Simulcast Pricing -- Common Sense Solution

[Indulto]

Taming the elephant in the room -- The current simulcast pricing model is why Thoroughbred racing has declined by Fred A. Pope
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/commentary/commentary.asp#viewpoints (http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/commentary/commentary.asp#viewpoints)

“The elephant in the room for NYRA, and all major racetracks in North America, is the national simulcast pricing model, which gives the majority of revenue to the facility where the wager is made instead of to the host track producing the product.

… What does this mean to racing? It means most host tracks are getting 3% of the wager and simulcast outlets are getting 18% just for taking the bet.

… if the wagers on NYRA's races from out-of-state went through an account-wagering service getting a 5% commission, instead of NYRA losing $16-million last year, it would have made more than $80-million.”

[cj]

The model is also keeping tracks in business that should have bankrupted long ago. A bunch of closed tracks would be great for the industry in my opinion.

[BIG49010]

I second that, close the weak sisters, and have the good horses at the major tracks. Get the best horses in NYC, and they are not NYBreds...

[twindouble]

The model is also keeping tracks in business that should have bankrupted long ago. A bunch of closed tracks would be great for the industry in my opinion.

I suppose a computer model assisted you in that conclusion. Close up all those tracks and create a lot horse meat and drive the little guy out of racing and breeding. Sounds like a fantastic idea for the rich and brilliant. I hope you have a bid in on those prime seats so you can watch those mediocre horses run for millions while you are kissing up to the rich. Nothing personal, it's just how I see what your proposing.

T.D.

[cj]

I suppose a computer model assisted you in that conclusion. Close up all those tracks and create a lot horse meat and drive the little guy out of racing and breeding. Sounds like a fantastic idea for the rich and brilliant. I hope you have a bid in on those prime seats so you can watch those mediocre horses run for millions while you are kissing up to the rich. Nothing personal, it's just how I see what your proposing.

T.D.

What is with the computer model crack? Have I done something to offend you?

Noone says you have to close up all the tracks or get rid of horses. You run more races, for bigger purses, with MUCH bigger fields. Yes, you may cut out some guys selling programs and hot dogs and clerks, but as far as horses and little guy trainers, it doesn't have to be doom and gloom like you say. We don't need 5 horse fields at Golden Gate for 5k claimers. Let them move to TuP and have big fields, or visa versa.

Do we really need Penn, and CT, and Tdn, all running basically the same races with smallish fields? How about Pha, Del, Mth, and Lrl all running the same exact races?

[Tom]

Man, I 've been sying that since 1980! Way too many track, too many horses, too many trainers, too many jockey.

Why do some horses run for $7500 at Aqueduct?
Becasue they don't card $2500 races!

You think AQU doesn't have a bunch of $2500 claimers in their barns?
The reverse is a problem, too. Many tracks offering huge purses fed by slot money are not drawing good horse to the grounds. Not long ago, befreo FL had slots, a horse could run for $9800 at home or go to Mountaineer and run for $20,000 and be dropping in class!

Makes sense to me to consolidate a lot of track by general class and weed out the bottoms of the barrel.

[Topcat]

Yes,

There may be too many tracks but simulcast and inter-track account wagering saved the entire industry from oblivion. Track attendance was declining rapidly long before simulcast wagering came along-and that was before slots and casinos sprouted up like Starbucks coffee shops. You didn't need to run demographic studies to see this-all you had to do was attend a track the majority of attendees were our seasoned citizens and the tracks were not drawing in people under 40. Projecting out the handles with the declining attendance led the industry to the same conclusion-they reluctantly went with simulcast wagering.


Yes, an account wagering service would be better but the real issue they haven't tackled is rebates-go with an account wagering service with rebates for all and you have a winning model.

[twindouble]

What is with the computer model crack? Have I done something to offend you?

Noone says you have to close up all the tracks or get rid of horses. You run more races, for bigger purses, with MUCH bigger fields. Yes, you may cut out some guys selling programs and hot dogs and clerks, but as far as horses and little guy trainers, it doesn't have to be doom and gloom like you say. We don't need 5 horse fields at Golden Gate for 5k claimers. Let them move to TuP and have big fields, or visa versa.

Do we really need Penn, and CT, and Tdn, all running basically the same races with smallish fields? How about Pha, Del, Mth, and Lrl all running the same exact races?

No you haven't offended me, was just striking out at the changes I can't except or do anything about. You just hit that nerve and I oppogize for over reacting with computer comment.

On the other, I'll still stick to what I said, the hand witting has been on the wall for some time now. Consolidation is and has been in the works, to say it won't effect the little guy is like saying Wall Mart will never put any out of business or any chain conglomerate that controls a market for that matter.

The battle for stalls with what your proposing is already a problem at major tracks, no different than getting the best shelf at Wall Mart, who's going to left out? It sure as hell won't be the top trainers or those that can afford the best treatment. That's just one example, let alone the fact that there will be less races run and the geogrophy of stabling and training horses and the cost of land and transportation automaticly pushes the little guy out. Sure you'll get the bigger fields but I think the answer is to support the the smaller tracks, to keep the existing horsemen in the game so they can grow their stock. So taking control of their signal, offering better purces and improving the tracks and lower takeout is the answer.

T.D.

[garyoz]

....so you can watch those mediocre horses run for millions while you are kissing up to the rich.

I don't get the economics of the argument...why would there be more mediocre horses running for higher purses at fewer locations? Also higher pursues would attract more owners--I'd say the current system requires wealthier owners, because most owners lose money.

It is obvious there are too many tracks given the deterioration of the industry, unless they convert to a subsidized racino model.

The best solution would be to lower the state take at tracks. The state governments (except maybe KY, ARK,) don't care if they kill racing.

[twindouble]

I don't get the economics of the argument...why would there be more mediocre horses running for higher purses at fewer locations? Also higher pursues would attract more owners--I'd say the current system requires wealthier owners, because most owners lose money.

It is obvious there are too many tracks given the deterioration of the industry, unless they convert to a subsidized racino model.

The best solution would be to lower the state take at tracks. The state governments (except maybe KY, ARK,) don't care if they kill racing.

I didn't say there would be more, shrink the breeding stock the end result will be what ever is good will end up in the hands of the rich, with no compition they will just feed each other and drive more peope out of the beeding business. Further more, new owners attracted to business will be able to afford those million dollar yearlings. Not joe blow from Mnr or any other small track. Remember the thread we had on closed tracks? When will it end? Like I said, consolidation has been going on for some time now.

What we are breeding today is nothing to brag about.

T.D.

[cj]

Gary, you win the prize, it is Economics 101, no computers needed. :D

Increase purses, the breeding stock will not shrink, it will go up.

[twindouble]

Gary, you win the prize, it is Economics 101, no computers needed. :D

Increase purses, the breeding stock will not shrink, it will go up.

Sounds more like voodo economics to me. How can you reduce the number of races, shrink the number of horsemen, raise the purces for a privlaged few and say the breeding stock will go up. States that have breeding programs will have to shut down on top of it. What do think, everyone left out of game can afford to go to FLa, NY, or Cal and buy land $$$$$$ or ship their horses across country. :bang:

T.D.

[cj]

First off, no one says you can't have smaller tracks. We just don't need so many.

Reducing the number of races does not mean you have to reduce the number of horses. You just make them run in bigger fields.

As for the horsemen, the number maybe needs to be shrunk. There are plenty totally inept horsemen out there. If you are good enough, you'll get horses.

[Snag]

Topcat was right on about the attendance at the track. The track management has given up on bringing in more customers on a large scale. They have raised prices for food and beverages and expect everyone to pay more without any return. Their margin is in the 18% take but they don't see what they are doing. Most tracks are still living and managing in the 80's.


People with disposable income will come out if there is a return. The 30 and 40 year olds don't have the disposable income to come every week or every day. The industry has always had an older demo of customers. NTRA and their ad's don't get it either.

Increase attendance and the 18% take out solves a bunch of problems. Then you can have the smaller tracks and the mega ones.

Am I missing something?

[twindouble]

First off, no one says you can't have smaller tracks. We just don't need so many.

Reducing the number of races does not mean you have to reduce the number of horses. You just make them run in bigger fields.

As for the horsemen, the number maybe needs to be shrunk. There are plenty totally inept horsemen out there. If you are good enough, you'll get horses.

cj; We have to agree to disagree on this subject. The only thing I give you is what your saying is more than likely going to happen, that don't mean the end result will be good for racing. When I can no longer think for myself, I'll buy your program. :) Maybe that's not to far away.:lol:

T.D.

[cj]

Again with the dig. OK, whatever.

Horse racing is a business, not some welfare organisation in place to help the have nots. As with every other business in the world, the strongest will survive, and that is the way it should be.

[twindouble]

Again with the dig. OK, whatever.

Horse racing is a business, not some welfare organisation in place to help the have nots. As with every other business in the world, the strongest will survive, and that is the way it should be.

My intention was a complement not a dig, you know very well where I stand on computerized handicapping. Just keep in mind, the weak are the masses and they can at any time turn the tables of the strong and that's an historical FACT!


T.D.

[cj]

Somehow, I think we'll be able to withstand against the rebellion started by the Inept Trainers' Association.

[karlskorner]

Maybe, just maybe, Frank Stronach sees the future of racing IS simulcasting. Build a race track that encourages simulcasting, build a training center such as Palm Meadows to insure a steady supply of horses. I am not entirely pleased with GP, but than again it's far from finished and I am not into simulcasting. I am still puzzled the amount of people attending GP who play simulcasting, when there is live racing just outside the front door. But the future of racing is in simulcasting. The racetracks of your father/grandfather are slowly disappearing

[Indulto]

I am not entirely pleased with GP, but than again it's far from finished and I am not into simulcasting. I am still puzzled the amount of people attending GP who play simulcasting, when there is live racing just outside the front door. But the future of racing is in simulcasting. The racetracks of your father/grandfather are slowly disappearingKK,
I thought the author's main thrust was that most players prefer betting on high-purse races whether they watch them live or on monitors.

TD,
I'm not sure I understand the downside, here. Is it NOT true that horses are devalued and race at "minor" tracks primarily due to unsoundness? As I've said before, I am deeply saddened when a well-treated, thought-to-be-sound horse breaks down in a high-purse race, but I am angered when I see an obviously unsound animal break down for a purse that doesn't justify risk by either horsemen or horseplayers.

CJ,
What will happen to slow and unsound horses when there is no place to run them?

[Indulto]

I'm not really into the breeding aspect of racing, but if the market for unsound sprint speed were reduced, is it likely that breeders would go back to emphasizing soundness and stamina? Would that further reduce the number of commercial sires as I've noticed the number of mares covered by a single stallion has increased greatly.

[twindouble]

TD,
I'm not sure I understand the downside, here. Is it NOT true that horses are devalued and race at "minor" tracks primarily due to unsoundness? As I've said before, I am deeply saddened when a well-treated, thought-to-be-sound horse breaks down in a high-purse race, but I am angered when I see an obviously unsound animal break down for a purse that doesn't justify risk by either horsemen or horseplayers. Quote; Indulto;

When it comes to unsound horses at small tracks, it would be gut wrenching for me if what you say is true. I think horsemen do attempt to run unsound horses, how many is anyone's guess but I put that responsibility squarely on the track and the track Vet. Primarily because the type of injuries aren't publicizes or are covered up, it's tough to weed out those that pulls that crap as a result.

As far as the purses go, you have to be in the shoes of those horsemen to determine if the effort is worth it, I would think it is for the trainers. I always look out for intent when it comes to owners and trainers when it comes to darkening or pulling a fast one on me. They do tend to wager to supplement there income. When I'm right it adds another dimension to my satisfaction of being a handicapper. Always keep in mind I'm not near as good as I used to be because I'm not putting that kind of effort into it, plus I no longer have a track close by. I guess that's another reason why I hate to see more close up.

T.D.

[garyoz]

Just keep in mind, the weak are the masses and they can at any time turn the tables of the strong and that's an historical FACT!


T.D.

Thought you were a lefty when you made reference to the "rich" in the initial post. Jeez, maybe you should talk to Len Ragozin, horse racing's favorite Marxist. (hope this isn't too far off topic--but actually it is central to the discussion, the racing industry thinks it should be immune to market forces--)

[twindouble]

Thought you were a lefty when you made reference to the "rich" in the initial post. Jeez, maybe you should talk to Len Ragozin, horse racing's favorite Marxist. (hope this isn't too far off topic--but actually it is central to the discussion, the racing industry thinks it should be immune to market forces--)

Gary, the gap between the rich, middle class and the poor has grown to be obscene. It's the obscene I object to, just think about that $16 million dollar yearling that was just purchased. When the greater percentage of the wealth of any nation is sucked up to a small percentage of people that in my opinion isn't a fair market. That only plants the seeds of revolution, that's another historical fact. This fair market you hang your hat on took the majority of woman out of the home and enslaved them. Their income has is no longer a plus for the family, they need it to survive and their children suffer to boot. The racing industry is on the same track, the so-called movers and shakers that say let the market decide will some day have a strangle hold on it all.

T.D.

[Joe L.]

WOW! Our own version of Hannity and Colmes right here on The PA message board. ;)

[JustRalph]

The model is also keeping tracks in business that should have bankrupted long ago. A bunch of closed tracks would be great for the industry in my opinion.

close half the tracks tomorrow and the sport is much better off.......and a bunch of sore horses would be better off too..........

I like Cj's idea of more races at less tracks. You put a race on every ten minutes instead of 20-30 minutes and you might attract some younger persons. Waiting around between races turns off the younger types.

I personally would like it because it would allow me to pass more races and have more oppportunity for value........20 races a card sounds like fun to me.

[twindouble]

WOW! Our own version of Hannity and Colmes right here on The PA message board. ;)


Joe, the only one on Fox that gets my attention is Janice Dean the weather machine. She's a clone of a girl I used to date many years ago, it's a nostalgia trip in my 57 chevy. :) TV sucks overall, I would rather listen to guy Edward R Murrow on the radio or the Shadow then the crap that's on today. We don't get the news, it comes in 8 different versions, weeding it out isn't easy, it takes a good handicapper to do that. :cool:


T.D.

[Tom]

I think breeding has changed focus to early (cheap) speed so they can get a quick return on their investments. That's why so many horses are done racing by 2 or 3. And the NYS breeding money only help dilute the breed - look at the thousands of dogs bred for every Funnycide. You have NY bred routes at AQI that go in 1:16 pace and horses are 20 lengths off the pace! Don't even look at Finger Lakes NYB races......it'll scare you!

[twindouble]

I think breeding has changed focus to early (cheap) speed so they can get a quick return on their investments. That's why so many horses are done racing by 2 or 3. And the NYS breeding money only help dilute the breed - look at the thousands of dogs bred for every Funnycide. You have NY bred routes at AQI that go in 1:16 pace and horses are 20 lengths off the pace! Don't even look at Finger Lakes NYB races......it'll scare you!

I've always been weak on the breeding, heck there wasn't much need to be interested to any great degree, by the time they got to my level of play it was no big factor. Just being involved in the game I tend to agree with you.

It would be interesting to have threads on the history of racing and breeding in this country. I'm sure there's guys here that have the knack of digging up information that can be used here without copy rights involved.

Just a couple years ago my son was interested in getting involved and I was going to invest with him. We had a bid in on a farm in NY but that fell through do to family squabbles about the land and the rights to it, ended up being broken up. Others we looked at were to dam expencive. Anyway, that's history now, need a ton of money just to get off the ground.

T.D.