Canterbury end of season update

[comet52]

http://www.startribune.com/canterbur...als/393851461/

[cj]

With the fields and constant off turf races they had, 7% increase should be a big statement that lowered takeout works. But it can only do so much if the product isn't very good, and Canterbury was not very good this year.

[andtheyreoff]

I hope they realize that, given the product, handle would've been down a lot had they not lowered the takeout like they did.

I thought the reduction was a success. A lot of buzz surrounded Canterbury that ordinarily wouldn't have been there.

[ronsmac]

Even if the reasons for not having a much bigger increase in handle are legitimate, these numbers don't bode well for next years meet. I'd expect the takeout to be returned to previous levels with maybe a bone thrown in on the p4 or something.

[EMD4ME]

I personally don't think there was enough ramp up time. I would've advertised that over 4 months in advance.

Also, I don't think the day time posts helped. Run a twilight card starting at 5-530 pm eastern time. Right when bel / sar is near ending. Make post times 15 min after each of California's races

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by cj

With the fields and constant off turf races they had, 7% increase should be a big statement that lowered takeout works.

ROFL - how do you interpret that as having worked??

Their live, on-track handle was down 1.5% and they surrendered more than half a million dollars (or 20%) in on-track handle revenue alone for that ill-fated experiment.

Revenue from handle on their outgoing signal was likely a wash for CBY, at best, and a considerable loss to outlets taking the CBY signal at a lower rate than they get from other tracks.


CBY ran exactly one more race this year than last.


The only "big statement" involved is that they will never do something so poorly conceived again.

[o_crunk]

http://crunktrunk.tumblr.com/post/15...an-lure-a-bird

[cj]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

ROFL - how do you interpret that as having worked??

Their live, on-track handle was down 1.5% and they surrendered more than half a million dollars (or 20%) in on-track handle revenue alone for that ill-fated experiment.

Revenue from handle on their outgoing signal was likely a wash for CBY, at best, and a considerable loss to outlets taking the CBY signal at a lower rate than they get from other tracks.


CBY ran exactly one more race this year than last.


The only "big statement" involved is that they will never do something so poorly conceived again.

I refer you to the link posted after your post.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

ROFL - how do you interpret that as having worked??

Their live, on-track handle was down 1.5% and they surrendered more than half a million dollars (or 20%) in on-track handle revenue alone for that ill-fated experiment.

Revenue from handle on their outgoing signal was likely a wash for CBY, at best, and a considerable loss to outlets taking the CBY signal at a lower rate than they get from other tracks.


CBY ran exactly one more race this year than last.


The only "big statement" involved is that they will never do something so poorly conceived again.

I wouldn't say it was poorly conceived but maybe a little naive on Canterbury to think there was going to be an explosion in betting on a night signal that few people cared about in the first place. Their signal isn't even available at all adw's. I still think rebates are better for most players rather than lower takeout. The net may be the same and sometimes even better with the lower take, but rebates are easier for a small and medium sized bettor to wrap his head around. They keep you in the game psychologically,especially if you have a bad run.

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by cj

I refer you to the link posted after your post.

That is turd-polishing at its finest.


And it ends with a statement about smaller tracks which are making gains not running both Saturday and Sunday vs. the major signals. Emerald, up "33% over the past two seasons" has run both Saturday and Sunday forever, and its post times are interlocked with the So Cal signal as has always been the case.


That post really goes out on a limb in saying "there's room for this to grow"... sure, you lose half-a-million in on-track revenue to the dumb idea, and it could grow to a million or more in lost revenue.


The fact that CBY draws so many more fans than do most live racing venues anywhere near to its size, combines with the fact that, despite lower takeout , on-track handle was dooooooooooown, would be enough to give any reasonable statistician indication that it was a failed experiment.


The novice $2 bettors there are as raw a sample as you could possibly ask to have, with (and talk about "room to grow") tremendous upside and almost zero downside.

For the raw effects of decreased takeout to fail to grow handle in that sort of a scenario was and should-be a death knell for the idea.

Those are not people who were lured instead by grand simulcast products across the land... they were mere novices who never cared or even knew about the extra twelve cents in their pockets, who would focus only on live racing, and the math alone should have seen them wager more in 2016 than in 2015.


The only reason CBY stayed with such a terrible experiment after the Memorial Day weekend wipe-out is because they have other revenue sources and could absorb the risk - once!


This doesn't even take into consideration horsemen from around the country who lost plenty in purse revenue when their home tracks accepted a less-than-fair cut on the CBY signal when it could have had some other track at full rate.

Who won on Canterbury this year? Do you know anyone who did?

[cj]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

That is turd-polishing at its finest.


And it ends with a statement about smaller tracks which are making gains not running both Saturday and Sunday vs. the major signals. Emerald, up "33% over the past two seasons" has run both Saturday and Sunday forever, and its post times are interlocked with the So Cal signal as has always been the case.


That post really goes out on a limb in saying "there's room for this to grow"... sure, you lose half-a-million in on-track revenue to the dumb idea, and it could grow to a million or more in lost revenue.


The fact that CBY draws so many more fans than do most live racing venues anywhere near to its size, combines with the fact that, despite lower takeout , on-track handle was dooooooooooown, would be enough to give any reasonable statistician indication that it was a failed experiment.


The novice $2 bettors there are as raw a sample as you could possibly ask to have, with (and talk about "room to grow") tremendous upside and almost zero downside.

For the raw effects of decreased takeout to fail to grow handle in that sort of a scenario was and should-be a death knell for the idea.

Those are not people who were lured instead by grand simulcast products across the land... they were mere novices who never cared or even knew about the extra twelve cents in their pockets, who would focus only on live racing, and the math alone should have seen them wager more in 2016 than in 2015.


The only reason CBY stayed with such a terrible experiment after the Memorial Day weekend wipe-out is because they have other revenue sources and could absorb the risk - once!


This doesn't even take into consideration horsemen from around the country who lost plenty in purse revenue when their home tracks accepted a less-than-fair cut on the CBY signal when it could have had some other track at full rate.

Who won on Canterbury this year? Do you know anyone who did?

Saying they "lost" a half million dollars a stretch. Without the takeout decrease, no way in hell the handle would have been what it was in my opinion. This is the common fallacy we always hear about takeout raises. Just raise it X% and we'll make Y$. Of course what is left out is you are getting a bigger percentage of less handle.

The foolish part was projecting a 40% increase. That was ludicrous. Top it off with a, to be nice, crappy ass product and it is a miracle they had any gains at all.

[thaskalos]

The only good thing I can say about Canterbury is that I enjoy those cute little dog races that they run in-between the regular horse races. That aside...I couldn't get interested in their racing product even if they reduced the takeout to 0%. It's a crying shame that a takeout experiment of such significance was carried out by such an insignificant track.

[arw629]

They need to card more dirt vs the turf 20 horse fields

[Track Phantom]

Canterbury was my home track for many years ('86 to '04). Like most players, you tend to stay interested in what you were brought up on. Not to mention the idiosyncrasies of a track you have such familiarity with giving you a bit of an edge.

In my opinion, this was one of the worst years I can remember. Way too many short fields dominated by a few trainers. The weather didn't help matters at key times this season.

Then, all of a sudden, the final 3 days are loaded with 12 to 14 horse fields. Virtually every race produced incoherent, puzzling, boxcar payoffs. I went from being able to pick roughly 35% winners without being able to make a dime due to low prices all over the board, to picking basically zero on the closing weekend and still not able to make a dime due to random results. In addition, the races were tough to watch. Almost every race at the start and end of the meet were won by horses who were quarterhorsed to the lead, asked the entire way and kept going. Problem was, you didn't know who the front runner was going to be. Whoever it was, was bet down to unplayable odds and never tired.

I'll probably stay with the track as I've done it for many years but I must say, it was getting to be a grind to create sheets toward the end of the meet. There was just something missing with the product (and I'm an apologist for small tracks as I think there is creative handicapping that can be done there).

Bottom line: If a track like Canterbury can't either A) Improve their product to include legitimate MSW and high level allowance runners, for example B) Increase their field size to what EVD used to get a few years ago OR C) Run their races during lower competitive times, it doesn't matter what they reduce take-out to.

Finally, in my opinion, horseplayers don't just want low take-out, they want low take-out on the tracks they play. And, unfortunately for Canterbury, most players just don't play that track.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The only good thing I can say about Canterbury is that I enjoy those cute little dog races that they run in-between the regular horse races. That aside...I couldn't get interested in their racing product even if they reduced the takeout to 0%. It's a crying shame that a takeout experiment of such significance was carried out by such an insignificant track.

Those dogs are cute though