Ritvo era begins at Santa Anita. “Takeout is too high, no question about it"

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

When you fly to New York, you are actually getting the rebate. The last minute business traveler is subsidizing you.

1) that business traveler may have his costs reimbursed by a 3rd pary(his company the person who invited him out etc)

2) even if he is paying the bill, he doesn't have an option. He has to get to NY in 24 hours and Amtrak isn't going to do it, nor is the bus. Racing used to be the only game in town. That ship has sailed.

When the on track racing patron subsidizes the Whales (and in actuality they do-just like the business traveler-as I explained the last time we had this discussion) their is a much bigger cost. A customer is often lost. The business traveler, does not have the luxury of bringing their business to a non airline. but the Gambler certainly has the option of playing other gambling games with their money. Most people can walk to their corner 7/11 to gamble or call a local bookie, or play dfs or local or online casinos....... After they get their head handed to them enough, the next time they go to the track, they may just go straight to the casino portion and bypass the racetrack. Stop assuming what works for other industries will work for racing. Racing can provide whales all the perks they want other than rebates. Hookers, drinks, food, hotel rooms, massages, spas, tickets to games, golf club memberships...............but as long as they rebate they are costing the non rebated bettor too much and they are stunting the growth of the game. I get why racing stubbornly holds on to what they are doing(they see no other option), I just don't see why you think this works. Why do you assume that gamblers are so comfortable losing such large chunks of capital every time they gamble, and then come to the conclusion Americas taste has changed. No racing has been changing America's taste, leaving a bad taste in their mouth every time they set foot in a racetrack for what is approaching 20 years now.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

The Canterbury thing killed me. I was apprehensive about it but went all in promoting it and even though they outperformed other tracks in their area/category by a mile the headline was all that mattered. It was a waste of time and money because no matter what the takeout was the pools were too small to matter IMO

Canterbury was a success in my opinion. The handle went up, and that was really the significant metric. The fact that profit wasn't the same was important to Canterbury, but I thought it was like a person going on a diet, losing two pounds in a week and saying, the diet doesn't work because I didn't lose all the weight I wanted. It would have taken more than one season to label their experiment a failure or success.

Three things struck me beyond not giving the experiment enough time. One, after the initial rollout I don't remember a continuing marketing effort. Two, horseplayers have habits and it was going to take time to change those habits. If I don't know the trainers, jockeys, or tendencies at a respective track, why would I switch away from a track I've spent years understanding? Three, yes, the pools weren't big enough to attract even the medium sized bettors. If I bet $100 on a horse and it impacts the odds in any significant way, I'm not looking to make that track a prime betting place.

I believe to legitimately evaluate the effect of take on handle you have to have the larger handle tracks do it simultaneously. Dropping the take may not overcome crappy racing, but it certainly gives the marketing people something to distract fans with.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

Yeah, I really don't expect any different from any party. All sides seem to be dug into the idea that "if it benefits me it must be a good idea."

On this board though, a lot of the "if it benefits me" is in the vein of trying to revive the sport. In the case of bigger purses, the only argument beyond it benefitting one group is that it could keep some owners in the game, and that is tentative.

Racing is a three legged stool - the owners, the trainers and the bettors. If one of the legs fails, the stool falls. For racing to thrive, all three legs have to be winners in the design of the game, but not one at the expense of the others.

What about the track? To paraphrase the Magnificent Seven, the track always wins.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Airlines are making record profits.

I had to look this up.

An article from 01/17:

The U.S. airline industry has enjoyed three straight years of surging profits and has poured much of that windfall into buying shiny new planes, building swankier airport lounges for VIP customers and paying big dividends to investors. ...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...117-story.html

But, a more recent one from 05/17:

Airlines in the United States made more than $4.2 billion in baggage fees, accounting for 2.5% of revenue last year, though the industry still saw overall profits significantly decrease.

Baggage fees were the highest area of profit growth, according to a release Tuesday from the Department of Transportation. Baggage-fee profit went up 10% in 2016 compared to 2015, an increase of about $372 million, according to the DOT.

The airline with the highest baggage-fee profits, American Airlines, made more than $1 billion in 2016, according to the report.

However, airline profits in the U.S. were down over $11 billion in 2016, bringing in $13.5 billion in 2016 compared to $24.8 billion in 2015. The Department of Transportation said in the release that while fuel costs decreased, labor rates went up by nearly as much and airlines also made less through fees for changing reservations. Fares ended up making $91.2 billion, only about a 1% increase from 2015, according to the report. ...

http://fortune.com/2017/05/03/airlin...t-baggage-fee/

I'm surprised of the recent results since I haven't followed them in years because I've pretty much written them off.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Canterbury was a success in my opinion. The handle went up, and that was really the significant metric. The fact that profit wasn't the same was important to Canterbury, but I thought it was like a person going on a diet, losing two pounds in a week and saying, the diet doesn't work because I didn't lose all the weight I wanted. It would have taken more than one season to label their experiment a failure or success.

Three things struck me beyond not giving the experiment enough time. One, after the initial rollout I don't remember a continuing marketing effort. Two, horseplayers have habits and it was going to take time to change those habits. If I don't know the trainers, jockeys, or tendencies at a respective track, why would I switch away from a track I've spent years understanding? Three, yes, the pools weren't big enough to attract even the medium sized bettors. If I bet $100 on a horse and it impacts the odds in any significant way, I'm not looking to make that track a prime betting place.

I believe to legitimately evaluate the effect of take on handle you have to have the larger handle tracks do it simultaneously. Dropping the take may not overcome crappy racing, but it certainly gives the marketing people something to distract fans with.

What we make of the facts doesn't matter. The perception is that it was a failure and they changed back to high takeout affirming the perception that it was a failure. The rest of the industry used that perception as an excuse for the status quo. Giving a factual analysis in this industry is often meaningless. That's what most people have a hard time understanding cuz it doesn't make sense unless you've met with many of these execs/industry leaders. Once you've been through that you'll know what I'm talking about even though it isn't logical.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

1) that business traveler may have his costs reimbursed by a 3rd pary(his company the person who invited him out etc)

2) even if he is paying the bill, he doesn't have an option. He has to get to NY in 24 hours and Amtrak isn't going to do it, nor is the bus. Racing used to be the only game in town. That ship has sailed.

When the on track racing patron subsidizes the Whales (and in actuality they do-just like the business traveler-as I explained the last time we had this discussion) their is a much bigger cost. A customer is often lost. The business traveler, does not have the luxury of bringing their business to a non airline. but the Gambler certainly has the option of playing other gambling games with their money. Most people can walk to their corner 7/11 to gamble or call a local bookie, or play dfs or local or online casinos....... After they get their head handed to them enough, the next time they go to the track, they may just go straight to the casino portion and bypass the racetrack. Stop assuming what works for other industries will work for racing. Racing can provide whales all the perks they want other than rebates. Hookers, drinks, food, hotel rooms, massages, spas, tickets to games, golf club memberships...............but as long as they rebate they are costing the non rebated bettor too much and they are stunting the growth of the game. I get why racing stubbornly holds on to what they are doing(they see no other option), I just don't see why you think this works. Why do you assume that gamblers are so comfortable losing such large chunks of capital every time they gamble, and then come to the conclusion Americas taste has changed. No racing has been changing America's taste, leaving a bad taste in their mouth every time they set foot in a racetrack for what is approaching 20 years now.

I agree that rebates are corrosive to the sport. Indeed, there's no reason regulators should permit them. The principle that everyone betting in the pool should pay the same takeout is a good one and is consistent with how gaming regulation is supposed to work.

But I also have an inkling of why tracks go along with them. They are a form of price discrimination in favor of more cost-sensitive customers, and microeconomic theory says that this sort of thing usually helps your bottom line. To put it another way-- if tracks really believed rebates were hurting their customer base in the way you posit, they would take more steps than they do currently to disallow them. The more likely truth is that rebates contribute to the slow decline in the sport, but in the meantime, tracks get plenty of additional handle because they exist.

At any rate, don't look for tracks to get rid of them without a regulatory intervention.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I agree that rebates are corrosive to the sport. Indeed, there's no reason regulators should permit them. The principle that everyone betting in the pool should pay the same takeout is a good one and is consistent with how gaming regulation is supposed to work.

But I also have an inkling of why tracks go along with them. They are a form of price discrimination in favor of more cost-sensitive customers, and microeconomic theory says that this sort of thing usually helps your bottom line. To put it another way-- if tracks really believed rebates were hurting their customer base in the way you posit, they would take more steps than they do currently to disallow them. The more likely truth is that rebates contribute to the slow decline in the sport, but in the meantime, tracks get plenty of additional handle because they exist.

At any rate, don't look for tracks to get rid of them without a regulatory intervention.

This is progress.

[JustRalph]

Unless somebody finds a couple thousand decent horses, there is no progress, it's all talk

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I'm guessing you're referring to their lower takeout last meet.

Are they now raising takeout?

I take it you played CBY, what did you think of their racing?

I looked at their first card and planned to bet there because of the lower t/o but, the card lineup was crap and never looked at CBY the rest of the meet.

I played it a tiny bit, which was up from my previous years of zero play.

It appears I'm not the only one who had this reaction.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

On this board though, a lot of the "if it benefits me" is in the vein of trying to revive the sport. In the case of bigger purses, the only argument beyond it benefitting one group is that it could keep some owners in the game, and that is tentative.

Racing is a three legged stool - the owners, the trainers and the bettors. If one of the legs fails, the stool falls. For racing to thrive, all three legs have to be winners in the design of the game, but not one at the expense of the others.

What about the track? To paraphrase the Magnificent Seven, the track always wins.

(The track owners are a 4th leg, no?)

I should have been more precise in what I was trying to convey.

In a nutshell, there is no one-size-fits-all solution or set of solutions for racing.

Horizontal bettors have slightly different priorities than vertical bettors. On-track vs. ADW. $1000/day players vs $20/day vs. $100,000/day, etc. You can't make a change that doesn't affect each sub-population differently.

Suffolk Downs' management needs a different set of tools than does Saratoga's. Del Mar doesn't have an attendance issues. Presque Isle does.

And so on.

[Gentz]

I've been a horse racing fan for 45 years. While there are a lot of excellent points and ideas in this thread, does anyone actually believe that horse racing can be saved. It seems on many, if not all fronts, this sport is done.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I agree that rebates are corrosive to the sport. Indeed, there's no reason regulators should permit them. The principle that everyone betting in the pool should pay the same takeout is a good one and is consistent with how gaming regulation is supposed to work.

At any rate, don't look for tracks to get rid of them without a regulatory intervention.

So flying in big bettors to Vegas and showering them with rooms, meals, shows, etc. is not how gaming regulation should work?

The last time I checked rebates were not being paid out of the mutuel pools so every dollar does have the exact same takeout rate. If ADWs want to spend their revenues on rebates that should be their decision. Tracks do the exact same thing. Should there be a regulation against the Del Mar "ship and win" payments made to owners to lure horses away from other tracks?

I would argue that it is because of regulation that the tracks are in the mess that they are in. Some regulation is needed, of course, just not the kind that prevents tracks from making changes that could be beneficial to their existence.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

On this board though, a lot of the "if it benefits me" is in the vein of trying to revive the sport. In the case of bigger purses, the only argument beyond it benefitting one group is that it could keep some owners in the game, and that is tentative.

Racing is a three legged stool - the owners, the trainers and the bettors. If one of the legs fails, the stool falls. For racing to thrive, all three legs have to be winners in the design of the game, but not one at the expense of the others.

What about the track? To paraphrase the Magnificent Seven, the track always wins.

"If it benefits me" is probably a bad way to make public policy but it's a great way for a consumer to think and act.

As a bettor, I am the customer, the consumer. If the tracks cannot give me a product that I want, one that benefits me, I am out. If Costco can't provide me with goods and services that benefit me I won't shop there.

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.sgvtribune.com/sports/201...medium=twitter

Excerpt:

ARCADIA — No one, not even folks in the know, can say for certain if Santa Anita will still be standing in 10 years. The iconic race track that once was home to the legendary Seabiscuit, the world’s first hundred-grand horse race and a couple of guys named Shoemaker and Whittingham could eventually face the same fate as the now-defunct Hollywood Park.

In fact, Jack Liebau, who served as Hollywood Park’s president for its final eight years, told the Southern California News Group that Santa Anita would probably have already been bulldozed if it was owned by the Bay Meadows Land Company — the same group of investors who made up Hollypark’s parent company.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

So flying in big bettors to Vegas and showering them with rooms, meals, shows, etc. is not how gaming regulation should work?

The last time I checked rebates were not being paid out of the mutuel pools so every dollar does have the exact same takeout rate. If ADWs want to spend their revenues on rebates that should be their decision. Tracks do the exact same thing. Should there be a regulation against the Del Mar "ship and win" payments made to owners to lure horses away from other tracks?

I would argue that it is because of regulation that the tracks are in the mess that they are in. Some regulation is needed, of course, just not the kind that prevents tracks from making changes that could be beneficial to their existence.

Andy:

There actually ARE regulations on what other sorts of gaming enterprises can do in terms of comps. For instance, here in California no casino or racetrack can give you free booze.

Saying that takeout has to be consistent and can't be rebated would fall in that category.

I don't buy your technical argument that a rebate doesn't reduce takeout, either. It has the exact same effect.

And there's a lot more caveat emptor in horse ownership than in betting.