Canterbury end of season update

[Track Phantom]

Oh, one more thing. If I were Canterbury I would increase the take-out back to whatever they can make a profit on and f*^k the horseplayers. They did the best they could and didn't create much of a ripple with players. It wasn't supported nearly enough so I'd say F*%k you and work on being profitable. Otherwise they'll be shutting down after their Indian agreement expires in a few years.

[iamt]

Canterbury ran into one of issues with being a sole entity decreasing takeout; that the benefit to the player does not always flow back to the track.

The change would have attracted new people to look at the signal, it would have encouraged those already there to bet more than they normally would, and given the decline in the quality of the meet this probably propped up the figures.

Unfortunately for Canterbury the churn argument doesn't benefit them above all others, especially being a minor track that would be a small part of most players turnover.

The player has more in his pocket but this is more likely to go to another track than Canterbury. It makes it hard to get large growth. The problem is this trial probably stops the industry as a whole trying it and seeing what happens.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by iamt

Canterbury ran into one of issues with being a sole entity decreasing takeout; that the benefit to the player does not always flow back to the track.

The change would have attracted new people to look at the signal, it would have encouraged those already there to bet more than they normally would, and given the decline in the quality of the meet this probably propped up the figures.

Unfortunately for Canterbury the churn argument doesn't benefit them above all others, especially being a minor track that would be a small part of most players turnover.

The player has more in his pocket but this is more likely to go to another track than Canterbury. It makes it hard to get large growth. The problem is this trial probably stops the industry as a whole trying it and seeing what happens.

Racing there was solid. It must have been way more tremendous in other years but I saw and played a bettable product.

[JohnGalt1]

Then, all of a sudden, the final 3 days are loaded with 12 to 14 horse fields. Virtually every race produced incoherent, puzzling, boxcar payoffs.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

It's like the trainers realized, Gosh, this is the last weekend, we'd better race our horses."

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

In 2015 Canterbury had record high handle and were up 5% more.

How have the other low to mid-level tracks done.

I wish they'd move the quarter horse races to the end of the cards since many patron leave after the 7th race. And off track better who see 2-5 quarter horse races at the beginning of every card until August, turn to other tracks.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Steve Byk on his Tuesday pod cast interviews Eric Halstrom from CBY for the corporate view

[toddbowker]

Our handle was up 220% on Canterbury in 2016 vs 2015. Obviously we're just one outlet, but our customers are more price sensitive, so that kind of increase is more logical.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by toddbowker

Our handle was up 220% on Canterbury in 2016 vs 2015. Obviously we're just one outlet, but our customers are more price sensitive, so that kind of increase is more logical.

How much is that converted to actual dollars? Are you still with TS?

[toddbowker]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

How much is that converted to actual dollars? Are you still with TS?

In terms of dollars, it certainly wasn't enough for CBY to base future decisions on, but we paid significantly more to CBY in host fees than we did in 2015 due to the significant increase in handle.

For our customers it was clearly a win, but the overall success from all sources obviously didn't match ours.

Haven't been with TS since 2007 as a consultant.

[Poindexter]

As I have mentioned before, takeout reduction is a long term gig. As mentioned above, with most big players getting rebates, what is the big deal about a 15% takeout(or whatever it is). It really is solely for the benefit of the non rebated player. Now do not get me wrong, for racing to compete with other forms of gambling and develp long term players who stay in the game, takeout has to be lower. But I am skeptical of the prospects of any track waiting it out. As Track Phantom stated..if he were Canterbury he would say F the horseplayer. I am sure many horseman and racing execs feel the same way. Unless a track has long term on the mind these minor takeout reductions are for the most part futile. It will take a long time to realize the fruits of the takeout reductions and I certainly do not see any track waiting it out.Thats why horseplayers, if they want to see reductions in takeout, they have to motivate the execs. When they see Canterbury doing a takeout reduction and Meadowlands doing a takeout reduction, they must in aggreagate jump in with both hands whether we like the racing or not. If not, we will be right back to where we were, only less tracks will be willing to even try a takeout reduction. In other words if you want to see further takeout reductions play the upcoming Meadowlands meet aggressively, no matter what. Send the right message, or get used to high takeouts. Racetracks are businesses not charities.

Honestly I think funds would be probably better used seeding pick 4's or pick 5's. Throw some free money on the table daily, get horseplayers capping your races and assume they will participate in the other pools after capping the races. jmo.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

As I have mentioned before, takeout reduction is a long term gig. As mentioned above, with most big players getting rebates, what is the big deal about a 15% takeout(or whatever it is). It really is solely for the benefit of the non rebated player. Now do not get me wrong, for racing to compete with other forms of gambling and develp long term players who stay in the game, takeout has to be lower. But I am skeptical of the prospects of any track waiting it out. As Track Phantom stated..if he were Canterbury he would say F the horseplayer. I am sure many horseman and racing execs feel the same way. Unless a track has long term on the mind these minor takeout reductions are for the most part futile. It will take a long time to realize the fruits of the takeout reductions and I certainly do not see any track waiting it out.Thats why horseplayers, if they want to see reductions in takeout, they have to motivate the execs. When they see Canterbury doing a takeout reduction and Meadowlands doing a takeout reduction, they must in aggreagate jump in with both hands whether we like the racing or not. If not, we will be right back to where we were, only less tracks will be willing to even try a takeout reduction. In other words if you want to see further takeout reductions play the upcoming Meadowlands meet aggressively, no matter what. Send the right message, or get used to high takeouts. Racetracks are businesses not charities.

Honestly I think funds would be probably better used seeding pick 4's or pick 5's. Throw some free money on the table daily, get horseplayers capping your races and assume they will participate in the other pools after capping the races. jmo.

Not necessarily true.

If I wager $300 into a pick 5 at a 9% rebate, I get $27 of rebates.

If I wager $300 into a pick 5 with no rebate and get a 15% vig VS. a 22 % vig, that's an extra 7% possibly. If the net pool is $30,000 and I pool scope it, that's an extra $2100 or so.

Or if 10 people hit that pick 5, that's an extra $210 or so to me.

The response might be: But you lose a lot more than you hit and those rebates add up.

My response: Give me my 9% and the reduced takeout OR give me a 5% rebate AND the lower takeout any day of the week. It's more money.


As for the rest of your post, good stuff. I wish some track would seed a p5 pool. Yes, tracks should look at the long term.

Finally, if we don't support the tracks giving a lower takeout, we are hurting ourselves long term.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by toddbowker

In terms of dollars, it certainly wasn't enough for CBY to base future decisions on, but we paid significantly more to CBY in host fees than we did in 2015 due to the significant increase in handle.

For our customers it was clearly a win, but the overall success from all sources obviously didn't match ours.

Haven't been with TS since 2007 as a consultant.

Thanks! It took me a minute. But I remembered where you are now.....👍

[bello]

I was supporting Canterbury and betting there when the meet opened, but stopped about three weeks into the meet as a couple of things became quite annoying, one the track can help and one may be more problematic due to horse shortages.

1. The presentation of the races are very dark....lighten the view up. I couldn't follow who I bet. Camera angles also sucked. The experience of watching these races were not a all pleasant.

2. Short field are one thing, but short field with uncoupled entries are simple a deal breaker for me. I will not play tracks where this is commonplace. Even abandoned Finger Lakes after 40 years because of this.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Not necessarily true.

If I wager $300 into a pick 5 at a 9% rebate, I get $27 of rebates.

If I wager $300 into a pick 5 with no rebate and get a 15% vig VS. a 22 % vig, that's an extra 7% possibly. If the net pool is $30,000 and I pool scope it, that's an extra $2100 or so.

Or if 10 people hit that pick 5, that's an extra $210 or so to me.

The response might be: But you lose a lot more than you hit and those rebates add up.

My response: Give me my 9% and the reduced takeout OR give me a 5% rebate AND the lower takeout any day of the week. It's more money.


As for the rest of your post, good stuff. I wish some track would seed a p5 pool. Yes, tracks should look at the long term.

Finally, if we don't support the tracks giving a lower takeout, we are hurting ourselves long term.

This has been discussed a thousand times here. If you're more proficient lower takeout is better than a rebate, less proficient the opposite is true. Generally speaking a bet with a low strike rate such as the p4 or p5, a higher rebate is better for the average player because they may tap out before receiving any benefit from the lower take. A bet with a higher strike rate, wps. Then a lower takeout is as good or better for the average player. Exacta's and DD's could go either way.

[therussmeister]

One curious thing about short fields. Canterbury said several trainers that did not return this year said they could not find enough help because there is a shortage of affordable housing in the area.

Canterbury bought some land adjacent to the track that they intend to develop with housing and shops, but that would be several years away

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

This has been discussed a thousand times here. If you're more proficient lower takeout is better than a rebate, less proficient the opposite is true. Generally speaking a bet with a low strike rate such as the p4 or p5, a higher rebate is better for the average player because they may tap out before receiving any benefit from the lower take. A bet with a higher strike rate, wps. Then a lower takeout is as good or better for the average player. Exacta's and DD's could go either way.

I overall and generally agree except for part of that. I hear you ronsmac.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

I overall and generally agree except for part of that. I hear you ronsmac.

That's my problem with TVG. They're trying to get new customers , and the first thing they do is steer them to low hit rate p4- p6's. A lot of these players don't have the EmD bankroll or experience to start off with there type of wagers. This is coming from a guy who's only made 9 win bets in the last 3 years.