Today's Daily NYRA Fiasco

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by paulbenny

If you measure the meet in the short-run by total handle for example, then you argue that point that it was successful.

The meeting has been hit by Saratoga weather that many folks have not seen for the last 7+ years. Unlike what most think, NYRA does not have a special hotline to schedule turf course deluges on Mondays and Tuesdays.

Originally Posted by paulbenny

If you take the longer-term view which I do: NYRA is poorly run as a quasi-governmental entity that is not unusual in the public private partnerships scenario which is often the case.

I really struggle with you assertion that NYRA is poorly run. Exactly what would you have liked to have seen done differently over the last six months. Seriously, Paul, your assertion of being "poorly run" is 100% without any backing here.

Originally Posted by paulbenny

Saratoga is the key to it all, and the value of the Aqueduct on a land basis alone might have consolidated things years ago by a sale of it, but the Resorts came about further amplifying too much infrastructure for a declining gaming-related business that is probably less than 1 percent of total gambling in the US as they define it at the AGA or various other entities.

You are using revisionist history in your analysis of Aqueduct. I am sure that you were completely against the Resorts World deal, but funny, I cannot find a single note from you dated a decade back that brings those arguments to the fore.

Originally Posted by paulbenny

Add to that the new sinkhole of money by New York State at Belmont,and start running discounted cash flow on all of this and it is a long run disaster.

Perhaps, but damn it all, I would rather see a reimagination of the Belmont complex than watch Roosevelt Raceway-style as the entire hub of the sport completely collapses.

Originally Posted by paulbenny

Certainly the Kentucky market is the true cradle of horse racing, not NY. CDI is criticized but they see it for what it is.

Arlington? CDI is shareholder driven, NOT driven by the sport, the gambler, or the horsepeople. NYRA wins this debate every time which trumps every other argument.

Originally Posted by paulbenny

They probably know what they are doing more than NYRA at all levels.

With all due respect, what in goodness sakes name are you saying?

Originally Posted by paulbenny

The bottom line short term makes you pay in the long run. Saratoga is too long and should have stayed a boutique meeting and moreover, allowing anyone with 10 bucks to clog up the lower club is not a good strategy among other mistakes to gain revenue.

Wait, so your bitch is about a $10 entry fee? Amazing.

[PaceAdvantage]

I wonder what the combined handle is of those complaining the most in this thread...

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Sheffwed

longer term if CAWs hurt overall handle, then they are affecting the long term viability of the sport, so it is in their interest to quash it, somehow

It's hard to know how much is gained by their huge action vs. how much is lost by other serious players leaving the game because of them. But if we stay on a path that leads to an even bigger percentage of the handle being CAW, it will practically be CAW vs CAW. Then the game is over. The CAWs need a lot of fish in the game too.

I've been saying this for a long time. The irony of this game is that the more and better the information out there gets, the better the handicapping tools, the more generous sharp people are with their insights on social media/podcasts/TV/forums and the more we lose OTB-like fish, the worse off the game is. It's a competitive game and the competition keeps getting better. If that continues the pools will be so efficient the game will be obsolete for gambling purposes. It's not like poker where you generally get to choose the level of your competition by the stakes.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I wonder what the combined handle is of those complaining the most in this thread...

we push through hundreds of dollars

[paulbenny]

I am saying exactly what I am saying. I worked there nine years, bid on some work with gaming consultants to create their strategic plan which was awarded to others and never made public, and am talking in general not about racing but at running a business, with a profit motive, and not subsidies by the government. The whole operation in its entirety not just Saratoga. The whole thing. There is no need for three venues. They had their chance years ago. Then they brought in Kay, who was not a racing guy during that era. I am not talking about taking races off the turf at all, that comes with the territory.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's hard to know how much is gained by their huge action vs. how much is lost by other serious players leaving the game because of them. But if we stay on a path that leads to an even bigger percentage of the handle being CAW, it will practically be CAW vs CAW. Then the game is over. The CAWs need a lot of fish in the game too.

I've been saying this for a long time. The irony of this game is that the more and better the information out there gets, the better the handicapping tools, the more generous sharp people are with their insights on social media/podcasts/TV/forums and the more we lose OTB-like fish, the worse off the game is. It's a competitive game and the competition keeps getting better. If that continues the pools will be so efficient the game will be obsolete for gambling purposes. It's not like poker where you generally get to choose the level of your competition by the stakes.

This is an intriguing supposition. But, you wouldn't even need the fish to go away to make the game almost uninteresting to CAW's. Let's say the fish qty stays the same and CAW wagering grows so that even with rebates, profits drop to almost nothing. The odds are as efficient as the CAWs can calculate, the lesser CAWs fail and the most accurate CAW or CAWs prevail finally. The odds are only as accurate as the best guess of the best CAW. But, competing CAWs force profits to minute figures. There will still be bettors willing to play to whatever efficient odds are offered. In the same way that blackjack players are willing to bet knowing the odds of winning are slim. Or that baseball bettors know their odds are slim. What kills a game is when inside actors are found to be cheating outsiders. Hopefully, oversight will be effective enough to minimize the scandals. The dealing shoe and casino security didn't kill blackjack. People still play. The pros who beat blackjack back in the day won't play, but the casual player will. The horse bettors who profited before CAW won't play, but the casual bettor will.

[azeri98]

All races off the turf again today, Geez

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

There will still be bettors willing to play to whatever efficient odds are offered. In the same way that blackjack players are willing to bet knowing the odds of winning are slim. Or that baseball bettors know their odds are slim. What kills a game is when inside actors are found to be cheating outsiders. Hopefully, oversight will be effective enough to minimize the scandals. The dealing shoe and casino security didn't kill blackjack. People still play. The pros who beat blackjack back in the day won't play, but the casual player will. The horse bettors who profited before CAW won't play, but the casual bettor will.

There will always be some players willing to play. People play lotteries with even worse odds. But racing is unique in that it's a very expensive show to put on and the economics are already terrible. If it loses the subset of players that is only involved in racing because they think there's some chance to profit, it's basically over.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by azeri98

All races off the turf again today, Geez

There's not much anyone can do about the weather, but an especially rainy meet shows how much of a double edged sword turf racing can be for Saratoga's handle and serious horse players. No one likes handicapping a field of 12 for turf and then winding with a field of 4 on dirt. Playing this game consumes a ton of time without that wrinkle.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

There's not much anyone can do about the weather, but an especially rainy meet shows how much of a double edged sword turf racing can be for Saratoga's handle and serious horse players. No one likes handicapping a field of 12 for turf and then winding with a field of 4 on dirt. Playing this game consumes a ton of time without that wrinkle.

I think there is an edge when racing comes off the turf. I used to like those days, but when it becomes an everyday occurrence it is a bit much.You can't blame anyone for the weather, but it is time consuming handicapping for turf, wet turf and then off the turf for a card. Sometimes it is just better to wait for tomorrow.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by aaron

I think there is an edge when racing comes off the turf.

That's the conventional wisdom, especially right after a race where the public bet down an obvious turf horse and he finished up the track. Recency bias can be a problem.

I haven't looked through the long term data closely enough, but I think you probably need some other special insights (which I don't have) into which will handle it and which won't. I don't think the obvious prior dirt form that everyone else can see is enough.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's the conventional wisdom, especially right after a race where the public bet down an obvious turf horse and he finished up the track. Recency bias can be a problem.

I haven't looked through the long term data closely enough, but I think you probably need some other special insights (which I don't have) into which will handle it and which won't. I don't think the obvious prior dirt form that everyone else can see is enough.

I would say you probably have to go beyond the PP's in the form sometimes, but horses that consistently handle the dirt will out perform turf horses with no experience on dirt enough for you to find decent bets.Of course on a day like today,I guess you have to look at off track form. No one said it was an easy game.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by aaron

I would say you probably have to go beyond the PP's in the form sometimes, but horses that consistently handle the dirt will out perform turf horses with no experience on dirt enough for you to find decent bets.Of course on a day like today,I guess you have to look at off track form. No one said it was an easy game.

In my database covering all the major tracks since late 2014, MTOs have outperformed the track take both as favorites and non favorites. It's different for each track, but the per track samples are not large enough to be sure whether they are real public betting patterns or just noise. NYRA MTOs were especially good overall, but not so good at SAR. CD and GP were terrible.

I think it's enough to say the public tends to over-bet some of those turf horses in off the turf races, but you'll need more than just a well meant dirt horse.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

In my database covering all the major tracks since late 2014, MTOs have outperformed the track take both as favorites and non favorites. It's different for each track, but the per track samples are not large enough to be sure whether they are real public betting patterns or just noise. NYRA MTOs were especially good overall, but not so good at SAR. CD and GP were terrible.

I think it's enough to say the public tends to over-bet some of those turf horses in off the turf races, but you'll need more than just a well meant dirt horse.

Good information for sure. You also have to dig into the form of the horses in the main body who are not MTO's. In recent years,I would think just looking for the winner in the MTO's is lazy handicapping.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by aaron

In recent years,I would think just looking for the winner in the MTO's is lazy handicapping.

For sure. I wouldn't recommend that, but as a group that should give you a pretty good clue as to how the turf horses are being bet relative to their actual chances.