Panel suggests lower takeout, level playing field

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No...I'm not a "really great guy"; I'm just an ordinary guy who has been betting the horses for over 40 years...and would like to continue betting them into my retirement years. But I may not be able to because the game has become close to unplayable for the "average player" from whom I've been able to derive a slim profit. In a few years, I fear that it might be me (and those like me) against the "Whales"...and that's a day that I am not looking forward to.

You say the short fields are due to the declining foal crops. Are the foal crops responsible for the late scratches that have destroyed the field sizes for years now? A field of 8 horses is entered, and 3 late scratches reduce the field to 5...without even a drop of rain on the track. Is there a legitimate reason for that? I brought this up on this board years ago, and you laughed at me while telling me that this isn't a big problem. Well...it's a big problem for ME...and I am voicing MY opinions here.

It's true that the trainers were also unscrupulous back in the day...but we were naive back then. We thought that these shenanigans only took place at the minor tracks...where "little guys" were trying to eke out a meager living so they could pay their bills. Who ever imagined back then that even the Hall Of Fame trainers were engaged in such criminal behavior? And if the Hall Of Famers are unscrupulous...what must the "little guys" be doing out there?

When the slots burst upon the horseracing scene, the premise was that the higher purses would help grow the game by increasing the competitiveness of the fields. Alas...all the increased purses did was improve the lives of the horsemen and the jockeys. Not a penny was spent for the benefit of the long-suffering horseplayer...and you make it sound as if this is an understandable phenomenon. I disagree. The horseplayer isn't just an "observer" in this game...he is an active PARTICIPANT...and he deserves some economic relief too.

Yes...the gambling landscape has changed drastically over the last 50 years. But I don't think that the fans who have fled our game in droves have gone to the greener pastures of the casinos or the other forms of "entertainment". I honestly think that they have gone broke as a result of the full-card simulcasting...and they are sitting on the sidelines licking their wounds. The game needs new blood if it is to survive...and a gambling game that can't even hold on to its existing customer base isn't likely to attract any new customers anytime soon.

A "quality bet" is a sound betting opportunity, regardless if it bears fruit or not. You may well be a much better horseplayer than me, but I can hold my own...and I find very few sound bets during the Aqueduct winter meet, not only this year...but in the last few years. The purses are huge, the horsemen and the jockeys are delighted...but the horseplayer can't find anything to satisfy his appetite. A sad state of affairs...if you ask me.

To your holy King of Vagueness...

You honestly don't understand why there are more frequent late scratches? Seriously? Do you read anything about what goes on in the industry or just go off halfcocked on message boards? Come on. Safety, safety, safety...and then more safety. There are significant vet checks that didn't exist in the past where just about any possible issue necessitates a late scratch. This should not be news to you, or anyone.

So, because you were ignorant about possible past cheating, and everyone isn't, and never was, a Hall of Famer, doesn't mean acting like it's newly rampant is responsible. In fact, take some personal responsibility here amidst your blaming a lot of ghosts.

The slot revenue thing is complicated. I'm not sure what responsible person actually thought this would involve lowering takeout, but I can understand the thinking. It's a long discussion, and unfortunately what ended up happening is that tracks basically needed slot revenue to compete with smaller tracks, many of which usurped the majority of the claiming horses from NYRA while we were prevented from making a slot agreement. I do, however, understand this sentiment, though I'm not sure how realistic it is. But, once again, unless the industry comes together as one ( something that should win someone a Nobel Peace Prize if they ever pulled it off ), takeout decreases have a limited window of effectiveness. Saying poor management keeps this from happening is, at best, naive. That does not mean, however, that I completely disagree. I would love to have this conversation sometime over a drink.... or twelve.

Your next paragraph, where you reference fans leaving in droves, is just so you. It's BS. The reality is that more people participate in the daily product at major tracks than did in the past. This is a virtual world, and one thing we have done at least a passable job at, is embracing this. Blaming people leaving on simulcasting is even more bizarre. On the one hand, you say people are leaving because the product sucks, while on another you are saying it is because we gave them too much of it. Choose a side at the very least.

I'm moving on. Perhaps if you are in NY sometime, we can get together. I would enjoy that. I think you probably are a pretty great guy. I just think you react sometimes without fully thinking things through. One reason I can see that is that I have been known to have the same problem. Let's work on that together. Have a great night.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You mean my "vague statements" make little sense when YOU think about them. I don't agree that I am being "vague" here...I've been talking about the "poor" way that the game is being run for many years now.

Short, uncompetitive fields...unscrupulous trainers...incompetent stewards...computer groups that decimate the odds while the race is being run...takeouts still remaining the same or increasing even as the tracks run lucrative casino businesses on the side...these are all indications of a poorly run business, IMO. A poorly run business can still survive in a "monopoly" situation...but not when the marketplace gets competitive.

How many quality bets do you make during the Aqueduct winter meet, TLG?

i am going to try to answer the reasons why the foal population is way down. first and foremost, in the USA ownership of horses are treated as a right and not a privilege. people buying horses don't want to buy the ones that are small, toe out or in, have breathing problems or other physical or mental detriments.

the breeders have figured out that they don't have to take chances and breed lots of horses. its tough for them to get good help, and their expenses have gone way up. to send their horses to consigners cost them about 300 a day for yearling sales. its the same charge for good-looking as it is for bad-looking ones. if they are in 2 year old in training sales they are paying $200 for an exercise rider to work the horse under tack. it is almost impossible these days to find good help to work on the farms and training centers. i personally quit buying horses and training them 7 years ago because it was impossible to run our training center. we sold the training center and there no longer are racehorses training there. you can't get good results with exercise riders that weigh 175 pounds.

so now the people that remain in the game have adjusted and now breed less and get more money for the horses that they raise. horses that i used to pay $10,000 for in a yearling sale now sell for $40,000. the people that buy those horses are from places like Korea, Poland, Viet Nam. they buy the horses and bring them back to their own countries.

all this equates into the race track that runs the actual races. they now have to adjust for the shortage of competitive horses. instead of running 5 or 6 days a week, the tracks are down to 4 or four days. instead of carding 9 or 10 races daily, they are now down to 8 or 9 with smaller field size requirements. now another problem exists where trainers have to ship horses away from their track because there often aren't enough horses to fill a particular race, sometimes if they are lucky the racing office will let the race go with 5 horses in it, if they don't have that many they will try to make another race that can attract more horses no matter what the class of the race is. an owner or trainer could have a horse sitting in a barn ready to run, but not enough horses to make the race go and waiting and paying for 2 months.

this in turn has forced smaller owners and trainers out of the game. the big guys now control the condition

books and they are not about to race a horse that doesn't fit their perfect condition.

the nuts and bolts in this game really have changed throughout the years, but the game has not been able to adjust to the changes other than by sending it into contraction mode. the game needs a complete revamping. getting people to agree to changes is going to be more than challenging. .

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by the little guy

To your holy King of Vagueness...

You honestly don't understand why there are more frequent late scratches? Seriously? Do you read anything about what goes on in the industry or just go off halfcocked on message boards? Come on. Safety, safety, safety...and then more safety. There are significant vet checks that didn't exist in the past where just about any possible issue necessitates a late scratch. This should not be news to you, or anyone.

So, because you were ignorant about possible past cheating, and everyone isn't, and never was, a Hall of Famer, doesn't mean acting like it's newly rampant is responsible. In fact, take some personal responsibility here amidst your blaming a lot of ghosts.

The slot revenue thing is complicated. I'm not sure what responsible person actually thought this would involve lowering takeout, but I can understand the thinking. It's a long discussion, and unfortunately what ended up happening is that tracks basically needed slot revenue to compete with smaller tracks, many of which usurped the majority of the claiming horses from NYRA while we were prevented from making a slot agreement. I do, however, understand this sentiment, though I'm not sure how realistic it is. But, once again, unless the industry comes together as one ( something that should win someone a Nobel Peace Prize if they ever pulled it off ), takeout decreases have a limited window of effectiveness. Saying poor management keeps this from happening is, at best, naive. That does not mean, however, that I completely disagree. I would love to have this conversation sometime over a drink.... or twelve.

Your next paragraph, where you reference fans leaving in droves, is just so you. It's BS. The reality is that more people participate in the daily product at major tracks than did in the past. This is a virtual world, and one thing we have done at least a passable job at, is embracing this. Blaming people leaving on simulcasting is even more bizarre. On the one hand, you say people are leaving because the product sucks, while on another you are saying it is because we gave them too much of it. Choose a side at the very least.

I'm moving on. Perhaps if you are in NY sometime, we can get together. I would enjoy that. I think you probably are a pretty great guy. I just think you react sometimes without fully thinking things through. One reason I can see that is that I have been known to have the same problem. Let's work on that together. Have a great night.

If/when I am again in NY, I will make every effort to get together and discuss this with you…and I am confident that our face-to-face conversation will go much smoother than our debates here have been. But first…let me clarify my full-card simulcasting comment:

When a game is as tough to beat as this game is… too much of it can indeed be detrimental to the financial stability of the bettors. It’s my contention that the game’s customer base survived for as long as it did because its exposure to the game was limited to a handful of races per day. The bettors were able to keep their losses under control with a limited betting menu like that. But full-card simulcasting was sprung upon us from one day to the next, without us being given a chance to properly contemplate the negative implications of having so many races per day suddenly available to us. Losses can quickly get out of control in a situation like that…especially in a gambling game where only 1-2% of the bettors can win.

In any case…I have no desire to continue this debate either. I happen to have a lot of respect for you, and for what you do…and this means more to me than the pursuit of some petty online argument. Have a great night as well.

[the little guy]

I thought our exchanges went very smoothly. I guess I never could read a room.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I thought our exchanges went very smoothly. I guess I never could read a room.

I meant our debates here, in general.

Let’s not forget that you have called me “paceadvantage’s most overrated poster”. :-)

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I meant out debates here, in general.

Let’s not forget that you have called me “paceadvantage’s most overrated poster”. :-)

You lost that title a long time ago. Have you not read some of even the most recent buffoonery:-)

I’ll work on a new title. Give me a little time.

[Poindexter]

By the way disregard the in my last post. Did not intend to post it. Trust me I never get mad in a discussion about horse racing. Covid or Politicians, yes. Horse Racing never. (The mouse on my laptop goes nuts sometimes and starts acting as if I am touching it even when I am not).

I want to discuss HHR (historical horse racing) which was brought up by Ubercapper. I ran into this article.


https://www.news-graphic.com/news/st...8f2187443.html

Takeaway, 6.8 billion bet on HHR machines in fiscal year ending in June. This was a 47.8% increase from the prior year. I am not familiar with these machines. But I believe they provide some basic handicapping information from some random race that took place sometime in the past and the players make bets based off of that data. Now why is a machine that is so similar to real horse racing doing so much better than real horse racing? I think the answer is sort of obvious. My guess is these machines work on a take of less than 10% versus real horse racing that works on a 20 to 40% take. To me it is complete confirmation of everything that I have posted. Others may not see it that way.

So my question is if racing has a cash cow like this, why doesn't it use this cash cow to carry it as they transition to competitive pricing. That way in 5 years they have 2 thriving businesses not just one, with a lot of crossover. Obviously someone who enjoys playing a historical horse racing slot machine would be a perfect candidate to bet real horse racing and obviously your horse player after the races will probably enjoy playing the slot machine version. It seems like racing now has a ridiculously easy fix to their biggest problem. What am I missing?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally Posted by the little guy

This is actually incorrect, at least in regards to NYRA.

That’s why NYRA just implemented a new 24% takeout P-4 and raises takeout 60% on P-6’s from 15% to 24% when there is a carryover.

All to compete with casinos and other forms of gambling while growing the game.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally Posted by the little guy

You are also completely ignoring the costs of putting on the show, something bookmakers don't have to worry about, and without "the show" there is nothing to bet on. People taking bets on sports aren't paying players' salaries or absorbing the costs of operating a stadium. Racetrack operators are doing all of that. Purses help owners pay the costs of horse ownership, they help pay the trainers and riders as well. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

It costs Wal-Mart a lot to put on the show too.

They maximize their revenue by pricing their products properly vs. their competition. If they priced their products at 2X-5X their competition they would sell less, make way less money, go broke with their current costs and need a subsidy or bailout to stay in business.

Sound familiar?

[classhandicapper]

all this equates into the race track that runs the actual races. they now have to adjust for the shortage of competitive horses. instead of running 5 or 6 days a week, the tracks are down to 4 or four days. instead of carding 9 or 10 races daily, they are now down to 8 or 9 with smaller field size requirements.

Lamboguy,

Good post

This argues for the dreaded "C" word that gets some people so upset.

IMO, in order for the tracks to generate the free cash required to do some of the things that would make the game better, the industry has to take costs out of the system in a way that limits the impact to revenue and that matches the horse population and the economics of breeding and ownership. We have to improve the economics across the board for all stakeholders.

That's at least possible now with simulcasting. We got a real world look at what would happen if there were way fewer tracks during the height of the pandemic when some tracks were closed. Some of the smallest tracks were handing a TON more money than their usual handle.

I'm not in a position to understand the politics of all this, but over the last 35 years that I've been following markets I've seen loads of industries "right size", become profitable again, and generate the needed free cash for investment to turn it around.

As an outsider, it seems to me the politics are what's preventing this industry from fixing itself. No one wants to go through the short term pain of fixing it and politicians are generally too corrupt and inept to move quickly enough.

We have gangrene of the foot, cut off a toe, and then when that doesn't fix say "See, that didn't work". If we don't cut off the whole damn foot soon we might lose the leg.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

By the way disregard the in my last post. Did not intend to post it. Trust me I never get mad in a discussion about horse racing. Covid or Politicians, yes. Horse Racing never. (The mouse on my laptop goes nuts sometimes and starts acting as if I am touching it even when I am not).

I want to discuss HHR (historical horse racing) which was brought up by Ubercapper. I ran into this article.

https://www.news-graphic.com/news/st...8f2187443.html

Takeaway, 6.8 billion bet on HHR machines in fiscal year ending in June. This was a 47.8% increase from the prior year. I am not familiar with these machines. But I believe they provide some basic handicapping information from some random race that took place sometime in the past and the players make bets based off of that data. Now why is a machine that is so similar to real horse racing doing so much better than real horse racing? I think the answer is sort of obvious. My guess is these machines work on a take of less than 10% versus real horse racing that works on a 20 to 40% take. To me it is complete confirmation of everything that I have posted. Others may not see it that way.

So my question is if racing has a cash cow like this, why doesn't it use this cash cow to carry it as they transition to competitive pricing. That way in 5 years they have 2 thriving businesses not just one, with a lot of crossover. Obviously someone who enjoys playing a historical horse racing slot machine would be a perfect candidate to bet real horse racing and obviously your horse player after the races will probably enjoy playing the slot machine version. It seems like racing now has a ridiculously easy fix to their biggest problem. What am I missing?

Fair enough regarding the icon and perhaps I took the tone in a way it wasn't intended.

To address the points in your last paragraph, although the HHR machines do indeed have some information tied to a historical race, that info is screens away from the main screen and the vast majority of players never look at it. They just press the bet button then the spin button, over and over.

I know this because a few years ago I did a review to verify the handicapping info and brief replay of the historical race were somewhere in each machine. When walking around the room I didn't find a single person using the "handicapping" aspects available to them.

IMO the people that play HHR, the same as those which play slot machines in a casino, want an easy way to gamble, the same way someone who walked into a gas station and buys a lottery ticket does. It's entertainment for them. I don't think they can be converted to horse racing bettors for the most part.

I'll admit KY is a specific case, and HHR got big here because it could, and because Casino legislation failed once and it became clear it might never pass with so many legislators morally opposed to gambling (another topic completely). CDI, Red Mile, Keeneland, Kentucky Downs and enough pro-horse racing industry legislators crafted this situation so Kentucky tracks could compete with casinos in Indiana, Ohio and other nearby states.

I hope that addresses "what am I missing?"

[Andy Asaro]

A big part of the problem is that Many people who work in the Industry at successful (by horse racing standards) organizations believe things are great. Not perfect but great. Too many people too comfortable in their positions and being paid fairly well to tow the Industry chest pounding lines.

The FACT is that Horse Racing isn't close to being mainstream and nobody/no organization with power is doing much to change that.

I really believe that with the right strategies (takeout adjustments and gambling game of skill marketing) racing can triple handle and double revenue in 5-10 years). This should have been started 20 years ago but we've had too many people who are NOT racing gambling people get control of the business. They would be much more comfortable in the Casino business and it would be great if they got out of racing to do that.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

A big part of the problem is that Many people who work in the Industry at successful (by horse racing standards) organizations believe things are great. Not perfect but great. Too many people too comfortable in their positions and being paid fairly well to tow the Industry chest pounding lines.

The FACT is that Horse Racing isn't close to being mainstream and nobody/no organization with power is doing much to change that.

I really believe that with the right strategies (takeout adjustments and gambling game of skill marketing) racing can triple handle and double revenue in 5-10 years). This should have been started 20 years ago but we've had too many people who are NOT racing gambling people get control of the business. They would be much more comfortable in the Casino business and it would be great if they got out of racing to do that.

If by someone believing "things are great" you mean they also believe there's no reason to improve, I've never met anyone in management who believes that. Perhaps that's your experience, or you're judging by results. It has been my experience nearly everyone in management is interested in improving one aspect or another about the sport.

The reality is that with every single group of wish lists, priorities have to be taken into account. Sometimes it's the low hanging fruit (HD for any track that wants it through a TJC grant) and sometimes it's a big lift (consistent medication rules and penalties - note I did not say crop or horseshoe rules) which run into challenges.

I do agree that with some strategies racing can increase handle. Doubling or tripling is not possible. Given what Wolff wrote 20 years ago there might be a 7% handle increase for a 1% takeout decline to a 10% drop in blended takeout could eventually result in a 70% increase in handle. Who wouldn't want to see $21 billion in handle by the end of this decade?

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

If by someone believing "things are great" you mean they also believe there's no reason to improve, I've never met anyone in management who believes that. Perhaps that's your experience, or you're judging by results. It has been my experience nearly everyone in management is interested in improving one aspect or another about the sport.

The reality is that with every single group of wish lists, priorities have to be taken into account. Sometimes it's the low hanging fruit (HD for any track that wants it through a TJC grant) and sometimes it's a big lift (consistent medication rules and penalties - note I did not say crop or horseshoe rules) which run into challenges.

I do agree that with some strategies racing can increase handle. Doubling or tripling is not possible. Given what Wolff wrote 20 years ago there might be a 7% handle increase for a 1% takeout decline to a 10% drop in blended takeout could eventually result in a 70% increase in handle. Who wouldn't want to see $21 billion in handle by the end of this decade?

Ellis the difference between me and you is that I know what it takes to get done. Besides being involved in Industry meetings on the subject I've had many long discussions with high level racing execs including Scott Daruty. I know what it takes.

And as far as Wolff goes his stats are probably somewhere in the ballpark but they do not take into account a gambling game of skill marketing campaign. Within 3 months a major jurisdiction will be able to see the trend and where it's going. As I said before adjustments to takeout can go lower or higher depending on performance

[Sheffwed]

People have been talking about racing's decline since I became involved with the sport at age 14 at Belmont Park in the mid 1970s (yes, they would let me bet, I always looked older than I was)

I don't understand why people (in many disciplines, not just racing) don't start with what does real success look like, and then work backwards from that

Racing at NYRA has been plagued by scandalous trainers in recent years who eventually get into trouble - kind of like the many fradulent journalists at the NY Times who eventually get exposed

What is it about New York and being loose with the truth?

Where is racing most successful? Hong Kong, by far - you can trust it, and they return the highest percentage of wagering dollars to the betting public

Look it up

Racing is also very strong in the US where it is most well run and provides an enjoyable day out - there is a direct correlation

Saratoga

Del Mar

Woodbine

Kentucky Downs

The Triple Crown

Breeders Cup

and yes, places like Fair Hill and Far Hills

These are the foundations to build on


California needs a new racetrack, Santa Anita is a bullring and racing is unbettable due to the likes of Baffert constantly showing up and you don't know what you are going to get

Racing needs a national minimum standard on trainers, on the health of horses and providing them post racing outcomes

Use Hong Kong as an example

We need LESS racing not more

Maybe NYRA has stumbled into a situation where it can actually, finally be beneficial for the sport after years of total incompetence (did you attend the ridiculous pre-Belmont week cards a few years back, the worst run thing I've ever seen? I did) - the more recent trends are certainly better - the Fox broadcasts are fantastic

But hiding from the fact that way too many trainers have been scandalous the past few years running at NYRA (let alone Parx, Laurel, Santa Anita, etc.)

Racing needs to clean up its act and stop being professional wrestling