Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I agree.
It’s a significant disadvantage.
That’s what I was indirectly referring to when I was talking about the underlying economics of the sport being so bad. The sport doesn’t just need more gamblers that bet more. It needs more owners!!! If too many small time owners are losing too much money even with a substantial portion of the casino money going towards purses, that’s telling you how bad the underlying economics are and how hard it’s going to be fix. I’m not privileged to see all the numbers, but I still suspect that long term we are going to wind up with a much smaller higher quality sport where the economics of the remaining tracks make sense for a lot more of the interests.
|
Therein lies a (chicken or the egg) paradox.
Where do (or did) owners (used to) come from?
A fair percentage came from fans who stuck around long enough to become horseplayers.
From there a select few went on to become owners.
I'll stick my neck out and make the argument that creation of new owners is a function of customer demand for the product.
I'll also stick my neck out and say yearly foal crop is also a function of customer demand for the product.
In turn, customer demand for the product is a function of the product being embraced by the general public as a compelling gambling game.
Because that's literally what it is.
Horseracing (in the eyes of the public for 360 days a year) is a (not so) compelling gambling game.
For purposes of this thread I'll define a
compelling gambling game as one that is currently seeing
growth in terms of total customer spend on the product after adjusting for inflation.
Imo, every compelling gambling game that you can name has two key elements:
1. Integrity - public perception is that the game is regulated in such a way that the game is on the up and up.
2. Optimal Pricing - the takeout, vig, or house edge isn't so high vs. other forms of gaming that it is driving business away.
-jp
.
