Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

Kathy Kranz — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:52:31 GMT

I keep remembering Mr. Christiansen's article every time I see continuing updates on the events surrounding Life At Ten. I also remember a letter someone had written to the editor in recent years: You can't make sure a horse wins a race, but you can definitely make sure one loses. I'm NOT inferring such goings on with Life At Ten, not by any means. Hers seems to have been a case of bad judgment. The bottom line is, a lot of money was wagered on her and wasn't lost in the usual manner.

Betfair...odd name.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

John August West — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:52:06 GMT

Whatever legitimate arguments Eugene Christiansen had to advance about exchange wagering were undermined by his untruthful characterizations of pari-mutual betting.

He claimed it's complicated with a long, steep learning curve. What? A win bet is complicated? Or, even an exacta, daily double or Pick 3? Sure... about as complicated as third-grade addition and subtraction.

He also said pari-mutual betting's "statistics" are impenetrable to all but seasoned handicappers. Huh? That may apply to picking winners, but has not a thing to do with placing a bet -- whether on an exchange, or pari-mutually..

I would think an adviser to Betfair -- which Mr. Christiansen admitted he was -- would have been able to come up with a much more professional -- and factually grounded -- promo (which is all that column was).

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

AgnesWorld — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:14:00 GMT

I'm sorry....but I am the only one that feels like their intelligence has just been truly insulted?

Typical for someone who is a "adviser" to one of the largest exchanges in the world, Mr Christiansen has failed to mention a couple of points about exchange wagering, in particular Betfair.

Betfair, and for that matter any other exchange has not paid a fee remotely close to helping sustain the industry that it relies on. Mr Christiansen mentions Australia and the UK as industries "rejuvenated" by exchange wagering. Nothing could be further from the truth and he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for making such a statement.

UK racing is on its knees and about to drop dead through the lack of funding from bookmakers and exchange operators who have shown no interest to date in paying what is a fair price for the product that they bet on. Sure they pay something, but they refuse to pay what the people that put on the show want them to. Sort of like walking into a store and saying "I know you want $5 for this but I am giving you $1" taking the goods and walking out of the store. Since when does a customer set the price they pay for something? Now to avoid payments all-together bookmakers and exchange wagering operators in the UK are moving offshore to avoid paying anything!

Equally, when Betfair launched in Australia they made a big song and dance about how they would support the racing industry and found the weakest link/state to do it (Tasmania). They started with a 10% gross profit payment (they should be paying on turnover), but this year they renegotiated a new licence to reduce the tax on betting exchanges to 5% of gross revenues. Basically they said to the Tasmanian Govt, we are only going to be here if you give us 5% or we are moving to another state to do business. The decision to renew coincided with an ongoing legal case begun in October a year ago when Betfair issued proceedings in New South Wales against two racing bodies, Racing NSW and Harness Racing NSW, claiming that the 1.5% product fee imposed on the turnover of wagering operators wishing to cover racing in the state is anti-competitive! When a state board set the price for their product, Betfair took them to court!

Betfair do some good things like bring in decimal odds which is great for the younger crowd but don't for one minute think that they are going to rejuvenate racing here. They will find the weakest state, that needs the money the most, and do a deal which suits them and their bottom line and suck racing until purses are so anemic that owners just give up (if they haven't already!) and if they don't get their way, they will sue. They are litigious as it comes, make no mistake about it.

Looks like it is a race between CA and NJ as to who lets them through the door after TVG proved the trojan horse to open it. Good luck trying to get them to pay their way.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

David — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:02:20 GMT

I think even less seasoned players not in the early adopter category can appreciate why segments would (and do) embrace the Exchange model. The issue is to get a platform used to paying virtually nothing for content together with an industry accustomed to producing a product requiring higher margins. Looks as if each will have to give a bit to see if actual behavior will match the forecasts. Good luck on that one.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

Barry Meadow — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 07:30:28 GMT

Exchanges offer the possibility of increasing handle. In many races, I can bet on an exchange despite having nothing to bet through the tote. A few examples:

1. I like three horses in a six-h race, but they're 9-5, 2-1, and 5-2, so no edge in any pools. But I can play against the other entrants.

2. I don't like the 8-5 favorite but I have no clear opinion as to who might win. I can bet against him.

3. I need 3-1 to bet a particular horse to win. At the track, he's 5-2, so no play. On an exchange, he's 4-1, so I can bet him on the exchange.

I can give many more examples, but the point is that my handle would grow exponentially if a legal, nationwide exchange with sufficient liquidity were available.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

Longacres 1988 — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:28:13 GMT

Ignoring Mr. Christiansen´s major conflict of interest here, there are some major fallacies in his piece:

A) Exchange betting is hardly "easy to learn" and is counterintuitive to the American handicapper brought up on pari-mutuel. Exchange betting took off in the UK and Australia because they have a bookmaking trading, not pari-mutuel. If you don´t believe me, try explaining the concept of Back and Lay to someone.

B) There is no negation of the learning curve of handicapping with Exchange betting. User still need to do their homework.

C) Exchange betting requires liquidity unlike pari-mutuel , which can exist with very small pools. Small tracks especially will be affected by a lack of liquidity. Unlike pari-mutuel, all funds must be matched (you need some other player to take your bet, not the track).

D) Exchange betting is mostly dominated by very sharp players, and "amateurs" quickly get eaten up in this environment. I have personally seen this with the advent of Betfair in Australia, where a few bookmakers became the largest players in the Betfair markets.

The answer is technology (the Racing Industry´s snail-pace acceptance of online betting), but silver bullet may not be Betfair.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

David — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:18:58 GMT

Churchill Downs attempted a few bets back in the 90’s most everyone got a chuckle – “even/odd” and “roulette”. The Kentucky Derby “Future Book Wager” projects were (and are) no more than conversation pieces. Perhaps these concepts weren’t flawed as the system they were forced to adapt – pari-mutuel. Mr. Christiansen makes the point the only ‘price’ of implementing exchange betting is possibly a few points of otherwise dwindling profit during ramp-up (though cannibalization of dollars that would have gone into pari-mutuel pools). In fact that would be the only logical reason to object to something that could help stem and reverse steady declines. Most in racing are so punch drunk, however, that even a near guarantee of incremental gain won’t justify even short-term exposure to make it happen. Maybe a new philosophy should be “if you ain’t got nothing, you can’t lose ‘nothin . . . let give it a go”. The reality is that the racing industry is contracting which, while traumatic, is inevitably what many other industries have similarly dealt. Is it finally time to get over the anger and resignation stage and move on to possible solutions?

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

Joseph A. Pardi — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:50:35 GMT

The Race Tracks in the United States have a big problem because it is like everything Else in this United States that we live in. We have the (Haves) the Tracks with Slots and the (Have Nots)Tracks that have none. And once the Tracks get them,Racing become something they now want to go away. Now I hear a lot about BetFair and I can see there point about pari-mutuel because I have been doing business in Mexico and Lima Peru and manny other place where THE Company that books all of the Track in the USA can give the Betting Shops more money than betting through the pari-mutuel system. We all know that if a big player put $10,000.00 to win on a horse the ODDS go down and if That same player bet with a Bookie the ODDS stay the same. And the Player is happy because of the bigger payoff. So lets give the Player a choice pari-mutuel or book. And put a take out on the winning amount. OK now I have many thing to say about Racing I just gave you one and this is my last one. Lets put people from our Industry in Management because it is what you know not WHO you know so lets keep Laywers and Accountanta OUT of The Genneral Manager Job and you will see things change.(dont mind the spelling I dont have my glasses)Joe

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

John H — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:16:33 GMT

Thanks for the ideas but racing in the USA needs the following:

Want to solve racing's "newcomer to racing" issue? Simplify!

* Make all bets $1.00.

* Simplify the Totalizator board. All odds should be replaced with the payoff on a $1.00 bet. How many people these days can divide fractions in their heads? That's so 1940 anyhow.

* Simplify the bet types (names). Take a survey of non-bettors. Go with the consensus names for straight and exotic bets.

Want to solve the loss of repeat bettors?

* Trim the takeout to 10 per cent for all payoffs! Churn is your best friend. Ask Las Vegas.

* Payoff to the nearest dime or better yet, a nickel! The current 20 cent "breakage" adds to the takeout and reduces churn.

Want to stop turning off the younger bettors when horses die on the track?

* Stop using pain killing and performance enhancing drugs. Yes, that includes Bute and Lasix. Run a thoroughbred through the pain on those spindley legs and it's crash and burn.

What's the chance of all the fiefdoms (tracks and states) doing any of this?

* Nada. That's too bad. Racing in the USA HAS to change to survive.

One other thing. When I have to handicap horses based upon the trainer's ability to drug horses without being caught, it puts a bad taste in my mouth.

How about a second thing? When I see a Kentucky Derby winner (Ferdinand) being carved up for pet food in Japan and I see old thoroughbreds being sent to slaughter houses here and Mexico, how can I feel good about supporting the racing industry by betting on their horses?

And don't even get me started on inconsistent steward calls or allowing "permanently" banned jockeys to return to racing. Where's that barf bag?

Knowing the players in this game, the rebuttals to these ideas will be to maintain the status quo and that will be the end of USA thoroughbred racing, sooner rather than later.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

Ted — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:29:40 GMT

While I have no argument with the essential theme of the article being based in Australia and monitoring the UK, can the author answer if betting exchanges are the saviour of the industry why is the racing in the latter struggling and why is it showing similar signs in the former with the whole fabric of prizemoney, and hence a major driver of breeding and employment, under attack by low margin operators and those who support them ignoring the fact that as substitutes they can never replace the funding vomumes from pari mutuel. Also the prices faced under pari mutuel are not determined until after the race is run so what does this say about demand for the products in particular the products which are not offered by the low margin bookies and exchanges?

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

Brian Russell — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:02:53 GMT

As I gambler I would absolutely welcome exchange betting. How many times have you seen a 7-5 shot that you knew for a near fact could not win but took the wrong one or ones to beat him? However, the UK comparion is not a good one as even their traditional sources of funding are flawed. How would you like to win a straight maiden at Saratoga and get $8,000? That's about what you get at Newmarket. The commission needs to be SLIGHTLY higher in order to give more to purses but this is a good idea and will produce incremental handle as half or more of the bets placed would not bet in the pari-mutual pools anyhow and, remember, this is only straight betting. Therefore, the exotics pools should not negatively impacted.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

patti d. — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:23:07 GMT

sorry, posted my comment to the wrong article.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

patti d. — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:01:06 GMT

I am amazed that we have this great race mare making history and not more has been made of her accomplishments. And I think the so-called "sports media and horse racing specialists" are largely to blame for what has gone on during her fabulous career.

Penny Chenery said it best after the Lady's Secret when she said to the Mosses "I had the boy and you have the girl". At least she recognizes greatness when she sees it.

And when Zenyatta blows by all the boys in the Classic this year, maybe she will finally get her due. We won't see one like her for a very long time, if ever.

re: Technology and the Racing Fan - By Eugene Chistiansen

Patrick — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:40:13 GMT

Does this count as a paid advertisement?