Betting menu discussion

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Halvey stated that slot revenues are decreasing, not casino revenues. Read the following for some insight:

By KEN RITTER, Associated Press

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Nevada's biggest casinos combined to turn a profit in fiscal 2016 for the first time in eight years, but it wasn't due to gambling winnings, according to an annual report by state regulators.

Room rentals and fees helped resorts generate income of almost $979 million from total revenues of $25.2 billion in the year ended last June 30, the state Gaming Control Board said.

That compared with a net loss of almost $662 million on revenues of $24.6 billion a year earlier.

Casinos across the state recorded net income for the first time since fiscal 2008, board analyst Michael Lawton said Thursday, amid a trend that continues to tilt away from gambling and toward restaurant, retail, entertainment and room rental business.



"It's been a long road to get back in the black," Lawton said. "It's good not only because it's net income for the first time, but because it's net income in all areas across the board."

The revenue figure came in just 0.1 percent below the record $25.3 billion in total recorded in fiscal 2007, Lawton added.

The comprehensive annual report, dubbed the Gaming Abstract, was made public Wednesday. It includes more than 200 pages of data about 273 casinos in the state that grossed $1 million or more in gambling revenues. Topics include number of employees, room occupancy rates and gambling revenue per square foot of casino space.

The report found that 70 casinos owned by public companies statewide accounted for 78 percent of the total.

The report came amid reports of growth from Las Vegas tourism and airport officials.

McCarran International Airport was on pace in December to top the record 45 million passengers handled in 2015. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reported a record number of tourists, 42.9 million, in 2016.


The abstract includes data from casinos statewide, on the Las Vegas Strip, in downtown Las Vegas, along Boulder Highway in Las Vegas and in the Reno-Washoe County areas.

The most dramatic change was on the Strip, said David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"Nevada casino resorts have always been about more than just gambling," Schwartz said in an analysis of the report. He pointed to hotel rooms, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, entertainment venues and retail shopping.

"The revenue pattern of the industry has shifted," he said.

Lawton said the last time gambling revenues accounted for half the profit on the Strip was in the 1997-98 fiscal year.

This year, gambling revenues dropped to 34.2 percent of the total, the lowest percentage ever and a decrease from 34.9 percent last year. Gambling revenue in 1990, by comparison, made up about 58 percent of the total.

Schwartz said that while Las Vegas Strip casinos made about 2 percent more money in fiscal 2016 than they did in 2015, gambling revenues were up less than a quarter of a percent.

Room revenues, by comparison, grew almost 8 percent, and food revenues grew almost 3 percent, he said.

Exactly. Anyone who's been to Las Vegas lately can almost certainly attest that rooms and decent F&B have gotten really expensive and some casinos have started to charge for parking. Don't get me started on the so-called 'resort fees.'

Table games and slots have INCREASED their rake overall.

Middle of the road players have seen even modest comps dwindle to almost nothing.

Frankly, there's very little for horse racing to 'learn' from casinos in 2017, IMHO.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Halvey stated that slot revenues are decreasing, not casino revenues. Read the following for some insight:

Thanks for pointing that out. The point was millennials are abandoning the games that have a fixed edge for the house in favor of games where they believe they can succeed through their own skill, like Daily Fantasy Sports (where it is legal).

Vegas figured out that not steeply discounting rooms and not handing out comps increased the bottom line. Buffets that used to be $9.99 are $25 now. They also figured out that millennials are into cool nightclubs and other entertainment.

It's not the Vegas of 30 years ago.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

When I first started at Longacres in 1982, there was a $2 DD on the first 2 races, a $5 exacta on race 6 and 10, and $2 WPS on all 10 races. THAT WAS IT. That was your betting menu. I think the first deviation from that was in the mid 80s when they introduced a $3 trifecta on the featured 9th race.

Similarly, if you went to Santa Anita or Hollywood Park in 1982, you would have had the following:

$2WPS on every race.
$5EXA on 5th, 7th, and 9th races (they used to put "EXACTA RACE" in big letters on the program page for those races) which were typically 12 horse claimers.
$2DD on 1st and 2nd races.
$2P6 on races 2 through 7 (they didn't include the featured 8th race, which often had a short field or a big favorite).

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

This is exactly why many tracks are trying to advertise races as a sporting event or "entertainment". At many other big events, they've almost given up on the racing. It is just a front to get you in the door. At Pimlico you can't even see the horses for half the race because of the stupid tents.

This is an aside, but I really, really hate infield obstructions. Trees at Saratoga, tote boards that are too large at Del Mar, tents at Pimlico and (back in the day) at Pomona, luxury boxes at Churchill during Derby Week, etc. It makes it impossible for the ordinary fan in the grandstand to see the race.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Slot revenues are decreasing rapidly for the reason I stated. The newer generation of bettors realizes they are a rip. And the number of older people is continually decreasing.

Speaking of idiocy, the hard core players represent the lion's share of the handle. Their view is critical because they are the ones primarily supporting the game. It would be like asking the 49% who pay the smallest share of taxes to make the decisions instead of the 20% who pay the vast majority of the taxes. To argue we need more infrequent participants misses the point that they'd be more frequent if they had a fair chance of winning, and that is where the take hurts.

I care about how to increase participation from the new generation of gamblers, and the way you do it is by making the game fair. Evidence shows that controlling their destiny and having a fair return for investment is on top of their list. As for your argument that none of the small, infrequent people care about the take, what they would care about is making some money at the track, and they would do so if the game was fairer. Without knowing the word take, they'd see the difference.

By the way, if you are playing a game and you don't know the parameters, that to me would be the definition of idiocy. I have no sympathy for your infrequent participants who take no time to learn the game.

One last thing. I'll continue to argue take is on the top of the list, regardless of what the uninformed might think. But I've also written about how to capture the millennials and how to improve the racetrack experience for the hard core and the newbies. There isn't one answer. Never was. But it's perhaps the most important part of the answer. Sorry if I didn't think your reasons quite hit the bullseye.

Don't take this the wrong way but your posts always wreak of "know-it-all". Here's something to consider...you don't. Neither do I. You have your opinion to what takeout means to all people. I'm telling you that the difference between collecting $74 on a pick 3 or $81 on a pick 3 has absolutely no impact to those that don't play this game. None. Zero. Zilch. Nadda.

Now, it is possible that they would grow to be concerned about it after they become longer term players but 17%, 19%, 23%, 25% takeout rates don't move the needle for the non-player. If you think that there are people willing to play this game regularly if the takeout dropped from 23% to 15%, you're living in fantasy-land.

I'm NOT saying takeout rates aren't important. I think they are important but it isn't the reason people are not playing the game.

The actual overall experience has to be more attractive, in a variety of forms, in order to draw in non-players. I have virtually no idea what form it would have to be in, but it's not working today. Package the argument in any way you want but until smart people like yourself start to focus more on the problems and less jumping to the solutions, and more importantly, identifying the problems CORRECTLY, the game will continue to swirl in the porcelain bowl.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Don't take this the wrong way but your posts always wreak of "know-it-all". Here's something to consider...you don't. Neither do I. You have your opinion to what takeout means to all people. I'm telling you that the difference between collecting $74 on a pick 3 or $81 on a pick 3 has absolutely no impact to those that don't play this game. None. Zero. Zilch. Nadda.

Now, it is possible that they would grow to be concerned about it after they become longer term players but 17%, 19%, 23%, 25% takeout rates don't move the needle for the non-player. If you think that there are people willing to play this game regularly if the takeout dropped from 23% to 15%, you're living in fantasy-land.

I'm NOT saying takeout rates aren't important. I think they are important but it isn't the reason people are not playing the game.

The actual overall experience has to be more attractive, in a variety of forms, in order to draw in non-players. I have virtually no idea what form it would have to be in, but it's not working today. Package the argument in any way you want but until smart people like yourself start to focus more on the problems and less jumping to the solutions, and more importantly, identifying the problems CORRECTLY, the game will continue to swirl in the porcelain bowl.

It sounds as if you are placing undue pressure on the Rich Halveys of the world, to act in a certain way in order to "save the game". Don't you know that NO ONE in the game is listening to anything ANY OF US have to say?

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It sounds as if you are placing undue pressure on the Rich Halveys of the world, to act in a certain way in order to "save the game". Don't you know that NO ONE in the game is listening to anything ANY OF US have to say?

You have a point.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Don't take this the wrong way but your posts always wreak of "know-it-all". Here's something to consider...you don't. Neither do I. You have your opinion to what takeout means to all people. I'm telling you that the difference between collecting $74 on a pick 3 or $81 on a pick 3 has absolutely no impact to those that don't play this game. None. Zero. Zilch. Nadda.

I'm NOT saying takeout rates aren't important. I think they are important but it isn't the reason people are not playing the game.

The actual overall experience has to be more attractive, in a variety of forms, in order to draw in non-players. I have virtually no idea what form it would have to be in, but it's not working today. Package the argument in any way you want but until smart people like yourself start to focus more on the problems and less jumping to the solutions, and more importantly, identifying the problems CORRECTLY, the game will continue to swirl in the porcelain bowl.

Ummm I kinda think having a smart guy with a strong opinion offering possible solutions is a good thing.

When you say the overall experience has to be better what does that mean? A huge part of the experience involves gambling and whether you win once in a while. The industry pushes people into P4's and 5's (TVG) who have no business wasting their money on these bets until they learn more. If they never win and quit coming after a few visits then we can add that to the hundreds of thousands of people who had the same experience over the last 20 years IMO.

[Skanoochies]

I think your main problem is the IRS.
In Canada any lottery or major cash at a track is considered WINFALL,
if you win 50, 000,000 on our Lotto Max it is tax free, until you invest
it, and then you pay taxes on it. Any big hit at the track doesn`t even
have to be reported. The only way you can be taxed is if they can prove
that this your primary way of making a living. Tough to prove if you are steadily employed.

Back in the 80`s Hasting`s park were having huge pick 6`s because
they had lots of fields of 10 to 12 horses and carryovers were regular, and people were flying in form Calif. or coming up from Longacres and Portland,
Christ you could hardly move at the track.

Time for you folks to start lobbying your Reps. TRUMP seems to be gambler
and wants to lower taxes, put the bug in his ear.

Any of you folks that live near the border and have friends in Canada,
could open an account with H.P.I. and wager on any track from here to Australia and have your friends name on the account.(If you trust them).

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Skanoochies

Any of you folks that live near the border and have friends in Canada, could open an account with H.P.I. and wager on any track from here to Australia and have your friends name on the account.(If you trust them).

You folks in Canada would like that......since all my friends are WHALES..

[Skanoochies]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

You folks in Canada would like that......since all my friends are WHALES..

So you have a lot of fat friends>

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Skanoochies

So you have a lot of fat friends>

With fat wallets and big appetites...

[Skanoochies]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

With fat wallets and big appetites...

You win with that one.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Don't take this the wrong way but your posts always wreak of "know-it-all". Here's something to consider...you don't. Neither do I. You have your opinion to what takeout means to all people. I'm telling you that the difference between collecting $74 on a pick 3 or $81 on a pick 3 has absolutely no impact to those that don't play this game. None. Zero. Zilch. Nadda.

Now, it is possible that they would grow to be concerned about it after they become longer term players but 17%, 19%, 23%, 25% takeout rates don't move the needle for the non-player. If you think that there are people willing to play this game regularly if the takeout dropped from 23% to 15%, you're living in fantasy-land.

I'm NOT saying takeout rates aren't important. I think they are important but it isn't the reason people are not playing the game.

The actual overall experience has to be more attractive, in a variety of forms, in order to draw in non-players. I have virtually no idea what form it would have to be in, but it's not working today. Package the argument in any way you want but until smart people like yourself start to focus more on the problems and less jumping to the solutions, and more importantly, identifying the problems CORRECTLY, the game will continue to swirl in the porcelain bowl.

When the DRF did a survey on racing's issues with horseplayers, the bigger money players (more than $25K a year) put the take as the number one problem. One $25K+ a year player who leaves the game is worth 100 of your couple of times a year players. I agree that the uninformed players don't have a clue about the take, but everything I know about bigger money players says that they have real sensitivity to the take and they are either cutting back on their action or relying on rebates (an artificial way of cutting the take) for their profit. If you need to be right, you're right about the uniformed players. It is still my opinion that take tops the list because it helps both the informed and uniformed. Joe Twiceayear may not realize the importance of take, but the people contributing most to racetrack bottom lines do. 3 or 4 or 5 per cent increase in the take is a really big deal to those bettors.

I've done two articles on revitalizing racing.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2406

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=4217

One was on gambling and millennials, and was based on different surveys that have been done on gambling and millennials. The other was 10 Ways to Fix Horseracing, that went into quite a bit more detail on things racetracks can do to increase their bottom line other than dropping the take, and I've been watching racetracks start to do some of those things. So yeah, I think I have some insight. I spend more time than most looking into these things.

The guy who plays on Derby Day and the Breeder's Cup is really of no great concern to me, and if any track management asks me, my advice would be to not worry about him. Play to your best clients and figure out how to build a new customer base from the millennials.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's mine.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It sounds as if you are placing undue pressure on the Rich Halveys of the world, to act in a certain way in order to "save the game". Don't you know that NO ONE in the game is listening to anything ANY OF US have to say?

Don't burst my bubble!