What are the percentages

[Bruddah]

paid to a track for their signal? I really don't know because I play primarily live play at Oaklawn and very little simulcast. Is there a set percentage or is each track different?

Just curious as to what percentages of the betting dollar is broken out for simulcasting signals.

Thanks

[OTM Al]

This I think is a very important question in the debate over the benefits of reduced takeout since so much of the money wagered comes from off track.

[Track Collector]

paid to a track for their signal? I really don't know because I play primarily live play at Oaklawn and very little simulcast. Is there a set percentage or is each track different?

Just curious as to what percentages of the betting dollar is broken out for simulcasting signals.

Thanks

They vary based on the popularity (or perceived popularity if you are TrackNet :eek: ) of the track.

I would be surprised if someone gave you the specifics. If they did, you could figure out the margins an ADW is working with, and just like with Walmart, I would not expect them to tell you what they make on the different products that they sell.

It's ok to be curious though...........I am too!!

[BillW]

We've addressed that in this year's track ratings. Read about it in the "Signal Distribution" section.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

[Robert Goren]

I know it varies from track to track and from ADW and Simucast site to ADW and Simocast site, but someone should come up with a good ball park figure.

[Robert Goren]

We've addressed that in this year's track ratings. Read about it in the "Signal Distribution" section.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html I am confused. Let say a track 17% takeout on the win pool gets an A on take out, how much does it keep? 13%? 4%?

[OTM Al]

We've addressed that in this year's track ratings. Read about it in the "Signal Distribution" section.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html


I think it's a variable of note to include this, but looking at the way it's done leaves me a few questions and comments.

1) You've taken a two dimensional measure and crushed it into one with fee and restrictions. What if it's a high fee and low restrictions? You just going to average the grades?

2) Using "reasonable" in your descriptions of fee levels seems arbitarary. The reasonable fee for a Ferrari is quite unreasonable for a Dodge Dart. I would think you would want to use some scaling factor like handle on those fee rates. A track pulling in 20 times the amount of money compared to another should be charging higher fees.

3) Related as I see you are including handle/race, this is going to be biased to the big tracks. Theoretically you could have a small track doing everything else "right" but you are going to down grade them on the fact that they don't have huge handles?

I wonder if these 2 catagries should not be used as a combined variable as each on its own seems biased

[BillW]

I am confused. Let say a track 17% takeout on the win pool gets an A on take out, how much does it keep? 13%? 4%?
"A" tracks in general keep a little and "E" tracks keep a lot. It's tough to put numbers on it as all deals are made independently and contracts are not made public.

[Robert Goren]

I am still confused. Is it closer to 4% or 13%? Just give me an idea how it works.

[andymays]

Cangamble will know. I'm guessing 2.5% for the signal.

[BillW]

I would have loved to include what every track/ADW/Casino pays for every track signal and separately list the availability of each but that was impossible. In general we found that availability and cost were inversely proportional (it makes sense that the highest cost signal would be available at the least number of outlets). Do our ratings resolve to +/- 0.005%? No, but as a general guide (which is it's intention) it is good enough to give the horseplayer a general picture.

"Reasonable" is arbitrary in an absolute sense (Most costs related to wagering are unreasonable - takeout, breakage etc.) but it's fairly easy to get a relative picture with available information. There's no scaling as all tracks are treated as equals - it's up to you to decide what is best for you.

And yes using handle does punish the small tracks - we get complaints both ways (using it/not using it). To some degree the size of the pools makes the track more or less attractive (pools that are too small will take $$$ out of your pocket as quickly as high takeout)

I think it's a variable of note to include this, but looking at the way it's done leaves me a few questions and comments.

1) You've taken a two dimensional measure and crushed it into one with fee and restrictions. What if it's a high fee and low restrictions? You just going to average the grades?

2) Using "reasonable" in your descriptions of fee levels seems arbitarary. The reasonable fee for a Ferrari is quite unreasonable for a Dodge Dart. I would think you would want to use some scaling factor like handle on those fee rates. A track pulling in 20 times the amount of money compared to another should be charging higher fees.

3) Related as I see you are including handle/race, this is going to be biased to the big tracks. Theoretically you could have a small track doing everything else "right" but you are going to down grade them on the fact that they don't have huge handles?

I wonder if these 2 catagries should not be used as a combined variable as each on its own seems biased

[BillW]

I am still confused. Is it closer to 4% or 13%? Just give me an idea how it works.

As I said the contracts are not made public (and I am part of the public). My guess would be 4% - 10% would be the range but I'm guessing.

[BillW]

Cangamble will know. I'm guessing 2.5% for the signal.

He won't tell me, if he tells you, let me know :p

[OTM Al]

Here's the thing though. They aren't all equal. Redneck Racetrack is going to all but give away its signal because it's product isn't in demand and they will do whatever it takes to get someone to pay attention. Good marketing. Lord Derby Downs is going to charge a higher price for it's signal because its product is of a higher quality and is in much greater demand. This is simple economics and each track would be foolish to behave any differently.

That's why I'm saying a scaling factor is needed to put them on a level field for the sake of comparison. By dividing the fees by average handle, for instance, you have now divided out the popularity component that is reflected in each. Now you are left with a metric which has an absolute meaning. The higher the number, the worse the metric in terms of the fact that proportionally you are charging more than you ought to be.

[BillW]

Yes but value is in the bankroll of the beholder. Some guy today e-mailed TVG saying that he preferred small fields because he didn't have as many horses to choose from (I am 180 degrees in opposition to that position). To each his own - this rating allows each reader to use their own judgment. These ratings are not a beauty contest,but information to educate the horseplayer and allow him/her make their own decision as to where they would most like to throw their wagering dollars.

Here's the thing though. They aren't all equal. Redneck Racetrack is going to all but give away its signal because it's product isn't in demand and they will do whatever it takes to get someone to pay attention. Good marketing. Lord Derby Downs is going to charge a higher price for it's signal because its product is of a higher quality and is in much greater demand. This is simple economics and each track would be foolish to behave any differently.

That's why I'm saying a scaling factor is needed to put them on a level field for the sake of comparison. By dividing the fees by average handle, for instance, you have now divided out the popularity component that is reflected in each. Now you are left with a metric which has an absolute meaning. The higher the number, the worse the metric in terms of the fact that proportionally you are charging more than you ought to be.

[InTheRiver68]

They aren't all equal. Redneck Racetrack is going to all but give away its signal because it's product isn't in demand and they will do whatever it takes to get someone to pay attention.
This is a good start. It's been a few years since I've been involved in this aspect of simulcasting, but here are a few guidelines from that time:

Fair meets and bullrings: 2%
"Standard" middle-of-the-road-track signal fee: 3%
Your better tracks: 3.5% - 4%
Top-tier tracks: 4%-5%
"Big Days" (Triple crown race, BC Day, etc.): 50% of net. That is, if you manage to keep 14% of the handle after taxes and fees in your neck of the woods, we'll take half of that, thankyouverymuch. And you'll pay it, because do you want to be the only simulcast outlet not showing the Belmont Stakes? That's what I thought!

I'll stick my head into the simulcast office when I get a chance and see what the new standard is.

- InTheRiver68

[Bruddah]

I appreciate the attempt fellas. You have to think it strange when most knowledgable cappers can tell you how much their home track's "TAKE" is, yet no one seems to know how much they receive for dispersing the signal. Whether it's 4% to 10%. Mainly because the Industry (tracks) don't want anyone to know and the average bettor doesn't care because it comes out of the initial take.

Here's the simplicity of the matter. On track handle means more $$$ to the home track than revenue from simulcasting. It is what I have said over and over on this board, don't get hung up on the all source handle figure. Look at the dollars bet on track. If a track has solid numbers there, then simulcasting is icing on the cake. If the numbers on track are weak, then there is no cake and the icing is meaningless.

It comes down to "BUTTS IN THE BLEACHERS" and Event Marketing. Otherwise the track slowly becomes one big empty simulcast urinal.

[Robert Goren]

So Monmonth Park is getting no more than 5% of the off track handle? Yes? No?

[InTheRiver68]

So Monmonth Park is getting no more than 5% of the off track handle? Yes? No?
Like I said, I'll see what my local track is paying. It should match the industry average.

Here's another set of rules of thumb:

$1 wagered on a live race at the live track = 6c of revenue to the track
$1 wagered on some other track's race = 4.5c of revenue to your local site, 1.5c of revenue to the track you're betting on.

- InTheRiver68

[Stillriledup]

So Monmonth Park is getting no more than 5% of the off track handle? Yes? No?

It depends on who is getting their signal. If Someone at Santa Anita or Hollywood is betting Monmouth, they're probably only paying 3 or 4 percent tops. If a person is betting Monmouth thru a high profile rebate shop, well, that rebate shop may have to pay 4 or 5%.

On the other hand, the rebate shop can cut a deal with Monmouth and when they reach a certain 'handle threshold' the rate goes down. Monmouth will tell the rebate shop, "once you hit 200k (just making up a number) for the meet from all your players, we will give you a better rate on the rest of the meet" Since rebate shops have much higher handles than just any general off track satellite, they can cut deals because the host track knows that this place is going to be really betting hard.

To answer your original question, i would say yes, Monmouth is getting no more than 5% of off track handle on average but i think that as time is going on, host tracks are charging more and more for their signal. Years ago, it was like 3% and that was it. Everyone was charging 3% and liking it. Now, since simulcasting is exploding and creates much more handle than on track betting, the places want more and more of that pie.

Now, on Haskell day, they might be able to raise their price a percentage point or two because they know that their signal on that day is more valuable to outlets than it is during a normal weekday.

Churchill Downs on Derby day charges an extremely high price for their signal, but places take the signal anyway and pay the high price because they know that the bettors want to bet the derby day card. Like some others here said, it all depends on the quality of the card.

[InTheRiver68]

Santa Anita and Hollywood might be bad examples to use in this discussion. California's live thoroughbred tracks are limited by statute from importing any more than a certain number of live races each meet. This means that from day to day, California tracks can only take up to about 30 non-California domestic simulcasts. (They're less limited to how many international simulcasts they can take, like the South American races that Laurel/Pimlico and Calder/Gulfstream show, and Canadian races.) On Monday, for example, a day full of simulcasts around the country, California took 8 races from Belmont, 8 from Monmouth, 7 from Churchill, 4 from Arlington, and 4 from Lone Star. That's it. (Well, plus their own races.)

California pays a minimum signal fee, simply because getting them to take your track's signal is a bit of a coup, and you're willing to let them have it for cheap because of it. They have a LOT of money in their pools. I would be surprised if they're paying any more than 3% for anyone's signal, except maybe NYRA's.

But the point about rebate shops is correct, and understated. Rebate shops are getting the screws put to them recently because they have no infrastructure costs ... track maintenance, gate crew, stall upkeep, etc. ... and no horsemen or breeder's funds to pay, and in some cases minimal or non-existant taxes, and tracks are reasonably irked that they can make money hand over fist without spreading some of that wealth back to the backbone of the racing industry.

- InTheRiver68

[Track Collector]

This is a good start. It's been a few years since I've been involved in this aspect of simulcasting, but here are a few guidelines from that time:

Fair meets and bullrings: 2%
"Standard" middle-of-the-road-track signal fee: 3%
Your better tracks: 3.5% - 4%
Top-tier tracks: 4%-5%
"Big Days" (Triple crown race, BC Day, etc.): 50% of net. That is, if you manage to keep 14% of the handle after taxes and fees in your neck of the woods, we'll take half of that, thankyouverymuch. And you'll pay it, because do you want to be the only simulcast outlet not showing the Belmont Stakes? That's what I thought!

I'll stick my head into the simulcast office when I get a chance and see what the new standard is.

- InTheRiver68

Although I do not know first hand, some folks I have spoken with in the not too distant past have indicated that rates have gone up dramatically over the past few years. The above rates could now be 75-100% higher.