At Large - All Comments

re: Things That Make You Go Hmmmm (14)

Old Old Cat — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:58:15 GMT

I missed this article, probably because I thought I had already read it. A late thank you for an informative and thought provoking article. Loved your last point.

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

wjfraz — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:42:00 GMT

The average fan probably doesn't care for the takeout. A more common sense approach to gaining a larger fan base would be to make the tracks user friendly. In this I mean, the cost of food, parking, admission, racing forms, programs, etc., are way too high. Anyone with half a brain knows that the majority of people "donate" their money as the odds are stacked against them. Vegas used to comp to get patrons; racing should do the same. Admission, parking, programs and forms should be given to anyone who shows up. Food should be reasonable. Why would anyone pay $5 for a hot dog or a drink when they can bring them in cheaper? A complete rethinking is in order.

re: Growing Pains for Handicapping Tourney?

Stewart Winograd — Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:30:11 GMT

Maybe the payouts need to be tweaked, but I understand the reason for the consolation tournament having a decent payout, likewise the daily bonus winners. The NHC has a roomful of 500 people, most of them aggressive bettors. They don't want the 450 who are out of contention on the final day to go home.

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

Old Ned — Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:47:29 GMT

I became a dedicated fan and horseplayer at an early age, then spent much of my working life as a racetrack executive. I'm retired now, but still firmly hooked on "the game".

I enjoyed my career in management, but must admit to many frustrations over the industry's frequent displays of arrogance, ignorance lack of sophistication regarding business policy and practice. The prime example, in my view, has been the failure of most tracks and other racing organizations to understand modern marketing philosophy -- which demands, above all else, a clear understanding of the needs of consumers and requires that the "product" be designed to meet those needs effectively and efficiently.

The industry was, of course, quick to begin using "marketing" terminology to show how progressive it was but in practice "marketing racing" usually meant "promoting racing" in traditional ways. The common belief was (and still is, it seems) that the beauty and glory of the sport is racing's greatest strength. Once people are exposed to that, the theory goes, they'll be captivated and progress swiftly to being fans, track attenders and bettors.

With this kind of stagnant thinking entrenched as a guiding force, it's not surprising that changing market structure and motivation, and the possible decline in the saleability of the traditional racing product, don't appear to be of much concern to many industry decision-makers.

We can be grateful that a few big new marketing ideas have managed to surface and gain traction in the industry. New types of "exotic" wagering is one, simulcasting another. But, for the most part, these are product changes which were embraced because they appeared to promise immediate revenue increases and wouldn't cause much disruption of racing traditions, not because they were positive responses to important consumer demands.

Pricing is always a key marketing component. But in racing the price of wagering, takeout, is another issue often not addressed in a reasoned, analytical way. If we reduce takeout, industry leaders ask each other and various "experts", will people wager more, attend the races in larger numbers or with greater frequency? And above all, will we make more money? Well, some studies were done (many years ago now) which purported to show that if takeout is reduced wagering will go up so much that there will definitely be a net gain in revenue. Or…if not…at least more people will begin to patronize tracks after wagering "prices" are lowered. But many tracks which gave it a try discovered the results were not as promised and they quietly discontinued the "takeout experiment". And in some cases they discovered that judicious INCREASES in takeout were much more likely to produce immediate revenue increases.

In any case, it doesn't really matter what we in racing think about takeout, what's important is how the market reacts to it. And for a large part of the market, takeout is either unknown, misunderstood, or otherwise irrelevant as a "price" factor. The basic money issues to most horseplayers are the visible costs of patronage (transportation, admission, wagering tools, food and drink) and most importantly betting winnings and losses. Initially at least, takeout affects only one of these items: winnings. The higher the takeout the less paid out on a winning bet. If your bet loses, it's the total amount wagered that's lost, so the specific effects of takeout are invisible. If your bet wins, you're happy and it's unlikely thoughts of takeout enter your mind.

Sure, takeout levels are critical to those mega-players who approach the game strictly as a business rather than as a recreational pursuit. And it might be relevant to some other big-money players, although I think it's unlikely that many of them really think much about takeout. Winning trumps takeout concerns any time, for most players.

If you're an average small-time player like the vast majority, and want to buy multiple combinations on the same betting type (a Superfecta, for example), a reduction in the minimum bet (say to 10¢) is likely to be a much more welcome change that a reduction in takeout (whatever that is…). Some tracks boast about their low takeout on special exotic wagers like the Pick 5, which have become very popular, but would they be anywhere near as popular if the minimum bet was $2 rather than 50¢? Of course not.

Pricing policy is not a simple matter in most businesses, and racing is no different. The goal must be, first, to understand how pricing impact customers and, then, to make the specific decisions in all pricing areas which will produce optimum results for both producers and consumers. It isn't easy, and lower takeout rates is never going to be the simple answer.

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

plodderman — Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:43:37 GMT

Parx is the biggest scam in racing. The takeout there is so high. To be honest, I have no idea what the takepout is, but ALL the payoffs seem lower. Especially the trifectas.

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

D1 — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:29:39 GMT

Tom always enjoy your articles. Hate the new tak out rates at Churchill but what are my real options?

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

Salvatore Carcia — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 04:22:33 GMT

I cannot find a industry database that gives an annual summary of the national blended takeout rate across the country. I think HANA does it by track only. That is a good thing for bettors. But, knowing it for the whole industry could be instructional.

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

punter22 — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:10:15 GMT

@Rammer, who is HTV? Do you have a web link?

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

ouch — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:16:00 GMT

Horseplayers have always been hosed. From a $7.50 racing form, IRS forms after 30% has already been taken out for a $600 tri. Young people play blackjack .After cashing in you get a comp for dinner and a show.

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

BadSaddle — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:20:29 GMT

Tom, On the need for transparency, what's your over/under on how many KyDerby contenders heed Phipps great call to release all vet records 14 days prior? 4? 16? Do you see contenders dropping out to avoid releasing them?

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

Rammer — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:14:58 GMT

The biggest problem today is all of this in-fighting going on between local tracks, between tracks and their state governments, etc. It's a real turnoff to us loyal bettors. Some simulcast companies have great rebate programs, and HTV is one. HRTV and Xpressbet is the worst. You have to bet something like $15,000 to get a lousy $10 voucher! Mr. Stronach is probably behind it. Another turnoff is how the State of New York restricts tri betting to races with a minimum number of horses in the race. It's the Decade of Greed and the bettors will always get screwed in the end...

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

JerseyTom — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:26:06 GMT

From what I've been told there are tracks that still get 3%, and some less; the blog acknowledges increases for many over the years. Of course, this information is not transparent, so we don't know exactly what tracks get from each outlet. I would be happy to publish it if it was made available.

re: Takeout Just One Symptom of the Disease

Dan Kelliher — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:04:15 GMT

Tom you need to update your facts. There aren't too many tracks getting 3% for their signal anymore. Certainly not from the ADWs who now pay the highest rates in the industry.

re: Growing Pains for Handicapping Tourney?

Dan Kelliher — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:28:19 GMT

To suggest the NHC and tour shouldn't be a profit center for the NTRA is wrong and misguided. The reason why the Professional Poker events do well is because they generate revenue and profit for their rights holders. These profits can then be used for marketing, new prizes, new business development, etc. As our society's fixation on "it's all of the children" is misguided, doing things "only for the players" misses the bigger picture as well. There needs to be a balance of value to the Industry, the NTRA, the players for the events to prosper and grow. And for the events to continue to contribute positively to the future of our sport.

re: Growing Pains for Handicapping Tourney?

JerseyTom — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:48:37 GMT

Thanks for the comments and support folks. Hopefully some good for the horseplayer will come out it.

re: Growing Pains for Handicapping Tourney?

Old Old Cat — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:16:08 GMT

Keep writing, you had 3,000 reads. 3,000 people took in the info. hopefully it's stored in long-term memory and may be of some use some day, to someone.

re: Growing Pains for Handicapping Tourney?

beefuspresley — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:49:57 GMT

tom hang in there...good article...have read what moon is investigating and visited that board...we need more stuff like this, looking out for the horseplayer...the nhc needs alot of help...i emailed chamblin about the payouts that you wrote about....how can the conso winner earn more than someone in the top 10 when they are pumping up the final table???? take a look at the payouts for the vegas tourney....they payout to the top 50...what i wrote to them about, is stop with these feel good handout payouts of $1,000 to the players for 21 to 50...take that money and give it to the guys who finished 2-10...then if you still want to give horseplayer welfare, payout 11-20...i don't get participation trophies....never have...if you made the final 10 you deserve a handsome reward....also, online tourneys like the nhc not being able to pay money to the winners is a lost cause....an example...i was thinking of playing in an online tourney last year because i thought the races being used was right up my alley....the fee was $400 and only the top 4 were guaranteed for vegas....i decided to just concentrate outside of the tourney and won over $10,000 for the day...granted, i didn't qualify for vegas, but making money is what's it all about.....the way to go is real money tournaments like the bcbc....have played that and it is in my opinion the one and only way to go..

re: Growing Pains for Handicapping Tourney?

JerseyTom — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 23:31:38 GMT

OK. More than 3,000 reads and no one comments. So I will. I addressed this issue because I thought it was important, but apparently all the loud mouths don't think so. So the next time you say The Blood-Horse has no interest or credibility in handicapping issues, go away. I'm done wasting my time. Go comment on a chat room where you can remain anonymous.

re: Things That Make You Go Hmmmm (14)

Brigitte — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 01:03:27 GMT

Racing on medication screws up the gene pool by letting horses perform above their unmedicated capacity on race day, which makes them look better as breeders. Bleeding, for one, has a high hereditary component. Training on medication helps horses get to race day but they still need to be capable of maximum effort without medication, so if they run and win it's less deceptive.

re: Things That Make You Go Hmmmm (14)

Racingfan — Sun, 16 Feb 2014 02:46:46 GMT

Still a smarty pants I see huh Jason?

re: Things That Make You Go Hmmmm (14)

JerseyTom — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:20:20 GMT

One other note on Miami Valley: I'm told a few individuals involved in this lawsuit are on the payroll at Miami Valley as executives or consultants. ... You can't make it up.

re: Things That Make You Go Hmmmm (14)

JerseyTom — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:15:18 GMT

Old Timer: Haven't been yet for live racing but did stop there in December. Not impressed with simulcast room. A few people who went on opening night (the canceled opener and the actual opener) said the live racing area resembles a high school cafeteria. They also said there are no self-service machines in the grandstand, and that they didn't see mobile clerks. ... I'm sure I'll get up there soon, but bottom line? Opportunity lost, and a disgrace given the revenue they are making from VLTs.

re: Things That Make You Go Hmmmm (14)

Old Timer — Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:16:16 GMT

Nice summary, Tom.

I had the chance to stop at Miami valley in January before the racing started, and it was fairly obvious to me that the racing side of that facility had not gotten the attention that the VLT's had. Not much indoor seating for a facility with mostly winter racing.

re: Things That Make You Go Hmmmm (14)

RajahsMom — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 07:28:36 GMT

Concerning the meds, many of them act as uppers and blood thinners, Speed = more adrenalin pumping the faster the horse runs, blood thinners = thinner the blood more oxygen utilization. As far as breeding, horses have to deal with hypo/hypertension just as humans do, and the meds make them more susceptible to this as it does humans. Training for speed/precosity instead of stamina/longevity are hazardous to bone growth and density because racing horses before its' bones are fully developed stunt the growth in the horse and future get of the horse. Why do you think other countries tend not to race their horses before they are three years old and the horses have longevity in racing? They allow the horse's bone growth to mature to a reasonable state that can sustain the punishing force placed upon them thru racing. Breeding horses before their bones are fully developed (a horse's bones mature between 3-5 years of age )perpetuate the under development of bones and heart muscle in the next generation. By constantly doing this, weakens the gene pool by introducing under developed muscular structure and less bone density and elasticity. Even the high school science student knows this, but equine vets won't stand up and say this because they know which side pays the bills. The sooner they can get a horse on the track the more money they make, so bandage them up, pump them full of drugs and let them run. And if they come back alive, I get to do it all over again, which means more money in my pocket.

re: Things That Make You Go Hmmmm (14)

Bill Two — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:18:51 GMT

Jason, speaking of wagering on raindrops that is exactly what happened at Bowie years ago when a big snowstorm stranded thousands at the track overnight. Some people just have to get action wherever they can find it.