How low could takeout actually go while still having enough left to run the show?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

This is why the old farts that run this game should not be in charge.

Why can't horse racing receive monster advertising rights from sponsors?

Why can't the 1/16 pole/gate/jockey silks be decorated in advertisements/sponsorships?

Why can't horse racing be a sport where merchandise is sold in the millions of units?

Why can't a team of female riders race against a team of male riders & the series be shown on NBC live (with wagering encouraged)?

Why can't a team of horses be grouped together, be branded with a flashy name (attached to a city) and be pitted against other regional groups of horses in stakes that have team standings and generate regional loyalty (like sports teams do)?

With new and consistent revenues coming in, takeout can be reduced significantly, which would drive up handle etc.

Why not?

Because these fossils that could care less about proper marketing, are in charge. All they care about is sucking every dollar out of the ever shrinking golden goose.

The people running the industry don't care. Don't listen.
Let's face facts. The horsemen run horse racing and as long as they see growing purses, they don't care if a single penny is wagered on the races.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Why racing is not a niche sport in Japan?

Compared to US residents, Japanese have limited wagering opportunities.
And culturally, Japanese people LOVE to gamble.
I still maintain less is more.
There are simply too many race tracks operating in the US that compete against each other at the same time for similar racing stock and the same bettors.
This is especially prevalent during spring and summer.
The Northeast is a perfect example. With Monmouth and Belmont open at the same time is insanity.
Then Delaware, Parx and one of the Maryland tracks open at the same time.
Running on top of each other. Insanity.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

I guess you don't know how long Pachinko Machines have been operating in Japan?

Those are Japan's slot machines.
Those people don't go to the races. That's a guess

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I've also wondered about these points.

I don't follow these sports but what about car racing or golf?

The crowds attending on TV seem huge. The drivers and golfers seem to make a lot of money. The tracks and golf courses seem to make money. I don't think there is public gambling involved.

How do they prosper? Is it just entertainment $$?

Again..TV revenue and ticket sales. Add in merchandise sales and there ya have it

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Compared to US residents, Japanese have limited wagering opportunities.
And culturally, Japanese people LOVE to gamble.
I still maintain less is more.
There are simply too many race tracks operating in the US that compete against each other at the same time for similar racing stock and the same bettors.
This is especially prevalent during spring and summer.
The Northeast is a perfect example. With Monmouth and Belmont open at the same time is insanity.
Then Delaware, Parx and one of the Maryland tracks open at the same time.
Running on top of each other. Insanity.

You mean that Americans do not LOVE to gamble? I really do not believe so.

As you correctly say, we have way too much racing, something that no only hurts the betting capital but also makes the game difficult to follow and regulate. We need dramatical changes towards this direction, like the following:

- Eliminating minor racing circuits

- Centralize the administration of the game

- Make it very easy for the wide public to place a bet (any place where lotto can be played should also provide horse betting), introduce modern types of betting (exchanges and on line book makers)

- Promote the game through national TV,

- Establish draconian regulations about drugs and fraud,

- Make steward's reports and medical records publicly available.

- Open past performances to the wide public for free

… and many more

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

They have already cut racing, a lot. 4 day weeks, 8 race cards, 1 week breaks, etc.

Santa Anita is not allowed to lop off half its grandstand. It's a historic landmark. They have layed off ushers, mutuel clerks, ticket takers, and maintenance staff.

This. Is. Not. That. Simple.

Historic landmark designations can be reversed.
I think both Belmont and Santa Anita should close off the normally unused portions of their facilities and turn them into racing museums or some other type of attraction.
Just an idea

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Historic landmark designations can be reversed.
I think both Belmont and Santa Anita should close off the normally unused portions of their facilities and turn them into racing museums or some other type of attraction.
Just an idea

I guarantee Santa Anita and Rick Caruso have plans. As they should, IMHO.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Again..TV revenue and ticket sales. Add in merchandise sales and there ya have it

Plus...a PGA tourney visits an area, what, once a year maybe twice if it's a warm area? Ditto for auto racing.

And I don't think the growth curves for either sport are in a great situation right now.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

.....- Eliminating minor racing circuits......

If minor circuits were eliminated where do jockeys, trainers, grooms, etc. learn their trade?

Given that breeding isn't an exact science wouldn't the foal production be dramatically reduced resulting in a poor overall quality of horses?

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Again..TV revenue and ticket sales. Add in merchandise sales and there ya have it

TB racing has the same but at a different level or volume. Why is it different results?

[cutchemist42]

https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url..._reposts=false

Eye on Gaming had someone from HANA discussing takeout.

[FocusWiz]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

If there is any decrease in takeout % wouldn't the odds in general be higher?

I think so, but we may not be pleased with the results.

I think the mathematical and scientific answer would be a resounding "Yes." There should be measurable improvement in odds if we reduce takeout and, in general and on average, they should be higher.

I would think that probably for most exotic wagers, there would be an improved payout. However, for doubles, exactas, and straight wagers, the actual results experienced may be more based on economics and psychology than on math and science. Non-favorites horses and combinations would likely see higher odds and probables. However for favorites and near favorites, I am not convinced that the answer is as predictable because I believe that the affect on wagers for more likely winners would probably be more determined by how we wager and the overall makeup of the wagering public.

If, in general, a handicapper figures they will play $5 on a horse they like to win regardless of the odds, that wager would not likely change just due to a smaller takeout. If all wagers are derived with this methodology, when the race is over, the winners will likely pay more than they had with the smaller takeout. The track will benefit not because the player wagered more in that race, but because the player would have a better return on investment and more potential wagers that he/she can make over time.

If, in general, a handicapper computes their own odds line and figures that they will play a horse only if the odds are higher than the odds line, the effect will likely be somewhat different. Let's take an extreme case where everyone likes the horse but will only play it at 2/1 or better. Bets may pour in at 5/1 or 4/1, but they will slow as the odds get closer and closer to 2/1. For this horse in this scenario, it will go off at nearly 2/1 regardless of the takeout. Other wagering interests would likely see a bigger boost in odds than would be mathematically predicted, but this "favorite" would not.

Obviously, there are a mixture of betting styles and a mixture of knowledge in the wagering public and I do not have any idea what that makeup is nor what their tendency in wagering is. However, let's take a scenario where there is a race with a horse that is an odds-on favorite which is the darling of the whales even at 1/9. Even if 99% of the players are of the type that just play $5 on the horse they like, the whales would generally have sufficient resources to drop the odds down to 1/9.

So, I would predict that odds in general in an "open" race would be better, but odds on favorites and near favorites in a more "predictable" race would likely be indistinguishable from today. That being said, since favorites only win about 1/3rd of the time, we should see better payoffs for the other 2/3rds of the races.

While I used straight wagers in these examples, people with sufficient resources could probably track doubles and exactas similarly looking for inefficiencies and placing plays accordingly. Those wagers where we play "blind" will likely be better.

Going back to my earlier comments that you were responding to, I have a high regard for the folks on this forum and have known a number of horse racing enthusiasts in my time, but I do not consider these individuals to be the "general public." I do not think that the general public stays away from horse racing because of the high takeout rates. Someone who plays the lottery would benefit significantly from playing a game with even a 30% takeout rate, but they don't seem to care at all and since they have no idea what the takeout is for their lottery tickets, I doubt that they shy away from the track because they think it is too high; hence I think that a 2% or 5% or even 10% reduction would unlikely be noticed by the general public unless it was advertised on their television set 24X7 (and even then, I think they would need to have an explanation of why the reduction is good for them in extremely simple terms).

[Stillriledup]

Here's how the racetracks can lower MY takeout (and yours too if you want to do the work).

Give me access to all vet records on the cheap claimers at the B and C tracks.

[maclr11]

Good luck guessing which horses actually have positives come from some of the vet work.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by FocusWiz

I think so, but we may not be pleased with the results.

I think the mathematical and scientific answer would be a resounding "Yes." There should be measurable improvement in odds if we reduce takeout and, in general and on average, they should be higher.

I would think that probably for most exotic wagers, there would be an improved payout. However, for doubles, exactas, and straight wagers, the actual results experienced may be more based on economics and psychology than on math and science. Non-favorites horses and combinations would likely see higher odds and probables. However for favorites and near favorites, I am not convinced that the answer is as predictable because I believe that the affect on wagers for more likely winners would probably be more determined by how we wager and the overall makeup of the wagering public.

If, in general, a handicapper figures they will play $5 on a horse they like to win regardless of the odds, that wager would not likely change just due to a smaller takeout. If all wagers are derived with this methodology, when the race is over, the winners will likely pay more than they had with the smaller takeout. The track will benefit not because the player wagered more in that race, but because the player would have a better return on investment and more potential wagers that he/she can make over time.

If, in general, a handicapper computes their own odds line and figures that they will play a horse only if the odds are higher than the odds line, the effect will likely be somewhat different. Let's take an extreme case where everyone likes the horse but will only play it at 2/1 or better. Bets may pour in at 5/1 or 4/1, but they will slow as the odds get closer and closer to 2/1. For this horse in this scenario, it will go off at nearly 2/1 regardless of the takeout. Other wagering interests would likely see a bigger boost in odds than would be mathematically predicted, but this "favorite" would not.

Obviously, there are a mixture of betting styles and a mixture of knowledge in the wagering public and I do not have any idea what that makeup is nor what their tendency in wagering is. However, let's take a scenario where there is a race with a horse that is an odds-on favorite which is the darling of the whales even at 1/9. Even if 99% of the players are of the type that just play $5 on the horse they like, the whales would generally have sufficient resources to drop the odds down to 1/9.

So, I would predict that odds in general in an "open" race would be better, but odds on favorites and near favorites in a more "predictable" race would likely be indistinguishable from today. That being said, since favorites only win about 1/3rd of the time, we should see better payoffs for the other 2/3rds of the races.

While I used straight wagers in these examples, people with sufficient resources could probably track doubles and exactas similarly looking for inefficiencies and placing plays accordingly. Those wagers where we play "blind" will likely be better.

Going back to my earlier comments that you were responding to, I have a high regard for the folks on this forum and have known a number of horse racing enthusiasts in my time, but I do not consider these individuals to be the "general public." I do not think that the general public stays away from horse racing because of the high takeout rates. Someone who plays the lottery would benefit significantly from playing a game with even a 30% takeout rate, but they don't seem to care at all and since they have no idea what the takeout is for their lottery tickets, I doubt that they shy away from the track because they think it is too high; hence I think that a 2% or 5% or even 10% reduction would unlikely be noticed by the general public unless it was advertised on their television set 24X7 (and even then, I think they would need to have an explanation of why the reduction is good for them in extremely simple terms).

Well yesterday (12-17-2014) was pretty chalky at Tampa Bay so lets compare the pm price vs betfair price

Race 1 6.20 pm 9.64 bf

Race 2 7.40 pm 9.00 bf

Race 3 6.80 pm 6.74 bf

Race 4 11.60 pm 17.60 bf

Race 5 4,20 pm 4.18 bf

Race 6 7.20 pm 8.36 bf

Race 7 4.60 pm 4.68 bf

Race 8 6.20 pm 7.34 bf

Race 9 9.80 pm 10.20 bf

In 3 races the odds were approx the same but in the other 6 bf odds were higher

Allan