Can California Racing Survive? Who's to Blame?

[andymays]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/53473/oak-tree-handle-attendance-decline

Excerpt:

Excluding the Breeders’ Cup, Oak Tree reported average daily attendance of 9,563, a decline of 11% from the 10,719 average in 2008 for a 26-day meet. On-track wagering totaled $55,775,197 for a daily average $1,799,200, a 17% decline from the average of $2,159,572 last year.

A total $386,679,851 was wagered from all sources on the Oak Tree meet, compared with $383,336,486 one year ago. Average daily all-sources wagering declined 15.4% from $14,743,711 to $12,473,544.

Total attendance for the two-day World Championships increased from 86,588 to 96,496 this year. The two-day common pool total handle of $144,599,205 was down 7%.

[andymays]

No question that the economy is part of it. Especially in California.

There are a bunch of other reasons for this disaster and first and foremost is the Leadership or lack thereof.


Most of the bigger players that I know stay away completely or bet much less.

The upcoming Santa Anita meet had a carryover rate of almost 50% last year. Since the surface has changed enough to be a little more predictable the carryover rate will be much less this year. Withought the high number of carryovers the handle for the upcoming meet will plumet.

[Moyers Pond]

All states without slots are hurting. The economy is obviously the biggest factor.

Kentucky, New York, and California have had horrible years in terms of handle.

[rrbauer]

All states without slots are hurting. The economy is obviously the biggest factor.

Kentucky, New York, and California have had horrible years in terms of handle.

Slots have nothing to do with handle except that when slots enter the picture and provide supplements for the purse structure then handle becomes less important. As disingenous as it sounds, over time slots will be responsible for both the rescue and ruination of purse-money supported racing.

[CBedo]

Slots have nothing to do with handle except that when slots enter the picture and provide supplements for the purse structure then handle becomes less important. As disingenous as it sounds, over time slots will be responsible for both the rescue and ruination of purse-money supported racing.Slots "could" help if the operators get to keep the slot monies AND they are forced to a good chunk of it on the racing product. The problem is that everyone (states) have their hands in the till for the slot money, and then the operators use a minimum amount to bump purses but do nothing else to help the racing product.

[lamboguy]

all california has to do is put $5million in an escrow account, put me in charge to implement new policies, sit back and pay me the $5million once i double there handle within 3 years. if the handle isn't double on a yearly basis i don't get paid.

[andymays]

A good portion of the Leadership puts their own interests above the interests of California Racing. Some of these guys need to go away. If you want to know who they are just listen in on a couple of CHRB meetings.

It didn't take a genius to see this coming.

[rwwupl]

No question that the economy is part of it. Especially in California.

There are a bunch of other reasons for this disaster and first and foremost is the Leadership or lack thereof.


Most of the bigger players that I know stay away completely or bet much less.

The upcoming Santa Anita meet had a carryover rate of almost 50% last year. Since the surface has changed enough to be a little more predictable the carryover rate will be much less this year. Withought the high number of carryovers the handle for the upcoming meet will plumet.


The right leadership can put our game together in short order. :ThmbUp:

rwwupl

[lamboguy]

The right leadership can put our game together in short order. :ThmbUp:

rwwuplthen$5million would be real cheap for what i could do for them

[JustRalph]

Same Issues

Same type thread


takes me back to 2004


nothing changes

[andymays]

Same Issues

Same type thread


takes me back to 2004


nothing changes


You're right. Until some of the people involved in running California Racing go away nothing will change.

[cj]

California racing has been in the dumper for a long time now. The only things that kept it prominent were the Pick 6 and that they still produced some pretty top class horses. Well, pretty much all the hype is gone for 3 year old racing because the synthetic horses can't run on dirt for the most part, and now that the BC isn't there next year, it isn't going to get any better.

Until the BC is scheduled there again, it is merely a blip on the racing radar for everyone outside of California that I know.

[tzipi]

Well maybe the economy is to blame in Califormia. I have'nt seen their att and handle records for last decade,but in NY the attendance and handle have been in steep decline even when the economy was going great.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Field size was a joke. I'm the type of player who can find a reason to bet almost every race, but I found many passable races at Santa Anita thanks to 5 horse fields that were either non competitive on paper with 3-5 shots that look unbeatable on paper and/or had too many question marks for a short field, like a couple of firsters, add in a horse who hasn't started in over 1 year, and form handicappers like me just gag and flip the page.

[andymays]

California racing has been in the dumper for a long time now. The only things that kept it prominent was the Pick 6 and that they still produced some pretty top class horses. Well, pretty much all the hype is gone for 3 year old racing because the synthetic horses can't run on dirt for the most part, and now that the BC isn't there next year, it isn't going to get any better.

Until the BC is scheduled there again, it is merely a blip on the racing radar for everyone outside of California that I know.


The have been surviving on the Pick 6 carryover for a long time and that isn't working anymore. The big pick 4 pools are a bust if it gets chalky as well. They want people betting huge pick 4 tickets ($400 - $1200)and just hitting it for a buck.

What now California? That 5% potential increase in the take is getting mighty inviting isn't it? :lol:

[hazzardm]

I love those late Friday night (9:00 CDT) starts at Hollyweird.

I have never understood why some of these tracks don't realize their best potential customers mostly work during the day.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

As far as the synthetic tracks go I get the impression they are getting a better handle on managing these tracks in California (just watching from afar) and soon you will see the best of these tracks

The field size issues have been around for some time. Comparing it to Australian racing Californian racing seems a bit like Sydney racing with respect to field sizes. Sydney racing has some of the highest class racing in Australia but has always been plagued by small fields. Racing in Sydney probably has not been managed the best over recent years (which sounds similar to California). But the issues with field size problems persist whoever is managing it. After thinking it over for some time the best I can come up with is that it is too expensive to own a competitive horse in Sydney. Sydney racing has leading trainers who charge plenty to train your horse. Also you most likely have to pay 6 figures to buy a horse likely to compete. Most people cannot afford this except the very wealthy. Maybe California is the same. Top class racing with top class trainers and most are priced out of owning horses

Brisbane racing generally has healthy fields. The quality of horse and trainer is generally not as high as in Sydney and it is probably a wider portion of the public who can afford to own and race horses

The other main racing centre in Australia is Melbourne. It also has high class racing and prizemoney. They seem to get much better size fields down there. Why is this different to Sydney? Cannot really explain this difference. The only thing I can come up with is people in Melbourne are much more into horse racing than people in Sydney. Melbourne have a public holiday for their Melbourne Cup race and this sort of thing means the people of Melbourne are much more into racing than people in Sydney

Getting back to California there are probably lots of things to do in California other than race horses and most likely people in California are just not that into horse racing any more.

I do think the high quality racing with high purses is a more concrete reason why California racing struggles like Sydney racing. The high purses/prizemoney actually kill the game in the long run as it drives up the prices of the horses and the training fees to such an extent that only the very rich can participate in horse ownership to any great degree. Of course the people managing racing often only seem to have one goal and that is drive prizemoney up up and up. This benefits breeding interests as well as trainers and jockeys for awhile. But once price levels get too high so only a small number can afford to play the game the high prizemoney starts to hurt the game

[toussaud]

I love those late Friday night (9:00 CDT) starts at Hollyweird.

I have never understood why some of these tracks don't realize their best potential customers mostly work during the day.


me too. i love friday night racing.

[fmolf]

me too. i love friday night racing.
I believe that racing has to go after the younger crowd.This will mean night racing and promoting the sport.Nassau county,ny has a teletheater and last week they ran ads for a niteclub they opened up on the 2nd floor of the 3 story race palace.their was an article in the local paper today about how racy this was and the ad should be pulled.The niteclub is going to feature softcore dancers(no nudity)but skimpy bikinis.this is a step in the right direction.The high cost of the betting itself is still a problem.once racing contracts itself so their is not so much around then we will have a better product.the slots, once their deals run out with the tracks, will close the tracks for racing as we know it.I do not think it will take long for the politicians to figure out that anything divided by two is more than when divided by three!

[Track Collector]

As far as the synthetic tracks go I get the impression they are getting a better handle on managing these tracks in California (just watching from afar) and soon you will see the best of these tracks

The field size issues have been around for some time. Comparing it to Australian racing Californian racing seems a bit like Sydney racing with respect to field sizes. Sydney racing has some of the highest class racing in Australia but has always been plagued by small fields. Racing in Sydney probably has not been managed the best over recent years (which sounds similar to California). But the issues with field size problems persist whoever is managing it. After thinking it over for some time the best I can come up with is that it is too expensive to own a competitive horse in Sydney. Sydney racing has leading trainers who charge plenty to train your horse. Also you most likely have to pay 6 figures to buy a horse likely to compete. Most people cannot afford this except the very wealthy. Maybe California is the same. Top class racing with top class trainers and most are priced out of owning horses

Brisbane racing generally has healthy fields. The quality of horse and trainer is generally not as high as in Sydney and it is probably a wider portion of the public who can afford to own and race horses

The other main racing centre in Australia is Melbourne. It also has high class racing and prizemoney. They seem to get much better size fields down there. Why is this different to Sydney? Cannot really explain this difference. The only thing I can come up with is people in Melbourne are much more into horse racing than people in Sydney. Melbourne have a public holiday for their Melbourne Cup race and this sort of thing means the people of Melbourne are much more into racing than people in Sydney

Getting back to California there are probably lots of things to do in California other than race horses and most likely people in California are just not that into horse racing any more.

I do think the high quality racing with high purses is a more concrete reason why California racing struggles like Sydney racing. The high purses/prizemoney actually kill the game in the long run as it drives up the prices of the horses and the training fees to such an extent that only the very rich can participate in horse ownership to any great degree. Of course the people managing racing often only seem to have one goal and that is drive prizemoney up up and up. This benefits breeding interests as well as trainers and jockeys for awhile. But once price levels get too high so only a small number can afford to play the game the high prizemoney starts to hurt the game

Seabiscuit at AR, ,

You have an excellent point here. California's situation is a little unique though in that expenses and cost of living are so high. Those running racing there don't help things either. Then look at the current situation at Beulah Park in Ohio. They are getting some very large fields (some as high as 12 horses) who are running for a TOTAL purses which are as low as $3400 to $4000. Add to this that weather in OH in November can be quite cold. It is just crazy!! One of the reasons must be that it is much less expensive to race in OH.

[proximity]

i say we retitle the thread "why is california racing still alive and who's to blame?"

and as for the "who's to blame" part of my question, i say the idiots who are still betting 12.4 million a day on this junk!! if you keep betting it, you're sending the message that the product is acceptable.

[Dan H]

If you guys don't stop bashing California racing, I'm goint to start a new "I love Zenyatta" thread.

You've been warned!

[GMB@BP]

People are talking like this is an issue with racing, when its a issue more with the economy. Racing sucks in socal because anyone with money has been run out of the state with corporate and income taxes. You still have some elite rich there, those are the guys you see like the Mosses, Reddam, Hughes...but the middle of the road guy has been completely eliminated. You have the low end clientel that can own some cheaper horses. The guy who bought a handful of decent bred horses are all but gone.

This problem has been brewing since the mid 90's, it has little to do with synthetics.

[Track Collector]

i say we retitle the thread "why is california racing still alive and who's to blame?"

and as for the "who's to blame" part of my question, i say the idiots who are still betting 12.4 million a day on this junk!! if you keep betting it, you're sending the message that the product is acceptable.

I agree IF you do not live in CA.

For those who live in CA, the issue may not be so simple. As a CA resident, I think one is still prohibited from signing up and receiving rebates from ADWs who offer them. The state also limits the number of simulcast races which are allowed to be broadcast and wagered on at the tracks and OTWs, thus casual and serious horseplayers in CA only have access to about 1/4 of the tracks that are available to players in other states. Since many of these 1/4 are CA tracks, one either accepts playing these limited number of tracks or does not play at all. The only major alternative I can see is to play the unavailable tracks off-shore, which is illegal and something I would not encourage.

CA racing fans are truly shafted!

[BlueShoe]

The state also limits the number of simulcast races which are allowed to be broadcast and wagered on at the tracks and OTWs, thus casual and serious horseplayers in CA only have access to about 1/4 of the tracks that are available to players in other states.CA racing fans are truly shafted!
Certainly agree on this,and have commented on this situation at length in previous posts.The simulcast availability just got a wee bit worse recently.Closing day at Oak Tree,November 8,was the last day of operation at the Santa Barbara facility located on the Earl Warren fairgrounds.The place was actually kind of a dump,but on a visit there three weeks ago employees and regular patrons remarked that the facility had been mismanaged and had been run by state bureaucrats rather than racing people.In any case,they are now closed.That means that area players must now make the 30 mile drive to Ventura,the now nearest facility.Many of them will just stay home,which means less handle.A local restaurant owner is said to have an interest in opening a mini-satelite,but that is very much speculation.

[Moyers Pond]

People are talking like this is an issue with racing, when its a issue more with the economy. Racing sucks in socal because anyone with money has been run out of the state with corporate and income taxes. You still have some elite rich there, those are the guys you see like the Mosses, Reddam, Hughes...but the middle of the road guy has been completely eliminated. You have the low end clientel that can own some cheaper horses. The guy who bought a handful of decent bred horses are all but gone.

This problem has been brewing since the mid 90's, it has little to do with synthetics.

100% correct if you asked me. The elimination of the middle of the road guy has killed the sport.

[proximity]

I agree IF you do not live in CA.

For those who live in CA, the issue may not be so simple. As a CA resident, I think one is still prohibited from signing up and receiving rebates from ADWs who offer them. The state also limits the number of simulcast races which are allowed to be broadcast and wagered on at the tracks and OTWs, thus casual and serious horseplayers in CA only have access to about 1/4 of the tracks that are available to players in other states. Since many of these 1/4 are CA tracks, one either accepts playing these limited number of tracks or does not play at all. The only major alternative I can see is to play the unavailable tracks off-shore, which is illegal and something I would not encourage.

CA racing fans are truly shafted!

i've posted about california's pathetic simulcast policy nearly enough here in the last month to border on being repetitively annoying, so i am certainly cognizant of this.

1.8 million of the 12.4 is being bet on track and certainly another decent chunk is coming from elsewhere in california...... but there are still millions being bet on this garbage everyday by out of staters with better options.

if i lived there i'd probably turn to poker. :(

[gm10]

California racing has been in the dumper for a long time now. The only things that kept it prominent were the Pick 6 and that they still produced some pretty top class horses. Well, pretty much all the hype is gone for 3 year old racing because the synthetic horses can't run on dirt for the most part, and now that the BC isn't there next year, it isn't going to get any better.

Until the BC is scheduled there again, it is merely a blip on the racing radar for everyone outside of California that I know.

Have you actually looked at the full result of the KD this year? It was a poly-galore. Two of the best dirt horses didn't even make it because of injuries.

[cj]

Have you actually looked at the full result of the KD this year? It was a poly-galore. Two of the best dirt horses didn't even make it because of injuries.

I hope you aren't counting Mine That Bird, who is clearly much better on dirt. The rest were pretty much destroyed. Pioneer of the Nile ran second but stunk up the joint in the Preakness, proving his 2nd was just a case of somebody had to be second. The synthetic horses were dreadful in 2008.

[andymays]

The Derby and the Triple Crown races are ruined by synthetic surfaces in my opinion. Especially at Santa Anita where the contenders from the west run. POTN was a great example. These surfaces cloud the picture and turn a game of skill into a game of whatever when it comes to guesstimating who will run good on dirt when they haven't started over it or trained over it.

[rwwupl]

California,

New Leadership (reorganize)

Lower the Take

Return to dirt

Drug Free


SUCCESS! :ThmbUp:

rwwupl

[andymays]

Sent to Santa Anita, Racing Officials, Journalists, and other interested parties.

Guess what Racing Fans? It’s getting to that time of year again when it’s all about the Three year olds and the Derby picture. Too bad we still have the Pro Ride at Santa Anita because it kind of messes things up for most Horseplayers who normally love that time of year. How many brilliant three year olds will we never know about this year because they can’t handle the Pro Ride? Who’s this year’s Pioneer of the Nile?

It seems like just yesterday when maybe 5% of Horseplayers complained about the surface. Now it’s about 70%. I’m no David Axelrod or Carl Rove but a 30% approval rating for synthetic surfaces in areas with good weather is pretty low. But then again maybe Horseplayers are just stupid. Who cares about what they think anyway? They’re only Customers right? Stick with Pro Ride and raise the take 5% California. That’s a parlay for the ages!

By the way how did Pro Ride help racing with HOY? There should be no problem and we should have had a clear cut winner but now we’ll never know. That’s great isn’t it? Other than the Zenyatta race (Awesome performance) how good were the other main track races. Not so good in my book. Do you judge a surface by one good racing day or one good race a year? What about the entire season?

Everyone can say what they want but it’s hard to deny that California Racing has been let down by lack of competent leadership. 99.9% of people involved in California racing over the last several years are good people and don’t deserve this crap. The problem is that some of the people who have lead us down this path still have influence. The CHRB isn’t strong enough or independent enough to put them in their place or call them out. Can you say Richard Shapiro? Why is he involved in anything (California Horse Racing Alliance)? If you’re gonna let him in the Tracks after his bad decisions and vandalism on Track property why don’t you require him to bet 10k a day on the short fields and bad surfaces he helped create. How about a little poetic justice?


Hope this helps in the decision making process.

Sincerely,

Andy

[gm10]

I hope you aren't counting Mine That Bird, who is clearly much better on dirt. The rest were pretty much destroyed. Pioneer of the Nile ran second but stunk up the joint in the Preakness, proving his 2nd was just a case of somebody had to be second. The synthetic horses were dreadful in 2008.

Sure.
MTB had not won on the dirt vs four times on the synthetics (he's not won on the dirt since)
Pioneer of the Nile was a pure synthetics horse.
Musket Man is the only dirt horse in the top 5.
Papa Clem had won a grade 2 on dirt and poly.
Chocolate Candy was a pure synthetics horse.

Dirt form rules. Clearly.
Friesian Fire was the star of the show. Quality Road and I Want Revenge benefited a lot from prep'ing on the much more forgiving dirt surface. Blinkers are good for you.

[cj]

Sure.
MTB had not won on the dirt vs four times on the synthetics (he's not won on the dirt since)
Pioneer of the Nile was a pure synthetics horse.
Musket Man is the only dirt horse in the top 5.
Papa Clem had won a grade 2 on dirt and poly.
Chocolate Candy was a pure synthetics horse.

Dirt form rules. Clearly.
Friesian Fire was the star of the show. Quality Road and I Want Revenge benefited a lot from prep'ing on the much more forgiving dirt surface. Blinkers are good for you.

Mine that Bird hasn't won on synthetics since either. But he was drubbed twice, while he at least ran respectably on dirt in the Preakness and even to a point at Mountaineer.

We can all twist things any way we want, but when a horse wins by 7 it doesn't matter much who ran 2nd to 5th.

[twindouble]

No question that the economy is part of it. Especially in California.

There are a bunch of other reasons for this disaster and first and foremost is the Leadership or lack thereof.


Most of the bigger players that I know stay away completely or bet much less.

The upcoming Santa Anita meet had a carryover rate of almost 50% last year. Since the surface has changed enough to be a little more predictable the carryover rate will be much less this year. Withought the high number of carryovers the handle for the upcoming meet will plumet.

The carryovers were primarily created by padding the card with lousy conditions. I passed on many races for that reason, I avoided pools I normally bet like the pick 6, 4, and high five. Those pools hinged on the last race that was always an abomination along with other races that also required going deep. I out smarted them by picking my shots in super plays wherever I thought I had a good shot and a bang for my buck without investing an arm and a leg.

[Jackal]

Without a doubt synthetic surfaces are the downfall of CA racing. Last year the breeders cup was almost canceled, as the "all weather" surface turned to mush. SA is bankrupt and could be auctioned off in February. When you spend over 20 million on racing surfaces, it's hard to have any operating capital.

When OTB became popular I couldn't wait for HOL. I loved HOL and watched every race for years. It took about 3 weeks of synthetic racing for me to quit betting all Southern California tracks.

Conditions are ridiculous in Southern California. Every race is an open race. You don't see non-winners of 2 or non-winners in 6 months - just a weight allowance. Maybe the condition book is the reason for the short fields.

I could go on for at least 10 pages - I will stop here.

[andymays]

Without a doubt synthetic surfaces are the downfall of CA racing. Last year the breeders cup was almost canceled, as the "all weather" surface turned to mush. SA is bankrupt and could be auctioned off in February. When you spend over 20 million on racing surfaces, it's hard to have any operating capital.

When OTB became popular I couldn't wait for HOL. I loved HOL and watched every race for years. It took about 3 weeks of synthetic racing for me to quit betting all Southern California tracks.

Conditions are ridiculous in Southern California. Every race is an open race. You don't see non-winners of 2 or non-winners in 6 months - just a weight allowance. Maybe the condition book is the reason for the short fields.

I could go on for at least 10 pages - I will stop here.


Click on the link. Read the entire article and the comments.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/#comments

[kenwoodallpromos]

Philosophy of setting race conditions is interesting to me- especially in your context! Please elaborate about LACK of enough listed written conditions? With 1,500 runners and only about 10-20% last out winners (depending on field size), there should be more than enough to set plenty of good written conditions! Whqat do Ca trainers say about it?

Without a doubt synthetic surfaces are the downfall of CA racing. Last year the breeders cup was almost canceled, as the "all weather" surface turned to mush. SA is bankrupt and could be auctioned off in February. When you spend over 20 million on racing surfaces, it's hard to have any operating capital.

When OTB became popular I couldn't wait for HOL. I loved HOL and watched every race for years. It took about 3 weeks of synthetic racing for me to quit betting all Southern California tracks.

Conditions are ridiculous in Southern California. Every race is an open race. You don't see non-winners of 2 or non-winners in 6 months - just a weight allowance. Maybe the condition book is the reason for the short fields.

I could go on for at least 10 pages - I will stop here.

[Jackal]

Here is the condition book for HOL. I see very few restricted races, no NW3 or time restricted races. You can quickly see what races are available by looking at the index.

http://hollywoodpark.com/horsemen-condition-book

MNR has full fields most of the time. Here is the MNR condition book. Not many open races in it.

http://www.mtrgaming.com/racing/condition.html