Instead, horseplayers, and the industry itself, will be looking at the final handle numbers in light of revenues gained or lost because CDI’s decision to increase takeout rates. Going into the final weekend, the home team is losing.
Compared to the previous player's boycott in 2011 of California racetracks--in response to a legislated takeout rate increase by the state--the current action against CDI tracks has garnered far greater support from bettors.
What remains to be seen is whether the results will lead to a desired rollback in rates.
Such was not the case in 2011. The only “concession” that player representatives negotiated at that time was the addition of a new, lower-takeout, lower-minimum, exotic wager, the Players Pick Five.
The bet was ridiculed initially by some who considered it a “tossed bone” to horseplayers. Instead, it proved to be a successful example of what lower takeout could accomplish and bolstered the argument for more study of optimal takeout rates.
Negotiations at that time revealed to players that the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) was in control, not track managements, and that TOC was putting the squeeze on customers, aided and abetted by those TOC members who also serving on the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB).
Indeed, the failure to force a rate roll-back in California probably encouraged Churchill's own onslaught on the wallets of its customers, but this time the message from the folks at http://playersboycott.org/ was more aggressive than the approach taken in 2011.
The boycotters’ most potent weapon this time is the analysis of Churchill's daily and meet handle figures. Recall that Churchill was the first track to stop providing total attendance and handle figures in results charts. This time boycotters were armed with data collection and analysis skills honed three years ago.
The results are striking as presented by Jeff Platt, President of HANA:
“Churchill numbers through the first 34 days of their meet:
DOWN $46.8 Million (-11.69% “
“What happens if we break the Kentucky Oaks Day Friday and Kentucky Derby Day Saturday cards out as special event days - and remove both of them from ... [consideration]? “
“... handle has fallen for 30 of the 32 regular race days so far this meet:
• Total handle? DOWN $45.6 Million (-26.90%)
• Avg Handle per Race? DOWN -$111,316 (-21.68%)
• Avg Handle per Day? DOWN -$1,424,385 (-26.90%)”
“Could everyday horseplayers be saying "no" to higher takeout?”
This begs several more questions: Who are everyday horseplayers? Are they more likely to be professional bettors, or recreational ones?
Turf writer, Nick Kling, suggested in a comment here at HRI that “20 percent of the bettors wager 50 percent of the handle.” The ratio is probably even greater than that.
Rebated bettors are not affected by takeout increases to the extent their non-rebated competitors are. My surmise is that these bigger players are probably continuing at or near their same level and that the missing handle is more attributable to grassroots players who are sending their action elsewhere.
If this is true, then those of us who have been spreading the lower takeout gospel over the last three years are starting to make some headway. What mustn't happen once the Churchill meet ends is for horseplayers to give up the good fight.
As horseplayer activist Andy Asaro reminds industry A-listers in his daily e-mails: ”We never quit.”
Whales Feel Entitled
One reason professional horseplayers are generally able to make a living is because they are able to exploit inexperience, lack of skills and motivation, and underfunding among recreational players.
I have no objection to that providing the playing field is level for all – as it once was in racing and still is in honest casino games. Neither do I object to casinos “comping” high-rollers, which is more a marketing tool than a subsidy.
The presence of big players at the tables stimulates more action from less affluent customers and helps to attract new ones. This is not the case in racing. If anything, racing’s whales are less visible whales as are the amount of rebates they receive. In my view, this discourages smaller-bankroll bettors and drives recreational players away from game altogether.
In response to a prior Players Up blog piece mentioning rebate subsidies to big bankroll bettors, several comments were posted by a former NTRA Players Panel member.
His observations were informative and, while some were accurate, they nevertheless showed a level of contempt for those forced to play without rebates, opining instead that everyday players bet unrealistic amounts or change their state of residence. The following remarks should be viewed in their original context:
“... I haven’t seen any studies that show that rebates make you a smarter bettor but clearly smart bettors get rebates. ...”
“... You don’t have to be a huge bettor to get rebates. But wouldn’t you agree that a person who reduces their cost of betting by getting a rebate is certainly smarter than one who doesn’t? ...”
“... Rebating, in and of itself, does not give a bettor an advantage. Being a smarter bettor gives one the advantage. Being a smarter bettor with rebates just increases the possibility of making a profit.”
'... Racing needs “dumb money” in the pools so the smart bettors can continue to prosper. If that doesn’t happen the effective takeout rate will not be low enough to keep the whales around. “'
“… the vast majority of players ... have neither the skill nor the knowledge to recognize overlays.”
“... The vast majority of players lose year in and year out. Do you need more evidence than that?”
“... Losers at the track need to be victims so that they can believe that it is the big bad rebates that prevent them from winning and not the fact that they lack the skills and know how. ...”
Recreational bettors are not only under fire from incompetent or corrupt government officials, greedy horsemen, and self-preserving racetrack management, but also from predatory gamblers benefitting from the rebate status quo.
Horseplayers will take an edge they can, which is what gives definition to the term parimutuel wagering. But Beware the Pied Piper unconcerned with fairness and balance for all.
27 Jun 2014 at 02:49 pm | #
I think the entire pari-mutuel system is rigged against the average horseplayer.
We would have a much better chance if we knew what our return would be when we made a bet.
I’m in favor of fixed-odds wagering.
-
The super-exotics with low minimums favor the whales - evidence Borislow. Takeout should be lower, but, it’s not the reason most people lose.
-
Any thoughts on exchange wagering?
I know I could have made a lot of money by simply betting on California Chrome losing the Belmont - without all the complications involved in ‘dutching’ all the horses I thought could win.
I personally gave him 1 chance in 4 of winning.
The track offered 4-5 odds on him winning(largely dumb money IMO).
If an “exchange” existed, I could have offered as low as even money and had takers.
I could have made as much as I had available to put up!
Now that’s a bet I’d like to be able to make legally.
27 Jun 2014 at 04:56 pm | #
Exchange wagering is one of those issues that is misunderstood; people only see the potential for larceny, not the opportunities. Exchange wagering would definitely grow handle and it would be perfect for those situations you described.
Fixed-odds betting is another excellent example of a gambling structure that can grow the game, eliminating those late odds flashes horseplayers hate.
You want progressive change? Whatever happened to that promise of real-time wagering? That’s generally what horseplayers when it comes to progress; promises.
27 Jun 2014 at 05:51 pm | #
There’s a guy who comes to our OTB periodically (he moves around). He’s commonly referred to as “The Pro”. I’ve never heard him complain about takeout. His biggest complaint - the late odds drop.
He routinely comes up with horses around 3 or 4 to 1, bets right before post time, watches the horse win at half those odds.
Lately, I heard him say “it’s gotten ridiculous”.
He’s exasperated and close to calling it quits.
If guys like him get fed up and leave....
-
Imagine if Candy Boy had won the Derby. He went fro 16-1 to 9-1 last second.
How about Tonalist? It wasn’t as extreme as CB, but, didn’t his odds drop a couple of points very late?
27 Jun 2014 at 07:15 pm | #
At the time, I was concentrating on the post parade and generally taking in the moment so I can’t comment on late odds drop on Tonalist. But from what I can recall, I don’t think that was the case.
27 Jun 2014 at 08:40 pm | #
The mention of exchange wagering always makes me think of Dick Francis novels. It’s a shame the jump-rider-turned-mystery-writer didn’t really exploit the topic before he died.
I’d rather see same reforms implemented to address existing chicanery before adding new opportunities to challenge racing’s integrity.
27 Jun 2014 at 08:47 pm | #
Churchill Downs Inc. dealt another blow after California rules their Twin Spires players pools to be illegal. Players pools from all ADW’s illegal in Ca.
We never quit.
A
27 Jun 2014 at 09:43 pm | #
John,
I found an NBC broadcast of the Belmont on youtube.
Tonalist was 11-1 the last time they showed his odds - while the horses were being loaded into the gate.
The NYRA replay verifies this. He’s 11-1 when the horses approach the 1st turn and he’s briefly shown to be fourth.
Then he drops back out of the top four.
When the horses come out of the first turn and enter the backstretch, he moves into fourth again - only now he’s 9-1.
28 Jun 2014 at 04:19 am | #
If Churchill raises the take and raises the signal fee to rebate shops, the increased price comes out of the pockets of the rebate bettor....while his rebate might actually increase, the effective takeout gets larger and the larger the effective takeout gets, the less the player will bet. (or not bet at all).
As far as rebate bettors “discouraging” the guppies, how does this happen exactly? If Santa Anita’s win takeout is 15.43 percent (or something like that) doesn’t it stay 15.43 percent for the guppy no matter who’s betting into the pools?
If you are a guppy and stick 10 dollars to win on a horse, you pay a fee of 1.50 no matter who your competition happens to be...so, i don’t buy that this is a discouraging factor.
What it really comes down to is talent. What discourages bettors is not being good enough to beat other bettors...THAT is what is discouraging.
28 Jun 2014 at 09:53 am | #
Riles, the discouraging part arises in jackpot and multi-race wagers, a la Borislow. I give him all the credit in the world for the correct strategy. But how many everyday bettors can go into a P6 pool, make a parlay and buys four races? Good money mgt.? Yes. Handicapping skill? Possible, but questionable.
Good work, Denny, but that speaks to improved technology which we were promised was coming--not.
28 Jun 2014 at 03:40 pm | #
Preach
I never understand why small bettors would have a problem with big bettors essentially “buying” a very expensive bet....first of all, nobody says a boo when a whale puts in a 20k pick 6 ticket and all the chalk wins and he gets 300 bucks back HITS the pick 6 and loses most of his investment...nobody has a problem when that happens.
Also, there are win, exactas and DDs and bets that the smaller bettor can get involved in, why does every bet have to be “affordable” to every player? If you can’t afford to bet thousands like Borislow, than bet win...or show. Bet something you can afford.
Not everyone can afford a 100k Porsche, but that doesn’t mean they should stop making them because they’re not affordable to most people.
29 Jun 2014 at 05:20 am | #
Riles, I can’t argue with your logic but then why employ fractional wagering at all. Don’t we want more people in the pools? Don’t we want to give a newbie a chance to get some on-the-job training without going for his lungs to do so?
Denny, nice piece of research on Tonalist. Meanwhile, notice Riposte yesterday? 8-5 in the gate last I saw, 6-5 through the stretch.
I realize losers also can be bet late via that last-cycle hub dump. Real-time technology would end this phenomenon or just don’t start the damn race until all the money is in the pool. How hard is that?
29 Jun 2014 at 08:05 am | #
The technology exists to see “real time” odds. Believe it would be an investment the tracks are not willing to spend, given their past performance record for implementing Trakus, or any other cutting-edge technology. Do not believe it is intentional, or that any chicanery is going on, but the perception is what is the problem; especially when a longer price horse drops considerably in the last few minutes, which often happens when astute individuals make their move.
TTT
29 Jun 2014 at 11:30 am | #
Odds, now this is something else I don’t see as an obstacle in pick’in winner. A hundred or so years ago an ‘ole timer’ told me not to let odds influence your pick.
The pari-mutuel system protects the racetrack from losing any money (they lose enough already with their insane six/seven figure purses). To suggest fixed odds or real time odds would require an alteration of the pari-mutuel system where no longer would bettors be wagering against each other, but the ‘house’(racetrack) would now be involved meaning that they would now be ‘booking’ bets, thus putting them at risk to lose substantial money - ain’t gonna happen Alice.
Like takeout, do odds really keep you bettors (maybe I should write readers) from wagering?
Egads, contributors and commentators at this site howl about the use of Lasix, takeout, now odds dropping. Not a word about the odds INCREASING as the mob turns for home. Got a feeling that if bettors were pick’in winners all would be quiet on the Eastern front.
This whale thing (God bless ‘em, Thoroughbred racing needs ‘um). Like it when they whiff ‘cause we all get higher prices if not on the same plodder. Given them their rebates, so they will come back tomorrow.
And the beat goes on, right Sam?
29 Jun 2014 at 07:45 pm | #
The following is in celebration of Churchill’s finishing the meet with less revenue generated from the increased takeout this year than was generated at last year’s meet at the previous (lower) takeout rate:
Congratulations to the folks at playersboycott.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-XQ26KePUQ
With apologies to Doc Pomus and Mort Schuman:
You can handicap every race they card
It isn’t hard when using a computer
You can play every race you pick
And do it quick when you bet on-line
But don’t forget who’s raising their take
And how much their executives share
So darlin’, play your next race elsewhere, mmm
Oh I know that on Derby Day
All eyes look their way, it’s lots of fun
The Oaks, and the Foster too
Don’t take a back seat to anyone
But don’t forget who’s taking their cut
And show them that you’ve had your fill
So darlin’, play your last race at Churchill
Baby, don’t you know, it has to stop
They are taking much too much
Let them know the brain trust at the top
Is completely out of touch
You can find other pools to play
‘Til the end of the day and all tracks are closed
If they ask if you’re willing to pay
Whatever they say like Churchill proposed
Well don’t forget who values your play
Giving your wallet a better chance to fill
So darlin’, bet your last race at Churchill
So don’t forget who treats you with respect
And where your business is wanted still
Say you’ve bet your last race at Churchill, mmm
Say you’ve bet your last race at Churchill, mmm, mmm
Say you’ve bet your last race at Churchill, mmm
Say you’ve bet your last race at Churchill
30 Jun 2014 at 03:07 am | #
Yes, congrats to all the real men and women who stepped up, and stood for something and supported the Churchill Boycott. Well done. So much for all the “extra money” they were going to make that was going into the pockets of the jocks and trainers.
Maybe the higher ups at CD can pat themselves and each other on the back and give themselves a nice fat raise for a job well done.
30 Jun 2014 at 07:18 am | #
Been think’in. I just came to realize it, I have been at the forefront of the Churchill boycott. You see, I never wager on Churchill races, haven’t for years except for the Derby when I wager $2 on some long shot; this year though I went overboard and bet $4 to my chagrin.
Also been wondering just how much more money bettors made for themselves by boycotting Churchill. The Twin Spires management doesn’t give a damn about the boycott, as Thoroughbred racing is a drag on profits; their interest is in gaming. All the boycott achieved was causing management to reduce the purses that horseman need to stay in business. Seems to me that the wrong people got hurt from the silly boycott, if there was an actual boycott or just bettors continuing to leave the ‘game’.
30 Jun 2014 at 10:14 am | #
For the record, I used the term “folks at playersboycott.org” intending to encompass the community of boycott supporters following its progress at the website. All deserve to be congratulated.
Frankly, it’s hard for me to imagine anyone aware of the issue, and deciding to take such action in their own self-interest, not visiting the site to observe the effect of that action.
That said, I’d like to personally thank those who—on a volunteer basis—operate the website, produce the stats, provide the content, and communicate with the media and other interested parties. I hope that appreciation of their efforts continues to expand.