With sports betting most likely becoming a reality in the USA in the very near future, I thought it might be a good time to re-publish an article I wrote for HANA two years ago comparing horse racing's competition. For what it is worth, horse racing takeouts range from bet type to bet type and track to track (12% - 31%), though it is estimated to collectively be between 21-22%, not taking rebates or other incentives into account:
Sports Betting: When it comes to traditionally betting a single game against the spread, in theory, the house edge is 4.76% without taking pushes into account. Other factors come into play though. Bookmakers do not usually make the spread with a 50/50 outcome in mind, but rather make the number one in which they think will attract 50% of the money each way. This could create an underlay on the dog when a good and popular team is favored, for example.
Two team parlays generally pay 2.6-1 which translates into a 10% house edge. However, because one might be able to find two real underlays, and because there are certain tendencies when betting the spread and over under in a single game (for example, when there is a home favorite in football and lets say the over under number is 42, there are two outcomes which dominate, the home team under, and the away team and the over, which is due to the strategies employed by teams in the second half depending on the lead). Bottom line is that the collective edge is certainly less than 10%,
Three team parlays generally pay 6-1, but there are 8 outcomes which means the edge is 12.5% if random selections are made.
Vegas publishes their win rate. Collectively on sports betting it is just a little more than 5% of total handle (it varies very slightly year to year).
Lotteries: State lotteries generally payout approximately 50% of the total money taken in. Comparing horse racing to lotteries in often done and always silly. When someone buys a lottery ticket they are usually buying a dream, it is an entertainment expense in a way as one fantasizes about retiring to their own Island.
Scratch lottery tickets, have an expected payout range in line with horse race exotic wagers.
Blackjack: If one plays by the rules without counting, the house edge is only .5%. Though, it sounds like the best bang for a gambler's buck, a bankroll can disappear pretty quickly when playing 75 hands per hour. Still, the game is still perceived as beatable mostly thanks to stories of counters being barred by casinos.
Craps: Odds on resolved bets range from 0% to 11%, and the collective edge the house has is around 1-1.5%. This is a game that is somewhat complicated and mathematically impossible to win at long term for even the best players, not the best of combinations.
Slots: The house edge on slot machines ranges from 2% to 15% (collectively around 8%). The exact amount a machine wins long term can be programmed by the operator. Unless one hits a huge progressive jackpot and then quits slots, this game is impossible to win at long term.
Some operators have admitted to "loosen" machines at peak hours. The theory behind this is when the casino is full, the sound of winning will help hook players for more repeat business. When it comes to horse racing, an argument can be made that is the reverse of this, higher takeout on bigger days because many just play on big days, while dropping takeout the rest of the year to keep the regulars in action longer while keeping them from focusing on other forms of gambling. This approach hasn't been tried yet.
Roulette: Thanks to O and OO the house edge is 5.26%, as long as the wheel doesn't have any flaws. This game is far less intimidating and a little less social than craps and it requires the same zero skill level as slots. If you play roulette for 14 days straight, you will lose over 5% of your total wagers.
Poker: The rake for poker is 2-5%. Skill is involved when it comes to knowing probabilities, and if playing live, reading other players. A player with superior skill has a chance to win long term due to relatively low rake.
Daily Fantasy Sports: DFS was growing exponentially in popularity prior to state regulations. DFS likes to call their house edge a commission, and whatever you want to call it, it is around 9-12%. It is definitely a game of skill as well as it is gambling. Estimates are that the top 2% of the total players make money and also are responsible for a very high percentage of what is played in total. This means that at this time, for those with superior skill, the game can be beaten long term.
DFS is extremely similar to horse racing when it comes to degree of difficulty and homework needed to make good selection, though horse racing handicapping has a higher learning curve. DFS seems to be attracting players, especially millennials, because it is perceived as beatable by at least a few.
Showing posts with label horse racing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horse racing. Show all posts
26 March 2018
30 October 2017
The New NBA Timeout Rule and Horse Racing
If the customer doesn't like something, businesses usually do something about it, if they can. The NBA is a perfect example of looking to satisfy customers, though sometimes they are slow to react, but nowhere nearly as slow as horse racing.
I remember the ABA. Besides being known for their psychedelic fake basketball and the great Dr. J, they were way ahead of the curve as they introduced the 3 point basket in 1967 when their league formed (It was actually introduced by the very short live ABL in 1961). The rule made a lot of sense, giving a team the ability to make a long dramatic shot to win or tie a close game, and even as a teenager, I thought that when the ABA merged with the NBA, the three point shot would be part of the merger. It took another 4 years for the NBA to bring that extra bit of excitement to their league, but the point is that they did it.
Lately we've seen quite a few tweaks from speeding up the game to taking away plays that exploited the rules (like the Hack-A-Shaq tweak that came into effect a year ago). They still have to figure out how to handle the three point foul lean in, but that is tough nut to crack, but they'll get to it, because customers don't like it.
The last two minutes of the game were starting to get infuriating. Way too many timeouts were being called. I believe it got progressively worse the past few years. In a close game, there was pretty much a timeout every time the ball changed hands. It almost became a gimme that a timeout would be called after a made basket. From a customer's perspective there was no flow, it took up to a half hour to watch 2 minutes, and that meant way too many commercials as well.
It was not surprising that the NBA made the change this summer. Reducing the amount of timeouts that can be called in a game and limiting the amount of timeouts that can be called in the last two minutes and overtime.
This brings us to horse racing. The obvious parallel here is the notorious post time drag. This is a fairly new phenomenon, first it was only really noticed at one track, and somehow bean counter track executives from all over North America saw this as a money maker, and it really isn't. Horse racing, with falling handle (especially when taking inflation and a larger population into account) should be doing whatever they can do to not piss off their customers (By customers, I mean horseplayers, not horsemen, but that is another story).
There can't possibly be one bettor on this planet who enjoys post drag. And it really is unnecessary. NYRA, who seems to do things right relative to the industry as a whole, does not participate in post drag, and lately they've been bucking the trend when it comes to handle. Remember track execs, higher handle generally means there are more eyes on your racetrack.
If horseplayers know there is no post drag, they will bet earlier. And more importantly, they won't have another reason to be upset. From high takeout to super trainers and synthetic drugs and a few things in between, horse racing doesn't need to give their customers another reason to stop playing.
The problem is that horse racing does not have a commissioner to lay down the law and enforce things. They really need one. See WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF HORSE RACING HAD A COMMISSIONER
One final thing, thank you Michael Jordan for getting the NBA to go with longer baggy shorts in 1984.
I remember the ABA. Besides being known for their psychedelic fake basketball and the great Dr. J, they were way ahead of the curve as they introduced the 3 point basket in 1967 when their league formed (It was actually introduced by the very short live ABL in 1961). The rule made a lot of sense, giving a team the ability to make a long dramatic shot to win or tie a close game, and even as a teenager, I thought that when the ABA merged with the NBA, the three point shot would be part of the merger. It took another 4 years for the NBA to bring that extra bit of excitement to their league, but the point is that they did it.
Lately we've seen quite a few tweaks from speeding up the game to taking away plays that exploited the rules (like the Hack-A-Shaq tweak that came into effect a year ago). They still have to figure out how to handle the three point foul lean in, but that is tough nut to crack, but they'll get to it, because customers don't like it.
The last two minutes of the game were starting to get infuriating. Way too many timeouts were being called. I believe it got progressively worse the past few years. In a close game, there was pretty much a timeout every time the ball changed hands. It almost became a gimme that a timeout would be called after a made basket. From a customer's perspective there was no flow, it took up to a half hour to watch 2 minutes, and that meant way too many commercials as well.
It was not surprising that the NBA made the change this summer. Reducing the amount of timeouts that can be called in a game and limiting the amount of timeouts that can be called in the last two minutes and overtime.
This brings us to horse racing. The obvious parallel here is the notorious post time drag. This is a fairly new phenomenon, first it was only really noticed at one track, and somehow bean counter track executives from all over North America saw this as a money maker, and it really isn't. Horse racing, with falling handle (especially when taking inflation and a larger population into account) should be doing whatever they can do to not piss off their customers (By customers, I mean horseplayers, not horsemen, but that is another story).
There can't possibly be one bettor on this planet who enjoys post drag. And it really is unnecessary. NYRA, who seems to do things right relative to the industry as a whole, does not participate in post drag, and lately they've been bucking the trend when it comes to handle. Remember track execs, higher handle generally means there are more eyes on your racetrack.
If horseplayers know there is no post drag, they will bet earlier. And more importantly, they won't have another reason to be upset. From high takeout to super trainers and synthetic drugs and a few things in between, horse racing doesn't need to give their customers another reason to stop playing.
The problem is that horse racing does not have a commissioner to lay down the law and enforce things. They really need one. See WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF HORSE RACING HAD A COMMISSIONER
One final thing, thank you Michael Jordan for getting the NBA to go with longer baggy shorts in 1984.
5 March 2016
Horse Racing Should Market The Heck Out Of The Trifecta
For once and for all, new potential horseplayers and fans are not staying away from horse racing because the gambling aspect of it is too hard to understand, or because of drugs, and certainly not because of racetrack jargon.
I think I was 4 years old when I figured out win place and show, maybe I was an exceptionally smart four year old, but you get my drift. I could also read past performances when I was 8, it isn't rocket science. I also don't think that there is a wager easier to understand than win place or show other than coin flipping or roulette, which I think is just as easy to understand. I'd even state that slots is harder to figure out than a show bet. Understanding a horse race bet is even less complicated than betting against a point spread or playing craps. One doesn't even need a Trump U. diploma to figure out how to an exotics wager works either. It is a matter of wanting to figure find out what a superfecta is, not how a superfecta works, and we'll get to this difference shortly.
When it comes to drugs, I don't believe it stops anyone other than animal cruelty warriors, and they would stay away even if horse racing was drug free because horses do break their legs no matter what. The perception of drugging horses as well as potential rigging has always been there, but lets face it, horse racing was a lot more popular and mainstream in the 40's to 60's than it is today, and getting new players involved was much easier back then. Other sports have had their fixing and drug scandals, but popularity for most of these sports have become much stronger as the years go on.
And then there is jargon. Jargon doesn't keep anyone out. All sports have words unique to them, and even a life long sports fan and sometime participant like myself still has trouble figuring out exactly when a balk in baseball or when a zone defense technical in basketball should be called. I'll leave figuring out that stuff up to the umps and refs and still enjoy the game, of course, I'll enjoy the game much more if I have at least one fantasy player participating. As for keeping newbies from getting involved, not knowing what a bug boy is is like not knowing what a sophomore pro is. Does not understanding what a sophomore is keeping any newbie away from football or basketball?
Nah, what keeps new participants away from horse racing is that even if they are drawn to looking these days, they have no interest in learning more. The simple reason is that there is no buzz when it comes to long term winning gamblers. Yes, there is a learning curve, but it isn't anymore difficult than the learning curve for playing fantasy sports. Today's millennials are gambling. They also like skill games. They'd be perfect for horse racing except one thing, they need the right motivation to learn about horse racing, and that motivation would exist if horse racing was perceived as beatable in the long term. The collective average takeout of 21% is twice as a high as it is needed to be in order to grab substantial new players.
Until the industry wakes up and revamps takeout, there are a few band aid solutions that might keep the ship from completely sinking. One is to go after established horse players aren't playing because they don't have access. It is mind boggling that residents of Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, Hawaii, the list goes, cannot bet on horses over the internet. Horse racing needs a lobby group that tackles this specific issue. Handle could rise another 33% if these dry states allowed their adult populations to gamble if that is the adult's desire. It makes no sense that someone in Dallas can own an assault rifle but can't bet $2 to show on California Chrome on the internet.
The second suggestion is to get more eyes on the product (though, as stated above, even with more eyes on horse racing, it is near impossible to get the eyes to stick due to pricing). Besides another Triple Crown winner, horse racing should try to take advantage of the word trifecta, a word that has made it big time in the mainstream. Trifecta originated in 1974 when it was strictly a horse racing term (simply and evolved variation of perfecta). Today, a day can't go by without either hearing the word on TV or reading it in the news, and not very often is the word used with respect to horse racing. Check out the Google News Search of "trifecta."
Now check these seven "trifecta" quotes out, none have anything to do with horse racing.
Here are a couple if you didn't bother with the link:
So what should horse racing do? Promote the heck out of the trifecta. Focus on the bigger payouts. House handicappers should focus on the tris. Lower the takeout on trifectas, make it the bet for the millennials. And to Woodbine and all the rest of the Canadian tracks, change the name from triactor to trifecta. Triactor is strictly a horse racing term, and it means a wager with a takeout of 25-29%. Not very attractive, not a great sell.
Early use of the word trifecta outside of horse racing:) :
I think I was 4 years old when I figured out win place and show, maybe I was an exceptionally smart four year old, but you get my drift. I could also read past performances when I was 8, it isn't rocket science. I also don't think that there is a wager easier to understand than win place or show other than coin flipping or roulette, which I think is just as easy to understand. I'd even state that slots is harder to figure out than a show bet. Understanding a horse race bet is even less complicated than betting against a point spread or playing craps. One doesn't even need a Trump U. diploma to figure out how to an exotics wager works either. It is a matter of wanting to figure find out what a superfecta is, not how a superfecta works, and we'll get to this difference shortly.
When it comes to drugs, I don't believe it stops anyone other than animal cruelty warriors, and they would stay away even if horse racing was drug free because horses do break their legs no matter what. The perception of drugging horses as well as potential rigging has always been there, but lets face it, horse racing was a lot more popular and mainstream in the 40's to 60's than it is today, and getting new players involved was much easier back then. Other sports have had their fixing and drug scandals, but popularity for most of these sports have become much stronger as the years go on.
And then there is jargon. Jargon doesn't keep anyone out. All sports have words unique to them, and even a life long sports fan and sometime participant like myself still has trouble figuring out exactly when a balk in baseball or when a zone defense technical in basketball should be called. I'll leave figuring out that stuff up to the umps and refs and still enjoy the game, of course, I'll enjoy the game much more if I have at least one fantasy player participating. As for keeping newbies from getting involved, not knowing what a bug boy is is like not knowing what a sophomore pro is. Does not understanding what a sophomore is keeping any newbie away from football or basketball?
Nah, what keeps new participants away from horse racing is that even if they are drawn to looking these days, they have no interest in learning more. The simple reason is that there is no buzz when it comes to long term winning gamblers. Yes, there is a learning curve, but it isn't anymore difficult than the learning curve for playing fantasy sports. Today's millennials are gambling. They also like skill games. They'd be perfect for horse racing except one thing, they need the right motivation to learn about horse racing, and that motivation would exist if horse racing was perceived as beatable in the long term. The collective average takeout of 21% is twice as a high as it is needed to be in order to grab substantial new players.
Until the industry wakes up and revamps takeout, there are a few band aid solutions that might keep the ship from completely sinking. One is to go after established horse players aren't playing because they don't have access. It is mind boggling that residents of Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, Hawaii, the list goes, cannot bet on horses over the internet. Horse racing needs a lobby group that tackles this specific issue. Handle could rise another 33% if these dry states allowed their adult populations to gamble if that is the adult's desire. It makes no sense that someone in Dallas can own an assault rifle but can't bet $2 to show on California Chrome on the internet.
The second suggestion is to get more eyes on the product (though, as stated above, even with more eyes on horse racing, it is near impossible to get the eyes to stick due to pricing). Besides another Triple Crown winner, horse racing should try to take advantage of the word trifecta, a word that has made it big time in the mainstream. Trifecta originated in 1974 when it was strictly a horse racing term (simply and evolved variation of perfecta). Today, a day can't go by without either hearing the word on TV or reading it in the news, and not very often is the word used with respect to horse racing. Check out the Google News Search of "trifecta."
Now check these seven "trifecta" quotes out, none have anything to do with horse racing.
Here are a couple if you didn't bother with the link:
"First they don't believe in evolution, then climate change, now the debt ceiling -or what I call The Moron Trifecta." @billmaher #RealTime
— Real Time (@RealTimers) October 12, 2013
'Getting Real': The truth about hitting the 'bimbo trifecta': Former Miss America, blonde, @FoxNews host http://t.co/QychJ3lsBa
— Gretchen Carlson (@GretchenCarlson) June 29, 2015
So what should horse racing do? Promote the heck out of the trifecta. Focus on the bigger payouts. House handicappers should focus on the tris. Lower the takeout on trifectas, make it the bet for the millennials. And to Woodbine and all the rest of the Canadian tracks, change the name from triactor to trifecta. Triactor is strictly a horse racing term, and it means a wager with a takeout of 25-29%. Not very attractive, not a great sell.
Early use of the word trifecta outside of horse racing:) :
10 September 2015
Horse Racing's Two Biggest Obstacles To Growth: Takeout and Drugs
I haven't been blogging much lately. I started off hoping to help the industry change for the better, but looking back at my past posts, I'm safe to say that nothing has changed. If anything it has been one small step forward, one big step back. When it comes to whether I blog or not, I'll quote Hillary Clinton: "what difference does it make?"
This has been a banner year for horse racing with the success of American Pharoah, yet horse racing handle is flat. Until there are visible winners, horse racing cannot attract new players to make for dying Horseplayers and other regulars who have decided to bet less. It is not that the game isn't great. It is. At least in theory. Daily Fantasy Sports simply offers a better bang for the buck when it comes to brain games for money. The rake makes it possible for their industry to get away with focusing on winners in commercials. There may or may not be a lot of long term winners, but the perception is everything. They can focus on WINNING. And guess what? It works:
This type of commercial would not work for horse racing. Horse racing has to focus on "the thrill" (entertainment) only. The problem is that horse racing is about 10% pure entertainment, 90% gambling, and the thrill when it comes to gambling is a) winning b) the ability to keep gambling. Two thing important to all gamblers, the ability to possibly be a long term winner, or at least, the ability to keep gambling without going to the well too frequently. Slots proves that the more you cash without going to the well too much, the more you will tend to come back and play again at a later date, despite losing almost every time you go. It works just as well for roulette and blackjack. The more money tracks take out of the collective Horseplayers hands each and every race, the less fun they will have, plain and simple, and the less likely they will go home, or get up the next day (if they are playing from home), believing the game is beatable.
Has the industry ever toyed with the idea of optimum takeout? 5 letters: NEVER. The concept doesn't seem to exist, thanks to the pie-shrinkers who rule the industry. Most of these pie shrinkers don't want to shrink the pie, but short term thinking and the just plain bad priorities make shrinking the pie inevitable.
The industry keeps tapping its Ruby Slippers together while closing their eyes, repeating "the game is 100% entertainment and people want to just bet on it." Seriously, how much money from those who may have wagered for the first time on American Pharoah in the Belmont is in the pools today, or yesterday, or will be tomorrow?
If horse racing were to have come along after Daily Fantasy Sports, they would enter the market with a takeout of around 8-10% for Win Place and Show, 12% for Exactors and Doubles, and maybe 14-15% for all other exotics tops.
Who knows, in a parallel universe or two or three, maybe that is what is happening right now, but not here on planet Earth.
DRUGS
Super trainers exist. There are only so many ways to train a horse, yet some trainers, even when they have strings at multiple tracks which means it can't possibly be due to superior horsemanship, especially if this special horse whisperer isn't even around, yet they win consistently at around 18% or more using their "special" routine. It is an insult to anyone's intelligence that these outfits aren't using chemicals or supplements that aren't being tested for. I also hate the excuse that 99% of drug tests come back negative. Pretty simple stuff, they are testing for a limited amount of substances, and there are ways to mask certain substances too.
I know this isn't politically correct to state at this time, but fixing the drug problem, and yes, it is a real issue, will only create perhaps a small handle bump from regular customers, but it won't create any newbies because the rate that regulars lose their money will not change by much.* *In theory, the backstretch money, lose a little less than outside money. I know the old argument is that backstretch money is dummy money, but really, how can it be. If you know a horse didn't eat up or was feeling kind of sluggish before a race, you are likely not to bet the horse and maybe likely to find something else in the race to bet, and what if you know
that a horse has turned the corner, or just had a shock wave treatment or just came out of a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, you may be able to get your ROI to .94 level (which, although won't make you money, it does take away some money and some potential future run ("gambling fix" money) from anyone who has a lower ROI).
Newbies will come and learn the game once there are visible winners. The game could be hay and oats with a 360 hour barn surveillance, and it wouldn't create an extra player, except perhaps through friends of smaller owners who might be in the game a bit more thanks to a higher ROI (because the ROI of drug trainers' outfits will decrease). With B and C racetracks racing less now, even that portal to growth is shutting down and may not swing to positive territory even if there was an equal playing field.
Whipping rules, which I'm all for, don't change handle totals at all.
The fact that fixing the drug problem may be irrelevant to handle, it still should be attempted.
Lasix or no Lasix? I've read and heard many pro and con arguments out there. I'm still learning. For example, by watching the NYRA conference on Youtube, one trainer mentioned that in the old days, they used to prevent bleeding by not allowing the horse to eat or drink 24 hours before the race (I've since heard that some trainers used up to a 72 hour time frame). And of course, the pro-Lasix people state this was more inhumane than using Lasix today, but when it comes to my Columbo instincts, I still have to ask, why did horses used to run twice as much in the 60's or 70's than today, and was it a more cruel backstretch back then? Is it Lasix or a combination of Lasix and all the other chemicals that are pumped into today's horses (It isn't a far cry to believe that the best trainers today are superior junior chemists or have a great junior chemist vet going for them)? Does it affect recovery time that much? Are horses weaker today than they were back then because of breeding horses prone to bleed or the use of well bred sires who retired early due to injury? Does the need to breed speedy 2 year olds to get quicker returns for the buyers the cause? You know, it is probably a combination of lots of things, but it wouldn't shock me that if Lasix was banned horses would be racing more often, fields would be fuller (maybe 5% would have to be retired, but the other 95% would be able to race 50% more times, maybe even greater than that).
With high takeouts, the use of non-detectable designer drugs, the slaps on the wrists given to cheaters who are caught, the use of shock therapy, and so on, the industry has proved it can't price itself and it can't regulate itself either. Something should be done. I use the word "should" be done versus "must" be done, because as we've seen, nothing might be done, and the industry can keep floating in a near purgatory state.
From a bettors standpoint, and I've stated this before: In a perfect world, there would be around 5-10 drugs and supplements (I don't think Cobalt should be on the OK list, for example) combined that can be legally administered. Anything else would be forbidden, and cheaters, when caught would be faced with a minimum 1 year suspension first offense, 3 year suspension second offense, and lifetime ban for a third offense. Vets would be just as liable.
As for any surgeries, shockwave treatments, hyberbaric treatments, and tappings, the public should know. How come we know if an NFL player stubs his toe on Tuesday night while getting out of bed to check on his baby, but Horseplayers are in the dark when comes to an outfit shelling out some good money to tap a joint?
And finally, I still find it perplexing that one can legally bet on Fantasy Sports online in almost every US State, yet the list of States where potential gamblers are shut out altogether from betting the ponies is much greater, and this includes the "free" State of Texas. Racing does not have its act together to even make an attempt to grow their customer base that way.
This has been a banner year for horse racing with the success of American Pharoah, yet horse racing handle is flat. Until there are visible winners, horse racing cannot attract new players to make for dying Horseplayers and other regulars who have decided to bet less. It is not that the game isn't great. It is. At least in theory. Daily Fantasy Sports simply offers a better bang for the buck when it comes to brain games for money. The rake makes it possible for their industry to get away with focusing on winners in commercials. There may or may not be a lot of long term winners, but the perception is everything. They can focus on WINNING. And guess what? It works:
This type of commercial would not work for horse racing. Horse racing has to focus on "the thrill" (entertainment) only. The problem is that horse racing is about 10% pure entertainment, 90% gambling, and the thrill when it comes to gambling is a) winning b) the ability to keep gambling. Two thing important to all gamblers, the ability to possibly be a long term winner, or at least, the ability to keep gambling without going to the well too frequently. Slots proves that the more you cash without going to the well too much, the more you will tend to come back and play again at a later date, despite losing almost every time you go. It works just as well for roulette and blackjack. The more money tracks take out of the collective Horseplayers hands each and every race, the less fun they will have, plain and simple, and the less likely they will go home, or get up the next day (if they are playing from home), believing the game is beatable.
Has the industry ever toyed with the idea of optimum takeout? 5 letters: NEVER. The concept doesn't seem to exist, thanks to the pie-shrinkers who rule the industry. Most of these pie shrinkers don't want to shrink the pie, but short term thinking and the just plain bad priorities make shrinking the pie inevitable.
The industry keeps tapping its Ruby Slippers together while closing their eyes, repeating "the game is 100% entertainment and people want to just bet on it." Seriously, how much money from those who may have wagered for the first time on American Pharoah in the Belmont is in the pools today, or yesterday, or will be tomorrow?
If horse racing were to have come along after Daily Fantasy Sports, they would enter the market with a takeout of around 8-10% for Win Place and Show, 12% for Exactors and Doubles, and maybe 14-15% for all other exotics tops.
Who knows, in a parallel universe or two or three, maybe that is what is happening right now, but not here on planet Earth.
DRUGS
Super trainers exist. There are only so many ways to train a horse, yet some trainers, even when they have strings at multiple tracks which means it can't possibly be due to superior horsemanship, especially if this special horse whisperer isn't even around, yet they win consistently at around 18% or more using their "special" routine. It is an insult to anyone's intelligence that these outfits aren't using chemicals or supplements that aren't being tested for. I also hate the excuse that 99% of drug tests come back negative. Pretty simple stuff, they are testing for a limited amount of substances, and there are ways to mask certain substances too.
I know this isn't politically correct to state at this time, but fixing the drug problem, and yes, it is a real issue, will only create perhaps a small handle bump from regular customers, but it won't create any newbies because the rate that regulars lose their money will not change by much.* *In theory, the backstretch money, lose a little less than outside money. I know the old argument is that backstretch money is dummy money, but really, how can it be. If you know a horse didn't eat up or was feeling kind of sluggish before a race, you are likely not to bet the horse and maybe likely to find something else in the race to bet, and what if you know
that a horse has turned the corner, or just had a shock wave treatment or just came out of a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, you may be able to get your ROI to .94 level (which, although won't make you money, it does take away some money and some potential future run ("gambling fix" money) from anyone who has a lower ROI).
Newbies will come and learn the game once there are visible winners. The game could be hay and oats with a 360 hour barn surveillance, and it wouldn't create an extra player, except perhaps through friends of smaller owners who might be in the game a bit more thanks to a higher ROI (because the ROI of drug trainers' outfits will decrease). With B and C racetracks racing less now, even that portal to growth is shutting down and may not swing to positive territory even if there was an equal playing field.
Whipping rules, which I'm all for, don't change handle totals at all.
The fact that fixing the drug problem may be irrelevant to handle, it still should be attempted.
Lasix or no Lasix? I've read and heard many pro and con arguments out there. I'm still learning. For example, by watching the NYRA conference on Youtube, one trainer mentioned that in the old days, they used to prevent bleeding by not allowing the horse to eat or drink 24 hours before the race (I've since heard that some trainers used up to a 72 hour time frame). And of course, the pro-Lasix people state this was more inhumane than using Lasix today, but when it comes to my Columbo instincts, I still have to ask, why did horses used to run twice as much in the 60's or 70's than today, and was it a more cruel backstretch back then? Is it Lasix or a combination of Lasix and all the other chemicals that are pumped into today's horses (It isn't a far cry to believe that the best trainers today are superior junior chemists or have a great junior chemist vet going for them)? Does it affect recovery time that much? Are horses weaker today than they were back then because of breeding horses prone to bleed or the use of well bred sires who retired early due to injury? Does the need to breed speedy 2 year olds to get quicker returns for the buyers the cause? You know, it is probably a combination of lots of things, but it wouldn't shock me that if Lasix was banned horses would be racing more often, fields would be fuller (maybe 5% would have to be retired, but the other 95% would be able to race 50% more times, maybe even greater than that).
With high takeouts, the use of non-detectable designer drugs, the slaps on the wrists given to cheaters who are caught, the use of shock therapy, and so on, the industry has proved it can't price itself and it can't regulate itself either. Something should be done. I use the word "should" be done versus "must" be done, because as we've seen, nothing might be done, and the industry can keep floating in a near purgatory state.
From a bettors standpoint, and I've stated this before: In a perfect world, there would be around 5-10 drugs and supplements (I don't think Cobalt should be on the OK list, for example) combined that can be legally administered. Anything else would be forbidden, and cheaters, when caught would be faced with a minimum 1 year suspension first offense, 3 year suspension second offense, and lifetime ban for a third offense. Vets would be just as liable.
As for any surgeries, shockwave treatments, hyberbaric treatments, and tappings, the public should know. How come we know if an NFL player stubs his toe on Tuesday night while getting out of bed to check on his baby, but Horseplayers are in the dark when comes to an outfit shelling out some good money to tap a joint?
And finally, I still find it perplexing that one can legally bet on Fantasy Sports online in almost every US State, yet the list of States where potential gamblers are shut out altogether from betting the ponies is much greater, and this includes the "free" State of Texas. Racing does not have its act together to even make an attempt to grow their customer base that way.
14 February 2014
Power Boat Racing In Japan Almost Outhandles Horse Racing In North America
Japan horse racing does double the handle of North American racing, despite only having 40% the population of the USA. It is hard to peg the disparity on one thing, but it is most likely a combination of culture and gambling competition.
Legal casinos do not exist in Japan, though there is a common slot like game called Pachinko that is offered throughout the country. Soccer betting just became legal a few years ago, and since then betting on the other three legal "sports" have taken a hit. The other three "sports" are motorcycle racing, horse racing, and ummmm power boat racing.
Power boat racing aka Kyōtei has to be the most boring betting game I've ever seen. I couldn't find an exciting race despite looking at close to 10 Youtube videos this morning.
This is the most exciting video I found:
It boggles the mind that they still do $9 billion in handle (which is way off the high) per year. First, the takeout is 25%, and second, the field size is limited to 6 starters. It absolutely flies in the face of know-it-alls like myself who believe that in order for horse racing handle to grow significantly, you need a much lower takeout and larger field size.
But there are explanations, besides culture and lack of competition. Only 7% of the typical speed boat betting crowd is university educated, and this type of gambling is mostly about post position and luck. In other words, it has no learning curve. That being stated, unlike slots, it seems to attract mostly a male audience of gamblers. But when you think of it, it might not be any different than the dummy crowd that used to make up a good chunk of racetrack attendees in the 60's and 70's who didn't buy racing forms, but made their decisions based on program odds, tips, and intuition. Unfortunately, the loss of these players has made it so that today's North American racing pools consist of the monies of intelligent handicappers who are betting against fellow intelligent
handicappers, at a ridiculously high 21% average takeout. To attract a significant amount new players, to a game with a high learning curve, there needs to be the idea that the game is beatable by at least a few.
Back to power boat bettors. Another factor may come into play when a gambler is at the power boat course: I believe they can only bet on the 11 or 12 races carded there. Fewer gamblers go home completely broke, like they are more compelled to do when at a track or simulcast center faced with 3 tracks going off every 10 minutes.
There are ways to cut down the takeout as well to an amount that most horseplayers can't achieve, and that is simply to play the 1 and 2 posts to win. The ROI is close to .94 for that type of wager. Of course, that means that some plays are unbelievably taxing on a bankroll.
The boat jockeys are responsible for their own boats, and when propellers are changed, the public is supposed to find out. It is hard to think that cheating doesn't occur. It is so easy not to make the front, and front runners win almost every time. One good thing, there are non fair start refunds, which should be the case in harness racing. If a boat is either 1 second fast or slow at the start, all wagers on that boat are refunded.
I just find astounding that horse racing in North America is doing so relatively poorly. Handle on the boring sport of power boat racing in Japan is doing just as "well" as the entire Sport of Kings in North America. And things are looking to be worse with sports betting on the near horizon and with states imposing more and more restrictions on the Horseplayers who are left betting horses. And then you have racing leaders like Frank Stronach who seems to believe that blowing dough on a statue of Pegasus is far more important than reducing track takeout for the horse racing customer.
At least I'm right about one thing, and that is gamblers will bet on just about anything, but horse racing in North America is not much of a priority:
Legal casinos do not exist in Japan, though there is a common slot like game called Pachinko that is offered throughout the country. Soccer betting just became legal a few years ago, and since then betting on the other three legal "sports" have taken a hit. The other three "sports" are motorcycle racing, horse racing, and ummmm power boat racing.
Power boat racing aka Kyōtei has to be the most boring betting game I've ever seen. I couldn't find an exciting race despite looking at close to 10 Youtube videos this morning.
This is the most exciting video I found:
It boggles the mind that they still do $9 billion in handle (which is way off the high) per year. First, the takeout is 25%, and second, the field size is limited to 6 starters. It absolutely flies in the face of know-it-alls like myself who believe that in order for horse racing handle to grow significantly, you need a much lower takeout and larger field size.
But there are explanations, besides culture and lack of competition. Only 7% of the typical speed boat betting crowd is university educated, and this type of gambling is mostly about post position and luck. In other words, it has no learning curve. That being stated, unlike slots, it seems to attract mostly a male audience of gamblers. But when you think of it, it might not be any different than the dummy crowd that used to make up a good chunk of racetrack attendees in the 60's and 70's who didn't buy racing forms, but made their decisions based on program odds, tips, and intuition. Unfortunately, the loss of these players has made it so that today's North American racing pools consist of the monies of intelligent handicappers who are betting against fellow intelligent
handicappers, at a ridiculously high 21% average takeout. To attract a significant amount new players, to a game with a high learning curve, there needs to be the idea that the game is beatable by at least a few.
Back to power boat bettors. Another factor may come into play when a gambler is at the power boat course: I believe they can only bet on the 11 or 12 races carded there. Fewer gamblers go home completely broke, like they are more compelled to do when at a track or simulcast center faced with 3 tracks going off every 10 minutes.
There are ways to cut down the takeout as well to an amount that most horseplayers can't achieve, and that is simply to play the 1 and 2 posts to win. The ROI is close to .94 for that type of wager. Of course, that means that some plays are unbelievably taxing on a bankroll.
The boat jockeys are responsible for their own boats, and when propellers are changed, the public is supposed to find out. It is hard to think that cheating doesn't occur. It is so easy not to make the front, and front runners win almost every time. One good thing, there are non fair start refunds, which should be the case in harness racing. If a boat is either 1 second fast or slow at the start, all wagers on that boat are refunded.
I just find astounding that horse racing in North America is doing so relatively poorly. Handle on the boring sport of power boat racing in Japan is doing just as "well" as the entire Sport of Kings in North America. And things are looking to be worse with sports betting on the near horizon and with states imposing more and more restrictions on the Horseplayers who are left betting horses. And then you have racing leaders like Frank Stronach who seems to believe that blowing dough on a statue of Pegasus is far more important than reducing track takeout for the horse racing customer.
At least I'm right about one thing, and that is gamblers will bet on just about anything, but horse racing in North America is not much of a priority:
24 August 2012
Cancellations And Pool Manipulation
Last night in the 6th race at Emerald Downs there was a sudden drop in odds on number 2, Lonely and Free, from around 13-1 to 1-9. It appears that a $10,000 win (correction: it was a $100,000 wager) bet did the trick. The seven, Zippin E., was the prohibitive favorite from the time the odds opened to around 3 or 4 minutes to post (might have been 5 or 6 minutes to post) when the big wager on the two was made. The exactor pools, and the place and show pools on the two horse were reflective of a medium long shot.
The large bet wasn't pulled until the horses were in the gate. This had to lead to many other ticket cancellations. Who wants 1-9 on a long shot? And by looking at the final pool numbers, it is pretty clear that the two wound up taking a higher percentage of place money instead. The 1-9 scared off any other new bettors on the two except in exactors and probably triactors for when the bet was cancelled and the race went off, Lonely and Free went off at 52-1, though he was probably around 12-1 or so in exotics.
The thing is, the horse almost won, leading throughout the race, only to get caught by the number 4 horse in the last few strides. The winner, Have N A Wild Time, went off at 6.5-1, but wound up paying more to place than the two, who went off at 52-1.
Was this manipulation intentional? Well, you have to figure that if someone is placing a $5,000 or higher wager, they are going to try to make sure they buy the right ticket at the right track, whether the wager was made online or at racetrack or simulcast center. Also, the fact that the bettor had $10,000 either on them or in their betting account leads one to believe that the bettor was a sophisticated Horseplayer (this is assuming it was one person and one wager). However, keeping the wager in until the last moment was risky in case the cancellation couldn't be made in time.
Whatever the intent, whether it was a mistake or manipulation, this type of thing flies in the face of the integrity of the game and can turn bettors off. Unless a teller made a mistake, you can't blame the bet taker unless it is a known repeat offender, this kind of "mistake" can happen at any track or through any ADW or simulcast center.
So what is the solution? Stop cancellations? I don't think so. Real mistakes do happen, and tellers need to be protected. As long as cancellations are allowed for certain instances, cancellations have to be available to all.
How about this? On any win, place, or show wager of $100 or greater, or any exactor or double wager with a $10 base or greater, allow 90 seconds to cancel whether it is on track or online. And to avoid any temptation to manipulate, these wagers do not show up in the pools until the 90 seconds are up or the bell rings to end betting, whichever comes first.
I realize that this gets us away from real time odds even more, as late odd fluctuations are already upsetting to many Horseplayers, but it might actually lead to less fluctuation, as big bettors using robotic programming to wager as late as possible will have less real time info to make decisions, which means they will have to speculate stressing other factors than current odds. I do believe they'll still wager the same amounts they do today, they will just be more creative and will probably spread out their wagers more.
I imagine the hard part of my idea is to get the racetracks on board with it, and then get the tote companies to implement it. If it is too costly, you can just about forget about it.
One more thing, cancellations do not matter to the integrity of the game when it comes to blind pools like triactors, superfectas, Pick 3's, Pick 4's, etc. so they can be unlimited without any worry, and not subjected to time constraints. Late scratches having to do with a horse being used in a triactor or super by someone with a limited bankroll create a need to be able to cancel, so that another horse can be subbed in by the Horseplayer.
The large bet wasn't pulled until the horses were in the gate. This had to lead to many other ticket cancellations. Who wants 1-9 on a long shot? And by looking at the final pool numbers, it is pretty clear that the two wound up taking a higher percentage of place money instead. The 1-9 scared off any other new bettors on the two except in exactors and probably triactors for when the bet was cancelled and the race went off, Lonely and Free went off at 52-1, though he was probably around 12-1 or so in exotics.
The thing is, the horse almost won, leading throughout the race, only to get caught by the number 4 horse in the last few strides. The winner, Have N A Wild Time, went off at 6.5-1, but wound up paying more to place than the two, who went off at 52-1.
Was this manipulation intentional? Well, you have to figure that if someone is placing a $5,000 or higher wager, they are going to try to make sure they buy the right ticket at the right track, whether the wager was made online or at racetrack or simulcast center. Also, the fact that the bettor had $10,000 either on them or in their betting account leads one to believe that the bettor was a sophisticated Horseplayer (this is assuming it was one person and one wager). However, keeping the wager in until the last moment was risky in case the cancellation couldn't be made in time.
Whatever the intent, whether it was a mistake or manipulation, this type of thing flies in the face of the integrity of the game and can turn bettors off. Unless a teller made a mistake, you can't blame the bet taker unless it is a known repeat offender, this kind of "mistake" can happen at any track or through any ADW or simulcast center.
So what is the solution? Stop cancellations? I don't think so. Real mistakes do happen, and tellers need to be protected. As long as cancellations are allowed for certain instances, cancellations have to be available to all.
How about this? On any win, place, or show wager of $100 or greater, or any exactor or double wager with a $10 base or greater, allow 90 seconds to cancel whether it is on track or online. And to avoid any temptation to manipulate, these wagers do not show up in the pools until the 90 seconds are up or the bell rings to end betting, whichever comes first.
I realize that this gets us away from real time odds even more, as late odd fluctuations are already upsetting to many Horseplayers, but it might actually lead to less fluctuation, as big bettors using robotic programming to wager as late as possible will have less real time info to make decisions, which means they will have to speculate stressing other factors than current odds. I do believe they'll still wager the same amounts they do today, they will just be more creative and will probably spread out their wagers more.
I imagine the hard part of my idea is to get the racetracks on board with it, and then get the tote companies to implement it. If it is too costly, you can just about forget about it.
One more thing, cancellations do not matter to the integrity of the game when it comes to blind pools like triactors, superfectas, Pick 3's, Pick 4's, etc. so they can be unlimited without any worry, and not subjected to time constraints. Late scratches having to do with a horse being used in a triactor or super by someone with a limited bankroll create a need to be able to cancel, so that another horse can be subbed in by the Horseplayer.
18 August 2012
Time To Change The Claiming Game
The new California rule that gives the new owner an out if the horse claimed is euthanized on the track just hits me as wrong, mainly because there might be occasions when a horse might be put down even though there is some ambiguity to the extent of the injury. In other words, it may not have been put down if the rule didn't exist, or if the claim wasn't made.
It got me thinking of a solution, and I think I've come up with one, not only one that will save the lives of some horses but one that will fire up the claiming game possibly bringing in new owners, something the game desperately needs.
Claiming races are very important. They allow horses to compete against their equals, and allows owners to either try to lose their horses or buy horses whom they think they can do well financially with in the future. The claiming element allows for racing partnerships to exist which means those with little racing background can get involved in the game for a commitment of a few thousand dollars. Some of these newbie owners wind up buying more horses, and even get into buying yearlings and even get involved in breeding (it happened to me, though I had a more than a little racing background).
New owners are likely to bring newbie friends and family to the track the odd time to see their horse run, again, this is good for growth, as new gamblers and owners can come out of it.
General claiming rules haven't changed much over time. Owners either talk themselves into claiming a horse with potential or a trainer talks the owner into a horse with potential to claim. The claim slip is dropped prior to 15 minutes to post time in most jurisdictions, and if you are the only claim in on the horse, or if you win a shake when 2 or more claims are in on the same horse, the horse becomes yours.
Technically you own the horse after the race is official, but in reality you bought the horse when the gate opened. This means that the purse money earned in the race goes to the former owner. It is really an odd way of doing things, if you think about it. In most instances in the real world, you own it when you buy it. Take stocks for example. I guess, you can compare the current system to buying a home in a fluctuating real estate market, the only difference being, the home doesn't have much of a chance to be worth nothing by the time the deal closes.
It is 2012, and Ebay is still hot. Why not change the claiming game to reflect the times and save the odd horse as well? My idea is to have an auction after the race is official. This could rejuvenate the claiming game and bring in a brand new clientele as well, as an auction would increase buyer confidence in a big way, because the new buyer is now buying in real time.
The way it would work is pretty simple, horses are still put in claiming races with the same tags that exist today, however, after the race, any of the horses can be "claimed" by auction. The owner has the option to place a minimum price on the horse below the claiming price or use the claiming price as the minimum bid. The old owner is not allowed to bid on their own horse, nor can the trainer of that horse.
For example, a conditioned non winner of two $10,000 claiming race is over. The winner ran hard and the time was decent. The second place finisher was only beaten a neck, but still has the non winner of two condition. The third place finisher was beaten another 3 lengths as the favorite. The rest of the field was back at least another 3 lengths.
The owner of the winner, knowing that the horse will have to go against non winners of three next time, and that the horse has a pretty high vet bill puts a minimum price of $7,500. Bidding starts, the horse goes for $9,000. The owner of the second place finisher really doesn't want to part with the horse because it is next to a cinch to win for $10,000-$20,000 next time out, so the bidding starts at $10,000. The horse sells for $14,000. The old owner is disappointed that he won't be in the picture next time out, but getting an extra $4,000 for the horse is acceptable. The third horse had good form but showed he belonged for $10,000 only. Because horses have to move up 25% of the auction price, in order for the new owner to run for $10,000, a price of more than $8,000 can't be paid. The old owner knows the first and second horse can't run in the same class race next time out, so he puts a minimum price of $9,000 on the horse. The horse doesn't sell.
As for the rest, some owner might just want to get rid of a horse and put price of $1,000. These horses can easily be bought by new owners looking to run for $5,000 or less if they think the horse could win for that next start.
One other thing this auctioning process will do is to prevent outfits from stealing. For bettors, they can make better inferences as to the wellness of a dropper, and will become more confident when making selections.
I believe that auctions after the race would bring more people to the track, mostly potential buyers. Trainers will required to make decisions on the horses action during the race, and even try to determine soundness by the way the horse jogs back to the unsaddling area. Trainers with good eyes will get more business.
I also think there is room to do both, keep the pre-race claiming (EBAY Buy It Now!) and also have the auction afterwards. Of course, if a horse is claimed, it is up to the new owner to put the horse in the auction or not. If claimed though, the new owner does not have the option to put down the horse to void the claim.
Speaking about voiding the claim, all auctioned horses get tested. If a positive occurs, the new owner has the option to void the claim as well as get compensated at a rate of $100 a day by the old owner. This could help deter those taking a chance on pre-race concoctions.
It got me thinking of a solution, and I think I've come up with one, not only one that will save the lives of some horses but one that will fire up the claiming game possibly bringing in new owners, something the game desperately needs.
Claiming races are very important. They allow horses to compete against their equals, and allows owners to either try to lose their horses or buy horses whom they think they can do well financially with in the future. The claiming element allows for racing partnerships to exist which means those with little racing background can get involved in the game for a commitment of a few thousand dollars. Some of these newbie owners wind up buying more horses, and even get into buying yearlings and even get involved in breeding (it happened to me, though I had a more than a little racing background).
New owners are likely to bring newbie friends and family to the track the odd time to see their horse run, again, this is good for growth, as new gamblers and owners can come out of it.
General claiming rules haven't changed much over time. Owners either talk themselves into claiming a horse with potential or a trainer talks the owner into a horse with potential to claim. The claim slip is dropped prior to 15 minutes to post time in most jurisdictions, and if you are the only claim in on the horse, or if you win a shake when 2 or more claims are in on the same horse, the horse becomes yours.
Technically you own the horse after the race is official, but in reality you bought the horse when the gate opened. This means that the purse money earned in the race goes to the former owner. It is really an odd way of doing things, if you think about it. In most instances in the real world, you own it when you buy it. Take stocks for example. I guess, you can compare the current system to buying a home in a fluctuating real estate market, the only difference being, the home doesn't have much of a chance to be worth nothing by the time the deal closes.
It is 2012, and Ebay is still hot. Why not change the claiming game to reflect the times and save the odd horse as well? My idea is to have an auction after the race is official. This could rejuvenate the claiming game and bring in a brand new clientele as well, as an auction would increase buyer confidence in a big way, because the new buyer is now buying in real time.
The way it would work is pretty simple, horses are still put in claiming races with the same tags that exist today, however, after the race, any of the horses can be "claimed" by auction. The owner has the option to place a minimum price on the horse below the claiming price or use the claiming price as the minimum bid. The old owner is not allowed to bid on their own horse, nor can the trainer of that horse.
For example, a conditioned non winner of two $10,000 claiming race is over. The winner ran hard and the time was decent. The second place finisher was only beaten a neck, but still has the non winner of two condition. The third place finisher was beaten another 3 lengths as the favorite. The rest of the field was back at least another 3 lengths.
The owner of the winner, knowing that the horse will have to go against non winners of three next time, and that the horse has a pretty high vet bill puts a minimum price of $7,500. Bidding starts, the horse goes for $9,000. The owner of the second place finisher really doesn't want to part with the horse because it is next to a cinch to win for $10,000-$20,000 next time out, so the bidding starts at $10,000. The horse sells for $14,000. The old owner is disappointed that he won't be in the picture next time out, but getting an extra $4,000 for the horse is acceptable. The third horse had good form but showed he belonged for $10,000 only. Because horses have to move up 25% of the auction price, in order for the new owner to run for $10,000, a price of more than $8,000 can't be paid. The old owner knows the first and second horse can't run in the same class race next time out, so he puts a minimum price of $9,000 on the horse. The horse doesn't sell.
As for the rest, some owner might just want to get rid of a horse and put price of $1,000. These horses can easily be bought by new owners looking to run for $5,000 or less if they think the horse could win for that next start.
One other thing this auctioning process will do is to prevent outfits from stealing. For bettors, they can make better inferences as to the wellness of a dropper, and will become more confident when making selections.
I believe that auctions after the race would bring more people to the track, mostly potential buyers. Trainers will required to make decisions on the horses action during the race, and even try to determine soundness by the way the horse jogs back to the unsaddling area. Trainers with good eyes will get more business.
I also think there is room to do both, keep the pre-race claiming (EBAY Buy It Now!) and also have the auction afterwards. Of course, if a horse is claimed, it is up to the new owner to put the horse in the auction or not. If claimed though, the new owner does not have the option to put down the horse to void the claim.
Speaking about voiding the claim, all auctioned horses get tested. If a positive occurs, the new owner has the option to void the claim as well as get compensated at a rate of $100 a day by the old owner. This could help deter those taking a chance on pre-race concoctions.
5 March 2010
The Cost Of Owning A Thoroughbred In Ontario In 2010
It is that time of year again, when owners have started to decide some sort of game plan when it comes to who will be training their horses, and even how many horses they are looking to race in 2010 in Ontario.
With purses so good at Woodbine, and the fact that quality isn't premium there (in other words, it might make sense to bring in horses from non slots tracks in the USA and run at Woodbine, especially low to mid claimers and those eligible for allowance non other than, and especially maidens).
I did a post a couple of years ago comparing the difference between training a race horse at Woodbine versus training one at Fort Erie. Prices haven't gone up very much to my knowledge over the past two years, so the numbers quoted are most likely very close if not right on. If I'm way off on anything please leave a comment and I will correct it.
Keep in mind that I'm quoting in Canadian dollars, so if you are an American, you can multiply all dollars quoted by .94 in order to compare apples to apples:
COST OF OWNING A RACE HORSE IN ONTARIO
I'm going to make some assumptions here to give everyone an idea about costs: Your horse trains for 8 months in the year and races 12 times. For 4 months, your horse is resting at a farm. Also, your horse is Woodbine caliber and runs 11 times at Woodbine and once at Fort Erie.
Training a race horse at Fort Erie could be a lot cheaper for an owner than training the horse at Woodbine. I'm going to go through the pluses and minuses.
Cost of training:
At Woodbine, trainers charge between $60 - $110 per day. 60 bucks and $110 are very rare. The bulk of trainers charge $70-80 a day.
At Fort Erie, trainers charge between $40 - $60 per day. The bulk of trainers charge $50 a day. At Fort Erie, some trainers will offer "the deal." The typical deal is where the owner buys the horse, and the trainer is responsible for all or most of the bills in return for half the purses, and half the equity in the horse once the owner gets his or her purchase price back. For a trainer, this deal is a killer for them unless the horse makes at least $30,000 for the year. Trainers who take deals on cheap horses are usually desperate, and you have to wonder about their foresight. The only way a deal makes sense for a trainer today is if the horse is competitive at a claiming price of $12,500 or greater.
The actual cost to a hands off trainer who does nothing in the way of grooming or walking a horse can be broken down like this:
Woodbine
Groom $23 Hot Walker $8 Food and Bedding $15 Exercise Boy (4-5 times a week@$15 per day) $10 Total Cost=$56 per day
For Erie
Groom $18 Hot Walker $5 Food and Bedding $14 Exercise Boy (4-5 times a week@$12 per day) $8 Total Cost=$45 per day
Remember, these are estimates. Trainers also bring capital investments to the table, some bring a lot more than others. That being said, they could save money by using a hot walker machine, for example, but it cost the trainer to buy the machine. Some have pulsating blankets too. The trainer can also save on feed by buying it off the track in bulk, but they could also add supplements, which may or may not appear on your bill as well as over the counter meds.
Trainers also incur Workers Comp charges.
I have always contended that the 10% is what the trainer is entitled to. If he or she wants to make money in the morning, then they should rub or walk a horse or two. Many trainers do not agree with:)
Shoeing Charges
8 months of training and 12 races will mean about 8 pairs of shoes. At Fort Erie, the usual cost is $100 a change. At Woodbine it is around $120-$125.
Shipping Charges
If stabled at Woodbine, shipping once to Fort Erie from Woodbine would cost $200 for the year.
If stabled at Fort Erie, shipping eleven times to Woodbine from Fort Erie would cost $2200 for the year.
Shipping to and from your layoff farm total around $200 a year no matter if you have a Woodbine or Fort Erie trainer.
Layoff Period
Most farms charge between $15-$25 per day. So lets say the typical owner pays around $600 X 4 months per year.
Stake Monies
Many trainers will charge an additional 1% for a wins (and sometimes places and shows) on a training bill so that at least the groom will get a stake. Sometimes, trainers pay $50-$150 for a second as well to the groom (the owner is usually charged). So a typical owner of a Woodbine horse with a 12 starts a year (lets say 2 wins and a second), will pay an additional $700 in stakes.
Stake money differs dramatically from barn to barn.
Vet Bills
Expect to pay around $200-$300 per start per horse on average regardless of the track.
Miscellaneous Bills
Some trainers will add on tack charges or over-the-counter meds onto your bill. Many don't charge for this.
Environment
Some trainers will say that Fort Erie is a much more calming track, especially for a high strung horse. Lots of grass to graze on, and no airplanes coming and going every 2 minutes. But if you are at Woodbine, you have the option to train on the Poly, sort of a home field advantage.
The other advantage to Fort Erie is that there is plenty of extra stall space. The management of Fort understands that in order for their training base to make a decent living, Woodbine horses are pretty much needed.
Lets add it all up:
Woodbine:
Training (@$75 per day): $75 X 240 = $18000
Shoes : $125 X 8 = $ 1000
Layoff Charges : $20 X 125 = $ 2500
Shipping = $ 400
Stake Money = $ 700
Vet Bills = $ 3000
Total = $25600
This means your horse needs to make around $32,000 a year just to break even, because the trainer and jockey get close to 10% of total purses made.
Fort Erie:
Training (@50 per day): $50 X 240 = $12000
Shoes : $100 X 8 = $ 800
Layoff Charges : $20 X 125 = $ 2500
Shipping = $ 2400
Stake Money = $ 700
Vet Bills = $ 3000
Total = $21400
This means your horse needs to make $26750 a year to break even.
If you own a horse that only runs at Fort Erie, the horse may have a few more layoff days because the season is a little shorter, and of course, less shipping charges, so the total that needs to be earned to break even may be $3,000-$4,000 lower than the amount of $26,700.
Many Fort Erie trainers are just as talented as Woodbine trainers, but they may just like the small track/small town feel. Either way, the owner needs to have a trainer they can trust, and one who doesn't intimidate them. If the owner wants to have a big say, they should have it. It is their horse, and they are the one who is most at risk.
Remember, if you are the owner, you are doing the trainer a favour by choosing to do business with him or her. Don't forget it.
One more concern this year for owners is the new upcoming HST (Harmony Sales Tax). This could really be a deterrent for US owners, and perhaps Canadian owners who care about cash flow.
Check out the poll at Pace Advantage. How much do owners pay and how much do trainers charge?
UPDATE: See also The Cost To Own A Horse In New York
If any trainers want to quote their exact prices, feel free to email me at cangambleblog@gmail.com and I will add the information on this blog post with your permission.
With purses so good at Woodbine, and the fact that quality isn't premium there (in other words, it might make sense to bring in horses from non slots tracks in the USA and run at Woodbine, especially low to mid claimers and those eligible for allowance non other than, and especially maidens).
I did a post a couple of years ago comparing the difference between training a race horse at Woodbine versus training one at Fort Erie. Prices haven't gone up very much to my knowledge over the past two years, so the numbers quoted are most likely very close if not right on. If I'm way off on anything please leave a comment and I will correct it.
Keep in mind that I'm quoting in Canadian dollars, so if you are an American, you can multiply all dollars quoted by .94 in order to compare apples to apples:
COST OF OWNING A RACE HORSE IN ONTARIO
I'm going to make some assumptions here to give everyone an idea about costs: Your horse trains for 8 months in the year and races 12 times. For 4 months, your horse is resting at a farm. Also, your horse is Woodbine caliber and runs 11 times at Woodbine and once at Fort Erie.
Training a race horse at Fort Erie could be a lot cheaper for an owner than training the horse at Woodbine. I'm going to go through the pluses and minuses.
Cost of training:
At Woodbine, trainers charge between $60 - $110 per day. 60 bucks and $110 are very rare. The bulk of trainers charge $70-80 a day.
At Fort Erie, trainers charge between $40 - $60 per day. The bulk of trainers charge $50 a day. At Fort Erie, some trainers will offer "the deal." The typical deal is where the owner buys the horse, and the trainer is responsible for all or most of the bills in return for half the purses, and half the equity in the horse once the owner gets his or her purchase price back. For a trainer, this deal is a killer for them unless the horse makes at least $30,000 for the year. Trainers who take deals on cheap horses are usually desperate, and you have to wonder about their foresight. The only way a deal makes sense for a trainer today is if the horse is competitive at a claiming price of $12,500 or greater.
The actual cost to a hands off trainer who does nothing in the way of grooming or walking a horse can be broken down like this:
Woodbine
Groom $23 Hot Walker $8 Food and Bedding $15 Exercise Boy (4-5 times a week@$15 per day) $10 Total Cost=$56 per day
For Erie
Groom $18 Hot Walker $5 Food and Bedding $14 Exercise Boy (4-5 times a week@$12 per day) $8 Total Cost=$45 per day
Remember, these are estimates. Trainers also bring capital investments to the table, some bring a lot more than others. That being said, they could save money by using a hot walker machine, for example, but it cost the trainer to buy the machine. Some have pulsating blankets too. The trainer can also save on feed by buying it off the track in bulk, but they could also add supplements, which may or may not appear on your bill as well as over the counter meds.
Trainers also incur Workers Comp charges.
I have always contended that the 10% is what the trainer is entitled to. If he or she wants to make money in the morning, then they should rub or walk a horse or two. Many trainers do not agree with:)
Shoeing Charges
8 months of training and 12 races will mean about 8 pairs of shoes. At Fort Erie, the usual cost is $100 a change. At Woodbine it is around $120-$125.
Shipping Charges
If stabled at Woodbine, shipping once to Fort Erie from Woodbine would cost $200 for the year.
If stabled at Fort Erie, shipping eleven times to Woodbine from Fort Erie would cost $2200 for the year.
Shipping to and from your layoff farm total around $200 a year no matter if you have a Woodbine or Fort Erie trainer.
Layoff Period
Most farms charge between $15-$25 per day. So lets say the typical owner pays around $600 X 4 months per year.
Stake Monies
Many trainers will charge an additional 1% for a wins (and sometimes places and shows) on a training bill so that at least the groom will get a stake. Sometimes, trainers pay $50-$150 for a second as well to the groom (the owner is usually charged). So a typical owner of a Woodbine horse with a 12 starts a year (lets say 2 wins and a second), will pay an additional $700 in stakes.
Stake money differs dramatically from barn to barn.
Vet Bills
Expect to pay around $200-$300 per start per horse on average regardless of the track.
Miscellaneous Bills
Some trainers will add on tack charges or over-the-counter meds onto your bill. Many don't charge for this.
Environment
Some trainers will say that Fort Erie is a much more calming track, especially for a high strung horse. Lots of grass to graze on, and no airplanes coming and going every 2 minutes. But if you are at Woodbine, you have the option to train on the Poly, sort of a home field advantage.
The other advantage to Fort Erie is that there is plenty of extra stall space. The management of Fort understands that in order for their training base to make a decent living, Woodbine horses are pretty much needed.
Lets add it all up:
Woodbine:
Training (@$75 per day): $75 X 240 = $18000
Shoes : $125 X 8 = $ 1000
Layoff Charges : $20 X 125 = $ 2500
Shipping = $ 400
Stake Money = $ 700
Vet Bills = $ 3000
Total = $25600
This means your horse needs to make around $32,000 a year just to break even, because the trainer and jockey get close to 10% of total purses made.
Fort Erie:
Training (@50 per day): $50 X 240 = $12000
Shoes : $100 X 8 = $ 800
Layoff Charges : $20 X 125 = $ 2500
Shipping = $ 2400
Stake Money = $ 700
Vet Bills = $ 3000
Total = $21400
This means your horse needs to make $26750 a year to break even.
If you own a horse that only runs at Fort Erie, the horse may have a few more layoff days because the season is a little shorter, and of course, less shipping charges, so the total that needs to be earned to break even may be $3,000-$4,000 lower than the amount of $26,700.
Many Fort Erie trainers are just as talented as Woodbine trainers, but they may just like the small track/small town feel. Either way, the owner needs to have a trainer they can trust, and one who doesn't intimidate them. If the owner wants to have a big say, they should have it. It is their horse, and they are the one who is most at risk.
Remember, if you are the owner, you are doing the trainer a favour by choosing to do business with him or her. Don't forget it.
One more concern this year for owners is the new upcoming HST (Harmony Sales Tax). This could really be a deterrent for US owners, and perhaps Canadian owners who care about cash flow.
Check out the poll at Pace Advantage. How much do owners pay and how much do trainers charge?
UPDATE: See also The Cost To Own A Horse In New York
If any trainers want to quote their exact prices, feel free to email me at cangambleblog@gmail.com and I will add the information on this blog post with your permission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)