On track 5% less takeout

[EMD4ME]

Forgive me if this has been threaded before.

Has anyone pushed the idea of creating 5% less takeout if you bet on track? With on track handle being ballpark 10% of total handle at ABC RACETRACK (could be more, could be less) and most racetracks getting just the signal fee, doesn't it make sense to offer 5% less takeout if you are on track?

Of course, that will reduce profit for the existing money that is being bet on track regardless but with aggressive marketing, the new on track money that was being bet with a foreign (not the track's ADW) ADW (and only making the signal fee) will create huge profitable gains for the racetrack involved. (go from 3-7% per dollar wagered as profit to 15% to 25% per dollar wagered minus the bonus given).

I know Delaware tried it but maybe they weren't the right market for it. Maybe NYRA can do it or Stronach with 1 or more of his tracks?

Thoughts?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Forgive me if this has been threaded before.

Has anyone pushed the idea of creating 5% less takeout if you bet on track? With on track handle being ballpark 10% of total handle at ABC RACETRACK (could be more, could be less) and most racetracks getting just the signal fee, doesn't it make sense to offer 5% less takeout if you are on track?

Of course, that will reduce profit for the existing money that is being bet on track regardless but with aggressive marketing, the new on track money that was being bet with a foreign (not the track's ADW) ADW (and only making the signal fee) will create huge profitable gains for the racetrack involved. (go from 3-7% per dollar wagered as profit to 15% to 25% per dollar wagered minus the bonus given).

I know Delaware tried it but maybe they weren't the right market for it. Maybe NYRA can do it or Stronach with 1 or more of his tracks?

Thoughts?

NY OTB's do the opposite. They reduce payoffs by 5% from track prices.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Forgive me if this has been threaded before.

Has anyone pushed the idea of creating 5% less takeout if you bet on track? With on track handle being ballpark 10% of total handle at ABC RACETRACK (could be more, could be less) and most racetracks getting just the signal fee, doesn't it make sense to offer 5% less takeout if you are on track?

Of course, that will reduce profit for the existing money that is being bet on track regardless but with aggressive marketing, the new on track money that was being bet with a foreign (not the track's ADW) ADW (and only making the signal fee) will create huge profitable gains for the racetrack involved. (go from 3-7% per dollar wagered as profit to 15% to 25% per dollar wagered minus the bonus given).

I know Delaware tried it but maybe they weren't the right market for it. Maybe NYRA can do it or Stronach with 1 or more of his tracks?

Thoughts?

I think it is a great idea(they would have to do it as a rebate-and they can even get creative and do it as bet vouchers good say during the month of September if you are in August-thus bringing customers back at a later date), it they are going to stick with their current plan. 1) they give new blood attendees and small bettors a much fairer shake at this game 2) They create huge motivation for people in the area to come to live racing which will bring up the energy level (the thing most racetracks need badly) 3) they transform a lot of money that is currently being bet at adw's or even offshore to on track.

It makes a lot of sense to me.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Forgive me if this has been threaded before.........
Thoughts?

no need to apologize because it is good to discuss and the exposure of the concept is good no matter how many times it gets posted.

my views are that i'm much more for aggressive on track rebates (5%+) to revitalize the game for several reasons. here are some:

1. rebates (player rewards) are much easier to implement than takeout reductions.

2. tangible player rewards keep players coming back to your casinos. tangible rewards. 0.6% and overpriced food and drinks don't keep players coming back to racetracks.

3. tangible player rewards are easier for the average player to appreciate than reduced takeout...... and they are more consistently applied. if joe goes 0-20 at the track and loses $1000, lower takeout doesn't do anything for him. under my system he'd at least (at least) have $50-$100 in his account the next day. there is something there in the future for him to come and collect. $6 in his account is a slap in the face, especially when you're charging $3 for a cup of coffee.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

I think it is a great idea(they would have to do it as a rebate-and they can even get creative and do it as bet vouchers good say during the month of September if you are in August-thus bringing customers back at a later date), it they are going to stick with their current plan. 1) they give new blood attendees and small bettors a much fairer shake at this game 2) They create huge motivation for people in the area to come to live racing which will bring up the energy level (the thing most racetracks need badly) 3) they transform a lot of money that is currently being bet at adw's or even offshore to on track.

It makes a lot of sense to me.

I love the idea of putting the excess/bonus in a future dated voucher. Creates a reason to come back & if the track mandates that the money be bet (not just cashed, to create additional churn) no problem.

[VeryOldMan]

As Poindexter said, it would have to be done as a rebate or future reward at the track but I'd love it as a recreational fan who enjoys going to the track but has trouble justifying the expense (gas/time/any admission fee/etc.) when I can sit at home and wager on the same races.

Giving fans an incentive to go to the track and watch horse races . . . crazy idea, man. Crazy!

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by proximity

no need to apologize because it is good to discuss and the exposure of the concept is good no matter how many times it gets posted.

my views are that i'm much more for aggressive on track rebates (5%+) to revitalize the game for several reasons. here are some:

1. rebates (player rewards) are much easier to implement than takeout reductions.

2. tangible player rewards keep players coming back to your casinos. tangible rewards. 0.6% and overpriced food and drinks don't keep players coming back to racetracks.

3. tangible player rewards are easier for the average player to appreciate than reduced takeout...... and they are more consistently applied. if joe goes 0-20 at the track and loses $1000, lower takeout doesn't do anything for him. under my system he'd at least (at least) have $50-$100 in his account the next day. there is something there in the future for him to come and collect. $6 in his account is a slap in the face, especially when you're charging $3 for a cup of coffee.

I hear you & could see rebates working. If I had to pick, I'd take the higher payout vs. The additional rebate. There's no reason why both can't be in play though. Most tracks offer rebates anyway. The lower takeout, similar to what Delaware did, would be on top of the rebate.

What if Saratoga , for example had this on the screen:

8- 17.00 7.60 4.80
On track 8- 18.00 8.50 5.40

People would say, why the 2 different prices? How do I get those prices? It would catch on imho.

[jballscalls]

If I remember correctly Delaware Park might have done something like this for exactas a few years ago.

[EMD4ME]

I remember them doing it. I have no idea how it turned out though.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I love the idea of putting the excess/bonus in a future dated voucher. Creates a reason to come back & if the track mandates that the money be bet (not just cashed, to create additional churn) no problem.

that is the free slots play concept in the casinos. i don't like it for racing because (a) the money will most likely be churned anyway and (b) the player should be getting rebates on all horse bets (free slots play doesn't get comps)

the takeout is so ridiculously high in racing that the opportunity does exist (especially in racinos) to offer rewards that are aggressive enough to really get the general public excited about the game though. it's just a matter of management wanting people to get excited about it..... and in general racino management would rather the horses just went away.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I hear you & could see rebates working. If I had to pick, I'd take the higher payout vs. The additional rebate. There's no reason why both can't be in play though. Most tracks offer rebates anyway. The lower takeout, similar to what Delaware did, would be on top of the rebate.

What if Saratoga , for example had this on the screen:

8- 17.00 7.60 4.80
On track 8- 18.00 8.50 5.40

People would say, why the 2 different prices? How do I get those prices? It would catch on imho.

you need to be able to offer rewards for full card simulcasting though too.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by proximity

you need to be able to offer rewards for full card simulcasting though too.

Not necessarily true. Start with your home track for live racing. As it builds up, maybe then can be there too one day.....

[proximity]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Not necessarily true. Start with your home track for live racing. As it builds up, maybe then can be there too one day.....

sometimes i think of just going back to the start and only playing my home track. unfortunately that is penn national and some of the cards (like saturday night) have been terrible.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I hear you & could see rebates working. If I had to pick, I'd take the higher payout vs. The additional rebate. There's no reason why both can't be in play though. Most tracks offer rebates anyway. The lower takeout, similar to what Delaware did, would be on top of the rebate.

What if Saratoga , for example had this on the screen:

8- 17.00 7.60 4.80
On track 8- 18.00 8.50 5.40

People would say, why the 2 different prices? How do I get those prices? It would catch on imho.

Only if those wagering off track were within a reasonable travel distance from the host track.
The higher payouts have to make up the difference in travel and other costs.
For example. If a bettor lives 50 miles from the track, the higher payout rates must make up for the gas he will burn, any tolls he may have to pay and of course program and admission fees.
I can tell you this, for a person residing in NJ trying to get to Belmont or Aqueduct, even with EZ Pass, it's close to $20 in tolls. Plus, add in the aggravation of dealing with the seemingly endless traffic issues.
If I still lived up there, I'd have no issue eating the nickel on a dollar surcharge. I'd bet from home.

[Mineshaft]

Originally Posted by proximity

sometimes i think of just going back to the start and only playing my home track. unfortunately that is penn national and some of the cards (like saturday night) have been terrible.

Wednesday at Penn the largest field size is 8 in a few races. Thistle is like that also