Settlements are the monies paid by host tracks to their simulcast partners following a day’s betting activity at a particular track or the proceeds that simulcast “guests” owe the host tracks. How does this system work, exactly? What integrity and transparency issues are involved?
Leave it to Fred Pope. Pope never ducks a good argument. The Lexington-based advertising executive should probably have his own vehicle for commentary, not that he’s allowed his ideas to exist in a vacuum all these years. You may not agree with him. But you need to listen to what he has to stay.
The following, then, is Pope’s take on the settlement issue that was exposed by HRI’s industry source Wednesday. Pope’s edited e-mail thoughts to me in response to yesterday’s insider guest commentary.
“Your piece on the Settlement issues provided a new perspective on just how upside down things are in the racing business.…
“.…The question is, if the problems of the off-track business keep becoming more apparent and dire, is there a real world solution? How can we solve it fast enough to save racing and the infrastructure in our major markets?
“…You understand the history of wagering. I got involved in the Upside Down, off-track revenue model in 1995 when I created the NTA, a major-league style structure in racing.
“At the time I called the simulcasting market a "buyers' market" and came up [with] a business plan to fund the NTA primarily by a 50/50 split of off-track wagering like the Breeders' Cup [put] in place.
“If we could have broken the "buyers' market" then, we wouldn't be facing these problems today.
“…. My solution to correct the IHA is by breaking the back of the ‘buyers' market,’ by establishing a national ‘price floor’ of 50% to the host event. That means tracks would trade evenly and other bet takers would be charged a fair amount over time.
“The federal government will not allow Thoroughbred racing to fix the off-track model itself. If host tracks, and/or horsemen, try to set a higher price for the host product, that is price-fixing.
“But the federal government can fix the problem for racing nationwide overnight. Just like the milk industry, where dairy farmers produce too much milk and buyers drive down the price below what it cost to produce milk, Congress put in a price floor on milk products.
“Milk price supports raise the price of milk to the consumer, but a price floor in racing would not change the consumers' price.
When the IHA was passed in 1978, we needed bricks and mortar OTB's to accept wagers and provide a dedicated facility to watch the races. But that distribution channel is history. Phone and internet bets have bypassed the protected facilities and cannibalized their customers while contributing hardly anything to the sport.
“We need a distribution system now where it doesn't matter where the bet is made, or how the bet is made, a fair amount goes to those producing the product.
“We cannot tell the producers of the product they must continue to distribute through outmoded bet taking operations simply because they did so last year. Apple should be allowed to sell its I-phone direct, not forced to sell it through Amazon because that's how phones were sold before.
“The technology is there…. our best situation is for the Host Track to accept wagers DIRECT. That means a provision in the federal law (IHA) to eliminate barriers at state level in every state that allows parimutuel wagering. Today, kickbacks called Source Market Fees are forced on the ADW's by each state… those would be eliminated by law, making the cost of bet-taking lower.
“…..To the settlement issue, the Host event can accept account wagers and pay back winners from the same pool; no middle men. The Host can contract with existing ADW's or establish its own. YouBet has said in the past they can make a profit with 5% of the wager.
“At the point that this would happen, a national body in racing could establish a state-of-the-art, national tote with one number to call.
“With $13 billion in national handle at an average takeout of 20%, there is $2.6 billion in revenue from wagers. About $1 billion in gross purses this year, including my estimate of $400 million from slots…. making the purses from handle only $600 million, at best. Deduct the $600 million in purses from the $2.6 billion and you get $2 billion for the tracks' share and BET-TAKING Expenses.
“Where that $2 billion ends up, who knows?
“In 1985, purses from handle, $600 million, were primarily on-track and there were no slots contributions.
“In 2008, purses from handle are [the same] $600 million. After 24 years of growth in handle from $7.5 billion in 1985 to more than $15 billion at peak, racehorse owners' purses are the same. [See Power Point presentation for illustration].
“I have now presented the problem to every organization in breeding and racing. No organization, or no individual wants to hear about the problem, nor are they going to do anything about it. (italics mine).
“Why? Because purse money is not their money. There is no [effective] national organization for racehorse owners. No one has their back. TOC in California can do nothing about a buyers' market.
“There's a lot of fear-mongering going on that we cannot risk correcting the IHA. They point to the exclusive racing has on internet wagering but they don't understand racing makes hardly anything from it. If we have $1 billion in internet handle and the hosts only get 3%, that means $30 million is going to tracks and purses and $170 million is going to bet takers.
“Each percentage point of $13 billion in handle is $130 million. If we can get the percent to purses up from 4% to 8%, we'll have $500 million in purses the first year, and probably a like amount to host tracks.
“The breeders just suffered a 50% drop in the yearling market yet have no appetite to fix the off-track model. They don't understand that $500 million in new purses would help keep their customers, the racehorse owners.
“…. More important than purses, a new off-track business model would give racetracks a new lease on life and racing a future. Tracks would have an incentive to put on a good show. Today the incentive [for many] is to bet on other track’s races.
“[We’ve] got to bring a silver-bullet solution [to the problem] and correcting the IHA is a rifle-shot.”
This e-mail included a slide presentation which Pope used when speaking before the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association. Those of you wishing to receive this graphic presentation, e-mail your request to . You will receive a copy at my very earliest convenience.
24 Sep 2009 at 12:04 pm | #
As usual, Mr. Pope’s thoughts are interesting to contemplate, but once again, his vision fails to include lowered takeout in order to increase handle. Why don’t his strategies for reform ever address the concerns of horseplayers as well as horsemen? It seems like such a tragic waste of exceptional talent to continually dismiss the interests of those who generate handle while he pursues a net increase in purses from the horsemen’s share of that handle.
I had to chuckle at the milk industry price floor analogy, because the vast majority of bettors are currently being milked by takeout that has risen from 10% in Seabiscuit’s day to more than 20% in the aggregate today at most venues.
Since the concept of lowering direct takeout appears to elude Mr. Pope, what will happen once the tracks are able to wrest control of off-track/on-line betting from ADWs, and each host track starts receiving a “fairer” share of the wagered dollar? Would he continue to support the relief afforded only the highest volume players by lowering the effective takeout they are subjected to through rebates; thereby allowing these select few a rate of return and opportunity for profit unattainable by the overwhelming majority of racing’s customers with smaller bankrolls? Or would he endorse abolishing the practice altogether, thereby sending even some prodigious handle-producing players to the sidelines?
Either lowering direct takeout or else providing EQUAL rebates for all bettors who request it (and thus be tracked for reporting to the IRS), are reasonable and equitable solutions that would prime the pump for all pari-mutuel pool participants, procure purse increases, and promote harmony in a polarized industry.
24 Sep 2009 at 12:39 pm | #
Generally I am encouraged when I wake up to one of Pope’s tirades, but this morning I have to agree. What he proposing is nothing new. A couple of years ago an individual presented an actual software demonstration of this same exact idea to us at the NHBPA convention in Tampa. I think it was called Virtual Tote. The premise of the patented technology was to allow all internet wagering to go directly from the player to the host track, eliminating the “middle men”. The idea was not to punish the ADW’s but rather commission them to handle their own customers. i.e. a brokerage fee. If I am not mistaken, the default feature of this process would also fix the track/OTB/ADW settlement issue. The presentation showed that besides making every wager an “on track” wager it would provide instant settlement between host and retail. I was in favor of this product and voted accordingly, others, obviously influenced by “outside relationships” decided it was too revolutionary. It is time for the revolution.
24 Sep 2009 at 02:12 pm | #
Per usual, two thoughtful responses and observations from the brain trust that is the HRI readership.
Indulto, you’re preaching to the choir re: takeout, as you know. But I can’t blame Pope for not raising the takeout issue in front of a TOBA audience. He must have reasoned, as I did, that that’s a story for another day.
Smiles, interesting stuff, indeed. But, of course, by “outside relationships” you mean “inside relationships” which in this context why racing and--with apologies to Gorden Gekko--"that other failing corporation called the United States of America,” is in trouble.
Thanks gents.
JRP
24 Sep 2009 at 02:23 pm | #
Indulto nails it. Without considering the customers needs in the solution mix racing will continue to slide.
The take out is a primary consideration,along with representation,and I do not mean more representation for horsemen,I mean representation for racings customers!
The more customers you allow to win,the more customers you will have. More customers will solve the biggest problems of racing.
24 Sep 2009 at 02:48 pm | #
Fallacy: there is no scoop here ! This virus has become an epidemic because the people that caused it mostly never understood pari mutual wagering. The regulators and the CFO’s do not understand pari mutual wagering. The ugliness of the situation arose during the war on rebating when two tracks violated the contracts between the tracks and the betting patrons. Neither racing commission acted on behalf of the bettors and nothing was ever done.
The winning ticket contract on track has been honored by all racing jurisdictions. But when the bets went off-track the tracks and racing commissions violated the contracts and allowed a bookmaker mentality. This has fueled the biggest threat for Federal intervention. The fact that small tracks in some cases are building fountains and buying water trucks with unpaid winnings which not in their purview,and is an egregious act perpetrated upon ADWs. The bigger scam may result from holding the BC at bankrupt racetracks which can welch on over a $100M in wagers to the betting public. What do the alphabets really do for this business???
24 Sep 2009 at 03:20 pm | #
The horsemen putting on the show should not allow their signal to sold untill they recieve at least 50% of each dollar bet. It would be a tough and costly fight but would save racing and it’s future. Horsemen need at least a good chance to break even. The increase in purses from a 50/50 split (if the numbers are correct above) would be in excess of all current slot revenue.
The process of putting on the racing show is far more expensive than housing video gaming products. The takout needs to be higher. Every person who sits down to play the slots has the same odds of winning. Those who play horse racing frequently with the knowelge of the game lower the takout themselves. Taking money from the casual players and those of us that play with our hearts. If you sat down to play poker with inexperienced players your odds of winning are much higher. If we expand the fan base by marketing our star horses and give owners a better shot handle will increase.The funds available for larger players increases. While I believe we need to cater to our top players I believe they would prefer more inexperienced players and more owners betting their horses. Top players taking money from inexperienced players should want the takeout as high as possible. Raise the takeout and rebate the top players!
24 Sep 2009 at 04:49 pm | #
If only those directly invested in the horse business would pay as much attention to Fred Pope as truly devout Catholics pay to theirs, our problems would be solved.
Gamblers can cry as loudly as they wish about high takeout, but they should recognize that the changes advocated by Fred Pope must be incremental. Get the money flowing to the right place, then push that entity to reduce takeout.
The gang opposed to rewriting the Act are the huge beneficiaries of the law as it stands. As Pope pointed out, even if racing lost it’s “monopoly”, the amount at risk from amendment is chump change.
Those now using their talents to bet on horses are not likely to switch to Tiddlywinks, even if the law allows it. So, we cannot be worse off.
Pope’s proposal is truly our last, best hope to save racing. Why can’t we mass behind him and tell our legislators? Just do it.
24 Sep 2009 at 06:31 pm | #
Again, and I don’t know if Pope is disingenuous or just willfully ignorant, but either way, if ADWs have less money to rebate, handle will plummet, more people will bet offshore, and racing’s bottom line will shrink and continue to shrink until there are 4 tracks and just zombies making wagers.
Pope’s ideas are here to appease short sited dim witted horse owners (not all horse owners fit this bill, just the ones who actually agree with Pope). Even most racing execs understand the consequences of giving less to the ADWs.
As for Workhouse, I hope your post was a joke. I can’t tell to be honest.
And no, if the tracks are given the responsibility to attract customers by lowering takeout themselves or giving rebates once this whacked out idea is implemented, forget about it.
There is nothing that tells me that tracks will not do exactly what Woodbine Entertainment/HPI does. And they are a train wreck when it comes to attracting new customers. The big Canadian money bets offshore. That is a fact.
Woodbine has chased away good customers big time.
24 Sep 2009 at 07:33 pm | #
As one of the short sited dim witted horse owner who agree with Pope I would like to say this is no joke.
3 % of betting dollars go to purse and 17% to the bet takers off track. Popes issues are with the tracks and the ATW’s. Not with the players. This split is outragous and needs to be changed.
As stated above by Cantgamble most large bettors are betting offshore or with outlets who do not have the expenses incurred to put on the show. So a majority of the large players are contributing little to nothing to the game itself.
We do need to cater to the large bettors by offering rebates and insentives. To get them to the tracks and to play into pools that distribute funds fairly to all the players who put their money down.
It appears as though the tracks would prefer to offer much less expensive types of gambling to attract zombie gamblers. They do very little to attract new people to horse racing to cater to our top patrons.
It is the dimm witted owners who with their love for the game who would with the right control cater to their top patrons and generate new customers.
If you cangamble takeout would not be an issue.
24 Sep 2009 at 07:39 pm | #
The best way to get rid of Pope, forever, is to put him in charge of the industry and let him take the whole kit’n kaboodle into the toilet with him. He conveniently overlooks the simple fact that the only thing that is keeping the industry out of the toilet now are the ADW’s. But, misery loves company so go ahead and do it to them: Put them in jeopardy of losing their investments. Watch them disappear. And, then write an Op-Ed about declining handle.
24 Sep 2009 at 08:00 pm | #
Worhouse, I thanks for confirming your status. Honestly, you really don’t understand the bettor at all. You don’t understand what will grow the game.
Not a clue.
Horse racing is funded by bettors. Take the bettors out of the equation and there is no horse racing. Bettors will still be able to bet on something else, but horsemen and race tracks will disappear.
In order to grow the game, you need new bettors. And racing is all about gambling. The only way to get new long term bettors is to make it attractive to bettors. The ONLY way that will happen is if there are winners, I mean real winners, not internet winners (which I’m sure you are and of course, you know many people who make serious money betting without a rebate LOL).
Winners set the bar so that others will become interested in being a winner. By lowering takeout or allowing for good rebates, players last longer, and they are more apt to expose friends, family, and coworkers to the game.
Racing is in competition for the bettor and every decision made by horsemen groups and racing execs should include the question: How will this move make so that more players will either win money or break even?
24 Sep 2009 at 08:30 pm | #
Mr. Pope’s opinions epitomize thoroughbred racing’s perspective: When times get tough the boys at the top sit around figuring out ways of charging the customer more money for less product.
In an age when the main concern should be finding ways to cost-effectively GIVE the customer more for his money they are simply concerned with finding more ways to TAKE.
The picture that comes to mind is jackals and hyenas looking down on an ever-dwindling herd of wildebeast. What happens when the heard is gone, boys?
24 Sep 2009 at 08:38 pm | #
Cangamble,
well said.The game is completely controled by horsemen for many years. Everything that has been proposed and implemented has been for the benefit of those who live by the take out. If they do not consider those who pay the take out they will slide downward.
The price of horses is too high.
The price of maintaining them is too high.
The take is too high.
Not enough customers.
That is what their record shows.
Time to consider the customer and basic economics ?
I Think so.
24 Sep 2009 at 08:47 pm | #
If the “gang” to which Mr. Redmond referred includes offshore ADWs and currently rebated “whales,” he may have come up with an accurate analogy. What Mr. Redmond fails to fathom is that playing horses with high takeout is like “playing Tiddlywinks with man-hole covers.” He is right, however, when he says that change must be incremental.
It will take a coalition of horsemen and horseplayers—with the goal of achieving benefits for the majority within both groups—that is needed to achieve the reforms that would revitalize racing. Various components of Mr. Pope’s collective work could make a workable starting point, but he needs to attract support from the horseplayers who still need or want relief from high takeout as well as horsemen seeking higher purses.
Mr. Fotias of HRI, among others, has advocated reducing direct takeout for all to match the effective takeout for whales; maintaining that more money in the pools creates more opportunity for bigger bettors. I agree with that position, but I also understand that horsemen and track operators—who fear that immediate handle gains from such a low level might initially be insufficient to support current net levels from their shares of takeout—are NOT being unreasonable. NOR are horseplayers who doubt that delaying a “push” for lower takeout for all would make that objective any more likely to be reached.
Therefore, some compromises are in order as to how much direct takeout can be lowered (or equal effective takeout established) at first – and also to what extent purses and/or events can be limited – until sufficient handle at a particular venue can sustain a contractually scheduled incremental increase in purse allocation and/or an incremental decrease in takeout until, eventually, optimal levels can be reached for all parties
Constructing such a schedule—and obtaining commitment to its implementation—will require men and women of conviction, courage, and common sense. It is my personal opinion that dim-wittedness applies to horseplayers and horsemen alike who go out of their way to antagonize each other rather than try to find common ground.
24 Sep 2009 at 08:51 pm | #
Wow, all these “fixes” without any thought whatsoever about the bettor--who provides the handle. Dave’s jackals and hyenas analogy is perfect. Where is the discussion about how to grow the wildebeast herd?
24 Sep 2009 at 09:24 pm | #
There is a simple fix for owners and breeders like myself.
It’s a three pronged attack at raising revenues for the people that put on the show.
1. Open up all off track distribution (ADW’s, internet, simulcast facilities, etc.) to anyone that wants it and pay them 5% for taking the bet.
2. Raise all takeout to a flat 30% on all bets.
3. Split the offtrack takeout 5% for bet taker, 10% for host track, 15% for horsemen.....on track takeout split 12.5% for track and 17.5% for horsemen.
If we can keep betting around the $12 billion mark, that means there will be close to $2 billion available for purses instead of the $600 million we currently have.
I know some people will say handle will decline but I beg to differ. We are already recovering from the horrendous economic downturn which will increase the already deflated handle. The opened up distribution will increase handle dramatically. So basically, new money will easily replace any lost money if there is any.
Barry Irwin said “While the takeout is onerous, it has never stopped a real gambler”. This reaffirms my thoughts that people will still bet on racing because that’s just the way the game works. Even if we are wrong, and handle dips down to 9 million in a worst possible case scenario, under this plan, that still gives us between $1.4 and $1.5 million for purses which is about 2.5 times more than we get now.
Imagine a worst case scenario where our purses are doubled or tripled without slots. If we can get a slot subsidy on top of this, we can have purses in the same range of Hong Kong which will obviously increase betting astronomically and that will raise purses to levels of which we can only dream of.
24 Sep 2009 at 10:23 pm | #
Indulto has it right - “a coalition of horsemen....” “men and women of conviction....” they do NOT exist. “Dimwitts” is a pretty accurate description of them in my opinion.
There is NO SUCH THING as men and women of conviction in the horse business. You can’t get these people to to a darn thing to save their own livelihoods.
If something does not change in the near future, we will have nothing left to talk about.
24 Sep 2009 at 10:45 pm | #
The Shieks, Jess Jackson, and other very rich would run their horses against each with or without betting. A true sport of kings. Believe me they don’t either of us (bettors,owners). In fact it would be easier for them not to compete with a guy who bought a yearling for $9,500. Not to have to spend 50 million to buy a stallion.
For this game to exist as we know it there needs to be; horses to run, a track to run on, a way to bet them, and bettors.
The cost of putting on the show of horse racing is much higher than most realize. The takeout needs to support the show.
Race horse owners are not all Kings. We support this game we love. A large portion of the money bet on racing every day is from the owners betting on their horse dispite the form. I believe that race horse owners understand the value and need for bettors. Most of us are players.
The casual fan and the weekend players that come out for entertainment should not have takeout reduced. Larger players should be given dicounts/rebates in relation to the amout they play.
Imagine what type of rebates would be possible if 17% of the otb takeout was not going to the “takers”.
It would be nice if all players were winners but someone has to lose.(20%)
24 Sep 2009 at 10:58 pm | #
Worhorse, owners of horses are taking risks, regardless of the purse, they are no different than bettors who are taking risks. The difference is that bettors can find a lower priced venue to gamble on and owners have a choice of owning horses. In both cases many have moved away from horse racing.
As for the cost to put on the event as a rationalization for high takeouts...I give that one huge wad of saliva.
If horse racing can’t compete for the gambler, it shouldn’t exist. Fact is though, it could compete for the gambler because a lower takeout will just mean that players will last longer and may get new players (families friends and co workers involved in their hobby), they may also devote all or most of their mad money to their hobby.
As for tracks getting the bigger slice of the pie, so that they can give a nice rebate to customers. Well, that doesn’t fool me one bit. As stated earlier Woodbine pretty much has a monopoly in Canada, and they treat their customers like imbeciles, and have driven the best potential clients out to gamble off shore.
Let me try to get you to think for a second. You obviously believe that higher takeout means more money for the industry. Well, that is hooey.
Average house edge on slots is around 10%. Why not 20% like horse racing. Wouldn’t they make more money at 20%? No, and they know it. They know that they have to give the player the illusion the game can be beat, or that they can comeback quickly, and they know if a player goes broke twice as fast, they are unlikely to come back.
So lets say a slots operator Makes a million on 10 million bet. Horsemen would figure if takeout was doubled they would surely make more than 1 million, after all 20% of 10 million is 2 million.
Problem is that they know that 10 million will be bet, they also know that 5 million won’t be bet.
25 Sep 2009 at 12:01 am | #
1 commissioner, 1 purse for each class and stake level, 1 central betting exchange, 1 test lab, 1 sales company, 1 central stewardship, 1 pension plan, 1 health plan, 1 prison - home - for retired racehorses, 1 day - friday - every open racetrack must schedule a late afternoon or evening program - race night in America, 1 television network. No ciminal record, no appeals, no duplicated posts, no date duplication inside a 50 mile radius, no breakage, no rebates, no carryovers, no sales outside the industry company, no state breeding programmes, no on site stewards, no scratches, no entries, no NTRA and no, NONE, AW’s ever again.
25 Sep 2009 at 12:03 am | #
So lets say a slots operator Makes a million on 10 million bet. Horsemen would figure if takeout was doubled they would surely make more than 1 million, after all 20% of 10 million is 2 million.
Problem is that they know that 10 million will be bet, they also know that 5 million won’t be bet.
***************************
I really screwed this up. The slot operators know that 10 million will not be bet, they also know that 5 million won’t be bet. They will not make more money and probably a lot less if they were to increase takeout on slots from 10% to 20%.
25 Sep 2009 at 12:19 am | #
Cangamble, I have thought about this issue for some time . In horse racing there are two losers, the horse owners and the gamblers. The trainers, vets , jockeys, ect all make their living from racing. The tracks and the ATE’s all make money. Pope’s proposal is for a larger share of the takeout to go to purses so owners have a chance of staying in the game longer. It appears as though we both are looking for a better chance to play longer. While I understand your comparision to slots it’s a different game (one you probably wouldn’t play).
Racing takes a large amount of money to produce it’s show. It has an entertainment value that draws me to gamble on horse racing (instead of zombie games). Gambling supports racing as we know it and maybe it will fail. You and I will find other places to play but I do not believe either will find a game we could be as passionate about. I gladly take the risk for the small chance reward because of the thrill.
We are both loosers. We both want different splits. Try looking at the splits from a horse owners perspctive. We do not recieve a fair split Our loss is far greater than 20%
Look at who’s making the money. Thats who Pope wants to go after. Not the bettor!
25 Sep 2009 at 12:35 am | #
Hey worhorse,
Suppose the thoroughbred horse sales decided to give a 15% discount to the top 1% of buyers ranked by purchase price? Would you go along with that? Because that’s what selective rebating is all about – subsidizing participants who would likely prevail anyway; and virtually eliminating their unsubsidized competition.
Do you really think you love the game more than weekend players earning a living in other industries less prone to customer abuse and neglect? Are you entitled to a larger return on your wagers just because you enter horses and blindly bet on them; especially if I’m guessing correctly that you may not be any more successful competing with other horsemen than casual players are competing against more knowledgeable, more dedicated, and better-financed bettors.
My intention is not to insult you, but to try and convince you that nobody in racing is entitled to special breaks. Each of us participates for whatever personal reasons motivate us, and most profitable owners and bettors do things to increase the likelihood they’ll get lucky. Still, “cheating” isn’t permitted and neither, in my opinion, should be perverting the pari-mutuel system.
25 Sep 2009 at 12:59 am | #
Indulto, My opinion is that if you buy 1 fauset for your home it should and does cost you more than if you are a builder and buy 100. And if you come to the farm to purchase the whole crop of babies you will get a better deal.
If you play alot in Vegas you get benifits. Whats the difference?
It may not be fair but its simple enconomics. Not be insulting
I meant no disrepect to the weekend players and rarley make to the track any day other than the weekends and I would not qualify for any rebates.I make my living in another industy, not in the horse bussiness. I’m workhorse for a reason You guested wrong.
25 Sep 2009 at 01:04 am | #
I like Fred’s position, but I also think it is high time that racetracks and horsemen told State governments to get off their backs by lowering their portion of the takeout to as little as possible. State’s offer nothing and suck the system dry.
Screw ‘em.
25 Sep 2009 at 01:55 am | #
Barry,
Do you know what the states takeout is on racing compared to slots?
25 Sep 2009 at 03:00 am | #
What a general load of B.S., both in the story and in the responses. (fancy some guy prattling on about Pari-Mutuel handle when he can’t even SPELL pari-mutuel handle)
The knuckleheads grumbing most about “take out” being too high are those fools who are so short-sighted that they can’t understand that THEY are the problems, and not the supposed “high” take-out.
When will you morons wake up and realize that you are effectively playing at the equivalent of a 4-person poker table at a major establishment, each betting big, giant, frisbee-sized chips when there are scores upon scores of random members of society waiting around, wishing to get into the game. These people aren’t allowed into the game because too often the “house” foolishly dotes all over you, at the expense not only of all others, but at the house’s own expense as well.
Logically, your best scenario would find a multitude of various human beings leaping into the wagering pools. (notice what has become of poker lately? - an age-old establishment just blossoming wonderfully because every Tom, Dick, and Harriet was encouraged and sincerely invited to play)
Instead, you dimwits betting the most are effectively cannibalizing your own money when you have to be 5% or more of your favorite pool because the house does nothing to inspire newcomers. In part because your actions discourage them.
The “milk” analogy is way off the mark too, for in racing, various tracks are like the age-old dairy farms which produced their own milk and sent it directly to the consumer via residential milk men. The whole ruse orchestrated by the government in those cases rendered a situation where the old dairy was forced to first SELL the milk TO the government only to buy it BACK FROM the government at a fixed price before it could hand deliver the same milk to the same customers it had known for 50 years!!! In effect, it CREATED a middle man where NONE had existed in the past!!! How G.D. stupid is that??????
Lastly, you idiots, the prices of horses, and the prices of maintaining them comprise an entirely unique speculative venue which basically does not intersect the betting on those horses at all. Get real - there is little or no reason why the price of a horse need necessarily be any higher than that of a ping-pong ball. If this were the USSR, do you think we’d have million dollar yearlings facing $4200 yearlings??
The government would probably own all of the horses and they’d just run, without all of this comical relief we call “horse owners”.
The economics of horse racing mirrors that of society all around you. You say you’re in a recession now? Well the government didn’t cause the recession, YOU DID!!! With your idiotic over-spending on things you couldn’t afford!!!
25 Sep 2009 at 10:26 am | #
A couple of facts, mentioned at this website by me several times already:
1. The vast majority of bettors, regular and casual, do not understand the pari-mutuel system; nor are they aware of the takeout rate on the wagers they make.
2. I seriously doubt that the management at the majority of racetracks now enjoying slot revenue or casino dole give a hoot about reducing takeout.
25 Sep 2009 at 12:35 pm | #
Horatio, the dumb money has left and has not been attracted back because of competition (lotteries and slots) and because there is no carrot, no publicized long term winners.
This is what gets people to play poker. There are publicized long term winners. And why are there winners? Because the house take can be overcome.
Even before the recession, during the growth stage of the economy, horse racing handle was stagnant while poker and Betfair was growing in leaps and bounds.
It is all about high takeout. And anyone who fails to realize it, is completely out of touch with reality.
Wmcorrow, I’ve already explained to you that I agree that most people don’t understand takeout, but they do realize how quickly they lose time after time. It obviously happens a lot quicker most of the time versus games like poker and betting football.
25 Sep 2009 at 12:43 pm | #
Workhorse, I’m not sure how much money the average owner loses. Is it 10%? 20%? Have there been studies done? I’m sure it is different depending on the region too. Owners probably lose a greater percentage collectively at Turfway Park than they do at Woodbine.
But the difference is that there have been many owners who are publicized winners in horse racing long term.
You can buy a horse for 10k and win the Kentucky Derby if you are really lucky, but you can also claim a horse for 10k and the horse might win 250k over 3 years too.
In horse racing, the only known long term winners are those who get substantial rebates. Of course, the industry isn’t going to publicize that. So as far as the general public goes, there is no carrot out there to attract a new bettor.
BTW, I owned horses from 1999 to 2004. I had one bad year, but I made money over that time frame.
As for my betting. I bet around 4 times as much when I get a substantial rebate.
26 Sep 2009 at 12:28 am | #
Cangamble:
Nice try, but poker has been around since the advent of playing cards (and probably before that, in one form or another). Are you trying to imply that the “takeout” on poker is any different today than it was 400 years ago?? or 40 years ago?
Poker is more popular today than it was 40 years ago because poker invites and encourages novices to participate. Racing, on the other hand, may as well be a “closed-set” situation where only the bigshots are encouraged to return every day while the newcomers leave the track after their first visit with the belief that “the insiders know everything”.
Those insiders are just too dense to understand that they themselves, and not the various venues in which they play, are central to the problems about which they complain.
That in the same way that horse owners are the very core of their own problems. Each time they bid on a horse the problem gets worse, and their misguided solution costs more!
26 Sep 2009 at 12:38 am | #
Horatio, you silly silly person. Poker has been around for a long time, but it was not accessible to the public through the internet until recently. Hold em poker was not discovered until recently too.
The fact that players living in their mom’s basements wound up becoming rich heroes caused many newbies to try the game, and because of the low takeout, they were able to learn the game rather cheaply. Again, they wouldn’t have even started playing unless they heard about winners first.
Definitely newbie horseplayers are intimidated by the time it takes to learn how to read a program let alone a racing form, but there is no reason for them to learn anything because there are no heroes (bettors who make money in the long run who do so without substantial rebates).
Try again Horatio.
And up until the internet age, to play poker it had to be sort of a fun Odd’s Couple type of game amongst friends, Vegas, or a usually seedy illegal poker house.
And Betfair, with their low takeouts is fairly new, and it has taken full advantage of the idea that players need to last in order to get hooked, and it isn’t horrible to rates so low that some people become good enough to actually make money in the long run.
26 Sep 2009 at 05:42 am | #
In the ideal world, all players would bet through some 1-800-Horsebetting phone number or via the internet at Horsebetting.com which would be run by all of the tracks. If you’d bet on a race at Arlington Park, that track would keep all the takeout; if you’d bet on a race at Calder, that track would keep all the takeout.
However, this is not a realistic scenario any more. Players bet at ADW’s, OTB’s, satellite tracks, sports bars, rebate shops, etc. Many state legislatures and horse-racing boards have created their own rules, restricting betting. Horsemen’s demands have made it virtually impossible to lower the takeout (many horsemen’s groups seem to think that the higher the takeout, the more money they’ll receive).
Not a single bettor cares who gets what part of a bonecrushing takeout. Yet handle is driven totally by bettors--not by owners, or trainers, or veterinarians.
As I see it, just about the only hope to get this game going is to implement betting exchanges. Anyone who’s seen the amounts wagered on Betfair on tracks like Philadelphia Park and Sacramento--without any participation by U.S. players--would instantly understand that the addition of betting exchanges to the menu would create a huge jump in handle. Sure, there are details to be worked out in how that money could be split (perhaps a 5% surcharge for winning bettors that would go directly to tracks and horsemen). But players have spoken, loudly, that they’d be happy to bet a lot more if the takeouts weren’t so usurious.
Is it really likely that horsemen would suddenly make a lot more money if only the ADW’s would disappear? With few exceptions, tracks have been highly resistant to offering even 2% in rebates to players, and at many tracks the rebate players account for 10%-15% of the handle--so what do you think the rebate players will do if the tracks won’t give them rebates (hint: nothing that will help horsemen).
As it stands now, the only thing propping up some of these tracks is slots money. And any day now, legislators are going to say, “Why are we propping up a dying industry when there’s not enough money for health care and schools?” And those hundreds of millions of dollars going to the racing industry are going to become zero.
If tracks start selling their signals for 10% in an effort to take money from the ADW’s, some ADW’s are going to disappear--and some players will, as well. And this is an industry that can’t afford to lose a single player.
27 Sep 2009 at 03:07 am | #
Barry...right on… betting exchanges will attract new big bettors. But the logic that takeout is preventing us from getting new customers is false! Otherwise, we wouldn’t be hurt by the lotto or slots and Retama Park’s 12% takeout double and Pick 3 pools would be huge. You realize the Lotto pays off at 1/3 to 1/2 what the odds should pay. On some scratchers a 1-in-40,000 proposition pays $800. That’s right $800.
The big rebate bettors hate the 10-cent super, but pools are almost double at 10-cent tracks...rivaling the trifecta pool (where they are 50% of the tri pools at $1 minimum tracks) We need all the little bettors and uneducated money we can get. We need the grandma betting 10 cents to win a million dollars. We need the ship come in mentality. Every one come, someone has to win....maybe it will be me. We need the young kids making the track a cheap date or day of entertainment where $20 to $50 can go a long way. Stop complaining that they are only here for the $1 beer or concert....otherwise the place is a morgue. If they never come the 1st time they are never coming back. Very few city folks have any connection with horses...we have to build that relationship.
For years every expert, simulcast host and handicapping book has told our new customers they are stupid to bet on the races unless they know how to read the DRF and have watched every race. Even if that is true it is a terrible marketing strategy. They believe us and would rather bet sports or got to Vegas and just plan on losing a planned amount. Guess what when you play real poker they don’t show you the other players’ cards. But watching poker on TV you’d think you can play with the pros. The hole-card camera made it all possible. I know the name of the top poker players in the world, yet have worked at the track 25 plus years and could tell you who any of the best handicappers are at my track or any other track. Shame on us. Handicappers should be superstars...not degenerates.
We need progressive jackpot bets linked nationwide that grows hourly (tracks and states working with each other—unlikely). This bet would have to have Lotto type odds, Super Hi-fives & Pick 6 don’t cut it. A pick all 12-horses in order with Keno type payouts has 424,000,000-to-1 odds. Yes, it is unhittable, but if the bettor gets money back for various number of right placings it can build to a level where it will draw nationwide attention. The V7 in Sweden routinely hits over 10 million a week and is their national lotto.
To keep new bettors we need to start by making it easier to understand and get information. Equibase should not charge for every piece of information...it was suppose to be owned by the industry to benefit the tracks. Charging for the information that is necessary to wager is counterproductive. Look at Hong Kong...every gate workout is videotaped and available free on the internet, plus information on every workout, video race replays, stats are all free.
We have a good product but have failed to promote it properly.
27 Sep 2009 at 03:17 am | #
Craig, you have a point about 10 cent supers being equal to lottery tickets, but that isn’t going to do the trick to get betting growth.
Otherwise, we wouldn’t be hurt by the lotto or slots and Retama Park’s 12% takeout double and Pick 3 pools would be huge. You realize the Lotto pays off at 1/3 to 1/2 what the odds should pay. On some scratchers a 1-in-40,000 proposition pays $800. That’s right $800.
***************************************
Most players do not understand and/or care about takeout. They care about how long they last. Someone blowing $10 or $20 a week on lotteries is not what the industry needs. And slot players are not horseplayers and they aren’t even potentially horseplayers.
What is needed is a viable way for players to be able to at least sniff long term mastery over the game.
Handicappers at tracks can’t be heroes because they aren’t getting much of a rebate if they are at the track, and therefore, it is doubtful they do very well long term no matter how much they know.
Pricing needs to go down, plain and simple.
27 Sep 2009 at 07:44 am | #
cangamble:
How many luxury suites are there in each hotel in Vegas? They know they need the little guy and even the Wynne has penny slots, whose max play is higher than the 25-cent slots. McDonalds owns more prime real estate in the world than any company other than the church and they service the masses. While life span of a luxury restaurant is what maybe at most 3 years. We need the small bettor and small owners. When the sheik has a horse in a race...not a single extra person goes through the turnstyle.
As far as takeout...the 5% head to head wager at the breeders’ cup could only muster about $35,000 a race. And the odd/even bet which would keep you in the game a long time received horrible reviews at Churchill.
I think the best model out there with the lowest takeout is the betting exchange. It offers wagers that are acceptable to the current betting public
27 Sep 2009 at 11:53 am | #
Not too many players or potential players are attracted by things like head to head bets or odd even bets. They want to make a score, but in order to get them there first, there has to be a carrot, and that carrot has to be the chance that one can beat the game in the long run.
Sure the small bettors are needed, because they are the potential big bettors down the road, and everyone has the potential to bring friends, family, and coworkers to the game to expose them to horse racing, and some of those people will become tomorrow’s gamblers. The problem is that unless players last, this is just not going to happen, and we see it right now. All horse racing is doing is losing horseplayers to either death or other forms of gambling, because back in the 60’s,70’s and part of the 80’s, players lasted longer, and that is when many of today’s players were first introduced to the game.
27 Sep 2009 at 08:02 pm | #
What ever you guys do, do not reduce takeout. Just keep fighting over the ever diminishing scraps.
28 Sep 2009 at 07:05 am | #
Cangamble:
Your statements are filled with holes:
Firstly, Hold’em poker was not “discovered"… it was not a fossil embedded in a rock in the Swiss Alps.
Secondly, horse racing is as much available on the internet to anyone living in his mom’s basement as is poker. Not only that, but wagering on horse racing is legal in more areas than is poker, thanks to the wire act.
You forget conveniently that “takeout” doesn’t mean a damn thing to newbies who never cash, so lets drop “takeout” from the list of anything that really matters in terms of the difference between racing in the 2000’s and racing in the 1970’s.
Indeed you do have one small concept correct in your listed thoughts, and it relates to “players needing to last”. Racing does absolutely zilch to help newcomers last, and therein lies the problem as to why there is such a tiny group of people from which racing will draw the next generations of new fans.
That, has been my point all along.
“takeout” means absolutely nothing to those who lose 100% every day.
Those grumbling most about “takeout” would be the people who are attempting to skim ‘a little off the top’ for themselves from the small-seeming pools that we have today, instead of realizing that larger pool sizes (brought forth from doing more for newcomers so they can “last") would be of much greater importance to all involved.
Stop being so selfish.
(selfishness is one thing, but when your selfish ideals wouldn’t even get you very far, you really look absurd)
28 Sep 2009 at 12:57 pm | #
Horatio, I feel like I’m debating a numbskull, and I’m being kind. Hold Em Poker took off in recent history though it had been invented for a while. It was invented in the 60’s, and was unpopular until the beginning of this century. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the subject. Lower takeouts, players could last. Even slots has a takeout of around 10%, giving the dough heads who play slots a bigger bang for the buck.
As for someone losing 100% of their money, that is just a ridiculous statement. Sure, even I can go scoreless on a card, in fact, I can still do it two consecutive cards, but over any long haul it all about takeout. The lower the takeout, the more they cash, and the more they last.
Lowering takeout does little for me at this time, because I get a nice rebate on most of my action. Lower the takeout and the rebate will be smaller but the net takeout I’m betting against will remain the same.
No, I’m talking about lowering the takeout for everyone, so that more players can get hooked for the reasons your dumb as a brick head refuse to accept, but those who have read my comments and have an ounce of intelligence understand.
Horse racing is available to just about everyone on the internet, yeah you got that right. Congrats.
But look at it. Growth even during economic boons have been stagnant. What does that say? It says I’m right. There is no carrot to get new players interested in playing, because people just can’t overcome the high takeouts over the long run, so there is nothing to strive for.
Lottery tickets, we’ve seen actual winners though the odds of becoming one are astronomical, it is the fact of winners that gets people to play the lottery. No thinking and a few bucks a week, and you have a chance to be a millionaire.
Horse racing is a grind, that takes quite some time to get the hang of when it comes to handicapping. Why would a newbie want to invest that time when there are no non rebated winners (and the industry stays away from advertising rebated winners for obvious reasons)?
Back in the 70’s, there was little competition in gambling. Lotteries were just getting rolled out, you had to go to the track to play, but many people left with money in their pockets because there wasn’t that many exotics and collective takeout was lower. Because of the lack of competition, handicappers had a chance of winning thanks to the dummy money in the pool. Today it is those with a racing form pitted against those with a computer program, yet collective takeout has risen.
Horatio, it is reality deniers like you that have broken this fine game. Try thinking for a change.
28 Sep 2009 at 03:47 pm | #
I can tell you the first time I played off shore and received a rebate, it was like night and day. All of a sudden, my small bankroll seemed to last longer.
No other business treats it’s customers with such contempt, than that of horseracing. It is really actually quite sickening. Horsemen and people within the industry need to give their collective heads a shake, and understand who puts food on their tables.
28 Sep 2009 at 05:02 pm | #
I wonder why the off-shore companies have money for rebates? Oh that’s right, they don’t pay anything to put on the show and have a built in advantage of the large takeout which they don’t pay to the track, government or owners/breeders. Way to support the industry. Why don’t you genius’ just bet with each other with no take out? Heads up. Yep, you need other people. Lower the take out and your rebates would be reduced. Your rebates are money that should be going to support the industry that you supposedly love. The betting exchange is probably the best answer for both the track and big bettors. Maybe we should go back to just win, place and show wagering only? Did they lower the take out to make Poker more popular? They just marketed it better. By the way the mud you are standing in, is actually hot tar Mr. Dinosaur. Hooray, for the good old days.
If we want the industry to survive we need to work together, which is highly unlikely because the little tracks, which fought hardest against simulcasting have become independent from money wagered on the big tracks and slots.
The problem is way bigger than just lowering the takeout so you horse pays $21 instead of $20. A better first step would be to get rid of breakage, which turns a $2.39 payoff into $2.20.
We need a new business model, which includes much better treatment of all the customers, new and old, owners and bettors. And yes the bettor seems to get the least respect and it shows in continuing declines in attendance. And yes it should probably involve a reduction in takeout, but it is silly to suggest that just lowering the takeout would make any impression in attendance without an industrywide change in the culture of the way we market the sport and treat the employees and customers.
28 Sep 2009 at 05:11 pm | #
Craig, the bettor doesn’t owe the industry a thing. The industry think they deserve charity (maybe because they get so much from slots), but bettors rightfully don’t give a crap if racing execs and owners are making a living. When you shop around for a large ticket item or even a quart of milk, do you care if you are supporting the milk industry or the store you buy the milk or car from? I doubt it.
The fact that even during a time where online poker has been virtually barred by the USA eliminating a lot of competition to horse racing, horse race has been stagnant to dying at a time where handle at Betfair, online poker, sports betting, etc. has been increasing in leaps and bound world wide.
The reason poker marketing and Betfair marketing works is because there are actual winners long term who can make a living beating the lower takeout. And the others who chase the carrot and still lose realize they are at least lasting long and that they might be just lacking a little education and luck from becoming an actual winner.
You need winners to get people excited about horse racing. That is the starting point to get people in the stands or betting on the internet. If you don’t have that, you might as well market snow to Eskimos.
28 Sep 2009 at 05:32 pm | #
So we agree that a betting exchange is the most logical answer at this time.
28 Sep 2009 at 05:37 pm | #
Craig, a betting exchange run by the North American tracks would be an excellent idea, as long as the take is comparable to that of Betfairs.
A takeout reduction across the board as needs to be stressed, though it seems unrealistic that tracks and horsemen from many jurisdictions can get together and do this.
28 Sep 2009 at 05:54 pm | #
Isn’t that is what we are all hoping for with Betfair buying TVG?
28 Sep 2009 at 09:56 pm | #
Cangamble,
You are obviously some combination of a moron and an internet troll.
First Hold’em was “discovered” (in Columbus-like fashion) and now it was “invented”. Pick a story and stick to it, even when that story reflects your consistently short-sighted misunderstanding of the world close around you.
Let me guess, you wrote the Wikipedia piece on the subject of Hold’em, right? (so you’re referencing yourself while stealthfully passing that off as having anything to do with factual reality)
YOU are one of the many brain-dead incompetents who just don’t get it. How G** D*** many times do you think the typical brand new racing fan comes to the track before he loses interest because nobody helps him? There is no “long haul” for new racing people.
YOU are either too selfish, or too stupid to see the facts for what the actually are (note: Wikipedia is written by other morons like yourself).
New people come to the track once, with a work group, or with some random connection between the track and real society. Then, nobody helps them to learn anything, and they lose far more of their money than they had budgeted, and they go home never to reappear at another race track. Now how in the f*** do you think lowering the takeout was going to impact their day???
You need to stop being so selfish, and stop disguising your own best interest as being of any interest at all to others. It is your own short-sightedness which just cannot see that to actually do something for new fans from the first moment is the shortest path to increasing the fan base as a whole so that the dimwits upstairs will stop crowing about altering takeout numbers which have been basically constant for entire lifetimes.
You are too dense to understand that the most prominent and most obvious answers for improving business at race tracks are centered around taking advantage of the unique-to-all-others form of wagering, and of racing’s higher-than-all-others status relating to the wire act. You might as well stay in the back room with the other bluehairs just sitting around waiting to tap-out for the last time.
Cangamble, racing needs to play to its strengths, and not to its weaknesses. Clearly you are one of the latter.
Thanks for sharing your idiocy over and over again here.
28 Sep 2009 at 10:17 pm | #
When people do not listen to one another, the dialog often declines to insults. It accomplishes nothing.
Why don`t all parties declare victory and retire?
28 Sep 2009 at 11:32 pm | #
Horatio, your insults don’t matter to me, since they are coming from you. You haven’t understood a word I’ve posted. That isn’t my problem, it is yours, and if you represent the industry in any way shape or form, I’m not surprised either, because the game has been dying thanks to the industry not having a clue about the customer.
My only selfish interest here is that I want the game to grow, I want the bottom line to increase so that horsemen have better purses and players have a chance to win. This will only happen if we get more players, and that will only happen if takeout is reduced.
There is no long haul for new players because there is no need for them to learn how to inevitably have no chance to win any ways. It is stupid for them to invest any time to try to learn the ropes whether it is made easy for them or not.
Yes, it is sad that the only newbies that see the track these days are those out for a corporate event. It used to be friends, family and casual coworkers who used to go with someone who was hooked who at least thought he or she had a chance to beat the game in the long run. The good ole days.
Racing has to realize that they are a gambling game. And if you are saying that is a weakness of theirs (and I agree), they need to fix that weakness.
29 Sep 2009 at 12:25 am | #
I know for a fact Woodbine employ a roving team of support staff to help “newbies” at the track place their wagers, I know because I’ve been approached by them numerous times. Has that done anything to help their pathetic handle? Nope.
Churn, churn, churn. It is the only thing that will save horse racing now, not even slots can do that. The general public view slots as a bailout to a dying, pathetic industry. And we all know what the public’s views of bailouts are these days.
So, keep takeout stagnant, or better yet even increase them, it will be your own demise. I’m a gambler, I’ll bet on other things. What are you going to do, train gophers? Own show hogs?
29 Sep 2009 at 04:28 am | #
Horatio,
I second all you have written.
29 Sep 2009 at 12:40 pm | #
Gentlemen,
As most people familiar with this site know, I am a great believer that the price of the product must be lowered for the game to survive: Taking care of the customers you have. But no matter what I think about the subject, it is off message here.
Please, if you are interested, tell me as to how racing might improve its simulcast presentation to its customers.
Thank you all very much for your thoughts.
JRP
30 Sep 2009 at 06:51 pm | #
Cangamble, people like you should probably stick to the little league that is Canadian racing. Clearly you just don’t know what you’re talking about nor do you have any clue what would work in big league racing.
So why not head on back to the home of the Queen’s Plate (or the Canadian-bred, non-winners-of-2, if you can’t tell the difference) and let real people discuss the complexities that actually matter and relate to horse racing on a major circuit.
Most of the “words you’ve posted” either do not make sense or are not applicable whatsoever to horse racing of a significant nature.
With lesser-thans such as yourself continuing to spout your idiocy, the game of horse racing (even in little league status, such as that which you follow) simply cannot and will not “grow” (as you imply you would like) because the numbskulls quite clearly will not get out of their own way.
That makes you a walking, talking, oxymoron, who is no more significant than the next internet troll (another definition into which you clearly fit, based on your brainless expressions at this and every other racing blog you can get your browser on).
Finally, this is in no way “my problem”, for you are the only one here who constantly crows about the take-out. Obviously nobody who is active in horse racing pools really cares about take-out, as at its core, mutuel take-out on American horse racing has been quite steady since the 1970’s.
Furthermore, anyone cognizant of the WPS take-out of roughly 16% being too high in the 1970’s, now has many, many more multi-race options on which the effective take-out is much, much lower.
Why can’t you get it through your head that the take-out is much less significant today than it was in the 1970’s?
Cangamble, why don’t you make it your next mission to try to find a thoroughbred track in Quebec? Maybe that is one significant difference between life in your minor-league world today vs. what you knew in the 1970’s.
And stay out of the major leagues, Cangamble, for obviously the big show is no place for neophytes.
30 Sep 2009 at 07:02 pm | #
Horatio, you and those who “think” like you is why racing is dying in the information age when it should be the rage.
Honestly though, I feel like I’m replying to a child with his head in the sand.
I hope racing doesn’t keep following your pathetic mindset. I hope racing grows despite characters like you who haven’t a clue.
01 Oct 2009 at 12:15 am | #
I have sat back and read all the comments for the last few days very interested in what is being said. I did not want to insult anyone or discourage fans and players from voicing there concerns. It appears as though the opinions shared here are very indicative of the racing industry as whole. Most opinions have been self centered and not looking at what would be best for the sport of horse racing. Most of the racing industry follows the same principles of this me first mentality.
A Commissioner of racing would be a good start.
Racing will exist without small owners, small breeders and yes without gamblers. Rich men will bred and run their horses against each other as has been done for hundreds of years. They don’t need us except to bow down in awe of their accomplishments. A true sport of KINGS. They would prefer not to have the embarrassment of being beaten by the small guy with his $10,000 horse.
Is this the game we want?
Racing is a heart pounding, emotionally addictive game. Men spend Billions of dollars to breed, raise, and race their horses. Hundreds of thousands of men and women wake every morning to care for these magnificent animals. Race horses get physical exercise, bathed, and walked 7 days a week. They are feed 3 times a day 365 days a year.
The “Horses” are and will always be the stars of the show. None of us would be here without them.
Without the gambler the every day racing across the country would not exist. This minor league of racing supports many small business men. It gives them the chance to compete and the hope of raising/racing a horse to beat or be bought by the Kings. Intelligent gamblers get to play into large pools filled with funds from owners playing on hope, Grandma playing numbers, and colors, etc.
Frequent players should be courted.
However if large player plays with “takers” who do not pay for the product they are “stealing”. They are “stealing” a product that people pay expenses every day to produce.
We need to support this game and the people who put on the show and supply us with horses and the races to play
The gamblers love this game as much as most of us. They will not find any other betting venue that rewards them the way horse racing does and will suffer as much heart break as any of us if this game fails.
Racing needs to market itself as the sport that it is. A Monday night football game had over 100,000 fans most of who spent more money on tickets and food than a fan would spend for a day at the race track. How many people show up to watch NASCAR every weekend? A day at the race track is a day of entertainment. Come spend some money and have fun. Maybe you can go home with more than you came. To market racing as come get rich or you will make money here is false promises. Give customers easier options, a bet with pro ticket and other no effort plays. Take away the intimidation and felling that the insiders know it all. Make the day enjoyable but with an expected cost. Give them more horses to pet, horses shows between races,etc. More entertainment, more excitment, more awe!
Something they will not forget and something they will want to bring friends and family back to see.
01 Oct 2009 at 12:52 pm | #
“Obviously nobody who is active in horse racing pools really cares about take-out, as at its core, mutuel take-out on American horse racing has been quite steady since the 1970’s. “
Did I just read that?
01 Oct 2009 at 01:02 pm | #
Bullring, Horatio’s entire comment can be found here in an appropriate named thread:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62157
Worhorse, horses are the stars in equestrian events too. They train all year round and eat all year round too. The idea that people will be attracted by horses and then will fall in love with betting on horses has been tried now since horse racing began.
It doesn’t work. It is all about betting, and the idea that there is a possibility to beat the game.
At today’s current takeout rates that is an impossibility.
And why should only the big players get rebates, when the idea here is to try to attract as many new players to the game?
01 Oct 2009 at 02:36 pm | #
Cangamble, “Fans” not players make up most of the millons bet on Derby day and on the Breeders Cup.
There are only a few who are good enough to win at this game and the takeout has nothing to do with their talent. My grandfather once told me “ It’s not the tracks fault, if you had the winning ticket they’d give you the money”
This game is and never has been “all about betting”. It’s only about betting to you and other gamlers who would like to pretend your the “Kings”. “Your Not” Your self serving opinion has been repeated over and over. If you only look out your own window the veiw will never change.
Simple economics. Buy more get a better price.
We need to attract new “fans”.
01 Oct 2009 at 02:48 pm | #
There are only a few who are good enough to win at this game and the takeout has nothing to do with their talent.
*********************************
Obviously, you just really don’t get it at all. Takeout has everything to do with whether someone wins or not long term. You need to take a Math 101 course.
“Fans” not players make up most of the millons bet on Derby day and on the Breeders Cup.
************************
The bulk of the money bet on those days are from gamblers attracted to the big pools. “New” players aren’t created from those days. Sure, you get some newbies show up at the track on those days, but those days are just days when every established horseplayer just makes sure they don’t pass that day and also bet more than they usually do.
This game is and never has been “all about betting”.
************************
It is now that competition has come about. In order to grow, racing must adopt a new philosophy. It is all about betting if you want growth.
Fans turned into horseplayers a long time ago when there were winners at the track that they heard about. Higher takeouts today coupled with dumb money going elsewhere, have made this nearly impossible outside of those who get rebates.
Simple economics. Buy more get a better price.
*********************
This isn’t going to grow the game or attract new customers.
Your self serving opinion has been repeated over and over.
***************************
Self serving? I want more horseplayers, more fans converted to become horseplayers. I just know how to do it. You haven’t got a clue.
01 Oct 2009 at 03:39 pm | #
Dubia, world cup 6 million dollar purse, multi million new race track, “No Betting”
Sorry you can’t see past the nose on your face.
Wake up!
01 Oct 2009 at 03:44 pm | #
How does people who don’t bet in Dubai help the industry grow?
How has the Breeders Cup, the Kentucky Derby, Rachel Alexandra helped in the last 6 years?
Geez, you even got the government to ban internet betting except horse racing. And also experienced a huge economic boom until the rug was recently pulled out, yet handle remained stagnant.
Buy a clue.
01 Oct 2009 at 03:56 pm | #
Insulting people who have a different or better opinoin is your weakness. You have tried for days to convince us your opinion is best. You have lost! Move on!
Almost all of us in racing realize the benifits of 6 million dollar purse.
01 Oct 2009 at 04:20 pm | #
My own experience and I know many other people who like and bet on the races is I was introduced to the sport by attending a major race with my family. Then by watching Gil Stratton every Saturday with them putting the blanket of flowers on the winning horse. It wasn’t that I heard someone is making a living betting on the horses. Sure we all made bets and won some, but I like the sport. I like betting against other people, making my own selections and determining when and if the horse has been managed properly. I’m the boss. Much the same as in golf...you win or lose because of your own ability. You make your own odds and only bet when you have an advantage and that includes the takeout. Obviously with a lower take you you advantage would be greater and you’d have more plays.
But takeout and hearing about winning players is nonsense about creating new players. Name one winning horse player from any era that anyone knows about...living or dead that would make someone become a horse player.
01 Oct 2009 at 04:23 pm | #
Two things here! One: Like it or not, a huge percentage of players are now Stay At homers. Thye will either wager thru the internet or their local betting service (otb’s tracks, etc. Two: As stated in an earlier post, the ADW’s are in many ways the life bolld of the industry now. As such, combime these two facts and you have the majority of the handle. As to the horemen’s purses. When all of this started years ago, there was for whatever reason an arbitrary rate of roughly 3% set for guest racks, etc. As i have stated in past posts, this is where the Guest associations are wrong in their crying. It’s insane to think for one moment that the rate should not be around 8% as a previous poster mentioned. However, as I have been yelling for years, the tracks have to ask for it in increments, not all at once to give the guests, especially tracks and otb’s a chance to incorporate the change (for want of better words). As stated earlier, this is and has to be a two way street. It’s fixable. The industry, all of it, together have to address irt.
01 Oct 2009 at 04:40 pm | #
Worhouse, beating yourself on the chest and saying I’m wrong doesn’t make me wrong.. You make no sense to me, in fact, the industry has been paralleling your mindset for years, and I have news for you, it is in serious trouble.
Craig, again, the game is broken, and I have a pulse on the horseplayer and I am offering solutions while dealing with reality.
The old days are gone. The new people being introduced to the track thanks to Rachel, the Breeders, Dubai, the Derby aren’t sticking around anymore no matter how much the horsemen and execs want them to.
As for winners in the 70’s. How many players do you think came about thanks to books like My $50,000 year at the races, or Winning at the races.
Back then those books contained truths and the game was beatable for reasons I mentioned.
If someone wrote a book today How To beat The Races and they weren’t getting a nice rebate or betting on an exchange, they’d be lying.
01 Oct 2009 at 05:02 pm | #
Ruler of Dubai, creator of the Dubai World Cup Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, with his stable of Darley and Godolphin studs, whose inflated worth only exists because of the wagering dollar.
Can you see how it always comes back to the horseplayer?
01 Oct 2009 at 05:25 pm | #
Congamble, final something we agree upon. The racing industry is in trouble. Changes are needed. (I’ve made a few above)
Our opinion of what we need to fix it is far different. Your “fix me and it fixes all” will not save this game. Gamblers who support this game need to have a voice, but they must realize there are many more players who contribute to the game and also have a voice.
With your policies in place you will betting horses “made in china” and I’m not sure if you even care.
01 Oct 2009 at 05:35 pm | #
Bullring,
Shiek Mo worth exist because of our need for his oil!
He spends much more than he makes on horses.
01 Oct 2009 at 05:43 pm | #
I’m speaking about the worth of his stallions.
01 Oct 2009 at 06:01 pm | #
His stud fees and the deals he makes to support breeders are some of the best in the industry.
I heard he paid 50 million for Medaglia D’ Oro
He is putting money in not taking horseplayers money out
01 Oct 2009 at 09:01 pm | #
cangamble:
I thought of those books right after I posted. And the pace calculator. There are many things that need to change...what needs to be done first...and the method to get it done is the problem. A central governing body with new ideas would be great, but that not is not happening anytime soon.
Anybody my wife meets, and she travels around the world, when they hear I work at the race track they all say how much the like the races. They just don’t go. Seriously, takeout has nothing to do with them going or not going.
01 Oct 2009 at 09:17 pm | #
Craig, if people didn’t love to go to the track, the stands would be empty. And most people don’t give a rats behind about takeout on the surface.
But the reason they don’t go much and the reason is due to takeout. They know they are going for fun, and no matter how much they tried, they couldn’t last very long, and they last less and less the past couple of decades especially. It goes back to my slots analogy. There is a reason the sheep come back over and over again, and that is because the house take is 10%. They last long enough to get bang for their buck, and slot players are the least likely to understand takeout.
The first book I ever ordered in my life was during university. It was Winning at the Races. Back then it was possible. I knew of people who were making a living betting horses back then.
But the dummy money has left. The handicapping playing field have leveled off considerably, yet takeout has risen from a collective 17% to 21% today. And there is no one I know who beats the horses without a nice rebate or on a betting exchange.
02 Oct 2009 at 04:03 am | #
Anybody my wife meets, and she travels around the world, when they hear I work at the race track they all say how much the like the races. They just don’t go. Seriously, takeout has nothing to do with them going or not going.
LOL
I have quite the opposite situation. I have given up telling people I even follow horse racing. I’m sick and tired of the lectures I get about doped up horses, fixed races and animal cruelty.
Really, most people who are in the industry live in a bubble, they have no idea the general public’s view on horse racing.
Here’s a hint, it aint pretty.
02 Oct 2009 at 12:38 pm | #
Cangamble, you remain an obvious moron.
For the only piece of evidence needed to support the obvious, that takeout in horse racing simply does not matter, is the fact that it has been just about static in the U.S. since the 1970’s and before.
Maybe you can’t get your pea brain around the fact that it is only in your backwoods country racing up there that the house decided to arbitrarily add two to five percent onto the top of the takeout on real racing. That is sort of what you can expect to get when you play only little league ball.
Trying to blame the decline of racing since the 1970’s on “takeout” and on lotteries and the like is entirely absurd when you consider that the “takeout” ON those lotteries approaches 50%.
Now it is entirely evident on either side that nobody cares about takeout.
Beyond that, the reason you just don’t know any winners is because you remain in your home or office 24/7 waiting to spout your next paragraph of idiocy in response to internet blogs.
Somebody as worldly as you, in such a backwoods country as yours, should be up there with those HPI folks and the WEG trying to address the reason why they added the 2 to 5% “takeout” onto real racing.
When you can get them to eliminate that per your “Canadian logic” then you have earned the right to come and play with the big boys.
Until then, your idiocy and poor sense of priorities are showing.
02 Oct 2009 at 01:03 pm | #
Horatio, I’m making you famous:
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-time-scratches-and-changes-now.html
It is obvious that you have been kicked in the head by a horse more than once, and you are just showing everyone here that you are still capable of forming sentences and able to understand enough to post messages on the internet.
As for takeout rates and nobody caring. Explain that to the gamblers who have stopped playing and especially those who play offshore or on exchanges. And explain that in the internet age, horse race gambling’s growth remains stagnant, even though we see slight inflation and a higher population each year.
As for your claim that takeout rates have remained the same. In the 70’s there were hardly any triactors (which have higher rates), and no supers. Much of the money that was bet by the public was win place and show (and those rates have increased by maybe a percent since the 70’s on average). But with tris and supers everywhere today, the collective takeout rate that is lost by horseplayers is greater by at least 3 points on average than in the 70’s.
Plus bettors aren’t just enticed by 8 or 9 races a day. Many play much more than that, which turns horse racing more into blackjack. But blackjack allows players to last, horse racing does not.
As for winning at the races. 1 in 4 people looked at past performances in the 70’s. There was lots of dummy money in the pool, which reduced the takeout for those with speed figures, for example, allowing them to have a decent shot at winning, or at least maintaining their bankroll throughout the year. It was these people, that bottom line, created a buzz that the game could be beaten, and since they lasted, they handicapped each day, and were very likely to get family, friends, and coworkers exposed to horse racing.
I saw this phenomenon with my father, who was doing speed figures before Beyer wrote his book, and he had quite a few followers back in the late 60’s and 70’s.
And myself, well I exposed a lot of newbies to the track before my edge was totally taken away when Beyer figs appeared in the form.
And comparing horse racing to lotteries is ridiculous. Compare it to slots (which has a 10% take), but not lotteries. Lotteries gives people the dream of financial freedom for life for just a few bucks.
The only comparison to make is that if I had $5 to play with, what would I do, bet $5 at the track, and most likely lose it just to try to cash $100 or buy 5 quick picks at a lottery terminal where I will likely lose it as well, but if I win, I’m set for life.
Again, most people don’t bet caring about the take out or even know what the takeout is. But they do realize eventually how long they last betting at certain venues, and the cost involved.
Now Horatio, go back to standing behind horses, because maybe you won’t get kicked in the head this time, maybe you will, but you are immune to the affects by now any hoot.
02 Oct 2009 at 01:08 pm | #
One more thing. That extra 2-4% Woodbine tacks on to the takeout goes to the horsemen either directly or indirectly.
It just shows the negative affects in the industry by giving horsemen too much.
Things like this cause price sensitive players to jump ship, and it stagnates growth from the rest of the players.
02 Oct 2009 at 10:41 pm | #
Hoseman get 1.5% of the 20% takeout from off track betting. Anyone who claims to understand the cost to own and care for these horses who thnk thats to much is just self centered and greedy.
03 Oct 2009 at 12:40 am | #
You guys should get offline and throw your crap at each other someplace else.
05 Oct 2009 at 12:45 am | #
So lets get this straight:
Cangamble’s father “was doing speed figures before (and better than) Andrew Beyer”.
This begs the question: “Why was Beyer the one who became famous and well-paid?”
Also: “Why didn’t Cangamble’s father file suit when Beyer got all of the glory?”
Maybe his patent was only legal in the outposts inhabited by the Hudson’s Bay Trading Company.
Internet trolls like Cangamble making up details and presenting them as “facts” never cease to amuse those of us who are better educated.
How many times does this moron need to hear the actual answers as to why horse racing isn’t growing despite these times of staggering inflation and tremendous population growth? We’ve gone over them time and again up above.
Now he’s talking about “Triactors”, still forgetting that we are playing in the big leagues here, and not the buggy races at Sarnia, Ontario.
Why won’t Cangamble cite the sources for his data about “1 in 4 people looked at past performances in the 70’s”?
And better yet, why won’t he let society have access to his father’s many manifestos on the topics which drew that man no more than a single follower?
Now comes disclosure that Cangamble’s “edge was totally taken away” 18 years ago and yet he is still presumably playing the horses while possessing no edge. And he thinks everyone else in the world is dense.
What’s that old saying: “if you look around the table and you can’t find the sucker, it’s you”
Suddenly “comparing horse racing to lotteries is ridiculous” even after he’s been doing the same all the way down the page.
Haven’t I been telling this moron all along that “nobody cares about takeout”?
I think this dumb sh*t is finally catching on: “most people don’t bet caring about the take out”. (Who does care about it, the guy who takes your tag at the dry cleaners?)
In horse racing, “how long they last” is a variable, directly impacted by the house, which continues to do nothing to help the collective fan base last longer. That, in brief, is the single greatest void in the entire North American racing industry in the 2000’s.
You do not need some g** d*** Racing Czar or oversight committee (in it only to carve out an income for themselves) to implement something so basic and simple. Racing need only get out of its own way, and get town criers like Cangamble out of the way to move on toward a more prosperous and popular future.
Doesn’t it make you curious as to what school system produced Cangamble given his poor command of the English language? Maybe he is a proud product of the Sudbury Public Schools or something like that.
The little league world series is fun, for about one column a day for a week or so, but this is big league ball, Cangamble, and you’re clearly not ready for the show.
05 Oct 2009 at 12:52 am | #
Horatio, you have to be the biggest dimwit I’ve come across in years.
You are seriously impaired in the noggin.
Don’t worry, lots of people get what I’m saying. It only requires a little common sense, and an IQ over 80.
You don’t fit the criteria.
A couple of other things, I didn’t say my father’s system was better than Beyer. He was doing track variants when there weren’t many people doing them in the mid 60’s. I don’t know where he got the idea, nor do I know where Beyer first got the idea.
Horatio, you simpleton, YOU and those who “THINK” like you are the problem with racing.
Don’t worry, things are changing despite your WHINING.
05 Oct 2009 at 02:27 am | #
How can you say the takeout does not have an effect?
THE TAKEOUT IS THE EFFECTIVE PRICE THE TRACK PLACES ON IT’S PRODUCT.
Are you prepared to say that people do not care about the price of products at the grocery store?
That people just randomly throw crap into their basket without worrying about PRICE?
WHAT!!?!?
ARE YOU INSANE!?!?!
Racing has PRICED itself out of the market.