Bowling alleys and race tracks

[Candybag]

Bowling and racing had their rise and fall in lockstep. The glory years through the 1970s, the decline starting in the 1980s.

A lot of people who bowled also went to the racetrack. Both are individual pursuits that allowed the working stiff to forget life for a while (the boss, the spouse, the kids, the rent) and have just enough fun to get by another day.

More people in the 1960s watched bowling than college/pro football or the Super Bowl. You remember watching the Professional Bowlers Tour with Chris Schenkel on Saturday afternoons as a lead into Wide World of Sports. The pro bowler needed a must win double in the tenth frame and you could relate, you needed the same in your nightly bowling league. The Bowler of the Year made more money than the MVP of either baseball or football. The first athlete to get a million-dollar endorsement was Don Carter, a bowler. Bowling's decline started with the youth having more sport options to participate in the 1970s, I saw it firsthand. The youth leagues were feeding the adult leagues later in life. Now that the youth had other sport's options to get involved and do, the adult leagues began to suffer in the 1980s.

Racing's decline started with more gambling options being available. Racing in the 1970s was no longer the only gambling game in town, now there is the state lottery, then came casinos. Racing to this day acts like they are the only game in town. Moreover, with simulcasting, the families are no longer going to the track. The youth are not being exposed to the sport. Is your 13-year son really going to sit with you at home beside a laptop and watch horse racing? Without the youth, where is racing's future?

Plenty of ideas out there on how to grow racing. Most of the ideas require the racing industry to spend their money and political capital in hope of possible growth. Can anyone convince the racing industry to part with their money and political capital to try the next idea?

My view: Survival of the game first, to play another day. Player friendly changes second, to keep the decline from accelerating (a form of growth). Family involvement third as the future's growth possibilities (I have some proven ideas to make racing fun again).

I am going to get my day to share my view only because I am waiving money at the racing industry and looking to solve mutual problems. My ideas may not be the best ideas out there, but it is a start to the dialogue.

It is worth the try. There are enough working stiffs, and retirees, who still want to forget life for a while and pick the daily double.

[thaskalos]

IMO, a big part of the problem is the fact that the racetrack owners refuse to acknowledge that they are in the "gambling" business. You see it all the time, even now...some high-ranking racetrack official publicly declaring that "we are in the entertainment business". The truth is that we ain't in the 60s and 70s anymore...there are now WAY better forms of entertainment out there than what the racetrack can provide. I got to know a manager at Arlington Park many years ago, and he too told me that they were in the "entertainment business". I took him outside by the door of the place as the people were filing out after the day's racing...and I asked him to tell me if his customers looked "entertained" as they were heading to their cars. He wasn't too friendly with me after that, as I recall.

The stigma that was once associated with gambling isn't there anymore, gambling has now become socially accepted. The casinos embrace the fact that they are in the gambling business...and they are doing very well. Only when the racetrack owners realize that they are in the gambling business too will they take serious steps to make this game a more affordable game to play. As long as they treat this game as "entertainment", the serious players will stay away...and the game's decline will continue.

[racenomics]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO, a big part of the problem is the fact that the racetrack owners refuse to acknowledge that they are in the "gambling" business. You see it all the time, even now...some high-ranking racetrack official publicly declaring that "we are in the entertainment business". The truth is that we ain't in the 60s and 70s anymore...there are now WAY better forms of entertainment out there than what the racetrack can provide. I got to know a manager at Arlington Park many years ago, and he too told me that they were in the "entertainment business". I took him outside by the door of the place as the people were filing out after the day's racing...and I asked him to tell me if his customers looked "entertained" as they were heading to their cars. He wasn't too friendly with me after that, as I recall.

The stigma that was once associated with gambling isn't there anymore, gambling has now become socially accepted. The casinos embrace the fact that they are in the gambling business...and they are doing very well. Only when the racetrack owners realize that they are in the gambling business too will they take serious steps to make this game a more affordable game to play. As long as they treat this game as "entertainment", the serious players will stay away...and the game's decline will continue.

The fact that at mang tracks the Handle Per person is less than $50 is just crazy to me. Completely agree with you.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO, a big part of the problem is the fact that the racetrack owners refuse to acknowledge that they are in the "gambling" business. You see it all the time, even now...some high-ranking racetrack official publicly declaring that "we are in the entertainment business". The truth is that we ain't in the 60s and 70s anymore...there are now WAY better forms of entertainment out there than what the racetrack can provide. I got to know a manager at Arlington Park many years ago, and he too told me that they were in the "entertainment business". I took him outside by the door of the place as the people were filing out after the day's racing...and I asked him to tell me if his customers looked "entertained" as they were heading to their cars. He wasn't too friendly with me after that, as I recall.

The stigma that was once associated with gambling isn't there anymore, gambling has now become socially accepted. The casinos embrace the fact that they are in the gambling business...and they are doing very well. Only when the racetrack owners realize that they are in the gambling business too will they take serious steps to make this game a more affordable game to play. As long as they treat this game as "entertainment", the serious players will stay away...and the game's decline will continue.

Maybe things will change, I agree they need to fully embrace the gambling aspect of it. Over the years they seem to be all about trying to lure in the art gallery and philharmonic crowd, must be the bloodstock industry mindset, they want people who might bring a picnic basket and barely gamble. Start going after the people with $300 on an NFL game who've already proven to be active gamblers. They're now sitting in every other living room on every other street. They're everywhere. Even a slice of that action will seriously add up.

[classhandicapper]

I'm beginning to change my view on what the primary goal should be.

The prevailing wisdom has been that the industry needs to make the game more competitive with sports and other gambling games by lowering the take. On some level that's obviously true. I agree. However, the math and politics of that are tough. Also, making it more competitive with other forms of gambling is likely to attract more of the very kinds of teams we have also been complaining about. It's going to attract the most educated, math and computer savvy people out there. It may increase handle, but simultaneously make the pools even more efficient than they already are for a net gain of not much to players like us.

One of things I've been pointing out since NYC OTB closed was that a lot of the least sophisticated money has been leaving the sport for decades. First it started moving to lotteries and scratch offs, then casinos, then when NYC OTB closed some of those players dropped out, and now sports is getting many of the rest. Most of those players are not "take sensitive" (otherwise they wouldn't be playing lotteries). I'm not sure lowering the take gets many if any of them back. It's going to take a different kind of effort, but imo getting a lot of those players back may actually be more important to making the game more beatable than lowering the take a few percent.

Both would help, but we need to get the smaller bettors back too.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm beginning to change my view on what the primary goal should be.

The prevailing wisdom has been that the industry needs to make the game more competitive with sports and other gambling games by lowering the take. On some level that's obviously true. I agree. However, the math and politics of that are tough. Also, making it more competitive with other forms of gambling is likely to attract more of the very kinds of teams we have also been complaining about. It's going to attract the most educated, math and computer savvy people out there. It may increase handle, but simultaneously make the pools even more efficient than they already are for a net gain of not much to players like us.

One of things I've been pointing out since NYC OTB closed was that a lot of the least sophisticated money has been leaving the sport for decades. First it started moving to lotteries and scratch offs, then casinos, then when NYC OTB closed some of those players dropped out, and now sports is getting many of the rest. Most of those players are not "take sensitive" (otherwise they wouldn't be playing lotteries). I'm not sure lowering the take gets many if any of them back. It's going to take a different kind of effort, but imo getting a lot of those players back may actually be more important to making the game more beatable than lowering the take a few percent.

Both would help, but we need to get the smaller bettors back too.

For the "least sophisticated" horseplayer, this game is very unforgiving. It's easily the costliest gambling game ever invented. No way can such a player survive in this game for any meaningful length of time. The only reason these types of players existed in the first place was because horse racing held a legal gambling monopoly back then. Now these players would be way better off financially if they played slots or roulette.

These players didn't quit the game because the OTBs closed down...the OTBs closed down because these players quit going after they went broke. I don't know what happened in NYC...but in Chicago the still existing OTBs are ghost towns, and so are the racebook sections of the Las Vegas sportsbooks. Let's face it, from a financial standpoint, this game has become totally unappealing, for the small bettor and the big bettor alike.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm beginning to change my view on what the primary goal should be.

The prevailing wisdom has been that the industry needs to make the game more competitive with sports and other gambling games by lowering the take. On some level that's obviously true. I agree. However, the math and politics of that are tough. Also, making it more competitive with other forms of gambling is likely to attract more of the very kinds of teams we have also been complaining about. It's going to attract the most educated, math and computer savvy people out there. It may increase handle, but simultaneously make the pools even more efficient than they already are for a net gain of not much to players like us.

One of things I've been pointing out since NYC OTB closed was that a lot of the least sophisticated money has been leaving the sport for decades. First it started moving to lotteries and scratch offs, then casinos, then when NYC OTB closed some of those players dropped out, and now sports is getting many of the rest. Most of those players are not "take sensitive" (otherwise they wouldn't be playing lotteries). I'm not sure lowering the take gets many if any of them back. It's going to take a different kind of effort, but imo getting a lot of those players back may actually be more important to making the game more beatable than lowering the take a few percent.

Both would help, but we need to get the smaller bettors back too.

I tell you what, you want small bettors back in the game. Guess what I am not even going to talk takeout for a change. What happened today. A 20 cent pick 6 ticket at Gulfstream payed 1.8 million. A $1 pick 5 ticket on the coast to coast pick 5 payed 100k a 50 cent pick 5 at Gulfstream payed $330,000. Now given everyone in this country is able to bet these pools it seems to me that getting a press release to every news station in America might be a good idea. Maybe they might want to get one of the people who hit (assuming they weren't all Caw) and interview them. How much they bet. How they came up with the winning ticket. How long have they played horses........Somebody might like the attention and the game needs all the attention it can get. The game isn't equipped for anyone to grind and grow a bankroll without rebates. So if they are going to stick with the status quo, they might want to let someone know that for a small investment they too can win 100 K, or 330 k or even 1.8 million. What percentage of the US population today knew they can play into a 5 million pool (or whatever it was-I know it was around 4 million in the very late stages) at Gulfstream? That may seem paltry relative to a lotto, but at the same time you get to pick your horses and try to use skill to put together a ticket. Beats the heck out of a quick pick I would think.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I tell you what, you want small bettors back in the game. Guess what I am not even going to talk takeout for a change. What happened today. A 20 cent pick 6 ticket at Gulfstream payed 1.8 million. A $1 pick 5 ticket on the coast to coast pick 5 payed 100k a 50 cent pick 5 at Gulfstream payed $330,000. Now given everyone in this country is able to bet these pools it seems to me that getting a press release to every news station in America might be a good idea. Maybe they might want to get one of the people who hit (assuming they weren't all Caw) and interview them. How much they bet. How they came up with the winning ticket. How long have they played horses........Somebody might like the attention and the game needs all the attention it can get. The game isn't equipped for anyone to grind and grow a bankroll without rebates. So if they are going to stick with the status quo, they might want to let someone know that for a small investment they too can win 100 K, or 330 k or even 1.8 million. What percentage of the US population today knew they can play into a 5 million pool (or whatever it was-I know it was around 4 million in the very late stages) at Gulfstream? That may seem paltry relative to a lotto, but at the same time you get to pick your horses and try to use skill to put together a ticket. Beats the heck out of a quick pick I would think.

What makes you think that these mega-payoffs were won with a "small investment"?

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I tell you what, you want small bettors back in the game. Guess what I am not even going to talk takeout for a change. What happened today. A 20 cent pick 6 ticket at Gulfstream payed 1.8 million. A $1 pick 5 ticket on the coast to coast pick 5 payed 100k a 50 cent pick 5 at Gulfstream payed $330,000. Now given everyone in this country is able to bet these pools it seems to me that getting a press release to every news station in America might be a good idea. Maybe they might want to get one of the people who hit (assuming they weren't all Caw) and interview them. How much they bet. How they came up with the winning ticket. How long have they played horses........Somebody might like the attention and the game needs all the attention it can get. The game isn't equipped for anyone to grind and grow a bankroll without rebates. So if they are going to stick with the status quo, they might want to let someone know that for a small investment they too can win 100 K, or 330 k or even 1.8 million. What percentage of the US population today knew they can play into a 5 million pool (or whatever it was-I know it was around 4 million in the very late stages) at Gulfstream? That may seem paltry relative to a lotto, but at the same time you get to pick your horses and try to use skill to put together a ticket. Beats the heck out of a quick pick I would think.

I'm going to have to disagree on this one. For a lot of people I don't think it beats the heck out of it at all. The less likely the chances are of cashing a ticket I suspect the less time most folks are willing to spend trying to apply themselves in order to change the bottom line result. I don't think many people want to take on a second job just to test their luck with bets that lose 9 out of 10. It's when it seems easy to cash and to stay afloat (without so much luck) is when people start to take a deeper interest. That's when study time seems like it might be worthwhile. The trouble is IMO so few bets are currently available that deliver that type of experience. The ones that do (such as place and show) are in a sense fundamentally broken due to the inability to assess reward.

[Candybag]

Fact: Racing is boring. Do people really look like they are having fun at the racetrack? Where are the women?

My wife would not go to a racetrack if racing had zero takeout. It is boring. The websites show people laughing and having fun, where are these people located at the racetrack? Girls just want to have fun.

I have traveled to many different racetracks the last two years. I make it a point to look around. I do not see people having fun.

However, at Keeneland, Saratoga and Tampa Bay, I do see people having fun. The people better be having fun as all three locations charge admission. Is Keeneland a racetrack with massive tailgating in the parking lot or a massive tailgating party that happens to have a racetrack?

At Keeneland and Saratoga, your computer better be on their website 15 minutes ahead of the opening of ticket sales (two months in advance of the actual meet) or you may not get a reserved table for the entire meet. Been there done that.

My wife and I went to Niagra Falls last year, Canadian side of course. Every sales receipt had two sales taxes of a high amount. Some kind of health care tax, I guess. Yet, Niagra Falls was packed with two takeouts (sales taxes.) People will (over)pay for entertainment.

The serious horse player wants a better break, wagering wise. Got it. The public who does not come to the track wants entertained. You cannot find fun at the racetrack with a 15-minute Steward's Inquiry.

Racing needs both the serious players and the $30 dollar a day casual bettor who wants fun. Targeting each group is not a one size fits all approach, the targeting requires different concepts. And it requires work.

I would put a woman in charge of the racetrack marketing. Question to the marketing lady: Would you come to this track if you did not work here? Before answering, count the women in attendance first. Now tell me how you really think?

[Poindexter]

Thaskalos, I don’t know, but is possible. You live in Vegas part of the year. Someone hits a big jackpot the local news often reports it. You even see billboards “I won $3000 at xyz casino”. Is that a big deal? At any given point during the day or night, how many people are dropping money in slots? Every casino is full of them. Strip or non strip. So yes once in a while someone will hit a big jackpot. Wow , exciting stuff. Well it seems to be for some bizarre reason.

Mjc, to grind money out in this game is a second job. But the drf or whatever your past performances of choice, gives the novice bettor a ton of tools to at least make a somewhat informed decision. Ultimately on a 20 cent minimum play you can pick 3 random contenders/horses in an each race for about $146. I would imagine it is not unusual for many to put that much money into a power ball when they give away a billion dollars. Compare the odds.

Ch often mentions Chris Moneymaker and poker. Who is to say that the racing industry did not have its own Chris moneymaker, yesterday or some other day. Of course if nobody knows about it, what is the difference?

This is a horse racing forum and if did not post, there would likely have been no mention of the rainbow 6 paying 1.8 million on a 20 cent ticket.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Candybag

Fact: Racing is boring. Do people really look like they are having fun at the racetrack? Where are the women?

My wife would not go to a racetrack if racing had zero takeout. It is boring. The websites show people laughing and having fun, where are these people located at the racetrack? Girls just want to have fun.

I have traveled to many different racetracks the last two years. I make it a point to look around. I do not see people having fun.

However, at Keeneland, Saratoga and Tampa Bay, I do see people having fun. The people better be having fun as all three locations charge admission. Is Keeneland a racetrack with massive tailgating in the parking lot or a massive tailgating party that happens to have a racetrack?

At Keeneland and Saratoga, your computer better be on their website 15 minutes ahead of the opening of ticket sales (two months in advance of the actual meet) or you may not get a reserved table for the entire meet. Been there done that.

My wife and I went to Niagra Falls last year, Canadian side of course. Every sales receipt had two sales taxes of a high amount. Some kind of health care tax, I guess. Yet, Niagra Falls was packed with two takeouts (sales taxes.) People will (over)pay for entertainment.

The serious horse player wants a better break, wagering wise. Got it. The public who does not come to the track wants entertained. You cannot find fun at the racetrack with a 15-minute Steward's Inquiry.

Racing needs both the serious players and the $30 dollar a day casual bettor who wants fun. Targeting each group is not a one size fits all approach, the targeting requires different concepts. And it requires work.

I would put a woman in charge of the racetrack marketing. Question to the marketing lady: Would you come to this track if you did not work here? Before answering, count the women in attendance first. Now tell me how you really think?

You can’t look at a person’s face and decipher whether they are having fun. I was at a sports book yesterday watching two football games and a basketball game I bet as well. Yet I probably spent more tome handicapping Santa Anita, a couple of late races at Gulfstream and even a couple of harness races at Hawthorne. You can watch my face for 6 hours straight and other than a couple of emotional outbursts, you would have no clue that I am having a very good time with it all. By the same token I can spend 5 hours straight at a poker table, enjoy every minute of it and you would not have a clue by watching my face.

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

You can’t look at a person’s face and decipher whether they are having fun. I was at a sports book yesterday watching two football games and a basketball game I bet as well. Yet I probably spent more tome handicapping Santa Anita, a couple of late races at Gulfstream and even a couple of harness races at Hawthorne. You can watch my face for 6 hours straight and other than a couple of emotional outbursts, you would have no clue that I am having a very good time with it all. By the same token I can spend 5 hours straight at a poker table, enjoy every minute of it and you would not have a clue by watching my face.

Then why do racetracks show women and men smiling on their websites? The websites never show actual pictures.

At Keeneland last year, I remember seeing 9 women/men in the back of a pickup truck showing their alcoholic drinks during a selfie. It was pretty obvious that group was having a little too much fun.

At casinos, I do see emotions from both women and men.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Candybag

Then why do racetracks show women and men smiling on their websites? The websites never show actual pictures.

At Keeneland last year, I remember seeing 9 women/men in the back of a pickup truck showing their alcoholic drinks during a selfie. It was pretty obvious that group was having a little too much fun.

At casinos, I do see emotions from both women and men.

Whenever I'm in a casino, usually to see a concert or because I get dragged there, it looks like the most depressing place on earth. Ninety percent of it is people staring blankly at a machine and pumping money into it. Maybe a liquor store is overall more depressing, it's pretty close.

Also, to go back to your original post, while I know you have your agenda and that you're promoting that here, I will say that there's a pretty famous book called Bowling Alone that talks about the changes in society that led to bowling leagues (among other things) largely fading in popularity. It has nothing to do with kids having more sports options.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Candybag

Then why do racetracks show women and men smiling on their websites? The websites never show actual pictures.

At Keeneland last year, I remember seeing 9 women/men in the back of a pickup truck showing their alcoholic drinks during a selfie. It was pretty obvious that group was having a little too much fun.

At casinos, I do see emotions from both women and men.

Because that is what marketing folks deem effective and obviously it is effective. Everybody is different and shows their emotions differently. Some groups go to a blackjack table and are high fiving each other after every winning hand. Others just take the winning and losing in stride. Obviously alcohol consumption weighs in to the equation. Not everybody is wired the same. If somebody elects to spend 5 hours at the park reading a book does it mean they are not enjoying themselves because you don’t see a bright smile on their face? Just because your wife finds racing boring, doesn’t make racing boring. It is boring to her. You are at a web site that for around 25 years people have been exchanging thoughts about both the sport and handicapping the sport. They all have done so because the sport is boring? Why are you going to racetracks and trying to help the sport out if it is do boring?

By the way aren’t at least as many of the analysts in this game women as men. On Saturday at Gulfstream on Fan Duel it was mostly women handicappers. Do they find racing boring?