It's on! The Official Boycott Keeneland Thread.

[Jeff P]

Today they were up 2.6% with 96 runners vs. 86 for the same Fri last year.

But overall, they're down about 5.5M - or roughly 10.45% - after the first six days of their meet.

Link to a day by day handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/kee-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Today they were up 2.6% with 96 runners vs. 86 for the same Fri last year.

But overall, they're down about 5.5M - or roughly 10.45% - after the first six days of their meet.

Link to a day by day handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/kee-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

Just a quick question Jeff, why do those who post at HTR bad-mouth you/Hana so much?....I find it strange.

[Jeff P]

FYI, Belmont is up about $5.5M or about 11.96% over the prior year for those same six days.

Link to handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/bel-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

FYI, Belmont is up about $5.5M or about 11.96% over the prior year for those same six days.

Link to handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/bel-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

Do you know how SA is doing, they have had overly large fields for that circuit?

[Jeff P]

Although they have run only 5 dates, Santa Anita is up about $3.38M or about 9.87% over the prior year for the same time period.

Link to handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/sax-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Just a quick question Jeff, why do those who post at HTR bad-mouth you/Hana so much?....I find it strange.

Never mind, I figured it out by your non-reply......

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Although they have run only 5 dates, Santa Anita is up about $3.38M or about 9.87% over the prior year for the same time period.

Link to handle update here:
http://playersboycott.org/sax-sidebyside-6days.html



-jp

.

Jeff do you know the correlation of field size to handle? I know it exists but only in the qualitative sense not quantitatively. It would be interesting to know the expected handle value given variability in field size to see the effects of coordinated player actions.

[Jeff P]

Here's a link to an economic study titled An Economic Analysis of a Parimutuel Racetrack-Racebook authored by Dr. Richard Thalheimer of the University Of Louisville:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...20analysis.pdf

Excerpt from pages 8 - 9:

Examining the own-elasticities, it can be seen that of the four variables, wagering on a subject racetrack's races is most elastic with respect to its takeout rate, least elastic with respect to its average purse and comparably elastic with respect to number of races and average field size. The median takeout rate elastici~ was found to be -2.30 indicating that wagering is strongly responsive to takeout rate changes. This is consistent with prior findings in the literature (Gruen, 1976; Morgan and Vasche, 1979, 1980, 1982; Suits, 1979; Thalheimer and Ali, 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Ali and Thalheimer, 1997).

The takeout rate of -2.30 indicates that revenue will increase with a drop in takeout rate up to the optimum level where takeout rate elasticity is -1.00. If host fee cost is deducted from the takeout rate the optimum level will occur at an elasticity greater than -1.00. It can be shown that for elasticities of the order of magnitude found in this study, the present level of takeout rate is such that it can be lowered without changing the host track fee, to increase net revenue to the racetrack-racebook (after host fee deduction). ..However, the racetrack-racebook will get a proportionally lower increase in net revenue than the host racetrack. For example, at a takeout rate level of 20% and a host fee of 3%, the net revenue maximizing elasticity is computed to be -1.18 which is still less than the typical elasticity of -2.3 found in this study. Of course, if the host track fee is lowered in proportion to the change in takeout rate, revenue for all parties (host track, racetrack-racebook, horsemen) will in crease in the same proportion.

Median own-elasticities with respect to number of races and average field size were found to be 0.64 and 0.58, respectively. There is no prior study to gauge the magnitudes of these elasticities but it seems wagering is moderately responsive to changes in number of races or field size. Finally, median average purse elasticity was found to be 0.06 which is considerably smaller than elasticity with respect to takeout rate, number of races or field size. This average purse elasticity is quite small and it suggests, for example that wagering would increase by only 6% if purse were doubled. This is a surprising finding considering the importance that is attached to the purse variable in all major policy decisions to increase the wagering in this industry.

-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Just a quick question Jeff, why do those who post at HTR bad-mouth you/Hana so much?....I find it strange.

When we asked HANA membership whether or not we should boycott, the results were:

63% Yes
28% No
9% Other

After popping over to the HTR board - and first finding - and then reading the thread:

I don't think anyone over there is really bad mouthing me.

I think it more likely that they fall into the 28% no boycott camp.

I will say this:

Boycotts aside, the HTR players I've met in person at various tracks and tournaments are good people.



-jp

.

[ReplayRandall]

The 28% just seem to post more, I guess....

[CincyHorseplayer]

Watching races for BC. No bets. **** them.

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Here's a link to an economic study titled An Economic Analysis of a Parimutuel Racetrack-Racebook authored by Dr. Richard Thalheimer of the University Of Louisville:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...20analysis.pdf

Excerpt from pages 8 - 9:



-jp

.

Thanks very much Jeff. I'm not a statistician, but drawing by analogy to Thalheimer's example that a 100% increase in purse yields a 6% increase in handle, then similarly a 100% increase in field size would yield a 58% increase in handle.

So we can interpolate- for a rough estimate- the effect of any change in field size to an expected increase or decrease in handle. For example, a 10% increase in field size would yield a 5.8% increase in handle.

I understand this is rough and simplistic, and overly linear. For example, Monmouth Park's average field size increases from 7.5 to 8.3- roughly 10%- it may experience a larger than 5.8% increase in handle. Conversely, Saratoga's average field size increases from 9.8 to 10.8 maybe the increase isn't quite has high, because the 9.8 average field size was already very attractive to day-to-day Saratoga players as well as those shopping for large fields to play.

I think in assessing the impact of the boycott initiative as well as anything else it is important to adjust for other independent, relevant variables and what you shared helps do that.

[lamboguy]

at the end of this meed i am sure that no matter what the spokesmen from Keeneland will have their reasons why this meet was such a success no matter how the handle does.

in my mind it is already very successful, it's so boring i have had no problem staying away from it.

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Watching races for BC. No bets. **** them.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Saving my money for Woodbine tomorrow

[Track Collector]

Originally Posted by highnote

I don't play Santa Anita. SA takeout is too high and my adw does not give a rebate on SA Win/Place/Show bets.

I'd rather play Penn National or Remington where the rebate makes the effective takeout on WPS about 11 to 12 percent vs. SA's 15.43 percent.

It's all about money.

The EFFECTIVE takeout rates are lower at Penn National and Remington because Santa Anita charges your ADW significantly more for their "Host" fees.

As to the Kee fall meet, I do not expect to make and wagers there.