Adjusted for inflation, total wagering is down nearly 50% in the last 20 years.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

In every form of gambling the house is the only profiter. And if the teams can get a rebate, they'll be the exception to the rule. But, it's only due to the rebates. But the fact that everyone playing slots busts out doesn't keep people from playing slots. Even blackjack with its low takeout ends with the player busting out. I would say blackjack is a game of skill, but the house knows exactly how to control that game so the player cannot profit.
Is it wrong to play a game only to enjoy the game?

In racing if a Customer or group of Customers are that important to the bottom line then they should buy them a car, or a house, or an island. Keeping takeout artificially high for one group to favor another is wrong.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

In racing if a Customer or group of Customers are that important to the bottom line then they should buy them a car, or a house, or an island. Keeping takeout artificially high for one group to favor another is wrong.

To this I'd say that you are assuming that higher takeouts are paying for rebates. I suggest that the rebates are paid from the added action and takeout derived of that action supplied by the teams. The teams are paying the standard takeout to bet and getting a fraction of that in return.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

To this I'd say that you are assuming that higher takeouts are paying for rebates. I suggest that the rebates are paid from the added action and takeout derived of that action supplied by the teams. The teams are paying the standard takeout to bet and getting a fraction of that in return.

Then the status quo is great for everyone?

[classhandicapper]

I have no idea if lowering the take will attract enough new money to make up for the lower take on the rest of it, but I think any lowering of the take probably has to accompanied by an elimination of large rebates. That will ease the short term cost of the experiment to the track, put fans on equal footing with the teams, but hopefully (for the track) still at least keep the very best teams in business until the experiment is over.

IMO, the problems are way bigger than just lowering the take, assuming that even works.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Then the status quo is great for everyone?

What I'm suggesting is that saving racing is one issue to resolve and seeing the public have any chance to profit instead of only teams is a separate issue.
We may only be able to resolve one of those.
It may be possible to resolve both, but maybe not with the same solution.

If we eliminated rebates, the teams would bet that 2-1 down to 3-1 and leave some room for everyone else because the teams still need to profit. This would significantly reduce the amount teams bet and the track would need to make that up somewhere else to want to eliminate the rebates. But, even at 3-1, is this enough margin to keep other handicappers around? The teams would be operating on much higher volumes and it would still make sense for at least them. Bottom line, as long as teams harness AI to bet, we're up against it for the long term. But, this does not differ from all other forms of gambling where the house has the edge.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

What I'm suggesting is that saving racing is one issue to resolve and seeing the public have any chance to profit instead of only teams is a separate issue.
We may only be able to resolve one of those.
It may be possible to resolve both, but maybe not with the same solution.

If we eliminated rebates, the teams would bet that 2-1 down to 3-1 and leave some room for everyone else because the teams still need to profit. This would significantly reduce the amount teams bet and the track would need to make that up somewhere else to want to eliminate the rebates. But, even at 3-1, is this enough margin to keep other handicappers around? The teams would be operating on much higher volumes and it would still make sense for at least them. Bottom line, as long as teams harness AI to bet, we're up against it for the long term. But, this does not differ from all other forms of gambling where the house has the edge.

The teams wouldn't play at all with no rebate.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

The teams wouldn't play at all with no rebate.

That depends on how much they lower the take and the impact it has short and long term on the track's bottom line. I don't know all the numbers and no one really can until we see how the lower take impacts handle and bottom line short and long term. But at the end of the day it has to make sense for the track.

The point I'd make though is that if I'm playing into a 17% take with a 7% rebate or 10% take with no rebate it's the same thing.

Unfortunately, I don't think the relationship will be 1 for 1 like that for the teams, but it may be good enough to at least keep the good ones in action even if they have a smaller margin. Then IF the optimists are right that eventually the lower take attracts a lot of new players it could work out positively for the track and everyone else too.

I'm skeptical. I think all this "take" stuff is hopeful thinking by gamblers. The real problem is on the cost side. It costs way to too much to put on the show relative to revenues per track and any kind of upgrading, marketing, take lowering etc... requires free cash that no one has. It's all an economic fantasy wrapped up in corrupt incompetent politics in government.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

I'm fine with that assessment. I only caution not to confuse the elimination of rebates and that benefit to handicappers with the lowering of takeout as a benefit to handicappers.

Elimination of rebates is paramount. But so is reducing takeout. Lowering takeouts is the only way to keep much of the liquidity that this game seems so dependent on. Moreover it keeps the roi of the recreation player in line with other forms of gambling. Racing also has to keep the offshore competition at bay. If you have a 15 percent takeout and no rebates, everybody and their brother will bet offshore where 7 or 8 percent rebates are available. Reduce the takeout to the 8 and 10 percent levels and offshore will only be able to provide a 3 or 4 percent rebate.

[JohnGalt1]

Isn't some of the blame for fewer horses being born traces to the tax write offs that were offered many years ago?

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That depends on how much they lower the take and the impact it has short and long term on the track's bottom line. I don't know all the numbers and no one really can until we see how the lower take impacts handle and bottom line short and long term. But at the end of the day it has to make sense for the track.

The point I'd make though is that if I'm playing into a 17% take with a 7% rebate or 10% take with no rebate it's the same thing.

Unfortunately, I don't think the relationship will be 1 for 1 like that for the teams, but it may be good enough to at least keep the good ones in action even if they have a smaller margin. Then IF the optimists are right that eventually the lower take attracts a lot of new players it could work out positively for the track and everyone else too.

I'm skeptical. I think all this "take" stuff is hopeful thinking by gamblers. The real problem is on the cost side. It costs way to too much to put on the show relative to revenues per track and any kind of upgrading, marketing, take lowering etc... requires free cash that no one has. It's all an economic fantasy wrapped up in corrupt incompetent politics in government.

The cost is higher and if we market racing a another form of gambling, racing loses. The reason films hire headliners even though the film costs way more, is that the film isn't sold as compared to the nightly news. It's marketed as spectacle. The headliner attracts film fans.
What do we sell racing as? Is it sport? Is it spectacle? Is it theme park? A trip to an outhouse?(jk) I may be wrong, but I believe it's easier to market as a live event that you attend. However it's marketed, it resembles spectacle more if you are there. People around you are reacting to the event and it becomes more than just gambling. And when you walk back into the casino and watch those sad souls sitting at the slots you kinda feel sorry for them. They're missing out on the spectacle. You go back out with a hot dog and cold brewski and people watch and listen to a loud mouth heckle a jockey.
This is an experience many people haven't had.

[thaskalos]

There is nothing new under the sun...we've talked about these things many times before. The problem, IMO, is that the "racing industry" is ill-equipped to run their business the right way. Almost all the main decisions that they make end up hurting the game long-term.

When full-card simulcasting was first implemented, it was offered to the bettors without any thought to the negative side-effects that it would create for the average player. The bettors went from betting on a handful of races per day to having a menu offering them a hundred races a day. Losses that the player could previously keep under control now quickly got out of hand, because the player felt the way a kid feels in a candy store. When 98% of the bettors in a game are losers...the sudden exposure to full-card simulcasting can be (and was) catastrophic to the financial welfare of the bettors, who were never warned of the dangers to begin with. The vast majority of the bettors were much worse players than they ever thought they were.

When OTBs became widespread in order to better supply the newly-introduced full-card simulcasting action to the bettors...didn't the industry realize that this would devastate the live attendance at the racetrack? How would it look when majestic racetracks like Arlington Park and Del Mar only drew 100 people for the weekday's action? Did the "racing industry" really think that the "majesty" of the sport was the main attraction?

When the extra money started pouring in at the beginning of the full-card simulcasting era, this money should have been used to defray the costs of running the game...and then something could have been done to reduce the takeout and make this sport more desirable as a gambling game. With the business expenses covered or greatly reduced...then the conversation could begin on how to establish this game as a serious gambling endeavor for the gambling public. Instead, it was decided right away that the extra money would go to increase the purses of the races, because this was considered to be the solution to the game's problems. The big purses would attract the better horses and jockeys, the races would become more competitive...and everybody would be happy. Well...we all saw how well this all played out.

The "rebate" situation is a farce, and the industry must agree otherwise they wouldn't keep this entire enterprise a secret. I was betting every day for many years before I found out that such a thing as a "rebate" even existed. Even now, when I ask here for some precise information on how the rebates work and how much money is being given out, some informed poster will reach out to me by text message and offer to explain the whole thing to me by phone. The whole thing seems so confidential in nature that it can't be discussed widely in an open forum. Ridiculous, IMO...and not the way a serious business should operate. But then again...it could also be considered folly to view horse racing as a "serious business".

When a business enjoys a monopoly in the marketplace...then it could succeed even if it is run badly. But when competition comes around -- and it always does -- then only the better-run businesses survive...while the rest are pushed to the background and eventually vanish. And even if they do survive...they are mere shadows of what they once were. Sadly...that's what the future looks like for our favorite game, IMO.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

The cost is higher and if we market racing a another form of gambling, racing loses. The reason films hire headliners even though the film costs way more, is that the film isn't sold as compared to the nightly news. It's marketed as spectacle. The headliner attracts film fans.
What do we sell racing as? Is it sport? Is it spectacle? Is it theme park? A trip to an outhouse?(jk) I may be wrong, but I believe it's easier to market as a live event that you attend. However it's marketed, it resembles spectacle more if you are there. People around you are reacting to the event and it becomes more than just gambling. And when you walk back into the casino and watch those sad souls sitting at the slots you kinda feel sorry for them. They're missing out on the spectacle. You go back out with a hot dog and cold brewski and people watch and listen to a loud mouth heckle a jockey.
This is an experience many people haven't had.

I can relate to what you are saying, but I think we are in an era where live attendance is harder to come by in sports in general unless it's "an event of significance". The exception seems to be some or all of the profile I mentioned a few days back.

1. Short meet
2. High quality racing
3. Location easily combined with some kind of vacation
4. Good weather

At this point, that's even the way I think about it.

Other than Belmont which is 5-10 minutes away, I like to combine my trips to the track with my vacations and usually pick big race days.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Isn't some of the blame for fewer horses being born traces to the tax write offs that were offered many years ago?

If owning race horses was actually a profitable endeavor tax write-offs would be a minor consideration. Blame a bad business model.

[Poindexter]

By the way, here is an article from a couple of years ago that some of you might be interested in. Also read the comments.

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/a...ss-has-change/

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

The cost is higher and if we market racing a another form of gambling, racing loses. The reason films hire headliners even though the film costs way more, is that the film isn't sold as compared to the nightly news. It's marketed as spectacle. The headliner attracts film fans.
What do we sell racing as? Is it sport? Is it spectacle? Is it theme park? A trip to an outhouse?(jk) I may be wrong, but I believe it's easier to market as a live event that you attend. However it's marketed, it resembles spectacle more if you are there. People around you are reacting to the event and it becomes more than just gambling. And when you walk back into the casino and watch those sad souls sitting at the slots you kinda feel sorry for them. They're missing out on the spectacle. You go back out with a hot dog and cold brewski and people watch and listen to a loud mouth heckle a jockey.
This is an experience many people haven't had.

Agreed.

Empiric evidence the last 10 years or so suggests that the marketing of racing as a sporting event where people want to attend, at least on many significant occasions, is a success. Churchill now has an entire week of racing - 502'sday (Tuesday), Champions Day (Wednesday), Thurby (Thursday), Oaks Day, Derby Day. Saratoga and Belmont have a few signature days, Gulfstream as well, plus Haskell day at Monmouth and I probably left a few others out. Handle on these days grows year by year.

Those dates provide a LOT of income for tracks in concessions and other monies (sponsorships for stakes) as well, and they may also be supporting the track economically and in terms of purses for the run of the mill dates during the meets.