Welcome to HorseRaceInsider Guest Commentary. From time to time, you will read reactions from industry leaders, racing practitioners or, like today, commentary from a professional horseplayer.
The austere Jockey Club recently commissioned a study to delve into racing's current issues. Some industry professionals say everyone tethered to the Thoroughbred already know what the problems are. Here is the take of Cary Fotias, founder and president of Equiform, a performance figure data company based in New York City
The Jockey Club has done it again, Mr. Santayana. It has not learned from the past and, thus, is condemned to repeat the same mistakes. Rather than listen to the customer, The Jockey Club has commissioned yet another study. This one will be conducted by McKinsey & Company and will “examine the sport and where it would be over the next 10 years without change while providing recommendations to improve the short-term and long-term prospects of the industry.” The results of the study will be presented during the Jockey Club Round Table session in Saratoga this August.
The powers that run thoroughbred racing are clearly in denial. For over a decade, players have been complaining about high takeout rates, 40% super-trainers (illegal drugs), poor customer service, small fields, archaic withholding tax rules and the integrity of the wagering pools to name a few. The game is on life support now, and if no substantive changes are made in the next ten years, it will be all but dead. If McKinsey doesn’t reach that conclusion, they will not have earned their money.
In 2004, I was a member of the NTRA Players Panel that gave a presentation at the Handicapping Expo in Las Vegas. My topic was takeout rates and I received a rousing ovation when I stated that “thoroughbred racing will never prosper unless takeout rates are lowered dramatically”. Well, seven years later, rates haven’t really changed, and pari-mutuel handle has fallen off a cliff.
Of the 60 or so recommendations the panel made on a variety of issues, I believe one may have been enacted. You can see the whole report here.
It would be interesting to know if any members of the Jockey Club ever read our report. If they did, it appears they decided that our concerns were not very important. After all, just because the customers are unhappy doesn’t mean you should listen to their free advice. But if you pay a consulting firm a lot of money maybe it knows something better. This reminds me of what happened a few years back in the wake of a “scandal” at Aqueduct. Trumped-up charges by Elliot Spitzer led to NYRA paying a reported $3 million to Giuliani Partners to find out what any railbird could have told them. It was nothing more than using a high profile name for damage control.
Are you kidding me, Jim? Thirty-six years later you’re going to do an analysis of takeout rates again? It’s just a key metric in your business model, but addressing it two or three times a century oughtta do, right?
The economics of takeout rates don’t really change. Try listening to guys like Maury Wolff, a member of the Players Panel who just happens to be an economist. Or how about running your game like a real business instead of a public utility? Try to free yourself from the chains of politicians and state racing commissions and allow the free market determine optimal takeout rates?
Only by working to centralize authority will the game realize its true potential. We’re tired of simulcast wars, un-coordinated post times between tracks and needing multiple ADW accounts to bet all the races we want. The centralization concept has been a blueprint for success for major sports leagues. While teams compete on the field, they cooperate off the field to promote the game and maximize profits. Racing needs to do the same by listening to the fan base and try giving them what they want.
Takeout rates aren’t the only reason our game is in serious decline. Several other factors have contributed to the loss of interest, but the price of the product, especially in a competitive gambling environment, is paramount. Yes, I said GAMBLING.
Without the betting and a chance to validate my opinion, I wouldn’t be playing the races every day as I do now. I would probably watch the Triple Crown races and the Breeders Cup on TV and maybe go to the track a couple times a year for the “entertainment value” that some misguided track executives think is more important than gambling.
In response to high or increased takeout rates, many players are speaking with their pocketbooks and taking their action elsewhere. As a member of the Advisory Board of HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America), I urge you to join the cause. The boycott of California racing has had a demonstrable effect. The suits can spin it any way they want but they should finally be getting the message that “we’ve had enough and we’re not going to take it anymore.”
HANA (http://www.horseplayersassociation.com) is a great resource for players, and it’s a shame that, after a couple of years, it has only 2000 members. Nobody is going to fight this fight for us. Horseplayers are going to have to do it themselves. It’s an uphill battle for sure but it sure would nice to have 100,000 troops on the wagering front.
It was the Victorian poet Robert Browning who penned the phrase “less is more”. I’m sure that if Browning were around today he would say the same about the number of dates on the American racing calendar. With foal crops dwindling, mutual pools suffering a liquidity crisis, and racing secretaries scrambling to fill cards, it should be clear what needs to be done.
But it’s never easy in this industry. With all the different racing jurisdictions and their concomitant bureaucratic and political constituencies focused mainly on the short-term, the benefits of a shared self-sacrifice for the long-term are given short shrift. This is a BIG mistake. If a coordinated effort to cut dates by 30-50% was implemented, total handle would go up. You’d end up with fuller fields and much more money in each individual pool. This dynamic would be attractive to whales and minnows alike.
Whether betting at the track, a simulcast venue, or with an ADW by phone or over the Internet, a player is going to churn his bankroll whether he has 10 tracks to bet or 30. The difference is that by “concentrating the action” into fewer races, overall handle will go up due to more attractive betting opportunities resulting in increased action from larger players due to greater liquidity.
A few years ago, I was asked to give a presentation on behalf of New York horseplayers at the National Racing Museum in Saratoga. A committee was trying to decide which bidder should get the NYRA franchise and I was asked to speak about the concerns of players. I didn’t pull any punches. I said that no other industry treats its customers so poorly. Of course, how could it do otherwise - it doesn’t even know who they are. I’ve received free baseball caps and t-shirts on giveaway days but for the millions I’ve plowed through the windows over the years, I’ve never gotten so much as a cup of coffee (and I drink a lot of coffee). In NYRA’s defense it does have a rebate program now, a pleasant step in the right direction.
Customer service should be a priority. Making customers happy is fundamental for any business but racing has a knack for alienating them. How about a free Coke for the $2 bettors now and then? How about track executives walking through the grandstand to talk with their customers and get feedback? Everyone likes to fell appreciated for their business, but horseplayers have always been taken for granted.
Like many of us, I yearn for the days when there were decent crowds at the track. It heightens the whole experience and makes it more exciting when you hear that roar as the horses come down the stretch.
For many years, marketing executives have struggled to reverse the downward spiral in live attendance. All sorts of gimmicks have been tried with little or no success. Here’s one that actually might work. Anyone who bets on track will receive 5% back on any losing tickets bet at the host track that day. Just stick your losing tickets in an automated teller and receive a voucher for 5% of the total. After all, the track makes considerably more from “on-track” handle than ADW or simulcast handle. Now that would be a universal rebate for players of all bankrolls that would increase live churn and give people a reason to go back to the track.
Racing has done a poor job in exploiting new technologies. If the industry was really serious about attracting new blood and a younger demographic, it should concern itself less with post-race concerts and more with promoting a great gambling game over the Internet. Every track should have live streaming video of its races along with online tutorials and free past performances. Young people want action and plenty of it. And they want the convenience of a national betting platform that provides one-stop shopping using the Internet or their smart phones. For meaningful change to occur, the Byzantine simulcast regulations and ADW squabbles that currently frustrate bettors must be addressed.
The Jockey Club has used McKinsey & Company before. In 1991, it asked the firm to provide a national strategy to improve drug-testing practices. The study suggested that the national drug-testing system was due for drastic overhaul. While no immediate action was taken on the study’s recommendations, it did lead in 1998 to the creation of the Racing Integrity and Drug Testing Task Force.
If the Jockey Club waits another seven years to address present day problems, racing may not die but it surely will continue to fade away.
26 Mar 2011 at 10:02 am | #
Hey Cary,
Hard to argue with any of that. The one thing I’m not on board with is centralization. I run the possibilities and all I see is greater bureacracy and less innovation. Do we get a commissioner with that? What do you make the odds: wise man or hack? I’m 1-9 the latter. I’d rather put my faith in racing’s version of federalism.I do see some signs, some tracks starting to innovate and compete. And I see horseplayers finally getting the message. Let’s encourage and reward those tracks that will take the chances and lead the way and punish those that won’t.
26 Mar 2011 at 11:34 pm | #
CF,
I had a similar idea back in 2005 I referred to as “Second chance rebates.” The following are excerpts from some of my posts in a discussion thread at the time on the Ragozin Sheets message board:
“… One of the “advantages” of the on-track experience as opposed to account wagering is that if you’re a loser, nobody has to know about it (unless, of course, you foolishly post your selections on-line). And, unless you win big, nobody has to know that you’re a marginal winner, either. Basically, if you’re not in the black, or close to it, rebates by themselves aren’t much help.
But suppose it were possible make rebates a win-win situation for tracks and losers as well as for winners? It occurred to me as I reviewed my losing Derby Day tickets from Hollywood Park that they would be more likely to get me back there again if those tickets had some rebated value toward the funding of another dip in the mutual pools subject to yet another round of takeout.
So here’s the idea. Pay rebates in cash ONLY on winning wagers. Rebates on losing wagers could be used ONLY toward the purchase of wagers on subsequent events AT THE SAME TRACK AS THE QUALIFYING WAGER; with exchange, but not refund privileges.
Imagine how clean wagering areas would be if there were no such thing as a worthless ticket!”
“… How many times have you seen someone tear up their tickets only to then hear the infamous ‘Ladies and gentlemen, please hold all pari-mutuel tickets’ or have been aware of the ‘Pack Rats’” among us who have kept their tickets and programs in anticipation of a subsequent IRS signing event, but then never threw them away. Obviously, this rebate idea has additional benefit as a public service preventing further infliction of psychological damage to horseplayers.
… I was thinking that self-service machine(s) could be reserved for the purpose of
scanning and accumulating losing tickets and generating non-cashable, non-refundable vouchers whose value could be reduced by some fee if a minimum voucher value was not submitted in a single batch. (In event of malfunction, an attendant could be alerted to retrieve the accumulated batch.) The machine would reject any live or winning tickets.”
27 Mar 2011 at 07:12 am | #
How about a $10 voucher that must be wagered for anyone under 30 years of age; $20 if you are female, $30 if you are wearing a short skirt (female only). Sorry folks, I didn’t make the rules, sex sells.
TTT
27 Mar 2011 at 08:10 am | #
Dear Mr. Fotias:
Allow me to preface my statment by saying that I am in complete agreement with you regarding most of your beliefs. All the bantering about too much racing, and not enough horses to sustain quality racing is where I am confused. Today is Sunday, March 27, 2011, and here are some numbers for 4 southern tracks running today:
Tam - 11 Races - 120 horses Ave: 10.90
Sun - 13 Races - 133 horses Ave: 10.23
Gul - 11 Races - 112 horses Ave: 10.18
Fai - 13 Races - 174 horses Ave: 13.30
Average: 11.22 horses entered per race
I’ve heard about a shortage in the number of foals, but the above figures does not seem to reflect that. Is this because the shortage has not yet hit the entry box?
TTT
27 Mar 2011 at 09:02 am | #
On the 5% rebate idea for those who go to the home track..To prevent an army of professional “stoopers” ,we might have to print on each ticket that this ticket can be cashed after the race ,no matter the results. We might have to establish a rebate window to handle the extra volume of people cashing tickets.
A trial run might be in order.
Roger Way
27 Mar 2011 at 01:12 pm | #
rw,
Undoubtedly, some effort will be necessary to inform and advise patrons of the value of a losing ticket, but let’s not diminish the expectation that this concept could work without significant additional cost to the track. This could be a great opportunity for HANA volunteers to get involved on-track.
27 Mar 2011 at 03:45 pm | #
Ted,
At Aqueduct today there are 60 horses after scratches. Divided by 9 races, that’s 6.7 horses per race.
I haven’t looked up Santa Anita, but note you didn’t include that in your comment. I suspect it’s not much better than Aqueduct.
Should the tracks you cited be running? Sure. Should we run 250+ days a year in NY? Nope.
28 Mar 2011 at 06:11 am | #
Your right Nick, I did not include Aqueduct, that is because New York Racing, once the best in the country, no, the best in the world, has gone into a downward spiral and now has purses that can’t compete with Penn National, and not because of the cold weather. Who would want to race there? It has nothing to do with a shortage of horses. I’m sorry that how you earn your bread and butter, the NYRA, has turned into just bread, it’s not my fault; perhaps Track Facts should broaden their horizons unless and until New York Racing becomes a viable entity again. Thus, the reason I did not include Aqueduct. With respect to Santa Anita; I don’t even recognize Santa Anita as a racetrack due to the H.A.N.A. boycott, which I honor. Just as the Daily Racing Form refuses to carry the story of the H.A.N.A. boycott, I refuse to acknowledge the existence of Santa Anita at this point in time, but find it necessary for the purposes of rebutting your comment to mention the name here. Have you heard of the H.A.N.A. boycott? Speaking of noticing, I noticed that there must be a gag order on your Track Facts show, as you fellows don’t seem to discuss it at all. Are you not permitted to do so, or is that just coincidence? If you would like to get into politics, bring it.
TTT
28 Mar 2011 at 09:16 am | #
Ted,
Regarding Aqueduct, it remains the most popular off-track betting venue in terms of handle by a wide margin, even in winter. Hence, a local newspaper or horse racing TV station, which didn’t emphasize New York racing would be shooting itself in the foot.
Regarding Santa Anita, you must have missed the shows right after Santa Anita reopened at the end of December. The boycott was prominently discussed at least twice.
In addition, two of the columns I wrote for The Record after the opening covered the boycott and its probable short- and long-term impact on Santa Anita. If you’re interested, you can find them on The Record website.
28 Mar 2011 at 10:35 am | #
Nick, yes I must have missed your “prominent discussions” regarding the H.A.N.A. Santa Anita Boycott. Did you invite any guests to discuss the boycott? Have not seen any guests discussing the topic. I’m sure you would have no problem getting in touch with Jeff Platt of H.A.N.A., who would gladly come on your show to discuss the Boycott and the organization? That I would consider a “prominent discussion.”
As far as Aqueduct being the most popular off-track betting venue in terms of handle is concerned, if that were the case globally, the purses would not be so low, they would be attracting far more horses, which is the thrust of my statement you responded to, horses of much higher caliber. So you must believe given your statements about so few horses at Aqueduct, and how popular it is, that horseplayers like playing races with 6 horses? I’m confused, befuddled, in a quandry, dismayed. Aqueduct is my alma mater, but let’s face it, they are an also ran at this stage, and it hs nothing to do with a “shortage of horses.” The horses go where the purse money is, the purse money is high where handle is high, and handle is high were good horses are; a vicious circle. You can paint a pretty picture and go on believing nothing is wrong, but for me, the emperor is naked.
TTT
28 Mar 2011 at 11:03 am | #
Ted,
Regarding Aqueduct, you’ve got the cart before the horse.
The average daily purse distribution on the inner track at Aqueduct is lower than it used to be because there is a higher percentage of maiden claiming and low level conditioned claimers, not because allowance, MSW, and overnight stakes purses are lower.
Allowance and maiden special weights purses remain at levels similar to what they have been for most of the last 5+ years.
While it is true other venues have caught up to Aqueduct in terms of MSW, allowance, and overnight stakes purses, that has only had a marginal impact on the inner track. Why? Because horsemen have traditionally preferred to run in the south where it was 1) warm, and 2) turf racing was available.
Go back to historical charts from ten years ago and you will see NYRA purses 30+ percent higher than Gulfstream, but the field size differential between the two then and now has not changed much.
Inner track purses are higher than Tampa, so why would a NY horseman race at Tampa? It’s not the money, it’s the sun and grass.
There are more low class races because those are the ones that fill. Upper class races at Aqueduct don’t fill because the smaller foal crop has resulted in fewer good horses to spread around. There are always plenty of bad horses around.
You said, “As far as Aqueduct being the most popular off-track betting venue in terms of handle is concerned, if that were the case globally, the purses would not be so low.”
Your quoted comment above inadvertently points out something NYRA officials have said for years. Purses are actually UNDERPAID at Aqueduct in the winter, with the unused overage going to boost purses at Saratoga when the quality of racing is at its best. I doubt you’d find many fans or NY horsemen who would argue with that policy.
I can’t speak to how Aqueduct plays globally compared to other US tracks, but I can speak to locally, where it exceeds Gulfstream and towers over Tampa, Fair Grounds, and Sunland. Those numbers are public information which you can get from the NYSRWB’s annual report if you’re interested.
28 Mar 2011 at 11:10 am | #
Ted,
Sorry, I forgot Hana.
We went into detail about the boycott on the set, then later when we had calls from viewers.
I’ll pass along your suggestion about having a HANA guest, but the story is old news now, as the meet will soon close. I can’t image what a guest could have said which we didn’t cover.
Feel free to let Tom know your guest/subject matter opinions in the future. We always want to know what viewers want to hear.
28 Mar 2011 at 01:47 pm | #
Nick, I’ll give you that perhaps the emperor still has his underwear on, but that is as far as I’ll go, and I’m going to disagree to disagree with you any further on this point. Hoping the future has better things in store for the NYRA, which has 11 other months to worry about beside Saratoga; the world does not revolve around Saratoga, at least not for me, although I do love it so.
Sorry you feel that the takeout issue (among many other issues H.A.N.A addresses) around the country is “old news,” I am still hoping this was just the beginning, and that H.A.N.A. will make a difference with continuing efforts. It is my belief that these vital issues will never find a place on your show, because of eoncomic reasons beyond your or Mr. Amello’s control. The media blackout designed to thwart any progress by entities who only care about their bottom line precludes these types of discussions for the most part.
TTT
28 Mar 2011 at 02:24 pm | #
Ted,
I’m beginning to believe you don’t watch Trackfacts. Takeout is an issue about which we’ve frequently spoken.
I know Cary Fotias is a HANA member. I don’t know if he is an officer. However, we have Cary on several times a year and customer service issues, including takeout, are almost always part of the conversation.
You’d better begin setting your DVR if you want to catch all the action.
28 Mar 2011 at 02:46 pm | #
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have not seen Mr. Fotias on your show since THE BEGINNING of the formal boycott, or anyone else associated with H.A.N.A. who could speak as expertly as Mr. Fotias does regarding the boycott!!!!!!!!! Needless to say, I was waiting and waiting, looking forward to
this important topic, but it never happened. Hmm? Until that is done, it is hard not to take your statements in No. 14 with a grain of salt, and is bordering on disingenuous. I have missed 2 shows I believe since the boycott, so perhaps he was on, and in that event, I stand corrected. It is not easy for a drunken degenerate gambler like me to get up that early every single Sunday morning, but I do my best.
TTT
28 Mar 2011 at 03:18 pm | #
Ted,
I believe the last time Cary was on was before the B. Cup.
However, there is a simple solution to the dilemma in which you seem to be caught. Trackfacts is a viewer driven program. Anyone, yourself included, is free to call and bring up whatever topic is on your mind.
So there you go. If you believe we are leading the world down a primrose path, the ball is in your court. Call, and put us to the test. Get out that TTT whip and pretend you’re Bob Baffert giving a slow horse a handy workout. Buckle on those spurs.
However, if you don’t call, then it’s on you.
28 Mar 2011 at 03:42 pm | #
Thank you for making the suggestion to whoever makes the decisions regarding getting a H.A.N.A. principal on your show. Looking forward to it, and rest assured I’ll be listening.
With respect to Bob Baffert, rather than working the factor in 109 flat prior to the Derby, perhaps he will listen to trainer Ted and run the factor in the Derby Trial for an easy win 1 week before, which will enhances his chances of winning the big one. I believe in vigorous preparation, just not so much in the morning Nick.
TTT
28 Mar 2011 at 04:07 pm | #
Total purses for the big 3 running on Wednesday:
Gulfstream: $294,000
Parx: $264,000
The Big A: $236,000 (bringing up the rear)
Philadelphia has virtually the same weather as New York (not warm weather). Perhaps this illustrates my point a little better.
TTT
28 Mar 2011 at 04:25 pm | #
Ted,
I think you illustrated my point.
According to the Equibase charts:
Sunday’s total Parx wagering handle was $672,000.
Sunday’s NYRA total: $5.7 million.
Can you say VLTs, without which Parx would be conducting goat races?
28 Mar 2011 at 04:50 pm | #
Nick, I’ve lost your point. My point was that there was plenty of horses around to fill races, as long as the purses were there, it was not due to a shortage of horse flesh. You pointed out that I left Aqueduct out, and I explained why, which point I stand behind. There is a correlation between low purses and short fields, when other places in the country are offering higher purses. Don’t make me have to say it. New York is an abomination compared to what it should be for the demographics; the greatest city in the world. Who cares whether it is VLT’s, great management, a donation from Mayor Blumberg. I don’t give a damn where the purse money comes from, that is the problem New York got themselves into. My point still stands. Low purse money, short fields. Low purse money, short fields. Let me also say, low purse money, short fields, and I would not wager on New York Racing at this point in time with your money; it stinks.
TTT
29 Mar 2011 at 05:16 am | #
Ted,
The point was: 1) whether there is too much racing, and 2) whether purse levels make for a more attractive product.
The answer to #1 is clear. There is too much racing.
As you so correctly point out, Aqueduct racing has been awful this winter, despite purse levels adequate for the low class events being carded. In addition, despite higher purse levels, Parx Racing’s product is awful as well, as clearly demonstrated by the fact no one is betting the product.
The answer to #2 is almost as clear. Despite higher purse levels per race and an average on Sunday of 1 horse per race more than Aqueduct, Parx was able to draw almost no betting handle. If they had run ant races on Sunday Parx would have drawn similar betting action.
If your theory is, “My point was that there was plenty of horses around to fill races,” then what happened at Santa Anita on Sunday? There were 67 horses in 9 races, and total available purse money was $404,000.
Now, I understand you’re boycotting SA, but horsemen aren’t. Hence, if your theory was correct, SA would have had more than 7.4 horses per race.
Do higher purses, in general, produce larger fields? Of course. Does that mean there are enough horses to populate the over-capacity of races around the nation? Not even close.
29 Mar 2011 at 07:39 am | #
Nick, those persons who want to live in denial, making believe that New York racing is a silk purse, when it has deteriorated into a sow’s ear, will get no further arguments from me. I have no desire to throw my pearls before swine any longer. I understand the biases of those financially entangled with the NYRA.
I will repeat that there can never be too much racing, whatever the market will bear.
The entities that are offering good products are thriving with full fields. NYRA is not one of them, and the purse levels have diminished to where it is an embarrasment.
Your rah rah New York patriotism is noble, but not in line with the facts, and apparently the trainers would rather race their “goats” as you put it for higher purses than they are offering in New York.
There is a shortage of horses, Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and the check is in the mail.
TTT
29 Mar 2011 at 08:55 am | #
Ted,
There are plenty of educational institutes offering on-line correspondence courses in remedial reading. Perhaps you should try one.
I said, “Should we run 250+ days a year in NY? Nope.”
I also said, “As you so correctly point out, Aqueduct racing has been awful this winter.”
How that translates into what you said, “Your rah rah New York patriotism is noble, but not in line with the facts,” is behind comprehension. Could it be you are actually the ghostwriter behind the posts allegedly from ‘wmcorrow?’
I’d also point out you neglected to respond to why your higher purse level theory isn’t working in California.
The North American foal crop was 44,000 in 1990. It is projected to be 27,000 this year. You can’t run races, much less quality races, without horses.
29 Mar 2011 at 09:49 am | #
Nick,
In response to your first paragraph: There are plenty of educational tools available to assist you in breaking away from your herd mentality. Perhaps you should try one.
In response to your second paragraph. The NYRA, if they had not allowed New York racing to be run into the ground, would have been perfectly capable of running 250 days per year, and despite the cold weather, meteorite showers, fire and brimstone, the trainers would not have taken their horses elsewhere. Same with California.
With respect to your 3rd paragraph. Your contradictory statements, as I said previously, leave me in a quandry. First in an attempt to contradict my figures for the southern tracks with large fields, you bring up Aqueduct and Santa Anita, then, you point out how great the off-track handle is for Aqueduct. Apparently, people love short fields. This does not make sense. Then, as a last resort, you agree with me that the racing in New York is awful. Which is it?
With respect to your 4th paragraph referencing “wmcorrow.” I immensely enjoy the postings of wmcorrow, and believe it is refreshing to hear somebody voicing their honest opinions; someone who has no financial entanglements with the NYRA or other entities paying their freight, and is free to speak his own mind. I thank you for the comparison. I realize you have an ongoing battle with wmcorrow, something that will not be the case with me (see pearls before swine above).
With respect to me not responding to “my theory” regarding California. I don’t have a theory, it is more like fact. I am not sure why they are struggling in California, although I could speculate, and will. First, California is effectively a separate country as far as I’m concerned; geographically and otherwise. I would opine that it is expensive to ship in (air), and ship out, and once stables make the decision to leave, they probably don’t come back. The roads are really not paved with gold. Also, the way Bob Baffert burns up the strip in the morning, trainers have to wait an inordinate amount of time until the track cools down. With respect to their overall purses, I cannot speak to that, as I have been honoring the boycott, but last I looked, their purses, like New York, have dwindled continuously, and probably have a great deal to do with the short fields.
With respect to your last paragraph where you state that the foal crop is down from 44,000 in 1990 to 27,000 this year. I say to you that their was an over abundance of horses at 44,000, and just like the housing market, or any other market, a natural correction has taken place. Again, there can never be too much racing, there are plenty of horses to go around. Offer a good product, and they will come.
In closing, allow me a short anecdote. On Friday night, I went to one of my favorite restaurants, and my date (there is a shortage of those I can assure you) immediately noticed that the place was empty, a place where you sometimes can’t get a table. She started saying something about the economy, and I quickly corrected her, telling her there was a shortage of people.....
TTT
statements, first trying to rebut my figures regarding tracks who are having no problems filling fields, then defending the NYRA, attributing the short fields to a horse shortage
I went to my favorite restaurant the other night, and
29 Mar 2011 at 10:09 am | #
Ted,
There is nothing contradictory in my comments. I never had any intention of defending NYRA. That was your incorrect interpretation.
What I had intention of doing is provide clear, concise details of why there is too much racing.
I will agree with you that there is a “herd mentality” on this subject. It’s obvious Thoroughbred racing can’t sustain the number of race dates currently in play, and most people involved in the game can see that.
Unless the size of the foal crop begins to increase, and some magic potion converts non-believers into horse players, it is only going to get worse unless corrected.
29 Mar 2011 at 10:58 am | #
Purses at the NYRA should be TWICE what they are, considering the demographics and interest in New York racing. Take a look at Woodbine, either they are doing something right, or we are doing something terribly wrong here in the black market state; and forget about the hogwash regarding “saving it for Saratoga.” Again, NYRA propaganda. If the purse levels were where they should be, trainers would be 3-deep at the entry box, year round, handle would DOUBLE, and they would have to add stalls in the starting gate. If you do not compete for whatever horses are available in the world, whatever number that is, they are not going to come to your establishment. Putting out propaganda and party-line buzz words such as “too much racing,” and “horse shortage” statements does not excuse them for what they have done to ruin racing in New York, and elsewhere. Bordering up grandstands and converting them to slot emporiums for old ladies to subsidize the game is all well and good, but I don’t believe that the rightful amount of funds will find its way into the purses, as I’m sure that the deals that continue to be made with these gambling entities, are not in favor of the tracks, as they continue to sell out, bargaining from a position of weakness, and horse racing becomes an afterthought.
TTT
30 Mar 2011 at 01:02 pm | #
TTT,
Few can match the entertainment value of your posts, and this thread is no exception. I suppose there can’t be enough racing if a) one uses a computer to automatically analyze PP data for every race being run at every active track, b) one is willing to wager without excitement when one is unable to watch, and c) one’s winnings make it all worthwhile, but how many such warriors walk among us?
One simple truth is that few of us get to miss racing anymore which would allow us to enthusiastically anticipate its return from some imposed hiatus. That’s what Saratoga brings to upstate NY fans despite the decline in the quality of its product. Similarly, the boycott is proving how easily I can do without Santa Anita and how much I’m looking forward to Hollywood for the first time in years—assuming the California horsemen take their blinkers off by then.
I’m curious as to whether you’ve actually braved the weather to attend cold-weather racing at its biting best. I did go to Liberty Bell once before moving to CA in the ‘70s, but the experience convinced me I’d be better off waiting for AQU to open the following spring.
It seems to me there’s a limit to the number of dollars available to churn annually, even in the best of economic times. Since maximizing it would require low takeout combined with competitive fields, would you consider the possibility that there is a finite number of attractive betting opportunities past which handle might fall short of the maximum?
26 May 2011 at 04:36 pm | #
Well, Cary. The comments seem to have gotten off track here a bit. Having lived in the Las Vegas area for decades, I watched slot machines go from the lowest money maker for casinos to the top money maker. Why? CHURN! I couldn’t agree with you more on this point. They dropped the takeout to 1 or 2 per cent. That’s not feasible with horse racing due to the overhead but 10 per cent for all bets would get players throwing money at them. And while we’re at it, drop the breakage to a nickel.