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

[lamboguy]

i hate to always turn back the clock, but i remember when there was a fair circuit in New England, California and other places. and this would date back to the 1980's. the Marshfield Fair, the Northampton Fair, the Brockton and Weymouth fairs would run a fair for the whole family. they were agricultural fairs that had a form of horse racing and amusements for kids and some type of a carnival atmosphere. there were no video games and the internet to compete with. these places did $2 million handles on some Saturdays. the horses they ran were in the $2500-$3500 claiming range, and in all actuality, the whole field together wasn't worth the claiming price. the purses were something like $2700 per race, 9 races a day. that all equated for a pretty decent revenue for the fair. the horses that ran were either the end of the meet horses from the larger New England tracks or the horses that family's around the area kept around their properties and would bring them back every year just to run at the fairs. when those horses ran, the whole family and friends of the family that owned the horse showed up for the afternoon of racing. even though the racing was at such a low level, it was exciting for the people that came to watch those horses run.

in todays racing world, you have the same owners and trainers all over the country. you hardly ever see an owner show up to the paddock on a Wednesday afternoon. a matter of fact you are lucky to see an owner show up if they have a stake horse running that day because they might have another stake horse in a different track 3000 miles away.

my problem is now knowing what would work today at the track, it would be how to change the key components of the game to fit the time. one thing i do know is that the owners of these horses along with the bettors are the customers, while anyone else involved profits from the game in one form or another.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

IMO, you are too laser focused on people who are not the target market for 2023.
Your target market as I have stated before is your advantage gambler. A person that is using logic, stat analysis, analytics, computers to try and conquer sports betting and dfs. These folks if they ever converted to the game would not be pen and paper handicappers, like I still am and everybody was 30 years ago. I keep reading how slow the game is. There are races going off every few minutes. If you fix the pricing then you have a market. Once you develop a market everybody develops a niche. Some will focus on verticals or horizontals or straight betting. How about conditional betting similar to what caw is doing maybe at post time instead of the bell. Parlays, round robins, carryovers. This game offers a ton of options if the industry ever decides the prioritize the bettor. Meanwhile the folks you are talking about will join the market as the game become more popular and gains exposure. If they aren’t losing 30 percent on the dollar maybe they might stick around. Also once a market is developed again there will be all kinds of new methods used by the public to generate picks. Computerized tools etc.

Obviously the racing industry agrees with you. They have been all in on this nonsense for over 20 years. The article that the op quoted explains just how well it has worked. Imo this sport was killed with a stupid rebating policy. This policy has driven tons of people from the sport and keeps newer customers from sticking around. All the other issues that are brought up are easy to blame. There may be some truth to some of them. That doesn’t mean the sport cannot thrive if pricing is corrected and a lot of good and creative marketing is used to grow the sport. But if you don’t fix the pricing the sport goes nowhere. That 50 percent after inflation drop over the last 20 years may happen in 8 to ten years this time around. The bigger problem is whales only made up about 5 percent of the pool 20 years ago. They can’t grow their betting now without the industry putting more fish in the sea. As the public money becomes less and less so does the amount they can bet. So lose another billion in public money you lose much more than a billion dollars in total handle. It will become quite the vicious cycle.

So like it or not, agree or not, if you want this game to make it, you fix the pricing and use those real smart people to creatively market the game. Otherwise as things get worse and worse, look for takeout hikes/higher rebates to help feed the whales until they eventually kill the market permanently.

I have no idea why anyone can possibly think that what has failed for the last 20 years can possibly succeed now. I also have no idea why these business relationships with other forms of gambling will not eventually exclude horse racing. What will horse racing bring to the table if it continues to slide.

I'm listening to your ideas, but I'm not sure you hear mine. To state that the industry has already adopted less wait time between races for the last 20 years seems to miss my point. The time between races hasn't changed in my lifetime.

[Valuist]

My own horse racing betting handle is about 10% of what it was 15-20 years ago. IMO, the legalization of sports betting clearly hurts. Let's face it; horse racing had a monopoly in sports related wagering. Only one solution: takeout has to be cut to levels competitive with sports betting.

[MooseDog]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

I'd like to see that someone in the industry wants to address pace of play.

Realistically you need the 25-30 between races that we have now for the jockeys to dismount, get back to the jocks room, change silks, clean up if necessary, weigh in, refocus, and get back out the paddock in time for the next race (they must be in the paddock 14 minutes to post or get fined).

Originally simulcasting was supposed to solve this "problem" by providing other action between races.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Valuist

My own horse racing betting handle is about 10% of what it was 15-20 years ago. IMO, the legalization of sports betting clearly hurts. Let's face it; horse racing had a monopoly in sports related wagering. Only one solution: takeout has to be cut to levels competitive with sports betting.

The economics of this sport are a nightmare.

Many tracks need casino money to operate, many owners are losing money, most gamblers are getting buried relative to gambling alternatives, and pretty much no one is getting a good return on capital given the value of the land their operations are sitting on (probably not even most breeders but I don't know).

If this was Wall St, most tracks would be shut down "quickly" and the land and other assets redeployed where they made better economic and quality of life sense for their communities. There would be different jobs and more economic activity created.

In the real world, when an industry is shrinking and return on capital is low or negative like in racing, there will be mergers, reorganizations, closures and companies will be looking for ways to both cut costs and raise revenue to turn things around. And it happens quickly.

Racing is like some kind of fantasy island where economics and business sense don't control things because of the politics involved.

I love this sport, but from my experience watching the action on Wall St for the last 40 years, it's doomed to a slow and steady bleed over the years without a major overhaul that occurs quickly enough to matter. The next serious recession is going to expose a lot more problems.

[Bustin Stones]

This is my understanding of the lowering the takeout solution:

Pool size 12,000
Takeout 2400
Public 1200 (horse A)
Teams 2000 (horse A)
So, the 9600 pool balance has 3200 on horse A who runs at 2-1

the other end of the spectrum with no takeout

Pool size 120,000 (advantage gamblers storm the windows)
Takeout 0
Public 24,000 horse A( sharp advantage gamblers drive odds down)
Teams 16,000 horse A (teams drive odds to 2-1 and earn rebates on much more bet)

The entire benefit of the exercise lands with the teams. Any combination of takeout reduction and pool increases results in horse A going off at 2-1. That is your constant. The chance for handicappers to make headway doesn't exist with takeout reduction. Whether it saves racing is another story.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

I'm listening to your ideas, but I'm not sure you hear mine. To state that the industry has already adopted less wait time between races for the last 20 years seems to miss my point. The time between races hasn't changed in my lifetime.

I am not claiming that 25 minutes between races does not exist. I do believe it is a non factor if people are given activity between races. If you are talking a typical race day at a typical track, everyone should be provided a monitor. On that monitor people should be provided audio. Other races from partner tracks. Every track should have a 5 to 10 minute handicapping rundown by it’s local experts (eg tlg or mountainman). There should be a paddock rundown by a paddock pro (eg I hear they do this well at NYRA). Then bettors have to formulate their educated ideas into bets and bet. All this stuff is educating your consumer to become better horseplayers. On other channels you might have strategies in how to create an oddsline or attack the horizontal or verticals. Maybe another channel with the key national races in review. Another might feature troubled trips over the last week for horseplayers to put on their list. How about a video on race flow or trip analysis or pace analysis.

All I am saying is that these things I just mentioned are sort of futile now but would not be futile if the game was priced properly and folks had a motivation to learn and try to beat the game. If you fix the pricing you can develop a market and fix the game. It is a fascinating game if you have a chance to win. Unfortunately the opportunity to win has been taken away from most horse players. Then the industry blames everything but the truth for why it is failing.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by MooseDog

Realistically you need the 25-30 between races that we have now for the jockeys to dismount, get back to the jocks room, change silks, clean up if necessary, weigh in, refocus, and get back out the paddock in time for the next race (they must be in the paddock 14 minutes to post or get fined).

Originally simulcasting was supposed to solve this "problem" by providing other action between races.

If the fate of the entire sport rests on jockeys wearing a certain silk, can it. And if the fate rests on jockeys riding in consecutive races, can it. Remember, it's all supposition. I'm only saying IF.
There's also manicuring the race surface, moving a gate into position, etc.
But, there's always a way to overcome obstacles if it's important enough.
And there's always a reason to resist change.

[castaway01]

The time between races has zero to do with racing's issues in 2023. Zero. More than 90% of the money bet is coming from off-track sources (easily checkable fact), and if you're betting off track you could bet 100 or 200 races on a weekend if you wanted. Action isn't the problem; finding a way not to be broke after the first 100 races is.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

This is my understanding of the lowering the takeout solution:

Pool size 12,000
Takeout 2400
Public 1200 (horse A)
Teams 2000 (horse A)
So, the 9600 pool balance has 3200 on horse A who runs at 2-1

the other end of the spectrum with no takeout

Pool size 120,000 (advantage gamblers storm the windows)
Takeout 0
Public 24,000 horse A( sharp advantage gamblers drive odds down)
Teams 16,000 horse A (teams drive odds to 2-1 and earn rebates on much more bet)

The entire benefit of the exercise lands with the teams. Any combination of takeout reduction and pool increases results in horse A going off at 2-1. That is your constant. The chance for handicappers to make headway doesn't exist with takeout reduction. Whether it saves racing is another story.

I have no idea what you are saying but I will provide the math again. Status quo win pool 16 percent take.

100 k pool
16 k takeout
84 k payout

Of the 100 k bet whales/caw bet 25 k at about -3 percent.
They lose $750 but are rebated by saw 1500 to 2000 dollars.

That means public loses 15,250 on 75k bet. Or slightly over 20 percent. Every other pool is much worse.

Fix the pricing. 8 percent takeout, no rebates.

100 k pool
8k takeout
92 k payout

Whales now need to make a profit so they will bet maybe 15 k at plus 4 percent.
They will make $600 no rebates. Public will lose 8600 on 85 k bet. So they now lose about half as much as they were losing.

At around -10 percent they are slightly above slot machines. Those who want to learn the sport will get down to - 4 or 5 percent. Those who master the sport can climb the ladder to profitability. Obviously everybody that does better than the new baseline of 10 percent will drive up takeout on the rest, just like those who constantly bet hopeless long shots or over bet horse benefit the rest.

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I have no idea what you are saying but I will provide the math again. Status quo win pool 16 percent take.

100 k pool
16 k takeout
84 k payout

Of the 100 k bet whales/caw bet 25 k at about -3 percent.
They lose $750 but are rebated by saw 1500 to 2000 dollars.

That means public loses 15,250 on 75k bet. Or slightly over 20 percent. Every other pool is much worse.

Fix the pricing. 8 percent takeout, no rebates.

100 k pool
8k takeout
92 k payout

Whales now need to make a profit so they will bet maybe 15 k at plus 4 percent.
They will make $600 no rebates. Public will lose 8600 on 85 k bet. So they now lose about half as much as they were losing.

At around -10 percent they are slightly above slot machines. Those who want to learn the sport will get down to - 4 or 5 percent. Those who master the sport can climb the ladder to profitability. Obviously everybody that does better than the new baseline of 10 percent will drive up takeout on the rest, just like those who constantly bet hopeless long shots or over bet horse benefit the rest.

Sounds like you concede the point that without elimination of rebates, the math won't work. And tracks gain advantage with the rebates.

[Andy Asaro]

Nothing the Industry is doing makes long term sense. The logical conclusion of the current system is to have and handful of whales playing against one another cuz everyone else has busted out.

Twitter

---

Last edited by Andy Asaro; 03-20-2023 at 12:52 PM.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

Sounds like you concede the point that without elimination of rebates, the math won't work. And tracks gain advantage with the rebates.

Every post I have ever made on the subject has always stressed the elimination of rebates. The only difference is that years ago posters would argue with me, now most realize I was right. As I have said perks are fine (too a certain degree-obviously if they give away too much the perks would become equivalent to rebates eg a half million dollars worth of food and entertainment may not be equivalent to a half million in rebates but may influence the betting of some whales).

[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?

[Bustin Stones]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Every post I have ever made on the subject has always stressed the elimination of rebates. The only difference is that years ago posters would argue with me, now most realize I was right. As I have said perks are fine (too a certain degree-obviously if they give away too much the perks would become equivalent to rebates eg a half million dollars worth of food and entertainment may not be equivalent to a half million in rebates but may influence the betting of some whales).

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.