Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > Advance Deposit Wagering (ADW)


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 12-31-2008, 04:19 PM   #61
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,872
Quote:
What honest justifications are there for not lowering takeouts?
John,

Simply put, the tracks' revenue model doesn't work with lower takeouts.

Yes, I know all about how the player gets to play longer, and ultimately, bets more. But you see, that is part of the problem from the tracks' point of view - "the speed of money."

So, the player will get to play longer on his bankroll. Let's say that he gets to play 15 days instead of 10. That means that the track makes "a little more" in 15 days than the used to make in 10 days. Well, they're going to have to make 50% more to justify that, which is probably not going to happen.

Now, I realize these figures are arbitrary - and perhaps there are better stats to compute - but the bottom line is that the tracks cannot afford anything that even resembles less revenue.

So, until they can generate other revenue sources, the customer is forced to pay all the bills.

Understand, I am not siding with the tracks. I am simply being realistic.

You know, the tracks have complained for years about on-track attendance being one of the reasons that their revenues are in decline. And they are, of course, right. I contend that it is more than the $4.50 hot dogs, $10 parking etc.

Horse racing, like football, is no longer primarily an in-person game! Way more people are going to be interested if they can watch the game via TV or the web. Horse racing needs to change their business model to one that works.

Seems logical that the easy answer comes from making money from the video signal. However, the tracks' general position is that this video signal should be paid for, once again, out of the customers' wagers. Instead, they should be looking at ways to broaden the base of the sport so that people really want to watch it on TV.

If they watch it on TV, then there is another source of revenue: advertising. Look at Breeder's Cup day. ESPN isn't giving those ads away. They' generating big-time money from them. So, what we need is a Breeder's Cup a month, or a mini-BC each week, or enough following to justify any sort of every day channel.

Even if some of the cost is born by the customer, it is not "betting dollars."

So, in a simple answer to your question, "Yes, there is honest justification."


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 04:24 PM   #62
ddog
Registered User
 
ddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
John,

Simply put, the tracks' revenue model doesn't work with lower takeouts.

Yes, I know all about how the player gets to play longer, and ultimately, bets more. But you see, that is part of the problem from the tracks' point of view - "the speed of money."

So, the player will get to play longer on his bankroll. Let's say that he gets to play 15 days instead of 10. That means that the track makes "a little more" in 15 days than the used to make in 10 days. Well, they're going to have to make 50% more to justify that, which is probably not going to happen.

Now, I realize these figures are arbitrary - and perhaps there are better stats to compute - but the bottom line is that the tracks cannot afford anything that even resembles less revenue.

So, until they can generate other revenue sources, the customer is forced to pay all the bills.

Understand, I am not siding with the tracks. I am simply being realistic.

You know, the tracks have complained for years about on-track attendance being one of the reasons that their revenues are in decline. And they are, of course, right. I contend that it is more than the $4.50 hot dogs, $10 parking etc.

Horse racing, like football, is no longer primarily an in-person game! Way more people are going to be interested if they can watch the game via TV or the web. Horse racing needs to change their business model to one that works.

Seems logical that the easy answer comes from making money from the video signal. However, the tracks' general position is that this video signal should be paid for, once again, out of the customers' wagers. Instead, they should be looking at ways to broaden the base of the sport so that people really want to watch it on TV.

If they watch it on TV, then there is another source of revenue: advertising. Look at Breeder's Cup day. ESPN isn't giving those ads away. They' generating big-time money from them. So, what we need is a Breeder's Cup a month, or a mini-BC each week, or enough following to justify any sort of every day channel.

Even if some of the cost is born by the customer, it is not "betting dollars."

So, in a simple answer to your question, "Yes, there is honest justification."


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave

yes all that is nice, but to "broaden the base" you can't get that with the take in effect.
I don't even think it's about "broadening" anything , just a slow bleed out that hopefully this gen of track mgmt will be out before it blows, the heck with the next one, if there is a next gen of track guys.

The only way it works out is less , many less tracks.
That is underway and isn't going to stop soon.


everyday channels are not going to happen on a mass appeal level
most cable systems don't want them, they can do better running 1940 movies and selling ads to that than any type of horse racing.

Espn makes more off reruns of poker/pool tournies i expect than racing.

The only way a couple of mass everyday racing channels are going to go is if the industry feeds it the cash no matter the cost to start up.
That is the only hope I can see.

if the "industry" is not willing to bet on that then why should I bet with their standard take?

imo anyway.

Last edited by ddog; 12-31-2008 at 04:30 PM.
ddog is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 04:34 PM   #63
ddog
Registered User
 
ddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCal Boy
I have to disagree with your macro opinion about 2009 for the racing industry. While I believe there will be a continuing decline in on track attendance and on track handle numbers, I expect 2009 to be a better year than 2008 for certain parts of the racing industry. Open access to the major national ADWs is basically here. I expect the Florida signal deals with Youbet and likely TVG to be announced later this week. Oaklawn is next up shortly thereafter. CA has open access now. I highly doubt the Kentucky Derby and Preakness will be restricted this year given the signal deals being cut now. I suspect the Breeders Cup will be better received in 2009 in terms of handle now that Pro Ride seems to be holding up and there will be plenty of information about it.

The key for many of these tracks is access to wagering outlets and field sizes. The former seems to be coming around with access to the major ADWs being assured to virtually all tracks. The latter is a work in process, but as purses get supplemented with a little better fee structure for purses, my guess is field sizes will also start to increase at the major tracks.

Hopefully PTC will obtain Tracknet content. Hopefully PTC will get into CA. Hopefully PTC will get NYRA. Unfortunately, although PTC has been able to obtain TVG content during 2008, TVG is about to be sold in Q1 of 2009 and its exclusivities are basically done after Turfway ends in March. If the purchaser is CDI, then will PTC even get what little content is available through TVG? Hopefully the answer is a resounding Yes, but CDI is a tough nut to crack.

Magna will get reorganized in some fashion during 2009. TVG will be sold. Youbet might go private. CDI will be the home of the Kentucky Derby and we will see from there. How PTC fits in all of this is open to question if CDI is the dominant player controlling content. However, I do believe Twinspires and Youbet (and more than likely whomever is the acquiror of TVG) will do very well in 2009 as the industry takes a noticeable shift to online and mobile wagering. Xpressbet is a crapshoot as I doubt many large players will want to drive much handle through a reorganized Magna subsidiary, regardless of player trust accounts.

Finally, I see little to no appetite for any reductions in takeout. Justified or not, it will not happen.

Merry Christmas

even with all the other issues racing has , I think you are way way way underestimating the general economic fallout on handle.

if overall they stay close to last year it will be a miracle.

Also on field sizes , something tells me we are going to see some big owners/groups drop out in the next year or two, not to mention the smaller guys who can't make it.
We will see.

Last edited by ddog; 12-31-2008 at 04:37 PM.
ddog is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 04:36 PM   #64
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,872
Dog,

I agree with you.

I also agree with someone who said (in another thread) that 2009 was going to see improvement for the player. Well, I agree that it is coming but I think it will be 2010 before it gets better.

I think your point is well taken - tracks are going to fail. The ones that haven't failed yet are going to see the inevitable handwriting on the wall and become more open for change.

We can stamp our feet and shout, "I want lower takeouts!" all we want. It simply isn't going to happen in today's business climate. Listen, there have been voices shouting that mantra for years without much change.

Tracks are going to have to find a model that works. The current one simply doesn't. And the horsemen don't help either. So, here is the eternal triangle - tracks, horsemen and players, everyone shouting "We want, we need, we've got to have..." yet the demands of one are always at the expense of the others. The entire model needs overhauling.

There must be additional revenue sources!

Only those other revenue sources can take the pressure off the takeout.


Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Dave Schwartz is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 06:29 PM   #65
Premier Turf Club
Veteran
 
Premier Turf Club's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boynton Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian
I was wondering. Why can I not bet .20 supers at certain racetracks that offer them on PTC (Western Fair for example).
CPMA (Canadian Pari-Mutuel Association) rules, not ours. We allow fractional wagering wherever it is permitted by the host track (and regulatory authorities).

Happy New Year All!
Premier Turf Club is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 06:30 PM   #66
Canadian
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Dog,

We can stamp our feet and shout, "I want lower takeouts!" all we want. It simply isn't going to happen in today's business climate. Listen, there have been voices shouting that mantra for years without much change.

You know. I really don't think anyone has ever heard you before. Most horsemen, track operators or even the general public have not even a clue what takeout is.
Canadian is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 06:32 PM   #67
Canadian
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Premier Turf Club
CPMA (Canadian Pari-Mutuel Association) rules, not ours. We allow fractional wagering wherever it is permitted by the host track (and regulatory authorities).

Happy New Year All!

Really? So Canadians can but Americans can't? Makes sense, cause at my local simulcast facilities I can't bet fractional wagers that Americans can.
Canadian is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 06:44 PM   #68
Premier Turf Club
Veteran
 
Premier Turf Club's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boynton Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian
Really? So Canadians can but Americans can't? Makes sense, cause at my local simulcast facilities I can't bet fractional wagers that Americans can.
Yes, there are some wagers that we can't offer at Canadian tracks. I think the fractional PK4 at FE is another one.
Premier Turf Club is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 07:28 PM   #69
gopony
Registered User
 
gopony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Dog,

There must be additional revenue sources!

Regards,
Dave Schwartz
How about
One Minute Rice - Fair Grounds
Joe's Crab Shack - Delta Downs
Kentucky Bourbon - Churchill Downs
gopony is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 07:53 PM   #70
Charlie D
Registered User
 
Charlie D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gods County, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz


There must be additional revenue sources!

Only those other revenue sources can take the pressure off the takeout.

Dave

A fair few tracks have an additional revenue source coming in via slots, but as yet i don't think one has bothered to lower take



Maybe racing leaders, state leaders forgot about the players in tis gold rush, then again, maybe not

Last edited by Charlie D; 12-31-2008 at 08:01 PM.
Charlie D is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-31-2008, 09:54 PM   #71
ddog
Registered User
 
ddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,156
Dave

Imo, most owners/trainers and I think track mgmt types at some level and most are rather open about the attitude , SNEER at the avg bettor.

They feel they are the straw that stirs the drink and of course to some extent they are correct.

As CharlieD brought up, many tracks got the revenue increase via other games of chance and bupkus got passed to players.

I always thought that the "side revenue" was going to be a net bad for players , if not the whole industry.

It is just a different shade of a bail out, the tracks/horse types could NEVER generate the type of cash that comes in now without the slots cards,etc.

So, not that it will happen , but the "free money" needs to be taken out of the horse groups kitty. They pay out what THEY and only THEY bring in.

The other goes to the track/state via taxes,etc.

That will be bloody short term but it's the only way to find out what level of decent racing can be supported.

I maintain not much without the "free money" at most tracks.

To me this is just the same argument as the eternal fight between tb and other breeds owner groups as to the split of wagering bucks when running mixed meets/cards.


Looking for more revenue to prop up a dying part of the game (without the false incentives from the other gambling) is no good imo.
ddog is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-01-2009, 12:28 AM   #72
Cangamble
Agitator
 
Cangamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario
Posts: 2,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Premier Turf Club
Yes, there are some wagers that we can't offer at Canadian tracks. I think the fractional PK4 at FE is another one.
In Canada on HPI you can't bet fractional supers or Picks on
American tracks.
__________________
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/
"Make a bet every day; otherwise you might walk around lucky and never know it."
Cangamble is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-01-2009, 12:51 AM   #73
Charlie D
Registered User
 
Charlie D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gods County, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/48599.htm?id=48599

Quote:
TrackNet’s goal has always been to broadly distribute the content of its member racetracks,” added Scott Daruty, president and CEO of TrackNet. “Unfortunately, in the recent past various industry issues have prevented that from happening. However, we are now at a point where those issues appear to be resolved. This agreement relating to the distribution of the Oaklawn signal for account wagering is another example of how the industry is well served by broad distribution.”

Then why have ADW's like PTC not got the signal for Tracknet tracks yet

Ian, pay up yer tight bugger




Last edited by Charlie D; 01-01-2009 at 12:59 AM.
Charlie D is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-01-2009, 09:14 AM   #74
raybo
EXCEL with SUPERFECTAS
 
raybo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie D
http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/48599.htm?id=48599




Then why have ADW's like PTC not got the signal for Tracknet tracks yet

Ian, pay up yer tight bugger



I responded to this in a previous thread. Tracknet has to offer a contract to PTC, I don't believe they have yet. Tracknet decides who gets the signals and who doesn't simply by offering or not offering a contract.
__________________
Ray
Horseracing's like the stock market except you don't have to wait as long to go broke.

Excel Spreadsheet Handicapping Forum

Charter Member: Horseplayers Association of North America
raybo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-01-2009, 09:41 AM   #75
rokitman
Registered BSer
 
rokitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie D
Dave

A fair few tracks have an additional revenue source coming in via slots, but as yet i don't think one has bothered to lower take



Maybe racing leaders, state leaders forgot about the players in tis gold rush, then again, maybe not
They didn't forget. They just didn't give a shit.
rokitman 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 07:14 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.