And why you ask: Because at this week’s Simulcast Conference, Hawthorne Race Course's assistant. general manager said—ensuing Internet firestorm to follow—that “I never hear anyone say anything about a takeout rate unless I read a blog.”
Well, the one good thing that came out of the confab is that there will be more of a concentration to lower bet minimums because data has shown that factional wagering has a beneficial impact on handle whereas—get this—studies that prove lowering takeout increases handle are inconclusive.
Note to Mr. Walsh and any other industry executive who believes that lowering takeout is an Internet phenomenon that doesn’t have real world applications: Fractional wagering would not have expanded had the blogosphere been mum on the subject.
HRI only has been lobbying for lower minimum bets and lower takeout rates since—I don’t know—forever?
This much I will give the Anti-Takeout people; revenues decrease in the short term. The problem is no one is willing to take a haircut long enough for the benefits of churn to kick in. Back in the 1970s in New York, a study lasting nearly two years showed handle increases and revenues started to rise.
Of course, the law permitting the lower takeout rate experiment sunset and the issue died of complications due to chronic apathy in the legislative halls of the state capitol. Never mind that it would have been good for the state’s education coffers. When politics wins, real solutions [read people] lose.
Good thing for horseplayers that Scott Finley, simulcasting executive for the New York Racing Assn. and knowledgeable horseplayer, was in attendance, informing the conferees that lower bet minimums in multi-race pools not only didn’t cannibalize other existing sequential wagers but actually helped increase handle.
In fact, NYRA soon will lower the minimum wager on trifectas to 50-Cents, something HRI has called for since Arlington Park first popularized the fractionalized wager several years ago.
Apparently, the move has been on the back burner for a while since the new wagering machines that debuted at Belmont Park this fall now allow bettors to make 50-Cent wagers at tracks that allow for this minimum.
The problem, of course, is simulcasting’s double edge sword. Providing the type of content that bettors want in the modern era--which accounts for nearly 90 percent of total handle in the U.S.—has helped bettors to specialize at tracks where they have the greatest amount of success or with given race forms; stakes, turf racing, maiden allowance types, etc.
The flip side, obviously, is the fact that racing states and/or ADWs won’t pay for simulcast products they can’t max-out at the bottom line. At the philosophical bottom line, industry fractions still prefer to compete than cooperate.
Yes, point an appropriate finger at state houses in the various racing states, but there must be some creative way to overcome. Instead, states like New York will use their product for leverage by charging out-of-state bet-takers a 5% premium for handling the action of the state’s horseplayers.
The businesses that succeed figure out ways to grow, lest they die; myopic racetrack and off-track executives figure out ways to advance protectionism, believing that the ill will of competitors and customers is a small price to pay to grow their business.
10 Oct 2013 at 03:40 pm | #
JP,
I’m still recovering from the jolt Mr. Walsh gave bloggers when he took charge of the microphone at the RTIP Symposium and implied that keyboard jockeys were playing sleight of hand with facts not in evidence.
Fortunately, it didn’t stop you and PTP from setting the record straight.
Mr. Walsh’s remarks lead me to wonder how valuable his assistance was in Hawthorne’s decision to cannibalize its Fall 2013 purses for a $250K IL Derby purse hike in response to CDI’s rendering that race irrelevant without Derby qualification status.
11 Oct 2013 at 09:57 am | #
I, if disinformation can work in Washington politics, why not horse racing?
And we learned other things that I didn’t even touch on: that is how newer low takeout bets with fractional wagering is not cannibalizing other established pools--at least in NY.
Actually, fractionalization came under attack during its inception: Dime Supers it was foretold would help destroy existing trifecta pools.
Or conveniently ignoring the fact that California’s low takeout, 50-Cent Pick 5 has been WILDLY successful and is playing a small role in the revitalization of California racing.
It was low takeout that attracted the serious players to these new pools at first; then fractional wagering enabled the pots to continue to grow because smaller bankrolls found a place at the betting window.
Everyone understands that it’s different laws in states that permit racing that’s hurting the industry in this area, uniform medication rules, etc., etc.
But saying there isn’t enough evidence, or there haven’t been enough studies to show that low takeout increases churn [read handle here] is the kind of “big lie” that used to be the exclusive province of the old U.S.S.R. Now it’s simply standard operating procedure everywhere.
Debt ceiling, anyone?
11 Oct 2013 at 11:15 am | #
Glad to see the push back.
Keep up the good work.
11 Oct 2013 at 12:57 pm | #
The 50-cent tri is great news.
I don’t have a huge problem with takeout on exotic bets.
What I do have a problem with is the high takeout on straight wagers.
*
John, On an unrelated topic.
I was watching Mark Cusano on the OTB channel last week while visiting family upstate. He was reviewing the previous weeks’ stakes, in particular the Jockey Club GC. He said that in all the years he’s watched races, he’s never seen a start as bad as that one. Five of the eight runners got off to a bad start! The ML favorite was eliminated 2 steps out of the gate with the ground giving out from under him. (The horse was even injured, we found out later, and is out of the Breeders’ Cup).
This is disgraceful and NYRA and Belmont Park should be taken to task for this by others beside Mark. (Let’s not forget what happened to Palace Malice at the start of the Travers, either).
There has to be something wrong with the way the track is maintained in and around the starting gate.
Separate and in addition to that is the actual positioning of the gate for a 1-1/4 mile race.
Belmont Park was not designed for that distance race. The positioning of the start of the race on the clubhouse turn was only done so that this distance could be run in the Breeders’ Cup- and now as a prep for the BC Classic.
It is such an awkward starting point that you can’t even see the start of the race from the TV camera. Tom Durkin himself couldn’t see the start, as he described Cross Traffic as having “walked out of the starting gate”. Not his fault, the starting gate blocked his view of the start.
Why hasn’t this ever been addressed by NYRA officials?
To recap:
A main contender was compromised/injured, four other starters had their chances compromised at the start.
No one watching could see what happened live, including the track announcer!
This in a million dollar race, the centerpiece race of the Fall meet.
There are possible solutions to the problem.
Obviously the ground needs to be properly groomed in and around the starting gate. This is a short term solution.
Long term - Either build a proper chute for the start of such an important race, or do away with the distance entirely.
Something needs to be done for the integrity of this great race, and for the sport overall.
Note:
This is not sour grapes from a disgruntled losing horseplayer. I made my maximum size win bet on the race winner, Ron the Greek.
DM
11 Oct 2013 at 01:51 pm | #
Denny, what you are describing is why the starting gate is positioned in different spots away from the actual timing pole.
I have not heard complaints involving track maintenance and obviously I get input from a lot of people including horsemen.
I never understood NYRA’s reasoning for eliminating the 10-furlong chute. I understand about the temporary rail used to prevent horses from veering into the gap at the point where the straightaway and turn meet.
The excuse used at the time was that the start was too far away from the stands--like any race on a mile and a half oval is going to be close to the fans when the horses are on the backside.
Further, in 10-furlong races that start an the turn, the gate is positioned at an angle very close to the outside fence so as not to jam up inside horses at the break. But then the outside horses have an edge anyway because of banking on the first turn, or any turn for that matter.
Sadly, accidents happens that are not easily understood--it’s why they’re called accidents.
Meanwhile, I love that HRI’s horseplayers such as yourself are concerned with horse safety. No foot; no horse. No horse; no game.
11 Oct 2013 at 03:23 pm | #
John,
Thanks for responding to my post.
I’d like to follow up, hope you respond again.
Thank you.
I don’t think it’s coincidental that five out of eight starters either stumbled, bobbled, or lost their footing, two badly (please take another look at the chart comments).
The starting gate, as you said, is positioned on the outer portion of the track, and on the turn, no less.
This portion of the track is not used for races, only jogging horses in the mornings.
Is it maintained the same way?
The track also has a “crown”. I’m not sure how significant this is. Could it be?
The starting gate is positioned on the wrong side of the crown for JCGC.
I didn’t know there was a mile and a quarter chute that was discontinued. That’s very interesting.
If the main reason for abandoning it was how far away it was, that shouldn’t matter anymore, as everybody is watching on monitors now - not live. Even people at the track are watching the big screen.
If the reason is the temporary rail and the gap, then why do they use any chute? (consider Sweet Reason’s start last week from the 1-hole in the 1-mile Frizzette where she was basically eliminated at the start from veering in).
Additionally, when the ground goes right out from under horses (Cross Traffic almost spread-eagled, Last Gunfighter ‘lost his footing’) something is amiss.
Poor track maintenance seems the most plausible reason.
Also, don’t you think it’s a problem when the track announcer, and everyone else watching, can’t see the start due to the position of the starting gate?
DM
12 Oct 2013 at 08:50 am | #
Denny, you probably missed the Wilson Mile chute at Saratoga back in the day; the start was straight but within a few hundred yards horses were actually on the turn!
I failed to mention the “crown” of the track but that’s what I also had in mind when referring to banking and it does make sense that the outside portion of the track is used for jogging, not racing..
As far as seeing the start, what about all those years at the Spa when you couldn’t see the start on the backside at various distance because trees obstructed the view.
But you’re insistent so I’ll make some calls and see what reaction I get.
13 Oct 2013 at 07:09 am | #
“Good thing for horseplayers that Scott Finley, simulcasting executive for the New York Racing Assn. and knowledgeable horseplayer, was in attendance, informing the conferees that lower bet minimums in multi-race pools not only didn’t cannibalize other existing sequential wagers but actually helped increase handle.”
As I’ve opined many a time in this forum. Free trade is the answer. Lower bet minimums take in monies that otherwise would not have been bet from persons with smaller bankrolls, and persons with larger bankrolls looking to cover bets or simply to have action until they are ready to send in the real dinero. Check with Woodbine and ask them how their twenty cent tris are working. If I was a betting man, would wager their handle is increased significantly since doing so.
With respect to the NYRA and the starting gate, I am dismayed that nobody seems to see what I see. The gate crew is way to quick to use those swinging whips to get horses into the gate. It is upsetting to watch, and only sets the tone for a bad start. It should be stopped! Don’t see that around the rest of the country. In addition, on more than one occasion see one of the gate crew, after the horse is in the gate, with their hand on the horse from behind, as if attempting to pacify the animal. Once the horse is in the gate, that gate person should get as far away from the back of that gate as possible; it just makes them more nervous knowing someone is back there. They need to be concentrating on what is in front of them, to get a good break, not some moron who has just whipped them into the gate, putting their hands on them.
TTT
13 Oct 2013 at 10:19 am | #
John,
Check out Dave Litfin in DRF Weekend - “Big Sandy Can Be Big Trouble”. It’s on page 32 of yesterday’s ‘new’ Racing Form.
I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.
DM
13 Oct 2013 at 10:50 am | #
T,
I’ve noticed the whip swinging. It bothers me too, although I don’t think they actually whip the horse.
Supposedly it’s the noise of the twirling strap that “encourages” the animal to move.
Still, it’s disturbing and could be interpreted by viewers as whipping and should be discontinued.
NY used to have the best starting gate crew, but, and I could be wrong, the longtime foreman (believe his last name was Duncan) retired not too long ago.
There have been other mishaps with horses still being held when the gate opens, resulting in refunds. The biggest was in last year’s Wood Memorial, if I recall correctly.
14 Oct 2013 at 11:41 am | #
When other tracks have big days, or want to get some instruction, they call on the NYRA gate crew for advice. Simply stated, they’re the country’s best.
Yes, Bob Duncan retired many years ago but still works with troubled gate horses and Todd Pletcher uses him to help school his young horses. It’s not an accident that his babies perform exceedingly well.
Roy Williamson, who was Duncan’s #2 for many years, succeeded Duncan and has done an excellent job.
15 Oct 2013 at 08:03 am | #
Denny, exchanged emails with a very prominent trainer who said the poor starts were not track maintenance issues. As far as Belmont Park is concerned, the lack of activity on the outside portion of the track, especially in 1-1/4 mile races, is the culprit.
15 Oct 2013 at 11:48 am | #
Thanks JP
15 Oct 2013 at 03:43 pm | #
“As far as Belmont Park is concerned, the lack of activity on the outside portion of the track, especially in 1-1/4 mile races, is the culprit.”
Great!
So now arguably the most important race run at Belmont also has a built-in obstacle like the KY Derby’s rail post.
Supercilious Saturday is more like it.