Could A National Lottery Help Racing Grow?

I read an article at Paulick Report that I found interesting, Keep It Simple And They Will Come. It definitely sounds good on paper, but when thinking more and more about it, the idea of a lottery to attract horse players may not be feasible in North America.

In Sweden there is a lottery called the V75. It is simply a pick 7 for a Saturday harness card. Players can bet as little as 10 cents. The combos can be completely computer generated, partially computer generated, or completely generated by the player.

From Wednesday to Friday, tickets can be purchased in a variety of ways. Typically, over $10 million bet each week.

The takeout is 35%, and the remainder is paid out as follows: 7 winners 40%, 6 winners 20%, 5 winners 40%.

Obviously, this attracts newbies to the sport. Free past performances are offered as well as expert picks to try to give players of all sorts of racetrack knowledge all sorts of avenues.

So could this work in Canada, for example? Yes, and no. I don't think tracks will benefit greatly from the proceeds of such a lottery, however, it might work as a great way to get interest from new players. But attracting enough money to make this attractive may pose a problem in itself.

Our very popular Lotto 649 attracts usually between $11-$15 million a draw (which happens twice a week). Players know the minimum payoff for a jackpot is at least $2.5 million. This can't come close to being achieved when dealing with just 7 horse races. Even in the most competitive fields handicappers can pick the winner 22-27% of the time. It takes 10 competitive races to make it so that the odds of winning with this type of percentage is 3.4 million to one. So if 7 million $1 tickets are bought, on average, there would be two winners each week (I do think a $1 base bet is required because this needs to compete with the 6/49 and the size of the jackpot needs to be big).

Will the idea of selecting 10 races be too tedious for horseplayers, and perceived as too difficult for non horse players? I'd have to say yes. That is hurdle one.

Lets assume that 10 races are picked out from Saturday. It would have to be 100% Canadian content for this to work, so it would be only harness racing during the winter, and could be mostly thoroughbred racing during the rest of the year. Ideally you want races with more than 9 horses, but in the winter that might be very difficult.

What would the takeout be? Remember, for this to work it would have to be available at lottery kiosks across Canada. Lotto 649 only pays out around 30 cents for each dollar bet, and they don't have to split that with the tracks.

Lets say a deal is reached, and the takeout is 60%. Using precedence set when it comes to slots profits in Ontario, 6% would go to tracks and another 6% to horsemen.

Now how exactly would those profits be divided up? Is it divided up by home market from where the bet is made?, do the tracks that are involved in the actual races get to split the profits?, are the profits just divided up to be distributed by each province? Ideally, it should be prorated by the race dates each track offers.

6% of $5 million is nothing to sneeze at each week, but the reality is that it might only work out to $15,000 or less for each track to split up.

But this could definitely get many new people interested in horse racing. Problem is that if they find that pursuing the game is futile, their interest will not be held. And if they find themselves going broke too quickly while giving the parimutuel pools a try, they will give it up as well.

Ideally, this lottery idea could be fantastic for horse racing, if it was coupled with much lower takeouts at all tracks. A surge of interest could be created if the word on the street is that the game could actually be beaten. And at the very least, the newbies created get some bang from their buck.

Would I play this bet? If the jackpots were usually at least a million I would. I spend around 10 bucks a week on the 649 (you can't win without a ticket), even though I know the takeout is 70%. I would just stop playing the 649. I'd rather sink money into going for a million or two each week on something that is based not just on random luck.

Ontario B Harness Tracks Can Become The Catalyst For Industry Growth

Jack Darling's Article "We Must Act Now" Getting Lots Of Intelligent Response
Speaking about harness racing in Ontario which is on life support right now "Putting on a bunch of races and expecting people to come out and bet on them is a thing of the past and just doesn't work anymore."

This statement is true off all horse racing. And the obvious solution cited by Darling and many of the commenters is to reduce track takeout.

In Ontario, because of slots, most B and C tracks purse money comes from slots. It is actually safe for them to experiment with lower takeouts on that basis. They aren't dead yet, but dieing fast. The industry is just at the date reduction stage, Ontario harness isn't Quebec....YET. The time is perfect to cater to the horseplayers big time, and actually grow the industry.

However, the big bully in the room named Woodbine Entertainment Group can make life very difficult for any track that offers lower takeouts. WEG can refuse to put the tracks on their betting menu, they can refuse to put the track on HPITV and even prevent HPITV from being available in a certain area. WEG can also ramp up the takeouts to their customers like they do with many US tracks where they give less money to winners as they base triactor and superfecta bets on a 25% takeout, if the real takeout is lower than that (this would at least not affect those who bet live on track at a harness track that offers a lower takeout, but affects overall chance of external growth for that track).

Small Ontario tracks can always offer their own ADW service. They don't have to go to the expense of developing one either as there are white label ADWs out there like EBET Online who have already signed up with tracks like Colonial Downs. This would cater to their immediate home market, and I see no reason why they couldn't compete for other markets as well. Wouldn't it be great to see some competition to HPI? Competition would be phenomenal for horseplayers, and therefore it would be great for the racing industry. Imagine another Canadian based ADW for a track with a very low takeout that also may give decent rebates to its account holders.

Sure, Woodbine would blow a gasket, as they still think they are entitled to monopoly like status. But it has been lack of competition that have driven horse bettors offshore and to Betfair, and lack of competition that has driven horse players away from horse racing altogether, and most importantly has lead to virtually no new horseplayers in the last 15 years, especially.

The B and C tracks of Ontario are in a perfect situation to act now and become leaders in growing horse racing again. They can possibly get together and offer 12% takeouts on all bets, and this network of tracks will become very popular amongst bettors. On track they will be giving out more money than ever before, which will cause players to last longer, and the ball will get moving that way. Once the pools start increasing, which will occur as well, I can see even thoroughbred players from the US being attracted to the B and C Ontario tracks.

Eventually though, because of success, I believe all tracks in North America will drop down to 12%, or they will die. But Ontario racing can have a nice head start, and start getting people hooked again.

See also In A Nutshell, over at Pull The Pocket and Warnings From Ontario.


Trainer Terry Jordan Still Allowed To Train Horses But Hollywood Hit Has To Ride Out Suspension
Jordan's fate rests on the outcome of split sample test.

I still think banning the horse and punishing the owner is the wrong way to go. Many owners have no idea what the trainer putting into the horse, though some do, I feel the ORC should have proof that the owner was in on it before suspending the horse and the trainer. In other words, Hollywood Hit should not have been denied to run in the Breeders Cup Sprint.

The racing industry is in desperate need of owners. And the last thing it can afford to do is chase them away because of actions done by trainers that are out of the owner's control in most instances.

I'm all for severe punishment against trainers as a way to deter cheating but that is where it should stop.


Horseman Evzen Pindur Gets 12 Year Ban After Appeal
Good for the ORC on this one. These type of punishments may actually deter the odd trainer from cheating.


Quite a few polls on the internet as to who should get Horse Of The Year
Response to a NY Times poll complete with point counterpoint video has produced 70% picking Rachel Alexandra over Zenyatta.

The Daily Poll over at Paulick Report has completely opposite results with 69% choosing Zenyatta.

Over at Pace Advantage, 58% have chosen Zenyatta over Rachel as well.

Talk about a horse race. I vote Zenyatta. She won the Super Bowl (lets forget the fact she is a she), and like Rachel Alexandra was undefeated for the year.


Youbet merger with Churchill Downs is under some scrutiny. The price of the stock could have been driven down since late July, and the shareholders are only to receive around three quarters of what the stock was trading at during its 2009 high.

Churchill Downs is not known for being player friendly. They had something to do with the takeout rise at Calder in 2008. They have a reputation for bullying competitors and horsemen groups as well.

Youbet on the other hand was starting to become horseplayer friendly. They were giving special advertised bonuses on cashed tickets as well as special unadvertised rebates for bigger bettors.

Horseplayersbet.com could be the most horseplayer friendly ADW out there today, but that is another story.

I assume Twinspires will continue continue rebating its Youbet customers who qualified, because a huge part of the deal was taking over the Youbet customer base. And the last thing they should do is chase these players away. But Churchill Downs is like Woodbine South when it comes to perceived contempt for the horseplayer, and the fact that they are monopoly driven which is what is causing the death of horse racing, so who knows?

Churchill Downs isn't creating new horseplayers, they are just taking more from a shrinking pie. The only thing that promotes growth in the horse racing industry right now is through rebaters which allow players to last longer and possibly win. As players last longer, they devote more of their entertainment money specifically towards horse racing, and the more time they bet, watch races and handicap, the more likely they are to expose new potential players to the game.

The industry should fear Churchill Downs. Inevitably moves like this will cause more tracks to have less dates, and many will be forced to close down.


Fort Erie Sold For The 9,548th Time
The newest rumour regarding Fort Erie Racetrack is that it was sold to Japanese connections. Details pending:)

Seriously, since 2003, I must have heard that the track has been sold 15-20 times. Never happens. Hopefully one day it will.

Quality Road Looks Good In the Breeders Cup Classic

It is that time of year again, when horseplayers around the world focus on two (should be one) days of championship horse racing. For me, it is eenie meenie minie, moe time, more or less.

I feel much more comfortable handicapping races where at least one third to one half of the field have raced against each other recently, and at least three quarters of the field are circuit regulars. Needless to say, this isn't the case when it comes to the Breeders Cup.

I'm going to admit it now, this year, I actually put in some time handicapping. I spent half of yesterday trying to figure out the cards at Santa Anita for both Friday and Saturday. I usually handicap cards a half hour or less before post time, so yes, I'm taking things seriously this time out.

Still, handicapping these races are very difficult because of all of the chaotic factors associated with things like polytrack, recency, big fields, European shippers, etc.

In the Classic, I really like Quality Road. He looks like he is on the improve. Sloppy tracks cloudy his form. He is nearly undefeated on a fast track, and he is undefeated on artificial surfaces (OK, he is zero for zero on poly but Elusive Quality sired horses are no slouches on plastic).

He looks like he is made for this race. He'll be close enough to the pace, and is also capable of very good late pace numbers. 35 days off is my only concern.

Here is the 2009 Jockey Club Gold Cup:

Summer Bird got a better trip, and was under urging for a good chunk of the race as well. Quality Road just came up short. He might not come up short on Saturday.

A horse familiar with the track, Colonel John, cannot be overlooked. He is very similar in style to Quality Road, but the 126 pounds may hurt him at this distance, though that wasn't the case in the Travers.

I really don't like Zenyatta. I even doubt she will hit the board. Her figures are inferior to at least 3 of the known horses, and there are a couple of European invaders who, if they transfer their numbers to the poly, will be very tough as well.

If you bet on favourites on either day this year, you better love them, and I mean love them. I'm expecting the payouts to be large in most Breeders Cup races. Click here for long shot plays worthy of having on your exotic tickets.

The following are what I believe are vulnerable favourites:

Lillie Langtry
Blind Luck
Careless Jewel
Interactif
Goldikova
Zenyatta

I really think Rachel Alexandra (how is that for stating the obvious?) would have jogged in the Ladies Classic, and Zenyatta will probably have wished she went there instead.

Click here for picks by members of the Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance.



Canadian Breeders Cup Bettors Beware
If you bet at Woodbine, through HPI, or at a track that is affiliated with HPI, you better expect lower than track payoffs if you hit a triactor or Pick 3, etc.

Woodbine Entertainment is no fan of lower takeouts, and California has some of the lowest takeouts in horse racing (15.43% on WPS and 20.68% on all other bets). Woodbine has deemed that their takeout on triactors, supers, Pick 3's, Pick 4's, etc. are totally unacceptable, so they ramp up the takeout for their valued customer to reflect a 25% takeout.

Here are payoffs for yesterday's (November 4th) 8th race at Santa Anita Woodbine's payoff first, and Santa Anita's real payoff in parenthesis. The payouts were small so you need to appreciate the percentage differences:

$2 Daily Double $6.90 (6.80)
$1 Super High 5 $127.95 (136.20)
$2 Exactor $12.70 (12.60)
$1 Pick 3 $17.85 (19.00)
$1 Pick 4 $216.85 (230.90)
$1 Pick 5 $706.45 (752.10)
$1 Superfecta $65.80 (70.00)
$2 Triactor $19.90 (21.80)

You'll notice that Woodbine actually paid higher for the exactor and double. This is because in Ontario, prices are rounded down to the dime on $2 based payoffs. In most of the states, prices are rounded down to the nearest 20 cents on every 2 dollar based payoff. So one out of two times roughly, you can actually get a better payoff at Woodbine by a dime on exactors, doubles and WPS winning bets.

But the horrendous part is that if you are fortunate enough to cash something else, and something that pays real money, you will get around 93.9% of the actual payout if you cash through HPI.

Yeah, I've heard the argument that Canadians don't have to pay withholding and that horse race winnings are tax free in Canada. But how many people win in the long run anyway? Not many, especially those who play without substantial rebates.

Canadian tax laws are no excuse for Woodbine's pompous disdain and larcenous behaviour it has for its customer.

If Woodbine can't justify paying track odds, they shouldn't take the signal. They are ripping off, for the most part, an unsuspecting public, and showing absolutely no respect to those who know the scoop.

If you hit a triactor that pays $3000 for a buck at Santa Anita on a Breeders Cup race on Friday or Saturday, you will receive only around $2817 through HPI or at Woodbine or one of their affiliated teletheatres, etc. That is a complete rip off, and I don't understand how they get away with it, but they do.


Another ridiculous rule that hasn't been rectified is the fact that if you bet through a Canadian ADW or at a Canadian track you can't bet 10 cent, 20 cent, or 50 cent bets when that is in fact the minimum for certain bets at almost every track. If you want to play, you have to make the base bet at least a dollar.

But don't think this is just affecting Canadians. If you bet through a US ADW on a Canadian track offering bets that have less than a dollar base, you can't take advantage of the lower minimums in this case either.


AD BELOW

Horseplayersbet.com has a fantastic promotion going on right now: A 20% match on your initial deposit (for deposits up to $1000).

This means that if you open a Horseplayersbet.com account and deposit $500, once you bet $500, you will get $100 placed in your account (within 72 hours).

And to make things really easy Horseplayersbet.com has waived the Debit and Credit Card fee of 4% on deposits of $100 or more. You can also fund your account immediately with Green Dot as well. ACH's take three business days to clear.

Horseplayersbet.com is available to residents of 30 states in the USA, and is 100% parimutuel. Great betting interface, and free live video as well. Not available to residents of Canada.

For more information, CLICK HERE.

Horseplayersbet.com also has one of the best Player Rewards Program available to even the smallest player.

Back In The 60's You Could Bet $8 Million On A Horse And Not Even Affect The Odds

Ah yes, the good ole days. In Hollywood, when someone needed money desperately, and/or in a hurry, one of the only options was to go to the track and bet like a maniac. The only other real competition to this was robbing a bank.

I was reminded of this, on Halloween night. My job was to be in the kitchen on high alert, waiting for kids to come to door, so I could hand out candies and make sure my dog was reminded not to bite little people in scary costumes, though I don't blame her for being freaked out.

One of the US channels was playing and Addams Family marathon. It was one of my favourite shows when I was a kid. It is funnier today than it was back then by the way. The episode played at around 8ish and was named The Addams Family Splurges.

Bored and looking for excitement, the Addams Family decide that going to the moon would make for a great holiday destination. They consulted their home built computer (Whizzo) to find out how much such a trek would cost and found it to be slightly over a billion dollars (seeing the computer in action gave me a deeper appreciation for the Google search engine).

In short, they decide to make the billion at the track, using selections from the computer. The idea was to start with $2000 and parlay until the billion was made.

Here is the episode on Youtube:



"I seem to remember having an extra couple of thousand to bet with lying around here somewhere." Classic.

Now of course, there was obvious silliness and things that made no sense like when Fester wondered where the money went and was told it is in a safe at the bank. Or the idea that they were negotiating canceling the bet when there weren't cell phones (or mentions of them back then).

And those Hollywood stretch runs that last over a minute are a pet peeve of mine, as well as when they change the horse and/or its position when switching from those viewing the race to the actual race itself. And those quick DQs too just make me cringe.

The best part of the episode though, is that an $8 million bet wouldn't affect the odds of a 100-1 shot. Racetracks across the world would love that to be the case.

JCapper may be great software today, but it just can't come close to competing with Whizzo.

One more thing. Does anyone have any idea which track was being shown in the episode? Hialeah? Tropical Park?



On a serious note, lets hope the condition of Canadian born jockey Julia Brimo improves. She fell down hard in the first race at Keeneland on Saturday. At latest report she is still in critical condition.



Also, check out the New Deal as proposed by Pompano racing exec John Berry. Cutting takeout to 12% throughout the industry would be fabulous.

Where Berry comes up short is the real reason this would be successful and how it would lead to actual growth.

Horseplayers will last longer, which means they will devote more time gambling on horses, which will inevitably draw in friends, family and/or coworkers to the game as well. At least it ups the chance that they will get exposed to horse racing.

Also, the odd long term winner will be created, and this will inevitably draw in new players as well be it word of mouth or the internet.

The reason slots are so successful is that they get the odd newbie because of an addicted family member or friend. But if the addicted person had to face an 80% payback, they wouldn't go nearly as much if at all eventually.

In his example, he is saying that there will be an additional $50,000 lost by patrons each day. Yet he contends that bettors will be leaving with more money each day. So it is contingent on bettors playing a lot more often, and it implies new players coming in, because bettors don't have a bottomless pit of money.

In a nutshell, his idea would work, but not for the only reason he cites.


Good interview by HANA with a Betfair exec. It is a must read. Good move by the Breeders Cup.

I'm still not sure this deal benefits Betfair though, because allowing its customers to bet into large takeouts will cause many of their customers to lose too quickly and may cost them customers in the long term, just as North American racing has managed to do over the last 40 years.


Steve Davidowitz article up at Trackmaster (free registration required). His view on how to solve racing's most pressing problems. Takeout takeout takeout. OK, not just that.

Bettors Want Bigger Fields Over Higher Quality Fields

Cool poll over at Pace Advantage: Which would you rather bet on? High quality horses in races with short fields or low quality horses in races with full fields?

At the time of this posting, over 88% of voters chose full fields. I'm not surprised full fields is preferred, but the margin is a bit of a shock.

Takeout and track surface are also factored in big time by bettors, and that explains why Woodbine, with their big fields, fails to attract significant betting.

Looking at Woodbine's recent pathetic handles I have to wonder if they just need to go back to the drawing board and start over. With the fabulous purse structure they have, the near monopoly on horse race gambling they have in Canada as well, it is inexcusable to have handle numbers that range between $1.2-$1.6 million on Wednesday's and Thursdays. Even $2.5 million on Saturdays isn't anything to brag about either when compared to A tracks like Keeneland.

If not for slots, Woodbine would have been bankrupt a long time ago. Their leadership needs to go. They have killed a great game.

What good do $1 million dollar races at Woodbine do? They do have a couple of $5 million handle days thanks to them, but when you analyze things, they actually lose money on those days.

Are those days good for the Canadian economy? Not really. Most of the purse monies are grabbed by non Canadian outfits shipping in horses and the money leaves the country.

Does it help the Canadian/Ontario breeding industry? Nope. The horses that end up with the big money rarely have an ounce of Canadian blood in them.

How about creating more bettors? There is absolutely no evidence that new bettors have been created. Since Willmot took the reigns, very few new bettors have been created in Ontario. In fact, many older bettors have either died or took their business elsewhere. And if one looks at the handle numbers right before or after the big races, there is no apparent change when it comes to creating new business.

Besides drastically lowering takeout, Woodbine would be best advised to knock it off with the extraordinarily high purse paid out in their biggest races, and use their resources to attract and sustain Canadian outfits. Woodbine gives out too much to allowance runners as well (5 horse fields running for $100,000 purses aren't worth it as they attract little to no betting).

Woodbine should give out more money to lower end claimers, allowing new local owners/partnerships (Ontarians) a shot to make money and build a stable. Inevitably, these new owners will come to the track more, expose more friends and family to horse racing (taking them out to the track when their horses run). They will also be more inclined to buy yearlings (thus helping the local breeding industry). Like bettors, owners are more apt to play a lot longer the more money they receive each time they are victorious.


Delaware Bucks Downward Trend In Racing
Delaware ran 27 less days this year, but their total handle (not daily, total) was up.

See what happens when you allow your signal to be available to everyone, make your video available to everyone, and have half decent field sizes (close to 8 horses a race average), and have slightly lower than average track takeouts (19% on doubles and exactors). See also, Pull The Pocket: Less Races, More Betting

Speaking about those who don't give out their signal to everyone and also withhold their video, where are Belmont's final numbers? My guess is the that the boys at NYRA are scurrying around looking for viable excuses so they have a shot at keeping their jobs.



Fort Erie handle drops on par with the industry drop in 2009

Fort Erie handle dropped around 10% this year. Field size was up from last year to 8.2 horses a race from 7.7 a race last year. They gave out 5% less in purse distribution in 2009.
********************************************
There was no mention regarding whether they ran significantly less races in 2009. I do remember quite a few 10 race cards last year on Mondays and Tuesdays, and I'm inclined to think that the 5% drop in purse distribution is in line with 5% less races.
This would account for some of the drop off.

Fort Erie is very good about distributing their signal to all tracks and ADWs, so exposure isn't the issue. And players like races that have bigger field over quality, so that definitely isn't the issue.

The biggest factor could be public awareness of takeout. Thanks to HANA and blogs like mine, the public is becoming more and more educated as to why they aren't lasting long when they play the ponies.

Fort Erie, like Woodbine have ridiculously high takeout rates. See the HANA takeout chart here (it is not 100% up to date, but it is close). Fort Erie, has the highest takeout rate in North America for exactors and doubles. It is 26.2%. Besides educated players avoiding the track because of this, rates like this kill off people who don't even have a clue about takeout. When you send players home with less money, they are less likely to come back anytime soon.

Slot operators generally payout around 92%. In Ontario, slot operators are allowed to payout between 85-98%. They generally payout around 90-92%. Why not 85%? Because, slot operators have historically found that anything over 90% has a negative impact on future slot earnings. Players don't last long enough to make their experience enjoyable enough. They go less, and when they go less, they are less likely to bring friends or family along the odd night, possibly creating a new slots customer.

Here is a pretty current slot payback chart by state.


If Fort Erie doesn't open next year, the Welfare Offices could be getting a lot of extra business.
There is no doubt that Fort Erie's closure would have a tremendous negative impact in Fort Erie and its surrounding area. The more I think about it, Ajax Downs can't be the solution when it comes to where B horses will race next year. Without a backstretch, it would be just too impractical. Costs to ship to race or workout, coupled with the cost to train a horse off a farm (which also makes it difficult to get a horse to 100% race fit, and gives Woodbine shippers a insurmountable edge), will probably cause many owners to leave the game.

GOVERNMENT BAILED OUT FORT ERIE 17 YEARS AGO: PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET

This isn't the first time, Fort Erie needed a government bail out. Back in the early 90's, the Ontario Jockey Club was making it known that Fort Erie was losing a couple of million a year. I happened to run across this yesterday: Ontario Jockey Club Study of the Impact of Casino Gambling on the Ontario Horse Racing industry
September 21,1992. It is important to note that back then, the government was making around 9% on every dollar bet (this has now been reduced to 1.3%, probably with this study in mind, as it was known in advance that slots would cannibalize horse racing).

On page 6 of the report:

In particular, smaller operations have been hit very
hard as shown by the plight of the 95-year old Fort Erie racetrack owned by the OJC. Fort Erie has been losing $2 million per year for the last five years.

The OJC was able to sustain these losses for a period of time as its other operations produced sufficient revenues to subsidize these losses.

They were forced into a position, however, to close the Fort Erie operation unless assistance was received from other participants.

An arrangement with the provincial government was reached at the end of July which is expected to provide the OJC with an additional $1.5 million by way of a tax rebate scheme.

It has recently been announced that smaller operations will receive a proportionately larger tax-rebate from the government in order to survive in the current recessionary environment.

If the government increases competition for these tracks by introducing new forms of gambling, it is likely that further government assistance will be required if significant track closures are to be avoided.

It was estimated by the OJC that closure of the Fort Erie track would have meant a loss of 4,500 jobs and a loss of payroll for the community of $38 million.

Bottom line, precedence has been set with respect to the government bailing out Fort Erie.


Fort Erie Trainer Gets A 9 Month Ban
Trainer Michael Osborne was caught by Woodbine security in the receiving barn with a loaded syringe. After analyzing the substance, the "liquid in the syringe to be n-butanol and ethanol both alcohol, a Class 2 medication."

This brings up at least a couple of concerns. I doubt that this mixture shows up on a test, yet it a Class 2 medication, so why don't they test for it?

I'm always of the mindset that when someone gets nailed like this, whether it is a trainer will an illegal substance or a drug dealer getting nailed by the RCMP, there are thousands of instances when the trainer or drug dealer is not caught. Some are never caught.

In my view, Osborne was just unlucky he got nailed. The odds were totally against him getting caught.

So this boils down to one key question: Are the penalties in place right now enough of a deterrent to stop the cheating?

My answer is NO. 9 months definitely will hurt anyone financially, but the time goes by pretty quickly. 3 years, would probably do the trick. I don't know if any trainer would risk that? Of course, if these drug violation were treated as they should be by the courts, and criminal charges were laid (defrauding the betting public), we might find a lot more honest trainers in the backstretch.

Trainers will adapt. But with so many trainers getting away with drug concoctions in the backstretch, even the honest ones need to compete to stay in business and they are tempted to cheat as well.

Give almost any trainer a blue pill, and tell them it won't test and you can expect an enhanced performance from the horse, and 99% of the trainers would be giving the horse the pill...at least that is how I see it.

EQUIBASE IMPROVES THINGS AGAIN FOR THE HORSEPLAYER
Equibase just unveiled a consolidated horse search. This allows anyone to type in the name of a race horse, and then view, for free, any of the race charts for that horse all the way back to 1999. Or you can view it 5X Pedigree for free as well. It also links to pay services as well. Simply go to the Equibase home page and you'll find the box that will get you going. You can also look up a broodmare's race record, and if she raced from 1999, see her actual charts race by race.

Equibase also recently did the horseplayer another great deed with a new and improved way for players to get up to the minute scratches, jockey changes, and surface changes. Every player needs to bookmark this page. It is an excellent resource.

ADVERTISEMENT BELOW
ARE YOU CLOSE TO MAKING MONEY BETTING THE PONIES?

Open up a free account with Horseplayersbet.com and the rewards might just push you into positive territory. 100% Parimutuel (Your bet goes right into the racetrack's betting pool). Free Video for active players. Excellent Player Rewards Program. Free replays coming soon.

20% Match On Your Initial Deposit!
(That is almost equivalent to betting the horses with a 0% track takeout).

Open an account and receive a 20% match on your initial deposit! Restricted to new customers only. Customer must play at least their initial deposit amount within 14 days of opening the account. Maximum deposit eligible for promotion is $1000. This promotion is not to be combined with our excellent standard rewards program which will begin after the initial deposit amount is wagered. Other restriction may apply.

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM


Please Note: Horseplayersbet.com is not available to Canadian residents.

Schwarzenegger Signs Amendment To Allow Tracks To Terminate California Racing

I was really alarmed when I read the article, Governor Signs Bill To Help Horse-Racing Industry:

The bill (Bill 517) by Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) allows a thoroughbred association or fair to increase the amount it deducts from horse-race wagering. It also provides the groups more flexibility to spend the money on improvements, including the purchase of tracks and training areas, and allows winnings that are more competitive with those offered in other states.

Legislative analysts estimate that a 5% increase in the amount taken out of wagers would generate $200 million annually for the horse-racing industry.

*************************************************************
This just goes to show how out of touch with reality governments are when it comes to horse racing. They are assuming that $4 billion that is now being bet will remain to be at least $4 billion bet. They have no idea what churn is, and how that $4 billion may turn into $3 billion if takeout in California rises a full 5%, which would lead to a bottom line decrease to the state and to the racetracks.

One commenter (Scott F.) on the article said it best:

"How does this actually help the racing industry? Bettors don't have bottomless pockets - if they lose their money faster, the total pie gets smaller and these players give up and go home. A bigger chunk of a smaller pie will be worth far less than a small chunk of a bigger pie. Yet again, wagering laws decided by people who have never placed a bet, or have certainly never tried doing it seriously. Basic economic theory of elasticity of price applies here."

As an aside, I don't recall any racetracks in any futuristic movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger:)

Upon doing a little more digging, this bill doesn't mean that takeouts have to rise. Thanks to Equidaily for posting the actual old bill and the new revised bill to help clear the air.

In a nutshell, California had the 10%-25% takeout limits prior to the signing. But what this new bill does is give the power to the racetracks to be able to raise, or even lower takeout without any red tape from the government.

The only hurdle standing in the way of a takeout change is the California horsemen groups. They have to approve any changes before changes are made.

However, after reading the politician's take on the bill in the LA Times article, I would have to say that this was signed with a takeout increase in mind.

As for the Horsemen Groups veto. Don't count on it. In Ontario, racetracks have had the same powers California tracks now have. They can raise or drop takeout without red tape. However, horsemen groups stand in the way here when it comes to growth through lower pricing.

The reality is Woodbine has noted that the horsemen agreement actually stands in the way of a takeout decrease as they get an additional 2% on all bets placed and an additional 4% on triactors. What that means is if we look at the old takeout for triactors at Woodbine, the government got 1.3% out of the 28.3%, Woodbine received 11.5% (42.6% of the amount of takeout available to horsemen and track), the horsemen received 15.5% (57.4% of the available takeout money).

Theoretically, if Woodbine were to drop their takeout to 21.3% on triactors, the agreement would make it so that Woodbine would get 8% (only 40% of the amount of takeout available to horsemen and the track) and the horsemen 12% (60% of the amount of takeout available) on all triactor bets made.

If takeout were to decrease even more, the ratio the track gets would decrease even further.

It is the horsemen who are unwilling to renegotiate this contract to make it more equitable.

This also has implications on rebates given to its customers. The horsemen group is double dipping here because the rebates come from the track's money. When the rebate is churned, the horsemen get a cut on that money too.

In other words, horsemen groups don't help the game when it comes to lowering takeout and allowing the game to grow.

Maybe the horsemen groups need to be educated more on the matter.

Gambler's Book Club recently put up a podcast of an interview with icon handicapper/author Steve Davidowitz (click here, and then click the "Listen Now" button on the top right). At around the 8:30 minute mark of the interview, Davidowitz is asked about track takeout. He said there was a secret study done around 20 years ago (who knows, maybe it was 30 years ago) where takeout was changed from 14% to 17% and back again for a couple of years (Note: he didn't mention what track or tracks participated in this study). He did however state that the results were that when tracks lowered takeout, handle increased, and when they upped it, it dropped. In the long run, tracks made more money with the lower takeout.

To be honest, I never heard of this study until I heard the interview. But all one has to do is look at the success of Betfair to show that by allowing players to last longer, the players all of a sudden become more obsessed. Obsessed with the idea they can win, and the fact they last so long, it really kills other competitive forms of gambling in that player's life, not to mention it also increases the likelihood that the player will expose others to his or her obsession.

I can tell you for a fact, that the reason most players stop betting is that they run out of money. That has always been the case. But when you consistently run out of money too quickly, you increase your already negative expectations of the game (even if this is done on a subconscious level). This is the reason why slots take out an average of around 10%, not 20%.

When horseplayers sit on the sidelines, they lose interest in horse racing. And very importantly, they wind up not exposing new people to the game when on the sidelines.

The last track I know of that raised takeout was Calder back at the start of 2008. Calder recently had to slash purses. Now, instead of dropping takeout, the track has decided to put its effort into promoting its casino. Personally, I have not bet on a Calder race since the takeout increase was announced. If one track were to close tomorrow, I would like it to be them.

HANA (Horseplayers Association Of North America) is obviously against any takeout increases anywhere. We are pondering putting up an ad in The Daily Racing Form to help inform the public, horsemen and racetracks of the insanity that appears likely to transpire as a result of this bill. From the HANA President:

This bill does not in itself change takeout rates. However, we are obviously concerned by the implications and the tone of the press releases.

HANA, on behalf of horseplayers everywhere, is currently seeking further information as to any immediate consequences from this change of law.

HANA is extremely dismayed to see the same false economics continue to be thrown about, that suggests prices can rise while sales remain constant.

A price increase would obviously only have one effect -- to further accelerate the mass exodus of players and their wagering dollars from this game.


Jeff Platt

President, HANA


To help HANA out, please become a member (it is free and will take you a minute to fill the form), and if you want to contribute to the cost of the ad campaign, feel free to donate here.

Fort Erie 2010: Looking More and More Like A Long Shot

Despite the efforts of the HBPA and the Fort Erie EDTC, the likelihood that live racing will happen at Fort Erie in 2010 is very dim.

Ontario HBPA President Sue Leslie paints a rather grim picture when it comes to the potential sale of the track. "Negotiations regarding the sale of Fort Erie Racetrack are stalling. In our observations the offer made to Nordic Gaming are not in line with their expectations in terms of the racetracks value."

What value? Nordic claims they are losing $3-4 million a year. And the business isn't looking any brighter. Their handles lately have been brutal. They appear to be off around 20% of late at least.

Note to Nordic: You can barely give away a business that loses millions a year. Nordic Gaming doesn't care about that fact. They continue to ask for prices way above the market. If it wasn't for pure "extortion" this year, there would have been no racing at all.

There was government money lying around ($2 million that was supposed to go towards a feasibility project for the smoke and mirrors $300 million expansion) to give away to Nordic. There is no more money left (Nordic has it all), so there are few options left in order for racing to happen at The Fort next year.

So what are the options?

1. Nordic sells the track. Won't happen without a government bail out, as Nordic always want way too much.

2. Fort Erie doesn't open next year for racing. This will crush the already down and out breeding and owning businesses in Ontario. Right now, because of the uncertainty going forward when it comes to B racing in Ontario, there is no claiming going on at Fort Erie, and it is nearly impossible to give a horse away. If there is no out in Ontario for horse owners, demand for Woodbine horses will also get hurt. For one thing, less Fort Erie horsemen means less demand for claimers at Woodbine, and without Fort Erie, there is greater risk claiming one for $12,500 to $20,000 than ever before. If the horse isn't competitive for Woodbine bottoms, the owner pretty much has to ship the horse to the States, and many owners don't want that hassle, and they want the option at least, to watch their horse run live.

The HBPA is now pushing for slots to close if the track isn't open. This could be a great wake-up call for Nordic Gaming if it does happen. It will definitely motivate them to sell, and probably at a very realistic price.

3. Woodbine steps in and leases Fort Erie for $1. They assume all losses for the near future. This does make business sense if Woodbine's goal is to grow horse racing in Ontario and not to kill horse racing in Ontario. But I'm not sure that this is the case. As stated above, if there is no B thoroughbred track in Ontario, breeders will get clobbered as owners continue to become fewer, this time at an accelerated rate.

4. Ajax Downs runs 50-70 thoroughbred dates. This is looking like the most likely scenario. They will have a five furlong track ready to go for 2010. The only stumbling blocks are a rumoured horsemen's agreement where Quarter horsemen were promised that there would be no thoroughbred racing at Ajax through 2010. Contracts can be broken, because everyone has a price. The big negative when it comes to thoroughbred racing at Ajax is the fact they literally have no backstretch. There usually isn't room at Woodbine for B horses, so training B horses off a farm and shipping them in for race day, becomes very expensive and problematic.

5. The government (Finance Minister Dwight Duncan) buys into the Fort Erie EDTC's plan. I'll simplify the plan here: The Fort Erie EDTC wants the government to give the Consortia $15 million a year for six years to replace the proceeds Fort Erie gets from slots (which sits at around $8 million a year). The way I figure the extra $7 million will be used is as follows: $2 million extra to purses (this would be great and would encourage more ownership of horses), $3 million to cover losses (again, this is a must because the EDTC Consortia has no money, and $2 million to lease the track. The latter is a deal killer as far as I'm concerned. Giving Nordic one cent profit would be absolutely absurd.

6. The government (or the OLG) gives Nordic $2.5 million on a year to year basis to cover the losses of the track. This is probably the second most likely scenario, as it keeps Fort Erie open until Nordic finally lowers their price realistically enough to sell the joint (it is a bad time right now to begin with because of all the Magna tracks on the market. There are only so many outfits interested in owning a racetrack out there). Of course, if the government is really smart, they hire me to help get Fort Erie out of the red:) There are many ways Fort Erie can improve their bottom line.

I need to also mention the obvious: Without racing in Fort Erie, the Niagara Region's economy will get hurt big time.


If you want to help encourage the Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance save Fort Erie racetrack, email him at (NOTE: It appears the email address may not work):
dduncan@mpp.liberal.ola.org. or fax him at 416-325-0374

For more read Perry Lefko's article in the new issue of Down The Stretch. Down The Stretch also has some early Breeder's Cup selections.

The Price Of Betting Horses Is Way Too High

John Pricci has been working overtime writing articles about what came out of the recently concluded simulcast conference.

Hopefully, the articles aren't falling on deaf, dumb and blind eyes.

In A Simulcast Manifesto, Pricci writes about changes that bettors want and need, from accurate data to a standardized payoff format that all tracks should use:

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.

And he ends the article with this:

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.

The Pricci piece inspired a Bloodhorse piece by Tom LaMarra; Are the Voices of Horseplayers Voices Being Heard?:

“Every time there was a lower takeout experiment in New York, handle went up,” Pricci said. “Small-minded bet-takers say they understand churn, but they don’t understand churn. This industry has a vested interest in keeping the player liquid.”

Pari-mutuel takeout has been a sticking point for many years. Impediments to change include regulations that vary by state and arguments between exporters and importers. Tracks that have experimented with takeout reductions have had their signals pulled from some wagering outlets.

When Laurel tried their 12% takeout experiment, Woodbine refused to put it on their menu. That is just one example I know about.

At least one racing exec admittedly gets it:

On Oct. 13 at the simulcast conference, Jeff Gural, who owns Tioga Downs and Vernon Downs, two New York harness tracks with video gaming machines, said because slots provide about 90% of the purse money, he’s willing to experiment with takeout even though wagering pools are small...“Tracks would drop our signals."

Not all tracks and ADWs would drop his signal though. And I know HANA would support this type of effort big time. Even me, someone who hasn't bet a harness race since I remember, would play his tracks.


Pricci outdid himself this morning with his piece: Gambling Consultant: “Amount of Money Taken from Bettors Is Not Sustainable”

Betting menus have expanded, popular because it gives customers more choice but problematic because betting pools become diluted. With new wagers having a higher degree of difficulty, coupled with high takeout, players are busting out at a faster rate. Times being what they are, they’ve been voting with their feet.

Even breakage is tackled in the article:

Today’s technology allows players to bet $2.43 to get back $9.17 if they wish. Pay the winners in full. There’s no good reason for breakage to exist in the modern era. The industry should have been fighting local governments for those pennies on behalf of their customers, instead of piling on.

Eugene Christiansen, gambling consultant gets it more than almost every racing executive and horseman put together:

He was asked: “If racing could correct just one problem, what should it be?”

Said Christiansen, without hesitation or equivocation: “Pricing is a threshold issue.”

How and why lowering takeout will grow the game?

The fact that the mainstream bettors will last longer. They will expose more friends family and coworkers to horse racing. For example, I had my sisters family over at my house recently, but I was on a good winning streak, and I was spending most of the day at the computer making bets. This got the interest of my brother-in-law, and my nephew and niece. Not saying that this turned them into gambling addicts, but it did perk their interest.

Conversely, they were at my place 6 months ago when I was temporarily not betting because I was having a bad streak. Horse racing wasn’t even mentioned that weekend.

If takeouts are reduced, the likelihood of regular players like me missing a day or a weekend become close to non existent.

Also, if takeout is reduced to 10-12% the idea that the game is unbeatable will be taken out by actual winners who will draw more newbies into the game (just like it works with Betfair and online poker who make their money because there are a few winners, but obviously a heck of a lot of losers who think they have a chance to win).


Excellent Proposal In California: Voiding Claims If A Horse Can't Make It Soundly Back To The Barn

This will take away the incentive to drop a really sore down with the purpose of getting it claimed:

He (Dr. Rick Arthur) cited one instance of a trainer and owner at Hollywood Park last fall "high-fiving" in front of the horse ambulance after a horse that had been claimed from them broke down in a race.

In Ontario, if a claimed horse is put down within 24 hours of the claim, the new owner gets half the claim back as a rebate. I like California's plan much better. It actually might protect more horses from dying on the track.


Quebec Horse Racing Firm Goes Bankrupt
The government didn't allow slots to bail out the dying industry in this case. Nick Eaves was asked if Woodbine will be pursuing Quebec racing: "Absolutely not," Eaves told Trot Insider on Wednesday. "It's terrible what Quebec is going through, but we have our own problems that we have to deal with here."

Dang right, Woodbine has their own problems here. But they have been self inflicted. Yesterday they had a total handle of just over $1.2 million in a week that they are promoting their biggest racing day of the year. It is disgusting what Woodbine's brass has done to horse racing's growth potential in Ontario by drastically overpricing their game to the consumer. Absolutely disgusting.

HERE IS A MESSAGE TO ALL WOODBINE EXECUTIVES: WHEN THE SINK BACKS UP, CALL A PLUMBER



Will Ontario's government bail out Fort Erie? The question still remains if there will be racing next year, but that was easy to predict. Next year may be a lot more difficult because the EDTC has run out of funny money to pay Nordic off to keep the track alive in 2010.

Meanwhile, Fort Erie may have a car racing track by 2011. I am doubting this will happen, but who knows?


With the Canadian International coming up, this video sure does bring back lots of memories. I was 12 when Secretariat raced at Woodbine. I sold racing forms prior to the first race that day, got cleaned up and spent the rest of the day at my mother's table in the dining room:



HT Jen's Blog

Calder Purses Slashed: No Surprise Here

Calder slashes purses 15%; Horsemen Upset

I wrote this headline a year and a half ago: Calder Raises Takeout: What Imbeciles
There hasn't been very much movement upward when it comes to track takeout amongst North American tracks since I began blogging (I'm only partly responsible for this:)), and that is why I was so flabbergasted that Calder had the audacity to raise takeout rates last year:

The big news to specialty gamblers Monday was that Calder raised its takeout percentage on a few wagering options. The track will now take 27 percent out of Pick 3, 4 and 5 wagering (up 3 percentage points) and 21 percent from the Daily Double and Exacta bets (up 1 percentage point).

Yes, they took an already high takeout rate, and made it higher. What did they expect?
To make more money? HAHAHAHA Nope, they just found out how Economics 101 works. You don't raise the price for the sake of raising the price and expect to make more money. The doofuses need to read up on the basic law of supply and demand: When demand shrinks, they price (the takeout charged) needs to shrink.

The mix of track execs and horsemen is killing horse racing. The horsemen want want more money NOW and they attempt to use coercion to the point that racing execs, even if they had the foresight (which most don't) to grow the game (by lowering takeout), they can't. And in fact, they wind up making decisions like the one made by Calder, that help destroy the game.

The horsemen want more from a shrinking pie. I don't blame them wanting more, but they just don't seem to get the repercussions of their demands. For instance, they want larger signal fees to be charged by tracks so they can "theoretically" make more money from wagers. However, they don't seem to get that the only growing business in horse racing are the ADWs that offer rebates. By trying to squeeze out more, they wind up lowering the rebates offered, which in turn causes the price sensitive players to play less or bet with bookies offshore.


Good Reading: Crisis, Danger, And Opportunity
Well, the comments make for good reading. One jokester (probably a Woodbine Exec) posts under the name CGDean:

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. 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.

*************************************
Is this a moron being serious, or is it someone trying to show how farcical owner/breeders have become with their collective industry mindset and their demands? I can't tell anymore.

I replied to another comment there:

VEC said: "I do not believe our take out, also 22 to 24%, deters the average bettor, and certainly not a newcomer to racing. Not many at the track, or down at the local OTB complain about it."
**********************************
Again, this misconception keeps on showing up all over the place.

True,most horseplayers don't care about takeout. Just like slot players don't care about the house edge. They never complain about it.

However, Vegas started out with a very high edge on slots, but through trial and error they realized that the optimum edge is 8-10%.

This means that if they doubled the edge, they wouldn't get even half the total money bet.

So why is it? Because customers get blown out to quickly. They may not even realize why they don't feel like going so much, but they don't.

And when they don't go so much, they are less likely to bring friends, family, neighbors and coworkers with them the odd time to expose them to the slots.

Same is true in horse racing.



HORSEPLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA APPOINTS JOHN PRICCI TO THE ADVISORY BOARD
Pricci is one of the few horse racing journalists who completely understands that horseplayers are the driving force of horse racing, and has no problem writing about it.


Adena Springs Finally Figured Out That It Is More Lucrative To Breed Ontario Sired Horses Rather Than Florida Bred Ones

'The stallions that will be moving from Florida to Gardiner (in Ontario), joining other Adena stallions Sligo Bay and Silent Name, are 1996 Breeders’ Cup Classic (gr. I) winner Alphabet Soup (Cozzene—Illiterate, by Arts and Letters), multiple grade I winner Milwaukee Brew (Wild Again—Ask Anita, by Wolf Power), and graded winner Olmodavor (A.P. Indy—Corrazona, by El Gran Senor). New stallion Giant Gizmo(Giant's Causeway—Golden Antigua, by Hansel) also will stand in Canada.'


SHHH Don't tell anyone, but despite the bad economy gambling continues to be on the rise in Canada.
Well, not at the racetracks though. Maybe one day they'll wake up and understand that it is the onerous takeouts that prevent horse racing from growing. I have a feeling it won't be under Willmot's watch.


For those who think that takeout is the same as it was 40 years ago check out this from the Daily Racing Archives:

LINCOLN DOWNS R I May 13, 1964
Under a new appropriations law that went into effect Monday night, the total parimutuel takeout on racing in Rhode Island is now 16 per cent. The additional 1 per cent is split evenly between the state and the track. The state receives 8 1/2 per cent and the track 7 1/2%. The new tax went into effect with the races at Lincoln Downs Monday night. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire the takeout is 14 per cent. Vermont is the highest in the nation with an 18 per cent tax followed by Maine with a 17 nick.
******************************************
Stands were full back then. Bettors had fewer betting options, win, place and show, a couple of exactors a day and a daily double. Many left the track with money in their pockets, enough to entice them to go back as soon as possible.

One of the better arguments to today is how does a track rationalize charging more for triactors and other exotics? It doesn't cost them more to print the ticket or to take the bet at a terminal or online. But the reality is that the exotics with the highest takeouts really kill bankrolls and ultimately discourage bettors from playing as often.

I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty sure takeout at the ORC track (Woodbine, Fort Erie, and Greenwood) were something in the neighbourhood of 14-16% tops. And the government was taking around 7.5% back then. Nowadays, Woodbine's average takeout is closer to 21%-22% and the government only gets 1.3% on each wager.


Did Chantal Sutherland recently have botox lip injections? It sure looked like yesterday on The Score.


HORSPLAYERSBET.COM HAS A NEW PROMOTION:
20% Match On Your Initial Deposit!

Open an account and receive a 20 % match on your initial deposit! Restricted to new customers only. Customer must play at least their initial deposit amount within 14 days of opening the account. Maximum deposit eligible for promotion is $1000. This promotion is not to be combined with our standards rewards program which will begin after the initial deposit amount is wagered. Other restriction may apply.

Real Time Scratches And Changes Now Available Thanks To HANA And Equibase

See What A Collective Voice For Horseplayers Can Accomplish

One of the biggest complaints from horseplayers over the last few years has been not knowing if a race is still on the turf or if the race was taken off. Track conditions, late changes and even part of the entry changes has also been a source of contention, especially to online bettors.

Thanks to a meeting in the spring between HANA and Equibase, this particular gripe is now a thing of the past.

Leaving it to racing execs who should have known about this problem for years, did nothing for the horseplayer. Simply, racing execs are out of touch with horseplayers.

Here is the release courtesy of Equibase:

Current day scratches and program changes from racetracks throughout North America are now available throughout the day in a dedicated section of equibase.com, it was announced Oct. 1 by Equibase Company president and COO Hank Zeitlin.

Equibase developed the new service in conjunction with racetracks and with feedback from the Horseplayers Association of North America. Besides having access to the latest scratches, horseplayers can now obtain other critical updates such as when a race has been moved from turf to dirt, distance changes, jockey changes, and amended wagering options on equibase.com. They can also register to receive an RSS feed for each track they are playing, enabling instant delivery of information to desktops and mobile devices.

These scratches and program changes are updated live from the racetrack via eBase®, Equibase’s proprietary Internet-based data collection system. Designated personnel at the live track can now use eBase to enter the day’s scratches and program changes until one hour before post time for the first race, at which time Equibase chartcallers assume responsibility for entering subsequent changes.

“During the Keeneland spring meet where we held our first HANA Day at the Races, Equibase and members of HANA met for a productive meeting at their office,” said HANA President Jeff Platt. “We are very pleased that as a result of that beginning and subsequent discussions, horseplayers will now have access to a centralized, accurate resource for reporting of late-breaking changes.”

“Making it easier for horseplayers to acquire pertinent information such as scratches and program changes is simply good business and the tracks are happy to participate in this new arrangement,” said Chris Scherf, executive vice president of the Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America.

The “Today’s Scratches & Program Changes” webpage was deployed Sept. 29 and is accessible via a link on the equibase.com homepage. The current day scratches and program changes are also available for electronic retrieval, which enables value-added resellers, tracks, and other industry organizations to provide timely changes and scratches to their respective customers.
*************************************************
Prior to HANA forming just over a year ago, horseplayer gripes and ideas usually fell on deaf ears. Things are changing. There is a lot happening behind the scenes. Being a board member, I'm involved in a weekly conference call, where we tackle many issues and devise strategies to tackle current issues.

We've done more than can be seen by the naked eye, and recently, some tracks have actually approached us for our ideas in an effort by them to grow their product.

Our main goal is the same as most racing exec or horsemen group. It is to grow the game and attract more betting and bettors. Except we know how to do it. Racing execs and horsemen groups have their collective heads in the sand when it comes to this issue. They just don't understand that horse racing is gambling first, without the horseplayer there is nothing. Our ideas go against "their conventional wisdom," which by the way is failing miserably of late. It isn't the 1950's anymore.

HANA still needs bigger numbers in membership to make more things like this happen. If you are not a member yet, please click here, and sign up (it is free). The more horseplayers we have as members, the more clout we have.


A couple of new threads have been started at Pace Advantage worth looking at. Hopefully, they'll be more additions to each.

Quotes and Comments That Make Sense

"Horseracing is still marketed as if it has a monopoly on legal gambling,
where the need for a cohesive voice and long term strategic planning was not
required to be successful. A racetrack would be built and people would come
and bet!

The industry has generally been run by Horsemen who have viewed wagering as a necessary evil. They have little understanding of the gambling component
and thus little understanding for their current and potential customers. In
some cases racetrack board members are prohibited from wagering.
Those who remain in the Horseplayer choir believe that horserace wagering
offers unique components that make it the most exciting, exhilarating and
challenging form of gambling. The industry will continue to decline until
racetrack operators can identify and embrace their customer, the
HORSEPLAYER, and conclude that Horseracing must be marketed as a 'GAME
ABOUT GAMBLING' and not a Sport of Kings!

Horseracing’s Day of Atonement is long overdue....."

- Eric Poteck

"Horseracing needn't look any further than the internet where online poker has taken young adults from all over the world by storm.

What, might you ask, does poker have over horseracing? Certainly not excitement (grinding poker can be quite boring). Certainly not intellectual challenge (although poker is quite close!). And certainly not the chance to make a quick score (to make a quick score (1K+), you might have play for HOURS online in a single tourney).

Nope, none of the above! What horseracing lacks is at the heart of fundamental economics: THE LACK OF A PERCEPTION THAT IT IS PROFITABLE!

Why do the young kids play poker? Because they perceive that if they work hard enough at it, they will eventually become +EV long term. NO SUCH NOTION exists with horse racing.

Consider that you can find online training sites for poker ad nauseum. Just do a quick Google (or in deference to your contributor, a Yahoo! search) for "online poker training" and you will find some outstanding training sites for relatively little money that can have you near-profitable in a couple of months of hard study. NOTHING like this exists for horseracing; instead all you get is people peddling lousy tips, speed figures, and for the most part, useless or superfluous information.

In addition, you can go to NUMEROUS sites online that list DOZENS of winning "poker pros" whose results are documented and posted. I challenge you to find and list FIVE "horseracing" pros that are profitable and whose names are public. Oh, these five may exist, but no one knows of them, and more importantly, because no one knows of them, they cannot help the sport attract what it needs: interest from young people that think or believe they can beat the game in the long run.

The solution to racing's woes is obvious: make people believe that they can win money long term by betting horses. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS. If this was done, the issues of admission, the cost of a DRF, the odds changing after the bell, the drugs, the "super-trainers", field size, and all other "issues" would magically disappear. Easier said than done,isn't it?

And with that, sir, I proclaim the eventual slow death of racing as the cancer of takeout metastasizes and brings it to its Hospice in the caverns of Belmont, Hollywood Park, and Churchill Downs.

Good luck at the windows and thank you for your time."

-Quarter Pole (comment on a HANA piece)

"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...... 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?"

-Bullring

"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?"

-David Schwartz

And there are quotes from those who are clueless. Here is the first entry:

"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."

-Horatio

Well at least I know it wasn't from David Willmot, only because I doubt Willmot would knock Canadian racing in public like that, even hiding behind a pseudonym:)

Speaking of Woodbine. They are now guaranteeing a $50,000 pool in their first Pick 4, which starts in the fourth race on Saturdays and Sundays until the end of the meet. I checked and found that they had $50,000 plus pools in each of at least the last six weekend cards anyway, so this is pretty much guaranteeing that it will be dark outside at midnight.

Note to Woodbine and Fort Erie: How about a 15% Pick 3 every race? Give it a shot.

I can pretty much guarantee that Woodbine would have done better than the $1.3 million in handle they did today (Thursday) if they decided to do something that was really horseplayer friendly.


Speaking of horseplayer friendly. HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM just added Oak Tree at Santa Anita to the betting menu.
About Horseplayersbet.com: Horseplayersbet offers one of the most competitive Player Rewards Programs available for horse racing product. At Horseplayersbet, even the smallest bettors have the potential to become the biggest.


Fort Erie announcer Peter Kyte just took the Western Fair job in London, Ontario.
He didn't announce at the Fort on Tuesday because he had a baby due. Not sure if this means he won't be the Fort Erie announcer next year IF the track does defy the odds and remain open.

Why Not Increase Takeout To 40%?

It gets so tiresome on the internet, when horsemen and probably some racing execs use the same argument against lowering takeout over and over again. It happened again recently on a Pricci column "On Fixing A Broken Simulcast Model."

Here are their arguments followed by my rebuttal:

Most horseplayers don't know or care about track takeout
True. But horseplayers, like all gamblers realize when they come home with less money or more money. Lower the takeout, and bettors will come home with more money more often. This will be less discouraging than it is today with takeouts that average around 21% in the industry.
Lowering takeout allows bettors to last longer, and their desire to come back more often and play more often will increase.
If that increases, the likelihood that they expose friends, family, and/or coworkers to horse racing greatly increases.

Even horseplayers who know that takeout is lower on win bets will gravitate towards higher takeout exotics
Human nature. The horseplayer is out to make a score. That is why lottery tickets are bought. For many, if someone is going to gamble to begin with, low returns are not being sought by the masses. Horseplayers are gamblers, and dangling a triactor every race at them is too enticing, though in the end, it makes players go broke a lot quicker than a few decades ago.

All attempts at lower takeouts have not been successful
This is unfair. Those who tried to lower takeout were met with signal exclusion in many instances. Also, the extra money won by customers didn't go to buy new suits, it was in all probability churned back into the pools. However, they didn't necessarily go back to the tracks that had the lower takeouts. Simulcast and ADW bettors know that there are many many tracks on a menu to play once you cash a ticket.
Those who use this line of thought also conveniently do not take into account the ginormous growth we've seen at Betfair and online poker, where the house take is minuscule compared to the takeout at a racetrack. They also forget about the only growth aspect of North American horse racing where some ADWs essentially lower the takeout for customers by give decent player rewards.

Horse racing is a costly show to put on, high takeouts are a must
No one is denying that it costs a lot more to put on a horse race than it does to deal poker cards, and I don't begrudge any gambling venue from optimizing their bottom line returns, but horse racing has never tried to find an optimum price point.
The closest thing racing has ever come to having a real price determined by supply and demand is the signal fee each track charges to ADWs and other tracks. That is really what the product is worth to the real market, and that signal fee is usually 2% to 9% depending on the track.


For those who think that lowering takeout won't be good for the bottom line, let me use a reverse example:

Slots have a house take of around 10%. This number was arrived at by trial and error, most likely thanks to the years of experience Vegas has when it comes to different games of chance. This optimum price to gamble was determined by the market.

What this house take means is that a slots operator will see for example, $400 million bet over the course of the year. This yields a profit of $40 million in a year for the house. So what stops them and the government from increasing the house take to 20% (it isn't that they care about the gambler)? Surely, at least $200 million will be wagered in a year if that happens (and they will see at least $40 million in profit and probably more). Wrong! The slot operators KNOW this won't happen. What happens at anything over 10%?
Slot players, who are completely clueless about house take will not last as long. They may not know why, but many will stop wanting to go because they know they lose their money too fast. Most will definitely come back less, and when that happens, they are obviously less likely to bring friends and family along with them for a night out.

Every time horse racing increase takeout, their bottom line falls off. It isn't magic. It is gamblers natural sense of price sensitivity that lowers the handle.

For those "not too bright" horsemen and racing execs who "think" that increasing takeout means more money for them, it won't. Next time ask them why not double the takeout and see how they answer the question. The real answer can be seen above, but it fun sometimes playing with these yahoos.

But the same premise holds true with respect to the current takeouts at tracks in North America. If takeouts were 10% today on average, by increasing them to 20% or more would mean less money to the bottom line. This means there is more money if the industry would just get together and lower takeouts across the board.






PRESCRIPTION FOR RxACING

Outstanding article by Bill Finley.
Some of the best visionaries and realists including HANA President Jeff Platt share their views on fixing racing going forward. It does include the comments of a few wannabe visionaries like Bob Evans as well.
It is an excellent read over at Thoroughbred Daily News. The downside is that you need to register for a free 2 week subscription, but the registration only takes 10 seconds.




The Score did a feature on Alex Brown. Here it is if you haven't seen it yet:


To learn more about Alex Brown's mission, go to Alex Brown Racing. I still disagree with one of his focuses, horses who made over $500,000 who are now running for $5,000 claiming. Once a horse blows conditions, especially a male horse, there is sometimes no difference in running times for $5,000 claimers and $16,000 claimers. If anything, the competition is easier the lower a horse runs for, thus the cheaper claiming tags are more humane. Also, these horses are hardly ever running for the outfits for whom the horse made the bulk of its earnings, so if anything, it is up to those outfits, and those outfits only to buy or claim and then retire that particular horse.

If the horse has real bad problems, it shouldn't be racing, regardless of how much it has made. The horse has no idea how much it earned.

H/T The Paulick Report


No shocker: Marsh Side DQ heading for appeal
I think the odds are around 75% in favour of an overturn.


More Industry Dysfunction. I don't know where to start so just read the article by Nick Kling.


Down The Stretch has a new online issue out. Good reading. They even got controversial this time around (they put an article in it regarding the Stein-Sutherland conflict). Good article by women's curling expert Perry Lefko on Eddie Robinson and Jennifer Burnie.


Northlands Park cuts race dates this year for both thoroughbred and harness racing. Gone are Oct. 16,17,18,21,23,24,25 from their original thoroughbred schedule. Harness racing will now not run on Nov. 16, Dec. 23,27, and 30.





HORSEPLAYERBET.COM PROMO STILL GOING

10% Rewards*

*Bet $1,000.00 between now and October 4th and, upon wagering that amount, Horseplayersbet will provide you a 10% reward on that $1,000.00 worth of wagers. A minimum of $1,000.00 must be wagered to earn the 10%. Those who fail to reach the $1,000.00 minimum will be provided Horseplayersbet Standard Rewards (which are still very good regardless of the promo). Offer is available to new customers only and all promotional related wagers must be completed by end of day October 4, 2009.

Horseplayersbet does not take Canadian residents, as well as residents of some US States.

Stewards Shouldn't Have Thrown Out Marsh Side

Stewards Flipped The Coin And Got It Wrong In Northern Dancer
Unfortunately, on this Youtube video you don't get to see the head on (you can if go to Cal Racing or HPI replays), but the disqualification of Marsh Side was a bad call. There was no apparent bumping between Marsh Side and Quijano, and both jockeys were hitting with right hand while moving to the inside in tandem. If anything, Quijano would have squeezed Champs Elysee regardless of whether Marsh Side was in the race or not. Again, if the Stewards have to look at a race for more than two minutes, they should let the results stand.

The eventual winner had the common sense to get away from the rail as his jockey anticipated the tight quarters. Champs Elysee did get shut off, but I have a problem blaming Marsh Side for it.
I am pretty sure that this call will be overturned, and the bettor who picked the best horse in the race, will wind up getting screwed.

Also, Andrasch Starke, who rode Quijano must have forgot about the new whipping rule in Ontario. There were actually quite a few violations in both the Northern Dancer and Woodbine Mile. I wonder if fines have been handed down.



Steven Crist kisses Woodbine's butt, disses horseplayers in the meantime by failing to mention Woodbine's high takeouts.

Crist likes that Canada doesn't run that many Grade 1 stakes. The fact is that we can't, even if we wanted to. They do their best now to schedule these events at times when there is not that much competition to compete against. Whenever Canada was forced to compete, they drew sub par fields.


Crist is not all bad. At least he wrote an article that slams horse racing for still allowing breakage in today's computer age. How much does breakage cost the horseplayer? Read this.


Assiniboia Handle increases 38%. Most likely due to increased exposure at ADWs that offer rebates. Many bettors are avoiding the bigger tracks that try to prohibit their signal from going to rebaters. The smaller tracks are winning this war.

Woodbine had a $5 million handle day on Sunday. But lets not forget Friday when they couldn't even crack $1.5 million. They wrote a race specially for Jambalaya's return. The purse was over $90,000 and it attracted $61,766 in betting. They sure know how to run a business, don't they.


Slots in Ohio just took two steps backwards.


NYRA At It Again
NYRA has yanked live signals from ADWs like HPI and NJBets. For the real dirt behind the move, read this thread on Pace Advantage.


Horse is somewhere between a girl and a boy
Caster Semenya, Tuscan Abbe, and Arizona Helen. I wonder if Rachel Alexandra has been checked lately:)


Is it me, or does it appear that the morning line oddsmaker at Fort Erie doesn't give many Daniel David and Nick Gonzalez close to enough credit? There seems to be a few horses that went off at pretty low odds that have been 12-1 or 20-1 in the program that are either ridden by David or trained by Gonzalez. And most of them looked like they should be one of the top three program selections.


"Slots and OLG In Their Own Little World" according to Fort Erie of the Fort Erie EDTC. Listen to him here, as he discusses the proposals he dropped off to the Ontario government.


Justin Stein Appealing Large Suspension and $2500 Fine For An Outburst That Would Have Helped "Jockeys" Ratings Soar
I first read about this on Jen's Thoroughblog in the comment section:
On September 7th' seventh race Justin Stein's mount, Sincerely A to Z, was clipped at the head of the stretch causing Stein to fall off. He was in a sandwich position, and to me it wasn't Chantal Sutherland's mount (Diplomatic Impact) that caused the clip. A long inquiry ensued as Chantal finished second or third, but the results stood.
After the race, allegedly Stein called Sutherland all sorts of very rude names.

The Stewards decided to suspend Stein 25 days and fine him $2500, which he is currently appealing.

After the suspension was announced, three days later on Saturday, in the 9th race, Sutherland was on the favorite on the grass (Soul of Nataka), and patiently waited for room. Meanwhile Stein was on a long shot (Caledon) who seemed to be waiting for Sutherland to try to get by. He came over on Sutherland's mount at the head of the stretch, and Sutherland's mount then came out causing some of the field to fan out. Sutherland's even money shot wound up romping, and there was no inquiry, which I found weird.

It is dangerous to be a jockey. Emotions run high, as does jealousy. Chantal Sutherland is the best thing that has happened to Woodbine in years, but she shouldn't be over protected either. I'm sure male jockeys call male jockeys some pretty ugly names at times, so I don't see why a female jockey should get special treatment here or that male jockeys should get an excessive punishment over something that happens during the heat of battle.

Replays are available at Cal Racing and HPI.






HORSEPLAYERBET.COM PROMO STILL GOING

10% Rewards*

*Bet $1,000.00 between now and October 4th and, upon wagering that amount, Horseplayersbet will provide you a 10% reward on that $1,000.00 worth of wagers. A minimum of $1,000.00 must be wagered to earn the 10%. Those who fail to reach the $1,000.00 minimum will be provided Horseplayersbet Standard Rewards. Offer is available to new customers only and all promotional related wagers must be completed by end of day October 4, 2009.

Horseplayersbet does not take Canadian residents, as well as residents of some US States.