Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 12-17-2017, 01:54 PM   #16
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prioress Ply View Post
Agree--it's dead. But it was going downhill in the early 90s, right after they started increasing the wagering menu and taking simulcast races.

It was already dead by 2005 or so you just couldn't see it. When Hubbard sold HP you knew the writing was the on the wall.
This is correct. Takeout increases are at most a minor part of the story here.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-18-2017, 04:50 PM   #17
AskinHaskin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afleet View Post
where is that blowhard askinhaskin selling the virtues of increased take?

What drugs are you on?


I've never said a word about increasing takeout as a means to solving anything.


The point has always been that lowering takeout (instead of addressing the real concerns which lie beneath) is a fool's folly which serves only to exacerbate the problems.

My only references to raising takeout have been to underscore how obvious the idiocy that is lowering takeout really is, in the way of a solution to anything. (such as comparing Hialeah pick-4 pools with the small 12% takeout to the same pools with the much higher takeout a year later) (or comparing Canterbury's handle during the experimental year to Canterbury's handle a year later, with giant takeout increases) (those examples are emphatic, and significant at least until the failed notion that is lowering takeout ever increases the bottom line anywhere)


All you have to do is read Pratt above to further underscore how clueless the whole lower takeout campaign really is.

He should have learned via Canterbury's 2016 disaster that merely increasing "money BET by horseplayers on the product" guarantees nothing for the bottom line, or for purses at all.


Once and for all, you have to address the lack of parity in the wagering pools as the single greatest factor in racing's present demise (now ongoing for decades).

Forget takeout
forget drugs in racing
forget steward's rulings
forget some guys (but not you) being granted direct, computer-line access to the mutuels
forget horse safety* (*as an answer that relates to solving any public perception problem, and thus increasing business as a result)
forget synthetic tracks
forget last minute odds changes making a horse go from 4-1 at the post to 4-to-5 on the backstretch
forget $9000 show bets on some 74-to-1 debut runner trained by a person who is 0-for-50 lifetime with debut runners
forget race-fixing
forget competition from the lottery


All of that other s*** has just been there conveniently to camouflage what racing has been doing to itself over the past 30 years.


Use the NFL as contrast...

The mighty Dolphins, now 6 and 8, go up 27-10 over the Patriots in a game that wasn't even as close as the 27-20 final score... and the same Patriots return 6 days later and reign superior over the now-11-and-3 Steelers who had won 8 in a row.


That's why people watch the NFL!


Horse racing's standings (in the parimutuel pools) would be akin to the NHL in the 1950's where the same two teams dominated every year. (so consider the difference between total NHL attendance then and now and mark down another sport now with 8 times the attendance it had back in the good old days )


The average guy working in an office downtown has zero interest in visiting the local track or OTB because he already feels he knows what is going to happen if he does visit.


And, collectively, all of you are still the problem.


Now if you can't understand that much, then you have zero hope of ever righting this sinking ship.
AskinHaskin is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-18-2017, 05:37 PM   #18
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
And, collectively, all of you are still the problem.


Now if you can't understand that much, then you have zero hope of ever righting this sinking ship.
We're all obviously not as smart as you are. Please, enlighten us as to how all of use are the problem. If you can't do that much I'll just have to keep deleting posts where you say it.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-18-2017, 05:44 PM   #19
lamboguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,661
he's right! the more they raise the takeout, signal fees, and host fees, the less i bet into those windows. they did it in Keeneland this year and i didn't make a bet, and it looks like i wasn't the only one looking at the handle fall off the cliff while everyone else's went up.
lamboguy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-18-2017, 06:06 PM   #20
Afleet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
What drugs are you on?


I've never said a word about increasing takeout as a means to solving anything.


The point has always been that lowering takeout (instead of addressing the real concerns which lie beneath) is a fool's folly which serves only to exacerbate the problems.

My only references to raising takeout have been to underscore how obvious the idiocy that is lowering takeout really is, in the way of a solution to anything. (such as comparing Hialeah pick-4 pools with the small 12% takeout to the same pools with the much higher takeout a year later) (or comparing Canterbury's handle during the experimental year to Canterbury's handle a year later, with giant takeout increases) (those examples are emphatic, and significant at least until the failed notion that is lowering takeout ever increases the bottom line anywhere)


All you have to do is read Pratt above to further underscore how clueless the whole lower takeout campaign really is.

He should have learned via Canterbury's 2016 disaster that merely increasing "money BET by horseplayers on the product" guarantees nothing for the bottom line, or for purses at all.


Once and for all, you have to address the lack of parity in the wagering pools as the single greatest factor in racing's present demise (now ongoing for decades).

Forget takeout
forget drugs in racing
forget steward's rulings
forget some guys (but not you) being granted direct, computer-line access to the mutuels
forget horse safety* (*as an answer that relates to solving any public perception problem, and thus increasing business as a result)
forget synthetic tracks
forget last minute odds changes making a horse go from 4-1 at the post to 4-to-5 on the backstretch
forget $9000 show bets on some 74-to-1 debut runner trained by a person who is 0-for-50 lifetime with debut runners
forget race-fixing
forget competition from the lottery


All of that other s*** has just been there conveniently to camouflage what racing has been doing to itself over the past 30 years.


Use the NFL as contrast...

The mighty Dolphins, now 6 and 8, go up 27-10 over the Patriots in a game that wasn't even as close as the 27-20 final score... and the same Patriots return 6 days later and reign superior over the now-11-and-3 Steelers who had won 8 in a row.


That's why people watch the NFL!


Horse racing's standings (in the parimutuel pools) would be akin to the NHL in the 1950's where the same two teams dominated every year. (so consider the difference between total NHL attendance then and now and mark down another sport now with 8 times the attendance it had back in the good old days )


The average guy working in an office downtown has zero interest in visiting the local track or OTB because he already feels he knows what is going to happen if he does visit.


And, collectively, all of you are still the problem.


Now if you can't understand that much, then you have zero hope of ever righting this sinking ship.
thanks for the response. I have constantly stated the OP lowered takeout, on track, in the show pool earlier this year and wagering significantly increased in that pool, but you always bring up Canterbury as the basis of your thesis. OP is a borderline top tier track while Canterbury is a lower tier track. Why do you ignore the obvious/factual increase in handle from reduced take at OP?

Please address OP's reduced take (an actual track that has significant handle unlike Canterbury)

Last edited by Afleet; 12-18-2017 at 06:17 PM. Reason: addition
Afleet is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-18-2017, 06:14 PM   #21
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,258
AskinHaskin,

You wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
...My only references to raising takeout have been to underscore how obvious the idiocy that is lowering takeout really is, in the way of a solution to anything. (such as comparing Hialeah pick-4 pools with the small 12% takeout to the same pools with the much higher takeout a year later) (or comparing Canterbury's handle during the experimental year to Canterbury's handle a year later, with giant takeout increases) (those examples are emphatic, and significant at least until the failed notion that is lowering takeout ever increases the bottom line anywhere)...

If, as you say, lowering takeout is idiocy, how would you explain what happened at Kentucky Downs?

HANDLE UPDATE - October 29, 2017
- Five Year Handle Trend at Kentucky Downs:

http://www.playersboycott.org/handleupdate10292017.html

Quote:
Five Year Handle Trend at Kentucky Downs

For those of you who may not be aware, prior to their 2013 meet, Kentucky Downs approached HANA with the idea of lowering their exacta takeout from 19.00% to 18.25%. They asked if we would help promote the decrease in takeout by getting the word out to as many horseplayers as possible.

We thought it was a great idea and were happy to help.

So how did it work out?

Kentucky Downs has seen record handle in each of the ensuing five years 2013-2014-2015-2016-2017 and has more than tripled their handle in that time.

Keep in mind that this came about by taking the novel approach of asking a horseplayers association to help them promote a three quarter point drop in exacta takeout.

Jeff Platt


.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-23-2017, 10:13 AM   #22
airford1
Registered User
 
airford1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 510
If, as you say, lowering takeout is idiocy, how would you explain what happened at Kentucky Downs?

The players love the big fields that are attracted by the large purses and the potential upsets in the win column. The opportunity to make some money as opposed to playing 9/5 favorite in every race. The takeout had little to do with the increase in handle.

Players, new and old want an opportunity to make money and with horse racing, if you go to Santa Anita and hit 3 winners on the card you are going to be in the minus column for the day. 4/5 is not making money to the new player and that's what horse racing has in too many races over most of the card.
airford1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-23-2017, 10:48 AM   #23
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by airford1 View Post
If, as you say, lowering takeout is idiocy, how would you explain what happened at Kentucky Downs?

The players love the big fields that are attracted by the large purses and the potential upsets in the win column. The opportunity to make some money as opposed to playing 9/5 favorite in every race. The takeout had little to do with the increase in handle.

Players, new and old want an opportunity to make money and with horse racing, if you go to Santa Anita and hit 3 winners on the card you are going to be in the minus column for the day. 4/5 is not making money to the new player and that's what horse racing has in too many races over most of the card.
Which track do you think is more successful, Santa Anita or Kentucky Downs?

Look, I continue to have no idea what optimal takeout is, other than the notion that it is probably lower than current rates for everyday racing and higher than current rates on big handle races like the Derby and the Breeders' Cup. I also suspect that the price discrimination embodied in the rebate setup reflects reality-- i.e., some bettors are more price-elastic than others, so charging different takeout rates maximizes revenue.

But I am darned sure that the only way to determine optimal takeout is by carefully studying a bunch of numbers that we don't have access to, and that simplistic "see, track X lowered takeout and their field sizes increased and their handle went up" takes have nothing to do with reality. Tracks are run by people who want to make money, and if lowering takeout was a panacea more tracks would do it.

I suspect the average horseplayer would not necessarily like the world of fully optimalized takeout. For instance, there would probably be more price discrimination-- in addition to rebate shops, online bettors would be charged different amounts from simulcast bettors, who would be charged different amounts from live attendees. In addition, as I advert to above, takeout would probably be HIGHER on certain big races that people love to bet. The lowest takeouts would be on meetings that horseplayers are historically less interested in, such as east coast winter racing. You might also see lower takeouts on polytrack, if it is true that some horseplayers shy away from betting those tracks.

You could, in such a world, probably shop around very carefully and bet tracks that would save you a lot of money on takeout. But you would also have to forego betting tracks and races that you probably like to bet. To be very blunt, there's probably a significant cross-subsidy in the current takeout system where overcharging (in economic terms) on takeout of a lot of races you guys don't like to bet all that much subsidizes keeping the takeout where it is at Saratoga. (If you want to see an analogous market, take a look at the market for airline fares, where you can save a lot of money by flying flights that people don't want to fly on, but pay top dollar for the most desirable flights.)

Bottom line, I'm all for optimizing takeout. But as the proverb says, be careful what you wish for....

Last edited by dilanesp; 12-23-2017 at 10:50 AM.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-29-2017, 06:29 PM   #24
ronsmac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy View Post
he's right! the more they raise the takeout, signal fees, and host fees, the less i bet into those windows. they did it in Keeneland this year and i didn't make a bet, and it looks like i wasn't the only one looking at the handle fall off the cliff while everyone else's went up.
The 6th at S.A. is a great example of breakage really screwing bettors who bet short prices. The 14 paid 3.80 but would have paid 3.99 with no breakage and really 4.00 if they rounded to the closes number or 3.98 with penny breakage. That's if my calculations are correct.
ronsmac is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-29-2017, 06:50 PM   #25
airford1
Registered User
 
airford1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 510
Dilanesp, my friend I didn't say it or ask the question Jeff did. I just tried to answer the question.

Last edited by airford1; 12-29-2017 at 06:51 PM. Reason: splaning
airford1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.