if you always wanted to go to the races in California...

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I played in my 9th or 10th consecutive BCBC this year.

2 entries at $10,000 each.

584 entries.

We bet 7% of the on track handle.

I'd guestimate that 80% of the players were 50 or less.

What you don't know is a lot.

I’ll take your word for it. But I might question your sample size and they’re obviously already bought in.

584 sounds like a great contest. But how many players does it take to support the current track lineup?

[Candybag]

Fix the pricing?

In Ohio, we have watched politicians under arrest or convicted for taking bribes, $60 million and $4 million and who knows what other amounts. Illegal bribes get legislation passed.

I have an idea that could fix the pricing, it gets politicians' attention, and the idea provides a lot of money LEGALLY. Originally the concept was presented to the public to increase horsemen purses. Although legally possible, the push back from handicappers made me switch focus to fix odds wagering with a special takeout that I feel can be achieved via negotiation.

People in my profession, who actually bet the races, have responded very favorable to my concept. One guy is allegedly a savant. Is he? I do not know but he is way smarter than me, so his interest is appreciated. Another racing fan spent the back half of his career in Medicaid.

I am a racing fan of 50 years; I travel frequently to many tracks around the country, and I can speak intelligently on most racetrack topics. People on HTR know me. One guy on HTR, wrote me and said he likes, no LOVES the idea.

I have been reaching out to people who can put this concept in front of important people, however, cold calling is tough stuff. No luck to date. Will I even get the Paulick interview?

I recognize some names on this forum who know people. I would not expect anyone to blindly endorse this concept to anyone important. However, there is enough about this concept to suggest at least a conversation with the right people to see if next steps are warranted.

We can talk about racings problems/solutions on this forum, or we can give a racial new concept a morning workout.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

You honestly think this sport will not die if they don't correct the pricing? You think anyone in their right mind is going to join a group of non rebated bettors that lose about 27% on the dollar in most exotics and come to the conclusion they have a future betting this game. Racings biggest days are 5 days a year. That is your source of hope? People will always show up to big events. That is not going to carry the industry as they continue feeding the whales at the expense of the recreational bettor.

This game has two major appeals. The perception that you can beat it or the perception that you will one day have a score. Unfortunately the first perception is basically gone in most. They just lose too much, too consistently and they eventually realize that their perception is delusion. The only perception that keeps many of the remaining playing is the perception that they will have a score. But even reality set in on them eventually. If they have the courage to track their losses at their adw, they may realize that they are so far behind the big score may not even put them in the profitable zone, unless it is a life changing score. They may or may not stay in the game. So eventually you are left with those that have disposable income (if you are worth 10 million and retired, losing $100,000 a year on horses isn't going to kill you), or those that bet very small because they enjoy the game (which is why you see tracks with an on track handle of about $50 a head) or those that are just plain degenerate or of course those that can hold their own despite the enormous takeout. Not exactly a way to build a thriving business imo.

I do.

Horse Racing is part of the fabric of our society.

You do think people weren't saying the same thing 50 years ago?

Oaklawn was days away from closing the doors until the advent is simulcasting.

Later it was saved by Instant Racing.

Now it's couldn't survive without the casino.

There's always going to be something. Perhaps the race tracks will make less $$$ but the sport dying is NOT going to happen. Too large of a core that loves racing. And don't say their fan base is going to die off. People have been saying that for three generations.

Hollywood Park closing didn't kill So Cal. Bay Meadows closing didn't kill SF. Arlington?? Well that's another story and it remains to be seen.

And I can GARE ON TEE you the CAW's aren't going anywhere. They bring an insane amount of handle.

As I said before I think the answer is contraction. Will I feel bad for the smaller venues that won't survive? Yes 100%.

But more money would be bet Nationwide by far if there were only 5 signals in the winter and maybe twice that in the summer. MTH would be one. Field size would go up. Quality of the signals would go up. And people would adapt.

In the winter there could be three eastern signals. NYRA, Gulfstream & KY. Sorry Jason. OAKLAWN can handle central time and we can wrap up the day with So.Cal.

Part of what's damaging racing is their inability to cull the weak links from the crop!

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

First of all I am not "bitching". I am educating the uneducated and I am not referring to you. Here is an example of what I am talking about.

https://www.americasbestracing.net/g...usses-wagering


When I say continually missed, I mean too many think that this game can be fixed without correcting the pricing. That is an impossibility and that attitude will just lead to pissing away more money on things that cannot possibly work.
If they remain oblivious of this death spiral they are on, they will kill this entire industry. So as this death spiral continues, I will keep on chiming with my analysis. Hope that is okay with you. If not, I believe there is an ignore feature.

Great article. Thankfully Mr. Repole is involved. That's giant IMO. I believe there is hope for a fantastic gambling game that will bring in a lot of new people and actually retain them as regular daily customers.

[castaway01]

These seemingly conflicting things can both be true.

The large majority of racing fans could be older compared to other sports, while there are some (relatively) younger players who bet big money in tournaments.

Racing could be barely hanging on in a lot of places, with there still being a dozen places (in my earlier post I said 20; maybe it's 10 or 15) that the sport would survive even as it dies out everywhere else.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

My point is that there are enough studious young gamblers out there who would adequately deal with the complexities of horse racing...if they deemed it a worthwhile gambling game to participate in.

The evidence that there are people like that is in the existence of CAWs. They are sharp people that made significant investments of time and money to get an edge. If it was a more worthwhile gambling endeavor, even more of them would participate and be successful. It's not like every CAW team is a success.

Still, imo poker is way more attractive than almost anything else.

1. Poker may require a LOT of initial study, but once you have the required knowledge the workload drops. Then you are mostly just playing cards. It evolves slowly. Horse racing is an ever evolving game that requires watching replays every day, staying on top of biases, trainer issues etc.. The work load is significant and constant.

2. In poker, you get to choose your level of competition. If you are losing at a high level, you can drop down to lower limits trying to find a level where you can win. In racing, you are competing with CAWs whether you are a beginner or 50 year player like me. There are few options for looking for softer competition.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Great article. Thankfully Mr. Repole is involved. That's giant IMO. I believe there is hope for a fantastic gambling game that will bring in a lot of new people and actually retain them as regular daily customers.

So you agree with him that the odd-even/roulette bet is a good idea?

[racenomics]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I played in my 9th or 10th consecutive BCBC this year.

2 entries at $10,000 each.

584 entries.

We bet 7% of the on track handle.

I'd guestimate that 80% of the players were 50 or less.

What you don't know is a lot.

How many days a year do those people go to the track? Whatever the answer is, it is not enough. When they are at the track, find out the high rollers, and pamper them with free steak dinners, suites, etc… Andy Beyer wrote about this a looping time ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...4/?itid=sr_528

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by castaway01

These seemingly conflicting things can both be true.

The large majority of racing fans could be older compared to other sports, while there are some (relatively) younger players who bet big money in tournaments.

Racing could be barely hanging on in a lot of places, with there still being a dozen places (in my earlier post I said 20; maybe it's 10 or 15) that the sport would survive even as it dies out everywhere else.

CORRECT!! Thank you!

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by racenomics

How many days a year do those people go to the track? Whatever the answer is, it is not enough. When they are at the track, find out the high rollers, and pamper them with free steak dinners, suites, etc… Andy Beyer wrote about this a looping time ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...4/?itid=sr_528

Since the advent of simulcasting the % of handle is something like 30% on 70% off. Maybe higher off.

When we try to show new people at the races a good time with F&B and giveaway and concerts. It's to hopefully cultivate some them into becoming daily players with ADW's.

Of course we'd love to make the on track experience as fun as possible but we're trying cultivate life long players.

Most newbies bet $50 or even less per cap.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Great article. Thankfully Mr. Repole is involved. That's giant IMO. I believe there is hope for a fantastic gambling game that will bring in a lot of new people and actually retain them as regular daily customers.

i would be careful with that. I did see that he tweeted this on his twitter feed:

Once again we need to respond to this idiot:

You have NO data to support claims that lowering takeout & eliminating rebates works

I have data from thise that did lower takeout (CBY, HAW, etc) that proves lowering takeout does not help handle

“I think” doesn’t work in business

fwiw, I hate twitter. Thus I will never participate on it. I do read it on occasion to keep up with what some people are saying. If this man needs non existent data to understand that rebates/caw and ridiculous takeout are the biggest problems this sports faces he needs to figure things out before declaring himself the savior of the industry. (If CJ or PA want to replace my quote with the tweet, be my guest).

Regarding this tweet. Canterbury and Hawthorne race short meets, like 3 days a week if I am not mistaken, and have really low quality horses (which for the most part are sort of painful to handicap imo). If data instead of common sense is going to be his barometer on how this industry needs to proceed he is pretty useless. JMO. That makes him no different than the industry saying we lowered the takeout in this pool for 2 years from 19% to 17 % and it proved to not work so now we are going to raise it to 21%.

Lowering takeout is not a magic wand. It has to be done across the board, not just in this pool or that pool, it has to be done long term to bring people back in the game or into it for the first time and build their patronage, it has to be dropped to a level that is competitive with other forms of advantage gambling (something like 10% across the board) and it has to be done as part of a very comprehensive marketing/educating the new consumer package. It is not a matter of pressing a button and saying Presto and suddenly your handle triples. Fantasy land or not that is the only way this sport grows. So it time for the people in this industry to start fantasizing.

BTW, I think may not work in this business, but not thinking for over 20 years has certainly destroyed this business. So carry on racing industry. I will see you at the procession. Or maybe charity will keep you alive just long enough so you don't completely die in my lifetime.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I do.

Horse Racing is part of the fabric of our society.

You do think people weren't saying the same thing 50 years ago?

Oaklawn was days away from closing the doors until the advent is simulcasting.

Later it was saved by Instant Racing.

Now it's couldn't survive without the casino.

There's always going to be something. Perhaps the race tracks will make less $$$ but the sport dying is NOT going to happen. Too large of a core that loves racing. And don't say their fan base is going to die off. People have been saying that for three generations.

Hollywood Park closing didn't kill So Cal. Bay Meadows closing didn't kill SF. Arlington?? Well that's another story and it remains to be seen.

And I can GARE ON TEE you the CAW's aren't going anywhere. They bring an insane amount of handle.

As I said before I think the answer is contraction. Will I feel bad for the smaller venues that won't survive? Yes 100%.

But more money would be bet Nationwide by far if there were only 5 signals in the winter and maybe twice that in the summer. MTH would be one. Field size would go up. Quality of the signals would go up. And people would adapt.

In the winter there could be three eastern signals. NYRA, Gulfstream & KY. Sorry Jason. OAKLAWN can handle central time and we can wrap up the day with So.Cal.

Part of what's damaging racing is their inability to cull the weak links from the crop!

Okay Vic. I have looked over horse racing handles since 1990. They are as follows. I am just going to present them in 5 year intervals to 2015 and then present 2023. The first figure will be actual handle and the second figure is what that handle should equate to in 2023 numbers (according to an inflation calculator). Figures are in billions:

1990:10.208, 23.784
1995: 11.224, 22,48
2000: 15.042, 26.624
2005: 15.376, 23.986
2010: 12.076, 16.096
2015: 11.290, 14.564
2023: 12.984


So there you have it up until the year 2000 horse racing was on the rise. Fairly steady through 2005 (rebates were in their infancy during this stage) and then boom. 30% drop from 2005 to 2010, 10% further drop from 2010 to 2015, and another 10% drop from 2015 to 2023. Now the part of the equation we don't know is what percentage of the volume was caw at each of these data points. I am guessing that it was around 5% of total handle in 2005 and I would not be shocked if it was as high as 40% today.

But bottom line is that since 2000 (23 years) we have saw handle go from
26.624 billion in todays dollar to 12.984 in todays dollar. Moreover in 2000 Caw/heavily rebated players I am not even sure if they had entered the picture yet but if they had, they made up 2% of the pool max. Today if they make up (lets be conservative) 1/3rd of the pool, that accounts for 4.328 billion. So from 2000 to 2023 non heavily rebated bettors went from 23.5 billion to 8.6 billion. That is a 63.4% drop. We know that Caw is being rebated at levels far greater than they were. So there is little reason to think that without corrective action that the next 23 years will not have at least an equally as dramatic negative effect (I actually think it is closer to 15 years than 23 years this time around). So that would mean todays 8.6 Billion in 2023 dollars would drop to 3.15 Billion in 2023 retail dollars. So by my conservative estimation, in 46 years 2000 to 2046, when not looking at heavily rebated dollars (retail) the racing industry is on course to go from 23.3 billion in 2023 dollars to 3.15 Billion in 2023 dollars. Of course with that heavy drop off in retail volume comes heavy drop offs in many other revenue streams for this industry. I wonder what Mr. Repole thinks of that data. Perhaps it is a little more significant than where Hawthorne or Canterbury have instant success with their limited takeout reduction (which I do applaud).

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by the little guy

So you agree with him that the odd-even/roulette bet is a good idea?

As you might imagine I'd have little interest in that specific bet. Two evenly matched horses in a match up bet at -115 is what I'm personally after. With that being said I'm open to a lot other types of bets being offered. They might have to weed out what doesn't result in a net increase. I'm just grateful someone is open to trying some new things because this whole long horizontal, ticket construction mantra we've been hearing has been and always will be a road to nowhere for the general public IMO. For some subset of people it's fine and I'm glad those folks already have what they want plus have the time to thoroughly handicap 48 horses.

[racenomics]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Since the advent of simulcasting the % of handle is something like 30% on 70% off. Maybe higher off.

When we try to show new people at the races a good time with F&B and giveaway and concerts. It's to hopefully cultivate some them into becoming daily players with ADW's.

Of course we'd love to make the on track experience as fun as possible but we're trying cultivate life long players.

Most newbies bet $50 or even less per cap.

For what reason does it not make sense to try to bring the big players to the track? As you know, tracks get a much larger percentage of handle on track compared to off track, not to mention that you are going to play the local track if you go. Even if the new fan goes to the local track and loves the game, if they just use an ADW they won’t bet that track nearly as much

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by MJC922

As you might imagine I'd have little interest in that specific bet. Two evenly matched horses in a match up bet at -115 is what I'm personally after. With that being said I'm open to a lot other types of bets being offered. They might have to weed out what doesn't result in a net increase. I'm just grateful someone is open to trying some new things because this whole long horizontal, ticket construction mantra we've been hearing has been and always will be a road to nowhere for the general public IMO. For some subset of people it's fine and I'm glad those folks already have what they want plus have the time to thoroughly handicap 48 horses.

I highly doubt you will see anything less than -130 on each side on a regular race day. Bookmakers will be very vulnerable even at -115. That is about 11.5 % on a 2 horse field (at -130). Maybe they will do -120. Takeout on a whole field needs to be below 11.5%. Also just because it is on an app in front of a sports bettor doesn't mean he is going to bet it. This add on type wagering can definitely play a big part in boosting revenues in this industry but not until they reverse course and fix pricing. That is the point I am trying to drive home.

Yes theoretically you can put up a prop on fridays 7th at Santa Anita, Hopkins vs Ginobli head to head. A place like fan duel/tvg could do like a 10 minute stint analyzing the 2 horses, showing replays, having experts give their opinions... The app can feature a link to free past performances for the 2 horses with expert analysis et. But if you are not a horse player I just do not see the appeal. Maybe a few might become interested. But for this type of wagering to really take off requires introducing a whole lot of new blood into racing. That is the point I was making earlier. You have the fix the pricing across the board, introduce this sport to millions and props like this can be hugely successful. But you are also dealing with cannibalizing your other pools. If I bet 200 on Ginobli, I may not want to bet him straight or key him in the exotics......If racing is partnering with fan duel, did my betting him with fan duel help or hurt their bottom line with me in this race? Maybe I would have bet more had I not had that option and racing would have made more money off me without that option. But then again some sports bettor might have looked through the pps and made a bet he would have never made had he not be given the opportunity. So yes there is a lot of promise to this idea, but it would work so much better if they fixed the pricing across the board. Also the more popular this type of betting becomes the more likely they do bring the take down to -115 or even -110 one day. But also keep in mind that fan duel is currently legal in like only a dozen states. In Nevada they can parther with the sports books (i think there are maybe 5 or 6 big ones). Also, are they going to be able to legalize and provide it at ADW's (nyra/twinspires/xpressbet/amwager etc)?

Here is how I envision this on everybody with a sports book app. Some kind of alert (you can have customers opt in to a text alert). Head to head horse racing bet, race begins in 20 minutes. Free past performances here, free expert opinions here, bet here and of course watch live here. This could actually be very effective in introducing the game to new blood. If they are willing to take the risk and offer these bets at -110 or even -115, knowing that this will attract lot of new interest in the game, so much better.