PDA

View Full Version : Pipe dreams of a racing circuit


trigger
11-15-2008, 05:48 PM
An proposal that attempts to limit the number of tracks available at a given time to increase interest and maximize handle.
I like it!!

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=plonk_jeremy&id=3696177

DanG
11-15-2008, 06:34 PM
Thanks Trigger;

Jeremy Plonk is on a roll right now. That is several articles in a row that make perfect sense and should bombard racing executive offices fax machines until they tilt.

I hope racing fans are backing up Jeremy’s efforts by writing ESPN.com in support of his columns. :ThmbUp:

Jeremy@Horseplayerpro.com

sjk
11-15-2008, 07:35 PM
People that bet few tracks seem to want the rest of us to have only a few tracks to play.

With a number of tracks unavailable on ADW the amount of money I have bet goes down in direct relation to the number of offerings. Why anyone would think that I would bet more money on Track A because Track B is not available completely baffles me.

Players who have become accustomed to the action (profit) levels of playing numerous tracks might not find it stimulating or worth the time invested to spend the day playing a very few tracks.

When everyone is playing all of the same tracks the pools become more efficient and value players will find even less to do.

There would be fewer people employed in the industry and fewer chances to go to see live racing for most people.

Track Collector
11-15-2008, 11:57 PM
I'm with SJK. This idea will do the opposite of increasing handle at the remaining tracks. Owners and players everywhere would leave the game completely, perhaps never to return. Some people would have to drive hundreds of miles to attend a live meet. Sure sounds like a great incentive to lure new race fans.:rolleyes:

Zman179
11-16-2008, 07:26 AM
One, two, or even three meetings a day works in other countries because those countries are smaller and can create a national circuit. For example, if I'm in England, I can do Doncaster one week and Lingfield the next.

Here, you can't really do that due to the vast size of this country. Take for example: me. I do bet on the internet, but I prefer to attend the races live. If there was only two months of racing in my locale every year, then I would very likely reduce my wagering to two months per year (maybe three with simulcasting.) In my case it would produce the opposite effect of what was desired by the executives. This plan also wouldn't work in Australia where racing is popular, but the size of their country is equal to that of the US.

You just can't create a circuit that encompasses 3,500 miles from coast-to-coast; however, what we do need is less racing and fewer racetracks.

trigger
11-16-2008, 10:51 AM
One, two, or even three meetings a day works in other countries because those countries are smaller and can create a national circuit. For example, if I'm in England, I can do Doncaster one week and Lingfield the next.

Here, you can't really do that due to the vast size of this country. Take for example: me. I do bet on the internet, but I prefer to attend the races live. If there was only two months of racing in my locale every year, then I would very likely reduce my wagering to two months per year (maybe three with simulcasting.) In my case it would produce the opposite effect of what was desired by the executives. This plan also wouldn't work in Australia where racing is popular, but the size of their country is equal to that of the US.

You just can't create a circuit that encompasses 3,500 miles from coast-to-coast; however, what we do need is less racing and fewer racetracks.

On average, except for the boutique meets, less than 10% of daily handle currently comes from on site bettors.
IMHO, the Plonk proposal is exactly what NA racing needs in order to survive in the long run as it will increase fan interest in NA racing through larger handles and better racing with less but classier horse population (no more $5000 claimers!)....not too mention the real possibility of decreased takeout if handles did, indeed, increase considerably.
Any loss in on-site bettors would be more than made up in handle by increased nation-wide interest and higher attendance at each meet. Also, Plonk's proposal allows for 8 tracks a day and includes all existing tracks. The two month meets at each track would take on a Saratoga/ Del Mar feel with big time horse stars and jockeys appearing in person across the US and Canada.

michiken
11-16-2008, 11:12 AM
The one point I disagree with is having post times 1/2 hour apart.

This would make a day at the track very boring. It would be like watching the Breeders Cup or Churchill on KY Derby day. Too much wasted time in my opinion.

People would be leaving the track from boredom. They will head to the casino where action is abundant. This would not increase on track attendance....

ezrabrooks
11-16-2008, 11:24 AM
[QUOTE=trigger]On average, except for the boutique meets, less than 10% of daily handle currently comes from on site bettors.
IMHO, the Plonk proposal is exactly what NA racing needs in order to survive in the long run as it will increase fan interest in NA racing through larger handles and better racing with less but classier horse population (no more $5000 claimers!)....not too mention the real possibility of decreased takeout if handles did, indeed, increase considerably.
Any loss in on-site bettors would be more than made up in handle by increased nation-wide interest and higher attendance at each meet. Also, Plonk's proposal allows for 8 tracks a day and includes all existing tracks. The two month meets at each track would take on a Saratoga/ Del Mar feel with big time horse stars and jockeys appearing in person across the US and Canada.[/QUOTe


If 10% of the total Handle comes from 'on site'...How much of the of the total daily handle comes from the total of all the on sites?

Ez

DanG
11-16-2008, 11:54 AM
The one point I disagree with is having post times 1/2 hour apart.

This would make a day at the track very boring. It would be like watching the Breeders Cup or Churchill on KY Derby day. Too much wasted time in my opinion.

People would be leaving the track from boredom. They will head to the casino where action is abundant. This would not increase on track attendance....
Fair point; :ThmbUp:

The modern attention span shrinks with each decade. I remember the 1st time I brought my step-son to Gulfstream I thought his head would explode in between races. :faint:

Living in Vegas you can certainly see the modern craving for action in spades. Nothing like seeing a human playing 5 machines simultaneously. Also; ask them if one is taken and the ‘Manson lamps you get back could burn a hole in the sun. :eek:

DeanT
11-16-2008, 12:30 PM
In the UK the races run about every ten minutes. I think we could easily do three tracks at a time and do it correctly.

We have to get away from the live racing model and clinging to it. People are not going to go to the track like they used to. That is over. We have to repackage the racing experience to fit today's society. I read a book recently with the VP of packaging of Proctor and Gamble. He works on things like this every day in terms of repackaging. It is a constant struggle. We have not repackaged this game in 100 years.

sjk
11-16-2008, 12:59 PM
I would guess the 10% figure relates to how much of the handle at track A is generated by people at track A. People at track A bet on other tracks as well.

I would think the figure as to how much of the handle is generated by people at a race track (whose legal ability to conduct betting operations rests on conducting live races each year) would be a higher number.

alhattab
11-16-2008, 03:50 PM
I think Plonk's general viewpoint but I would adjust his proposed schedule somewhat. Plus to think that there's no Keeneland spring meet or Belmont fall meet is ludicrous. His whole plan is completely impactical at this point because the game is partly controlled by government and not the "league".

Anyway I like the Japanese model in which there are major league and minor league meets. To apply in the US, I would have the minor league venues effectively "unregulated"- they can run 365 days if they desire. The "major league" venues would be subject to "league" regulation. These regulations could run the gamut, from drugs to post times to using colored saddlecloths to scheduling of graded stakes races. In some cases a "minor" league venue would be "major" league for a select time, while other meets would be major league all the time (Keeneland, Saratoga, Del Mar) and others would be in perpetual "minor" leagues (Penn National, Turf Paradise).

The ultimate solution would be to eliminate slots subsidies from the game, which would restore the natural order of things (e.g., Delaware Park from competing with Belmont for high caliber horses) and would likely result in the weak venues failing and thus a reduction in racing.

ezrabrooks
11-16-2008, 04:39 PM
[QUOTE=sjk]I would guess the 10% figure relates to how much of the handle at track A is generated by people at track A. People at track A bet on other tracks as well.

I would think the figure as to how much of the handle is generated by people at a race track (whose legal ability to conduct betting operations rests on conducting live races each year) would be a higher number.[/QUOTE

Yes, that was my thought, and the point of the question.

startngate
11-16-2008, 08:02 PM
Also, Plonk's proposal allows for 8 tracks a day and includes all existing tracks.While I am all for less racing and developing circuits, Plonk didn't even come close to including all existing tracks.

For example, he killed off all of Ohio and Nebraska (OK, not necessarily bad), Sunland, Yavapai, Prairie Meadows, The California Fairs, Emerald Downs, Pinnacle. I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Eliminating the Keeneland Spring and Belmont Fall meets is bad too.

And yes, I know that the world won't come to an end if some of those tracks are gone.

I think the industry ought to start looking at creating 'circuits' to start the racing dates reduction. Taking Ohio for example, is it really necessary for River/Beulah/Thistledown to have overlapping dates? No. How about Canterbury and Prairie Meadows? No. Lone Star/Sam Houston/Retama/Remington? No.

There is a lot of consolidation that could be done fairly painlessly. Once the circuits get pared down, then I suspect scheduling down to the two existing racing networks could probably be done.

The point he's trying to make is a good one though. Too much racing.

thespaah
11-16-2008, 11:26 PM
An proposal that attempts to limit the number of tracks available at a given time to increase interest and maximize handle.
I like it!!

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=plonk_jeremy&id=3696177Great ideas. But those ideas will never be implemented for the very reasons the writer mentioned
The track owners and horsemen are going to short sight themselves right out of business....And if these groups think Slots are going to be their savior, they can forget it...

DeanT
11-16-2008, 11:48 PM
Very astute post Alhattab.

trigger
11-17-2008, 10:45 AM
[QUOTE=sjk]I would guess the 10% figure relates to how much of the handle at track A is generated by people at track A. People at track A bet on other tracks as well.

I would think the figure as to how much of the handle is generated by people at a race track (whose legal ability to conduct betting operations rests on conducting live races each year) would be a higher number.[/QUOTE

Yes, that was my thought, and the point of the question.

First of all, it's confusing to me whether the on site handle reported by the tracks includes bets made at off site tracks (if it is, do the off site tracks include this these bets in their handles...double counted??).
But, anyway , I was addressing the point made by Zman that current on site bettors wouldn't continue betting for 10 months each year because they would only attend and bet live races in their locale for the Plonk's proposed two month meet. Apparently, the on site bettors who bet off site races don't require live racing to make their bets so it makes sense that would keep attending the track or 12 months a year.

trigger
11-17-2008, 10:51 AM
While I am all for less racing and developing circuits, Plonk didn't even come close to including all existing tracks.

For example, he killed off all of Ohio and Nebraska (OK, not necessarily bad), Sunland, Yavapai, Prairie Meadows, The California Fairs, Emerald Downs, Pinnacle. I'm sure I've forgotten a few. Eliminating the Keeneland Spring and Belmont Fall meets is bad too.

And yes, I know that the world won't come to an end if some of those tracks are gone.

I think the industry ought to start looking at creating 'circuits' to start the racing dates reduction. Taking Ohio for example, is it really necessary for River/Beulah/Thistledown to have overlapping dates? No. How about Canterbury and Prairie Meadows? No. Lone Star/Sam Houston/Retama/Remington? No.

There is a lot of consolidation that could be done fairly painlessly. Once the circuits get pared down, then I suspect scheduling down to the two existing racing networks could probably be done.

The point he's trying to make is a good one though. Too much racing.

Yes too much racing which results in wagering being spread too thin which ,in turn, results in lower per race purses and high takeout (to support too many races). A vicious circle.

proximity
11-18-2008, 06:05 AM
this thread is ridiculous.

many nights (and some days) there are only one or two tracks running. imagine doyle brunson going out to the casino and only being able to play 9-20 hands of poker.

i will agree that the layout of post times throughout the day could certainly be improved. 14 tracks running on sunday afternoons (when nfl games are on) and only one on sunday nights?? hoo and ct are especially guilty.

ezrabrooks
11-18-2008, 07:12 AM
[QUOTE=ezrabrooks]

First of all, it's confusing to me whether the on site handle reported by the tracks includes bets made at off site tracks (if it is, do the off site tracks include this these bets in their handles...double counted??).
But, anyway , I was addressing the point made by Zman that current on site bettors wouldn't continue betting for 10 months each year because they would only attend and bet live races in their locale for the Plonk's proposed two month meet. Apparently, the on site bettors who bet off site races don't require live racing to make their bets so it makes sense that would keep attending the track or 12 months a year.

phatbastard
11-18-2008, 08:05 AM
tampa,the one track that i know has sustained growth since turn of century, would lose any prime winter dates? sounds ludicrous to me

just let free market decide which tracks survive this slowdown and down turn in interest, soon enough we will cull the losers..

DanG
11-18-2008, 08:25 AM
Many good points in here but imo…Too many are getting hung up on the individual dates / times and missing the basic message of structure, reduction = improved quality, staggering race times etc…

You couldn’t print a complete racing schedule that would please all; but the core of the message is badly needed and not written about enough imo.