|
| HRI Executive Editor John Pricci Addresses Industry Issues Photo by: Toni Pricci |
I explained why I believe presentation and information are paramount: Video must be pleasing to the eye, graphic packages legible and sharp.
And, if those criteria are met, racetrack brands would be perceived favorably and bettors would get the message that tracks want their customers to have fun and make money.
Bells and whistles notwithstanding, horseplayers need accurate and comprehensive data to make money. That data; scratches, equipment and medication changes, track conditions, surface switches, jockey changes and, of course, the odds, are variables that have a profound impact wagering decisions.
Cutaways are anathema to most fans, and while not a big fan of those beauty shots myself, they are useful when broadcasting races from foreign tracks with unique layouts or when those hideously monstrous infield projection screens obstruct the view.
|
| Executive Vice President Chris Scherf Welcomes Simulcast Panel Photo by: Toni Pricci |
Split screens are used most effectively in graphic presentations. All Will-Pays should be posted twice, at minimum, and at the same intervals daily. Television productions go out of their way to avoid duplication, but shouldn’t when it comes to data dissemination.
The modern simulcast player needs to evaluate copious amounts of information in short order. Be consistent. Every track can have its own style. Stick with that. More than anything horseplayers are creatures of habit. Searching for information costs players and bet-takers time and money. Confused players don’t bet with both hands.
With respect to camera coverage, players and fans want the same thing: Full coverage of the paddock and post parade. They want continuous pans of pre-race warm-ups right up until horses enter the gate.
And, please, no “pony parades,” and ban the use of black front bandages. Pan back to exotic-finish horses. For High-5 bettors, fifth is as important as first.
Every serious player I‘ve met loves and wants Trakkus. They love the Chiclets. Never again will players not know where their horse is, especially those racing between horses. And knowing exactly how far a horse travels is popular with trip handicappers.
Stop insulting the intelligence of players. Everyone knows people bet more on fast tracks than wet ones but be extremely diligent and don’t fudge track conditions. We know better, and you make the sport look small time. No one wants to get played.
Delineate entries on monitors and self service machines: 1 and 1A, 2 and 2B, etc. I personally have been burned more than once. Confuse me and I won’t bet as much, if I bet at all.
Crawls are inefficient. It has its place but perhaps should be used for results only. Crawls waste time. I believe that weight carried makes a difference, but I don’t want that information when I need scratches, jockey, equipment, surface and medication changes more.
Handicapping is a multi-layered process. Prioritize information. Perhaps scratches and other significant changes deserve their own separate page. Maybe monitors could be stacked, on top of one another or side by side; the top for track video, the bottom an informational page-by-page loop.
When at all possible, marry the program numbers and odds in the running order. Last year, when Keeneland strung out the entire running order across the bottom of the monitor during a race, the odds appeared directly below the betting numbers. Good stuff.
With the switch to Chiclets, odds were dropped as too much information in the same space became unwieldy and confusing. Voted best simulcast track of 2009 by a TRA panel, they will come up with a fan-friendly alternative. [In the spirit of transparency, I voted Keeneland second to Woodbine, with Churchill Downs third].
Post payoffs faster and with greater consistency, maybe utilizing a pop-up window. Standardize payoffs. Post all $2 minimum wagers: the Pick Six, Magna Five, W-P-S, etc., in $2 increments.
Post all fractional wagers--Dime Supers, Fifty-Cent Trifectas and Pick 4s--at the minimum offered. Horseplayers can do math. Stop trying to con newcomers by dangling big payoffs. Not sure I know anyone who’s ever hit a $2 superfecta.
![It Takes a [Simulcast] Village](http://www.horseraceinsider.com/images/uploads/It-Takes-a-Simulcast-Villag.jpg) |
| It Takes a [Simulcast] Village Photo by: Toni Pricci |
Change your wagering marketing strategy. Instead of a greedy money-suck, try encouraging players to remain solvent--especially if you want them to return tomorrow. Greed is not exactly in fashion these days.
Invest in High Definition television. Yes, it‘s expensive, but if you can afford it, bite the bullet on this one. Racing is competing with all other sports. And what sport's more colorful than thoroughbred racing? It’s no accident racing has been used in commercials for years to sell TVs. And High Definition is an excellent educational tool.
Coordinate the damn post times already, based on the European model, delineated by circuits, major and minor, or geographic, or time-zone considerations. The 1:00 in New York, the 1:10 in New Jersey, the 1:20 in Kentucky.
Then, schedule the balance of the card at 25-minute intervals. Bettors understand that horses can run off in the parade, flip in the paddock, or have a gate mishap. Fans will figure it out and cut the industry some slack.
In related areas, I know of two horseplayers who walked away from the game because of complications caused by betting platform exclusivity and the resultant infighting.
Players want Betting Exchanges. The new bet cuts both ways: Sharps love it because of its low takeout and level of sophistication; squares love it because it’s simple. Pick a side, just like in the NFL.
Increase and improve the quality of the Internet presentation. And, finally, three words: takeout, takeout and takeout.
Figure out a better split between tracks and simulcast venues and pass the savings along to the customer. The principle of churn is quite simple: The more money returned to players, the more they bet in return.
14 Oct 2009 at 09:29 pm | #
John—You get my vote for commissioner. Spot on, as usual. The tracks have forgotten who the real customer is --- and that they are an in fact INTELLIGENT consumers with other choices as to how they spend their time and money!
XO.
15 Oct 2009 at 01:45 am | #
JP,
You’ve really been on a roll lately helping to identify and justify many of the changes necessary to turn our sport/game around. You’ve exceeded my hopes and expectations for the involvement of turf writers in seeking reform on behalf of horseplayers that I voiced when I began participating here last year.
I hope you’ll be as effective an influence in your involvement with HANA as a member of the group’s advisory board. When you have time, please clarify the term, “serious handicapper,” you deployed when quoted for the HANA press release.
I don’t know whether your last two paragraphs were intended to suggest that getting takeout lowered should take priority, but given Mr. Waldrop’s recent positive remarks on pricing, I look forward to both turf writers and HANA pursuing that issue with increased vigor; as well as promoting greater awareness of the effects of high takeout among “not-quite-as-serious” handicappers.
15 Oct 2009 at 02:24 am | #
Indulto,
I probably used the term interchangably to mean regular player. To me, a serious handicapper goes to the track or simulcast whenever he can, usually more than once a week.
I wouldn’t narrow the parameters, though. A serious handicapper is someone who enjoys the intellectual stimulation and the challenge each racing puzzle represents. And, thanks, I hope I can of serious to HANA. They deserve the support of every “serious handicapper.”
Please check their website: http://www.horseplayersassociation.org.
Susan, thanks for the props, XO right back at you.
JP
15 Oct 2009 at 03:59 am | #
I hope someone at ESPN reads your comments about camera cuts. The self-proclaimed “worldwide leader in sports” has made races unwatchable with constant and meaningless camera cuts. They don’t change shots in the middle of football and basketball plays, but someone thinks this is a good idea for racing. And then they wonder why ratings for racing decline. I’ll watch the Breeders’ Cup track feed on my computer before I’ll watch the ESPN broadcast. Ditto for any other races televised on ESPN channels.
15 Oct 2009 at 04:35 am | #
Mr. Pricci: Have your above findings derived from the input from HRI readers been e-mailed to the CEO’s of racing associations throughout the country? If not, why not?
If I had been at the Throughbred Racing Association and Harness Track of America International Simulcast Conference (whew!), I would have fallen out of my chair when Andrea DeLong presented her findings of a recent poll; and, I would have challenged her conclusions immediately.
There is to much bull being thrown around of late when discussing racing’s problems, and hardly anyone slams the table. As an example, hardly a day goes by when I hear or read how takeout is the major cause for racing’s decline; yes, lower takeout would benefit all bettors, but it is simply BULL! Takeout in no way is responsible for people electing to gamble, repeat gamble, elsewhere.
15 Oct 2009 at 04:54 am | #
Wendell,
You’re promise about takeout is WRONG, period. Low takeout doesn’t make people gamble. It KEEPS them gambling longer. And low takeout is why some players I know have opted for Poker and, believe it or not, sports betting.
And, if you bothered to look at #15 in my previous post, you would have seen that the poll conducted by DeLong was a sampling of NEW fans. That was my bad.
Since you seem to have more time on your hands than I do right now, I would appreciate it if you forwarded the manifesto to those track presidents.
Roger,
I feel your pain.
Thanks for taking the time, gents.
JRP
15 Oct 2009 at 08:33 am | #
Wmcorrow, you keep repeating the same BULL over and over. Do you seriously not get it?
Most gamblers don’t realize what the takeout is. They do realize how fast they lose over enough time and build up negative expectations because of it.
Also, if they run out of gambling money it means they will spend less and less time gambling on horses, watching horses and exposing friends family and coworkers to horse racing.
Answer this: Why don’t slot operators up the rack back to 20% on slots instead of 10%? Of course, slot players don’t even have a clue about house take ever. When you answer that question, you might actually get it.
15 Oct 2009 at 09:32 am | #
Well put Wendell!!
Excellent analysis, as usual.
15 Oct 2009 at 10:13 am | #
Racetracks need not look outside the confines of this article for the solution to what ails them. They don’t need new and imaginative marketing strategies (ask Stronach); they just need to fix all the problems you’ve pointed out. What tracks need is not marketing geniuses, but people who can execute on making the experience more consistently good.
This article could be broken down into 10 principles that should be posted in the executive suite of every track in America; here’s a start:
“More than anything horseplayers are creatures of habit.... Confuse me and I won’t bet as much, if I bet at all. ....No one wants to get played.”
15 Oct 2009 at 11:00 am | #
Mr. Pricci: In the last two months I have read reader comments (well over 150) at HRI and at NTRA websites as to why racing is in deep pucky. The thread was that takeout was the most serious problem and is the number one reason why Thoroughbred racing is in decline.
You, Mr. Fortias, and Cangamble (who has written a tome on takeout at this site, and won’t identify himself, think Indulto) and no doubt many other gamblers hold the position that takeout is the cause of racing’s decline; to this I say bull s---!
I still gamble on the nags, as does Mr. Pricci, Mr. Fortias, and thousands of others including, no doubt, Cangamble. I look forward to wagering on the pick threes at Philly where the takeout is onerous.
I know of no horseplayer that has quit wagering on the thoroughbreds because of an increase in takeout. Sure, some whales and others have departed; big deal! They are in the extreme minority.
Most regulars at the local OTB do not understand takeout, and careless. Ask any bettor, anywhere, what the takeout on the wager they are making is and you will get a blank stare, or a comment to ‘get lost’.
Again, takeout has nothing to do with racing’s decline; how can it? How can takeout be a detriment to a novice entering the ‘game’, when he/she has no idea what takeout is?
A reduction in takeout will, of course, benefit all bettors, but to place the blame on takeout for the decline in racing is ridiculous. I keep reading that a reduction will keep the horseplayer in the ‘game’ longer; just what to hell does that mean?
If only a minority of bettors understand the pari-mutuel system and takeout, and the vast majority could careless, then how can takeout be the cause of racing’s decline?
PLAY IT AGAIN SAM: The reason racing is declining is that it has failed to market itself for what it is: a gambling option to casino gambling. The gamblers of the seventies and eighties are fading by attrition, and they are not being replaced by younger gamblers.
Stop blaming takeout for racing problems; it’s onerous and should be reduced, but is not the reason racing is heading south. Start promoting racing as a gambling venue.
15 Oct 2009 at 11:14 am | #
Morrow, your thinking is killing the game. You refuse to understand the point. You refuse to acknowledge the point and you keep blabbering the same thing that I already acknowledge: People don’t care about takeout when they bet for the most part.
But it is either you have a comprehension problem or you are disingenuous when you conclude that because they don’t care means it isn’t the factor that is killing the game: it is.
As for my identity: I’m on the board with HANA. Use your deductive “logic” to figure out who I am.
15 Oct 2009 at 11:18 am | #
Oops, I mean Corrow. Just read your post again, and I’m laughing. The points made go SWOOOSH over your head. I don’t think you are capable of understanding it.
Again, try to understand why slots don’t raise their takeout to 20%....but I think that is too complicated for you to fathom the more I read your posts.
15 Oct 2009 at 01:27 pm | #
It’s literally astonishing that despite the clear evidence in a number of studies through out the years that shows when you lower the takeout the handle INCREASES. How can this fact be ignored by the racing associations, states etc. It’s a win win situation pure and simple!
Incredible as it seems this fact is just ignored because the bettors are taken for granted or almost totally ignored. How can we change this?
John as a highly respected award winning journalist you have been speaking out until you are red in the face about this factual not subjective matter concerning the takeout reduction. When will the higher ups take action?
15 Oct 2009 at 02:57 pm | #
Cangamble,
I still don’t know your identity, but that doesn’t bother me. I knew you were part of the HANA operational team, but not that you were a voting member of the board. While I usually agree with your sometimes eloquent opinions, I am appalled that a HANA board member would so consistently allow differences of opinion at HRI and elsewhere to degenerate into personal attacks and name-calling with the very people HANA should be doing its best to recruit, or at least not alienate. It only bolsters my suspicion that HANA does not adequately represent the best interests of the majority of players at the lower end of the wagering volume spectrum.
Subsequent to HANA’s becoming a corporate entity, you opened an ADW called horseplayersbet.com. From what I can glean from your posts at paceadvantage.com where you are an authorized vendor, HPB is a for-profit venture as opposed to one that might potentially be operated as a cooperative for HANA members. If in fact you, personally, stand to receive financial gain from this venture, I respectfully have to question the appropriateness of your serving on the HANA board.
15 Oct 2009 at 03:56 pm | #
Corrow,
It’s a very simple equation. The lower the takeout,the higher the payout. The higher the payout, the greater the amount of cash in the players pocket. More cash=greater betting volume.
Do you understand now, Mr Corrow??
15 Oct 2009 at 04:50 pm | #
Indulto, Corrow called my opinion BS, and I questioned his ability to understand my opinion. Pretty simple.
As for your constant whining and badgering the HANA group. Grow up.
We are all volunteers who have put in a huge amount of time to try to make the game better for the horseplayer.
What have you done except cry and whine and try to dictate the direction we go. You aren’t even a member. Sheesh.
15 Oct 2009 at 06:51 pm | #
Cangamble,
I don’t take offense at your lashing out at me publicly or otherwise. I’ve had unsatisfactory back and forths with wmc myself, but taunting him in comment #11 with your position on the HANA board raises other issues from which you are now trying to divert attention by focusing on my own relationship with HANA.
I signed up as a member of HANA while I was participating in the launching of the HANA blog. As you know, there was no requirement to supply one’s name and annual handle at that time. In a recent debate at paceadvantage.com with HANA’s president, he informed me that he “doesn’t count me as a member.” I’m not sure what that means, but I haven’t yet renounced my membership, and I continue to receive emails intended for the general membership.
It is true that HANA leadership does not consider my criticism constructive when I call for greater transparency of operation, more feedback and accountability to its membership, and evidence they are trying to eliminate the disparity in effective takeout between large and small bettors rather than increase it by extending selective rebates to another relatively tiny group at the next lower tier of annual wagering volume.
Now I’m asking you to be more transparent about your role on the board given your financial interests. It would be folly for you to assume I’m the only one with questions regarding your objectivity in choosing—and commitment to pursuing—lower direct takeout in lieu of rebates. I can understand how that might make you uncomfortable, but perhaps you can allay the concerns of people like me with an explanation.
16 Oct 2009 at 01:04 am | #
Perhaps I’m a tad naive, but why do any of you have to hide your identity? Do the positions you stake out on this blog potentially compromise your roles elsewhere? I must admit my fascination with the evolution of HANA, though. I do not also follow the bouncing ball, or keep up with the latest developments, but I thought is was created to be an old fashioned interest group. Now, I learn it is spinning into a for profit corporation? I guess the guy who spearheads it can no longer show up on TVG to speak on behalf of Joe Horseplayer!
eric
16 Oct 2009 at 03:37 am | #
Eric, HANA is not spinning into a for profit organization in any way shape or form. It is an old fashion interest group and will remain that.
16 Oct 2009 at 03:42 am | #
“Gambling,betting on horses, among other things, is a way of life. The manner in which a man chooses to gamble indicates his character or his lack of it.” William Saroyan(author).Wendell is correct we are drawen to horse racing mainly to gamble. The industry has issues,but the majority of the followers of this site will continue to wager and voice thier oppinions,that way I personally enjoy Mr. Pricci site and comitment.One thing I have issue with is those of you that hid behind handles. As the quote refers indicates his character or LACK OF IT. Agree with Eric why do some you hide your identity?
16 Oct 2009 at 04:58 am | #
I am only posting to clarify a few misconceptions and misrepresentations that have popped up on this comment section. The Horseplayers Association of North America is a grassroots non-stock, not-for-profit Corporation which was created for the sole purpose of giving horseplayers a unified voice and attempting to use that unified voice to accomplish meaningful positive changes within the industry. In other words, HANA is an advocacy group for horseplayers. As the Treasurer of the organization, I can verify that 100% of the very modest voluntary contributions received so far are from individual horseplayers who are HANA members. The only other source of revenue that HANA has received is a small commission for the few HANA Hats and T-shirts that have sold. I can further verify that no Officer or Board of Director member has received compensation from the organization either monetarily or in kind. As an organization that does not even charge a membership fee to join and has been operating on a shoestring budget with many expenses having to be funded by Board Members, it is truly laughable to think of HANA as becoming a for-profit juggernaut enriching its Officers and Board of Directors.
Theresia E. Muller
Treasurer
Horseplayers Association of North America
01 Nov 2009 at 01:49 pm | #
On crawls: They are useful for late-arriving players, or those who may have missed the changes because they were busy getting the changes for another track at the same time. Since, especially at OTB sites, people come in at all hours, including midcard, the crawl should be on screen between races, period.
Oh, and run the crawl slowly and make it a true crawl: “Race 7: Scratches 1, 5, 6, 13, 14” not “Race 7: Scratch 1 Old Yeller,” “Race 7: Scratch 5 Trigger,” “Race 7: Scratch 6 Black Beauty,” etc., with each single scratch on screen for 20 seconds, like Churchill does.
What I hate is tracks like Calder, which take down their crawls whenever they want to show a full screen of pool totals or some such.