if you always wanted to go to the races in California...

[racenomics]

[quote=v j stauffer;2922709]

Originally Posted by racenomics

For what reason does it not make sense to try to bring the big players to the track? As you know, tracks get a much larger percentage of handle on track compared to off track, not to mention that you are going to play the local track if you go. Even if the new fan goes to the local track and loves the game, if they just use an ADW they won’t bet that track nearly as much[/QUOT

Because they are playing multiple signals all around the world and managing millions. They don't need a totebag or concert. Plus they're already fully invested customers. The track are making bank their play. Even with the higher rebates they pay.

I’m not meaning computer players, that is a whole other situation. I mean high per capita players the level below that. I believe they would go if they got season box seats and free access to the track buffet and were treated great by the tracks employees.

[proximity]

today the pace men are like the band playing on the titanic as the whales circle the sinking ship.

obviously not in california but many places the racino era actually provided an opportunity to cultivate a live fan base.... instead of what most racinos have which is just a handful of players that have no connection to the backstretch (actual gamblers) sparsely scattered around mostly vacant clubhouses and grandstands.

live racing at a racino should basically be "free".... 100 percent of the takeout given back on player's cards for future use like free slots play in the casinos. the lion's share of racino purse money comes from the casino and simulcasting with the six people present for live racing contributing less than a drop in the bucket! it was imperative for racino horsemen to push to surrender this mini-drop to generate interest in this side of the racino instead of what we have, which is about worse than what we started with.

[Candybag]

A lot of great observations and thoughts in this thread. Not sure the racing industry listens to their customers especially when the industry has to underwrite our observations and thoughts using their own money.

In Ohio, our legislative body has heard all kinds of ideas on how to save racing, implemented some of the ideas, and the racing industry kept coming back for more unfunded favors. The well eventually runs dry, the creditability evaporates.

I have reached out to the Repole alliance yesterday asking to speak with someone about my concept. This alliance says all ideas will be heard. The alliance also says it has no authority to make any changes happen.

The concept will bring its own funding, nothing is required by the racetrack owners or the state. The proof of concept will be at my company's expense. The state and racing community do not have to believe a thing. However, if the money materializes as stated, certain legislative considerations would be asked to make fixed odds wagering a possible reality.

Mr. Repole has publicly stated he likes prop bets as in sports betting. Fixed odds wagering and prop bets require the right pricing competitive with sports betting. The state's takeout does not need to be so punitive and uncompetitive in this aspect if more tax dollars from another source are now dwarfing the takeout. It is a math equation that can be reserved on the come bet, no unfunded chances are necessary. If the pony does not win, the idea goes away quietly at no loss to the state or racetrack owners and at my expense.

I shall see if anyone will listen to its customer.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by proximity

today the pace men are like the band playing on the titanic as the whales circle the sinking ship.

obviously not in california but many places the racino era actually provided an opportunity to cultivate a live fan base.... instead of what most racinos have which is just a handful of players that have no connection to the backstretch (actual gamblers) sparsely scattered around mostly vacant clubhouses and grandstands.

live racing at a racino should basically be "free".... 100 percent of the takeout given back on player's cards for future use like free slots play in the casinos. the lion's share of racino purse money comes from the casino and simulcasting with the six people present for live racing contributing less than a drop in the bucket! it was imperative for racino horsemen to push to surrender this mini-drop to generate interest in this side of the racino instead of what we have, which is about worse than what we started with.

"Free" is obviously not going to happen, but 20 years ago before it was all-ADW and whales carrying the game, we were all saying "Wow, these tracks getting casinos could cut takeout a few points, give us some of the benefit." They obviously didn't, and ADWs were smart enough to take advantage of that to the point the tracks now need them to survive.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Candybag

A lot of great observations and thoughts in this thread. Not sure the racing industry listens to their customers especially when the industry has to underwrite our observations and thoughts using their own money.

In Ohio, our legislative body has heard all kinds of ideas on how to save racing, implemented some of the ideas, and the racing industry kept coming back for more unfunded favors. The well eventually runs dry, the creditability evaporates.

I have reached out to the Repole alliance yesterday asking to speak with someone about my concept. This alliance says all ideas will be heard. The alliance also says it has no authority to make any changes happen.

The concept will bring its own funding, nothing is required by the racetrack owners or the state. The proof of concept will be at my company's expense. The state and racing community do not have to believe a thing. However, if the money materializes as stated, certain legislative considerations would be asked to make fixed odds wagering a possible reality.

Mr. Repole has publicly stated he likes prop bets as in sports betting. Fixed odds wagering and prop bets require the right pricing competitive with sports betting. The state's takeout does not need to be so punitive and uncompetitive in this aspect if more tax dollars from another source are now dwarfing the takeout. It is a math equation that can be reserved on the come bet, no unfunded chances are necessary. If the pony does not win, the idea goes away quietly at no loss to the state or racetrack owners and at my expense.

I shall see if anyone will listen to its customer.

Your idea is horrible. There is absolutely no logical reason for racetracks to be given excess Medicaid funds, and any legislator who backed such a ludicrous idea would be voted out of office. It's an insultingly stupid, deluded idea that no one in their right mind would ever support. Stop pushing it on every thread.

[Andy Asaro]

If anything they would probably raise WPS takeout to 17%. I would stop betting

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Your idea is horrible. There is absolutely no logical reason for racetracks to be given excess Medicaid funds, and any legislator who backed such a ludicrous idea would be voted out of office. It's an insultingly stupid, deluded idea that no one in their right mind would ever support. Stop pushing it on every thread.

Are you sure you even understand the concept? No Medicaid funds are used directly for racing.

So far, 100% of the people who responded back to me love the idea. That is, people who both work in my field and go to the races. Moreover, I have been in front of cabinet level policymakers with my ideas.

What is the professional basis of your opinion?

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Candybag

... However, if the money materializes as stated, certain legislative considerations would be asked to make fixed odds wagering a possible reality.

I have no idea what you are talking about in 99% of your commentary but this one item (fixed odds wagering) will never happen. Not in a million years. Do you really think tracks are going to get into the bookmaking business?

[jimmyb]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Your idea is horrible. There is absolutely no logical reason for racetracks to be given excess Medicaid funds, and any legislator who backed such a ludicrous idea would be voted out of office. It's an insultingly stupid, deluded idea that no one in their right mind would ever support. Stop pushing it on every thread.

I think the people who love the idea are politicians who see more taxpayer funded auditor jobs. 😂

Agree, its a good way for any politician to cut his own throat. Taxpayers got all up in arms here in Massachusetts when the lottery decided to earmark scratch ticket money to horse racing. That ended quickly.

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by jimmyb

I think the people who love the idea are politicians who see more taxpayer funded auditor jobs. 😂

Agree, its a good way for any politician to cut his own throat. Taxpayers got all up in arms here in Massachusetts when the lottery decided to earmark scratch ticket money to horse racing. That ended quickly.

Your point is well taken. Although legal, no Medicaid money will go to racing.

That approach was dropped in favor of fixed odds wagering. I understand Monmouth has a form of this type of bet.

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I have no idea what you are talking about in 99% of your commentary but this one item (fixed odds wagering) will never happen. Not in a million years. Do you really think tracks are going to get into the bookmaking business?

My original idea was to have Medicaid savings go to horsemen purses in part. Although legal, feedback from this forum and HTR members made me reconsider to fixed odds wagering. Bad public relations optics.

According to one article, bookmakers can offer fix odds wagering at three New Jersey racetracks. Fifty percent of the winnings are required to go to horsemen purses.

Everything is negotiable. I would want the racing fan to get a reasonable "vig" set by law on their horse racing bets in exchange for drastic savings captured in other areas of the state's budget. A state could do a pilot project of my concept with bookmakers, or even with the racetrack if so desired.

To be clear, no Medicaid monies go to racetracks. A process to prevent Medicaid monies paid in error is only a tool to facilitate a discussion to save wasteful Medicaid monies, while also starting a conversation that benefits racing fans, horsemen and racetracks.

When discussing one of my concepts with the democratic nominee for Governor in Ohio, the Medicaid savings would have been used to expand pre-K education. Not directly, but via a budget process that had no direct link to any Medicaid program.

I also have a call into BetMaker to see if their company has any interest in taking the concept to states outside New Jersey.

https://www.casino.org/news/fixed-od...%20the%20stake.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Candybag

My original idea was to have Medicaid savings go to horsemen purses in part. Although legal, feedback from this forum and HTR members made me reconsider to fixed odds wagering. Bad public relations optics.

According to one article, bookmakers can offer fix odds wagering at three New Jersey racetracks. Fifty percent of the winnings are required to go to horsemen purses.

Everything is negotiable. I would want the racing fan to get a reasonable "vig" set by law on their horse racing bets in exchange for drastic savings captured in other areas of the state's budget. A state could do a pilot project of my concept with bookmakers, or even with the racetrack if so desired.

To be clear, no Medicaid monies go to racetracks. A process to prevent Medicaid monies paid in error is only a tool to facilitate a discussion to save wasteful Medicaid monies, while also starting a conversation that benefits racing fans, horsemen and racetracks.

When discussing one of my concepts with the democratic nominee for Governor in Ohio, the Medicaid savings would have been used to expand pre-K education. Not directly, but via a budget process that had no direct link to any Medicaid program.

I also have a call into BetMaker to see if their company has any interest in taking the concept to states outside New Jersey.

https://www.casino.org/news/fixed-od...%20the%20stake.

Why would any kind of government program align itself to horse racing. I do not really understand the connection.
Who is on the hook to pay fix odds? Today, when a horse is 20-1 on the morning line and gets bet down to 2-1 and wins by a pole, the players basically pay for the heavy action in the form of a lower price (i.e. 2-1 instead of 20-1). With fixed odds, the tracks will be on the hook to pay out 20-1 odds on the winner. Guess how long anyone will book that when the connections manipulate the situation to get 20-1? I'd give it 4 hours.

[Candybag]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Why would any kind of government program align itself to horse racing. I do not really understand the connection.
Who is on the hook to pay fix odds? Today, when a horse is 20-1 on the morning line and gets bet down to 2-1 and wins by a pole, the players basically pay for the heavy action in the form of a lower price (i.e. 2-1 instead of 20-1). With fixed odds, the tracks will be on the hook to pay out 20-1 odds on the winner. Guess how long anyone will book that when the connections manipulate the situation to get 20-1? I'd give it 4 hours.

BetMakers apparently has the fixed odds wagering worked out in New Jersey. The fix odds are displayed on the television monitors. I think their model may be currently used in other countries.

The connection you may be missing is both discussions start simultaneously. Right now neither discussion is happening. The level of savings from my concept of reducing Medicaid payments in error gets attention and has received audience.

Fixed odds wagering and Medicaid are not related. However, nobody is going to give me audience over fixed odds wagering by itself. While I am doing my dog and pony Medicaid show, I ask what (legal) business concession can my company give your state to consider fixed odds wagering? We go from there.

Nice thing: I am putting up my money to start the process and we do the work. Nobody has to believe a thing, do a thing, or put up a dime until the money hits the state coffers from my Medicaid idea. Then the governor can proceed with fix odds wagering if happy and satisfied with the first idea.
The Medicaid monies stay put in the state treasury for other state use.

Nothing wrong about advancing two perfectly legal functions at once.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

If anything they would probably raise WPS takeout to 17%. I would stop betting

I don't Theeenk so!

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I have no idea what you are talking about in 99% of your commentary but this one item (fixed odds wagering) will never happen. Not in a million years. Do you really think tracks are going to get into the bookmaking business?

bring back in person bookmakers, like they have to this day in the UK and elsewhere, which helps attract people to go in person (and spend money on food etc)

but require bets to be made on a computer, so that there is takeout

let the bookmakers take the risk in setting the odds, that's an entire business in the UK

I don't understand why this hasn't happened already, but as others have said in this thread, few racetracks seem to care about on track handle, which is weird because they get the highest percentage of that

Dania Jai Alai would break even, except most of the handle comes from Connecticut, and they only get a smidge of that

why no focus on making people come to the track to get better odds? I don't get it