Bill Finley: "Horseplayers Are Stupid"

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Players are not stupid, although it is a fantastic shock headline by Bill F.

Bettors are smart - that's why handle is off by close to 50% the last ten years.

If Kinko's kept their same business plan and lost 50% of their business in ten years, they would not say their customers are stupid, they would say "we're doing something wrong because they have left"

Customers are very smart and rational. Racing just has not figured that out yet.

As for CA. Bettors might keep playing it. I dont know if they are dumb or not, but I do know if they continue to bet 22% takeout in ex's in five horse fields they will be broke.

Unfortunately, many racing execs believe that horseplayers being broke means they did their job.

[BillW]

Funny thing about higher takeout - horseplayers don't even need to know that takeout has increased to bet less. On average they leave the track with less in their pocket some (most?) may not even know why. They come back with less the next day and wager less that day and leave with even less. Handle will drop whether horseplayers consciously bet less or not. Over the long run you see the 50% drop that Dean referenced.

[affirmedny]

Originally Posted by andymays

Suspending Play is the only answer.

I'm for a three day or a week suspension of play at the Oak Tree meet to protest the upcoming increase. If it is successful I am for another suspension of play within a month.

If the short suspensions are successful they will gain momentum and participants like a snowball down a hill. The ensuing avalanche will turn the tide.

If you boycott Oak Tree, they'll just blame lower handle figures on the fact that it's being held @ Hollywood. It has to be Santa Anita.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by BillW

Funny thing about higher takeout - horseplayers don't even need to know that takeout has increased to bet less. On average they leave the track with less in their pocket some (most?) may not even know why. They come back with less the next day and wager less that day and leave with even less. Handle will drop whether horseplayers consciously bet less or not. Over the long run you see the 50% drop that Dean referenced.

I had a chat with an exec once over takeout. He said "we survey people in the stands and it does not matter." I said "look around you; these people are not your customer, they are the people who are still here"

I told him he should do an experiment to prove if takeout matters to his handle, even with the people who are still playing at the track. I said round all the people you see in the stands up and tell them to keep all their losing tickets for the evening. In race 7, tell them they can put the tickets in a machine and get 5% back. If one of them bet $100 they would get $5 back. Then tell them whatever credit they have on their voucher can be bet in race 8.

I then asked him "how would your handles do in race 8?"

He said they'd go up.

So I said "well it appears your customers do care about takeout." If you lower it, they will rebet and increase handle.

He still looked at me like I was from Mars. I guess a lot of people do that, so he is in the majority.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

A more accurate analogy is that of a drug dealer who keeps charging more and more for his stuff. Addicts will pay huge prices for their fixes. Horseplayers aren't much different; we've proven that. Outside of Breeders Cup the last race I wagered on in Cali was Good Rewards' Pacific Classic.
I was planning on betting a lil Cali when they return to dirt, but not now.

Actually horse players every where have proven that is not true. If it were then horse racing would not be in the fix that is in today. Horse players are leaving the sport in droves. Even most of the ones still around are cutting back on their wagering.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by BillW

Funny thing about higher takeout - horseplayers don't even need to know that takeout has increased to bet less. On average they leave the track with less in their pocket some (most?) may not even know why. They come back with less the next day and wager less that day and leave with even less. Handle will drop whether horseplayers consciously bet less or not. Over the long run you see the 50% drop that Dean referenced.

A small percentage of us use horse racing as a means to make money, ya know, supplement our income. Most horseplayers just use it as a gambling game. They're really not 'horseplayers' they're just gamblers who happen to be driving past a racetrack when their gambling urges and need for action 'kicked in'.

These are the people who are hurting serious bettors, by not caring.

When the Vikings and Saints took the field the other night in the opening of the 2010-2011 NFL season, all the players walked to midfield and raised a finger to show solidarity. True horseplayers will show solidarity and boycott any takeout raise, but most of the people who wager on horses do not care as they know they're going to be lifetime losers anyway. No difference to them, they're just paying for 'action' and action is a pretty powerful drug, so the price can be raised without too many noticing or even caring.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by affirmedny

If you boycott Oak Tree, they'll just blame lower handle figures on the fact that it's being held @ Hollywood. It has to be Santa Anita.

It depends on how significantly lower all sources handle is. On track handle will be less for sure.

[toussaud]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

A more accurate analogy is that of a drug dealer who keeps charging more and more for his stuff. Addicts will pay huge prices for their fixes. Horseplayers aren't much different; we've proven that. Outside of Breeders Cup the last race I wagered on in Cali was Good Rewards' Pacific Classic.
I was planning on betting a lil Cali when they return to dirt, but not now.

\
this not even a good analogy becuase any real addict has 5-6 connects.

the first time someone gets stupid with prices or their "stuff" is a little "off" they go to the next number.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Players are not stupid, although it is a fantastic shock headline by Bill F.

Bettors are smart - that's why handle is off by close to 50% the last ten years.

If Kinko's kept their same business plan and lost 50% of their business in ten years, they would not say their customers are stupid, they would say "we're doing something wrong because they have left"

Customers are very smart and rational. Racing just has not figured that out yet.

As for CA. Bettors might keep playing it. I dont know if they are dumb or not, but I do know if they continue to bet 22% takeout in ex's in five horse fields they will be broke.

Funley is probably priming the pump for his radio show. He must be expecting that HANA will not support a boycott.

[jelly]

All Websites and blogs that support lower takeout should be giving Free advertising to any track with low takeout bets.This will not make the tracks with High takeout happy.


I don't know why I don't see more advertising/Banners (that support lower takeout)coming from horseracing sites.


The racetracks,owners and trainers don't own the Internet.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by toussaud

\
this not even a good analogy becuase any real addict has 5-6 connects.

the first time someone gets stupid with prices or their "stuff" is a little "off" they go to the next number.

Horseplayers do too. If Cali takeout is too high they play Retama, but they DO play (get their fix) and will continue to do so. In fact, horseplayers have a lot of connects. If your product is too weak or expensive they will use anothers' product, but the connect knows that they will come back...and they usually do.

Please correct me if I am wrong as I have no data, but I am of the opinion that players aren't leaving the game as much as they aren't entering it in the first place. I guess you can include someone who tries the races a few times and loses and never returns in the 'left the game' category, but those who have played for any number of years will continue to play....just me thoughts.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

Please correct me if I am wrong as I have no data, but I am of the opinion that players aren't leaving the game as much as they aren't entering it in the first place. I guess you can include someone who tries the races a few times and loses and never returns in the 'left the game' category, but those who have played for any number of years will continue to play....just me thoughts.

Some places are really aware of that. We know we have a high learning curve (and the rake does not help), but on the flipside, when people leave and get out of the groove, it is really hard to get back in. This was a huge part of the presentation in Hong Kong by their VP of betting (yep they have one of those there) to the gvt on why they should be lowering take and battling Macau casinos.

I remember when a bunch of us left in the 1990's to play the markets, I barely thought about betting a race. I still had a couple of horses, and I still watched big races on TV sometimes, but other than that zero. I had no want to come back, because I had to spend so much time relearning.

After the markets tanked and volume went away I slowly got back into it. But it was not easy.

[comet52]

Originally Posted by DeanT

So I said "well it appears your customers do care about takeout." If you lower it, they will rebet and increase handle.

He still looked at me like I was from Mars. I guess a lot of people do that, so he is in the majority.

He already had the money. You told him to give it back to the customers then collect a % of what he once had all of. It's not a very good analogy to convince someone with.

Lowering the house edge on any form of gambling does not increase the house's income, it simply increases the time it takes them to earn the same amount of income. The point is not to play with the pricing in hopes of producing a miracle, the point is to produce a gambling product, in this case an on-track experience, that people want to buy. Del Mar and Saratoga do this, but plenty of places don't.

The only argument I would make to a racing exec is, the optimal takeout is one which doesn't drive away your business. Usually a failing business doesn't keep increasing prices. Of course, where racing is concerned, we always have the state and horsemen involved so economics transmorphs from producing a quality product that people want to buy into a backroom exercise in parceling out entitlements - from taxes, slots, etc.

The expansion of gambling in so many venues and online has devastated racing in much the same way the internet devastated print newspapers. It's adapt or die time. Reducing the price of the newspaper isn't saving print journalism and reducing the price of racing, while a nice step in the right direction, will not save racing. The game needs a radical overhaul and some creative leadership.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Originally Posted by comet52

Lowering the house edge on any form of gambling does not increase the house's income, it simply increases the time it takes them to earn the same amount of income.

Exactly!

If my degenerate customers walk in my track with $100, I want to get it all from them as quick as I possibly can.

Originally Posted by comet52

The expansion of gambling in so many venues and online has devastated racing in much the same way the internet devastated print newspapers. It's adapt or die time. Reducing the price of the newspaper isn't saving print journalism and reducing the price of racing, while a nice step in the right direction, will not save racing.

That's right....racing doesn't need to compete with low takeout forms of gambling like poker, sports betting, financial markets, etc.....they just need to make their product desirable like Louis Vuitton, Tiffany, Ferrari, etc.

I'm sure if the price on the football game (just like the match race prices) last night was N.O -4.5 -200 vs Minn +4.5 -120 instead of N.O. -4.5 -110 vs Minn -4.5 -110, the exact same amount of money would have been bet on it because the product is great and people want to bet on it.

Fix all of racing's problems and CA would have no opposition whatsoever to raising takeout.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by comet52

Lowering the house edge on any form of gambling does not increase the house's income, it simply increases the time it takes them to earn the same amount of income. The point is not to play with the pricing in hopes of producing a miracle, the point is to produce a gambling product, in this case an on-track experience, that people want to buy. Del Mar and Saratoga do this, but plenty of places don't.

Wrong. The idea of optimal takeout is the rate where the track and horsemen make the most money bottom line.

To simply prove you wrong, if takeout were 98% today instead of 20%, do you honestly believe that racing's bottom line would be the same as it is now?