Where did all the horses go?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I'll qualify my somewhat pessimistic comments with the fact that I've been following the game for 30 years, love the game, and it will always be in my blood.

The current situation reminds me of the scene in the movie "As Good as it Gets" when Jack Nicholson says that very line to the people looking to "improve" themselves waiting outside the psychiatrists office. They all look bewildered, as if the thought of things not improving for them never even crossed their mind.

It's very possible that this is as "good as it gets" for racing in the US. Indicators suggest the game will continue to fall precipitously unless dramatic action (voluntary or involuntary) occurs.

I don't believe there are any quick fixes to this issue and also don't believe the blame is to be laid anywhere in particular. The desire to understand the litany of complexities in order to compete in a parimutuel environment is just not desirable to the masses. They have other, less taxing, options. In addition, the cost of owning horses is substantial. If one isn't interested in the wagering, or sport, of horse racing, it's unlikely they'll be involved in the ownership side.

Adding to the problem, the top 10% of the trainers are training the majority of the horses. They may have 10-15 horses that meet a condition but will enter just 1 (maybe 2) in a given race. If those 10-15 horses were spread out to different trainers, many races would have bigger fields.

There are a million ways to attack the crumbling foundation. There are so many holes that it's hard to know where to begin. If I were in charge (whatever that means) I would make forming a National Horse Racing Alliance with a governing body the #1 priority. It has to happen.

It's interesting that all of the major sports have a commissioner, and all are prosperous. Boxing draws the most direct parallel to horse racing, without centralized authority. Interestingly, both boxing and horse racing dominated newspapers in the '50's and '60's, and now both struggle to find a modicum of coverage.

In my opinion, it's rather simple. Without unified leadership and track participation, the game will continue to erode to unthinkable depths. Major tracks, beyond Hollywood Park, will start to shutter. If de-coupling happens, where tracks aren't buoyed by slot money, we could be looking at days, not months/years, before we see major venues go away. When that starts happening, it could have a domino effect.

I once thought the idea of horse racing gone completely was absurd. I felt there would always be major racing, and the minor racing would come and go. Sadly, there is a path to extinction and it appears US racing is on it.

I have for a long time advocated for a national racing alliance. One governing body for all tracks that wish to participate.
With that said.....
I will lay out what I believe to be the major roadblocks
1. The individual state's governments would need assurances that any revenue stream from PM wagering and taxes will continue.
2. Horsemen's associations and BPA's have to fall into line. No more pissing contests with tracks and states. No more entry box boycotts. No more shut downs.
3. Track managements would obviously have to sign on as well. They all must get used to not operating on top of each other.
In my opinion one of horse racing's most glaring issues is too many tracks in close geographic proximity operating simultaneously while competing for the same racing stock. The issues seen in the Phila/Wimington market with Parx and Delaware running at each other. Monmouth has gotten killed by NYRA and Delaware.
And to a lesser extent, although they seem to be getting along better Maryland racing has been affected by Delaware and Parx.
4. if one does not exist, The need for a national license for all horsemen, owners, trainers, grooms, and other back stretch personnel is a must.
5 all medication rules must be conforming throughout the alliance.
6. all stewards MUST be members of the alliance. and at any point with a reasonable notice, can be assigned to another track or even another state. i think moving officials about creates an image of integrity. This would at least offer the perception that the officials are not getting too 'cozy'....

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The one thing nobody is doing is suggesting racing doesn't need a serious look at how things are done. I suggested 10 ways to fix horseracing and posted in on this site. The only thing people are trying to tell you is that while there are reasons why Hong Kong has done so well, many of the underlying conditions (like owning a monopoly on gambling and not having any proximate competition for the gambling dollar) are not replicable here. And for the most part you've most gotten pissy with anyone who dares point that out to you, without putting much meat on the "how we copy Hong Kong" bone. Definitely is a touchy subject for you.

I read your “10 Ways” and I thought that at least someone is both concerned and interested in suggesting some changes. I’m not going to critique your ideas, but as far as I’m concerned they didn’t nearly go far enough.

Apparently you believe that the only reason that HK racing is so successful is because the local population has nothing better to do then inflate the betting pools to the point of making them look obscene when compared to state-side racing. Well, I’ve got some breaking news! They’re not the only people betting on their game. And for good reason! It doesn’t take someone very long to recognize the attributes and veracity of their product. It is without a doubt presented with their patronage in mind. (It’s something definitely lacking here in the States for a long time).

You see the integrity of their game is its biggest asset. The world-wide speculation that follows is simply an acknowledgment of that fact. If this single characteristic could be replicated and properly demonstrated in the states, it would create a major change in the perception of not only existing players and horsemen alike, but those outside the game who want to get involved in one way or another.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by menifee

You make some fair points. Let me address them.

There are 50 different sets of rule making bodies in the states when it comes to horse racing. Some are active - some are not. They may not be racing commissions per se. Some are gambling commissions, some are racing commissions, some might be legislative committees, some may fall under the purview of the state police. Someone has to be in control within each individual state because it is gambling. It has to be regulated somehow. Some states have multiple commissions (e.g., Alabama). Some states have dormant commissions, but they are there.

I get the point about the RMTC and I understand the ARCI's model rules of racing. I have read the model rules. They are ok. As I stated before, the industry has gotten better about uniformity by crafting model rules which have been adopted by the commissions. But state compacts and model rules, won't touch the main problem with racing.

You have actors (mainly the tracks acting in their own self-interest) who do not care about the customer or the sport. Normally, I would not have a problem with actors acting in their own economic interest, but it is a detriment to the sport and the horse. It becomes exaggerated and a real problem when most of these tracks do not want to be in the horse racing business anyway and simply want to be in the casino business. Does anyone really think Churchill and Hollywood really want to be in the racing business? Why is Kee a great experiences for its customers? Because the nonprofit that controls that track actually wants to be in the racing business.

How could a federal commission with a strong commissioner be different and be a positive force? Well for example, it could solve problems that state commissions could never resolve. Right now we have a horse shortage. 50 state commissions are not going to coordinate on scheduling to ensure that we don't have 3 horse fields running daily. NYRA and the New York State Gaming Commission are not going to tell the NY horsemen that 6 months of racing at Aqueduct is unnecessary and a terrible product. A federal commissioner could simply not provide the days for racing. Look at the Belmont card on Friday compared to the Aqueduct cards that have been run over the past few months? Which is better for the long term health of the game?

A federal commission could regulate that tracks running the same condition within a certain distance to each other (the Mountain and MVR) should not be racing at the same time. Do you think the Ohio Racing Commission and the West Virginia Racing Commission will ever coordinate on something like that?

Does it really make sense for 50 state legislatures through their commissions to set racing policy? In 2017, people in Texas and other states cannot bet with an ADW? How does that help the industry? The industry needs a policy on ADW's. We have nothing.

In no way do I think a federal commission with a powerful commissioner would be a panacea, but I do think it would ensure the viability of the sport.

There were three states I was sure wouldn't have a racing commission: Hawaii, Alaska and Utah. Amazingly, Utah and Alaska do have racing commissions. I'm still not sure Hawaii does. Hawaii's big issue seemed to be worrying about foreign horses - a lot of horses would have to be shipped in - bringing in some exotic disease. But, your point is generally well taken - there are horse racing commissions in places where there isn't horseracing, at least the kind we think of as horseracing.

I've been one of the consistent voices for tracks recognizing that the base of the horseracing pyramid are the people betting the money. And no, Churchill and Hollywood would be more than happy to not have to subsidize horseracing.

I think for me, for a federal racing commission to have the sort of powers that would improve the sport would be an extremely heavy lift, especially anything that would control racing days. And in the end, it is really just an imposed form of contraction that may not get at some of the real issues - old plants that have ridiculous fixed operating costs, for example. Tracks have to cut expenditures to accomplish the number one goal of racing fans - lowering the take. And that may include cutting out some of the purse competition. As much as I understand why horsemen need good purses to keep a racing operation going, tracks trying to attract horses by cannibalizing them from other venues through purse competition cannot be good for the sport. But that puts the commission in a pretty difficult position - somebody is going to be really unhappy with decisions and sue...and you get the idea.

I wouldn't inherently be against the idea - I'd serve on the commission if asked in a heartbeat - but I'd have to see the full breadth of how a commission (ostensibly in D.C.) would be fair to tracks in Idaho or Colorado, or not favor CD or NYRA. Like everything else in D.C., the big money carries a lot of weight. But I get your point. We're not exactly kicking the problems in the ass under the current organization.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I read your “10 Ways” and I thought that at least someone is both concerned and interested in suggesting some changes. I’m not going to critique your ideas, but as far as I’m concerned they didn’t nearly go far enough.

Apparently you believe that the only reason that HK racing is so successful is because the local population has nothing better to do then inflate the betting pools to the point of making them look obscene when compared to state-side racing. Well, I’ve got some breaking news! They’re not the only people betting on their game. And for good reason! It doesn’t take someone very long to recognize the attributes and veracity of their product. It is without a doubt presented with their patronage in mind. (It’s something definitely lacking here in the States for a long time).

You see the integrity of their game is its biggest asset. The world-wide speculation that follows is simply an acknowledgment of that fact. If this single characteristic could be replicated and properly demonstrated in the states, it would create a major change in the perception of not only existing players and horsemen alike, but those outside the game who want to get involved in one way or another.

I probably could have come up with 12 or maybe 50 ways to improve horseracing, but 10 seems to be the standard number for writing articles. That article was distributed to everyone on the HBPA mailing list.

I think the combination of things that make Hong Kong racing what it is are additively the explanation for their success. But from an economic perspective, you have a culture (Asians) that loves to gamble, you have one entity that controls gambling, you don't have real competition from casinos, and yes, you have a perception of HK being squeaky clean, although I've heard from people who know a little about the inner workings of the HKJC that things may not be as perfect as the public statistics might suggest. You cannot underestimate the contribution of their gambling monopoly and control of gambling supply to the handle Hong Kong does, even if it is not the sole reason. It may sound cynical, but if I controlled all the information that emanated from horseracing, it would be a lot easier to create a perception of integrity. Here, racing commissions can't wait to tell Ray Paulick about the latest trainer positive. I'm not as sure the information escapes the PR people in Hong Kong quite as easily.

Hong Kong is not drug free. This is the drug rules for Hong Kong. http://www.hkjc.com/english/racingin...vet.asp?part=5

The biggest issue is and will continue to be Lasix. But I happen to believe that even if you went to the Hong Kong medication thresholds, racing's problems here are far more systemic. Whether or not that would have a big impact, I'm not sure it's on any state's agenda.

[menifee]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

There were three states I was sure wouldn't have a racing commission: Hawaii, Alaska and Utah. Amazingly, Utah and Alaska do have racing commissions. I'm still not sure Hawaii does. Hawaii's big issue seemed to be worrying about foreign horses - a lot of horses would have to be shipped in - bringing in some exotic disease. But, your point is generally well taken - there are horse racing commissions in places where there isn't horseracing, at least the kind we think of as horseracing.

I've been one of the consistent voices for tracks recognizing that the base of the horseracing pyramid are the people betting the money. And no, Churchill and Hollywood would be more than happy to not have to subsidize horseracing.

I think for me, for a federal racing commission to have the sort of powers that would improve the sport would be an extremely heavy lift, especially anything that would control racing days. And in the end, it is really just an imposed form of contraction that may not get at some of the real issues - old plants that have ridiculous fixed operating costs, for example. Tracks have to cut expenditures to accomplish the number one goal of racing fans - lowering the take. And that may include cutting out some of the purse competition. As much as I understand why horsemen need good purses to keep a racing operation going, tracks trying to attract horses by cannibalizing them from other venues through purse competition cannot be good for the sport. But that puts the commission in a pretty difficult position - somebody is going to be really unhappy with decisions and sue...and you get the idea.

I wouldn't inherently be against the idea - I'd serve on the commission if asked in a heartbeat - but I'd have to see the full breadth of how a commission (ostensibly in D.C.) would be fair to tracks in Idaho or Colorado, or not favor CD or NYRA. Like everything else in D.C., the big money carries a lot of weight. But I get your point. We're not exactly kicking the problems in the ass under the current organization.

Believe it or not, there was a push to get horse racing in Hawaii a few years ago. See the attached article. http://westhawaiitoday.com/sports/lo...-racing-hawaii

In any event, ARCI has been around for years and has had a positive impact on the industry. They have no authority, but their model rules have been adopted by a lot of states. You might not need a federal commission, the federal legislation could theoretically give ARCI the authority (which is comprised of state racing commission members). Believe it or not, ARCI's outgoing chair is a horseplayer. She won the 2001 National Horseplayers Championship. ARCI model rules are an interesting read if anyone has the time and the will:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2H...0yU3pmT3M/view

[Murph]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I wouldn't inherently be against the idea - I'd serve on the commission if asked in a heartbeat - but I'd have to see the full breadth of how a commission (ostensibly in D.C.) would be fair to tracks in Idaho or Colorado, or not favor CD or NYRA. Like everything else in D.C., the big money carries a lot of weight. But I get your point. We're not exactly kicking the problems in the ass under the current organization.

I can't debate the fine points with you folks on this subject but may I pose a question?

Could the issues begin to be addressed with an overhaul or restructuring of a 'national simulcasting' contract? Something with terms to address the expansion of opportunities in all gambling which have long included pari-mutuel laws pro or con in every state? Terms that might address each states concerns with access to the tote and signal fees ect? Start with this as some kind of equalizer?

You are all working hard to present a common ground. Thank you.

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by Murph

I can't debate the fine points with you folks on this subject but may I pose a question?

Could the issues begin to be addressed with an overhaul or restructuring of a 'national simulcasting' contract? Something with terms to address the expansion of opportunities in all gambling which have long included pari-mutuel laws pro or con in every state? Terms that might address each states concerns with access to the tote and signal fees ect? Start with this as some kind of equalizer?

You are all working hard to present a common ground. Thank you.

'Signal fee' overhauls end up taking more money out of the pockets of the players, Santa Anita 'charges' a lot for their signal, and right now, their signal isn't worth what it used to be. It's easy for gamblers to just say no at those prices.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by EasyGoer89

'Signal fee' overhauls end up taking more money out of the pockets of the players, Santa Anita 'charges' a lot for their signal, and right now, their signal isn't worth what it used to be. It's easy for gamblers to just say no at those prices.

It's difficult for me to debate the point it is so complicated. I cannot make a helpful comment about signal fees.

Less than 1% of my handle has gone to CA for a long time now, since the last boycott for sure. I think the horse economy in California is way out of balance. Compare to any neighboring state.

[depalma113]

Here is a radical crazy idea.

How about they stop giving stalls to owners and trainers who have no intention of racing their horses during the meet.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by depalma113

Here is a radical crazy idea.

How about they stop giving stalls to owners and trainers who have no intention of racing their horses during the meet.

in some places they charge stall rent and they give back the money when the horse runs.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Murph

I can't debate the fine points with you folks on this subject but may I pose a question?

Could the issues begin to be addressed with an overhaul or restructuring of a 'national simulcasting' contract? Something with terms to address the expansion of opportunities in all gambling which have long included pari-mutuel laws pro or con in every state? Terms that might address each states concerns with access to the tote and signal fees ect? Start with this as some kind of equalizer?

You are all working hard to present a common ground. Thank you.

Almost no one actually understands the economics of racing, from running a racetrack to setting up a simulcasting system. In a Darwinian sense, tracks that use economic muscle (big purses) cause other tracks to adapt by cutting costs or simply dying - and the cutting of costs often drives more horsemen away - and that is what the trend seems to be. It's kind of the reverse Was-Mart model. Keep prices so low that you drive the competition out of business. In the case of racing, it provides higher purses to drive competition out of business. Those tracks with casino subsidized purses may wind up surviving and driving tracks with better reasons to stay open out of business. Look at the thread about Monmouth Park.

The current structure of simulcasting allows for rebates, and my question is, would reducing the take instead of distributing rebates increase handle? Obviously the danger is that the handle from the whales goes down because they lose the rebate, and that has to be weighed against increasing handle because of lower take.

The signal is clearly underpriced. Let's be realistic. The cost of running an electronic ADW is minuscule compared to running a track, and giving an ADW a relatively cheap signal cost undervalues the product.

Someone needs to undertake a study of racetrack economics, including simulcasting. Job one is still getting the take reduced.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Almost no one actually understands the economics of racing, from running a racetrack to setting up a simulcasting system.........

Completely illogical to believe that nobody involved in racing understands the economics. An economic genius would have a difficult if not impossible task of implementing the best economic decisions at a racetrack simply because decisions must win approval of both horsemen and government agencies.

[classhandicapper]

One thing for certain, the economics of racing suck.

Many tracks need casino subsidies to stay open, most owners are losing money, and almost all horseplayers lose gambling. I don't know enough about how trainers, jockeys, and breeders are doing, but I don't feel like I'm going too far out on a limb if I say a lot of not making a good living or are also losing money.

I don't see how you can fix some of that unless you drive way more handle into way fewer tracks and gain some operating leverage at the surviving tracks. If the remaining tracks had significant free cash flow, they could make the investments they need, market more, raise purses, and lower the take.

The downside of course is way less employment and way fewer tracks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Completely illogical to believe that nobody involved in racing understands the economics. An economic genius would have a difficult if not impossible task of implementing the best economic decisions at a racetrack simply because decisions must win approval of both horsemen and government agencies.

The word almost implies something greater than none. There are lots of horseplayers out there. The "almost no one understands racetrack economics" applies to most of them and most of the racing commissions. And as Class points out, if people understood the economics of betting, there should be fewer losers. The take is tough to overcome, but remember tracks redistribute 70-85% of all money bet. That leaves players with prospects at least.

A second, more important piece of evidence is that if tracks understood racetrack economics, they wouldn't make some of the dumb decisions they do. Which tracks have shown they understand the relationship between the take and betting handle? It's a pretty short list. You think the product is priced correctly to maximize revenues? You think they've nailed the simulcast signal cost? You think they've minimized operating costs at racing plants?

I'd say it would be illogical to believe racing is being well managed.

This from a 1998 study at the University of Louisville

Median own-takeout rate elasticity was found to be -2.30 [this means a 1% increase in the takeout rate results in a 2.3% loss of handle] indicating that wagering is strongly responsive to takeout rate changes. This is consistent with prior findings in the literature. Median elasticities with respect to number of races and field size were found to be 0.64 and 0.58, respectively. There are no prior studies by which to gauge the magnitudesof these elasticities but it seems wagering is moderately responsive to changes in number of races and field size. Finally, median purse elasticity was found to be 0.06 which is considerably lower than elasticity with respect to takeout rate, number of races or field size. This elasticity is quite small and it suggests, for instance, that wagering at the racetrack-racebook would increase by a very small 6% if average purses were doubled. With the exception of the median cross-race elasticity of -0.41, the remaining cross-elasticities were, in general,statistically insignificant or small relative to their corresponding own-elasticities. This suggests that competing racetrack groups are moderate substitutes for the subject racetrack group.

It might be illogical, but the proof is in the pudding. As you can read, pretty much the only thing that makes a real difference in handle is the take. It's great that you have faith in the people running racing. They'll appreciate the vote of confidence.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You now have a model where the passionate participant has been pushed aside for the elite management participant. You follow the money around the continent, which generally means the casino tracks. These people make the decisions, the money chasers, because they are the participants. We get more short-sighted decisions. From everywhere. Because this is the new model.

This is simplified all to hell, but I think that the discussion of racing economics overlooks the real obvious at times. I don't even know how you can 'fix the economics of racing' - from a centralized or decentralized position - when the whole thing is predicated on a ridiculous premise of chasing new casino properties around and sticking around just long enough to leave a carcass. And for most of these places, the betting and customers on that side of equation aren't even part of the equation. They are irrelevant.