|
|
12-03-2016, 11:03 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
The Racing Industry Needs a Growing and Viable California
Excerpt:
If Organizations like the NTRA, the Jockey Club, Americas Best Racing, and the Breeders' Cup believe that California racing is vital to the industry, they can help promote California racing as a "Test Jurisdiction" for selling horse racing as a Gambling Game of Skill.
What does that support look like? It looks like social media promotion along with weekly monitoring of handle/revenue under the new changes.
As most of you know the new changes are meant to grow the game by promoting high churn lower takeout wagers like WPS and two horse exotics. We believe that WPS breakage should pay to the penny, and as a trade-off to the industry the minimum payoff on Show wagers should be reduced to $2.05 to help with minus pools. Takeout on exacta wagers should be reduced to 16%.
As part of the promotion the alphabet organizations, TVG, and other racing media outlets would help by constantly telling people who are new to the game or who only bet a few times a year that the best way to learn the game and the best chance of winning is to concentrate on high churn wagers. A $1 three horse exacta box and $2 WPS on the longest shot of your selections is an example of a high-churn strategy and to get the new Customers coming back. As people bet and cash they will learn to adjust these wagers for a more optimal outcome, and just as important they will learn to read the PP's and learn to recheck their wins and losses, just as we all did at one time.
California Racing is in trouble. Field size will likely drop in 2017, and handle has trended downwards. The drop in field size makes it all the more important to pay to the penny on WPS breakage and lower exacta takeout to 16%. People will bet on shorter fields at the right price.
For the whole story click on the link: http://blog.horseplayersassociation....owing-and.html …
|
|
|
12-03-2016, 11:26 AM
|
#2
|
Top Horse Analytics
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 12,303
|
Churn baby, churn! It's an idea that seems incomprehensible to the fiefdom that controls racing in California.
|
|
|
12-03-2016, 01:31 PM
|
#3
|
Charm school graduate
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,902
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
Excerpt:
If Organizations like the NTRA, the Jockey Club, Americas Best Racing, and the Breeders' Cup believe that California racing is vital to the industry, they can help promote California racing as a "Test Jurisdiction" for selling horse racing as a Gambling Game of Skill.
What does that support look like? It looks like social media promotion along with weekly monitoring of handle/revenue under the new changes.
As most of you know the new changes are meant to grow the game by promoting high churn lower takeout wagers like WPS and two horse exotics. We believe that WPS breakage should pay to the penny, and as a trade-off to the industry the minimum payoff on Show wagers should be reduced to $2.05 to help with minus pools. Takeout on exacta wagers should be reduced to 16%.
As part of the promotion the alphabet organizations, TVG, and other racing media outlets would help by constantly telling people who are new to the game or who only bet a few times a year that the best way to learn the game and the best chance of winning is to concentrate on high churn wagers. A $1 three horse exacta box and $2 WPS on the longest shot of your selections is an example of a high-churn strategy and to get the new Customers coming back. As people bet and cash they will learn to adjust these wagers for a more optimal outcome, and just as important they will learn to read the PP's and learn to recheck their wins and losses, just as we all did at one time.
California Racing is in trouble. Field size will likely drop in 2017, and handle has trended downwards. The drop in field size makes it all the more important to pay to the penny on WPS breakage and lower exacta takeout to 16%. People will bet on shorter fields at the right price.
For the whole story click on the link: http://blog.horseplayersassociation....owing-and.html …
|
I prefer short fields, if I see a 6 or 7 horse field anywhere at the tracks I normally follow, I'll handicap it, takes less time to cap shorter fields and while bigger fields beget bigger exotic prices, there's no extra 'value' per se in the big field.
I looked quick at gulf and saw too many monster fields so I just didn't look at their races at all, my opposition to big fields is just not having time to handicap them, takes too long.
|
|
|
12-03-2016, 01:44 PM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyGoer89
I prefer short fields, if I see a 6 or 7 horse field anywhere at the tracks I normally follow, I'll handicap it, takes less time to cap shorter fields and while bigger fields beget bigger exotic prices, there's no extra 'value' per se in the big field.
I looked quick at gulf and saw too many monster fields so I just didn't look at their races at all, my opposition to big fields is just not having time to handicap them, takes too long.
|
Did you read my piece in the HANA magazine on field size? I argue that 8-10 horses is ideal for most races.
http://horseplayersassociation.org/nov16issue.pdf
|
|
|
12-03-2016, 07:26 PM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,749
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
Excerpt:
If Organizations like the NTRA, the Jockey Club, Americas Best Racing, and the Breeders' Cup believe that California racing is vital to the industry, they can help promote California racing as a "Test Jurisdiction" for selling horse racing as a Gambling Game of Skill.
What does that support look like? It looks like social media promotion along with weekly monitoring of handle/revenue under the new changes.
As most of you know the new changes are meant to grow the game by promoting high churn lower takeout wagers like WPS and two horse exotics. We believe that WPS breakage should pay to the penny, and as a trade-off to the industry the minimum payoff on Show wagers should be reduced to $2.05 to help with minus pools. Takeout on exacta wagers should be reduced to 16%.
As part of the promotion the alphabet organizations, TVG, and other racing media outlets would help by constantly telling people who are new to the game or who only bet a few times a year that the best way to learn the game and the best chance of winning is to concentrate on high churn wagers. A $1 three horse exacta box and $2 WPS on the longest shot of your selections is an example of a high-churn strategy and to get the new Customers coming back. As people bet and cash they will learn to adjust these wagers for a more optimal outcome, and just as important they will learn to read the PP's and learn to recheck their wins and losses, just as we all did at one time.
California Racing is in trouble. Field size will likely drop in 2017, and handle has trended downwards. The drop in field size makes it all the more important to pay to the penny on WPS breakage and lower exacta takeout to 16%. People will bet on shorter fields at the right price.
For the whole story click on the link: http://blog.horseplayersassociation....owing-and.html …
|
Why not make the minimum show payoff $ 2.02?
|
|
|
12-03-2016, 08:22 PM
|
#6
|
Charm school graduate
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,902
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
|
I read it, i agree.
|
|
|
12-05-2016, 11:17 AM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 510
|
California Horse racing has a plan that has been in effect for the last 10 years. Blame Slot Gambling and "HOPE" it gets better. There has not been any real push to help the Owners turn a profit or the players either. California Horse racing will be run at Del Mar, Los Alamitos ( getting the most days ), and Golden Gate. Santa Anita's property will sell one day and that will be the end of California's Racing.
|
|
|
12-05-2016, 12:14 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
The problem with MARKETING gambling as a game of skill is that 95 percent or more of all players lose.
Which means there's a natural time limit on players trying to "beat" the game. They try, they fail, they run through their bankroll, and they quit.
That means that to make long term fans, you have to get people to enjoy the sport. It can be on a gambling level- one way to enjoy the sport IS to enjoy handicapping, just like you can enjoy poker strategy or playing a competitive game like chess. It can also be on a level of love of horses, love of competition, or love of the pageantry of a day at the track. (I was just at Del Mar yesterday. They didn't have a big crowd- maybe 8,000 or so-- but they were enjoying themselves, as Del Mar crowds often do.)
But "game of skill" doesn't get you there.
|
|
|
12-05-2016, 12:18 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,843
|
I believe that "churn" is greatly overlooked by the purveyors of our sport (the tracks)...
A good analogy of churn is akin to gambling on slot machines...
Some casinos have more than their fair share of "loose slots", while others are tight and just want their kash right away, rather than you get some bang for your buck...
Like, at least I like to get some of what I call "ass-time" before they finally get it all...Slots are mostly for entertainment for most people...The just want a good nite out, with the possibility of making a little score, and they need that ass-time to try and get it...Churn
One would think that the tracks would get hip to this ass time thing...
__________________
.
"Cursed be the man who puts his trust in man" - Jer 17:5 (KJV)
|
|
|
12-05-2016, 12:24 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LottaKash
I believe that "churn" is greatly overlooked by the purveyors of our sport (the tracks)...
A good analogy of churn is akin to gambling on slot machines...
Some casinos have more than their fair share of "loose slots", while others are tight and just want their kash right away, rather than you get some bang for your buck...
Like, at least I like to get some of what I call "ass-time" before they finally get it all...Slots are mostly for entertainment for most people...The just want a good nite out, with the possibility of making a little score, and they need that ass-time to try and get it...Churn
One would think that the tracks would get hip to this ass time thing...
|
Horseplayers seem to think tracks never study takeout, and this is soooooo not true.
The studies do not say what horseplayers think they say (or perhaps want them to say). Slot machines, by the way, are different because you place many more bets in an hour. By definition, when the races are going off every 30 minutes (or maybe every 3 minutes, if you play all the simulcasts), the takeout/churn model is going to be quite a bit different.
|
|
|
12-05-2016, 02:15 PM
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
Horseplayers seem to think tracks never study takeout, and this is soooooo not true.
The studies do not say what horseplayers think they say (or perhaps want them to say). Slot machines, by the way, are different because you place many more bets in an hour. By definition, when the races are going off every 30 minutes (or maybe every 3 minutes, if you play all the simulcasts), the takeout/churn model is going to be quite a bit different.
|
Are you suggesting that the tracks know that as they raise the take they actually make less profit but they do it anyway? All you have to do is look at the tracks that lowered take on certain bets to see the relationship.
The well known formula for calculating gaming revenue is
Gaming Revenue = Volume x House Advantage
In other words, if you want to make more money you have two choices. Increase the house advantage while keeping volume the same, or increase the volume. Unfortunately, increasing the house advantage (or raising the take) usually has the effect of decreasing the volume. The arithmetic is the same whether we are talking about horseracing or table games or fantasy sports, and in the case of horseracing has been well documented. The more you take, the less you make.
Slots, once the cash cow of casinos, are fading like a bleeder in the stretch. This of course begs the question, why did it take 150 years to figure out there are quicker ways to lose money, but not many. Table games are similarly suffering. Many casinos, after consulting with the management of racetracks, decided to cut the premium for blackjack from 3/2 to 6/5, with the predictable outcome that the action slowed down even more.
So what do the studies say?
|
|
|
12-05-2016, 06:38 PM
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
Are you suggesting that the tracks know that as they raise the take they actually make less profit but they do it anyway? All you have to do is look at the tracks that lowered take on certain bets to see
|
I'm suggesting that, without saying that current takeout rates are optimal, in general tracks have studied this and have not determined that they would make higher profits at a lower takeout. (Note that this is not refuted by arguing that handle will increase. It will, but the total revenue to the track could still be lower. Further note this is also not refuted by pointing to single bets with lower takeout. Such bets may attract players who care about takeout more, but there may be other players who are takeout- insensitive.)
Every business studies its price points carefully.
|
|
|
12-06-2016, 10:19 PM
|
#13
|
TomT
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Port of Los Angeles
Posts: 90
|
Hmmm, I tend to think Los Alamitos family will sell their property and we will see SA & Del Mar exclusively here in SoCal.
|
|
|
12-06-2016, 11:48 PM
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,121
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southbaygent
Hmmm, I tend to think Los Alamitos family will sell their property and we will see SA & Del Mar exclusively here in SoCal.
|
I was trying not be that guy on this thread. The whole starting point is already wrong. California racing is terminal.
Once two 80+ men (Stronarch and Allred) die Los Al and Golden Gate go. Santa Anita should be fine but no one can garantee it. The people of Arcadia would fight development to their dying death.
SoCal horseman have killed it. They have no long term vision of the game. They're welfare queens who's solution to everything is more takeout. They could have had exchange wagering years ago. They sabatoged it. They wanted a bigger cut.
Last month's CRHB meeting underscores both how screwed Cal racing is and how SoCal horseman are driving it.
Multiple critical issues were on the agenda. Pleasanton put stabling on the agenda and flat out said they can't afford year round stabling. They want out now. Los Al wanted to talk about how they are not committed to thoroughbred racing long term and how the horseman are not supporting the meet.
Which brings us to SoCal Horseman. In the wake of those two major items what did they want to talk about? They wanted to address people on track are using their phones to bet and since they get a smaller cut on off track they wanted the adws to stop it.
I can't make this up.
SoCal horseman are the passenger on the Titanic complaining about how their steak was prepared.
|
|
|
12-07-2016, 10:55 AM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
I'm suggesting that, without saying that current takeout rates are optimal, in general tracks have studied this and have not determined that they would make higher profits at a lower takeout. (Note that this is not refuted by arguing that handle will increase. It will, but the total revenue to the track could still be lower. Further note this is also not refuted by pointing to single bets with lower takeout. Such bets may attract players who care about takeout more, but there may be other players who are takeout- insensitive.)
Every business studies its price points carefully.
|
You might have a point if I hadn't talked to a number of track managers and come to the conclusion that they only have the barest minimum understanding of the parimutuel game. Example after example in the real world proves that as you raise the take in any gambling game, the high probability outcome is for handle to decrease to the point where revenue decreases. Check the result the last time California thought raising the take on certain bets would increase revenues. Give me one example of a jurisdiction raising the take and seeing handle either remain steady or only decrease enough to have revenues increase.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
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
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|