-town-hall-recap.html) that I think this game doesn't need cheerleaders. It needs leaders with the vision to tackle the three elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes.)



-jp

.