Weekend programs normally draw bigger crowds, of course, especially when first post is 5:25 p.m. So then why drop those popular days? Because destination venues and boutique race meets notwithstanding, the live gate no longer assures viability.
The popularity of a simulcast signal is no longer a luxury; it’s an absolute necessity. If simulcasting fails, slots are the last resort, but tracks like Presque Isle need viable racing, too. And if that fails, yet another shopping mall becomes the reality.
It matters not that tracks get a bigger slice of the wagering pie from the live product than it does from its simulcast product, not when “all-sources” rules. If a racing model is to succeed, betting handle, not Lotto receipts, must fuel purses.
There’s still a big place for on-track handle, of course, but only if you own a destination venue, or run a boutique meet, or have the right location…location. Think Oaklawn… Oaklawn. That’s the sad fact of life in this brave, not-so-new simulcast world.
In no small way, then, is it ironic that the 21st Century racetrack has a much better chance to build its brand through the simulcast marketplace than in their own back yards.
Why concentrate on Erie, Pennsylvania when you can target the world?
And that’s what Presque Isle is attempting to do with this move. Schedule changes have worked at other tracks and it can work for them, too. The track will find out if it gets that opportunity when the PSHRC convenes next Thursday.
Reality dictates that the Presque Isles and Parxes of the racing world cannot compete with the Aqueducts and Churchills; Hawthorne on a Saturday afternoon is no match for Gulfstream. Quality of competition and branding matters.
While it’s true that large fields of claiming horses will out-handle small fields of allowances horses, selling platers are no match for class masters when placed on even footing at the entry box, everything else being equal. The Jockey Club has studies to prove it.
Presque Isle management gets this and is taking proactive steps. The elephant in the room is: What’s taking the rest of the B-level and C-level tracks so long to figure this situation out? Apples can compete with other apples, but they won’t beat oranges.
In fact, here is the first bold prediction for 2013: More smaller tracks will change their schedules to fill the simulcast void left by the majors on Dark Mondays and Tuesdays. If they are to remain viable within the racing community, it’s inevitable.
In fact, smaller tracks can do for racing what racing has failed to do for itself. Smart scheduling will have the same effect as the creation of major and minor leagues. It will be no different than when tracks schedule post times not to conflict with parimutuel rivals.
With B and C level tracks competing with other B and C tracks, all will be on equal footing with no thousand-pound gorillas to take on. Tracks such as Parx and Presque Isle, and next-level venues such as Laurel and Delaware could OWN Dark Mondays and Tuesdays.
Consequently, tracks might figure out a way to cooperate instead of compete. A 10 percent, 50-Cent Pick 5 shared among three or four tracks, similar to the Stronach wager wager a few years back, could attract significant handle by bundling the best races. Low takeout rates could be sold to state houses as a “marketing” expense.
And if this long chance ever became a reality, simulcast coordinators and racing offices should guard against making the races impossible to handicap.
In their greed for short term handle, tracks fail to realize that many serious handicappers eschew impossible sequences but rather are attracted to those offering potential “singles” and a reasonable chance of success.
Think of it this way: Whales want minnows in the pools.
The Pick 4, for instance, even with a 50-Cent minimum, can be too costly for the average fan that has the capacity to wager “only” $200-$300 per day. Force him to stretch his bankroll chasing a score and churn goes up in smoke, along with most tickets.
By the way, the 50-Cent Pick 4 offers a reasonable chance of success, especially when compared to the $2 Pick 6, but the bet is no gimme.
We congratulate Presque Isle for using a common sense approach to competition and wish them success with their experiment. That might lead the way for other smaller tracks to own their share of the racing week and build their brands simultaneously.
There’s only one Saturday and so many weekend warriors to go around.



08 Dec 2012 at 02:46 am | #
What’s a pari-mutuel investment analyst to do on a Monday and Tuesday; bet the best of the worst, wherever that may be. Good move. Parx gets my play on Monday and Tuesday; would enjoy another option. Parx just doesn’t get it though with fractional wagering. Woodbine got the message, and now offers $1 wps, $20 tris and picks. What is wrong with these people out there. Don’t they realize that fractional wagering and lower takeout means more handle, substantially more. Is “volume” a lost word in the English language? Is the NYRA really just stubborn, and that much of a beuracracy that they refuse to get the message?
TTT
08 Dec 2012 at 04:37 am | #
Teddy, please, most of these people wear me out. They don’t get it because a) they don’t care, b) believe in the status quo, c) never made a bet in their lives, d)… e)… f)…
I think NYRA always has been more about arrogance than being stubborn, but I may be wrong about that.
08 Dec 2012 at 03:53 pm | #
Golly, a commentary that acknowledges ‘lower level’
racetracks exist - the tracks for serious lowlife gamblers like me.
The difference between what is referred to as an ‘A’ racetracks and ‘B’ and ‘C’ tracks is that a serious bettor has a better chance of cashing at the lower lever racetracks - a proven fact by me and my group of sharpies, say one say all!
08 Dec 2012 at 06:00 pm | #
#3,
Let me fix that for you,
The difference between what is referred to as an ‘A’ racetracks and ‘B’ and ‘C’ tracks is that a serious bettor has AN EQUAL chance of cashing at the lower level racetrack as THE HIGHER LEVEL RACETRACK - a proven fact by me and my group of sharpies(John Pricci, TopTurfTeddy, Indulto, Mr. Speed, Denny M, Hot Horse, Shake Mo and Brendan O, say one say all!
But finding the racetrack with the lowest takeout and value gives us sharpies the best chance to turn a profit.
The beat goes on?
But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
And nothing at all keeps sending him…
08 Dec 2012 at 10:05 pm | #
#4: Again, I am all for a lower takeout rate.
You write ‘finding the racetrack with the lowest takeout .......’. Well, unless you pick winners, takeout is moot. I will take the racetrack with the highest takeout if I like how a few plodders are placed by their trainer.
Gravitating to the track with the lowest takeout is meaningless unless you are cashing. Dig? And, don’t forget how the fluctuation in odds can make takeout, again, a moot point.
09 Dec 2012 at 01:03 am | #
Cat,
Your comment notwithstanding, it’s too late to change my pseudonym to Insharpto.
From time to time I’ve wondered whether wmc was referring to the pens with which he marks up his “Form,” or was misspelling the breed of Chinese dogs he walks when he feels the urge to wager and watch. Takeout is important not only for canine constitutionals, but also when handicapping by fortune cookie!
For now, I’ll be ordering Presque Duck. LOL
09 Dec 2012 at 04:27 pm | #
This is a no-brainer for PID because there is no on-track attendance. And they get a few more parking spots for the slot players during primetime. I stopped by on a nice Saturday night a couple years ago and there were maybe a couple of dozen folks watching there races. A few dozen more in the small OTB room. Wasn’t like my visit to Sunland Park where the rail was loaded with race fans.
09 Dec 2012 at 08:53 pm | #
Interesting feedback, N.E speedster. Wonder if the situation has improved since. My perception is that with the exception of high quality racing at the destination and boutique meets, live racing doesn’t attract attendees the way it used to: Thing is sports fans don’t know what they’re missing.
09 Dec 2012 at 09:47 pm | #
Do tracks have access to on-line attendance, i.e., the number of individual ADW accounts betting into a pool?
09 Dec 2012 at 10:14 pm | #
My guess is only the ones that have membership; NYRA One accounts for NYRA tracks, perhaps Xpressbet for Gulfstream or TwinSpires for CD.
Sounds like grist for an upcoming Indulto mill?
09 Dec 2012 at 11:03 pm | #
#4: I can appreciate your not responding, yet, to #6’s comment. I haven’t a clue to what he/she is trying to convey; way over my head.
A question has been presented wondering if racetracks have a means to determine what the number of ADW accounts are involved in wagering pools. I have been wanting to know just how many ADW accounts are opened, then dormant, then closed; or, stated another way, how many ADW accounts have existed at a hub longer than a few months?
------
Larry Lunchbucket, not quite a ‘regular’ horseplayer, and certainly not a caual bettor, goes to the track about twenty Saturdays a year.
He has heard and is aware of takeout, and if takeout were reduced from the writings of turf commentators he has read things would improve for him and the industry.
Larry, though, is not convinced that takeout is the reason Thoroughbred racing is declining. Not a dummy, Larry has worked the pencil. Right now at the track Larry wagers, the takeout rate on exactas is 25%; he wonders if the takeout were 15% would things change: would people flock to the track knowing that takeout was now 15% on exactas?
He worked the pencil and determined that if he ‘hit’ an exacta paying, say, $50, he would have gotten $57. Golly, $7 more in my pocket, but is the lowering of takeout the reason that Thoroughbred racing, now on life support thanks to casino dole, is heading south? Naw, Larry thought, takeout isn’t even a remote third why Thoroughbred racing is tanking.
Naw, Larry thought, racetracks treat me and my fellow patron as if we were an enemy. Why does the early and late double have to include a maiden race? why can’t I find three races in a row that doesn’t include a maiden race (pick three). It is clear that to Larry he is the enemy!
10 Dec 2012 at 12:02 am | #
The host track does not get a break down of individual accounts only the total handle from each track or adw venue. Also the host can break down total pools per race from each venue and print out the individual wagers as well. If there is a question, additional information can be requested from the guest. Want to guess what outlets win the most frequently?
10 Dec 2012 at 12:41 am | #
JP,
Does the fact that few racing entities can be bothered to count horseplayers indicate that from their perspective, we are irrelevant individually? Imagine if we actually knew our potential collective strength!
The only thing that counts is handle, and that’s why I think the answer to r3’s question is, “the rebate shops.”
10 Dec 2012 at 05:09 am | #
I. what I have railed against for years, when the OTBs dominted the Off-Track landscape, is why a turnstile wasn’t installed at the door. It was at a time track attendance was fading.
And from time to time I posited, “there were only 5000 people at Belmont today but 55,000 people bet on the races at NYC and Nassau OTB,” or words to that effect.
Don’t you think if editors at that time knew that 50,000 or 100,000 people were betting on horse races at the local track on Saturday, that they couldn’t afford not to cover the event?
Does the industry ever get it right?
10 Dec 2012 at 06:27 pm | #
Gosh, at one time there were 50,000 plus patrons in attendance at several racetracks across the country on a given Saturday. Now a racetrack is fortunate to have 5,000 in attendance. I guess takeout is to blame, from what I read.
Ponder this: If you go to a racetrack or OTB today and don’t cash a ticket, is takeout to blame?
Or, is it possible that the thousands who gamble elsewhere now simply seem to win more times when in front of a slot machine, sitting at a blackjack table, or rubbing their belly against a crap table?
Yup, blame takeout for Thoroughbred racing’s decline, while knowing that picking winners in simply to damn tough even if the takeout rate were zero for all bets.
10 Dec 2012 at 07:55 pm | #
Yep wmcorrow it boils down to being able to pick winners. It doesn’t matter if the takeout rate was 10% or 90%. The game is still beatable by those who can pick winners. LOL
Seriously, you aren’t thinking very long term nor are you taking into consideration psychological factors of gambling satisfaction and whether the game is perceived as being beatable. No, all that matters is picking the winner of the race you bet. Total nonsense.
I still find it odd that slots have an 8% house edge and not a 20% edge if takeout was so meaningless. I actually don’t find it odd. I find it odd that some know-it-alls think takeout doesn’t matter.
10 Dec 2012 at 11:29 pm | #
Maury Erza: Sir, I am 75 yrs old and I have been around the block several times; I know a little bit about gambling, especially on the nags.
Your position that ‘all that matters is picking the winner of the race you bet. Total nonsense’; this comment has left me totally nonplussed. Your writing that slots have an 8% edge (takeout?) and not a 20% takeout versus horseracing’s takeouts is a ridiculous comparison - how does one handicap a slot machine?
I hope that your last sentence isn’t referring to me, as I do believe that takeout does matter, but is not the problem facing Thoroughbred racing today.
The ‘game’ is beatable by skilled ‘cappers. And, yes, ‘it boils down to being able to pick winners’.
Takeout could be zero, and still most bettors would go broke, only it would take a few more weeks.
You pick enough winners, you will do fine. You write, ‘takeout does matter’ as it puts more money in my pocket, but if you don’t cash, what to hell does takeout have to do with it?
HANA and others are into boycotting to get racetracks to reduce takeout; how can anyone really believe that this will accomplish anything?
How about urging racetrack management to card races that are more beneficial to bettors: like full fields, a couple of doubles that do not involve a maiden race? How about racetrack management not shifting the feature race to the third or fourth, so that the pick six is virtually an impossibilty? How about .........?
Sir, study the past performances, you will eventually do fine regardless of the takeout, as few care to take the time to ......; but they have the time to complain and find excuses.
And the beat goes on and on .....
10 Dec 2012 at 11:50 pm | #
wm, I’ve been betting on horses since I was 12, almost 40 years now, and I know a lot about gambling. The reality is that it is a long term game and everybody who plays cashes tickets (some at a higher frequency than others, but everybody cashes them, and a lower takeout keeps everyone in the game longer).
Keeping everyone in the game longer keeps their attention longer and it strengthens the chances that horse race gambling will be a bigger part of these players lives.
Lower takeouts create more long term winners as well, something sorely needed in horse racing right now. We need visible winners so that the game is perceived as beatable.
Nobody buys that there are winners who are playing into a 21% takeout other than some very small players who are very selective, and I mean very selective in what they play. These winners, if they exist, do little to help the game grow a customer base (my father bet around $40 a day until the day he died, and he usually came out ahead by a few hundred bucks each year, but if he took into account the racing form he bought every day, he broke even at best). He died 10 years ago, at a time when there was still some dummy money left in the game (today, thanks to increased casinos and lotteries there is a lot less).
What is needed is visible winners who live off their winnings consistently.
Whether true or not, that is what gets people interested in poker. There are players who at least portray themselves as regular winners who have propelled themselves from their mom’s basement to their own mansion.
Even though the overwhelming majority of poker players lose, visible winners help grow the base, and the fact that the rake is low, allows for people to learn the game at little cost.
As for doubles without maiden races. Many tracks have rolling doubles, and myself, I have my best success with cheap maidens and non winners of two.
11 Dec 2012 at 12:13 am | #
Maury Ezra: Well, we agree on one thing: cheap maidens and non-winners of two (how about that Mr. Pricci?).
For me, the cheaper the better. Stake races with all the purse money going to a handful of trainers and jockeys have contributed significantly to the decline in racing, as bettors collect zilce on most of these, so-called, superior races, which are identical to any claiming race in all aspects one cares to present.
11 Dec 2012 at 04:12 am | #
Maybe 50 years ago picking winners was all that mattered with only a daily double and win place and show wagering available, but now money management is half the battle. Structuring your bets for maximum profit is key.
Chris Harn and his cronies are the only ones I can recall cashing a life changing bet. Even the head of Sci Games said it was good for the game. Another case of what’s wrong with this game!
11 Dec 2012 at 04:42 pm | #
Maybe this guy is right, and based on his theory, I’m going to stop bathing, I’m just going to get dirty again.....
TTT