It's on! The Official Boycott Keeneland Thread.

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by cj

You should work part time for Keeneland .

This is exactly the kind of stuff they'll be looking for in a few days. I'm not saying the data is wrong, but we never hear this kind of stuff to explain handle being UP. Will Belmont be quoted as saying they had a great meet because the weather sucked last year?

The numbers can always be spun any way the person doing the research wants to spin them. This is exactly why I said what I did...Keeneland would trumpet this is a success no matter what the numbers say.

CJ- TLGs post is in my view analysis not spin. Bad weather at Belmont would certainly push more $ to Keeneland, and would impact any comparison of the 2016 and 2017 meets.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Isn't the best value the good odds on a tote board on a horse you like, regardless of takeout?

First off we have no idea what the tote board odds we will be when the race goes off. We may very well bet a horse thinking we will get 6-1, but he can just as easily go off at 7/2 or 7-1. We may not bet a horse thinking he is only paying 18-1 and then presto after the final money comes in he wins at 32-1.

On to takeout, it is very subtle. Ignoring breakage, a horse just pays the takeout less than it would be if there was no takeout.

Horse with $20,000 of $100,000 to win

no takeout $10.00
15% takeout $8.50
18% takeout $8.20

Hore with $10,000 of $100,000 to win

no takeout $20.00
15% takeout $17.00
18% takeout $16.40

You see the problem with takeout hikes. They are for the most part subtle. Lets say a track increases it's takeout from 15% to 18%, and the player sees 3-1 on the first horse and 7-1 on the 2nd horse in both instances yet is getting 3.5% less in both instances. All we know when the race track raises takeout from 15% to 18% on every horse that wins for us we get we are now getting 3 1/2 % less then we would have prior to the takeout change. So a player that is above average at 15% takeout and only loses 10% now transforms into a player who now loses 13.15% on the dollar(most of that progress you made out the window). In most instances it will be nearly impossible to eliminate bets due to the lower takeout, because it will look like the odds are the same as the were prior to the takeout increase. How any industry that is already extremely overpriced and struggling can even fathom doing this to their customers is beyond comprehension. It is like my $20 burger analogy. In an Out just moved next door and took away 80% of our business, time to go up to $20.99. That will solve the problem.

So be my guest and rationalize takeout hikes anyway you want, but you(collectively) are only hurting yourself long term by ignoring them.

[AstrosFan]

Originally Posted by cj

The numbers can always be spun any way the person doing the research wants to spin them.

The best line I've ever heard was from someone in accounting. Numbers never lie, but people do.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Keeneland may well spin things, however, as you well know, the spin here has been extreme. THAT is what I am pointing out....but you know this, and since privately you have agreed with this, I'm surprised by your post.

I think it is pretty clear that people aren't playing Keeneland at the level a reasonable person with no agenda would expect given what is happening everywhere else currently, not based on what happened in 2016, or 2015, or 2014. Personally I'm happy to see that.

The rest is about as complex as handicapping a race. There are way too many factors and moving parts. Everyone will latch onto one thing or another as the "cause", but the truth is nobody really knows. It is surely a combination of a lot of things. I said I'm proud of horseplayers because my opinion is the bad will Keeneland created by raising takeout is definitely one of those factors.

[cj]

Originally Posted by alhattab

CJ- TLGs post is in my view analysis not spin. Bad weather at Belmont would certainly push more $ to Keeneland, and would impact any comparison of the 2016 and 2017 meets.

Sure, but he then cites 2015 as the benchmark, which was the worst Keeneland fall meet in a long time. I'm more interested in what is happening now instead of what happened in 2016 or 2015 or whenever. This stuff is way too complex to narrow down to handle being up or down over this year or that one.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by cj

Sure, but he then cites 2015 as the benchmark, which was the worst Keeneland fall meet in a long time. I'm more interested in what is happening now instead of what happened in 2016 or 2015 or whenever. This stuff is way too complex to narrow down to handle being up or down over this year or that one.

2015 was slightly worse than 2014. "Worst Fall meet in a long time" sure sounds like spin to me. They are flat between 2014 and 2017. Do you feel better?

I didn't spin at all, Craig....and you know that. I just provided some more background. Are you going to tell me that you think two weeks of data from a short meet is enough to make definitive conclusions about anything? Are you going to tell me that you think Keeneland didn't benefit from the consistent bad weather at Belmont in 2016...especially when the good weather in 2017 has produced significantly better numbers?

What is your point here? I gave some additional information. Sorry if that offended you.

[DeanT]

Analyzing this data isn't overly difficult, imo. Occam's Razor is usually fine.

Handle overall, per race, and by entry at Keeneland is down. Keeneland raised takeout, and the theory, as well as empirical data from the past suggests it should be down. The numbers confirm a hypothesis.

If it was up, then we'd have to really look at the data and parse it, simply because the result would fly into the face of convention. If soda sales go up when a 4 cent per ounce soda tax is implemented, well, something else is obviously in play, so then we dig deeper.

How much of the drop in handle is lack of churn, signal fee hikes and those scaling back based on the pure mathematics of wagering? We don't know, but it's clearly one of the reasons.

How much is a "boycott"? Again, we don't know. I know personally about $25k per day that is not being bet this fall that was bet last fall, so handle is ~$25,000 per day lower because of those four players "boycotting". I assume it's more than four people who've done that, but again, we don't know for sure.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

2015 was slightly worse than 2014. "Worst Fall meet in a long time" sure sounds like spin to me. They are flat between 2014 and 2017. Do you feel better?

I didn't spin at all, Craig....and you know that. I just provided some more background. Are you going to tell me that you think two weeks of data from a short meet is enough to make definitive conclusions about anything? Are you going to tell me that you think Keeneland didn't benefit from the consistent bad weather at Belmont in 2016...especially when the good weather in 2017 has produced significantly better numbers?

What is your point here? I gave some additional information. Sorry if that offended you.

I never said you spun anything. I was pointing out that picking 2015 as a point of comparison is no better than picking 2016, or 1998. Any year you pick will have extenuating circumstances. I'm looking at 2017 and it doesn't look good for Keeneland.

As fans, we get tired of this stuff getting reported like we are idiots. If handle being down gets spun some by fans (and sure, it has) I'm hardly going to be upset about it. If anything maybe it will lead to more honesty from all involved

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

First off we have no idea what the tote board odds we will be when the race goes off. We may very well bet a horse thinking we will get 6-1, but he can just as easily go off at 7/2 or 7-1. We may not bet a horse thinking he is only paying 18-1 and then presto after the final money comes in he wins at 32-1.

On to takeout, it is very subtle. Ignoring breakage, a horse just pays the takeout less than it would be if there was no takeout.

Horse with $20,000 of $100,000 to win

no takeout $10.00
15% takeout $8.50
18% takeout $8.20

Hore with $10,000 of $100,000 to win

no takeout $20.00
15% takeout $17.00
18% takeout $16.40

You see the problem with takeout hikes. They are for the most part subtle. Lets say a track increases it's takeout from 15% to 18%, and the player sees 3-1 on the first horse and 7-1 on the 2nd horse in both instances yet is getting 3.5% less in both instances. All we know when the race track raises takeout from 15% to 18% on every horse that wins for us we get we are now getting 3 1/2 % less then we would have prior to the takeout change. So a player that is above average at 15% takeout and only loses 10% now transforms into a player who now loses 13.15% on the dollar(most of that progress you made out the window). In most instances it will be nearly impossible to eliminate bets due to the lower takeout, because it will look like the odds are the same as the were prior to the takeout increase. How any industry that is already extremely overpriced and struggling can even fathom doing this to their customers is beyond comprehension. It is like my $20 burger analogy. In an Out just moved next door and took away 80% of our business, time to go up to $20.99. That will solve the problem.

So be my guest and rationalize takeout hikes anyway you want, but you(collectively) are only hurting yourself long term by ignoring them.

I well understand the math above. However, I think that maybe you all put too much emphasis on takeout when instead it should be the return on your bet, which ultimately means the odds on a horse you like, regardless of the takeout.

I'm not a gambler at heart, and have even less interest in being a handicapper because of the huge amount of time it entails for what is usually a small payout. But it seems to me that the takeout should be pretty far down the list of your concerns. Large, competitive fields with a lot of novice money in play, that is the ideal scenario to make good scores for the handicapper. And maybe the information age hasn't been too kind to handicappers with the wealth of information out there helping both the novice as well as your fellow handicappers.

I don't have a solution, but then neither do you all.

[jimmyb]

Thread has almost 20,000 hits. keeneland take notice.

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

It is like my $20 burger analogy. In an Out just moved next door and took away 80% of our business, time to go up to $20.99. That will solve the problem.

So be my guest and rationalize takeout hikes anyway you want, but you(collectively) are only hurting yourself long term by ignoring them.

Seems like Keeneland thinks the better analogy is that they are In and Out Burger. Red Slime Burger moved in next door and is charging the same price as In and Out, and people are actually paying for it. So stands to reason the higher quality In and Out can command a higher price.

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Keeneland may well spin things, however, as you well know, the spin here has been extreme. THAT is what I am pointing out....but you know this, and since privately you have agreed with this, I'm surprised by your post.

Hey why doesn't TLG have a reputation button?!

[Jeff P]

Looks like Keeneland had a good day today.

Just adding up the race totals in my head off my adw interface I have them up about $810k +12.5%

They win one. (I tip my cap to them.)


-jp

.

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Looks like Keeneland had a good day today.

Just adding up the race totals in my head off my adw interface I have them up about $810k +12.5%

They win one. (I tip my cap to them.)


-jp

.

I took a quick look at last year's chart didn't see anything strange

[lamboguy]

i just looked at the charts today race by race and just saw something i have never seen before, the pick 6 had $16,000 bet into it and the pick 5 that started in the next race had $715,000 bet into it. some guy must have loved the pick 5 today for some reason because that looks like a giant bet that is way bigger than Belmont and Santa Anita combined.