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

[rastajenk]

I think you're on an uphill struggle, racenomics. Those days are days gone by.

[classhandicapper]

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.

That first drop in 2005 -2010 is almost 100% certain to be mostly the result of the very deep recession in 2008. Horse racing never really recovered from that recession in "inflation adjusted real terms". I have less of an opinion as to why, but it was probable multiple things that we've discussed here many times. And to be clear, that's why I keep warning about the next recession. It's inevitable. Just the date is debatable. If it's a severe one and the racing handle takes a similar hit, imo a LOT of tracks are goners.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

As you might imagine I'd have little interest in that specific bet.

And odd/even or red/green saddle cloth bet is not something I would get excited about, but it's not insane. You'd have to make an odds line on every horse in the race, sum the probabilities of the odd and even or red and green horses and then look at the bet odds.

It would sort of be like the way people calculate fair prices on entries except for more horses.

If you give the horse 15% and the 10%, the fair price on the entry is 25% or 3-1.

You would be doing the same thing but for 1/2 the field and 1/2 the field.

[racenomics]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I think you're on an uphill struggle, racenomics. Those days are days gone by.

Only a few more rainbow 6s, a couple Turfway pick 5 carryover single tickets, and a score in the pick 6 at Santa Anita on Friday and I can buy a track and show all the haters how it’s done.

[classhandicapper]

Poindexter

I mentioned years ago that the takeout should be 1 percent per horse. So 6 horse field is a 6% percent takeout. 8 horse field, 8% takeout etc.

You make many good points, but this is one of my favorites.

I'm not sure what the formula should be, but having a different take by field size is so obviously a great idea it's sad that it doesn't get more discussion.

It's much more difficult to find value in a small field. That discourages wagering. The tracks already know that. We don't have to prove it to them.

And since small field sizes are a common problem these days (especially in high quality races that tend to handle a lot of money), they are clearly hurting handle.

A field size adjustment to the take may be a more palatable and sellable approach to the industry as an experiment than an across the board sharp cut to the take. And it would make sense for gamblers.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

And odd/even or red/green saddle cloth bet is not something I would get excited about, but it's not insane. You'd have to make an odds line on every horse in the race, sum the probabilities of the odd and even or red and green horses and then look at the bet odds.

It would sort of be like the way people calculate fair prices on entries.

If you give the horse 15% and the 10%, the fair price on the entry is 25% or 3-1.

You would be doing the same thing but for 1/2 the field and 1/2 the field.

I hear you, unfortunately that type of bet is not helping with the time management element I keep bringing up. Sports betting fits into peoples busy lifestyles without being overly intrusive. Currently racing is a full-on lifestyle of its own and for a lot of people that's a major deterrent or even an impossibility. If I need to assess probs on the entire field I'm still doing what I need to do today for a win bet. Don't get me wrong I like the huge boost to the win rate the odd/even would bring but it's not compelling to me at all compared with the evenly matched horse against horse option. I don't quite understand where Poindexter is coming from with track being made vulnerable in this scenario, how are two horses -115 any different than a pick'em game money line in the NFL? Does any bookmaker shy away from pick'em games? I don't think so. They need to draw balanced action as close as possible, I get that much but longterm this should be do-able, there are enough checks and balances where this shouldn't be considered high risk.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I hear you unfortunately that's not cutting into the time element I keep bringing up. If I need to assess probs on the entire field I'm still doing what I need to do today for a win bet. Don't get me wrong I like the huge boost to the win rate that would bring but it's not compelling to me at all compared with the evenly matched horse against horse option. I don't quite understand where Poindexter is coming from with vulnerable on a pick'em, how are two horses -115 and different than a pick'em game money line in the NFL, does any bookmaker shy away from pick'em games? I don't think so.

I understand and agree with you on the work load issue. I'm getting so burnt out, handicapping a single race thoroughly is becoming a chore unless it's a great race that I'm super interested in from a sporting perspective also.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

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).

I didn't say the patient wasn't very sick. I gave my opinion on how it could be resuscitated, survive and perhaps begin to heal.

[v j stauffer]

[QUOTE=racenomics;2922607]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[/QUOT

Because they are playing multiple signals all around the world and managing millions. They don't need a totebag or concert. Plus they're already fully invested customers. The track are making bank their play. Even with the higher rebates they pay.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I understand and agree with you on the work load issue. I'm getting so burnt out, handicapping a single race thoroughly is becoming a chore unless it's a great race that I'm super interested in from a sporting perspective also.

Exactly, you have a lot on your plate with family, same as me. I know it's hard to keep things going on the racing-side, you essentially have product but aren't selling, it's just for personal use, and I have a personal use product that's being sold on the side. You don't want to stop maintaining what you've worked years to put together. I have my oldest son (autistic) living with me now, with all it takes to assist with getting him through life, getting him to work and back (he's taking driving lessons now so fingers crossed) in the meantime getting him to his dr's appts, plus my day job which thankfully I have a very forgiving employer otherwise I'd surely have lost the job by now due to all of the running around I'm doing for my son.

Add to that my mom and dad both have health issues, it's a tough time. My grandma and stepdad passed during the pandemic. There actually aren't many people left in my life now. When I have 'spare' time on a weekend to think about making a play and comprehensively handicap a race, I find myself mentally wanting to go to the gym instead for my health or grab a coffee and watch youtube afterward. Like I said the wagers would have to be made very very compelling for me to get excited about things again. They might get that way, if so I can see myself as becoming more of a consistent at least several days per week player. As long as it can fit neatly into my schedule, that's the primary hurdle.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I hear you, unfortunately that type of bet is not helping with the time management element I keep bringing up. Sports betting fits into peoples busy lifestyles without being overly intrusive. Currently racing is a full-on lifestyle of its own and for a lot of people that's a major deterrent or even an impossibility. If I need to assess probs on the entire field I'm still doing what I need to do today for a win bet. Don't get me wrong I like the huge boost to the win rate the odd/even would bring but it's not compelling to me at all compared with the evenly matched horse against horse option. I don't quite understand where Poindexter is coming from with track being made vulnerable in this scenario, how are two horses -115 any different than a pick'em game money line in the NFL? Does any bookmaker shy away from pick'em games? I don't think so. They need to draw balanced action as close as possible, I get that much but longterm this should be do-able, there are enough checks and balances where this shouldn't be considered high risk.

First off horses do not have to be equal per se, it the closer they are to equal the better this type of wagering is. The reason the bookmaker is vulnerable in s because of sharps. What may appear to be two equal horses to the bookmaker, the market may ultimately decide that one horse should be - 150. In the sports market they put out opening lines, sharps jump on the openers at partial limits and as time goes on the lines iron out to the market line and the limits get bigger closer to game time. The more customers a book has, the more cross action it gets, the less exposed they are. Obviously a lot more people bet the nfl over tennis. Tennis may be more popular than other sports. Horse racing matchups from a Thursday at say Gulfstream at this point in time are not going to get a lot of action and will leave the bookmakers exposed. If horse a gets bet from -110 to -160 and wins the matchup, the bookmaker loses a lot of money, because they have to pay off those who bet the horse early and due to limited action they do not make enough money late (from the juice) to cover that amount.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

First off horses do not have to be equal per se, it the closer they are to equal the better this type of wagering is. The reason the bookmaker is vulnerable in s because of sharps. What may appear to be two equal horses to the bookmaker, the market may ultimately decide that one horse should be - 150. In the sports market they put out opening lines, sharps jump on the openers at partial limits and as time goes on the lines iron out to the market line and the limits get bigger closer to game time. The more customers a book has, the more cross action it gets, the less exposed they are. Obviously a lot more people bet the nfl over tennis. Tennis may be more popular than other sports. Horse racing matchups from a Thursday at say Gulfstream at this point in time are not going to get a lot of action and will leave the bookmakers exposed. If horse a gets bet from -110 to -160 and wins the matchup, the bookmaker loses a lot of money, because they have to pay off those who bet the horse early and due to limited action they do not make enough money late (from the juice) to cover that amount.

Similar methods can be used. I mean you can't let the mattress guy bet 10 million and not try to balance that out. You may have to set some limits in some cases, I'm ok with that, I believe the offshore I used was showing a 3k limit on the -115. Unlike the bookmakers the tracks have the luxury of using probables to confirm how much action the horses are taking in DD and other pools combined. The tracks could wait for that confirmation if desired. I'd be ok with that too. Like you said send me a text when we get a green light. The odds would essentially have to be flat out wrong for them to lose money over the longterm and we know the odds aren't all that wrong, right?

[Poindexter]

There was a book in Vegas called sport of kings that opened in Vegas a number of years ago with this concept. They may not have been properly capitalized but they went out of business in a very short amount of time. This just shows how dangerous this can be to the bookmaker.

[Frost king]

The biggest advantage, that all of these ADW’s and online betting business have over horse racing, is that they don’t have to pay anything to put on the show! What is the biggest problem facing California racing? They have paid out too much to put on the show. How do the decrease the costs of putting on the show? Decrease the costs, then you can decrease the takeout. If you don’t do the first, you can’t do the second.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

There was a book in Vegas called sport of kings that opened in Vegas a number of years ago with this concept. They may not have been properly capitalized but they went out of business in a very short amount of time. This just shows how dangerous this can be to the bookmaker.

Understood, although I highly doubt if a root cause analysis were done it would show they went out of business from booking pick'ems. There are sufficient checks and balances that can be brought to bear using probables on these match ups. Reasonable limits can be set on wagers. Lines can be moved if needed etc. I mean if they can't figure out a way to make money on these things then nevermind. I leave you then to low takeout pick fives and pick sixes with carryover. It'll just be more of the same for the next couple of decades. Those bets frankly don't have a pricing issue, they have a win rate issue. Those bets end up being lottery on horseback for the general public and for lottery-minded folks you know it's just way easier to buy a ticket when leaving the grocery store.