Where did all the horses go?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree.

I'm not going to argue the merits of a sharp player choosing any one pool over another, but "on average" people are getting totally buried and at a faster rate playing exotics because of the higher take.

When you are getting totally buried due to both a higher take and the longer negative swings that are part of exotic wagering it can be so discouraging, some people just quit.

Yes some people might quit but more importantly how many will join in if the betting options are scaled back? Currently and for quite awhile racing has not been able to reload their business with new bettors. The opportunity to make a $2 win bet every 1/2 hour just doesn't have the lure it once had. Casinos don't have a problem offering a myriad of bets. Patrons come in and they bet where they are most comfortable. Why should racing be different? Expand the menu don't contract the menu. If people are going broke betting exotics it is because they like betting exotics.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Yes some people might quit but more importantly how many will join in if the betting options are scaled back? Currently and for quite awhile racing has not been able to reload their business with new bettors. The opportunity to make a $2 win bet every 1/2 hour just doesn't have the lure it once had. Casinos don't have a problem offering a myriad of bets. Patrons come in and they bet where they are most comfortable. Why should racing be different? Expand the menu don't contract the menu. If people are going broke betting exotics it is because they like betting exotics.

I hear you. I have no problem with as diverse a menu as possible and see the benefit of attracting the "lottery" type players that want to make a big score. I just don't think the flip side gets much attention.

A reasonable solution would be to lower the exotic take down to the same level as WPS. Then even though the average player would be dealing with greater volatility, the rate of loss would be the same. But every time we talk about lowering the take we are just talking to ourselves. No one is listening.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I hear you. I have no problem with as diverse a menu as possible and see the benefit of attracting the "lottery" type players that want to make a big score. I just don't think the flip side gets much attention.

A reasonable solution would be to lower the exotic take down to the same level as WPS. Then even though the average player would be dealing with greater volatility, the rate of loss would be the same. But every time we talk about lowering the take we are just talking to ourselves. No one is listening.

It isn't necessarily true that the exotics have "greater volatility" than the win-bets. With the 10-cent supers and the 50-cent trifectas currently offered...the "average player" could spread out enough to control the "volatility" inherent in exotics wagering. In fact...I think the vast majority of the exotics bettors started betting the exotics because they couldn't handle the "volatility" associated with win-betting.

[Andy Asaro]

When SB1072 was passed the TOC got a windfall for purses (Customer subsidized purse welfare). At the time they could have restructured the way purses are paid to help the smaller barns survive like making win 55% instead of 60%. They also should have had participation bonuses on a sliding scale. What happened is the most successful barns (10%) win 85% of the purse money. With that money they go out and by faster and more expensive horses while some barns have trouble buying feed. This is the direct fault of the TOC and Mike Pegram. They never represented all owners they represented the top 10% of Owners. Expenses are too high for the small barns to break through. People like Pegram, Baffert, et al who sit on the TOC executive board could care less about the small barns. They believe they're entitled to all the money.

We had a Triple Crown Winner recently. Where are all the fans/gamblers who were supposed to fall in love with horse racing? It was meaningless as far as growing the game.

From 2011: http://www.drf.com/news/raffetto-nam...d-troubled-toc

Excerpt:

When pressed on the issue by horseplayer Andy Asaro, Pegram said the takeout would not be lowered. "I'm not willing to take an 18 percent cut," Pegram said.
"This was about increasing purses and becoming competitive in California with other jurisdictions," Pegram said. "It was a collection of all horsemen that supported this bill. I know it's controversial. I understand."


In horse racing the best environment is one where people can work hard, improve their skills, and become successful. That is now harder than ever in California.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Yes some people might quit but more importantly how many will join in if the betting options are scaled back? Currently and for quite awhile racing has not been able to reload their business with new bettors. The opportunity to make a $2 win bet every 1/2 hour just doesn't have the lure it once had. Casinos don't have a problem offering a myriad of bets. Patrons come in and they bet where they are most comfortable. Why should racing be different? Expand the menu don't contract the menu. If people are going broke betting exotics it is because they like betting exotics.

If you go to the track with $250 and divide it up $125 win, $65 exactas, and $60 anything else, you have a good chance of winning some bets, being able to churn, taking a few lottery bet flyers, and maybe even making some serious money. On the other hand, if you are making a $2 bet every half hour, I'm not really taking to you. Besides, if you are into the very popular fantasy sports, you don't have action even every half hour. It's often more like one entry a day, and it seems to have enthralled millennials.

Casinos are losing gaming revenue as well, especially slots. As I've mentioned, they are looking more and more at alternative revenue streams. I believe the latest statistics show that only 50% of revenues come from the gambling side. Games of skill - like daily fantasy sports - are the wave of the future for all the reasons horseracing should be proliferating. It's parimutuel, it requires superior skill and knowledge, the gambler perceives that he controls the outcome (unlike slots where the machines are set to pay at a given rate), and rooting a horse or team home gives an adrenaline rush.

If you have an edge and you win enough to keep in the game, you'll play the game. And it has nothing to do with having a Cheesecake Factory sized betting menu. The proposal I made keeps most of the bet types on the table, and just focuses on fewer circus bets and more high churn bets. If you're going to critique my proposal, represent it accurately.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Yes some people might quit but more importantly how many will join in if the betting options are scaled back? Currently and for quite awhile racing has not been able to reload their business with new bettors. The opportunity to make a $2 win bet every 1/2 hour just doesn't have the lure it once had. Casinos don't have a problem offering a myriad of bets. Patrons come in and they bet where they are most comfortable. Why should racing be different? Expand the menu don't contract the menu. If people are going broke betting exotics it is because they like betting exotics.

The problem, of course, is that NOT ENOUGH patrons "come into the game", so they could "bet where they are most comfortable". Not only is the game unable to attract enough new players...it's even losing the lost-standing customers that it has had for many years.

IMO...the vast majority of today's gamblers need no "introduction" to horse racing. They've already been introduced to this game...and they haven't found it to their liking. And it's the GAME'S responsibility to discover WHY...if the game is to survive in some respectable form in the future. Otherwise...horse racing in the future will be what HARNESS racing is today.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It isn't necessarily true that the exotics have "greater volatility" than the win-bets. With the 10-cent supers and the 50-cent trifectas currently offered...the "average player" could spread out enough to control the "volatility" inherent in exotics wagering. In fact...I think the vast majority of the exotics bettors started betting the exotics because they couldn't handle the "volatility" associated with win-betting.

It's an interesting perspective. I tend to think the small minimums attract people to those pools, and they wind up losing their money faster and ultimately minimizing their action.

Perhaps it is a fools errand to believe people should - or even can - be saved from going broke at the races, even if the ultimate intent is to save horseracing from it's possible demise.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

If you go to the track with $250 and divide it up $125 win, $65 exactas, and $60 anything else, you have a good chance of winning some bets, being able to churn, taking a few lottery bet flyers, and maybe even making some serious money. On the other hand, if you are making a $2 bet every half hour, I'm not really taking to you. Besides, if you are into the very popular fantasy sports, you don't have action even every half hour. It's often more like one entry a day, and it seems to have enthralled millennials.

Casinos are losing gaming revenue as well, especially slots. As I've mentioned, they are looking more and more at alternative revenue streams. I believe the latest statistics show that only 50% of revenues come from the gambling side. Games of skill - like daily fantasy sports - are the wave of the future for all the reasons horseracing should be proliferating. It's parimutuel, it requires superior skill and knowledge, the gambler perceives that he controls the outcome (unlike slots where the machines are set to pay at a given rate), and rooting a horse or team home gives an adrenaline rush.

If you have an edge and you win enough to keep in the game, you'll play the game. And it has nothing to do with having a Cheesecake Factory sized betting menu. The proposal I made keeps most of the bet types on the table, and just focuses on fewer circus bets and more high churn bets. If you're going to critique my proposal, represent it accurately.

IMO...the biggest misconception in horse racing is that today's "millennials" don't have the internal fortitude needed to seriously apply themselves in a "complicated" gambling game...even if they find such a game "appealing". They are supposedly unwilling to invest serious time and effort in order to master a "complicated" gambling game...choosing instead to patronize the "mindless" and "unbeatable" games that the casinos offer. This blatant lie has been exposed not only by the popularity of the fantasy sports that you mention above...but also by the widespread popularity of POKER...when that game was still easily accessible.

The young gamblers of today have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are willing to seriously apply themselves in a gambling game that they deem "desirable"...and the remaining question to be asked is why they consider horse racing to be so UNDESIRABLE.

[Andy Asaro]

Joe Morris worried about lack of entries. Wants to start a Conversation. LOL

http://www.drf.com/news/santa-anita-...s-entry-issues

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

It's an interesting perspective. I tend to think the small minimums attract people to those pools, and they wind up losing their money faster and ultimately minimizing their action.

Perhaps it is a fools errand to believe people should - or even can - be saved from going broke at the races, even if the ultimate intent is to save horseracing from it's possible demise.

Perhaps you have an idealized view of what the "average" win-bettor is really like. You might think that he is the cautious-sort of individual...who keeps within strict limits as far as bets and bet sizes are concerned.

IMO...the "average" win-bettor can go broke betting to win just as easily as the "average" exotics player can go broke betting the exotics.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the "average" win-bettor can go broke betting to win just as easily as the "average" exotics player can go broke betting the exotics.

I can attest to that.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Perhaps you have an idealized view of what the "average" win-bettor is really like. You might think that he is the cautious-sort of individual...who keeps within strict limits as far as bets and bet sizes are concerned.

IMO...the "average" win-bettor can go broke betting to win just as easily as the "average" exotics player can go broke betting the exotics.

My inclination would be to say that while you are basically right, "can" does a fair amount of work in that sentence.

Win betting is, by definition, lower variance than exotic betting. But all betting on live animals is very high variance.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

If you go to the track with $250 and divide it up $125 win, $65 exactas, and $60 anything else, you have a good chance of winning some bets, being able to churn, taking a few lottery bet flyers, and maybe even making some serious money. On the other hand, if you are making a $2 bet every half hour, I'm not really taking to you. Besides, if you are into the very popular fantasy sports, you don't have action even every half hour. It's often more like one entry a day, and it seems to have enthralled millennials.

Casinos are losing gaming revenue as well, especially slots. As I've mentioned, they are looking more and more at alternative revenue streams. I believe the latest statistics show that only 50% of revenues come from the gambling side. Games of skill - like daily fantasy sports - are the wave of the future for all the reasons horseracing should be proliferating. It's parimutuel, it requires superior skill and knowledge, the gambler perceives that he controls the outcome (unlike slots where the machines are set to pay at a given rate), and rooting a horse or team home gives an adrenaline rush.

If you have an edge and you win enough to keep in the game, you'll play the game. And it has nothing to do with having a Cheesecake Factory sized betting menu. The proposal I made keeps most of the bet types on the table, and just focuses on fewer circus bets and more high churn bets. If you're going to critique my proposal, represent it accurately.

If a person goes to the track with $250 they will play for 4 hours and bet maybe $250 to $400. A person goes to a casino and they are betting that much in an hour at the tables. Constant action, no waiting around.

Living in So Cal I see that just about every casino in San Diego county is currently expanding their casinos because gaming revenue is skyrocketing.

Given that less than 5% of bettors have an edge a wide menu is needed just to keep interest up. It's not the edge that thrills the players it's the action.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the biggest misconception in horse racing is that today's "millennials" don't have the internal fortitude needed to seriously apply themselves in a "complicated" gambling game...even if they find such a game "appealing". They are supposedly unwilling to invest serious time and effort in order to master a "complicated" gambling game...choosing instead to patronize the "mindless" and "unbeatable" games that the casinos offer. This blatant lie has been exposed not only by the popularity of the fantasy sports that you mention above...but also by the widespread popularity of POKER...when that game was still easily accessible.

The young gamblers of today have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are willing to seriously apply themselves in a gambling game that they deem "desirable"...and the remaining question to be asked is why they consider horse racing to be so UNDESIRABLE.

I did an article called Gambling, Skill and Millennials. I agree with what you said.
http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2406

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Perhaps you have an idealized view of what the "average" win-bettor is really like. You might think that he is the cautious-sort of individual...who keeps within strict limits as far as bets and bet sizes are concerned.

IMO...the "average" win-bettor can go broke betting to win just as easily as the "average" exotics player can go broke betting the exotics.

Going broke isn't hard no matter what sort of bettor you are. All you have to do is bet when you don't have an edge. I don't think amount is critical. Betting $2 or $200 isn't important as long as you are betting a horse with odds higher than its probability of winning. It's that calculation that is tough, but less tough than calculating the edge in a complicated exotic.

It's certainly simpler to learn how to bet to win. Most of us were conditioned to answer the question, "who do you like?" with a single horse in a respective race.

I think you can learn to be good at betting in any pool. I'd say my view is that most people don't take the time to do so.