New CEO of the New York Racing Association should be Richard Eng.

[jelly]

Hayward now has a chance to be a game-changer for horseplayers, too. In past years, we have seen one racetrack after another take revenue from slot machines and raise their purses. That's fine. But I have not seen any of these tracks lower their takeout, in essence growing their business with bettors and creating new ones.

The NYRA could start the grand experiment of lowering its takeout to increase handle where maybe the horse industry can discover its optimal pricing level.


If nothing is done to improve the business model, then these track executives are in an indefensible position.

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/casino-could-position-nyra-to-lower-takeout-grow-business-135308658.html

[Tom]

Not up to NYRA.
Another writer who is too lazy to check facts?

[cj]

Not up to NYRA.

It isn't up to them, but they can ask at some point. I don't think it should be the first order of business.

[BillW]

Not up to NYRA.
Another writer who is too lazy to check facts?

That's the biggest problem in racing today - it's nobody's fault (and nobody's responsibility)

[thaskalos]

New York Racing currently sports a 26% takeout on their trifecta, superfecta, pick-3, and pick-4 wagers.

It had been argued that they needed takeouts of this magnitude in order to maintain their "premiere" status against other racing jurisdictions, which used slot profits to push their purses to the stratosphere.

Now New York tracks have gotten slots of their own...and the time has come for them to justify their "premiere" status.

Whether NYRA sets the takeouts or not is unimportant at this point.

Even if they DON'T set the takeouts, they must make a concentrated and determined effort to see that these takeouts are reduced...thereby showing us - the bettors - the same sort of "loyalty" that WE have shown THEM through the years.

Anything short of that would relegate them to the "ultra-greedy" class...along with the Philly Parks and the Penn Nationals of the world.

[OTM Al]

I'm glad "loyalty" was put inside parentheses. That means I don't have to take that comment seriously, right? People bet where they think they can make money. If people are betting NYRA tracks out of some sense of loyalty, they really should quit right now because they are being very stupid with their money.

[thaskalos]

I'm glad "loyalty" was put inside parentheses. That means I don't have to take that comment seriously, right? People bet where they think they can make money. If people are betting NYRA tracks out of some sense of loyalty, they really should quit right now because they are being very stupid with their money.
I put loyalty into "parentheses" because I meant to imply..."loyalty with their DOLLARS!"

[OTM Al]

I put loyalty into "parentheses" because I meant to imply..."loyalty with their DOLLARS!"

I fail to see the difference.

[cj]

I'm glad "loyalty" was put inside parentheses. That means I don't have to take that comment seriously, right? People bet where they think they can make money. If people are betting NYRA tracks out of some sense of loyalty, they really should quit right now because they are being very stupid with their money.

People bet what they know, not where they think they can make money. It doesn't matter if the really know it or think they know it...my opinion of course.

[thaskalos]

I fail to see the difference.

And I fail to see if you disagree with my first post here or not.

[thaskalos]

People bet what they know, not where they think they can make money. It doesn't matter if the really know it or think they know it...my opinion of course.

I couldn't agree more!

[OTM Al]

And I fail to see if you disagree with my first post here or not.

Yes I do. Waiting for any business to drop it's prices as a reward for your loyalty is more silly than having "loyalty" in the first place. No business of any kind is going to react based on that, even if they tell you they do. They will react if they think it will make them money. If everyone is so loyal in the first place, there is no point of dropping the take because it will still be the same people betting the same money and they will lose revenue, not gain it.

I certainly bet NY because I know it. If I didn't know it, I'd have no damn chance of winning. Because I do, I feel I have adequate chance to win. This is why I bet there despite the take. I know others (as do you cj) who swear by Woodbine, which has an even higher take, because they know it and thus can win there. Who the hell bets where they don't think they can win? I want to meet these people. I have a car to finish payments on.

[cj]

Yes I do. Waiting for any business to drop it's prices as a reward for your loyalty is more silly than having "loyalty" in the first place. No business of any kind is going to react based on that, even if they tell you they do. They will react if they think it will make them money. If everyone is so loyal in the first place, there is no point of dropping the take because it will still be the same people betting the same money and they will lose revenue, not gain it.

I certainly bet NY because I know it. If I didn't know it, I'd have no damn chance of winning. Because I do, I feel I have adequate chance to win. This is why I bet there despite the take. I know others (as do you cj) who swear by Woodbine, which has an even higher take, because they know it and thus can win there. Who the hell bets where they don't think they can win? I want to meet these people. I have a car to finish payments on.

Seeing that probably 98% of people lose, I doubt most people realistically think they are going to win no matter what track they bet.

[OTM Al]

Seeing that probably 98% of people lose, I doubt most people realistically think they are going to win no matter what track they bet.

Well, that's the best reason for everyone to just quit then that I've ever heard. If it's 98% then decreases in take will lower that to what, 95% best chance senario? Sounds like a great talking point for HANA. "We'll increase winners to 5% with reduced takeout".

Seriously though, if you don't think you have a chance to win, what's the point then? Explain the behavior.

[thaskalos]

Yes I do. Waiting for any business to drop it's prices as a reward for your loyalty is more silly than having "loyalty" in the first place. No business of any kind is going to react based on that, even if they tell you they do. They will react if they think it will make them money. If everyone is so loyal in the first place, there is no point of dropping the take because it will still be the same people betting the same money and they will lose revenue, not gain it.

I certainly bet NY because I know it. If I didn't know it, I'd have no damn chance of winning. Because I do, I feel I have adequate chance to win. This is why I bet there despite the take. I know others (as do you cj) who swear by Woodbine, which has an even higher take, because they know it and thus can win there. Who the hell bets where they don't think they can win? I want to meet these people. I have a car to finish payments on.
And I, in turn, disagree with you!

You don't "takeout" 26% from the trifecta, superfecta, pick-3, and pick-4 pools, while sitting on a mountain of casino profits...and still proclaim yourself to be a "premiere" racing jurisdiction!

Whatever happened to the "triangle" theory in this "business"?

You know...the one that states that the tracks, the horsemen, and the bettors are "all in this together"?

Everybody profits by this...except the player?

[takeout]

I’ll be curious to see which comes first, a lower takeout or another pay raise for Hayward and crew.

[jelly]

If Hayward and NYRA don't ask for a lower takeout then they probably don't want a lower takeout.



Will NYRA act like Pennsylvania racing or will they think big?

[classhandicapper]

Seriously though, if you don't think you have a chance to win, what's the point then? Explain the behavior.

That's an easy one. People "love" to gamble.

Don't confuse serious players like us with the average guy that also plays slots, lotteries, bingo etc...

[classhandicapper]

I've only read bits and pieces about what they intend to use the increased revenue for.

I might have done a little more to fix up the tracks and improve the racetrack experience sooner than putting so much toward purses (especially AQU because it's part of the Racino and would have plenty of traffic if it was appealing), but I think the overall plan sounds good.

Perhaps once they make all the capital investments in the tracks that have been neglected for so long they will make a "push" for a reduction in the track "take".

[cj]

Well, that's the best reason for everyone to just quit then that I've ever heard. If it's 98% then decreases in take will lower that to what, 95% best chance senario? Sounds like a great talking point for HANA. "We'll increase winners to 5% with reduced takeout".

Seriously though, if you don't think you have a chance to win, what's the point then? Explain the behavior.

Come on Al, you honestly think regular track goers are dumb enough to think they are going to win? Some people like the track as entertainment. I'm not saying nobody wins, it can be done, but your typical guy buying a form on his way into the track has no shot long term. Vegas doesn't advertise that you won't win long term either, but it doesn't make it less true.

[castaway01]

That's an easy one. People "love" to gamble.

Don't confuse serious players like us with the average guy that also plays slots, lotteries, bingo etc...

Whenever I'm in a convenience store, there is invariably someone in front of me waiting to spend 10 or 20 dollars on an instant lottery ticket...the takeout on those is 40 to 50 percent, depending on the state...people just aren't that bright, unfortunately.

[cj]

Hayward now has a chance to be a game-changer for horseplayers, too. In past years, we have seen one racetrack after another take revenue from slot machines and raise their purses. That's fine. But I have not seen any of these tracks lower their takeout, in essence growing their business with bettors and creating new ones.

The NYRA could start the grand experiment of lowering its takeout to increase handle where maybe the horse industry can discover its optimal pricing level.


If nothing is done to improve the business model, then these track executives are in an indefensible position.

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/casino-could-position-nyra-to-lower-takeout-grow-business-135308658.html

Just to get back to the original post, it isn't like NYRA was given some big pot of casino dollars to divvy up and somehow decided to give it all to purses. The breakdown of cash is divided by State law as to what goes to purses and what goes to Capital improvements.

[NTamm1215]

I've only read bits and pieces about what they intend to use the increased revenue for.

I might have done a little more to fix up the tracks and improve the racetrack experience sooner than putting so much toward purses (especially AQU because it's part of the Racino and would have plenty of traffic if it was appealing), but I think the overall plan sounds good.

Perhaps once they make all the capital investments in the tracks that have been neglected for so long they will make a "push" for a reduction in the track "take".

It's been made abundantly clear that a certain % of the money is earmarked for capital improvements, specifically about $100 million worth in 2013 at Saratoga.

Takeout is the magic topic in racing right now but the most important thing for everyone to realize, as some on this thread have, that NYRA does not set their takeout. Can they REALLY push the state to lower the takeout? Absolutely, but let's think about some of the other factors at play. Like many other states, NY is swimming in red ink. They need to suck every dime out of anything that's generating significant revenue. Thus, it's very unlikely that they're going to lower takeout this year. Who will be blamed for this? NYRA, of course.

[jelly]

Letter to the DRF Editor


Players can only be squeezed so much

I saw a very interesting thing in an advertisement for the Aqueduct racino, or Resorts World New York, as the Big A is now known. Actually, what was interesting is what I didn't see.

There were pictures of people at the slots and electronic table games, people dancing, dining, and generally having a great time. What I didn't see was a reference to a horse at any time. It must be a dirty little secret that horse racing is going on somewhere on the grounds. None of the employees is letting on.

My concern is that no one cares about the horseplayers in this state. We continue to support this enterprise while getting nothing in return. The horsemen have been thrown the proverbial bone and will dutifully serve the master. The lifeblood of the sport, the horseplayers, get kicked again.

When does the price of playing this game, the takeout, go down? If it did, the track could actually survive on its own, as numerous studies have shown. But bettors are ignored.

Allow me to let the New York Racing Association and the horsemen in on another dirty little secret. A few years from now the state is going to say that it can no longer afford to subsidize your losing enterprise. When that happens, try coming to the horseplayers for another takeout increase. Sorry, we'll be gone. Then, in turn, so will you.

Caveat vendor: You need to recognize who has paid the bills and help us now.

Russell A. Weber - Amityville, N.Y.


http://www.drf.com/news/letters-editor-dec-11

[David-LV]

It isn't up to them, but they can ask at some point. I don't think it should be the first order of business.

I think that their first order of business is to vote themselves a nice big raise,
the hell with us horse players that pay the freight.

________
David-LV

[Horseplayersbet.com]

People gamble because they think they can win, even if they know it is a really outside chance (take lottery tickets for example).
I disagree that NYRA should drop takeout out of loyalty. However, if studies and inferences are correct (and I believe they are), all tracks, including NYRA tracks have takeout rates that are much higher than the optimum rate.
Having this influx in new gaming revenue makes it the perfect time to experiment with lower takeouts. If the tracks and horsemen wind up with more money by doing this, they will know they are going in the right direction.

As for the 98% of Horseplayers lose money versus 95%. Creating new and more winners is necessary for growth in horse racing.

Poker got popular because the chances to win long term based on skill is much higher than betting horses (at least it is perceived that way, and it is most likely true). I doubt that more than 10-15% of online poker players make money, but it is enough to get everyone else who plays interested.

[jelly]

After well over a decade of empirical data regarding slots and handles (slot money up, while handles drop), people are speaking out. The racino at Aqueduct has been churning out some huge revenues, most of which will go into purses, just like it has in numerous jurisdictions around North America. Meanwhile, customers have never shared in the windfall and they continue to leave in droves.

Some industry watchers, bettors and fans have had enough, and they're letting everyone know they have.


http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/12/press-bettors-customers-turn-up-heat-on.html

[OTM Al]

Come on Al, you honestly think regular track goers are dumb enough to think they are going to win? Some people like the track as entertainment. I'm not saying nobody wins, it can be done, but your typical guy buying a form on his way into the track has no shot long term. Vegas doesn't advertise that you won't win long term either, but it doesn't make it less true.

I did say chance. You have to believe you have a chance, not an absolute. Economists would refer to it as expected utility. I do not believe I have a chance at Tampa, ergo, I do not bet Tampa. I believe I have a chance at Gulfstream, so I will bet Gulfstream. Losing is 100% takeout.

Do you also realize, jelly, that Resorts World and NYRA are two different companies and Resorts World franky doesn't give much a crap about racing other than it allows them to have a casion in NYC? None of their ads are going to show racing and I kinda doubt NYRA is going to advertize the casino.

The HANA Blog is ridiculous by the way. There is much more info in this thread already than in that piece. But what the hell. Maybe NYRA should just say, "No we don't want the slot money if part of it is legally required to go to purses". Can we let them at least start on a list of priorities before we go berserk here?

[classhandicapper]

I did say chance. You have to believe you have a chance, not an absolute. Economists would refer to it as expected utility. I do not believe I have a chance at Tampa, ergo, I do not bet Tampa. I believe I have a chance at Gulfstream, so I will bet Gulfstream. Losing is 100% takeout.


You are still referring to people like us and not the general population.

Most people are totally clueless and delusional about the mathematics of these games or their chances of winning and many others know they are going lose over the long haul but play anyway.

Why do I spend money going to the movies, a concert, a ball game etc.. even though there is no chance of making a profit?

It's FUN.

A lot of people find gambling exciting and fun. So they play even though they know it's stacked against them long term and they are almost certain to lose.

In Vegas, there are a lot of professional card players that also play some Craps. I find that insane(as I'm sure you do), but they do it for fun/action.

[classhandicapper]

It's been made abundantly clear that a certain % of the money is earmarked for capital improvements, specifically about $100 million worth in 2013 at Saratoga.

That's what I was referring to, but I think I would have made Aqueduct a priority also.

I was at the racino yesterday. The casino was crowded, but so was the racetrack area. Some were former OTB patrons that have nowhere to bet anymore (I saw a lot of familiar faces), but perhaps there was also some spillover from the casino. It's not like the AQU clubhouse is in bad shape. It's actually in pretty good shape. But if it was really spruced up like the casino I think there might be more of a spillover effect. There's an opportunity there.

[andtheyreoff]

Here's an interesting statistic concerning the Aqueduct slots.

Last year, on New Year's Day, the purses were $349,000 and the handle was $9,412,496, represting $26.97 wagered per dollar in purses.

Checking out this year's condition book for the same day, purses will be approximately $445,000. To match last year's handle per dollar in purses figure, they will have to handle $12,001,591.

A compelling stat to lower the takeout. As we all know, lower takeout = more money for the bettors = more money wagered. To keep up last year's HPDIP figure, they will have to have a lot more money wagered.

[pktruckdriver]

New York Racing currently sports a 26% takeout on their trifecta, superfecta, pick-3, and pick-4 wagers.

It had been argued that they needed takeouts of this magnitude in order to maintain their "premiere" status against other racing jurisdictions, which used slot profits to push their purses to the stratosphere.

Now New York tracks have gotten slots of their own...and the time has come for them to justify their "premiere" status.

Whether NYRA sets the takeouts or not is unimportant at this point.

Even if they DON'T set the takeouts, they must make a concentrated and determined effort to see that these takeouts are reduced...thereby showing us - the bettors - the same sort of "loyalty" that WE have shown THEM through the years.

Anything short of that would relegate them to the "ultra-greedy" class...along with the Philly Parks and the Penn Nationals of the world.

I am so sorry I had to post this, it made me laugh for hours, to think NYRA cares about us...:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Forgive me

Patrick

[OTM Al]

You are still referring to people like us and not the general population.

Most people are totally clueless and delusional about the mathematics of these games or their chances of winning and many others know they are going lose over the long haul but play anyway.

Why do I spend money going to the movies, a concert, a ball game etc.. even though there is no chance of making a profit?

It's FUN.

A lot of people find gambling exciting and fun. So they play even though they know it's stacked against them long term and they are almost certain to lose.

In Vegas, there are a lot of professional card players that also play some Craps. I find that insane(as I'm sure you do), but they do it for fun/action.

You are getting part of the argument but not the whole thing. Of course entertainment is an element. You are arguing though that because someone's information set is bad, then they should believe they have no chance. Incorrect. Beliefs don't have to be based on what anyone else perceives as real. They simply are. You are not behaving irrationally if you are applying your beliefs to the issue. We can argue about not being able to update beliefs and what that means, but not the point of this. Since fun is also worth something, a certain amount of losing can be rationally tolerated. Continuing to bet though if you think you have no chance is irrational because you are violating your beliefs.

Betting a track because you know it means that you will have some information set, even if it is as paltry as knowing who some of the jockeys and trainers are. I will admit we still have small timers, the blue haired crew, who bet a horse because it has the same name as their sister's plumber's daughter, but I would still argue that they still feel they have a chance. We need more of those but I fear they are gone for good.

[DeanT]

We can only hope NYRA gets moving on this; quicker than Woodbine did would be nice.

It took Woodbine almost ten years to start putting some of their share of slots cash into the handle portion. It wasn't mandated (governments clearly aren't that smart), but they ended up increasing rewards for players, lowering some rake, and buying television time and using it better.

Even the horsemen got into the act with some of their slot cash. They greenlighted most of the new stuff, and the main horsemen groups for tbreds and standardbreds give away cash during the TV show - to bet.

They took a portion of the cash and paid TVG as well.

Handle per race was up 9.99% this season,after an 8% increase in 2010. The new TV show - wholly funded by slots revenue - brought in 2000 new betting accounts. Ratings were up 30%

When you do more with slots money than the same old thing that's failed everywhere,you can win.

Woodbine had a "lost slots cash decade" with a decent balance sheet, decent racing, with no one there to watch. It's nice they've finally done something for the player and the demand side of the sport. From what I hear, there is more to come.

Dean

[classhandicapper]

You are getting part of the argument but not the whole thing. Of course entertainment is an element. You are arguing though that because someone's information set is bad, then they should believe they have no chance.\

You are thinking too logically about something that is often not logical. This is not economics. Gamblers are often irrational.

Everyone is different and has different values etc... but there are some mathematically brilliant professional poker players that play Craps and Roulette despite guaranteed long term losses they are fully aware of. Those are people like you and me that know better.

Do you really think they think they are going to win?

Some people know they are going to lose but they just don't give a rats ass about it. They want action and fun. They may want to win. They may hope they win. But they know what they are doing is idiotic and likely to lead to losses, perhaps significant losses. They do it because the tradeoff between the losses and action/fun is deemed positive. Others do it because they are self destructive and compulsive. However, they all know they are going lose.

[OTM Al]

You are thinking too logically about something that is often not logical. This is not economics. Gamblers are often irrational.


Decision making, information sets, strategies....it's economics. You are defining rationality in a different way than me I think.