Time for Contraction

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by sharkie187

Maybe changing the way we bet can help increase revenue and draw new fans?

My examples of course come from Europe where race tracks there give patrons the option of pari-mutual and fixed odds wagering. Granted here in the US we want to bet our exotic wagers were as Europe generally bet to win (my regular bookie at Ladbrokes didn't know what an exacta or tri was until I started betting there.) i know fixed odds wagering is illegal but maye we can reconsider that option and have companies that offer fixed odds sign a deal that from their revenue, they're required to give the tracks at least 30%.

Also, here's an idea that really got me interested when I first heard about it in the bookmaker shops. On any normal race where there is a clear outstanding favorite...a second pool was created called "Betting WITHOUT the favorite." Everything works the same as a normal WPS pool but it eliminates the favorite and the odds are adjusted accordingly. So, many in England might have watched the BC Classic and were cheering on the second and third abd fourth place finishers because AP was not in their pool. When I was betting in this pool, it made watching a horse race a lot more fun to watch

You seem to know a lot about English racing. How come they barely run on Sundays? I was looking at some stats from the Bha website and saw very few major tracks run on Sunday. Does it have something to do with Soccer?

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

IMHO, the tax law change in the mid 80's had an extremely detrimental effect on the sport. If owners, hobbyists or not, active/passive or not, could no longer write off losses indefinitely, then ownership just became a lot more expensive. I don't know what the ratio of business owners to hobbyists is in the sport now, but back in the early 80s it was not uncommon for owners to only have one or two "pets" that ran at the local track, often returning to the home farm for the winter. Some of my buddies put together some informal "syndicates" to claim a horse now and then, with the losses always available for one of them to write off.

Whether changing the laws back to help subsidize the sport today would have much of an effect, I don't know - but it couldn't hurt. Considering the anti-business atmosphere in tax laws today and the state of horse racing overall, maybe you're right and the needle wouldn't move much. But I don't know how else you get new owners in the sport.....

Completely agree. I had relatives who got into the business as owners in the 80s and remember them saying the write-offs were key. It was good while it lasted. I think your point is well taken.

[Stillriledup]

What write offs are you talking about? Do they get to write off horse racing losses vs other income like their 9 to 5 job for example?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

......Whether changing the laws back to help subsidize the sport today would have much of an effect, I don't know - but it couldn't hurt. Considering the anti-business atmosphere in tax laws today and the state of horse racing overall, maybe you're right and the needle wouldn't move much. But I don't know how else you get new owners in the sport.....

The passive loss and hobby loss rules are not specific to horse ownership. Changing those laws back would affect far more things than just horse racing. Allowing the write-off of losses for racing losses would reinstate a ridiculous tax loophole that was rightfully put to rest many years ago.

If racing were actually a sustainable business model then there would be far less need for write-offs of losses. Cure the patient and don't add more life-support tubes.

[ReplayRandall]

GP West, formerly known as Calder, will probably shut down live racing as Florida Senate committee passes Decoupling Bill. Won't be long before decoupling hits Charles Town, Pen and Mountaineer, soon they'll be gone as well:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ecoupling-bill

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The passive loss and hobby loss rules are not specific to horse ownership. Changing those laws back would affect far more things than just horse racing. Allowing the write-off of losses for racing losses would reinstate a ridiculous tax loophole that was rightfully put to rest many years ago.

If racing were actually a sustainable business model then there would be far less need for write-offs of losses. Cure the patient and don't add more life-support tubes.

Looks like some relief in the short term is now focused for the sport:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...wners-approved

The provision allows taxpayers to depreciate, on a three-year schedule, racehorses 24 months of age and younger when purchased and placed into service, as opposed to a seven-year schedule. According to the NTRA, the accelerated schedule better reflects the length of a typical racehorse's career and is more equitable for owners.

I don't have a clue how well this will affect the sport at this stage, but again, it can't hurt. While I agree that racing needs a sustainable business model, we're nowwhere close to seeing that any time soon.

[ReplayRandall]

Well, it's been a year since we last talked about contraction, here at PA. Ran across some comments from Barry Meadow about the subject:

Barry Meadow- "Let's look at Racetrack management reasons for optimism":

1. "Alternative gaming at tracks is expanding."

Until state legislators wake up and say why is all this slots money going to racetrack owners when it could be used for health or education for our citizens? At every racino I've been to, the emphasis is always on the casino, not the horse racing which is treated as a necessary evil. For how long will this continue until track owners start saying why do we have 100 days of racing; how about 50, or zero?

2. "Balance sheets are improving."

Hmmm--NYCOTB bankrupt, Magna bankrupt, the Maryland disaster; is any place without slots doing better than they used to?

3. "Racing is embracing technology that exponentially expands our knowledge of customers."

What customers? Racing has tried for 40 years to lure the youngsters, who have neither time nor money to gamble. They're trying to sell polka music to a hip-hop audience. Here's some knowledge--lower the damn takeout!

4. "There is a market for quality."

Not so much, and not unlimited. Sure, people (even non-gamblers) may be interested in the Kentucky Derby or Zenyatta, but on a day-to-day basis, most players would rather see a field of 12 crappy horses than 5 fast ones.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Barry wrote this SIX years ago.......The ship's going down fast, sorry but there's no life-jackets for the players or employees.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Well, it's been a year since we last talked about contraction, here at PA. Ran across some comments from Barry Meadow about the subject:

Barry Meadow- "Let's look at Racetrack management reasons for optimism":

1. "Alternative gaming at tracks is expanding."

Until state legislators wake up and say why is all this slots money going to racetrack owners when it could be used for health or education for our citizens? At every racino I've been to, the emphasis is always on the casino, not the horse racing which is treated as a necessary evil. For how long will this continue until track owners start saying why do we have 100 days of racing; how about 50, or zero?

2. "Balance sheets are improving."

Hmmm--NYCOTB bankrupt, Magna bankrupt, the Maryland disaster; is any place without slots doing better than they used to?

3. "Racing is embracing technology that exponentially expands our knowledge of customers."

What customers? Racing has tried for 40 years to lure the youngsters, who have neither time nor money to gamble. They're trying to sell polka music to a hip-hop audience. Here's some knowledge--lower the damn takeout!

4. "There is a market for quality."

Not so much, and not unlimited. Sure, people (even non-gamblers) may be interested in the Kentucky Derby or Zenyatta, but on a day-to-day basis, most players would rather see a field of 12 crappy horses than 5 fast ones.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Barry wrote this SIX years ago.......The ship's going down fast, sorry but there's no life-jackets for the players or employees.

NYRA benefited greatly from the casino.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Well, it's been a year since we last talked about contraction, here at PA. Ran across some comments from Barry Meadow about the subject:

Barry Meadow- "Let's look at Racetrack management reasons for optimism":

1. "Alternative gaming at tracks is expanding."

Until state legislators wake up and say why is all this slots money going to racetrack owners when it could be used for health or education for our citizens? At every racino I've been to, the emphasis is always on the casino, not the horse racing which is treated as a necessary evil. For how long will this continue until track owners start saying why do we have 100 days of racing; how about 50, or zero?

2. "Balance sheets are improving."

Hmmm--NYCOTB bankrupt, Magna bankrupt, the Maryland disaster; is any place without slots doing better than they used to?

3. "Racing is embracing technology that exponentially expands our knowledge of customers."

What customers? Racing has tried for 40 years to lure the youngsters, who have neither time nor money to gamble. They're trying to sell polka music to a hip-hop audience. Here's some knowledge--lower the damn takeout!

4. "There is a market for quality."

Not so much, and not unlimited. Sure, people (even non-gamblers) may be interested in the Kentucky Derby or Zenyatta, but on a day-to-day basis, most players would rather see a field of 12 crappy horses than 5 fast ones.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Barry wrote this SIX years ago.......The ship's going down fast, sorry but there's no life-jackets for the players or employees.

This sport needs contraction SOOO bad. There simply isn't an argument against it.

To survive you need to do the following...

1. Growing the International market. It's ok it racing is niche game but if its a niche among 6 billion people it can still survive and even thrive.

2. Alternative wagers. Every track needs exchange wagering and in-play now. Horsemen need to get on board or get out of the way. They're literally hijacking the sport and holding it for ransom in some markets.

3. Lower takeout. The best way to attract the biggest gamblers is give them the best value.

4. Milenial outreach. I actually went to Golden Gate last month with some friends and we all agreed racing would appeal to the Silicon Valley kids. Computer wagering, handicapping software, exchanges. This is soooooo in their wheelhouse. They're literally cornering Draft Kings and Fan Duel using this stuff. We need to pivot some them into racing. It can be done.

[magwell]

4. Milenial outreach. I actually went to Golden Gate last month with some friends and we all agreed racing would appeal to the Silicon Valley kids. Computer wagering, handicapping software, exchanges. This is soooooo in their wheelhouse. They're literally cornering Draft Kings and Fan Duel using this stuff. We need to pivot some them into racing. It can be done.........Indeed but racing stays 20 yrs behind the times, so we have a long wait for that to happen........

[ribjig]

> How bad is racing, when on Sept 1st, an average run-of-the-mill horse wins by 50 lengths at Mountaineer?

Who's being asked?
Those betting on 3/1 winner or
those betting on 1/2 heavy favorite loser...?

[thaskalos]

On the brighter side...Sunland Park has an $828 jackpot Pick-6 carryover today.

[CincyHorseplayer]

There are some oppressive dirt tracks out there but overall I am looking at about 8-10 racetracks a week and have been finding solid prices and exotics. This doomsday thread seems overkill to me. I think it has more to do with a player unwilling to change his game and waiting on a track or tracks to change things for you. Just my take.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by magwell

4. Milenial outreach. I actually went to Golden Gate last month with some friends and we all agreed racing would appeal to the Silicon Valley kids. Computer wagering, handicapping software, exchanges. This is soooooo in their wheelhouse. They're literally cornering Draft Kings and Fan Duel using this stuff. We need to pivot some them into racing. It can be done.........Indeed but racing stays 20 yrs behind the times, so we have a long wait for that to happen........

All gambling games that involve skill try to do this, and it turns out to be very tough to do.

The reality is that most gamblers lose. When I had access to online poker statistics, the number was 96 percent in the limit hold 'em games that I played. Only 4 percent won.

So any marketing scheme that is based on getting really smart kids to gamble runs into this issue. Indeed, well before April 2011, when the federal government cracked down on the largest poker sites, online poker was on the decline in the US. Lots of people had discovered they couldn't win and left it.

Is it theoretically possible to get a bunch of smart kids to try to beat horse racing? Of course. Will they beat it? Highly unlikely. And when that becomes apparent, many of them will stop trying and we will be back to where we were.

You want to attract less rational gamblers, as well as ordinary fans.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I have a feeling I am the Zerbra here.

The only reason for having live racing in multiple venues is for those who want to attend a live event. Otherwise having the track feeds and an ADW is fine.

Second, I hate to mention Hong Kong, but one of the reasons it does so well is that there isn't competition. When Happy Valley is running, that is your choice for betting horses in Hong Kong. Supply and demand works very well there. I guarantee if we had 3-5 tracks running across America (one in each of the three main time zones) and I guarantee they'd have full fields, healthy horses, no Lasix, and handle to match racing's big days.

I don't need to bet multiple tracks. When NYRA is running, it gets all my attention. I spend extra time with the racing form and I don't have to worry about spreading my bankroll. That's just me and it's been a successful approach.

I favor contraction on a large scale. Many times when people talk of contraction they think about dropping the smaller tracks - the Mountaineers or Finger Lakes - out of the mix. I don't think that accomplishes much. They really aren't competing with the larger tracks. Contraction would have to entail elimination of the mid-sized tracks - Monmounth, Pimlico, Fair Grounds - and revenue sharing. I just think it solves most of racing's problems including take, drugs, and competition.