PDA

View Full Version : Horse racing is losing out to Poker.


44PACE
01-21-2007, 10:50 PM
Before CBY got Poker they would average 1200 to 1300 people on a typical Saturday afternoon even after 8pm they still would have 300 to 400 people playing simulcast. Now they are down to 400 or so during the afternoon and sometimes as low as 50 people after 8 pm.Their card club is packed all hours of day and night . I would guese somewhere near a 1000 people. Their Poker room is dominated by 20 year olds to 25 year olds, the very age Horse racing would love to have. The poker rooms older people are their former regular horse players who quit the races to play cards.


Why is this happening ? there are several reasons, but the main reason may be the lure of the big payoff. Horse racing could have this but they don't seek a way to do this. They could make a seperate SUPERFECTA ticket that only pays when all 4 spots are hit instead of paying off to 3 spots. They could take the pool and make a carry over and then put that on their electric billboard alongside country road 83 instead of the big jack pots for Poker.

ryesteve
01-21-2007, 10:59 PM
Why is this happening ? there are several reasons, but the main reason may be the lure of the big payoff.
I don't follow this logic at all. At the track, you can risk 2 bucks and get back hundreds or even thousands; you can't do that at a poker table.

Two main reasons why poker is winning: ESPN has made it seem cool; and the economics don't grind you down as badly as the track takeout does.

ranchwest
01-21-2007, 11:26 PM
Poker was zilch until the pocket cam.

It's all in the presentation. When horse racing finds its "pocket cam", there will be more interest.

raybo
01-21-2007, 11:40 PM
Before CBY got Poker they would average 1200 to 1300 people on a typical Saturday afternoon even after 8pm they still would have 300 to 400 people playing simulcast. Now they are down to 400 or so during the afternoon and sometimes as low as 50 people after 8 pm.Their card club is packed all hours of day and night . I would guese somewhere near a 1000 people. Their Poker room is dominated by 20 year olds to 25 year olds, the very age Horse racing would love to have. The poker rooms older people are their former regular horse players who quit the races to play cards.


Why is this happening ? there are several reasons, but the main reason may be the lure of the big payoff. Horse racing could have this but they don't seek a way to do this. They could make a seperate SUPERFECTA ticket that only pays when all 4 spots are hit instead of paying off to 3 spots. They could take the pool and make a carry over and then put that on their electric billboard alongside country road 83 instead of the big jack pots for Poker.


In case you haven't noticed, there are very few "alls" in superfectas now, since the 10c supers have been adopted by so many tracks. The 10c supers have doubled super pool sizes. Lots of money there to be had if you can wait til you have horses that most others don't and they come in. Also, in some races at some tracks, they almost give you the super because a 10c super ticket is so affordable that you can load your ticket and almost guarantee a hit in small fields. Doubling your money is very common and even higher payouts in these races are possible if higher odds horses hit. I dutched a race of 5 horses yesterday and tripled my bet. I knew I had it before the race even ran.

I've seen one race that had an "all" on the 4th row since the 10c super started at Houston, of course I don't play everyday there, normally just Friday and Saturday. Used to be lots of them when $1 was the smallest ticket you could buy.

In order for a carry-over to succeed in supers they would probably have to get rid of the 10c super ticket and I don't see that happening. It has drawn too much money into the pools. Houston super pools have gone from an average of about 14k to well over 20k since the 10c. I love it!

raybo
01-21-2007, 11:49 PM
I don't follow this logic at all. At the track, you can risk 2 bucks and get back hundreds or even thousands; you can't do that at a poker table.

Two main reasons why poker is winning: ESPN has made it seem cool; and the economics don't grind you down as badly as the track takeout does.

You can enter a poker tourney for free and possibly win thousands in a progressive type tourney, where a certain number of the top finishers advance to another tourney and then to another one, and so on, until you get to the big tourney worth, sometimes, hundreds of thousands of dollars. A $2 entry into a 2000 person tourney will net the winner several hundred dollars. It's not unusual to see 6000 players or more in tourneys online with very small entry fees. You can play one of these tourneys in 3 or 4 hours and risk only your entry fee. Very inexpensive entertainment, don't you think?

ranchwest
01-22-2007, 12:46 AM
With horse racing, you just have to be better than about 20% of the people. In poker, you need to be better than 90% of the people.

I'm not too bad at poker, but I don't play for money.

Shacopate
01-22-2007, 12:52 AM
After enough "bad beats" they'll be back.

44PACE
01-22-2007, 02:48 AM
My opening post concerning the reason why the decline in attendance for simulcasting was poorly stated on my part. We who attend the races on a regular basis know that money can be made at the races, but the public who seldom attends may not or they may see it as too difficult.Most people do not even know what simulcasting is. Racing should come up with a better name that will be more recognizable to novices.

Maybe horse racing needs to market itself as a form of gambling since this is what people want. When the customer wants a form of gambling that requires little thought but rapid action, to get these customers racing may have to find a way to present their product to what the public wants.What they are doing now is not working. Soon all we will have is a bunch of casino games and only a few good players getting bleed by the take out becouse there will be no dumb money to offset the take.

beertapper
01-22-2007, 03:31 AM
i see the same situation at the local casino... even with a revamped racebook, the crowds and youth are there. Horse racing to me is a much more interesting activity, plus its got a rich history and at least some of the money is put into an industry and providing employment etc...(whether its all well spent is a different topic)

The way I see it, there are a few things that poker has an "edge" over racing. First is coverage of the game. It's on tv almost all the time now. It's being marketing much better than horse racing. Second, the barriers to entry are alot lower. The game is accessible to anywhere with a computer and internet access. Horse racing is online as well, but you need to get video feeds, download PP's, handicap, etc. With poker it's a few clicks and the action is there. 24/7. Also, these online poker sites don't cost anywhere as near as the maintenance costs of running a track, I'd imagine. And they don't have to lobby politicians and jump through regulatory hoops to setup.

1st time lasix
01-22-2007, 09:21 AM
I disagree with Raybo that dime supers have 'doubled" the pools and the availability of the lower denomination makes it more attractive to a good player. I enjoy this exotic when I have a solid opinion on two horses in the race I can key....but I no longer play into pools that allow ten cent "all" types of players. I feel it dilutes the overlay return. I also don't play trifectas where the allow .50 denominations. To each his own. Poker players need to be educated about handicapping and exacta wagering....but the game is not marketed well and many card players don't care to learn.

ryesteve
01-22-2007, 09:26 AM
You can enter a poker tourney for free and possibly win thousands in a progressive type tourney, where a certain number of the top finishers advance to another tourney and then to another one, and so on,
Well, racetracks have tourneys too, but obviously the prize money isn't on a par. Even so, your chances of advancing from tourney to tourney and winning a huge bundle at poker are probably still a lot less than hitting a superfecta.

And I thought the original post was about the popularity of the table games at CBY. I assumed these were just house games... not part of some tourney progression.

I no longer play into pools that allow ten cent "all" types of players. I feel it dilutes the overlay return.
If these players are betting combos indiscriminantly to the point where "overlay" returns are diluted, wouldn't this inflate the payouts on the more logical combinations?

ryesteve
01-22-2007, 09:30 AM
With horse racing, you just have to be better than about 20% of the people. In poker, you need to be better than 90% of the people.

Are you telling me that at an 8 person table, only one person goes home a winner?

njcurveball
01-22-2007, 10:38 AM
You can enter a poker tourney for free and possibly win thousands

You should check out the Internet, there are literally hundreds of free horse racing tournaments each year. Many of them allow you to win a free spot with free travel and free hotel to the two biggest tourneys we have, the HPWS and NHC, both in Vegas.

If you are good enough you could turn free into $350,000 by winning the world series.

Poker is popular because of ESPN and the way they have promoted it. It is fun to watch and the announcers make you feel like "one of the boys".

Horse Racing shuns TV coverage. Have you seen any horse racing tourneys on TV? They just got done playing for over $700,000 in Vegas. Did you see a minute of it anywhere?

A horse race is much more exciting than the flip of a card. Someday a TV executive will figure that out.

Jim

crownx
01-22-2007, 11:05 AM
It is all about marketing and ease of play.. everyone with 5th grade knowledge can get poker. You actually have to have some brains to beat horse racing. That comes back to the VIG.. horseracing vig is huge vs other sports and gambling. My feeling is as long as the extras (slots/poker) at tracks put into the pool for the horses then great. But otherwise til Horseracing hires a 1st rate marketing team, forget it, pools and attendance are on a slow spiral down.

the little guy
01-22-2007, 11:15 AM
With horse racing, you just have to be better than about 20% of the people. In poker, you need to be better than 90% of the people.

This would have some accuracy if everybody at the racetrack bet the same amount. Unfortunately, as there is a direct correlation between knowledge and dollars bet, this is not close to true.

Too bad. It would certainly be easier your way.

Fwizard
01-22-2007, 11:27 AM
Plainly speaking Poker is so much easier than horse racing (for the average joe)---even on this horse racing forum there are many people who still can't make a profit. What do you do follow pace numbers, breeding, trainer intent , form ---too many variables for a new person to gambling to try to work with....In poker if you know aces beat two's you are on your way...

john del riccio
01-22-2007, 11:34 AM
Tom Ainsle wrote about this many years ago. The racing industry ndustry does not do anything to educate the fan (TVG and HRTV are now trying) and racetracks certainly don't cater to the horseplayer in any way. Poker's overhead are a deck of cards, chips, and a table. racings overhead is alot more than that. You'd think they'd "get it", but they don't.
With all of the nonsense surrounding the sport (NYRA, Pinnacle, inconsistent medication rules, overracing, 4 horse fields in 6 figure stake races, mysterious jockey suspensions......on and on) racing is losing ground and very well may just
lose. Its pretty sad.

John

kenwoodallpromos
01-22-2007, 01:04 PM
Tom Ainsle wrote about this many years ago. The racing industry ndustry does not do anything to educate the fan (TVG and HRTV are now trying) and racetracks certainly don't cater to the horseplayer in any way. Poker's overhead are a deck of cards, chips, and a table. racings overhead is alot more than that. You'd think they'd "get it", but they don't.
With all of the nonsense surrounding the sport (NYRA, Pinnacle, inconsistent medication rules, overracing, 4 horse fields in 6 figure stake races, mysterious jockey suspensions......on and on) racing is losing ground and very well may just
lose. Its pretty sad.

John
________________
Fans do not need poker education- most kids play some for of cards woth the same kind of decks very young. And it does not take hours to make a few bets- faster action just like slots.
Growing up very few kids nowadays see horses, live or on TV. They may never heard of horseracing until they are adults.
"Educating the fan" can be more than just how to tell the teller what you want to bet, kids could learn much about science and math from racing in general as well as handicapping.

tupper
01-22-2007, 01:08 PM
Dave Barry's take on the poker craze, June 12, 2004:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/barryd/v-pfriendly/story/202041p-174336c.html

Sinner369
01-22-2007, 01:25 PM
To me the answer is obvious. Poker (Hold'em) is easy to learn how to play and anybody and his mother think they can win and is easy to join a table.

Horse racing is very difficult to be a winner. You have to follow the horses, buy pp lines (DFR), know your trainers, jockeys. Too complicated!

I know personally a few long time handicappers who have switched to Hold'em.
They can't win at the races.

Mr. Nobody
01-22-2007, 01:33 PM
Poker used the internet to make it a better gambling game. Online sites could offer lower rakes and spread games like low limit games and 10+1 sit 'n goes that wouldn't be possible in casinos, where a dealer has to be paid. It was very possible to read a few good poker books, get online and be profitable right away. I know: I did it.

Horse racing has a 20% blended takeout and a much higher learning curve. No one is going to read Quinn and Davidowitz, open up a Ubet account and start making profits.

The regulatory environment has stifled innovation in U.S. horse racing. The horsemen have a lot of power in most states and they oppose any experimentation with takeout reductions, rebates, betting exchanges, etc. The tracks should have their own online betting exhanges and hourly 10+1 handicapping tournaments, but it ain't gonna happen.

kenwoodallpromos
01-22-2007, 03:14 PM
"The horsemen have a lot of power in most states and they oppose any experimentation with takeout reductions, rebates, betting exchanges, etc."
_______________" Anyone have an idea what the actual % is of owners and of trainers that bet?

Pace Cap'n
01-22-2007, 06:30 PM
Are you telling me that at an 8 person table, only one person goes home a winner?

That is pretty much the consensus, over the long haul.

beertapper
01-22-2007, 06:47 PM
what can the horseplayers do at the grassroots level to bring some new blood into this game?

Show Me the Wire
01-22-2007, 06:50 PM
what can the horseplayers do at the grassroots level to bring some new blood into this game?

Bring a friend and have him cash a few tickets.

Zman179
01-22-2007, 07:39 PM
Poker used the internet to make it a better gambling game. Online sites could offer lower rakes and spread games like low limit games and 10+1 sit 'n goes that wouldn't be possible in casinos, where a dealer has to be paid. It was very possible to read a few good poker books, get online and be profitable right away. I know: I did it.

Horse racing has a 20% blended takeout and a much higher learning curve. No one is going to read Quinn and Davidowitz, open up a Ubet account and start making profits.

The regulatory environment has stifled innovation in U.S. horse racing. The horsemen have a lot of power in most states and they oppose any experimentation with takeout reductions, rebates, betting exchanges, etc. The tracks should have their own online betting exhanges and hourly 10+1 handicapping tournaments, but it ain't gonna happen.

Not only that, but one doesn't have to pay to play poker like one plays the horses.

Wanna play poker? Ok, sign up and find a seat. We'll comp your drinks too, and maybe a couple other things! And it's easy to learn!

Wanna play the horses? Ok, pay for admission, program, racing form (optional,) parking, and a seat; it's almost $20 before even placing a bet. And don't even think about asking even for a free soda, you're lucky we don't charge you for breathing our air. Plus, the game is hard to properly learn.

acorn54
01-22-2007, 09:25 PM
i think alot of people have moved into investing in the financial markets as an alternative to horseracing. there is a larger rate of people investing in the markets today whereas in the past they would have put their money into horserace gambling.
people are not stupid when it comes to their money, they see more chance of making their money grow in the markets instead of trying to make money in a game where their is a 15-20% take out.
acorn

spilparc
01-22-2007, 09:42 PM
Are you telling me that at an 8 person table, only one person goes home a winner?

That is pretty much the consensus, over the long haul.

Do you have any idea how much money has to be lost for one person to make $20 an hour during one month of poker?

With a $3 per pot rake:

$22,400

With a $4 per pot rake (the trend these days) it comes to:

$28,800

For one person to win $3200 a month playing poker between $22,400 and $28,000 must be lost by all of the other players.

Poker ain't all it's cracked up to be.

raybo
01-22-2007, 10:18 PM
Not only that, but one doesn't have to pay to play poker like one plays the horses.

Wanna play poker? Ok, sign up and find a seat. We'll comp your drinks too, and maybe a couple other things! And it's easy to learn!

Wanna play the horses? Ok, pay for admission, program, racing form (optional,) parking, and a seat; it's almost $20 before even placing a bet. And don't even think about asking even for a free soda, you're lucky we don't charge you for breathing our air. Plus, the game is hard to properly learn.

I do play poker and I do handicap and bet horses, but it doesn't cost me anything before the wager except $2 for the data. I wouldn't go to a track if they paid me. Too many distractions and too many whiners. I'm in it fror the money, period.

ryesteve
01-22-2007, 10:32 PM
For one person to win $3200 a month playing poker between $22,400 and $28,000 must be lost by all of the other players.

I must be missing something, because these numbers seem to imply that you're assuming 155 pots per hour.

spilparc
01-22-2007, 11:00 PM
I must be missing something, because these numbers seem to imply that you're assuming 155 pots per hour.

40 hands per hour. Eight hours per day. Five days per week. Four weeks per month. 160 hours total.

By the way, I forgot to mention that if there is a jackpot drop of $1 then the number jumps up to:

$35,200

Pace Cap'n
01-22-2007, 11:21 PM
Do you have any idea how much money has to be lost for one person to make $20 an hour during one month of poker?

With a $3 per pot rake:

$22,400



At what stakes?

Yesterday I was reading this guy's Pokertracker log...22,000 hands of $50NL with winnings of $9500 and rake paid of $5500. Some sites and their affiliates offer rakeback, a percentage refund similar to rebates.

There is presently much concern in the online poker world due to Neteller closing, which will supposedly result in fewer fish because of increased difficulties in funding an account. If it ends up sharps against sharps, some may be forced to turn to horseracing.:)

spilparc
01-23-2007, 12:01 AM
At what stakes?



It doesn't matter, but obviously it would have to be a game where $20 an hour could be earned. You're usually talking about a 10-20 limit game and up, or perhaps a medium size no-limit game.

But let's say instead you used $5 an hour as your base. This would apply to most of your low-limit games, most of which have a jackpot drop as well as the $3-4 rake. In that case for someone to make $5 an hour over a month of play (assuming a $3 average rake, because not all pots get a maximum rake drop) $20,000~ would have to be lost for one person to make $800 a month.

You can begin to see what you're up against--and the power of the rake.

All of my examples deal with casino/cardroom play where no rebates or rakeback is to be had.

Kelso
01-23-2007, 12:56 AM
Dave Barry's take on the poker craze, June 12, 2004:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/barryd/v-pfriendly/story/202041p-174336c.html
:D Best laugh of the new year, Tupper. Thanks very much.



The tracks should have their own online betting exhanges and hourly 10+1 handicapping tournaments

If it isn't too involved, would you kindly explain how a "10+1" tournament works ... racing and poker? Thank you.

Valuist
01-23-2007, 10:05 AM
I think poker has hit its peak. The Justice Department has made sure of that. A couple years from now it will be back where it was 5 years ago.....only the hardcores will be playing it.

Turntime
01-23-2007, 10:30 AM
In a '10+1' tournament, $10 is the entry fee (of which all money is payed back to the participants) and the other $1 is the house vigorish.

As far as poker being an 'easy' game to learn, this is true but it's every bit as complex a game to master as horseracing handicapping. Both are games of pure skill subject to the fluctuation of short term luck. Also, there is much confusion between poker tournaments and cash games. They are completely different and have different skill set requirements to master. Most of what is shown on TV is tournament play (with the exception of 'High Stakes Poker'). Most working pros play in cash games and measure their skill by the hourly rate they earn on average. And you don't need to be the best player at the table to win - in fact you could be the third worst player and still win as long as you avoid the better players and target the two players who are worse.

Although television exposure is surely the main reason for the poker popularity explosion, I feel there is another driving force. I think that the average player feels that, with a lucky run of cards and some inspired play, they can be a tournament hero, taking down a life changing payday and becoming an instant celebrity. And who doesn't want to be a hero? This longshot possiblilty is fueling the aspirations of millions of poker players across the globe. While poker players are earning new found respect among the general population, telling people that you're a successful horseplayer still elicits a roll of the eyes and that "you poor thing" look from the average person.

Unfortunately, horseplayers are still the Rodney Dangerfield's of the gambling world while playing poker is 'cool', and that perception not likely to change soon.

Valuist
01-23-2007, 11:15 AM
In a '10+1' tournament, $10 is the entry fee (of which all money is payed back to the participants) and the other $1 is the house vigorish.

As far as poker being an 'easy' game to learn, this is true but it's every bit as complex a game to master as horseracing handicapping. Both are games of pure skill subject to the fluctuation of short term luck. Also, there is much confusion between poker tournaments and cash games. They are completely different and have different skill set requirements to master. Most of what is shown on TV is tournament play (with the exception of 'High Stakes Poker'). Most working pros play in cash games and measure their skill by the hourly rate they earn on average. And you don't need to be the best player at the table to win - in fact you could be the third worst player and still win as long as you avoid the better players and target the two players who are worse.

Although television exposure is surely the main reason for the poker popularity explosion, I feel there is another driving force. I think that the average player feels that, with a lucky run of cards and some inspired play, they can be a tournament hero, taking down a life changing payday and becoming an instant celebrity. And who doesn't want to be a hero? This longshot possiblilty is fueling the aspirations of millions of poker players across the globe. While poker players are earning new found respect among the general population, telling people that you're a successful horseplayer still elicits a roll of the eyes and that "you poor thing" look from the average person.

Unfortunately, horseplayers are still the Rodney Dangerfield's of the gambling world while playing poker is 'cool', and that perception not likely to change soon.

With all these sites getting shut down, watch how quickly the "coolness" goes down.

Milleruszk
01-23-2007, 12:40 PM
The World Series of Handicapping was held this past weekend in Las Vegas. This was hardly mentioned on any of the horse racing forums, never mind in local newspapers. It's no wonder that poker is more popular. :bang:

PaceAdvantage
01-24-2007, 01:25 AM
One problem might be that nobody knows who the hell is in the World Series of Handicapping. The participants are, for the most part, unknowns. Are they pros? Are they amateurs? Who the hell knows, right?

People talk about the WS of Poker because it has well known pros, celebrities, devoted media (CardPlayer magazine being the most well known mag devoted to POKER....and it's been around for WAY longer than the current "boom")

How many magazines are devoted to handicappers? I can think of one, maybe two at best, and they're nowhere near as informative as CardPlayer is to the wanna be poker player.

ryesteve
01-24-2007, 09:41 AM
I think the problem there is that handicappers aren't seen as participants. They're kind of like bystanders betting on the outcomes. Even though you can make the analogy that poker players are also mere "participants" betting on the outcomes of card deals, the way MOST people view them, there's definitely a different aura about them.

Imagine if there was a tournament where the entrants had to bet on the outcomes of poker tournaments. Would anyone care at all about the people competing in that? I doubt it. And that's how a lot people view horseplayers.

the little guy
01-24-2007, 10:40 AM
Actually the big Handicapping Tournament, featuring tournament winners from the past year, is this coming weekend ( Friday and Saturday I think ) in Las Vegas.

Milleruszk
01-24-2007, 12:28 PM
Actually the big Handicapping Tournament, featuring tournament winners from the past year, is this coming weekend ( Friday and Saturday I think ) in Las Vegas.

Yes you are correct. The current champ Ron Rippey from the Newark Star Ledger will be defending his title. I do not believe any one has been able to win back to back titles.

raybo
01-25-2007, 12:31 AM
I think the bottom line is that horse racing is still seen as a haven for addicted gamblers. What do you do? "Oh, I bet the ponies", or what do you like to do? "I go to the track sometimes". In the movies, the track patrons are either rich Hollywood types or down on their luck gamblers. Until this perception is gone, horseracing will always be unattractive to most of the population. It's kind of like the perception years ago about pool players. The old smoke filled pool halls, where drunks and drug addicts and hustlers hung out. Paul Newman getting his fingers broken, etc. Poker has become mainstream because of the fact that now, TV viewers can see how the game is played and that it's NOT all luck or dominated by sharks. Many of the pros are highly educated types who got the Yale or MIT degree and turned to poker instead of pursuing a high paying job in the mainstream job market. People can see that the game is not what they always thought it was. The horseracing industry could do the same for handicappers if they chose to.

PaceAdvantage
01-25-2007, 02:18 AM
I think the bottom line is that horse racing is still seen as a haven for addicted gamblers. What do you do? "Oh, I bet the ponies", or what do you like to do? "I go to the track sometimes". In the movies, the track patrons are either rich Hollywood types or down on their luck gamblers. Until this perception is gone, horseracing will always be unattractive to most of the population.

Really? So what? You ever read or watch the "human interest" pieces they do on poker players like Brunson, Ivey or Matusow? These guys openly talk about betting on ANYTHING and EVERYTHING! They talk about guys who bet on RAINDROPS on a windshield!!! (Which one will hit the bottom first?)

Never mind the HUGE sums these guys talk about betting on the golf course.

Thus, I disagree that horse racing being seen as a haven for addicted gamblers is actually a negative. If we take poker as the benchmark, as some are doing in this thread, then horse racing being a degenerate haven must be viewed in a positive light!

dav4463
01-25-2007, 03:01 AM
It is all marketing. Do you want to market the sport of horseracing or the sport of handicapping? They are two different things. Horseracing on TV seems to not want to admit that people are gambling on the race. They do not really talk about the odds or the chance of a big score. They focus on the trainer, the owner, the jockey, the human-interest stuff. They also need to focus on the people who are betting the race. Talk about the guy who is using the race to structure a pick 3 ticket for example. Get different views from handicappers who see the race differently and let them explain how they arrived at their decision. Let those who see it differently talk trash to each other and then the winner gets bragging rights. Handicapping could be marketed just like poker and as the best handicappers become recognized, new stars are born.

singunner
01-25-2007, 03:05 AM
The main difference: In racing, it's all about the horses. The fact that people are playing against other people is hidden by the pari-mutuel system. In poker, it's people directly against eachother with nothing to confuse that they are definitely trying to bankrupt their opponents. Nobody focuses on the cards in televised poker. It's all about the human element. Televised horse racing is like watching a poker game where they only ever show you the cards.

Also, there are 10 races a day, and it takes a long time. In poker, you could watch a few hundred hands in a short period of time and see a definitive result.

Shacopate
01-25-2007, 04:13 AM
It's not really "poker" thats created all the buzz, but "No-limit Texas Hold Em."

Espn hit the jackpot and will continue to run with it until the well runs dry, which it will ....eventually.

This is just a fad that will come and go like any other. Horse racing will endure, rest assured.

And by the way, people are starting to refer to the MMA as the new "poker". With deals they have locked up in '07 with Showtime and HBO, I can't disagree.

I just can't decide who I hate more; Phil Helmuth or Tito Ortiz.

44PACE
01-25-2007, 04:28 AM
One problem might be that nobody knows who the hell is in the World Series of Handicapping. The participants are, for the most part, unknowns. Are they pros? Are they amateurs? Who the hell knows, right?

People talk about the WS of Poker because it has well known pros, celebrities, devoted media (CardPlayer magazine being the most well known mag devoted to POKER....and it's been around for WAY longer than the current "boom")



Poker players celebs? now I know we have gone too far with reality TV. Anyone here watch Surviver or the amazing race? Boston Rob a contestant from both these shows now has his own show on reality Tv " Rob and Amber against the odds" the premise of the show is that the 2 of them leave their florida home to live in Vegas. Boston Rob with the help Of Dan N.a well known pro poker player is trying to become a professional poker player:lol: .



ESPN is the brains behind this poker fad. Create some pros back them and reap the benefits ( money ) from the coverage. These pros do not even have to be very good, just make them into celebs and hype them up.

Shacopate
01-25-2007, 04:57 AM
I hope more amateurs...like Jamie Gold, continue to win the WSOP.

Maybe then, the pro-playing card sharps will come to appreaciate certain horse racing concepts; such as the importance of field size and the reality of chaos.

ryesteve
01-25-2007, 09:15 AM
I hope more amateurs...like Jamie Gold, continue to win the WSOP.
I'd prefer to see amateur winners who are very UNlike Jamie Gold

Valuist
01-25-2007, 09:40 AM
It is all marketing. Do you want to market the sport of horseracing or the sport of handicapping? They are two different things. Horseracing on TV seems to not want to admit that people are gambling on the race. They do not really talk about the odds or the chance of a big score. They focus on the trainer, the owner, the jockey, the human-interest stuff. They also need to focus on the people who are betting the race. Talk about the guy who is using the race to structure a pick 3 ticket for example. Get different views from handicappers who see the race differently and let them explain how they arrived at their decision. Let those who see it differently talk trash to each other and then the winner gets bragging rights. Handicapping could be marketed just like poker and as the best handicappers become recognized, new stars are born.

Bingo (no pun intended). The networks don't get it.

chickenhead
01-25-2007, 09:54 AM
I think people forget that the biggest turn-off for horse racing is it's EXTREMELY difficult to make any money. That is kind of a basic problem.

People like the "that could be me" feeling of watching poker. With horseracing, most people don't believe that there is anyone even making money, and they are mostly right.

Lower the take, have more winners, and things start to take care of themselves. Horseracing has the worst rake around, you need a PhD just to break even, and we wonder why there is no big rush to get in?

It's less of a marketing problem than it is a fundamental expectation problem.

Turntime
01-25-2007, 10:17 AM
I agree, ryesteve. Jamie Gold won by good aggressive poker and an incredible run of cards, but his behaviour at the table was very unprofessional, IMO. This guy would likely get eaten alive in any $25-$50 NL cash game at the Bellagio. I think the best players at the WSOP were the guys that bought in for $50,000 to play in the H.O.R.S.E tournament (where you alternate between the 5 different games of Hold 'Em, Omaha, Razz, Stud, and Eight or better Hi-Low Stud).

Singunner makes a great point. Coverage of horse racing is always about horses, jockeys, trainers and owners with scant attention being paid to the horseplayers.

Horseracing will always be the ultimate challenge for me, but I enjoy poker too. I view it as just another game that can be beaten by exploiting the weaknesses of the other players.

ryesteve
01-25-2007, 11:06 AM
I agree, ryesteve. Jamie Gold won by good aggressive poker and an incredible run of cards, but his behaviour at the table was very unprofessional, IMO.
Not to mention his behavior afterwards (legal wrangling over the prize money)


I think people forget that the biggest turn-off for horse racing is it's EXTREMELY difficult to make any money. That is kind of a basic problem.
I would agree with that, but the problem I'm having is that there's never any shortage of slot players. And it's beyond "extremely difficult" to make money at that... it's downright impossible (and please, nobody nitpick over progressive machines with a big jackpot built up... that's not really the point)

So there's got to be more to it than that.

chickenhead
01-25-2007, 11:20 AM
I would agree with that, but the problem I'm having is that there's never any shortage of slot players. And it's beyond "extremely difficult" to make money at that... it's downright impossible (and please, nobody nitpick over progressive machines with a big jackpot built up... that's not really the point)

So there's got to be more to it than that.

Yes, but there are certainly no TV shows about slot players. And the takout is actually lower for slots, so for the average amatuer I think slots probably ARE a better alternative. The might not make money, but they'll lose money a lot slower. and as Formula keeps pointing out, it's a lot easier to get lucky bucking a smaller take.

I look at it like this. Say 5 amatuers decide to play poker against one another, and one is slightly better than the others. At the end of the night chances are the one is ahead (maybe big), and the others are down. The guys who lost maybe try to get better, the guy who won also tries to get better, so he can play for bigger stakes.

Take those 5 amatuers to the track, chances are they all end up dead broke, quickly.

You aren't playing in a protected pool like you can in poker. At the track, everyone is playing against Phil Ivey 24/7, with a >15% take.

ryesteve
01-25-2007, 11:51 AM
Yes, I absolutely agree that a game like poker gives people the impression that it's fairly easy to play skillfully and win money. My confusion is directed towards slots and table games where you're bucking a mathematical certainty. Sure, you can get lucky in the shortterm, but I don't know if many casino players are shortterm players. Every time I pass the bus stop for Foxwoods, it looks like the same faces lined up every time :)

chickenhead
01-25-2007, 12:06 PM
I think horseracing is fine so far as revenue, just like slots, or the lotto, or any other kind of dumb luck gambling. Plenty of gambling dollars to go around.

But for tv, or for being seen as something other than a deadbeats game, it's a different story. And it is not primarily a marketing problem. That's my only point.

K9Pup
01-25-2007, 12:07 PM
Not to mention his behavior afterwards (legal wrangling over the prize money)


I would agree with that, but the problem I'm having is that there's never any shortage of slot players. And it's beyond "extremely difficult" to make money at that... it's downright impossible (and please, nobody nitpick over progressive machines with a big jackpot built up... that's not really the point)

So there's got to be more to it than that.

I think it is a perception issue. People THINK they can win big at slots, heck it sure doesn't take any skill. Same thing with the lottery. Your chances of really winning are slim to none. But people (me included) keep playing.

Horse (and dog) handicapping is a tough business. People today don't want to put the effort into to get the "small" reward.

44PACE
01-25-2007, 03:43 PM
I think horseracing is fine so far as revenue, just like slots, or the lotto, or any other kind of dumb luck gambling. Plenty of gambling dollars to go around.

But for tv, or for being seen as something other than a deadbeats game, it's a different story. And it is not primarily a marketing problem. That's my only point.



It is a marketing problem. Canterbury has a card club on the lower level filled with young gamblers, most of them are not aware that there is gambling on the third floor( simulcasting). They don't know what simulcasting is. If you do not believe me go to a supermarket take a poll ask people what is simulcasting.Horse racing needs to come up with a better name for betting tracks that are out of state.


Horse racing is not a game of dumb luck, it is a game of skill and understanding probabilities. People do make money at horse racing, the problem is that the race tracks do not know how to show this.

traynor
01-26-2007, 01:11 AM
I think people forget that the biggest turn-off for horse racing is it's EXTREMELY difficult to make any money. That is kind of a basic problem.

People like the "that could be me" feeling of watching poker. With horseracing, most people don't believe that there is anyone even making money, and they are mostly right.

Lower the take, have more winners, and things start to take care of themselves. Horseracing has the worst rake around, you need a PhD just to break even, and we wonder why there is no big rush to get in?

It's less of a marketing problem than it is a fundamental expectation problem.

The fact that a research paper from the University of Arizona turns up in a lot of searches related to handicapping and very clearly states that 95% of the people who bet on horse races lose does not help much in creating an expectation of success in casual bettors. In most cases, slot machines provide a better chance for a payoff, and they are not exactly considered activity for intellectual giants.

The proliferation of Native American casinos in the US indicates a deep-seated desire to gamble in very large numbers of people. I never really thought of it like that, but you make a good point. It is not so much that horse races are boring (multiple track simulcasting cured that problem) as that people believe that other forms of gambling offer a far better chance of return. Interesting observation.
Good Luck

spilparc
01-26-2007, 01:26 AM
The fact that a research paper from the University of Arizona turns up in a lot of searches related to handicapping and very clearly states that 95% of the people who bet on horse races lose does not help much in creating an expectation of success in casual bettors.

95% of poker players lose as well.

traynor
01-26-2007, 05:42 PM
95% of poker players lose as well.

I think if that includes the dewy-eyed innocents eagerly awaiting a seat at a table in Vegas, the percentage could be even higher.

As one who has been (on occasion) involved in some rather serious games, I can tell you there is a fatal flaw in the strategies of those who learn to play poker online. No one is watching.

That is, with no one to observe them, the novice (or experienced player upgrading his or her skills) tends to "unconsciously respond" to various scenarios in ways that are nearly impossible to overcome or eliminate.

Similar to snooker, billiards, or pool--if you learned to play "for fun," no matter how good you think you are, making the transition to professional is nearly impossible. Same thing happens in poker. Same thing happens in handicaping. "Recreational" handicappers who wager "for the sport" are a generous gift to those who depend on wagering as a source of income.
Good Luck

Houndog
01-26-2007, 06:34 PM
Horseracing has always had a problem promoting their product. As other posts have mentioned very little was done to educate the public. When I go to my local OTB I see very few younger people. Many of these people are internet savy and are drawn to the poker sites because they feel they have a chance to make the final table by entering these contests.

Some of the Hold-Em players enjoy celebrity status because of the extended coverage ESPN gives these tournaments. When I go to a Border's book store I may see several shelves of books dedicated to Hold-Em Poker. I am lucky to find 3 or 4 books pertaining to horserace handicapping. The challenge for the horseracing industry is to try to attract more people through education, promotions, and respecting their fanbase.

traynor
01-26-2007, 07:29 PM
Horseracing has always had a problem promoting their product. As other posts have mentioned very little was done to educate the public. When I go to my local OTB I see very few younger people. Many of these people are internet savy and are drawn to the poker sites because they feel they have a chance to make the final table by entering these contests.

Some of the Hold-Em players enjoy celebrity status because of the extended coverage ESPN gives these tournaments. When I go to a Border's book store I may see several shelves of books dedicated to Hold-Em Poker. I am lucky to find 3 or 4 books pertaining to horserace handicapping. The challenge for the horseracing industry is to try to attract more people through education, promotions, and respecting their fanbase.

People were saying the same thing 25-30 years ago, and probably well before that. Despite all the complaints of "We don't get no respect," the bottom-line is that track management has a relatively low opinion of any but the top echelon bettors. Demographic studies of bettors suggest that it is in the track's best interest to cater to the top few percent of bettors, and give the rest yesterday's hotdogs.

The idea that the $2 bettors pay the bills is misguided, and track management knows it well.
Good Luck

Houndog
01-26-2007, 07:38 PM
Those $2.00 bettors add up if you have enough of them. The $2.00 bettor today may be a $100.00 bettor in the future.

traynor
01-27-2007, 03:16 AM
Those $2.00 bettors add up if you have enough of them. The $2.00 bettor today may be a $100.00 bettor in the future.

I agree. Most track management does not. They believe the numbers that tell them that the majority of the money wagered comes from a very small number of very large bettors. The relative failure of tracks like Canterbury and Birmingham is directly related to their failure to attract that particular demographic. Lots of $2 bettors, but not much more.

Today's $2 bettor will probably still be betting $2 a year or two from now. And mostly losing.
Good Luck

singunner
01-27-2007, 03:42 AM
When the $2 bettor becomes a $100 bettor, they get better treatment. And they suddenly feel like they deserve it and really notice the difference. Where's the problem?

Tote Master
01-27-2007, 03:44 AM
traynor
Similar to snooker, billiards, or pool--if you learned to play "for fun," no matter how good you think you are, making the transition to professional is nearly impossible. Same thing happens in poker. Same thing happens in handicaping. "Recreational" handicappers who wager "for the sport" are a generous gift to those who depend on wagering as a source of income. Every so often I stop by PA to see what’s going on. Most of the time I read the same old bantering back and forth about topics that are very often very entertaining, but unfortunately miss the point. I mean why on earth would anyone who seriously plays the horses be concerned with poker or any other form of gambling? Are they envious of others who might get there 15 minutes of fame simply because the TV media has made it so visible? I mean who cares? Have the mutual payoffs suddenly changed because there are gambling activities in other areas? Not that I can see!

Aside from all this I think that traynor has once again hit it squarely with his comments. If the game that you’re playing doesn’t have a serious impact on your pocketbook, then I’m afraid that you’re just in it for fun. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but in order to become a real player you have to learn how to win and lose, before you become successful. The point he makes takes me back to my youth when I was involved in improving my skills as pool player. I was told more then once at the time that in order to advance and consider myself good, that I had to face and beat better players (for money that is, because they wouldn’t play otherwise). Well all sounded very nice, but 4K later I realized that there’s a big difference between playing for a few beers and pocket change versus playing for real money. It cost me that much to improve my game both on the table and in my head. (There's never any pressure when you're just having fun).

The same applies to horse racing. Anyone can make selections, or tout an animal. Jumping to the other side of the fence and suddenly placing some serious wagers makes it an entirely different game. My personal feeling is that a player has to be selective with their plays, control their bank roll, and most importantly, take the good with the bad. All of this has to happen without it having an negative impact on either their future selection or wagering process. Then and only then will they succeed. Getting into that “comfort zone” as I call it requires a strong mental discipline that successful players of any game have in common.

Best of Luck

Pell Mell
01-27-2007, 06:47 AM
I guess it's something like a gunfight, easy to be a good shot when nobody's shooting back.

44PACE
01-27-2007, 02:56 PM
I mean why on earth would anyone who seriously plays the horses be concerned with poker or any other form of gambling? Are they envious of others who might get there 15 minutes of fame simply because the TV media has made it so visible? I mean who cares? Have the mutual payoffs suddenly changed because there are gambling activities in other areas? Not that I can see!

Best of LuckThe reason to be concerned is that Poker is taking away from horse racing their handle.Poker is taking away from horse racing hard core regulars who dump a lot of money into the pools. These people lose every year a lot of money, without them there is no profits for the pro players. I am a very good player if it is just you and me do you think you have any chance of taking my money? NO WAY. This is why it is important.

What makes it worse is that the tracks themselves are encouraging horse players to join the poker rooms. The Poker room at Canterbury has the better food and cleaner restrooms, they cater to them and give second thought to the horse players. On thursday nights they have a game called chippy poker up in the horse players area offering for free a chance to earn credits playing poker to be used DOWN in the card club.

chickenhead
01-27-2007, 03:23 PM
there is a lot of competition with horse racing for gambling dollars...sports betting, lottery, slots and other casino games...why all of this focus on the threat of poker?

To make horseracing more competetive (it is already very competetive) you have to change something about it. There are two basic things about gambling that attract people: how fun and exciting is it, and how are the financials.

Everyone keeps talking about making a real show about winning horseplayers...but be honest, watching some dude sit at a computer in a dark room for hours at a time is not exciting...there is nothing compelling about it. Noone wants to watch you, deal with it. No one wants to watch football bettors either...it is very rare for that sort of thing to be compelling..and I don;t think sports gambling ever will be. The sport itself thankfully IS a lot of fun to watch.

The best things they could do is close down some of the rinky dink tracks, reduce the racing days, consolidate and fix up the plants, get people to come out to the track by offering full fields at nice facilities, and reduce the takeout so that when they show up they might actually win some money.

44PACE
01-27-2007, 04:29 PM
I brought up Poker becouse this is the only other form of gambling being done at Canterbury park they don't have Sports betting.If they did you would be correct in including sports betting.


I agree that Slots are a form of gambling competition but Poker takes away the regular horse player.Poker players and horse players are 2 of the same, they both lend themselves to skill and study vrs chance and luck. Slot players are not the same people who play horses for the most part.

44PACE
01-27-2007, 04:34 PM
What is so much fun about watching people play poker? Who cares about these people , if they win or lose. They are playing cards, thats it. 10 years ago no one paid any attention to it at all. Now ESPN continously pushes it down are throats and they cancell a 1/2 hour horse racing weekly show ( wire to wire ).

Tote Master
01-28-2007, 03:48 AM
PM6
I guess it's something like a gunfight, easy to be a good shot when nobody's shooting back. EXACTLY!
44Pace
The reason to be concerned is that Poker is taking away from horse racing their handle.Poker is taking away from horse racing hard core regulars who dump a lot of money into the pools. These people lose every year a lot of money, without them there is no profits for the pro players. I am a very good player if it is just you and me do you think you have any chance of taking my money? NO WAY. This is why it is important. Next time you have a chance, take a look at the TOTAL amount of money being bet in the Mutual pools at any track big or small for a single race. Then consider that the Exacta pools are very often just as large, and beyond that the Triple and Super pools aren’t even made public. (At least not during the immediate betting cycle) You could have fooled me after viewing this information!!

Chickenhead your entire post reeks of “common sense”. IMO its One of the best attributes a horse player can have!
44Pace
What is so much fun about watching people play poker? Who cares about these people , if they win or lose. They are playing cards, thats it. 10 years ago no one paid any attention to it at all. Now ESPN continously pushes it down are throats and they cancell a 1/2 hour horse racing weekly show ( wire to wire ). I agree 100 & 10%! In my estimation is just a fad that will die off like many others! What people see are all those bundles of money lying on the tables. It’s all media hype and unfortunately our entire society is consumed with what’s presented over the air waves these days. Probably the best example I could give would be persecution of the parents by the media in the Ramsey case. What a travesty! In our discipline, it would probably be the way the 3-year olds are covered and hyped prior to the Derby. Personally I think the best-kept secrets in racing are the smaller tracks that offer so much in the way of value.

Lots of Luck

VicD
01-28-2007, 08:04 AM
20 year old kids like poker because the action is constant...Just like slot machines...There is a decision every 60-90 seconds...

Most kids today can develop a new addiction in the 22 minutes between races...
It's an instant gratification generaton, and racing is simply too slow for them..
That won't change, no matter how you market horse racing...

44PACE
01-28-2007, 01:48 PM
Vic.


22 minutes between posts, those are the old days. With Simulcasting there are races going off every 5 minutes. Maybe if these 20 year olds have attention deficit disorder this may not be fast enough for them this is why we have the beulah twins to look at.:jump:

racefinder2
02-01-2007, 09:28 PM
Not in my book it isn't.

Milleruszk
02-02-2007, 12:25 PM
20 year old kids like poker because the action is constant...Just like slot machines...There is a decision every 60-90 seconds...

Most kids today can develop a new addiction in the 22 minutes between races...
It's an instant gratification generaton, and racing is simply too slow for them..
That won't change, no matter how you market horse racing...

Your probably right! That is why we will always have lots of 50+ yr old horse players. Eventually everyone slows down...............

Stillriledup
11-23-2009, 03:03 AM
Who's the Phil Ivey and Phil Hellmuth of horse racing?

I was just watching some world series of poker and a young kid won all the money. That's a great advertisment for poker if a young kid can win that kind of money. I don't know what racing is doing to promote the horseplayer like poker is doing to promote the poker player.

Can someone explain to me what racing is doing to promote the horse player?

I want to see the Ivey or Hellmuth of horse race handicapping on a major network screaming and going nuts after winning a handicapping title. Especially if he's 21.

samyn on the green
11-23-2009, 03:41 AM
Here is the 2008 NTRA plan (http://www.ntra.com/creativeservices/content/NTRAOnlineTaskForce_080922.pdf) to market the sport to a younger generation.

The sport is doing something as indicated by the plan. It is not an easy fix as racing goes against the prevailing current of instant gratification and constant mental masturbation of most media based entertainment sources.

Jackal
11-23-2009, 07:16 AM
Almost everyone knows how to play poker. There are so many play money games that give people a false sense of confidence. Poker rooms serve free drinks and meals. If you play enough you get a free room.

The only thing you get for free at a racetrack is a trip to jail. CNL doesn't even turn on the sound in their OTB. Saturday they had the VA tech game on the big screen tv. I asked the manger where is the bookie? She responded by having the sheriff throw me out and he threatened me with a DUI - I didn't drink a single beer! I wasn't there 15 minutes!

sace5326
11-23-2009, 08:13 AM
i might be wrong (and i love horse racing) but its not going to change much. in most other gambling games such as POKER the player is involved, makes their own decisions, beats or loses to other players in every game.
i know when i play games like that i dont have to depend on on anyone else but my self.
in horse racing much different. how many different variables come into play, and i am depending on a lot of other factors in a race.
to me the best odds are in horse racing
but you wont prove that to someone who needs to feel that they beat someone
in horse racing you dont beat anyone when you win a race

how cliche
11-23-2009, 10:40 AM
This is a good topic & one I've given a lot of thought to. I'm going to address the live game only.

POKER

Social: House games bring friends together. People host games often enough that players never starve for action or comraderie.

Preparation: None. You sit down and play.

Resources: High Stakes Poker for cash games & WPT for tournaments give instruction on how to play. Video.

Action: Constant. If a player folds to every raise for 30 minutes, the thought is, 'I'm card dead.'

Convenience: Card rooms are everywhere.

HORSE RACING

Solitary: Friends do go to the races together but only occassionally.

Preparation: Multiple hours of reading and writing are put in for each day.

Resources: Books, magazines, internet articles. Reading.

Action: Seldom. 2 wagers in a card is uncommon.

Convenience: OTB's & tracks are far, over 20 miles for most.

Poker's winning because it appears easier and there's no reading involved. Horseplayers are readers. Poker players are video gamers. There's a reason Card Player Magazine is free.

turfnsport
11-23-2009, 10:57 AM
It's all in the presentation. When horse racing finds its "pocket cam", there will be more interest.

With track execs busy playing “pocket pool”, that will never happen.

Playing poker is just easier than playing the ponies, I’ll give you an example..

If I am going to play a couple of tracks at night, I have to download the PP’s, print them, check the weather, check the scratches, and then start studying..

When I play poker at night, I open pokerstars, find a table, and start playing. It’s nearly instant action.

Not to mention if the weather is bad, there are a lot of scratches or small fields, I can lose interest pretty quick.

That does not happen at the poker table.

With that said, despite grinding out a nice profit playing poker at night after a day of playing the ponies, the bad beats in poker are unbearable for me.

So I am back to downloading the PP’s, printing them, checking the weather, checking the scratches, and studying...lol

I think converting these 21-year-old Poker Brats to horses just is not going to happen.

Horseplayersbet.com
11-23-2009, 11:21 AM
With track execs busy playing “pocket pool”, that will never happen.

Playing poker is just easier than playing the ponies, I’ll give you an example..

If I am going to play a couple of tracks at night, I have to download the PP’s, print them, check the weather, check the scratches, and then start studying..

When I play poker at night, I open pokerstars, find a table, and start playing. It’s nearly instant action.

Not to mention if the weather is bad, there are a lot of scratches or small fields, I can lose interest pretty quick.

That does not happen at the poker table.

With that said, despite grinding out a nice profit playing poker at night after a day of playing the ponies, the bad beats in poker are unbearable for me.

So I am back to downloading the PP’s, printing them, checking the weather, checking the scratches, and studying...lol

I think converting these 21-year-old Poker Brats to horses just is not going to happen.
There is a lot of overlap between poker players and Betfair players. The ability to last long and the fact that winners are out there and publicized has a lot to do with it.

therussmeister
11-23-2009, 08:04 PM
Poker's winning because it appears easier and there's no reading involved. Horseplayers are readers. Poker players are video gamers. There's a reason Card Player Magazine is free.

That is not at all my experience; even at the cheapest level of poker, I always found several players at each table that have read poker books. In fact, it is often easy to tell just which books they have read by how they play. Although judging by what I read in poker forums, that does not seem to be true for home games.

However, very few horse players I have met show any signs of ever reading any book, on any subject.

That is why I have migrated to this forum. You all seem to be rather literate.

Robert Fischer
11-23-2009, 10:58 PM
Poker got BROADCAST to MILLIONS on free or near-free cable in PRIMETIME
then
it got BROADCAST to MILLIONS on a MAJOR NETWORK on free or near-free cable in PRIMETIME

compare the popularity of poker before the MASS MEDIA BROADCAST
compare the popularity of NFL before the MASS MEDIA BROADCAST really kicked in mid 60s?
The NBA was a ****ing joke , with playoff games on taped-replay before MASS MEDIA BROADCAST.

specialty cable/satelite channels are not sufficient

so, to sum up, what horseracing needs, is slots

Cubbymac26
11-23-2009, 11:43 PM
Here's the deal...I'm a 28 year old poker dealer and a degenerate horse player..I'm the only person in the racebook under 50 and when I'm dealing I'm sometimes the oldest at the table....

I go and play I ask for a tv to be changed to a track I get a earjob from the other players who are in there 20s on how I'd bet on roaches if given the chance

Bottom line is these loser poker playing kids will never get into racing so it's inevitable that racing has at most 20 years left

Poker winning this battle has been declared OFFICIAL!!!!!

HuggingTheRail
11-24-2009, 12:18 AM
Poker got BROADCAST to MILLIONS on free or near-free cable in PRIMETIME
then
it got BROADCAST to MILLIONS on a MAJOR NETWORK on free or near-free cable in PRIMETIME

compare the popularity of poker before the MASS MEDIA BROADCAST
compare the popularity of NFL before the MASS MEDIA BROADCAST really kicked in mid 60s?
The NBA was a ****ing joke , with playoff games on taped-replay before MASS MEDIA BROADCAST.

specialty cable/satelite channels are not sufficient

so, to sum up, what horseracing needs, is slots

:lol: Brilliant conclusion!

The mass media exposure is very important....the other thing that this exposure does is give the premise that winning at poker is "easy" (generally if you get a 3/7 unsuited....fold. pair of pocket aces..raise, etc). When racing does get the odd opportunity to be on "mass media", the wagering aspect of the game gets little talk...they would rather do a feel good story on some groom

samyn on the green
11-24-2009, 12:22 AM
Maybe racing is an old man game. Todays young whippersnappers with short attention deficit syndrome will one day wake up in 20 years and love the mental challenge of racing.

LottaKash
11-24-2009, 12:44 AM
i might be wrong (and i love horse racing) but its not going to change much. in most other gambling games such as POKER the player is involved, makes their own decisions, beats or loses to other players in every game.
i know when i play games like that i dont have to depend on on anyone else but my self.
in horse racing much different. how many different variables come into play, and i am depending on a lot of other factors in a race.
to me the best odds are in horse racing
but you wont prove that to someone who needs to feel that they beat someone
in horse racing you dont beat anyone when you win a race

That is not quite true....When you win a bet, you ARE winning the other players (the losers) money....(not the track's kash, as they just hold the bets, and take a cut for the service)...

Perhaps, if it were explained that way to a newbie to hoss'-racin', they might see it as more of a challenge when betting against the other players at the track....On the surface, I would guess from my experiences and perceptions, that most people who are new or somewhat unfamiliar with horse racing, truly believe that they are "winning from" or "losing to" the tracks themselves, and not the other players...

best,

Robert Goren
11-24-2009, 12:50 AM
Poker players fall into 3 groups. Old farts like me who learned in a home game and probably at one time either played Bridge or Chess. People in their late 30s or 40s who played Backgammon or Go or Magic. Young kids who come from a video game background. 40 years ago you could go to the book store and find 8-10 books on horse racing. There was maybe 2 books on poker. There was a magazine called "Turf and Sport Digest". The Internet has changed that. There are hundreds of books on poker. There is even a market for Omaha books which is almost never played live. Lets face there hasn't been a game changing Handicapping book in 25 years. Any book writen about Holdem that older 5-6 years is out of date. Poker has slowed down a bit, Horseracing is grinding to a stop. Internet poker is promoted by such sites as Poker Stars and Full Tilt. I can't remember seeing an ad on TV for an ADW.

Robert Fischer
11-24-2009, 01:53 AM
:lol: Brilliant conclusion!

The mass media exposure is very important....the other thing that this exposure does is give the premise that winning at poker is "easy" (generally if you get a 3/7 unsuited....fold. pair of pocket aces..raise, etc). When racing does get the odd opportunity to be on "mass media", the wagering aspect of the game gets little talk...they would rather do a feel good story on some groom
:bang:

90% of the problem is dumb-asses in charge.
then there also may be an unwritten rule/code about broadcasting a gambling game as a gambling game. Politics play a role and maybe could contribute to why the Big Races are broadcast exclusively as "historical spectator sports" and gambling is a sideJOKE. If there is any Gambling on the rare "mass media" race broadcasts usually consists of a buffoon like Hank Goldberg or a lighthearted exchange of picks as an afterthought to the groom story.

Maybe a country like Canada needs to take the lead, or maybe the US Gov't and the State Gov'ts and the tracks and sponsors can make it work, and I'm wrong about the unwritten rule ... I mean states never had a problem pushing the lottery...

With Poker having shown the way, i would recommend copying them in every possible facet. Manipulating the horse racing pools into tournament format. Over the shoulder "wager cam" of "Pros"-(maybe some of the mugs u see continually popping up when trying to browse the drf online),

one-up Poker by actually having viewers buy-in and play along in Real Time.
could have varying formats from low daily/weekly shows to 1yearlyJackpot
an example of a Low daily game: ($5 buy-in(all to the winner(s)), $20maxbet/race, 2 races , prime-time, WPS, Ex, DBL pools eligible, ADW for this purpose, leaders are updated on the TV after first race)

buyinracing.com

CBedo
11-24-2009, 02:03 AM
As someone who has at times payed his mortgage playing cards, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a few quick perceived advantages of poker over horse racing, some more important than others, in no particular order:

1) Preparation--Although good players do put in time studying and experimenting, you don't have to spend an hour or more reading the pps to get ready for a game. To be successful betting horses, there is some minimum amount of that all of us need.
2) Action--Even playing live poker, you get 35-40 hands per hour. Playing online you'll get even more, usually over 60 hands per hour per table (In my old age, I rarely play more than 10 tables at a time anymore; that's 600 chances for action an hour). Even when you have spent the time to look at more than one track, often times the races are going off right on top of each other and it's a pain to bet both. Online poker rooms have gone so far as to coordinate all their tournaments so that breaks are at the same time. Would it really be so hard to coordinate start times so that races are going off at regular intervals?
3) The Vig--Not too hard to see that 5% (often much less depending on the game and location, especially online) for poker, versus 15%+ in racing. Even in tournament poker, players are conditioned to look for the lowest vigs and guarantees that might make a tournament a smaller negative or even a positive expectation event. If you are looking for that in horse racing, good luck (I did see that the 10,000 handicapping event at the BC was positive expectation I think).
4) New players--The boom in poker has been driven by millions of new players who get their education the hard way, donating money to the better players. Eventually, they either give up, go broke, or get better and add to the existing ongoing player pool. You could be one of the greatest poker players in the world, but if you sit down with the 8 players who are equally skilled, even with a small rake, eventually you all go broke, but it only takes a couple worse players at the table to make it a very profitable game for you. In horse racing, if all of us (I'm assuming we're all great horse bettors, lol) are only playing against each other, we will eventually go broke--and of course at a much faster rate given the vig. Also, with no new players that could be come regulars, your player pool gets smaller and smaller.
5) Cost of data--Playing online poker, you can collect data easily on opponents and other players, for free. At one point when I was really grinding I heard (I'd never do this of course....) of someone having 20 accounts mirrored on different user accounts on one machine, each having the maximum number of tables open collecting information on players when I, I mean they, weren't even playing. There are also numerous sites where you can see players tourney and sitngo stats and rankings for free whenever you want, and even if you want to pay for subscription palyer rankings or data, it's a very small amount of money relative to even the lowest stakes you would be playing for. In horse racing, we pay every day for data that we hope we can use, and the data acquisition cost for back data to learn and experiment with is still insanely expensive.
6) Learning resources--Casinos will give you poker lessons. There are online training sites, lots of new fresh books, and even poker coaches (I do that if anyone wants some lessons or a freshener, sorry for the plug). As Robert stated in an earlier post, there's not much new help in racing, and what books there are are either confusing with no rules, and only vague methodologies (for sure how I'd write a book with a losing methodology), or rule based systems that have almost zero support or logic behind them. Although some tracks have weekly or daily seminars, most aren't really for teaching, they are there to just give picks (I did have a really good time at a Jim Quinn seminar at Del Mar a long number of years ago). When was the last time someone volunteered good information or thinking to help you get better at this (besides here at PA of course; that's why I'm here for sure--to learn from you guys and hopefully give back a little bit)?

I didn't start out this post meaning it to be so long and rambling, but my fingers started flying and my mind started rambling. It pisses me off that horse racing & handicapping are such great pursuits, but for the most part, fewer and fewer people know about it, and if they do, there's a good chance they will be driven away from it!

PaceAdvantage
11-24-2009, 02:30 AM
Bottom line is these loser poker playing kids will never get into racing so it's inevitable that racing has at most 20 years leftThey've been saying the same thing since the days of Ruffian at least (well, maybe not the poker part, but definitely the aging fan base and racing will die in 20 years part), and lo and behold, racing is still alive and kicking.

raybo
11-24-2009, 08:31 AM
Poker took off when the WOP started using pocket cams. When that happened, it enabled people to see how the pros played (almost what they were thinking, post tournament interviews with them did reveal what they were thinking on key hands). There was not much need to read books, all you had to do was record the televised sessions and watch them over and over. Many of the pros disliked the cams because it gave away too much information about the way they played. This forced most of them to change their playing style, in order to still be able to be successful against those who now knew their secrets.

I don't see racing doing this. First because cams won't work in racing, you would have to have play by play interviews with many pros to accomplish the same thing. I don't think there are many pros willing to divulge their secrets and methods. I wouldn't, that's for sure. I'd be cutting my own throat.

I have no idea how racing will ever increase the number of younger players into the game, other than publicizing success stories nationally in the media, especially TV, that might help.

Robert Goren
11-24-2009, 10:26 AM
They've been saying the same thing since the days of Ruffian at least (well, maybe not the poker part, but definitely the aging fan base and racing will die in 20 years part), and lo and behold, racing is still alive and kicking.Alive? yes. Kicking? Well lets just say it is not doing any Adam Venatieri impressions.

LottaKash
11-24-2009, 10:29 AM
They've been saying the same thing since the days of Ruffian at least (well, maybe not the poker part, but definitely the aging fan base and racing will die in 20 years part), and lo and behold, racing is still alive and kicking.

Yes, but it is "now" on life support....:eek:

best,

CBedo
11-24-2009, 10:33 AM
Poker took off when the WOP started using pocket cams. When that happened, it enabled people to see how the pros played (almost what they were thinking, post tournament interviews with them did reveal what they were thinking on key hands). There was not much need to read books, all you had to do was record the televised sessions and watch them over and over. Many of the pros disliked the cams because it gave away too much information about the way they played. This forced most of them to change their playing style, in order to still be able to be successful against those who now knew their secrets.

I don't see racing doing this. First because cams won't work in racing, you would have to have play by play interviews with many pros to accomplish the same thing. I don't think there are many pros willing to divulge their secrets and methods. I wouldn't, that's for sure. I'd be cutting my own throat.

I have no idea how racing will ever increase the number of younger players into the game, other than publicizing success stories nationally in the media, especially TV, that might help.Actually, I would argue that poker exploded with the confluence of four events. One, as you stated was the lipstick camera which made poker more entertaining as a television event. Two, the mass availability of online poker, particularly the critical mass of Party Poker, Paradise Poker, and PokerStars. Three (could be a subset of two), the first widely available low buy-in sattellites to large tournaments, giving people the ability to play with the pros on their budget. Four, Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP in 2003 (on 39 dollar buy-in if I remember correctly). Seeing some Tennessee accountant amateur poker player beat the pro (Sam Farha), and seeing him make some ridiculously poor plays that he got rewarded for, made millions of people think "if he can do that, I can!"

All these things happened at roughly the same time, and ushered in the golden age of poker, especially no limit Texas hold'em, a game that was almost never spread in Vegas before 2003.

melman
11-24-2009, 10:40 AM
Take away slot machine cash and tell me racing is alive and kicking. :jump: There will of course always be some horse racing at a few tracks. This industry has killed itself with high takeouts and drugged horses. The only thing I can see that will bring racing back in the long run is for right now more tracks to close and more racing industry jobs lost. I am happy to see a steep decline in handle. It is IMO the ONLY WAY FOR REAL CHANGE in the racing industry.

Robert Goren
11-24-2009, 01:28 PM
What gets me is the people who defend the druggers. If you post anything about a trainer who get a big form reversal, half the replies will tell you should note it and bet him next time.:bang: :bang: :bang:

Robert Goren
11-24-2009, 01:34 PM
Chris Moneymaker is one the best aptroyms ever.

DeanT
11-24-2009, 01:50 PM
A view on racing versus poker and some marketing mistakes racing has made, versus what poker has done:

Marketing what you are, not what you are not
(http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2008/12/marketing-what-you-are-not-what-you-are.html)

Paul Moran’s article (http://paulmoranattheraces.blogspot.com/2008/12/blind-lead-blind-deaf-and-dumb.html), where he said that we are not NASCAR, or football, or other sports; that we are a gambling game and we should sell it as such, has sparked some chatter (http://handride.blogspot.com/2008/12/repeat-after-me-there-are-no-fans-just.html). It is kind of fun actually. Since very few are actually speaking of racing, at least someone is.

In Jack Trout’s 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing he outlined rules that have stood the test of time. One of them describes racing perfectly: "Success often leads to arrogance, and arrogance to failure." We had success, and we were arrogant. Unfortunately our success was based on a fallacy. We were a monopoly and people flocked to the track to gamble, not because they were die-hard fans. It was the only place to gamble. If your city mandates that only one restaurant is allowed in town, and it has to serve Iranian food, we would never conclude that the food was good and the population loves Iranian food. But somehow we came to these conclusions with racing. It was a huge mistake.

This was, in my opinion, the catalyst for our failure in marketing racing for the last 25 years. We were dead before we spent a cent. In the words of Mr. Trout again - if you do not know who you are, you are doomed to fail at marketing your product.

Gibson Carothers, a marketing executive and bettor said it perfectly (http://www.horseplayerdaily.com/The-Carrot.pdf): "At BBDO Advertising, an agency where I spent some time, identifying a product's prime prospect is Step No. 1. That may sound obvious, but it's amazing how many advertisers confuse their real market with the market they would like to have. In all my years in advertising, I can't recall a client [racing] who was so conflicted about its own product."

We would like to get new "fans". We want them to come to the track, sit for five hours and come back for the entertainment. This is a mistake. It is not happening and not going to happen. Those days are over. So what should we do? Balloons, how about a rock band, what about free giveaways? They never work long-term and have not worked for thirty years.

We must stop trying to gain fans by advertising what we are not, or by hoodwinking our prospects. We must start marketing what we are - a gambling game. As Mr. Carothers ably puts it: "So, the first big step for racing is to agree that its product is a game, and that it should be marketed as a game. Not as a sport. Not as entertainment. Forget using promotions unrelated to the game. Forget adding shopping malls. Forget performances by the Laker Girls. Those are bad props. You need people coming to the track for the right reason, to play the game."

How many times have you seen a poker site offer you a shirt for signing up? Never. They sell the game. Their game. They sell that you can win at that game with some luck and some skill. And that the game is fun and affordable.

They had something else on their side of course, and it had nothing to do with interruption marketing, or other 20th century marketing. They were built for the Internet. Web 2.0 is building an application, product or web design that takes advantage of what the world wide web is. It is building something for the market - not what the company may want to do, but what the market tells them they want them to do. The Internet is not hard to understand, and is not hard to understand what works and what does not. It is interactive, it is always on, it is deflationary, and the product (if it is 2.0) markets itself:

"Remember that old stuffed bear I had? I just sold it on Ebay for $25!"

"Hey, look at me, join me on Facebook!"

"Do you want to play a game with me online?"

"Hey, check this out, I am playing on a poker table right now with five others all from different countries, come play."

Poker was viral, interactive and no marketing was needed. If there was no pocket cam, or Phil Hellmuth it still would have grown because it was built to grow. ESPN's coverage of the WSOP was not because they had a bright idea, it was because poker was already a force.

Other large companies were letting the product sell itself, and positioning themselves properly, so it was no surprise poker grew. In 2001, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos told his board that they were suspending all marketing spending and offering lower prices and free shipping. The lower prices and free shipping sold the product - in fact, in less than one year Amazon registered its first non-holiday quarter of profit. In 2008 and beyond the product is your marketing.

I have had the pleasure to consult with hundreds of web companies. We get requests to take the accounts for many others. We turn down most of them because if they are not set up correctly, or are not in a position to grow with marketing help, we believe that they will be wasting their money with us. We tell them to try something else, or try another avenue to grow. We would never have grown our company from a start-up if we took people's money, made false promises and have them fail. If racing came to me tomorrow I would tell them they are a potential client. Racing, in my opinion, with some investment and repositioning, could thrive. It is a 19th century game that is built fundamentally for the Internet; and with a 21st century race goer in the live setting, too. I think it possesses the innate characteristics to grow.

All we need is racing to understand who they are. And to stop selling themselves like they did when they were the only game in town.

Horseplayersbet.com
11-24-2009, 01:52 PM
I can't remember seeing an ad on TV for an ADW.
Woodbine advertises in Canada and has their own ADW. But I doubt it attracts customers. Poker attracts customers because everyone knows stories of players who started out in their mom's basement who now travel all over America on tour and have a nice 5000 square foot home to boot.

The key is that horse racing is gambling. To lure gamblers there has to be a reason for a newbie to start out. If there are no visible winners, what is the point of even trying to learn the game. The message horse racing has to offer (and this is due to ridiculously high takeouts) is come play the ponies, you are guaranteed to lose, but come and play just for the fun of it, aw c'mon and play the ponies anyway.

Robert Fischer
11-24-2009, 02:23 PM
I don't see racing doing this. First because cams won't work in racing, you would have to have play by play interviews with many pros to accomplish the same thing. I don't think there are many pros willing to divulge their secrets and methods. I wouldn't, that's for sure. I'd be cutting my own throat

I hear you. I still think it could work. For certain, some personalities/vendors would fight tooth and nail for the chance. Picture Beyer in there, he can basically pimp his numbers and the DRF without "taking the food out of his mouth" - actually just the opposite.
For a player like you or me, there would definitely be a dilemma as to giving out too much of our games.
We'd have to get "RAYBO on Superfectas" out ASAP;)

46zilzal
11-24-2009, 02:52 PM
We have many "attractions" over the season and they are GIMMICKY enough to bring in large crowds (I have to give the marketing team that much credit).The "wiener dog" races were very well attended by families and all manner of new people, as were the Mascot races and a show of boxers sparring in between races (one boxer sparred with one of the leading riders who had tired his hand at it in the past..I am told all of these events are on You Tube).

I was standing in the winner's circle while the head of marketing (there was an on site draw that evening for a river rafting vacation and I was helping her move a bin of entries). I thought, "What a good time to ask the obvious question."

"Now that you have the crowd HERE, what are the plans to KEEP them coming back?"
MARKETING: "That's not my problem."
"You went to all this effort with NO GOAL in mind?"
MARKETING: "That's not my problem."

Methinks the young lady knows next to nothing about RACING FANS and over the course of a few seasons, that became clear. THE FRONT OFFICE SUITS, if there is a casino on course, does not give a SHIT about racing nor it's long term survival.

banacek
11-24-2009, 03:10 PM
46, I was reading Tom Wolski's column last week about a new committee:

http://www.sportofkingstv.com/column.php?id=107

"For the first time, an attempt is being made to coordinate the activities of the various corporations and horsemen’s groups that have managed various sectors of the sport and breeding industry. The new B.C. Horse Racing Industry Management Committee “brings the industry together under a single team to establish and implement a more efficient financial management structure and develop a new marketing strategy to increase revenue”, according to the government press release."

Some interesting people on the committee, but I have to wonder why there is no representation from the horseplayers. If there was, then I'd get the feeling that they might be on the right path.

46zilzal
11-24-2009, 03:18 PM
Left out of the loop yet again. I will see Tommy over the weekend (he brought a program back from Anita's big day for me) and will see about what you and I can do to represent the lost participants here.

Tom is one of the hardest working, truly positive forces out here in the business today. We need 50 more like him. The other truly great guy for racing is Paul Reyneveld, a true visionary and downright HONEST, open minded man. I just hope he doesn't leave screaming with frustration. Under all his titles, that man, is at heart, a TRUE fan of racing as we shoot back trivia questions to one another.

Too bad about Teide.

raybo
11-24-2009, 04:32 PM
Actually, I would argue that poker exploded with the confluence of four events. One, as you stated was the lipstick camera which made poker more entertaining as a television event. Two, the mass availability of online poker, particularly the critical mass of Party Poker, Paradise Poker, and PokerStars. Three (could be a subset of two), the first widely available low buy-in sattellites to large tournaments, giving people the ability to play with the pros on their budget. Four, Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP in 2003 (on 39 dollar buy-in if I remember correctly). Seeing some Tennessee accountant amateur poker player beat the pro (Sam Farha), and seeing him make some ridiculously poor plays that he got rewarded for, made millions of people think "if he can do that, I can!"

All these things happened at roughly the same time, and ushered in the golden age of poker, especially no limit Texas hold'em, a game that was almost never spread in Vegas before 2003.

I agree with all your points, except that they all did not happen at the same time, at least they didn't explode at the same time. The televising of WSOP, with the cams, developed amateur interest in the game, which led to an explosion of poker sites on the net, offering both play chip and money games and tournaments, then the advent of the "freeroll", allowing an amateur to risk no money with the possibility of winning either real money or an entry into another round of tournament play, culminating with play for big money, for an amateur, or even a seat in the WSOP. The satellites grew WSOP tremendously, and more than one player got into those through "freerolls".

I agree that Chris' winning the WSOP (with, as you stated, very poor play and some very lucky 4th street and river catches) had thousands of nobodies dreaming of doing the same thing and actually trying to improve their game with WSOP as their ultimate goal.

CBedo
11-24-2009, 05:44 PM
I agree with all your points, except that they all did not happen at the same time, at least they didn't explode at the same time. The televising of WSOP, with the cams, developed amateur interest in the game, which led to an explosion of poker sites on the net, offering both play chip and money games and tournaments, then the advent of the "freeroll", allowing an amateur to risk no money with the possibility of winning either real money or an entry into another round of tournament play, culminating with play for big money, for an amateur, or even a seat in the WSOP. The satellites grew WSOP tremendously, and more than one player got into those through "freerolls".

I agree that Chris' winning the WSOP (with, as you stated, very poor play and some very lucky 4th street and river catches) had thousands of nobodies dreaming of doing the same thing and actually trying to improve their game with WSOP as their ultimate goal.I played at the 2002 and 2003 WSOP at the Horseshoe and I remember thinking how much it had grown year over year. Then Moneymaker won, and the next year in 2004 it was insane, the fire marshals threatened to shut down the Horseshoe because there were so many people playing and watching at the WSOP.

Here are the Main Event around those years:

2002 639 (I think they had just over 600 the year before)
2003 839
2004 2576 (Moneymaker effect and online qualifiers are mainstream)
2005 5619
2006 8773

raybo
11-24-2009, 08:37 PM
I played at the 2002 and 2003 WSOP at the Horseshoe and I remember thinking how much it had grown year over year. Then Moneymaker won, and the next year in 2004 it was insane, the fire marshals threatened to shut down the Horseshoe because there were so many people playing and watching at the WSOP.

Here are the Main Event around those years:

2002 639 (I think they had just over 600 the year before)
2003 839
2004 2576 (Moneymaker effect and online qualifiers are mainstream)
2005 5619
2006 8773

Here's how it started:

1971 - 6
1973 - 13
1981 - 75 (NBC televised with, full crew, into millions of homes for 1st time)
1983 - 108 (1st satellites)
1987 - 152
1990 - 194 (1st non-American champ)
1991 - 215 (1st $1,000,000 prize)
2000 - 512 (1st $1.5 mil prize)
2002 - 631 (1st $2 mil prize and 1st pocket cams (only final table televised) )

And then Chris won in 2003 ($2.5 mil prize and tv coverage of tables prior to the final table) and the explosion hit, everybody wanted to be the next poker millionaire)
2004 Greg Raymer won $5 mil
2005 Joe Hachem won $7.5 mil
2006 Jamie Gold won $12 mil
2007 - 6358 (1st H.O.R.S.E. tournament ($50,000 buy-in) - Gambling Act started affecting number of players)
2008 - 6844
2009 - 6494

So, 1st came TV - then satellites - then pocket cams - then the amateur, Moneymaker, won $2.5 mil - and the rest is, as they say, history.

thespaah
11-24-2009, 09:33 PM
what can the horseplayers do at the grassroots level to bring some new blood into this game?
ask one person to go with them next time they visit the track.
We can no longer afford to be just hard core nose in the program horseplayers. Inattentive track managements and poor marketing dept heads have left us with the job of horseracing ambassadors.
Yep. Some of you may bristle at that notion. But it is our job to take a guy/gal to the track.

CBedo
11-24-2009, 09:49 PM
Here's how it started:

1971 - 6
1973 - 13
1981 - 75 (NBC televised with, full crew, into millions of homes for 1st time)
1983 - 108 (1st satellites)
1987 - 152
1990 - 194 (1st non-American champ)
1991 - 215 (1st $1,000,000 prize)
2000 - 512 (1st $1.5 mil prize)
2002 - 631 (1st $2 mil prize and 1st pocket cams (only final table televised) )

And then Chris won in 2003 ($2.5 mil prize and tv coverage of tables prior to the final table) and the explosion hit, everybody wanted to be the next poker millionaire)
2004 Greg Raymer won $5 mil
2005 Joe Hachem won $7.5 mil
2006 Jamie Gold won $12 mil
2007 - 6358 (1st H.O.R.S.E. tournament ($50,000 buy-in) - Gambling Act started affecting number of players)
2008 - 6844
2009 - 6494

So, 1st came TV - then satellites - then pocket cams - then the amateur, Moneymaker, won $2.5 mil - and the rest is, as they say, history.As long as we're spewing WSOP facts, the first gathering was 1970, not 1971. Benny Binion invited who he thought were the 7 best players in the world. Instead of a main event tournament, they played multiple games and then voted for the WSOP champion. Johnny Moss received that honor.

Secondly, the first amateur to win the main event was not Moneymaker. Hal Fowler was when he won it in 1979(?). I could be wrong about the year plus or minus one or two.

CBedo
11-24-2009, 09:52 PM
ask one person to go with them next time they visit the track.
We can no longer afford to be just hard core nose in the program horseplayers. Inattentive track managements and poor marketing dept heads have left us with the job of horseracing ambassadors.
Yep. Some of you may bristle at that notion. But it is our job to take a guy/gal to the track.I agree with this notion! I try to take a group of friends who have never been to the track, at least once a year. Have you ever seen anyone who didn't have a good time the first time they were at the track, standing by the rail when those magnificent animals coming thundering down the stretch? The key is somehow converting these types or those who come to your Derby part to studious horse bettors.

Horseplayersbet.com
11-24-2009, 10:46 PM
ask one person to go with them next time they visit the track.
We can no longer afford to be just hard core nose in the program horseplayers. Inattentive track managements and poor marketing dept heads have left us with the job of horseracing ambassadors.
Yep. Some of you may bristle at that notion. But it is our job to take a guy/gal to the track.
I used to bring people to the track prior to Beyers being in the form. That is when the game could be beaten by speed figure types, or at least players could last long and have a fighting chance.
There is no way I would take a new person to the track today. That would be something like being a heroin pusher and injecting someone for the first time. No possible upside for your friend unless he or she is a quick learner and has the time and effort to become sophisticated enough in a hurry so that they can bet with a rebate shop and have a chance (and lets face it, that isn't reality).

raybo
11-25-2009, 12:09 AM
As long as we're spewing WSOP facts, the first gathering was 1970, not 1971. Benny Binion invited who he thought were the 7 best players in the world. Instead of a main event tournament, they played multiple games and then voted for the WSOP champion. Johnny Moss received that honor.

Secondly, the first amateur to win the main event was not Moneymaker. Hal Fowler was when he won it in 1979(?). I could be wrong about the year plus or minus one or two.

The tournaments I listed were "Main Event" tournaments and the first one was in 1971.

I didn't say Chris was the first amateur to win. However, his win was the single most pivotal point, concerning WSOP growth, in WSOP history.

1979 is correct for Fowler's win.

masterpeg
11-25-2009, 01:38 AM
just saw this and must chime in. I'm a poker player turning to horse racing and can add my opinion. First, I'm one of many silent online poker winners. I'm not making a living (have a real job), but I'm profitable to where I gave considerable thought and still do to trying to make a go of it. However, I am getting bored after reading many books, developing many different styles (and being successful at them all at varying degrees).

I dabbled in handicapping before poker and am turning back to it with a passion. I guess I'm a bit of a data nerd (great for both games), but I am returning mostly for the competition. I never became profitable in handicapping and I see that as a challenge.

there is room for both. Horse racing, however, requires a pretty hefty bankroll to get started though if you want to make big scores. I think the advent of the .50 cent pick 4's and .10 cent supers help a bit, but I can't see horse racing growing without better marketing to the unknown public.

samyn on the green
11-25-2009, 04:29 AM
Funny post that uncovers much truth. TV is truly the opiate of the masses - racing is not a strong TV product. Poker got BROADCAST to MILLIONS on free or near-free cable in PRIMETIME
then
it got BROADCAST to MILLIONS on a MAJOR NETWORK on free or near-free cable in PRIMETIME

compare the popularity of poker before the MASS MEDIA BROADCAST
compare the popularity of NFL before the MASS MEDIA BROADCAST really kicked in mid 60s?
The NBA was a ****ing joke , with playoff games on taped-replay before MASS MEDIA BROADCAST.

specialty cable/satelite channels are not sufficient

so, to sum up, what horseracing needs, is slots

Robert Goren
11-25-2009, 10:44 AM
Didn't ESPN broadcast the National Handicappers Tournament a few years ago?

fmolf
11-25-2009, 11:37 AM
In the poker rooms they usually comp you beverages at the track $4 minimum for a beer...poker room free to sit don and play at the track $2-$5 depending on track and location.Poker rooms cards and chips are free..tracks program $2..pp's $1-$5.....poker rooms...low rake....tracks high rake...
What tracks should be doing is setting up free trips to the track for srs. just like the casinos do.Here is what my grandmother gets for a bus trip to atlantic city.She pays $25 for the bus ticket but gets back a $10 roll of quarters and a $10 food and beverage comp in addition to any comps she accrues from gambling!She goes with all her friends and it is a very pleasant and social day for the seniors.Before the casinos these people were gambling at the track.Tracks need to give people comps for their gambling dollar.Instead of slapping them in the face with beers @ $4...hotdogs@$4 etc...etc...

Robert Goren
11-25-2009, 01:18 PM
Things are not going to change until the tracks realize that the betters are customers and not the horse people. I have watch the emphasis slowly change from betters in 1960s to horse people now. A trainer with a string of broken down $5000 claimers is now treated way better than someone who sends $5000 through the windows in a day.

fmolf
11-25-2009, 03:06 PM
Things are not going to change until the tracks realize that the betters are customers and not the horse people. I have watch the emphasis slowly change from betters in 1960s to horse people now. A trainer with a string of broken down $5000 claimers is now treated way better than someone who sends $5000 through the windows in a day.
Perhaps ,just perhaps if there was no free lunch for horseman and owners then some of lower end races and lower tier tracks would disappear.I feel their is just too much racing and not enough customers this is spreading the wagering dollars too thin.I also believe their are too many pools at each track to choose from!Does racing really need a p6 from philly park with a total pool of 6k?Do we need rolling pick 3's and doubles?Do we need supers on every race abd tri's on every race?how about alternating between the two.nobody can make any money the pools are so small.

Space Monkey
11-25-2009, 04:20 PM
ask one person to go with them next time they visit the track.

When I moved to Tampa in 2001 I made some new friends that had never been to a horse track. So I tried very basically, to explain the form to them. Every one of them just spaced out and said, "I'll just bet what you do". :(

I hate to say this, because this country has been "dumbed down" enough, but unless the game comes up with some simpler way to handicap, they won't be able to bring enough new people in to make a difference. I saw this problem back in the 70's with dog racing. Dogs became more popular with lazy minded people. Simple conditions, only 8 to a race, etc. The first thing you should teach a newbie is how to understand the race conditions. :lol: Its over right there before you even get to the running line. :(

raybo
11-25-2009, 11:04 PM
Perhaps ,just perhaps if there was no free lunch for horseman and owners then some of lower end races and lower tier tracks would disappear.I feel their is just too much racing and not enough customers this is spreading the wagering dollars too thin.I also believe their are too many pools at each track to choose from!Does racing really need a p6 from philly park with a total pool of 6k?Do we need rolling pick 3's and doubles?Do we need supers on every race abd tri's on every race?how about alternating between the two.nobody can make any money the pools are so small.

You can leave my supers out of your cuts, if you don't mind! If you want to grow the game, give players more options, not fewer.

Your last sentence is false. Rephrase it to reflect the truth, not just your opinion, some do make money.

Stillriledup
11-25-2009, 11:36 PM
Things are not going to change until the tracks realize that the betters are customers and not the horse people. I have watch the emphasis slowly change from betters in 1960s to horse people now. A trainer with a string of broken down $5000 claimers is now treated way better than someone who sends $5000 through the windows in a day.

This is a great post.

Bettors don't have a voice. They don't have someone who is going to management and telling them that so and so bets 5k a day at this facility and he wants x, y and z or he's leaving. Not outragegous demands, but just a little VIP treatment like Vegas gives its players. A 5k a day player in racing needs a free yearly admission pass, free parking pass, free racing forms, free beverages, a lunch like a chicken sandwich and a spot where he can bet without worring about being shut out. That's the beginning of what a 5k a day player should get.

Robert Fischer
11-25-2009, 11:49 PM
This is a great post.

Bettors don't have a voice. They don't have someone who is going to management and telling them that so and so bets 5k a day at this facility and he wants x, y and z or he's leaving. Not outragegous demands, but just a little VIP treatment like Vegas gives its players. A 5k a day player in racing needs a free yearly admission pass, free parking pass, free racing forms, free beverages, a lunch like a chicken sandwich and a spot where he can bet without worring about being shut out. That's the beginning of what a 5k a day player should get.

I agree with you here. Reward the big players bigtime. And ALL players should be comped when possible. When racing does have a big day and these tracks have their season high attendance there simply isn't in my opinion enough free admission/parking passes handed out, enough beverage comps handed out etc... You get these people there for the big day , they should leave with a coupon redeemable for parking/admission and a beverage on the NEXT weekend. These types of little things pay for themselves. I earn monthly savings points with my little key card at my grocery store. Get these types of things to players.

Horseplayersbet.com
11-26-2009, 09:01 AM
I agree with you here. Reward the big players bigtime. And ALL players should be comped when possible. When racing does have a big day and these tracks have their season high attendance there simply isn't in my opinion enough free admission/parking passes handed out, enough beverage comps handed out etc... You get these people there for the big day , they should leave with a coupon redeemable for parking/admission and a beverage on the NEXT weekend. These types of little things pay for themselves. I earn monthly savings points with my little key card at my grocery store. Get these types of things to players.
That is a great idea. Or coupons that are good through the next month.

proximity
11-26-2009, 09:34 AM
A 5k a day player in racing needs a free yearly admission pass, free parking pass, free racing forms, free beverages, a lunch like a chicken sandwich and a spot where he can bet without worring about being shut out. That's the beginning of what a 5k a day player should get.

you could bet less than $1000 a day at pen and get all that stuff.

a 5k a day player needs $500+ a day in rebates!!

and $50 a day players need bigger rebates too.

zero point something percent "rewards" just don't inspire people to play consistently. in fact your "rewards" account grows sooooo slowly that it is actually depressing.

Jackal
11-26-2009, 10:20 AM
When I first got involved with racing lots of people had racehorses. You would see yearlings in peoples yard. They were hoping to "pinhook" the yearling. In the mid 80s medication rules changed. You could no longer go to the feed store and buy common medications for horses.

Before the law changed lots of people had horses in training. I had several cheap claimers all the time. When one of my horses was training well I literally had a caravan following me to the track. I am sure I wasn't the only small time owner/trainer that had the same experience. I seldom had to pay a hotwalker or a groom. Another horseman would care for my horses when I was away. Usually several people volunteered to walk my horse after a race.

Before the rule change, if a horse came down with colic you could go to the feed store, buy a bottle of banamine or Apomorphine tablets. Now if a horse colic's you are lucky if the vet shows up before the horse twists a gut (usually fatal). To add insult to injury the vet charges $200 to put your horse down.

Putting the small owner/trainer out of business was good for large stables but bad for the game.

Robert Fischer
11-26-2009, 11:51 AM
Or coupons that are good through the next month.
even better :ThmbUp:




zero point something percent "rewards" just don't inspire people to play consistently. in fact your "rewards" account grows sooooo slowly that it is actually depressing.
:lol:

Horseplayersbet.com
11-26-2009, 12:34 PM
you could bet less than $1000 a day at pen and get all that stuff.

a 5k a day player needs $500+ a day in rebates!!

and $50 a day players need bigger rebates too.

zero point something percent "rewards" just don't inspire people to play consistently. in fact your "rewards" account grows sooooo slowly that it is actually depressing.
I strongly believe that anyone who opens an ADW account should get the high rewards no matter how much they play.

It is the small bettors that become big bettors over time, or at least they should be encouraged to do so.