Churcill Downs doesn't apply for gaming at Arlington

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by Tom

Wasn't the last innovation the starting gate?
Oh, then saddle cloth colors - that only took 12 years to decide and implement.

The surprising thing is so many tracks are LEFT running.

don't forget the innovative jackpot pick 6

[thaskalos]

What about the 5-horse field? Isn't that a creative innovation?

[Redboard]

Don't forget the greatest benefit for the horseplayers. Put the entire field on Lasix so all the contestants are on an even playing field.
This was actually one of the rationales given for legalizing the drug.

[taxicab]

Love Arlington.
Everything about that property is lights out.
The size,setting,marble floors......etc.......you can ride the train right in.......it's the best.
The late Dick Francis called it the most beautiful race track in the world.
It's a shame CDI got their greedy hooks in to the place......what an injustice.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What about the 5-horse field? Isn't that a creative innovation?

Yessssss

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The only way a serious gambling game can survive with a 20%+ takeout is if it's the only gambling game in town. The problem is that the horse-racing industry doesn't acknowledge being in the "gambling business"...even as they enter into clandestine wagering agreements with the mega-betting rebated players.

The problem is they can't sustain themselves lowering the take unless they bring a LOT of new money into the game. Lowering the take may increase churn of the same money, but that's different than bringing in new money so the bottom line expands. The latter is more of a long term theoretical than short term demonstrable.

Let's just say for example you closed Golden Gate, would 100% of GG's handle leave the game or would a lot of people that normally bet GG start betting SA, DMR, and LRC instead?

If it's the latter, the handle just rose at those other tracks without a significant increase in costs because all the money would be coming in via computer and phone. Now those tracks would have more free cash flow hitting the bottom line. It's at that point lowing the take is actually one of the possible options (along with increased advertising, improving the on track experience, raising the purses, better drug testing etc..).

Our problems is that the economics of the sport suck for almost all the participants, but especially the gamblers.

[The_Turf_Monster]

The take could be lowered without impacting purse accounts or bottom lines if the track got a higher percentage of the ADW money. ADW's are what is causing the take to remain so high

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The problem is they can't sustain themselves lowering the take unless they bring a LOT of new money into the game. Lowering the take may increase churn of the same money, but that's different than bringing in new money so the bottom line expands. The latter is more of a long term theoretical than short term demonstrable.

Let's just say for example you closed Golden Gate, would 100% of GG's handle leave the game or would a lot of people that normally bet GG start betting SA, DMR, and LRC instead?

If it's the latter, the handle just rose at those other tracks without a significant increase in costs because all the money would be coming in via computer and phone. Now those tracks would have more free cash flow hitting the bottom line. It's at that point lowing the take is actually one of the possible options (along with increased advertising, improving the on track experience, raising the purses, better drug testing etc..).

Our problems is that the economics of the sport suck for almost all the participants, but especially the gamblers.

They brought a lot of new money into the game when the racinos were established...but the exorbitant takeout rates weren't effected in the least. In fact...some tracks with thriving casino businesses charge the highest takeouts in the land.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

They brought a lot of new money into the game when the racinos were established...but the exorbitant takeout rates weren't effected in the least. In fact...some tracks with thriving casino businesses charge the highest takeouts in the land.

You are certainly right when it comes to raising purses at some tracks instead of doing both purses and take reductions, but the latter is probably tougher to get done politically.

Also, they brought in new/different money, but the total industry handle is lower now than it was at the peak in 2001-2004. Expenses keep going up. I feel sorry for the industry when the next recession finally hits and unemployment spikes back to 8% or possibly even a lot higher. It got ugly after 2008.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=8

[chiguy]

You are 100% correct on this. Arlington is one of tracks that need to be saved. It is right up there with Del Mar, Saratoga and Santa Anita for beauty, service and ambiance. I enjoy betting on races from anywhere to be honest but if you want a day out at the races, and to bring some friends who normally would not go, Arlington is one of those places. We will never have a hope of growing the sport if tracks like this are allowed to die.

[donmat]

Racing in 2020 at least


https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne..._after_all_123

[Striker]

Long way to go before racing actually will happen at Arlington next summer. The IL horsemen still have to come to an agreement on a contract to race at Arlington for the summer. And as you can imagine they aren’t too happy with Arlington/CDI right now. A lot of them have left the state and will continue to leave IL to race elsewhere as Hawthorne won’t race in the spring of 2020. Why come back just to race for purses that will be at the same level or possibly even lower than they were this year? I foresee a contentious negotiation between the two parties on this contract next year.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Tom

Oh yeah, that place too!

And your opinion of Keeneland is...?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's the point behind consolidation.

Why have all these massive plants with all the associated maintenance costs on land that could often be put to much better use just to run races that no one attends when you could have a couple of small simulcast centers in casinos and everyone else betting via phone or computer on just a handful of tracks instead?

The boutique/vacation meets offer high quality racing and have large attendance. A few other tracks have enough major race days to draw enough people overall to probably stick also. We need more of that.

The problems getting there are mostly political and related to casinos and state governments.

I agree.
These extended meetings that cover months as opposed to the boutique meets which last a few to as many as 7 weeks, are no longer sustainable.
And not profitable.
To this day, and many beyond, I still cannot fathom why Noeth American racing managements do not take a long hard look at how its done in Europe and the Pacific Rim.
Japan and Hong Kong tracks have huge fields, gigantic purses and as a result, tens of thousands of people in the stands betting with both fists. Those meetings last a few weeks Some just a week or so.
In Europe racing is conducted at many tracks for a few days at a clip. Big crowds on hand.
So what are we doing here?
Why not take a page from the book of success and copy the methods written within?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

The take could be lowered without impacting purse accounts or bottom lines if the track got a higher percentage of the ADW money. ADW's are what is causing the take to remain so high

ADW's are where the bulk of the money in the pools comes from
Offering rebates to the large volume players is the ADW's way of offering perks to the whales.
When the high volume players, due to the rebate, have such a huge advantage over the general public, it becomes a game of futility.
As with college tuition rising rapidly due to federal subsidies ( in effect rebates) colleges have no incentive to control prices( equivalent of takeout)
there is no incentive on the part of the State to lower the takeout. Why should they? The whales keep pouring money into the pools and then don't pay the entirety of the takeout. They receive rebates AND can in some instances, for the purpose of pool manipulation, cancel bets at a moment before the bell. The lower dollar volume player doesn't get rebates...The whales are already getting their break (rebate)