Not so racing columnists Nick Kling, Paul Moran, and John Pricci, whose recent pieces reflected their author’s worries that this year’s Saratoga meet might not only have worn out writers and workers, but playing race watchers as well.
In It’s a wrap at Saratoga 144, Mr. Kling wrote, “It's over. The 144th Saratoga Thoroughbred meet concluded Monday, 1,104 hours and 417 races after it began.
… Everybody loves the Spa season, and it beats the pants off most of the racing in the rest of America. Nevertheless, many have a guilty feeling of relief the meet is over.
The common theme is that were too many races, punctuated by an overabundance of cheap class levels which is not what Saratoga is supposed to be about. Several people have told me how they were worn out before the end of the card. Fans exiting early became a common sight this year.
… The seeming contradiction between on-track and total handle is evidence of the aforementioned on-track fatigue.”
In Where does Saratoga go from here? , Paul Moran opined, “… this meeting was one of overextension in every sense; far too many races, days too long, and six-day weeks do not lend themselves to a festive atmosphere…
“By the meeting's fifth week, Labor Day could not come soon enough. Based upon the standard nine-race weekday and 10-race weekends, NYRA crammed the equivalent of more than 47 days of racing into 40. It did not pay off unless the point was to clear the grounds early and alienate both fans and staff.”
In Vox Populi and Streams From the Subconcious, Mr. Pricci suggested, “… when compared to a typical downstate race-week, five days per week with 10 on weekends—Saturdays, anyway—it was as if 7-1/2 weeks were condensed into 6-1/2.
“… For the most part, despite one additional day this year, attendance was flat.
“... We were dead wrong about the projected handle. It’s the sense we had by watching people leave the track in significant numbers two or three races before the finale.
This, in a sense, underscores the belief of many wagering theoreticians that there’s a finite amount of betting money to be spent in any one session, whether that time frame is nine of 12 races long.”
I submit that what these gentlemen witnessed was a combination of the effects of 1) the extended life expectancy for aging horseplayers, 2) the likelihood that many attendees among the locals have a life outside the racetrack, and 3) the psychology of the unrebated player; the relevancy of which can be expressed by paraphrasing Amanda Mc Broom in her song, “The Rose:”
“When the losses are too frequent
And the bankroll is too small
And you think winning is only
For the lucky and the rich...”
I can speak with some authority on the loneliness of the long-distance horseplayer. One year during the ‘60s, I attended every day of the Saratoga meet -- losing over the first two weeks, and winning over the last two, but unable to show a profit with the costs of travel, parking, admission, Past Performances, and programs factored in. My rent for August had already been paid, and I would have had to eat my own cooking that month no matter what. When it was over, I decided to show up for my new job as planned.
Almost a decade later, I took a vacation during the last 2 weeks of Saratoga and stayed on for Belmont until my winning streak ended. Even after expenses, I flew home with more than I left with, and a memory that time seems to have enhanced. The IRS, however, eventually made short work of the former since I had little free time available to lose some of it back that year.
Do Winners Get Weary?
Unfortunately, others here will have to testify. I haven’t been back to Saratoga since, and I’ve never had another opportunity to immerse myself in the game for more than a weekend nor enjoyed the same extended success.
Fatigue wasn’t a factor over four weeks and some 200 interesting handicapping puzzles for a fellow in his 20s or 30s but these days I can’t even handle two successive days of immersion into the Breeders’ Cup races. Luckily, however, Zenyatta raced in the Saturday events the last two years of her career.
Last year, the racing gods seemed determined to frustrate what could have been my best-ever performance as a handicapper. Does Turallure – ALL mean anything to you? Fortunately, Drosselmeyer enabled me to end the day on a high note.
Had I actually achieved such a score in my younger days, I hope I’d have immediately started handicapping the next day’s Pick Six. But wait! That wager didn’t exist back then and NYRA didn’t race on Sundays.
I suppose that I would have had to be single as well: A woman’s wariness can be a greater obstacle than a man’s when it comes to extending unexpected winnings.
I’ve since learned that too much racing, with too many wagering options, subject to a too-high takeout rate that requires too large a bankroll doesn’t represent opportunity for the recreational player. Worse, it leads to wariness among would-be wager makers.
Was Bob Ehalt’s column, “More Saratoga would be a good thing targeting the tiring, turf-writing trio above, or was he trying to titillate his readers with tongue–in-cheek testimony? Whatever his motivation, his willingness to alliterate is always welcome.
“Another sensational season at Saratoga has slipped away…and there’s one particular question begging for an answer.
“Could there be too much of a good thing?
“…The final attendance and wagering figures reflect that the Spa’s charm is hardly growing old.
“…So what will Team Cuomo do with a track that attracts 22,526 fans a day and handles $14.7 million a day in wagers? They’ll no doubt try to maximize or enhance revenue from the Spa …
“…So why not dispose with the pretense and make Saratoga the summer-long home of New York racing, and conduct the meet from the Fourth of July through Labor Day?
“…Horsemen and track workers may not like being away from home for two months, but it’s the fans that propel the sport …”
Even if a) Saratoga were somehow able to balance the demand for its resources for all its attractions during that period, b) the bankrolls of unrebated bettors were able to go the distance, c) the eyes of the young at heart didn’t glaze over at the sight of PPs for NY-breds, d) the turf course held up for eight weeks of turf sprints, and e) Mr. Pricci’s Diary remained a daily resource, the gains from Saratoga could be offset by losses at Belmont -- both pre- and post-Saratoga -- once something really special became commonplace.
Anticipation is defined as “an emotion involving pleasure, excitement, and sometimes anxiety in considering some expected or longed-for good event.” It is synonymous with enthusiasm, eagerness, and hope. It’s what Saratoga is all about. It’s what Aqueduct had going for it when horses still migrated South with the birds in winter.
I wouldn’t say that Mr. Ehalt’s proposal is for the birds, but it might just kill the Golden Goose.


17 Sep 2012 at 10:36 pm | #
I donno, I am still scratching my butt as to what the message here is. Is the Saratoga meet the epitome of Thoroughbred racing? Readers of HRI, you have to understand that without the Saratoga meet, there would be nothing for turf writers to write about; they have no desire to promote racing at Delaware Park, Parx, Laurel, Finger Lakes, and points west, et cetera; they, with tunnel vision, want interviews with Pletcher, Baffert, et cetera, as if these guys are going to help you with cashing tickets.
John Galt, Indulto, “who are these guys”, has written the following: I’ve since learned that to much racing with to many wagering options subject to a to-high takeout rate that requires to large a bankroll doesn’t represent opportunity for the recreational player - what a crock of bull that comment is.
John Galt, stick with your dime supers.
-------
If I may, yesterday HANA’s representative, a Mr. Platt talked about the elephant in the room, commenting that takeout, toteboard, and drugs were the consensus of a panel of ‘experts’. Again, what a crock!
Thoroughbred racing is virtually out-of-business, being kept in operation from casino dole, because attrition has caused the decline in handle, et cetera. The elephant in the room is the inability of the industry to get newbies involved. What do newbies know about takeout, drugs, et cetera until that start betting? Just asking.
Again, where to hell in the marketing/advertising of the gambling aspects of Thoroughbred racing?
It’s hopeless, Mr. Pricci.
17 Sep 2012 at 11:25 pm | #
William, to attract newbies there needs to be visible long term winners. Visible winners or lack there of is directly related to track takeout.
It is hard to market horse racing as a gambling game which has a pretty high learning curve when there is virtually nobody who beats a 20-21% average takeout.
17 Sep 2012 at 11:58 pm | #
Wendell, it is hopeless; the marketing/advertising re gambling aspects of horse racing is woefully inadequate--but Maury is right, too: Takeout, to date, has proven inexorable.
Here’s a question: What percentage of sports bettors, slots players or poker players make money on a consistent basis?
18 Sep 2012 at 12:10 am | #
Hi John. It doesn’t take many winners so percentage of winners isn’t that important. Poker and sports betting are perceived as beatable long term, that is all that counts. The math behind sports betting pretty well makes it 100% plausible that long term winning occurs. As for poker, we’ve all seen examples of young gamblers who made it out of their parent’s basement and into a world of travel and million dollar tournaments.
Slots is a non thinking mindless form of gambling that provides jackpots which puts it more in line with lotteries, it is also the crack of gambling when it comes to addiction. Those playing perceive the game as beatable when they are playing because of the lower take and higher win rate than other forms of gambling, and they get to go after the jackpot at the same time they are feeding their habit.
18 Sep 2012 at 12:18 am | #
Just for the record, wmc, do you ever smile?
Now I understand my humor doesn’t appeal to everyone, but couldn’t you tell I was having some fun at turf write expense for a change; and at both sides of an issue?
If not, hopefully I’ll get some feedback for improvement. The type of comments I was hoping to stimulate were experiences related by fellow HRI readers where they also made racing their primary focus for an extended period.
One might think that someone with your extensive involvement in the “Gambling Business” of Kings would have many such stories to tell—maybe even a funny one.
18 Sep 2012 at 12:35 am | #
The best advertising is word of mouth.
Do it right and “They will play”.
Another good job by Indulto.
18 Sep 2012 at 12:49 am | #
ME,
I’ve always agreed with your “visible winners” approach to promoting racing. Why do you think this concept has been ignored for at least four years?
AA,
Thanks for the kind words.
18 Sep 2012 at 12:57 am | #
Indulto, too many non believers in the theory stand in the way.
18 Sep 2012 at 02:14 am | #
Maury Ezra: Who are the visible long-term winners who sit in front of slot machines? Who are the visible long-term winners who sit at black-jack tables or belly-up to crap tables? Hmmmm?
This bull about takeout being the culprit wants me to upchuck!
Mr. Pricci, I do not know the percentage of gamblers that win at sports betting, poker, or slots. I do know this: I have placed bets on sporting events, played poker, and sat in front of a slot machine; and, I have won and lost doing it.
But, I prefer to lose my money on the ponies because I like the challenge, the excitement, the atmosphere, and the thrill of the stretch. How many other people know this?
Andrew A: “Do it right, and they will play.” Nice comment. Now, please advise how.
Now, to all out there: how can someone perceive that they will not get involved because the takeout is to high when they don’t even know what takeout is? What are the odds of winning sitting in front of a slot machine; the odds at a black-jack table, or a crap table? Do you really believe that most people know?
Takeout is not the problem and never has been, nor is drugs, the tote board odds, or lack of grass.
Thoroughbred racing has gotten beaten for the gambling dollar because of the image that people perceived of racetracks initially (no longer true today, but still perceived) and the inability or desire to promote racings as a gambling venue. The promotion, constantly, of stake races flies over the head of most people. People are aware of the Triple Crown, the Travers, and the Breeders’ Cup. Regrettably, they are unaware of the gambling opportunities available. So, is the future for Thoroughbred racing a Triple Crown winner or getting the word out that gambling on the ponies is a viable option to sitting in front of a slot machine? Duh?
If this blather were written by Mr. Liebman, Mr. Repole, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Crist, a prominent turf writer, or a racetrack executive, et cetera it would be front page news.
Time for a Foster’s.
18 Sep 2012 at 02:47 am | #
Sorry Wm. Corrow, but you aren’t even trying to understand what I wrote. Bottom line, horse racing handle and interest has dropped and it isn’t the economy, it isn’t the image either (the image was just as bad in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s etc.
It is because there is no reason for the newbie masses to learn the game, when there is a perception they can beat poker and sports betting long term (and again slot machines as explained above is a different type of gambling that appeals to a different type of non thinking gambling addict).
The reason horse racing can’t attract and keep numerous newbies is because the price of the bet is way too high and it doesn’t allow for visible winners. But keep your head in the sand, the industry loves to see your words in print because they refuse to try to lower the price of the bet and they need your lack of insight to keep them on the same direction. They want to believe there is a magic marketing pill out there they haven’t got to.
Keep fiddling William and believing what you believe. You aren’t part of the problem, but you are a few universes away from the solution.
18 Sep 2012 at 02:55 am | #
“Who are the visible long-term winners who sit in front of slot machines? Who are the visible long-term winners who sit at black-jack tables or belly-up to crap tables? Hmmmm? “
Huh?
Slot machine rakes moved DOWN from 25% to (some) at 1% for precisely that - winners. Talk to a grandmother playing slots and ask why, she’ll say “because I win.” She doesn’t but she thinks she can.
Ask her to play the horses, she’ll say “no, that’s a game for suckers. Havent you heard, you can beat a race, but you can’t beat the races”
As for blackjack, it’s the same story. Presenting at a conference in NY in 2008 I tabled the history of the book “Beat the Dealer” by Thorpe. After that book was published and it worked, casino’s were inundated with people going after the cheap rakes at blackjack, precisely for the point: They could win.
This is exactly why some casino’s got killed when they changed the rake recently in BJ to “make more money”
Eliminate the chance to win, or thinking someone has a chance to win, and your gambling game is DEAD.
Horse racing has scurried away so, so many people simply looking for a shot.
It’s a major reason why handle is off over 50% in real terms since 2000, and why places like California, who allow horsemen to up takeouts, are dying on a vine.
PTP
18 Sep 2012 at 02:56 am | #
wmcorrow. you said Andrew A: “Do it right, and they will play.” Nice comment. Now, please advise how.
It’s one of those things. If you don’t know how to do it by now you never will.
A
18 Sep 2012 at 03:56 am | #
Maury, welcome to the club: SELDOM IF EVER does WMC endeavor to stay on point, pushing the same one-speed agenda, more interested in monologue than dialogue.
Also believe you’re right about the PERCEPTION that poker and sports betting is beatable. Problem is that sports betting is more of a ground-out game that playing the races.
But you know, for every Phil Ivy and the others at the final table there are 3,000 poker players that go home. Wow, that’s about the same in horse racing is 3% of the players make money.
Personally, I think it’s a big higher but won’t argue with Mr. Crist, who opts for the 3% figure.
Two things, WMC: Next time I see Steve, I’m sure he’ll be pleased to learn that you consider him a PROMINENT TURF WRITER.
Second, in this is a killer, WMC, you must be a fraud when it comes to expousing that horse racing is ALL about the gambling. It’s about:
“I prefer to lose my money on the ponies because I like the challenge, excitement, the atmosphere, and the thrill of the stretch. How many other people know this?” THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.
Ladies and gentlemen, there was no Triple Crown winner in Great Britain this weekend, but it you’re reading this, you’ve just witnessed history: Wendell has shown us his hole card.
18 Sep 2012 at 04:01 am | #
Hi John, thanks for your reply, but that 3% figure might be from the 70’s when there was only one track to play and exotics weren’t everywhere you looked. It is lower than that today. If it was 3%, racing wouldn’t have a problem attracting the masses.
18 Sep 2012 at 04:11 am | #
Maury, you’re welcome, but I’m not sure it’s worth arguing over 2%, 3% or 5% figure. But I think you need to consider that while multiple pools present a higher degree of difficulty, they offer a chance to make a score, win a lot for a little.
I can only tell you that scores sustain me. I once heard Mr. Beyer say that his best advice is for players to try to make a score. And why do you suppose Mr. Crist is referred to as the Pick Six king. Not many professionals, even the winning ones, do it in the straight pools alone anymore.
18 Sep 2012 at 03:37 pm | #
Yup, keep slamming me people. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Here are some incoherent thoughts of mine:
1. Slots, a non-thinking gambling option, along with blackjack, poker, and sports betting offered by casinos, has caused the crowds to depart in droves from racetracks.
2. Takeout is to high, and I also would like to have it lowered, but takeout is not responsible for racing’s decline. If takeout were lowered to 10%, bettors would in theory stay in ‘the game’ longer; or stated another way, instead of going broke in August, they would go broke in October.
3. Is takeout really relevant anymore at NYRA tracks? Wagering on-track is between 15% and 8% of total handle, thus NYRA is receiving 5 cents or less on dollars wagered off-track - 85% of total handle. Those obnoxious, inflated purses are fueled from casino dole that was achieved from slot machines that thousands of former track patrons sit in front of.
4. So, newbies aren’t interested in horseracing because the price of the bet is way to high? Funny really, when I know, repeat know, that a huge number of the regulars at the OTB joint I patronize don’t have a clue what the takeout rates are, and could careless. But, according to comments above, this is a newbie’s major concern.
5. Thoroughbred racing is hurt by visibility of winners, when it is also mentioned above that 3% or fewer actually make money. Duh?
6. I find Andrew A’s explanation of his comment ‘do it right and they will come’ being ‘if you don’t know how to do it now you never will’ amusing - got me scratching!
7. Mr. Pricci, it is all about gambling; if it weren’t, then the former track patrons now sitting in front of slot machines would still be in the stands.
8. Commentator PTP writes that handle is off 50% since the year 2000; the reasons given are not clear to me. I suggest, in fact I know, that handle is off, not from high takeout, but from competition for the gambling dollar, primarily from casinos and sport betting parlors.
9. I am pleased that scores sustain you, Mr. Pricci. How many pick sixs did Mr. Crist ‘hit’ this year at $800 to $3000 a pop during the Saratoga meet? I believe the number is zippo! I like Mr. Beyer’s advice: ‘try to make a score’. Seems to me that all us lowlifes have that thought in mind every day.
10. According to Mr. Ezra, if the percentage of gamblers who actually made money gambling on the ponies were 3% the stands would be packed. Seems to me he is saying that racing is about gambling, not promoting the Triple Crown or Breeders’ Cup.
11. What’s this about a learning curve? Ever see the young people today work a computer, smart phone, or Rubik cube?
Yup, I’m just a stupid lowlife who wastes his time in an OTB hoping to make that score, while draining beer after beer; but I am doing what few HRI commentators are doing: I am contributing to the day’s handle.
18 Sep 2012 at 06:21 pm | #
“Commentator PTP writes that handle is off 50% since the year 2000; the reasons given are not clear to me. I suggest, in fact I know, that handle is off, not from high takeout, but from competition for the gambling dollar, primarily from casinos and sport betting parlors. “
In a way, in my opinion, you answered your own reason.
Yes, handle is off because of competition from other gambling outlets. But those other outlets have low takeout, and provide a better customer experience because of that price break, when compared to racing.
If sports betting had 22% takeout, online poker had 22% takeout instead of 3 or 4, craps had takeout of 22% instead of 3%, they would be much less popular, and horse racing would be doing better.
Price is a major variable in everything people do, whether they realize it or not.
Even in a non-price sensitive area like lottos which sell “a dollar and a dream” takeouts have been dropping to keep pace.
Racing, kept, and keeps getting more and more expensive when compared to competition. It was not only expected that it would decline, it was a mathematical certainty.
PTP
18 Sep 2012 at 07:36 pm | #
#17: I agree that takeout certainly should be much lower; my position is that takeout rates, averaging 20%, are not the reason Thoroughbred racing is on life support. The mass exodus once casinos started to proliferate across the country and the inability to attract newbies caused by failing to market/advertise racing as an alternative gambling venue created the huge drop in handle.
I seriously doubt that Jack and Jill, standing on a corner on main street, USA know that racetracks offer doubles, trifectas, pick threes, et cetera for dimes and dollars; and they sure as hell do not know that there is a takeout of 20% on their wagers; nor do they know that most racetracks across the country are pristine. But, they do know that the nearby casino has coin slot machines and terrific food, plus entertainment. Perhaps if they knew about the wagering menu racetracks have, they would venture into the casino racebook. The only thing that perhaps they know about racing is that every year there is a Kentucky Derby, a Travers, and a Breeders’ Cup - mentioned on the sports page of most newspapers.
Go to an OTB, racebook, or the racetrack and ask the regulars what the takeout rates are on the various bets; in fact, just ask them what is takeout? Don’t be surprised if you get a blank stare.
------
If takeout was reduced from 20% to 10% you, the bettor, would receive 12.5% more in payoffs; but, to get this improved payoff you still have to pick the winner. And you would probably stay in ‘the game’ a bit longer. So, what all you HRI contributors are saying is that 12.5% is what is standing in the way of racetracks being successful, and the crowds flocking back to the track - simple solution, forget the need to market the industry for what it really is: a gambling venue; it’s a sport, right?
18 Sep 2012 at 07:42 pm | #
wmcorrow said:
6. I find Andrew A’s explanation of his comment ‘do it right and they will come’ being ‘if you don’t know how to do it now you never will’ amusing - got me scratching!
==========================
You’re killing me. LOL
By the way, what are you scratching?
18 Sep 2012 at 08:51 pm | #
Andrew, please no more questions re scratching, which would qualify as too much information.
BTW Wendell, it’s too--as in “too much.” I let the first few typos slide, but wouldn’t want readers to get the impression that because your keyboard has one less ‘o’ than is required to spell too, as in “me, too” your message will be lost in the translation.
Another BTW: There is, in my experience, very little crossover from playing horses to playing slots. Aside from the gambling component--of which there are more things to gamble on than ever before--slots players and horseplayers have nothing in common.
Playing the races is a game of skill, just like poker, or sports betting; the other involves being lucky enough to find a “hot” or “loose” machine to sit in front of and stare into.
Part of the grand, overwhelmingly successful and systematic dumbing down of the population. If that weren’t true, and ignorance and prejudice weren’t so pervasive, how could the polls be so close?
And, aside from the high takeout rate at Parx, that’s the other reason I don’t bet on their races: It appears they like to fix things in Pa.
18 Sep 2012 at 09:44 pm | #
Medley - When you´re smilin, Zooma Zooma, Oh Marie (Louis Prima und Sam Butera – YouTube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM1ta5ebjsM&feature=related
19 Sep 2012 at 03:01 am | #
John:
Isn’t the definition of insanity, trying the same approach to a problem over and over and over , etc, again, and expecting a different result? Then, after all these years, why are “WE” still trying to convince poor Mr. Corrow that he is “wrong”?
However, there is one aspect to this entire nonsensical argument that does interest me, to wit, if gambling on the NFL ( MLB, etc) is ILLEGAL in all states but Nevada ( please don’t get me started on the Delaware issue), why is it so popular? According to dear Mr. Corrow, the short answer would be that some manner of MARKETING is convincing the populace that NFL betting is good for one’s soul! However, not only does the NFL refuse to market its game as a gambling venue, it has refused to even allow Vegas to advertise its wares on the Super Bowl. Moreover, the NFL, along with its hypocritical brethren-NBA, MLB, NHL, etc-have SUED the great State of New Jersey for an injunction prohibiting New Jersey from offering sports betting!
Despite the NFL’s apparent vehemence in denying gambling on its games, it is beyond all rational objection that the total amount gambled on NFL games outstrips all of the other sports combined, and would probably exceed the GDP of most industrialized countries! Yet, there is NO marketing of this form of gambling outside of the Vegas/Reno metro areas. How, poor Wendell can that be? Maybe the unfortunate race tracks can follow the NFL’s lead and also try to prohibit gambling on their races? According to your logic, Jack and Jane from Peoria would be running to the track if the races were marketed like the NFL> Of course, if only turf writers would help market racing the way NFL columnists promote gambling, then all of racing’s ills would be over. Guess what, there is not ONE NFL writer who promotes the NFL as a gambling venue. So what gives, Mr Corrow? Your convenient “truths”, as you say, or the facts as in what is real and what is not?
19 Sep 2012 at 07:09 am | #
#22: Professional football is a spectator sport. There are no betting windows at games, and professional football teams are not dependent on takeout from handle or signal fees for survival; that people bet on football games is beyond the control of the NFL.
Thoroughbred horse racing, though talked and written about by writers as a sport, is dependent on takeout and signal fees for their income (I wrote income, not gifts from casinos). Unfortunately, racing is not as popular as professional football, thus it should be marketing itself aggressively to improve its lot. Since people who do get involved with racing are classified as gamblers, it would make sense to direct marketing/advertising at gamblers that can be found in abundance at casinos.
In summation, people like to watch professional football, and many place a bet on the outcome - usually one bet per game. People used to watch and wager on racing by the thousands, but the majority have gravitated to other forms of gambling.
In the capitalistic arena that propels democracy, companies that thrive market/advertise their products to meet and beat the competition in the market place; Thoroughbred racing associations have failed miserably to do such.
In time, there will be sports betting in just about every state. The OTBs in Connecticut were purchased by an English company. They are obviously waiting for Connecticut politicians to approve sports wagering, and if sports wagering gains a foothold in a couple of states, racing is in further deep pucky.
19 Sep 2012 at 01:51 pm | #
Hi again William. You need to keep in mind that if not for betting, or fantasy football participation which is a form of gambling, the number of people who watch NFL games on TV and most probably live too, would drop off significantly. If juice on a football wager was 20% instead of 10%, the same thing would happen as well.
You make a great point, that in a capitalistic society competition matters. Well, that is where horse racing loses out, not that they don’t try, or try enough...everyone knows there are racetracks and that you can bet as low as a dollar a race....no, the product is gambling, and it competes with other forms of gambling, and the marketer is stuck because in order to make horse race gambling appealing to a newer crowd, there has to be a reason for the newbie to choose horse racing. What is the reason? There has to be visible long term winners bottom line, and a 21% average takeout makes that impossible. There is no buzz created.
It wasn’t always that way, when there was just one track to bet on, limited exotics, and you pretty much had to be at the track to bet (and collective takeout was in the 17% range as well) back in the 60’s through early 80’s. And there was less casino and lottery competition, so dummy money was in the pools back then giving someone who understood handicapping extra edges. Bottom line, people were going home with more money in their pockets, and the game was perceived as beatable by at least a few...and people leaving the track with some money as opposed to no money are more apt to come back and play the next day.
You say that if takeout were reduced, most people wouldn’t go broke as fast but they would still go broke....that is true. And that is a main reason why slots and blackjack are so successful...gambling satisfaction isn’t so much about winning, as it is lasting as long as possible.
19 Sep 2012 at 03:27 pm | #
Mr. Erza: Comparing the NFL, NBA, or MLB to Thoroughbred horse racing doesn’t seem logical to me. All three professional leagues are not in the gambling business. The fact that people wager on these professional teams obviously helps in their popularity, but they would still do terrific financially if wagering were banned.
I’m not so sure ‘that everyone knows there are racetracks and everyone can bet as low as a dollar’.
Your position involves around takeout, and that’s fine. I, again, don’t believe takeout is standing in the way of reversing racing’s decline.
A significant question is how can slot machines be more enticing than wagering on the horses, bearing in mind that the crowds left the racetracks once casinos came into existence. Things went in reverse virtually overnight for racing when Atlantic City opened. It is obvious that the crowds at racetracks in the sixties and seventies were there to gamble, that the horse was not the real attraction, that the betting window was.
All these years later, Thoroughbred racing still relies on stake races with huge purses as the promotion vehicle.
Why isn’t racing marketed as a gambling alternative to casino gambling. How to hell can a slot machine be more desirable?
I don’t agree with the visibility concept, nor that a newbie needs a reason to go to the track.
What the newbie needs to know is that gambling on the horses is far more challenging, exciting, can be very financially rewarding, and nothing beats the thrill of one’s plodder being in the hunt as they come down the stretch. To lose out to a slot machine is beyond belief.
The NTRA, IMO, started out right with the spot videos showing Lori, Rip, Bo, and Jerry gambling and enjoying racing; it was a start in the right direction, but soon fizzled when Tim Smith moved into group merchandizing - since NTRA has completely lost direction.
Weekend stake races do nothing to promote racing.
I guess it is hopeless to get racing to market/advertise racing as a gambling venue, as to many people in decision making positions are breeders and owners of thoroughbreds; they would rather go down with the ship than admit that it is all about gambling.
I’ve written all of the above at least fifty times already at HRI; to me the solution is simple, but to others, apparently, I come off as a simpleton.
So be it. I know that I enjoy gambling on the ponies far more than sitting in front of a slot machine, standing at a crap table, or sitting at a blackjack table. There is no comparison whatsoever, but I guess I am the only one who enjoys the track with its takeout, drugs, small fields, et cetera.
19 Sep 2012 at 04:57 pm | #
Mr. Erza: You may be thinking, hey, the people at the track in the sixties and seventies were gambling, so there leaving in droves doesn’t make sense.
Back then, racing only offered the double and the late pick three - only one wager that could deliver big bucks. Casinos offered more opportunities then to win the big one. Not so today, with all the exotic wagering available at the track, but the barn door was left open to long.
Most of the young crowd today has no idea what a pick four or pick six is, nor dime supers, nor trifectas. They do know when the Derby comes around, once a year!
19 Sep 2012 at 08:30 pm | #
Is there anybody out there who knows anyone who became passionate about the game without having been introduced to it by a friend or family member who either taught them how to pick a winner initially, or gave them a book on handicapping and wagering?
Horseplayer recruitment is a time-consuming, hands-on activity. Marketing money, in my opinion, would be best spent on
1) incentivizing existing horseplayers to bring newbies to the track and serve as mentors to them,
2) promoting days-at-the-track packages (transportation, seating, refreshments, etc) to groups of all kinds, and provide mentors to sit with them and explain the various aspects of what’s going on, and
3) providing opportunities for singles to meet members of the opposite sex at the track, e.g., handicapping contests for couples introduced at the track, either voluntarily or by random assignment (filtered by age, favorite school subject, etc).
Have you every heard of anyone wandering into a racetrack?
20 Sep 2012 at 01:30 am | #
John Gault, Indulto (who are these guys?): No, I haven’t heard of anyone wandering into a racetrack, but I imagine it has happened. People do not wander into anything normally, they are enticed by advertising or marketing.
Your suggestion #1 is not something I will do unless I am paid for my efforts. Why should I work for an organization for free?
As to the other two suggestions, they are for others to contemplate.
May I ask why NTRA stopped producing the videos of people at the racetrack? Why these videos, and new creations, are not constantly being shown on television.
And, why can’t Thoroughbred racing be simply marketed and advertised as a gambling venue?
What to hell is it with these stake races that do nothing to attract new ‘fans’. When will I open up Newsweek or Time magazine and find an advertisement urging me to go to a racetrack? When will I see a spot commercial on television informing me of the excitement of gambling at a racetrack, racebook, racino, or OTB?
It’s hopeless. Yup, the future of Thoroughbred racing is wrapped around the forthcoming Breeders’ Cup, and what plodder will win the Classic. Like I give a damn who wins the Classic. I wanna know what nags are going to win the early double tomorrow.