RIP Turf Paradise

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Your ridiculous posting is impressive.

I'm with TLG on this. The potential closure of a track to consolidate year round operations is not remotely the same as removing the sole racing facility from a major metropolitan area.

Come on-- NYRA is investing big time in Belmont. You don't do that sort of complete rebuild and build-out of an additional course if the plan is to close in a few years. New York racing is not going anywhere.

But many metro areas are losing/have lost their tracks. This is inevitable consolidation in the simulcasting era; I can also understand why people in those areas who like to go to the track are upset.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

These situations never end this quickly or cleanly.

My bet is we haven't heard the last of TuP or their OTB network.

Maybe it will be some legal challenge...or someone will swoop in and make an offer to buy the track...these tracks never die quickly.

Look at Suffolk Downs...how many years did it take them to finally shut their doors?

GG was supposed to end this year and that's not likely to happen now either.

That's true. Longacres hung on 2 years after its announced closure back in the 1990's as well.

[drib]

Let's face it; racing most places is a dying game. NYRA has made a brilliant move getting NY State to put up a 50 year commitment of $600mil for the new Belmont. Unlike many other states, there won't be a cash grab for that slots money. Having spent a lifetime on Long Island, I do know that replacing far more accessible Aqueduct with this new Belmont will create a ghost town for most of the year. Without a car, living in Brooklyn or western Queens makes Belmont a pain to visit; in addition, Nassau Cty has many OTB's which means that from Nov-May, horseplayers (yes, I know a dwindling breed) will opt too stay close to home. Recently NYRA has pulled the trick of counting a season pass at Saratoga as attendance every day. I predict for the new Belmont, they will count every worker as in the building every day. For more than half the year, it will be only way to get a count above 1,000 (remember they won't even have a casino next door to draw).

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by castaway01

This is why consolidation (by 50% in the last 30 years) doesn't and won't lead to bigger fields. Those horses simply won't be bred anymore.

That's why I keep saying that ultimately it's going to be a much smaller industry dominated by wealthy owners and breeders. They will keep breeding the best to the best in the same numbers because there's money to be made, but there's no reason to breed horses that no one wants because their prospective owners would lose their shirts at racing and there is no residual value after their racing career is over.

Loads of people love racing enough to eat small losses just to participate, but people have to feel like there's at least a chance of breaking even or making a few dollars. They aren't going to hemorrhage money for fun.

The economics of the sport are terrible as is.

They either have to take costs out of the system and keep revenue fairly stable or raise revenue. But revenue is declining rapidly over time in inflation adjusted terms. Something has to give.

[thaskalos]

About a month ago while on twinspires, I decided to count how many thoroughbred racetracks were running on a Saturday. I stopped counting when I reached the number of 19! And I wondered if this is what the horseplayer really wants in a gambling game. IMO...what the serious horseplayer really wants is a handful of racetracks spread across several popular racing locales, which would consolidate the mutuel handle in only a few places instead of spreading it in much lesser quantities all over the place.

I don't know if closing the "inferior" tracks would increase the horse population at the surviving tracks...but I know that the surviving tracks would generate larger mutuel handles if the lesser tracks were closed down, and that's a substantial benefit in itself, as far as I am concerned. Yes...with lesser tracks there will be less horses being bred as time goes on...but I don't see that as a bad thing. The less horses being bred...the less horses ending up at the slaughterhouses once their usefulness has been outlived.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

About a month ago while on twinspires, I decided to count how many thoroughbred racetracks were running on a Saturday. I stopped counting when I reached the number of 19! And I wondered if this is what the horseplayer really wants in a gambling game. IMO...what the serious horseplayer really wants is a handful of racetracks spread across several popular racing locales, which would consolidate the mutuel handle in only a few places instead of spreading it in much lesser quantities all over the place.

I don't know if closing the "inferior" tracks would increase the horse population at the surviving tracks...but I know that the surviving tracks would generate larger mutuel handles if the lesser tracks were closed down, and that's a substantial benefit in itself, as far as I am concerned. Yes...with lesser tracks there will be less horses being bred as time goes on...but I don't see that as a bad thing. The less horses being bred...the less horses ending up at the slaughterhouses once their usefulness has been outlived.

The goose was cooked when simulcasting became the norm. Because a lot of people were betting lousy local race cards only because they had no choice. Once they had the opportunity to bet whatever the most interesting races available were, the smaller local tracks were toast without some.sort of outside subsidy.

[PhantomOnTour]

Amazingly, Australia has nearly 400 tracks

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's why I keep saying that ultimately it's going to be a much smaller industry dominated by wealthy owners and breeders. They will keep breeding the best to the best in the same numbers because there's money to be made, but there's no reason to breed horses that no one wants because their prospective owners would lose their shirts at racing and there is no residual value after their racing career is over.

Loads of people love racing enough to eat small losses just to participate, but people have to feel like there's at least a chance of breaking even or making a few dollars. They aren't going to hemorrhage money for fun.

The economics of the sport are terrible as is.

They either have to take costs out of the system and keep revenue fairly stable or raise revenue. But revenue is declining rapidly over time in inflation adjusted terms. Something has to give.

Breeding is still a numbers game. Best to the best gives you a better chance for a good horse but a far cry from a certainty.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Breeding is still a numbers game. Best to the best gives you a better chance for a good horse but a far cry from a certainty.

No doubt.

I'm sure there are loads of losers at the top also, but there are also some incredibly deep pockets and some major scores.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

About a month ago while on twinspires, I decided to count how many thoroughbred racetracks were running on a Saturday. I stopped counting when I reached the number of 19! And I wondered if this is what the horseplayer really wants in a gambling game. IMO...what the serious horseplayer really wants is a handful of racetracks spread across several popular racing locales, which would consolidate the mutuel handle in only a few places instead of spreading it in much lesser quantities all over the place.

I don't know if closing the "inferior" tracks would increase the horse population at the surviving tracks...but I know that the surviving tracks would generate larger mutuel handles if the lesser tracks were closed down, and that's a substantial benefit in itself, as far as I am concerned. Yes...with lesser tracks there will be less horses being bred as time goes on...but I don't see that as a bad thing. The less horses being bred...the less horses ending up at the slaughterhouses once their usefulness has been outlived.

How do you go about recruiting new players to the game? Personally I would have never started betting horses if I hadn't attended live races long before I started betting. Do most sports bettors start betting football, baseball, basketball, etc. without first having become interested in the sport before betting?



The minor league tracks used to serve a purpose as an introduction to the sport. I doubt TV will pique the interests of those unable to experience live racing.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

Amazingly, Australia has nearly 400 tracks

I'd like to hear more about that since I don't follow their racing.

How many are operating at any given time?

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'd like to hear more about that since I don't follow their racing.

How many are operating at any given time?

Not sure, but I've become increasingly interested in Australian racing. They race in the middle of the night by our time though, which is a big hindrance.
There's a lot of information available for free, including pp's.

They must be doing something right down there. By all accounts, racing is thriving, and the fan base is passionate.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

How do you go about recruiting new players to the game? Personally I would have never started betting horses if I hadn't attended live races long before I started betting. Do most sports bettors start betting football, baseball, basketball, etc. without first having become interested in the sport before betting?

The minor league tracks used to serve a purpose as an introduction to the sport. I doubt TV will pique the interests of those unable to experience live racing.

It's going to have to be things like the Triple Crown, Breeder's Cup and other series like that on TV or as I've been saying vacation destination tracks. IMHO, the ideal would be for most of the remaining tracks to be located somewhere I might logically go on vacation anyway. The racetrack can be one of the hot things to do in that area at that time because of the quality of the racing and big race days. Casuals still show up and bet on the bigger days. But I am talking about a much smaller but hopefully healthier industry. Maybe it won't work, but the economics are a horror show now and getting worse now.

I've been saying what thaskalos is saying for a long time.

No one needs 19+ tracks running at the same time in an era of simulcasting.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

About a month ago while on twinspires, I decided to count how many thoroughbred racetracks were running on a Saturday. I stopped counting when I reached the number of 19! And I wondered if this is what the horseplayer really wants in a gambling game. IMO...what the serious horseplayer really wants is a handful of racetracks spread across several popular racing locales, which would consolidate the mutuel handle in only a few places instead of spreading it in much lesser quantities all over the place.

I don't know if closing the "inferior" tracks would increase the horse population at the surviving tracks...but I know that the surviving tracks would generate larger mutuel handles if the lesser tracks were closed down, and that's a substantial benefit in itself, as far as I am concerned. Yes...with lesser tracks there will be less horses being bred as time goes on...but I don't see that as a bad thing. The less horses being bred...the less horses ending up at the slaughterhouses once their usefulness has been outlived.

I would rather bet a 5 horse field than a full one with all the surviving super trainers and try to guess which one will have his horse ready to fire biggest off a layoff....or is willing to drop his horse the most.I have no interest in that as a bettor.

[46zilzal]

Many of my Pacific Northwest friends will now have NO PLACE to run during the Winter with both GGF and now Tup gone.