Effects of sports betting on horse racing to be examined
 

https://www.gamingtoday.com/article/...to_be_examined

Excerpt:

The continuing examination of the possible effects of national sports wagering, should it become legal in the U.S., continues March 13-17 in New Orleans at the Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Association (HBPA) convention.

Sports betting and its possible ramifications on horse racing will come under scrutiny in a discussion panel featuring William Hill U.S. CEO Joe Asher.
===========================================

Only way it can benefit racing IMO is to only allow it at tracks, OTB's, and Casinos (Brick and Mortar) for first few years. The States that do that will help horse racing. The ones that don't will hurt horse racing.

Agreed. Although even in those cases, how many existing horse players at the track will bail on the game to go wager on sports instead?

Sure, facilities will get a huge influx of new people showing up to place sports wagers, and maybe a few of them will throw some dollars at horse racing. But would that be offset by the number of existing players who take their money out of the pools to go put it on football or basketball instead?

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but I just don't see how racing (at least in it's current form) survives the nationwide legalization of sports betting. Whether wagering is allowed online from day one, or not until year three, sooner or later it will happen. Nothing I've seen from inside the industry shows that anyone is prepared for that. Nor do I have any faith that the industry would use a 2-3 year buffer to come up with a plan.

Why look at the possible effects on horse racing? The effect is rather obvious, more competition for the wagering dollar. Giving a track a cut of the revenue without any incentive to change has proven unhealthy for the sport already. If a track wants a cut, say ok if the field size is 9 or more starters. Set the take out at the same rate as sports betting. Make accurate information available to the public. Make your drug enforcement have some teeth. In other words, make your product competitive. Horse racing has already proven that without incentive, they will continue in the same direction as they were heading before casino money came along, downward.

I am wanting to know how it will effect states that don't have horse wagering will it be now allowed under "sport"

I have repeatedly stated this game is way overpriced for the masses. That being said if the masses want to bet sports, isn't the door already open? Offshore sports betting has been here for over 20 years. Bookies have always have been here. I highly doubt anyone who wants to bet games is not betting games. So the way I look at it is that if sports betting were to become legal, it introduces gambling to a large chunk of society that has mostly abstained from it. Sure they may play in a weekly card game or go to Vegas a couple times a year......but for the most part they are living their life without gambling.

So in my mind the problem is not that sports betting could be here to stay and that horseplayers are going to leave the game in droves to suddenly bet sports. To me the problem is that when the horse player bets sports they realize that there $500 betting sports provides a lot more entertainment. They bet 10 games a week for $55/$50 (whether they will be able to get a bet down at 11/10 remains to be seen) and on a typical week they go 5-5 an lose a whopping $25. In contrast if they are betting $500 a week on racing, they are losing 100 to $150 a week(Multiply that by 52 weeks and you have something to talk about). So if sports betting is offerred at 11/10 then it will not take very long for the masses to figure out that there is a better gamble out there. On the other hand if the greed of the leagues causes sports betting to be offerred at 12/10 or even 13/10 which is very possible (I haven't been following it but I know these discussions are out there ) then the sports bettor is losing $50 or $75 a week and it is a little less obvious that sports betting is the better gamble.

Whatever the case racing has to figure out if they want to become a player in the gambling industy (by eliminating rebates and bringing takeout to 8/10/12 %). If they do sports betting will transform a lot more of the population into gambling which could in turn will transform more people into horse racing. Initially a good % of the public isn't going to know they are getting gouged at racetracks, so sports betting may actually help racing for a time, but unless racing wants to compete in the gambling market by offerring a competitive betting marketplace, I think we will have much of what we have today until sports betting eventually starts siphoning off players at a pretty fast rate.............At this point it can get pretty ugly.

Any chance racing sees the light? Sadly I think not. If they don't they can look back to this moment in time and realize this was the point in time they really needed to do something right and they failed to act and it cost them everything. Of course they can always hope that sports betting is not leagalized and everything will be just peachy keen. :rolleyes:

Only way to go if they have brick and mortar wagering only is to lower takeout on the high churn wagers. Exactas have to be down to 16% and must pay to the penny on breakage. BTW sports bettors do understand parlays and round robins. They would have 2 or 3 years to convert a lot of them if the price is right IMO

What's great about 16% on Exactas? Nothing really.

It's still way OVERPRICED.

Parimutuel wagering was invented with an ideal TAKEOUT OF 10%. No one ever remembers this (or is aware), including so-called EXPERTS.

Poindexter is the only one right so far in this thread.

It would be the lowest of any major jurisdiction by far. NYRA is 18.5%.

Source?

There is an argument that I have heard made that for a casual player, a bet on a game is the absolute best form of gambling.

The basic argument is that when you bet on a game, it gives you hours of action on one bet. A horse race gives you a couple of minutes of action, a poker hand about a minute of action, and a roulette wheel or slot machine gives you a few seconds of it. Which then requires the player to put additional money into the game to keep the action going, which means they lose their money faster.

Honestly, I think legal sports betting is a threat to a LOT of other forms of gambling with respect to the casual bettor's dollar.

10%
 

PA, you do the research. I came across it years ago. It started in France, thus the name. The originator/inventor pegged the takeout at 10% as being equitable for BOTH sides. Then one side got greedy as time went on.

Good research project for a Math major looking for a PhD. I'm too old.
________

AA, just because it's lower doesn't make it right. It's too high everywhere.
16% is a poor bargaining position to take.
Start with our side demanding 10% and work from there.

As with horse racing where no one plays every race other forms of gambling allow you to sit out a few hands or rolls of the dice.

Our side????

is there a source that says 25% is ideal?

The Track Executive Manifesto? :eek:

What is allowed and how the human brain approaches gambling action are two different things.

our side
 

AA,

What I mean by 'our side' is the horseplayers side. The bettors side.

Not the racetrack/bet takers side.

Thought that would obvious.

I'm NOT saying you and I are necessarily on the same side. I'm not really sure about that considering our past exchanges - here or elsewhere. We don't exactly have a great relationship.

[Something you seem to be taking out on Pricci. I don't work or represent him or HRI. Just give my opinion there a lot.]

I am on the side of 10% takeout. What is your plan to make it happen? And more importantly what are you doing to make it happen?

I do what I can. I write endlessly on the problems that exist in this "sport" of horse racing, making observations and providing remedies. Complaining a lot.

Little of what I say is taken seriously by the powers that be.

I have no power. If i was Frank S, there's plenty i would do.

I'd take the industry lead and just do it. Whatever is needed. The horsemen don't like me lowering takeout? Screw them, i'd drop it anyway. i'm a multi-billionaire and what do i care if some of them leave. The ones who stay would reap the rewards of a boom in business from horseplayers increased betting - like they've never seen before.

I wouldn't be so big on the class of the races either. It's already been shown by what's going on with handle at Gulfstream that people will bet if fields are big enough and the races competitive.
Sure we can have a big day once in a while, like Pegasus for the big shots.

Horseplayers would bet my track, not the tracks with high takeout.
It might take a few years, but, how many year's do I have left anyway (if i'm Frankie).

If I could, i'd do something for the horses. I'd stop the drugs. Again the heck with the horsemen. Run clean or don't run at all.

There's a start.

PS.
Did you know i suggested parlays and round-robbins a couple of years ago at HRI.
Or that I suggested NYRA put back in the second turf course - something I wrote about a couple of years ago.

Maybe somebody does read what i say, after all.

Therein lies the problem. It doesn't matter what the track owners want to do, they are at the mercy of the horsemen and the state governments to give their blessings.

OK...the originator/inventor created his invention in the 1800s...

Something tells me the 10% number might not be applicable today. Just a hunch though...

No clue...all I know is 10% is ideal because Denny said the guy who invented pari-mutuel wagering in 1867 supposedly came up with that number...

Almost anyone who really wants to bet sports can bet sports in the USA right now. There have been bookies in neighborhoods since the beginning of time. If you really want to bet sports on the internet, you can...right now...even if you live in the USA.

Hell, not too long ago, I was able to fund an off-shore poker account with a US Bank credit card...and they offered sports betting too...and online casino games...the whole shebang. All this within the last year or so (I scratched the online poker itch, blew my $100 initial deposit, and haven't been back since). So even with all the restrictions in place, you can STILL get online action even using a VISA or MASTERCARD if you go to the right website.

Bottom line, sports betting is pretty much readily accessible to almost anyone who REALLY wants to bet on games. And racing obviously hasn't been impacted all that much, or they wouldn't be doing a study on the impact IF it becomes legalized in the US.

I don't see current horseplayers abandoning the game for sports...sure, they might bet sports IN ADDITION to racing...and by the way, betting sports isn't easier than betting horses...if it were, Vegas would be overrun with professional sports bettors and there would be no place to live there...EVERYONE would be betting sports for a living...

Obviously, that's not the case...

How many stories have I read over the years of professional poker players blowing their profits in the sports book...more than a few...

You're right.
Things won't change much.

The 50 and 60+ year old race bettors will just have to
make room for the 20 and 30-something sports players.
There will be bigger crowds at the tracks and parlors,
but not to bet on the races.

Been watching it since the late 1980s in Nevada.
They get along just fine with each other.

The game changer these days is betting with phone apps.
That's in it's infancy here - not the case in Europe.

Don't see any way it helps the sport from a bettor's prospective. We've already seen what happens over and over again with slots. Until betting horses is priced reasonably, inviting a better priced gambling game onto your property is not going to help.

I don't agree. Wouldn't adding another form of gaming to your current menu be an attractor? You will have people coming in for several hours at a time(current MLB games average 2 hours 54 minutes)if you have a bar a decent menu and yes live horse racing those people coming for sports wagering will spend a few bucks on the races. The object here per the numerous sports wagering studies done for NJ show there will be an increase in attendance at those venues that have SW. Right now MP will reap the benefits as they are the only ones set up to go once SCOTUS approves SW.

If it's brick and mortar only for a few years and the tracks OTB's provide a comfortable and fun place to hang out sports bettors will begin to see some huge payouts for small increments. That's the only shot Horse Racing has. If they don't do the brick and mortar thing they're gonna get hurt.

10%
 

It's not important when it was invented PA.

10% is fair to both sides. Time hasn't changed that.

Greed by tracks, horsemen, and government have ruined everything.

Sports operate at 5% approx., horse racing is up to 25- 30% on some bets.
17% on WPS is about the standard now. Way too high!!! (Add breakage too).

Which is doing better? Sports or horseracing?

Start with 10% as the goal and work from there.

Only Poindexter at this site seems to get it. He's explained it quite well, in fact.

Most of you seem to be siding with the tracks, the status quo, and the game is going nowhere.

We've already seen this with slots. Good luck.

Sports betting basically entails setting up a room with a counter, a couple of machines, a couple of people, some TVs, maybe a big board and someone to run the ship and post some lines.

Compare that with running a racetrack and then tell me again that you're sure 10% take will work for both industries just the same.

10% is probably NOT the optimal takeout for racing, where it will benefit the game as a whole. And you have zero evidence to say that it is.

"Sports betting basically entails setting up a room with a counter, a couple of machines, a couple of people, some TVs, maybe a big board and someone to run the ship and post some lines."

Sounds like an OTB or simulcast.

The racing parimutuel model is broken. Admit it.

The tracks must love you taking their side.

Don't be an a-hole. I'm not taking anyone's side...just teaching you to think about reality.

Running a racetrack in no way compares to running a sports book.

OTB or simulcast outlets have little to do with it, but thanks for playing.

Why have the percentages changed? Percentages don't have inflation.

Not sure what you're referring to...please explain

The cost of running a track has always been there even when takeout was much lower. Why has racing kept having to raise prices? Making the game tougher and tougher to beat will only ensure its demise.

CJ,

The difference is slots are kept totally separate from the racing.

Imagine an OTB or a simulcast location with the sports betting integrated.

TV's with sports, nearby TV's with horses. There's going to be crossover.

Our OTB is practically dead. Maybe a quarter of the space is being used.
The back room that was used for the smokers is a storage room for broken/outdated equipment and broken benches.

It could come alive again with sports. People that never bet racing might actually get interested just by being there with the horseplayers.

At this point it can't hurt to try, but I've seen that experiment many times in Vegas casinos. I don't see a lot of crossover. Sports betting is a competitor, not a partner. The only answer for racing is to compete, sink or swim on its own merits. Right now it will get crushed.

"...just teaching you to think about reality."

You're "teaching me" LOL.

You have an awfully high opinion of yourself PA.

BTW.

Tracks ALWAYS had to pay to put on the show. Even in 1876, or whatever.

Maybe you need to learn a few things hotshot.

And just to be clear, takeout on sports is not 10%, it is significantly less.

You're not living in reality if you think racing in its current, self-imposed state, can survive on 10% takeout.

I'm not saying takeout shouldn't be lowered, so don't put words in my mouth.