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 09-13-2017, 11:10 AM   #31
chiguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 265
I really don't get the whole boycott thing at all when it comes to racing. Just like any other good or product, the retailer can charge what he likes. If he ends up out of business because his price point is to high then he is out of business. These tracks must have a calculation that says they can do this without too much affect on the bottom line. If it made business sense for them to reduce takeout I don't doubt they would. Many moons ago I worked in the jewelry business and I was floored by the difference between wholesale cost of stones and the retail price. The market will charge what the market will bear.
chiguy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 11:39 AM   #32
Andy Asaro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiguy View Post
I really don't get the whole boycott thing at all when it comes to racing. Just like any other good or product, the retailer can charge what he likes. If he ends up out of business because his price point is to high then he is out of business. These tracks must have a calculation that says they can do this without too much affect on the bottom line. If it made business sense for them to reduce takeout I don't doubt they would. Many moons ago I worked in the jewelry business and I was floored by the difference between wholesale cost of stones and the retail price. The market will charge what the market will bear.
Without the boycott Ca. wouldn't have the 14% takeout P5 starting in the first race and WPS would have been raised to 17%. Additionally we got CHRIMS to give us access to handle reports and most importantly it was a deterrent for a while. Failure to act the last few years has emboldened the Industry to raise takeout. If Keeneland isn't hurt by a boycott this time more will follow including Ca. raising WPS takeout IMO.
Andy Asaro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 11:47 AM   #33
jimmyb
Registered User
 
jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Baystater
Posts: 3,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiguy View Post
I really don't get the whole boycott thing at all when it comes to racing. Just like any other good or product, the retailer can charge what he likes. If he ends up out of business because his price point is to high then he is out of business. These tracks must have a calculation that says they can do this without too much affect on the bottom line. If it made business sense for them to reduce takeout I don't doubt they would. Many moons ago I worked in the jewelry business and I was floored by the difference between wholesale cost of stones and the retail price. The market will charge what the market will bear.
Wouldn't be the first time an industry died in this country. Horse racing may end up the way of textiles, electronics, automobiles, bikes etc. They are pricing themselves out IMO.
jimmyb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 01:13 PM   #34
Cholly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 946
I'm in.

(might as well, can't remember the last time I picked a winner at Keeneland)
Cholly is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 01:25 PM   #35
Parkview_Pirate
Registered User
 
Parkview_Pirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph View Post
I don't get it when I read stuff like this.

The price you pay for a product is always the most important factor. Only horse players ignore it like it's a non factor. The sarcastic point I was making about ordering a pickup and making price decisions was an attempt to emphasize that there is no difference no matter what you are purchasing. Yet horse players seem to never get it.
Horse racing is hardly the same as buying a truck - it's more like buying a stock. You're equating one factor to "price" and not considering the big picture.

If your ROI at Lowtakeout Downs (15%) is 0.57 on the dollar (my return at Kentucky Downs last year on 10 wager), and it's 1.25 at Boycott Raceway (17.5% takeout), you're going to go broke "paying a lower price".

Getting a 15% takeout at a track where you pick more losers is never a bargain.
Parkview_Pirate is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 01:56 PM   #36
JustRalph
Just another Facist
 
JustRalph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Now in Houston
Posts: 52,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate View Post
Horse racing is hardly the same as buying a truck - it's more like buying a stock. You're equating one factor to "price" and not considering the big picture.

If your ROI at Lowtakeout Downs (15%) is 0.57 on the dollar (my return at Kentucky Downs last year on 10 wager), and it's 1.25 at Boycott Raceway (17.5% takeout), you're going to go broke "paying a lower price".

Getting a 15% takeout at a track where you pick more losers is never a bargain.
But it's a bigger issue than that. Every business has competitors. You react to your competitors or you bury your head in the sand and get run over.

If horse players react to Keeneland with a boycott, it sends a signal albeit often ignored in the business but never totally forgotten. Other jurisdictions may then think twice about raising the take, or finding another way.

The fact that 90% of horse players cannot even tell you what the rake is or how it's calculated etc is a damn shame. The tracks love that they can hide it with double-talk and other bullshit. I like to think of it as basic margin-profit.

My example of buying a truck is applicable if you consider the use and quality of the product, how long it lasts etc. just like everything else. I personally believe that Dodge/Chrysler makes some of the shittiest vehicles. Toyota, the best. How long they last including Maint. Etc is the ROI in the equation. I have been driving my Tundra almost 8 yrs now and have done nothing but oil changes and put tires on it. At 75k miles (few months ago) it got new brake pads. Very economical for a very very nice beast of a truck. That's what I consider a great ROI. But if there were something better out there, I'd damn sure buy it. compared to my Dodge driving friends, my ROI is much higher. I just think you have to look at price in all situations. How much higher would your ROI be without the increase by Keeneland? That's the real number you should be calculating.

But alas, our sport is in a business where the same customer who will shop all over town for a better price on gas, doesn't even know what he's paying to play an exacta
__________________
WE ARE THE DUMBEST COUNTRY ON THE PLANET!
JustRalph is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 02:47 PM   #37
AndyC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate View Post
Horse racing is hardly the same as buying a truck - it's more like buying a stock. You're equating one factor to "price" and not considering the big picture.

If your ROI at Lowtakeout Downs (15%) is 0.57 on the dollar (my return at Kentucky Downs last year on 10 wager), and it's 1.25 at Boycott Raceway (17.5% takeout), you're going to go broke "paying a lower price".

Getting a 15% takeout at a track where you pick more losers is never a bargain.
Econ 101, perfect analysis.

I think the example you provided happens quite frequently either in reality or perception for many players. I would gladly give up a % point on a track where I am consistently making profits versus playing the lower takeout track where I can't find a winner.
AndyC is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 03:01 PM   #38
AskinHaskin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 486
It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.
AskinHaskin is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 04:15 PM   #39
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.
Who are you talking to, in the "you and your ilk"? What wagering formats did they cause that doomed racing?
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 04:27 PM   #40
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.
I would comment, but as usual I need cliff notes to figure out what your points are. It seems line your points are

1) All tracks that lower takeout fail to make up for it in increased betting (thus making it negative revenue).

This is sort of common sense. I have addressed this before, but lowering takeout is a long term gig(and I mean loooooong term gig) and require more than 1 or 2 points to be effective and more importantly these experiments are always short term and often done at venues that players are not familiar with and the quality of horses racing is suspect. Not exactly the same as if Del Mar announced that they would for now on be charging a 12% takeout in the WPS pools.

2) I guess you feel that the shift from WPS to exotics and super exotics has had a huge negative effect on the overall success in racing. I certainly think handle suffers when small capital players have a $72 investment in the early pick 5. Chances are they lose the $72, they have action for at least for 2 or 3 races typically, and they typically collect zero and are unable to churn the money they get back. Much better imo that they invest $15 to in on 5 different horses, typically 1 or 2 will win and they get back a good chunk of their $72. I still think that the MUCH bigger problem is rebates which puts the non rebated player at a ridiculous disadvantage and of course being one of the higher priced gambling games around. Please explain to me why you think pricing is unimportant when racing thrived at a time that it was basically the only game around. Now there is competition and they fail to compete for the mainstream gambling dollar, they just go after the sharpest money they can find, reward them(rebates) and can't figure out why handle goes down every year.

3) I guess the sand box has to do with the players that have dropped out of the game. Sadly a lot of have passed away, or do not have the desire or the cashflow or even the mental aptitude currently to take this game on. There is a whole new world of youngsters out there. That is your target racing, not the 75 year old who got tired of losing 10 years ago and is struggling to get by.

To me racing is 100 fold the best gambling game around(and that is even with it's ridiculously high takeout). I see something in this game that the masses obviously don't. Now maybe I am just really strange(certainly possible), or maybe the masses see the obvious, the game is too tough to beat (I have been playing it for almost 50 years and can hold my own so that is not concern to me).

I am of the strong belief that racing could actually put itself on the map again if it eliminated rebates and priced itself properly. But you are 100% right about that being a pipe dream. So now all I can do is make futile posts here and boycott every time I see a track doing the wrong thing and raising it's already ridiculously overpriced product. Because if Keeneland gets away with it the mindless(and I do mean mindless) sheep will follow.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 07:33 PM   #41
GMB@BP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5,870
I always think its funny when we see a statement like this:

Featuring a horseplayer friendly 15% takeout and offering a $0.20 minimum entry point, the cross-continent Pick-5 will feature three turf stakes from Woodbine and two turf events from Belmont Park.

In essence what they are saying is we know the normal takeout aint so friendly.
GMB@BP is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 08:34 PM   #42
Afleet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
It remains amusing that despite so many blowhards piping-up about takeout changes, none show the good common sense to review the only important number in the equations:

revenue from takeout to the tracks involved.


It was precisely and concisely that number which made it a no-brainer that Canterbury would end the moronic experiment served up by Eric Halstrom, who was soon out of a job for his stupidity.


Exactly none of the many takeout-reduction experiments undergone by anyone anywhere (in the name of "lower takeout") have produced greater (or even equal ) revenue from takeout.

That's the bottom line. To cite your own individual thoughts, ideas, or pipe dreams in tandem with that bottom line is simply more of your hot air, which the industry that you are collectively burying does not need.


If you are too clueless to figure out that it was you and your ilk who caused today's wagering formats which have doomed racing over the past three decades, then you just need to stop talking/writing and open your eyes...


(* it certainly wasn't the 80+% of the public which you and your ilk chased away in the process, who ended up burying an industry which once thrived)


Your entire premise (after chasing all of the little kids out of the sandbox) has become "what more can the venue do for me? (at it's own expense)" and with that as your only present-day focus, you're collectively incapable of understanding that the only way to bring the industry back would be to help the ones you chased away upon their return to the sandbox.

Obviously you can run an Ostrich race, or a Corgi race and bring them back to the sandbox, but the equation never changes for them, and until it does, they won't stay...

Interestingly enough, the little kids never sense themselves to be at a competitive disadvantage when the Ostriches are on the track.
It will be interesting to see what Canterbury's handle is this year. If its up I would be shocked
Afleet is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 08:40 PM   #43
Afleet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,190
Since no one attends the races in person anymore, generally speaking(not counting Saratoga, the Derby, etc., why not lower the on-track take to 10% across the board nationwide.

Oaklawn lowered take out on track for the show pool only and wagering went up dramatically in that pool.
I will bet my 401k that total national on-track handle will go up.

Last edited by Afleet; 09-13-2017 at 08:49 PM.
Afleet is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 08:45 PM   #44
Afleet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Who are you talking to, in the "you and your ilk"? What wagering formats did they cause that doomed racing?
his posts are written like he is inebriated
Afleet is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2017, 09:39 PM   #45
Fager Fan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
The tracks are selling a product. Most products have a 100% markup. What is racing's?

It's always interesting to me to hear gamblers grousing. I've yet to hear one, including Andy who apparently is quite involved in the details of these things, who has actually searched out the costs of running a track and made a thoughtful decision based on these facts. Driving a track out of business does you no good.

I learned the economics of movie theaters a long time ago. They get very little of ticket revenue, and it's the popcorn and drink sales that keep them afloat. I like my neighborhood theater, and so I splurge and buy popcorn and a drink instead of begrudging the cost because I hope they remain in business for my own entertainment.

For others, they'll support Mom and Pop stores instead of the megastores, even though they pay more, because they want the Mom and Pop to remain in business.

If a business is raking in the big bucks, and then wants to stick it to me at every turn, then it's those businesses I label as greedy and don't wish to give them my business (though sometimes I may want their product enough to do so anyway).

So, how does racing compare to others in what they make as way of "markup" on the product they sell? Are the tracks being greedy, and trying to stick it to you at every turn? I'd say that Churchill was greedy, and still is greedy, but I don't know that I think that of any other track.

And it just makes good old common sense to me that if lowering takeout really improves the tracks' bottom line then the tracks would be doing it.

If I could wave a magic wand and do one thing that I do think would increase the track's bottom line, which they could pass on to the handicappers, it'd be doing away with all ADWs except for ones that are track/industry owned. The percentage given away to ADWs is one that could be going to handicappers (or the track). This is why I only bet through Xpressbet when not on track.
Fager Fan 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 05:05 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.