Gulfstream Handle Booming [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Horseplayersbet.com

02-07-2011, 09:40 AM

I guess Santa Anita management was right then too. Takeout raises don't matter but full fields do. They were just too far gone to get the full fields.
Takeout matter a lot. Usually takes a year or two to see effects from hikes or drops though. Field size is more immediate. Percentage takeout increases and decreases are more important in the long run than percentage field size increases and decreases. Purse amounts mean very little on handle though.

Tampa Bay has been kicking butt this year, and their takeout has been decreasing year after year.

I think a lot of Santa Anita boycotters have shifted to GP and Tampa Bay. But it is pretty clear that Santa Anita is being avoided by some Horseplayers, and we are not just seeing a decrease because of churn only. That will come over time if they don't rescind the hike.

Yesterday for example, Tampa Bay was up over half a million in handle over the same Super Bowl Sunday a year before, while Santa Anita was down over a million. I don't think there has been a significant change in field size at either track this year.

Robert Goren

02-07-2011, 09:53 AM

We were told by the anti poly crowd that trainers weren't entering horses in S. Cal. last year because of the surface. I guess that theory is down the toilet.

the little guy

02-07-2011, 09:57 AM

Takeout matter a lot. Usually takes a year or two to see effects from hikes or drops though. Field size is more immediate. Percentage takeout increases and decreases are more important in the long run than percentage field size increases and decreases. Purse amounts mean very little on handle though.

Tampa Bay has been kicking butt this year, and their takeout has been decreasing year after year.

I think a lot of Santa Anita boycotters have shifted to GP and Tampa Bay. But it is pretty clear that Santa Anita is being avoided by some Horseplayers, and we are not just seeing a decrease because of churn only. That will come over time if they don't rescind the hike.

Yesterday for example, Tampa Bay was up over half a million in handle over the same Super Bowl Sunday a year before, while Santa Anita was down over a million. I don't think there has been a significant change in field size at either track this year.

Mr. Contradictory Man.

OTM Al

02-07-2011, 10:03 AM

Takeout matter a lot.

It clearly doesn't. At least not in this example.

Robert Goren

02-07-2011, 10:08 AM

Is Gulfstream and/or Tampa showing a profit on their racing operations?

Horseplayersbet.com

02-07-2011, 10:14 AM

Mr. Contradictory Man.
What contradictions?
Handle is up at Tampa because of boycott bettors shifting there, coupled with an increase in followers over the years thanks to the lowering of their takeout.
Handle was down in January, and the amount was higher than just what Santa Anita was down, so we are looking at a lower trend once again. Tampa Bay is bucking the trend.
Overlap isn't the same as contradictions.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-07-2011, 10:16 AM

Is Gulfstream and/or Tampa showing a profit on their racing operations?
Gulfstream now has slots. Generally, you can tell if a track is showing a profit or not by looking at purses. I do know that the trend of handle has been swirling down the toilet the last 6 or 7 years, but Tampa Bay handle has increased and their purses have increased by over 50% in that time without slots.

therussmeister

02-07-2011, 11:01 AM

Tampa has poker, with recently more favorable laws - elimination of maximum allowable bet size. Poker doesn't add as much as slots to purses though.

David-LV

02-07-2011, 11:14 AM

Horseplayersbet.com

02-07-2011, 11:50 AM

One of the main reasons that handle is way up at Gulfstream is that they card a lot of great betting turf races daily with large fields where you can make a big score by putting the right numbers together.

__________
David-LV
The addition of Jessica Pacheco might be contributing to some of the rise.
You have to figure that she most likely got a pay hike to go there, so at least management must believe that her presence would be good for handle, or why bother luring her.

But I think the main reason is that more players are following GP this year, and many of them used to follow California racing, but have been swayed by the 2% increase in blended takeout coupled with good advertising by GP to get the word out that many of their plays are relatively cheap (including the new Pick 5) despite the fact that takeout has increased by .3% blended the last two years. The field size differential between California and GP has definitely helped in selling bettors on GP over California.

But in order to grow from here, I believe GP is going to have start reducing takeouts, or this could be a peak year, which would be too bad considering their momentum.

02-07-2011, 12:09 PM

The addition of Jessica Pacheco might be contributing to some of the rise.

I think this is a bit of a stretch. I guess GP may have thought it would help, but I can't imagine someone betting a track just because of the girl giving the selections. Maybe I'm naive.

OTM Al

02-07-2011, 12:11 PM

One of the main reasons that handle is way up at Gulfstream is that they card a lot of great betting turf races daily with large fields where you can make a big score by putting the right numbers together.

__________
David-LV

So what you are saying here, if I may extrapolate from this point and your first, is that had the increase in purses at SA actually increased field size to where they are at GP, then the increase in takeout at SA would not matter and they would have found the formula to success?

Yes, I am picking on you a bit, but with all the world seeming to be screaming about lowering takeout, to me you are saying it's ok to raise it as long as there are a lot of great turf races every day.

DeanT

02-07-2011, 12:11 PM

I think this is a bit of a stretch. I guess GP may have thought it would help, but I can't imagine someone betting a track just because of the girl giving the selections. Maybe I'm naive.

I bet Mountaineer religiously and I do it because Mark Patterson reminds me of my crazy Uncle Jim. Horseplayerbet might be onto something :)

David-LV

02-07-2011, 12:16 PM

Agreed:

Everything that Gulfstream is doing this year seem to be working, management is listening to their customers which seems to be a first for a major track.

___________
David-LV

The_Knight_Sky

02-07-2011, 12:22 PM

Agreed:

Everything that Gulfstream is doing this year seem to be working, management is listening to their customers which seems to be a first for a major track.

___________
David-LV

We have to thank the Florida Horsemen :ThmbUp: for not trying to run
the racetracks they do not own, the way the California horsemen do.

I'm sure the Stronach management at Santa Anita would prefer
the same M.O. in the Golden State. Their bottom line
should not be at the mercy of non-business people.

David-LV

02-07-2011, 12:34 PM

So what you are saying here, if I may extrapolate from this point and your first, is that had the increase in purses at SA actually increased field size to where they are at GP, then the increase in takeout at SA would not matter and they would have found the formula to success?

Yes, I am picking on you a bit, but with all the world seeming to be screaming about lowering takeout, to me you are saying it's ok to raise it as long as there are a lot of great turf races every day.

Increasing field size helps, but the quality of the horses also is a big thing.

The California model is broken, and I think it will take a major miracle to fix it.

Owning and racing horses in California is for the very wealthy only.

Hollywood is going to have trouble filling their cards for 4 days of racing this year as more and more barns leave California for greener pastures.

Raising the takeout under these conditions did not help.

__________
David-LV

mabred

02-07-2011, 01:03 PM

jessica can really handicap and does her homework!!1

picks lots of winners!!!I listen to her everyday.

mabred

David-LV

02-07-2011, 01:27 PM

jessica can really handicap and does her homework!!1

picks lots of winners!!!I listen to her everyday.

mabred

You are right, she loved Giant Oak $16.80 in the Donn on Saturday.

_________
David-LV

Spiderman

02-07-2011, 01:45 PM

GP racing surface is well-maintained. Very few days with any pronounced bias.
In years past, I stopped playing GP after Florida Derby. Without receiving track feed of nyra races at njbets, I may continue to play GP.

Dahoss9698

02-07-2011, 01:58 PM

Bizzarro world part deux.

toussaud

02-07-2011, 02:36 PM

You are right, she loved Giant Oak $16.80 in the Donn on Saturday.

_________
David-LV
Jessica's Long term ROI on giant oak is probably like -200 % lol. She picks him in every race.

OTM Al

02-07-2011, 03:07 PM

Bizzarro world part deux.

I think it's time to completely give up on logical argument. Thanks for at least being the only person, well I'm sure cj did too, that understood my point.

CincyHorseplayer

02-07-2011, 03:17 PM

The takeout issue between the 2 tracks is definitely valid,but I think the handle speaks volumes.Even in Cincinnati I'm on east coast time and by 6 oclock I'm not really wanting to keep betting,I'm wanting to eat dinner.California has the time zone issue and always has.But the big gig is that they have made themselves a public $hitstorm between the synthetics,cars being keyed,and the utter and documented contempt for horseplayers.That they've been called out and still follow the same gameplan ,they deserve what they are getting.Gulfstream's takeout is still an issue but they haven't taken a crap on players as far as what they are putting on the track.From my purely biased standpoint I hate winter racing in winter conditions and I have no desire to bet til 8 at night,so Gulfstream and Tampa are my 2 betting havens.And I don't think I'm alone in that regard.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-07-2011, 03:22 PM

I guess Santa Anita management was right then too. Takeout raises don't matter but full fields do. They were just too far gone to get the full fields.
Specious logic at best.

OTM Al

02-07-2011, 04:13 PM

Specious logic at best.

Yet that appears exactly what the OP and others are saying.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-07-2011, 04:44 PM

Yet that appears exactly what the OP and others are saying.
Takeout raises matter. We've seen blended takeout rates increase over time (especially lately with supers in just about every race). Yet handle is dropping.
All this while the US government is doing its best to keep alternative internet wagers next to illegal.

Field size matters too. The bigger the field size the more money that will be bet on a race all things being equal. And because of internet and simulcast betting, field size probably matters more than takeout today because bettors may bet back extra money won at one venue into a venue with a higher takeout. But it still doesn't mean that takeout doesn't matter or matters a little. Value players are the biggest players out there today, and net takeout is huge to them.

Purses don't matter that much. If you double a purse, research has shown that you only wind up with 6% more in handle. And obviously purse increases do not equate to larger field size as seen in California.

Do we have evidence that Tampa or GP field size has gone up while Santa Anita has gone down this year? I haven't heard. Yet Tampa and GP are up this year from last, but Santa Anita is down.

Are there players not playing Santa Anita, but playing Tampa and GP instead or more this year? Yes. How many? Who knows.

Are there players playing Santa Anita more because it is dirt now? Probably. More than they've lost due to player waiting it out to see form? Probably.

Are there players betting less because they have less to churn with in Santa Anita even though they might not even care about takeout? Most probably yes.

Does the takeout increase cause price sensitive players to play less? Yes. Probable prices are lower than they used to be.

Do signal fees come into play? Definitely amongst large rebate players and other price sensitive players getting rebates, as larger takeouts create lower prices than before.

Bottom line, there are many reasons for GP and Tampa Bay doing better, but to pin it solely on field size is just disingenuous. In fact, if field size hasn't changed at all at either tracks, this years shift has little to do with field size except as a deciding factor by those who are thinking about the boycott.

CincyHorseplayer

02-07-2011, 04:50 PM

Yeah I'm with Horseplayersbet as far as looking for something beyond 1 liners.What's the "Win" argument here?One track's handle is surging while another is declining.As I said in my last post it's not completely about takeout less than making a spectacle of themselves while putting a crap product on the field.

5k-claim

02-07-2011, 05:10 PM

Takeout matter a lot. Usually takes a year or two to see effects from hikes or drops though.Huh?

The addition of Jessica Pacheco might be contributing to some of the rise.Huh?

Just when I thought I was starting to understand some of this... so a track can raise takeout, but if they hire a girl they can get a two year head-start on negating the effects?

Sounds like a plan.

.

OTM Al

02-07-2011, 05:19 PM

Takeout raises matter....

You have missed the whole point. The OP said

"My hat is off to them, Gulfstream has found the right formula to success."

He is very happy because there are big fields and he's making money. Good for him. However, while throwing in a few gimmicks, they also raised their take. A take that is higher than SA on tris and supers by a couple points. damn right they found the formula to success. They drew them in with the new gimmicks and kept them for the high take bets.

Say SA's plan would have worked like they wanted it to. Return to dirt, raise purses, wave your hands and POOF, big quality fields. Didn't happen, but that's not because those things didn't give the incentive. The horse population is not as mobile as they envisioned. But what if it had been? What if thier fields went up to the same size as GP? Would everybody just say, "Oh what great value and opportunities" and up goes the handle? Just like GP?

The only difference between GP and SA is that California was too far gone in other ways. SA's plan didn't work. A guy says GP has the formula to success but I laugh because that formula included a raise in take. Since the renovation I was one of two guys defending GP. Now everyone heaps praise on them. What really changed?

Hey I hope GP works with people like Dean and Jeff and lower the take in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. Isn't this the 3rd new management team in the last 3 years? Enjoy the waltz down the primrose path. Hope I don't say told you so a year from now.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-07-2011, 05:22 PM

Huh?

Huh?

Just when I thought I was starting to understand some of this... so a track can raise takeout, but if they hire a girl they can get a two year head-start on negating the effects?

Sounds like a plan.

.
Huh 1) It takes time for takeout hikes to take its toll on every day players. Less money to churn occurs right away, but customer's coming back less and less or not at all while finding new ways to spend their time takes a while when it comes to seeing a full impact.

Huh 2) I didn't say a pretty face negates a takeout rise. But it might cause more relative betting. In other words, if Santa Anita hired Jessica, they might be down only 14.5% in handle as opposed to 15% (whatever the real number is). And GP may be up only 9.5% (instead of 10%) without her. Again, this is an unproven guess, but if it wasn't true, why not just stick with bald slightly overweight guys like me. They probably could get bald analysts a lot cheaper.

Stillriledup

02-07-2011, 06:06 PM

You have missed the whole point. The OP said

"My hat is off to them, Gulfstream has found the right formula to success."

He is very happy because there are big fields and he's making money. Good for him. However, while throwing in a few gimmicks, they also raised their take. A take that is higher than SA on tris and supers by a couple points. damn right they found the formula to success. They drew them in with the new gimmicks and kept them for the high take bets.

Say SA's plan would have worked like they wanted it to. Return to dirt, raise purses, wave your hands and POOF, big quality fields. Didn't happen, but that's not because those things didn't give the incentive. The horse population is not as mobile as they envisioned. But what if it had been? What if thier fields went up to the same size as GP? Would everybody just say, "Oh what great value and opportunities" and up goes the handle? Just like GP?

The only difference between GP and SA is that California was too far gone in other ways. SA's plan didn't work. A guy says GP has the formula to success but I laugh because that formula included a raise in take. Since the renovation I was one of two guys defending GP. Now everyone heaps praise on them. What really changed?

Hey I hope GP works with people like Dean and Jeff and lower the take in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. Isn't this the 3rd new management team in the last 3 years? Enjoy the waltz down the primrose path. Hope I don't say told you so a year from now.

This is a good post, this is what i've been saying, California did nothing to help themselves out of this mess. They just said, "screw it, lets let the gamblers pay for everything"

Than, the gave each other a standing ovation (instead of a standing 8 count)

Cardus

02-07-2011, 06:47 PM

fmolf

02-07-2011, 08:18 PM

I think that you are being a bit kind.
handle is up because during the winter their is an influx of snowbirds and canadian retirees to the Tampa an miami areas.These people have the resources and the time to go to the track and gamble.gulfstream has the slots for the wives as well.

02-07-2011, 08:19 PM

handle is up because during the winter their is an influx of snowbirds and canadian retirees to the Tampa an miami areas.These people have the resources and the time to go to the track and gamble.gulfstream has the slots for the wives as well.

Didn't those same people head south last year too?

the little guy

02-07-2011, 08:45 PM

Didn't those same people head south last year too?

No, it's a completely different group ( as it is every year....dummy ), and they are betting more ( into the on-track handle.....you know.....the one that makes up 10% of the total handle ).

CincyHorseplayer

02-07-2011, 09:14 PM

Allright I've been trying to find the crux of this thread and OTM Al said it;

"The only difference between GP and SA is that California was too far gone in other ways. SA's plan didn't work."

Alpha.Omega.

chickenhead

02-07-2011, 09:28 PM

CincyHorseplayer

02-07-2011, 09:47 PM

toussaud

02-08-2011, 01:16 AM

I've been accused and found guilty of favoring certain breakfast spots due to hot waitresses, but I can't imagine betting a track because of some hotness on TV.

Is Gulfstream's field size even up appreciably this year over last? I just assumed people liked their bet selection a lot more...considering that is the biggest thing that changed this year to last, I assumed that was probably the reason for any increased wagering...what am I missing?
Hot waitresses is the only reason chili's is in business lol. It's defiantly not their food.

I'm not going to say I play certain tracks becuase of a pretty woman, but it defiantly doesn't hurt. It's a pro in a list of pros and cons I suppose. If I am debating on playing Arlington park and ellis park race that goes off within 5 minutes of each other.. and all else being equal, I'd probably lean towards Arlington park.

Dahoss9698

02-08-2011, 02:09 AM

I'm not going to say I play certain tracks becuase of a pretty woman, but it defiantly doesn't hurt. It's a pro in a list of pros and cons I suppose. If I am debating on playing Arlington park and ellis park race that goes off within 5 minutes of each other.. and all else being equal, I'd probably lean towards Arlington park.

Wow....

Horseplayersbet.com

02-08-2011, 08:13 AM

Wow....
I don't know what is so amazing here. Isn't there a high percentage of TV commercials that use sex to sell? Are you saying they are barking up the wrong tree?
What do you think the idea was behind the Beulah Twins?

ranchwest

02-08-2011, 08:39 AM

When was the last time any of you had a grip on what the SA surface was like? It's the surface of the week and has been for years.

I know handle, Jessica, slots, good management, etc. make a difference, but the changes to the racing surface have taken a toll. Think about it. Every change was going to be an improvement.

OTM Al

02-08-2011, 09:24 AM

Wow....

Some days I feel like a complete fool for not being able to beat the game....

johnhannibalsmith

02-08-2011, 09:53 AM

Hmmm....

I'm getting worried... I seem to gravitate towards NYRA... but, I think it's just... his voice reminds me of my ex-girlfriend Myra....

castaway01

02-08-2011, 10:08 AM

I don't know what is so amazing here. Isn't there a high percentage of TV commercials that use sex to sell? Are you saying they are barking up the wrong tree?
What do you think the idea was behind the Beulah Twins?

I wasn't sure if you were joking or not, but since you appear to be serious...when the Beulah twins were hired, Beulah was a nothing track running against little competition on Mondays and Tuesdays, so putting two relatively attractive blondes on the screen did help to make bettors aware the track even existed. I agree with that. Obviously bettors in 2011 are already aware of Gulfstream though, and I don't think having an attractive woman discussing the races would make anyone say, "Gee, I didn't want to bet this 5-horse field, but she's just so hot that I have to put $100 to win on someone!"

Gulfstream has had good racing this winter, so handle is up. Tampa has had good betting races for a while, so its handle continues to rise. It's pretty simple.

toussaud

02-08-2011, 10:20 AM

I wasn't sure if you were joking or not, but since you appear to be serious...when the Beulah twins were hired, Beulah was a nothing track running against little competition on Mondays and Tuesdays, so putting two relatively attractive blondes on the screen did help to make bettors aware the track even existed. I agree with that. Obviously bettors in 2011 are already aware of Gulfstream though, and I don't think having an attractive woman discussing the races would make anyone say, "Gee, I didn't want to bet this 5-horse field, but she's just so hot that I have to put $100 to win on someone!"

Gulfstream has had good racing this winter, so handle is up. Tampa has had good betting races for a while, so its handle continues to rise. It's pretty simple.
I guess you just completely decided to ignore the part when I said all things being equal. Which doesn't surprise me one bit however. AS much as you guys like to gripe about the Santa Anita one liners, alot of people here do the same thing. I'm just keeping it real guys.

I I am looking at an 8 horse field at Ellis park and an 8 horse field at Arlington, 2 turf races, 2 high level claiming races (I tend to like to wager on better quality races) that go off within 3-5 minutes of each other and I have to pick one to handicap.. I'm probably going to go with Arlington park over ellis park. That and I like John Dooley as well. There are alot of factors that go into why someone plays a track. While a cute paddock girl, isn't a deciding factor, it's a factor. I haven't played Turfway park in ages, I wonder why lol. Presentation means something rather you want to admit it or not.

GameTheory

02-08-2011, 10:30 AM

I don't think having an attractive woman discussing the races would make anyone say, "Gee, I didn't want to bet this 5-horse field, but she's just so hot that I have to put $100 to win on someone!"I think it would be a more subtle effect than that. Maybe you keep her on the screen more cause you find her pleasant. Now you're thinking about this track and this upcoming race rather than some other one at some other track. So that's where your money tends to go. Plus it just improves the image of that track in your mind, leading unconsciously to more positive feelings about it, etc etc. I think plenty of psychological studies will show that a good-looking person as the face of your business will have a positive effect over some ugly fat slob, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. Now if the girl was a stupid ditz, and the fat slob was brilliant, that might counter-balance but by all accounts Jessica is pretty sharp. (I don't pay attention to any of them, so I don't know how sharp.) Rationality and logic don't really come into it. We are influenced by all sorts of things we don't realize whether we like it or not, and this has been proven over and over.

Valuist

02-08-2011, 10:42 AM

Attractiveness of a public handicapper is a factor in betting handle? :lol: That might be the funniest thing I've ever read.

Hey, Little Guy, maybe NYRA brought you in to get the female money.

CincyHorseplayer

02-08-2011, 10:49 AM

I guess you just completely decided to ignore the part when I said all things being equal. Which doesn't surprise me one bit however. AS much as you guys like to gripe about the Santa Anita one liners, alot of people here do the same thing. I'm just keeping it real guys.

I I am looking at an 8 horse field at Ellis park and an 8 horse field at Arlington, 2 turf races, 2 high level claiming races (I tend to like to wager on better quality races) that go off within 3-5 minutes of each other and I have to pick one to handicap.. I'm probably going to go with Arlington park over ellis park. That and I like John Dooley as well. There are alot of factors that go into why someone plays a track. While a cute paddock girl, isn't a deciding factor, it's a factor. I haven't played Turfway park in ages, I wonder why lol. Presentation means something rather you want to admit it or not.

This is a vague answer.Too many assumptions that don't look at the reality that "Good" races are totally subjective.If I'm looking at a 2500 N2L race at Beulah that is competitive vs a N1X Turf at SA that has a bunch of also rans,those vague assumptions are meaningless.I suggest you take the 3rd grade math teacher approach and grade races on the letter scale.Then bet accordingly.There is no inherent "Class",just good and bad races.

CincyHorseplayer

02-08-2011, 10:50 AM

Attractiveness of a public handicapper is a factor in betting handle? :lol: That might be the funniest thing I've ever read.

Hey, Little Guy, maybe NYRA brought you in to get the female money.

Hey,now we know why some of these ham slammers refuse to go to live racing!!!:D

chalucce

02-08-2011, 10:51 AM

Well,I have been betting GP (and Tam) because the eastern tracks have had either bad surface problems or have been cancelled alltogether. I'm probably not alone and this may contribute to pool increases in Fla.
I like tracks with consistent field sizes and common claiming conditions, this may have been the reason for mountaineers success a few years ago (as well as the avuncular Mark P )

Horseplayersbet.com

02-08-2011, 10:51 AM

I think it would be a more subtle effect than that. Maybe you keep her on the screen more cause you find her pleasant. Now you're thinking about this track and this upcoming race rather than some other one at some other track. So that's where your money tends to go. Plus it just improves the image of that track in your mind, leading unconsciously to more positive feelings about it, etc etc. I think plenty of psychological studies will show that a good-looking person as the face of your business will have a positive effect over some ugly fat slob, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. Now if the girl was a stupid ditz, and the fat slob was brilliant, that might counter-balance but by all accounts Jessica is pretty sharp. (I don't pay attention to any of them, so I don't know how sharp.) Rationality and logic don't really come into it. We are influenced by all sorts of things we don't realize whether we like it or not, and this has been proven over and over.
Yep. Whether we know it or not too.
It is kind of like takeout. Most bettors don't know or care about it, but it affects all of them, especially in the long run.

Dahoss9698

02-08-2011, 11:25 AM

I don't know what is so amazing here. Isn't there a high percentage of TV commercials that use sex to sell? Are you saying they are barking up the wrong tree?
What do you think the idea was behind the Beulah Twins?

You'll never get it.

Sorry if the idea of betting a track strictly because the on air host is attractive is foreign to me. In this day and age you almost have to try your best not to see a hot girl during the day. Maybe I'm in the minority, but when I'm betting, I'm betting. I don't care what or who the on air host is. Why should I?

Dahoss9698

02-08-2011, 11:27 AM

Some days I feel like a complete fool for not being able to beat the game....

When you look at the competition, it can definitely be frustrating. I hear ya.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-08-2011, 11:31 AM

You'll never get it.

Sorry if the idea of betting a track strictly because the on air host is attractive is foreign to me. In this day and age you almost have to try your best not to see a hot girl during the day. Maybe I'm in the minority, but when I'm betting, I'm betting. I don't care what or who the on air host is. Why should I?
At what point do I state that this is the only reason? Where do I even hint that this is the only reason?

No wonder you are stating I'll never get it. You are inventing things about what I've been writing here.

Dahoss9698

02-08-2011, 11:36 AM

At what point do I state that this is the only reason? Where do I even hint that this is the only reason?

No wonder you are stating I'll never get it. You are inventing things about what I've been writing here.

You didn't. Toussaud did and I responded. You asked why I thought it was so amazing.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-08-2011, 11:47 AM

You didn't. Toussaud did and I responded. You asked why I thought it was so amazing.
I just read his post again, and it doesn't imply that the pretty girl was the only reason, only the deciding factor.

BIG49010

02-08-2011, 11:55 AM

GameTheory

02-08-2011, 12:00 PM

Why in the world would anyone think "image doesn't matter"? Is this another economic principle that doesn't apply to horse racing? Let's give another scenario. You want to go to the OTB to do some betting. There are two equally distant from you, and are easy to get to. You can make the same bets either place with the same ease. But one place is clean with good-looking tellers, and the other place is dirty with ugly tellers. Which one are you going to go to? Does it mean you make your bets "on how well the floor is mopped"? Of course not, it just makes more a more pleasant experience and so that is where you are drawn. Duh.

ranchwest

02-08-2011, 12:46 PM

Spent Friday and Saturday live at Gulfstream, and seems to be more french Canadians then I ever remember in the south Florida. I would guess with the loonie and dollar basically even, this brings them here. I see more trainers from Woodbine entering this year, including leading WO trainer Mark CassieAlso if you go to GP live, be very carefull on Hallendale Blvd, the cops are doing there own skim of the patrons going to GP. If you block a side street they have cops pulling you over, for the 115 dollar special.
Back when the Yankees were in spring training in Ft Lauderdale, I went to a game against Montreal. When the Canadian national anthem was played, half the crowd stood and sang. Sometimes you don't realize how many snowbirds there are.

castaway01

02-08-2011, 02:18 PM

I think it would be a more subtle effect than that. Maybe you keep her on the screen more cause you find her pleasant. Now you're thinking about this track and this upcoming race rather than some other one at some other track. So that's where your money tends to go. Plus it just improves the image of that track in your mind, leading unconsciously to more positive feelings about it, etc etc. I think plenty of psychological studies will show that a good-looking person as the face of your business will have a positive effect over some ugly fat slob, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL. Now if the girl was a stupid ditz, and the fat slob was brilliant, that might counter-balance but by all accounts Jessica is pretty sharp. (I don't pay attention to any of them, so I don't know how sharp.) Rationality and logic don't really come into it. We are influenced by all sorts of things we don't realize whether we like it or not, and this has been proven over and over.

Eh, okay, I get what you're saying, but to me she's a very, very, very tiny factor. If you asked if I would rather watch an attractive female give me, say, the weather report than an older unattractive male, sure I would. If she knew what she was talking about, then why not? If you ask me if I'd wager money because an attractive female was hosting a racing telecast, no, that'd be crazy. Looking at her on the screen for 10 seconds is one thing, but actually betting based on that makes no sense. I think full fields and competitive races are the answer here, not Jessica Pacheco.

Dahoss9698

02-08-2011, 02:32 PM

I just read his post again, and it doesn't imply that the pretty girl was the only reason, only the deciding factor.

He said all things equal (whatever that means) he is going to play a track with an attractive host over one without one. As a gambler that is a strange factor to me. Maybe it's me, but I choose my bets based on things other than that.

Apparently I'm in the minority here. No surprise there.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-08-2011, 02:40 PM

He said all things equal (whatever that means) he is going to play a track with an attractive host over one without one. As a gambler that is a strange factor to me. Maybe it's me, but I choose my bets based on things other than that.

Apparently I'm in the minority here. No surprise there.
Again, because he mentioned two tracks Arlington and GP, it appears he is into A tracks, so he already has used a factor in deciding what tracks to play. All things being equal is interpreted to me as equal value, equal field size etc.
Maybe he is cognizant of sex in advertising when most of us are not that much aware of it.

I know I use the mute button for some analysts, but I don't remember ever turning Jessica off.

Dahoss9698

02-08-2011, 02:45 PM

Again, because he mentioned two tracks Arlington and GP, it appears he is into A tracks, so he already has used a factor in deciding what tracks to play. All things being equal is interpreted to me as equal value, equal field size etc.
Maybe he is cognizant of sex in advertising when most of us are not that much aware of it.

I know I use the mute button for some analysts, but I don't remember ever turning Jessica off.

Actually the two tracks he mentioned in the post I was responding to were Ellis and Arlington. Tracks with different surfaces on the main track and entirely different levels of racing.

People weren't betting or tuning into Monmouth last summer because Brad Thomas is a hottie. Field size was up and Thomas is one of the best analysts around.

thaskalos

02-08-2011, 02:46 PM

He said all things equal (whatever that means) he is going to play a track with an attractive host over one without one. As a gambler that is a strange factor to me. Maybe it's me, but I choose my bets based on things other than that.

Apparently I'm in the minority here. No surprise there.In all my years of betting...I have never been enticed to bet one dollar by the attractiveness of the track host.

Arlington Park is my host track...and I didn't even know Jessica Pacheco's name until it was mentioned on this board.

As far as I am concerned, when I am betting, everything but the horses is a distraction.

Robert Fischer

02-08-2011, 03:40 PM

Looking at her on the screen for 10 seconds is one thing...
... Jessica Pacheco.

a 10second glance means dollars from the masses.

I'm positive it wouldn't influence horseplayers of our expertise, but it does mean dollars from the "masses".

Television is HUGE, mass media is huge. Racing doesn't use the mass media, but even any draw(however superficial) amongst the simulcast programming is a small advantage.

Cardus

02-08-2011, 03:55 PM

riskman

02-08-2011, 04:54 PM

This is about the funniest sentence I have read in Internet Land.

Then the world in which you live in, is very small indeed.

David-LV

02-08-2011, 05:02 PM

How did this thread get so far off the subject.

_________
David-LV

castaway01

02-08-2011, 05:13 PM

a 10second glance means dollars from the masses.

I'm positive it wouldn't influence horseplayers of our expertise, but it does mean dollars from the "masses".

Television is HUGE, mass media is huge. Racing doesn't use the mass media, but even any draw(however superficial) amongst the simulcast programming is a small advantage.

No offense, but I don't get your point...you act like saying "television is huge" is some point no one thought of, in 2011. Yeah, I know, people watch TV. But what "television" are you talking about? Who would be watching a Gulfstream simulcast broadcast other than people who are diehard horse racing fans? That's where she is viewable, not on American Idol, Dancing with the Stars or halftime at the Super Bowl (those are America's highest-rated TV shows, for those who don't know). She's not a TV star, and she's not driving handle. I can't believe we're having this discussion, seriously. I like the woman, I think she does a good job, but she is absolutely zero factor in why Gulfstream handle is up.

castaway01

02-08-2011, 05:14 PM

How did this thread get so far off the subject.

_________
David-LV

It's actually not off topic, it's a debate whether Gulfstream having full fields and interesting racing or a hot TV host is why handle is up. "Handle is booming" was the initial post, we're discussing why.

castaway01

02-08-2011, 05:17 PM

illinoisbred

02-08-2011, 05:21 PM

Geez,the last meet she worked (AP) saw their handle drop approx. 30%. She must be responsible for that too,eh?

Horseplayersbet.com

02-08-2011, 05:24 PM

Geez,the last meet she worked (AP) saw their handle drop approx. 30%.
It might have been down 30.5% without her.

johnhannibalsmith

02-08-2011, 05:31 PM

Suddenly, 46Zilzal's assessment seems fairly benign.

ranchwest

02-08-2011, 05:32 PM

I totally agree, but apparently if Gulfstream hired this year's Sports Illustrated swimsuit models to host their broadcast, handle would be up 400 percent. Who knew?
I think they should give it a try. :lol:

castaway01

02-08-2011, 05:35 PM

I think they should give it a try. :lol:

I'm with you on this and endorse it fully...

Robert Fischer

02-08-2011, 06:42 PM

This is about the funniest sentence I have read in Internet Land.

"touch" of sarcasm meant

Cardus

02-08-2011, 06:49 PM

Then the world in which you live in, is very small indeed.

You have no idea about "the world I live in," first of all.

Secondly, I limited it to a very small part of my world, Internet Land.

Thanks for playing.

David-LV

02-08-2011, 10:50 PM

Entries for Wed. 2/9

Gulfstream - 115 horses for 9 races before scratches.

Tampa Bay - 108 horses for 10 races before scratches.

_______
David-LV

Southieboy

02-08-2011, 11:16 PM

Entries for Thursday 2/10:

Santa Anita: 72 for 8 races.
Gulf: 108 in 9 races.
Aqueduct: 76 in 9 races.
Tampa: 103 in 10 races.

Entries for Friday 2/11:

Santa Anita: 62 for 8 races.
Gulf: 118 in 10 races.
Aqueduct: 75 in 9 races.
Los Al: 84 in 10 races.

toussaud

02-09-2011, 07:52 AM

Actually the two tracks he mentioned in the post I was responding to were Ellis and Arlington. Tracks with different surfaces on the main track and entirely different levels of racing.

People weren't betting or tuning into Monmouth last summer because Brad Thomas is a hottie. Field size was up and Thomas is one of the best analysts around.
IF you go back and re read my post you will see where I clearly stated "2 high level turf races". again all things being equal, I"m more included to wager on the track that grabs my attention more. Jessica grabs my attention.

If Arlington has another one of those Frank Calabrese specials where he is shoving a allowance winner down your throat at 20k, that's not equal (and i believe he is solely the reason their handle is down so much, he has made half the card unplayable).. but all things being equal, I'm more included, as is everyone else here, to play the track with the pretty host.

The two tracks doing better than anyone right now in the country are gulfstream park and fair grounds. Fair Grounds has raised purses 10% since the beginning of the meet and were up something like 48% the first month of the meet. It might be a coincidence that those two tracks, probably have the best "presentation" than any other track in the country, it might not. I"ll let you be the judge. But saying that, there isn't a difference between watching jon white on the screen, or Joy Rose, come on man stop playing. Do I sit down and mark out my calendar as to who is going to be in the paddock lol? no I don't, nor does anyone (I hope not at least). But to suggest men are completely blind to who is providing them picks in the paddock and don't take notice of the nice looking lady when she appears on the screen just is not being realistic.

toussaud

02-09-2011, 08:11 AM

You take the avg bloke that doesn't know anything about take out, who doesn't do 5 seconds of handicapping before he gets to the track, decides he wants to play simuclast, goes to the TV screens and there are 5 tracks playing.. Louisiana Downs, Arlington Park, Calder, Delaware Park and Belmont Park, with the sound down or drowned out, not having any prejudices for against tracks, for or against meets... the guy is going to glance and keep his attention at the first thing that catches his eye. Arlington park is going to be a track that catches his eye and he will consider playing that track, or at the very least, pay it more attention, rather he knows why he is doing it or not.

illinoisbred

02-09-2011, 08:15 AM

Having the sound turned down or muted outside of the actual running of the races is the way I operate at Arlington. She drones on just way too long.

Dahoss9698

02-09-2011, 02:01 PM

IF you go back and re read my post you will see where I clearly stated "2 high level turf races". again all things being equal, I"m more included to wager on the track that grabs my attention more. Jessica grabs my attention.

If Arlington has another one of those Frank Calabrese specials where he is shoving a allowance winner down your throat at 20k, that's not equal (and i believe he is solely the reason their handle is down so much, he has made half the card unplayable).. but all things being equal, I'm more included, as is everyone else here, to play the track with the pretty host.

The two tracks doing better than anyone right now in the country are gulfstream park and fair grounds. Fair Grounds has raised purses 10% since the beginning of the meet and were up something like 48% the first month of the meet. It might be a coincidence that those two tracks, probably have the best "presentation" than any other track in the country, it might not. I"ll let you be the judge. But saying that, there isn't a difference between watching jon white on the screen, or Joy Rose, come on man stop playing. Do I sit down and mark out my calendar as to who is going to be in the paddock lol? no I don't, nor does anyone (I hope not at least). But to suggest men are completely blind to who is providing them picks in the paddock and don't take notice of the nice looking lady when she appears on the screen just is not being realistic.

No you didn't. Here is your exact post. It says nothing about high level turf races. You just made it up.

Hot waitresses is the only reason chili's is in business lol. It's defiantly not their food.

I'm not going to say I play certain tracks becuase of a pretty woman, but it defiantly doesn't hurt. It's a pro in a list of pros and cons I suppose. If I am debating on playing Arlington park and ellis park race that goes off within 5 minutes of each other.. and all else being equal, I'd probably lean towards Arlington park.

I think gamblers don't care who is giving them analysis as long as it is good analysis. I've never met a gambler that bets a track because the analyst is attractive. Gamblers don't need outside influences to grab their attention. The races and the opportunities should be enough. If I want to see an attractive girl I can do it in person or on the internet whenever I want. I don't need to turn on the feed from a racetrack for it.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-09-2011, 03:11 PM

the little guy

02-09-2011, 03:18 PM

Think of all that money that is being wasted on NFL cheerleaders and girls in beer commercials.

Gets my vote for worst analogy of the year.

Dahoss9698

02-09-2011, 03:20 PM

Think of all that money that is being wasted on NFL cheerleaders and girls in beer commercials.

Keep trying. You're bound to be right eventually in this thread.

chickenhead

02-09-2011, 03:35 PM

Gets my vote for worst analogy of the year.

You should be buying into this, maybe they'd spring for some arm candy for you. You in a fur coat and hat, gold rope, with a girl in a minidress on your arm - that would be fantastic tv.

I know a guy with extra pimp gear...

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 03:43 PM

I think gamblers don't care who is giving them analysis as long as it is good analysis. I've never met a gambler that bets a track because the analyst is attractive. Gamblers don't need outside influences to grab their attention. The races and the opportunities should be enough. If I want to see an attractive girl I can do it in person or on the internet whenever I want. I don't need to turn on the feed from a racetrack for it.You guys act as if everyone's behavior is 100% consciously deliberated and always follows a rational logic. Not so.

Imagine you've got some dude with a Twinspires account watching TSTV. He doesn't in particular know the analysts and who's good or not. He's looking through the video feeds and Gulfstream has got a pretty girl on, and she sounds smart too. He pauses to check her out for a minute or two longer than some other guy that looks like every other guy. He likes what he hears, it makes him intrigued about some GP race, and he starts looking at his PPs for that. Now he's paying a little more to GP than before, and neglecting the other tracks by the same amount. Get a handful of such guys and handle goes up a few tenths of a percent. What is so outrageous an idea about that?

Cholly

02-09-2011, 03:44 PM

You should be buying into this, maybe they'd spring for some arm candy for you. You in a fur coat and hat, gold rope, with a girl in a minidress on your arm - that would be fantastic tv.

I know a guy with extra pimp gear...

Listen up, NYRA...this guy is onto something. Or maybe he's just on something--whatever, it would make great video!

toussaud

02-09-2011, 04:00 PM

Horseplayersbet.com

02-09-2011, 04:03 PM

paging mr dahoss. paging mr dahoss.
Your "ridiculous" empirical evidence isn't wanted on this thread.

Dahoss9698

02-09-2011, 05:14 PM

You guys act as if everyone's behavior is 100% consciously deliberated and always follows a rational logic. Not so.

Imagine you've got some dude with a Twinspires account watching TSTV. He doesn't in particular know the analysts and who's good or not. He's looking through the video feeds and Gulfstream has got a pretty girl on, and she sounds smart too. He pauses to check her out for a minute or two longer than some other guy that looks like every other guy. He likes what he hears, it makes him intrigued about some GP race, and he starts looking at his PPs for that. Now he's paying a little more to GP than before, and neglecting the other tracks by the same amount. Get a handful of such guys and handle goes up a few tenths of a percent. What is so outrageous an idea about that?

I don't remember anyone saying it was outrageous. But if it was such a good idea, than how did Arlington show such a dramatic drop in handle?

Hey, if you guys think it's going to help, more power to you. I disagree.

Dahoss9698

02-09-2011, 05:15 PM

paging mr dahoss. paging mr dahoss.

Ummm, this post was after your initial post. That is the post I am referring to.

Dahoss9698

02-09-2011, 05:17 PM

Your "ridiculous" empirical evidence isn't wanted on this thread.

Getting catty now huh?

I don't blame you. Must be really starting to bother you that no matter how hard you try, you keep saying incorrect things in your efforts to "get me".

:lol:

Horseplayersbet.com

02-09-2011, 05:37 PM

Getting catty now huh?

I don't blame you. Must be really starting to bother you that no matter how hard you try, you keep saying incorrect things in your efforts to "get me".

:lol:
First time in my life I've been called catty. I get A-hole a lot, but never catty.

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 05:40 PM

I don't remember anyone saying it was outrageous.You certainly implied it. Repeatedly. So now you agree that it is plausible?

But if it was such a good idea, than how did Arlington show such a dramatic drop in handle?Because it is a very minor factor, as we have been saying. Repeatedly. I am surprised anyone would even question that it is a factor, among many others. It is probably also only going to help the rich get richer, not save some struggling track with big fundamental problems. (If GP had some slob, we'd be saying, "They're running such a high-class meet, except for this slob -- why don't they put someone out there worthy of the environment?")

02-09-2011, 05:43 PM

Anyone catch the gem spewed out by her partner at GP today? Apparently, he doesn't watch replays.

Nochalk

02-09-2011, 05:56 PM

Anyone catch the gem spewed out by her partner at GP today? Apparently, he doesn't watch replays.

Agreed. Both of the GP talking heads are airheads. Give me the smartass, but always informed TLG, anytime.

Dahoss9698

02-09-2011, 06:04 PM

You certainly implied it. Repeatedly. So now you agree that it is plausible?

Because it is a very minor factor, as we have been saying. Repeatedly. I am surprised anyone would even question that it is a factor, among many others. It is probably also only going to help the rich get richer, not save some struggling track with big fundamental problems. (If GP had some slob, we'd be saying, "They're running such a high-class meet, except for this slob -- why don't they put someone out there worthy of the environment?")

I don't think it's a factor at all. You think it's a very minor factor. Sweet. So you're arguing over something you think is a very minor factor?

Do you bet? And if so, would you be swayed on which track to bet based on whether or not the analyst is attractive?

Cardus

02-09-2011, 06:11 PM

Because it is Internet Land, I understand why some people persist in believing that an attractive analyst spurs handle.

For a few of you, there seems to be only one type of "handle" being spurred, and that has nothing to do with wagering.

toussaud

02-09-2011, 06:16 PM

I don't think it's a factor at all. You think it's a very minor factor. Sweet. So you're arguing over something you think is a very minor factor?

Do you bet? And if so, would you be swayed on which track to bet based on whether or not the analyst is attractive?
I'm not going to lie, lol, one race last year, I won't name the track nor the person in question to protect the innocent here.. but it's not the person in question. I was kinda bored, I considered myself done for the day and BAM.. had a dress on that was just jaw dropping. I was like humm.. while I was watching,I noticed a horse was running I had forgot about and said what the heck, and he won lol. paid a few bucks too. It was just a for fun 2 dollar wager but still, that one race I was 100% swayed by the appearance of the paddock girl.'

Dahoss you are like the worse argue person ever lol. First you say I didn't say something, simply because you are too lazy to read the entire thread. Then when It's proven I did say something, you want to question the validity of why we are arguing. It's not my fault I'm making too much sense. You tried to make a one liner out of a post that actually made sense and you have been backtracking ever since. Just admit it guys, it matters. not a lot. Not It's not going to make or break a track, but overall presentation is a factor.

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 06:39 PM

I don't think it's a factor at all. You think it's a very minor factor. Sweet. So you're arguing over something you think is a very minor factor?Yes. Duh. So you're arguing over something you think isn't a factor at all?

Do you bet? And if so, would you be swayed on which track to bet based on whether or not the analyst is attractive?Yes, I bet, off-and-on. I don't watch analysts. (I only watch the running of the race if I watch at all.) But the people that this would affect aren't like me (and most of the posters on this board -- maybe some of the lurkers). If everyone was like me, there would be no analysts. Probably would be no video at all.

Cardus

02-09-2011, 06:41 PM

I'm not going to lie, lol, one race last year, I won't name the track nor the person in question to protect the innocent here.. but it's not the person in question. I was kinda bored, I considered myself done for the day and BAM.. had a dress on that was just jaw dropping. I was like humm.. while I was watching,I noticed a horse was running I had forgot about and said what the heck, and he won lol. paid a few bucks too. It was just a for fun 2 dollar wager but still, that one race I was 100% swayed by the appearance of the paddock girl.'

Dahoss you are like the worse argue person ever lol. First you say I didn't say something, simply because you are too lazy to read the entire thread. Then when It's proven I did say something, you want to question the validity of why we are arguing. It's not my fault I'm making too much sense. You tried to make a one liner out of a post that actually made sense and you have been backtracking ever since. Just admit it guys, it matters. not a lot. Not It's not going to make or break a track, but overall presentation is a factor.

Two thoughts: this is pathetic; and, like I suspected, the few of you who are pressing this point -- that handle increases with an attractive analyst -- are merely projecting your behavior onto others without any knowledge that this is true.

Wow. Has the lowest depth been reached here?

Cardus

02-09-2011, 06:45 PM

Yes. Duh. So you're arguing over something you think isn't a factor at all?

Yes, I bet, off-and-on. I don't watch analysts. (I only watch the running of the race if I watch at all.) But the people that this would affect aren't like me (and most of the posters on this board -- maybe some of the lurkers). If everyone was like me, there would be no analysts. Probably would be no video at all.

Being from Denver, if there were no video at all, how would you watch races?

And here is another post where someone posts, "This doesn't matter to me, but it does to others", i.e. the "lurkers." Why are the lurkers subject to being swayed?

toussaud

02-09-2011, 07:19 PM

Two thoughts: this is pathetic; and, like I suspected, the few of you who are pressing this point -- that handle increases with an attractive analyst -- are merely projecting your behavior onto others without any knowledge that this is true.

Wow. Has the lowest depth been reached here?

So I like attractive women, last time I checked that wasn't a crime. Here is what this thread has become, as I knew it would.. It went from, do attractive women as hosts sway bettors in any way to, you are a pathetic handicapper if you judge what track you will play becuase who is the hosts. Luckily, I don't take myself half as seriously as some here do, I've made bets for lost worse reasons than who is the paddock hosts.

But in all that, the point is missed. it doesn't matter what freaking methodology I use to pick horses, as long as I up my 2 dollars through the window. Look, if there is a poll where 5% of bettors said, that they use astrology to pick horses, than there needs to be an astrologist sitting next to Andy Serling at aqueduct. Who cares if they are accurate. Well not who cares, that's not how I meant that come out, but the point, is to get me, to come out of my pocket with money.

I would not call anyone wagering on horse racing pathetic. I don't agree with someone picking their picks off who is hosting a internet feed, but what I agree with doesn't matter, the only thing that matters, is that they wager, so I can take their money. Picking what track you wager on becuase of the woman hosting th show is no worse then the guy who picks gray horse in the mud.

Robert Fischer

02-09-2011, 07:41 PM

clearly Quality and Field Size have been the major factors.

presentation has been a minor factor that wouldn't GREATLY(by definition) affect the handle if it could be isolated and swapped out for a near par piece of the puzzle.

or am I wayyyy off?

Danville

02-09-2011, 07:51 PM

How did this thread get so far off the subject.

_________
David-LV

I've been a member of this forum for some time but hardly post, just read. I'll have to chime in here to say Gulfstream is now my favorite track to bet. Today's payoff's were wonderful to see. Espcially since I got a couple.

On the forum I usually post on, one guy ONLY talks about the women hostesses. Drives everyone nuts. I was bummed when I logged on today here, and found this subject. Sheesh.

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 08:05 PM

Being from Denver, if there were no video at all, how would you watch races?I wouldn't. That's the point I was making. I barely use the video, I basically find it a time-waster. I actually try to get myself not to watch the stuff I bet on because I could be doing something productive instead. I am tempted to watch races when I have money on them, otherwise I don't look at it at all. Even when I leave a feed running, I always turn off talking heads. Just don't want to see them.

And here is another post where someone posts, "This doesn't matter to me, but it does to others", i.e. the "lurkers." Why are the lurkers subject to being swayed?Cause the lurkers, collectively, are probably are bit more casual bettors than the active posters. But since that may or not be accurate, let's just say "people who are interested or at least willing to listen/look at analysts" (potentially). In other words, less serious bettors who are looking for other opinions (and some highly serious bettors listening to someone they've decided is smart). Andy Serling has described some of the stuff "people want" even though it is not something a real serious bettor would be interested in -- a pick every race, a ready-made pick6 ticket, whatever. He is not allowed to say (very often anyway, if ever), "Hey folks, pass this one, its un-bettable.") Do you guys think all bettors are the same?

I think some of you are being a bit naive about human psychology. Have you ever heard about the experiments they've done with "priming"? This is where they bring in test subjects to fill out surveys or give their impression of a person or product. They have a conspirator that works for the researchers, and in the elevator on the way up to the survey room, the guy fumbles with a clipboard and a bunch of stuff in his hands. He is holding either a hot coffee or a cold drink and he asks the test subject to please hold his drink for a second while he organizes his stuff. Those subjects that are given the warm drink (just holding the cup in their hand for 5 seconds) responded with positive impressions on the survey by a HUGE margin over those given the cold drink to hold, who invariably give negative impressions. They've repeated the experiment a bunch of different ways dozens of times and it is always the same.

The reason we do things and the impressions we have come from our unconscious -- the ultimate mysterious black box. You guys that insist "Oh I'm never influenced by anything" -- it's just laughable. More and more cognitive science points to a mind that makes decisions in the background outside of conscious awareness, and then lets the conscious know what that decision is. Then the conscious mind fills in a "reason" that makes "logical sense" that it thinks is why it is doing what it is doing, but it seems like it is really just the tail that is being wagged by the dog and all the real action is unseen and largely unknown...

thaskalos

02-09-2011, 08:47 PM

I think some of you are being a bit naive about human psychology...

You guys that insist "Oh I'm never influenced by anything" -- it's just laughable. More and more cognitive science points to a mind that makes decisions in the background outside of conscious awareness, and then lets the conscious know what that decision is. Then the conscious mind fills in a "reason" that makes "logical sense" that it thinks is why it is doing what it is doing, but it seems like it is really just the tail that is being wagged by the dog and all the real action is unseen and largely unknown...Who among us claimed to NEVER be "influenced by ANYTHING"?

Some of us said that we could never be persuaded to part with our betting money, because of an image of a pretty girl on a TV screen...this is "just laughable" to you?

Robert Fischer

02-09-2011, 08:53 PM

You should be buying into this, maybe they'd spring for some arm candy for you. You in a fur coat and hat, gold rope, with a girl in a minidress on your arm - that would be fantastic tv.

I know a guy with extra pimp gear...
30-1 shot winners and babes?

toussaud might not be able to handle that much excitement. :D

the little guy

02-09-2011, 09:00 PM

Andy Serling has described some of the stuff "people want" even though it is not something a real serious bettor would be interested in -- a pick every race, a ready-made pick6 ticket, whatever. He is not allowed to say (very often anyway, if ever), "Hey folks, pass this one, its un-bettable.") Do you guys think all bettors are the same?
...

Just curious, since you, at least according to you, don't listen to on-air handicappers, just how the fukk do you have any idea what I do or don't do?

Believe me, I've known where you, and others here, have been coming from before you even admitted it to yourself. It's comical seeing the lengths people will go to, however.

Let me make something else clear, just in case there is some confusion... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 09:13 PM

Just curious, since you, at least according to you, don't listen to on-air handicappers, just how the fukk do you have any idea what I do or don't do?You've posted it here about how people expect/want certain things on your show. Want me to dig up the thread? Did I insult you somehow by referencing it?

Believe me, I've known where you, and others here, have been coming from before you even admitted it to yourself. It's comical seeing the lengths people will go to, however.Not following. Where am I coming from? I do admit I sometimes pull threads into esoteric silliness, but I don't think I have some special agenda. Do you think I am out to get someone?

Let me make something else clear, just in case there is some confusion... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Charming as ever, you are.

toussaud

02-09-2011, 09:14 PM

Who among us claimed to NEVER be "influenced by ANYTHING"?

Some of us said that we could never be persuaded to part with our betting money, because of an image of a pretty girl on a TV screen...this is "just laughable" to you?
http://i25.tinypic.com/11vqw44.jpg

johnhannibalsmith

02-09-2011, 09:18 PM

....Let me make something else clear, just in case there is some confusion... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You have a 9 foot glass bong?????????????

thaskalos

02-09-2011, 09:21 PM

Toussaud...my comment was not pointed at you...

If I were making $2 "fun" bets like you are, I would probably be "swayed" by the pretty paddock girls too...

Dahoss9698

02-09-2011, 09:32 PM

Dahoss you are like the worse argue person ever lol. First you say I didn't say something, simply because you are too lazy to read the entire thread. Then when It's proven I did say something, you want to question the validity of why we are arguing. It's not my fault I'm making too much sense. You tried to make a one liner out of a post that actually made sense and you have been backtracking ever since. Just admit it guys, it matters. not a lot. Not It's not going to make or break a track, but overall presentation is a factor.

I'm the worst person to argue with because I'm well informed (modest too), especially when I do decide to engage. I don't just throw crap at the wall and pray some sticks. That bothers people. I also call out bullsh.it when I see it and I know that rubs people the wrong way.

In your original post, you said if you were looking at Arlington and Ellis and all things were equal, you would bet Arlington because of the analyst. I responded with a "wow". Then you changed your mind after that.

Your post made no sense to me and others. Some thought it made sense. Whatever, if we all agreed everytime it would be pretty boring. But you are the one that has changed their original premise here, not me.

thaskalos

02-09-2011, 09:36 PM

Dahoss...that was a good assessment of your qualities. I especially agree with the "modest" part...

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 09:36 PM

I'm the worst person to argue with because I'm well informed (modest too), especially when I do decide to engage. I don't just throw crap at the wall and pray some sticks. That bothers people. I also call out bullsh.it when I see it and I know that rubs people the wrong way.

In your original post, you said if you were looking at Arlington and Ellis and all things were equal, you would bet Arlington because of the analyst. I responded with a "wow". Then you changed your mind after that.

Your post made no sense to me and others. Some thought it made sense. Whatever, if we all agreed everytime it would be pretty boring. But you are the one that has changed their original premise here, not me.Do you still not understand the meaning of the phrase "all else being equal"? It means the only difference was the analyst, so why would it be weird for that to be the deciding factor rather than just a coin flip?

thaskalos

02-09-2011, 09:40 PM

Do you still not understand the meaning of the phrase "all else being equal"? It means the only difference was the analyst, so why would it be weird for that to be the deciding factor rather than just a coin flip?When "all else is equal"...some of us either bet BOTH tracks, or we PASS both tracks. We don't flip coins...or let the paddock girls decide our actions.

But I guess this is "just laughable" too...

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 09:44 PM

When "all else is equal"...some of us either bet BOTH tracks, or we PASS both tracks. We don't flip coins...or let the paddock girls decide our actions.What if you wanted to bet both, but had to choose only one because of time constraints? (Which was also stipulated in his example, I believe.) Are you saying it would be WRONG to enjoy the pretty girl, or the announcer you'd rather listen to, or some other petty factor? Why are you guys taking this like it is some personal attack, especially if it doesn't apply to you anyway? All else being equal (That's all else. Equal.), attractive beats ugly, no?

Dahoss9698

02-09-2011, 09:45 PM

Do you still not understand the meaning of the phrase "all else being equal"? It means the only difference was the analyst, so why would it be weird for that to be the deciding factor rather than just a coin flip?

I can't explain it any other way. To me it's strange to decide where to bet based on the analyst. I don't bet that way and I have never met anyone that bets that way so to me it's weird. Apparently there are people that do it, but it still makes no sense to me.

Why is this such a difficult thing to understand?

the little guy

02-09-2011, 09:48 PM

Charming as ever, you are.

No, no special agenda from you.

You're a regular riot Alice.

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 09:50 PM

No, no special agenda from you.

You're a regular riot Alice.Does anyone else here know what he's talking about?

Do you even know what you are talking about? Please, spell it out. What are you afraid of?

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 09:53 PM

I can't explain it any other way. To me it's strange to decide where to bet based on the analyst. I don't bet that way and I have never met anyone that bets that way so to me it's weird. Apparently there are people that do it, but it still makes no sense to me.

Why is this such a difficult thing to understand?It isn't difficult to understand. It just isn't relevant to the claim because no one is claiming that, not the way you are saying. So your arguments are not arguments for this discussion, but some other fictional one somewhere else.

fmolf

02-09-2011, 10:41 PM

I miss the days of Harvey Pack!........

thaskalos

02-09-2011, 10:49 PM

What if you wanted to bet both, but had to choose only one because of time constraints? (Which was also stipulated in his example, I believe.) Are you saying it would be WRONG to enjoy the pretty girl, or the announcer you'd rather listen to, or some other petty factor? Why are you guys taking this like it is some personal attack, especially if it doesn't apply to you anyway? All else being equal (That's all else. Equal.), attractive beats ugly, no?Allow me to explain in the best way I can...

In the gambling world, there are "serious" players, and there are "hobbyists". The difference between these two groups of people is HUGE, and this difference cannot be defined solely by the amounts that they bet....because, after all, bet sizes are relative. A multi-millionaire can bet $500 dollars on a horse and still be a hobbyist. A bartender, on the other hand, may only bet $50 dollars on a race...but he could be as serious a player as it gets.

The difference between the serious player and the hobbyist can best be seen in the way they approach the game itself!

The serious player does not operate under serious time constraints, because he has done the bulk of his work beforehand. And he may enjoy the sight of a beautiful girl on a TV screen...but never to the extent where it has any influence on his decision-making process. His motivation lies elsewhere.

Does this mean that the "serious" player is in any way BETTER than the hobbyist?

Of course not! We are who we are...and our behavior is shaped accordingly.

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 11:10 PM

Allow me to explain in the best way I can...

In the gambling world, there are "serious" players, and there are "hobbyists". The difference between these two groups of people is HUGE, and this difference cannot be defined solely by the amounts that they bet....because, after all, bet sizes are relative. A multi-millionaire can bet $500 dollars on a horse and still be a hobbyist. A bartender, on the other hand, may only bet $50 dollars on a race...but he could be as serious a player as it gets.

The difference between the serious player and the hobbyist can be seen in the way they approach the game itself!

The serious player does not operate under serious time constraints, because he has done the bulk of his work beforehand. And he may enjoy the sight of a beautiful girl on a TV screen...but never to the extent where it has any influence on his decision-making process. His motivation lies elseware.

Does this mean that the "serious" player is in any way BETTER than the hobbyist?

Of course not! We are who we are...and our behavior is shaped accordingly.I agree with all that. It is the hobbyist more likely to be influenced by a good-looking analyst. Was this discussion restricted to serious players and I missed it? Although I still stand by the idea that some things (many things, actually) influence us without our knowledge or intention so that could apply to serious players also. Despite repeated attempts by the detractors of this whole idea, no one floated the idea that there was any significant swath of bettors that decided, "Hey, I'm betting this track cause of the host." No one said that. (But I bet there is at least one individual out there some where for which that is true.)

The original point was that Jessica probably had a positive albeit small effect on the GP handle (because of her looks). That's it. We've done a lot of arguing, but it seems to me there is nothing to argue about. It's a no-brainer.

garyscpa

02-09-2011, 11:15 PM

So if the analyst doesn't matter, why does Andy Serling have a job?

thaskalos

02-09-2011, 11:16 PM

Yeah GameTheory...but you stated that the idea of us remaining uneffected by outside influences while gambling was "just laughable".

GameTheory

02-09-2011, 11:30 PM

Yeah GameTheory...but you stated that the idea of us remaining uneffected by outside influences while gambling was "just laughable".It is. I'm talking about unconscious influences of which you are unaware (primarily). Could also be a matter of mood. I'm not suggesting that you are influenced by stuff that you specifically intend not to be influenced by (although you could be there too for all I know). Are you as sharp a handicapper after a fight with a loved one? If you missed breakfast or didn't get your caffeine? If you lose 30 races in a row? If you win 10 in a row do you ever get cocky and overextend?

If you think you are a cold-blooded robot with no human foibles (in this context), good for you, but it doesn't make it so.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-09-2011, 11:34 PM

Every time I see a Party Poker pop up, how come it is always an attractive woman with chips in her hands, and not a 500 pound dealer wearing suspenders?

I do think that there are some big bettors motivated by a pretty face. Whether you want to call them serious or not, that is another story.

BTW, the analyst that I personally prefer is the one that doesn't pick my horses.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-09-2011, 11:59 PM

Just found this:

Sex Boosts Gambling Behavior

April 4th, 2008, 19:16 GMT| By Stefan Anitei

This is the recipe used by most commercials: put a hot babe near the product, everything from cars to pencils, and the men will buy it. Is it that easy? Partially yes, as revealed by a new Stanford study published in the journal "NeuroReport." Men may react like this in case of positive stimuli, especially if they are pressured.
"In the immediate aftermath of that stimulation, men are consistently more likely to take bigger financial risks than they otherwise would. This is the first study to demonstrate that emotional stimuli can influence financial risk-taking," said lead author Brian Knutson, assistant professor of psychology.
The team employed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the brains of subjects having to take quick gambling decisions at two levels of financial risk.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sex-Boosts-Gambling-Behavior-82537.shtml

Does this mean that Jessica or other female analysts makes me bet more money and more combos just by hearing their voice than I normally would? It doesn't have to be on the tracks they are at, but the tracks I might be betting on at the time or shortly thereafter. Am I trying to impress them in some weird way? Maybe they are responsible for mistakes I make handicapping and betting because they subliminally take away my full concentration.

The thing is, unless you are Spock sex in advertising does work.

But still, I prefer analysts who stay away from my selections, at least on my conscious level....that makes me want to bet more.

Dahoss9698

02-10-2011, 12:49 AM

The original point was that Jessica probably had a positive albeit small effect on the GP handle (because of her looks). That's it. We've done a lot of arguing, but it seems to me there is nothing to argue about. It's a no-brainer.

The problem with this of course is the last meet she worked at saw a 30% decrease in handle as someone mentioned earlier. Still think it's a no brainer?

GameTheory

02-10-2011, 12:53 AM

The problem with this of course is the last meet she worked at saw a 30% decrease in handle as someone mentioned earlier. Still think it's a no brainer?As we keep saying, a minor factor, like 0.5% - 1%, so it has nothing to do with huge drops or gains like that. Another irrelevant point.

Dahoss9698

02-10-2011, 12:57 AM

As we keep saying, a minor factor, like 0.5% - 1%, so it has nothing to do with huge drops or gains like that. Another irrelevant point.

Oh I get it. When it contradicts your fantasy point that can never be measured, it's irrelevant. :ThmbUp:

GameTheory

02-10-2011, 01:06 AM

Oh I get it. When it contradicts your fantasy point that can never be measured, it's irrelevant. :ThmbUp:It would be just as irrelevant if the last meet had been up 30%. It just has nothing to do with it.

It is true it can't be measured (at least by us, somebody at GP may have an idea), which is why we have to use common sense, which doesn't seem so common. I think in a game where the overwhelming majority of participants are men that all else being equal (which in this case means she is a good analyst), a hot chick will attract more attention than "just some dude" (who is an equivalently good analyst). You think that's weird, I think it is a no-brainer, yes. (And as has pointed out, there are oodles of studies about such things backing that up.)

Dahoss9698

02-10-2011, 01:14 AM

It would be just as irrelevant if the last meet had been up 30%. It just has nothing to do with it.

It is true it can't be measured (at least by us, somebody at GP may have an idea), which is why we have to use common sense, which doesn't seem so common. I think in a game where the overwhelming majority of participants are men that all else being equal (which in this case means she is a good analyst), a hot chick will attract more attention than "just some dude" (who is an equivalently good analyst). You think that's weird, I think it is a no-brainer, yes. (And as has pointed out, there are oodles of studies about such things backing that up.)

I like arguing, but at some point I have to throw in the towel. I'm handicapping right now and as exciting as it is going back and forth about something even you admit can never be measured and is at most 1%, it's just not worth any more of my time. This entire pissing match has made me nostalgic for conversations involving Zenyatta.

Never in my life and over half of it has been spent gambling have I ever encountered a person that has bet a track because the analyst was attractive. Not once. And aside from one person, I don't think anyone here has either (I refuse to read this thread again, so if I'm wrong, my bad).

You win. You are more bored than I am.

GameTheory

02-10-2011, 01:17 AM

You are more bored than I am.You can't measure that.

johnhannibalsmith

02-10-2011, 01:21 AM

I'm already anticipating the day in September of 2014 when we get to read this all over again.

Dahoss9698

02-10-2011, 01:32 AM

You can't measure that.

It's a no brainer.

PaceAdvantage

02-10-2011, 04:54 AM

Apparently I'm in the minority here. No surprise there.Laying it on a little thick, don't you think?

Cardus

02-10-2011, 08:01 AM

Laying it on a little thick, don't you think?

C'mon, PA, how could you single out one dude in this insane thread, while citing the most benign sentence from it?

Long live Jessica!

ArlJim78

02-10-2011, 08:18 AM

I can't believe there is a debate going on as to whether a pretty female face on the TV attracts male eyeballs.

Grits

02-10-2011, 08:50 AM

This thread, in its entirety, is not only unfortunate, its embarrassing.

Horseplayersbet.com

02-10-2011, 08:56 AM

This thread, in its entirety, is not only unfortunate, its embarrassing.
Why? I majored in psychology. The idea of sex in advertising was covered at least a couple of times if I remember correctly.
Would a discussion about how slots manufacturers and operators use psychology to maximize revenue be embarrassing too?

David-LV

02-10-2011, 09:55 AM

This thread, in its entirety, is not only unfortunate, its embarrassing.

Hey, don't pick on my thread.

I know it has evolved into a sought of a monster of character assassinations.

The thread was started with good intentions.

_________
David-LV

toussaud

02-10-2011, 10:05 AM

Hey, don't pick on my thread.

I know it has evolved into a sought of a monster of character assassinations.

The thread was started with good intentions.

_________
David-LV
So is the road to hell

FenceBored

02-10-2011, 10:21 AM

http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/images/Wolfendale_Maggie_L.jpg
Maggie Wolfendale, the most recent addition to the New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) broadcast team, has been observing thoroughbreds in one way or another for most of her life.
-- http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/Jan072011b.shtml

Regulators: Handle at NYRA Facilities Spikes

Total pari-mutuel handle at New York Racing Association tracks was up 76% ...
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/61115/regulators-handle-at-nyra-facilities-spikes

Grits

02-10-2011, 10:46 AM

Why? I majored in psychology. The idea of sex in advertising was covered at least a couple of times if I remember correctly.
Would a discussion about how slots manufacturers and operators use psychology to maximize revenue be embarrassing too?

I'm not answering your questions, Hpb. They're boring. And your telling me you're a psych major is an even greater yawner, as now you're running a bet shop which is a pretty far removed from the formal education in psych.

What I will tell you is this. I wouldn't wager a single dime based on Steve Asmussen or Todd Pletcher's looks. They're both very good at their jobs and very good looking. THIS is primarily what this thread has become. Its not whether someone is an outstanding analyst or not, its not whether they bring more money to the windows based on their knowledge. This has taken a turn which has nothing to do with skill, but instead--again, one's looks. And in this case, Gulfstream's, Jessica P.

Toussaud had the guts to admit his line of thought, (paraphrased) "well, I'm gonna watch this skirt, 'cause she's hot. I'm gonna pay attention to what this babe's saying, she might put me on a winner."

There's only one way to spell this . . . . . DUH!

I don't care how you present it, this line of thought comes back to only three letters, and no competent horseplayer will base his/her wagering on "pretty", on "handsome" or on "sexy", and be successful.

Where's Ernie Dahlman when I need him?

As far as Maggie Wolfendale, yes, she's gorgeous, but I'm not taking into greater consideration her opinion over Andy's. Then, too, I didn't take Jan Rushton and her hats over Andy's either.:lol:

DavidLV, I'm not busting on your thread, if you feel so, I'm sorry. I'm simply making the point of the old adage, "looks may get you in the door, but looks alone won't keep you there."

PaceAdvantage

02-10-2011, 10:53 AM

C'mon, PA, how could you single out one dude in this insane thread, while citing the most benign sentence from it?

Long live Jessica!Because, believe it or not, I respect what he has to say and I'm tired of him painting this board with his giant sized brush.

It's personally insulting to me.

toussaud

02-10-2011, 11:16 AM

Toussaud had the guts to admit his line of thought, (paraphrased) "well, I'm gonna watch this skirt, 'cause she's hot. I'm gonna pay attention to what this babe's saying, she might put me on a winner." I said that? seriously? I don't remember saying that.

I simply admitted that I like attractive women that catch my eye and that I have been known to pay a tad bit more attention to a track because of it. NO more no less. If I like a horse at say, Calder, I could care less who is wearing what at what track, it's all relative. I don't give a crap what they are saying. I can very well handicap my own dang races thank you very much.

Dahoss9698

02-10-2011, 11:32 AM

http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/images/Wolfendale_Maggie_L.jpgMaggie Wolfendale, the most recent addition to the New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) broadcast team, has been observing thoroughbreds in one way or another for most of her life.

-- http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/Jan072011b.shtml

Regulators: Handle at NYRA Facilities Spikes

Total pari-mutuel handle at New York Racing Association tracks was up 76% ...
-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/61115/regulators-handle-at-nyra-facilities-spikes

As good as Maggie is, don't you think the spike has been more due to NYCOTB closing and the steps NYRA has taken to get patrons to the track than NYRA's (very good) decision to hire her?