Sometimes the responses need and should be heard too….
From Steve Davidowitz via e-mail in response to HANA,California e-mail on "Optimum Takeout"
My Personal View of what is going on in California racing.
Many caring people, many people in and out of horse racing, have no trouble understanding the issues and problems facing California racing.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to list present members of the CHRB among them in both categories. Most do care, but just as many are all too willing to sign off on dumb, counter productive takeout increases. All too many have great difficulty realizing that there are ways to alienate the fan base and ways to take forward steps that will improve the financial picture for the sport, for the tracks, for the horsemen, for the fans and for the state's citizenry.
I do not agree with Jerry Jamgotchian 's approach either.
I do not agree that a boycott of the wagering windows can be effective. Not when the handle has been sliding downward for years. There is no way to convince everyone not to bet, especially since the majority of the handle occurs out of state. Moreover, there is no way that a further decline will wake up California racing officials any more than the steady declines have to date.
If the handle were up and a boycott was initiated because of some new policy, then a boycott would make a telling point. Lacking that, California racing needs more insightful options.
One of those options would be the lower takeout that Roger has been recommending.
What is the optimal takeout?
My view: No higher than 15 percent on all single bet wagers;
17 percent on Exactas, Quinellas, Trifectas, Daily Doubles;
18 percent on multi race wagers involving three to five races;
20 percent on Superfectas, Pick Sixes and the Place Pick All.
And, I would have at least one day each meet in which the handle on ALL wagers would be reduced to 10-12 percent as special fan appreciation days; days in which the impact of a serious drop in takeout could be measured by financial experts.
Consider: If a meet long drop in the takeout led to a stable or higher handle, or an increase, well that would make a definitive statement. So would a sharp rise on the special lower takeout day.
(Fact is, a vast majority of financial experts who have studied the impact of reduced takeouts on wagering handles- have concluded that properly handled, lower takeouts usually have a positive impact. And there is some practical history here. CHRB members should study what NY did in an experiment in the 1970's. Basically, they lowered the takeout as quietly as possible and that led to higher handles and they raised it also on the QT and that led to lower handles, etc. The only notification for the handle changes were in the result charts where the specific takeout info used to be presented every racing day.)
Other options are needed, including perhaps a consolidation of the northern and southern Cal racing schedules. This model existed in the 1950's when the meets were complimentary and the idea was not to over saturate the race going public with year round racing in each segment of the state. Racing today in California, including SoCal, often is racing for racing's sake, not for the benefit of the breed, the industry, the track's financial welfare and the attention span of its most loyal fans.
Another possible option is to follow to some extent the model provided this summer by Monmouth Park, where purses were concentrated for a three day race week.
Purses of course, were inflated by a special allocation at least $20 million that can be traced to the legislated relationship with Atlantic City Casinos that may or may not continue.
But next year, Monmouth is likely to remain a weekend track with above average purses, with or without the extra cash. Moreover, California's wagering pools are large enough right now, even with the declines, to support a Friday-Sat.Sun race week which would permit an up tick in the overall quality of daily racing as well as make those weekend dates special. At present, California is supporting too much of the same daily fare with an unfortunate accent on small fields and cheap maiden claimers. There not only is a decline in the horse population, but the quality has dropped significantly through much of the year as well.
There also are untried promotions, which would require CHRB approval: Such as a rich handicapping contest, in which only those who have attended the host track during the previous week, or the previous weekend, would get a free ticket to the track and the right to participate in the contest. This, it seems to me, would be far more effective use of a marketing budget than any shirt or hat giveaway.
At the bottom line, it is simply wrong-headed that any CHRB official believes that racing needs to accent its entertainment value for families more than it needs to lower the takeout-cost to the player. Making a day at the track a good experience certainly is a goal for every track. But It is absurd to compare the sport to baseball where legal wagering is NOT a fundamental reason to buy (expensive!) seats at the ballpark.
To do a proper job of revitalizing racing in California, the CHRB needs insightful leaders who will have the guts to allocate shorter race meets and or weekend racing for most of the year. The members of the CHRB who believe they are making positive moves raising takeouts, do not have the inspiration or the leadership qualities to regulate the best gambling game man has ever invented. They lack a feel for the large numbers of people who still love the sport but feel completely alienated by a long list of managerial and administrative errors.
At the bottom line, If the present CHRB members really want to help rebuild racing in California, each member needs to look in the mirror and really see what a mess they and some of their predecessors have made. Resignations would be worthwhile to consider; but those members who actually want to help the sport---those members who are willing to see what actually is going on---they need to justify their roles with bold initiatives. This is no time for wishy washy, politically inspired panaceas that offer nothing of positive value for the long term health of a great sport and a multi billion dollar agri-business under stress. The game can not afford more poorly thought-out policies orchestrated by the CHRB (and/or any self interested racing organization) that can only depress California racing's prospects for recovery.
Steve Davidowitz
CEO-Editor in Chief.
www.GradeOneRacing.com
