Time for Contraction

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by Tom

It makes us the CUSTOMERS.
And that is all that counts.
WE get to be greedy - it is GAMBLING, for God's sake.

Do you pay T bone prices for Chuck stake so the dishwashers can keep their jobs?

No, but that's what's happening from the minute you buy the form, park your car and gain admission to the track. Then when you look at some of these cards...its not even Chuck Steak...you are looking at fast food, ground beef. What ever the hell is in that.

[netbet]

Now there is the report about CDI slashing purses at Fair Grounds.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story...rses/15767751/

Marcus Hersh is reporting that the La Derby is now worth 600K and FG Oaks is 300K.

This meet has been struggling for a few years now....this may be the last straw.

[Robert Goren]

You can reduce the number of tracks all you want, but that is not going to increase the number of bettors. I am sure we will see few tracks in the near future. There is a feeling among bettors that this will increase field size, but I am not so sure. Unless the horsemen become convinced that larger fields are in their best interests, the fields will only go slightly in size and the number of foals will take another sharp drop again.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

You can reduce the number of tracks all you want, but that is not going to increase the number of bettors. I am sure we will see few tracks in the near future. There is a feeling among bettors that this will increase field size, but I am not so sure. Unless the horsemen become convinced that larger fields are in their best interests, the fields will only go slightly in size and the number of foals will take another sharp drop again.

How do you know? What is better, 10 tracks handling a million (or less) a day, or two tracks handling five million a day? Which is more likely to draw bettors?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

You can reduce the number of tracks all you want, but that is not going to increase the number of bettors. I am sure we will see few tracks in the near future. There is a feeling among bettors that this will increase field size, but I am not so sure. Unless the horsemen become convinced that larger fields are in their best interests, the fields will only go slightly in size and the number of foals will take another sharp drop again.

It might not increase the number of bettors, but handles will get bigger as the largest players would be able to "bet more" because of money being more concentrated on the bigger tracks and not spread all over the place.

As far as purses in big fields, tracks need to have sliding purse scales that go down for each scratch. Why they haven't thought of that is anyone's guess.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

How do you know? What is better, 10 tracks handling a million (or less) a day, or two tracks handling five million a day? Which is more likely to draw bettors?

That scenario doesn't take into account geography. If the tracks are not in the same area (commuting distance) you will not have 10 million to spread between the remaining 2 tracks. That is the problem here in Texas, it's just too far to travel to one of the 3 tracks in the state. The internet ban for Texas residents adds to that problem.

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

That scenario doesn't take into account geography. If the tracks are not in the same area (commuting distance) you will not have 10 million to spread between the remaining 2 tracks. That is the problem here in Texas, it's just too far to travel to one of the 3 tracks in the state. The internet ban for Texas residents adds to that problem.

I understand that, but the biggest problem smaller tracks face now is that the pools are too small to be bet seriously. That is not going to change any time soon. There is at least hope that consolidation could make gamblers take notice as field size and handle grows. Right now all you have is a bunch of tracks doing the bare minimum to get subsidized. That is killing the game overall in my opinion.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

It might not increase the number of bettors, but handles will get bigger as the largest players would be able to "bet more" because of money being more concentrated on the bigger tracks and not spread all over the place.

As far as purses in big fields, tracks need to have sliding purse scales that go down for each scratch. Why they haven't thought of that is anyone's guess.

I'm sure they have thought of it. You think horsemen's groups are going to sign off on that one? LOL.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

It might not increase the number of bettors, but handles will get bigger as the largest players would be able to "bet more" because of money being more concentrated on the bigger tracks and not spread all over the place.

As far as purses in big fields, tracks need to have sliding purse scales that go down for each scratch. Why they haven't thought of that is anyone's guess.

Can you explain why a sliding scale would do anything other than screw the owners who stayed in the race while not providing any benefit to horseplayers? If you want bigger fields, screwing the owners who don't scratch by lowering their purse money is pretty dumb, isn't it?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Can you explain why a sliding scale would do anything other than screw the owners who stayed in the race while not providing any benefit to horseplayers? If you want bigger fields, screwing the owners who don't scratch by lowering their purse money is pretty dumb, isn't it?

Its not screwing them as that purse money will be available for a later date. I'm not suggesting the track just keep the purse money, but redistributing it in a fair and impartial manner makes a lot of sense.

Also, it wouldn't be screwing anyone if in the conditions of the race, they had the exact purse for the amount of starters, that way, owners would know before they enter what the purse structure was.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Its not screwing them as that purse money will be available for a later date. I'm not suggesting the track just keep the purse money, but redistributing it in a fair and impartial manner makes a lot of sense.

Also, it wouldn't be screwing anyone if in the conditions of the race, they had the exact purse for the amount of starters, that way, owners would know before they enter what the purse structure was.

Horseplayers gain zero as the scratches still take place, and the owners WHO STAYED IN THE RACE get punished when they did nothing wrong. Again, how does this help with field size (other than any owners who get screwed by your system moving their horses to other tracks, so I guess it would help those tracks)?

[ReplayRandall]

More possible contraction coming soon:


KMOV.com- St. Louis


Posted on September 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Updated Tuesday, Sep 16 at 9:46 AM

COLLINSVILLE, Ill. (KMOV.com) – Saturday marks the final day of horse races for the 2014 season at Fairmount Park. As workers in Collinsville prepare for another off-season, some wonder just how many more seasons the track can stay open without slot machines.

“We have a loyal fan base, but without the slots’ income, we just cannot attract enough purses and enough horses to put out a product that is going to work,” said Jon Sloane, the spokesperson for Fairmount Park. “We think [we have] a great based here, a great foundation” but officials need the legislation to pass.

According to Sloane, Illinois state lawmakers should discuss legislation about turning race tracks into racinos—casinos at race tracks—before the end of the year. Other bills concerning this issue have circulated in Springfield. Most recently, lawmakers discussed allowing every race track in the state of Illinois except Fairmount Park to install slot machines.
If lawmakers do not give the idea a green light, State Rep. Dwight Kay
estimated 1600 jobs in the Metro East will be gone because the Collinsville park will be forced to close: 400 jobs at the track and another 600 to 1,000 surrounding jobs.
Sloane agrees.

“[Getting slots] is necessary for our future and perhaps our survival,” Sloane said. “Getting slots, creating racinos, creating jobs, [adding] more race dates and revenues—that’s to the good of everybody.”

[1st time lasix]

Takeout on two horse bets wasn't the only reason, but speaking as a horseplayer who bets a considerable amount of money, I made an extra effort this past summer to give Saratoga more of my business than Del Mar.

I did that BECAUSE of the differential in takeout.

The trend-line in the handle numbers between the two tracks suggests I might not be the only horseplayer who saw it that this way.





.[/QUOTE] ******* BINGO! Exactly how i structure my wagers....taking into consideration the takeout hurdle at every meet.

[Stillriledup]

Tracks are closing because others have slot machines...i wonder if ALL the tracks would have stayed open if other tracks didn't have slots.

Its sad how tracks are closing due to no slots, but the tracks with slots are still struggling along with small fields and low betting handles....the only people getting fat are the jocks and trainers who don't actually lose money if their horse finishes last, they "break even". Everyone else loses.

[whodoyoulike]

Where do the horses go or what do you think happens to the horses when a race track closes? I would think that they would start racing at another nearby track. But, is this what is occurring? I still see small field sizes or no changes at nearby tracks IMO.

These recent closures are at small tracks which I don't follow. Has anyone noticed larger field sizes at other small tracks? I would think that this would be a good result from track closures from a bettor's standpoint.