Randy Moss Supports Changing the TC

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Tom

Only to the extend that they force then number of race days.
Small fields are an owners dream, so don't expect much to be done about them.

If nothing is done to increase the size of the weekday fields...then all the other "efforts" to improve the game are in vain, IMO. The owners and the trainers are interested in competing for worthwhile purses...and the bettors are interested in finding worthwhile bets. You either appeases ALL the entities involved in the game...or the game's future is in grave doubt.

You can't hand the connections of the horses these mega-purses...while the bettors are left holding the bag.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

As far as I am concerned...the biggest problem plaguing horseracing today is the proliferation of the 5 and the 6-horse field. The weekday cards are loaded with these types of races...which have turned this game into strictly a WEEKEND affair for me...and for most of the other serious players out there. Do we blame the GOVERNMENT for this?

Agree, and I'd also add the races are poorly written. I've seen many claimers with 3-5, 2-5, and less favorites. There is no way in hell those races are written with betting in mind. Racing secretaries are failing the bettors. They only care about horsemen, it is obvious.

[Tom]

Racing has no clue who the customers are.
They believe it is the horsemen.

Until the they understand that horsemen are nothing more than the hired help, racing will continue to suck.

High purses are the root of all the evil - too much purse money for too little return. time to slash purses - MAKE them have to run to make a living.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The very first thing I said was: I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.

In case it hadn't struck you, the revenue percentage is THE TAKE. Then you started arguing that nobody would do what I said, despite the fact that there are tracks doing that now. Apparently you disagreed with what you thought your read instead of what I said.

You can't leave the revenue percentage the same and expect the same revenue while offering an degraded product.

Nobody would do what you said until such time that adding capital to a business produces no increase in revenues or increases in value to the assets. Only an idiot would keep funding a losing proposition.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The very first thing I said was: I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.

I don't doubt someone might try that, but whether they continued it or not would be dependent on whether that model outperformed some other track that decided to lower take a couple of percent and increase capital spending on the facility.

The problem is not only do we not know the answers to many of these questions, we don't even know all the great ideas some bright people may come up with if they had the opportunity to benefit from them.

That's why I am an advocate of the market making these decisions over the long haul

Lots of very smart people have all sorts of very strong opinions that turn out to be wrong . Others are weighed down by personal agendas and biases.

Think of like a handicapping concept. We all have different ideas, but we find out which are right or wrong by freely betting our views and checking the bottom line at the end.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

Small fields are an owners dream, so don't expect much to be done about them.

No truer words were ever uttered. '

When one of my horses is running the first thing I check is the field size to see if I can get 4th or 5th money even if my horse doesn't run his race. I hate when I'm in a 12 horse field. The morning of the race when I check the scratches I want to see everyone else out.

But of course, it has to be balanced against handle and betting opportunities for players. The trick is finding the balance between making the game attractive enough for horse players so they want to play and owners having enough of a chance holding their own to not abandon purchases and leave horse shortages.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by AndyC

You can't leave the revenue percentage the same and expect the same revenue while offering an degraded product.

Nobody would do what you said until such time that adding capital to a business produces no increase in revenues or increases in value to the assets. Only an idiot would keep funding a losing proposition.

I don't think you are naive. You just want to argue because you can't imagine tracks are already doing exactly what I said. How do I know? I've been to them. Just let me know which tracks you've been to in the last two years so I can compare it to my experience.

I remember once trying to get a hotel chain in to invest in energy efficiency. We had all the numbers. Invest this much and in five years you get your full investment back and your future operating costs are lower. Sounds like a great deal, eh?

First question they asked: How many more customers will I get? Second question: How much more could I charge them?

I didn't have the definitive answers that would have made the sale, because as long as the room was cool in the summer and warm in the winter, the high efficiency HVAC system was completely unseen, and as long as it was working properly there didn't seem to be a compelling reason to change them now to get a savings in five years. Same with the lights and the drapes and the refrigerator in the kitchen

In the same way, the track only wants to make investments in those things that are either going to increase handle or increase the bottom line. Sure, they'll paint but at a number of places only when it gets really noticeable. Change the carpet - maybe next year. And if it's out of sight - maybe in five years. Hence, the reason why the backside at Santa Anita is not what the horsemen would like. They'll spend a lot of money upgrading it some day, the horsemen will be happy (but there won't be more horses stabled), and in itself it will not draw any new customers or increase handle. People don't worry about the backside.

Tracks can plant flowers in the infield, spend money on watering and someone to take care of them, and call themselves the Track of Lakes and Flowers, but again it is unlikely that will generate new bettors or bigger handle. You'll have owners with your attitude, but I guarantee you'll have owners with mine. I've seen them.

I've been to the OTBs in New York City (when they were open). You want to talk about shitholes. But they were packed. Which kind of goes to show you that aesthetic issues didn't seem to bother that group of horseplayers. You know what makes a difference to people at a betting facility? Betting machines that work all the time and enough of them. Decent food and drink. Fairly clean bathrooms that don't smell bad. Ample parking, preferably free. Of course, that assumes they want to be at the track in the first place. On track revenues are less a percentage of total revenues every year at most tracks, and as I've mentioned, if you are in Ohio betting California, facility expenditures are irrelevant. For every track like Santa Anita (that was really on the hook to make the place look good for the Breeder's Cups) you've got a slew of other tracks that are pinching pennies and looking for ways to save a buck by not investing in things that won't increase handle or profits, and that includes some facility improvements.

I mentioned three things: leaving the take high, cheaping out on track expenses and keeping purses as low as they can, and I mentioned it in relation to tracks becoming independent of the government. The discussion is generally moot since we're never going to find out how the new paradigm might work. But based on experiences at various tracks, I have a lot of reason to speculate in that direction.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

No truer words were ever uttered. '

When one of my horses is running the first thing I check is the field size to see if I can get 4th or 5th money even if my horse doesn't run his race. I hate when I'm in a 12 horse field. The morning of the race when I check the scratches I want to see everyone else out.

But of course, it has to be balanced against handle and betting opportunities for players. The trick is finding the balance between making the game attractive enough for horse players so they want to play and owners having enough of a chance holding their own to not abandon purchases and leave horse shortages.

How are things ever to get "balanced", when all the owners are like you...always looking for the shortest fields...and hoping that their horses run "unopposed" in the races?

Face it, Classhandicapper...you have joined the "establishment"...and you are now part of the problem, instead of being part of the "solution". You keep talking about the need for "balance"...even as you seek the shortest fields for your own horses.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Tom

... High purses are the root of all the evil - too much purse money for too little return. time to slash purses - MAKE them have to run to make a living.

This is in line with my thinking. There needs to be a desire to be competitive by the participants especially in pro sports..

High purses aren't necessarily evil but the payout shouldn't be to last place in horse racing. I noticed something like 10 years ago, the takeout was raised across the board with the promise of larger and more competitive fields.

Well, that never occurred but what did occur were pay outs to the last place as standard practice.

I don't play Golf but, in pro Golf do they pay out to last place?

Because, I know they do pay out to quite a number of places maybe horse racing is attempting to mimic them.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

No truer words were ever uttered. '

When one of my horses is running the first thing I check is the field size to see if I can get 4th or 5th money even if my horse doesn't run his race. I hate when I'm in a 12 horse field. The morning of the race when I check the scratches I want to see everyone else out.

But of course, it has to be balanced against handle and betting opportunities for players. The trick is finding the balance between making the game attractive enough for horse players so they want to play and owners having enough of a chance holding their own to not abandon purchases and leave horse shortages.

So, the advocates who have suggested varying the stated purse amount for a given race depending on field sizes are making a very good point.

Because, it's very apparent how owners/trainers feel about larger (more competitive and probably larger handle races) versus smaller (less competition and smaller handles) field sizes.

I hope you realize that the smaller field sizes and probably smaller handles won't cover the related takeout to cover the purses and the portion going to the tracks upkeep.

Then it's just a matter of time how long that can last. Remember everything has a cause and effect.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

.......I remember once trying to get a hotel chain in to invest in energy efficiency. We had all the numbers. Invest this much and in five years you get your full investment back and your future operating costs are lower. Sounds like a great deal, eh?

First question they asked: How many more customers will I get? Second question: How much more could I charge them?

You might be the worst salesman ever if it was such a great deal.

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

.....In the same way, the track only wants to make investments in those things that are either going to increase handle or increase the bottom line......

Seems like a prudent way to do business. I would add a third reason to spend, to maintain the value of the asset and or prevent a larger expenditure in the future.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by AndyC

You might be the worst salesman ever if it was such a great deal.

I wasn't selling. I was consulting. I got paid regardless of what they did. But it was a good lesson. The first thing anyone spends capital on is something that increases business, and a lot of aesthetics and hidden changes don't increase customers or spending.

It was a good deal. But it's like anything else. Rooftop solar, a 95% efficient furnace, or hybrid autos all will pay off eventually. Whether you see the benefit often depends on the initial outlay and the break even point, and maybe to a bigger degree than people admit, your perception of such things.

I'll tell you another story. When I bought a new house, I had my choice of an 80% efficient or a 95% efficient furnace. Without going into great detail, the "premium" on the higher efficiency furnace was $700. I happened to be in a position to know that the actual cost differential was about $300, including hookup. When I asked about it, they basically said, people who want those kinds of furnaces happily pay the premium, so what the heck, we jack it up.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Tom

Racing has no clue who the customers are.
They believe it is the horsemen.

Until the they understand that horsemen are nothing more than the hired help, racing will continue to suck.

High purses are the root of all the evil - too much purse money for too little return. time to slash purses - MAKE them have to run to make a living.

They are running. To tracks with better purses, and races that fill.

We need to get off the notion that simplistic notions of the economics of racing are useful. They are not; racing is, as others have posted here, a 3- or 4-legged stool of interdependence.

So in this case...while 'horsemen' might not fit the traditional definition of customer, they really are very much like a customer, and the track's condition book is tantamount to the product. There is no surplus of owners out there so the tracks are in an inferior position. This is, for example, the opposite of the Walmart effect where the retailer can grind the shit out of all their suppliers.

If I'm an owner/trainer on the east coast I can take my business to a half-dozen tracks based on the races written and the purses offered. Witness Monmouth's struggles right now, and the silly battle they're having with Suffolk.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

They are running. To tracks with better purses, and races that fill.

We need to get off the notion that simplistic notions of the economics of racing are useful. They are not; racing is, as others have posted here, a 3- or 4-legged stool of interdependence.

So in this case...while 'horsemen' might not fit the traditional definition of customer, they really are very much like a customer, and the track's condition book is tantamount to the product. There is no surplus of owners out there so the tracks are in an inferior position. This is, for example, the opposite of the Walmart effect where the retailer can grind the shit out of all their suppliers.

If I'm an owner/trainer on the east coast I can take my business to a half-dozen tracks based on the races written and the purses offered. Witness Monmouth's struggles right now, and the silly battle they're having with Suffolk.

What the tracks have is the reverse of Walmart. They horse owners are the supplier grinding the shit out of both the track and the bettor. And unlike Walmart suppliers the horse owners have a vote in how the tracks are run. But even with the strong position held by owners, they have not exactly reaped a financial bonanza. Everybody is just trying to survive.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

[QUOTE= Witness Monmouth's struggles right now, and the silly battle they're having with Suffolk.[/QUOTE]

The battle monmouth has with suffolk may seem silly but its not. They are running six days this meet; July 8, 9, August 5, 6, and September 2, 3. A quick glance at their condition book and they are running the same types of races for almost double the purses as Monmouth. Since they are targeting the same horses that are running every 3-4 weeks that essentially takes them away for the remainder of the monmouth meet unless they run back quicker which is doubtful.

Suffolk has no stabling area, so these horses are shipping in from wherever they are stabled. As it relates to monmouth, they pay workmens for the entire backside. NJ law mandates that they do. Tracks that I am familiar with, the trainers have to pay some if not all of it.

Framed in this context and the struggle they have trying to fill a card as it is, you can see why this is a real issue. Paying workmens comp and offering free stabling only to have the horses you expect to support the program ship out given the current state they are in, its a problem.