Santa Anita Exec quote on takeout not mattering

[toussaud]

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/12/more-amazing-quotes.html#links

you know, I am really trying to support the racing out there, and this takeout, really doesn't effect me per say, but... quotes like this make it really hard.

[DJofSD]

Try again - that page does not exist.

[jelly]

I like this quote.


Scott Daruty, always good for a quote:

“If somebody is so price-sensitive that they’re not going to bet Santa Anita because the price went up, what are they going to bet instead? New York? Florida? Illinois tracks?” Daruty said. :bang:


Yes,I'll bet Tampa 18% pk3 & pk4,Gulf.15% 50c.pk5,Monmouth 15% pk4 & pk5.


See ya scotty boy,I have choices.

[BillW-mod]

Try again - that page does not exist.

fixed

[DeanT]

The quote about "picking winners instead of making money (i.e. takeout not being a factor" really got me too.

Dan G once said here "the intelligence of the modern player is lost on those in charge"

Paceadvantage.com, and the thousands here, all know that the game is not about getting a winner, it is about getting a winner that pays a higher price than his chance to win.

I can get 38% "winners" all day - by betting the chalk. But I have no money at the end of the day and I never come back with that "picking winners" strategy. Losing money gets old real fast.

The power guys do not understand us. They simply dont.

[DJofSD]

fixed
Got it now, thx.

[iwearpurple]

So Mr Haines thinks only the top 1% of the handicapping world uses takeout in their equation.

I am a small bettor, and about 95% of my bets are win bets, but I try very hard to be successful. Guaranteed, I am not in the top 1% or even top 25% of the handicapping world, but I absolutely use the takeout factor to determine where I wager. As an example, I absolutely refuse to wager at Turf Paradise (20% takeout).

My analysis clearly shows over time that I am more successful at tracks with the lower takeout. I believe any person with a 4th grade level knowledge of math could see why that happens.

Currently, Santa Anita and the other California tracks have the lowest takeout rate on WPS wagers. I believe that with the increase in takeout rate that AQU, AP, CBY, CT, CD, DEL, DED, EMD, EVD, FG, FP, FE, GP, HST, HAW, LAD, MTH, MNR, NP, OP, PEN, PHA, PNL, PRM, PID, SAR, and WO will all have lower rates.

Mr Haines. Maybe all the rain you have received in Southern California has affected yout thinking, but you WILL LOSE bettors.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

So Mr Haines thinks only the top 1% of the handicapping world uses takeout in their equation.

I am a small bettor, and about 95% of my bets are win bets, but I try very hard to be successful. Guaranteed, I am not in the top 1% or even top 25% of the handicapping world, but I absolutely use the takeout factor to determine where I wager. As an example, I absolutely refuse to wager at Turf Paradise (20% takeout).

My analysis clearly shows over time that I am more successful at tracks with the lower takeout. I believe any person with a 4th grade level knowledge of math could see why that happens.

Currently, Santa Anita and the other California tracks have the lowest takeout rate on WPS wagers. I believe that with the increase in takeout rate that AQU, AP, CBY, CT, CD, DEL, DED, EMD, EVD, FG, FP, FE, GP, HST, HAW, LAD, MTH, MNR, NP, OP, PEN, PHA, PNL, PRM, PID, SAR, and WO will all have lower rates.

Mr Haines. Maybe all the rain you have received in Southern California has affected yout thinking, but you WILL LOSE bettors.
The takeout hike doesn't apply to WPS. But since bettors will be wiped out quicker over time, especially the dummy money, there will be a lot less value even on WPS bets in California as time goes by.

[DJofSD]

The quote about "picking winners instead of making money (i.e. takeout not being a factor" really got me too.

Dan G once said here "the intelligence of the modern player is lost on those in charge"

Paceadvantage.com, and the thousands here, all know that the game is not about getting a winner, it is about getting a winner that pays a higher price than his chance to win.

I can get 38% "winners" all day - by betting the chalk. But I have no money at the end of the day and I never come back with that "picking winners" strategy. Losing money gets old real fast.

The power guys do not understand us. They simply dont.
I would add, not only do they not understand us, they don't recognize the ever changing nature of the bettor. I believe, due to a variety of factors, the so called average bettor is much savier about things that affect his play including the bottom line.

[DJofSD]

The takeout hike doesn't apply to WPS. But since bettors will be wiped out quicker over time, especially the dummy money, there will be a lot less value even on WPS bets in California as time goes by.
Right. And if iwearpurple is like me, the increase in the vig for exactas will have a direct impact on the win wagers. I will use an exacta as a win bet when the favorite prohibits a straight win bet: dutch to the odds for two bets, 1st bet on the longer priced horse and the 2nd bet is an exacta with the short price over my other horse. If I am presented with such a wagering situation in the future, I will not be making a bet in that race, period.

I am very likely in a very small minority but with the pending increase in exotic withholding, I am standing my ground regarding the increase: no more exactas. If I can not dutch to the odds in the win pool then I am passing the race.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The power guys do not understand us. They simply dont.
"You have a 50% chance because either you win or lose. The takeout is well below 50%, so all bettors should be happy."

-BD

[DeanT]

Right. And if iwearpurple is like me, the increase in the vig for exactas will have a direct impact on the win wagers. I will use an exacta as a win bet when the favorite prohibits a straight win bet: dutch to the odds for two bets, 1st bet on the longer priced horse and the 2nd bet is an exacta with the short price over my other horse. If I am presented with such a wagering situation in the future, I will not be making a bet in that race, period.

I am very likely in a very small minority but with the pending increase in exotic withholding, I am standing my ground regarding the increase: no more exactas. If I can not dutch to the odds in the win pool then I am passing the race.

You are one of those "strange bettors". Stop with the nonsense.

Show up, watch the entertainment, and buy a beer, will ya? Enough of this talk about trying to make money betting the horses. That's only for whales.:rolleyes:

[so.cal.fan]

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/blacklist/

[cj]

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/blacklist/

Surely there is a best list, no?

[Valuist]

I like this quote.


Scott Daruty, always good for a quote:

“If somebody is so price-sensitive that they’re not going to bet Santa Anita because the price went up, what are they going to bet instead? New York? Florida? Illinois tracks?” Daruty said. :bang:


Yes,I'll bet Tampa 18% pk3 & pk4,Gulf.15% 50c.pk5,Monmouth 15% pk4 & pk5.


See ya scotty boy,I have choices.

Therein lies the thinking behind the mandate of forcing tracks to go synthetic. Is sounds idiotic, but with those in charge having "thought" processes like Scott Daruty, one can see how it happened.

[GaryG]

Surely there is a best list, no?There is a link at the top of the page. Glad to see bookmaker is rated A+ as it works well for me.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If handle were up modestly this yr at Santa Anita, would anyone here admit this executive was correct? I'm not making any predictions. I'd just like to get some success/failure metrics in place before the takeout hike - so what is Dean's camp predicting will happen to Santa Anita's handle this yr? Please give specific numbers.

I concede we have two variables in place: the conversion back to dirt and the higher takeout. As CJ and others have said, the conversion to dirt could make playing the track difficult as most of the horses will show synthetic form most recently. In the very short term, that could hurt handle. In the intermediate to long term, the conversion back to dirt is absolutely a positive, imo.

So for those who are absolutely convinced track mgt is nuts (maybe they are...I don't have a strong opinion), please layout the handle scenario for the meet that proves your point. Again, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other. I just want numbers, so we can say who was right or wrong.

[cj]

So for those who are absolutely convinced track mgt is nuts (maybe they are...I don't have a strong opinion), please layout the handle scenario for the meet that proves your point. Again, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other. I just want numbers, so we can say who was right or wrong.

Takeout has been going up for years, while handle and purses have not. When adjusted for inflation and slots welfare, the evidence is already there. They are wrong.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

If handle were up modestly this yr at Santa Anita, would anyone here admit this executive was correct? I'm not making any predictions. I'd just like to get some success/failure metrics in place before the takeout hike - so what is Dean's camp predicting will happen to Santa Anita's handle this yr? Please give specific numbers.

I concede we have two variables in place: the conversion back to dirt and the higher takeout. As CJ and others have said, the conversion to dirt could make playing the track difficult as most of the horses will show synthetic form most recently. In the very short term, that could hurt handle. In the intermediate to long term, the conversion back to dirt is absolutely a positive, imo.

So for those who are absolutely convinced track mgt is nuts (maybe they are...I don't have a strong opinion), please layout the handle scenario for the meet that proves your point. Again, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other. I just want numbers, so we can say who was right or wrong.

Effects of takeout hikes or drops usually takes a couple of years before the dust really clears. This is not a cop out, just fact.
Also, any short gains or losses need to be compared with other tracks. For instance, if handle has bottomed out as some are saying, we should see an increase almost everywhere. The national trend is what it needs to be compared to.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So far two high-level responses. Anyone want to put some numbers out there for the Santa Anita meet?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

So far two high-level responses. Anyone want to put some numbers out there for the Santa Anita meet?
10-15% less in handle than they would have got without the takeout hike :) , and this will only get worse as time goes on for California.
They are going from 5 days a week to 4, which is an automatic to raise takeout per day, or it should be.
They also have the Mid Atlantic Co-op going for them this year (they were not taking SA until around mid January last year I believe). However, they may or may not have Twinspires...last I saw, it isn't official yet that they will carry SA for Sunday, though I believe it will be worked out.
Now, players are pissed over this hike, and I expect some push back. Maybe lots of push back. We'll see.
I'm predicting industry handle in January to be down 2% over the year before since you asked for crystal balls to be whipped out.

[andymays]

If handle were up modestly this yr at Santa Anita, would anyone here admit this executive was correct? I'm not making any predictions. I'd just like to get some success/failure metrics in place before the takeout hike - so what is Dean's camp predicting will happen to Santa Anita's handle this yr? Please give specific numbers.

I concede we have two variables in place: the conversion back to dirt and the higher takeout. As CJ and others have said, the conversion to dirt could make playing the track difficult as most of the horses will show synthetic form most recently. In the very short term, that could hurt handle. In the intermediate to long term, the conversion back to dirt is absolutely a positive, imo.

So for those who are absolutely convinced track mgt is nuts (maybe they are...I don't have a strong opinion), please layout the handle scenario for the meet that proves your point. Again, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other. I just want numbers, so we can say who was right or wrong.


I believe last meet the daily average handle was off about 11%.

If it doesn't rain on Sunday I think handle will be up 10% and opening week will be up over last meet. As the meet goes on and field size decreases the weight of the takeout raise will drag the handle down.

The other thing we're going to find out is if all the people who claim they bet a lot of money on California races are telling us the truth. If they keep their commitments and aren't exaggerating how much they bet then the handle should drop 15% or more when a boycott starts. We'll see. One thing I do know is that after opening day they will declare victory over any boycott even though an organized boycott will not have started. That's what they've always done and that's what they will do.

Someone should make it very clear that anything organized will not happen until January or the middle of January. It has to be clear or they will spin opening day/opening week as a victory over any boycott.

[Deepsix]

Pretty sleepy stuff from you AndyM. Take a break, enjoy the holiday, come back as refreshed as the SA/CHRB will be. lol

Merry Christmas......

[DeanT]

If handle were up modestly this yr at Santa Anita, would anyone here admit this executive was correct? I'm not making any predictions. I'd just like to get some success/failure metrics in place before the takeout hike - so what is Dean's camp predicting will happen to Santa Anita's handle this yr? Please give specific numbers.

I concede we have two variables in place: the conversion back to dirt and the higher takeout. As CJ and others have said, the conversion to dirt could make playing the track difficult as most of the horses will show synthetic form most recently. In the very short term, that could hurt handle. In the intermediate to long term, the conversion back to dirt is absolutely a positive, imo.

So for those who are absolutely convinced track mgt is nuts (maybe they are...I don't have a strong opinion), please layout the handle scenario for the meet that proves your point. Again, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other. I just want numbers, so we can say who was right or wrong.

No one can give specific numbers Steve. That is futile and it misses the point completely. Handle will go down over time and it will take time; it always does. Calder handle did not go down day one, it took awhile. Hong Kong handle did not go up day one or month one, it took time. In the end - a takeout hike hurts handle - economics 101, but there is no real time frame, and with myriad factors involved (including but not limited to changes in number of races, racedate, surface changes and all the rest) it is difficult. As to your question, an advisor to HANA with a phd in economics is planning to hopefully run some regressions and standardize some data, but according to that person, even that is difficult in the short term.

Blog post on some of your queries.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Takeout Increase Signed in California


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CG5TVR2hGjE/TJw4CUaCsOI/AAAAAAAAASU/-qrGO6lAiF4/s400/green-arrow.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CG5TVR2hGjE/TJw4CUaCsOI/AAAAAAAAASU/-qrGO6lAiF4/s1600/green-arrow.jpg) Today the California governor signed the California thoroughbred tracks takeout increase (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/59026/schwarzenegger-signs-calif-takeout-increase) into law.

For exacta players, you are particularly getting a poor deal. The 22.68% takeout is punishing. In fact, California exacta wagers are now the 60th worse value bet for that choice (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbyexactatakeout2010.html) on the entire continent. They just edge out Los Alamitos, who as everyone knows, hiked take this spring (and suffered tremendously).

It will be interesting to see the effects. Handle will go down over time, that is assured. But by how much?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CG5TVR2hGjE/TJw_RMRRYII/AAAAAAAAASk/SGpgBvyhirk/s320/FanSignGenerator.com.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CG5TVR2hGjE/TJw_RMRRYII/AAAAAAAAASk/SGpgBvyhirk/s1600/FanSignGenerator.com.jpg)When speaking to our economic adviser here at HANA on takeout, they pointed us to the duration element in terms of analyzing this hike. As we all are well aware, a price increase does not affect demand overnight - it is a slow grind. So, as Tampa Bay Downs, who has lowered takeout since 2001, has grown their business and handles incrementally over time, the opposite happens with a takeout hike.

For example, from Wikipedia:

"Duration: for most goods, the longer a price change holds, the higher the elasticity is likely to be, as more and more consumers find they have the time and inclination to search for substitutes. When fuel prices increase suddenly, for instance, consumers may still fill up their empty tanks in the short run, but when prices remain high over several years, more consumers will reduce their demand for fuel by switching to carpooling or public transportation, investing in vehicles with greater fuel economy or taking other measures."

This economic principle helps explain the slow burn of handle over the last decade (people going slowly broke, searching for other games to gamble etc), as well as explaining how short term reductions never do a lick of good. People do not just leave day one, they simply find they have less money over time, and leave one by one, hurting our growth. Even in Hong Kong, who lowered takeout effectively by 2% in 2006 to try and stem seven straight years of handle losses, the positive metrics (an increase in handle and a 9% increase in purses), were not felt until late in the year.

One might have the opinion that in two or three years, California and the CHRB will be back, asking for another increase, because this one did not do what they wanted it to do (remember, this same jurisdiction raised take only five years ago to "fix problems").

It's what racing does because we have a dearth of leadership and do not manage based on fact, a business case and sound economics, but on emotion, and band-aids. Appeasement and the path of least resistance is not a policy; it is an albatross in an industry devoid of ideas. It will continue to resurface, until we put people in charge who embrace change, respect and a modern vision with regard to their dwindling base of customers.

[Saratoga_Mike]

No one can give specific numbers Steve. That is futile and it misses the point completely. Handle will go down over time and it will take time; it always does. Calder handle did not go down day one, it took awhile. Hong Kong handle did not go up day one or month one, it took time. In the end - a takeout hike hurts handle - economics 101, but there is no real time frame, and with myriad factors involved (including but not limited to changes in number of races, racedate, surface changes and all the rest) it is difficult. As to your question, an advisor to HANA with a phd in economics is planning to hopefully run some regressions and standardize some data, but according to that person, even that is difficult in the short term.

Blog post on some of your queries.

If you can't give me specific handle metrics, I can't judge whether you're right or wrong. I want numbers for Santa Anita. If you'd like to make longer term projections, that's fine although I'd much prefer numbers for the current meet.

[DeanT]

If you can't give me specific handle metrics, I can't judge whether you're right or wrong.

That's what racing is counting on.

We are asking players to judge based on not what people tell them, but by educating themselves on wagering economics and listening to a business case, based on fact, standardized. We try our best on that.

At Los Al this year an advisor to us ran the numbers. On track handle was off 26%, out of state handle much less. That person concluded, with sound judgment and a knowledge of economics and statistics, that standardized it was brutal.

In response, someone from the CHRB/Los Al, produced numbers based on "per day handle", and "per race handle" saying all was fine and dandy.

We all know that if a track adds two horses per race, races 12 races a day two days a week, and compares those two days to 9 races a day with six horse fields, over five days a week from the previous year will show an increase in handle per race/per day. But overall handle is getting killed.

The press and players have to hold the feet to the fire on this. We are going to do our best with sound logic and pure numbers from wagering economists, and we want people to know that with that, at least you are getting a sound picture on what's happening, rather than getting spin from a braintrust that has driven us off a handle cliff, more worried about protecting their ass.

This is a complex issue, with complex problems. Our goal is to present that in a sound way, so we can move forward. It is not about right and wrong, it is about growing handle so this business can finally grow.

[DJofSD]

Can you say the change from dirt to AWS represents the same amount of uncertainty as the change from AWS back to dirt?

[Southieboy]

The Pick 4 is a $1 minimum.

[cj]

Can you say the change from dirt to AWS represents the same amount of uncertainty as the change from AWS back to dirt?

Not really, because most people had a good idea how synthetics were playing by then.

[JustRalph]

one thing I can assure you, the amount of handle coming out of my pocket will be exactly 100 % less than it was last year

[Kelso]

If you can't give me specific handle metrics, I can't judge whether you're right or wrong. I want numbers for Santa Anita. If you'd like to make longer term projections, that's fine although I'd much prefer numbers for the current meet.


What "specific handle metrics" have you received from CHRB? Have you asked them for their projections? They're the ones raising your transaction-cost of doing business with them.

Have you asked Santa Anita what "numbers for the current meet" they expect? Do you think they should have worked those numbers thoroughly before deciding to raise prices on your wagers and should, therefor, have them readily available to show you?

[Saratoga_Mike]

What "specific handle metrics" have you received from CHRB? Have you asked them for their projections? They're the ones raising your transaction-cost of doing business with them.

Have you asked Santa Anita what "numbers for the current meet" they expect? Do you think they should have worked those numbers thoroughly before deciding to raise prices on your wagers and should, therefor, have them readily available to show you?

As stated, I have no real opinion on the matter. I did expect this type of response, though.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

What "specific handle metrics" have you received from CHRB? Have you asked them for their projections? They're the ones raising your transaction-cost of doing business with them.

Have you asked Santa Anita what "numbers for the current meet" they expect? Do you think they should have worked those numbers thoroughly before deciding to raise prices on your wagers and should, therefor, have them readily available to show you?
I believe the California board believes that buying an "entertainment ticket" on a race in California in 2011 is like buying a car where the commission to the salesman has gone up, but the price of the car has remained the same.

They expect handle to remain the same, just as car sales would remain the same if the price of cars didn't rise.

[Kelso]

As stated, I have no real opinion on the matter. I did expect this type of response, though.


I didn't ask for your "opinion on the matter." I asked if you had demanded the same information from CHRB and SAX that you are pressing those who oppose their price hikes to provide. I ask it again.

Have no idea what "this type of response" means. Would you kindly explain it?

(And at least you got what you expected. I was expecting a response from you to my questions. I didn't get one of any "type.")

[Saratoga_Mike]

I didn't ask for your "opinion on the matter." I asked if you had demanded the same information from CHRB and SAX that you are pressing those who oppose their price hikes to provide. I ask it again.

Have no idea what "this type of response" means. Would you kindly explain it?

(And at least you got what you expected. I was expecting a response from you to my questions. I didn't get one of any "type.")

If they were on the board, I'd ask them. If you arranged a meeting for me, I'd certainly ask them. Absolutely.

[Stillriledup]

Here's one non-takeout point of view and one takeout point of view on why you should avoid betting on Santa Anita.

1) Here's a scenario. Lets say that a horse runs his eyeballs out opening week and wins or runs great. This particular horse wakes up the next morning dead lame. They fix him up, stick him back in the entry box and he shows up 2 weeks later and YOU bet him because he looks great on paper, looks great on tape and figures to run well. He goes off a 'good price', you bet him and he doesnt run a lick. This COULD happen to a lot of horses at Santa Anita in the first few weeks just because of the change in surfaces. I don't know that it will happen, but it could....why take that chance that what you see on paper isn't going to matter for some of these horses?

Personally, if you are dead set on betting Santa Anita and you don't care about your fellow horseplayer and you don't care about takeout rates, just be very careful analyzing the form on paper......it may get very old for you very fast if a lot of horses 'bounce to the moon' after their first start over the new surface.

2) Other tracks are watching. Santa Anita raises takeout and you people bet your little hearts out anyway, other places are going to say "Hmmmm, that looks interesting, we can do that also, lets jack up the rates 2 percent, it worked for Calif, why won't it work for us?" So just remember, if you are a person who bets more than one track or circuit, and you patronize Santa Anita, every dollar you sink into their pools could be the dollar that breaks your back at another track down the line. If you're not a sophisticated guy and you just love going out to the old race place for a day of 'entertainment' just be warned that you are getting back less money on your bets, whether you see it or not. Those 7.80 winners you got last year aren't going to pay 7.80 anymore.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Here's one non-takeout point of view and one takeout point of view on why you should avoid betting on Santa Anita.

1) Here's a scenario. Lets say that a horse runs his eyeballs out opening week and wins or runs great. This particular horse wakes up the next morning dead lame. They fix him up, stick him back in the entry box and he shows up 2 weeks later and YOU bet him because he looks great on paper, looks great on tape and figures to run well. He goes off a 'good price', you bet him and he doesnt run a lick. This COULD happen to a lot of horses at Santa Anita in the first few weeks just because of the change in surfaces. I don't know that it will happen, but it could....why take that chance that what you see on paper isn't going to matter for some of these horses?



I know you aren't saying this is going to happen, but what's the genesis of your thoughts? I believe a number of trainers/owners have moved horses to the east coast over the past couple of yrs. Is there evidence that these horses have come up lame after their first switch to dirt from synthetics?

As for not sticking with your fellow horseplayers, if you knew for a fact you could make $25k to $30k at the Santa Anita meet, I'd bet a lot of money you'd be playing. Me, I've rarely played Cali since the switch to synthetics. I'm happy about the switch back to dirt, but it may take 8 to 10 weeks before horses show a few dirt lines in their PPs. In any case, I may play Santa Anita three or four times this yr, compared with maybe once last yr (not even sure if I played once). And I won't bet that much on Cali racing, even on the dirt, maybe $20/race to $40/race. To me, there is an entertainment factor. I know that isn't the case for a lot of people.

[toussaud]

it's a hard knock life, for us, it's a hard knock life, for us
Steada treated, we get tricked
Steada kisses, we get kicked
it's a hard knock life!

that is the horse players anthem.

[Deepsix]

Yeah,,,,, the gangsta rap riff..... its a hard life for horseplayers.

[Stillriledup]

I know you aren't saying this is going to happen, but what's the genesis of your thoughts? I believe a number of trainers/owners have moved horses to the east coast over the past couple of yrs. Is there evidence that these horses have come up lame after their first switch to dirt from synthetics?

As for not sticking with your fellow horseplayers, if you knew for a fact you could make $25k to $30k at the Santa Anita meet, I'd bet a lot of money you'd be playing. Me, I've rarely played Cali since the switch to synthetics. I'm happy about the switch back to dirt, but it may take 8 to 10 weeks before horses show a few dirt lines in their PPs. In any case, I may play Santa Anita three or four times this yr, compared with maybe once last yr (not even sure if I played once). And I won't bet that much on Cali racing, even on the dirt, maybe $20/race to $40/race. To me, there is an entertainment factor. I know that isn't the case for a lot of people.


I'm just throwing it out there, this could happen, there's no established form on this new track. Hopefully the horse population takes to the dirt like a duck to water and there are no lameness problems with horses acclimating to the new digs.

If i knew for a fact i could make money, i'd probably play....problem is, you never know for any fact that you can make money anywhere. There's no facts when it comes to making money. If you're that good that you can know for sure you're going to make 30k you can probably make 30k at almost any track you put your mind to.

[bob60566]

Here's one non-takeout point of view and one takeout point of view on why you should avoid betting on Santa Anita.

1) Here's a scenario. Lets say that a horse runs his eyeballs out opening week and wins or runs great. This particular horse wakes up the next morning dead lame. They fix him up, stick him back in the entry box and he shows up 2 weeks later and YOU bet him because he looks great on paper, looks great on tape and figures to run well. He goes off a 'good price', you bet him and he doesnt run a lick. This COULD happen to a lot of horses at Santa Anita in the first few weeks just because of the change in surfaces. I don't know that it will happen, but it could....why take that chance that what you see on paper isn't going to matter for some of these horses?

Personally, if you are dead set on betting Santa Anita and you don't care about your fellow horseplayer and you don't care about takeout rates, just be very careful analyzing the form on paper......it may get very old for you very fast if a lot of horses 'bounce to the moon' after their first start over the new surface.

2) Other tracks are watching. Santa Anita raises takeout and you people bet your little hearts out anyway, other places are going to say "Hmmmm, that looks interesting, we can do that also, lets jack up the rates 2 percent, it worked for Calif, why won't it work for us?" So just remember, if you are a person who bets more than one track or circuit, and you patronize Santa Anita, every dollar you sink into their pools could be the dollar that breaks your back at another track down the line. If you're not a sophisticated guy and you just love going out to the old race place for a day of 'entertainment' just be warned that you are getting back less money on your bets, whether you see it or not. Those 7.80 winners you got last year aren't going to pay 7.80 anymore.
Just to keep this thread active how many claiming horses are able to win back to back races and for tht matter ??.There was one last week at Hollywood four in row and won as chalk the % tell me to pass in claiming on winners last time out
Bob:)

[Saratoga_Mike]

If i knew for a fact i could make money, i'd probably play....problem is, you never know for any fact that you can make money anywhere. There's no facts when it comes to making money. If you're that good that you can know for sure you're going to make 30k you can probably make 30k at almost any track you put your mind to.

But then you'd be crossing the picket line, abandoning your horseplayers' brotherhood and sisterhood.

Anyway, I try to breakeven each yr, but usually end up losing some money. Like I said, for me, there's a big entertainment component. But I appreciate that isn't true for a lot of players.

[toussaud]

Yeah,,,,, the gangsta rap riff..... its a hard life for horseplayers.
while jay z did sing the song, i was referring to this version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR80EEsWauU

[ronsmac]

The takeout hike doesn't apply to WPS. But since bettors will be wiped out quicker over time, especially the dummy money, there will be a lot less value even on WPS bets in California as time goes by.
So cal is probably the toughest circuit in the country , a 10% takeout their would still be a tough place to win consistently. I've been betting So Cal exclusively since 98 and 2010 was the first yr I stopped.

[toussaud]

even with the takeout being what it is, it's still tough because of the 4-6 horse fields.

takeout is only half the equation, field size is the other half

[Stillriledup]

But then you'd be crossing the picket line, abandoning your horseplayers' brotherhood and sisterhood.

Anyway, I try to breakeven each yr, but usually end up losing some money. Like I said, for me, there's a big entertainment component. But I appreciate that isn't true for a lot of players.

But i wouldnt cross the pickit line because i know how hard this game is. Nothing is guaranteed, i wouldnt be so cocky as to think that i was definitely going to win for the meet. I can be confident in success, but i can never be sure. This is a game where if you're too cocky the gambling gods have a way of finding you and putting you in your place.

I'm willing to sacrifice my own personal enjoyment for a short period of time the good of the game.

[Stillriledup]

Just to keep this thread active how many claiming horses are able to win back to back races and for tht matter ??.There was one last week at Hollywood four in row and won as chalk the % tell me to pass in claiming on winners last time out
Bob:)
You're missing the point. I just used that as an example. I wasn't telling you to pass on winners, i was trying to illustrate that you need to be careful with horses who run big first out if they don't have any recent 'dirt' form. This happened a lot at Del Mar, horses would fire huge opening week and then the next time they ran, they underachieved. This can cost you money if you're not careful.

[Kelso]

If they were on the board, I'd ask them. If you arranged a meeting for me, I'd certainly ask them. Absolutely.



Mike, meet Keith Brackpool. Keith is the Executive Director of the CHRB: KEBreed@chrb.ca.gov (KEBreed@chrb.ca.gov)

And this here is George Haines, Mike. Georgie is President of Santa Anita: Contact | Santa Anita Park (http://www.santaanita.com/contact)


Both of these fellas would love to hear from you and are eager, I'm certain, to provide detailed responses to your all of your questions. Just use the convenient links, above.

(Of course, both of these track titans lead quite busy and productive lives, straightening out the California racing industry's problems 'n all ... so do not hesitate to keep after them for complete answers to all of your questions. Since they greatly respect horse players, and hold gamblers' persistance in high regard, they'll probably appreciate at least a daily reminder that you're still waiting for their answers.)

Please don't hesitate to share with us, here at PA, all the details of the responses I fully expect you'll demand and receive from Keith and George. They're a swell couple o' guys!

[BlueShoe]

Gee, I feel so honored, and so should all of us on PA. :rolleyes: According to George H., only .1% of all players care about takeout. :liar: That means that we are one-in-a-thousand. Haines remarks were in Sundays DRF for all to see, and have to wonder if his contemptuous attitude toward players created more anger than he expected. Mr. Haines should perhaps recalculate his opinions, since word and concern about the hike is trickling down to the average and casual racing fan that bets California. With attitudes like this from top management and an ineffective CHRB, we may be facing a hopeless task in trying to reverse the steady decline of racing in California.:(