Get people to the track

[wiffleball whizz]

Originally Posted by cj

Racing needs more people like Whiffleball Whizz at the track (scary, I know). They don't really need people looking to picnic. That model hasn't worked, ever. The sport needs more gamblers, and until the game is a more attractive gambling option, it will continue to decline.

Post of the year!!!!!!

[TravisVOX]

Originally Posted by cj

It isn't exactly free to run a casino. Maybe tracks should try cutting the costs of putting on the show instead of continuously reaching into our pockets, and finding less and less money for them.

I could be wrong, but I suspect racing isn't exactly run in an efficient manner.

There is some of truth here. The thing is no one has ever truly exposed how much it costs to operate a racetrack. I think many who claim to know why racing is dying or dead and have all the secrets to turning it around would be shocked at the true costs of putting on races.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by TravisVOX

There is some of truth here. The thing is no one has ever truly exposed how much it costs to operate a racetrack. I think many who claim to know why racing is dying or dead and have all the secrets to turning it around would be shocked at the true costs of putting on races.

This argument doesn't wash in the casino-assisted age that this game now finds itself in.

There was a time when the industry claimed that the costs levied against the player were a necessity in order to cover the enormous expense of "putting on the show" -- and the players fell for it...because we didn't know any better. But now, more than a few racetracks have thriving casino businesses...the profits of which go a long way towards defraying the expenses of putting on that "show". And yet...the costs levied against the player are heavier now than they've ever been.

In fact...the tracks with the most profitable casino businesses are the exact same ones who charge the most exorbitant takeout rates.

The tracks get no sympathy at all from me.

[Jeff P]

With all due respect, the cost of putting on the show is completely and utterly irrelevant.

What IS relevant is pricing the product in an optimal way so as to maximize net income for the house.

Take for example major Vegas casinos... Caesars Palace, The MGM Grand, etc.

THEIR operating costs are huge too. (Just like a race track.)

But here's the difference...

What THEY did was take some of the recommendations found in the economic studies prepared by the consulting firms they hired AND IMPLEMENT THEM.

For example, back in the mid '70's the 'vig' or 'takeout' for slots was in the neighborhood of 25%. Their own paid for economic studies suggested that demand for the gambling product and 'vig' or 'takeout' or 'prize payout percentage' (whatever you choose to call it) share an elastic relationship (just like the economic studies prepared by the consulting firms that racing has hired.)

The elasticity number calculated by their consulting firms suggested total revenue generated by customer slots play (not handle but the amount of net income retained by the house) would increase dramatically if they would lower the 'vig' to something close to its estimated optimal price point.

They tried it. It worked. As a result, slots play over the past 30 years or so has literally exploded and casinos make more net income from slots play today at lower 'vig' than they did in the good ole days at higher 'vig.'

Now here's the thing...

Over the years, ever bigger and ever more costly casinos keep getting built in Vegas. And in no case that I am aware of do the casino operators say to themselves "Wow. This thing is really monstrous and after it's built it's still going to cost us $80 mil a year just to keep the doors open."...

actually they DO say that...

But what they don't say is this:

"I don't care what the damn economic study says. We're setting the 'vig' on the slot machines in our house at 22.68% and those degenerate gamblers can take it or leave it."

No. Instead they set the 'vig' on their slot machines to an avg prize payout percentage in the neighborhood of 94 cents for each $1.00 "handled" because THAT'S the price point the economic experts they've hired say will max out their net income from slots play (and for no other reason.)

Methinks racing could learn a thing or two from the competition.


-jp

.

[MJC922]

At the end of the day it's a product, and not a very accessible one for those who might take some interest in it -- I don't mean the lottery crowd but those who are more drawn into a thinking man's game.

One recent example is a guy like Mountainman wanting to do some research. Where's the db? The big E should give this guy some data in a research db for next to nothing. Why does this cost thousands and/or make people have to jump through technical hoops?

I recall how badly I wanted to do some research and they told me no, I ended up having to code my own downloader to pull down four years of HTML charts in an hour and then code a parser to get them into a db. When fans have to code their own downloaders just to do the research which they feel is necessary to make some informed decisions, by god that's a deterrent. Racing ought to start getting rid of some of these deterrents. Overprotection and overpricing of data is one of the biggest.

Let's forget about courting the lottery crowd and those casinos just serve a purpose for people into blind luck. The complexity of our game and the output data which leads people to have some degree of confidence in the predictability of it is the one thing which really differentiates racing in the gambling marketplace.

IMO slick delivery of the entire product to devices people use on a daily basis and user-friendly accessibility to data for research purposes are some of the keys to bringing in new serious players.

[Jeff P]

I'd like to edit my above post to read as follows:

With all due respect, the cost of putting on the show is completely and utterly irrelevant (when it comes to setting takeout rates.)

What IS relevant (when it comes to setting takeout rates) is pricing the product in an optimal way so as to maximize net income for the house.

Take for example major Vegas casinos... Caesars Palace, The MGM Grand, etc.

THEIR operating costs are huge too. (Just like a race track.)

But here's the difference...

What THEY did was take some of the recommendations found in the economic studies prepared by the consulting firms they hired AND IMPLEMENT THEM.

For example, back in the mid '70's the 'vig' or 'takeout' for slots was in the neighborhood of 25%. Their own paid for economic studies suggested that demand for the gambling product and 'vig' or 'takeout' or 'prize payout percentage' (whatever you choose to call it) share an elastic relationship (just like the economic studies prepared by the consulting firms that racing has hired.)

The elasticity number calculated by their consulting firms suggested total revenue generated by customer slots play (not handle but the amount of net income retained by the house) would increase dramatically if they would lower the 'vig' to something close to its estimated optimal price point.

They tried it. It worked. As a result, slots play over the past 30 years or so has literally exploded and casinos make more net income from slots play today at lower 'vig' than they did in the good olde days at higher 'vig.'

Now here's the thing...

Over the years, ever bigger and ever more costly casinos keep getting built in Vegas. And in no case that I am aware of do the casino operators say to themselves "Wow. This thing is really monstrous and after it's built it's still going to cost us $80 mil a year just to keep the doors open."...

actually they DO say that...

But what they don't say is this:

"I don't care what the economic studies say. We put on the show and we are changing the game and setting the 'vig' on our slot machines to 22.68% (and you degenerate gamblers can take it or leave it.)"

No. Instead they set the 'vig' on their slot machines to an avg prize payout percentage in the neighborhood of 94 cents for each $1.00 "handled" because THAT'S the price point the economic experts they've hired say will max out their net income from slots play (and for no other reason.)

When it comes to setting the 'vig' or 'prize payout percentage' or 'takeout' so as to max out net income for the house...

Methinks racing could learn a thing or two from the competition about getting people to "show up on site for the show."


-jp

.

[wiffleball whizz]

Guys don't worry about it.........nobody new is coming

[RXB]

12% WPS, 15% exotics, penny breakage. If tracks committed to that point gradually but surely over a few years there would be no sudden and potentially lethal short-term revenue shock involved, and word would get around that horse racing was becoming a better gamble for the players.

And then we would find out for once and for all whether there's any hope for the game or not. Because there's no long-term future for it with 20%+ blended takeouts.

Of course, now that a host track directly facilitates only relatively modest percentages of the handle bet on its own races, it's at the mercy of other tracks and ADW's. So the takeout reduction effort will require some significant cooperation throughout various aspects of the industry, including its regulators across the many jurisdictions. (Won't hold my breath, but I can hope.)

If they want people to attend during live racing-- and they should, there is a definite benefit to it-- they need to incent them to make that trek.

[wiffleball whizz]

2 Saturdays ago myself and cjs dad went to laurel park.....we sat in tycoons which is a throwback 1983 throwback room.....

There were 60 bettors in there including myself and dennis(cjs dad)........cjs dad booked a 500 win(he will love the pat on the back)

I would lay 10/1 that he was one of 2 winners that day in the room.......

2 people out of 60.......the other 58s money went into the gambling black hole..the people that don't bet horses know nobody wins

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by wiffleball whizz

Guys don't worry about it.........nobody new is coming

I agree.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by wiffleball whizz

Guys don't worry about it.........nobody new is coming

ROTFLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL



THIS is the post of the year.. and the next and the next and the next. Man, am I laughing. Wow.

[BombsAway Bob]

Originally Posted by cj

Racing needs more people like Whiffleball Whizz at the track (scary, I know). They don't really need people looking to picnic. That model hasn't worked, ever. The sport needs more gamblers, and until the game is a more attractive gambling option, it will continue to decline.

Racing can't afford an either/or approach to re-invigorating ontrack
attendance. Saratoga has fostered generations of future horseplayers
by being exposed to the sport in their youth while out in the Picnic
area. That's not gonna fly in February at Aqueduct.
Any track exec that can look at handle on Pick-5's with Low Takeouts
& say "Takeout doesn't matter" is full of it. Does NYRA want to get
overall handle & churn to explode, while keeping their 'gravy' takeout
on other bets? Offer DollarDoubles with a 10% Takeout!
The Big Pools created will get Big Money Players Action back in pool,
& $1 Bettors will get churn money up the yazoo when faves march.
Pick-3/4/5/6 bettors will play saver doubles up the ying-yang,
& everyone will have handicapped races & still bet verticals.
Total HANDLE will look impressive
~small money bettors may return to racing, getting slot return odds.

[Stillriledup]

The biggest problem that i see is the WAY they 'divide up' the takeout.

For example, if a takeout is 20%, each "hand in the pie' gets a piece of that "hard number of 20" but the problem is that the number 20, while IT is hard, the amount of money that is coming into the pools is elastic. The reason that takeouts are so hard to lower is that the formula they have set up divides up the "20" and if you lower that 20, you have to cut each piece of the pie and make it smaller. BUT, when the takeout goes down, the actual pie gets bigger, so while certain factions may get 1 percent of that pie, and their "cut" goes down to .75, they're getting .75 of a much bigger slice.

Its a concept that Vegas understands, but racetracks do not.

Casino's like Wynn, Palazzo, etc are bristling with new marble floors and expensive chandeliers while many of our racetracks around the USA are falling apart with dust gathering on the seats outside.

The racing industry can keep collecting their parking fees (vegas has none) admission fees (again, none in Vegas) and keep convincing themselves that they're doing the right thing while their buildings fall down around them.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

It does not matter whether it is horse racing, poker, sports betting or the stock market. The more money people win, the more they will bet. The more money people lose, the less they will bet

Horse racing in the USA has stumbled on the worst possible scenario. One where a tiny number of people make a fortune but where a large number get hammered. And in particular new players to the game are the ones likely to get hammered. So there are nowhere near enough new players to replace the old players leaving the game

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by Grits

ROTFLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL



THIS is the post of the year.. and the next and the next and the next. Man, am I laughing. Wow.

I, for one, don't see anything funny about it at all.