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 12-20-2021, 06:59 PM   #46
geroge.burns99
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,554
Whatever does happen I guarantee in 20 years when 98% of us are MIA

PA Mike and mostpost will rule Pace Advantage.....


geroge.burns99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-20-2021, 08:06 PM   #47
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by geroge.burns99 View Post
Take Parx 12/15

Total Handle 2.8 mill

24% out = 665,000

Total Purses 230,000

There running their operation with 400,000

Whats so special about Gulfstream thats taking a mill more...

more fat asses in the cookie jar
Yes, clearly you are right.


Businesses that manage to become more successful should simply lower their prices so that they don't make as much.

And, of course, the stakes quality at PARX is at least equal to that at GP.

Quote:
You can't really be this far away from understanding this? It has to be an act.
Well, TLG, it would appear he can.

Last edited by Dave Schwartz; 12-20-2021 at 08:07 PM.
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-20-2021, 10:08 PM   #48
Parkview_Pirate
Registered User
 
Parkview_Pirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,951
In some ways, the problems of racing reflect similar issues with the American economy. The insiders have an edge, be it on Wall Street or the back side. Some are happy just taking a cut (brokers and agents), some cheat, and some hit the occasional home run. Many lose in the long haul, but much more in racing where the takeout grind is relentless.

All this runs more smoothly when there is growth in the economy, lots of discretionary income, and a model that allows for many to share in the spoils. In racing, that meant a larger percentage of casual bettors could make a profit or lose small enough amounts to consider it excellent entertainment value.

Not any longer.

Racing started getting squeezed around 1990, and as simulcasting took off followed by ADW plays, the grind was on. Shopping for rebates, and the interstate insanity of wagering laws meant there had to be plenty of buffer left to ensure staying in the black, and it was the little guys (from the horseplaying side) that got the brunt of it. The cheaters cheated more, and racing execs decided looking the other way to kiss the hand of the whales ensured their numbers stayed up in the short term.

Racing was not well positioned for contraction, and that's what's continuing and accelerating, as the economy is now heading down and discretionary income shrinks, and staying alive becomes more difficult. Unless racing can adopt a model where takeout is on par with slot machines, the "dumb" money will not come back. Unless racing can adopt a model to attract younger players ("in-race" live wagering?), the game is headed for the same fate as the dogs.
Parkview_Pirate is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-20-2021, 10:12 PM   #49
elhelmete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by the little guy View Post
You can't really be this far away from understanding this? It has to be an act.
"Hold my beer"

-Dahoss
elhelmete is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-22-2021, 12:47 PM   #50
Aerocraft67
Enthusiast
 
Aerocraft67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 684
Another great, dismal, industry thread.

We’re arguing that everyone would be better off with a lower takeout due to elasticity modeling that suggests a lower optimal takeout. But the industry already believes it has the optimal (risk-adjusted) takeout, which is why it is what it is. They might even be right, however unfair it seems to smaller players that pay the highest rake.

If they lower takeout, but revenue and profits don’t rise as predicted, they’re scarred with a failed decision that produces financial loss. “Wait, you lowered your commision that you control, and you made less money? How was that a competent decision?”

The status quo makes money without escalating risk. Handle and takeout have been pretty flat over many years (right?).

Consider two categories of potential handle growth: new bettors, and existing bettors betting more. Further consider large and small subcategories of new and existing bettors.

The biggest existing bettors already have lower takeout—after rebates. Surely the whales get the best of it from the racing industry—the largest buyers get some degree of power over the supplier in any industry. I can’t imagine any prohibitive barriers to other high rollers that want to join the pod of whales enjoying the best terms and conditions from the industry. No changes necessary.

Luring in new small bettors is an endeavor greater in scope than takeout. I don’t think handicapping is otherwise prohibitive for young punters. But I do speculate that personal fancy overshadows much of what the industry might try to cultivate entry level players. Lowering takeout might not convert a sufficient number of new bettors, because punters not already predispositioned to play horse races may not be very swayable generally.

That leaves existing small bettors. Many of us. We loathe the takeout, yet we play on. Would we really bet more with lower takeout? How many of us are really on the sidelines but for lower takeout? Some, for sure, but plausibly not enough to justify lower takeout to lure back.

I guess my hypothesis is that horse racing appeals to a certain audience segment that doesn’t change much despite what the industry does, or even how demographics change. Put another way, we’re as stubborn and resistant to change as they are. And beholden to the game.

The focus here is on takeout, but you can apply this line of reasoning to other prospective industry reforms. Not that I’m condoning poor practices. Just trying to reason out why they persist. That said, cheating is not OK, nor is lax enforcement of the rules. On that matter, the interests of all the punters are aligned. However unsatisfying the justice for everyone, at least Navarro did get prosecuted and sentenced.

I’m not sure what might accelerate worthy reform. Unfortunately, probably not our otherwise credible and well-meant entireties here on PA. I’m not even sure it’s going to be competitive pressure from rival gambling venues. Probably won’t be regulation—the constituencies don’t seem expansive enough beyond niche, entrenched interests (never mind polarization-induced gridlock preventing anything productive). Ironically, a growing demographic sensitivity to animal welfare might provide a reforming pressure that actually improves the game, but that’s a long shot threading a needle.

I'd just like to be less reluctant to admit I enjoy the game in mixed company.
Aerocraft67 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-22-2021, 02:22 PM   #51
Michael
Registered User
 
Michael's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by groupie doll View Post
Spot on post.
On the bolded: there is something that you can do to not be part of the problem: stop betting.
You're not wrong... but you're not exactly right.

I want these horses and the people that care for them to have a future. The game goes on with or without me and I'm not the offending party.

It doesn't mean I don't feel bad when i see the end results for horses like Medina Spirit or XYJet. (and those are super stars) I just don't place the blame on myself. Maybe it's hypocritical of me? but I'm pointing my finger at those in charge. They can save the future of this sport.... the ball was never in my court.
Michael is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-22-2021, 04:24 PM   #52
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerocraft67 View Post
Another great, dismal, industry thread.

We’re arguing that everyone would be better off with a lower takeout due to elasticity modeling that suggests a lower optimal takeout. But the industry already believes it has the optimal (risk-adjusted) takeout, which is why it is what it is. They might even be right, however unfair it seems to smaller players that pay the highest rake.

If they lower takeout, but revenue and profits don’t rise as predicted, they’re scarred with a failed decision that produces financial loss. “Wait, you lowered your commision that you control, and you made less money? How was that a competent decision?”

The status quo makes money without escalating risk. Handle and takeout have been pretty flat over many years (right?).

Consider two categories of potential handle growth: new bettors, and existing bettors betting more. Further consider large and small subcategories of new and existing bettors.

The biggest existing bettors already have lower takeout—after rebates. Surely the whales get the best of it from the racing industry—the largest buyers get some degree of power over the supplier in any industry. I can’t imagine any prohibitive barriers to other high rollers that want to join the pod of whales enjoying the best terms and conditions from the industry. No changes necessary.

Luring in new small bettors is an endeavor greater in scope than takeout. I don’t think handicapping is otherwise prohibitive for young punters. But I do speculate that personal fancy overshadows much of what the industry might try to cultivate entry level players. Lowering takeout might not convert a sufficient number of new bettors, because punters not already predispositioned to play horse races may not be very swayable generally.

That leaves existing small bettors. Many of us. We loathe the takeout, yet we play on. Would we really bet more with lower takeout? How many of us are really on the sidelines but for lower takeout? Some, for sure, but plausibly not enough to justify lower takeout to lure back.

I guess my hypothesis is that horse racing appeals to a certain audience segment that doesn’t change much despite what the industry does, or even how demographics change. Put another way, we’re as stubborn and resistant to change as they are. And beholden to the game.

The focus here is on takeout, but you can apply this line of reasoning to other prospective industry reforms. Not that I’m condoning poor practices. Just trying to reason out why they persist. That said, cheating is not OK, nor is lax enforcement of the rules. On that matter, the interests of all the punters are aligned. However unsatisfying the justice for everyone, at least Navarro did get prosecuted and sentenced.

I’m not sure what might accelerate worthy reform. Unfortunately, probably not our otherwise credible and well-meant entireties here on PA. I’m not even sure it’s going to be competitive pressure from rival gambling venues. Probably won’t be regulation—the constituencies don’t seem expansive enough beyond niche, entrenched interests (never mind polarization-induced gridlock preventing anything productive). Ironically, a growing demographic sensitivity to animal welfare might provide a reforming pressure that actually improves the game, but that’s a long shot threading a needle.

I'd just like to be less reluctant to admit I enjoy the game in mixed company.
Beautiful!
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-23-2021, 12:42 PM   #53
BombsAway Bob
DimeSupers Really Are!
 
BombsAway Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,095
Hana

__________________
Quick Picks, LMSP's, & opinions real-time
@
www.twitter.com/BombsawayBob
[/url]
BombsAway Bob is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2022, 12:05 AM   #54
Sunday Silence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 79
JP’s comments were spot on. Sure, takeout is a huge problem. So are drugs. But I’ve learned to play the milkshakers and just go with stats. But the tote larceny is something I can’t deal with. I’ll never play like I used to the way 7-2 horses go to 4-5 after the race starts when they have the lead. Reeks of cheating. I’ll take it on the chin if I lose due to iffy handicapping. But don’t cheat me
Sunday Silence is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2022, 06:24 AM   #55
Track Phantom
Registered User
 
Track Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, Tx
Posts: 2,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
...I watch a ton of basketball. It's an easy transition for me to make a bet once in awhile if I think I have a good insight. I know nothing about soccer. I'm not going to spend hours looking at soccer data when I know I'm clueless.
Reminds me a gambling story.

Bettor bets with a bookie and loses all NFL season long. After that, he hardly cashes a bet on NBA basketball. It's not much better on college hoops. Finally, MLB rolls around and he gets killed. Bookie says to the bettor. "You might want to try hockey". Bettor responds "Hockey? What the hell do I know about hockey"?
__________________
www.trackphantom.com
full card analysis
Track Phantom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2022, 07:39 AM   #56
acorn54
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: new york
Posts: 1,629
do the bettors really have much leverage, i mean aren't the people that call the shots in horseracing well-heeled, and have no one to answer too? it reminds me of the story, of a store clerk that waited years to get a lotto machine in his store and found sales for lottery tickets not what he expected. one day he asked a customer why he doesn't buy a lotto ticket with the top prize being so big. the customer told him ,"i already have millions, i don't need to play the lottery.
acorn54 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2022, 07:56 AM   #57
Half Smoke
Registered User
 
Half Smoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,278
____________



a little bit off the subject but anyway


there are many who bet racing here and elsewhere who have excellent analytical abilities


.
it is my personal belief that if they took those abilities into the field of sports betting where the vig on a spread bet is just 4.55% (and usually about the same on a money line bet) that they would win


and some would win easily

.
of course, some may already be doing this - but others may not



.
__________________
believe only half of what you see.....and nothing that you hear..................Edgar Allan Poe
Half Smoke is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2022, 08:01 AM   #58
lamboguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster View Post
JP, the flaw in the optimal takeout analysis is that it doesn’t account for what hits purse accounts and all of the hands in the cookie jar along the way. There is a series of factors at play there with the largest being the ADWs. It’s not a simple calculation of takeout lowered = revenue increases
not saying you are wrong, but what right does the customer have to tell the business what to do. if you don't like the game, just don't play it and go to something else. you don't need writeups, boycotts or protests, just take a hike.
lamboguy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2022, 08:25 AM   #59
Half Smoke
Registered User
 
Half Smoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 1,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy View Post
what right does the customer have to tell the business what to do.

a customer has every right, legal and otherwise to attempt to influence a business towards a direction he sees as being positive

.
if horseplayers acted in concert by uniting into large groups and for example boycotting a tremendously popular stakes race you can believe that the powers that be would take notice

.
it's not an easy thing to get a large, diverse group of people to act in concert

.
but it's not impossible


.
__________________
believe only half of what you see.....and nothing that you hear..................Edgar Allan Poe
Half Smoke is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-02-2022, 08:39 AM   #60
acorn54
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: new york
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke View Post
a customer has every right, legal and otherwise to attempt to influence a business towards a direction he sees as being positive

.
if horseplayers acted in concert by uniting into large groups and for example boycotting a tremendously popular stakes race you can believe that the powers that be would take notice

.
it's not an easy thing to get a large, diverse group of people to act in concert

.
but it's not impossible


.
if i may chime in. what you say is very true. boycotts have proven to be a great tool for change in the civil rights movement, ie rosa parks bus incident and more recently the various black movement boycotts for what was (is) considered offensive in the media, ie jimmy the greek, circa late 80's.
acorn54 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 09:55 PM.


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.