Sam Houston Park: handle + purses up

[The_Knight_Sky]

◗ Sam Houston has increased purses by $1,000 a race for the remainder of the meet, which runs through March 7. The purses were boosted beginning with the Friday program. The 6.5 percent increase is the result of an upswing in handle and a Feb. 4 cancellation because of inclement weather.

"Our handle has surpassed even our most optimistic projections for the 27-day Thoroughbred meet," said Andrea Young, president of Sam Houston

http://www.drf.com/news/truly-lucky-stretching-out-again-sam-houston


The Economy must be wonderful in the Longhorn state. :ThmbUp:

[The_Knight_Sky]

Before anyone makes a fuss about it being the Lone Star state...

I just want to point out that it's great that tracks are trying to
fill the void of Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday late afternoon racing.

It's about time. :cool:

[FiveWide]

Good to hear this news. :ThmbUp:

-Five

[toussaud]

Before anyone makes a fuss about it being the Lone Star state...

I just want to point out that it's great that tracks are trying to
fill the void of Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday late afternoon racing.

It's about time. :cool:
I think this proves my theory about the time a track runs to be very important.

the sole reason IMHO lone star struggles the reason they do, they run on thursday-friday nights (with hollywood park), and on saturday and sunday afternoons. they are an afterthought. so would sam houston be, if they did the ame thing, however I am going to play the turf races at SH tomorrow.

[MPRanger]

I think this proves my theory about the time a track runs to be very important.

the sole reason IMHO lone star struggles the reason they do, they run on thursday-friday nights (with hollywood park), and on saturday and sunday afternoons. they are an afterthought. so would sam houston be, if they did the ame thing, however I am going to play the turf races at SH tomorrow.

Lone Star Park has always run at those times. It wasn't til after 2004 that the decline began. Your theory probably is true to the extent that the effect of the competition is "magna" fied once the decline began. LS has an inferior product because of low purses. The competition who is beating them is the Louisiana tracks drawing better racehorses because of slots and higher purses. I'm sure state laws prohibiting ADW are hurting the handle and purses too. Then there is internet betting. Texas tracks are shackled by draconian state laws. Like most other tracks in the U.S., they have to compete against their own product from the Carribean booking operations who take away from the handle and provide nothing against the cost of producing the races.

As far as Sam Houston, increasing purses by a paltry $1000 sounds like a desperate attempt to compete with Delta Downs. HOU faces the same realities that LS does regarding drawing quality racehorses from slots tracks etc;.

Considering the locations and facilities of both those tracks they would no doubt be booming if allowed to compete on a level playing field.

[mannyberrios]

Great post, Mr. Ranger.

[raybo]

Lone Star Park has always run at those times. It wasn't til after 2004 that the decline began. Your theory probably is true to the extent that the effect of the competition is "magna" fied once the decline began. LS has an inferior product because of low purses. The competition who is beating them is the Louisiana tracks drawing better racehorses because of slots and higher purses. I'm sure state laws prohibiting ADW are hurting the handle and purses too. Then there is internet betting. Texas tracks are shackled by draconian state laws. Like most other tracks in the U.S., they have to compete against their own product from the Carribean booking operations who take away from the handle and provide nothing against the cost of producing the races.

As far as Sam Houston, increasing purses by a paltry $1000 sounds like a desperate attempt to compete with Delta Downs. HOU faces the same realities that LS does regarding drawing quality racehorses from slots tracks etc;.

Considering the locations and facilities of both those tracks they would no doubt be booming if allowed to compete on a level playing field.

Agree!!

Let Texas residents wager on Texas tracks, online, and see what happens to handle! It'll go through the roof. There is a huge amount of money in Texas going to out of state tracks due to that stupid law.

Thanks GW! Idiot!!

[Robert Goren]

Lone Star Park has always run at those times. It wasn't til after 2004 that the decline began. Your theory probably is true to the extent that the effect of the competition is "magna" fied once the decline began. LS has an inferior product because of low purses. The competition who is beating them is the Louisiana tracks drawing better racehorses because of slots and higher purses. I'm sure state laws prohibiting ADW are hurting the handle and purses too. Then there is internet betting. Texas tracks are shackled by draconian state laws. Like most other tracks in the U.S., they have to compete against their own product from the Carribean booking operations who take away from the handle and provide nothing against the cost of producing the races.

As far as Sam Houston, increasing purses by a paltry $1000 sounds like a desperate attempt to compete with Delta Downs. HOU faces the same realities that LS does regarding drawing quality racehorses from slots tracks etc;.

Considering the locations and facilities of both those tracks they would no doubt be booming if allowed to compete on a level playing field.Oh My God. I am so sick of hearing about how tracks can't compete with racinos for horses. It is not the lack of horses that is Texas' problem. It is the lack of betters! Texas, like everyplace else, needs to start competing for gamblers not horses. Gamblers can live without horse races, horse racing can't live without the gamblers. It is about time that horsemen woke up to that fact.

[MPRanger]

Oh My God. I am so sick of hearing about how tracks can't compete with racinos for horses. It is not the lack of horses that is Texas' problem. It is the lack of betters! Texas, like everyplace else, needs to start competing for gamblers not horses. Gamblers can live without horse races, horse racing can't live without the gamblers. It is about time that horsemen woke up to that fact.

Alright, why do you think that Sam Houston raised their purses by $1000? Think they just had some extra cash laying around and didn't know what else to do with it?

No. They are trying to attract better horse flesh. If they were trying to attract more "betters" {players}, they would divi the $10,000 per day up and hand it out as door prizes.

As in all things in the competitive market, it starts with the product.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Alright, why do you think that Sam Houston raised their purses by $1000? Think they just had some extra cash laying around and didn't know what else to do with it?

No. They are trying to attract better horse flesh. If they were trying to attract more "betters" {players}, they would divi the $10,000 per day up and hand it out as door prizes.

As in all things in the competitive market, it starts with the product.
The product is pricing of the gamble, the value to the bettor that comes with lower takeout and/or bigger field size.
I don't agree that Horseplayers are attracted to quality at B or C tracks.

[MPRanger]

The product is pricing of the gamble, the value to the bettor that comes with lower takeout and/or bigger field size.
I don't agree that Horseplayers are attracted to quality at B or C tracks.

Yeah, they must be attracted to the stochastic nature of $2500 maiden claiming races.

[toussaud]

Lone Star Park has always run at those times. It wasn't til after 2004 that the decline began. Your theory probably is true to the extent that the effect of the competition is "magna" fied once the decline began. LS has an inferior product because of low purses. The competition who is beating them is the Louisiana tracks drawing better racehorses because of slots and higher purses. I'm sure state laws prohibiting ADW are hurting the handle and purses too. Then there is internet betting. Texas tracks are shackled by draconian state laws. Like most other tracks in the U.S., they have to compete against their own product from the Carribean booking operations who take away from the handle and provide nothing against the cost of producing the races.

As far as Sam Houston, increasing purses by a paltry $1000 sounds like a desperate attempt to compete with Delta Downs. HOU faces the same realities that LS does regarding drawing quality racehorses from slots tracks etc;.

Considering the locations and facilities of both those tracks they would no doubt be booming if allowed to compete on a level playing field.


No, it's always been true. But horse racing handle in general is half of what it was 10 years ago. Where there is what you would call an unfair playing field, there are things you can do as a track, to help offset the unfairness. Part of that, is actually running when gamblers will pay attention to your track.

This is not a theory, this is coming from someone who plays the horses hours a day, 6 days a week. If Lone star ran on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, they would probably get 500x more money from me on a weekly basis then they do now. I generally only play them on Thursday nights now. when they are competing with Hollywood Park and (really good) Australian racing on a friday night, they are going to lose, 10 out of 10 times.

[Robert Goren]

Alright, why do you think that Sam Houston raised their purses by $1000? Think they just had some extra cash laying around and didn't know what else to do with it?

No. They are trying to attract better horse flesh. If they were trying to attract more "betters" {players}, they would divi the $10,000 per day up and hand it out as door prizes.

As in all things in the competitive market, it starts with the product.The argument that higher purse attracts more gamblers flat out wrong. Monmouth Park last year got a 30 million gift for purses. They lost that plus another 2 million plus dollars over the year before. It starts with price of the product. Why should anyone pay a higher takeout rate for Texas races than NYRA. Why pay BMW prices for a Hyundai? A better paint job is not going to turn that Hyundai into BMW. Yet Horsemen seem to think an extra thousand of purse money is going get more gamblers. If Texas wants more handle, then they should lower the cost to the gambler.

[NTamm1215]

Lone Star does VERY good on-track business. That has long been their model. They always have things going in an effort to get people on track. This occurs oftentimes at the expense of their export, which I agree with you, is extremely weak on Saturdays and Sundays.

Sam Houston routinely handles more on Saturday nights than Lone Star does during the day, in fact it's much more quite often. The marketplace is crowded in May, June, and July (AP, LaD, LS, CD, Bel, Mth, CrC, Hol), so it would behoove them to think about going to night cards each racing day.

[Robert Goren]

Yeah, they must be attracted to the stochastic nature of $2500 maiden claiming races.Replacing a 2500 MCL with a 4000 MCL with $1000 higher purse is not going get very much of an increase in revenue.

[MPRanger]

I don't disagree with you. But in your first post you wrote that the times were the "sole" reason for the decline. I just think the other points I mentioned are in play as well.

[Robert Goren]

Lone Star does VERY good on-track business. That has long been their model. They always have things going in an effort to get people on track. This occurs oftentimes at the expense of their export, which I agree with you, is extremely weak on Saturdays and Sundays.

Sam Houston routinely handles more on Saturday nights than Lone Star does during the day, in fact it's much more quite often. The marketplace is crowded in May, June, and July (AP, LaD, LS, CD, Bel, Mth, CrC, Hol), so it would behoove them to think about going to night cards each racing day.On track business really where it at. A dollar wager on track will bring in 4-5 times more revenue for the track than a dollar wagered online. It is something we often overlook when we are measuring the sucess or lack there of a race meet.

[startngate]

Alright, why do you think that Sam Houston raised their purses by $1000? Think they just had some extra cash laying around and didn't know what else to do with it?
Actually yes, that's exactly why they are doing it. Well, technically they have some extra cash, and they know exactly what to do with it because they have no choice.

Every racetrack has a purse account. The funding of that account is determined when the local horsemen's group signs a contract with the track. It spells our what % of handle on live racing, handle on simulcast racing, and simulcast host fees go into the account.

The total amount in the purse account must be paid out to purses during the course of the meet. The racing secretary puts together a budget for purses based on the number of races to be run, and what races he thinks will go during the meet.

Tracks try to come as close as possible to paying out the total in the purse account without going over (going over is called a purse overpayment). Some tracks will overpay regularly (like Oaklawn) and some never do. Any balance left in the purse account at the end of the meet is carried over to the next meet, or if negative, can be reclaimed by the track in the future.

In the case of Sam Houston, an increase in handle, plus the lost day, means that the purse account would likely be underpaid at the end of the meet if things just kept going as is, and the racing secretary's budget is correct. So, the track then has no choice but to raise purses in an effort to try to pay out the entire account by the end of the meet. It's really not their money, it's the horsemen's by virtue of the contract.

[MPRanger]

The product is pricing of the gamble, the value to the bettor that comes with lower takeout and/or bigger field size.
I don't agree that Horseplayers are attracted to quality at B or C tracks.


The product is NOT the pricing. The product is the race. But I don't blame internet bookies for taking advantage of the situation. Like water, money and opportunities seek their own level. There's always a thousand sharks just waiting to pound rising opportunities back into equalibrium. That goes for the toteboard, the stock market and the black market.

Racetracks in the U.S. are hobbled by laws written by short sighted politicians pandering to interest groups who operate purely on philosophy and theory. These interest group opponents of the industry rarely have any real skin in the game.

The takeout rates are an absurdity no doubt.

[raybo]

While I agree that takeout is important, it's only important to those players who know the ramifications of higher takeout. The reality is that the vast majority of players don't know what the takeout is, at their track, or even care what it is. They don't realize that it affects the odds they will get when they hit. They're not "educated" gamblers.

Time of day certainly plays a huge part, regarding handle. I never have understood tracks that race during prime working hours. It's like playing baseball games at 1PM in the afternoon, Monday through Friday, only those fans that can take off work, or don't work, can attend the games. And, of course, holding races at the same time as other desirable tracks creates problems, also.

I agree that on-track players create additional track revenue, like concessions, parking, entry fees, programs, etc., but, it is a fact that the only growth sector, in horse racing is, and has been for some time, internet wagering. When a state decides that they want to keep state dollars within the state, and their solution is to restrict the state's wagerers from wagering on that state's tracks, online, it is counterproductive, regarding retaining state dollars within the state, and out of the track's coffers. So, all those "internet" dollars go out of state, and the fact is, that most of those players are losing players, so, the vast majority of the internet dollars that go out of state, never returns to the state, it's gone forever.

This is pure, unadulterated stupidity, on the part of the "powers that be".

[MPRanger]

Right on bro.

[rycommon]

The takeout rates are an absurdity no doubt.

Well actually it is not. Sam Houston has one of the lowest takeout rate for Pick 3's in the country as well as 50cents min bets. Since that is my bet of choice, I play them through out this meet. Also Mondays twinspires refund 10% of the takeouts for Pick 3's got a few extra bucks there too. If their handle is up that is good, maybe others will see that and try their own experiments.

[Kelso]

As in all things in the competitive market, it starts with the product.And there you have the key. Are the RACES (the track's basic "product") competitive? (I don't play the track, so I really don't know.) Do they give gamblers a dollar-based reason to feed HOU's pools rather than some other track's pools ... or to feed them at all?

Competitive racing ... of which field size is but one element ... produces value for bettors. The payoffs are greater because the outcomes are less certain. Value attracts more handle than amorphous references to "quality."

Monmouth trumpeted the "quality" claim all last season. The fields were larger (due to paid workouts) but the payoffs, in general, were nothing special.

The races weren't much more competitive than in other years ... they didn't produce value ... and the handle, therefor, didn't come even close to paying for the meet. It still took other peoples' money (not handicappers' money) to cover the inflated purses.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The product is NOT the pricing. The product is the race. But I don't blame internet bookies for taking advantage of the situation.
When a consumer goes into Wal-Mart and by goods, the product is the goods bought. When a consumer makes a bet on a race or a sports bet or whatever, the product is the bet (the ticket on the outcome of the event), not the event. The product is "action" on the event.

Admission price is different, the consumer is paying for the event whether it is horse racing or a football game. They product is the event in that case. But since horse racing gets most of its funding from bets, the product is the bet which is very much related to the pricing of the wager.

Internet bookies?

[MPRanger]

When a consumer goes into Wal-Mart and by goods, the product is the goods bought. When a consumer makes a bet on a race or a sports bet or whatever, the product is the bet (the ticket on the outcome of the event), not the event. The product is "action" on the event.

Admission price is different, the consumer is paying for the event whether it is horse racing or a football game. They product is the event in that case. But since horse racing gets most of its funding from bets, the product is the bet which is very much related to the pricing of the wager.

Internet bookies?


Ok, just for fun let's think this over...

Buy something at Walmart the product as you say is what they buy.
The product is not the price of what they buy. We agree here.

When you buy a stock thru a broker, the product is the stock or part ownership of the company whose stock you buy. The product is not the price of the stock. The brokers service is his product. The price of the brokers service is not the product. The value of the stock changes as time passes.

When you place a win bet at a simulcast facility, you are in effect buying stock in the win pool. The ownership of that percentage of the pool is the is the product. The takeout or brokers commission isn't the product. The pool and the race are two ways of looking at the same thing. The value of stock in the win pool changes over time as does stock in a company.

If a photographer takes a picture and sells it. The picture is the photographers product. The price isn't the product. If you copy that photographers picture and sell it for less than the photographer does, the copy of the picture is your product, not the price. You just make it harder for the photographer to sell copies of his picture because he has to compete with his own product when someone can buy it from you at a cheaper price than he can sell it for. He has to buy cameras and lenses and printers and ink and pay taxes etc;. He has to pay to travel to get the shot and whatever other costs are involved in creating the product.

When a bookie covers someones action they are providing a service. But the bookies commission is not the product. If it wasn't for the race or whatever product , there would be nothing for the bookie to make a commission on.

It might be easy for a bookie to lose sight of this since they have no investment in the product. Undercutting the track or photographer's price to captalize on their product without having to contribute to the creation of the product is just the bookies business model. But in no sense is the price the product.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I shouldn't have said the price is the product. That isn't what I meant. Just like shouldn't have said the race is the product.

The bet/ticket is the product.

[Robert Goren]

I shouldn't have said the price is the product. That isn't what I meant. Just like shouldn't have said the race is the product.

The bet/ticket is the product.Amen to that.

[BlueShoe]

Why pay BMW prices for a Hyundai? A better paint job is not going to turn that Hyundai into BMW.
Drifting off topic here, but this is a bad analogy. In recent years Hyundai has taken a huge leap forward, and in quality and performance now equals or exceeds rivals Toyota and Honda. The redesigned 2011 Sonata, for example, has gotten near rave reviews from the experts. Many Beamer models, on the other hand, have awful long term reliability records, and all models are very expensive to own. Given an option, would much rather have a 25k Hyundai than a 40k BMW.

[MPRanger]

I shouldn't have said the price is the product. That isn't what I meant. Just like shouldn't have said the race is the product.

The bet/ticket is the product.


Oh well ..... if you're happy then I'm happy. It's all good.

[precocity]

Ok, just for fun let's think this over...

Buy something at Walmart the product as you say is what they buy.
The product is not the price of what they buy. We agree here.

When you buy a stock thru a broker, the product is the stock or part ownership of the company whose stock you buy. The product is not the price of the stock. The brokers service is his product. The price of the brokers service is not the product. The value of the stock changes as time passes.

When you place a win bet at a simulcast facility, you are in effect buying stock in the win pool. The ownership of that percentage of the pool is the is the product. The takeout or brokers commission isn't the product. The pool and the race are two ways of looking at the same thing. The value of stock in the win pool changes over time as does stock in a company.

If a photographer takes a picture and sells it. The picture is the photographers product. The price isn't the product. If you copy that photographers picture and sell it for less than the photographer does, the copy of the picture is your product, not the price. You just make it harder for the photographer to sell copies of his picture because he has to compete with his own product when someone can buy it from you at a cheaper price than he can sell it for. He has to buy cameras and lenses and printers and ink and pay taxes etc;. He has to pay to travel to get the shot and whatever other costs are involved in creating the product.

When a bookie covers someones action they are providing a service. But the bookies commission is not the product. If it wasn't for the race or whatever product , there would be nothing for the bookie to make a commission on.

It might be easy for a bookie to lose sight of this since they have no investment in the product. Undercutting the track or photographer's price to captalize on their product without having to contribute to the creation of the product is just the bookies business model. But in no sense is the price the product.
:ThmbUp:

[Horseplayersbet.com]

"Undercutting the track or photographer's price to captalize on their product without having to contribute to the creation of the product is just the bookies business model. But in no sense is the price the product."
*****************
Again, the ticket is the product, so bookies are in fact creating a product. The price they make is taken into consideration by those buying the product.

I'm happy now.

[Zman179]

Why pay BMW prices for a Hyundai? A better paint job is not going to turn that Hyundai into BMW.

But what if you gave it a reeeeeeeeally good paintjob?

[MPRanger]

"Undercutting the track or photographer's price to captalize on their product without having to contribute to the creation of the product is just the bookies business model. But in no sense is the price the product."
*****************
Again, the ticket is the product, so bookies are in fact creating a product. The price they make is taken into consideration by those buying the product.

I'm happy now.

Sorry if this makes you unhappy again. I was gonna let it go :cool: . But since you have restated this, I feel put upon, obliged even to point out the error of this.

The ticket is not the product. It is a receipt. The product is the race/pool.

The product is created by the racetrack. But if you want to take the bookies side who is not tied into the pools, then you might say his product is the action he is covering. Though he may be covering trackside odds, it's not parimutuel. He's the one on the hook. He may not be able to layoff the action proportionately. He in effect is betting against the player by taking the action.

Just semantics. But what the heck...

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Nah, I'm a consumer. I'm buying a ticket, not the race. I'm buying a shot at part or all of the pool. The race is not the product. I'm not buying the race.