Are There Too Many Tracks Running Simultaneously?

[Some_One]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

I would be more likely to play a 6 horse dirt race where the winner is easy to spot, than a 12 horse turf race where 5 horses have the same shot. When the turf race gets rained off and and onto the dirt, it's even better.

You'll take your 2-5 horse instead of trying to find a 5-1 shot eh?

[Redbullsnation]

Yea, but that might change sooner than later it seems. Some tracks are closing shop

[dilanesp]

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: the sport is in a necessary period of contraction, which has been going on for quite awhile and has quite a bit longer to go. The basic economics were changed by (1) the diversification of public tastes (i.e., fewer casual fans) and (2) simulcasting.

The result is that the old model-- build a racetrack, have an effective gambling monopoly, and draw people to the track who buy tickets, parking, programs, souvenirs, food, and drinks, and who bet, only works anymore for a narrow set of facilities (basically tracks with short meetings in resort areas (Del Mar, Saratoga, Oaklawn) and "big event" races such as the Kentucky Derby and Oaks).

Simulcasting created a new model, where a track can make money without much live attendance by attracting a ton of betting from the now nationwide and international consolidated betting pools. But to do that, you have to offer a really attractive wagering product, and the bettors in those pools have limited amounts of attention and cannot play more than a few tracks. Thus, that model tends to consolidate racing into a handful of super-tracks, such as Churchill, the NYRA tracks, the Florida tracks, and Santa Anita, which can potentially generate the gigantic handles and simulcast fees necessary to sustain the model.

Everyone else in the industry is on borrowed time.

[JohnGalt1]

This is question that doesn't have an easy answer for me.

Some tracks like Canterbury and Prairie Meadows are the only tracks in the state. So why should they shut down or reduce racing dates? Their fans and horsemen should be able to race.

But some states like Florida and Pennsylvania with 3 tracks running at the same time have only themselves to blame for short fields.

At least Florida may have solved their issues.

One suggestion for California would be two week gaps between meetings, the more horses would be anticipating the upcoming meets.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Some tracks like Canterbury and Prairie Meadows are the only tracks in the state. So why should they shut down or reduce racing dates? Their fans and horsemen should be able to race.

Bear in mind that the market is about is and not ought. (And given your screenname, I assume you know this.)

The economics of the industry really crush local tracks that can't make themselves into vacation destinations. It's the same principle as globalism in the economy writ large-- how does a shoe manufacturer in upstate New York compete with a cheaper, better product made in Vietnam? It doesn't-- it closes. That's horrible for the workers. But it's inevitable.

Well, the bettors in Shakopee, Minnesota now have the opportunity to bet on really good races in New York and Kentucky, which they didn't have when the track opened in the 1980's and they had to bet on their local racing product. What are they going to want to bet on?

The economics of consolidation in the industry are an inevitable consequence of simulcasting. It's fine if you are a big-time successful horseman in Kentucky and can compete for bigger purses; it's terrible if you have a 7 horse stable at a minor track that nobody wants to bet on.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well, the bettors in Shakopee, Minnesota now have the opportunity to bet on really good races in New York and Kentucky, which they didn't have when the track opened in the 1980's and they had to bet on their local racing product. What are they going to want to bet on?

I think the gap might be closing some at CBY vs Ny racing. With the influx of Indian money, CBY is carding some decent, competitive racing.

[DeltaLover]

Too much racing is one of the biggest problems of American Racing and most if not all of the small tracks should eventually go, if we want to improve the game.

Local tracks can very well be converted to simulcasting centers, a move that not only will improve horse racing as a sport and a betting event but also it will create profitable businesses, given the cost of operation of any race track.

We do not need a lot of race tracks, what we really need is many horse bettors.

Horse betting should not be confused with slot machines or casino table games where the gambler needs constant action to maintain his interest...

Less racing will push less capable horses and horsemen out of the game, making it easier to regulate and follow, something that will create more public interest leading to larger pools for the gamblers and even paychecks for the pros who will continue operating it.

Another good solution, is to encourage the creation of small OTB's following the example of UK, where you can find a place to bet in every neighborhood... It does not even need to be a dedicated location, any place where lotto can be played today, can be converted to a mini-OTB with minimal cost creating new horseplays and multiplying public attention.

Also having less racing, will favor free distribution of related data which might attract younger people who would like to use electronic methods for their handicapping...

We can talk for ever about the topic but unfortunately there is absolutely no move towards the right direction as the industry is driven by very conservative forces who fail to see the large picture and plan for the long run...

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by Valento

I think the gap might be closing some at CBY vs Ny racing. With the influx of Indian money, CBY is carding some decent, competitive racing.

But so far this year they haven't had much handle on their races.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Local tracks can very well be converted to simulcasting centers, a move that not only will improve horse racing as a sport and a betting event but also it will create profitable businesses, given the cost of operation of any race track.

We do not need a lot of race tracks, what we really need is many horse bettors.

There is no guarantee that if all the tracks close in a given state that parimutuel wagering will remain legal in that state.

[davew]

You are selfish and only thinking about yourself as a bettor.


If you were a owner or a trainer, would you rather run in 5 horse fields or 12 horse fields? (assuming they are paying the typical top 5 finishers...)

[phattty]

So we have too many tracks running over all in the states


Solutions.....

Crickets is all I hear

Who among us wants to be the area that loses it's local live racing?

I've already been through the loss of local tracks...Atlantic city...garden state

Liberty bell....brandywine

It's not fun when it happens.. To your favorite tracks...

I have since left Delaware Valley and relocated in tampa , where I get live racing

92 dates a year , while grossly mismanaged I welcome the live meet every year


So which local tracks are each of you willing to just close up for the betterment

Of the sport..?

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Too much racing is one of the biggest problems of American Racing and most if not all of the small tracks should eventually go, if we want to improve the game.

Local tracks can very well be converted to simulcasting centers, a move that not only will improve horse racing as a sport and a betting event but also it will create profitable businesses, given the cost of operation of any race track.

We do not need a lot of race tracks, what we really need is many horse bettors.

Horse betting should not be confused with slot machines or casino table games where the gambler needs constant action to maintain his interest...

Less racing will push less capable horses and horsemen out of the game, making it easier to regulate and follow, something that will create more public interest leading to larger pools for the gamblers and even paychecks for the pros who will continue operating it.

Another good solution, is to encourage the creation of small OTB's following the example of UK, where you can find a place to bet in every neighborhood... It does not even need to be a dedicated location, any place where lotto can be played today, can be converted to a mini-OTB with minimal cost creating new horseplays and multiplying public attention.

Also having less racing, will favor free distribution of related data which might attract younger people who would like to use electronic methods for their handicapping...

We can talk for ever about the topic but unfortunately there is absolutely no move towards the right direction as the industry is driven by very conservative forces who fail to see the large picture and plan for the long run...

Every thing about this is wrong, and will hasten the sport's demise. Growth will not come about as a result of contraction.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by davew

You are selfish and only thinking about yourself as a bettor.


If you were a owner or a trainer, would you rather run in 5 horse fields or 12 horse fields? (assuming they are paying the typical top 5 finishers...)

The thing is, horse racing isn't a welfare program for owners or trainers.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by phattty

So we have too many tracks running over all in the states


Solutions.....

Crickets is all I hear

Who among us wants to be the area that loses it's local live racing?

I've already been through the loss of local tracks...Atlantic city...garden state

Liberty bell....brandywine

It's not fun when it happens.. To your favorite tracks...

I have since left Delaware Valley and relocated in tampa , where I get live racing

92 dates a year , while grossly mismanaged I welcome the live meet every year


So which local tracks are each of you willing to just close up for the betterment

Of the sport..?

I don't think I have to make that decision. The free market will (and already has).

[mishka]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Simulcasting created a new model, where a track can make money without much live attendance by attracting a ton of betting from the now nationwide and international consolidated betting pools. But to do that, you have to offer a really attractive wagering product, and the bettors in those pools have limited amounts of attention and cannot play more than a few tracks. Thus, that model tends to consolidate racing into a handful of super-tracks, such as Churchill, the NYRA tracks, the Florida tracks, and Santa Anita, which can potentially generate the gigantic handles and simulcast fees necessary to sustain the model.

Interesting point. But also in way, doesn't simulcasting in a way do away partially with the idea of separate tracks? For me, on Saturday it is all one big track and I can search and choose what races I want to play based on my particular handicapping skills and betting focus. Saratoga or Hooterville Downs, makes no difference if they got the races I am looking for.

Addressing the original post. Don't we as consumers in the abstract want more choices? Not talking from an "industry" point of view, but someone who wants to place a bet. Why is talk of reducing choices in number of tracks and pushing fields toward the upper-end supposed to be good for me?

Beyers had written, if memory serves, that WPS betting won't make you money because the near universal use of a tool called "speed figures" leveled the playing field for all bettors. He didn't seem to imply it was field size. Which is why he recommended that if you want bigger payoffs, then exotics is the path.