MVR handle decline...

[bob60566]

Maybe 2029 before it is to late, Because very very little has been done in the last ten years and now going through the same motions as in the past.

Talk is cheap so sad

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Gus, when HANA was first formed back in 2009 we did exactly that.

And afterwards, we put the full survey results up on our site - here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...anasurvey.html

And we wrote about them on our blog (many times.)

And we posted about them here at Paceadvantage (many times.)

We also emailed a synopsis of the results out to our membership as well as to a number of industry alphabet groups.

Several years later, McKinsey & Company did a similar survey of their own design for The Jockey Club.

Strangely enough, both surveys (ours and the one by McKinsey) identified three core issues that horseplayers overwhelmingly identified as having potential to drive them from the game and/or cause them to bet less than they otherwise would.

In no particular order of importance those three core issues were:

• Parimutuel takeout rates
  
• Drugs (seen as an integrity issue)
  
• Tote System/Odds that change after the bell (also seen as an integrity issue)

Here we are ten years later. It's really hard for me to ask this next question with a straight face but I'm going to try.

What if anything have our industry stakeholders done to address the three elephants sitting in the room? (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes?)

What if anything has changed about horseracing over the past decade that would make the three elephants sitting in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and late odds changes) any less important today than they were ten years ago?



-jp

.

Jeff...I have spent a fair amount of my time here making the exact same point. People keep talking about how difficult it is to attract "new blood" to this game...but this "difficulty" doesn't address the mass exit orchestrated by those of us who started off as being the game's most enthusiastic followers. How can you hope to attract "new blood" to a game which can't even maintain the fan-base that it already has?

[Jeff P]

Imo, it's worse than not being able to maintain the fan-base we already have.

It's not that the game doesn't have the ability attract at least some new fans to make those all important first few track visits.

It's that when that happens, and as the new would be fan begins the same process whereby you and I made the jump from new would be fan to actual horseplayer --

The elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes) start to become every bit as important to them as they are to the existing hard core horseplayer.

Imo, until or unless our industry stakeholders make an effort to address the elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes) this game's fortunes will continue to suffer.


-jp

.

[Gorrex]

Some of the totes have sped up their cycles BUT given how they are interconnected it really takes all of them to make a truly noticeable change. This includes international totes running outdated systems, poor connections etc..

The CHRB proposal to require totes to calculate final odds within 5 seconds could force the outliers but only something like that will.

Investment in the core technologies that run our industry have always been far low and of all the fees coming out of takeout the tote fee is the one that is actually far to low. The industry pays huge subsidies to entities that do next to nothing for it but can't manage a even a fraction of that for the actual backbone that runs it all.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

It gets worse than that.

Imo, it's not that the game doesn't have the ability attract at least some new fans to make those all important first few track visits.

It's that when that happens, as those new would be fans begin the same process whereby you and I made the jump from new would be fan to actual horseplayer --

The elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes) start to become every bit as important to them as they are to the existing hard core horseplayer.

Imo, until or unless our industry stakeholders make an effort to address the elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes) this game's fortunes will continue to suffer.


-jp

.

Question for you, Jeff...since I know that you actually sit down and talk with racetrack dignitaries whom the rest of us have no access to:

Do these track officials mention these late odds changes as being a threat to the game...due to the deep frustration that they generate among the game's general customer population? Because, from what I see...these late odds changes are hardly mentioned as an aggravating factor by the "mouthpieces" of this game.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Maybe 2029 before it is to late, Because very very little has been done in the last ten years and now going through the same motions as in the past.

Talk is cheap so sad

Oh come on.
We got a starting gate implemented.
Common saddle cloth colors only took 10 years.

What more do you want from the pea brains who run racing????
More turf races carded?

[bob60566]

Unless our industry stakeholders make an effort to address the elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes)

Jeff

Any idea why it is taking these people so long. ?? in a billion dollar industry.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

....
It's not that the game doesn't have the ability attract at least some new fans to make those all important first few track visits.

It's that when that happens, and as the new would be fan begins the same process whereby you and I made the jump from new would be fan to actual horseplayer --......

I agree that new horseplayers would be upset with drugs, takeout and late odds changes but there are not more than a very small number beginning the process from going from fan to new horseplayer. Even if all of the 3 major concerns listed were fixed or eliminated I doubt that there would be an increase of fans making the jump to horseplayer.

[Jeff P]

It's probably better if I break my comments out into two parts.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Question for you, Jeff...since I know that you actually sit down and talk with racetrack dignitaries whom the rest of us have no access to:

Back in 2008 (before HANA was officially formed) a signal dispute was going on that would eventually turn out to be the catalyst that lead to the formation of HANA.

The TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of CA) and another alphabet group known as THG (The Horsemen's Group) were demanding higher signal fees - with the result being that many track signals were blacked out from ADW lineups that fall.

I became aware of it one day after downloading data and trying to bet a race at Hollywood Park only to discover (much to my dismay) that Hollywood Park was no longer being carried by any of the ADWs where I had accounts.

As the signal impasse dragged on - at some point it hit me that if the dispute didn't get resolved soon:

There was a possibility that horseplayers might not be able to bet the 2009 Kentucky Derby via ADW.

So one afternoon I picked up the phone, called the main switchboard at Hollywood Park, and asked to speak to the CEO. It took being transferred a few times and explaining that I was a horseplayer who was fed up with the signal dispute - but inside of a few minutes I found myself actually speaking with Jack Liebau.

Fyi, I wrote about that experience here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...cle110801.html

I also picked up the phone, called the main switchboard of the TOC (their offices are located at Santa Anita) and asked to speak with their President. Once again, after giving the switchboard operator my name and explaining that I was a horseplayer who was fed up with the signal dispute - I found myself speaking with Drew Cotou (President of the TOC and Vice President of the THG.)

Fyi, I wrote about that experience here:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...cle110802.html

My point in posting this?

With just a little persistence you might be pleasantly surprised how accessible many of the top people on the ladder can be. Imo, that goes double if you treat them like human beings and if you truly believe you have something important to discuss with them.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do these track officials mention these late odds changes as being a threat to the game...due to the deep frustration that they generate among the game's general customer population? Because, from what I see...these late odds changes are hardly mentioned as an aggravating factor by the "mouthpieces" of this game.

More often than not, if I decide it's time to talk about something players see as a hot button issue - I'll send an email and ask when might be a good time to have a 20 minute phone conversation. Sometimes the phone conversations run a bit longer than that, but generally both parties tend to stay on topic.

Every once in a while, I might get a similar email request from one of them, asking for a brief phone conversation to discuss something they've read here on Paceadvantage (or every once in a while on our site or blog.)

Most of the time those requests center on takeout or drugs - but every once in a while it'll be about late odds changes.

To answer your question: Yes. They are aware... and believe it or not, a surprising number of people in the industry read the pages here on Paceadvantage.

As to (as you put it) the "mouthpieces" of this game --

I tend to butt heads with them.

Imo, I think mostly because after my one and only appearance on Night School, I expressed an opinion that I think this game doesn't need cheerleaders. It needs leaders with the vision to tackle the three elephants in the room (Takeout, Drugs, and Late Odds Changes.)



-jp

.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I honestly don't know WHY NYRA so definitively alienated its customers. But I do know it happened earlier than it did in Southern California-- I went back there several times in the late 1980's and there was nobody at the track for big races, and this was at a time when Southern California tracks were still averaging 25,000 a day and drawing 50,000+ for big races.

In 1970, off track betting was legalized in NY. By the mid 70s, NYC was saturated with OTBs. Off track betting wasn't legalized in California until 1987. I see no mystery in your observation.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

In 1970, off track betting was legalized in NY. By the mid 70s, NYC was saturated with OTBs. Off track betting wasn't legalized in California until 1987. I see no mystery in your observation.

I've never bought that explanation, for two reasons.

1. In the mid-1970's, after OTB reached maximum saturation, New York tracks were still drawing very well. The decline hit sometime in the early 1980's.

2. As everyone here likes to point out, takeout matters. OTB had a takeout surcharge! So there was still a significant benefit to going to the track.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I've never bought that explanation, for two reasons.

1. In the mid-1970's, after OTB reached maximum saturation, New York tracks were still drawing very well. The decline hit sometime in the early 1980's.

2. As everyone here likes to point out, takeout matters. OTB had a takeout surcharge! So there was still a significant benefit to going to the track.

1) Similar to some of your claims about the BCC at Dmr, I don't think you have the actual data. If you do, please post it.

1a) Please include Nassua/Suffolk County OTB numbers.

2) There are/were price insensitive players, as evidenced by NYC's OTB very large handle in its glory days. For many, convenience trumped the absurd surcharge.

On the bolded portion, when did the live video feed hit NY OTBs? 1984. Prior to that, they just offered an audio feed.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

1) Similar to some of your claims about the BCC at Dmr, I don't think you have the actual data. If you do, please post it.

1a) Please include Nassua/Suffolk County OTB numbers.

2) There are/were price insensitive players, as evidenced by NYC's OTB very large handle in its glory days. For many, convenience trumped the absurd surcharge.

On the bolded portion, when did the live video feed hit NY OTBs? 1984. Prior to that, they just offered an audio feed.

1. NYRA's big races used to be on television So I remember several Marlboros and JCGC's and Woods with 30,000+ on track from my childhood. I know when the drop occurred.

2. The live TV feed seems to me to be a reasonable point. That, I am sure, made OTB more attractive.

Having said that I still come back to the fact that the NY metropolitan area is so damned large and there were so many transportation options to Belmont and Aqueduct. How could NYRA possibly not find people to come out? You only need 1/1000th of the population or so.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Having said that I still come back to the fact that the NY metropolitan area is so damned large and there were so many transportation options to Belmont and Aqueduct. How could NYRA possibly not find people to come out? You only need 1/1000th of the population or so.

But can't you say the same thing about almost any track located near a major metro area? I was at Santa Anita in January, and there were maybe 500 people outside/and in the grandstand area. It was a sunny day and in the uppers 60s (I believe it was a Thursday). I suspect there's no mass transit directly to SA?, but most drive in LA anyway. If you take avg track attendance divided by the population located within a 30 mile radius, I don't know that Belmont's numbers are any worse than other tracks (beyond premium meets like Saratoga and Del Mar)?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

But can't you say the same thing about almost any track located near a major metro area? I was at Santa Anita in January, and there were maybe 500 people outside/and in the grandstand area. It was a sunny day and in the uppers 60s (I believe it was a Thursday). I suspect there's no mass transit directly to SA?, but most drive in LA anyway. If you take avg track attendance divided by the population located within a 30 mile radius, I don't know that Belmont's numbers are any worse than other tracks (beyond premium meets like Saratoga and Del Mar)?

Santa Anita's decline happened in the 1990's, at the same time Del Mar, which was always a backwater which used to average 15,000 less a day than SA and HOL, was rising in attendance. (My understanding is that something similar happened with Saratoga-- back when Aqueduct drew 45,000 for big races in the 1960's, Saratoga's crowds were far smaller than they became the 1990's and 2000's.)

And yes, I think Santa Anita's decline was due in part to mismanagement and that you ought to be able to get 1/500th of the population of the LA metropolitan area to come to your beautiful track.