Hollywood Park's handle vs. Monmouth's handle this past Saturday

[Turfday]

This was brought to my attention. I don't follow the handle on any circuit, let alone for comparative purposes. But I surely found this interesting and wanted to share it with the board.

Hollywood Park vs. Monmouth all sources handle for this past Saturday:

All sources betting handle at Hollywood Park was $9,560,260.
There were 67 horses that ran on the 9-race card

At Monmouth, they handled $9,357,444 (but I understand there's a problem with NY OTB and betting Monmouth). There were 126 horses on the 13-race Monmouth opening day Saturday card.

Considering both situations, I didn't think the above would be possible. Your commments?

[Stillriledup]

Monmouth is going directly against Belmont, Hollywood doesn't have any direct competition for that timeslot (4pm eastern as first post).

East coast bettors get to start betting Hollywood at 4pm their time but west coast bettors dont even get out of bed and they are already on the 4th race at Monmouth. Big advantage West Coast signal.

Also, California is a much bigger state than NJ and has many more residents. California residents, for the most part, concentrate most of their racing needs on Hollywood. East Coast residents, have a bunch of tracks that are running in direct competition w Monmouth.

If NJ was as big as California in size, they would have many more horseplayers betting their racing.

[FenceBored]

It proves that bettors prefer synthetic tracks and small fields.

[andymays]

I wonder what the handle at Hollywood would be if the poeple that ran California racing and screwed it up over the last several years had done the right thing.

It seems like all of their energy goes into one upping one another and promoting their synthetic surfaces.

What if there energy had gone into getting some horses out here by raising purses with all the money they've flushed down the toilet?

It's too late now but if these guys had built a strong foundation years ago in California they could probably have weathered this storm and the handle would be 15 million with an average field size of 8.

These guys had to work real hard to screw up a good thing and the screwing up began when the first Indian Casino went up. They could have made a good deal back then when they had the upper hand. Now they're almost powerless to stop the slide.

[Bruddah]

This was brought to my attention. I don't follow the handle on any circuit, let alone for comparative purposes. But I surely found this interesting and wanted to share it with the board.

Hollywood Park vs. Monmouth all sources handle for this past Saturday:

All sources betting handle at Hollywood Park was $9,560,260.
There were 67 horses that ran on the 9-race card

At Monmouth, they handled $9,357,444 (but I understand there's a problem with NY OTB and betting Monmouth). There were 126 horses on the 13-race Monmouth opening day Saturday card.

Considering both situations, I didn't think the above would be possible. Your commments?

It would suggest by these numbers, there shouldn't be anyway that Hollywood would be losing money. Every one in this industry seems focused on Gross dollars wagered and not the tracks "net income from all revenue streams."

"Butts in the Bleachers" wagering, eating concessions, buying programs and parking will net the host track much more operating income than just spreading thier betting signal. Simple business economics.

Wake up Racing Industry Management and smell the coffee. If this weren't so, then why are smart management teams trying to get the fans to return. Besides Monmouths efforts, I'll example Churchill and their night racing. (JMHO)

[Deepsix]

I wonder what the handle at Hollywood would be if the poeple that ran California racing and screwed it up over the last several years had done the right thing.

It seems like all of their energy goes into one upping one another and promoting their synthetic surfaces.

What if there energy had gone into getting some horses out here by raising purses with all the money they've flushed down the toilet?

It's too late now but if these guys had built a strong foundation years ago in California they could probably have weathered this storm and the handle would be 15 million with an average field size of 8.

These guys had to work real hard to screw up a good thing and the screwing up began when the first Indian Casino went up. They could have made a good deal back then when they had the upper hand. Now they're almost powerless to stop the slide.


It, the past few years, has been interesting to view from a distance. The energy expended by those who resisted synthetic surfaces from the beginning, those who have relentlessly pursued an effort to ensure that they fail, those who's every day seems to be consumed by efforts to undo, to reverse, to discourage others from wagering on synthetics, has certainly had a greater impact than those who quietly adapted to the change.

Just how good/bad the surface actually is, how many unfulfilled expectations of less maint. and greater consistency/safety that had been promised, ---- it doesn't really matter at this point. Those who resisted have won.

Might things have been different under the same set of conditions.... sure. Absent the ponderous anti-synthetic movement we might very well have had a different result. Synthetic surfaces are wagered on every day and there are actually some players making money betting them. Will Arlington and Keeneland endure the weight? Time will tell.

[jballscalls]

I can tell you that here on the west coast, southern Cal is played hugely more than any other track. back east it gets split up pretty good amongst ny, nj, ky, fl, chicago, maryland etc,

but over here, everyone is playing so cal. they have for years and it's always the number one game in town. in our otb's and in our off track at the track, southern cal is consistantly the highest and usually double of any other track. ironically golden gate is usually second, and ny third.

i remember being at river downs otb for del mar opening day and people back east didn't even care. over here it's like a holiday.

people on the west coast will always bet so cal, no matter how small the fields, what the surface is or anything.

[delayjf]

I've always been baffled by the fact that the nation plays the CA Pick Six more than any other track or circuit. Hollywood's pick six even outdraws Saratoga's Pick six.

[Rutgers]

This was brought to my attention. I don't follow the handle on any circuit, let alone for comparative purposes. But I surely found this interesting and wanted to share it with the board.

Hollywood Park vs. Monmouth all sources handle for this past Saturday:

All sources betting handle at Hollywood Park was $9,560,260.
There were 67 horses that ran on the 9-race card

At Monmouth, they handled $9,357,444 (but I understand there's a problem with NY OTB and betting Monmouth). There were 126 horses on the 13-race Monmouth opening day Saturday card.

Considering both situations, I didn't think the above would be possible. Your commments?

Big mutual pools are big because bigger bettors bet into them. And field size isn’t the most important factor to big bettors, pool size is.

Bigger bettors need big mutual pools to minimize the negative impact their wagers will have on the payoffs. Hollywood Park traditionally has much larger pools then Monmouth Park, so most of the big bettors played Hollywood (and Belmont)

Of course, Monmouth probably attracted some bigger bettors and/or their regular bigger bettor bet larger than normal in order to the the handle growth this weekend, as many regular horseplayer's were expecting Monmouth to have one of their best handle days ever.

As I stated before, racetracks are in a bit of a Catch-22 when it comes to pool sizes. In order to get big pools you need big bettors, but to get big bettors you need big pools.

It will be interesting to see the handle at Monmouth Park this Friday. Saturday handle was helped out by being opening day, and I am sure the handle on Sunday was helped out by the Pick 5 carryover.

[andymays]

It, the past few years, has been interesting to view from a distance. The energy expended by those who resisted synthetic surfaces from the beginning, those who have relentlessly pursued an effort to ensure that they fail, those who's every day seems to be consumed by efforts to undo, to reverse, to discourage others from wagering on synthetics, has certainly had a greater impact than those who quietly adapted to the change.

Just how good/bad the surface actually is, how many unfulfilled expectations of less maint. and greater consistency/safety that had been promised, ---- it doesn't really matter at this point. Those who resisted have won.

Might things have been different under the same set of conditions.... sure. Absent the ponderous anti-synthetic movement we might very well have had a different result. Synthetic surfaces are wagered on every day and there are actually some players making money betting them. Will Arlington and Keeneland endure the weight? Time will tell.


I'd say it was just the opposite for the first two years. The propaganda from the con artists who sold that junk was overwhelming. 70% of trainers want it gone for a reason.

[DeanT]

My opinion on the interesting Turfday question mainly lies in what players are used to. It is really hard to change behavior for groups of bettors. As we see from the HANA survey, or even the little survey here, upwards of 80% of bettors have played for 25 years or more. You get your habits and those habits are hard to break. NYRA and Cal have players who are married to the circuit and will play it with smaller fields, or less quality racing, or even if takeout goes up like it has. A smaller, or less popular track is fighting an uphill battle when they make changes, or even if they offer a good product out.

I think it is why tracks are unwilling to change, or show more fight for new customers - their old ones hang around through thick and thin. The problem with that, of course, is they do not last forever.

I think what MTH has done is nothing short of outstanding. They got existing players to notice their track. It is no small feat with our demographics and habits which have formed over decades, imo.

[andymays]

My opinion on the interesting Turfday question mainly lies in what players are used to. It is really hard to change behavior for groups of bettors. As we see from the HANA survey, or even the little survey here, upwards of 80% of bettors have played for 25 years or more. You get your habits and those habits are hard to break. NYRA and Cal have players who are married to the circuit and will play it with smaller fields, or less quality racing, or even if takeout goes up like it has. A smaller, or less popular track is fighting an uphill battle when they make changes, or even if they offer a good product out.

I think it is why tracks are unwilling to change, or show more fight for new customers - their old ones hang around through thick and thin. The problem with that, of course, is they do not last forever.

I think what MTH has done is nothing short of outstanding. They got existing players to notice their track. It is no small feat with our demographics and habits which have formed over decades, imo.


You're right on the money. I was married to California racing for decades but they way I look at it now they filed for divorce a few years ago due to irreconcilable differences. ;)

Nobody loved California racing more than me but at some point you have to do what you think is best for yourself and play where you feel you have the best chance to win. For me it's gonna be Monmouth the rest of the meet. I do best on a one mile oval with a dirt surface and always have. Anything I play besides that will be in spots.

[Track Collector]

And field size isn’t the most important factor to big bettors, pool size is.

Making the most money is the most important factor. Pool sizes are an important consideration, but not to the exclusion of all other factors. Making the most money is a combination of your edge (including any rebates), the total amount you bet on that edge, and the minimizing of payout reductions caused by your own wager. It is easier to identify an edge (or a bigger edge) with larger field sizes where many different opinions and confusion exist, versus smaller fields where profitability is much harder to find. A smaller field which offers the benefit of large pool sizes but a smaller edge may be shunned in favor of larger field opportunies with smaller pools but a more favorable edge. Making the most money is therefore a delicate balance of a number of factors.

[McSock]

people on the west coast will always bet so cal, no matter how small the fields, what the surface is or anything.

I have stopped betting 90% of the time on So Cal tracks. Fields are just too small. I have never liked the flubber tracks, but a couple of years ago the heavy track at Del Mar was very kind to me. Now the small fields have made the 3:1 and 4:1 shots 3:5 and 4:5.

[arno]

Monmouth is dark this Friday.

It would have been a interesting day to see attendance and handle.

I doubt they would have had 5,000 at track

[Indulto]

This was brought to my attention. I don't follow the handle on any circuit, let alone for comparative purposes. But I surely found this interesting and wanted to share it with the board.

Hollywood Park vs. Monmouth all sources handle for this past Saturday:

All sources betting handle at Hollywood Park was $9,560,260.
There were 67 horses that ran on the 9-race card

At Monmouth, they handled $9,357,444 (but I understand there's a problem with NY OTB and betting Monmouth). There were 126 horses on the 13-race Monmouth opening day Saturday card.

Considering both situations, I didn't think the above would be possible. Your commments?Thanks for sharing, Turfday. I suspect people bet where they are most familiar and feel most confident.

Many horses at HOL had already run during the meeting and had established their form at the course whereas none had at MTH on opening day. Same for jockeys and trainers. How many here believed Carlos H. Marquez, Jr. would have so many live mounts riding against Gomez, et al?

I'll be shocked to see that relationship continue.

[gm10]

It would suggest by these numbers, there shouldn't be anyway that Hollywood would be losing money. Every one in this industry seems focused on Gross dollars wagered and not the tracks "net income from all revenue streams."

"Butts in the Bleachers" wagering, eating concessions, buying programs and parking will net the host track much more operating income than just spreading thier betting signal. Simple business economics.

Wake up Racing Industry Management and smell the coffee. If this weren't so, then why are smart management teams trying to get the fans to return. Besides Monmouths efforts, I'll example Churchill and their night racing. (JMHO)

For the first time since we saw Scarlet Johansson appear on our TV set, we're thinking along the same lines. Even a very intelligent man like Steve Crist couldn't think outside of that box that last weekend.

[rrbauer]

Monmouth was up 100% year over year. What were Hollywood's comparative figures (I don't know but I doubt it was an increase)?

[alhattab]

Monmouth was up 100% year over year. What were Hollywood's comparative figures (I don't know but I doubt it was an increase)?

People are comparing Mth to perennial East and West coast handle kings Belmont and Hollywood one weekend into the "experiment"? It is way too early for that. Before the Mth meet started there was discussion that horseplayers, being creatures of habit, wouldn't just turn on a dime and start betting Mth with both hands after playing these other venues forever. I think Mth's numbers are off the charts considering it was opening weekend, with many horses showing little recent form, and with no contribution from the biggest bet taker in the nation.

Whatever my views are, I think it is only fair that we give it some more time before we start expecting Mth to be competing for handle honors with NYRA and SoCal.

[Rutgers]

Monmouth is dark this Friday.

It would have been a interesting day to see attendance and handle.

I doubt they would have had 5,000 at track

Thank you for pointing that out.

I would have looked awful silly in my sandals, black socks and plaid shorts standing next to the walking ring waiting for the horses to come out. And my 3 year old would have been really PO'ed.

And with my luck, I probably would have been standing next to some guy complaining about how a guy named Rutgers on some message board said there was racing today. :D

[Rutgers]

Making the most money is the most important factor. Pool sizes are an important consideration, but not to the exclusion of all other factors. Making the most money is a combination of your edge (including any rebates), the total amount you bet on that edge, and the minimizing of payout reductions caused by your own wager. It is easier to identify an edge (or a bigger edge) with larger field sizes where many different opinions and confusion exist, versus smaller fields where profitability is much harder to find. A smaller field which offers the benefit of large pool sizes but a smaller edge may be shunned in favor of larger field opportunies with smaller pools but a more favorable edge. Making the most money is therefore a delicate balance of a number of factors.

I said to big bettors pool size is the most important factor. It is not the only factor, but it is by far the most important.

Saturday’s pools for the late Pick 4 was $429,259 for Hollywood and $111,208 for Monmouth Park.

So for an example let’s use a Pick 4 pool of $400,000 with a 20% takeout at Hollywood and a $100,000 pool with 15% takeout at Monmouth Park. Assume a $1,000 $1 payoff at both tracks.

In this case there would be 320 winning $1 tickets at Hollywood. ($400K * .80 = $320K. Divide $320K by $1K) At Monmouth Park there would be 85 winning $1 tickets. ($100K * .85 = $85K. Divide $85K by $1K)

Now add a big bettors who plays 100 combination for $10 each for a total of $1,000 and wins.

Now HP is $401K * .80 = $320,800. Dividing that by 330 winning tickets leaves a winning payout now of $972.00 with breakage. A drop of 2.8%.

A $1,000 wager at Hollywood returns $9,720.

MP is now $101K * .85 = $85,850. Dividing that by 95 winning tickets leaves a winning payout of $903.60 with breakage. A drop of 9.6%.

A $1,000 wager at Monmouth returns $9,036.

You can even add a 8% rebate to MP and the return of $9,116 still pales in comparison to HP. Drop MP takeout to 10%, keep the rebate and the $1,000 bet yields $9,648.30, still less then at HP. (if the big bettor played more per combination, the difference would be even greater)

So has you can see, a rebate and low takeout do not help the big bettor as much a small pool hurts them. That is why I said, pool size is the most important factor. Without a large pool, it makes no sense for a big bettor to wager. And that was the point of my first post, Monmouth Park is up against it because they have always had smaller pools then southern California and NYRA, And in order for MP to grow it pools to compare with those tracks and to truly be “elite” (and support their purse structure), they need to get more big bettors but the big bettors are bettor off playing at other tracks, or if they do play Monmouth they need to scale back their bets, either way MP will be hard press to grow their handle to where it needs to be. I am not saying they can't do it, but it will be difficult

I do not mean this as a put down of MP, I was only commenting on why HP had a larger handle then MP despite running fewer races and having smaller fields.

[castaway01]

Monmouth was up 100% year over year. What were Hollywood's comparative figures (I don't know but I doubt it was an increase)?


That's an excellent point, and one everyone seemed to miss. It's not Hollywood and Monmouth being even, it's the fact Monmouth had massive gains from 2009 (I think it was 4.1 million to 9.4 million). So, actually it's a huge change, not a "hey, why didn't Monmouth crush Hollywood?"

[onefast99]

Thank you for pointing that out.

I would have looked awful silly in my sandals, black socks and plaid shorts standing next to the walking ring waiting for the horses to come out. And my 3 year old would have been really PO'ed.

And with my luck, I probably would have been standing next to some guy complaining about how a guy named Rutgers on some message board said there was racing today. :D
I was going to come over to say hello but there were several with the same outfit on.:lol:

[WinterTriangle]

70% of trainers want it gone for a reason.

Curious figure. Who did you poll?

Trainer / owners are in the game to make money.

Among the 20 top purses in the world, the BC Classic at CDX is about the only race on dirt that fits in to the top 20 in $$.

Yet you think dirt-only stallions are going to be in high demand with horse buyers globally?

That was then, this is now.

[andymays]

Curious figure. Who did you poll?
Trainer / owners are in the game to make money.

Among the 20 top purses in the world, the BC Classic at CDX is about the only race on dirt that fits in to the top 20 in $$.

Yet you think dirt-only stallions are going to be in high demand with horse buyers globally?

That was then, this is now.


That number has been stated in various papers several times. What the public hears via TVG and HRTV and some journalists is far from reality in some cases. This is one of those cases.

No Breeders Cup will be on it for the next two years at least. No Triple Crown race is on it. Synthetic surfaces are becoming irrelevant again as they should be.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=15825

Sadler, who was recently elected president of the California Thoroughbred Trainers, said that the organization polled trainers and found that 70% want Santa Anita to replace its synthetic surface with a dirt track.

"We're in the trenches working with these horses every day," said Sadler. "We'd like to see some change in the surface here."

[WinterTriangle]

the organization polled trainers and found that 70% want Santa Anita to replace its synthetic surface

If your % only reflected a small number of trainers, or they were only CA trainers, or they were only at SA (with it's pecular drainage problems) you should have said that.

[andymays]

If your % only reflected a small number of trainers, or they were only CA trainers, or they were only at SA (with it's pecular drainage problems) you should have said that.


California Trainers.

I've posted the same stuff probably dozens of times. Every time the subject comes up the same questions are asked and answered. I am aware that you are not one of the ones asking the same things all the time so I'm not going after you personally by any means. You can be assured that the majority of Trainers everwhere in the United States feel the same way. You just don't hear it.

[Tom]

70%, now 51%.......would be nice to see actual data.
Just saying.....

[so.cal.fan]

Santa Anita tears out the synthetic surface and puts in dirt.

They won't be able to run the Oak Tree meet, even if they wanted to.
There are major problems with the Santa Anita synthetic surface getting worse.

I will be shocked if they continue to race on it. Dirt will be going in for sure, and I understand that experts from Santa Anita are looking into Ky. dirt track and also Brazil?

Breeder's Cup will be back at Santa Anita the following year and I predict there will be many more days added to Santa Anita's racing dates in the future.

The California racing industry needs another track for owners to run their cheaper stock....Los Alamitos? It's hard to imagine HP staying open much longer, but we've all been saying that for years.........

Will Del Mar be next to tear out their polytrack? I think so, especially if there are any major problems this summer.

I was disappointed to hear major Calif. breeder Marty Wygod is selling his Calif. farm and moving to Kentucky.

What a mess everything is in! SIGH

[andymays]

Santa Anita tears out the synthetic surface and puts in dirt.

They won't be able to run the Oak Tree meet, even if they wanted to.
There are major problems with the Santa Anita synthetic surface getting worse.

I will be shocked if they continue to race on it. Dirt will be going in for sure, and I understand that experts from Santa Anita are looking into Ky. dirt track and also Brazil?

Breeder's Cup will be back at Santa Anita the following year and I predict there will be many more days added to Santa Anita's racing dates in the future.

The California racing industry needs another track for owners to run their cheaper stock....Los Alamitos? It's hard to imagine HP staying open much longer, but we've all been saying that for years.........

Will Del Mar be next to tear out their polytrack? I think so, especially if there are any major problems this summer.

I was disappointed to hear major Calif. breeder Marty Wygod is selling his Calif. farm and moving to Kentucky.

What a mess everything is in! SIGH

Hope you're mostly right but the Breeders Cup signed with Churchill in 2011 already. Frank made them nervous I guess.

[JustRalph]

Diane, give us all the dirt!!! We know you are hearing more than you are telling........... I hope you are well.......... :ThmbUp:

[so.cal.fan]

That's about all I know, JR.
I've been so depressed about politics, haven't paid much attention to the politics of Santa Anita/California.
You know California is in the toilet. Sacramento is full of a-holes, and Los Angeles....well......what can I say.....full of lunatics from the Mayor on down.

Santa Anita's track is problematic. It hasn't gotten better.
Stronach is suppose to have a meeting Tuesday, John says he has to give the BC people an answer on SA. This would be for '12 when the BC wants to run the BC back at SA, PROVIDED it's a dirt track.

They will probably make the track like the Churchill Downs model.
They'll have to dig down way deep, take out all the "drainage pipes", rocks, and assorted junk on that track. They need to get the best dirt and the best plan to make it a first class track again.

[Lasix67]

I heard a lot about Monmouth and how they would be the demise of Saratoga this year. Now Monmouth should be congratulated on a least trying something new and thinking outside of the box, but they won't kill the greatness of Saratoga, but they surely have been successful in their quest to making an impact on the other big tracks running at this time.

[letswastemoney]

I would normally never play Monmouth because I live in CA and am used to the CA tracks.

It has nothing to do with me liking synthetics because I don't. I'm just more familiar with the trainer and jockey patterns here. Doesn't matter the field size, what matters is that I have a better chance if I'm more familiar with the horses and connections.

I was motivated to play Monmouth today though because I liked Afleet Express. I play the Eastern tracks when they have stakes races with names I'm familiar with. But I try to avoid their "normal" everyday claiming and allowance races.

[andymays]

I heard a lot about Monmouth and how they would be the demise of Saratoga this year. Now Monmouth should be congratulated on a least trying something new and thinking outside of the box, but they won't kill the greatness of Saratoga, but they surely have been successful in their quest to making an impact on the other big tracks running at this time.

Monmouth Park exceeding expectations one month into 'drastic' racing changes

http://www.nj.com/horse-racing/index.ssf/2010/06/monmouth_park_exceeding_expectations_one_month_int o_drastic_racing_changes.html