Aqueduct-only 8 Races???

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by andtheyreoff

Disagree completely. Look at Japan. They often have only two or three tracks going per day, maximum. Yet, handle and attendance are booming. There's only two tracks in China, which race only a few days a week combined, and racing is thriving. British and Australian tracks often run only six or seven races per day. The United States in the exception to the rule.

And I don't know about you, but I'd rather bet on three days of quality racing a week than five days of sub-par racing.

I can see your point but we are not Japan or China. 2 totally different markets. There, it's ok to be at the track. Here if you tell people you're going to the track every Saturday your branded as a degenerate horseplayer. Just an example of why we're different.

There are 50 states. If 38 don't have horse racing, in my humble opinion, handle will plummet even more. As the old players pass, who will become a racing fan? There will be no live experience to give them the bug.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Less racing anywhere in any way, is a bad sign. If you card 7 races instead of 9, you will have less owners, less trainers, which leads to less foals over time. Shorter fields will occur and the same spiral will happen.

As tracks shut down, that's 1 less track that will generate new fans. Old fans are dying, who's replacing them????

You are both right and wrong.

You are right that all of the contraction is a "bad sign", in the sense that it is an indicator of a declining sport with less fans, less owners, etc.

You are wrong in the implication that if the sport did not contract, it would be healthier.

Horse racing is like any other business in this respect. Plenty of airlines have gone into bankruptcy, consolidated, and sold off routes and flights over the last 30 years. The remaining three airlines, with significant reductions in flights and service, are now making record profits.

I'm not predicting that racetracks will start making record profits. However, the whole point of contraction is to give the remaining operations a shot at profitability. The sport is actually quite viable if there are a few supertracks supplying most of the racing to the country via simulcasting and advance deposit wagering.

That's what the economics of simulcasting suggest-- pre-simulcasting (and pre-lotteries and widespread casino gambling), the local racetrack was the only game in town and there needed to be one in each locality to offer racing. Now, given a choice between betting lousy local races and better races from a major track, bettors will choose the simulcasted races, which means we need to close a lot of local tracks and consolidate operations in 3 or 4 major circuits. That is what is happening, slowly. That will also mean fewer horses and fewer fans, but the sport will survive on betting handle in the same way there are fewer seats on airplanes but they sell for more money now.

What the shrinkage of racing at Aqueduct may (or may not) suggest is that it is possible that New York shouldn't run year round. As I said, rationally, i would think the way to do it is to run one circuit that runs in the warmer months in New York and the colder months in Florida, with year-round simulcasting in both places. I suspect, however, that what will actually happen is that New York will still run year round but won't run so many races in the winter.

But definitely the end-point of all this is a lot less live racing. We've developed a way to efficiently deliver a lot more betting action to the public, through simulcasting, with far lower costs (it's much cheaper to run a simulcasting parlor than a racetrack). That's the wave of the future, like it or not.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

What the shrinkage of racing at Aqueduct may (or may not) suggest is that it is possible that New York shouldn't run year round.

What shrinkage? Haven't we already established that these two eight-race cards represents MORE racing than in years past where they would be DARK on the Wednesday and Thursday during the week when they move from Belmont to Aqueduct?

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

What the shrinkage of racing at Aqueduct may (or may not) suggest..

I realize you're pretty out there, but the supposed "shrinkage" you are referring to is actually 16 more races than last year.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

What shrinkage? Haven't we already established that these two eight-race cards represents MORE racing than in years past where they would be DARK on the Wednesday and Thursday during the week when they move from Belmont to Aqueduct?

Posted before seeing this.

There is some silly stuff on the internet...and then there's that guy.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Posted before seeing this.

There is some silly stuff on the internet...and then there's that guy.

On a side note, if you could only make ONE bet out of the 13 BC races, who might that be?

[wiffleball whizz]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

On a side note, if you could only make ONE bet out of the 13 BC races, who might that be?

+1

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I realize you're pretty out there, but the supposed "shrinkage" you are referring to is actually 16 more races than last year.

I think this is a semantic / spin argument. They clearly would card more races on a card if they could. No track in America WANTS to card 8 races in a day. Not one.

I realize NYRA honks on this board would claim that there was nothing wrong even if NYRA shut all of its tracks down, but come on now.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think this is a semantic / spin argument. They clearly would card more races on a card if they could. No track in America WANTS to card 8 races in a day. Not one.

I realize NYRA honks on this board would claim that there was nothing wrong even if NYRA shut all of its tracks down, but come on now.

I guess it would have killed you to admit you weren't reading things all that closely in this thread...thus your telling us TWICE about the "cutback" at Aqueduct AFTER it was pointed out there was no cutback in place.

I admit when I'm wrong. Some people can't I suppose...oh well...gotta have some sort of image on here I guess...yours might be "I'm never wrong..."

[Unome]

In case it hasn't been covered Friday's card has 9 races.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think this is a semantic / spin argument. They clearly would card more races on a card if they could. No track in America WANTS to card 8 races in a day. Not one.

I realize NYRA honks on this board would claim that there was nothing wrong even if NYRA shut all of its tracks down, but come on now.

Keep fighting the dopey fight. It's great entertainment.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

But definitely the end-point of all this is a lot less live racing...through simulcasting, with far lower costs (it's much cheaper to run a simulcasting parlor than a racetrack).

Where are you going to simulcast to, if all your leaky-roof circuits go belly up? Do you think it will be easy to legislate simulcast-only facilities into existence, the sole point being to benefit the racing product in some other state? I don't see that happening.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You are both right and wrong.

You are right that all of the contraction is a "bad sign", in the sense that it is an indicator of a declining sport with less fans, less owners, etc.

You are wrong in the implication that if the sport did not contract, it would be healthier.

Horse racing is like any other business in this respect. Plenty of airlines have gone into bankruptcy, consolidated, and sold off routes and flights over the last 30 years. The remaining three airlines, with significant reductions in flights and service, are now making record profits.

I'm not predicting that racetracks will start making record profits. However, the whole point of contraction is to give the remaining operations a shot at profitability. The sport is actually quite viable if there are a few supertracks supplying most of the racing to the country via simulcasting and advance deposit wagering.

That's what the economics of simulcasting suggest-- pre-simulcasting (and pre-lotteries and widespread casino gambling), the local racetrack was the only game in town and there needed to be one in each locality to offer racing. Now, given a choice between betting lousy local races and better races from a major track, bettors will choose the simulcasted races, which means we need to close a lot of local tracks and consolidate operations in 3 or 4 major circuits. That is what is happening, slowly. That will also mean fewer horses and fewer fans, but the sport will survive on betting handle in the same way there are fewer seats on airplanes but they sell for more money now.

What the shrinkage of racing at Aqueduct may (or may not) suggest is that it is possible that New York shouldn't run year round. As I said, rationally, i would think the way to do it is to run one circuit that runs in the warmer months in New York and the colder months in Florida, with year-round simulcasting in both places. I suspect, however, that what will actually happen is that New York will still run year round but won't run so many races in the winter.

But definitely the end-point of all this is a lot less live racing. We've developed a way to efficiently deliver a lot more betting action to the public, through simulcasting, with far lower costs (it's much cheaper to run a simulcasting parlor than a racetrack). That's the wave of the future, like it or not.

I appreciate your thoughts.

I believe, respectfully, you are missing a huge key point. Let's assume in 1995, about the time of simulcasting starting, that there were 800,000 "horseplayers" in the 50 states.

Let's assume that no tracks closed since then and 300,000 passed away.

Let's also assume that 50,000 new loyal fans were born (all via visiting live horse tracks).

Let's again assume that In 2014, only 550,000 active loyal fans exist. Let's assume handle dropped from 20 billion to 13 billion from 1995-2014.

The accuracy of my numbers are irrelevant as I'm sure those numbers are down, how much is irrelevant to the point....

Fast forward ten additional years. Its 2024. 40% of tracks have 'contracted'.

It's highly (like 1/5 highly) probable to assume the following:

300,000 of those 550,000 loyal fans passed away.

Only 30,000 new fans were born. 280,000 loyal fans are left.

Syndicates flee horse racing as the pools have dropped precipitously.


Handle drops another 75% to near nothing.

Owners leave the game. Trainers leave the game.

Game over.

Still think contraction is "good" for the game?

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I realize you're pretty out there, but the supposed "shrinkage" you are referring to is actually 16 more races than last year.

Dilanesp, did you even read what we discussed in this thread?

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Where are you going to simulcast to, if all your leaky-roof circuits go belly up? Do you think it will be easy to legislate simulcast-only facilities into existence, the sole point being to benefit the racing product in some other state? I don't see that happening.

Exactly........