It's on! The Official Boycott Keeneland Thread.

[JustRalph]

So, is it safe to assume Keeneland cash is going into the pools at Belmont?

[Jeff P]

Based on initial chart data, Santa Anita up today - barely.

Link to Side by Side Comparison - SAX 2016 vs. 2017 -- During the 1st 13 days of the Kee Fall Meet:
http://www.playersboycott.org/sax-si...de-13days.html


SAX vs. the same Sunday last year:

+118,958 +1.67%

SAX meet to date during the 1st 13 days of the Kee Fall Meet:

+7,183,034 +10.15%

-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

So, is it safe to assume Keeneland cash is going into the pools at Belmont?

That's hard to say, Ralph.

In my own case, I'm not betting Keeneland at all. (And by that I mean nothing. Nada. Zilch.)

However, I am betting Belmont - as well as a few other tracks.

But I'm not betting extra money on Belmont or those few other tracks. (Just what I would normally bet given my assessment of the strength of each play relative to total bankroll.)

I also have no way of knowing if other players are doing the same.

Now here's what I do think:

Keeneland announced a takeout increase back in August.

Win Place Show was hiked to 17.50% (the maximum allowed by Kentucky state law.) --This is an increase of 9.375% vs. the previous takeout rate of 16.00%.

Exacta, Double, Trifecta, Superfecta, Pick3, and Pick4 were hiked to 22.00% (again the maximum allowed by Kentucky state law.) --This is an increase of 15.79% vs. the previous takeout rate of 19.00%.

We polled HANA membership. 63% said they wanted a boycott. 28% said no. And 9% said other.

Based on that we organized a boycott.

Fast forward 13 days into their fall 2017 meet - and Keeneland is down more than -9.8M or about -9.11% vs. the first 13 days of their fall 2016 meet.

How much of that -9% is because we announced a boycott -- and how much is simply the market speaking is anyone's guess.

On the surface, at this point in the meet, -9% might not appear to be all that bad for them.

As others have pointed out in this thread -- looking ONLY at last year's numbers to this point in the meet: They are likely revenue neutral right now, or possibly revenue positive. (But if so, not by much.)

But I would argue that putting blinkers on and looking ONLY at last year's numbers to this point in the meet would be a mistake.

Last year at this time:

Keeneland was the big dog on the block among the A tracks. They out-handled both Belmont and Santa Anita. They ranked #1 in market share vs. the other tracks they compete with for handle dollars.

Fast forward to now:

Belmont has replaced Keeneland as the big dog on the block. Belmont now ranks #1 in market share among the tracks competing for handle dollars this fall.

I think this is significant.

Right now Keeneland is losing ground to its competitors.

Keeneland is down -9.8M or about -9.11%

At the same time Keeneland's two primary competitors, Belmont and Santa Anita, are UP a combined total of $20.79M or an average of +12.01%

To my way of thinking:

These are terrible results for Keeneland.

In absolute terms, Keeneland is down roughly -20% from where my gut tells me they would be had they not had a takeout increase.

Let me put that another way:

If Ken Ramsey had appeared as a guest on Billy Koch's radio show to talk about the horses he was sending to Keeneland this fall -- if Keeneland had gone on Billy Koch's show to talk about their mission in advance of their fall meet -- if they had pulled out all the stops like they did opening weekend and stuffed the entry box with an avg of 100 horses each day -- if their COO had appeared on TVG to tout their "successful meet" -- if they had done everything the same -- except for the takeout increase:

I have every reason to believe Keeneland would still be the big dog on the block with the #1 rank in market share -- and their handle to this point in the meet would be 20% higher than it is now.

THAT's what I think.



-jp

.

[JustRalph]

Good stuff Jeff👍

[NY Racing Fan]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

That's hard to say, Ralph.

In my own case, I'm not betting Keeneland at all. (And by that I mean nothing. Nada. Zilch.)

However, I am betting Belmont - as well as a few other tracks.

But I'm not betting extra money on Belmont or those few other tracks. (Just what I would normally bet given my assessment of the strength of each play relative to total bankroll.)

I also have no way of knowing if other players are doing the same.

Now here's what I do think:

Keeneland announced a takeout increase back in August.

Win Place Show was hiked to 17.50% (the maximum allowed by Kentucky state law.) --This is an increase of 9.375% vs. the previous takeout rate of 16.00%.

Exacta, Double, Trifecta, Superfecta, Pick3, and Pick4 were hiked to 22.00% (again the maximum allowed by Kentucky state law.) --This is an increase of 15.79% vs. the previous takeout rate of 19.00%.

We polled HANA membership. 63% said they wanted a boycott. 28% said no. And 9% said other.

Based on that we organized a boycott.

Fast forward 13 days into their fall 2017 meet - and Keeneland is down more than -9.8M or about -9.11% vs. the first 13 days of their fall 2016 meet.

How much of that -9% is because we announced a boycott -- and how much is simply the market speaking is anyone's guess.

On the surface, at this point in the meet, -9% might not appear to be all that bad for them.

As others have pointed out in this thread -- looking ONLY at last year's numbers to this point in the meet: They are likely revenue neutral right now, or possibly revenue positive. (But if so, not by much.)

But I would argue that putting blinkers on and looking ONLY at last year's numbers to this point in the meet would be a mistake.

Last year at this time:

Keeneland was the big dog on the block among the A tracks. They out-handled both Belmont and Santa Anita. They ranked #1 in market share vs. the other tracks they compete with for handle dollars.

Fast forward to now:

Belmont has replaced Keeneland as the big dog on the block. Belmont now ranks #1 in market share among the tracks competing for handle dollars this fall.

I think this is significant.

Right now Keeneland is losing ground to its competitors.

Keeneland is down -9.8M or about -9.11%

At the same time Keeneland's two primary competitors, Belmont and Santa Anita, are UP a combined total of $20.79M or an average of +12.01%

To my way of thinking:

These are terrible results for Keeneland.

In absolute terms, Keeneland is down roughly -20% from where my gut tells me they would be had they not had a takeout increase.

Let me put that another way:

If Ken Ramsey had appeared as a guest on Billy Koch's radio show to talk about the horses he was sending to Keeneland this fall -- if Keeneland had gone on Billy Koch's show to talk about their mission in advance of their fall meet -- if they had pulled out all the stops like they did opening weekend and stuffed the entry box with an avg of 100 horses each day -- if their COO had appeared on TVG to tout their "successful meet" -- if they had done everything the same -- except for the takeout increase:

I have every reason to believe Keeneland would still be the big dog on the block with the #1 rank in market share -- and their handle to this point in the meet would be 20% higher than it is now.

THAT's what I think.



-jp

.

Nice write up but the new IRS rules have certainly played a roll towards increasing current handle http://www.drf.com/news/q-and-steven...ng-regulations, which is reflected in all current handle figures. This alone is understating the -9.1% for Keeneland. This could be the big reason why handle is up across the board everywhere EXCEPT for Keeneland. If this is the case, the -9.1% is adjusted to -12% to -15% (estimated).

[cj]

Originally Posted by NY Racing Fan

Nice write up but the new IRS rules have certainly played a roll towards increasing current handle http://www.drf.com/news/q-and-steven...ng-regulations, which is reflected in all current handle figures. This alone is understating the -9.1% for Keeneland. This could be the big reason why handle is up across the board everywhere EXCEPT for Keeneland. If this is the case, the -9.1% is adjusted to -12% to -15% (estimated).

I'm sure it has some effect, but I don't see any way it is that big, and not this quickly either. I always thought this was more of a longer term benefit.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Based on initial chart data, Santa Anita up today - barely.

Link to Side by Side Comparison - SAX 2016 vs. 2017 -- During the 1st 13 days of the Kee Fall Meet:
http://www.playersboycott.org/sax-si...de-13days.html


SAX vs. the same Sunday last year:


SAX meet to date during the 1st 13 days of the Kee Fall Meet:






-jp

.

was a bad card today, hard to bet, later races were ok ish but first 5 bad

[the little guy]

I really enjoy looking at handle numbers and comparing track to track, race to race, and year to year. While I no longer post here, and won't be after this post, I do read a bit ( I find any thread without Dilanesp to be better for my fragile state of mental health ), and have followed this thread closely. I feel as though too often numbers are being given without proper context, as though anything that can be done to suggest that Keeneland is down for pretty much one reason, while others are flourishing, is the only thing that matters. Don't get me wrong, I do think this is an important discussion, and as a lifetime horseplayer, I am for lower takeouts, not higher ones. However, there is a lot of context missing here, mostly when it makes Keeneland look particularly bad, and I thought I would offer some.

For instance, there was a day earlier this week when Keeneland was down roughly $2 million. Well, there was $1.145 million bet into a carryover in 2016, and given there are auxiliary benefits to a large carryover extending to the rest of your card, the $2 million figure was somewhat negligible. But, it was this weekend's Keeneland to Belmont numbers that really caught my eye. If one is going to point out that we were up over $3.5 million from the 2016 Empire Showcase card at Belmont to the corresponding 2017 card, it should at least be mentioned that in 2016 there was a deluge so bad that the card was delayed, and almost cancelled. To put this into context, 2016 was down over $4.5 million from the same card in 2015, which correspondingly was $1 million BETTER than 2017. Context is always important. When you do this, it makes looking at Keeneland even more interesting....yes, Keeneland was down over $1.1 million on this same day from 2016 to 2017, but given the huge Belmont swing, this is hardly shocking, especially when you look at 2015 at Keeneland and see the number was over $2.1 million lower than 2016, and thus slightly under $1 million LESS than 2017. Context!

I haven't looked at 2015 for the whole meet, but will agree that it appears that Keeneland is trending lower in 2017, and this may well be due to the takeout increase. As an employee of the NYRA, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on business decisions by another racetrack. I think this is a very important issue for horseplayers and the industry as a whole to be following. However, I think if the numbers are going to be presented here, by any party ( industry or horseplayers....who I happen to think are a major part of the industry ), it should be done in a genuine fashion, not skewed one way or another. If we are going to point out spin by Keeneland, I think it is important that the "other side" doesn't attempt to spin things as well.

I hope all the fine people ( I mean this seriously ) of this board are doing well. I will continue to read and wish you all the very best.

[Lono]

Haven't made one bet at Keeneland, haven't watched a race from Keeneland, and Haven't looked at any results from Keeneland. They ignore me and I return the favor. Just hang tough everyone and we can win this thing.

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I haven't looked at 2015 for the whole meet, but will agree that it appears that Keeneland is trending lower in 2017, and this may well be due to the takeout increase. As an employee of the NYRA, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on business decisions by another racetrack. I think this is a very important issue for horseplayers and the industry as a whole to be following. However, I think if the numbers are going to be presented here, by any party ( industry or horseplayers....who I happen to think are a major part of the industry ), it should be done in a genuine fashion, not skewed one way or another. If we are going to point out spin by Keeneland, I think it is important that the "other side" doesn't attempt to spin things as well.

I don't know who specifically this "other side" is directed at....

But when I report handle on twitter, I make it a habit of reporting the same way with the same numbers over and over again. That is - total handle, per race and per interest. I've been doing it that way for years at this point mostly because no one else does it *that* way.

And that leads to interesting "context" replies on each side with Keeneland (usually my handle posts on twitter are simply ignored one way or the other). Someone says there's a carryover here or not there. Someone says it's the weather. Someone cited yesterday that the cards this year are not as good versus last year (how would you begin to objectively decipher that considering field size is significantly up, particularly in the big handle graded stakes?). Someone said the betting propositions are not as good this year (how, again, objectively, could one measure that?) Someone said it's "many factors" but certainly not a boycott! Really?!? Someone said since on track attendance is strong, then the boycott is nothing. Mind you, Equibase stopped reporting on track numbers after the first week! Someone says the daily numbers are definitive evidence that the boycott is working. Someone else says the same numbers are definitive evidence that it's NOT working.

Context matters.

Here's my simple context. The rest of the industry has been *more* than *marginally* up for the last two quarters, the type of limited upswing that simply can't be explained by weather or carryovers. Months of data does wash out year over year. Particularly at the A tracks. And that's pretty much the only thing I'm 100% sure about.

[DeanT]

Crunk's done a good job this meet - in past meets too, but this one is obviously drawing more eyeballs.

One of the reasons why he's being watched, imo, is because his core reporting cuts through spin - he uses handle per entry etc, and doesn't run much editorial. For example, last Wednesday Keeneland had the benefit of a big carryover helping the current year's results - Crunk reported the handle down, but did not spin the number. The next day the carryover Andy alluded to helped the previous year's results, he reported the handle as is, and didn't spin the number. Of course it was down again.

If one wants to analyze those two days, they can. Since both days were down with opposite forces at play it likely tells a story. But it's not a story Crunk editorialized about.

Being intellectually honest it's easy to say that for October - and in fact, as Crunk notes, the last few months - the racing industry's handle has trended upwards. Of the Major tracks, however, Keeneland has been the exception to that trend.

[PaceAdvantage]

One of the takeaways from Andy's post isn't related to Crunk's tweets...rather it's about touting Belmont vs. Keeneland and not realizing or not reporting the fact that Belmont was up big this weekend because last year was a disaster in terms of weather and whatnot...

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

One of the takeaways from Andy's post isn't related to Crunk's tweets...rather it's about touting Belmont vs. Keeneland and not realizing or not reporting the fact that Belmont was up big this weekend because last year was a disaster in terms of weather and whatnot...

I don't think anyone was criticizing his post - it's fine.

Crunk's data, or Jeff's under the link he posted to Belmont, can be analyzed to smooth out weather etc. You can see Belmont is up nicely per entry the last month (good for them; they had some luck the last while, but they're carding some nice races), while Keeneland is down per entry the last month (they've had some good luck too, and they're carding some good races).

If you want to smooth it even more, you can take out the outlier cards, best and worse, and the data continues to get somewhat statistically better. Generally it tells the story - Belmont has done very well - up somewhere between 4% and 7% per entry. Keeneland has done markedly worse, down somewhere between 8% and 12% per entry.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

One of the takeaways from Andy's post isn't related to Crunk's tweets...rather it's about touting Belmont vs. Keeneland and not realizing or not reporting the fact that Belmont was up big this weekend because last year was a disaster in terms of weather and whatnot...

Guilty as charged.

(I posted Belmont was up big this past weekend without stopping to figure out why.)

That said, weather, races off the turf, carryovers, etc. -- those factors can greatly influence handle numbers when you are looking at a small number of race days.

But as sample size increases - at some point, the law of large numbers starts to kick in.

Make the sample large enough - and eventually, you reach a point where weather, races off the turf, carryovers, etc. get smoothed out.

The side by side handle numbers I've compiled are based on the head counts shown in the following chart:

----------------------------------------------------             
             FALL 2016---------   FALL 2017---------
-------------------------------   ------------------
Track        Days Races Runners   Days Races Runners
-------------------------------   ------------------
Keeneland:     13   122    1122     13   123    1144
Belmont:       13   122     931     13   122     994
Santa Anita:   11    96     789     11    96     825
-------------------------------   ------------------
Totals:        37   340    2842     37   341    2963

3 tracks.

74 total race dates.

681 total races.

5,805 total runners.

Imo, that's a large enough sample that you should be able to at least look at the data and make some valid observations.

I stand by my observation:

Keeneland is losing ground to and is underperforming its competitors.

This, despite having run one more race than they did the previous year, and despite having the biggest field size among the three tracks.






-jp

.

[partnerships]

With the sales revenue keeneland does not need as much wager revenue. No other track can claim that.