Must read HRN: Gamblers say stop the cheating and lower the takeout or else

[groupie doll]

Originally Posted by Michael

You're dam right we're fustrated.

The industry really needs to look in the mirror and stop hiding behind the facade of "but we love the horses."

You can't keep abusing these animals
You can't keep cheating the betting customers
You can't masquerade and act like you're not part of these abuses.
The industry is failing and you ass wipes are acting like you need Sherlock Holmes on the case. The problems are very easy to solve.

I listen to analysts week after week... and not one of them has ever mentioned that Ronnie Coleman got his clenbuterol from the trainer of the 4 horse in the 7th. It's really disgusting that instead they hide behind formulator stats... saying so and so is a great horseman, and that he sends out 38% winners off the claim. Truth is I can see horses that are breathing more air than is naturally possible through my crappy internet feed.

If you work in the industry and this post seems harsh? well, that's because this post is talking about you. Those that feel shame? we all should feel that way. I'm likely part of the problem as I'm the customer.

We all know Nevarro and Servis are just the tip of the iceberg. If you're not fustrated, it's likely because you're the one we want out of the industry.

Spot on post.
On the bolded: there is something that you can do to not be part of the problem: stop betting.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...but how do we define the term "optimal price" as it applies to the topic of parimutuel takeout? Is the "optimal takeout" the takeout percentage that would lead to the highest betting handle...or is it the takeout percentage which would lead to the highest overall profit for the track? Because these two are not necessarily the same thing.

Highest long term revenue for purses and for tracks.

In Ca for example I would start with 12% takeout on WPS and 15% take on exactas and pay breakage to the penny on those wagers to start.

Within 2 or 3 months there will be a pretty good chart of the increase in handle/revenue. From there you adjust up or down to find the best price point. My best guess is that those takeout numbers are pretty close.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

Still waiting for HANA to define this……

Takeout isn’t driving anybody away, nor is doping. What’s driving people away is not knowing what their wager will pay if it hits. I don’t think anybody is going to shy away from betting 2:1 if he/she is comfortable at that price but I’m not going to bet it knowing that it’s going to be 3:2 after the gates open and by the time they’re going into the turn. Get rid of the doping, lower the takeout…….and it’s still an unbettable product on all but the days where the pools are so big that they won’t shift in the 2 clicks after the gates open

Of course it's driving people away and driving sports bettors away from ever trying

[geroge.burns99]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Of course it's driving people away and driving sports bettors away from ever trying

don't all pay the vig on any sports bet?

just to get even money!!!!!


so whats the difference between the vig or take-out?


plus why aren't people enticed to get maybe a 4-1 payout, 10-1,etc......


theres more than just the take out here

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by geroge.burns99

don't all pay the vig on any sports bet?

just to get even money!!!!!


so whats the difference between the vig or take-out?


plus why aren't people enticed to get maybe a 4-1 payout, 10-1,etc......


theres more than just the take out here

If you only play a couple times a month takeout doesn't matter much. But if you play a few times a week or more it's everything.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

If you only play a couple times a month takeout doesn't matter much. But if you play a few times a week or more it's everything.

Overlays are overlays and underlays are underlays. The more overlays you bet, the greater likelihood you have of being a winner over time. A lower takeout increases the likelihood of there being overlays on the board but it’s still a skill to identify them and requires discipline to only bet overlays. Lowering the takeout isn’t going to magically increase that skill or discipline

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

Overlays are overlays and underlays are underlays. The more overlays you bet, the greater likelihood you have of being a winner over time. A lower takeout increases the likelihood of there being overlays on the board but it’s still a skill to identify them and requires discipline to only bet overlays. Lowering the takeout isn’t going to magically increase that skill or discipline

We are advocating lower takeout to increase purses and revenue and make the game more popular.

What's the beef?

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

We are advocating lower takeout to increase purses and revenue and make the game more popular.

What's the beef?

My issue is that I don’t see anything that indicates that purses will increase and given HANA’s track record in Minnesota, I don’t have any confidence that HANA knows its left hand from its right when it comes to putting money in purse accounts

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

My issue is that I don’t see anything that indicates that purses will increase and given HANA’s track record in Minnesota, I don’t have any confidence that HANA knows its left hand from its right when it comes to putting money in purse accounts

Again with HANA. They aren't active and haven't been for a few years.

And again, if takeout is lowered to a point where revenue decreases then it needs to go back up to whatever point is optimal

One of the HANA board members dropped horse racing and now gambles mainly on MMA. And another HANA advisor now does DFS and collected a million dollar first prize earlier in the year after dropping horse racing. They dropped horse racing because of pricing mainly

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Again with HANA. They aren't active and haven't been for a few years.

And again, if takeout is lowered to a point where revenue decreases then it needs to go back up to whatever point is optimal

One of the HANA board members dropped horse racing and now gambles mainly on MMA. And another HANA advisor now does DFS and collected a million dollar first prize earlier in the year after dropping horse racing. They dropped horse racing because of pricing mainly

These two HANA members are smart. They realized that this game isn't likely to change for the better...so they moved on to other more worthwhile gambling games in which to participate. And if we are smart, then we would do likewise...instead of constantly bitching and moaning about things that are totally out of our control. Is there really someone among us who truly thinks that the mutuel takeout is going down...or that there will ever be true transparency in this game? Can we really be that naive?

"How Can We Fix Horse Racing?"...thetripleclowns ask. As if this is OUR game to fix!

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

These two HANA members are smart. They realized that this game isn't likely to change for the better...so they moved on to other more worthwhile gambling games in which to participate. And if we are smart, then we would do likewise...instead of constantly bitching and moaning about things that are totally out of our control. Is there really someone among us who truly thinks that the mutuel takeout is going down...or that there will ever be true transparency in this game? Can we really be that naive?

"How Can We Fix Horse Racing?"...thetripleclowns ask. As if this is OUR game to fix!

You are right about the Industry. A couple weeks ago I went to Tuscon for the Symposium on racing. Cost me a couple grand between the drive over, hotel, and entry into the symposium. I went because if you're gonna advocate for changes you gotta show up once in a while. Anyway, the feeling I got is that either most of them (execs) think it's fine as is or are interested in dumbing it down more. Chances are extremely slim that any significant changes will be made

[Zman179]

Personally, I don’t think horse racing has a myriad of problems because:

1. The game is very difficult for a newbie to figure out. Past performances might as well be a book on learning Japanese Kanji to many folks and people who do not have an analytical-thinking mind won’t have any desire to pick it up.

2. Many people I have spoken to who have never been to a racetrack in their lives think that all racing is fixed. Racing has done nothing to clean their image, in fact they are happy with the status quo as long as the cheating is quiet and the casino money keeps coming in.

3. People are turned off at having to outlay money just for the privilege of betting…and many times when something is offered for free, one has to jump through hoops to get it. Casino games are free and you get nice comps, lotteries are free and insanely easy to place action at, horse racing requires effort, many places you’ll have to pay for admission and parking and you’ll also pay for just about everything else. Free food? Free drinks? Yeah ok, you’ll get them on February 30th. Show me ONE thoroughbred track that readily has free pp’s available and easy to access, I’ll wait. And don’t tell me about the ADW’s that offer free pp’s, because that involves effort to want to delve deeper into the game. You’re trying to entice the TikTok generation here, not people approaching retirement.

Lower takeout means NOTHING to the new player or the $2 bettor, whom a lot of larger type bettors love to chastise, it only matters to players who create churn and bet larger amounts. Make the game easier to access, eliminate the perception of cheating and you will create new players. Or continue on the current path, have your current bettors die out and eventually you will have sharp players playing in pools with zero square money. Then the slots companies will kill racing as soon as they can legally decouple from it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

My issue is that I don’t see anything that indicates that purses will increase and given HANA’s track record in Minnesota, I don’t have any confidence that HANA knows its left hand from its right when it comes to putting money in purse accounts

Being a creator of Par Times (since 1991), I've studied the relationship between purses and times.

(Short version: It doesn't work well.)

One of the things I found in studying purse values is that LOCATION MATTERS.

Canterbury is, perhaps, the absolute best example of this in the country.

It is a solid 2nd tier track these days.
Not Belmont or Gulfstream, but also not Prairie Meadows.

If one looks at the map and actually measures (in miles) what it takes to SHIP a horse into or out of CBY, you get a clear understanding of why CBY is a bit of an ENCLOSED circuit.

Aside from the cost to ship (and I don't know how anything about those details), there is also the danger of mishap. From what I've been told, it is just plain dangerous for the animals.

So, CBY is not like (say) PARX, where you might ship your horse to MTH for a single race and be back the next day or even the same day. IOW, not just a trip up the turnpike.

IMHO, that "enclosed circuit" thing causes a rather unique situation where track management has much greater control over purses because, simply put, it is a big deal for a trainer to leave for another track.

BTW, CBY is one of the best tracks in the country for horses running back to their previous races. That track is highly playable.


_________________________
Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't support the effort of HANA for the cause. Sure, they tried to score a few bucks for support, but it was essentially a thankless job.

My understanding is that Jeff and a few others worked hard at it.

To criticize them for not doing enough (as HASKINS did), was just out of line.
_________________________

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Being a creator of Par Times (since 1991), I've studied the relationship between purses and times.

(Short version: It doesn't work well.)

One of the things I found in studying purse values is that LOCATION MATTERS.

Canterbury is, perhaps, the absolute best example of this in the country.

It is a solid 2nd tier track these days.
Not Belmont or Gulfstream, but also not Prairie Meadows.

If one looks at the map and actually measures (in miles) what it takes to SHIP a horse into or out of CBY, you get a clear understanding of why CBY is a bit of an ENCLOSED circuit.

Aside from the cost to ship (and I don't know how anything about those details), there is also the danger of mishap. From what I've been told, it is just plain dangerous for the animals.

So, CBY is not like (say) PARX, where you might ship your horse to MTH for a single race and be back the next day or even the same day. IOW, not just a trip up the turnpike.

IMHO, that "enclosed circuit" thing causes a rather unique situation where track management has much greater control over purses because, simply put, it is a big deal for a trainer to leave for another track.

BTW, CBY is one of the best tracks in the country for horses running back to their previous races. That track is highly playable.


_________________________
Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't support the effort of HANA for the cause. Sure, they tried to score a few bucks for support, but it was essentially a thankless job.

My understanding is that Jeff and a few others worked hard at it.

To criticize them for not doing enough (as HASKINS did), was just out of line.
_________________________

Spot-on post, Dave....Right there with you...

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Zman179

Personally, I don’t think horse racing has a myriad of problems because:

1. The game is very difficult for a newbie to figure out. Past performances might as well be a book on learning Japanese Kanji to many folks and people who do not have an analytical-thinking mind won’t have any desire to pick it up.

2. Many people I have spoken to who have never been to a racetrack in their lives think that all racing is fixed. Racing has done nothing to clean their image, in fact they are happy with the status quo as long as the cheating is quiet and the casino money keeps coming in.

3. People are turned off at having to outlay money just for the privilege of betting…and many times when something is offered for free, one has to jump through hoops to get it. Casino games are free and you get nice comps, lotteries are free and insanely easy to place action at, horse racing requires effort, many places you’ll have to pay for admission and parking and you’ll also pay for just about everything else. Free food? Free drinks? Yeah ok, you’ll get them on February 30th. Show me ONE thoroughbred track that readily has free pp’s available and easy to access, I’ll wait. And don’t tell me about the ADW’s that offer free pp’s, because that involves effort to want to delve deeper into the game. You’re trying to entice the TikTok generation here, not people approaching retirement.

Lower takeout means NOTHING to the new player or the $2 bettor, whom a lot of larger type bettors love to chastise, it only matters to players who create churn and bet larger amounts. Make the game easier to access, eliminate the perception of cheating and you will create new players. Or continue on the current path, have your current bettors die out and eventually you will have sharp players playing in pools with zero square money. Then the slots companies will kill racing as soon as they can legally decouple from it.

Horse Racing is meant to be a thinking persons game who likes puzzles, not a button pushers game like a slot in a casino. If people believed they could win they wouldn't mind learning.

Lower takeout means a lot. First of all there are more gamblers than ever, most of whom bet sports. They are the first people racing needs to convert and they won't try it at the current rates.

It all comes down to the best marketing ever created and it's free, and called word of mouth. If more people came to the track and won they would be telling other people. That almost never happens anymore.