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 03-25-2016, 03:15 PM   #46
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanT
I understand this thought, but in what industry do people complain about something like price of the product as customers and force change that way?

If a restaurant, or a car maker, or anything, really, is not serving a good product at a good price, consumers walk away and they lose market share, or go out of business. So, if they want to grow, or stay in business, they have to improve. There isn't a customer committee who complains, they just stop spending money.

Haven't customers been telling racing this for years with their dollars?
They have, of course. The biggest problem is the customers aren't really important right now. Subsidies are important. Slots and casinos are important. Bettors are just a necessary piece to keep the free money flowing.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2016, 02:30 PM   #47
comet52
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 368
Hasn't gambling revenue in general declined since 2008? A lot of casinos never recovered to the pre-recession levels, I know the ones I frequent here in the midwest certainly havent, though some newer venues are doing well. There's an issue with saturation, alternate ways to gamble etc. All this is known.

I think the PA guy is just stating the truth, anyone dumb enough to play PA racing is, well, just dumb. Why not gouge them, it seems to be working. A tiny group of knowledgeable horseplayers are not who PA racing wants for customers, isn't that obvious with all the crooked, rank shit that goes on there?
comet52 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2016, 03:37 PM   #48
cutchemist42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,114
Coming into this thread late, Im just speechless...
cutchemist42 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2016, 03:56 PM   #49
Valuist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 16,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperPickle
This is my ax to grind with horseman. This is why I have no sympathy for almost any of them. They have zero business sense. And zero sense of long term outlook. Their investment and concern about the sport ranges from a week to maybe the end of the current meet.

The sport slowly dies in front of there eyes and these guys only concerned about this condition's books purses. None of them care about the bettors and idea of them sacrificing one penny today to possible make a nickel or dime next week is a non-starter.

It's classic horseman mentality.
Everything he said. 100% true.
Valuist is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2016, 07:10 PM   #50
Ruffian1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperPickle
This is my ax to grind with horseman. This is why I have no sympathy for almost any of them. They have zero business sense. And zero sense of long term outlook. Their investment and concern about the sport ranges from a week to maybe the end of the current meet.

The sport slowly dies in front of there eyes and these guys only concerned about this condition's books purses. None of them care about the bettors and idea of them sacrificing one penny today to possible make a nickel or dime next week is a non-starter.

It's classic horseman mentality.
It was early on in my career that I figured all this out. It was then that I knew that I could be successful as a trainer coexisting with these types of people.

There were not more than a handful of actual business men in the entire lot. That said, King Leatherbury was the best of that handful IMO. But it was a small handful. It's no wonder he did as well as he did.

Sad for the game though, that's for sure.
Ruffian1 is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-27-2016, 04:54 PM   #51
DeanT
Registered User
 
DeanT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by comet52
Hasn't gambling revenue in general declined since 2008? A lot of casinos never recovered to the pre-recession levels, I know the ones I frequent here in the midwest certainly havent, though some newer venues are doing well. There's an issue with saturation, alternate ways to gamble etc. All this is known.

I think the PA guy is just stating the truth, anyone dumb enough to play PA racing is, well, just dumb. Why not gouge them, it seems to be working. A tiny group of knowledgeable horseplayers are not who PA racing wants for customers, isn't that obvious with all the crooked, rank shit that goes on there?
Slots at racetracks still humming in PA Comet!

Attached Images
File Type: png Capture.PNG (93.6 KB, 121 views)
DeanT is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-27-2016, 04:57 PM   #52
EMD4ME
NoPoints4ME
 
EMD4ME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanT
Slots at racetracks still humming in PA Comet!
Did I read that right? 3 plus BILLION in profit from stupid people throwing money away into a machine programmed to make them lose?

I'm serious. Is it 3 plus Billion in profit (forget expenses for a sec) from the machines? Or is it 3 Billion wagered? It must be profit...... right?
EMD4ME is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-27-2016, 05:00 PM   #53
DeanT
Registered User
 
DeanT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMD4ME
Did I read that right? 3 plus BILLION in profit from stupid people throwing money away into a machine programmed to make them lose?

I'm serious. Is it 3 plus Billion in profit (forget expenses for a sec) from the machines? Or is it 3 Billion wagered? It must be profit...... right?
Yep.

Handy rule of thumb in slot states: Multiply total revenue by 10% and that's what's generally funneled back to racing.
DeanT is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-27-2016, 06:09 PM   #54
Donttellmeshowme
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanT
Slots at racetracks still humming in PA Comet!




No wonder PARX has higher purses
Donttellmeshowme is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-31-2016, 11:04 AM   #55
DeanT
Registered User
 
DeanT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,962
Op Ed in the TDN about most of what we're talking about here.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...Holszh.twitter

Quote:
Last season the NCAA decided they were not getting enough money for network coverage and signed a new deal. The Final Four and Championship games would not be on free over the air TV in 2016, they’d now be on TBS, which requires a pay TV package to tune in. This strategy brings in more gross dollars, but the end result is the sport will be watched by fewer fans.

According to some, including Tuttle, this tactic has problems.

“The problem is that such agreements are doing serious damage to fan relationships. And perhaps even worse, they hurt the sport down the road, leaving countless would-be fans in the dust,” he wrote.

In 1957, horse racing enjoyed a near gambling monopoly in the state of California. Do you know what this “monopoly” charged customers in takeout? According to a study called Statistical Report of Operations, commissioned by the California Horse Racing Board, it was 13.75%. In 1977, when lotteries and other forms of competition came online, that rate stood at 16.9%. Today, with poker, and daily fantasy sports and casinos everywhere, the rate is about 21%. Ironically, the same 1989 study warned of squeezing the customer too hard, losing them forever, and recommended lowering takeout to help stem the tide.

Horse racing has been taking more off existing customers, rather than growing them in numbers, long before the NCAA’s ever tried.



DeanT is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-31-2016, 12:26 PM   #56
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,878
Good article, Dean!

Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-31-2016, 11:51 PM   #57
Rutgers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The State of Rutgers
Posts: 306
Quote:


In 1957, horse racing enjoyed a near gambling monopoly in the state of California. Do you know what this “monopoly” charged customers in takeout? According to a study called Statistical Report of Operations, commissioned by the California Horse Racing Board, it was 13.75%. In 1977, when lotteries and other forms of competition came online, that rate stood at 16.9%. Today, with poker, and daily fantasy sports and casinos everywhere, the rate is about 21%. Ironically, the same 1989 study warned of squeezing the customer too hard, losing them forever, and recommended lowering takeout to help stem the tide.

In 1957 with a takeout rate 13.75% 13.75 cents of every dollar wagered went to the”host” track. Today because most handle is wagered off track it's probably closer to 9 or 10 cents (though it varies between tracks), even though 21 cents of every dollar wagered is taken out. The host track bears the majority of the cost of racing including paying the purses as well as maintaining the track and physical plant, but receives less than half the takeout.

Tracks need to lower takeout, increase signal fees and ban rebating. Lowering takeout will increase handle, increasing signal fees will insure more money being returned to the host track, banning rebates will level the playing field and will ensure everybody benefits from the lower takeout.
Rutgers is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-01-2016, 12:31 PM   #58
DeanT
Registered User
 
DeanT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutgers
In 1957 with a takeout rate 13.75% 13.75 cents of every dollar wagered went to the”host” track. Today because most handle is wagered off track it's probably closer to 9 or 10 cents (though it varies between tracks), even though 21 cents of every dollar wagered is taken out. The host track bears the majority of the cost of racing including paying the purses as well as maintaining the track and physical plant, but receives less than half the takeout.
Not really relevant, though, because tracks import as well as export now.
DeanT is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-01-2016, 01:40 PM   #59
Fox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Home
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMD4ME
Did I read that right? 3 plus BILLION in profit from stupid people throwing money away into a machine programmed to make them lose?

I'm serious. Is it 3 plus Billion in profit (forget expenses for a sec) from the machines? Or is it 3 Billion wagered? It must be profit...... right?
For slots, I think gaming revenue means amount put in the slots minus the amount paid out. Basically, it is the profit of the machines not factoring in the cost of the machines, maintenance, supervisors, etc.

It is kind of to sick to think about it that there is enough stupid people to keep mindlessly plugging away on these things month after month, year after year. In PA, the first few days after everyone gets there Social Security check, they flock into the casinos and lose it all.

I wish they would ban slots and force these retirees to blow there savings at the track like the good ole days.
Fox is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 04-02-2016, 12:51 AM   #60
Rutgers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The State of Rutgers
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanT
Not really relevant, though, because tracks import as well as export now.
That's a valid point because that's how it works in theory. However, in reality, it doesn't always work out that way because some signals generate more handle than others. When a major track and a minor track take each other signals, the minor track profits nicely but the major track still gets less than half the takeout even when you factor in the imported signal from the minor track.

Additionally, fewer people are going to their local track to bet simulcast races (and/or live races), and instead wager thru ADW's & OTB's that are not connected directly to a track, so tracks aren't necessarily making up all that much take from their imported signals. (of course this varies by track/location).
Rutgers 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 08:04 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.