Takeout is really being talked about these days

[Cangamble]

I like to think HANA and blogs like mine and Pull the Pocket have something to do with it:)
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=cronley_jay&id=4311014

This columnist points out the fact that dummies have left betting horse racing, thus leaving good to great players playing amongst themselves at the same takeout levels that existed pre-dummy Exodus.

[fmolf]

I like to think HANA and blogs like mine and Pull the Pocket have something to do with it:)
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=cronley_jay&id=4311014

This columnist points out the fact that dummies have left betting horse racing, thus leaving good to great players playing amongst themselves at the same takeout levels that existed pre-dummy Exodus.
as well it should be.the most interesting part of his column is the fact he recognizes their is no dumb monies in the pools anylonger.no more little old ladies betting their $2 on their grandsons birthday.I rmember belmont when 10k was an average crowd on a weekday and then that same night 10k more at roosevelt harness....those days are long gone because racetrack officials with their shortsightedness and misreading of the market missed the boat.

[Imriledup]

Players care about the gamble and the price of the wager, they really don't want to support horse owners so those already rich horse owners can reap financial glory on top of everything. Most of us would rather bet on ant or cockroach races where there is very little overhead. We would sacrifice the excitement of horse races to get a better gambling opportunity.

There are plenty of entertainment options in the country, we don't need to use horse racing as an entertainment vehicle, we would trade in the entertainment for the better price of the gamble, as most would.

[jballscalls]

At Emerald Downs on Sunday they had a segment on their pre race show that was titled "changes you'd like to see in racing" track analyst Joe Withee said for places to reduce takeout, especially those with % over 25%. Announcer Robert Gellar said get rid of 1 and 1a

[fmolf]

At Emerald Downs on Sunday they had a segment on their pre race show that was titled "changes you'd like to see in racing" track analyst Joe Withee said for places to reduce takeout, especially those with % over 25%. Announcer Robert Gellar said get rid of 1 and 1a
coupled entries are a relic from the past.Why horses cannot run uncoupled i will never figure out in this day and age.Takeout reduction of course will be necessary to save the game as we know it today.

[Watcher]

I keep reading posts here that criticize the "rich" owner for wanting larger purses, causing increase in takeout.

Seems to me you guys have fallen prey to your own grumblings. Yes, without the horse player, the industry collapses. But the same is held true with horse owners.

If you want full fields and good betting opportunities, you need more horse owners. To increase horse ownership, it needs to stay/become a viable, albeit risky, investment.

[DeanT]

If you want full fields and good betting opportunities, you need more horse owners. To increase horse ownership, it needs to stay/become a viable, albeit risky, investment.

I think that has been always overblown Watcher. You need people like many on the board who own horses, yes, but horses are commodities and if we dont want one, the market assures someone will. If a horse owner leaves, someone will replace them and buy that horse. if a customer leaves there is no one there to replace them. The reason you hear so much about horse ownership is because of yearling sales, not something altruistic like raising handles. They get killed without blue bloods buying new stock. I say, sew buttons. If they cant sell a Big Brown foal, well hell, maybe they will keep him racing for a year or two instead.l

If you want bigger fields and more betting opps it is simple: slash racedates. That can be done overnight. However, TOC and groups like that will fight you at every turn if you propose that.

[turfnsport]

I keep reading posts here that criticize the "rich" owner for wanting larger purses, causing increase in takeout.

Seems to me you guys have fallen prey to your own grumblings. Yes, without the horse player, the industry collapses. But the same is held true with horse owners.


Thinking like this is one of the reasons this game is in the shitter.

[Black Ruby]

I agree with dumping "entries". One track last Saturday night had a 2 yr old race where the first five finishers were 1A, 2X, 1Y, 1, and 1X. So the trifecta paid for picking 1st, 2nd and 6th. Try explaining that to someone new to racing.

[Watcher]

Thinking like this is one of the reasons this game is in the shitter.
There's a delicate balance in a sport like this. You need all the factions cooperating together to bring this game "out of the shitter".

If purses start dropping you end up with more tracks like Lone Star Park.

I think that has been always overblown Watcher. You need people like many on the board who own horses, yes, but horses are commodities and if we dont want one, the market assures someone will. If a horse owner leaves, someone will replace them and buy that horse. if a customer leaves there is no one there to replace them.
This is the problem. The game doesn't know how to replace or grow their customers. I'd be interested in seeing how many other 20 year olds are on this board. I certainly know there were virtually none that frequented Hollywood Park on weekdays.

[levinmpa]

With all of the "changes" that have come about the past several years like ADW's, Racinos, TV channels, I have not seen any progress in giving the player a break. ADW handle and Racinos have certainly increased purses. This benefits the horseman, owners, jockeys and those that work for them. However, with this increased revenue, where has the player benefited? Dramatic purse increases at Mountaineer, Evangeline, Philly Park and Delaware Park. But did tracks execs ever think about giving something back to the horseplayer, like seeding a Pick 4 pool, or lowering the takeout. Obviously not! Everyone benefits but the player. They still don't get that they need to compete for the gambling dollar. I keep waiting, but I don't see them competing.

[Cangamble]

With all of the "changes" that have come about the past several years like ADW's, Racinos, TV channels, I have not seen any progress in giving the player a break. ADW handle and Racinos have certainly increased purses. This benefits the horseman, owners, jockeys and those that work for them. However, with this increased revenue, where has the player benefited? Dramatic purse increases at Mountaineer, Evangeline, Philly Park and Delaware Park. But did tracks execs ever think about giving something back to the horseplayer, like seeding a Pick 4 pool, or lowering the takeout. Obviously not! Everyone benefits but the player. They still don't get that they need to compete for the gambling dollar. I keep waiting, but I don't see them competing.
The only way the player has benefited is by using ADWs that give substantial rebates.
Other than that, nothing.

[rrbauer]

I keep reading posts here that criticize the "rich" owner for wanting larger purses, causing increase in takeout.

Seems to me you guys have fallen prey to your own grumblings. Yes, without the horse player, the industry collapses. But the same is held true with horse owners.

If you want full fields and good betting opportunities, you need more horse owners. To increase horse ownership, it needs to stay/become a viable, albeit risky, investment.

More horse owners is not the answer unless it's more horse owners willing to lose money. Making money from racing horses is a losing proposition for the majority. Probably the 80-20 rule, but that's anecdotal. Owning horses from a financial perspective is a stupid investment. Hah! So is betting horses. Hah! So is owning racetracks. Wait. What about ths slots-subsidies? Hah! Now you have a better reason to own horses and to own racetracks. But, you sure don't have a reason to bet on their product. The slots bring more to the purse structure for the owners. The slots bring more to the revenue structure for the tracks. And, the slots bring what for the horseplayers?

The game needs to find equalibrium across the entire spectrum. Right now the biggest thing missing is horseplayers' money if the game is to continue on a self-sustaining basis. But, with slot subsidies for the horse owners and racetrack operators, horseplayers' money becomes less important except to horseplayers. So we're all scrambling around in the same high-cost game with fewer participants and fewer dollars looking for what? Fairness? Equity? Consideration? Free admission? Free parking? $1 Hot Dogs? $1 Beers? Profits? Entertainment? Free streamed video?

What are we looking for and what are we willing to pay for it? If a horseplayer has ever been able to walk away from a bad deal in his/her life then there has never been a better time than now to do that.

[Watcher]

Maybe my post is being misunderstood. My opinion is that if by lowering the takeout you are also slashing purses, you will find yourself with even more short fields.

I'm not trying to position that additional racing owners is the fix to the problem. Only that you can't replace one ignored faction for another in your solution.

Right now horse players are the ignored, minority group. If takeouts are decreased, and purses decreased, the horsemen then take this place. You end up with shorter fields and your betting opportunities dwindle.

The solution must balance all groups: tracks, ADWs/OTBs, horsemen, and horse players.

[Cangamble]

I do think that increasing horse ownership comes with increasing the fan base.
In order to get interested in owning horses, you usually have to be interested in horse racing to begin with.
And this goes hand in hand with players being able to last longer, so they get their families involved, and friends involved, and then some of their family and friends get more involved, to the point that they start thinking about forming partnerships to own a horse. One horse becomes two horses, some partnerships breaks up and go their separate way...in the meantime more owners are created.

But the biggie is that players need to last longer in order for this to occur. And the only way they will last longer is if takeouts are drastically reduced.

[Cangamble]

Maybe my post is being misunderstood. My opinion is that if by lowering the takeout you are also slashing purses, you will find yourself with even more short fields.

I'm not trying to position that additional racing owners is the fix to the problem. Only that you can't replace one ignored faction for another in your solution.

Right now horse players are the ignored, minority group. If takeouts are decreased, and purses decreased, the horsemen then take this place. You end up with shorter fields and your betting opportunities dwindle.

The solution must balance all groups: tracks, ADWs/OTBs, horsemen, and horse players.
If takeouts decrease, purses will inevitably increase.
http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

[Watcher]

If takeouts decrease, purses will inevitably increase.
http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF
I have only skimmed this, and it was some time ago. But I assume the basis of this argument is that the lowered takeouts will increase the handle on that track due to increase play from the bettors.

Have any tracks attempted to A/B test this theory in actuality?

[BillW]

I have only skimmed this, and it was some time ago. But I assume the basis of this argument is that the lowered takeouts will increase the handle on that track due to increase play from the bettors.

Have any tracks attempted to A/B test this theory in actuality?

There have been a few attempts, some very short term. We need to be careful here, dropping takeout in half on Friday will in all likelihood not cause an explosion in handle on Saturday.

The one instance that I am familiar with was the Sam Houston Pk-3 pool. When they dropped takeout from 25% to 12% they experienced an increase in handle of 125% at the time I checked on it which was toward the end of the first meet after the change. Of course there is the case where Keeneland dropped their rake (19% to 17% for exotics) and were boycotted by a group of simulcast customers on the east coast, so it didn't work out well for them :bang: .

The point is that 1) lowering take everywhere will have the long term effect of raising handle and 2) our ultimate goal is to increase handle as a solution to the racing game's ills. Lowering takeout as well as increased pool integrity, a fairer and more open drug policy and open (ADW) access to all tracks by horseplayers are all instrumental in achieving this goal.

[Black Ruby]

Seems like the best shot would be if CD and Magna could be convinced to each lower takeout on 1 of their tracks for the same time period, since they co-own HRTV, and each have wagering platforms, TwinSpires and Xpressbet, respectively.

[Cangamble]

I have only skimmed this, and it was some time ago. But I assume the basis of this argument is that the lowered takeouts will increase the handle on that track due to increase play from the bettors.

Have any tracks attempted to A/B test this theory in actuality?
We've seen the theory work quite well in poker and at Betfair.:)

How about thinking like this. Do you honestly think that raising takeouts will cause increased purses for horsemen?
In other words, there is an optimum takeout, and racing is nowhere near it right now....except maybe with rebate shops.

[Cangamble]

Seems like the best shot would be if CD and Magna could be convinced to each lower takeout on 1 of their tracks for the same time period, since they co-own HRTV, and each have wagering platforms, TwinSpires and Xpressbet, respectively.
Lowering on one track won't do it. It was tried for a short meet at Laurel two years ago.
Why did it fail?
1. Youbet and HPI (in Canada) didn't put Laurel on the menu. HPI, because the takeout was too low for them. Youbet had another reason if I remember correctly.
2. Most people don't gravitate to lower takeouts (we are educating them but it takes time). The price sensitive players these days are already getting rebates, so lower takeouts to them, just means smaller rebates. Those who benefited at the track or online or at simulcasts by the bigger Laurel payoffs, wound up churning the extra money, but most of it went to other high takeout tracks.

In order to see the effect of lower takeouts, a group of high profile tracks have to get together and lower them together. This will force the other tracks to follow suit, because within a few months tops, players will only be playing the lower takeout tracks for the most part.

[rrbauer]

Maybe my post is being misunderstood. My opinion is that if by lowering the takeout you are also slashing purses, you will find yourself with even more short fields.



Well, I don't see ANY purses being slashed at venues where slot subsidies are in play, yet I see handle declines at those venues. So the question is would some takeout decrease help stabilize the handle piece of the pie by generating more player interest and handle at those venues?

The bottom line remains: Either develop a product that will attract more interest and betting handle; or, get in the welfare pool and keep looking over you shoulder for what the pols are doing.

[rrbauer]

Lowering on one track won't do it. It was tried for a short meet at Laurel two years ago.
Why did it fail?
1. Youbet and HPI (in Canada) didn't put Laurel on the menu. HPI, because the takeout was too low for them. Youbet had another reason if I remember correctly.
2. Most people don't gravitate to lower takeouts (we are educating them but it takes time). The price sensitive players these days are already getting rebates, so lower takeouts to them, just means smaller rebates. Those who benefited at the track or online or at simulcasts by the bigger Laurel payoffs, wound up churning the extra money, but most of it went to other high takeout tracks.

In order to see the effect of lower takeouts, a group of high profile tracks have to get together and lower them together. This will force the other tracks to follow suit, because within a few months tops, players will only be playing the lower takeout tracks for the most part.

3. It was TEN (10) racing days. Players are going to drop what they're doing, get smart on a circuit that they're not familar with and send it in for a ten-day venue?

[badcompany]

IMO, lower takeouts are inevitable. What we're going through, now, is not your garden variety recession, but a permanent decrease in the standard of living in this country. The intelligent bettor is not going to regularly push money through the windows if they see it as pissing it away.

When enough tracks close up shop, the survivors will start to get religion.

[Hajck Hillstrom]

The only way the player has benefited is by using ADWs that give substantial rebates.There are other benefits as well, such as elimination of overhead, but I like the fact that I'm not subjected to the poor service that is prevalent at so many tracks.

The solution must balance all groups: Tracks, ADW's/OTB's, horsemen, and horseplayers.All I've ever asked is a level playing field. It is as if the horseplayer is asked to fund the sport, but has the door slammed in their face if they attempt to contribute in any other manner than financial.

[Black Ruby]

I understand your point, Cangamble, but still believe there could be a shot, say if Magna lowered takeout at SA and CDI at FG. And it would have to be for longer than 10 days.

That being said, the willingness of Magna and CDI to try anything that might better racing is questionable.

[BillW]

That being said, the willingness of Magna and CDI to try anything that might better racing is questionable.

Magna's going bankrupt ;)