It's on! The Official Boycott Keeneland Thread.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

The complain wasn't about "not lowering" takeouts, it was about raising them. The purses argument was nothing but a not so clever ruse to jack rates up.

As to ADWs, splittling the difference 50/50 means your net takeout still goes up.

I don't remember the numbers, but use this example:

old takeout: 16%
new takeout: 18%
signal fee: 8%
rebate: 4%

I guess "sharing" means Keeneland keeps 1%, ADWs get 1%. So maybe the signal fee is now 9%, it doesn't go up the full two. That is the split. Signal fees did not go down.

ADW has 8% to play with the old way. Now they have 9% to play with. Even if they give players the extra 1%, this happens:

old net takeout: 16 - 4 = 12%
new net takeout: 18 - 5 = 13%

ADWs are going to lose out too with less churn. It is an economic fact. There is no guarantee they are passing the new 1% onto customers, or if they are that they will continue to do so.

I saw the takeout raise as a preemptive move to placate horsemen.

Bottom line is that horseplayers lose if they accept the higher rates.

Horseplayers should bet where they get the lowest effective takeout.

It's all about the money.

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

I saw the takeout raise as a preemptive move to placate horsemen.

Bottom line is that horseplayers lose if they accept the higher rates.

Horseplayers should bet where they get the lowest effective takeout.

It's all about the money.

We agree about the last three lines.

The first one, nobody was complaining about purses at Keeneland. It wasn't even on the radar. It was just a convenient excuse to raise takeout making the same mistake every other jurisdiction does. They think handle will remain the same and revenue will go up. Sometimes it does short term, and it may very well here, but it will be a loser long term. It always is. And when that happens, purses will go down, not up. It happens every time.

What also happens is you lose customers that don't come back.

[cj]

Keeneland arguing meet is great for horseplayers because of high average payout. They must think horseplayers are idiots.

Twitter

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by cj

Keeneland arguing meet is great for horseplayers because of high average payout. They must think horseplayers are idiots.

https://twitter.com/TVG/status/919607228872646657

Deep down many of them think just like Jeff Mullins.....at least he had the balls to say it.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Keeneland arguing meet is great for horseplayers because of high average payout. They must think horseplayers are idiots.

the track mgmt point of view is that larger purses will attract more horsemen. More horsemen means more horses. More horses means a more popular betting event. And that means an increase in handle.

They might be right. Big bettors who get rebates are not going to boycott. In fact, big bettors benefit by the boycott because there is more dumb money in the pools when semi-serious players don't bet. Recreational horseplayers are not going to boycott. They probably don't even know there is a boycott. The only players boycotting are the semi-serious ones.

Ultimately, track mgmt decision is driven by their belief that they have to appeal to the needs of the horsemen. They know that cutting rates in order to raise handle and use the extra handle to fund purses is not a popular strategy with horsemen. Horsemen and track mgmt are more comfortable raising takeout in order to fund purses.

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

the track mgmt point of view is that larger purses will attract more horsemen. More horsemen means more horses. More horses means a more popular betting event. And that means an increase in handle.

They might be right. Big bettors who get rebates are not going to boycott. In fact, big bettors benefit by the boycott because there is more dumb money in the pools when semi-serious players don't bet. Recreational horseplayers are not going to boycott. They probably don't even know there is a boycott. The only players boycotting are the semi-serious ones.

Ultimately, track mgmt decision is driven by their belief that they have to appeal to the needs of the horsemen. They know that cutting rates in order to raise handle and use the extra handle to fund purses is not a popular strategy with horsemen. Horsemen and track mgmt are more comfortable raising takeout in order to fund purses.

But they aren't right. We've seen it over and over again. Purses don't drive field size, and they don't drive betting. If anything, bigger purses hurt field size.

I don't know what in the world you are talking about at there is more dumb money in the pools if semi-serious players don't bet. There may be a higher percentage of money, but there is less money to divy up among the sharks. You can only bet so much and that gets smaller as pool size shrinks.

I also disagree that big bettors aren't boycotting. I know for a fact some are not playing Keeneland this meet that usually do.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

But they aren't right. We've seen it over and over again. Purses don't drive field size, and they don't drive betting. If anything, bigger purses hurt field size.

From track mgmt point of view purse size drives field size.

I don't know what in the world you are talking about at there is more dumb money in the pools if semi-serious players don't bet. There may be a higher percentage of money, but there is less money to divy up among the sharks. You can only bet so much and that gets smaller as pool size shrinks.

Correct. On a percentage basis. I should have been more specific. For bettors still betting Keeneland it should be easier to win.

I also disagree that big bettors aren't boycotting. I know for a fact some are not playing Keeneland this meet that usually do.

some might be boycotting. Hard to know everyone who is boycotting. Game theory. Some could say they are boycotting even if they are not.

[cj]

I don't think it would be easier to win, because on a percentage basis the "whale" percentage of money in the pool is going up in your scenario...not down.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't think it would be easier to win, because on a percentage basis the "whale" percentage of money in the pool is going up in your scenario...not down.

You're right that it will not be easier for the dumb money bettors to win.

I have been talking it being easier to win for big bettors who get rebates.

For big bettors who get rebates and are still betting at keeneland it should be easier for them to win since the semi-serious players may be boycotting. That is, there will be less competition from semi-serious bettors.

If big bettors who are getting rebates are also boycotting then it will be easier still for those big bettors who are getting rebates who are still betting at keeneland to win at keeneland.

And the reason is because the percentage of dumb money in the pool may have increased due to the lack of semi-serious players and big bettors with rebates who are boycotting.

Of course, this is all supposition. Who can say for sure?

[cj]

Twitter

Those average payouts though!

---

Last edited by cj; 10-15-2017 at 09:44 PM.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Those average payouts though!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because average payouts are higher does not mean the amount of money being won is greater. The track payback is only 83%. They can't payout more than the track payback.

Also the chances of a horse with 10 to 1 odds winning in a 12 horse race is the same as a 10 to 1 shot in a 6 horse race.

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because average payouts are higher does not mean the amount of money being won is greater. The track payback is only 83%. They can't payout more than the track payback.

Also the chances of a horse with 10 to 1 odds winning in a 12 horse race is the same as a 10 to 1 shot in a 6 horse race.

Of course, Keeneland is just throwing out a red herring to make the product sound great. That is what the video I posted was referencing.

The example I used was if every race had 20 horses and takeout was 30%, average payout would be even higher.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Never mind, I figured it out by your non-reply......

For the record, I would have ignored your (rather silly) question as well.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by cj

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/919727465353961473

Those average payouts though!

Here they are touting their "successful meet" because of the big average payouts...

But wouldn't their average payouts be even bigger without the takeout increase?

The irony.




-jp

.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Here they are touting their "successful meet" because of the big average payouts...

But wouldn't their average payouts be even bigger without the takeout increase?

The irony.




-jp

.

As funny (sort of) is the average payouts were higher on polytrack. You know, if the goal was higher payouts, why go back to dirt? LOL.