Racings biggest problem?

[cj]

It is my opinion the races are just boring and not very competitive any longer. Sure, takeout stinks and there are a host of other problems. But just as an example, there have been 12 races run today at seven tracks, and the average winner is paying a little over $5.

How is that going to draw any new fans?

[RichieP]

Cj
I wrote you privately a month ago about this and I will say it here now.

We need a Czar like you to take over and reorganize racing. Ridiculous number of tracks running piss ant fields the vast majority of the time now.

I love you idea of regional zones where there are max 6-8 tracks running a day and never conflicting with one another (post times etc)

It would also make policing the game and bringing wagering technologies up to 21st century standards MUCH easier.

I know you don't want the job :) but this wears on me man. More and more days I go to start looking at races and the "why even bother" stuff enters the brain. BTW since summer 09 I am solidly ahead ROI wise albeit at a GREATLY reduced level of betting dollars so I wouldn't call it a "losers lament".

Dolce Vita

[lsosa54]

No matter the mutuels, it would be nice to be able to bet what one wants to bet. Here's the thoroughbred menu today on 4NJBETS:

January 16

12:25 PM Philadelphia
12:25 PM Tampa
12:30 PM Aqueduct
1:10 PM Turfway Park
1:15 PM Beulah Park
2:25 PM Sunland Park
2:25 PM Turf Paradise

6:30 PM Penn National
6:55 PM Delta Downs
7:15 PM Charles Town
8:00 PM Australia
8:00 PM Sam Houston
10:00 PM Los Alamitos

As mainly a Socal capper for the last 20 years, I'm SOL. My next preference would be a major track and I'm not sure one qualifies here - maybe AQU? I don't know anything about Australia and the other night tracks are not enticing.

So I don't bet and I allocate my time to something else. I could see about opening a NYRA phone account but why should I have to go through that hassle when I'm comfortable with a web interface, not that 4NJBETS' is anything special?

[toussaud]

racings biggest problem is that it has no define leadership with no define cheif aim.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I agree,and I've only been into racing since 96.It used to be each race condition offered an intriguing,competitive set of factors to unfurl and opportunities were abundant.Even as recently as 2001.Since then I have noticed an evaporation of those opportunities.And I pass more and more and more races as every year goes by.There are countless times within a race year where 3 days go by and there are 1-2 races I bet heavily and am betting marginal situations otherwise,if I'm betting at all.That is why I have abandoned intensive single track/circuit racing.I bet Fair Grounds,Tampa Bay,and Beulah a few weeks ago and there were all of 8 races I could make feasible oddslines for.That's pretty bad for a Saturday.

I don't know what to think sometimes.

[Jeff P]

While waiting for the CHRB meeting to beign yesterday I had an interesting conversation with a horseplayer who used the following analogy:

Many aspects of racing remind me of a restaurant where items on the menu are prescribed by state law and are there for the sole benefit of the cooks and dishwashers.

You walk into the place... It's called "The One Mile Oval" and wonder why there are no customers at the tables.

You talk to the bookkeeper and he tells you sales and profits have been in a downward trend for each of the past six consecutive years.

You ask the commissioners in charge of the menu to consider strategies that have proven to work for other restaurants run by The One Mile Oval's competition... and they tell you "No. The cooks and dishwashers don't like your ideas."

Sooner or later you stop going there because they certainly aren't showing any signs whatsoever that they deserve your business.



-jp

.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Boiled down to 1 problem, racing is reactionary, not in front of the curve.
Almost every change over the various geographical areas and jurisdictions has been reactionary instead of forwars thinking.
This lack of forward thinking and instead being reactionary (and ultr-conservative economically) causes too much resistance to developing an entertaining sport and thereby increasing merchandising and sponsorship. There are plenty enough examples in major sports of innovative thnking resulting in generating increased revenue from sponsors, ticket sales, and merchandising.
In racing for example, horsemen who run racing set prices at the track by guesswork; there is no appreciable merchandising success, and horsemen/tracks refuse to allow even pants ads without their greed-grubbing .1% take.

[andymays]

The biggest problem is Apathy on the part of Horseplayers.

Unless something directly affects them they don't care. And then when something happens they are pissed for a few days and forget about it.
Racing Executives and Racing Officials know how it works and exploit the situation every single time.

If we were united everthing would change in a months time.

[lamboguy]

It is my opinion the races are just boring and not very competitive any longer. Sure, takeout stinks and there are a host of other problems. But just as an example, there have been 12 races run today at seven tracks, and the average winner is paying a little over $5.

How is that going to draw any new fans?very boring is a very correct statement. takeout is ranks very low on the problems of racing. its probably the least of its problems, but pleas edon't explain that to guys that are "sharp".

there are lots of reason's why the game is uncompetive, one part of them is that the re are some very high profile owner and trainers that are controlling the sport. the other problem is that the peopel running the game could care less about it. lack of accountabilty does not help either. run the game the right way and the parking lots will be full again.

[proximity]

It is my opinion the races are just boring and not very competitive any longer. Sure, takeout stinks and there are a host of other problems. But just as an example, there have been 12 races run today at seven tracks, and the average winner is paying a little over $5.


sleep in some, go for a run, work on your numbers, and concentrate more on the night tracks.

last night i was playing (and the clubhouse was packed, btw) and there were big fields and prices at all the tracks..... even hou had some monster fields. pen, turfway, hou, ct, and ded were racing.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The biggest problem is Apathy on the part of Horseplayers.

Unless something directly affects them they don't care. And then when something happens they are pissed for a few days and forget about it.
Racing Executives and Racing Officials know how it works and exploit the situation every single time.

If we were united everthing would change in a months time.

It was mentioned that 1500 HANA members bet 65 mil annually.We get that member number to 10,000 and were talking nearly half a billion dollars here(433 mil).Then we become a big bargaining chip on boycotts and procotts.

[andymays]

It was mentioned that 1500 HANA members bet 65 mil annually.We get that member number to 10,000 and were talking nearly half a billion dollars here(433 mil).Then we become a big bargaining chip on boycotts and procotts.


This is true but you have to ask why people don't join or participate.

Apathy! :ThmbDown:

[cj]

sleep in some, go for a run, work on your numbers, and concentrate more on the night tracks.

last night i was playing (and the clubhouse was packed, btw) and there were big fields and prices at all the tracks..... even hou had some monster fields. pen, turfway, hou, ct, and ded were racing.

I do...actually most of my action is going to those very tracks.

[proximity]

I do...actually most of my action is going to those very tracks.

sometimes i do worry about you overextending yourself with this stuff..... but most of the time i just envy your energy for it.:)

[ezpace]

IT MADE MY LIST, I followed racing from young age 1968

LATER ON much of it CALF. I sent them this

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5514/tombstonecalracing.jpg

GP will get one probably by the end of this meet.

[Steve R]

Strictly as a gambling outlet, racing is less attractive to the public than other forms. This wasn't an issue during racing's best days before other forms of gambling were legalized. It was, literally, the only game in town. And since most people couldn't care less about horses, they would much rather play poker or blackjack or even, Heaven forbid, slots. Handicapping is way too hard and too labor intensive and time consuming for all except the hardcore player. Anything less than complete devotion and you're a loser. Even with devotion it is difficult to come out on top in any significant way. I'm guessing the fan turnover rate for horse racing is much higher than for casino gambling.

As a recreational outlet, racing will never again compete with the array of professional and amateur sports available everywhere, especially in the US. These, too, were less accessible before the days of mass media. And folks would much rather watch humans compete than horses.

You can blame a fragmented industry and greedy owners all you like, and they certainly bear a lot of responsibility. But IMO, in the modern era in the US, the product itself is weak relative to other options for the entertainment dollar.

[JustRalph]

CJ

you are right on. I have almost quit playing..........you have to wait and wait for decent racing...........no matter where you play

[jonnielu]

This is true but you have to ask why people don't join or participate.

Apathy! :ThmbDown:

The chip was bargained to management when HANA joined the campaign for slots in Kentucky.

jdl

[nearco]

It is my opinion the races are just boring and not very competitive any longer.

How is that going to draw any new fans?

DING DING DING..... we have a winner!

No one in the US is into racing anymore because it is excruciatingly boring.
No sane person wants to watch seven horse fields go 6f over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

I was born into racing, even I can't watch that crap.

[tribecaagent]

CJ,

In all due respect, the one ingredient holding racing back is the take. Period.

The minute someone becomes interested in pursuing our sport seriously, they realize the minute they place a wager, their $1.00 has all of a sudden become .83 - .70 cents as opposed to .92 - .99 cents on most casino games. I love thoroughbred racing but it's the worst investment any man could want.

I'm no poker pro, no card counter, and I'm certainly no slot player. Im not a professional handicapper (I'm in the diamond business) but I'd much prefer a day at the track chatting with the sharpies (when everyone went to the track) as opposed to a casino. However, this take is not cool. At present levels, it's a rip-off and as long as this exists, it just won't attract sharp minds who wish to pursue our sport seriously.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

CJ,

In all due respect, the one ingredient holding racing back is the take. Period.

The minute someone becomes interested in pursuing our sport seriously, they realize the minute they place a wager, their $1.00 has all of a sudden become .83 - .70 cents as opposed to .92 - .99 cents on most casino games. I love thoroughbred racing but it's the worst investment any man could want.

I'm no poker pro, no card counter, and I'm certainly no slot player. Im not a professional handicapper (I'm in the diamond business) but I'd much prefer a day at the track chatting with the sharpies (when everyone went to the track) as opposed to a casino. However, this take is not cool. At present levels, it's a rip-off and as long as this exists, it just won't attract sharp minds who wish to pursue our sport seriously.
High takeouts make it impossible (or next to impossible) for there to be observable winners.

There has to be a reason for a new person to take up horse racing at least initially. And since it is a gambling game, that reason has to be the ability to be a long term winner.

Poker winners are in our face on TV.

There are movies about Blackjack winners. Everyone has heard those stories of actual card counters who made a living gambling.

As for sports betting, well, it is a coin flip, you either win or lose, and the juice is 5% on average. Most sports bettors lose, but have had enough streaks to make it seem like they can beat the bookie.

Horse racing takes years to master. The racing form is intimidating. But why would someone want to get to the next level if when you can easily figure out that at 21% takeout, today with no dummy money in the pools, the game is impossible to beat.

[Greyfox]

What a negative series of posts. Unfortunately, each and everyone of them has some truths.
The fact of the matter is "someone has to win" somewhere.
Every time a race goes there is money to be made.
I still believe that I can and do. Make money that is.
But I understand what you're all saying.

[tzipi]

What a negative series of posts. Unfortunately, each and everyone of them has some truths.
The fact of the matter is "someone has to win" somewhere.
Every time a race goes there is money to be made.
I still believe that I can and do. Make money that is.
But I understand what you're all saying.


You're right that "someone has to win somewhere". Yes they do but there are alot more people winning at other gambling games and getting alot more money back than in this sport/game.

[Greyfox]

You're right that "someone has to win somewhere". Yes they do but there are alot more people winning at other gambling games and getting alot more money back than in this sport/game.

Of course you're right. However there has to be a lot more people losing at other gambling games as well.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Of course you're right. However there has to be a lot more people losing at other gambling games as well.
Most people who gamble lose. But again, there has to be visible winners in order to make horse racing marketable.

The edge most other games have is that their rake or takeout is so low that people get the false sense that they can win with just a little more luck.

Plus as I stated, there are visible winners in most other types of gambling. This carrot creates quite a few more newbies.

[Backstretch Pirate]

Parents used to take their kids out to the track.
It used to be a family outing, and a hobby that was passed down from generation to generation. From what I see, this doesn't happen anymore.
Too many other things to do I guess. No new blood coming into the game.

[lamboguy]

CJ,

In all due respect, the one ingredient holding racing back is the take. Period.

The minute someone becomes interested in pursuing our sport seriously, they realize the minute they place a wager, their $1.00 has all of a sudden become .83 - .70 cents as opposed to .92 - .99 cents on most casino games. I love thoroughbred racing but it's the worst investment any man could want.

I'm no poker pro, no card counter, and I'm certainly no slot player. Im not a professional handicapper (I'm in the diamond business) but I'd much prefer a day at the track chatting with the sharpies (when everyone went to the track) as opposed to a casino. However, this take is not cool. At present levels, it's a rip-off and as long as this exists, it just won't attract sharp minds who wish to pursue our sport seriously.personally i hate it when someone starts a statement and uses the term "with all due respect"
that infers that you are smarter than the person that you are adressing and that you are the only one to have all the answers.

when you look at the race meets that attract the most people these days,keeneland, saratoga, oaklawn, some california fairs. you will find that there are other things than racing that are bringing the people to those venues.. those venues have the same takeout as other facility's do throughout the country. in keeneland there are lots of beautiful gals running around the place with low cut blouses on. they serve great beer and treat the horses like they come first. saratoga got the same model as keeneland and the history behind it. new york racing is the stricktess run in the industry and people like that. bill nader realised how important the wagering security is to the sport and he uncovered the pick six fraud that went on during the breeders cup. from what i can see racing is being run today for the very few instead of the very many. so if my theory is right that is how you would adress the problem of lack of interest. it quite simply would mean that the game would have to switch focus on where their priorities lie.

when someone starts to tell you that its the "takeout" stupid that is wrong with the game, it really means that they are looking for simple solutions. lowering takeout will only make a person's gambling dollar last longer, it does not fill the racetracks or the adw sites throughout the world. whendealing with takeout you are dealing with the law of diminishing return. there is a point where no matter how high the takeout might be it will not bring more revenues to the game or state. so naturally the rates must be dealt with. but its the very last thing to be dealt with to get the sport on a more stable path.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Parents used to take their kids out to the track.
It used to be a family outing, and a hobby that was passed down from generation to generation. From what I see, this doesn't happen anymore.
Too many other things to do I guess. No new blood coming into the game.
You are right about that. Competition, entertainment on the internet all are factors, but the biggie could be related to the fact that back then players lasted longer. Less exotics, no simulcasting, the horseplayer only had 8 or 9 races a day in which to play, and they had to go to the track to play.

Players lasted longer and many came home with dough in their pockets, enough to be enticed to come back the next day.

[tribecaagent]

personally i hate it when someone starts a statement and uses the term "with all due respect"
that infers that you are smarter than the person that you are adressing and that you are the only one to have all the answers.

when you look at the race meets that attract the most people these days,keeneland, saratoga, oaklawn, some california fairs. you will find that there are other things than racing that are bringing the people to those venues.. those venues have the same takeout as other facility's do throughout the country. in keeneland there are lots of beautiful gals running around the place with low cut blouses on. they serve great beer and treat the horses like they come first. saratoga got the same model as keeneland and the history behind it. new york racing is the stricktess run in the industry and people like that. bill nader realised how important the wagering security is to the sport and he uncovered the pick six fraud that went on during the breeders cup. from what i can see racing is being run today for the very few instead of the very many. so if my theory is right that is how you would adress the problem of lack of interest. it quite simply would mean that the game would have to switch focus on where their priorities lie.

when someone starts to tell you that its the "takeout" stupid that is wrong with the game, it really means that they are looking for simple solutions. lowering takeout will only make a person's gambling dollar last longer, it does not fill the racetracks or the adw sites throughout the world. whendealing with takeout you are dealing with the law of diminishing return. there is a point where no matter how high the takeout might be it will not bring more revenues to the game or state. so naturally the rates must be dealt with. but its the very last thing to be dealt with to get the sport on a more stable path.

I could care less what you hate or not. You couldn't be more wrong. Cj happens to be a very sharp guy, a cornerstone on this board, and you think I'm talking down to him? There are several derogatory names to explain your way of thinking but I'm not into that.

Do you have any idea how the take out works? The take is "taken" when you win. When you cash a $134 exacta and it would've paid $150 with a 12% rake (which is still enormous by modern standards), I promise you, this will effect your year end bottom line.

[lamboguy]

I could care less what you hate or not. You couldn't be more wrong. Cj happens to be a very sharp guy, a cornerstone on this board, and you think I'm talking down to him? There are several derogatory names to explain your way of thinking but I'm not into that.

Do you have any idea how the take out works? The take is "taken" when you win. When you cash a $134 exacta and it would've paid $150 with a 12% rake (which is still enormous by modern standards), I promise you, this will effect your year end bottom line.

personally, with a rebate, i am paying less track take today than i did 30 years ago. if you want to argue that racetrack takeout is to high because more of a percentage goes to the state instead on back into racing, i would have to agree with that. horseracing is not going to get any stronger no matter how much you cut the track take without getting new blood to the game. as a bettor, hypothetically speaking, i would be alot better off with the takeout raised to higher rates. why, because it would chase all the real smart money out of the game and i would have a field day vs. lesser competition. but as a breeder, owner and pinhooker i don't want to see this game fall any further to the bottom than what it has fallen so far. we all know there are lots of structural changes that need to be made to maintain the feasabilty of the game. at some point takeout must be adressed, along with the amount that goes back to the state. i am sure that the states would be happy with a lower rate as long as it means revenues would go up. changes mean investment with time, capital and good ideas. all these are short in supply these days.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Most people who gamble lose. But again, there has to be visible winners in order to make horse racing marketable.

The edge most other games have is that their rake or takeout is so low that people get the false sense that they can win with just a little more luck.

Plus as I stated, there are visible winners in most other types of gambling. This carrot creates quite a few more newbies.

I'm not looking to rehash the takeout issue with you, but I'd like you to elaborate on your "visible winners" theory. When I walk through the slots parlor at Delaware Park, I don't see visible winners. I see mainly lower- to middle-income elderly people losing their money. I've never seen anyone jumping for joy or displaying much positive emotion at all. I'd say the same thing about Philly Park's slots (although the crowd is somewhat younger, imo).

For every 100 people that walk into Delaware Park and play just the slots, how many come out winners?

For every 100 people that walk into Delaware Park and play just the horses (live and simulcast), how many come out winners?

I would argue there are more winners in the latter group.

[castaway01]

I'm not looking to rehash the takeout issue with you, but I'd like you to elaborate on your "visible winners" theory. When I walk through the slots parlor at Delaware Park, I don't see visible winners. I see mainly lower- to middle-income elderly people losing their money. I've never seen anyone jumping for joy or displaying much positive emotion at all. I'd say the same thing about Philly Park's slots (although the crowd is somewhat younger, imo).

For every 100 people that walk into Delaware Park and play just the slots, how many come out winners?

For every 100 people that walk into Delaware Park and play just the horses (live and simulcast), how many come out winners?

I would argue there are more winners in the latter group.

As far as simple math, you'd think more winners from the slots group. The takeout is half as much if not lower. I think it's more that the slots are so much easier and faster paced for a newbie than racing, not that you can win so much more wagering on slot machines. However, I think people who support racing would prefer to compare it to poker or blackjack than slot machines, which are totally mindless and have zero intellectual input from the player.

[Saratoga_Mike]

CJ,

In all due respect, the one ingredient holding racing back is the take. Period.

The minute someone becomes interested in pursuing our sport seriously, they realize the minute they place a wager, their $1.00 has all of a sudden become .83 - .70 cents as opposed to .92 - .99 cents on most casino games. I love thoroughbred racing but it's the worst investment any man could want.

I'm no poker pro, no card counter, and I'm certainly no slot player. Im not a professional handicapper (I'm in the diamond business) but I'd much prefer a day at the track chatting with the sharpies (when everyone went to the track) as opposed to a casino. However, this take is not cool. At present levels, it's a rip-off and as long as this exists, it just won't attract sharp minds who wish to pursue our sport seriously.

There's probably something to the takeout issue, but it isn't the main explanation for the waning popularity of horse racing in the United States, imo. Has the sharp-minded gambler moved on to some other form of gambling? Perhaps. But the real issue is the recreational players have gone away en masse. That exodus has little to do with the takeout. It's driven by three main factors: 1) increased competition, 2) The Dumbing Down of America (it's easier to push a button on a slot machine or even to learn the basics of blackjack than learn and appreciate the nuances of the PPs in the DRF), and 3) the misperception that the game is rigged.

[Saratoga_Mike]

As far as simple math, you'd think more winners from the slots group. The takeout is half as much if not lower. I think it's more that the slots are so much easier and faster paced for a newbie than racing, not that you can win so much more wagering on slot machines. However, I think people who support racing would prefer to compare it to poker or blackjack than slot machines, which are totally mindless and have zero intellectual input from the player.

The lower takeout in slots just results in a slower bleed, not necessarily a higher number of winners. In general, I agree poker or blackjack would be more likely to lure away horse players than slots, just as you imply. I'm still curious about the "visible winners" theory as it applies to slots vs horse racing. That was my central question, but your point is well taken.

[CincyHorseplayer]

You know the scene in the movie Titanic,when the old gal is imagining all the faces from her trip???She's walking up the steps and Leo Decaprio and the gang are all there with smiling faces to greet her.

It's the same scenario with racing.Except both hands are up,middle fingers exorbitantly stretched while the others are clinched down.FU!

And there are no smiles.

They open the shit up like a bank and it is one to them.No fanfare,no BS.To them when racing dies they'll get a job elsewhere.That's what it is to to them,a job.Everybody is worried about the new batch of racing fans,how about the new batch of racing executives??How does racing filter in so many people to run things that have absolutely no passion for the game??

[Saratoga_Mike]

You know the scene in the movie Titanic,when the old gal is imagining all the faces from her trip???She's walking up the steps and Leo Decaprio and the gang are all there with smiling faces to greet her.

It's the same scenario with racing.Except both hands are up,middle fingers exorbitantly stretched while the others are clinched down.FU!

And there are no smiles.

They open the shit up like a bank and it is one to them.No fanfare,no BS.To them when racing dies they'll get a job elsewhere.That's what it is to to them,a job.Everybody is worried about the new batch of racing fans,how about the new batch of racing executives??How does racing filter in so many people to run things that have absolutely no passion for the game??

I'm not sure that's the case at tracks without slots, at least.

[lamboguy]

that is a poor arguement that slots have smaller take than horseracing, most slots have between a 7% and 12% hold. if you take out the big jackpot payoff and leave the rest of the spins as being equal you would have more than a 50% takeout. the big jackpot comes out something like once in 75000 attemps. the big jackpot might be $10,000.

i was once on a cruise that had blackjack tables. the rules of the tables were that ties loose. house hits on soft seventeen, you couldn't resplit hands, and the tables were packed loaded with suckers while the dealer kept downing the money into the slot.

lotteries have 50% takeouts too, and they got people lined up buying tickets to win the big prize. small limit poker games have rakes of up to10% in casino's with plenty of people playing.

all the above is easy competition for horseracing yet the game is losing out to this other type of gambling. instead of worrying about takeout the game should be figuering how to get new people into the game. which happens to look pretty simple to me.

[Saratoga_Mike]

that is a poor arguement that slots have smaller take than horseracing, most slots have between a 7% and 12% hold. if you take out the big jackpot payoff and leave the rest of the spins as being equal you would have more than a 50% takeout. the big jackpot comes out something like once in 75000 attemps. the big jackpot might be $10,000.

i was once on a cruise that had blackjack tables. the rules of the tables were that ties loose. house hits on soft seventeen, you couldn't resplit hands, and the tables were packed loaded with suckers while the dealer kept downing the money into the slot.

lotteries have 50% takeouts too, and they got people lined up buying tickets to win the big prize. small limit poker games have rakes of up to10% in casino's with plenty of people playing.

all the above is easy competition for horseracing yet the game is losing out to this other type of gambling. instead of worrying about takeout the game should be figuering how to get new people into the game. which happens to look pretty simple to me.

Totally agree on developing new customers, but I don't agree that there's an easy solution. We're fighting tremendous negative momentum. Ron Geary, a long-time horseplayer and successful businessman, acquired Ellis Park a few yrs ago. He wasn't able to turn it around or even arrest its demise, imo.

[Valuist]

I know my own personal betting handle peaked in 2006 and 2007. The past 2 years, the wagering amount has decreased, and I have yet to make any wagers in 2010. While I still believe excessive takeout is the number 1 problem, the boredom factor is very real. I put this blame on several factors: 1) small fields 2) synthetic racing, which is just poor man's grass racing. 3) too many tracks operating---some just have to go away. The oversaturation of racing is hurting too many legitimate tracks.

There just isn't any incentive for a new player to learn handicapping and bother with all the work that goes with it. Drugs are a whole other problem, but still one that, IMO, has been plaguing the game ever since Frank Passero won 12 races in a row at GP in 1996. That really got the ball rolling.

[Robert Goren]

When I see in the paper $3.60 winners and $15.00 exactas, I don't exactly get all excited and want to run right out to the track. That just me and I don't know about anyone else.

[Saratoga_Mike]

When I see in the paper $3.60 winners and $15.00 exactas, I don't exactly get all excited and want to run right out to the track. That just me and I don't know about anyone else.

Is the median win price lower today than it was in 1975?

[fast4522]

" Racings biggest problem?
It is my opinion the races are just boring and not very competitive any longer. Sure, takeout stinks and there are a host of other problems. But just as an example, there have been 12 races run today at seven tracks, and the average winner is paying a little over $5.

How is that going to draw any new fans?
__________________
"That rug really tied the room together. "

CJ, I have to say that I agree with the first #1 starter to this thread, I said the same things a few years ago adding that wager capping was crap because any attempt trying to knock out the $5 horse was futile and people trying to sell programs for hundreds of dollars while racing is in decline was crazy. I am the sort who does not say stiff this and that or that sob pulled that horse. But rather the honest horse gets there most of the time, and often not at the mutual win price we like.

[Saratoga_Mike]

" Racings biggest problem?
It is my opinion the races are just boring and not very competitive any longer. Sure, takeout stinks and there are a host of other problems. But just as an example, there have been 12 races run today at seven tracks, and the average winner is paying a little over $5.
How is that going to draw any new fans?
__________________
"That rug really tied the room together. "

CJ, I have to say that I agree with the first #1 starter to this thread, I said the same things a few years ago adding that wager capping was crap because any attempt trying to knock out the $5 horse was futile and people trying to sell programs for hundreds of dollars while racing is in decline was crazy. I am the sort who does not say stiff this and that or that sob pulled that horse. But rather the honest horse gets there most of the time, and often not at the mutual win price we like.

One day is statistically meaningless, and there were plenty of high-priced winners at AQU today. I'd really like to know what the median winner was paying in 1975 or 1980 vs now. Maybe the advent of speed figures has lowered payouts.

[Robert Goren]

Is the median win price lower today than it was in 1975?I don't have the the stats, but it sure seems like it. I remember when a $20.00 double return was a disappointment. Now I am overjoyed with one.

[wisconsin]

Remember the good 'ol days when you might see a horse odds on once a week. Now every track has one every day, and sometimes every race! It was a rare sight to see some horse go off at 2/5, but today you see maiden claimers even going for that.

[lamboguy]

just summing this up, everyone has made great points here. maybe the people that run race tracks should read this board and learn something. the horse owner and player are the bloodline of this industry, not the stewards or racing secretary's or track maintenance crews or anyone else for that matter.

[Robert Goren]

I know there people out there who make a living betting odds on horses, but that is about as exciting watching a CD mature. I want to gamble with some hope of winning a couple of races a day with decent payouts. I know I can pick my spots and sit out 5 or 6 races a day. But for me there is no fun in that. That what has hurt racing the most, It ain't fun no more for the average small better.

[Saratoga_Mike]

just summing this up, everyone has made great points here. maybe the people that run race tracks should read this board and learn something. the horse owner and player are the bloodline of this industry, not the stewards or racing secretary's or track maintenance crews or anyone else for that matter.

Lambo,

What are the top five things you would change if you were running LRL and PIM (I intentionally selected tracks without slots)? Remember you're capital-constrained and you have to deal with a number of different constituencies (so the ideas need to be pragmatic).

[proximity]

Lambo,

What are the top five things you would change if you were running LRL and PIM (I intentionally selected tracks without slots)? Remember you're capital-constrained and you have to deal with a number of different constituencies (so the ideas need to be pragmatic).

(not lamboguy but...)

1. bring back lou raffetto

[Saratoga_Mike]

(not lamboguy but...)

1. bring back lou raffetto

Andy Beyer wrote a very nice column about Mr. Raffetto when he left. He was someone who worked very well with the diverse constituencies from all reports. But I don't think Maryland racing prospered during his tenure.

If they just would have given The Wizards Room a little more time to work, everything would have been fine. Sarcasm.

[proximity]

. But I don't think Maryland racing prospered during his tenure.


i thought he did pretty good considering what he had to work with.... and who he had to work under.:)

[Saratoga_Mike]

i thought he did pretty good considering what he had to work with.... and who he had to work under.:)

I didn't mean to diminish his efforts; perhaps he was very constrained. I just don't think there are any easy cures for what ills US racing, as Lambo thinks.

[Relwob Owner]

All good points...... one I would also advance is the presence of trainers with almost unbelievably good percentages. At tracks with trainers hitting in the upper 30's, lower 40 percent ranges, races become very predictable. It creates a very dumbed down option of betting on a horse not because he/she looks good, but whether or not they are trained by a "superstar" trainer.....

[lamboguy]

All good points...... one I would also advance is the presence of trainers with almost unbelievably good percentages. At tracks with trainers hitting in the upper 30's, lower 40 percent ranges, races become very predictable. It creates a very dumbed down option of betting on a horse not because he/she looks good, but whether or not they are trained by a "superstar" trainer.....this is one of the bigest problems in the sport today and very easy to deal with. of course there is lack of accountability in this sport, but one step to heal this problem is to limit trainers to 15 at a track. when a trainer that has 5 horses that fits a condition to a race he picks the one that is training the best out of the 5. the other guy might only have 1 that fits and he has no choice, either run or watch the race. in every other sport there are limits as to how many players are carried on the roster. why should it be different in horseracing? if a baseball team was able to carry 20 pitchers on their staff they would never lose a game.

the majority of people think that these trainers are having such great sucess with miracle drugs, maybe, but i seriously think its the ability to have so many horses to compete at the very same levels at one track. it also forces the little guy away from the game because they hardly ever win competing against bigger outfits.

[Quackfan]

Strictly as a gambling outlet, racing is less attractive to the public than other forms. This wasn't an issue during racing's best days before other forms of gambling were legalized. It was, literally, the only game in town. And since most people couldn't care less about horses, they would much rather play poker or blackjack or even, Heaven forbid, slots. Handicapping is way too hard and too labor intensive and time consuming for all except the hardcore player. Anything less than complete devotion and you're a loser. Even with devotion it is difficult to come out on top in any significant way. I'm guessing the fan turnover rate for horse racing is much higher than for casino gambling.

As a recreational outlet, racing will never again compete with the array of professional and amateur sports available everywhere, especially in the US. These, too, were less accessible before the days of mass media. And folks would much rather watch humans compete than horses.

You can blame a fragmented industry and greedy owners all you like, and they certainly bear a lot of responsibility. But IMO, in the modern era in the US, the product itself is weak relative to other options for the entertainment dollar.

SADLY To say IMO I think you have hit the nail on the head!!! :(

[Steve 'StatMan']

When I see in the paper $3.60 winners and $15.00 exactas, I don't exactly get all excited and want to run right out to the track. That just me and I don't know about anyone else.

You get to see horse racing results in the newspaper? So many newspapers have dropped their coverage of horse racing, or reduced the space so that just the payoffs are show, hard to find with the girls high school swimming results. Heard only 1 of the 3 Chicago Area newspapers publishes charts anymore, the Daily Herald, in Arlington's market area, where they are still considered a large employer and a good sized advertiser-but far less than years ago. Most tracks don't pay to advertise in papers anymore-dying medium, and most papers don't cover racing anymore-serious fans get the results off the internet much faster so don't buy the paper anymore for it, and without ad revenue from the tracks, they won't devote the space to it. $160,000 to $320,000 or more being given away as prizes for horse racing on on weekends and weekdays and the papers show little interest, and the non-internet fan forgets about horse racing.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I'm not looking to rehash the takeout issue with you, but I'd like you to elaborate on your "visible winners" theory. When I walk through the slots parlor at Delaware Park, I don't see visible winners. I see mainly lower- to middle-income elderly people losing their money. I've never seen anyone jumping for joy or displaying much positive emotion at all. I'd say the same thing about Philly Park's slots (although the crowd is somewhat younger, imo).

For every 100 people that walk into Delaware Park and play just the slots, how many come out winners?

For every 100 people that walk into Delaware Park and play just the horses (live and simulcast), how many come out winners?

I would argue there are more winners in the latter group.
Different games. Lots of action for the slots player...no thinking required. They win enough times to keep thinking they are close to be winners for the most part. It is the crack cocaine of gambling. Everyone knows you can go to a casino and bet red all night and come out ahead...movies help this fantasy along.

Horse racing takes years to master. What incentive is there to learn the game today. Back 30 years ago, there were visible winners like Beyer. Today there are none.

Online poker, another thinking man's sport has many visible winners. And it takes a few months to master.

If a young person is going to learn a game, which one will it be?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Different games. Lots of action for the slots player...no thinking required. They win enough times to keep thinking they are close to be winners for the most part. It is the crack cocaine of gambling. Everyone knows you can go to a casino and bet red all night and come out ahead...movies help this fantasy along.

[B]Horse racing takes years to master. What incentive is there to learn the game today.[/B[B]] Back 30 years ago, there were visible winners like Beyer. Today there are none.

Online poker, another thinking man's sport has many visible winners. And it takes a few months to master.

If a young person is going to learn a game, which one will it be?

US racing is in secular decline, and the main driver is not the takeout rate. The recreational player is disappearing, and that player doesn't even know what the takeout rate is by state. You've (perhaps it was Dean) admitted that the recreational player isn't even aware of the takeout rate in most cases, so what keeps them away? Because there's no modern-day Andy Beyer? I just don't buy it.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

US racing is in secular decline, and the main driver is not the takeout rate. The recreational player is disappearing, and that player doesn't even know what the takeout rate is by state. You've (perhaps it was Dean) admitted that the recreational player isn't even aware of the takeout rate in most cases, so what keeps them away? Because there's no modern-day Andy Beyer? I just don't buy it.
I explained it pretty simple.
There is no reason to learn about horse racing or play horse racing without winners. They don't have to know about takeout rates. Nobody asks the takeout rate of poker to begin...they just see some kid crawl out of his mom's basement into a mansion thanks to mastering poker.

The reason there are no visible winners is because of takeout, which also contributed in the loss of dummy money, which also made it harder to win.

[CincyHorseplayer]

that is a poor arguement that slots have smaller take than horseracing, most slots have between a 7% and 12% hold. if you take out the big jackpot payoff and leave the rest of the spins as being equal you would have more than a 50% takeout. the big jackpot comes out something like once in 75000 attemps. the big jackpot might be $10,000.

i was once on a cruise that had blackjack tables. the rules of the tables were that ties loose. house hits on soft seventeen, you couldn't resplit hands, and the tables were packed loaded with suckers while the dealer kept downing the money into the slot.

lotteries have 50% takeouts too, and they got people lined up buying tickets to win the big prize. small limit poker games have rakes of up to10% in casino's with plenty of people playing.

all the above is easy competition for horseracing yet the game is losing out to this other type of gambling. instead of worrying about takeout the game should be figuering how to get new people into the game. which happens to look pretty simple to me.


I personally don't know any card players,but what does their ROI look like?

My guess is they bet about 10K for every grand they make.

If that's correct it makes poker about as exciting as bridgejumping to show:cool:

Plus you need 100K bankroll,minimum!!

[Relwob Owner]

I explained it pretty simple.
There is no reason to learn about horse racing or play horse racing without winners. They don't have to know about takeout rates. Nobody asks the takeout rate of poker to begin...they just see some kid crawl out of his mom's basement into a mansion thanks to mastering poker.

The reason there are no visible winners is because of takeout, which also contributed in the loss of dummy money, which also made it harder to win.


Question-what about the decisions of the tracks in the last 15-20 years to sell their signals at ridulously low rates? The tracks failed to see online betting coming and totally underestimated the amount of betting that would be done at home.....the ADW's make an absurd amount of money and if the tracks didnt have to give away that spread, takeout might not be that high, would it? I realize it is a complicated issue but I am surprised that the presence of ADW's and potential ways too get rid of them doesnt get more attention

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Question-what about the decisions of the tracks in the last 15-20 years to sell their signals at ridulously low rates? The tracks failed to see online betting coming and totally underestimated the amount of betting that would be done at home.....the ADW's make an absurd amount of money and if the tracks didnt have to give away that spread, takeout might not be that high, would it? I realize it is a complicated issue but I am surprised that the presence of ADW's and potential ways too get rid of them doesnt get more attention
Woodbine has their own ADW and a quasi monopoly on Canadians. Their takeout rates are disgusting especially in light of that.
Why haven't they dropped takeout rates significantly, or even at all?

The ADW's that help grow the game (that give rebates that create winners sometimes) don't make an absurd amount of money. And evidence points that if left to the tracks, they wouldn't touch takeout rates.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Woodbine has their own ADW and a quasi monopoly on Canadians. Their takeout rates are disgusting especially in light of that.
Why haven't they dropped takeout rates significantly, or even at all?

The ADW's that help grow the game (that give rebates that create winners sometimes) don't make an absurd amount of money. And evidence points that if left to the tracks, they wouldn't touch takeout rates.


Well now's your time!Let's not be anecdotal.What did you make last year from the site??;)

[Relwob Owner]

Woodbine has their own ADW and a quasi monopoly on Canadians. Their takeout rates are disgusting especially in light of that.
Why haven't they dropped takeout rates significantly, or even at all?

The ADW's that help grow the game (that give rebates that create winners sometimes) don't make an absurd amount of money. And evidence points that if left to the tracks, they wouldn't touch takeout rates.

I think the Woodbine examples is a bit like comapring apples and oranges, isnt it? The evidence that points to leaving the takeout to the tracks is based on the past, no? Other than the rebates, what do the ADW's offer? Is there proof that this offer of a rebate is more than the spread made by the ADW?

Other than providing a logistical help in terms of having one account for multiple tracks, what other unique service does an ADW provide? I admit that there are challenges but any idea/thought is worth a shot, isnt it?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Well now's your time!Let's not be anecdotal.What did you make last year from the site??;)
It is brand spanking new. You should ask how much did I lose. But I'm still not telling.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I think the Woodbine examples is a bit like comapring apples and oranges, isnt it? The evidence that points to leaving the takeout to the tracks is based on the past, no? Other than the rebates, what do the ADW's offer? Is there proof that this offer of a rebate is more than the spread made by the ADW?

Other than providing a logistical help in terms of having one account for multiple tracks, what other unique service does an ADW provide? I admit that there are challenges but any idea/thought is worth a shot, isnt it?
How is Woodbine apples to oranges? They are a track and an ADW...in other words we have no middlemen in Canada. They get all the takeout, they sell their signal to US ADWs and tracks, and buy signals from other tracks.

ADWs are really just starting to openly rebate. All ADWs have different pluses and minuses. Some give free video and replays, some you have to bet X amount to get them as well as racing forms.
They market to people that race tracks have missed. Many have spent millions on research and development.

This is something most racetracks didn't do.
If you think ADWs are making piles of money, I suggest you check Youbet's financial statements.

[Jeff P]

ADWs are the ones doing just about all of the innovating in an effort to earn new player business... Rebates, video in high def, free past performances, conditional wagering, wagering via text file upload, detailed reporting by category so that you can see the roi of your wagers, free handicapping contests, adding 10% bonuses if you hit a pick-4, etc.


On the other hand, Tracks have historically been the ones doing things detrimental to the player... raising takeout, hiking signal fees ever higher whenever a track signal contract comes up for renewal leaving less room margin-wise for the ADW to provide innovations, lobbying state governments (study the case history in CA, VA, and WA) to strangle ADWs financially in a targeted effort to make it impossible margin-wise for the ADW to innovate to the player, etc.


There are a few exceptions of course...

But on the whole ADWs are the ones trying to earn player business... while most tracks seem to be actively campaigning to torpedo the player.


-jp

.

[Saratoga_Mike]

How is Woodbine apples to oranges? They are a track and an ADW...in other words we have no middlemen in Canada. They get all the takeout, they sell their signal to US ADWs and tracks, and buy signals from other tracks.

ADWs are really just starting to openly rebate. All ADWs have different pluses and minuses. Some give free video and replays, some you have to bet X amount to get them as well as racing forms.
They market to people that race tracks have missed. Many have spent millions on research and development.

This is something most racetracks didn't do.
If you think ADWs are making piles of money, I suggest you check Youbet's financial statements.

Okay for the first nine months of 2009 (according to the company's latest 10Q filing at sec.gov), UBET generated $9.2 mm in EBITDA on $86.1 mm in revenue, or 11% EBITDA margin. Over the same time frame, Churchill (CHDN)generated $67 mm in EBITDA on $355 mm in revenue, or 19% EBITDA margins. You say, "Ah see." NO. CHDN has $485 mm in capital in their business, while Youbet has $21 mm. Therefore, the returns at UBET are radically better than CHDN.

[Relwob Owner]

How is Woodbine apples to oranges? They are a track and an ADW...in other words we have no middlemen in Canada. They get all the takeout, they sell their signal to US ADWs and tracks, and buy signals from other tracks.

ADWs are really just starting to openly rebate. All ADWs have different pluses and minuses. Some give free video and replays, some you have to bet X amount to get them as well as racing forms.
They market to people that race tracks have missed. Many have spent millions on research and development.

This is something most racetracks didn't do.
If you think ADWs are making piles of money, I suggest you check Youbet's financial statements.



Apples to oranges because up there it is one track, one ADW, correct and that is essentially a monopoly isnt it?. There is no incentive to lower takeout then. What I am saying is that it seems as though the tracks could stop selling their signal tlo the ADW and try and compete with the ADW by using the money they save from giving away their signal to lure bettors to their site. I am sure they could do live video and free replays, which seem to be the only values that you mention ADW's bring to the table. Yes, bettors would face a logistical hurdle in only being able to fund for that track, but the tracks could make up for that with a lower takeout through their site and a rewards program.

All this is contingent on the tracks being innovative and smart, so it is probably a pipe dream anyways!

As far as using Youbet as an example, how many examples are there of effective business models being made unprofitable by the companies that implement them? I just dont see their lack of profitability as an example of ADW's not having the chance to make an infllated amount of money that isnt really justified or necessary.

[proximity]

Apples to oranges because up there it is one track, one ADW, correct and that is essentially a monopoly isnt it?. There is no incentive to lower takeout then. ....

if most of the studies concerning takeout are correct, there is an incentive.

good to see you posting again!!:)

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Apples to oranges because up there it is one track, one ADW, correct and that is essentially a monopoly isnt it?. There is no incentive to lower takeout then. What I am saying is that it seems as though the tracks could stop selling their signal tlo the ADW and try and compete with the ADW by using the money they save from giving away their signal to lure bettors to their site. I am sure they could do live video and free replays, which seem to be the only values that you mention ADW's bring to the table. Yes, bettors would face a logistical hurdle in only being able to fund for that track, but the tracks could make up for that with a lower takeout through their site and a rewards program.

All this is contingent on the tracks being innovative and smart, so it is probably a pipe dream anyways!

As far as using Youbet as an example, how many examples are there of effective business models being made unprofitable by the companies that implement them? I just dont see their lack of profitability as an example of ADW's not having the chance to make an infllated amount of money that isnt really justified or necessary.
No one is stopping tracks from entering and competing in the ADW market. Many have. Del Mar, NYRA, Colonial Downs all have ADWs.

It is pretty much a sure thing that horsemen groups will stand in the way of track ADWs giving out substantial rebates in most cases though or reducing takeout.

Again, there is just as much incentive for Woodbine to give rebates even if it were not a quasi monopoly...and that would be to grow their client base. But between execs and horsemen groups, they don't believe that lower takeout rates will lead to more business to make it worthwhile....well actually horsemen groups aren't willing to give anything they have right now in most cases.

Canadians can still legally play online at Betfair and other offshore shops. Woodbine has lost those potential customers without even trying to keep them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

How is Woodbine apples to oranges? They are a track and an ADW...in other words we have no middlemen in Canada. They get all the takeout, they sell their signal to US ADWs and tracks, and buy signals from other tracks.

ADWs are really just starting to openly rebate. All ADWs have different pluses and minuses. Some give free video and replays, some you have to bet X amount to get them as well as racing forms.
They market to people that race tracks have missed. Many have spent millions on research and development.

This is something most racetracks didn't do.
If you think ADWs are making piles of money, I suggest you check Youbet's financial statements.

One other thing - I assume you mean millions spent on mainly technology. What do you think CHDN spends per yr on technology? My bet is ADWs spend more as a percent of revenue on technology, but that's b/c CHDN is busy paying to keep up the track, the training track(s), the barns, the grandstand, the clubhouse, the betting machines, and the parking lots.

[proximity]

It is pretty much a sure thing that horsemen groups will stand in the way of track ADWs giving out substantial rebates in most cases though or reducing takeout..

also many individual track attempts to lower takeout are met with resistance from other tracks importing the signal...

[Horseplayersbet.com]

One other thing - I assume you mean millions spent on mainly technology. What do you think CHDN spends per yr on technology? My bet is ADWs spend more as a percent of revenue on technology, but that's b/c CHDN is busy paying to keep up the track, the training track(s), the barns, the grandstand, the clubhouse, the betting machines, and the parking lots.
ADWs spend lots on advertising and incentive programs as well.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

also many individual track attempts to lower takeout are met with resistance from other tracks importing the signal...
I don't think that would be the case today almost everywhere...with the exception of those who try a 4% takeout. If any track on my menu dropped their takeout to a point that I would just break even....I'd support it.
Nowadays, the public knows they have choices.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't think that would be the case today almost everywhere...with the exception of those who try a 4% takeout. If any track on my menu dropped their takeout to a point that I would just break even....I'd support it.
Nowadays, the public knows they have choices.

Do you have the takeout rate by bet type for each state that has racing in the country? Thank you.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Do you have the takeout rate by bet type for each state that has racing in the country? Thank you.
By track, not updated for a year, this is pretty accurate still:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbytrackname.html

New list coming soon.

States don't determine takeout rates. Many tracks within the same state have different rates.

[proximity]

I don't think that would be the case today almost everywhere...with the exception of those who try a 4% takeout. If any track on my menu dropped their takeout to a point that I would just break even....I'd support it.
Nowadays, the public knows they have choices.

historically my home track has resisted almost every change that's come down the pike and some (like the present one) probably rightfully so.

and we should all be rooting for you to make a killing btw!!

[DeanT]

US racing is in secular decline, and the main driver is not the takeout rate. The recreational player is disappearing, and that player doesn't even know what the takeout rate is by state. You've (perhaps it was Dean) admitted that the recreational player isn't even aware of the takeout rate in most cases, so what keeps them away? Because there's no modern-day Andy Beyer? I just don't buy it.
Mike,

Think stock trading. How many mom and pops and maybe you and your friends played the stock market prior to 1997? Volumes were low, and I bet 99.9 out of 100 Americans had never watched CNBC or read a research report, had no idea what MACD was, and thought of a stock is something you buy and hold. Trades were something that happened twice a year, or for rich guys with fancy computers and Harvard degrees.

Then it all changed: Instead of paying $200 in commission for 1000 shares of stock bought at $1 where you had to wait for the stock to hit $1.20 to break even, you bought that same stock and paid $4.95 commission, and could sell it at 1.05 and make a little scratch..... and they came back an hour later trying to do it again. Trades now happened twice a minute with a 486 and a dude in his underwear.

Then people made some money, they two told friends, and those two friends told two more friends, and so on just like the Prell commercial in 1970.

Making money, and having the ability to make money breeds more people looking to make money. Lowering commissions and using the net to promote that bred a new stock investor. They were not Wall Street gurus, they were 20 year olds, moms, dads, seniors and more. Volumes exploded, gross commissions exploded, and a new type of gambling was born.

Don't kid yourself, it is all about price, and all about making money, or the perception that you can make money.

In racing terms, Betfair being the #3 ranked company on the internet in terms of valuation proves that - and horse racing is their #1 sport. They started with 2000 customers eight years ago, they now have 2.5 million. 4% takeouts and word of mouth that you can win there will do that, and it will do that for horse racing in America as well - it is a mathematical certainty because people like (and chase) money.

[Robert Goren]

I personally don't know any card players,but what does their ROI look like?

My guess is they bet about 10K for every grand they make.

If that's correct it makes poker about as exciting as bridgejumping to show:cool:

Plus you need 100K bankroll,minimum!!$0.10 on the dollar is probably to high. You don't need 100k to play poker. In this day of online the new players probably start with a $100 playing for pennies, lose it, put up another $100, after about $500 they either quit or figure enough to at least break even. As they get better they move up. The internet "stars" all started at very low stakes. The older "stars " started in home games and built their bankrolls. It has gotten to be a very tough way make money. The big time poker players play each other shuffling chips between themselves until someone steps up out his league and gets taken to the cleaners. I doubt if you find many poker player betting horses, but a lot of horse betters have tried poker. Most of the profit for good small stakes poker players disappeared about 3 years ago. Most of the profit for good small bet horse players disappeared about 30 years ago. I made fair amount of money playing poker part time on the internet for awhile. Now days I play 4-8 cent stud and hope to break even. You can still make money betting horses if you know what you are doing, but it is a hell of lot of work. If all the information you have is from the racing form, then a lot of the money in the pool has a big advantage over you.

[Robert Goren]

Sorry for the above post in which I got off the topic.

[miesque]

Well I hate it when these discussions become centered on what is THE reason since racing is complex and multi-faceted and hence there are quite a few elements (or problems as indicated in this thread title) which need attention. While there are a myriad of issues, that need to be addressed if they were to be consolidated to a few key elements, this is what I think they would look like keeping in mind that racing has stiff competition on gambling, sport and entertainment sides of the equation.

·Takeout – It needs to be at a level which fosters as much participation/action as possible which also means being competitive with other gambling alternatives

· Customer Service – This applies not only to those who show up at the track, but those who follow the track and wager online from home. There has been some movement in this area but in general, it is something that as a whole racing is woefully behind casinos. I can generate pages on this subject matter, but since this is a summary will save it for another post

· Integrity of Product – This covers confidence in Tote, as well as Drug and Medication, Stewards, Handicapping Information, etc and is cruicial to public perception.

· Quality of Product – The goal is quality large, competitive fields which provide an attractive handicapping puzzle and hopefully an interesting race outcome. I know its easier said then done, but it is an important element

Once the above is worked with then the Marketing needs some tweaking to more effectively market what is hopefully an improved product overall. Also it would not hurt to give all elements of the game a bit more flair, panache and maybe even sophisticaltion to give it more allure and make it appear to be a more attractive an endeavor to pursue from being a horseplayer to being an owner, trainer, jockey, etc.

[CincyHorseplayer]

$0.10 on the dollar is probably to high. You don't need 100k to play poker. In this day of online the new players probably start with a $100 playing for pennies, lose it, put up another $100, after about $500 they either quit or figure enough to at least break even. As they get better they move up. The internet "stars" all started at very low stakes. The older "stars " started in home games and built their bankrolls. It has gotten to be a very tough way make money. The big time poker players play each other shuffling chips between themselves until someone steps up out his league and gets taken to the cleaners. I doubt if you find many poker player betting horses, but a lot of horse betters have tried poker. Most of the profit for good small stakes poker players disappeared about 3 years ago. Most of the profit for good small bet horse players disappeared about 30 years ago. I made fair amount of money playing poker part time on the internet for awhile. Now days I play 4-8 cent stud and hope to break even. You can still make money betting horses if you know what you are doing, but it is a hell of lot of work. If all the information you have is from the racing form, then a lot of the money in the pool has a big advantage over you.


Very good.If 10% ROI on poker is a little high it fits right in to the point I was making.What's the attraction from a bottomline perspective?I have averaged over a 40% ROI since 2001 even with the take.Losing seasons sure,I had one last year.17 hour sessions and 10K to make less than a grand at whatever take/blinds etc doesn't sound very fun!Imagine if you could see everyone's hole cards and the flop.That's racing basically.

[DeanT]

If 10% ROI on poker is a little high it fits right in to the point I was making.What's the attraction from a bottomline perspective?
Cincy,

If you get ten ROI on horse racing/poker and bet $15M a year it's pretty fun I think. $1.5 million a year playing a game you enjoy buys a whole lotta fun :)

[CincyHorseplayer]

Cincy,

If you get ten ROI on horse racing/poker and bet $15M a year it's pretty fun I think. $1.5 million a year playing a game you enjoy buys a whole lotta fun :)

HAHAH!!Wouldn't you still want to bet horses though?!!I'd rather look at horses than a bunch of ugly mugs at a table:D

I like to bet blackjack and win at it and it's fun,but the head and heart is with the horses.I play cards just to drink in public and talk shit to everybody!!!

[LottaKash]

Racing's biggest problem ?....Most tracks "still" have "one good foot" left to stand on, they just haven't shot it off yet.... :D

best,

[WinterTriangle]

Parents used to take their kids out to the track.
It used to be a family outing, and a hobby that was passed down from generation to generation. From what I see, this doesn't happen anymore.
Too many other things to do I guess. No new blood coming into the game.

Everything is about exposure. Esp. when it comes to raising kids.

There are plenty of parents who take their kids to museums, libraries, racing and other sporting events, on family trips, etc..

Then there are the lazy or over-worked ones, who use the TV as a babysitter, and the local pizza takeout replaces a homecooked dinner.

Just as sittting down for dinner together (a time to touch base with each family member, review one's successes and failures, joys and disappointments of the day, discuss goals and dreams) was the way I was brought up, there are plenty who dispense with that ritual today.

It's easy to "blame" it on outside forces. The truth is that each and every one of us is responsible for "what happens" in the world.

Here's a question: How many of you gave a horse-related gift to younger loved ones this Christmas? I just talked to a dad who watched the Eclipse Awards with his 2 year old son, and the kid had an "opinion" about who should win. It's all about exposure. And sharing. Take your grandkids backside. Expose them to young exercise riders, for instance, who can tell about what they do every day. I talked to so many youngsters today at the track who were telling me about their horse figurine collections, etc. Another mom said she got her daughter a chance to meet some female horse trainers.

Their parents got them interested in equines.

You don't have to be a "horse person" to appreciate Secretariat, or Phar Lap, and plenty of non horse people loved Black Beauty, and the movie about
the underdog SEABISCUIT. I remember watching National Velvet as a kid because my mother took me to see it.

Yes, gambling is part of horseracing, but if it's just gonna become about whales and Wall-Street type day-trader stuff then the entire magic is gone out of the sport of kings.

All kids should learn to analyze stuff. I sent my young nephew a Master Lock last year, with no key. I copied instructions on how to open it without a key from a Science site on the web. Show your kids how to handicap a horse race. They love puzzles and challenges.

Plant a seed. Watch it grow.

[JustRalph]

I just talked to a dad who watched the Eclipse Awards with his 2 year old son, and the kid had an "opinion" about who should win.

Yep, and I think he has posted in about 3 threads tonight................

[W2G]

Lots of good comments in this discussion. I recommend Bill Shanklin's essay on racing's decline. He takes a much wider view and points the finger at fundamental societal changes, which hardly anyone else ever does. His list of factors is not exhaustive and could be much longer, but it's quite interesting.

WHY HORSE RACING DECLINED
http://www.horseracingbusiness.com/why-horse-racing-declined-45.htm

[Saratoga_Mike]

By track, not updated for a year, this is pretty accurate still:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbytrackname.html

New list coming soon.

States don't determine takeout rates. Many tracks within the same state have different rates.

Great link - thanks.

[Relwob Owner]

if most of the studies concerning takeout are correct, there is an incentive.

good to see you posting again!!:)


Thanks! Good to be back. This was my first(and only forum) and like a first timer often does on the track, I kind of came out too fast and got tired quickly....freshened up and am glad to be back.

This topic is very interesting to me and there are a lot of experienced solid minds that comment on it. You can throw ideas out(like I have) that may have holes in them and get solid feedback and most of it is done in a confrontational way, which is awesome.

[lamboguy]

i am a day to day player.i play with rebates, so according to the hanna track takes aqueduct is a 16% take for WPS. the adw that i deal with only gives back 3% for the WPS on aqueduct making the effective rate that i pay 13%.

in penn national the the WPS takeout is 17%. my ADW gives me back 9% for those wagers making the effective rate 8%. personally i don't think that is so bad in this world of gambling. it seems like you are actually going to do better playing penn national horses as apposed to sports which charge 10% vig, or lotteries which are alot higher..

now i would think that most of the people on this forum are rebate players and can obtain these rebates from various adw's. if you want to make the arguement that the casual player pays more than the rebate player, i have no arguement, but i feel like the casual player will always be that way so i don't see a problem with takeout.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Lambo, just to correct you, sports betting, the vig is less than 5%.
$100 is bet on Team A (the winners) $110 is lost on Team B.
Total bet is $210, takeout is 4.76%

[lamboguy]

Lambo, just to correct you, sports betting, the vig is less than 5%.
$100 is bet on Team A (the winners) $110 is lost on Team B.
Total bet is $210, takeout is 4.76%i truly appreciate the correction, since i don't bet sports these days i didn't think of it in the proper manner. but you must admit that penn national wagering is alot better than other forms of gambling such as lotteries and slot machines and certain bets on the crap tables or insurance in blackjack.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mike,

Think stock trading. How many mom and pops and maybe you and your friends played the stock market prior to 1997? Volumes were low, and I bet 99.9 out of 100 Americans had never watched CNBC or read a research report, had no idea what MACD was, and thought of a stock is something you buy and hold. Trades were something that happened twice a year, or for rich guys with fancy computers and Harvard degrees.

Then it all changed: Instead of paying $200 in commission for 1000 shares of stock bought at $1 where you had to wait for the stock to hit $1.20 to break even, you bought that same stock and paid $4.95 commission, and could sell it at 1.05 and make a little scratch..... and they came back an hour later trying to do it again. Trades now happened twice a minute with a 486 and a dude in his underwear.

Then people made some money, they two told friends, and those two friends told two more friends, and so on just like the Prell commercial in 1970.

Making money, and having the ability to make money breeds more people looking to make money. Lowering commissions and using the net to promote that bred a new stock investor. They were not Wall Street gurus, they were 20 year olds, moms, dads, seniors and more. Volumes exploded, gross commissions exploded, and a new type of gambling was born.

Don't kid yourself, it is all about price, and all about making money, or the perception that you can make money.

In racing terms, Betfair being the #3 ranked company on the internet in terms of valuation proves that - and horse racing is their #1 sport. They started with 2000 customers eight years ago, they now have 2.5 million. 4% takeouts and word of mouth that you can win there will do that, and it will do that for horse racing in America as well - it is a mathematical certainty because people like (and chase) money.

I wish reducing the takeout would reverse the secular decline in US racing, but I just don't think it's that simple. I think you've given a lot of thought to this issue, however. It may be a conflict for you, but I wish you would contact Ron Geary, the owner of Ellis Park, and request a meeting. As you may know, Ron's a long-time horseplayer (I believe he may have won or placed highly in a national tournament at one pt) and I think he'd meet with you. He wants racing to prosper.

I don't think the stock market analogy works, because unlike racing it isn't a zero-sum game.

[Relwob Owner]

Thanks! Good to be back. This was my first(and only forum) and like a first timer often does on the track, I kind of came out too fast and got tired quickly....freshened up and am glad to be back.

This topic is very interesting to me and there are a lot of experienced solid minds that comment on it. You can throw ideas out(like I have) that may have holes in them and get solid feedback and most of it is done in a confrontational way, which is awesome.


Meant to say "non-confrontational"....still kind of rusty!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I don't think the stock market analogy works, because unlike racing it isn't a zero-sum game.
By zero-sum game I assume you mean there is only so much money bet and that money is accounted for, unlike the stock market which can go up potentially and make winners of everyone.

However, betting a Betfair is a zero sum game too, but grew because players lasted longer and some bettors are able to make a good living, which causes new players to try to become the next long term winner. Of course, most fail but the game grows because they try.

[Saratoga_Mike]

By zero-sum game I assume you mean there is only so much money bet and that money is accounted for, unlike the stock market which can go up potentially and make winners of everyone.

However, betting a Betfair is a zero sum game too, but grew because players lasted longer and some bettors are able to make a good living, which causes new players to try to become the next long term winner. Of course, most fail but the game grows because they try.

Correct.

Betfair isn't focused on US racing (right?). Racing remains very popular in the UK, Australia and other places, so that doesn't prove much to me. You need to show me a study where a US-based track cuts the takeout from say 15% to 8% and things boomed.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Correct.

Betfair isn't focused on US racing (right?). Racing remains very popular in the UK, Australia and other places, so that doesn't prove much to me. You need to show me a study where a US-based track cuts the takeout from say 15% to 8% and things boomed.
Canadians play Betfair religiously. They don't take US accounts. They do have betting on US racing though, and many times over $100,000 is matched.

[proximity]

Meant to say "non-confrontational"....still kind of rusty!

just get yourself a shot of lasix and some blinkers.... you'll be fine!!:)

[Jeff P]

You need to show me a study where a US-based track cuts the takeout from say 15% to 8% and things boomed.
Mike,

I realize the case history I'm about to cite is a bit dated. But I'll use the NYRA experiment from 2001-2002 as an example because (to my knowledge) that's the last time it was tried in the right way by a major US racing association.

The case history here is really interesting. NYRA tried it. Despite soaring handle if I'm not mistaken it met strong resistance from the NYC OTBs who lobbied Albany to get it overturned.


New York Senate approves bill to reduce takeout
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2001/june/19/new-york-senate-approves-bill-to-reduce-takeout.aspx


One year Later...

NYRA's 2002 Handle is 10.4% Ahead of 2001
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/11732/nyras-2002-handle-is-104-ahead-of-2001



-jp

.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mike,

I realize the case history I'm about to cite is a bit dated. But I'll use the NYRA experiment from 2001-2002 as an example because (to my knowledge) that's the last time it was tried in the right way by a major US racing association.

The case history here is really interesting. NYRA tried it. Despite soaring handle if I'm not mistaken it met strong resistance from the NYC OTBs who lobbied Albany to get it overturned.


New York Senate approves bill to reduce takeout
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2001/june/19/new-york-senate-approves-bill-to-reduce-takeout.aspx


One year Later...

NYRA's 2002 Handle is 10.4% Ahead of 2001
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/11732/nyras-2002-handle-is-104-ahead-of-2001



-jp

.

Jeff, the handle went up, but did the tracks end up with less money? If not, I'm shocked it would have been repealed.

If we cut the marginal tax rates for the capital gains, personal income tax and corporate tax rate to 5%, I'm certain the economy (= to handle) would respond favorably, but we'd end up with a much less tax revenue (=what the track ends up with to run their operation). I want to find the optimal point on the Laffer curve for the takeout rate, perhaps it's lower, I'm just not sure.

[lamboguy]

Mike,

I realize the case history I'm about to cite is a bit dated. But I'll use the NYRA experiment from 2001-2002 as an example because (to my knowledge) that's the last time it was tried in the right way by a major US racing association.

The case history here is really interesting. NYRA tried it. Despite soaring handle if I'm not mistaken it met strong resistance from the NYC OTBs who lobbied Albany to get it overturned.


New York Senate approves bill to reduce takeout
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2001/june/19/new-york-senate-approves-bill-to-reduce-takeout.aspx


One year Later...

NYRA's 2002 Handle is 10.4% Ahead of 2001
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/11732/nyras-2002-handle-is-104-ahead-of-2001



-jp

.if the lowering of the takeout is so great how come NYRA had bigger financial problems than before they cut the take?

[LottaKash]

just get yourself a shot of lasix and some blinkers.... you'll be fine!!:)

Yes, and then you can go right to the "front" today.....

best,

[Relwob Owner]

just get yourself a shot of lasix and some blinkers.... you'll be fine!!:)


Will do! Good to be talking horses again on here

[Jeff P]

Jeff, the handle went up, but did the tracks end up with less money? If not, I'm shocked it would have been repealed.

If we cut the marginal tax rates for the capital gains, personal income tax and corporate tax rate to 5%, I'm certain the economy (= to handle) would respond favorably, but we'd end up with a much less tax revenue (=what the track ends up with to run their operation). I want to find the optimal point on the Laffer curve for the takeout rate, perhaps it's lower, I'm just not sure.
The handle went up... and from what I can read of the case history the tracks were very much in favor of keeping the takeout reduction going but the NYC OTBs were against it...
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/21555/takeout-rates-again-fuel-conflict-in-new-york

I'd like to point out that I wasn't aware of the effects of takeout changes back then or even following the story as it unfolded...

Maybe someone reading who followed the story as it played out can chime in. But I can't imagine the CEO of NYRA wanting to go ahead with further takeout reductions unless it was working for his tracks.

That said, I find the articles interesting because it appears to be a case where a prominent racing association gave reduced takeout done in the right way a chance to work... and it does appear to have worked in this case. The result appears to have been record handle and renewed interest in the racing association's product just like all of the industry's paid for studies suggest would happen.

Another area where reduced takeout/better pricing absolutely appears to have worked... where new incremental handle and new interest in the product was generated - just like the industry's own paid for studies suggest would happen is:

Rebates.



if the lowering of the takeout is so great how come NYRA had bigger financial problems than before they cut the take?My guess would be those opposed to the idea apparently forced them to raise it afterwards.


-jp

.