How Racetracks could increase on track attendance

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

Recent take out changes I know about.
Belmont, Aqueduct and Saratoga increased take: Belmont and Aqueduct down close to 20% in total handle. Saratoga handle down 2.8%.
Calder increased take: Handle down in high teens (double the national average)
Woodbine (lowered handle on triactors): up 6% in total handle (many other factors contributed to this though)http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/1...ked-trend.html
Tampa Bay: had a 10% increase in handle opening day.

I seems that it is common sense to you and I that lowering the take is good and raising the take is bad.

The question then becomes who are the villains raising the take and why aren't we making their life a living hell with emails and phone calls?

[rrbauer]

How to get more people to the track?

Tear down the grandstand and build a funeral home. A bonus arrangement for as players die off they won't have very far to travel. And, the racetrack execs can be the pall bearers since they're burying the game anyway.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by rrbauer

How to get more people to the track?

Tear down the grandstand and build a funeral home. A bonus arrangement for as players die off they won't have very far to travel. And, the racetrack execs can be the pall bearers since they're burying the game anyway.

What makes you think that a racetrack is capable of successfully running a funeral business, or any business for that matter?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by andymays

I seems that it is common sense to you and I that lowering the take is good and raising the take is bad.

The question then becomes who are the villains raising the take and why aren't we making their life a living hell with emails and phone calls?

Again, what we need first, are more HANA members. Then we can launch an effective "living hell" program.

[tzipi]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

What makes you think that a racetrack is capable of successfully running a funeral business, or any business for that matter?

[Jeff P]

Earlier today, on my own message board, someone posted the following question:

Why is it so hard for people to understand that reduced takeout will improve handle, and drive growth?

I've been asking myself the same thing for quite some time now.

The truth is: It isn't hard to understand. In fact, there's a growing body of evidence to support it.

Over the past year, through HANA - we've been working to make industry decision makers aware of it.

I can guarantee you one thing at this point: Industry decision makers are VERY much aware of it. FAR more aware than they publicly let on.

Change isn't going to happen overnight. Nobody wants to be first. But change IS coming.

In 2010 you are going to see a handful of tracks reduce their takeout. Some of this is going to come in the form of new wagers at takeout that is historically lower than takeout in that track's other pools. Right now HANA is working with one major track that is seriously considering doing a takeout reduction with a high profile pool. Other tracks that I know of are currently working on all pools takeout reductions spanning their full 2010 meets.

None of these takeout reductions are going to be drastic... None of them are likely going to make headlines.

I'm talking about reduced takeout of a few points at a few tracks for an extended time period -- and monitoring results.

When it happens, if players support it -- other tracks will follow.

If you ask me, it will be a good start.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

One thing I absolutely do want to make clear is that HANA is working to effect change in a positive manner. We aren't planning a "living hell" campaign.

We are trying to make the voice of the player heard. -- By raising awareness... with the objective being to make sure industry decision makers are aware of racing customer needs and wants.

The two most critical player needs and wants are:

1. Takeout/pricing of the gambling aspect of racing.

2. Integrity of the game issues.

When it comes to takeout, HANA is NOT seeking takeout so low that there is no money for tracks, purses, and government coffers.

HANA is trying to raise awareness that takeout has an optimal pricing point -- and that the optimal pricing point is currently higher than demand for the game...

When the gambling aspect of racing (or any other game) is priced too high:

Money flowing as a percentage of the total amount wagered to the people running the game and to government coffers is lower than it otherwise could be.

Here's what I mean...

Takeout and handle are linked... an elastic relationship exists between the two.

Set takeout at 100% and handle very quickly becomes $0.00... producing $0.00 for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Set takeout at 0% and handle will soar... again producing $0.00 for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Somewhere between 100% and 0% is the optimal price point for takeout... the point at which takeout drives handle to the point that produces max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Every economic study produced over the past 15 years suggests that the true optimal price point for takeout is a lot closer to 10% than the 22% blended takeout the industry currently forces upon its customers.

Racing's customers are no different than the customers of any other industry. They speak with their wallets. When price is too high they spend their money elsewhere.

One of HANA's core beliefs is that racing takeout should be set as close to the optimal price point as possible... the goal being to produce max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers... which in turn results in a healthy prospering industry.


-jp

.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by andymays

... Are we gonna change the tactics or are we gonna do it again in 2010?

RAH RAH REE
KICK HIM IN THE KNEE
RAH RAH RASS
KICK HIM IN THE OTHER KNEE

[rrbauer]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Set takeout at 0% and handle will soar... again producing $0.00 for tracks, purses, and state coffers.


.

There will still be breakage which will produce over $100 Million (at 2009 handle levels) for tracks, purses, state coffers and whoever else has their finger in the breakage pie....at horseplayers' expense.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

One of HANA's core beliefs is that racing takeout should be set as close to the optimal price point as possible... the goal being to produce max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers... which in turn results in a healthy prospering industry.


-jp

.

Jeff, the whole theory makes sense. Is it that all these tracks are run by idiots who don't know this or is there another reason most of them have been raising the take (or per California reserving the right to raise it 5%) instead of lowering it?

I'm of the opinion that there are certain individuals who run these tracks that need to be run out of town. Why not pressure them to do so by shining light on the individuals and groups that are resisting?

Correct me if I'm wrong but what seems to be driving a good portion of the handle are the two main racing networks TVG and HRTV. The tracks they carry get more handle than the tracks they leave out. Do the ADW's affiliated with both networks want lower takeout? It seems to me that they tend to push the wagers with the highest takeout (especially TVG).

Who are the villains in your opinion?

[riskman]

Originally Posted by Indulto

RAH RAH REE
KICK HIM IN THE KNEE
RAH RAH RASS
KICK HIM IN THE OTHER KNEE

At least AM demonstrates some enthusiasm as apposed to your constant berating which at this point does nothing for the problems at hand. If we all knew what you knew everything would be Heaven on Earth in the horse racing industry. Yes sir reeeeee.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by andymays

.................................................. .....................

Who are the villains in your opinion?

Fixed costs of operating live racing. Lowering take out does not equate to the necessay increase needed, in the incmoe stream, to cover costs of operation.

People decide to wager on a certain product based on other variables than just take out.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Fixed costs of operating live racing. Lowering take out does not equate to the necessay increase needed, in the incmoe stream, to cover costs of operation.

People decide to wager on a certain product based on other variables than just take out.

How do you know that reducing takeout won't cover the cost of operations? It is a major contention that today's takeout is not the optimal takeout. In fact, the optimal takeout is most likely under 12% and maybe even under 10%.

No, for the 100th time, most people do not think about takeout before they bet.

But it is what they go home with and how long they last that determines how much they will bet in the future.

Again, with optimal takeout. Why don't slots increase their takeout to 16% instead of 8%?

Because they make more money BOTTOM line at 8%. This means that less than twice the money is bet on slots today at 8% than would be bet if the takeout was 16%.

And slot players know or care squat about takeout.

[Show Me the Wire]

I will give you one great example of a more influential variable. The poly surface in Cali, there is so much vitrol, about this variable, not even a reduction in take out would bring these poly haters to the table.

Wagering is based on many variables other than take out. An equality equation between take out and increase in handle or attendance is a false premise.

Wishful thinking on any one's part, that take out is the primary factor in wagering decisions.

[andymays]

The more you bet during the year the more you care about takeout.

Just a total guess but I would guess that the 20% of Horseplayers who wager the least amount of money really don't care much about the take but the 20% that wager the most care quite a bit about the take.