Racing has a serious problem here

[jelly]

If you work in track management, if you are a horseman, or if you are a politically appointed state regulator – this article was written for your benefit.


As members of track management, elected leadership of horsemen’s groups, and politically appointed state regulators – you have played an active role in setting takeout levels.


And in so doing you have created a comically poor wagering experience for the new would be racing fan compared to what that same new would be racing fan experiences when he or she walks into a casino.
In a recent article, The Paulick Report covered an appellate court ruling in Kentucky that vacated a decision made by a lower court to allow gaming in the form of Instant Racing to operate at race tracks in the state of Kentucky.


Buried in that article is the following quote:
“According to statistics provided by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, $15.7 million was wagered on Instant Racing at Kentucky Downs in May, with $14.4 million returned to the public in winning bets. Total commissions were $1,285,991, with Kentucky Downs receiving $1,050,348 in net commissions. Fourteen percent of the net track commission, or $147,048 go into the purse fund, and $10,503 (1% of net) to a breeders incentive fund. “


Those numbers indicate that Instant Racing takeout is approximately 8.28%.


Bullet Point: This is a case where tracks and horsemen are clamoring for approval to offer an electronic version of racing that has a takeout of 8.28%.


Yet the real thing (live thoroughbred racing) has a blended takeout rate more than double that amount.


Q. Why such a disparity between the two rates?


A. It’s really quite simple. Takeout rates for the live racing product aren’t set by the market.

Instead, takeout rates for the live racing product are dictated by track management, leadership of horsemen’s groups, and politically appointed state regulators – people who to date have done everything in their power to deny even the suggestion that market forces apply to the live racing product.


The 8.28% takeout rate for Instant Racing came about because it was suggested by the market. There is a growing body of real world evidence to suggest that Instant Racing’s 8.28% takeout rate is not too far away from the optimal pricing point for most forms of gaming.


Q. Where does that body of evidence come from?


A. It comes from the casino industry.







Read the rest here....

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2012/06/16-to-18-takeout-equals-25-long-term.html

[Tom]

Q. Why such a disparity between the two rates?

Two totally different games.
Different frequency of play, more plays in one of them......

[forced89]

The purse supplements from Instant Racing helped keep Oaklawn relevant for a number of years. But it wasn't just the purse supplements from the machines.

Because most who attend the races at Oaklawn don't live in Hot Springs, Instant Racing gave those in our group who weren't interested in the live races something to do while the rest of us did out handicapping. Because this stimulated weekend trips to Hot Springs I think Instant Racing also added to the attendance at the track and to the handle.

[Quesmark]

After the initial investment,the costs involved keeping an instant racing machine operating is negligible compared to the expenses involved in running live races.
The 8.28% takeout is low in comparison to part-mutuel pool rakes,but relatively high for a gambling device[slot machine].

[Robert Goren]

After the initial investment,the costs involved keeping an instant racing machine operating is negligible compared to the expenses involved in running live races.
The 8.28% takeout is low in comparison to part-mutuel pool rakes,but relatively high for a gambling device[slot machine].An instant racing machine is a slot machine. There is no skill involved with them.

[OTM Al]

It's time to stop making this foolish comparison. So what if the take on one pull of the slot machine is 3%. The argument constantly ignores the fact that an average person can do 6-10 pulls a minute. That is an effective take PER MINUTE of between 17-24%. I generally play 4 races on a day's card give or take. Show me one person who has sat down at the slots and made 4 pulls and called it a day.

[takeout]

Dayum. Tough room, Jelly. No danger of preaching to the choir here. :D

[racingfan378]

I agree with the takeout being too high, and as a bettor it sucks. But anyone with half a brain knows 98% of people lose playing the slots. Vegas wasnt built on winners.

With that being said, I wish someone could sit down and do the math for one track if the takeout was 10% across the board for easy math. When you crunch the numbers to see who gets what of that takeout % etc. I think we would see a huge cut in purses, funding for this that etc.

We all agree takeout sucks esp. at the rate Parx charges BUT at 10% instead of 30% does that mean they would be getting triple the handle on an already low Sunday total handle? I think not.

No easy answer when it comes to the takeout rates in this game. Sometimes we have to think of both sides of the coin.

Even if Hollywood Park had a low takeout rate, people still dont bet CA racing anymore due to bad field sizes and the nickle and diming those tracks do to get you into the door.

If racetracks want to succeed they need to take on the casino image of not charging for general admission and parking along with providing free drinks stations to the guest and even giving away the live racing program along with tip sheets and staff members at the track who could actually teach a new person to bet properly for that day's live racing instead of the $2+ program fees tracks charge nowadays. I've seen people want a program, the staff memer says it cost X amount and they say no thanks and walk away to the casino floor or stay and NOT bet at all. Then and ONLY then would you see a better increase of live attendance.

The goal is to get people at the track and not the OTB. This is where the tracks make the most money is when someone comes to them! When someone plays Keeneland from CA then Keeneland isnt making anything compared to the same guest ontrack.

[cj]

It's time to stop making this foolish comparison. So what if the take on one pull of the slot machine is 3%. The argument constantly ignores the fact that an average person can do 6-10 pulls a minute. That is an effective take PER MINUTE of between 17-24%. I generally play 4 races on a day's card give or take. Show me one person who has sat down at the slots and made 4 pulls and called it a day.

You may play four races a day, but you can bet a race somewhere every few minutes if you are so inclined. You also aren't limited to betting the live card, and the host track benefits when you bet others too. The comparison isn't great, but it isn't near as bad as you make it out to be.

[cj]

When someone plays Keeneland from CA then Keeneland isnt making anything compared to the same guest ontrack.

Let me ask you a simple question. Whose fault is that?

[OTM Al]

You may play four races a day, but you can bet a race somewhere every few minutes if you are so inclined. You also aren't limited to betting the live card, and the host track benefits when you bet others too. The comparison isn't great, but it isn't near as bad as you make it out to be.

Every few minutes, yes, but the point is still made that the slot machine is working at a rate of takeout per minute equal to or higher than takeout at almost every track. 5 minutes of play at the rate above is an expected takeout of between 60 and 78%. How does that equate to playing one race every five minutes, which is doable if you really want to. It sure doesn't look so much better to me.

[castaway01]

You may play four races a day, but you can bet a race somewhere every few minutes if you are so inclined. You also aren't limited to betting the live card, and the host track benefits when you bet others too. The comparison isn't great, but it isn't near as bad as you make it out to be.

Still, there is something to be said for the idea that while takeout is a huge factor for us because we know about it, the vast majority of slots players don't avoid horse racing because of the takeout. The vast majority of those slot players also lose money at a similar rate to horse racing gamblers (for reasons Al said), but slots are easy, quick, exciting and "fun," a simple diversion, while trying to understand racing is difficult, time-consuming, and while "fun" for us requires you to use your brain, which most don't want to do.


While I would love for takeout to be cut in half, you'd still largely be preaching to the converted at the track. Sure, please, cut it tomorrow, but casinos and slot machines would still be taking people's money in buckets, as they are now throughout the nation.

[OTM Al]

Still, there is something to be said for the idea that while takeout is a huge factor for us because we know about it, the vast majority of slots players don't avoid horse racing because of the takeout. The vast majority of those slot players also lose money at a similar rate to horse racing gamblers (for reasons Al said), but slots are easy, quick, exciting and "fun," a simple diversion, while trying to understand racing is difficult, time-consuming, and while "fun" for us requires you to use your brain, which most don't want to do.


While I would love for takeout to be cut in half, you'd still largely be preaching to the converted at the track. Sure, please, cut it tomorrow, but casinos and slot machines would still be taking people's money in buckets, as they are now throughout the nation.

That pretty much nails it.

[jelly]

Still, there is something to be said for the idea that while takeout is a huge factor for us because we know about it, the vast majority of slots players don't avoid horse racing because of the takeout. The vast majority of those slot players also lose money at a similar rate to horse racing gamblers (for reasons Al said), but slots are easy, quick, exciting and "fun," a simple diversion, while trying to understand racing is difficult, time-consuming, and while "fun" for us requires you to use your brain, which most don't want to do.

While I would love for takeout to be cut in half, you'd still largely be preaching to the converted at the track. Sure, please, cut it tomorrow, but casinos and slot machines would still be taking people's money in buckets, as they are now throughout the nation.







And expensive.$8 for a DRF form.A major problem is how to use the information to attract new players.

[OTM Al]

And expensive.$8 for a DRF form.A major problem is how to use the information to attract new players.

New players don't buy the form. If anything, they buy the track program as that is something they can relate to from other sporting events. It is much cheaper. And compare that $8 for several tracks to what people pay for TG or Sheets for one track. There are choices.

[cj]

Every few minutes, yes, but the point is still made that the slot machine is working at a rate of takeout per minute equal to or higher than takeout at almost every track. 5 minutes of play at the rate above is an expected takeout of between 60 and 78%. How does that equate to playing one race every five minutes, which is doable if you really want to. It sure doesn't look so much better to me.

I just don't think racing should get a pass because it takes longer to run races. Just as nobody forces you play every race, nobody forces you to pull the handle or push the button every 15 seconds. Slots aren't the best comparison for horse racing. Poker is much better. What is the takeout on poker?

[OTM Al]

I just don't think racing should get a pass because it takes longer to run races. Just as nobody forces you play every race, nobody forces you to pull the handle or push the button every 15 seconds. Slots aren't the best comparison for horse racing. Poker is much better. What is the takeout on poker?

No passes being given, just stating the point that the comparison with slots is a terrible one. I agree that poker has many more similarities, though speed of play is likely still faster than most would bet races.

[cj]

No passes being given, just stating the point that the comparison with slots is a terrible one. I agree that poker has many more similarities, though speed of play is likely still faster than most would bet races.

Not really on the speed, especially true for someone playing from home.

[burnsy]

its not that the form is 8 bucks...its exactly like castaway stated. people love the slots and numbers because it requires no thinking. the take out could be equal...it won't bring new people. the horseplayers might increase handle because we might bet more but women ,old people and many young people are hooked on the "video crack". put the money in....push a button and take a shot. many of them count on losing before they start. they can drink, talk and even smoke at some places without a thought and the machine determines if they win or lose. these are people that suck at math and don't even want to do it, let alone handicap a race. i tried the "slot racing" and hated it. picking an exacta is like pulling the damn handle on a slot machine. horse racing costs way more to maintain than a stupid machine. horse racing will struggle until people have inquiring and analytic minds. if you are not a critical thinker...you'll never get this game or be any good at it. people know this and it intimidates them from the start. how many times have you heard people say they don't understand the form or program...its because they don't want to take the time to figure it out or just plain can't...its not rocket science but to many it is because they have no desire to learn. the tracks should offer free classes for beginnners during peak days and seasons....saratoga and del mar should have one every morning. we live in a lazy, get it immediatly society....call it what it is. we might win some over by taking them by the hand and babying them....but there is a large portion of this population that will be a lost cause. even if the takeout were zero...we're the only ones that even think about it because we analyze and bet frequently. you gotta get people playing....at the track. its a tall order in this day and age.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

No passes being given, just stating the point that the comparison with slots is a terrible one. I agree that poker has many more similarities, though speed of play is likely still faster than most would bet races.
How about a comparison to sports betting then? They only take 2 and a half hours to 3 hours to play. How come the takeout isn't higher than horse racing?

[jelly]

Anyone who walks through the tracks door should be giving PPs for that track.
When these tracks promote a big events like opening day,concerts,cooking trucks(?)etc. you get a lot of Newcomers,Why wouldn't you give them something to bet with?

[DeanT]

Still, there is something to be said for the idea that while takeout is a huge factor for us because we know about it, the vast majority of slots players don't avoid horse racing because of the takeout. The vast majority of those slot players also lose money at a similar rate to horse racing gamblers (for reasons Al said), but slots are easy, quick, exciting and "fun," a simple diversion, while trying to understand racing is difficult, time-consuming, and while "fun" for us requires you to use your brain, which most don't want to do.


While I would love for takeout to be cut in half, you'd still largely be preaching to the converted at the track. Sure, please, cut it tomorrow, but casinos and slot machines would still be taking people's money in buckets, as they are now throughout the nation.

It's all about trying something new as a gambler, and learning if we have a "shot" to win, even if we have no shot. Slots players think they can win.

A mom in her basement would never play a stock at $300 per trade, but at $9 a trade she can try it and make some money. It's pretty complex to play the markets but that area has exploded with at home play. Word of mouth about Etrade spread to the mainstream, and you now people playing a trade every minute.

Online poker is very similar. When people started playing, they learned they could break even, or at the very least have a shot. If you raked 30% out of a poker pot, word of mouth would spread the game sucks, and we'd likely not be watching the WSOP every year.

Right now, racing has a terrible reputation as a gambling game. Listen to any Vegas talk show on gambling, or read any blog. That is a huge issue and a huge barrier of entry.

If you notice, it is not that way with Betfair. There you can play a dozen or so tracks and have a shot to win. If you use CJ's figs, with a track bias, you could probably break even at Betfair betting to win, and do what poker players are doing. You cant do that at 16% rakes, unless you are extremely skilled.

This is what Peter Webb has done, and he is a newbie. If the rake was 15% and parimutuel only, Peter Webb would be playing the stock market, or poker.

http://www.sportspromedia.com/guest_blog/peter_webb_the_rise_of_the_betting_exchange/

The gambling market is over $500B a year and that's the legal one. It's probably more like $1 trillion. When 98% of that money is going to low rake games, where people have a shot to win - or think they have a shot to win - your game has a serious pricing problem. Racing has a serious pricing problem.

[Producer]

its not that the form is 8 bucks...its exactly like castaway stated. people love the slots and numbers because it requires no thinking. the take out could be equal...it won't bring new people. the horseplayers might increase handle because we might bet more but women ,old people and many young people are hooked on the "video crack". put the money in....push a button and take a shot. many of them count on losing before they start. they can drink, talk and even smoke at some places without a thought and the machine determines if they win or lose. these are people that suck at math and don't even want to do it, let alone handicap a race. i tried the "slot racing" and hated it. picking an exacta is like pulling the damn handle on a slot machine. horse racing costs way more to maintain than a stupid machine. horse racing will struggle until people have inquiring and analytic minds. if you are not a critical thinker...you'll never get this game or be any good at it. people know this and it intimidates them from the start. how many times have you heard people say they don't understand the form or program...its because they don't want to take the time to figure it out or just plain can't...its not rocket science but to many it is because they have no desire to learn. the tracks should offer free classes for beginnners during peak days and seasons....saratoga and del mar should have one every morning. we live in a lazy, get it immediatly society....call it what it is. we might win some over by taking them by the hand and babying them....but there is a large portion of this population that will be a lost cause. even if the takeout were zero...we're the only ones that even think about it because we analyze and bet frequently. you gotta get people playing....at the track. its a tall order in this day and age.



IMO, most of this is spot on. I truly believe regardless of what tracks, racing organizations, or anybody else does to promote horse racing to new fans, most will not care for it, except on big "event" days when it's more of a social event. If spending $8 on a form, or $3.50 on a hot dog is such a big deal, you shouldn't be gambling anyway. So you spend $10 before you even start betting. Big Deal, everything costs money. No way somebody can tell me that this is a major deterrent to gaining new fans. Americans want instant gratification and instant success and that's simply not possible in horse racing. It's an intellectual game and most people are not drawn to that aspect of it.

[DeanT]

How about a comparison to sports betting then? They only take 2 and a half hours to 3 hours to play. How come the takeout isn't higher than horse racing?

It's the slowest betting game around, but bookies in 1890 charge dime lines. Vegas charges dime lines today. They don't do it because it's a charity, they have tried to charge more at times - but people lost too much money and stopped betting. Back to dime lines.

If sports betting charged 25%, sports betting would not be popular either.

[castaway01]

It's all about trying something new as a gambler, and learning if we have a "shot" to win, even if we have no shot. Slots players think they can win.

A mom in her basement would never play a stock at $300 per trade, but at $9 a trade she can try it and make some money. It's pretty complex to play the markets but that area has exploded with at home play. Word of mouth about Etrade spread to the mainstream, and you now people playing a trade every minute.

Online poker is very similar. When people started playing, they learned they could break even, or at the very least have a shot. If you raked 30% out of a poker pot, word of mouth would spread the game sucks, and we'd likely not be watching the WSOP every year.

Right now, racing has a terrible reputation as a gambling game. Listen to any Vegas talk show on gambling, or read any blog. That is a huge issue and a huge barrier of entry.

If you notice, it is not that way with Betfair. There you can play a dozen or so tracks and have a shot to win. If you use CJ's figs, with a track bias, you could probably break even at Betfair betting to win, and do what poker players are doing. You cant do that at 16% rakes, unless you are extremely skilled.

This is what Peter Webb has done, and he is a newbie. If the rake was 15% and parimutuel only, Peter Webb would be playing the stock market, or poker.

http://www.sportspromedia.com/guest_blog/peter_webb_the_rise_of_the_betting_exchange/

The gambling market is over $500B a year and that's the legal one. It's probably more like $1 trillion. When 98% of that money is going to low rake games, where people have a shot to win - or think they have a shot to win - your game has a serious pricing problem. Racing has a serious pricing problem.


Well, if you're just about fooling soccer moms into thinking they can win at the track, then go for it, but if you're saying they actually have a better chance to win at slots than racing, I don't agree. I guess it's marketing vs. reality and slots do have better marketing. If you've ever actually spoken to anyone who hits the casino regularly---as my father and a lot of his senior friends do---they don't do it because they think they can "win" but because it's a fun break from life for a couple hours and hey, they just might hit that penny machine. If you think people there have any idea what "rake" is though, you can write all you want, but you're wrong. Again, not saying I don't want a lower takeout, but the slot players don't have any idea what "rake" even is. It's just easy.

[castaway01]

It's all about trying something new as a gambler, and learning if we have a "shot" to win, even if we have no shot. Slots players think they can win.

A mom in her basement would never play a stock at $300 per trade, but at $9 a trade she can try it and make some money. It's pretty complex to play the markets but that area has exploded with at home play. Word of mouth about Etrade spread to the mainstream, and you now people playing a trade every minute.

Online poker is very similar. When people started playing, they learned they could break even, or at the very least have a shot. If you raked 30% out of a poker pot, word of mouth would spread the game sucks, and we'd likely not be watching the WSOP every year.

Right now, racing has a terrible reputation as a gambling game. Listen to any Vegas talk show on gambling, or read any blog. That is a huge issue and a huge barrier of entry.

If you notice, it is not that way with Betfair. There you can play a dozen or so tracks and have a shot to win. If you use CJ's figs, with a track bias, you could probably break even at Betfair betting to win, and do what poker players are doing. You cant do that at 16% rakes, unless you are extremely skilled.

This is what Peter Webb has done, and he is a newbie. If the rake was 15% and parimutuel only, Peter Webb would be playing the stock market, or poker.

http://www.sportspromedia.com/guest_blog/peter_webb_the_rise_of_the_betting_exchange/

The gambling market is over $500B a year and that's the legal one. It's probably more like $1 trillion. When 98% of that money is going to low rake games, where people have a shot to win - or think they have a shot to win - your game has a serious pricing problem. Racing has a serious pricing problem.

Also, if you have any facts behind what you write, please feel free to post sources. Sounds good but no meat on the bone. Poker players? Where are they legally playing online these days? Tell us the website names. CJ's figs with track bias at Betfair? Where do I legally play Betfair in the United States.

No meat on the bone.

[DeanT]

Well, if you're just about fooling soccer moms into thinking they can win at the track, then go for it, but if you're saying they actually have a better chance to win at slots than racing, I don't agree. I guess it's marketing vs. reality and slots do have better marketing. If you've ever actually spoken to anyone who hits the casino regularly---as my father and a lot of his senior friends do---they don't do it because they think they can "win" but because it's a fun break from life for a couple hours and hey, they just might hit that penny machine. If you think people there have any idea what "rake" is though, you can write all you want, but you're wrong. Again, not saying I don't want a lower takeout, but the slot players don't have any idea what "rake" even is. It's just easy.

I wasn't disagreeing with you; I rarely do on this board, actually. I know the market you are talking about (the same people who'll play the lotto, or get a parlay card at a bad rake). We'll never get that market, so it is not even worth trying. But there is a common thread. In lotto games (scratch games) rakes can be lower than a superfecta at Philly Park. Slot games would still have some business, but remember when they charged 15% in 1970? Crickets in the parlor.

For people we're after in racing, sophistication is key, and poker/sports bettors and stock traders are the market. Those games kill us on price, and that's a huge issue.

Remember this blog piece? That's a whole lot of money that is not even looking at you - not because your game is slow, or there are juicers, or they don't like TVG, or HRTV, or Ramon Dominguez - but because you've priced yourself off their radar.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/01/how-do-sports-bettors-poker-players.html

Betting market has a lot of white papers and poker news with statistics if you'd like to give it a look,

http://www.bettingmarket.com/industrynews.htm

[BombsAway Bob]

And expensive.$8 for a DRF form.A major problem is how to use the information to attract new players.

At Saratoga, DelMar, Monmouth, Gulfstream, & other meets where there
are a "large" (by comparison) number of new bettors & casual fans,
DRF Should push their "DRF Quicksheet";
sold $1.50/ea. ($4.99/unlim/day) online,
They could sell them for $2 ontrack.
even sell them where track programs are sold as a supplement,
& expose DRF product.
here's a sample how they look... ((& check those 2005 Beyers vs.today!))

http://www1.drf.com/misc/quicksample2.pdf

To Purchase Quicksheets:

http://store.drf.com/acb/stores/1/DRF_Quicksheet_-_Single_Card__P9731C1042.cfm?UserID=68687947&ACBSessionID=7E374CA2E6C4455DE3C6

-----

[jelly]

The DRF shouldn't even be involved,they don't make any money when the people bet at the track.The tracks do,the tracks should supply the PPS.



This is something that Churchill Downs could easily do (Owner of Twinspires, Brisnet,Fairgrounds,Calder and Arlington..)



Everyone that shows up to Churchill's tracks during the live meet gets free PPS to that track.



How do you lose money doing this?You don't!You profit,(cost is little)your handle goes up and you get good PR. :cool:



If you're in charge of Churchill do you give it a :ThmbUp: or a :ThmbDown:

[Robert Goren]

There is no doubt that takeouts are way too high, but the horsemen have to be paid somehow. What is disappointing is that racinos have not lowered their takeout.

The cost of information on horse racing is outrageous. The cost at the track is prohibative. The cost at home isn't much better. How many threads have we had about the costs of data plans for the multiple track bettors? Even for very small bettor like me are faced with the choice of giving up rebates in order to get free PPs at Twinspires or buying PPs at pretty good cost considering the amount I bet in order to get a rebate.
As for track/simulcast center food. None of the regulars around here buy it very often. They might buy a 20 0z cup of Coke at $ 2.00 now and then, but that is about it. They have priced themselves out of the market.

[OTM Al]

How about a comparison to sports betting then? They only take 2 and a half hours to 3 hours to play. How come the takeout isn't higher than horse racing?

One could argue that take is too high in sport betting. It costs very little for the casinos to offer it so any take at all is pure profit. So comparing the two with a cost/revenue approach I'd dare say comparitively the take on sport betting is way higher than racing. It's a lot easier to make money when someone else is putting on the show.

[Tom]

I think PA could make a few bucks having over/under wagering on some of these thread counts! :D

[thaskalos]

One could argue that take is too high in sport betting. It costs very little for the casinos to offer it so any take at all is pure profit. So comparing the two with a cost/revenue approach I'd dare say comparitively the take on sport betting is way higher than racing. It's a lot easier to make money when someone else is putting on the show.
The excuse that horse racing's outrageous takeouts exist because of the high costs associated with running this game, is just that...an EXCUSE!

And as proof, I present the fact that not a single slot-assisted thoroughbred racetrack has ever reduced their takeouts to a noticeable extent...even though they have thriving casino businesses, which go a long way toward alleviating those costs.

The main reason why the takeouts in our game are so high is because the powers-that-be choose to view this game as an "entertainment" venue rather than a gambling game...and they price it accordingly.

Heck...some 'insiders" even suggest that the current takeouts may not even be high enough.

You'd think they would have learned better by now...

[OTM Al]

The excuse that horse racing's outrageous takeouts exist because of the high costs associated with running this game, is just that...an EXCUSE!


This wasn't the argument being made and you know it.

[thaskalos]

This wasn't the argument being made and you know it.

When it comes to takeouts, the horse racing industry has no valid argument to make...and neither do those who choose to sympathize with the game's governing bodies on this issue.

Every time takeouts are discussed, we hear the same old argument about how expensive it is to run this game...and how cheap other casino games -- and poker -- are to maintain by comparison. The assumption is thereby made that the racing industry would lower the takeouts, if the costs of running this game were somehow greatly alleviated.

Well...we have seen that this is clearly not the case.

The outrageous takeouts are here to stay...even if the slot profits end up covering ALL the costs associated with running this game.

Horse racing's long-term plan is obvious...and it was revealed to us by California-based trainer Jeff Mullins in 2005.

The game doesn't want the horseplayer anymore, because he is a trouble-maker. He complains too much. He wants an honest, affordable gambling game to play...and this seems to be an unreasonable request for the horseplayer to make.

So the industry has found a way to keep the game funded...without having to depend on the horseplayers for the lion's share of the operating expenses. And soon, they won't need us at ALL.

The purses will be funded by the slot players, who will also be showered with all the "player rewards".

The horseplayer will be ignored completely, and, consequently, the mutuel pools will decline to unacceptable -- for the horseplayer -- levels.

But so what?

The casino profits will be flowing...the race track executives will be smiling again...and the trainers will have all the 4-horse fields they could possibly want, so they could maximize their profits.

And the horseplayers...you ask?

Well...the players never counted for much in this game anyway.

As trainer Bob Baffert said not too long ago..."the 'gamblers' can always go find another game to bet on; but the rest of us are stuck here".

It's a brilliant plan when you think about it...

I just wish the industry had the balls to come out and say it...like Mullins did in 2005.

[OTM Al]

Now the martyr argument. Next usually comes the name calling. Meanwhile I was only pointing out flaws in the argument being presented. If you want to prove things to people, you kinda need to know how to respond to such issues rather than going to the "oh poor me" approach. By not addressing issues raised, you might as well say that your argument has no basis. You've given no yardstick on how to judge how much is too much in either situation. Your whole argument is "its bad". I don't think that's a very good argument.

[rastajenk]

It's hard to see why Thaskolos likes this game when he seems to hate everything about it.

But he's not alone in that regard.

[thaskalos]

Now the martyr argument. Next usually comes the name calling. Meanwhile I was only pointing out flaws in the argument being presented. If you want to prove things to people, you kinda need to know how to respond to such issues rather than going to the "oh poor me" approach. By not addressing issues raised, you might as well say that your argument has no basis. You've given no yardstick on how to judge how much is too much in either situation. Your whole argument is "its bad". I don't think that's a very good argument.

When it comes to "name-calling"...I'll have to come to you for advice.

It was YOU who brought up the costs of running this game...when you wrote "It's a lot easier to make money when someone else is putting on the show."

Now you are pretending that I pulled it out of the air.

Very predictable of you..as is your condescending attitude.

And I would like you to know that I am not the "martyr" here, Al...

I will do just fine...even if the game is driven into the ground.

And thanks for the advice on "learning how to respond to issues", instead of going into my "oh poor me" routine...

I didn't realize that I was crying..."oh poor me". I thought that I was presenting an opinion in a well thought-out and respectable manner...as I always try to do.

But I can see how an unbiased person like yourself could have seen it as such.

[thaskalos]

It's hard to see why Thaskolos likes this game when he seems to hate everything about it.

But he's not alone in that regard.

I guess this is another way of..."addressing the issues".

Let's all either bury or head in the sand, or flee this game.

No criticism of the game is allowed...

I don't hate everything about this game, friend.

I just think that the game has a lot of...how shall I say it..."room for improvement".

Is it okay if I occasionally voice a critical opinion about it...or should I always be asked why I keep playing this game, every time I say something negative about this sport?

Isn't this what horse racing forums are all about?

Don't you think that there are valid complaints to be made about how this game is being run?

Is the horseplayer always crying "oh poor me" everytime he vents his frustration?

Should we be praising the horse racing industry instead?

[rastajenk]

Yes...no
Sometimes
Yes
Yes
and Yes

[Robert Goren]

As another track gets ready to close, the game's defenders are out in full force defending the Status Quo.

[jelly]

Al,


How would you increase handle in Horseracing?

[OTM Al]

When it comes to "name-calling"...I'll have to come to you for advice.

It was YOU who brought up the costs of running this game...when you wrote "It's a lot easier to make money when someone else is putting on the show."

Now you are pretending that I pulled it out of the air.

Very predictable of you..as is your condescending attitude.

And I would like you to know that I am not the "martyr" here, Al...

I will do just fine...even if the game is driven into the ground.

And thanks for the advice on "learning how to respond to issues", instead of going into my "oh poor me" routine...

I didn't realize that I was crying..."oh poor me". I thought that I was presenting an opinion in a well thought-out and respectable manner...as I always try to do.

But I can see how an unbiased person like yourself could have seen it as such.

The name calling always comes after the martyr speech. Without fail.

[OTM Al]

Al,


How would you increase handle in Horseracing?

Now an honest question which deserves an honest response.

I'm not sure you can. Gambling opportunities are absolutely saturating the marketplace. People what flashy things with instant gratification for little or no work involved. Those that do work will be equally drawn to other betting venues such a sport wagering when that becomes more available, and it will, so I have no doubt things will get worse.

I'm still not convinced an industry wide takeout drop would make handle increase much. Hastings I think was advertising 0% P3, P4, and P5. the grand total bet on all 3 last Saturday that paid on the last race was about $14,000. So it is even suspect about how much money moves toward a track that lowers, but I would still think it's possible that a unilateral move by a track could be beneficial to it for a little while. And it's clear players don't really care as much as they claim. Some may, yourself possibly included, but most don't. But it's still worth some experiment.

I also don't think giving free PPs is going to change much either. There are cheap enough options and people are used to buying a program when they go to events. You can't know the players with a program as they say.

I think the best chance for improvement right now actually lies in getting racing out into the public conscience through TV. The current contract with NBC to show several races throughout the year would be a good start. Regular day to day play probably won't change much from that audience, but it can do a lot to get more notice for big days other than the TC days.

I also think racing has been teying to target the wrong group of people. It needs to target people 50+ rather than going after young people. Young people have never cared that much, but older people, especially those now retiring will have the two things needed. Time and disposible income, things the younger crowd does not have.

That's the best I got. Pretty basic really.

[Tom]

As another track gets ready to close, the game's defenders are out in full force defending the Status Quo.

Track closing are a good thing.
We have too many tracks.
Far too many tracks.
When track closed, the horses go elsewhere.
We start to see :6:'s and then :7:'s.
Eventually, we might get to see a lot of :8:'s and :9:'s.

Or, better yet, we might see a whole lot less semi-horses being bred to being with.

Like football......image what a good product the NFL would be if there were only 14 teams. Or 12.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

One could argue that take is too high in sport betting. It costs very little for the casinos to offer it so any take at all is pure profit. So comparing the two with a cost/revenue approach I'd dare say comparitively the take on sport betting is way higher than racing. It's a lot easier to make money when someone else is putting on the show.
I don't know for sure, but I would think that sports betting costs a casino more money space wise than a slot machine. They still have to employ staff for it, and I would think that the cost for utilities for the sports book space has to be considered an expense too. And then there is the element that there is risk in booking a wager as well.
I don't buy the cost of putting on the show argument at all. It is all about optimum pricing. That is what dictates the cost of juice. Racetrack takeouts have never been allowed to be determined by free market optimal pricing.

[OTM Al]

I don't know for sure, but I would think that sports betting costs a casino more money space wise than a slot machine. They still have to employ staff for it, and I would think that the cost for utilities for the sports book space has to be considered an expense too. And then there is the element that there is risk in booking a wager as well.
I don't buy the cost of putting on the show argument at all. It is all about optimum pricing. That is what dictates the cost of juice. Racetrack takeouts have never been allowed to be determined by free market optimal pricing.

Likely so if you consider only the people sitting there, but don't most players make their bets and watch elsewhere? Don't have that option with slots. It's very cheap to set up something like this and if they were so much worse than slots, I think casinos would dump them completely.

[lamboguy]

I don't know for sure, but I would think that sports betting costs a casino more money space wise than a slot machine. They still have to employ staff for it, and I would think that the cost for utilities for the sports book space has to be considered an expense too. And then there is the element that there is risk in booking a wager as well.
I don't buy the cost of putting on the show argument at all. It is all about optimum pricing. That is what dictates the cost of juice. Racetrack takeouts have never been allowed to be determined by free market optimal pricing.i think that you will find that casino's need race and sportbooks to get a husband and wife into a casino, the husband might go to the book, and the wife might sit in front of the slot machines.

[PaceAdvantage]

i think that you will find that casino's need race and sportbooks to get a husband and wife into a casino, the husband might go to the book, and the wife might sit in front of the slot machines.Race/sports books and slots are not mutually exclusive. You can make all your bets at the book rather easily and then go pump some money into a slot machine or play some blackjack...

Obviously, having a race/sports book IS profitable for a gaming establishment, or else they would have gotten rid of them a long time ago.

[Indulto]

Now an honest question which deserves an honest response.

I'm not sure you can. Gambling opportunities are absolutely saturating the marketplace. People what flashy things with instant gratification for little or no work involved. Those that do work will be equally drawn to other betting venues such a sport wagering when that becomes more available, and it will, so I have no doubt things will get worse.

I'm still not convinced an industry wide takeout drop would make handle increase much. Hastings I think was advertising 0% P3, P4, and P5. the grand total bet on all 3 last Saturday that paid on the last race was about $14,000. So it is even suspect about how much money moves toward a track that lowers, but I would still think it's possible that a unilateral move by a track could be beneficial to it for a little while. And it's clear players don't really care as much as they claim. Some may, yourself possibly included, but most don't. But it's still worth some experiment.

I also don't think giving free PPs is going to change much either. There are cheap enough options and people are used to buying a program when they go to events. You can't know the players with a program as they say.

I think the best chance for improvement right now actually lies in getting racing out into the public conscience through TV. The current contract with NBC to show several races throughout the year would be a good start. Regular day to day play probably won't change much from that audience, but it can do a lot to get more notice for big days other than the TC days.

I also think racing has been teying to target the wrong group of people. It needs to target people 50+ rather than going after young people. Young people have never cared that much, but older people, especially those now retiring will have the two things needed. Time and disposible income, things the younger crowd does not have.

That's the best I got. Pretty basic really.The overwhelming majority of thoroughbred race bettors I know got started before they were 30. When I was introduced to the game in the ‘60s, the minimum wage was $1 as was the price of the Morning Telegraph and track admission. The program was a quarter. So for $20, one could bet 9 races. With lower takeout -- and without the lure of a life-changing scores -- a larger percentage of bettors lost less, churned more, and returned to play another day.

Today $20 gets you to and into the track in an economy that stifles the unemployed and under-employed. The lowered likelihood of profit also diminishes the duration of participation.

What really made it all work in the old days, however, was racing’s monopoly on legalized gambling. Without that umbrella, the percentage of players without sufficient interest to acquire the skills to compete, dropped dramatically. What's left is a wagering market controlled by big bankrolls and inside information that includes direct computerized access to pari-mutuel pools. Excessively high takeout masks a subsidy to the largest, most successful bettors. The 50+ crowd has the time and disposable income, alright, but also the savvy to recognize a stacked deck when they see one. Younger people with typically greater optimism must be exposed to the game BEFORE cynicism sets in.

The window in time during which racing could have obtained its greatest benefits from TV exposure has passed. There are now more channels competing for viewers and less news time available for unsponsored coverage in a world made smaller by technology. What little exposure remains also reveals a side of racing unlikely to recruit new devotees in an era of animal rights activism and anti-racing media bias.

Finally, the cost of producing a high-quality racing product is prohibitive to say the least. Labor and veterinary costs have skyrocketed even as attendance has nosedived. From what I have observed, the paucity of sound competitors for whatever reasons has made all but stakes races palatable to many of the 50YO+ candidates for recreational gambling. They’ll still be there for the TC, BC, BC prep days, and boutique meets (e.g., KEE, SAR, DMR), but they'll leave the vast majority of wagering “opportunities” to the ever-present professionals. hobbyists, and degenerates.

There is no simple solution. I believe that it would take some combination of the following steps to increase the game's credibility and desirability among adults of all ages, to promote increased handle capable of sustaining the game:
1) Establishment of a centralized racing authority,
2) Implementation of uniform rules of racing and wagering with consistent enforcement,
3) Leveling the playing fields for horsemen and for racing customers,
4) Increasing transparency into the medication of active racehorses and the destination of those who can no longer compete,
5) Creation of cooperatives to reduce the cost of ownership, the conduct of racing, and obtaining past performance data,
6) Decreasing total racing dates and total races conducted per date,
7) Increased research into bloodlines and pro-active oversight of breeding with emphasis on achieving greater soundness and stamina in future foal crops.

[cj]

We have too many tracks running too many races over too much time. Why do we need 5 race days a week most places when two or three would suffice? Why do tracks run 4, 6, 8, even 12 months year? Why do we need 41 tracks running yesterday in North America when 8 would be plenty for everyone?

Rather than doing things that could help the sport, everybody is just trying to hang on to his dwindling piece of the pie. We don't even need takeout cuts if the products being offered were reasonable. Right now we are being fed a big shit sandwich instead of prime rib while the price stays the same or goes up.

[PhantomOnTour]

On a Saturday in the smallish state of Louisiana we had three tracks running races yesterday....1 was a quarter horse card at DeD, but still.
How many exciting races can you put together btw LaD and EvD when both are running almost the same dates???

The fields are full at EvD, but full of what?

[cj]

On a Saturday in the smallish state of Louisiana we had three tracks running races yesterday....1 was a quarter horse card at DeD, but still.
How many exciting races can you put together btw LaD and EvD when both are running almost the same dates???

The fields are full at EvD, but full of what?

Exactly...product, product, product. If you put out a good product, people will pay. Right now we are getting horrible racing. Every day around the country the endless string of winners paying less than even money seems to grow. Nobody is going to be excited by that. Until the product gets better, racing isn't going to keep current fans. New fans? Not a chance in hell.

[thaskalos]

We have too many tracks running too many races over too much time. Why do we need 5 race days a week most places when two or three would suffice? Why do tracks run 4, 6, 8, even 12 months year? Why do we need 41 tracks running yesterday in North America when 8 would be plenty for everyone?

Rather than doing things that could help the sport, everybody is just trying to hang on to his dwindling piece of the pie. We don't even need takeout cuts if the products being offered were reasonable. Right now we are being fed a big shit sandwich instead of prime rib while the price stays the same or goes up.

IMO...the horseplayers, and the other facets of this industry, have completely different goals and expectations.

The horseplayer wants a decent field where he can cash a decent bet...and he is paying a premium price in the form of a takeout for that privilege.

But the horseman wants a SMALL field...so he doesn't have to beat too many horses to collect the top prize.

And the track owner is looking at the crowd that gathers at the casinos...and reminisces of years gone by.

The game needs a unified governing body to address the needs of ALL the entities involved in this game...because today's game is being run with the horseman in mind...while the horseplayer has become an afterthought.

[Indulto]

... The game needs a unified governing body to address the needs of ALL the entities involved in this game...because today's game is being run with the horseman in mind...while the horseplayer has become an afterthought.A friend of mine tells me the group at the link below is a grass roots movement for a national racing authority that considers players to be stakeholders:

http://www.bladerunnersnhrc.org/

He also said some members communicate on Facebook which I don't use.

[Viruss]

Some thoughts.

Purses should be set per horse entered.the lower the number of horses in the race the lower the purse money.

States need to be more involved where the tracks are located, don't they get a large percent of the take out?


Earl J

[Indulto]

... Purses should be set per horse entered.the lower the number of horses in the race the lower the purse money ...I agree with you about field size incentives. IMO handle should be similarly stimulated by lowering takeout as handle increases for any reason; thereby rewarding all pari-mutuel pool participants – collectively, rather than individually (and selectively) through rebates—when wager volume exceeds established norms. Since purses would benefit from increased horseplayer participation due to increased field size, why shouldn’t horseplayers be incentivized in like fashion?