Do Equibase and DRF give out accurate handle information? What about CHRIMS?

[andymays]

I am told by more than one person (Santa Anita and the CHRB) that according to CHRIMS daily average handle is only down about 8.2%. If that is true then Equibase and DRF are putting out false handle numbers to the public and have been for years. Maybe someone on this list can let us know how handle numbers are derived.

How do DRF and Equibase come up with the handle numbers they disseminate? Can someone from Equibase and DRF respond to this please?

How does CHRIMS come up with the handle numbers they disseminate? Why can’t the public see a detailed CHRIMS report? For some reason the CHRB is reluctant to put out the detailed CHRIMS report to the public. Do the CHRIMS numbers include uncommingled handle in their numbers? If they do include uncommingled handle then why can’t they tell everyone? If they do not include uncommingled handle then please let everyone know.

Uncommingled handle appears to be estimated. How does that work? Here is one example:

Del Mar Finds Much To Be Grateful For In 2010 Race Meeting

http://www.dmtc.com/racinginfo/pr/in...atefulforin201

Uncommingled 2010 (estimated)

Total handle ......................... $11,776,926
Daily average........................ $318,295
Total handle, 2009 ............... $14,167,864
Daily average....................... $382,915
Uncommingled (estimated) Average Comparison vs. 2009 – Decrease of 16.9%


If you would like to know who CHRIMS (www.chrims.com) is and who their customers are then click the link. They seem like a good organization that does quite a bit of work for more than one racing jurisdiction.

Thanks,

Andy

CHRIMS - Customers

http://www.chrims.com/Customers.aspx

eBet

http://www.ebetonline.com/clients.html

Excerpt:

eBet has operations and commercial arrangements in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Canada and the United States.

European Wagering Services Limited: Private Company Information - BusinessWeek

http://investing.businessweek.com/re...capId=30521110

Global Off-Track Wagering - link2bet.com

European Wagering Services

Wholly owned by Webis Holdings plc listed on AIM London

https://www.link2bet.com/pages/deposit/deposit.aspx

[FenceBored]

From the article announcing CDI's decision to stop releasing end of meet figures for its tracks:

Equibase publishes handle figures at the end of each racing day on the racing charts, but those figures can sometimes be incorrect because they do not include separate-pool wagering.

-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...#ixzz1BCvRY8R5

[andymays]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

From the article announcing CDI's decision to stop releasing end of meet figures for its tracks:

Equibase publishes handle figures at the end of each racing day on the racing charts, but those figures can sometimes be incorrect because they do not include separate-pool wagering.

-- http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...#ixzz1BCvRY8R5

That is from 2007 but maybe the article is accurate. All I know is that there is an ongoing dispute about handle numbers. If the Equibase and DRF numbers aren't accurate then they should stop publishing them. If the CHRIMS numbers include estimates then they shouldn't be used either. My feeling is that some tracks are using made up numbers in their handle figures.

I hope my email blast gets someone to respond from both sides.

Maybe more and more tracks are using uncommingled handle estimates from foreign sources. Maybe they're recieving commissions from those sources but don't want to come out and admit it. Maybe getting those commissions from foreign sources violates some state laws. Maybe, Maybe, Maybe!

Someone needs to start telling the truth to the betting public.

Can't we get the truth once in a while?

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by andymays

That is from 2007 but maybe the article is accurate. All I know is that there is an ongoing dispute about handle numbers. If the Equibase and DRF numbers aren't accurate then they should stop publishing them. If the CHRIMS numbers include estimates then they shouldn't be used either. My feeling is that some tracks are using made up numbers in their handle figures.

I hope my email blast gets someone to respond from both sides.

Can't we get the truth once in a while?

I think some of the thinking from CDI has merit. When you have varying amounts of revenue generated for the host track/horsemen based upon the source of the wager, the overall figures mean less.

For example, let's say that SA/GG receive the highest percentage of the handle from on-track wagers, followed by the intra-state simulcast wagers, and below that the rest of the venues with a wide disparity between the various out-of-state simulcast partners, ADWs and off-shore entities in what they pay from each component of the pools handled. Say the on-track handle (even though it's the smallest piece) generates 33%-40% [totally made up number] of the track's share of the revenue, then what would it matter if the off-shores were helping to pick up the slack of the on-track bettors in the overall handle numbers. They won't be picking up the slack in the track's share of the revenue.

It's like a store where you have high-margin and low-margin items. If total sales are down and the biggest drop is in sales of the high-margin items then the increased volume in the low-margin items isn't going to make up the loss in profits. But, you can try to fool people by pointing to the overall sales figures.

[andymays]

It's hard to get a handle on numbers
By Art Wilson


http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/ci_17110324


Excerpt:

ARCADIA - It's all a numbers game, and Santa Anita management doesn't agree with the handle figures being floated around the Internet concerning the first 12 days of the track's winter-spring meet.

While cold, hard figures show Santa Anita's overall handle was down 17 percent through Thursday, track officials contended Saturday their handle was down only 8 percent if you use "comparable days" rather than "calendar days."

Santa Anita's overall handle was $79,085,032 after Thursday's eight-race card compared to the 2009-10 figure of $95,191,018, which represents a 17 percent dip. Santa Anita had run one fewer race this year compared to the same period a year ago.

But hold all tickets.

If you compare the second Thursday of this year against the second Thursday of last year's meet, or the second Sunday of this year to the second Sunday of 2009-10, as Santa Anita does when calculating its handle figures, it's a whole different horse race.

How different?

Well, suddenly this year's overall handle through 12 days becomes $97,086,816 compared to a figure of $105,784,974 for last year, or only an 8 percent decline, according to Santa Anita director of mutuels Randy Hartzell.


Read more:

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/spor...#ixzz1BDDCiHxl

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Who does separate pool wagering anymore? Canada used to do it but now all handle is commingled. Are there any jurisdictions that have their own pools out there now? I don't know?

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

Who does separate pool wagering anymore? Canada used to do it but now all handle is commingled. Are there any jurisdictions that have their own pools out there now? I don't know?

Don't have time to look it up, but I think an earlier thread Andy started on CHRIMS talked about possibly PR and some S. American countries in that category (sort of "we don't trust them enough to let them co-mingle"). Would off-shore bookmakers who pay a small percentage of their take to the track count as a separate pool? What about BetFair?

[Jeff P]

Last year, during review of handle at Los Al, at the request of the CHRB I prepared a spreadsheet using handle numbers pulled from Equibase charts.

In May, 2010, I met with Rick English and his staff from Los Al to compare handle numbers from CHRIMS to the handle numbers on my spreadsheet. Also present at that meeting were Richard Bon Scott and Mike Marten from the CHRB, as well as horse player and published author Barry Meadow.

Guess what?

The two sets of handle numbers matched almost exactly. There were no material differences between them.

It turned out that the Equibase charts (and the totals at the bottom) reflected actual dollar amounts wagered on races run at the host track.

Based on first hand experience comparing Equibase chart handle with CHRIMS reports - I suspect California racing is attempting to spoon feed the world a PR story (spin) when it comes to wagering declines since their takeout increase went into effect.


-jp

.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Last year, during review of handle at Los Al, at the request of the CHRB I prepared a spreadsheet using handle numbers pulled from Equibase charts.

In May, 2010, I met with Rick English and his staff from Los Al to compare handle numbers from CHRIMS to the handle numbers on my spreadsheet. Also present at that meeting were Richard Bon Scott and Mike Marten from the CHRB, as well as horse player and published author Barry Meadow.

Guess what?

The two sets of handle numbers matched almost exactly. There were no material differences between them.

It turned out that the Equibase charts (and the totals at the bottom) reflected actual dollar amounts wagered on races run at the host track.

Based on first hand experience comparing Equibase chart handle with CHRIMS reports - I suspect California racing is attempting to spoon feed the world a PR story (spin) when it comes to wagering declines since their takeout increase went into effect.


-jp

.

Of course they are. The attempt is so pathetic it is laughable.

[rwwupl]

Originally Posted by cj

Of course they are. The attempt is so pathetic it is laughable.

Lets see now, we were informed to expect a huge opening for the great race place at Santa Anita because:

The traditional pent up excitement of waiting for the day after Christmas.

The new Dirt Track.

Players will return.

Horsemen and stables are coming from back east.

Field size will be much improved.


AAhhhh... Field size is down, Raw numbers show a double digit decline in handle, and management is forced to defend a massaged and twisted house prepared number without showing the source data from Chrims of ONLY8.2% DOWN and make it sound like a "victory"

AAHHH....O.K.

Roger Way

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I've said many times that the estimated uncommingled foreign handle will be in full force if things go bad in the real dollar handle figures.

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

I've said many times that the estimated uncommingled foreign handle will be in full force if things go bad in the real dollar handle figures.

Dude what's your problem. Puerto Rican handle is up 7000%. They love them some Santa Anita, cause it sounds Puerto Rican. Takeout hike is a success. Face the facts.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

I've said many times that the estimated uncommingled foreign handle
will be in full force if things go bad in the real dollar handle figures.

Q: Why aren't the horsemen up in arms about this?

They should be demanding their share of the cut.

[andymays]

I had to send this out late last night to clear up my original email.


Apparently I’ve created some confusion with my comments from earlier today so let me be clear.

I believe Equibase and DRF are the ones publishing the accurate handle numbers. I was hoping they would come out and make it clear to everyone that their numbers are accurate as I believe they are.

Disputes about handle numbers have been going on for some time. How can the handle numbers from Santa Anita be so different from the Equibase numbers?

Maybe someone can explain that to Horseplayers.

Thanks,

Andy

[Bruddah]

To me, this is what this thread really comes down to; If the Industry can't agree and get these numbers correct, what can you expect in resolving the big issues faced by the Industry?