Joe Drape NY Times article today

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I've talked about this a number of times. You're running a racetrack. You've got a lot of people to pay, a track to take care of, millions in purses to distribute. Let's use Santa Anita as an example. The state wants a cut. The horsemen want a cut (even if it is only the breakage). The City of Arcadia wants a piece of the action to pay for more traffic control and police presence......

The horsemen get much more than breakage from the pools. In CA they get roughly 25-28% of the takeout with what goes into the purse money and breeder's awards.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I've talked about this a number of times. You're running a racetrack. You've got a lot of people to pay, a track to take care of, millions in purses to distribute. Let's use Santa Anita as an example. The state wants a cut. The horsemen want a cut (even if it is only the breakage). The City of Arcadia wants a piece of the aMction to pay for more traffic control and police presence.

Think of how much each of those items cost. Somewhere in my blog there is an article about this issue. It's not that easy to compete as a Class A track with less than 18-19% average takeout.

My suggestion is for the track to drop the takeout on win bets to 12%, place and show 15%, and then maybe 18% on any combination horizontal or vertical bet that uses three or fewer horses (exactas, daily doubles, trifectas, pick 3) and 22.5% for Pick 4/5/6 and superfectas. Perhaps up to 25% on the pick bets. This way you might keep the rebaters and the smaller bettors happy.

My approach to takeout would be somewhat different. I would pitch it to demand.

Takeout should be:

1. Lower on weekdays and higher on weekends.
2. Lower in the winter and higher in the summer.
3. Lower on early races on the card and higher on later races on the card. (The "players pick 5" on races 1-5 with a 14 percent takeout is an adaptation of this principle.)
4. Lower, much lower, on short fields, and higher on large fields.
5. Lower on ordinary races and higher on the biggest stakes races, especially the TC and Breeders' Cup.
6. Lower for frequent bettors and higher for casual players (rebates already do this).

I bet I could hit your 18 percent average takeout doing all these things, and in fact while offering many races and bets with as little as 5 percent takeout. And while raising revenue for the track.

[Tom]

Good luck pitching common sense to NYS!

New York is Seneca Indian for "Immune to intelligence!"

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

My approach to takeout would be somewhat different. I would pitch it to demand.

Takeout should be:

1. Lower on weekdays and higher on weekends.
2. Lower in the winter and higher in the summer.
3. Lower on early races on the card and higher on later races on the card. (The "players pick 5" on races 1-5 with a 14 percent takeout is an adaptation of this principle.)
4. Lower, much lower, on short fields, and higher on large fields.
5. Lower on ordinary races and higher on the biggest stakes races, especially the TC and Breeders' Cup.
6. Lower for frequent bettors and higher for casual players (rebates already do this).

I bet I could hit your 18 percent average takeout doing all these things, and in fact while offering many races and bets with as little as 5 percent takeout. And while raising revenue for the track.

You had me until you said to raise it on the biggest stakes. I understand how that's consistent with your general approach, but I don't see it as a good idea to discourage participation on the biggest races and biggest race days.

The current business model never made sense to me.

No business should pay a percentage of its revenue. A model like that makes it too easy for the business to not be able to cover its fixed costs in a downturn.

It should work like every other business. The track should take whatever it needs to cover it's business costs and a reasonable return on capital first.

Excess revenue after that should get distributed to the state.

During a down period the track would remain in good shape longer because the state would take a hit first instead of the track going bust. During a boom the state would make out like a bandit.

There would some challenges getting the incentives and distribution formulas right, but something along those lines makes way more sense than what we have now.

[Waquoit]

I have a bad feeling about all this. The anti-racing movement is picking up steam. I'm afraid racing will be gone sooner rather than later.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

My approach to takeout would be somewhat different. I would pitch it to demand.

Takeout should be:

1. Lower on weekdays and higher on weekends.
2. Lower in the winter and higher in the summer.
3. Lower on early races on the card and higher on later races on the card. (The "players pick 5" on races 1-5 with a 14 percent takeout is an adaptation of this principle.)
4. Lower, much lower, on short fields, and higher on large fields.
5. Lower on ordinary races and higher on the biggest stakes races, especially the TC and Breeders' Cup.
6. Lower for frequent bettors and higher for casual players (rebates already do this).

I bet I could hit your 18 percent average takeout doing all these things, and in fact while offering many races and bets with as little as 5 percent takeout. And while raising revenue for the track.

These ideas aren't all bad, but the idea that a struggling business is going to jack up prices on days a lot of casual fans attend is insane. It's the kind of thinking that has racing where it is now. Lots of places do raise prices on busy days---but those popular events that people WANT to attend. When you want to get people in the door, you CUT prices to get them to try your product. Raising prices on the most popular days---all you need is for word of that to get out and you're even more screwed.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by castaway01

These ideas aren't all bad, but the idea that a struggling business is going to jack up prices on days a lot of casual fans attend is insane. It's the kind of thinking that has racing where it is now. Lots of places do raise prices on busy days---but those popular events that people WANT to attend. When you want to get people in the door, you CUT prices to get them to try your product. Raising prices on the most popular days---all you need is for word of that to get out and you're even more screwed.

In general I agree, but with respect to takeout how much do you thing Danny D-Bag in a seersucker and ill-fitting fedora knows or cares about takeout for the 1 day he ever bets?

[burnsy]

Hey Draper, I got a scoop upstate for you. Practically the biggest Friday in the sport and Capital OTB channel is down! I know NBC owns Churchill but the other tracks are running. I don't know, maybe they didn't pay National Grid for power.

Ps. You cant even make this sh*t up unless its horse racing.

Signed,

A Fan

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by castaway01

These ideas aren't all bad, but the idea that a struggling business is going to jack up prices on days a lot of casual fans attend is insane. It's the kind of thinking that has racing where it is now. Lots of places do raise prices on busy days---but those popular events that people WANT to attend. When you want to get people in the door, you CUT prices to get them to try your product. Raising prices on the most popular days---all you need is for word of that to get out and you're even more screwed.

You are acting as if takeout is the price that casual fans pay attention to.

EDIT: also, does your reasoning apply at all to tomorrow at Churchill? Because that's an example of a day where I would charge a takeout premium.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You are acting as if takeout is the price that casual fans pay attention to.

EDIT: also, does your reasoning apply at all to tomorrow at Churchill? Because that's an example of a day where I would charge a takeout premium.

Its not just take out. I buy a seasons pass so it doesn't matter to me. But Saratoga had some wacky plan where if you buy certain seats on Whitney or Travers Day , you gotta buy the week! I don't know the details, I get a pass, but I heard others complaining. Hey Draper! You getting this!?

[Someday Silent]

Racing has lots of issues, but I think a major problem is how people who know the least about horses and the sport are able to exert the most pressure upon it.

Racing is also plagued by a serious dichotomy. On one hand it's a business where billions of dollars are exchanged each year at multiple levels. On the other hand, it's one of the last bastions of an agricultural society that lots of ordinary people depend on for a living, and one of the few ways that people can experience animals besides a zoo or owning a household pet.

Then we also have the change in how society views animals. Most people are no longer comfortable with the idea of animals having a "job" to do. They idealize horses, cats, dogs,.etc. as permanent children to be spoiled.

I don't have any brilliant solutions, but I definitely agree with the posters who've said that we need to organize ourselves as fans and handicappers in order to bring about change within horse racing, otherwise change is going to be forced upon racing by the most reactionary and ignorant segments of society.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Don Draper

Joe Drape

Ahhh. the internet...someone had to say it

[lex]

Not sure how I missed this thread but can someone clue me in on when Drape became anti horse racing? I always found him to be one of the best writers so this would be shocking if true.

I did read the piece and didn't find anything awful in it. Just seems to be covering what's been going on.

[SG4]

Originally Posted by lex

Not sure how I missed this thread but can someone clue me in on when Drape became anti horse racing? I always found him to be one of the best writers so this would be shocking if true.

I did read the piece and didn't find anything awful in it. Just seems to be covering what's been going on.

His writing lately (several year's worth) has been perplexing as someone who I would assume still appreciates horse racing considering he wrote a book not all that long ago about American Pharoah. I found his Derby recap in the Times to be awful as it included several unnecessary put downs of racing for no particularly good reason. Having press that's not in bed with the racing industry would be great for accountability, but it seems like the NYT pieces continue to have an anti-racing agenda.

[lex]

Thanks SG4. I didn't read his latest book and have been spotty on reading his Times stuff lately. I've met him a few times at Saratoga and I think he's always loved the game so I don't know if that's changed or if like some of us he has concerns that make it hard sometimes. I'll get myself in gear and start paying more attention to his work.