Steady Wagering Increases at Woodbine in 2009

[the_fat_man]

This can't be right. (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/54359/steady-wagering-increases-at-woodbine-in-2009?source=rss) :rolleyes:

Anyone frequenting this forum KNOWS that WO is just about the worst option there is for bettors.

:lol::lol::lol:

[46zilzal]

Full fields, quality horses trainers and riders.

Suits me fine along with great people at the venue at the Canadian Thoroughbred Hall of Fame, Jockey Club of Canada and woodbine entertainment.

The director of the Hall of Fame just completed his update book on the Queen's Plate entitled "The Plate: 150 Years of Royal Tradition Don Juan to Eye of the Leopard." This was released on December 6th.

oops must give credit to the TWO authors, Lou Cauz and Beverly M. Smith.

I like the 1871 winner's name FLOSS as it reminds me to do the same with my teeth.

[Bochall]

Further evidence that we as bettors are POWERLESS because we wont unite. We prefer quality fields with high takeout over crap fields with a low rake. Poly too....

[46zilzal]

Further evidence that we as bettors are POWERLESS because we wont unite. We prefer quality fields with high takeout over crap fields with a low rake. Poly too....
The polytrack there is UNIQUE to racing: it is formful most days and they tell you how then groomed it daily.

[Bochall]

The polytrack there is UNIQUE to racing: it is formful most days and they tell you how then groomed it daily.


Maybe WO has figured out customer service and thats what keeps thier biz going well. Nice to know they keep the track grooming updated for bettors. Come to think of it, if others paid attention to the wants of their guests they might see a surge in handle as well...good job WO.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Let's see........

Woodbine enters the entire U.S. market as a featured track on the biggest racing network giving them fresh access to a huge % of all U.S. horseplayers and they are up 7%?

That doesn't sound so good to me but then again I'm not a racetrack executive.

I wonder why none of the articles I've seen say how handle did on-track, in Ontario or in Canada.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Exposure by being featured by TVG helped. Their domestic handle was flat despite giving higher rewards (to their larger players). The drop in takeout on triactors also put back some money back into players accounts.
Woodbine also took advantage of having their signal available to all major ADWs even when there was and still is bickering going on between tracks and horsemen organizations throughout the USA.
What would be interesting is to see how their betting through HPI on other tracks did, since they ramped up the takeout on other venues. I'd have to guess it was down.

[46zilzal]

so, that doesn't change what it offered: A quality product

[Horseplayersbet.com]

so, that doesn't change what it offered: A quality product
Hawthorne averages over $2.7 million a day in handle. Woodbine $2.1 million.
Explain that one?

[46zilzal]

Hawthorne averages over $2.7 million a day in handle. Woodbine $2.1 million.
Explain that one?
That is irrelevant to quality of racing offered

[InsideThePylons-MW]

so, that doesn't change what it offered: A quality product

So basically this guy is a genius?





Let's face it. Racing can't compete with casino gaming/internet gaming. We have too many costs associated with putting on the show. Our only option is to brand our product to people that love the sport and love betting on the sport.

We need to make racing like Louis Vuitton or Tiffany. Offer a quality product while charging more for it by raising takeout and giving the ADW's less for their services. We will still keep our core customers and will be much better off financially as an industry by rasing prices.

I don't see how anybody can argue if we raise prices and lose some handle but double purses by doing so.

Louis Vuitton and Tiffany can't compete with Wal-Mart pricewise, but they both do a great business and develop customer loyalty by raising prices and offering a better product. People WANT those products and are driven towards them. Very few WANT racing and are driven to it in it's present form.

Racing should never lower prices. If LV or Tiffany lowered prices and started selling their products at Wal-Mart, while they might show a spike in sales, they will make less money and will lose their lustre which will in turn make customers not WANT their products any longer.

Raise prices, improve product and they might WANT racing. Everybody might be shocked.

CG Dean 07 Oct 2009 7:05 PM


http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2009/10/06/crisis-danger-and-opportunity-by-stacy-v-bearse.aspx

[maxwell]

There's a lot worse venues than WO. They did, however, ruin the Super 7 so I prefer to roll the dice in the SoCal Pick 6.

I'm happy to see they are doing well. :)

[melman]

ITP---If Woodbine really believes what it says why not raise the takeout by 10% on all there bets? After all the only thing that matters is "quality racing". :jump: I wonder what the handle figures are for Woodbine s-breds? I have not bet a dime on them since there silly new urging rules. Which BTW they would very much like to inflict on t-breds.

[castaway01]

Woodbine increasing handle because the average bettor doesn't pay attention to takeout and the track has more visibility in 2009 doesn't mean it should be where people bet. Silly thread---The Fat Man showed some good handicapping skills in the past but now he's mostly here for to troll the site.

[Track Collector]

Hawthorne averages over $2.7 million a day in handle. Woodbine $2.1 million.
Explain that one?

Rebate players can find Hawthorne available with many ADWs. Woodbine, however, is almost non-existent, as they are philosophically opposed to rebates other than what they could offer on-track.

I would not expect this to account for the entire 0.6 million per day difference, but for a least some sizable portion.

[DanG]

I hope this isn’t construed as being in favor of increased take outs. Common sense dictates playing into a 1% rake vs. a 99% gouging will have a predictable affect.

Having said that;

Somewhere in the metric of rating racetracks must come ones skill set and the level of competition in the pools. If track-A has a X% rake, but operates in shark infested waters…is it really a better “gamble” then track-B who skims 2% more, but fits your strengths and doesn’t attract as many heavy heads?

Woodbine had value this year that I couldn’t find anywhere in the country. Of course it doesn’t mean it presented the same opportunities for everyone, just as playing Trk-X might send me to the soup kitchen.

If anyone does take a look at it next year, the meet is three very distinct meets imo. 1st phase is massive # of lay-up’s / 2nd is the body of the meet and it finishes with variety of tired stock, inferior dirt shippers and recent animals prepping for southern shipment.

[DeanT]

Dan doesn't post enough.

[DanG]

That goes to show ya…

The whole time typing I’m thinking Dean, Jeff, Theresia etc… (Aka HANA) will lay into me promoting a higher then average take. Thanks Dean for not barbecuing me and when my brother saw 3,400 posts on the counter he thinks I post far too much, :D but thank you.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I'll agree that tracks with higher takeouts probably attract a lot more mooch money which compensates a little bit for the higher takeout.
That being said, it really limits the the tracks potential growth, because it it attracts too many Dan's, the Dan's will be watching their profits turn into losses very quickly.

[WinterTriangle]

Full fields, quality horses trainers and riders.


Exacta payoffs on Sunday averaged $252 I think

If I'm going to bother to handicap a race, I'd like to get a decent payoff and not $12.40.

I would wager Woodbine selectively if I saw a chance to hit a decent payoff. My biggest wins over 2.5 years have been at Woodbine.

And yeah, I do like the riders, trainers and horses there.

[sjk]

I enjoy the WO meet tremendously. Was sorry to see it end.

[melman]

DanG--Since DeanT and HANA won't "roast" you then I will. :) Using your logic Woodbine or any other track that you can find that is "good for your type of handicapping" might just as well raise there takeout rates. Why not with your superior handicapping skills you can very well absurd it. I guess none of the other "sharks" would move in on Woodbine or any other high takeout track because they are not smart enough handicappers. I really have to stop posting on this topic as it just gets me to mad. Not at you personally Dan as I enjoy most of your posts and had a good time going back and forth with you on baseball. The reality is that racing (other than a handful of "tradition tracks" and special "event" races is going down the drain. The only hope is
1. Reduce takeout on all bets to 10% or less.
2. Increase the fines/suspensions of the drug users/super trainers.

Dan maybe you should look into betting trifecta's at any track in Pennsylvania. With just some special skill set you would have no problem overcoming the average 32% rake on the bet. I really believe that if people keep betting the high takeout tracks then those tracks will NEVER reduce the takeout but will INCREASE the take as they will belive that some people with "special skill sets" IMO no amount of meetings or "pool parties" is going to change that. For right now my idea is support Tampa Bay Downs and bet pic4's at New Jersey tracks.

[Rutgers]

Dan maybe you should look into betting trifecta's at any track in Pennsylvania. With just some special skill set you would have no problem overcoming the average 32% rake on the bet.

I would like to repeat the phrase of DanG:

"I hope this isn’t construed as being in favor of increased take outs. Common sense dictates playing into a 1% rake vs. a 99% gouging will have a predictable affect."

You do not need a special skill set to overcome a takeout rate of 32%, but you do need large fields and a good size pool.

A successful horseplayer should be concerned about getting fair value on his/her own wagers, not on the total percentage of the pool returned to all the players.

If fair value for a Pick 4 is $500, and it pays $550, you will come out ahead in the long run regardless of what the takeout is. (I do realize with a lower takeout it would pay more, and thus more likely to pay better then fair value. Like I said, I am not in favor of increase takeout, but I want to point out that an indiviual horseplayer can overcome some of the effects of high takeouts).

But field size(and the number of possible winning combination) has a greater impact on payouts then takeout rates.

People will say it is better to play a Pick 3 at 25% then a straight win wager at 15%, because you are spreading the 25% over three races so it average it to 8.3% per race, but that understates the impact. When you play a straight win wager at 15%, the take out is spread over 8 possible outcomes, but in a Pick 3 sequence with 3 eight horse fields the 25% takeout is spread over 512 possible outcomes.

As another example, take two different Pick 4 sequences. One with 4 fields of 8 with a 20% takeout, and a second one with 4 fields of 9 and a 25% takeout. And let's assume each combination has an equal chance of winning.

The first sequence would have 4,096 possible winning combination. Let's assume each has $10 bet on it for a total pool of $40,960. Taking out 20% leaves a pool of $32,768. Each winning $2 ticket would pay $6,553.60.

The second sequence would have 6,561 combinations. Lets assume each has $6.24 bet on it, which would give us the same gross pool of $40,960 as the first sequence, but this time we take out 25% leaving a net pool of $30,720 dividing by 3.12 leaves use with a winning $2 payout of $9,846.15. So the higher takeout but bigger field gives us a higher payout. And in reality the larger fields does attract more money in the pools, which would make the difference even greater.

Now it should be pointed out that the larger field higher takeout should pay a lot more because it would be a lot harder to hit (1 in 4,096 vs 1 in 6,561) But in reality, in general across all tracks, nine horse fields are almost as formful as eight horse fields. The winning percentage of the favorite is about 1 percent less in a nine horse field verus an eight horse field. So if the favorite in the first sequence each had a 33% chance of winning and the favorites in the second sequence each had a 32% chance of winning, there would be a 1.185 chance of all favorites winning in the first sequence and a 1.04 chance of all favorite winning the second sequence. So while the payout in our example increased by 50%, the probabity of all favorites winning is only 13% less likely.

I know my example is rather simple and not very realistic, and that 4 favorites winning, would probably be the underlay of the decade, but the math is sound and I just wanted to show how being selective and playing large fields can somewhat overcome some of the high takeout horseplayers face.

I hate takeout as much as anybody, but it is a fact of life. Takeout is how racetracks make their money, so I doubt if it will ever go away.

But I also hate small fields, because small fields hurt my bottom line as much as a high takeout. That is why I will not play the 15% takeout Pick 4 in NJ where the average field size is 7.24 (according to the HANA chart)

[Jeff P]

Takeout and handle are linked... an elastic relationship exists between the two.

Set takeout at 100% and handle very quickly becomes $0.00... producing $0.00 for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Set takeout at 0% and handle will soar... again producing $0.00 for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Somewhere between 100% and 0% is the optimal price point for takeout... the point at which takeout drives handle to produce max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Every economic study produced over the past 15 years suggests that the true optimal price point for takeout is a lot closer to 10% than the 27% takeout for trifectas that track management at Woodbine forces upon its customers.

One of HANA's core beliefs is that setting takeout as close to the optimal pricing point as possible would be a win-win for all parties concerned... the goal being to produce max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers... which in turn results in a healthy prospering industry.

Yes, Woodbine's handle numbers were up. Part of the reason is that their 2009 races were shown on TVG. But that's not the entire reason for the increase. They consistently ran large competitive fields - which in turn created wagering value... which in turn was recognized by bettors - who responded in a positive way.

Hat's off to them for carding races over the course of a meet that were consistently "bettable."

But I have to ask the obvious:

1. How much higher would Woodbine's handle have been had they set their takeout at or near the optimal pricing point instead of well above it?

2. Had Woodbine's takeout been at or near the optimal pricing point, how much more money would have been available for track and government coffers - and for purses?

Even though Woodbine's numbers were up -- I respectfully make the argument that Woodbine could have done better for it's shareholders and horsemen had they set takeout at or near its optimal pricing point.

-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

Jeff,
The tracks and states are not willing to take the short term hit in order to cultivate the long term benefits of reduced takeout.

Here's a hypothetical example of another problem. Lets say one track lowers their takeout to 10 pct across the board. An ontrack patron, who is a regular customer of that track, sees more money in his or her pocket as a result. But, the problem comes when that customer bets on a simulcast race and loses his profit to a track who hasn't lowered their takeout rate yet. The track who's lowering their take is counting on their customers to take the extra money and rebet it at THEIR track, not someone else's. That's a huge problem and maybe why tracks aren't lowering their takeouts, they don't to save their fans money only to have that money find its way into the coffers of a track who keeps the rake at a quarter.

[melman]

Track exec's reading this thread and the content of some posters MUST be grinning from ear to ear. Why the statement of Barry Irwin is correct "While the takeout is onerous, it has never stopped a real gambler". What is there incentive to reduce takeout? None. Matter of fact a increase would seem to be in order. After all "real gambers" with special skill sets can overcome a 32% rake no problem. Just give them large fields. Oh yeah and a "quality product".

[DanG]

DanG--Since DeanT and HANA won't "roast" you then I will. :) Using your logic Woodbine or any other track that you can find that is "good for your type of handicapping" might just as well raise there takeout rates.
I understand and respect your points Mel, but if I can eke out a profit at a track with admittedly inferior rakes…self preservation dictates I must.

As Jeff correctly points out; the reason Woodbines handle “only” increased by 7% is the juice imo. The types of fields they delivered should have been hammered by the most serious betters in the world, but many of those players bet (per capita) at levels where the rake becomes even more debilitating.

As I said; only a fool would not lobby for an across the board +- 10% rake and the net increase would be significant. But; as an individual who takes this as serious as a heart attack I can’t map my year’s wagers in lock step with takeouts if the circuits don’t meet my needs. I will bet into Tampa’s serial wagers this year / I did support the Ellis Park P4 experiment / the HANA pool party’s etc…but I don’t have the fall back position many of you have, so I must behave in a manner you probably view as selfish.

As Jeff said and you mentioned Mel with the Philly tri rates; there is of course a breaking point …they have surpassed it imo, just as Hialeah did before their thoroughbred demise.

Woodbines exacta’s were my main focus and they charge 20.5%, GP is at 20% according to the HANA web site and in my view its like comparing Canadian Whiskey and Florida OJ to claim that the GP offered a ½% greater opportunity for profit. (In my case at least)

Hypocritical stance…perhaps; just as I love 2yo racing but would vote for its banishment tomorrow if the opportunity arose. BTW: Rutger’s post spoke to the point far better then I can. He no doubt attended private schools in Jersey when I was attending public. :blush:

Ending on a good note Mel; 82 days until pitchers and catchers report and that gives PA’s & Jim's Yankee’s plenty of time to sign Mike Schmidt, Nap Lajoie, Jimmie Foxx, Hack Wilson and Steve Carlton from your beloved Phillies! :eek: :D

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Jeff,
The tracks and states are not willing to take the short term hit in order to cultivate the long term benefits of reduced takeout.

Here's a hypothetical example of another problem. Lets say one track lowers their takeout to 10 pct across the board. An ontrack patron, who is a regular customer of that track, sees more money in his or her pocket as a result. But, the problem comes when that customer bets on a simulcast race and loses his profit to a track who hasn't lowered their takeout rate yet. The track who's lowering their take is counting on their customers to take the extra money and rebet it at THEIR track, not someone else's. That's a huge problem and maybe why tracks aren't lowering their takeouts, they don't to save their fans money only to have that money find its way into the coffers of a track who keeps the rake at a quarter.
Your example is right on, but it doesn't really apply to Woodbine because they have their own ADW and they have a quasi monopoly on their home market customers and in fact most of Canada.

If Woodbine were to lower their takeout to 10%, the extra money won by their customers could go back to Woodbine, but lets say it goes to a 20% bet. In this case, Woodbine would make around 14% on that bet (after they pay the other track's signal fee). I'm fairly confident though, that more people will stick with Woodbine and any other track that offers a low takeout as the betting public becomes more knowledgeable about what is going on.

As for their exported product, sure they would have to cut their signal fee at least in half, but they will attract double the money and then some by value players all across the United States.

[macguy]

In the past was there not a track that experimented in reducing take out to 10% across the board or something similar to that? I seem to remember reading about it.

As a result, I believe no other tracks picked up that tracks signal for simulcasting, resulting in a plummeting handle. The track had to raise the take out back to more "equal" market levels.

Did that happen or am I dreaming?

[BillW]

In the past was there not a track that experimented in reducing take out to 10% across the board or something similar to that? I seem to remember reading about it.

As a result, I believe no other tracks picked up that tracks signal for simulcasting, resulting in a plummeting handle. The track had to raise the take out back to more "equal" market levels.

Did that happen or am I dreaming?

You're possibly thinking about Keeneland. They dropped their take to 16% earlier this decade.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/8699/keeneland-alters-takeout-rates-for-spring-meet

The "failure" had nothing to so with being unsound economically.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

In the past was there not a track that experimented in reducing take out to 10% across the board or something similar to that? I seem to remember reading about it.

As a result, I believe no other tracks picked up that tracks signal for simulcasting, resulting in a plummeting handle. The track had to raise the take out back to more "equal" market levels.

Did that happen or am I dreaming?
Two years ago Laurel dropped takeout to 12% for a very short meet. Woodbine dropped them so most Canadians couldn't play it. Also, Youbet did not carry them either. Not sure about other venues (tracks may not have put their live feed up for instance), same with simulcast centers.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Two years ago Laurel dropped takeout to 12% for a very short meet. Woodbine dropped them so most Canadians couldn't play it. Also, Youbet did not carry them either. Not sure about other venues (tracks may not have put their live feed up for instance), same with simulcast centers.
Actually it was 11.4% blended. http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/40418/results-of-laurel-takeout-experiment-called-inconclusive

[macguy]

Right, so tracks have tried it in the past...

I'm just wondering, I know we are all for reduced take and all, but what's the point if we can't even wager on the track through our local simulcast outlet or ADW?

Sounds like a single track going off and only taking 10% across the board simply isn't going to fly with everyone else.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

What kills me here is that I have no idea how Laurel compared 2007 with 2006.
2007 had 10 race days, while 2006 had 8 days.
I do know that in both 2008 and 2009 so far, Laurel is down around 20% a year from 2007 overall. I do believe that Maryland upped takeouts this year as well early on.

[BillW]

Right, so tracks have tried it in the past...

I'm just wondering, I know we are all for reduced take and all, but what's the point if we can't even wager on the track through our local simulcast outlet or ADW?

Sounds like a single track going off and only taking 10% across the board simply isn't going to fly with everyone else.

Yes you are right. It has to be industry wide. BTW the tracks/simulcast outlets that don't take the lower rake wagers don't do so because they can't, it's because they don't want to. I would look to the local simulcast outlets to place blame not on the originating track.

[46zilzal]

Two years ago Laurel dropped takeout to 12% for a very short meet. Woodbine dropped them so most Canadians couldn't play it. Also, Youbet did not carry them either. Not sure about other venues (tracks may not have put their live feed up for instance), same with simulcast centers.
Laurel is crappy racing. Why would anyone play it?

[therussmeister]

Laurel is crappy racing. Why would anyone play it?

Further more, the reason I didn't play: it would take a considerable effort to learn the ins-and-outs of that circuit for only a very short meet, particularly since I make my own speed and pace figures.

[cj's dad]

Laurel is a very difficult track to figure- I think there is a lot of hanky-panky going there though I cannot prove it, nor do I care to, therefore I don't play there other when there is a stakes race.

I do find Woodbine very profitable - my son's PF do very well there.

[Robert Fischer]

woodbine's take is too high, and woodbine consistently generates some of my best opportunities.

both can be true statements.

does the increase represent the increase in media usage or the product itself = good question. I'd probably have more faith in exposure influencing masses than educated opinions, but as i've said the product is (relatively) excellent

[DeanT]

I lost respect for Woodbine several years ago when they raised their takeout from 14.75% to 25% on their pick 4. They did not tell anyone; it was a takeout raise of the worst kind.

But, their product is good, and this year let us remember that they offered out that huge seeded pick 6 (probably not a good idea with a $2 pick 6 and lack of whale money) but they did offer that low take bet. If next year they offer out a reduction in take, or a few other horseplayer centric items, I will gain a lot of that lost respect back (just personally as a player).

I think about six years ago now I think it was Maury Wolff, or maybe Andrew Beyer; they were speaking of Tampa bay downs. The quote from them was something like "excuse me about Tampa but with their huge takeouts I don't think they want me as a customer"

But now look at Tampa because they lowered takeout (and have for several years) and had a sea change in horseplayer respect. A lot of players love Tampa for what they have done and their handle is doing really well.

Anyhow, long winded crap from me that tracks can change and earn some respect, imo. All they have to do is try.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I think about six years ago now I think it was Maury Wolff, or maybe Andrew Beyer. They were speaking of Tampa bay downs. The quote from them was something like "excuse me about Tampa but with their huge takeouts I dont think they want me as a customer"

That was after Berube stated he was protecting his customers from the rebate bettors who were fleecing them because they were holding 7% on their bets.

Wolff said that he didn't think Berube was protecting his customers with TB's larcenous takeout rates.

[Dave Schwartz]

I just noticed this trhead, so maybe this has been mentioned, but...


Could the increase be attributable to the devaluation of the US dollar?

[WinterTriangle]

How is track takeout applied i.e., the % kept by the track?

Is it plowed back into the facility? I was under the impression it goes to racing purses, state taxes and track maintenance.



I know Woodbine plows a lot of their slots profits into their facility----they put sprinklers in all the barns, even though not required to do so.

But I'm unaware how the % of takeout the track keeps is "spent".

Are there figures as to how it is spent.....by each track?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I just noticed this trhead, so maybe this has been mentioned, but...


Could the increase be attributable to the devaluation of the US dollar?
The Canadian dollar was trading a little higher during 2008 versus 2009, but that really isn't a factor that comes into play when comparing actual takeout figures, it does mean that if Woodbine saw a big boost from US betting this year, the actual increase in money made from US betting wouldn't have been as significant to Woodbine's bottom line.

I don't think they convert funds when taking handle numbers into consideration though.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

How is track takeout applied i.e., the % kept by the track?

Is it plowed back into the facility? I was under the impression it goes to racing purses, state taxes and track maintenance.



I know Woodbine plows a lot of their slots profits into their facility----they put sprinklers in all the barns, even though not required to do so.

But I'm unaware how the % of takeout the track keeps is "spent".

Are there figures as to how it is spent.....by each track?
I think every track has different splits. In Ontario, 1.3% on all bets goes to the government. The rest is split, I believe between the track and the horsemen. The horsemen actually get 2% more on each bet, and 4% on triactors. So lets take the superfecta which has a 26.3% takeout. The government gets 1.3%, the horsemen get 13.5% and the track 11.5%.

The track pays expenses out of the 11.5%.

But Ontario tracks also get 10% of slot profits, horsemen too get 10%, and the government gets 80% (a small percentage goes to the town that has the racino).

[Dave Schwartz]

I think they'd have not. After all, the mix funds within the pool. Canadian dollars do not bet the same as US dollars.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think they'd have not. After all, the mix funds within the pool. Canadian dollars do not bet the same as US dollars.
Well, if you are right and US handle is exchanged into Canadian before all source handle is announced, it would mean even more US dollars were bet last year over the year before because the Canadian dollar was slightly stronger in 2008.
For some reason, I don't think that is the case.

[Track Collector]

I think about six years ago now I think it was Maury Wolff, or maybe Andrew Beyer; they were speaking of Tampa bay downs. The quote from them was something like "excuse me about Tampa but with their huge takeouts I don't think they want me as a customer"

But now look at Tampa because they lowered takeout (and have for several years) and had a sea change in horseplayer respect. A lot of players love Tampa for what they have done and their handle is doing really well.


Until 2-3 years ago, Tampa did not allow others to take their signal and offer rebates. Back then, I signed up with Premier Turf Club just for the ability to wager on Tampa and get a rebate. Now others rebaters also offer Tampa.

Players wager more when rebates are available, and Tampa is certainly an attractive track with full fields during limited winter/early spring racing.

[WinterTriangle]

I think every track has different splits. In Ontario, 1.3% on all bets goes to the government. The rest is split, I believe between the track and the horsemen. The horsemen actually get 2% more on each bet, and 4% on triactors. So lets take the superfecta which has a 26.3% takeout. The government gets 1.3%, the horsemen get 13.5% and the track 11.5%.

The track pays expenses out of the 11.5%.

But Ontario tracks also get 10% of slot profits, horsemen too get 10%, and the government gets 80% (a small percentage goes to the town that has the racino).

Thank you so much for explaining this.

So govt gets most of slots $.

One thing I will say is that Woodbine seems to plow their takeout % back into their track, i.e, the sprinkler system in the barns that they didn't "have" to put in.

There is something about a track that doesn't allow itself to physically fall apart that I can support. If takeout is not being plowed back into capital improvements, then I don't care how low it is. It's important to me that tracks maintain their facilities.

Who even knows if Preakness will be held at Pimlico? Every year you leave there wondering. And those photos of Aqueduct crumbling cement etc. is awful.

I understand people not wanting to play tracks with high takeout, but I also won't play crumbling tracks. Why should I support that? I like to know that the horses and workers will be safe in the barns, and that the customers at the track have a decent facility to sit in, not someplace like where a homeless person would go to sit all day. I personally don't enjoy crumbling surroundings. Most women won't.

[illinoisbred]

Thank you so much for explaining this.

So govt gets most of slots $.

One thing I will say is that Woodbine seems to plow their takeout % back into their track, i.e, the sprinkler system in the barns that they didn't "have" to put in.

There is something about a track that doesn't allow itself to physically fall apart that I can support. If takeout is not being plowed back into capital improvements, then I don't care how low it is. It's important to me that tracks maintain their facilities.

Who even knows if Preakness will be held at Pimlico? Every year you leave there wondering. And those photos of Aqueduct crumbling cement etc. is awful.

I understand people not wanting to play tracks with high takeout, but I also won't play crumbling tracks. Why should I support that? I like to know that the horses and workers will be safe in the barns, and that the customers at the track have a decent facility to sit in, not someplace like where a homeless person would go to sit all day. I personally don't enjoy crumbling surroundings. Most women won't.
I tend to agree with your line of thought. I found it strange when Arlington rebuilt after the fire they made no improvements to the living quarters on the backstretch. In fact, it was many years along with Federal Government intervention that finally forced them to remedy the blighted eyesore.

[46zilzal]

I think they'd have not. After all, the mix funds within the pool. Canadian dollars do not bet the same as US dollars.
1.00 (US) equals about 0.93 Cdn$

[cj]

1.00 (US) equals about 0.93 Cdn$

You have it backwards. 1.00 CAN is equal to about 0.95 US. 1.00 US is equal to about 1.05 CAN.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I just found out another reason why Woodbine was up this year. They appeared in the US edition of the Racing Form. I had no idea they didn't show up there before. It took Willmot 15 years to get into the Form? :jump: