How Racetracks could increase on track attendance

[Trotman]

We all have heard for years Racetracks all across the country their worries on how they could bolster their on track attendance. I suggest that all of us should give them our suggestions as their attendance keeps falling.
:1: Lower their takeout
:2: Fix their tracks up and provide better quality food and
lower prices
:3: all of the above and at Turfway hand out earplugs so
you don't have to listen to MIKE BATTAGLIA

[badcompany]

Forget it. It's a new day. With simucasting, the public doesn't have to stick to the track that's closest to where they live. This increased choice is good for bettors but bad for on-track attendance.

I was looking at Beulah results. They do about 2 million total with only ~40k bet on-track. Game over.

[Canarsie]

Here we go see if you like them I'm going to use the Meadowlands (my home track) as the example.

1. With your player card 50 points ($50) entitles you to a DRF and/or Thoro-Graph at cost. You would be surprised at how many people this will draw. The object is to make them wager more not make a few bucks on handicapping tools.

2. 25 points gets you into the simulcast room where you have your own tv and seat. Have a server readily available with the touch of a button to bring you food or beverages you don't have to get up.

3. Find out where your customers want the screens in the simulcast room placed. You would be surprised how many people bitch about this.

4. Wager $1000 points are you are invited to a free meal for two. at the Pegasus Room weekdays only. No alcohol included some of the cost will be recouped easily.

5. Either stop charging a dollar to get in or make it very easy to obtain a season or meet pass. They gave it away during the thoroughbred meet opening day it's not that big a deal.

6. Call your customer and see what their complaints are. Most people won't return mailed surveys and will lie if done in person. You need to know the "pulse" of the customer.

7. Start a breakfast program (25 points) at least on the weekend with a kids come free (when accompanied by a point mom or dad) promotion. I bet a few mom or dads would take their kids to see the horses work out and get an almost "free" breakfast. This is how you get possible new blood into your facility.


That's enough for now.

[andymays]

Lower the take on track only 5% to 10%. I guarantee you the handle on track will at least triple.

As I said on another thread have sports betting on track and satellite only but not online (Casinos that have horse racing would be ok).

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Lower the take on track only 5% to 10%. I guarantee you the handle on track will at least triple.

As I said on another thread have sports betting on track and satellite only but not online (Casinos that have horse racing would be ok).
Most bettors are not cognizant about track takeout. Would it entice more to go to the track if takeout was reduced at the track? Maybe marginally. What would happen is the regulars at the track would last longer and go more often and possibly bring more people.
Would I go to the track if I could get a better takeout there? Yes, but it is more costly for the track to have people there than bet from home (assuming the track has its own ADW).
On track handle would probably more than double at 10% or even 12% over enough time, as players would last longer and more people would be exposed to the game.

[andymays]

Most bettors are not cognizant about track takeout. Would it entice more to go to the track if takeout was reduced at the track? Maybe marginally. What would happen is the regulars at the track would last longer and go more often and possibly bring more people.
Would I go to the track if I could get a better takeout there? Yes, but it is more costly for the track to have people there than bet from home (assuming the track has its own ADW).
On track handle would probably more than double at 10% or even 12% over enough time, as players would last longer and more people would be exposed to the game.


I know quite a few big players who would drive an hour or two to go to the track if the take were 10% less.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I know quite a few big players who would drive an hour or two to go to the track if the take were 10% less.
But those big players are most likely playing anyway at a rebater. If they are playing with an offshore bookie though, it would be a way to get them to play into the NA pools.
Again, most players are not price sensitive (at least thinking about takeout). All players are price sensitive though when it comes to how long they last and this affects whether they come back.

[andymays]

But those big players are most likely playing anyway at a rebater. If they are playing with an offshore bookie though, it would be a way to get them to play into the NA pools.
Again, most players are not price sensitive (at least thinking about takeout). All players are price sensitive though when it comes to how long they last and this affects whether they come back.


What's your solution?

If it's the Betfair way then let us know how we get there!

[Tampa Russ]

I've noticed on-track attendance really increases when slot machines are installed.

[illinoisbred]

I think the days of good crowds/attendance at racetracks are pretty much over and done for with the exceptions of Keeneland, Saratoga (for all the obvious reasons), and Oaklawn Park(only game in town). Consider the fact that most fans are over 40 yrs. of age and things such as traffic,wear and tear on an automobile, dropping $10-15 just to be admitted,the hassles of dealing with the existing small crowds,long betting and food lines,discourteous mutuel clerks(with the exception of AP),smoking prohibited-or if allowed,in a undesirable location, and finally, the constant bombardment of advertising. Geez, if they are going to run ads all day - don't charge admission! It's so much easier to do everything from home-you can mute the unwanted "blab", make your bets with the click of a mouse,and watch the races from the best seat in the house-your own comfortable chair. The biggest plus though is you're not a captive audience member for 4 hours. I've recaulked approx. 20 windows and repainted the trimwork,and raked leaves all around and between the races I wanted to see and wager on in November.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

What's your solution?

If it's the Betfair way then let us know how we get there!
It isn't the Betfair way, though Betfair can be included to compliment the game. Simply lower all takeouts everywhere to 12%, and then wait.

If horse racing was invented tomorrow, the takeout would be 12% tops.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think the days of good crowds/attendance at racetracks are pretty much over and done for with the exceptions of Keeneland, Saratoga (for all the obvious reasons), and Oaklawn Park(only game in town). Consider the fact that most fans are over 40 yrs. of age and things such as traffic,wear and tear on an automobile, dropping $10-15 just to be admitted,the hassles of dealing with the existing small crowds,long betting and food lines,discourteous mutuel clerks(with the exception of AP),smoking prohibited-or if allowed,in a undesirable location, and finally, the constant bombardment of advertising. Geez, if they are going to run ads all day - don't charge admission! It's so much easier to do everything from home-you can mute the unwanted "blab", make your bets with the click of a mouse,and watch the races from the best seat in the house-your own comfortable chair. The biggest plus though is you're not a captive audience member for 4 hours. I've recaulked approx. 20 windows and repainted the trimwork,and raked leaves all around and between the races I wanted to see and wager on in November.
In Ontario there is no admission and people still stay at home. That is the way it is today, and it won't change.
The only reason to get more people to the track anymore is to get them to potentially be a new horseplayer.
Cheap buffets, and free betting vouchers might get newbies to experience the game.

[andymays]

It isn't the Betfair way, though Betfair can be included to compliment the game. Simply lower all takeouts everywhere to 12%, and then wait.

If horse racing was invented tomorrow, the takeout would be 12% tops.


Here we go again. :)


There are too many tracks and not enough handle to support them.

It would require a Horseplayer owned and run TV station that only took the tracks with the take below a certain amount. If they did that you might be able to wait and by the end of the year those tracks would see significant increases in handle.

TVG and HRTV like the high take. A competing network that was well funded would destroy them if a handfull of tracks agreed to a firewall take of no more than 15% and 20% and an exclusive contract to start the ball rolling.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Here we go again. :)


There are too many tracks and not enough handle to support them.

It would require a Horseplayer owned and run TV station that only took the tracks with the take below a certain amount. If they did that you might be able to wait and by the end of the year those tracks would see significant increases in handle.

TVG and HRTV like the high take. A competing network that was well funded would destroy them if a handfull of tracks agreed to a firewall take of no more than 15% and 20% and an exclusive contract to start the ball rolling.
Again, the problem is that people don't think about track takeout (they benefit by lasting longer the lower the takeout is though). One track doing it won't change things. The extra money won because of reduced takeout will be bet off at higher takeout venues in many instances.

It needs to be done by a group of tracks.

Let me ask you something. Do you go out of your way to play the 12% pick 3's at Sam Houston?

[gm10]

We all have heard for years Racetracks all across the country their worries on how they could bolster their on track attendance. I suggest that all of us should give them our suggestions as their attendance keeps falling.
:1: Lower their takeout
:2: Fix their tracks up and provide better quality food and
lower prices
:3: all of the above and at Turfway hand out earplugs so
you don't have to listen to MIKE BATTAGLIA

Make it a respectable, family-friendly destination. That's the only way to attract a broad audience. And get rid of the medication. It's a PR disaster.

[gm10]

What's your solution?

If it's the Betfair way then let us know how we get there!

Betfair isn't going to be the magic bullet imo. It's a great betting medium, and I have no doubts that it could be big in the US as well, but you still need a fan base who will use it.

[post time]

With slots the attendance does increace but not the handle bet on horses because the total attendance is combined.

[lamboguy]

this is the same arguement over and over and over again.

20 years ago when i used to hustle a few riders around new england i used to watch the fair meets. they had a circuit of about 5 different fairs that comprised of horses that had run either at sulfolk downs, rockinham or finger lakes. they had 9 races a day with the purses all the same $2700. those fairs did well over $1million handles with the worst possible horses and no simulcasting of their product. the atendance was always over 10,000 people and they had the worst french fries had hamburgers that you could possibly imagine. yet it was an event where the whole family went and and enjoyed the day. when you sat in the stands you were right with the action, you had to wait until after the race to cross over the track to go to the infield.

the thing about those meets that struck me was there were lots of owners that owned horses. those people always showed up and brought their family and friends to the event.

today you have very large owners with eithter no family or no friends. and they hardly ever show up to watch their horses run. those people are racing in lower levels of the sport. they might have 3 or 4 horses to fit any lower rung condition at the track. when it comes time to enter for a race they put in the very best horse they have for the condition, and wait for another day for the other horses they have that fit. this only leads to smaller fields, you see these big guys have claimed the horses away from whatever little people that were left in the sport. the little guys become discouraged and eventually leave the game. the result is that the attendance is a complete blank. the last time i went to belmont race track they claimed the attendace was 2000 people, i didn't see to many in the place. i say 25 jock agents, grooms, hotwalkers, trainers and taxi drivers.

i know this is a different game today with most people sitting in their living room betting horses. but there has been nothing but declining handle's even with those tools that racing has.

does high takeout hurt? it certainly does, but that is not what's doing the sport in, its lack of interest in the game that needs to be adressed. how there could be lack of interest in the game is not so puzzling to me. it can be fixed, unfortunately the people at the top are complete dopes and can't see this.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Why is everything mutually exclusive?

High takeout is clearly a detriment to high volume players that may represent a small sect of the overall wagering population, but a disproportionately high precentage of total dollars wagered.

Poor on-track models and customer service are clearly a detriment to the procurement and retention of comparably low volume bettors that ultimately could and likely already do comprise the bulk overall patrons.

Fix both rather than establishing a 'pecking order' of WHAT is wrong with the sport. There are about 235,623,166.3462 things that could be improved, remedied, or discarded and very few of them are mutually exclusive. Rather than argue about the (one) thing that is dragging down the industry, how about concluding a means of efficiently incorporating solutions to a variety of issues and watch the snowballing successes of parlaying one improvement into another cohesively.

[Viruss]

and free betting vouchers might get newbies to experience the game.

I agree with this. The tracks need to take notice that they are no longer the only game in town.


Advertise in their local area newspapers (within a 50-100 mile radius).

Give out a free track program for every Saturday though out the summer. Actually delivered in the newspaper. So that its sitting around the house so people can have time to look though it. (Most people are intimidated by what the see, and don't know where to start.)
Inside each program have a free voucher for a $2 wps bet along with a free food voucher.

Again work with the Local newspapers to create handicapping contests that are free to the public that’s actually run by the newspaper. (It’s done every fall in our local paper for football coveralls, prizes are sponsored by local businesses.)

Each track needs to make educational sources available. Might it be a track handicapper giving a class on the race card as to how he made his selections for the day, booklets that explains the basic principles of handicapping,what ever it takes to give the new player a leg up.



Earl J

[jballscalls]

:15: I agree with this. The tracks need to take notice that they are no longer the only game in town.


Advertise in their local area newspapers (within a 50-100 mile radius).

Give out a free track program for every Saturday though out the summer. Actually delivered in the newspaper. So that its sitting around the house so people can have time to look though it. (Most people are intimidated by what the see, and don't know where to start.)
Inside each program have a free voucher for a $2 wps bet along with a free food voucher.

Again work with the Local newspapers to create handicapping contests that are free to the public that’s actually run by the newspaper. (It’s done every fall in our local paper for football coveralls, prizes are sponsored by local businesses.)

Each track needs to make educational sources available. Might it be a track handicapper giving a class on the race card as to how he made his selections for the day, booklets that explains the basic principles of handicapping,what ever it takes to give the new player a leg up.



Earl J

there have been some good ideas in this thread, however I dont think people even read newspapers anymore do they? i know many are going out of business.

oddly enough our best results for getting new people out to the track have been advertising in the free weekly papers that are usually read by the younger crowds. We've seen a big growth in our younger crowd from advertising in these types of mediums, whereas when we used to advertise in the Oregonian (a traditional paper) we saw nothing from it.

getting the folks out to the races is just the first step, showing them a great time is the 2nd one. This is where a clean nice facility, good food, and great customer service comes in.

So much room for improvement. Where we as tracks are paying a steep price right now is that racing has for 30 years straight now not done the things necessary to build customers and keep old ones. So now we're trying to dig out of a hole that is realllly deep thanks to the old ways.

Kind of like our national debt being left for our kids to be payed off, gonna be tough!

[Tampa Russ]

With slots the attendance does increace but not the handle bet on horses because the total attendance is combined.

Oh. I wonder why that is?

[tzipi]

Slots have not nor will they ever help fix horse racing.

"Fix racing and attendance" Get rid of 90% of the people running it now. It might be passed the point of no return. It's getting bad. Something big has to change and soon. Would love to see the old days back :)

[sandpit]

Easy fix: On-track Hooter's restaurants...or for that matter, any decent dining options that the general public is familiar with...how all these horrible food service vendors have monopolized their status on-track is beyond me. I know there are some exceptions on every menu, but by and large the crap is overpriced and underflavored.

[tzipi]

Easy fix: On-track Hooter's restaurants...or for that matter, any decent dining options that the general public is familiar with...how all these horrible food service vendors have monopolized their status on-track is beyond me. I know there are some exceptions on every menu, but by and large the crap is overpriced and underflavored.

You're telling me. The Nathans VALUE meals at the tracks in NY are like $9 to $10! It's crazy. I always laugh when I have to say value meal :D

[Stillriledup]

When you have a giveaway day, have employees at the exit gates giving out the giveaway after the last race is over. You have to stay to the last race in order to get the giveaway. I never seem to get my giveaway when i go because i don't want to carry it around all day, so i usually wait and then usually forget. This way, everyone who gets the giveaway item doesn't have to carry it around with them all day and the track gets the benefit of people having to stay for the last race.

[fmolf]

Make it a respectable, family-friendly destination. That's the only way to attract a broad audience. And get rid of the medication. It's a PR disaster.
I believe people really do not care too much about takeout.All the people racing lost to casinos they lost because the casinos treat them much better.Nickel slots players get free drinks while playing!Beer at belmont at least $4....All casino players no matter what game they play build up comp dollars based on money wagered and/or time spent at certain level tables.Allowing players to accrue food an beverage comp points or to redeem them for handicapping tools is a start in the customer relations dept.My wife plays slots mainly and dabbles at roulette an black jack and i go on her name to a.c. free parking....free room..and at least one free meal thru comps accrued.I do get my drinks free in the simulcast room one drink for every $50 wagered.This can be circumvented by a nice tipo for the waitress on the first drink order.This is where the tracks lost because if they would have been more customer friendly when the casinos began stealing their patrons they may not be in the mess they are now!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I believe people really do not care too much about takeout.All the people racing lost to casinos they lost because the casinos treat them much better.Nickel slots players get free drinks while playing!Beer at belmont at least $4....All casino players no matter what game they play build up comp dollars based on money wagered and/or time spent at certain level tables.Allowing players to accrue food an beverage comp points or to redeem them for handicapping tools is a start in the customer relations dept.My wife plays slots mainly and dabbles at roulette an black jack and i go on her name to a.c. free parking....free room..and at least one free meal thru comps accrued.I do get my drinks free in the simulcast room one drink for every $50 wagered.This can be circumvented by a nice tipo for the waitress on the first drink order.This is where the tracks lost because if they would have been more customer friendly when the casinos began stealing their patrons they may not be in the mess they are now!
You are right that most bettors don't care about takeout. But people do realize how long they last with a certain amount of funds. They have an idea how long $100 will last playing slots versus playing horses.....and this is something that determines where some will play.

Also, and I know I'm repeating myself, the longer a player lasts, whether it is horse racing, slots, or betting football, the higher the probability that they will spend more time at it. And when spending more time at it increases the probability that family friends and/or coworkers will get exposed to it.

I like Dexter, the TV show. A few years ago, I didn't watch the first 9 episodes of it. There was nothing on the tube, so I finally watched the 10th episode. Watching it made me go back and watch the first 9 episodes. Did it over two days.

Watched the second season looking forward to each episode.

Finally, in the third year, I made my wife watch it. She got hooked after a half hour. Now we watch each episode together. Looking forward to next weeks show (now unfortunately it will be a long wait as season 4 ended last week). Also, a few weeks ago, I got my mother to watch it....now she is hooked.

My point is that the more time one spends doing something they like, the more likely they are to get others close to them involved. Oh, and my other point is whoever hasn't watched Dexter yet, should start watching it. :)

[tzipi]

"Beer at Belmont is at least $4" Man,I wish :D . Its over $6 a drink.

[DeanT]

I believe people really do not care too much about takeout.All the people racing lost to casinos they lost because the casinos treat them much better.Nickel slots players get free drinks while playing!Beer at belmont at least $4....All casino players no matter what game they play build up comp dollars based on money wagered and/or time spent at certain level tables.
FM,

If casino players do not care about takeout the casino's managing the slots would not have dropped takeout on the machines from 35% in the 1970's to the present day 6 or 7%.

[tzipi]

I believe people really do not care too much about takeout.

Las Vegas way back in the 1970's learned that their 20% slot takeouts needed to be reduced because if they did not send home more winners, they would not have future customers, and they would make less money. They did of course, and slots players responded by betting more. Slot machines can have as low as a 1% takeout in Vegas in '09. The Massachusetts lottery did not say "lottery players are degenerates and only play because they are hooked, so we will not change takeouts" when they lowered lottery takeouts from 60% to 31%. They did it because they knew lottery play would explode, because returning more to the players will get them to rebet, and rebet and rebet. Massachusetts is the most successful state in terms of lottery revenues, and they charge the lowest takeout. Coincidence? I doubt it.

When a lottery's takeout is lower than some superfecta takeouts in racing, I think we can all agree that we have a serious problem.

[gm10]

I believe people really do not care too much about takeout.All the people racing lost to casinos they lost because the casinos treat them much better.Nickel slots players get free drinks while playing!Beer at belmont at least $4....All casino players no matter what game they play build up comp dollars based on money wagered and/or time spent at certain level tables.Allowing players to accrue food an beverage comp points or to redeem them for handicapping tools is a start in the customer relations dept.My wife plays slots mainly and dabbles at roulette an black jack and i go on her name to a.c. free parking....free room..and at least one free meal thru comps accrued.I do get my drinks free in the simulcast room one drink for every $50 wagered.This can be circumvented by a nice tipo for the waitress on the first drink order.This is where the tracks lost because if they would have been more customer friendly when the casinos began stealing their patrons they may not be in the mess they are now!

There are different ways to approach this. In Asia, racing is very big, and it is because of bettors. In Europe, which I'm more familiar with, racing is not huge but still quite popular, and it attracts decent crowds, every day of the week. I went to Clairefontaine (North France) on a Friday in August. Small track, yet there were still five thousand people there: families, children, men, women. The racing was far from exciting but it was a great day out. Local vendors were selling their produce (pear liquor, poppy ice cream, crepe with apples), the track itself was painfully pretty.

Then I went to Lingfield (south of London) in September, also on a Friday. Again there were at least five thousand people, it was all very genteel, a nice mix of singles and families, young and old, retired couples on a day out, groups of women on a hen night. The service was slow, the drinks were expensive, the food wasn't very good, the entrance fee was steep (30 dollars), and the English don't do picturesque as well as the French. Was it worth it? Absolutely. The overall experience comes down to much more than the price of a hot dog. It was just a very pleasant day out, the horse racing was bringing people together. Whether a beer cost 2 or 5 dollars, I really did not care that much. Whether I won or lost, I can not remember. It wasn't the reason for being there.

In October, I was at Golden Gate Fields. Now, I don't want to sound too negative, because I love American racing, I love visiting the US, I love the American spirit. However, it was a disappointment. The prices were acceptable, the staff were friendly, the facilities weren't bad, the location is potentially sensational (apart from the puzzling fact that you can't actually walk there). But it was empty. There was no atmosphere. The 'parade ring' was, well, unlike any other parade ring I've seen. It was a 5 meter circle in front of the saddling area. You've got so much space in America, how can this be?

Also, I'm sure there are as many whino's at Lingfield as there are at GG, but you notice them more when there are only 200 other people (on a gorgeous Saturday afternoon). It was a little unsettling, in fact. I'm glad I went, but maybe not entirely for reasons that would make me go back (speaking as a fan of GG racing, I bet it on Betfair most nights).

Personally, I don't think that gambling can be the main driver behind American racing. Gambling doesn't really seem part of American culture. The European alternative, making it a clean, feel-good family destination is probably a better approach to making racing more popular. A third way may be to make racing more spectacular to watch on TV. I've seen sports coverage on American TV and boy that is something else. It is very impressive and I can only guess that how well a sport is presented on TV determines how popular the sport is in the US - otherwise it wouldn't be so well done.

[Jeff P]

posted by tzipi:Las Vegas way back in the 1970's learned that their 20% slot takeouts needed to be reduced because if they did not send home more winners, they would not have future customers, and they would make less money. They did of course, and slots players responded by betting more. Slot machines can have as low as a 1% takeout in Vegas in '09. The Massachusetts lottery did not say "lottery players are degenerates and only play because they are hooked, so we will not change takeouts" when they lowered lottery takeouts from 60% to 31%. They did it because they knew lottery play would explode, because returning more to the players will get them to rebet, and rebet and rebet. Massachusetts is the most successful state in terms of lottery revenues, and they charge the lowest takeout. Coincidence? I doubt it.

When a lottery's takeout is lower than some superfecta takeouts in racing, I think we can all agree that we have a serious problem.

Very well put... IMHO you nailed it. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


-jp

.

[nearco]

GM10 is right. Ask John Doe in the street why he doesn't go to the track, and he ain't gonna to tell you it's because "takeout is too high". He has absolutely no idea what takeout even means. The reason people don't go racing is because it doesn't appeal to them as a spectator sport and as a viable form of entertainment.
The tracks that gm10 mentioned in England, they don't survive on takeout, there is little or no takeout, as almost all the gambling is done with bookies, now some of which does come back to the tracks in a round about way, but the tracks have to support themselves on i) admittance fees, ii) concessions. So they charge anywhere from $20 to $40 to get in, then they have to provide decent food and beverages, and service, to get people to fork out money. As gm10 pointed out, people show up! Why? Because they feel it is a worthwhile way to spend an afternoon, often in company or with the better half and kids in tow, so they fork out the dough to do so.
US racing is practically free in comparison, and yet no one goes. You give something away, or let it go cheaply, and people think it's low class trash. Charge some money and give them an experience, they'll line up to get in. People have no problem dropping $50-100 on a night out, a meal, drinks, going to a show. You guys are complaining about $5 to get into the track and an $5 hotdog.
Once you get people in the door, they will bet, it's inevitable. You don't need to train them to be expert handicappers either. Let them bet the friggin' colours of the silks if they want, or the horses ages. How many people at the Lingfield meet that gm10 talked about were seasoned 'cappers? Very few I bet, yet I guarantee you that most of them were placing bets with the bookies. Because it's all part of the thrill of racing, something you can't get any most any other sporting event. For a minute or two you have a vested interest in a horse, and your heart beats faster.

[Jeff P]

Ask John Doe in the street why he doesn't go to the track, and he ain't gonna to tell you it's because "takeout is too high". HANA has more than 1400 members who collectively wager more than $65 million annually. We recently invited our membership to take a comprehensive 50 question survey designed by a statistician. We asked them for their thoughts on everything from simple demographics to their favorite track(s) for a visit, their favorite track(s) for betting, their preferred medium for betting, what makes them bet, what makes them not bet, integrity of the game issues... and yes - their thoughts on takeout.

More than 500 HANA members took the time to complete the survey in full. I believe the answers obtained truly do capture the essence of the needs and wants of the racing customer.

When it came to takeout the collective response was everwhelming and the results surprised even me...

The vast majority see takeout as being too high.

The vast majority said they were aware of track takeout and that it affects the amount of money they bet.

When asked to rate the importance of racing related issues they named high takeout as the #1 thing holding racing back.

The vast majority said they want HANA working to get takeout reduced.


I know of no other comprehensive survey that has been targeted at an audience of serious horseplayers. After seeing the results, it is crystal clear to me that racing's industry decision makers have vastly underestimated the importance that takeout has in the eyes of racing's customers.

Racing is a mix of gambling and entertainment. If you ask me, the gambling part of racing is being grossly mismanaged.


-jp

.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Nearco, the low commission bets that are allowed in Britain are the main reason why horse racing is far more popular in the UK than in North America.
Players have a chance to win, and they definitely last longer. It is betting that makes horse racing popular, and it it betting that creates more fans (even if some of the new fans don't bet).

[tzipi]

Nearco:"People spend $50-$100 on a night out and you guys are complaining about $5 to get in and $5 hotdog"

Well first off at Belmont,I pay $2 park entry,$2 extra for close parking,$2 gate entry,then $3.50 for a program. Almost $10 to get in,to a place I'm gambling in! Then I am betting and most of us don't bet $20 or $50 in a day. I bet more than that. Most of their customers bet way way more than $50-$100 in a day. Then even though you are betting alot of money,you have to pay $6-$7 beers,$5 hot dogs,$10 "value" meals at Nathans,etc. It's nuts.

Plus gamblers know what the takeout is. Vegas got stung for a bit until they dropped their takeout in the 70's and saw a boom in buisness. Lottery takeout is lower than some superfectas takeout. That is just bad.

[nearco]

Nearco:"People spend $50-$100 on a night out and you guys are complaining about $5 to get in and $5 hotdog"

Well first off at Belmont,I pay $2 park entry,$2 extra for close parking,$2 gate entry,then $3.50 for a program. Almost $10 to get in,to a place I'm gambling in!

Yep, just like I said. Racing is FUBAR with that mentality. $10.50. I can hardly get out of starbucks without leaving the bones of that behind.

Just for comparison, to go racing tomorrow, Tue, at Southwell (low end AW racing... like cheap claimers, reeeaaal cheap) will cost you $16-25 to get in the door.
On Sat you could go to see the big race at Kemptom, cheapest in is around $50 (which includes a racecard and a drink), better seats around $75. Pricing returns to normal on Sunday, $30 for general admission, $40 for the premier enclousure.
Elsewhere around the UK, Huntingdon, $30 for main admission, they do have a "picnic" enclosure you can access for $16... just where you want to be on a cold damp Boxing Day. Market Rasen, $15 for family enclosure, up to $45 for better seats. Sedgefield, $25, though they will let you into the infield for $12.
Wetherby, $25 up to $45. (BTW, most of these are provincial tracks, not famous places)

Meanwhile across the water in Dublin, you could go to the St Stephen's day meet at Leopardstown, you're looking at $35 general admission (students and seniors get in for only $20), the better seats are double that, $70. After the Christmas weekend the prices drop to "normal" for the next race day on the 10th Jan, $20 general and $40.
Or you could go down the country to Limerick, always an enjoyable place to spend a holiday race day, tickets from $21 to $36.

And people complain about $6 for entry and parking at Belmont, one of the most famous and storied tracks in the US, nay the world.

[tzipi]

Yep, just like I said. Racing is FUBAR with that mentality. $10.50. I can hardly get out of starbucks without leaving the bones of that behind.

Just for comparison, to go racing tomorrow, Tue, at Southwell (low end AW racing... like cheap claimers, reeeaaal cheap) will cost you $16-25 to get in the door.
On Sat you could go to see the big race at Kemptom, cheapest in is around $50 (which includes a racecard and a drink), better seats around $75. Pricing returns to normal on Sunday, $30 for general admission, $40 for the premier enclousure.
Elsewhere around the UK, Huntingdon, $30 for main admission, they do have a "picnic" enclosure you can access for $16... just where you want to be on a cold damp Boxing Day. Market Rasen, $15 for family enclosure, up to $45 for better seats. Sedgefield, $25, though they will let you into the infield for $12.
Wetherby, $25 up to $45. (BTW, most of these are provincial tracks, not famous places)

Meanwhile across the water in Dublin, you could go to the St Stephen's day meet at Leopardstown, you're looking at $35 general admission (students and seniors get in for only $20), the better seats are double that, $70. After the Christmas weekend the prices drop to "normal" for the next race day on the 10th Jan, $20 general and $40.
Or you could go down the country to Limerick, always an enjoyable place to spend a holiday race day, tickets from $21 to $36.

And people complain about $6 for entry and parking at Belmont, one of the most famous and storied tracks in the US, nay the world.

Number one you don't bet at starbucks,so that holds no water. If I was going to Belmont to picnic and there was no horses,then I wouldn't mind paying $5-$10 to get it to use their park.
As for the rest of your post,ok that's your opinion. But fans don't like the takeout or the way their treated and don't want to pay good money to get in or jacked up food/beverage prices,when they are already betting alot of money with them. If you think I'm wrong then look at the numbers. They acted like they were the only game in town and now they are not and people go elsewhere for sports betting or bet horses from somewhere else. They see no need for it or the track now.

Those tracks you are talking about,are they U.S. tracks? Are those tracks going bankrupt? How do they treat fans? Do they look like some of these rundown tracks here?

[samyn on the green]

Too cheap is a problem at New York's Aqueduct. This joint has free admission, free parking and has its own subway stop which any homeless person can ride on for $2.25 from all points to Aqueducts station. The result of all of this free stuff is that the place is undervalued. People think if it is free it must be a dump. They are better off charging $5 to get in and fixing up the joint a little to attract a more upscale clientele and weed out some of the homeless vagrants that roam the joint.

[Stillriledup]

Las Vegas way back in the 1970's learned that their 20% slot takeouts needed to be reduced because if they did not send home more winners, they would not have future customers, and they would make less money. They did of course, and slots players responded by betting more. Slot machines can have as low as a 1% takeout in Vegas in '09. The Massachusetts lottery did not say "lottery players are degenerates and only play because they are hooked, so we will not change takeouts" when they lowered lottery takeouts from 60% to 31%. They did it because they knew lottery play would explode, because returning more to the players will get them to rebet, and rebet and rebet. Massachusetts is the most successful state in terms of lottery revenues, and they charge the lowest takeout. Coincidence? I doubt it.

When a lottery's takeout is lower than some superfecta takeouts in racing, I think we can all agree that we have a serious problem.


I was in a liquor store with my GF a few weeks ago and somehow we got in a conversation with the guy behind the counter about the state lottery. The guy talked about the payout and whatnut and i said "the takeout is too high, they take like 50 percent or something outrageous?" The clerk said "whats the difference if you win who cares what the takeout is."

He just didn't seem to understand how much money is taken out, he just saw that the pot was like 100 million.

Anyway, to the guy who said that fans don't care about takeout. I think that logic is flawed on 2 accounts. Account number one is that the reason that most fans 'don't care' about takeout is because they're not experienced enough racegoers to know what takeout is. Its not fair to suggest that they don't 'care' about something that they don't even know exists. To say they don't care means that they all know about it, yet choose to not think about it. THAT is not caring. Not knowing doesn't equal not caring imo.

The second thing about the 'dont care about takeout' argument that is flawed is this. Whether or not fans know about takeout or not, they know how much money they have in their pockets. It doesn't matter if fans know takeout exists because the main thing that matters is that players will have more money in their pockets. How that extra money got in their pockets is not as important as the actual fact that its there to be rebet.

[nearco]

I was in a liquor store with my GF a few weeks ago and somehow we got in a conversation with the guy behind the counter about the state lottery. The guy talked about the payout and whatnut and i said "the takeout is too high, they take like 50 percent or something outrageous?" The clerk said "whats the difference if you win who cares what the takeout is."

He just didn't seem to understand how much money is taken out, he just saw that the pot was like 100 million.

Anyway, to the guy who said that fans don't care about takeout. I think that logic is flawed on 2 accounts. Account number one is that the reason that most fans 'don't care' about takeout is because they're not experienced enough racegoers to know what takeout is. Its not fair to suggest that they don't 'care' about something that they don't even know exists. To say they don't care means that they all know about it, yet choose to not think about it. THAT is not caring. Not knowing doesn't equal not caring imo.

The second thing about the 'dont care about takeout' argument that is flawed is this. Whether or not fans know about takeout or not, they know how much money they have in their pockets. It doesn't matter if fans know takeout exists because the main thing that matters is that players will have more money in their pockets. How that extra money got in their pockets is not as important as the actual fact that its there to be rebet.

Dude, if you seriously think that all it will take to get the general populace of John and Jane Doe across America to go to the track is to drop the takeout, then I think you really are deluded. The reason people are not interested in racing is because they don't perceive it as a valid, or valued, form of entertainment as they once did. It's only appeal, outside of the handful of big name races, is to the "capper" crowd. Those are the people that complain about handle. But they are a finite number of people, and increasingly racing can not rely on them and their dollars to sustain the game.

gm10 gave you an example of racing in other parts of the world, and how it's popularity is greater, and clientèle it attracts is different, and invariably people bet more. He related a story of thousands of people paying $30 odd a head to go to Lingfield on a Friday afternoon/evening, for what isn't high quality racing by any stretch of the imagination. The majority of that crowd were more than likely not "cappers", though I imagine the overwhelming majority of them did bet, more than likely with the bookmakers, some probably considerably after a few beers. On top of that they probably ate a good number of meals in the restaurants, and kept the bars busy knocking back beers, all on top of the $30 odd it cost them to get in the gate..... on a Friday afternoon, at Lingfield... which once again, is low end racing, we ain't talking Saratoga or Keeneland here. They were by and large people, individuals, families, couples, work mates, etc, out for an afternoon of fun. I imagine most had a good time and will go racing again.
I expanded on this example by gm10, with some examples of what it will cost you to go racing this week around England and Ireland. This was to counteract the idea that $6 is too much to get into one the US' premier racetracks, Belmont Park.
If a days racing at Belmont, a place known around the world, is not worth even $6 to someone involved/interested in the game, then why would anyone not interested in racing even bother going?
Value and perception. US racing sells itself cheap and as a result gets no respect.... http://www.4hb.com/0101npsdfdsffds.html

[tzipi]

Dude, if you seriously think that all it will take to get the general populace of John and Jane Doe across America to go to the track is to drop the takeout, then I think you really are deluded. The reason people are not interested in racing is because they don't perceive it as a valid, or valued, form of entertainment as they once did. It's only appeal, outside of the handful of big name races, is to the "capper" crowd. Those are the people that complain about handle. But they are a finite number of people, and increasingly racing can not rely on them and their dollars to sustain the game.

gm10 gave you an example of racing in other parts of the world, and how it's popularity is greater, and clientèle it attracts is different, and invariably people bet more. He related a story of thousands of people paying $30 odd a head to go to Lingfield on a Friday afternoon/evening, for what isn't high quality racing by any stretch of the imagination. The majority of that crowd were more than likely not "cappers", though I imagine the overwhelming majority of them did bet, more than likely with the bookmakers, some probably considerably after a few beers. On top of that they probably ate a good number of meals in the restaurants, and kept the bars busy knocking back beers, all on top of the $30 odd it cost them to get in the gate..... on a Friday afternoon, at Lingfield... which once again, is low end racing, we ain't talking Saratoga or Keeneland here. They were by and large people, individuals, families, couples, work mates, etc, out for an afternoon of fun. I imagine most had a good time and will go racing again.
I expanded on this example by gm10, with some examples of what it will cost you to go racing this week around England and Ireland. This was to counteract the idea that $6 is too much to get into one the US' premier racetracks, Belmont Park.
If a days racing at Belmont, a place known around the world, is not worth even $6 to someone involved/interested in the game, then why would anyone not interested in racing even bother going?
Value and perception. US racing sells itself cheap and as a result gets no respect.... http://www.4hb.com/0101npsdfdsffds.html


What sports and competition does horse racing have in England and Ireland. Soccer,rugby? Horse racing in US has to compete with:

College Basketball- How many colleges!
College Football- Again,how many colleges
Football- How many teams in these professional sports listed!
Basketball
Baseball
Hockey
Soccer
Golf
Nascar
Tennis
Boxing
You can bet on all these one way or another too if you wanted. U.S. racing has to compete with all that. Racing over there does NOT. Racing has to win over fans like these other sports have. They were once upon the top of the list. The U.S. is not a one or two sport country.

[tzipi]

They can compete if they wanted to. Just like they used to. They have just run it into the ground for so long,it's bad now. The park fees and expensive food is just small complaints compared to all the many BIG ones.They have to make a major change. Let's see you guys compete over there if you had all those sports and entertainment venues to deal with.

[nearco]

What sports and competition does horse racing have in England and Ireland. Soccer,rugby? Horse racing in US has to compete with:

College Basketball-How many colleges!
College Football-Again,how many colleges
Football
Basketabll
Baseball
Hockey
Soccer
Golf
Nascar
Tennis
You can bet on all these one way or another too if you wanted. U.S. racing has to compete with all that. Racing over there does NOT.

You would be wrong, very very wrong.
You can bet on just about anything in the UK and Ireland. Why don't you go over to any of the big bookmakers websites, or to any of the betting exchanges like betfair and see for yourself. You can practically bet on two cockroaches walking up a wall. You can bet on any sport, and soccer is HUGE, both as a spectator sport and as a betting sport. There are even betting shops inside many soccer stadiums. How many NFL, NBA, MLB stadiums have that?
Yet racing manages to hold it's own, in both attendance and betting.

How many people in the US can legally bet on football or basketball? Is there a betting shop on every corner that allows you to walk in and bet on an NFL game? There is in UK and Ireland. Yeah, that's right, there's thousands of betting shops all over UK and Ireland into which you can walk and bet on an NFL game in the US.
Pretty crazy, eh?

[masterpeg]

I wont go to the track ever again. There is no need with a television and a computer. In fact, I see actually going there as a disadvantage.

[badcompany]

In fact, I see actually going there as a disadvantage.

Agree. I find it much easier to sit out races at home.

[gm10]

Yep, just like I said. Racing is FUBAR with that mentality. $10.50. I can hardly get out of starbucks without leaving the bones of that behind.

Just for comparison, to go racing tomorrow, Tue, at Southwell (low end AW racing... like cheap claimers, reeeaaal cheap) will cost you $16-25 to get in the door.
On Sat you could go to see the big race at Kemptom, cheapest in is around $50 (which includes a racecard and a drink), better seats around $75. Pricing returns to normal on Sunday, $30 for general admission, $40 for the premier enclousure.
Elsewhere around the UK, Huntingdon, $30 for main admission, they do have a "picnic" enclosure you can access for $16... just where you want to be on a cold damp Boxing Day. Market Rasen, $15 for family enclosure, up to $45 for better seats. Sedgefield, $25, though they will let you into the infield for $12.
Wetherby, $25 up to $45. (BTW, most of these are provincial tracks, not famous places)

Meanwhile across the water in Dublin, you could go to the St Stephen's day meet at Leopardstown, you're looking at $35 general admission (students and seniors get in for only $20), the better seats are double that, $70. After the Christmas weekend the prices drop to "normal" for the next race day on the 10th Jan, $20 general and $40.
Or you could go down the country to Limerick, always an enjoyable place to spend a holiday race day, tickets from $21 to $36.

And people complain about $6 for entry and parking at Belmont, one of the most famous and storied tracks in the US, nay the world.

And despite the high prices, all these tracks will be full!

[gm10]

What sports and competition does horse racing have in England and Ireland. Soccer,rugby? Horse racing in US has to compete with:

College Basketball- How many colleges!
College Football- Again,how many colleges
Football- How many teams in these professional sports listed!
Basketball
Baseball
Hockey
Soccer
Golf
Nascar
Tennis
Boxing
You can bet on all these one way or another too if you wanted. U.S. racing has to compete with all that. Racing over there does NOT. Racing has to win over fans like these other sports have. They were once upon the top of the list. The U.S. is not a one or two sport country.

That's not really an argument. There is plenty of other sports in the UK, but racing is still able to compete with them.

All these arguments about wanting cheaper beer and lower take out are just counter productive. You must make it something worth paying for, the people who care about getting a dog for 25 cents less, are not the people who will pour funds into the sport. They are not the ones that tracks should be focusing on - they shouldn't alienate them either, of course.

[proximity]

You would be wrong, very very wrong.


in terms of relative importance in the culture he is not wrong.

just take a look at today's sports section of america's "national" newspaper the usa today.

in twelve pages of coverage i can't find one single word about horseracing.

there's coverage of high school football, college volleyball, weekend basketball scores between colleges i didn't even know existed, and even a tidbit about kalamazoo (michigan) college getting a new women's tennis coach.

no horseracing..... and it's like this more often than not.

[proximity]

update..... tuesday's usa today has just arrived and (if you have your magnifying glass handy) there is an actual paragraph about horseracing on page 11 right beside the box score of the prestigious new orleans bowl. (middle tenn. stopped southern miss 42-32, btw)

"cash flow crunch threatens belmont stakes"

yep, it's really there..... right below a paragraph about a yankees fan being convicted of murder (second degree) for running over a boston redsox fan.

this is where horseracing ranks in america today.

[Jeff P]

There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.
--Sam Walton

The Setting: An internet horse racing message board, circa late 2009, a year that saw falling handle numbers and purse cuts yet again for almost all tracks running... earlier that same day one of America's most recognizeable racing associations announced they were in such financial straights that they might not be able to run the second leg of the Triple Crown next year without an infusion of cash...

We jump now to a long forgotten thread on that message board, and find a discussion taking place. The subject?... How can race tracks turn things around?

The Customer: "We are here for the gambling. Lower takeout is one of our critical needs and wants."

Thoroughbred Racing to Customer: "You are most certainly NOT here for the gambling. Lower takeout is most certainly not one of your needs and wants.

You are here because we put on the show.

But as long as you're here why don't you: 'bet the friggin' colours of the silks... or the horses ages.'"


Cut to a second discussion taking place... The setting? A board meeting. Assembled are the board of directors for a prominent race track. The mood is dire. While the numbers have not been officially announced, everybody in the room already knows that they are not good.

Chairman of The Board to The Others: "We put on a show didn't we?"

The Others: "Yes sir. We did."

Chairman of The Board to The Others: "And no one came to see it? And our handle numbers were down again?"

The Others: "Yes sir. No one came to see it and our handle numbers were down again."

Chairman of The Board to The Others: "Well I guess we did everything we could then.

Good job everybody."



-jp

.

[Canarsie]

posted by tzipi:

Very well put... IMHO you nailed it. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


-jp

.


While I agree with takeout to a large extent with the knowledgeable gambler how many people who play slots actually know what the takeout is? Last year I tried to find it for Yonkers gave up after an hour. So if I'm looking and can't find it what percentage of players there actually know? Has to be less than 1%.

[elhelmete]

all winning payoffs should show gross (i.e., before takeout) and net (after takeout) prices on the tote.

then everyone from the casual to the serious gambler would know exactly how deep their pockets are being picked.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

While I agree with takeout to a large extent with the knowledgeable gambler how many people who play slots actually know what the takeout is? Last year I tried to find it for Yonkers gave up after an hour. So if I'm looking and can't find it what percentage of players there actually know? Has to be less than 1%.
Again, this doesn't matter. A smaller percentage of gamblers who play slots know what the slot take out is. But ask yourself this, why is slot takeout only around 8% on average in North America? Why not make it 16%? They only need half the money bet to make the same return. Well, the reality is that they don't attract even half the money bet at 16%.

[andymays]

If you want to decrease the takeout rate then you have to do something about it instead of talking about it.

The first step would be to require each Track to put the takeout rate on each betting ticket.

If you have to sue to get it done then so be it. If you have to have an email or phone campaign to do it then so be it.

Not calling out any one person or organization but the lack of action combined with the abundance of hot air is nauseating to say the least.

Are we gonna change the tactics or are we gonna do it again in 2010? :bang:

[Horseplayersbet.com]

If you want to decrease the takeout rate then you have to do something about it instead of talking about it.

The first step would be to require each Track to put the takeout rate on each betting ticket.

If you have to sue to get it done then so be it. If you have to have an email or phone campaign to do it then so be it.

Not calling out any one person or organization but the lack of action combined with the abundance of hot air is nauseating to say the least.

Are we gonna change the tactics or are we gonna do it again in 2010? :bang:
Talking about it is doing something about it. Since HANA started more and more racing beat writers write about takeout. More and more bettors are now educated when it comes to takeout...maybe even some racing execs too :)
The industry is coming closer to gradually drop rates collectively (some like Tampa Bay are doing so now). Betting exchanges are now being looked at as a real possibility.
Yes, there are still protectionists out there who haven't learned a thing, but I think more and more organizations are starting to get it. Raise takeout and watch the roof cave in even faster. Lower takeout and the roof stops caving in.

[andymays]

Talking about it is doing something about it. Since HANA started more and more racing beat writers write about takeout. More and more bettors are now educated when it comes to takeout...maybe even some racing execs too :)
The industry is coming closer to gradually drop rates collectively (some like Tampa Bay are doing so now). Betting exchanges are now being looked at as a real possibility.
Yes, there are still protectionists out there who haven't learned a thing, but I think more and more organizations are starting to get it. Raise takeout and watch the roof cave in even faster. Lower takeout and the roof stops caving in.


I know Tampa lowered the take but I would bet that over the last couple of years takeout has gone up overall and not down. Look for California to raise it by February and maybe sooner.

Requiring them to print it on each ticket would be a small step but a step in the right direction nonetheless.

[tzipi]

That's not really an argument. There is plenty of other sports in the UK, but racing is still able to compete with them.

All these arguments about wanting cheaper beer and lower take out are just counter productive. You must make it something worth paying for, the people who care about getting a dog for 25 cents less, are not the people who will pour funds into the sport. They are not the ones that tracks should be focusing on - they shouldn't alienate them either, of course.


Your not listening. The $10 value meals and $7 beers was just small points made by people,including myself. It's how a $7 beer is crazy. People can buy a six pack for $6 and be home.They are not the big complaints however. Takeout and other complaints are the main reason.

"Cheaper beer and lower takeout are just counter productive" Yup ok,just like lower takeout was counter productive in Vegas,right? You do know about Vegas and their takeout history? Lower takeout in lotteries here were counterproductive too,right? Yeah Vegas and state lotteries will tell you how counterproductive their lowering the takeout was :D

"They are plenty of sports in UK" Yeah ok you have the same as us. Please. How many professional sports leagues does the UK have? Hey,how many colleges do you have for basketball and football? Why didn't you list all your prof sports leagues and colleges?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I know Tampa lowered the take but I would bet that over the last couple of years takeout has gone up overall and not down. Look for California to raise it by February and maybe sooner.
Recent take out changes I know about.
Belmont, Aqueduct and Saratoga increased take: Belmont and Aqueduct down close to 20% in total handle. Saratoga handle down 2.8%.
Calder increased take: Handle down in high teens (double the national average)
Woodbine (lowered handle on triactors): up 6% in total handle (many other factors contributed to this though)http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/12/handle-up-why-woodbine-bucked-trend.html
Tampa Bay: had a 10% increase in handle opening day.

[andymays]

Recent take out changes I know about.
Belmont, Aqueduct and Saratoga increased take: Belmont and Aqueduct down close to 20% in total handle. Saratoga handle down 2.8%.
Calder increased take: Handle down in high teens (double the national average)
Woodbine (lowered handle on triactors): up 6% in total handle (many other factors contributed to this though)http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/12/handle-up-why-woodbine-bucked-trend.html
Tampa Bay: had a 10% increase in handle opening day.


I seems that it is common sense to you and I that lowering the take is good and raising the take is bad.

The question then becomes who are the villains raising the take and why aren't we making their life a living hell with emails and phone calls?

[rrbauer]

How to get more people to the track?

Tear down the grandstand and build a funeral home. A bonus arrangement for as players die off they won't have very far to travel. And, the racetrack execs can be the pall bearers since they're burying the game anyway.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

How to get more people to the track?

Tear down the grandstand and build a funeral home. A bonus arrangement for as players die off they won't have very far to travel. And, the racetrack execs can be the pall bearers since they're burying the game anyway.
What makes you think that a racetrack is capable of successfully running a funeral business, or any business for that matter?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I seems that it is common sense to you and I that lowering the take is good and raising the take is bad.

The question then becomes who are the villains raising the take and why aren't we making their life a living hell with emails and phone calls?
Again, what we need first, are more HANA members. Then we can launch an effective "living hell" program.

[tzipi]

What makes you think that a racetrack is capable of successfully running a funeral business, or any business for that matter?

:D

[Jeff P]

Earlier today, on my own message board, someone posted the following question: Why is it so hard for people to understand that reduced takeout will improve handle, and drive growth?
I've been asking myself the same thing for quite some time now.

The truth is: It isn't hard to understand. In fact, there's a growing body of evidence to support it.

Over the past year, through HANA - we've been working to make industry decision makers aware of it.

I can guarantee you one thing at this point: Industry decision makers are VERY much aware of it. FAR more aware than they publicly let on.

Change isn't going to happen overnight. Nobody wants to be first. But change IS coming.

In 2010 you are going to see a handful of tracks reduce their takeout. Some of this is going to come in the form of new wagers at takeout that is historically lower than takeout in that track's other pools. Right now HANA is working with one major track that is seriously considering doing a takeout reduction with a high profile pool. Other tracks that I know of are currently working on all pools takeout reductions spanning their full 2010 meets.

None of these takeout reductions are going to be drastic... None of them are likely going to make headlines.

I'm talking about reduced takeout of a few points at a few tracks for an extended time period -- and monitoring results.

When it happens, if players support it -- other tracks will follow.

If you ask me, it will be a good start.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

One thing I absolutely do want to make clear is that HANA is working to effect change in a positive manner. We aren't planning a "living hell" campaign.

We are trying to make the voice of the player heard. -- By raising awareness... with the objective being to make sure industry decision makers are aware of racing customer needs and wants.

The two most critical player needs and wants are:

1. Takeout/pricing of the gambling aspect of racing.

2. Integrity of the game issues.

When it comes to takeout, HANA is NOT seeking takeout so low that there is no money for tracks, purses, and government coffers.

HANA is trying to raise awareness that takeout has an optimal pricing point -- and that the optimal pricing point is currently higher than demand for the game...

When the gambling aspect of racing (or any other game) is priced too high:

Money flowing as a percentage of the total amount wagered to the people running the game and to government coffers is lower than it otherwise could be.

Here's what I mean...

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 the point that produces 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 22% blended takeout the industry currently forces upon its customers.

Racing's customers are no different than the customers of any other industry. They speak with their wallets. When price is too high they spend their money elsewhere.

One of HANA's core beliefs is that racing takeout should be set as close to the optimal price point as possible... the goal being to produce max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers... which in turn results in a healthy prospering industry.


-jp

.

[Indulto]

... Are we gonna change the tactics or are we gonna do it again in 2010? :bang::lol:
RAH RAH REE
KICK HIM IN THE KNEE
RAH RAH RASS
KICK HIM IN THE OTHER KNEE

[rrbauer]

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


.

There will still be breakage which will produce over $100 Million (at 2009 handle levels) for tracks, purses, state coffers and whoever else has their finger in the breakage pie....at horseplayers' expense.

[andymays]

One of HANA's core beliefs is that racing takeout should be set as close to the optimal price point as possible... the goal being to produce max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers... which in turn results in a healthy prospering industry.


-jp

.

Jeff, the whole theory makes sense. Is it that all these tracks are run by idiots who don't know this or is there another reason most of them have been raising the take (or per California reserving the right to raise it 5%) instead of lowering it?

I'm of the opinion that there are certain individuals who run these tracks that need to be run out of town. Why not pressure them to do so by shining light on the individuals and groups that are resisting?

Correct me if I'm wrong but what seems to be driving a good portion of the handle are the two main racing networks TVG and HRTV. The tracks they carry get more handle than the tracks they leave out. Do the ADW's affiliated with both networks want lower takeout? It seems to me that they tend to push the wagers with the highest takeout (especially TVG).

Who are the villains in your opinion?

[riskman]

:lol:
RAH RAH REE
KICK HIM IN THE KNEE
RAH RAH RASS
KICK HIM IN THE OTHER KNEE


At least AM demonstrates some enthusiasm as apposed to your constant berating which at this point does nothing for the problems at hand. If we all knew what you knew everything would be Heaven on Earth in the horse racing industry. Yes sir reeeeee.

[Show Me the Wire]

.................................................. .....................

Who are the villains in your opinion?

Fixed costs of operating live racing. Lowering take out does not equate to the necessay increase needed, in the incmoe stream, to cover costs of operation.

People decide to wager on a certain product based on other variables than just take out.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Fixed costs of operating live racing. Lowering take out does not equate to the necessay increase needed, in the incmoe stream, to cover costs of operation.

People decide to wager on a certain product based on other variables than just take out.
How do you know that reducing takeout won't cover the cost of operations? It is a major contention that today's takeout is not the optimal takeout. In fact, the optimal takeout is most likely under 12% and maybe even under 10%.

No, for the 100th time, most people do not think about takeout before they bet.

But it is what they go home with and how long they last that determines how much they will bet in the future.

Again, with optimal takeout. Why don't slots increase their takeout to 16% instead of 8%?

Because they make more money BOTTOM line at 8%. This means that less than twice the money is bet on slots today at 8% than would be bet if the takeout was 16%.

And slot players know or care squat about takeout.

[Show Me the Wire]

I will give you one great example of a more influential variable. The poly surface in Cali, there is so much vitrol, about this variable, not even a reduction in take out would bring these poly haters to the table.

Wagering is based on many variables other than take out. An equality equation between take out and increase in handle or attendance is a false premise.

Wishful thinking on any one's part, that take out is the primary factor in wagering decisions.

[andymays]

The more you bet during the year the more you care about takeout.

Just a total guess but I would guess that the 20% of Horseplayers who wager the least amount of money really don't care much about the take but the 20% that wager the most care quite a bit about the take.

[Jeff P]

At this point I don't think the concept of takeout and elasticity is lost on track operators. Many of the people I've talked to in the industry would be in favor of giving lower taleout a try. Many still aren't. And some won't even take my calls to talk about it.

One of the problems, as I see it, is that no one entity in racing has the power to make decisions.

As an example, I own a racing related business, JCapper... and even in a down economy - I've quitely had a pretty good year. I call the shots, but I answer to the customer. The shots that I call tend to be driven by customer needs and wants. The point I'm trying to make is that the business of racing customers is out there to be won... provided you satisfy their needs and wants.

In most if not all cases, the race track operators in favor of takeout reduction can't call their own shots. They can't decide on their own to just reduce takeout. They have to sell the idea to horsemen - and in many jurisdictions politicians. Historically, it has been really tough to get tracks, horsemen, and politicians to agree on just about everything.

Then there's the infighting that goes on between different groups withing the industry. Last year I talked with people on both sides of the TOC/THG vs. Tracknet signal impasse. And recently I've talked with people on both sides of the NYRA vs. Mid Atlantic Coop and the Tracknet vs. Mid Atlantic Coop signal impasses. A couple of days ago I found myself in the middle of a spat between NYRA and Equibase over NYRA's refusal to use Equibase's new Scratches and Changes system... (NYRA being the only organization out there that has so far refused to use the free system that Equibase created for the benefit of players.)

I can tell you that a lot of badwill exists among the parties in these disputes... Enough badwill that it gets in the way of bringing about positive change that would benefit everybody. Many of the conversations I've had literally reminded me of playing the role of an adult who has just separated two 8 year olds from a fight and having to listen to both of them explain through tears what the other other one did first... I'm not kidding about this - and I'm talking about grown men.

Several years ago, Keeneland tried to do a real reduced takeout experiment. The badwill between competing tracks boiled up and the entire Mid Atlantic Coop decided not to allow Keeneland's signal at their outlets. Like I said... 8 year olds.

To really make positive change happen, a majority of the decision makers have to be on the same page.

I can say without question that raising awarenes and doing it in a positive manner is having an effect.


-jp

.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I will give you one great example of a more influential variable. The poly surface in Cali, there is so much vitrol, about this variable, not even a reduction in take out would bring these poly haters to the table.

Wagering is based on many variables other than take out. An equality equation between take out and increase in handle or attendance is a false premise.

Wishful thinking on any one's part, that take out is the primary factor in wagering decisions.
What is it you don't get? It is not the primary factor in the decision of most bettor's wagering decisions. Their bankroll and their expectations are though. The amount of time they spend thanks to how much they cash when they cash is huge in determining whether a player bets or not. All this has to do with takeout, but it isn't about actually thinking about takeout.

[Show Me the Wire]

Exactly you don't get your own point. If the player has no expectation of winning (poly is unplayable) he is not going to wager, because the take out is low.

Therefore, reducing take out is not going to necessarily increase handle or increase attendance, because there is no expectation of winning.

The premise is false as I stated earlier.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Exactly you don't get your own point. If the player has no expectation of winning (poly is unplayable) he is not going to wager, because the take out is low.

Therefore, reducing take out is not going to necessarily increase handle or increase attendance, because there is no expectation of winning.

The premise is false as I stated earlier.
People do play the poly. By reducing takeout, they will play longer and bet more money over time than they do now. Sure, there will still be some who won't bet poly if the takeout were 10%, but they aren't betting it now.
Most bettors bet poly though.

Your argument is like saying if slots takeout were 16%, reducing the takeout to 8% won't matter because a lot of people just won't play slots. The reality is they make more money at 8% bottom line than they do at 16%.

[DeanT]

Exactly you don't get your own point. If the player has no expectation of winning (poly is unplayable) he is not going to wager, because the take out is low.

Therefore, reducing take out is not going to necessarily increase handle or increase attendance, because there is no expectation of winning.

The premise is false as I stated earlier.

I think you are missing the gross dollars versus gross players part in this. If takeout is lowered at SAX I will bet more, a ton more. So will everyone else who plays there because they will bet until they have no edge. $20 bets would become $50 bets and so on. If 5000 horseplayers ignore it because of the surface, there are thousands of others who take up that slack with more dollars.

Regards,

A Former poly hater who now plays them :)

[Show Me the Wire]

No my argument is a reduction in take out does not guarantee an income stream to cover the expenses of operation.

Look at it this way. Reducing take out is similar to placing a specific product on sale. The price reduction is more than likely the result of low demand for the product. Decreasing the price will not automatically increase sales or profits, or it may increase sales but not profits, or accomplish nothing at all.

Basically, reducing price is not a very productive way to increase profit or attract new business. You attract new business and generate profits by a demand for the product or producing a substitute product to satisfy demand.

Reducing price is a way to clear out unwanted product, to make room for other profit making opportuntities. Unforunately race tracks only have one product to offer and cutting price is not the solution.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think you are missing the gross dollars versus gross players part in this. If takeout is lowered at SAX I will bet more, a ton more. So will everyone else who plays there because they will bet until they have no edge. $20 bets would become $50 bets and so on. If 5000 horseplayers ignore it because of the surface, there are thousands of others who take up that slack with more dollars.

Regards,

A Former poly hater who now plays them :)


Yes, you may induce loyal customers to spend more, but the additional spending may not be sufficient to cover the operational expenses.

The premise of equalizing reduced sales price to a corresponding increase in profit is false. If the premise was true, no matter how dumb you beleive mangement to be, managment would be reducing take out.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

No my argument is a reduction in take out does not guarantee an income stream to cover the expenses of operation.

Look at it this way. Reducing take out is similar to placing a specific product on sale. The price reduction is more than likely the result of low demand for the product. Decreasing the price will not automatically increase sales or profits, or it may increase sales but not profits, or accomplish nothing at all.

Basically, reducing price is not a very productive way to increase profit or attract new business. You attract new business and generate profits by a demand for the product or producing a substitute product to satisfy demand.

Reducing price is a way to clear out unwanted product, to make room for other profit making opportuntities. Unforunately race tracks only have one product to offer and cutting price is not the solution.
If the optimum price lower than the price being charged, then reducing the cost will optimize profits. That is economics 101.

Race tracks only have one product to offer, and that is gambling. And they have lost out to other forms of gambling not because people don't like to gamble, but because people have found other ways to gamble where they last longer or might even have a chance at winning.

Give players more return, and they will last longer, and still in the end lose at least as much as they would have without the takeout decrease....but my contention is that they might lose collectively more as they will spend more time focusing on horse racing. Plus the longer they spend picking horses, betting horses and watching races, the more likely they are to expose others in their personal universe to horse racing.....and you wind up growing the game.

It worked with poker, it works with Betfair, it could work with horse racing too.

[Show Me the Wire]

If the optimum price lower than the price being charged, then reducing the cost will optimize profits. That is economics 101.

Race tracks only have one product to offer, and that is gambling. And they have lost out to other forms of gambling not because people don't like to gamble, but because people have found other ways to gamble where they last longer or might even have a chance at winning.

Give players more return, and they will last longer, and still in the end lose at least as much as they would have without the takeout decrease....but my contention is that they might lose collectively more as they will spend more time focusing on horse racing. Plus the longer they spend picking horses, betting horses and watching races, the more likely they are to expose others in their personal universe to horse racing.....and you wind up growing the game.

It worked with poker, it works with Betfair, it could work with horse racing too.


It worked for poker, etc, because as you pointed out it impacted the expectations of winning and substituted demand (remember my earlier post about demand). Now you circled back to your best point, expectation of winning.. If there is no expectation of winning no amount of reduction can significantly overcome the zero expectation of winning.

Additionally, a reduced price does not generate an equal increase in profits.

And your definition is fine, as price defines demand. If the product costs you $10 and optimize price is $1. all the sales at a reduced price do not increase your bottom line.

Optimum price may guarantee a loss; it certainly does not always equal profit.

I said my piece. Keep on tilting at windmills if you wish

[Horseplayersbet.com]

It worked for poker, etc, because as you pointed out it impacted the expectations of winning and substituted demand (remember my earlier post about demand). Now you circled back to your best point, expectation of winning.. If there is no expectation of winning no amount of reduction can significantly overcome the zero expectation of winning.

Additionally, a reduced price does not generate an equal increase in profits.

And your definition is fine, as price defines demand. If the product costs you $10 and optimize price is $1. all the sales at a reduced price do not increase your bottom line.

Optimum price may guarantee a loss; it certainly does not always equal profit.

I said my piece. Keep on tilting at windmills if you wish
You are the one who completely misunderstands what I am saying. Luckily, Pace Advantage is full of intelligent readers who understand my points.

You are being disingenuous by twisting my words or putting words in my mouth.

By optimum price I clearly mean the price where the seller makes the most money. If you don't understand that concept, you have no business in this debate. I also suggest you buy a book on Economics for Dummies.

Again, all players, including slot players have an expectation of winning. It increases dramatically at an 8% takeout than at a 16% takeout even though they have no idea what takeout is, and in the long run have no chance of winning.

A question for you, are you purposely being disingenuous, or are you simply just ignorant?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Show Me The Money. Explain in your own words why slots only take 8% and not 16% or 20%. Some experimented that high, but they don't do that anymore. Why do they charge only 8% on average?

[LRL Racing]

Tracks need to cater to the family and market it accordingly. Many of my families happiest moments came at tracks where we ate $1 hot dogs, $1 soft drinks and everyone bet $2 a race. You cannot get that value anywhere else for four or five hours. What does a professional sporting event cost and all you see are a bunch of steriod pumping overpriced ego maniacs, thugs, etc...
More things like jockey goggle giveaways, backside tours, picnic areas, playground slides, swings. Arlington, Oaklawn, Keeneland all do good because attending the races is the thing to do.
I love horseracing but unfortunately declining attendance threatens its existence and it is a very serious problem. Based on the grandstand sizes at Delaware, Belmont, Aqueduct there were alot of people attending the races whereas now they are not and it is a very serious problem.
Things change.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Tracks need to cater to the family and market it accordingly. Many of my families happiest moments came at tracks where we ate $1 hot dogs, $1 soft drinks and everyone bet $2 a race. You cannot get that value anywhere else for four or five hours. What does a professional sporting event cost and all you see are a bunch of steriod pumping overpriced ego maniacs, thugs, etc...
More things like jockey goggle giveaways, backside tours, picnic areas, playground slides, swings. Arlington, Oaklawn, Keeneland all do good because attending the races is the thing to do.
I love horseracing but unfortunately declining attendance threatens its existence and it is a very serious problem. Based on the grandstand sizes at Delaware, Belmont, Aqueduct there were alot of people attending the races whereas now they are not and it is a very serious problem.
Things change.
Things have changed. The racetrack isn't the only game in town anymore.
And really the price of hot dogs and drinks is inconsequential when the real cost is when betting $200 and giving the track $40 in takeout and the fact that mooch money is gone, so most players are lucky if that is all they lose.
It makes it difficult getting them to come back. There are other ways to blow $80-100 on a Saturday or Sunday with the kids.
Winning gets people to come back. So does breaking even for that matter.

[Stillriledup]

The price of the gamble is really high. They are charging you 20 cents to make a 1 dollar bet, 40 cents to make a 2 dollar bet and so on. That's way too much. Its 1/5th.You have to pay them 1 bet for every 5 bets you make.

[Show Me the Wire]

Show Me The Money. Explain in your own words why slots only take 8% and not 16% or 20%. Some experimented that high, but they don't do that anymore. Why do they charge only 8% on average?

Demand for the product. And they are profitable at that range. Nothing different then I said in my earlier postings.

To clarify I am not saying take out does not effect the bettors bottom line.

Simple business:

Fixed costs and variable costs of operating the plant. Price reductions do not guarantee or generate more profit or guarantee enough income to cover costs. I have illustrated the above many times.

It is all about the demand. Price does not drive demand, demand drives price.

You have it backwards and the idea of corresponding increase in income equaling price reduction is a faulty premise.

[DeanT]

The price of the gamble is really high. They are charging you 20 cents to make a 1 dollar bet, 40 cents to make a 2 dollar bet and so on. That's way too much. Its 1/5th.You have to pay them 1 bet for every 5 bets you make.
Bingo! When they were the only game in town they could survive on the Average Cost Pricing model (monopolies do), but now they can not. When the cost to the racetrack of playing a $200 bet is the same as the cost of playing a $2 bet, yet the $200 one is taxed at $40 and the $2 one is taxed at 40 cents, we have a serious pricing problem. It is why rebaters and all the rest have taken so much play from the tracks - it is all about pricing; one for a different age, and one on a quasi-marginal cost pricing model which racing now is. They insist on putting a square peg into a round hole, despite the revenues all around them crumbling.

[Indulto]

At least AM demonstrates some enthusiasm as apposed to your constant berating which at this point does nothing for the problems at hand. If we all knew what you knew everything would be Heaven on Earth in the horse racing industry. Yes sir reeeeee.It’s hard to know what to say to someone so offended by a high school football cheer. I remember being very enthusiastic when I first heard it, but less so with repetition preceding continued lack of results.

Perhaps you have it in you to help solve the problems at hand, but nothing in your last 25 posts appears to support that hypothesis

There are already some players for whom takeout is not too high. Under prevailing circumstances, a tiny minority of players receive discounts on the cost of their wagers because the overwhelming majority do not. Merely extending that minority, without improving the lot of the majority, will not change the game’s dynamic; or its downward spiral.

Optimal takeout, from the horseplayers standpoint, will not occur until handle is large enough to support it along with competitive purses and track operating costs. But simply lowering takeout will not increase handle sufficiently to restore the game's stability without a racing product attractive enough to deserve player attention. It isn’t just field size, but large, competitive fields. It isn’t just sound horses, but sound, talented ones – trained and ridden by well-known racing figures.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

"Demand for the product. And they are profitable at that range. Nothing different then I said in my earlier postings.
To clarify I am not saying take out does not effect the bettors bottom line."
******************************************
Demand (amount bet) for slots is less than half at 16% than at 8%. The slot operator makes more money at 8% than they do at 16%. Pricing is responsible for how much betting (demand) there is. At 16% less money is lost by bettors collectively, so yes the bottom line is changed depending on the takeout charged.

"Fixed costs and variable costs of operating the plant. Price reductions do not guarantee or generate more profit or guarantee enough income to cover costs. I have illustrated the above many times."
**********************************
And this has what to do with the debate? I'm saying that at 21%, tracks will make less money in the long run than at 12%. Sure, I can't guarantee it at this time, but how was the 21% determined? By market forces? I think not. They were arbitrarily raised, and they are totally arbitrary right now. By using the real laws of supply and demand, we've seen a drop in demand lately, and a real drop in demand versus inflation for quite some time. The laws of economics say the price of gambling is too high.


"It is all about the demand. Price does not drive demand, demand drives price."
*******************************
Price does drive demand. More than twice the money is bet (more demand) on slots at 8% than at 16%. And if price doesn't drive demand, I guess Wal Mart is an illusion. When I go there I even buy things I don't need because they are so cheap.


"You have it backwards and the idea of corresponding increase in income equaling price reduction is a faulty premise."
********************
I've proven above that it is you who has it backwards. Looking forward to your next cherry picking post.

[Show Me the Wire]

Yes, as you said a big chunk is taxes. State governments look at racetracks as cash cows.

I don't think rebaters have to contend with high local taxation, do they?

The focus should be on reduced local taxation of the pari-mutual pool, which can led to realistic pricing of the take out.

[Show Me the Wire]

Would the slot operator make money at 4%, if the market dictated 4%?

With respect, you have not proven a price reduction leads to profits. You keep on citing one example where demand and market meet, i.e. slots. You have not proven if demand declines, for slots, a price reduction to 4% will guarantee profit or a profit no matter how low the percentage is reduced?

Please provide proof that your opinion about price reductions leading to profits in a declining market is factual, I am amenable to you proving the hypothetical proposed above.

BTW when you shop at Wal-Mart do you opt for name brands or the Great Value brand. If you opt for Great Value you are certainly a price driven consumer. However, even with Wal-marts prices how do other retailers exist?

Other retailers are profitable, because price is not the determining factor for everyone, like the player that refuses to play poly tracks. No demand for the product, poly tracks, no price reduction is enough. It may help existing customers, but servicing existing customers does not attract new business and that is the bottom line attracting new business.

[DeanT]

With respect, you have not proven a price reduction leads to profits. You keep on citing one example where demand and market meet, i.e. slots. You have not proven if demand declines, for slots, a price reduction to 4% will guarantee profit or a profit no matter how low the percentage is reduced?

Please provide proof that your opinion about price reductions leading to profits in a declining market is factual, I am amenable to you proving the hypothetical proposed above.


How is he supposed to prove it? He ain't Cangamblestradamous.

Slots found a proper price point to maximize profits. It was lower than the 35% in 1970 and higher than the zero percent which means no profit. They settled at around 5%.

The Massachusetts state lottery used to take 70% takeout, but they lowered it and lowered it to its current 31%, which maximizes their profit.

Betfair found a price point which maximizes revenue. They set it at around 5%. If it should be higher, it would be higher.

McDonald's found a price point for a Big Mac. $10 is too high, $2 is too low.

Racing has never found a price point which maximizes revenue in North America because they have never tried. In Australia they maximize profit at 16% takeout, minus about 4% for perks, which means 12% is their maximizing price point. They tried 22%, it was too high, and so on.

Studies show that a take of about 12% will maximize profits for North American racing. Are they right? Who knows, we have not tried. There is NO empirical evidence in North America.

Every racing executive, bar none, says that takeout is too high. That is a given. They just have absolutely no idea how to lower it properly, and can not get together to formulate a proper plan. They are, as Jeff said above, too busy fighting.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Again, you are simply missing or ignoring the concept of OPTIMAL pricing. OPTIMAL pricing is the price where the seller makes the most profit.

Let me use a simple example for you, because it appears I have to.

Lets say track takeout was 90%. Do you think the track would make more bottom line over 6 months than they do at 21%?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you would say they will make less money.

Why? Because many players will be driven away because of the lower prices paid. And those who don't have a clue, won't last very long and just call horse racing a rip off. They won't spend time handicapping, or bringing friends to the track with them.

Now lets say the takeout is 12%. Players will last longer, and they are more apt to spend more time handicapping, and watching races, therefore increasing the likelihood that they will bring friends or family to at least be exposed to betting horses.

Will the track make more money at 12% than at 21%? All studies suggest this will be the case.

The point is that we don't know what the optimum price is because tracks have not allowed the market to dictate those prices.

Just look at the range of takeouts across tracks in North America. 31% for a triactor at Philly, 19% at Keeneland. Neither have to be the optimum price, and both can't be the optimum price either (in fact, both are too high according to studies). Until we see lower across the board takeout reduction, the game will continue to die. It will die until an optimum price is found.

As for Wal Mart, I sometimes buy their brand and sometimes name brands...but I pay less at Wal Mart for name brands than I would at a mom and pop shop. I also buy goods I wouldn't normally buy, so yes a new market is created by lower pricing.

[Show Me the Wire]

[QUOTE=DeanT]How is he supposed to prove it? He ain't Cangamblestradamous.

/QUOTE]

Through economic theory. He is pretending to be Cangamblestradamous as he is predicting price reduction (citing economic theory) is the panacea of racing for attracting new business and increased profits.

Actually, you just have to look at Las Vegas and all the properties in financial trouble to see what happens when demand for the product falls and price reductions do not matter.

The track executives say take out is too high, because of local government taxation of the pari-mutual pools. If all that money went directly to the track, not a one would say take out is too high.

[DeanT]

[/QUOTE]

Through economic theory. [/QUOTE]
Oh ok, that's not hard then. The horseplayersassociation.org site has links to the Cummings Report, the Hong Kong takeout reduction, the University of Louisville study and I think a link to Singapore's takeout reduction as well. The blog has related posts and discussion on them as well. The search box can be used for those.

D

[Show Me the Wire]

Again, you are simply missing or ignoring the concept of OPTIMAL pricing. OPTIMAL pricing is the price where the seller makes the most profit.

Let me use a simple example for you, because it appears I have to.

Lets say track takeout was 90%. Do you think the track would make more bottom line over 6 months than they do at 21%?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you would say they will make less money.

Why? Because many players will be driven away because of the lower prices paid. And those who don't have a clue, won't last very long and just call horse racing a rip off. They won't spend time handicapping, or bringing friends to the track with them.

Now lets say the takeout is 12%. Players will last longer, and they are more apt to spend more time handicapping, and watching races, therefore increasing the likelihood that they will bring friends or family to at least be exposed to betting horses.

Will the track make more money at 12% than at 21%? All studies suggest this will be the case.

The point is that we don't know what the optimum price is because tracks have not allowed the market to dictate those prices.

Just look at the range of takeouts across tracks in North America. 31% for a triactor at Philly, 19% at Keeneland. Neither have to be the optimum price, and both can't be the optimum price either (in fact, both are too high according to studies). Until we see lower across the board takeout reduction, the game will continue to die. It will die until an optimum price is found.

As for Wal Mart, I sometimes buy their brand and sometimes name brands...but I pay less at Wal Mart for name brands than I would at a mom and pop shop. I also buy goods I wouldn't normally buy, so yes a new market is created by lower pricing.


You continue to ignoring the idea of demand. What about the players that refuse to wager at tracks with poly surfaces. You are being too simple, in order to, ignore reality.

Right you pay less for brand names, the same item you can buy any place. Your mistake is you are looking at gambling as a fungible item. I understand now. You are not taking in the uniqueness of the bettor or the product offered by each track.

That is our difference. You see gambling as gambling. I see it as a unique product at every track, sort of like boutiques. I believe the boutique economic mentality is more applicable to racing than the fungible mentality.

Okay let's agree to disagree as I am not going to go into great detail as to my belief. Suffice to say one of the examples you are ignoring in your fungible concept is factors like poly track, which negate your theory.

[Show Me the Wire]

Through economic theory. [/QUOTE]
Oh ok, that's not hard then. The horseplayersassociation.org site has links to the Cummings Report, the Hong Kong takeout reduction, the University of Louisville study and I think a link to Singapore's takeout reduction as well. The blog has related posts and discussion on them as well. The search box can be used for those.

D[/QUOTE]

Economic theory to prove his assertion, about price reduction, applies to slot machines being reduced to 4% from 8% will lead to increased profits.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I've already used the polytrack example by comparing it with those who play slots and those who don't and never will.
There are people playing both polytrack and slots today.

When slots were 16% the operators made less money bottom line that at 8%. Simply because existing customers lose just as much if not more when combined with the more people they expose to slots because they last longer and feel OK about the length they can sit and gamble mindlessly.

The same is true with polytrack betting. Studies have shown that 12% will make more money for the track bottom line than at 21%. And it won't be because players who wouldn't play polytrack before would play it now. It would be because those who already play polytrack would bet more, and expose more new people to it.

[riskman]

It’s hard to know what to say to someone so offended by a high school football cheer. I remember being very enthusiastic when I first heard it, but less so with repetition preceding continued lack of results.

Perhaps you have it in you to help solve the problems at hand, but nothing in your last 25 posts appears to support that hypothesis

There are already some players for whom takeout is not too high. Under prevailing circumstances, a tiny minority of players receive discounts on the cost of their wagers because the overwhelming majority do not. Merely extending that minority, without improving the lot of the majority, will not change the game’s dynamic; or its downward spiral.

Optimal takeout, from the horseplayers standpoint, will not occur until handle is large enough to support it along with competitive purses and track operating costs. But simply lowering takeout will not increase handle sufficiently to restore the game's stability without a racing product attractive enough to deserve player attention. It isn’t just field size, but large, competitive fields. It isn’t just sound horses, but sound, talented ones – trained and ridden by well-known racing figures.

There you go again. Typical Indulto poke to get attention and to put someone in their place.

Your assumption is correct, there is little that I could offer to help solve the numerous problems facing horse racing in todays environment. That I will leave to knowledgeable experts like yourself.

There are many interests in racing as you are well aware from the track/owner-operators,horse owners, trainers, stable personnel,jockeys, local and state governments, concessionaires, vets, suppliers of equipment, farms and training facilities,etc., and yes even the gambler/handicapper and others that supply info to these people ( cappers/gamblers)who appear to be at the bottom rung of the totem pole in the view of track managers and many owners. From my perspective being a gambler I want what you want, now damn it give it to me and I am not waiting much longer or I will take my gambling money and play another game. People are leaving because the product has deteriorated, many of the racetracks look like outdoor toilets, the takeout is unreasonable and the medication and drug issues is a laughing stock. Add the integrity of the tote board and cyber money floating in a magical mystery tour.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Through economic theory.

Read this before you post again on this thread:
http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

[Show Me the Wire]

I've already used the polytrack example by comparing it with those who play slots and those who don't and never will.
There are people playing both polytrack and slots today.

When slots were 16% the operators made less money bottom line that at 8%. Simply because existing customers lose just as much if not more when combined with the more people they expose to slots because they last longer and feel OK about the length they can sit and gamble mindlessly.

The same is true with polytrack betting. Studies have shown that 12% will make more money for the track bottom line than at 21%. And it won't be because players who wouldn't play polytrack before would play it now. It would be because those who already play polytrack would bet more, and expose more new people to it.

The slots statement I agree with as gambling on slots is random and you are betting against the house.

Handicapping is not random. The statement about betting more, by existing customers, on poly track does not take into account the law of unintended consequences. Wagering on horses is a pari-mutual system. The more you wager you bet against yourself lowering the odds, more money wagered by existing customers will lower the odds enough to cancel any price reduction in betting.

Your premise is to attract new customers and the study you cite refutes this idea, stating the increase will come from additional sales to existing customers. Also, if current customers are not exposing new customers now, why would increased sales to the same customer produce different behavior? The answer it wouldn't.

That is exactly what I said many posts ago, price reductions may increase sales to existing customers, but not necessarily improve the bottom line. Maybe I ain't so ignorant after all, and I am not cherry picking either.

In this case the bottom line will not improve for anyone. Horse racing is boutique economics and not fungible random gambling economics..

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Lower pricing in slots leads to more customers. Why? Because the addicted ones bring more friends and family along and more become addicted.
They didn't bring as many friends when the takeout was over 12%.

The same phenomena is true of horse racing.

I bet 3 to 4 times as much when getting decent rebates. I know this because I have records. So your law of betting against yourself doesn't hold water, until maybe one gets to the $10,000 a day range.

When I am really in action, I get others involved (whether they want to or not).
Real life example, I was in a cold streak the second last time my brother in law came over ( I didn't play that weekend). Last time I was holding my own and betting in front of him in the family room.
He went to the track the next day....and he rarely goes.

If not for rebates, I wouldn't have been betting either time he came for a visit.

[Show Me the Wire]

Lower pricing in slots leads to more customers. Why? Because the addicted ones bring more friends and family along and more become addicted.
They didn't bring as many friends when the takeout was over 12%.

The same phenomena is true of horse racing.

I bet 3 to 4 times as much when getting decent rebates. I know this because I have records. So your law of betting against yourself doesn't hold water, until maybe one gets to the $10,000 a day range.

When I am really in action, I get others involved (whether they want to or not).
Real life example, I was in a cold streak the second last time my brother in law came over ( I didn't play that weekend). Last time I was holding my own and betting in front of him in the family room.
He went to the track the next day....and he rarely goes.

If not for rebates, I wouldn't have been betting either time he came for a visit.

Bingo the addicted. These people wanted to go to the casino to feed their addiction (demand) for random gambling and this demand caused them to suggest a new form of entertainment, to their friends as a guise to feed their addiction.

The same is not true of horse racing. As you said, we don’t have to go any place. Just sit at home. Sitting at home watching races and wagering is not conducive to physically bringing people to the track.

I know you are going to say you will go to the track if you get a rebate. Maybe and maybe not, it depends on the level of play and how much value I attach to the convenience of not traveling, etc. Any way as a loner use to wagering at home, if I decided to travel, I wouldn't need social company.

As for betting against yourself it depends on pool size. At some tracks $200. is a bet against yourself. Even at the large tracks, look at the low odds at the past Hollywood meet. Imagine how much lower the pay offs would have been if more astutue money came in on the favorites, as existing players would have invested more and ended up betting against themselves, especially in the exotics.

[fmolf]

Lower pricing in slots leads to more customers. Why? Because the addicted ones bring more friends and family along and more become addicted.
They didn't bring as many friends when the takeout was over 12%.

The same phenomena is true of horse racing.

I bet 3 to 4 times as much when getting decent rebates. I know this because I have records. So your law of betting against yourself doesn't hold water, until maybe one gets to the $10,000 a day range.

When I am really in action, I get others involved (whether they want to or not).
Real life example, I was in a cold streak the second last time my brother in law came over ( I didn't play that weekend). Last time I was holding my own and betting in front of him in the family room.
He went to the track the next day....and he rarely goes.

If not for rebates, I wouldn't have been betting either time he came for a visit.
rebates will not bring new players into the racing game.Lowered takeout across the board might because quite possibly the smaller recreational player will go to the track more often and perhaps bring fresh faces with him/her.The real problem is the being slapped in the face by racetracks in the form of admissions charge ...price of a beer/soda...the $3 hot dog...all these things are given out by the casinos even to the marginal players,those equivalent to our two dollar bettors.Make racing more user friendly /customer oriented and accessible by having night racing at least on the weekends.
In my opinion rebates will be the death of racing because pretty soon all you will have is smart monies in the pools essentially whale versus whale with no value to be found anywhere!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You missed my point about my brother in law. Even at home gamblers can attract newbies.

If rebates can be embraced by the racing industry, then people can openly state that they are making real money. This will attract more players as well.
It worked like that with online Poker and Betfair.

And again, players are less likely to become addicted or regulars the higher the takeout.

As for comparing horse racing with slots....they are both negative expectation games (when considering a 21% takeout in horse racing), so there really isn't much of a difference to random gamblers, except they last longer playing slots.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

rebates will not bring new players into the racing game.Lowered takeout across the board might because quite possibly the smaller recreational player will go to the track more often and perhaps bring fresh faces with him/her.The real problem is the being slapped in the face by racetracks in the form of admissions charge ...price of a beer/soda...the $3 hot dog...all these things are given out by the casinos even to the marginal players,those equivalent to our two dollar bettors.Make racing more user friendly /customer oriented and accessible by having night racing at least on the weekends.
In my opinion rebates will be the death of racing because pretty soon all you will have is smart monies in the pools essentially whale versus whale with no value to be found anywhere!
If rebates are embraced and those who are winners become spokesmen for horse race gambling, writing books perhaps, then rebating will cause growth.
Right now, you are correct. As long as rebating is a dirty word, it won't lead to very many new players....I still contend it will lead to some because word gets out that the game can be beaten that way.

As for making racing more affordable. In Ontario, there is no admission, no parking (unless you opt for valet where available) and you still can't people into the stands. Food prices are high, but c'mon, free admission and still no crowds.

Yes, reducing takeouts considerably is racing's only true chance for guaranteed growth.

[Show Me the Wire]

You missed my point about my brother in law. Even at home gamblers can attract newbies.

If rebates can be embraced by the racing industry, then people can openly state that they are making real money. This will attract more players as well.
It worked like that with online Poker and Betfair.

And again, players are less likely to become addicted or regulars the higher the takeout.

As for comparing horse racing with slots....they are both negative expectation games (when considering a 21% takeout in horse racing), so there really isn't much of a difference to random gamblers, except they last longer playing slots.

Okay, I didn't address it as it was the exception and not the rule. You see you restated our different views. You feel all gambling is fungible and I don't. I think you may have a higher percentage of people wagering on horses that view it more as investing and not as an entertainment thrill.

People play slots for entertainment and decide the cost is reasonable. Many horse players don't look on their wagers as a form of entertainment.

fmolf is correct about rebates.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Okay, I didn't address it as it was the exception and not the rule. You see you restated our different views. You feel all gambling is fungible and I don't. I think you may have a higher percentage of people wagering on horses that view it more as investing and not as an entertainment thrill.

People play slots for entertainment and decide the cost is reasonable. Many horse players don't look on their wagers as a form of entertainment.
What is a serious horseplayer? Someone who "thinks" if they are lucky enough they can beat the game long term? There aren't too many winners with a 21% takeout and very few mindless bettors left. Realistically I would say that most HONEST horse race gamblers view the game as entertainment, and at least rationalize it that way if they are keeping real records.

I think the game is beatable, with the right sized rebate or if takeouts were reduced enough. Slots is never beatable, but the thing is that there are people out there who do because the rake is so low.

I know of one person who told my wife she ALWAYS wins playing slots.
I interpret that as she has won quite a few times recently. But the fact she was able to go home with more money than she started with when she made that statement and the fact she has deluded herself into thinking the game is beatable tells me that slots has a definite advantage over horse racing when it comes to making addicts.

[johnhannibalsmith]

FWIW - Though tedious at times, this is a good debate and I'm actually hanging on every rebuttal.

[proximity]

fmolf is correct about rebates.

fmolf is incorrect about the rebates.

and parking, admission, and sodas are free at penn national. (you have to pay for hotdogs, but who eats those things anyway?)

fmolf used the words "slapped in the face" to describe these things, but the tenths of a percent "rebates" given to on track players who (sometimes) buy track hotdogs, play track slots, and help create the track atmosphere..... this is the real slap in the face.

giving rebates that actually mean something at the end of a month of betting.... yes, this will both increase on track attendance and generate a lot more sustained interest in the game.

[badcompany]

FWIW - Though tedious at times, this is a good debate and I'm actually hanging on every rebuttal.

The debate is pointless.

Lower the take on track only 5% to 10%. I guarantee you the handle on track will at least triple.


Even if Andy is right, close to 90% of the handle would still be off track. The argument should be about increasing handle. If the pools are big, who cares if the betting is done on or off track.

[andymays]

The debate is pointless.



Even if Andy is right, close to 90% of the handle would still be off track. The argument should be about increasing handle. If the pools are big, who cares if the betting is done on or off track.


The tracks get a much higher percentage of the handle on track. Maybe somoeone can tell us the difference but I'm guessing they only get a few points of off track handle that is out of state.

[badcompany]

The tracks get a much higher percentage of the handle on track. Maybe somoeone can tell us the difference but I'm guessing they only get a few points of off track handle that is out of state.

I got this from the NY Daily News last week:



I was looking at Beulah results. They do about 2 million total with only ~40k bet on-track. Game over.

Philly Park has a similar breakdown. The tracks do peanuts on-track compared to off. That's not gonna change.

The "special" meets: 'Toga, Delmar, will still do well, but other than that, horseracing is an off-track sport.

[DeanT]

Horseplayerbets link to that report really is quite good. I am diving into it. Pricing seems to matter, go figure :)

Even the industry’s frequently-touted
“churn factor” of 7 implies that lower takeouts would benefit the industry -- if that is the case, we would make more money with the takeout at 14% than we do today. Higher takeouts have depressed handle, but this trend can be reversed. Investing in players (via rebates) can be just as
or even more effective than investing in bricks and mortar and new technology as means to grow revenues for the industry.

Economic theory holds that a competitive marketplace is the best way to match producers and consumers of almost every product. It also says that in a competitive market, price equals marginal cost. That maximizes revenues for the producers, and consumer surplus for the buyers.
But the most relevant factor here is marginal cost, not average cost. The marginal cost of a simulcast signal / betting opportunity is close to zero. The high average cost of putting on a horse race is unfortunately almost irrelevant. The only industries that can successfully charge
more than the competitive price are monopolies. Monopolies don’t last. Horse racing’s ended years ago. If we charge more than the competitive price, we will lose customers.
1 2003

[andymays]

I got this from the NY Daily News last week:



Philly Park has a similar breakdown. The tracks do peanuts on-track compared to off. That's not gonna change.

The "special" meets 'Toga, Delmar, will still do well, but other than that, horseracing is an off-track sport.


That's all true but my original post about lowering the take on track only to 5% or 10% would get quite a few people to the track instead of staying home. I think quite a few people would be willing to drive an hour or two for that kind of discount. Especially the bigger players who push through 10k a day or more.

The track makes a bunch more money with people at the track.

[Show Me the Wire]

What is a serious horseplayer? Someone who "thinks" if they are lucky enough they can beat the game long term? There aren't too many winners with a 21% takeout and very few mindless bettors left. Realistically I would say that most HONEST horse race gamblers view the game as entertainment, and at least rationalize it that way if they are keeping real records.

I think the game is beatable, with the right sized rebate or if takeouts were reduced enough. Slots is never beatable, but the thing is that there are people out there who do because the rake is so low.

I know of one person who told my wife she ALWAYS wins playing slots.
I interpret that as she has won quite a few times recently. But the fact she was able to go home with more money than she started with when she made that statement and the fact she has deluded herself into thinking the game is beatable tells me that slots has a definite advantage over horse racing when it comes to making addicts.

I edited my wording to "many" as serious was incorrect. As I said you and have different views of horse racing. Like anything it can be entertainment for some and something else for others.

What is needed is a better product. Price reduction is not cure for low demand or low product quality.

The one thing I know for sure the tracks with the highest purses attract the horses and eventually increase their handle.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I edited my wording to "many" as serious was incorrect. As I said you and have different views of horse racing. Like anything it can be entertainment for some and something else for others.

What is needed is a better product. Price reduction is not cure for low demand or low product quality.

The one thing I know for sure the tracks with the highest purses attract the horses and eventually increase their handle.
The one thing you know for sure isn't very correct. Look at Beulah doing a $2 million day in handle recently while giving out less than $40,000 in purses for that day.
Handle is more related to bigger fields than quality of those fields.
I remember seeing a study where doubling the purse money leads to only a 6% change in handle. Yet studies indicate that dropping takeout from 20% to 12% will increase betting by more than 100%.

[Show Me the Wire]

The one thing you know for sure isn't very correct. Look at Beulah doing a $2 million day in handle recently while giving out less than $40,000 in purses for that day.
Handle is more related to bigger fields than quality of those fields.
I remember seeing a study where doubling the purse money leads to only a 6% change in handle. Yet studies indicate that dropping takeout from 20% to 12% will increase betting by more than 100%.

You enjoy focusing on the exceptions. Is that Beulah's usual handle over an extended period of time?

We do agree full fields mean better handle, That is what I meant by bigger purses and quality. Bigger purses lead to fuller fields and the eventual increase in handle.

You keep reinforcing my points, fuller fields lead to higher handle. I have been saying this all this time i.e. a better product is needed. My mistake, that I did not understand, you did not know what I meant by a better product. The usual complaint about the product is field size, so I thought you would understand field size is one apsect of a better product.

Reducing price does not increase field size. Reducing price has no effect on field size, except a negative one associated with lowering purses.

The above example, which is it? Is it the better product (field size) or price reduction that caused this spike?

BTW I have to sign off now. night.

[badcompany]

That's all true but my original post about lowering the take on track only to 5% or 10% would get quite a few people to the track instead of staying home. I think quite a few people would be willing to drive an hour or two for that kind of discount. Especially the bigger players who push through 10k a day or more.

The track makes a bunch more money with people at the track.

I don't really know the track's deal for on-track vs off-track handle, but, what you're suggesting would create a caste system in which bettors are penalized for betting off-track or for not betting the track closest to where they happen to live.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You enjoy focusing on the exceptions. Is that Beulah's usual handle over an extended period of time?

We do agree full fields mean better handle, That is what I meant by bigger purses and quality. Bigger purses lead to fuller fields and the eventual increase in handle.

You keep reinforcing my points, fuller fields lead to higher handle. I have been saying this all this time i.e. a better product is needed. My mistake, that I did not understand, you did not know what I meant by a better product. The usual complaint about the product is field size, so I thought you would understand field size is one apsect of a better product.

Reducing price does not increase field size. Reducing price has no effect on field size, except a negative one associated with lowering purses.

The above example, which is it? Is it the better product (field size) or price reduction that caused this spike?

BTW I have to sign off now. night.
Fuller fields can be found at Turfway right now. Though somewhat related bigger purses don't necessarily mean bigger fields.

Reducing prices will not have a negative effect on purses. Read the Cummings Report and quit talking like a racing exec.

No, lower takeouts are not directly related to field size. Though lower takeouts will lead to more money for purses which as you say, can affect field size.

[DeanT]

That is what I meant by bigger purses and quality. Bigger purses lead to fuller fields and the eventual increase in handle.


There is very little correlation from purse size to field size. Three of the top tracks in terms of field size are Remington, Evangeline and Wil Rogers Downs. Bigger purses do not mean fuller fields.

Horseplayerbet is correct as well on the average purse size correlation to handle. (study opens in a pdf (http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/eip/Newsletters/research/economic%20analysis.pdf)) A 100% increase in purses increases handle by 6%. In order: A reduction of takeout results in the highest increase of handle (e=-2.3), followed by field size and number of races (e=~ 0.60) and coming in last was purse size (e=0.06).

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I don't really know the track's deal for on-track vs off-track handle, but, what you're suggesting would create a caste system in which bettors are penalized for betting off-track or for not betting the track closest to where they happen to live.
A track with their own ADW like Woodbine much rather would have you bet from home. It is much less labor intensive.

But when a person who plays through a non track owned ADW though rather than go to the track, the track would much rather have that person come live to the track, though in today's day and age, that isn't a reality.

If I was forced to go to the track in order to get a better takeout rate (and it would have to be 10% or less), I would probably go to the track more often but if this was standard in the industry, I'd devote most of my betting to football or offshore bookies instead and eventually forget about horse racing.

[Indulto]

There you go again. Typical Indulto poke to get attention and to put someone in their place.

Your assumption is correct, there is little that I could offer to help solve the numerous problems facing horse racing in todays environment. That I will leave to knowledgeable experts like yourself.

There are many interests in racing as you are well aware from the track/owner-operators,horse owners, trainers, stable personnel,jockeys, local and state governments, concessionaires, vets, suppliers of equipment, farms and training facilities,etc., and yes even the gambler/handicapper and others that supply info to these people ( cappers/gamblers)who appear to be at the bottom rung of the totem pole in the view of track managers and many owners. From my perspective being a gambler I want what you want, now damn it give it to me and I am not waiting much longer or I will take my gambling money and play another game. People are leaving because the product has deteriorated, many of the racetracks look like outdoor toilets, the takeout is unreasonable and the medication and drug issues is a laughing stock. Add the integrity of the tote board and cyber money floating in a magical mystery tour.What did you expect, a big hug for slamming me when I wasn’t even responding to you?

Despite your low self-esteem, there is something you CAN do. You sound like a HANA member which, in itself, is not a bad thing. Besides closing your own wallet, you can contact every other horseplayer you know – inside cyberspace and out --- and convince them to close theirs and not bet on any race that isn’t televised live on network TV.

Sorry you don’t care for my posting style, but like most people, it appears you require provocation to get something worthwhile out of you, e.g., your last paragraph.

[samyn on the green]

People are always complaining about the high price of admission keeping people away from the track. Here in New York we have remedied that with free admission, free parking even free on-line pp's. Even with all of these freebies track attendance remains flat.

What the NYRA needs to do is open up a soup kitchen. Free food, free used coats maybe even a needle exchange program to get people out to the track. Not everyone can afford a few bucks to get in the track, racing should go after this demographic; a group that is languishing at the homeless shelters in desperate need for a little fun.

[miesque]

People are always complaining about the high price of admission keeping people away from the track. Here in New York we have remedied that with free admission, free parking even free on-line pp's. Even with all of these freebies track attendance remains flat.

What the NYRA needs to do is open up a soup kitchen. Free food, free used coats maybe even a needle exchange program to get people out to the track. Not everyone can afford a few bucks to get in the track, racing should go after this demographic; a group that is languishing at the homeless shelters in desperate need for a little fun.


:lol:

Well as they always say, you get what you pay for. :D But on a more serious note, this comment and an earlier one you made along the same lines (not sure if it was this thread or another) bring up the concept of value and relative value, but most importantly the value of time and quality of that time, which at least for me is very important. Keep in mind Aqueduct is a very accessible racetrack as far as ease of access and locations is concerned. It is easy for a wide range of individuals to attend the races relative to many other tracks, be it locals (via the subway or car via the scenic Belt Parkway) or those who are visiting (via air with JFK and all its surrounding hotels right next door for all intents and purposes). From a purely technical perspective, its not that head to Aqueduct for me (maybe a 80-90 minute flight to JFK, IF you fly the right time of day and the weather cooperates) and I have legitimate business reasons to be in Manhattan. I am more likely to stuff myself on a a five and a half hour cross country flight (and I don't travel particularly well and I handle time changes horrribly, not to mention the flights are more expensive) to LAX for a trip to the track because for all its shortcomings it is more dependable for a more pleasant ambiance, more positive vive and a better overall experience and general admission is something like $8, not free.

But I digress. On a much more related note, I am curious, how many people have not gone to the track strictly because of admiission prices and how many have not gone because of his concession prices?

[Robert Goren]

I am not one who thinks that high prices keep from going to the track. But I do know several people don't go because in their words " that place is a filthy pit!!"

[chickenhead]

A day at the track is a long day. Food and drink becomes important. Comfort is important. 5 hours is a long time to be somewhere, being able to purchase, at any price, good food would be a good start. At a lot of places the best you can do is the deli sandwich, which aren't always terrible, just not really very good either. Compared to a ball park like Pac Bell a day at Golden Gate is like being in a third world country when it comes to what your options are.

And I think tracks would do well to expand their restaurant area seating. You have a cavernous empty space to work with, put more tables out. Find some comfortable chairs to put at those tables. And have some decent food options for people to eat at those tables. And maybe even some cute waitresses.

Monmouth was a revelation to me with their little grassy areas with picnic tables along the top of the stretch. They were packed when I was there. Did they even have barbecue pits in there? I don't remember. They should, let people bring some steaks and make a day of it if they want to. Golden Gate fields that same area is concrete -- no tables, no chairs, just a long stretch of concrete, that no one ever goes to. Because there is nothing there to go to. Would it be any more expensive to have picnic tables and grass? No. It would look a lot better though, and give a nicer area to sit down.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The debate is pointless.


That's fine as long as it isn't worthless nor useless and I'd say that both SMTW and Cangamble bring two distinctly servicable perspectives to the discussion. We have twelve threads in three pages debating Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta - those are pointless, worthless, and useless - so in the context of what is valuable and constructive towards improving something that people are quick to bitch about, this is as close to as good as it gets.

Anyway...

I'd like to say that everyone that has posted with sincerety in this thread offers something beneficial. Some of the ideas that have been pitted against one another actually belong incorporated with one another, in my opinion, so I can read a lot of what is being written and see the merits of each point in a broader sense. Not that SMTW is right and Cangamble is wrong, but that some of what Cangamble is saying is absolutely irrefutable (in my opinion), but aspects of SMTW's perspective could be utilized to achieve the goals that Cangamble strives for.

Again, this belief of inherent mutual exclusivity seems to be a troublesome problem that racing suffers from when analyzing its shortcomings - the need to vilify or herald one element of the industry as THE problem or THE solution.

Simulcasting didn't ruin the sport, nor did it save it. Slots don't save the sport, nor do they destroy it. High takeout isn't the devil, low takeout isn't the saviour. On-track resurrections won't return racing to national prominence, streamlined on-line promulgation won't make it a gambling mecca. Hard-line medication policies aren't the fast track to social acceptance, blatant cheating isn't reducing it to a sham.

All of these issues, the plusses, the negatives - they are all intertwined. They do not exist independent of one another, so there is no way to pin the blame on one over the other or hold one in esteem as the penultimate solution to racings ills.

To declare a (mostly) civil debate about the value of takeout reductions, optimum pricing and the mechanisms that govern the pricing as 'pointless' is... I don't know... pointless?.?.

I have been on all sides of the issues and not only are these debates not pointless, but they should be happening in HBPA meetings at racetracks across the land.

A vast majority of the people that supply the product that is then packaged for sale have no idea how the customer perceives the end commodity that is offered to them. Further, nearly as many are completely unaware that the consumer's appetite for this end product ultimately dictates their respective abilities to earn a living.

One of the problems that players have in achieving worthwhile goals is that they routinely assume that they need to petition the operators of racetracks to achieve their goals, when they might have some success taking their plight directly to horsemen and legislative bodies.

There is a massive disconnect between the customers and those providing the resources that are then produced for consumption.

It isn't easy, trust me, I know. I've fought against slot bills (as written) and have been demonized for it by many.

I have tried to compel the horsemen and tracks and legislature to work together to reduce takeout across the board incrementally by using potential slot subsidies to bridge the immediate revenue shortfall from takeout reductions and then to use remaining slot subsidies to improve testing, enforcement, facilities, and THEN if there is something left boost the purses with the remainder.

People don't grasp that each of these problems (plus several more) needs to be addressed if racing will thrive as a long term industry. Simply dumping legislatively defined subsidies from slots into the purse fund is not a long term solution. It is a way to raise the standard of living immediately, which in turn, raises the cost of living immediately. Then, the revenues invariably wilt and the standard of living drops precipitously as subsidies wane but the cost of living remains stagnant.

In the meantime, handle declines, racing continues to lose more of the gambling dollar to competing gambling venues with more pronounced integrity and a more attractive rake. So, the industry self-destructs itself while piggybacking the competing industry.

Why not utilize the immediate subsidies from that competing industry to build your own industry so that the competition is a fair fight when your own industry predictably becomes irrelevant to the equation?

Well... I'm going to rant and carry on forever at this pace and I'm sure this is ripe for dissection and attack as it is written off the cuff - but suffice it to say - SMTW's points about meeting overhead requirements NOW is the preeminent obstacle to takeout reduction. But, Cangamble's assertion that long-term growth is almost certain to follow if those immediate shortfalls from reduction are mitigated and weathered is also, in my opinion, precisely accurate.

In the meantime, the complaints about on-track products are legitimate, as are nearly anyone else's perspective.

To the point - this thread, if nothing else, points out the variety of people and perspectives that are within racing's grasp.

There is no one appeal to every consumer of the product. The real challenge is to identify each of those customers and make the product appealing to each one of them without alienating the others. It isn't impossible, most of these things can be accomplished in concert with the others. The challenge lies in admitting that the guy next to you has a complaint that is just as valid as yours and chances are, your complaint won't be addressed until his is too.

Unlike the old adage about there being more than one to skin a cat, racing needs to utilize every presentable way possible to skin the cat to retain existing customers and reach out to prospective customers.

[miesque]

I do feel obligated to get up on my soapbox regarding prices and quality of items for sale both in the general concession area and up in the Turf Club/Dining Rooms. You should not have to be on a winining streak just to stay well hydrated buying bottled water if you are in the grandstand/clubhouse. Just because someone is up in the Dining Room does not mean they want to overspend for crappy food. I am more then willing to pay for what I consider truly good food, selection, service and comfort/ambience. However, all $20-45 dollar Buffets are not created equal. I have been to plenty of $40-45 dollar Buffets at tracks which I considered to be inferior to Charles Town's $18-26 dollar Buffets from a quality of food, variety of selection and friendliess/attentiveness of server aspect. Along the same line, I have an issue with some tracks idea of a wine list and also some tracks idea of what is fair from a price perspective. The most expensive bottle of Veuve Cliquot on a track wine list is currently at Penn National at $110/bottle (at least of the ones I have been at) and while that is a bottle of Champagne I have been known to order at tracks, there is no way I am overpaying for that much for it even flush on Pick 6 proceeds. Instead I went with a wine about a quarter of that price and only one bottle whereas if Champagne is what I consider to be reasonable at a track my table will on occasion end up ordering multiple bottles.

[miesque]

Oh I feel compelled to add one last point, I can to some extent understand having per table or per person minimums in the track dining rooms. However, charging per person seating fees (and/or a tv fee) is just adding insult to injury and is very annoying.:mad:

[Indulto]

... You should not have to be on a winining streak just to stay well hydrated buying bottled water if you are in the grandstand/clubhouse. ...
:ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

Nice post John. Good read!!

[proximity]

I have been on all sides of the issues and not only are these debates not pointless, but they should be happening in HBPA meetings at racetracks across the land.

A vast majority of the people that supply the product that is then packaged for sale have no idea how the customer perceives the end commodity that is offered to them. Further, nearly as many are completely unaware that the consumer's appetite for this end product ultimately dictates their respective abilities to earn a living.
.

i fear that the hbpa (at least the "leadership") is all about the short term. and they like to keep their head in the sand about the sport's problems (drugs)..... let alone addressing the game's problems (takeout, past posting, accessibility).

[riskman]

What did you expect, a big hug for slamming me when I wasn’t even responding to you?

Despite your low self-esteem, there is something you CAN do. You sound like a HANA member which, in itself, is not a bad thing. Besides closing your own wallet, you can contact every other horseplayer you know – inside cyberspace and out --- and convince them to close theirs and not bet on any race that isn’t televised live on network TV.

Sorry you don’t care for my posting style, but like most people, it appears you require provocation to get something worthwhile out of you, e.g., your last paragraph.

Yes, I am a HANA member, are you? There appears to be a good representation on their board and other volunteers that have similar goals that fit into my personal scenario. I appreciate all the work that they are doing in many different areas to bring attention to the issues that plague the horseplayer.

There is no way I would ever advise any gambler how to spend their money nor would I accept any advice from anyone on how to spend my bankroll. This is a personal decision that each player has to make on their own--based on their view of the current conditions. It appears many players are leaving the game or wagering less due to many problems that continue unresolved and the current economic conditions that will also continue for several years. These are difficult times no matter how you slice it.

Low self esteem you say--you must have some Ouija board insight that correlates with your personal view on todays horse racing scene that is also in some ways just a stab.

[TJDave]

reducing takeouts considerably is racing's only true chance for guaranteed growth.

Hasn't takeout in New York been at 15% or above for the last 60+ years?

I would ask: When did track attendance begin its decline...and why?

Personally, If I didn't need to go to the track to bet, I wouldn't. My sense is that if you polled all horse players the overwhelming majority would agree... Regardless of takeout or amenities.

[andymays]

Nice post John. Good read!!


Totally agree with Dean. Nice post John. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

Lot of good stuff here gents.

This is a very thought provoking thread and it got me to think of the question "what are racings problems". Of course the answer is, many.

The thing that bugs me the most is that there SEEMS to be nothing getting done. General managers around the country have stacks of e mails and letters from fans on suggestions that would improve that GM's track and would improve racing in general and it seems that none of these e mails are being acted upon. What are we waiting for? Which track is going to be the trailblazer and start listening to what the fans want and what racing experts are telling them are the right things to do for improvement of the sport?

I think a lot of it has to do with the way racetracks treat customers. Heads of racetracks for the most part don't respect the customer and think they're degenerate losers who will keep coming out and keep betting no matter how poorly they're treated. Who knows, maybe these higher ups have a point and we are all degens who will continue to pack the racetracks and bet into high takeout pools with double fists and receive no 'perks'.

Racing has a very short term mentailty. They don't want to make changes that will cost them short term money, even if horseplayers panels studies show takeout reduction will lead to longer term success.

There are also little things that tracks can do to make people show up more and bet more and they do none of those things. Your GM at your favorite track is NOT walking around on the ground floor asking players if they are comfortable, he's not walking around on the ground floor thanking players for their business either. A handshake, smile and a thank you from the general manager of a racetrack goes a long way. You'd be surprised how easy a fan can become a customer for life if he 'knows' the GM of the track he goes to every day. You'd be surprised how long a handshake and a thank you goes to a horseplayer down in the trenches from one of the suits who runs the track, yet no horseplayer ever gets his hand shook and no horseplayer ever gets told thank you from anyone. (if there IS handshakes and thank yous from GMs to horseplayers, they're few and far between.)

[Indulto]

Yes, I am a HANA member, are you? There appears to be a good representation on their board and other volunteers that have similar goals that fit into my personal scenario. I appreciate all the work that they are doing in many different areas to bring attention to the issues that plague the horseplayer.

There is no way I would ever advise any gambler how to spend their money nor would I accept any advice from anyone on how to spend my bankroll. This is a personal decision that each player has to make on their own--based on their view of the current conditions. It appears many players are leaving the game or wagering less due to many problems that continue unresolved and the current economic conditions that will also continue for several years. These are difficult times no matter how you slice it.

Low self esteem you say--you must have some Ouija board insight that correlates with your personal view on todays horse racing scene that is also in some ways just a stab.May you be among the beneficiaries should your masters ever finally decide to gesture hypnotically and beckon their well-behaved brethren into boycott. At least then you’ll receive special training in the only weapon the horseplayer has.

Interpreting my “suggestion” as to how you might consider deploying that weapon as advice from a tout, however, just proves you can lead a horseplayer to wallet, but you can’t make him think. ;)

[andymays]

The thing that bugs me the most is that there SEEMS to be nothing getting done. General managers around the country have stacks of e mails and letters from fans on suggestions that would improve that GM's track and would improve racing in general and it seems that none of these e mails are being acted upon. What are we waiting for?


You're right nothing (or very little)seems to be getting done. Part of the reason is that many Racing Executives don't take Horseplayers seriously. Some of them have outright contempt for Horseplayers and view us as a necessary evil.

The racing media has been acting as a marketing arm for the tracks for years with a few exceptions. A guy like Jeff Nahill from the North County Times would be a great example of that exception. His tough reporting on Del Mar resulted in threats from management and he reported the incident on the Roger Stein show. Most reporters are more interested in rubbing elbows in the press box than reporting on anything that will or might piss them off. Bill Dwyre of the LA times also told me about the ration of sh*t he got in the press box prior to the Breeders' Cup when he wrote about the problems with synthetic surfaces.

I believe the tactics employed by Horseplayers need to be more aggessive if we want substantial changes made. Pressure needs to be put to bear on Racing Officials, Racing Executives, and Racing Reporters. Remember that when you send an email to one it's a good idea to CC it to people in all three groups so they can see the names. They are more likely to take it seriously and feel compelled to respond. Shining the light on some of these bad actors is the only way to go for now.

[Indulto]

... I believe the tactics employed by Horseplayers need to be more aggessive if we want substantial changes made. ... Shining the light on some of these bad actors is the only way to go for now.The only people who can really shine the light on the "bad actors" is the press, but only if they do it collectively, and not just one-at-a-time, but I doubt that is likely.

IMO the only practical way to reach these people is through their bottom line, but it appears that horseplayers are too fractured to work together for their common benefit.

[badcompany]

To declare a (mostly) civil debate about the value of takeout reductions, optimum pricing and the mechanisms that govern the pricing as 'pointless' is... I don't know... pointless?.?.
.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying the debate about getting people to the track is pointless, not the debate about getting more people playing the game.

In a previous post, I mentioned Beulah's on/off track handle ratio. Today, I took a look at Turf Paradise's results. Same deal: 2 million total handle; 40k on track.

That's not a 50/50 split or even an 80/20. That's 2% on, 98% off.

The crowd has spoken, and they would rather bet off-track. Any argument about getting people to the track is simply rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

Now, if we're talking about getting more people, especially young ones, into the game, there needs to be more winners and a legitimate chance of betting horses for a living. That's what attracts kids to poker. I was watching the WSOP on ESPN. The final 27 players were pre-dominantly 20 somethings.

Obviously, the way to create more winners is to lower the takeout.

Moreover, in New York City, OTB needs to die and have the operation taken over by an organization that cares and understands the game and gamblers.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying the debate about getting people to the track is pointless, not the debate about getting more people playing the game.

In a previous post, I mentioned Beulah's on/off track handle ratio. Today, I took a look at Turf Paradise's results. Same deal: 2 million total handle; 40k on track.

That's not a 50/50 split or even an 80/20. That's 2% on, 98% off.

The crowd has spoken, and they would rather bet off-track. Any argument about getting people to the track is simply rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
...

I can dig that response for sure...

In the case of at least one of the examples cited there, the numbers are skewered just a bit because of the day of the week. Many of these smaller tracks have fluctuating on track/off track ratios dictated by exposure to broader audiences, which are significantly higher on particular days of the week.

That doesn't mean that people come out in droves for the on-track product when the captive simulcast audience is not pinned to their product, but generally, those are the days when promotions are scheduled, concessions peak, and the ratio tilts back a bit in the direction of on-track handle.

This is somewhat relevant in that it demonstrates just how accurate you are and in the case of one example you provided, it underscores the need to revisit and amend policy that forces in-state patrons to choose between betting in house (on-track/OTB) or to not bet at all.

Still, from the track's perspective and the horsemen's perspective, the percentage of that minimal on-track handle that they reap is significantly higher than that which they reap from simulcast/out-of-state ADW revenues (300-400% in many cases). In a perverse logic, the thought often becomes that the non-in-house revenues are villainous insofar as they cannabalize the live product's revenue stream.

I'm not sold on either point of view, that it is a this or that relationship. I tend to believe that if you need to run that many days of the week, which is a catch-22 issue itself, then the need is to maximize revenues in each capacity.

In the case of one example you cited, legislation intended to force in-state patrons to wager in-house to maximize the percentages funneled to the tracks and purse fund has accomplished nothing but eradicating the customer base. I don't purport that admitting failure would cause the industry to blossom and fans to the stands per se, but at this point, the real need is to simply cease the pressure to spend gambling dollars anywhere but on the racing product.

Correct me if I am misrepresenting you, but I'm guessing that you are supposing that improving the on-track product is a waste of resources that could be better used to facilitate growth in more burgeoning, contemporary realms of wagering. I submit that the on-track product seems like a dinosaur with no functional purpose, but in reality, it does serve a legitimate purpose to the track and the horsemen and the patrons that DO prefer a live product and on-track wagering. I know it seems hard to imagine, but they do exist, largely as recreational wagerers and alienating them at this point seems as arrogant as alienating the on-line wagerers.

To that end, it seems that the on-track vehicle still remains among the best ways to attract new customers. Of course, the hope is that the new customers will be retained and that they will evolve into more advanced bettors and loyalists and join us here at Pace Advantage and perhaps end up indifferent to the on-track product, but still contributing dollars at an accelerated rate through the mechanism of their choice.

Basically - I see your point - hell, I see it day in and day out. What I don't see is something that has outlived its usefulness as a catalyst for revenue, growth, and promotion to the unknown customer. What I see is a failing model that needs new life and imagination.

Is it possible? I'm suspicious. But, I don't really believe that we need to chop off a limpy leg just because the other one is working better at the moment. We need to get a second opinion on that handicap and start going to rehab so we have more than just one leg to stand on.

[3george3]

A lot of good ideas here. But for me, the number one thing that must be done to attract new, young, players is to clean up the physical plants of the tracks. Quite frankly, I am embarassed to bring a friend along to most racetracks in the country. Filthy bathrooms, 1970's interior design, broken seats and benches, TV's that are worse then what the average 10 year old has in his bedroom, and on and on.

Some of this will cost a little bit of money, some of it is simply a matter of having track management actually care about how things look. I wonder how often the average track GM actually visits a men's room in the grandstand? or walks by an overflowing trash can? Or has his feet stuck to the floor because of a beer spill from last week that was never mopped?

[illinoisbred]

A lot of good ideas here. But for me, the number one thing that must be done to attract new, young, players is to clean up the physical plants of the tracks. Quite frankly, I am embarassed to bring a friend along to most racetracks in the country. Filthy bathrooms, 1970's interior design, broken seats and benches, TV's that are worse then what the average 10 year old has in his bedroom, and on and on.

Some of this will cost a little bit of money, some of it is simply a matter of having track management actually care about how things look. I wonder how often the average track GM actually visits a men's room in the grandstand? or walks by an overflowing trash can? Or has his feet stuck to the floor because of a beer spill from last week that was never mopped?
Exactly! When I used to go to Hawthorne, the place was a pig sty. Several panhandlers "worked" the place daily. One even sat in a chair at the admission gate to the grandstand! Also, many of the mutuel clerks were fantastic short-change artists.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

There are also little things that tracks can do to make people show up more and bet more and they do none of those things. Your GM at your favorite track is NOT walking around on the ground floor asking players if they are comfortable, he's not walking around on the ground floor thanking players for their business either. A handshake, smile and a thank you from the general manager of a racetrack goes a long way. You'd be surprised how easy a fan can become a customer for life if he 'knows' the GM of the track he goes to every day. You'd be surprised how long a handshake and a thank you goes to a horseplayer down in the trenches from one of the suits who runs the track, yet no horseplayer ever gets his hand shook and no horseplayer ever gets told thank you from anyone. (if there IS handshakes and thank yous from GMs to horseplayers, they're few and far between.)

I am glad that you posted this.

Having been treated to a "change in the guards" at a local track from having a General Manager that literally treated his customers as degenerate douchebags to a new GM that DOES take the time to mingle, buy drinks for patrons on the fly, and shake a lot of hands - I can unequivocally state that you are flat out, right on the money in your stance.

The attitude from everyone in the plant, from horsemen to patrons to employees, changed within two weeks of uprooting the former management and installing the new faces. It didn't fix racing's problems, but solved one of them very easily.

Anyone in a management position should take this post by Stillriledup VERY seriously, shove the cavalier attitude, or find a different line of work.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

The racing media has been acting as a marketing arm for the tracks for years with a few exceptions. A guy like Jeff Nahill from the North County Times would be a great example of that exception. His tough reporting on Del Mar resulted in threats from management and he reported the incident on the Roger Stein show. Most reporters are more interested in rubbing elbows in the press box than reporting on anything that will or might piss them off. Bill Dwyre of the LA times also told me about the ration of sh*t he got in the press box prior to the Breeders' Cup when he wrote about the problems with synthetic surfaces.

The writer who seems to be in charge of covering So Cal for the DRF is Steve Anderson (sp?). He seems to be an expert at puff pieces which never include a hint of anything negative or controversial.

[PaceAdvantage]

May you be among the beneficiaries should your masters ever finally decide to gesture hypnotically and beckon their well-behaved brethren into boycott. At least then you’ll receive special training in the only weapon the horseplayer has.Hmmmm....me think Indulto no likey HANA too much...(scratch underarms now).

[Stillriledup]

I am glad that you posted this.

Having been treated to a "change in the guards" at a local track from having a General Manager that literally treated his customers as degenerate douchebags to a new GM that DOES take the time to mingle, buy drinks for patrons on the fly, and shake a lot of hands - I can unequivocally state that you are flat out, right on the money in your stance.

The attitude from everyone in the plant, from horsemen to patrons to employees, changed within two weeks of uprooting the former management and installing the new faces. It didn't fix racing's problems, but solved one of them very easily.

Anyone in a management position should take this post by Stillriledup VERY seriously, shove the cavalier attitude, or find a different line of work.

Thanks for the compliments.

I know how racetrackers think, i'm one of them, i know many of them and i've seen how people i don't know act in certain situations and i know for a fact that people wanted to be treated like VIPs. Whether or not a customer IS a VIP is not the point. The point is that people wanted to feel special. It actually, last time i checked, doesn't cost the track one red cent to shake a hand or say thank you.

The one thing that i'll never get is that i know how much passion i have for this game and i know that if i was a GM of a track i would be walking the facility and trying to get to know every customer. Every one of them. All you guys who go to your local track on a regular basis see the same faces over and over again. You know who the 'regulars' are, which is most of them. The same 50 guys are there every day. It wouldn't take much effort for the GM to find a way to introduce himself, shake a hand and say thank you for your business we really appreciate it. Stuff like that feels good. I know, a lot of you will say "but the takeout is still high, who cares if you get your hand shaken if they are still taking 20% out of bets?"

I know, the takeout is one of many problems racing faces, but we need to start somewhere. We need to start making people feel wanted. After all, we're asking them to give the racetrack 200k for every million dollars they wager, horseplayers lose hundreds of thousands per day at every track they visit (major tracks) and can't even get a thank you or a 50 cent cup of coffee for free.

[Indulto]

Hmmmm....me think Indulto no likey HANA too much...(scratch underarms now).Are you supposed to be imitating Tonto or toetoe? If the latter, you need better material. ;)

Whassamatter, PA? You want I should pledge allegiance with every post? ****POST EDITED: POLITICAL TALK RESTRICTED TO THE OFF-TOPIC SECTION ONLY...AS I'M SURE YOU ARE WELL AWARE, MR. INDULTO****

What piqued your interest here, anyway? Has the HANA board become another of your sacred cows like tlg that you feel the need to protect from those they don't impress?

[jballscalls]

some good posts on here, and some pretty bad ones as well. The posts about GM"s out and about and improving customer service is truly important. At PM we have improved our on track handle each year and we have gone from running on weekends to weekdays only. how was it done? i'll give you a clue, TAKEOUT was the same, never changed. Field sizes are about the same as they were. so what got people to come out, bet, and come back on a regular basis??

We got a GM that changed how everything was done. We put a couple million dollars into remodeling the main floor, added flat screens, cleaner/nicer carrells, and started having guest floor managers/hosts out there, who along with the GM and all of our other staff, got to know our customers, give them free coffee, bought VEST kiosk machines where people can buy DRF or programs for EVERY track that we take, and improved the quality of our food. Started giving away cash and vouchers on a regular basis via our Beat the Announcer promotions and many other ones.

We also started focusing on our simulcast bettors, who just like Philly, Beulah and most tracks, represents a HUUUUUGE majority of our bettors. we changed our race days to mon/tue/wed to improve our national visibility. Made our graphics better, email free picks to simo bettors who want them.

So business has been up, each year for the last three years. even in this down economy. Racing has so many things that we need to work on, it's crazy. Most People don't care about racing, and to be honest, there are many reasons for them not to care about racing because we haven't given them a ton of reasons to come back over the years. we as tracks need to do things better.

A huge majority of players have no idea nor care about Takeout, it's increase or reduction or whatever. Would lower takeout keep players in the game longer?? of course it would. Would it increase the interest and amount of players who would start playing horse racing? personally, i dont think it would make a big difference. It certainly wouldnt triple handle like Andymays said. People have gotten so ADD, that young people want 4 tables of online poker action going, not 30 minutes between live races or even to put in the effort to learn the game that certainly takes years to even get remotely decent at. I'd love to see what a serious takeout reduction does do for the track/s that do it. it didn't do anything at the laurel meet a few years back, but that was only 10 days. Hopefully a track, state commission, and horseman can all agree to try it some time.

I'd be willing to bet that a majority of people who are on this board or are serious fans/handicappers were introduced to this game at a young age by a father, mother or grandparent who got them into the game, live racing, at a young age. That is when new fans and players are created.

Keep up the discourse, and hopefully everyone can pick some winners in the new year.

If anyone from Hana can email me their studies about takeout reduction and it's effect i'd love to see them.

jballscalls@aol.com

[PaceAdvantage]

What piqued your interest here, anyway? Has the HANA board become another of your sacred cows like tlg that you feel the need to protect from those they don't impress? Now now Mr. Indulto...don't turn into a 100% prick. I can't handle 100%...50% is good enough for me...

TLG has been maligned plenty around here, and you know it. As has HANA. Would you like me to call up a few of the juicier posts to jog your selective memory? Setting the record straight does not equal protection. It equals fairness. And I KNOW you're all about the fairness...I have read all of your rebate rants.

I will tell you what does have me piqued...your disingenuous nature.

[DanG]

As long as in home wagering is possible with wagering incentives I can’t envision a scenario where tracks can come close to duplicating the experience.

Do I miss the sounds, smells, rush and interaction of live racing…yes, yes and YES. I feel fortunate to have experienced live racing for decades, but the current in home ability to completely control the experience is something live racing can’t realistically duplicate imo.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

jballcalls, how much was PM up in live handle, how much were you up in simulcast handle at the track? And what does PM do in live handle a day?

Giving away cash vouchers is equal to lowering takeout.

When you say handle was improved, was it improved more off track, because it is a no brainer that smaller venues don't compete well on the weekend and do better racing weekdays when there is less competition. Fort Erie does half a million on Sundays but does 8 or 900,000 on Mondays and Tuesdays. If they were to switch Sundays to Wednesdays they could increase handle by 17% but they would lose a day that could promote future growth (Sundays, when small owners and patrons are more apt to bring newbies to the track who don't bet that much to begin with if at all). And they wouldn't have to spend 2 million dollars to achieve that 17% increase, and again most of that increase would be by online players.

I don't know how much reading you actually do here, but I've said repeatedly that most people don't care about takeout but everyone's betting habits are affected by takeout. This is why slots has an average takeout of 8%, not 16%. The slot operators make more money at 8% in the long run...and it is no secret that slot players have next to no clue about take out.

As for Laurel's experiment, it is very hard to increase handle when Youbet and HPI in Canada didn't take the signal but took it the year before. Also the meet was way too short, and the extra money won by bettors most likely got bet off at other venues because the meet was so short.

As for studies, because no track has actually gone ahead and lowered takeout for a significant time other than Tampa Bay (where results speak for themselves) it is very difficult to give you data on horse racing.

What we've seen in the last year and a half though has been takeout increases at Calder, Pimlico, Laurel, Aqueduct, Saratoga, and Belmont, and what we've seen this year (a year where racing is down 9%) is that 5 of those 6 tracks are down double the average, only Saratoga did better (down only around 4%).

Tracks that lowered takeout? Woodbine lowered their triactor takeout in a small way, and they were up 6% (but there were many other reasons why).
Tampa Bay was up over 10% on opening day...now they just announced the new takeout reduction so it has more to do with them being fan friendly and the public being more aware about takeout now more than ever before.

As for studies, read the Cummings Report for starters: http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

[Robert Goren]

Call me crazy, but I do think that a person will not bet on a horse race on the internet until he has at least bet on one at a simulcast site, maybe even live.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Call me crazy, but I do think that a person will not bet on a horse race on the internet until he has at least bet on one at a simulcast site, maybe even live.
I think that is mostly true. But then again, I'm pretty sure Betfair has quite a few people who bet on horse racing who have never bet live or at a simulcast.

But generally you are right, newbies need to be exposed to the live product first before they start keyboard betting.

[jballscalls]

jballcalls, how much was PM up in live handle, how much were you up in simulcast handle at the track? And what does PM do in live handle a day?

Giving away cash vouchers is equal to lowering takeout.

When you say handle was improved, was it improved more off track, because it is a no brainer that smaller venues don't compete well on the weekend and do better racing weekdays when there is less competition. Fort Erie does half a million on Sundays but does 8 or 900,000 on Mondays and Tuesdays. If they were to switch Sundays to Wednesdays they could increase handle by 17% but they would lose a day that could promote future growth (Sundays, when small owners and patrons are more apt to bring newbies to the track who don't bet that much to begin with if at all). And they wouldn't have to spend 2 million dollars to achieve that 17% increase, and again most of that increase would be by online players.

I don't know how much reading you actually do here, but I've said repeatedly that most people don't care about takeout but everyone's betting habits are affected by takeout. This is why slots has an average takeout of 8%, not 16%. The slot operators make more money at 8% in the long run...and it is no secret that slot players have next to no clue about take out.

As for Laurel's experiment, it is very hard to increase handle when Youbet and HPI in Canada didn't take the signal but took it the year before. Also the meet was way too short, and the extra money won by bettors most likely got bet off at other venues because the meet was so short.

As for studies, because no track has actually gone ahead and lowered takeout for a significant time other than Tampa Bay (where results speak for themselves) it is very difficult to give you data on horse racing.

What we've seen in the last year and a half though has been takeout increases at Calder, Pimlico, Laurel, Aqueduct, Saratoga, and Belmont, and what we've seen this year (a year where racing is down 9%) is that 5 of those 6 tracks are down double the average, only Saratoga did better (down only around 4%).

Tracks that lowered takeout? Woodbine lowered their triactor takeout in a small way, and they were up 6% (but there were many other reasons why).
Tampa Bay was up over 10% on opening day...now they just announced the new takeout reduction so it has more to do with them being fan friendly and the public being more aware about takeout now more than ever before.

As for studies, read the Cummings Report for starters: http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

thanks for the link!! I dont have all the numbers here as i'm home for the holidays, can look them all up when i get back to PDX.

[Indulto]

Now now Mr. Indulto...don't turn into a 100% prick. I can't handle 100%...50% is good enough for me...

TLG has been maligned plenty around here, and you know it. As has HANA. Would you like me to call up a few of the juicier posts to jog your selective memory? Setting the record straight does not equal protection. It equals fairness. And I KNOW you're all about the fairness...I have read all of your rebate rants.

I will tell you what does have me piqued...your disingenuous nature.What does it tell you when the keeper of the TOS is the first in an exchange to degenerate into name-calling? Taking things a little too personally, boss? I guess your underarms must be pretty sore by now.;)

How much latitude do I have in responding to your character assassination, great arbiter of fairness, without having my posting privileges revoked? I admit to a healthy cynicism, but don't confuse sarcasm with disingenuousness.

[PaceAdvantage]

What does it tell you when the keeper of the TOS is the first in an exchange to degenerate into name-calling? Taking things a little too personally, boss? I guess your underarms must be pretty sore by now.;)

How much latitude do I have in responding to your character assassination, great arbiter of fairness, without having my posting privileges revoked? I admit to a healthy cynicism, but don't confuse sarcasm with disingenuousness.You lose all respect from me AND all courtesies when you deliberately disregard the TOS by injecting completely unrelated politics into a horse racing post AND ON TOP OF THAT, you invoke your favorite non sequitur, TLG, which turns out to be even MORE "out of left field" than the Obama comment.

After those two lame "gotcha" maneuvers, we have nothing further to discuss.

[GARY Z]

at least in NY the solution appears simple:

Have the standardbreds run in the afternoon, the thoroughbreds at night
except Sunday.

After all, aside from retirees and those able to sneak a few hours away,
under the present scenario,
night time racing would certainly draw larger crowds provided there
were fewer days(or races) in an effort to promote larger fields,and
the icing on the cake would be a lower takeout.


Add a racino, and finally fix or close the Big A and renovate Belmont and an exciting atmosphere would evolve. Yonkers raceway
should serve as model for this thought.

Then again, based upon the recent Daily News article, this wish
list may never occur as Belmont could evaporate prior to
June based upon the current financial crisis created by
NY state.

[bisket]

the most basic thing racing has to do is hold their races in the evening. thats the biggest impediment to the game becoming more popular. currently they race when 90% of the public can't participate. its a wonder the situation isn't as bad as it could be.

[Saratoga_Mike]

the most basic thing racing has to do is hold their races in the evening. thats the biggest impediment to the game becoming more popular. currently they race when 90% of the public can't participate. its a wonder the situation isn't as bad as it could be.

Hasn't really helped harness racing's fate much.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Hasn't really helped harness racing's fate much.
Hasn't helped Woodbine either. They don't get much handle on Wednesday nights, and they are usually up against nothing.

[LRL Racing]

Horse racing must be marketed as entertainment. People should be enjoying the experience and the possibility of making a little money and if they hit a tri or super maybe more than a little. Tracks should take care of the big bettors with comp's, rewards, seating, etc. but ultimately this game is for entertainment. Anything else and there isn't enough pure gamblers to keep it sustaining itself.

[therussmeister]

Hasn't helped Woodbine either. They don't get much handle on Wednesday nights, and they are usually up against nothing.

Being up against nothing is not necessarily a good position. It seems to me most bettors want at least two good tracks to play or they won't bother.

[Stillriledup]

Being up against nothing is not necessarily a good position. It seems to me most bettors want at least two good tracks to play or they won't bother.


This is true for me. If Hollywood races on Wednesday and golden Gate takes the day off (for example), i'll just skip the entire day and start handicapping for Thursday. I want a race every 15 mins, not one every 30.

[gm10]

Your not listening. The $10 value meals and $7 beers was just small points made by people,including myself. It's how a $7 beer is crazy. People can buy a six pack for $6 and be home.They are not the big complaints however. Takeout and other complaints are the main reason.

"Cheaper beer and lower takeout are just counter productive" Yup ok,just like lower takeout was counter productive in Vegas,right? You do know about Vegas and their takeout history? Lower takeout in lotteries here were counterproductive too,right? Yeah Vegas and state lotteries will tell you how counterproductive their lowering the takeout was :D

"They are plenty of sports in UK" Yeah ok you have the same as us. Please. How many professional sports leagues does the UK have? Hey,how many colleges do you have for basketball and football? Why didn't you list all your prof sports leagues and colleges?

I agree that you will attract a new class of 'fans' if the takeout goes to below 5%, as it has done with Betfair. Betfair makes sports betting a viable way of living.
If you are talking about 18% to 12% or even 10%, don't bother. You may attract some new players, but that will be peanuts. You'd much better focus on making the race track a fun place to be for everybody, rather than a place where it's now only half as impossible to make a profit. Make it a place where you'll have fun as a family, or else a place where you make a living (VERY low takeout). That's how I see it.

I really don't understand your point about sports in the UK. The Brits are actually the fathers of modern sport, they are just as sports mad as you Americans are. Football, Cricket, Rugby, F1, tennis, snooker, golf ... plenty of competition. Yet, horse racing maintains its place amongst these. And the reason is that a day at the races is a day of fun for everyone. You can socialize, you can have a drink, you can watch the horses from close up, you can have a bet, your children can jump up and down the bouncy castle, you can have a fancy dinner. A day out with the family will set you back 200 bucks before you've made any bets (with the bookmakers, whose takeout is also 15% or more)

Let me ask you, why do you think people keep coming back?

[gm10]

I think that is mostly true. But then again, I'm pretty sure Betfair has quite a few people who bet on horse racing who have never bet live or at a simulcast.

But generally you are right, newbies need to be exposed to the live product first before they start keyboard betting.

I played Betfair for 3 years before I ever went to a racetrack!

[tzipi]

I agree that you will attract a new class of 'fans' if the takeout goes to below 5%, as it has done with Betfair. Betfair makes sports betting a viable way of living.
If you are talking about 18% to 12% or even 10%, don't bother. You may attract some new players, but that will be peanuts. You'd much better focus on making the race track a fun place to be for everybody, rather than a place where it's now only half as impossible to make a profit. Make it a place where you'll have fun as a family, or else a place where you make a living (VERY low takeout). That's how I see it.

I really don't understand your point about sports in the UK. The Brits are actually the fathers of modern sport, they are just as sports mad as you Americans are. Football, Cricket, Rugby, F1, tennis, snooker, golf ... plenty of competition. Yet, horse racing maintains its place amongst these. And the reason is that a day at the races is a day of fun for everyone. You can socialize, you can have a drink, you can watch the horses from close up, you can have a bet, your children can jump up and down the bouncy castle, you can have a fancy dinner. A day out with the family will set you back 200 bucks before you've made any bets (with the bookmakers, whose takeout is also 15% or more)

Let me ask you, why do you think people keep coming back?


What makes people come back? Racing doesn't have to compete like it does here,that's why. And I'm sure it's run alot better over there. CMON your saying soccer,cricket,rugby,snooker,golf is the same as college football,college basketball,NFL,NBA,MLB,NASCAR,Golf,etc. Do you know how big college sports are fan wise and betting wise? Do you know how many colleges we have! How many sports teams we have. How many college sports and how many colleges do you have in comparison? No way does horses compete over there like they have to over here. Horses here have MUCH more competition and mostly on weekends. They don't rule it like they used to.
The same thing you listed about races(close up,drink,bouncy castle,etc) are the same things they have here. Problem is takeout, BIG sports competition and racing doesn't know how to run themselves in todays sports and betting world.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Horse racing must be marketed as entertainment. People should be enjoying the experience and the possibility of making a little money and if they hit a tri or super maybe more than a little. Tracks should take care of the big bettors with comp's, rewards, seating, etc. but ultimately this game is for entertainment. Anything else and there isn't enough pure gamblers to keep it sustaining itself.
Racing has been marketed as entertainment for years now. And big players do get the big rewards. This formula is why racing is in the crapper right now.
It has to be marketed for what it is.....GAMBLING, and takeouts must be reduced so that winners can be created or at least people can last so the game has a chance to grow.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I agree that you will attract a new class of 'fans' if the takeout goes to below 5%, as it has done with Betfair. Betfair makes sports betting a viable way of living.
If you are talking about 18% to 12% or even 10%, don't bother. You may attract some new players, but that will be peanuts. You'd much better focus on making the race track a fun place to be for everybody, rather than a place where it's now only half as impossible to make a profit. Make it a place where you'll have fun as a family, or else a place where you make a living (VERY low takeout). That's how I see it.


I understand what you are saying but I disagree. At 12% or 10% I believe you will get enough newbies that the game will actually show real growth. There will be enough players making noise because they are beating the game to attract newbies looking to achieve the same thing. And regular players will last a lot longer and they will expose their family and friends to horse race betting.

[tzipi]

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. At 12% or 10% I believe you will get enough newbies that the game will actually show real growth. There will be enough players making noise because they are beating the game to attract newbies looking to achieve the same thing. And regular players will last a lot longer and they will expose their family and friends to horse race betting.

Tottaly agree. Also it worked for Vegas and lotto,and it'll work for racing,so it can compete again. It can't hurt.

[LRL Racing]

Some tracks do much, much better at marketing tracks as entertainment destinations. Arlington, Oaklawn, Keeneland are great examples of this. Obviously many locations are not following their lead, do not have the facilities which are inviting, etc.. Don't think there is a simple solution to the problem. Getting new owners into the game with families would definetly help but it cost so much with ownership that most won't try plus only a few make a profit.
My suggestion would be that rather than gamble on horses you go buy a few and take a real gamble. Then sit back and enjoy. Relax and have fun!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Some tracks do much, much better at marketing tracks as entertainment destinations. Arlington, Oaklawn, Keeneland are great examples of this. Obviously many locations are not following their lead, do not have the facilities which are inviting, etc.. Don't think there is a simple solution to the problem. Getting new owners into the game with families would definetly help but it cost so much with ownership that most won't try plus only a few make a profit.
My suggestion would be that rather than gamble on horses you go buy a few and take a real gamble. Then sit back and enjoy. Relax and have fun!
Marketing a track as an entertainment destination is pretty much a waste when it comes to growth. That is all they have been marketing as. If they want to market it for what it is, GAMBLING, they need to advertise winners, and at a 21% average takeout, that is next to impossible.
I've owned horses too. Had some successful years doing so. But I'm a gambler first, and most owners come into the game after they are familiar with betting first.
Yes, new owners would be great, but it is a catch 22. You need players to last first before you get owners in most instances.

It all revolves around the cost of betting being too high. Lower the cost, and more players will bet, come to the track, some will eventually become owners because more players means bigger purses as well.

[gm10]

What makes people come back? Racing doesn't have to compete like it does here,that's why. And I'm sure it's run alot better over there. CMON your saying soccer,cricket,rugby,snooker,golf is the same as college football,college basketball,NFL,NBA,MLB,NASCAR,Golf,etc. Do you know how big college sports are fan wise and betting wise? Do you know how many colleges we have! How many sports teams we have. How many college sports and how many colleges do you have in comparison? No way does horses compete over there like they have to over here. Horses here have MUCH more competition and mostly on weekends. They don't rule it like they used to.
The same thing you listed about races(close up,drink,bouncy castle,etc) are the same things they have here. Problem is takeout, BIG sports competition and racing doesn't know how to run themselves in todays sports and betting world.

I don't think you realize what the sports scene is actually like in the UK. Maybe you haven't even visited the country. In any case your view don't correspond with reality.

Anyway, the question is, what (significant) category of people wants to spend money at the track and why?

a) gamblers because that's what they do
b) couples/groups/families who are there on a nice day out
c) investors who are there to make money

Asia has a lot of a). Europe has a lot of b). Nobody has a lot of c) because whereas the stock market goes up 7% a year (average), the average bettor loses 15%.

Maybe you can think of a d), but I think b) is the best choice in the American case.

[LRL Racing]

I agree that the more people attend the races the more will consider ownership. However, I am an owner first and gamble for the entertainment only. Hopefully we have created a few future horsemen and attendees when we have reached out to let people have there picutre taken in the winner's circle, autographed goggles, autographs from the trainer. We always select families with children and they seem very appreciative as well as you hear from them well into the future as they follow your horses.
I truly wish that lower take out would increase participation but just do not believe it. The vast majority of the gamblers are going to lose their money regardless of the take out. After watching many of them pushing elderly people out of the way to steal their vochures probably the sooner the better.
We need positive proactive approaches with lots of fun. Tracks need to go out of their way to insure a fun, interactive approach for all.

[Jackal]

Most people that frequent live meets are horse lovers. They know the advantages of seeing the horses live in the paddock and post parade.

Making the track available to local experts will create more horses lovers. There is no reason the track can't be used for lessons and seminars on dark days.

Many tracks make access to the clocker's stand impossible for fans. What is the fun in watching anonymous horses work?

[rwwupl]

Marketing a track as an entertainment destination is pretty much a waste when it comes to growth. That is all they have been marketing as. If they want to market it for what it is, GAMBLING, they need to advertise winners, and at a 21% average takeout, that is next to impossible.I've owned horses too. Had some successful years doing so. But I'm a gambler first, and most owners come into the game after they are familiar with betting first.
Yes, new owners would be great, but it is a catch 22. You need players to last first before you get owners in most instances.

It all revolves around the cost of betting being too high. Lower the cost, and more players will bet, come to the track, some will eventually become owners because more players means bigger purses as well.


Entertainment marketing has been a proven failure, unless you want to go the way of professional wrestling, and I do not think anyone bets on Wrestling.do you?

Do you remember "Go Baby Go", the concerts etc.,they do not add to the purses, and the people who go for entertainment do not bet,check the per capita's when entertainment is featured.They are reluctant to give you the per capita bet total when entertainment is involved.

Horse racing is a GAMBLING game and it does not allow enough gambling winners due to the high costs of the take. Cancel pari-mutuel betting during an entertainment feature and see how much revenue you get for the horseman . Horseplayers want to play horses, not listen to big noises or view big hats in a contest.

The racing managers do not know what the horseplayers want or need and thats why they do not have more of them. Send home more winners by lowering the take and see the fan base grow.

Current Racing managers are bean counters, not sportsman or players and they need to get wise. ;)

[Stillriledup]

The heading of this topic is for ways to increase on track attendance. Is increasing the attendance as important as getting the handle to rise?

Trying to attract new customers with smoke and mirrors isn't going to work as well as lowering the price of the bet. Why do people pack malls and department stores? They pack those places for 2 reasons. Either its a holiday gift giving season, or a sale. Yep, i know its hard to believe, but people are actually smart enough to only purchase certain goods when there's a sale.

Has the racetrack ever had a 'sale' on bets? Why not have a 10 pct off trifecta sale one day?

Post big signs in the front of the track "SALE ON BETS TODAY"

Lets have a sale. Racetracks are the only businesses in the entire USA who never put their products on sale, even if they see that business is slow.

[Jackal]

Another problem facing horse racing is it's visibility. Compared to other spectator sports, horse racing is invisible.

Track management won't do anything to help increase the visibility of racing. Everything about horse racing is concealed. If you want to see a replay you have to pay. Past performances cost more money. If you want the latest racing news you have to buy a DRF subscription. News and past performances should be free.

You don't have to buy anything to get NFL scores. Injury reports are free. The latest news is free and available from many sources. Same with the NBA and MLB.

Our local TV station won't show horse races other than the TC races. The local TV station can make more off a 20 year old movie, sponsored by a single construction firm.

It's time for track managers to wake up. Instead of trying to make racing fans pay for each breath they take.

[fast4522]

Real simple, all they have to do is make it fun again. Fresh paint, free parking, and a racing form that cost less than a hot dog. There are plenty of honest horses to bet on, often the make the best perfectas. Management sucks the life right out of the game, it is no wonder the horsemen want a better percentage because besides the people who are currently paying for admission they are trying to sell a $3 hot dog to the folks who work the backside as well.

[LRL Racing]

Most of my friends who are very regular track attendees grew up going to the races with their grandparents, parents. My grandchildren (5) of them all go to the races with me and my oldest is already crazy about the place as it gets in your blood with all the excitement, meeting people. Me and my friends go to the track more as a social setting to see each other and place some wagers. We could do the same at a ballgame but we are all dedicated horseracing fans who have a ton of fun at the track, tracks and simulcasting. Sitting home by myself just does not do it for me or most of the guys I know.

[turfnsport]

I think they need more bobblehead giveaways.

[nearco]

I agree that you will attract a new class of 'fans' if the takeout goes to below 5%, as it has done with Betfair. Betfair makes sports betting a viable way of living.
If you are talking about 18% to 12% or even 10%, don't bother. You may attract some new players, but that will be peanuts. You'd much better focus on making the race track a fun place to be for everybody, rather than a place where it's now only half as impossible to make a profit. Make it a place where you'll have fun as a family, or else a place where you make a living (VERY low takeout). That's how I see it.

I really don't understand your point about sports in the UK. The Brits are actually the fathers of modern sport, they are just as sports mad as you Americans are. Football, Cricket, Rugby, F1, tennis, snooker, golf ... plenty of competition. Yet, horse racing maintains its place amongst these. And the reason is that a day at the races is a day of fun for everyone. You can socialize, you can have a drink, you can watch the horses from close up, you can have a bet, your children can jump up and down the bouncy castle, you can have a fancy dinner. A day out with the family will set you back 200 bucks before you've made any bets (with the bookmakers, whose takeout is also 15% or more)

Let me ask you, why do you think people keep coming back?

You're wasting your time. It's like talking to a brick wall.
I guess the approach is so foreign and different that people can't get their heads around it. It's just a different culture, and unless you've experienced it you can't grasp it.
The US does have something similar. The bigger Hunt meets in Virginia and Maryland get crowds of 20,000 to 30,000 who pay upwards of $20 a head to stand on a hillside and watch horses run up and down hills over fences. And no one there is bitchin' about takeout... because there's no gambling... though I imagine they'd be throwing money at the bookies or stuffing it through the windows if they had that option.

You get the people in, sell them on the SPORT, the gambling will follow, it invariably does. Most people I know that don't go racing don't do so because they think takeout is too high, or because they think going to the track is expensive, it isn't, it's dirt cheap in comparison to most other sports or forms of entertainment.

And Tzipi, you really haven't a clue about British, and Euro sporting culture if you think that they don't have the same level of competetion as they do in the US. Also you keep talking about gambling on College football. Can you tell me where the average Joe in the US can gamble on College gridiron? as far as I know it's illegal outside of Vegas. Whereas the averge Joe in the UK can walk into any betting shop (I've already explained this to you, there are tens of thousands of them, one on every corner) and gamble on just about any sport he so choses... including almost every American sport, and do so legally. So racing has plenty of gambling competition, and yet holds it's own. Why? because people actually go the races, and spend big money by US standards to do so. And how do they get people to come when they could be spending their money on a myriad of other sporting and entertainment options? Because the racecourses make it an appealing place to spend an afternoon. They have to, there is no takeout for them to live off, they have to make their money by charging at the door and selling concessions. So they charge a decent price to get in and charge a premium for their drink and food. And people pay it, because the racecourse supplies an enjoyable experience.
Of course it helps that their racecourses are often in bucolic locales and quaint settings, whereas many tracks in the US have about as much physical appeal as a airplane hanger. Outside of Del Mar, Keeneland, SA and Toga, most aren't the kind of place you'd take a date... and that's part of the problem.

[miesque]

Maybe it is just some lingering Christmas spirit, but I have to comment that I think that there are multiple correct sides here. Sometimes I think there is a tendency to get a little too sidetracked by arguing about what is “The Reason” or what is “The Factor” which caused/contributed to racing’s decline, just as there is when arguing what item/action “will Fix racing,” that the fact that the complexity of the situation gets overlooked as there are quite a few weaknesses that need to be ameliorated. What really drives me crazy are the takeout versus customer service/on-track experience back and forth. I know this is an obnoxious statement, but fighting about which one is more important does not fix any of the issues. They are both legitimate issues which need to be addressed for the future health and prosperity of the game and that is where the energy should be focused. The game desparately needs to be marketed as an attractive gambling option (which includes lower takeouts) and the experience from a hard core horseplayer to a newbie needs to be improved upon to make it a more attractive endeavor and you need a constant flow of newbies to help keep the horseplayer population vibrant and growing(or at the very least not declining) They are not as independent a variable as you might think because in general the type of management that is more in tune with its customers is a bit more likely to be more amenable to lower takeout and vice versa.

[Stillriledup]

2010 is upon us and racing is still living in 1970.

Racing is 40 years behind the times.

Everything in the world changed, advanced, got better while racing stayed the same. Racing has made no improvements, they are still acting like they're the only game in town with a take it or leave it approach.

Unfortunately for them, many are leaving it. Thanks but no thanks.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

"The US does have something similar. The bigger Hunt meets in Virginia and Maryland get crowds of 20,000 to 30,000 who pay upwards of $20 a head to stand on a hillside and watch horses run up and down hills over fences. And no one there is bitchin' about takeout... because there's no gambling... though I imagine they'd be throwing money at the bookies or stuffing it through the windows if they had that option.

You get the people in, sell them on the SPORT, the gambling will follow, it invariably does. Most people I know that don't go racing don't do so because they think takeout is too high, or because they think going to the track is expensive, it isn't, it's dirt cheap in comparison to most other sports or forms of entertainment."
****************************
It has been sold as a SPORT. It worked in the past, but has stopped working. This is why the game is dying.
How is Maryland racing doing? All these people who get exposed to the sport side of the game? Has betting followed?
In Ontario people get into the track for FREE. FREE parking too. Crowds are nowhere near what they used to be, not even close. And tracks know, if they charged admission now, attendance would be down even more.

Again, it boils down to the price of the game (the game is about betting). Back in the 60's and 70's especially, it was void of major competition of slots and lotteries. Takeout was less because there were less exotics to play my a country mile (average takeout a track took was maybe 16% back then, and today it is around 21%). The average player would have to go to the track to bet. And they had no options other than 8 races a day, a couple of exactors, and a daily double. There was a good chance the person left the track with at least some money, and that person only needed to come up with $20 or $30 bucks to play a whole card.
Because it was the only game in town, many usually got family involved and some kids became regulars (many of today's bettors). Also, their was quite a lot of dumb money in the pools. Tops one in three bettors bought a racing form. In other words, there were winners, and people heard about these winners and in the back of many people's minds, the game was beatable.

There were books out like My $50,000 Year At The Races, a book that would be a lie today, unless the author wrote about the high rebates he or she was getting. People brought their friends because it really was inexpensive and if you were good enough, you had a reasonable chance to break even, lose a little on the year, or actually make a few dollars.

[lamboguy]

if this were all true, how come horseracing is growing in other parts of the world with very similar takeouts? its growing leaps and bounds in AUSTRALIA, HONG KONG, JAPAN, SOUTH AFRICA, RUSSIA, and other parts of the world that doesn't even have gambling. i am told that harness racing in SWEEDEN is huge and that takeout is higher there than here.

after trying to watch the NBA yesterday on television i found it the most boring sport of all time. how can you compare the 2.

horseracing has hit close to the bottom and has nowhere to go but up. if it goes any lower you won't have it, even big races like the tripple crown events and the breeders cup will move to a more suitable atmosphere.

takeout is high but not the only problem with the game, it needs to have some leadership that has claws underneath it. right now racing is strickly on life support measures. if takeout was cut in half and the handle went up 5 fold everyone would be in favor of it. i am telling you that even if you paid people to come to the track and bet they would not show up with the state of the game right now. there are lots of random results that no one can explain, lots of circumstances that occur and the judges of the game turn their heads. its kind of like this, the sport has turned out to be very untrustworthy, if you can't trust the messenger's presenting the sport, how can you trust the message? the NTRA has been a very poor messenger.

[tzipi]

You're wasting your time. It's like talking to a brick wall.
I guess the approach is so foreign and different that people can't get their heads around it. It's just a different culture, and unless you've experienced it you can't grasp it.
The US does have something similar. The bigger Hunt meets in Virginia and Maryland get crowds of 20,000 to 30,000 who pay upwards of $20 a head to stand on a hillside and watch horses run up and down hills over fences. And no one there is bitchin' about takeout... because there's no gambling... though I imagine they'd be throwing money at the bookies or stuffing it through the windows if they had that option.

You get the people in, sell them on the SPORT, the gambling will follow, it invariably does. Most people I know that don't go racing don't do so because they think takeout is too high, or because they think going to the track is expensive, it isn't, it's dirt cheap in comparison to most other sports or forms of entertainment.

And Tzipi, you really haven't a clue about British, and Euro sporting culture if you think that they don't have the same level of competetion as they do in the US. Also you keep talking about gambling on College football. Can you tell me where the average Joe in the US can gamble on College gridiron? as far as I know it's illegal outside of Vegas. Whereas the averge Joe in the UK can walk into any betting shop (I've already explained this to you, there are tens of thousands of them, one on every corner) and gamble on just about any sport he so choses... including almost every American sport, and do so legally. So racing has plenty of gambling competition, and yet holds it's own. Why? because people actually go the races, and spend big money by US standards to do so. And how do they get people to come when they could be spending their money on a myriad of other sporting and entertainment options? Because the racecourses make it an appealing place to spend an afternoon. They have to, there is no takeout for them to live off, they have to make their money by charging at the door and selling concessions. So they charge a decent price to get in and charge a premium for their drink and food. And people pay it, because the racecourse supplies an enjoyable experience.
Of course it helps that their racecourses are often in bucolic locales and quaint settings, whereas many tracks in the US have about as much physical appeal as a airplane hanger. Outside of Del Mar, Keeneland, SA and Toga, most aren't the kind of place you'd take a date... and that's part of the problem.


Ok fine,the UK has a bigger sports world and college world then we do and yes you can only bet College sports and sports in Vegas :lol: :lol:. Yes here in the U.S. illegal betting with sports and College Football is an EXTREMELY small buisness and yes you're right,the "average Joe" can't bet sports unless he's in Vegas :D Oh man. You are just clueless. What a post ha.

[tzipi]

http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~skiena/jaialai/excerpts/node19.html

"I've seen the volume of legal gambling in the United States estimated as high as $500 billion dollars per year. This works out to almost $2000 per person per year, so even a small fraction of this total is a healthy chunk of change. I hate to think what the amount of illegal gambling is!"

NEARCO,there's your numbers. Yeah they're afraid to see what illegal ammount is because it's more. It has to be. Yup, you're right. Guess you can't bet college football or the other hundred sports we have anywhere ha. So I'm guessing racing has a bigger world of gambling to deal with in todays world. Just a guess.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

if this were all true, how come horseracing is growing in other parts of the world with very similar takeouts? its growing leaps and bounds in AUSTRALIA, HONG KONG, JAPAN, SOUTH AFRICA, RUSSIA, and other parts of the world that doesn't even have gambling. i am told that harness racing in SWEEDEN is huge and that takeout is higher there than here.


Not sure what growth rates you are talking about, but I am familiar with a few of these countries and horse racing. For example, Australia has a 16% limit on takeout. Hong Kong has no other competition, not even a lottery I believe. The takeout there is around 16 or 17% too. Read Beyer's article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104250.html

[turfnsport]

Also you keep talking about gambling on College football. Can you tell me where the average Joe in the US can gamble on College gridiron?

Are you serious?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Are you serious?
Baseball World Series attracts half the money bet on horse racing in North America:
"The "National Pastime" (so labeled in 1856 by the New York Mercury newspaper) becomes a national betting time every October. Noted USA TODAY sports handicapper Danny Sheridan estimates $6.5 billion will be bet on the playoffs and the World Series, most of it illegal. He expects about half of all adults across the USA to be gamblers.

Sheridan estimates only about $34 million — less than 1% — will be wagered legally in Nevada, the only state where gambling of all sorts goes."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-playoff-bets-better-than-booze-sweets.html#more

It is estimated over $350 billion dollars (30 times the handle of horse racing) that is wagered "illegally" in the USA a year.
http://www.onlinecasinoadvisory.com/casino-news/land/sports-betting-almost-totally-untaxed-42841.htm

[gm10]

"The US does have something similar. The bigger Hunt meets in Virginia and Maryland get crowds of 20,000 to 30,000 who pay upwards of $20 a head to stand on a hillside and watch horses run up and down hills over fences. And no one there is bitchin' about takeout... because there's no gambling... though I imagine they'd be throwing money at the bookies or stuffing it through the windows if they had that option.

You get the people in, sell them on the SPORT, the gambling will follow, it invariably does. Most people I know that don't go racing don't do so because they think takeout is too high, or because they think going to the track is expensive, it isn't, it's dirt cheap in comparison to most other sports or forms of entertainment."
****************************
It has been sold as a SPORT. It worked in the past, but has stopped working. This is why the game is dying.
How is Maryland racing doing? All these people who get exposed to the sport side of the game? Has betting followed?
In Ontario people get into the track for FREE. FREE parking too. Crowds are nowhere near what they used to be, not even close. And tracks know, if they charged admission now, attendance would be down even more.

Again, it boils down to the price of the game (the game is about betting). Back in the 60's and 70's especially, it was void of major competition of slots and lotteries. Takeout was less because there were less exotics to play my a country mile (average takeout a track took was maybe 16% back then, and today it is around 21%). The average player would have to go to the track to bet. And they had no options other than 8 races a day, a couple of exactors, and a daily double. There was a good chance the person left the track with at least some money, and that person only needed to come up with $20 or $30 bucks to play a whole card.
Because it was the only game in town, many usually got family involved and some kids became regulars (many of today's bettors). Also, their was quite a lot of dumb money in the pools. Tops one in three bettors bought a racing form. In other words, there were winners, and people heard about these winners and in the back of many people's minds, the game was beatable.

There were books out like My $50,000 Year At The Races, a book that would be a lie today, unless the author wrote about the high rebates he or she was getting. People brought their friends because it really was inexpensive and if you were good enough, you had a reasonable chance to break even, lose a little on the year, or actually make a few dollars.

I think Nearco is right. The concept of going racing just because it's a fun place to meet people and have fun with the family, is so foreign to people, that they can't get their heads around it.

You can ignore take-out. As long as you can't bring it down to 5% or lower, you won't be attracting a lot of new bettors. Takeout of 10% is still a money-losing proposition for most. And the existing bettors, they will make their money go a bit further, but their disposable income at the start of the month is still the same.

I wasn't around in the 70's but I do not believe that it was a low take-out that made people go to the track. I don't think it was cheap hot dogs or superior customer service either. And were there no other spectator sports in the 70's? Seriously?

I reckon they went because other people went. There was an established critical mass of fans, and they brought their friends and families. Once you lose the critical mass, you're up against it.

[gm10]

http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~skiena/jaialai/excerpts/node19.html

"I've seen the volume of legal gambling in the United States estimated as high as $500 billion dollars per year. This works out to almost $2000 per person per year, so even a small fraction of this total is a healthy chunk of change. I hate to think what the amount of illegal gambling is!"

NEARCO,there's your numbers. Yeah they're afraid to see what illegal ammount is because it's more. It has to be. Yup, you're right. Guess you can't bet college football or the other hundred sports we have anywhere ha. So I'm guessing racing has a bigger world of gambling to deal with in todays world. Just a guess.

c

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think Nearco is right. The concept of going racing just because it's a fun place to meet people and have fun with the family, is so foreign to people, that they can't get their heads around it.

You can ignore take-out. As long as you can't bring it down to 5% or lower, you won't be attracting a lot of new bettors. Takeout of 10% is still a money-losing proposition for most. And the existing bettors, they will make their money go a bit further, but their disposable income at the start of the month is still the same.

I wasn't around in the 70's but I do not believe that it was a low take-out that made people go to the track. I don't think it was cheap hot dogs or superior customer service either. And were there no other spectator sports in the 70's? Seriously?

I reckon they went because other people went. There was an established critical mass of fans, and they brought their friends and families. Once you lose the critical mass, you're up against it.
Again, don't sell a 12% takeout short. Slot players have no chance to win no matter what the takeout is but they have found they get the most bet when the take is around 7-8%. This means that they get the most disposable money from the betting population at that level and not 12%, not 16%, and not 20%. It is a concept called OPTIMUM PRICING. Horse racing should try it. Even the few winners created and the extra amount of time regulars and semi regulars spend watching, handicapping and betting will create growth.

[tzipi]

Most estimates for the size of global internet gambling are around 50 billion dollars. 500 billion dollar in the US alone sounds ludicrous.


You right BUT it never said the 500 Billion was internet. It says $500 billion total U.S. betting and the illegal betting,not just internet betting. It says in the article internet is less. Someone elses post says its about 400 Billion and thats legal betting. 500 billion is not ridiculous. Do you like in the U.K. too? I don't think you guys know the sports over here and the ammount of gambling there is. :D

These posts that have been posted because NEARCO saying you can't bet in the U.S.(unless Vegas) and the average Joe can not bet college or sports unless in Vegas. How U.K racing has the same sports competition and sports betting competition.

Well I see you erased you post now.

[DeanT]

Takeout does not affect on track wagering? Well, what about giving losing tickets 5% of their value back to on track players: They place a losing ticket in a betting machine for a $24 super and they get back $1.20. That's a rebate on takeout and would be an excellent promo to get people to the track isnt it?

Price matters everywhere. It is why restaurants give buy one get one free coupons to get people to a restaurant, or department stores give mystery % off scratch tickets. It is no different at a racetrack; the only difference is racetracks do not try.

[DeanT]

$500B is a good estimate for internet wagering, imo. In 2010 it is estimated that internet betting sites will have over $20B in revenue. If their margins are 5% (which is probably way too high) conservatively that would mean $400B in handle.

[lamboguy]

Not sure what growth rates you are talking about, but I am familiar with a few of these countries and horse racing. For example, Australia has a 16% limit on takeout. Hong Kong has no other competition, not even a lottery I believe. The takeout there is around 16 or 17% too. Read Beyer's article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104250.html

anyone that is a big bettor today gets a rebate. even if i want to play a trifecta at penn national with a crazy takeout with the rebate i get which is 20% it still cost me less to bet than if i were in other jurisdictions in the world. i can pick the places that i play by the amount it cost me minus the rebate. the tracks need to work on something, they pay to put on the product. personally i find the track takes are more than fair with the rebate that i get. NYRA puts on an outstanding product and i pay a little more for them, but that is my choice. if the takeout is to high the market should dictate what it should be. i don't think anyone has a problem with that.

[gm10]

Again, don't sell a 12% takeout short. Slot players have no chance to win no matter what the takeout is but they have found they get the most bet when the take is around 7-8%. This means that they get the most disposable money from the betting population at that level and not 12%, not 16%, and not 20%. It is a concept called OPTIMUM PRICING. Horse racing should try it. Even the few winners created and the extra amount of time regulars and semi regulars spend watching, handicapping and betting will create growth.


Yep it would be interesting to see what the optimal takeout is in that sense. Slots are a very different animal of course. There are only 10 races day, the slots are always open. The flashing lights, the noises, the darkness of the room, everything is designed to hypnotize you. Throw in a low takeout, and people sit long enough behind those machines to become hypnotized.

I think the optimal takeout is less relevant for horse racing. It counts alright, but there are many other potential sources of income for a race track ... food, drink, entrance, merchandise, etc.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Yep it would be interesting to see what the optimal takeout is in that sense. Slots are a very different animal of course. There are only 10 races day, the slots are always open. The flashing lights, the noises, the darkness of the room, everything is designed to hypnotize you. Throw in a low takeout, and people sit long enough behind those machines to become hypnotized.

I think the optimal takeout is less relevant for horse racing. It counts alright, but there are many other potential sources of income for a race track ... food, drink, entrance, merchandise, etc.
The movement now is to bet away from the track. Optimal pricing becomes even more important. And there isn't just 10 races, there are all the races at other tracks that one can play. Give players back more, and they'll bet more. Most importantly, they will last longer and maybe expose friends, family and coworkers (which is the growth component racing needs desperately right now).
As for food and beverage and other sources of track income. It is my understanding that these don't generate much profit, other than pay for the workers involved in each service.
Even so, I don't think most racetrack food is optimally priced either (I think it could come down a little bit). But it probably is more optimally priced than betting is.

In Ontario, racinos went with free admission and free parking (exception of valet parking at some tracks) because they know it adds nothing to the bottom line. If they felt admission prices would net them any more money than they net now, they would still have them. It is a lot less labor intensive for someone to churn an extra $25 in the machines than have them pay the $5 the track would make in admissions, especially when they also know charging admission would deter a few more bettors from entering the place.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Both Aqueduct and Philly were very good about inputting info today as well.
It appears that they are both on board now. Edit: Wrong thread. D'oh.

[gm10]

The movement now is to bet away from the track. Optimal pricing becomes even more important. And there isn't just 10 races, there are all the races at other tracks that one can play. Give players back more, and they'll bet more. Most importantly, they will last longer and maybe expose friends, family and coworkers (which is the growth component racing needs desperately right now).
As for food and beverage and other sources of track income. It is my understanding that these don't generate much profit, other than pay for the workers involved in each service.
Even so, I don't think most racetrack food is optimally priced either (I think it could come down a little bit). But it probably is more optimally priced than betting is.

In Ontario, racinos went with free admission and free parking (exception of valet parking at some tracks) because they know it adds nothing to the bottom line. If they felt admission prices would net them any more money than they net now, they would still have them. It is a lot less labor intensive for someone to churn an extra $25 in the machines than have them pay the $5 the track would make in admissions, especially when they also know charging admission would deter a few more bettors from entering the place.

We are definitely inhabiting different continents. If you made racing free in England, it probably wouldn't attract less people, but they would almost certainly be people with less disposable income. The racing product is still something worth charging for here.

The English racecourses make their money from entrance fees, selling food&beverages and TV contracts. There is probably some optimal pricing at work, but it is optimal in an other sense than you would traditionally consider.

No offence, but your optimal pricing is all about squeezing the last dime out of the customer in the short term, because if you don't, another business will. I think that model had its best day even before 2009. It's time to think long-term. Racing needs to build its brand for the next generation, getting 1% more out of the current generation, without reviewing the underlying fundamental issues, will be futile imo.

[gm10]

You right BUT it never said the 500 Billion was internet. It says $500 billion total U.S. betting and the illegal betting,not just internet betting. It says in the article internet is less. Someone elses post says its about 400 Billion and thats legal betting. 500 billion is not ridiculous. Do you like in the U.K. too? I don't think you guys know the sports over here and the ammount of gambling there is. :D

These posts that have been posted because NEARCO saying you can't bet in the U.S.(unless Vegas) and the average Joe can not bet college or sports unless in Vegas. How U.K racing has the same sports competition and sports betting competition.

Well I see you erased you post now.

Yes because I realized my mistake.

I don't think Internet gambling will save the sport. Don't forget that you also need a minimum liquidity to provide betting, which assumes that there is a large enough fan base. Internet betting will not build that fan base for you.

Finally, the UK sports scene is really not an argument. It is as competitive for people's attention as the American version. You can bet on anything, you can watch any sport you like. It's a competitive market. Don't you think that if there was really such a vacuum of sports entertainment, that it would be filled very quickly?

[lamboguy]

We are definitely inhabiting different continents. If you made racing free in England, it probably wouldn't attract less people, but they would almost certainly be people with less disposable income. The racing product is still something worth charging for here.

The English racecourses make their money from entrance fees, selling food&beverages and TV contracts. There is probably some optimal pricing at work, but it is optimal in an other sense than you would traditionally consider.

No offence, but your optimal pricing is all about squeezing the last dime out of the customer in the short term, because if you don't, another business will. I think that model had its best day even before 2009. It's time to think long-term. Racing needs to build its brand for the next generation, getting 1% more out of the current generation, without reviewing the underlying fundamental issues, will be futile imo.this is a great post with alot of understanding the racing industry behind it. overseas the sport is structured much differently, its structured to attract new faces instead of chasing them away like in this country.

[andymays]

Paulick Report / A PROMISING START VS. A GRAND FINALE

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/a-promising-start-vs-a-grand-finale/

Excerpt:

The wagering total is three times higher than American racing’s biggest day of all time, the 2006 Kentucky Derby, when $175 million was bet. The 2009 Breeders’ Cup, a two-day affair, just topped $150 million in total handle.

So the JRA handled more than half a billion dollars on one program. Of that total, $440 million was wagered on the Arima Kinen, an invitational race where the starting field is selected by a popular vote of racing fans. It was a very big day for Japanese racing, even though the year’s biggest star, reigning Horse of the Year Vodka, the probable favorite to repeat in that role, was unable to run because she bled in the Japan Cup in late November.

So what’s the point of this comparison between American and Japanese racing? I think we’ve got some upside. There has been and will continue to be retraction in the number of tracks and races run here each year, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing in the long run. If major players in this industry can somehow create a better structure for the sport and develop a national strategy, I am convinced we can be stronger and secure a better future. And, no, this isn’t an early April Fool’s Day column. Saturday’s opening day program at Santa Anita showed what a compelling and great sport horse racing can be. If only we can get our act together.

[gm10]

Paulick Report / A PROMISING START VS. A GRAND FINALE

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/a-promising-start-vs-a-grand-finale/

Excerpt:

The wagering total is three times higher than American racing’s biggest day of all time, the 2006 Kentucky Derby, when $175 million was bet. The 2009 Breeders’ Cup, a two-day affair, just topped $150 million in total handle.

So the JRA handled more than half a billion dollars on one program. Of that total, $440 million was wagered on the Arima Kinen, an invitational race where the starting field is selected by a popular vote of racing fans. It was a very big day for Japanese racing, even though the year’s biggest star, reigning Horse of the Year Vodka, the probable favorite to repeat in that role, was unable to run because she bled in the Japan Cup in late November.

So what’s the point of this comparison between American and Japanese racing? I think we’ve got some upside. There has been and will continue to be retraction in the number of tracks and races run here each year, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing in the long run. If major players in this industry can somehow create a better structure for the sport and develop a national strategy, I am convinced we can be stronger and secure a better future. And, no, this isn’t an early April Fool’s Day column. Saturday’s opening day program at Santa Anita showed what a compelling and great sport horse racing can be. If only we can get our act together.

I think you are touching upon a broader issue here. Gambling is part of everyday life in many parts in Asia. They are without a doubt the biggest gamblers in the world. I suspect gambling is generally a bit more frowned upon in the US. So it might be a bit more difficult to increase revenues through gambling, compared to Asia.

Also, Asian race tracks are new, modern and friendly places. They are fun places to visit. I even know of one racetrack where the turns are banked to a certain angle so that it produces tighter (and more exciting) finishes. These are all things that attract people to a race track.

[WinterTriangle]

I think you are touching upon a broader issue here. Gambling is part of everyday life in many parts in Asia. They are without a doubt the biggest gamblers in the world. I suspect gambling is generally a bit more frowned upon in the US. So it might be a bit more difficult to increase revenues through gambling, compared to Asia.

Also, Asian race tracks are new, modern and friendly places. They are fun places to visit. I even know of one racetrack where the turns are banked to a certain angle so that it produces tighter (and more exciting) finishes. These are all things that attract people to a race track.

As several people have pointed out on this forum, JRA has a very commendable model, one that we should be looking at.

[lamboguy]

As several people have pointed out on this forum, JRA has a very commendable model, one that we should be looking at.the people with the casino's want to see the racing industry fall flat on their asses. the casino industry is a non-productive factor in our economy. there is not one good thing that derives from a slot maching.


the horse racing industry adds to the economy, puts plenty of people to work and is a legitamate industry.

[Indulto]

Takeout does not affect on track wagering? Well, what about giving losing tickets 5% of their value back to on track players: They place a losing ticket in a betting machine for a $24 super and they get back $1.20. That's a rebate on takeout and would be an excellent promo to get people to the track isnt it? ...I couldn't agree with you more. These "second chance" rebates would also keep the place a lot cleaner since far fewer people would be tearing up tickets.

The last time this issue was raised, it was pointed out that it might be necessary to limit times when machines could be used for this purpose to avoid slowing down the betting on live races.

[lamboguy]

I couldn't agree with you more. These "second chance" rebates would also keep the place a lot cleaner since far fewer people would be tearing up tickets.

The last time this issue was raised, it was pointed out that it might be necessary to limit times when machines could be used for this purpose to avoid slowing down the betting on live races.that's not a bad idea, and it would help on clean up expenses.

some of the guys on this board are smarter than the guys that run the tracks.

[andymays]

the problem with the ticket thing is that you need to save the losers in case of an audit.

[Indulto]

the problem with the ticket thing is that you need to save the losers in case of an audit.Tracks could install paid copy machines and really clean up. :lol:

Even better, such an automated rebate process could also include a way to print a summary of tickets bet on an individual race -- including the losers to offset a winning signer. They could charge for such a service; deducted from the generated voucher for the winning ticket also supplied.

[salty]

Ok so if they were to give a 5% rebate on losing tickets and you want to keep a record for financial things. They could make it possible for people who want the rebates to sign up for a card, just like any that you would have for a local cvs, casino, grocery store..etc. When you make your bet the teller can scan the card to record the bet. Then all that information can be stored in computer files. At the end of the day or any point of the day you can go up and swipe your card to redeem your rebates. They could even replace the traditional paper tickets with these. I think it would be more enviormentaly friendly and save costs for paper and ink. Oh and for jamming up windows, just have your redemptions at the vouchers tellers windows.

[andymays]

Tracks could install paid copy machines and really clean up. :lol:

Even better, such an automated rebate process could also include a way to print a summary of tickets bet on an individual race -- including the losers to offset a winning signer. They could charge for such a service; deducted from the generated voucher for the winning ticket also supplied.


Following the line of thinking when you have multiple bets on one ticket, let's say $100 wps and the horse runs third and you cash the ticket you lose the $200 in losers for your records. If you have a lot of signups and get audited it makes a big difference at the end of the year.

I think they should lower the take on track only to get people at the live racing. As I said somewhere before if they went to 10% wps and 12% exotics quite a few big players would go to the track.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

the problem with the ticket thing is that you need to save the losers in case of an audit.
The biggest problem I see is what constitutes a losing ticket? If you have a three horse exactor box and the ex pays $9.40, is that not a losing ticket? I don't get the IRS thing. If you bet $20 across on a horse who finishes third and pay 2.10 for third, you can't show the IRS the loss either.

I think the simple thing for tracks to do is give a rebate at source (win or lose). You bet $20, you get a voucher for a $1 with your ticket. If you refund your ticket before the race, the system picks up on it and only gives you $19, or if the horse is scratched, the system picks that up to.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Following the line of thinking when you have multiple bets on one ticket, let's say $100 wps and the horse runs third and you cash the ticket you lose the $200 in losers for your records. If you have a lot of signups and get audited it makes a big difference at the end of the year.

I think they should lower the take on track only to get people at the live racing. As I said somewhere before if they went to 10% wps and 12% exotics quite a few big players would go to the track.
What about the big players who can't make it to the track? Do you want to force them offshore?

[tzipi]

I think they should lower the take on track only to get people at the live racing. As I said somewhere before if they went to 10% wps and 12% exotics quite a few big players would go to the track.

Could not agree more. They have to do what Vegas did and what state lotteries did to get people back and more people signing on....lower the takeout. It worked BIG TIME for them. If not than they are just going to continue to die a slow death and the casinos will eventually drop them because they are a money drain.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Could not agree more. They have to do what Vegas did and what state lotteries did to get people back and more people signing on....lower the takeout. It worked BIG TIME for them. If not than they are just going to continue to die a slow death and the casinos will eventually drop them because they are a money drain.

What state lotteries have lowered the takeout overtime? Thanks.

[andymays]

What about the big players who can't make it to the track? Do you want to force them offshore?


If you can't make it to your local track then you pay a higher price. They are offshore anyway aren't they?

If you want to get people to the track a big discount will do it.

Sports betting on track and satellite only (not online) will work as well. They could at least try it for a few years.

[tzipi]

What state lotteries have lowered the takeout overtime? Thanks.

For one,Massachusetts lowered their takeout big time. They knew if they did,it would explode and it did because people got more money back used the money to bet some more. Massachusetts is the most successful state in terms of lottery revenue and they have the lowest takeout. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Massachusetts probably the only state to break the mobs hold on the numbers game overnight and they estimate 2 out of every 3 mass adults plays the lottery. It's ll about the takeout. Vegas and the lotteries know it. Racing still thinks their customers don't care and that they are still the only game in town.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

If you can't make it to your local track then you pay a higher price. They are offshore anyway aren't they?

If you want to get people to the track a big discount will do it.

Sports betting on track and satellite only (not online) will work as well. They could at least try it for a few years.
You are competing with other forms of internet betting. I don't see this as being a viable option other than it gives the smaller players who don't get rebates in many jurisdictions a reason to go to the track.

[andymays]

You are competing with other forms of internet betting. I don't see this as being a viable option other than it gives the smaller players who don't get rebates in many jurisdictions a reason to go to the track.

I think the opposite. You would get hundreds of players with 10k or more in their pockets at the track to play live at those rates.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

For one,Massachusetts lowered their takeout. They knew if they did,it would explode and it did because people got more money back used the money to bet some more. Massachusetts is the most successful state in terms of lottery revenue and they have the lowest takeout. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Increasing prize payouts

A proven strategy for lotteries across the country to generate additional funding for their beneficiaries has been to increase prize payouts. Higher payouts generate more winning experiences for players. This makes the games more entertaining and increases sales dramatically. Every lottery in the U.S. that has increased prize payouts has increased sales. [3] The most successful lotteries in the country have one major thing in common, a prize payout of at least 60 percent. There are 39 state lotteries, 36 of which allocate 60 percent or more of ticket sales to prizes. Two of the poorest performing lotteries, California and Louisiana, have a limited prize payout of only 50 percent of ticket sales.

The Massachusetts State Lottery is the most successful lottery in the nation. It also has the highest prize payouts in the nation ranging from 60 percent to 79 percent of ticket sales. With a population of only 6.4 million, compared to California's population of over 35 million, Massachusetts out-produced California in 2002 total revenues by approximately $1.3 billion. [

In New York, the payout for their instant games was increased to 65 percent in 1999. After the fourth year of the program, contributions to education increased by more than $500 million a year with higher payouts a major contributing factor. In 2002, Florida increased instant game payouts from 56 percent to 67 percent. Revenues from these products increased 62 percent in the first year, thereby increasing annual contributions to education by $49 million the first year. In Texas, sales sharply declined from $3.7 billion to $2.5 billion after prize payouts were capped in 1998 at 52 percent. Four years after the cap was restored to its prior level, revenues have steadily increased to $3.1 billion.

Top lottery officials from Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Texas and Georgia have recently stated that higher payouts were instrumental in increasing revenues and generating additional funds for their beneficiaries.
http://cpr.ca.gov/CPR_Report/Issues_and_Recommendations/Chapter_1_General_Government/Increasing_State_Revenues/GG06.html

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think the opposite. You would get hundreds of players with 10k or more in their pockets at the track to play live at those rates.
Why? Those players are getting to play with a 10-14% takeout right now on every track. Take it away, and they will either go offshore or just forget about it. Handle will go way down.

Try batch betting at a ticket window. :)

[andymays]

Why? Those players are getting to play with a 10-14% takeout right now on every track. Take it away, and they will either go offshore or just forget about it. Handle will go way down.

Try batch betting at a ticket window. :)


Then we're back to the same very very old deal.

What's the solution and how do we get started taking the necessary steps to advance the cause for lower takeout?

Your postition seems to be to wait until the market sorts itself out. Am I correct?

[Saratoga_Mike]

At the advent of simulcasting, tracks never should have sold their signals on the cheap (3% to 4%). That vestige has allowed rebate shops to prosper over the past few yrs, which is unfortunate, imo, as it takes more and more control away from the tracks that put on the show!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Then we're back to the same very very old deal.

What's the solution and how do we get started taking the necessary steps to advance the cause for lower takeout?

Your postition seems to be to wait until the market sorts itself out. Am I correct?
I'm all for giving rebates to those who go to the track, and the idea might very well work for the smaller players who don't normally get them. They will last longer and they will go more and probably expose more people. So I'm not shooting down the idea. But what is the point of getting an established bettor to the track, especially if it might hurt handle in the long run?
If the idea is to grow the game, the idea of giving the smaller players a rebate at the track, I'm all for it.

[andymays]

All I know is that the takeout discussions are getting so old it's sickening.

Nobody has a viable solution for getting it done.

I have a better shot at getting synthetic surfaces out of California than lowering the take. In fact I'm sure they will raise it by February. Then we can cry some more. :(

[Horseplayersbet.com]

At the advent of simulcasting, tracks never should have sold their signals on the cheap (3% to 4%). That vestige has allowed rebate shops to prosper over the past few yrs, which is unfortunate, imo, as it takes more and more control away from the tracks that put on the show!
The game would be in the crapper more than it is today if not for rebate shops.
Perfect example is Woodbine who have a quasi monopoly in Canada on all parimutuel bets.

Their takeout rates suck. Their rewards are a joke.

What I'm saying is that if you leave it to the tracks, the game will die quicker than it is now.

Watch what happens as signals are being sold higher. We will continue to see negative growth.

As long as tracks and horsemen groups fight for pieces of a shrinking pie, the game is in big trouble.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The game would be in the crapper more than it is today if not for rebate shops.
Perfect example is Woodbine who have a quasi monopoly in Canada on all parimutuel bets.

Their takeout rates suck. Their rewards are a joke.

What I'm saying is that if you leave it to the tracks, the game will die quicker than it is now.

Watch what happens as signals are being sold higher. We will continue to see negative growth.

As long as tracks and horsemen groups fight for pieces of a shrinking pie, the game is in big trouble.

Why should rebate shops generate more attractive margins than the track that puts on the show? Probably means they aren't paying enough for their "raw materials" (the signal).

[Jeff P]

From the Oklahoma State Lottery Site:
http://www.lottery.ok.gov/media/documents/Maximizing%20Funds%20For%20Educ_2007-12-14.pdf

Excerpt:
Eight case studies support increased prizes
a. Massachusetts – 2094% instant game profit growth in 20 years
b. Texas – 24% profit loss due to legislatively required prize reduction
38% profit growth in 6 years after mandate removed
c. Georgia – 136% profit growth in 8 years
d. Missouri – 46% profit growth in 5 years
e. California – 35% profit growth in 6 years
f. Kentucky – 211% profit growth in 14 years
g. New York – 171% profit growth in 7 years
h. Florida – 54% profit growth in 3 yearsand:
...By increasing prizes in lottery games, greater sales can be achieved, and even though the profit percentage achieved may be smaller, the level of real, spendable dollars will increase. This has been demonstrated in various U.S. lotteries and is the primary point made in this document; eliminate the mandated profit percentage and realize increased real dollars for education.

State lotteries have paid for their share of economic studies over the years just like racing has. Instead of ignoring the recommendations of the studies (like racing has) those states whose lottery commissions have decided to ACT by implementing the takeout reductions recommended by the studies...

Those states have seen increased PROFITS from their games and MORE MONEY flowing to state coffers.

This isn't conjecture... It isn't "wouldn't it be nice if"... like some track operators (and some posters in this thread) keep insisting...

NO. This is very well documented very real case history in the real world.

Those state lotteries that have lowered takeout on their games with the objective of pricing their games closer to the optimal pricing point than the games had historically been priced... Those are the states whose general funds are reaping benefits. At the same time, lotteries in states that have chosen not to reduce their takeouts have underperformed.

Kind of hard to ignore, no?


-jp

.

[andymays]

Do Lotteries have the same overhead as does racing? I don't think so.

The cost of putting on the show is too great.

Not enough handle for too many tracks.

If you guys are correct and you may be then what is anyone doing to get rid of the people in charge one by one?

[Saratoga_Mike]

From the Oklahoma State Lottery Site:
http://www.lottery.ok.gov/media/documents/Maximizing%20Funds%20For%20Educ_2007-12-14.pdf

Excerpt:
and:


State lotteries have paid for their share of economic studies over the years just like racing has. Instead of ignoring the recommendations of the studies (like racing has) those states whose lottery commissions have decided to ACT by implementing the takeout reductions recommended by the studies...

Those states have seen increased PROFITS from their games and MORE MONEY flowing to state coffers.

This isn't conjecture... It isn't "wouldn't it be nice if"... like some track operators (and some posters in this thread) keep insisting...

NO. This is very well documented very real case history in the real world.

Those state lotteries that have lowered takeout on their games with the objective of pricing their games closer to the optimal pricing point than the games had historically been priced... Those are the states whose general funds are reaping benefits. At the same time, lotteries in states that have chosen not to reduce their takeouts have underperformed.

Kind of hard to ignore, no?


-jp

.

In essence, you're making a Laffer curve argument. With state lotteries, there's little question in my mind that most are taxed (takeout) at too high of a rate. It's just not clear to me exactly where optimal pricing is for horse racing. Is it 20%, 15%, 10%, 5%?

[tzipi]

Las Vegas in the 70's needed a surge so they lowered their takeout and they boomed big time. More players were getting more money back and were rebetting it. The more you give players back,the more they'll play. The more you take away,the more you will see them leave.

[Indulto]

The biggest problem I see is what constitutes a losing ticket? If you have a three horse exactor box and the ex pays $9.40, is that not a losing ticket? I don't get the IRS thing. If you bet $20 across on a horse who finishes third and pay 2.10 for third, you can't show the IRS the loss either.

I think the simple thing for tracks to do is give a rebate at source (win or lose). You bet $20, you get a voucher for a $1 with your ticket. If you refund your ticket before the race, the system picks up on it and only gives you $19, or if the horse is scratched, the system picks that up to.I agree, but it's TOO simple -- no room for the "gotchas" like people losing tickets or not be bothered to recycle them. I'm sure the tracks would also impose some limit on the recycling window.

Good thinking, though. :ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

Do Lotteries have the same overhead as does racing? I don't think so.

The cost of putting on the show is too great.

Not enough handle for too many tracks.

If you guys are correct and you may be then what is anyone doing to get rid of the people in charge one by one?

The cost of the show is irrelevant - the profit goes up when they decreased takeout. It is about profit not costs.

[andymays]

The cost of the show is irrelevant - the profit goes up when they decreased takeout. It is about profit not costs.


Then why the f aren't they doing it? Are they all stupid idiots? You would think one track out there would take a shot and lower the take to 10% wouldn't you?

[tzipi]

Then why the f aren't they doing it? Are they all stupid idiots? You would think one track out there would take a shot wouldn't you?

Because they are behind the times and think they can take advantage of the fans. They still think they are the only game in town as their handles and attendance are decreasing big time.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The cost of the show is irrelevant - the profit goes up when they decreased takeout. It is about profit not costs.

If all wagers were "taxed" (the level of takeout) at 2% (whether they were made at the track, an OTB or through a betting shop), do you think total handle would go up or down?

[Saratoga_Mike]

opps, addendum - and a rough estimate by what percent?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Excerpt from the T'bred Times Sept 2007....

"Maryland Jockey Club President Lou Raffetto had no trouble summing up the performance of Laurel Park’s “ten days at 10%” promotion this summer.

“It was a [public relations] bonanza but a financial bust,” Raffetto told attendees of the 15th annual International Simulcast Conference during Monday’s opening session in Kansas City.

The blended takeout rate was about 11.4% on the Laurel signal, resulting in payoffs up to 20.2% higher on multiple horse wagers such as trifectas and pick threes, but bettors did not respond favorably, as handle during a five-day period in mid-August this year compared with similar dates in 2006 declined 8.5%."

[DeanT]

Then why the f aren't they doing it? Are they all stupid idiots? You would think one track out there would take a shot and lower the take to 10% wouldn't you?

Andy,

They cant do it. The system is too frigged up to lower takeout to 10% for one track. It is why rebates are everywhere. 10% effective takeout can be available, but only through rebate. It is probably what is keeping handles above $10B in North America current day.

Mike, a 2% takeout, what would handle be? I have no idea. When the UK dropped take by a decent amount they grew handle from $14B to $24B. That was back in 2001. I assume a 2% takeout would mean a hundred billion or more in handle.

[andymays]

Excerpt from the T'bred Times Sept 2007....

"Maryland Jockey Club President Lou Raffetto had no trouble summing up the performance of Laurel Park’s “ten days at 10%” promotion this summer.

“It was a [public relations] bonanza but a financial bust,” Raffetto told attendees of the 15th annual International Simulcast Conference during Monday’s opening session in Kansas City.

The blended takeout rate was about 11.4% on the Laurel signal, resulting in payoffs up to 20.2% higher on multiple horse wagers such as trifectas and pick threes, but bettors did not respond favorably, as handle during a five-day period in mid-August this year compared with similar dates in 2006 declined 8.5%."


What about this example?

Something isn't right with the lower the take argument.

In my opinion 15 and 20 would be fair for now. Anything more than that is too much.

[DeanT]

Excerpt from the T'bred Times Sept 2007....

"Maryland Jockey Club President Lou Raffetto had no trouble summing up the performance of Laurel Park’s “ten days at 10%” promotion this summer.

“It was a [public relations] bonanza but a financial bust,” Raffetto told attendees of the 15th annual International Simulcast Conference during Monday’s opening session in Kansas City.

The blended takeout rate was about 11.4% on the Laurel signal, resulting in payoffs up to 20.2% higher on multiple horse wagers such as trifectas and pick threes, but bettors did not respond favorably, as handle during a five-day period in mid-August this year compared with similar dates in 2006 declined 8.5%."

If betfair would have stopped their 5% takeout rates after two weeks in 2001 they would not have been the 4th largest internet company in the world in 2009.

Churn takes time. Every horseplayer knows that; racing does not, because the people who run it don't play the races.

[DeanT]

So what about this example?
it was done primarily on track. ADWs and OTBS could not take the signal. It is like Wal Mart dropping the price on ju-jubes but only in their Fairbanks Alaska store, in a blizzard.