How Racetracks could increase on track attendance

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Lower pricing in slots leads to more customers. Why? Because the addicted ones bring more friends and family along and more become addicted.
They didn't bring as many friends when the takeout was over 12%.

The same phenomena is true of horse racing.

I bet 3 to 4 times as much when getting decent rebates. I know this because I have records. So your law of betting against yourself doesn't hold water, until maybe one gets to the $10,000 a day range.

When I am really in action, I get others involved (whether they want to or not).
Real life example, I was in a cold streak the second last time my brother in law came over ( I didn't play that weekend). Last time I was holding my own and betting in front of him in the family room.
He went to the track the next day....and he rarely goes.

If not for rebates, I wouldn't have been betting either time he came for a visit.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

Lower pricing in slots leads to more customers. Why? Because the addicted ones bring more friends and family along and more become addicted.
They didn't bring as many friends when the takeout was over 12%.

The same phenomena is true of horse racing.

I bet 3 to 4 times as much when getting decent rebates. I know this because I have records. So your law of betting against yourself doesn't hold water, until maybe one gets to the $10,000 a day range.

When I am really in action, I get others involved (whether they want to or not).
Real life example, I was in a cold streak the second last time my brother in law came over ( I didn't play that weekend). Last time I was holding my own and betting in front of him in the family room.
He went to the track the next day....and he rarely goes.

If not for rebates, I wouldn't have been betting either time he came for a visit.

Bingo the addicted. These people wanted to go to the casino to feed their addiction (demand) for random gambling and this demand caused them to suggest a new form of entertainment, to their friends as a guise to feed their addiction.

The same is not true of horse racing. As you said, we don’t have to go any place. Just sit at home. Sitting at home watching races and wagering is not conducive to physically bringing people to the track.

I know you are going to say you will go to the track if you get a rebate. Maybe and maybe not, it depends on the level of play and how much value I attach to the convenience of not traveling, etc. Any way as a loner use to wagering at home, if I decided to travel, I wouldn't need social company.

As for betting against yourself it depends on pool size. At some tracks $200. is a bet against yourself. Even at the large tracks, look at the low odds at the past Hollywood meet. Imagine how much lower the pay offs would have been if more astutue money came in on the favorites, as existing players would have invested more and ended up betting against themselves, especially in the exotics.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

Lower pricing in slots leads to more customers. Why? Because the addicted ones bring more friends and family along and more become addicted.
They didn't bring as many friends when the takeout was over 12%.

The same phenomena is true of horse racing.

I bet 3 to 4 times as much when getting decent rebates. I know this because I have records. So your law of betting against yourself doesn't hold water, until maybe one gets to the $10,000 a day range.

When I am really in action, I get others involved (whether they want to or not).
Real life example, I was in a cold streak the second last time my brother in law came over ( I didn't play that weekend). Last time I was holding my own and betting in front of him in the family room.
He went to the track the next day....and he rarely goes.

If not for rebates, I wouldn't have been betting either time he came for a visit.

rebates will not bring new players into the racing game.Lowered takeout across the board might because quite possibly the smaller recreational player will go to the track more often and perhaps bring fresh faces with him/her.The real problem is the being slapped in the face by racetracks in the form of admissions charge ...price of a beer/soda...the $3 hot dog...all these things are given out by the casinos even to the marginal players,those equivalent to our two dollar bettors.Make racing more user friendly /customer oriented and accessible by having night racing at least on the weekends.
In my opinion rebates will be the death of racing because pretty soon all you will have is smart monies in the pools essentially whale versus whale with no value to be found anywhere!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You missed my point about my brother in law. Even at home gamblers can attract newbies.

If rebates can be embraced by the racing industry, then people can openly state that they are making real money. This will attract more players as well.
It worked like that with online Poker and Betfair.

And again, players are less likely to become addicted or regulars the higher the takeout.

As for comparing horse racing with slots....they are both negative expectation games (when considering a 21% takeout in horse racing), so there really isn't much of a difference to random gamblers, except they last longer playing slots.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by fmolf

rebates will not bring new players into the racing game.Lowered takeout across the board might because quite possibly the smaller recreational player will go to the track more often and perhaps bring fresh faces with him/her.The real problem is the being slapped in the face by racetracks in the form of admissions charge ...price of a beer/soda...the $3 hot dog...all these things are given out by the casinos even to the marginal players,those equivalent to our two dollar bettors.Make racing more user friendly /customer oriented and accessible by having night racing at least on the weekends.
In my opinion rebates will be the death of racing because pretty soon all you will have is smart monies in the pools essentially whale versus whale with no value to be found anywhere!

If rebates are embraced and those who are winners become spokesmen for horse race gambling, writing books perhaps, then rebating will cause growth.
Right now, you are correct. As long as rebating is a dirty word, it won't lead to very many new players....I still contend it will lead to some because word gets out that the game can be beaten that way.

As for making racing more affordable. In Ontario, there is no admission, no parking (unless you opt for valet where available) and you still can't people into the stands. Food prices are high, but c'mon, free admission and still no crowds.

Yes, reducing takeouts considerably is racing's only true chance for guaranteed growth.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

You missed my point about my brother in law. Even at home gamblers can attract newbies.

If rebates can be embraced by the racing industry, then people can openly state that they are making real money. This will attract more players as well.
It worked like that with online Poker and Betfair.

And again, players are less likely to become addicted or regulars the higher the takeout.

As for comparing horse racing with slots....they are both negative expectation games (when considering a 21% takeout in horse racing), so there really isn't much of a difference to random gamblers, except they last longer playing slots.

Okay, I didn't address it as it was the exception and not the rule. You see you restated our different views. You feel all gambling is fungible and I don't. I think you may have a higher percentage of people wagering on horses that view it more as investing and not as an entertainment thrill.

People play slots for entertainment and decide the cost is reasonable. Many horse players don't look on their wagers as a form of entertainment.

fmolf is correct about rebates.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Okay, I didn't address it as it was the exception and not the rule. You see you restated our different views. You feel all gambling is fungible and I don't. I think you may have a higher percentage of people wagering on horses that view it more as investing and not as an entertainment thrill.

People play slots for entertainment and decide the cost is reasonable. Many horse players don't look on their wagers as a form of entertainment.

What is a serious horseplayer? Someone who "thinks" if they are lucky enough they can beat the game long term? There aren't too many winners with a 21% takeout and very few mindless bettors left. Realistically I would say that most HONEST horse race gamblers view the game as entertainment, and at least rationalize it that way if they are keeping real records.

I think the game is beatable, with the right sized rebate or if takeouts were reduced enough. Slots is never beatable, but the thing is that there are people out there who do because the rake is so low.

I know of one person who told my wife she ALWAYS wins playing slots.
I interpret that as she has won quite a few times recently. But the fact she was able to go home with more money than she started with when she made that statement and the fact she has deluded herself into thinking the game is beatable tells me that slots has a definite advantage over horse racing when it comes to making addicts.

[johnhannibalsmith]

FWIW - Though tedious at times, this is a good debate and I'm actually hanging on every rebuttal.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

fmolf is correct about rebates.

fmolf is incorrect about the rebates.

and parking, admission, and sodas are free at penn national. (you have to pay for hotdogs, but who eats those things anyway?)

fmolf used the words "slapped in the face" to describe these things, but the tenths of a percent "rebates" given to on track players who (sometimes) buy track hotdogs, play track slots, and help create the track atmosphere..... this is the real slap in the face.

giving rebates that actually mean something at the end of a month of betting.... yes, this will both increase on track attendance and generate a lot more sustained interest in the game.

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

FWIW - Though tedious at times, this is a good debate and I'm actually hanging on every rebuttal.

The debate is pointless.

Originally Posted by andymays

Lower the take on track only 5% to 10%. I guarantee you the handle on track will at least triple.

Even if Andy is right, close to 90% of the handle would still be off track. The argument should be about increasing handle. If the pools are big, who cares if the betting is done on or off track.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by badcompany

The debate is pointless.



Even if Andy is right, close to 90% of the handle would still be off track. The argument should be about increasing handle. If the pools are big, who cares if the betting is done on or off track.

The tracks get a much higher percentage of the handle on track. Maybe somoeone can tell us the difference but I'm guessing they only get a few points of off track handle that is out of state.

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by andymays

The tracks get a much higher percentage of the handle on track. Maybe somoeone can tell us the difference but I'm guessing they only get a few points of off track handle that is out of state.

I got this from the NY Daily News last week:

Originally Posted by badcompany

I was looking at Beulah results. They do about 2 million total with only ~40k bet on-track. Game over.

Philly Park has a similar breakdown. The tracks do peanuts on-track compared to off. That's not gonna change.

The "special" meets: 'Toga, Delmar, will still do well, but other than that, horseracing is an off-track sport.

[DeanT]

Horseplayerbets link to that report really is quite good. I am diving into it. Pricing seems to matter, go figure

Even the industry’s frequently-touted
“churn factor” of 7 implies that lower takeouts would benefit the industry -- if that is the case, we would make more money with the takeout at 14% than we do today. Higher takeouts have depressed handle, but this trend can be reversed. Investing in players (via rebates) can be just as
or even more effective than investing in bricks and mortar and new technology as means to grow revenues for the industry.

Economic theory holds that a competitive marketplace is the best way to match producers and consumers of almost every product. It also says that in a competitive market, price equals marginal cost. That maximizes revenues for the producers, and consumer surplus for the buyers.
But the most relevant factor here is marginal cost, not average cost. The marginal cost of a simulcast signal / betting opportunity is close to zero. The high average cost of putting on a horse race is unfortunately almost irrelevant. The only industries that can successfully charge
more than the competitive price are monopolies. Monopolies don’t last. Horse racing’s ended years ago. If we charge more than the competitive price, we will lose customers.
1 2003

[andymays]

Originally Posted by badcompany

I got this from the NY Daily News last week:



Philly Park has a similar breakdown. The tracks do peanuts on-track compared to off. That's not gonna change.

The "special" meets 'Toga, Delmar, will still do well, but other than that, horseracing is an off-track sport.

That's all true but my original post about lowering the take on track only to 5% or 10% would get quite a few people to the track instead of staying home. I think quite a few people would be willing to drive an hour or two for that kind of discount. Especially the bigger players who push through 10k a day or more.

The track makes a bunch more money with people at the track.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

What is a serious horseplayer? Someone who "thinks" if they are lucky enough they can beat the game long term? There aren't too many winners with a 21% takeout and very few mindless bettors left. Realistically I would say that most HONEST horse race gamblers view the game as entertainment, and at least rationalize it that way if they are keeping real records.

I think the game is beatable, with the right sized rebate or if takeouts were reduced enough. Slots is never beatable, but the thing is that there are people out there who do because the rake is so low.

I know of one person who told my wife she ALWAYS wins playing slots.
I interpret that as she has won quite a few times recently. But the fact she was able to go home with more money than she started with when she made that statement and the fact she has deluded herself into thinking the game is beatable tells me that slots has a definite advantage over horse racing when it comes to making addicts.

I edited my wording to "many" as serious was incorrect. As I said you and have different views of horse racing. Like anything it can be entertainment for some and something else for others.

What is needed is a better product. Price reduction is not cure for low demand or low product quality.

The one thing I know for sure the tracks with the highest purses attract the horses and eventually increase their handle.