Can Sports Betting on Track and Satellite Save Racing?

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by andymays

To do that we need less Race Tracks. If we only had 2 Race Tracks to bet at any given time the handle at those Tracks would more than triple. The problem is that that's not reality. Sports Betting on Track or Satellite will work!

Just plain wrong.
Betfair has track after track after track going all day. Their low house edge allows players to get a huge bang for their bucks, and it gives them the illusion that they aren't losing that much, and even more, the illusion/reality that they are a few systems/methods away from becoming winners.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

Just plain wrong.
Betfair has track after track after track going all day. Their low house edge allows players to get a huge bang for their bucks, and it gives them the illusion that they aren't losing that much, and even more, the illusion/reality that they are a few systems/methods away from becoming winners.

We're talking about Racing in the United States. What are the odds of getting this Betfair system in the United States?

[proximity]

Originally Posted by andymays

Sports Betting and Horse Racing are a natural much more so than slots.

plus, let's be honest, a lot of guys you regularly see at the track already are betting football anyhow. your idea may hurt some local bookies, but i can't see it being bad for racing......

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by andymays

We're talking about Racing in the United States.

And I'm talking about gambling and the power of lower takeouts/bigger rebates.
It doesn't matter where the gambler is betting. Lower takeouts means the player will last longer and play more races.

[Relwob Owner]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Would not a likely scenario be: Sports bettor comes to track, bets football game. Wins half his bets, breaks about even. Goes home but stops and bets two races on the way out. Loses. Next week, wins his two football games and makes money. Bets a couple races, loses. The following week, bets football, breaks even, but this time goes right to his car because he is tired of losing at racing.

I think with it at tracks, more and more people who bet racing would play football, because it is easier to churn at only having to have a 52.4% hit rate, and they have been tired of betting racing and losing at 22% takeouts all these years.

I think handle would go down. It always does when we put ourselves against low vig games.

Right but in your example you said "sports bettor comes to the track"....arent any bets he/she makes bets that wouldnt have occurred without the combo of sports/horses? Also, what if he/she wins and like a lot of us, lets trying to recapture the feeling of winning outweigh the negative odds of doing so? Plus, he/she might learn to handicap and turn into a fan that enjoys the sport so much that they ignore the negative takout rate.........I am perfectly aware of the higher takeout with horses. However, I love the challenge and figuring out each race and all of it's complexities....your "sports bettor" may just find out the same thing....

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by proximity

plus, let's be honest, a lot of guys you regularly see at the track already are betting football anyhow. your idea may hurt some local bookies, but i can't see it being bad for racing......

Bookies always have the bet on credit angle going for them. When people bring hard cash to the track, and sports betting is there, it is inevitable that sports betting will cannibalize the horse racing handle in most instances.
I think an exception could be Fort Erie, where it might attract bettors from Buffalo who would not normally go to the track or bet on Fort Erie.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

And I'm talking about gambling and the power of lower takeouts/bigger rebates.
It doesn't matter where the gambler is betting. Lower takeouts means the player will last longer and play more races.

At some point we have to talk about what is possible. As it stands for the near future significantly (5 to 10 points)lowering the take is a non starter. These Tracks, Owners, Breeders, and Trainers are on their last legs.

What don't people understand about that? The losses these guys are incurring trying to bring Horses to the Races right now are astonishing. Going in the hole at 10k or 80k per month doesn't work for long!

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by andymays

Most Gamblers want action. They are not disciplined people in general. Most people that bet on sports do it because they want some competition that involves skill. Sports Betting and Horse Racing are a natural much more so than slots.

Why do we want slot players at the Track?

Sure, it is a different game and I completely understand that. But when we are up against those games we lose. Mountaineer has their card room, on track. It is a skill game too, but they have zero crossover. I think their on track handle is about $30,000, and that is horsepeople betting. It sure is not hard to get a seat. I was completely amazed that zero of those card players were even watching the race while it was going off 100 feet from where they were standing.

One thing we always have to remember with this, imo, is that gamblers do not have unlimited bankrolls, and you are exactly right - they will bet things. You are focusing on sports bettors coming over to bet racing, but you are neglecting the opposite happening with racing bettors crossing over the other way. Being a frequenter of a racino here I can tell you that when a horseplayer makes a score, he is looking for action too. The races are over, the simo is over. They would head to the sports betting area and blow some money. If they lose it, their bankroll for playing racing is gone for tomorrow.

It is currently happening with slots, eventho horseplayers are not the same as slots players, not even close. It is the "slots drag" and it is a bankroll killer for racing bettors at racinos. I have seen many people hit the last race, be up $2000 and when I speak to them the next day they want to bum cash because they are broke. "Stupid slots" they say. Adding more things to the menu has always been anti-churn for horseplayers, and I honestly do not see that changing. Adding one more betting item to a racetrack will always mean that horseplayers will just have one more chance to go broke before the races the next day.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by andymays

At some point we have to talk about what is possible. As it stands for the near future significantly (5 to 10 points)lowering the take is a non starter. These Tracks, Owners, and Trainers are on their last legs.

What don't people understand about that? The losses these guys are incurring trying to bring Horses to the Races right now are astonishing.

I think you are having a hard time grasping the fact that if 1 billion is bet during a specific period at a 20% takeout, most likely 2.5 to 3 billion would be bet if takeout was 10%.

10% of 2.5 billion is greater than 20% of 1 billion for the industry.

Owners and trainers would have more money to split up.

[WinterTriangle]

Oaklawn just expanded it's Casino area. I dunno, let me give another perspective on this. You'd be surprised how many guys can get down to the track if they can keep their wives busy upstairs in the casino. I say this because let's face it, less women play horses than slots, or at least, that's what i see and hear, based on just observation and talking to gals my age. (I have to DRAG women friends to the track, and I have yet to introduce anyone to it where it "took" long term. LOL!)

So, they can go together, meet up in a specified amount of time for dinner in one of the on track restaurants.

As for attention span (which you call action), I can't find anyone to play chess anymore. It's too slow. Baseball ditto. Too slow. Those of us that have focus and concentration, and like this kind of stuff are just a different lot.

You'd also be surprised the amount of both genders I've tried to introduce to horse racing. They are too lazy to do the research and the work. I guess it's easier to pull a handle?

I mean, you just have to enjoy it, like we do, but not everyone does.

I'm thinking it all has more to do with the lifestyles and fast pace nowadays.

As for going to the track, I only go when there's live horses running. I can't bear simulcasting, I have to keep track of paper tickets, I can't relax anywhere comfortable, the lighting is AWFUL, the food is too expensive and I don't eat junk food anyway, which is mostly what's available quickly from the vendors. I usually lose my pen or my glasses about an hour into things. It's just easier to stay home, watch TVG, and use my online account when live horses aren't running at Oaklawn.

YOu know, unless you have BUCKS, and can get a reserved parking space and boxed seats... it's increasingly tiring for me as I get older and I feel quite exhausted after a day at the track!

At Oaklawn, the seats are stacked so steep, going up and down the stairs to the ticket window is murder on bad knees.

These are all things that affect attendance?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

I think you are having a hard time grasping the fact that if 1 billion is bet during a specific period at a 20% takeout, most likely 2.5 to 3 billion would be bet if takeout was 10%.

10% of 2.5 billion is greater than 20% of 1 billion for the industry.

Owners and trainers would have more money to split up.

I agree with you so why isn't anyone here doing it?

And what makes you think they will do it?

[Irish Boy]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Sure, it is a different game and I completely understand that. But when we are up against those games we lose. Mountaineer has their card room, on track. It is a skill game too, but they have zero crossover. I think their on track handle is about $30,000, and that is horsepeople betting. It sure is not hard to get a seat. I was completely amazed that zero of those card players were even watching the race while it was going off 100 feet from where they were standing.

One thing we always have to remember with this, imo, is that gamblers do not have unlimited bankrolls, and you are exactly right - they will bet things. You are focusing on sports bettors coming over to bet racing, but you are neglecting the opposite happening with racing bettors crossing over the other way. Being a frequenter of a racino here I can tell you that when a horseplayer makes a score, he is looking for action too. The races are over, the simo is over. They would head to the sports betting area and blow some money. If they lose it, their bankroll for playing racing is gone for tomorrow.

It is currently happening with slots, eventho horseplayers are not the same as slots players, not even close. It is the "slots drag" and it is a bankroll killer for racing bettors at racinos. I have seen many people hit the last race, be up $2000 and when I speak to them the next day they want to bum cash because they are broke. "Stupid slots" they say. Adding more things to the menu has always been anti-churn for horseplayers, and I honestly do not see that changing.

If that's true- and it might be- horse racing is dead. You can only be sheltered from competition for so long.

[Irish Boy]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

I think you are having a hard time grasping the fact that if 1 billion is bet during a specific period at a 20% takeout, most likely 2.5 to 3 billion would be bet if takeout was 10%.

10% of 2.5 billion is greater than 20% of 1 billion for the industry.

Owners and trainers would have more money to split up.

Those are some mighty big assumptions you are making.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Irish Boy

If that's true- and it might be- horse racing is dead. You can only be sheltered from competition for so long.

From everything I read and see it is in intensive care and the prognosis is not good!

[proximity]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

Bookies always have the bet on credit angle going for them. When people bring hard cash to the track, and sports betting is there, it is inevitable that sports betting will cannibalize the horse racing handle in most instances.
I think an exception could be Fort Erie, where it might attract bettors from Buffalo who would not normally go to the track or bet on Fort Erie.

good point that some money that could be repeatedly churned for a few hours would otherwise be tied up, but overall i see it as a plus. even some new bettors, skeptical of doing business with bookies would be drawn to the legal betting and they'd be exposed to racing as a year round gambling option. i'd see football as being by far the most popular target for sports betting and that would only tie up 16 fall sundays and 12 saturdays (plus playoffs).