NYRA's Oversight Board Member Richard Aurelio recently stated "The sport is dying. Every time you look at the obituary page you’re losing a racing fan.” This made DRF's Mike Watchmaker very mad.
Though Watchmaker brings up good points, like the stands have always been full of older people, which, because of the lack of younger people in the crowd, leads to the false conclusion that when the older players die, it is over for horse racing. The reason this wasn't true in the past is that 45 year olds and up have more disposable cash and more time to finally embrace the game that hooked them when they were younger.
Watchmaker doesn't address why things might be different this time around: A much smaller amount of the new 45 year olds today were bitten by the race track bug at an earlier age, and going forward the percentages will even be smaller.
A brief history is needed to explain this. Back in the 60's, horse racing was mainstream, many sitcoms on TV had at least one episode devoted to a racetrack theme. Outside of Vegas, it was the only game in town. You had to go to the track, or by the early 70's an OTB, to place a bet (except for those who played with bookies, but even these players went to the track often). The stands were packed, not only with 45 plusers who were regulars but their kids as well. The Horseplayers were limited to WPS bets most races, as there was maybe one double and a couple of exactors tops for a typical card of racing.
The fact that WPS wagers were predominant meant that collective takeout back then was in the 15-16% range, which meant more churn, and more gambling satisfaction as a limited 8 race card ensured that most patron would leave the track with at least some money, which for a gambler lead to one thing: Looking forward to the next day that the track was open and/or the next day they can make it to the track....and who needs to pay for a babysitter when you could bring your kid in for free.
The game was beatable by a few too back then. Those who made their own track variants had a huge edge (this was taken away gradually, as the DRF provided some archaic variants culminating in 1990 when Beyer figs were in every Form). There were visible winners, thanks in part to a lot of dummy money, as there was pretty much no other gambling competition, which meant that there was a lot of money in the pool that came from guessers (only 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 players actually bought the Form).
The 70's came along and so did lotteries and also a lot of sports franchises began to pop up. The Toronto Blue Jays had a noticeable negative affect on the attendance numbers at Woodbine, especially on weekends. Dummy money was still out there, but exotics started to become available in every race, and this drove up the collective track takeout and it reduced churn as well. Players were going home with less money, and they also needed a bigger bankroll to enjoy the card. This weeded out a few more, and stands started to see a drop off in kids (today's 45 year olds).
The 80's saw even more exotic wagers, collective takeout continued to creep upwards, and intertrack wagering came into play. You didn't have to go to the live venue to place a bet. It is very tough for a regular to bring a kid to an intertrack without looking like a complete degenerate. Kids could not have any fun in that setting, it is light years away from the live racing experience. Still, kids became scarce at racetracks, as gamblers were starting to go broke much faster, as they now had a lot more races and betting types to play on any giving day. Horse racing had more plays an hour, the takeout should have dropped in the direction of blackjack and slots, but went the other way instead.
With the 90's came Charity and Indian Casinos. More bang for the buck for gamblers, as casino games have much lower holds. Handicappers were starting to get discouraged as dummy money started disappearing quickly, it was good handicappers versus good and great handicappers. The playing field was equalized too with the track variant adjusted speed figure. Horseplayers were losing more quickly, many didn't realize why, but enjoyment started to drop, however, the fact that more tracks were available meant that those who did play, played with a bigger bankroll. Lets not forget that those who were playing in the 90's, were mostly got the needle in their arm as a kid in the 50's to early 70's. However, there were less and less visible winners as the Century turned.
In the early 2000's, there was still a nice spike up as the majority of people in Canada and the USA could now play at local restaurants, intertrack locations, and finally from home. Except for those who reside in States like Arizona and Texas, a Horseplayer can now pretty much play a race from anywhere anytime. If Watchmaker's 45 year old theory is true, handle should be soaring today. It is not.
Lets look at some cold hard facts:
Between 2000-2010 the population of 45-64 year olds grew 31.5% in the USA
Total North American handle dropped 25% from 2000-2010.
Is it the economy or increased competition? Vegas should be a good barometer as competition from all other locations and a bad economy should mean that Vegas would have experienced a drop off as well. Wrong.
Vegas total handle increased by 11.7%.
In real money terms though, Vegas is off, as inflation rose 26% from 2000-2010. But again, with more and more casinos popping up across American, they still fared quite well.
So lets look at horse racing one more time from the angle of 45 year olds or greater. Handle in 2000 was 15 Billion, multiply that by the Vegas increase which takes into account inflation minus competition and the bad economy (11%), and multiply that by the increase in population for those demographics (31.5%). Horse racing handle should be hovering around $21.9 Billion instead of $11.5 Billion.
The game is dying. Increased takeout caused by actual hikes to a shift in higher takeout wagers available is a main cause. Another cause is the increase in signal fees that ADWs have been seeing of late, cutting into rebates available to every day players, which creates less churn. Also, protectionism from signal hogs, to States not allowing internet wagering, to States that have implemented home market fees, have all added to less churn and have turned many existing Horseplayers to give up on horse racing.
But the main reason is a diminishing amount of today's 45 year old, as they were not weaned on horse racing. And because of that, it is hard to convince them to play a game that nobody beats long term, and that has a very big learning curve. Why learn a game that is perceived to be unbeatable?, when there are games like poker that are perceived to be beatable by a few, the same is true of sports wagering, and to a lesser extent, blackjack which has a very low house edge.
Drugs aren't the problem either. They've been associated with horse racing even prior to the inception of parimutuel wagering. Sure, a movement to integrity will help, but only if there is a growing customer base.
It isn't over for horse racing, but there needs to be visible winners created.
Takeout needs to reduced to the 15-16% percent range by all tracks, and if this is successful, further drops need to be made. Until that happens, rebates for all needs to be embraced by the industry.
Low takeout Pick 5's don't work. It doesn't create churn, it doesn't attract new bettors. The same is true about Jackpot bets. If a Jackpot bet can't get new people right from the start, all it does is take a lot of churn money out of the bettor's hands.
Exchange wagering needs to be a reality. Getting families to go to the track as regulars is a dead deal. Horse racing needs to get with the times. The only way to cultivate the 20-35 year old crowd is to give them a high churn fix, one that some can actually win at, which will create a buzz.
In the meantime, a nation wide lottery type bet (a Pick 9) similar to the V75, that is available to be bet at lottery kiosks and every track and ADW, will certainly help get more horse racing exposure from 45 year old plusers.
The time has come to let the market decide the price of the bet, not the Horsemen or self serving Racetrack owners, if racing is to grow.
Showing posts with label rebates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rebates. Show all posts
1 April 2010
Woodbine To Reduce Takeout With Future Growth In Mind
Tomorrow, Woodbine will open the doors for their 2010 thoroughbred season, and they've decided to dedicate this year to the horseplayer by dropping track takeouts to industry low levels.
WPS bets will now be offered at 15%. All exotics will be have a takeout of 18%, with the exception of triactors which will have a takeout of 19.5%. The takeouts used to be 16.95% for WPS, 20.5% for exactors and doubles, 25% for Pick 4's and Pick 6's, 26.3% for superfectas and Pick 3's, and 27% for triactors.
The hardest part of making this change was convincing the Ontario HBPA that their contract needed to be changed because their percentages had to be prorated for this to work. It took a lot of meetings, but the astute Woodbine executives team was able to finally convince the horsemen that when takeout drops, players will churn back the extra money they won, so the bottom line will be at least the same. Of course, when horseplayers last longer, and spend more time handicapping, betting and watching races, they may forgo other forms of gambling, and more importantly, start introducing their family and friends to the great game of horse racing, and this potential for strong growth has apparently excited both horsemen and WEG executives alike.
Because track takeouts were being cut to close to three quarters of what they used to be, instead of receiving an extra 2% on all wagers, the horsepeople have agreed to receive an extra 1.5% on each dollar bet instead, and an additional 1.5% on triactors.
In order to get the horsemen to go along with this monumental effort, Woodbine promised to keep purse levels at least the same this year, and next year. An executive stated off the record that "Woodbine was planning to announce a 15% purse cut on the thoroughbred side, just like they did on the standardbred side, by August 1st, if this agreement failed."
The same executive, who stressed she wanted to stay anonymous, said that "Things are so much brighter now that Davey is giving up control. It is like Woodbine finally got rid of the monkey on its back." She then joked, "He'll still be around for a few months doing the only thing he is any good at, collecting his big fat pay check."
The government agencies too had to go along with this plan. It took about twelve meetings but they finally understood the math behind the cuts and what churn means, so it was agreed that the Ontario Government will now receive .385% instead of .5% on each dollar wagered, while the Canadian Government will now retain .615% instead of .8% on each dollar wagered for the provision of drug control, photo-finish, video patrol and audit services.
But that isn't all. Newly appointed WEG Token Racial Minority V.P. Ravi Singh Singhasong stated that "instead of using the term "Take Out Adjustments," which is too lengthy a term anyway, money put into HPI accounts based on how much a horseplayer bets, will now be referred to as "Rebates." We will now be giving out Rebates to all HPI members on every bet they make with no weekly minimum. All bets made through HPI will now receive at least 2% paid out weekly. Those who bet over $5,000 a week will receive rebates of 4% on all wagers, and those who wager $10,000 a week or more will receive 6%. The exception is that there are certain tracks that we can only pay rebates of 2% on because of contractual restrictions, so we be informing our bigger betting customers that it might be in their best interest to avoid playing those tracks."
"We also convinced the horsemen to pay for half the rebate and they seemed to understood that the rebate money would be bet back in almost every case, so in the end they would wind up with at least close to the same, but probably a whole lot more," said Singhasong.
Ravi continued, "We will also now pay our customers whatever the US tracks pay on all bets, and therefore cease taking a cut out of the horseplayers winnings if they hit a triactor on a California race, for example. It is just bad Karma to rip off the horseplayer, really bad Karma. No more bad Karma."
"One more surprise," Singh Singhasong went on, "we are giving our customers their breakage. It is 2010, we had computers that could figure out exact payoffs to the penny years ago. We don't use chalk boards for the odds anymore, and haven't for some time. There is no reason not to give our customer all their money, not just most of it, they earned it. So that is what we are going to do."
Asked what triggered this seemingly new philosophy, Singhasong said, "Besides having a new visionary guiding us, we looked at our business model, and the lack of growth that has resulted. The fact that we have been losing horseplayers and potential horseplayers to Betfair, online poker, sports betting, and offshore ADWs. We finally decided enough is enough, lets bloody well compete for their business.....we know that at Woodbine, we have a very good racing product, but a terrible betting product, the track takeouts rates we had before today were the laughing stock amongst all knowledgeable gamblers."
"What pushed us overboard, though, was seeing the continued growth and success of Tampa Bay Downs with their gradual takeout reductions, and compared it with the awful, rancid, dreadful decline at Calder Race Course. Then we looked at our numbers, and we have the same handle that Calder has today, almost half of what Tampa Bay does daily. Look at our purse structure compared to Tampa, if not for slots, we'd be running for peanuts. We realized our model is broken, so now we will fix it."
Ravi and the rest of the WEG decision makers must have figured out that during their 2002-2003 meet, Tampa Bay did $2,550,096 per day in handle, and after a couple of takeout reductions, now appears to be averaging over $4,000,000 a day this meet, while Calder did $397,369 in handle per race back in 2003, and only did $235,000 per race in handle in 2009. Calder foolishly increased takeout early in 2008.
Instead of a gradual decrease in takeout like Tampa Bay has done, Woodbine has decided to grab the bull by the horns.
"Gradual Shmadual," said Singh Singhasong, "2010 is THE YEAR OF THE HORSEPLAYER AT WOODBINE, oh and one more thing, APRIL FOOLS' DAY."
WPS bets will now be offered at 15%. All exotics will be have a takeout of 18%, with the exception of triactors which will have a takeout of 19.5%. The takeouts used to be 16.95% for WPS, 20.5% for exactors and doubles, 25% for Pick 4's and Pick 6's, 26.3% for superfectas and Pick 3's, and 27% for triactors.
The hardest part of making this change was convincing the Ontario HBPA that their contract needed to be changed because their percentages had to be prorated for this to work. It took a lot of meetings, but the astute Woodbine executives team was able to finally convince the horsemen that when takeout drops, players will churn back the extra money they won, so the bottom line will be at least the same. Of course, when horseplayers last longer, and spend more time handicapping, betting and watching races, they may forgo other forms of gambling, and more importantly, start introducing their family and friends to the great game of horse racing, and this potential for strong growth has apparently excited both horsemen and WEG executives alike.
Because track takeouts were being cut to close to three quarters of what they used to be, instead of receiving an extra 2% on all wagers, the horsepeople have agreed to receive an extra 1.5% on each dollar bet instead, and an additional 1.5% on triactors.
In order to get the horsemen to go along with this monumental effort, Woodbine promised to keep purse levels at least the same this year, and next year. An executive stated off the record that "Woodbine was planning to announce a 15% purse cut on the thoroughbred side, just like they did on the standardbred side, by August 1st, if this agreement failed."
The same executive, who stressed she wanted to stay anonymous, said that "Things are so much brighter now that Davey is giving up control. It is like Woodbine finally got rid of the monkey on its back." She then joked, "He'll still be around for a few months doing the only thing he is any good at, collecting his big fat pay check."
The government agencies too had to go along with this plan. It took about twelve meetings but they finally understood the math behind the cuts and what churn means, so it was agreed that the Ontario Government will now receive .385% instead of .5% on each dollar wagered, while the Canadian Government will now retain .615% instead of .8% on each dollar wagered for the provision of drug control, photo-finish, video patrol and audit services.
But that isn't all. Newly appointed WEG Token Racial Minority V.P. Ravi Singh Singhasong stated that "instead of using the term "Take Out Adjustments," which is too lengthy a term anyway, money put into HPI accounts based on how much a horseplayer bets, will now be referred to as "Rebates." We will now be giving out Rebates to all HPI members on every bet they make with no weekly minimum. All bets made through HPI will now receive at least 2% paid out weekly. Those who bet over $5,000 a week will receive rebates of 4% on all wagers, and those who wager $10,000 a week or more will receive 6%. The exception is that there are certain tracks that we can only pay rebates of 2% on because of contractual restrictions, so we be informing our bigger betting customers that it might be in their best interest to avoid playing those tracks."
"We also convinced the horsemen to pay for half the rebate and they seemed to understood that the rebate money would be bet back in almost every case, so in the end they would wind up with at least close to the same, but probably a whole lot more," said Singhasong.
Ravi continued, "We will also now pay our customers whatever the US tracks pay on all bets, and therefore cease taking a cut out of the horseplayers winnings if they hit a triactor on a California race, for example. It is just bad Karma to rip off the horseplayer, really bad Karma. No more bad Karma."
"One more surprise," Singh Singhasong went on, "we are giving our customers their breakage. It is 2010, we had computers that could figure out exact payoffs to the penny years ago. We don't use chalk boards for the odds anymore, and haven't for some time. There is no reason not to give our customer all their money, not just most of it, they earned it. So that is what we are going to do."
Asked what triggered this seemingly new philosophy, Singhasong said, "Besides having a new visionary guiding us, we looked at our business model, and the lack of growth that has resulted. The fact that we have been losing horseplayers and potential horseplayers to Betfair, online poker, sports betting, and offshore ADWs. We finally decided enough is enough, lets bloody well compete for their business.....we know that at Woodbine, we have a very good racing product, but a terrible betting product, the track takeouts rates we had before today were the laughing stock amongst all knowledgeable gamblers."
"What pushed us overboard, though, was seeing the continued growth and success of Tampa Bay Downs with their gradual takeout reductions, and compared it with the awful, rancid, dreadful decline at Calder Race Course. Then we looked at our numbers, and we have the same handle that Calder has today, almost half of what Tampa Bay does daily. Look at our purse structure compared to Tampa, if not for slots, we'd be running for peanuts. We realized our model is broken, so now we will fix it."
Ravi and the rest of the WEG decision makers must have figured out that during their 2002-2003 meet, Tampa Bay did $2,550,096 per day in handle, and after a couple of takeout reductions, now appears to be averaging over $4,000,000 a day this meet, while Calder did $397,369 in handle per race back in 2003, and only did $235,000 per race in handle in 2009. Calder foolishly increased takeout early in 2008.
Instead of a gradual decrease in takeout like Tampa Bay has done, Woodbine has decided to grab the bull by the horns.
"Gradual Shmadual," said Singh Singhasong, "2010 is THE YEAR OF THE HORSEPLAYER AT WOODBINE, oh and one more thing, APRIL FOOLS' DAY."
5 January 2010
If You Want Horse Racing To Grow You Need To Market Winning Horseplayers
R2Racing has a very good post up "Positioning Racing Perhaps For The First Time." The author of the post asks racing to try top down marketing with a simple message: "Horse racing is a game ……. and you will have the time of your life playing it."
I agree with the main points being made in the article, but the reality is that marketing horse racing will not work to attract a substantial amount of new horseplayers until there is a real reason for players to flock to the game.
Horse racing is a thinking persons game, and this fact is something that can be used as part of the marketing campaign. However other thinking games exist, and they don't cost nearly as much when it comes to giving the thinker the opportunity for victory. I don't know for sure, but I get the same euphoric fix winning a poker hand on the last card, as I do winning a Fantasy Football league, as I do catching an exactor at Tampa Bay Downs. I even get a feeling of satisfaction playing free games on the internet, where winning means just winning and has no financial rewards whatsoever.
Horse racing needs winning horseplayers, and it needs to market them along with the new reality (hopefully) that the game can be beaten with a combination of luck and skill.
This type of marketing scheme has been proven very successful in growing online poker and Betfair. Every young person wants to be that online poker player who wound up moving out of their parent's basement and into a mansion, thanks to being one of the best. And what young person wouldn't want to gamble successfully for a living?
Of course, there have been a lot more losers created by this form of marketing but that is the growth component, something dreadfully lacking in horse racing today. But as long as the carrot is there dangling in front of the player, where perhaps just a little more patience, knowledge and luck can turn a loser into a winner, the player's entertainment needs become fulfilled as an offshoot, and there is nothing wrong with horse racing getting more of the public's entertainment dollars.
The main deterrent to growth is undeniably the track takeout. For the horseplayer, the game has become much more difficult to beat than ever before (and it was hardly a game that could be beat in the past either, though there was a shot).
A Quick History
From the 1930's to the 1960's horse racing was much more mainstream. In many instances, it was the only place one could legally bet outside of Las Vegas. It was part of the cinema and then TV. Many movies and TV shows had references or were about about horse racing. Not that it was all a rosy portrayal, it was a mixture of either/or larceny and getting wealthy (with luck and knowledge).
Stands were packed. The main reasons being, it was the only game in town, it was inexpensive to play (there were only 8 races, and few if any exotics, so players were very likely to leave with cash in their pockets, enough to play the next day, and many left the track with more money than they came in with, even a couple of times a week sometimes), and there was a carrot: The game was perceived to be beatable. There was the legend of Pittsburgh Phil and others, along with the idea that inside info could actually help one make a huge score (a $2500 score in the 60's could get one enough money for the down payment on a home that today is worth $400,000).
By the late 60's to the early 80's handicapping books became popular. Real life stories like Andrew Beyer's My $50,000 Year At That Races, and new books based on empirical statistics like William Quirin's Winning At The Races became must reads for anyone serious enough to try to beat the game. Nowadays if Beyer's were to put out a book about actually winning, it would have to be called, My $50,000 Year At The Races After Receiving $100,000 In Rebates, and Quirin's book would have to be renamed Breaking Even At The Races If You Are Exceptionally Lucky.
Here is a telling quote from Richard Eng's book Horse Racing For Dummies: "Here's the skinny on getting shut out; in the long run, you save money." The statement is very true, more true today than it was in the 70's. You can't make that statement if you have even a chance to win long term.
So what happened? When did the possibility to win all but vanish? It really didn't take all that long, and it was mainly due to competition. First from lotteries starting in the 70's, and then slots and casinos in the 90's. Horse racing didn't even try to compete or lose their culture of entitlement perspective. In Toronto, the Blue Jays hurt Woodbine and Greenwood a lot in the mid to late 70's.
Most businesses can identify their customers and do everything they can to attract them. Not horse racing. Their customers it seems has always been execs and horsemen. Their customers of course, are the horseplayers. When business gets slower due to competition, the first thing a business does to attract customers, is LOWER PRICING. That is Economics 101.
In fact, pricing started to go up, because racetracks in their infinite wisdom started to increase the wagering types offered every race at much higher takeout rates in most cases. Sure, existing players wanted a chance at bigger scores, and what did they care about takeout? Most players, even today have no clue about how it affects them.
But it does affect them. The game got too expensive to play every day. More players went home broke more often, they spent less time handicapping and watching races, or taking their families to the track (growth potential was dead). They stopped looking forward to the next day of racing. And most importantly, they started to figure out that the game was not beatable by anyone they knew.
This wasn't all. Back in the 70's, maybe one in four at the track bought a Racing Form. The pools were filled with lots of dumb money, players just picking names and numbers off the program, or betting the favorite because it was favorite. Competition took care of these people who lost very quickly at the track and were willing and eager to waste their dough on lotteries and then lotteries and slots.
And if the higher collective takeout rate wasn't enough, horseplayers by the late 80's were now being seduced by having other tracks available to them. All this really did, was make it so the existing bettor could lose their money even faster than before. It didn't create new money to be lost. It had the opposite affect, as more people than ever before became discouraged, even if they didn't know the exact reason (which was a higher collective takeout and more available races each day which made it very probable that players would go home broke). They stopped bringing their friends and family and they talked less and less about horse racing.
And then the biggest kick in the groin for bettors who were either beating the game or coming close came right around 1990. Beyer figures showed up in the Racing Form, virtually taking away one of the most profitable and consistent angles in horse racing (speed handicapping using track variants). The playing field was equaled, and horses who ran 1:12 on a dead track running against horse who ran 1:10:0 on a fast track would now pay $8 instead of $15 to win.
Finally though, opportunity came along which caused some growth (but could have caused enormous growth), and that was phone and internet betting. Now, horseplayers could bet races from their home or work. For awhile, existing horseplayers could now play countless races as day without traveling up to 50 miles or more to go to a track.
It did add more money from existing players for at least the short run, but it didn't create more players, or at least not very many.
If they would have had a 10% takeout along with phone betting and internet betting, horse racing would have exploded like Betfair and online poker did.
There is just no incentive for new players to start betting horses today. First, almost every bettor looks at some sort of past performances, speed figures, or has a computer program that spews out all this information. The dumb money is bye bye. Now it is good thinkers versus great thinkers. And for what? The ability to pretty much guarantee that you will lose, and lose a lot if you play a lot.
Secondly, it takes years to learn the nuances of the game, from trainers to jockeys to what speed figures mean, etc. Nobody learns how to read a Racing Form in a short period of time.
So how can racing grow, or is it just going to stay flat or die? That is up to the racing industry. Right now, winners do exist, but the industry treats them like should be in an undisclosed bunker somewhere in Area 51. Why? Because these are the players who receive rebates. You know rebate? That ugly word that racing execs don't want the masses to know about.
If you bet enough money and you start asking the right people enough questions, you could get the average takeout reduced to something like 10 or 12%, and sometimes even less.
So do rebates create more players? Yes and no. They can bring back players who were betting offshore and not in actual pools, and they allow horseplayers to last longer which might get family members and friends involved but not to a great extent because newbies don't normally get rebates. Rebates probably have stopped many players from throwing in the towel too. But horse racing will not publish the fact that the only significant winners these days receive rebates, because that would mean they would have to admit their game is vastly overpriced.
Another reason why rebates is a dirty word is because of horsemen who collectively live for the short term. It is not just the racing execs to blame here. The horsemen, instead of embracing the idea that winning horseplayers are needed for growth, whine that if there is their is money left over to rebate, their track is selling the signal fee too low. And guess what? Today, signal fees are on the rise and what that means is that there is less money left to rebate. So racing is starting to kill the only potential growth component they have.
Remember, by giving less rebates, the player getting them will become disenchanted quicker. Horse racing will begin to lose their biggest bettors, and again, this will not create new players, it will just cause the pie to shrink even further.
OK, so rebates most likely won't get embraced. What is left?
The only way to grow racing is to create winners that racing can talk about, and that will only happen if takeout rates are cut to 10-12% everywhere. Smaller takeout cuts will create some growth (anytime players last longer they will expose the game to more people), but if racing wants significant growth they need a few winners who are out there in everyone's face.
At 10-12% players will last. The longer they play the more likely they are to expose newbies to horse racing. By lasting longer they will end the day or week with hope (even though it might be the delusional hope for most that slot players have). Most will lose more than they already lose today, but the winners will be the carrot stick racing is sorely lacking today.
You can take all the technological advances and throw them down the drain. Without incentive to play (and horse racing makes its money from GAMBLING and it needs to attract more GAMBLERS) horse racing is simply spending techno dollars just to try to keep their existing customers happy, it causes zero growth, in fact, innovation makes it easier for existing customers to lose quicker, so I could easily argue that the way technology is being used in horse racing today, is actually creating negative growth, as existing players become discouraged faster.
The industry needs to get their collective head out of the sand and they need to stop pretending that there are other issues which are hindering growth. Once takeout is reduced, the other issues will be forced to correct themselves as well because there will be a huge horseplayer base demanding it. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
I agree with the main points being made in the article, but the reality is that marketing horse racing will not work to attract a substantial amount of new horseplayers until there is a real reason for players to flock to the game.
Horse racing is a thinking persons game, and this fact is something that can be used as part of the marketing campaign. However other thinking games exist, and they don't cost nearly as much when it comes to giving the thinker the opportunity for victory. I don't know for sure, but I get the same euphoric fix winning a poker hand on the last card, as I do winning a Fantasy Football league, as I do catching an exactor at Tampa Bay Downs. I even get a feeling of satisfaction playing free games on the internet, where winning means just winning and has no financial rewards whatsoever.
Horse racing needs winning horseplayers, and it needs to market them along with the new reality (hopefully) that the game can be beaten with a combination of luck and skill.
This type of marketing scheme has been proven very successful in growing online poker and Betfair. Every young person wants to be that online poker player who wound up moving out of their parent's basement and into a mansion, thanks to being one of the best. And what young person wouldn't want to gamble successfully for a living?
Of course, there have been a lot more losers created by this form of marketing but that is the growth component, something dreadfully lacking in horse racing today. But as long as the carrot is there dangling in front of the player, where perhaps just a little more patience, knowledge and luck can turn a loser into a winner, the player's entertainment needs become fulfilled as an offshoot, and there is nothing wrong with horse racing getting more of the public's entertainment dollars.
The main deterrent to growth is undeniably the track takeout. For the horseplayer, the game has become much more difficult to beat than ever before (and it was hardly a game that could be beat in the past either, though there was a shot).
A Quick History
From the 1930's to the 1960's horse racing was much more mainstream. In many instances, it was the only place one could legally bet outside of Las Vegas. It was part of the cinema and then TV. Many movies and TV shows had references or were about about horse racing. Not that it was all a rosy portrayal, it was a mixture of either/or larceny and getting wealthy (with luck and knowledge).
Stands were packed. The main reasons being, it was the only game in town, it was inexpensive to play (there were only 8 races, and few if any exotics, so players were very likely to leave with cash in their pockets, enough to play the next day, and many left the track with more money than they came in with, even a couple of times a week sometimes), and there was a carrot: The game was perceived to be beatable. There was the legend of Pittsburgh Phil and others, along with the idea that inside info could actually help one make a huge score (a $2500 score in the 60's could get one enough money for the down payment on a home that today is worth $400,000).
By the late 60's to the early 80's handicapping books became popular. Real life stories like Andrew Beyer's My $50,000 Year At That Races, and new books based on empirical statistics like William Quirin's Winning At The Races became must reads for anyone serious enough to try to beat the game. Nowadays if Beyer's were to put out a book about actually winning, it would have to be called, My $50,000 Year At The Races After Receiving $100,000 In Rebates, and Quirin's book would have to be renamed Breaking Even At The Races If You Are Exceptionally Lucky.
Here is a telling quote from Richard Eng's book Horse Racing For Dummies: "Here's the skinny on getting shut out; in the long run, you save money." The statement is very true, more true today than it was in the 70's. You can't make that statement if you have even a chance to win long term.
So what happened? When did the possibility to win all but vanish? It really didn't take all that long, and it was mainly due to competition. First from lotteries starting in the 70's, and then slots and casinos in the 90's. Horse racing didn't even try to compete or lose their culture of entitlement perspective. In Toronto, the Blue Jays hurt Woodbine and Greenwood a lot in the mid to late 70's.
Most businesses can identify their customers and do everything they can to attract them. Not horse racing. Their customers it seems has always been execs and horsemen. Their customers of course, are the horseplayers. When business gets slower due to competition, the first thing a business does to attract customers, is LOWER PRICING. That is Economics 101.
In fact, pricing started to go up, because racetracks in their infinite wisdom started to increase the wagering types offered every race at much higher takeout rates in most cases. Sure, existing players wanted a chance at bigger scores, and what did they care about takeout? Most players, even today have no clue about how it affects them.
But it does affect them. The game got too expensive to play every day. More players went home broke more often, they spent less time handicapping and watching races, or taking their families to the track (growth potential was dead). They stopped looking forward to the next day of racing. And most importantly, they started to figure out that the game was not beatable by anyone they knew.
This wasn't all. Back in the 70's, maybe one in four at the track bought a Racing Form. The pools were filled with lots of dumb money, players just picking names and numbers off the program, or betting the favorite because it was favorite. Competition took care of these people who lost very quickly at the track and were willing and eager to waste their dough on lotteries and then lotteries and slots.
And if the higher collective takeout rate wasn't enough, horseplayers by the late 80's were now being seduced by having other tracks available to them. All this really did, was make it so the existing bettor could lose their money even faster than before. It didn't create new money to be lost. It had the opposite affect, as more people than ever before became discouraged, even if they didn't know the exact reason (which was a higher collective takeout and more available races each day which made it very probable that players would go home broke). They stopped bringing their friends and family and they talked less and less about horse racing.
And then the biggest kick in the groin for bettors who were either beating the game or coming close came right around 1990. Beyer figures showed up in the Racing Form, virtually taking away one of the most profitable and consistent angles in horse racing (speed handicapping using track variants). The playing field was equaled, and horses who ran 1:12 on a dead track running against horse who ran 1:10:0 on a fast track would now pay $8 instead of $15 to win.
Finally though, opportunity came along which caused some growth (but could have caused enormous growth), and that was phone and internet betting. Now, horseplayers could bet races from their home or work. For awhile, existing horseplayers could now play countless races as day without traveling up to 50 miles or more to go to a track.
It did add more money from existing players for at least the short run, but it didn't create more players, or at least not very many.
If they would have had a 10% takeout along with phone betting and internet betting, horse racing would have exploded like Betfair and online poker did.
There is just no incentive for new players to start betting horses today. First, almost every bettor looks at some sort of past performances, speed figures, or has a computer program that spews out all this information. The dumb money is bye bye. Now it is good thinkers versus great thinkers. And for what? The ability to pretty much guarantee that you will lose, and lose a lot if you play a lot.
Secondly, it takes years to learn the nuances of the game, from trainers to jockeys to what speed figures mean, etc. Nobody learns how to read a Racing Form in a short period of time.
So how can racing grow, or is it just going to stay flat or die? That is up to the racing industry. Right now, winners do exist, but the industry treats them like should be in an undisclosed bunker somewhere in Area 51. Why? Because these are the players who receive rebates. You know rebate? That ugly word that racing execs don't want the masses to know about.
If you bet enough money and you start asking the right people enough questions, you could get the average takeout reduced to something like 10 or 12%, and sometimes even less.
So do rebates create more players? Yes and no. They can bring back players who were betting offshore and not in actual pools, and they allow horseplayers to last longer which might get family members and friends involved but not to a great extent because newbies don't normally get rebates. Rebates probably have stopped many players from throwing in the towel too. But horse racing will not publish the fact that the only significant winners these days receive rebates, because that would mean they would have to admit their game is vastly overpriced.
Another reason why rebates is a dirty word is because of horsemen who collectively live for the short term. It is not just the racing execs to blame here. The horsemen, instead of embracing the idea that winning horseplayers are needed for growth, whine that if there is their is money left over to rebate, their track is selling the signal fee too low. And guess what? Today, signal fees are on the rise and what that means is that there is less money left to rebate. So racing is starting to kill the only potential growth component they have.
Remember, by giving less rebates, the player getting them will become disenchanted quicker. Horse racing will begin to lose their biggest bettors, and again, this will not create new players, it will just cause the pie to shrink even further.
OK, so rebates most likely won't get embraced. What is left?
The only way to grow racing is to create winners that racing can talk about, and that will only happen if takeout rates are cut to 10-12% everywhere. Smaller takeout cuts will create some growth (anytime players last longer they will expose the game to more people), but if racing wants significant growth they need a few winners who are out there in everyone's face.
At 10-12% players will last. The longer they play the more likely they are to expose newbies to horse racing. By lasting longer they will end the day or week with hope (even though it might be the delusional hope for most that slot players have). Most will lose more than they already lose today, but the winners will be the carrot stick racing is sorely lacking today.
You can take all the technological advances and throw them down the drain. Without incentive to play (and horse racing makes its money from GAMBLING and it needs to attract more GAMBLERS) horse racing is simply spending techno dollars just to try to keep their existing customers happy, it causes zero growth, in fact, innovation makes it easier for existing customers to lose quicker, so I could easily argue that the way technology is being used in horse racing today, is actually creating negative growth, as existing players become discouraged faster.
The industry needs to get their collective head out of the sand and they need to stop pretending that there are other issues which are hindering growth. Once takeout is reduced, the other issues will be forced to correct themselves as well because there will be a huge horseplayer base demanding it. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
2 August 2009
Belmont Handle Down Over 13% And I Know Why
NYRA President and CEO Charles Hayward can blame the weather all he wants. He can also blame the economy too. Sure, these factors could have contributed to the fact that betting on Belmont live was down over 17%, and that handle from from all other sources was down over 13%, but I think it goes deeper than that.
I think that over the last year especially, existing horseplayers are starting to wise up. Organizations like HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America) have helped educate the player immensely. Hopefully, my blog has as well. The betting public is becoming more aware each and every day of two words that make racing execs cringe: takeout and rebate.
The reality has become totally apparent now; the only way a horseplayer has a fighting chance to even think about turning a profit long term, is by getting a substantial (5-10%) rebate. And most serious players have now adopted a rebate only philosophy, where over 90% of their bets are on races they get a rebate on.
NYRA and every track out there should be selling their signal everywhere. Again, it is just more evidence that horse racing is probably the most dysfunctional business in the Western Hemisphere.
Personally, I bet on two races at Belmont this year. The Belmont and another race that was part of a handicapping challenge that I handicapped and felt compelled to bet on because I was having a good day that day.
NYRA doesn't seem to let their signal go out to many rebate shops, especially the ones that give rebates to the small to medium player. Foolish move. Very foolish.
I haven't even handicapped a race at The Spa this year, and I don't plan to. But I do handicap and wager on around 5-7 tracks a day. I'm not alone.
To put things in perspective though, Belmont still did over $9 million a day in handle which is around 4 times what Woodbine averages a day. Mind you, the public is very aware of Woodbine's high takeout rates by now, and a lot of players just can't stand the Polytrack.
Woodbine Stewards Goofed
I think the Woodbine stewards have done a very good job this year, but on Friday, they blew it.
Taking down Carrtowns Katie in the 8th race was a terrible call. Yes, she was lugging and jockey Chantal Sutherland knew it as she was whipping the horse with her left hand, but she was clear and had momentum when she was passing Spend Now And Save at around the sixteenth pole in the stretch.
Carrtowns Katie was definitely the best horse in the race, and the fact that it was a relatively long inquiry means that the stews were having a hard time deciding what to do. I think I can speak for most horseplayers when I state that if the stewards are dealing with a tough decision, the results should stand.
I realize riding horses is one of the most dangerous jobs on this planet, but it sure looked like a phantom check to me. Not sure if it was the horse who shied away, or if it was Emma-Jayne Wilson, but I've seen a lot worse happen without an inquiry.
Were the stewards compelled to appease the betting public by putting up a 6-5 shot? Public perception may say that had a lot or at least a little to do with it.
If the owners of Carrstowns Katie appeals, I think they win. But those who bet on the best horse still lose.
If Chantal gets days for the ride, it would be an injustice.
$40,000 Raised For Chad Beckon
Good job by Robbie King and Gus Schickedanz to make it happen.
THE BREEDERS STAKES
The Breeder's Stakes goes today at Woodbine. It brings back memories from my early teens, as two of my all time favorite horses, Momigi and Tiny Tinker, won this race back to back. Both of these runners would pretty much come from last and fly in the stretch.
Tiny Tinker, especially, sporting the bright orange colours of Beasley, was a thrill to watch. He was known to trail the field by many lengths before taking off and passing horses one by one.
How about Mensch to upset today? This is one of Fieldstone's three runners in the race, and to me, at a mile and a half, I can see it coming down to stretch closers.
Still a maiden, Mensch ran a good one going a mile and three eighths last time, losing to entry mate Guipago, who I think had a better trip and took advantage of the slower pace, which probably compromised Mensch.
Eye of the Leopard is definitely the horse to beat here. Last time he ran completely against the bias, and Mark Frostad would probably have worked the horse over Fort Erie if he could turn back the hands of time. According to my form, Eye of the Leopard has not worked on the turf, and has never raced on the turf. Despite his breeding, this makes him very vulnerable today.
In the co feature today, I'm giving Elated Moon one more chance. She obviously didn't hurt herself last time out, when she embarrassed me for publicly picking an even money shot who got basted. But something else went wrong, and I'll bet Steven Asmussen's team is bright enough to have corrected it. I'm going to predict she wins the Nandi Stakes easily today.
Forget GO BABY GO and BET IT TO GET IT. This should be used in a campaign to get people to go to the track:
Speaking of betting. Check out new ADW Horseplayersbet.com.
One more thing. Just to make sure I get Google hits today: Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER.
I think that over the last year especially, existing horseplayers are starting to wise up. Organizations like HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America) have helped educate the player immensely. Hopefully, my blog has as well. The betting public is becoming more aware each and every day of two words that make racing execs cringe: takeout and rebate.
The reality has become totally apparent now; the only way a horseplayer has a fighting chance to even think about turning a profit long term, is by getting a substantial (5-10%) rebate. And most serious players have now adopted a rebate only philosophy, where over 90% of their bets are on races they get a rebate on.
NYRA and every track out there should be selling their signal everywhere. Again, it is just more evidence that horse racing is probably the most dysfunctional business in the Western Hemisphere.
Personally, I bet on two races at Belmont this year. The Belmont and another race that was part of a handicapping challenge that I handicapped and felt compelled to bet on because I was having a good day that day.
NYRA doesn't seem to let their signal go out to many rebate shops, especially the ones that give rebates to the small to medium player. Foolish move. Very foolish.
I haven't even handicapped a race at The Spa this year, and I don't plan to. But I do handicap and wager on around 5-7 tracks a day. I'm not alone.
To put things in perspective though, Belmont still did over $9 million a day in handle which is around 4 times what Woodbine averages a day. Mind you, the public is very aware of Woodbine's high takeout rates by now, and a lot of players just can't stand the Polytrack.
Woodbine Stewards Goofed
I think the Woodbine stewards have done a very good job this year, but on Friday, they blew it.
Taking down Carrtowns Katie in the 8th race was a terrible call. Yes, she was lugging and jockey Chantal Sutherland knew it as she was whipping the horse with her left hand, but she was clear and had momentum when she was passing Spend Now And Save at around the sixteenth pole in the stretch.
Carrtowns Katie was definitely the best horse in the race, and the fact that it was a relatively long inquiry means that the stews were having a hard time deciding what to do. I think I can speak for most horseplayers when I state that if the stewards are dealing with a tough decision, the results should stand.
I realize riding horses is one of the most dangerous jobs on this planet, but it sure looked like a phantom check to me. Not sure if it was the horse who shied away, or if it was Emma-Jayne Wilson, but I've seen a lot worse happen without an inquiry.
Were the stewards compelled to appease the betting public by putting up a 6-5 shot? Public perception may say that had a lot or at least a little to do with it.
If the owners of Carrstowns Katie appeals, I think they win. But those who bet on the best horse still lose.
If Chantal gets days for the ride, it would be an injustice.
$40,000 Raised For Chad Beckon
Good job by Robbie King and Gus Schickedanz to make it happen.
THE BREEDERS STAKES
The Breeder's Stakes goes today at Woodbine. It brings back memories from my early teens, as two of my all time favorite horses, Momigi and Tiny Tinker, won this race back to back. Both of these runners would pretty much come from last and fly in the stretch.
Tiny Tinker, especially, sporting the bright orange colours of Beasley, was a thrill to watch. He was known to trail the field by many lengths before taking off and passing horses one by one.
How about Mensch to upset today? This is one of Fieldstone's three runners in the race, and to me, at a mile and a half, I can see it coming down to stretch closers.
Still a maiden, Mensch ran a good one going a mile and three eighths last time, losing to entry mate Guipago, who I think had a better trip and took advantage of the slower pace, which probably compromised Mensch.
Eye of the Leopard is definitely the horse to beat here. Last time he ran completely against the bias, and Mark Frostad would probably have worked the horse over Fort Erie if he could turn back the hands of time. According to my form, Eye of the Leopard has not worked on the turf, and has never raced on the turf. Despite his breeding, this makes him very vulnerable today.
In the co feature today, I'm giving Elated Moon one more chance. She obviously didn't hurt herself last time out, when she embarrassed me for publicly picking an even money shot who got basted. But something else went wrong, and I'll bet Steven Asmussen's team is bright enough to have corrected it. I'm going to predict she wins the Nandi Stakes easily today.
Forget GO BABY GO and BET IT TO GET IT. This should be used in a campaign to get people to go to the track:
Speaking of betting. Check out new ADW Horseplayersbet.com.
One more thing. Just to make sure I get Google hits today: Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER, Rachel AlexandER.
29 April 2009
If I Ran Woodbine
What Woodbine Needs To Do To Grow Horse Racing
1. Reduce Takeouts/Give Every Account Bettor Larger Rebates
This is the number one issue when it comes to growing the game. I have to say, I have done a lot of thinking and rethinking on this issue, and I'm now in the rebate camp more than I am in the reduced takeout camp.
The reason is that on big days like the Queen's Plate and also when you factor in the corporate dining room crowd, there is no reason not to keep takeout at higher levels for the patrons, who are not likely to come back that often if at all again. These are entertainment dollars the racetracks only have one shot at. Might as well get as much out of these customers as they can and as quickly as they can. Higher payouts for these people won't mean a thing as to whether they come back or not.
I don't think Woodbine should have one of the highest collective takeouts in the industry either. They need to reduce triactors and other exotic bets to 25% maximum so that they don't lose those betting simulcast or through ADWs in the USA.
They also need to payout what US tracks payout on exotics that have lower takeout rates. It is completely offensive when a gambler sees that he or she received 93.5% of the payout that was posted in Tampa Bay for a Win3 hit through HPI, for example. It is inexcusable, and borderline criminal.
Now getting back to the issue of rebating. HPI is almost a monopoly when it comes to Canadians betting on horse racing with a Canadian based server. There really should be no reason for someone who wants to bet on the ponies to have to bet elsewhere. I'm certain that all gamblers would be most comfortable dealing with a company that is regulated by our government. The problem is that HPI fails to compete for most gamblers who are price sensitive. They have an opportunity to capture almost all the money they are losing to offshore houses.
I recently saw the account of a horseplayer who bet over $80,000 in March alone (He started with a $400 deposit). He would rather have supported the industry in Ontario, but he bet through a foreign ADW instead (one where the money bet made it to the actual betting pools), because he received an average rebate of around 6.5%. Does anyone blame him? How many more gamblers like him exist in Ontario?
The bigger question is how much would a gambler like this churn with a 1% rebate (that Woodbine offers to most players in their home market) or no rebate at all? His answer was that he estimates he would bet a tenth of that if he didn't get wiped out too quickly (which would probably happen).
I don't want this to be a case to only rebate potential big players either. I know that today's $2 bettor is tomorrow's $100 bettor. But the only way that is going to happen is if the $2 bettor sees a light at the end of the tunnel. I strongly believe that all players should get the same rebate if they choose to open up an online account.
Bettors only have so much to lose gambling during a certain period of time (3 months to a year, for example). They may not understand the impact of takeout or rebates, but they will realize (maybe even subconsciously) whether they lose quickly or slowly in general when betting certain games. For example, slot operators know not to up the house rake over 10% because beyond that, players get discouraged by losing too fast. The key to getting players to focus on horse racing is to allow them to last longer, and this can be satisfied by daily rebates.
Lets say a person bets $150 one day and has a zero account balance at the end of the day. A 7% rebate gives that player $10 in the account for the next betting day. Sure, the player may just bet the 10 bucks and if it is gone, they are gone for a bit. But chances are that the bettor will do some handicapping, some research, just because they know the 10 bucks is there. In other words, they are more likely to play on days they wouldn't have before, and they are more likely to go to the well in order to play the other races that were handicapped for the new day. The rebate has put the hook in the players mouth.
Churn (thanks to rebates or lower takeouts) definitely helps by letting players last longer. If players last longer, their friends and family might just get involved too. It only makes sense that if someone devotes more time to handicapping, those in that person's immediate universe are likely to wind up showing interest or will wind up being forced to become interested. Also, if a bettor lasts longer, they are likely to forget about other forms of gambling, so the track has the opportunity to get all the players gambling dough.
But the main thing that will bring new blood into the track, is that thanks to a lower cost to gamble, there is now a chance that if you are good enough and lucky enough, you might actually beat the game, and when this happens, others people will hear about it and many will give it a try. This has worked with online Poker, and it works with Betfair.
Word of mouth ( by newly created horseplayers who win) is a powerful marketing tool, especially in today's internet age. But right now the internet is killing horse racing because those who investigate know that betting without rebate or into high takeouts is just plain idiocy.
But now for the problem Woodbine has at this time:
Even if they were to love my advice here (and why wouldn't they?), the contracts with horsemen have to be rewritten. This plan would be unfair to Woodbine. Let me explain with an example.
Lets say that Woodbine averages 22% on a bet, where 11% goes to horsemen, 9% goes to the track, and 2% goes to the taxman, etc. Now lets say that one million is bet. Under my plan, Woodbine would rebate $70,000, and that money would eventually be bet back (it would take approximately $400,000 plus in bets to dwindle that so that the original rebated money is actually lost by the collective bettors (when factoring that rebates will continue).
Even though the $70,000 will eventually be lost by players, the horsemen will get another $40,000 from Woodbine's original rebate. The horsemen will receive approximately 14%, while the track winds up with only 6% of the initial million bet when the dust clears.
What must happen is that the horsemen have to realize for the good of the game, and for the potential growth that will come, rebates to players need to be split in the same manner it is split by bet. This way, Woodbine receives its fair share......the way it should be.
Minor to this, the existing contract that gives horsemen an additional 2% on all bets except 4% on triactors needs to be changed as a percentage of the total takeout not the total amount bet. This way, triactor takeouts can be reduced so that Woodbine doesn't lose out disproportionately.
2. Drugs Drugs Drugs
I think that if more bettors cared about horse racing, the pressure to reduce the amount of drugs allowed would increase immensely. Right now, not enough people care.
I would only allow 4 or 5 drugs to be approved. Lasix would be one that I would either eliminate or give in much more reduced amounts. Not only do studies show that Lasix doesn't do what it is supposed to do, it also masks other drugs.
Any trainer batting at 18% or more (per 100 starts) is most likely using something illegal or something that isn't being tested for. I think that if high percentage trainers were put in detention more readily (just for suspicion), there would be a lot less 18% trainers on the grounds.
Not allowing horses to ship in more than 48 hours before a race, would also throw a major curve ball at cheating trainers who are not only hurting the game from the bettors point of view, but also from the owners point of view (especially new potential owners).
Anyone nailed with a positive would get half a year minimum, and I would consider getting the courts involved. It always boggles my mind how cheating trainers aren't actually defrauding the betting public and defrauding other owners and trainers as well (by denying those who play by the rules much of the purse monies in many instances). Would the possibility of jail deter cheaters? I say give it a try and find out.
3. Quit Protecting and Deterring Horses From Being Claimed
One of the best ways to grow the game is to get new owners involved. New owners often get started by partnership. Instead of one owner showing up at the track, you wind up with 3 owners, some of their relatives and friends as well. Many of these people are potential owners as well, and for sure, they are potential bettors, and maybe potential long term bettors.
Almost every new owner comes into the game via the claim game. It is pretty tough to tell a newbie owner to go to a sales, by a yearling, and then probably wait a year or two before the horse is ready to run, if the horse makes it. In the meantime, the newbie gets to send checks monthly with no possibility of any return for quite some time.
The way it works is that a trainer or current owner gets a friend involved in a smaller way with a race ready horse, usually by claiming this horse. If things become fun and/or profitable, the new owner buys more horses, and may get other friends involved in ownership.
Many times, these owners wind up with a mare at the end of the year that they decide to breed. Also, depending on how good the year was, the newbie owner may decide to go to the sales and take a shot on a potential Stakes winner.
In other words, they get involved in breeding after they try the racing game. No matter how much breeders want it to be the other way around, it just doesn't happen that way.
Unfortunately, the rules that exist today in Ontario are in place so as to cater to the way the breeders want things to be. And the result is that it is chasing potential owners away.
I spoke to one the other day. Someone who has owned horses in Ontario for quite some time. He is not interested now in claiming an Ontario bred, because once claimed, Ontario breds do not run for full purses. In fact, he now isn't even looking to claim anything.
Ontario bred horses that are claimed should run for full purses again.
Another related point is that when owners are on the lookout, they are also more inclined to bet as well, because they are doing some handicapping.
So not only is this guy not going to claim the usual 4 or 5 horses he claims a year, he winds up losing interest in the game completely, and that means he won't show up at the year end sales either. No chance.
The B Allowance and Maiden races need to go as well. If a horse can't compete in an A protected race, it is a claimer. It should be offered to the public. I'd rather see maiden 60,000 or 80,000 races or 60,000 non winners of two, rather than B races, where true value is thrown out the door. The more horses that run for a sale tag, the more horses that will get claimed. But the way it is now is a curve ball is thrown at the capital market of buying and selling horses.
I would also add more money to the purse money of lower end claiming races and take a little off the allowance and high claimer's purse money to make up for it. This way more owners will come closer to making money and of course, come closer to breaking even, which will most likely entice them to buy more horses and even wind up at the year end sales.
4. Ontario Bred Claiming Races
Why Ontario hasn't started running Ontario bred claiming races is also beyond me. It is a no-brainer to increase the value of all Ontario bred horses. If Ontario breds can run against lesser competition and for a greater purse, more people will be inclined to spend more money at sales because they know they have a possible out if the horse doesn't make it in the allowance ranks. Owners will be looking to buy Ontario, and this will create a bigger demand for all Ontario breds.
If the price of the cheapest Ontario horse goes up, the price of all Ontario breds go up as well.
5. Start A Betting Exchange
Compete for the same market Betfair has, using the exact same commissions. Not only for horse racing but online Poker and sports betting as well. Split the proceeds with the horsemen, and don't forget to take international bettors.
Personally, I think the only real future harness racing in Ontario has right now is if harness races were put on an international exchange. And if the thoroughbreds don't clean up their act very soon, that will be their only real future too, as the industry is losing more players each day, because it fails to compete in the least, with other low priced forms of gambling.
EDIT: I don't want to appear so down on harness racing but the reality is that harness racing will always lag behind thoroughbred racing. And right now, the thoroughbred industry continues its slow swirl down the toilet.
TRACK TAKEOUT CHART: NEW AND IMPROVED
Thanks to Bill from HANA for putting together the most up to date and informative track takeout chart available anywhere. It is sortable, so you could click a heading like TRI Takeout and scroll down to find that Woodbine ranks 68th out of 71 tracks in that department. It also has a field size and pool size column. Great stuff.
1. Reduce Takeouts/Give Every Account Bettor Larger Rebates
This is the number one issue when it comes to growing the game. I have to say, I have done a lot of thinking and rethinking on this issue, and I'm now in the rebate camp more than I am in the reduced takeout camp.
The reason is that on big days like the Queen's Plate and also when you factor in the corporate dining room crowd, there is no reason not to keep takeout at higher levels for the patrons, who are not likely to come back that often if at all again. These are entertainment dollars the racetracks only have one shot at. Might as well get as much out of these customers as they can and as quickly as they can. Higher payouts for these people won't mean a thing as to whether they come back or not.
I don't think Woodbine should have one of the highest collective takeouts in the industry either. They need to reduce triactors and other exotic bets to 25% maximum so that they don't lose those betting simulcast or through ADWs in the USA.
They also need to payout what US tracks payout on exotics that have lower takeout rates. It is completely offensive when a gambler sees that he or she received 93.5% of the payout that was posted in Tampa Bay for a Win3 hit through HPI, for example. It is inexcusable, and borderline criminal.
Now getting back to the issue of rebating. HPI is almost a monopoly when it comes to Canadians betting on horse racing with a Canadian based server. There really should be no reason for someone who wants to bet on the ponies to have to bet elsewhere. I'm certain that all gamblers would be most comfortable dealing with a company that is regulated by our government. The problem is that HPI fails to compete for most gamblers who are price sensitive. They have an opportunity to capture almost all the money they are losing to offshore houses.
I recently saw the account of a horseplayer who bet over $80,000 in March alone (He started with a $400 deposit). He would rather have supported the industry in Ontario, but he bet through a foreign ADW instead (one where the money bet made it to the actual betting pools), because he received an average rebate of around 6.5%. Does anyone blame him? How many more gamblers like him exist in Ontario?
The bigger question is how much would a gambler like this churn with a 1% rebate (that Woodbine offers to most players in their home market) or no rebate at all? His answer was that he estimates he would bet a tenth of that if he didn't get wiped out too quickly (which would probably happen).
I don't want this to be a case to only rebate potential big players either. I know that today's $2 bettor is tomorrow's $100 bettor. But the only way that is going to happen is if the $2 bettor sees a light at the end of the tunnel. I strongly believe that all players should get the same rebate if they choose to open up an online account.
Bettors only have so much to lose gambling during a certain period of time (3 months to a year, for example). They may not understand the impact of takeout or rebates, but they will realize (maybe even subconsciously) whether they lose quickly or slowly in general when betting certain games. For example, slot operators know not to up the house rake over 10% because beyond that, players get discouraged by losing too fast. The key to getting players to focus on horse racing is to allow them to last longer, and this can be satisfied by daily rebates.
Lets say a person bets $150 one day and has a zero account balance at the end of the day. A 7% rebate gives that player $10 in the account for the next betting day. Sure, the player may just bet the 10 bucks and if it is gone, they are gone for a bit. But chances are that the bettor will do some handicapping, some research, just because they know the 10 bucks is there. In other words, they are more likely to play on days they wouldn't have before, and they are more likely to go to the well in order to play the other races that were handicapped for the new day. The rebate has put the hook in the players mouth.
Churn (thanks to rebates or lower takeouts) definitely helps by letting players last longer. If players last longer, their friends and family might just get involved too. It only makes sense that if someone devotes more time to handicapping, those in that person's immediate universe are likely to wind up showing interest or will wind up being forced to become interested. Also, if a bettor lasts longer, they are likely to forget about other forms of gambling, so the track has the opportunity to get all the players gambling dough.
But the main thing that will bring new blood into the track, is that thanks to a lower cost to gamble, there is now a chance that if you are good enough and lucky enough, you might actually beat the game, and when this happens, others people will hear about it and many will give it a try. This has worked with online Poker, and it works with Betfair.
Word of mouth ( by newly created horseplayers who win) is a powerful marketing tool, especially in today's internet age. But right now the internet is killing horse racing because those who investigate know that betting without rebate or into high takeouts is just plain idiocy.
But now for the problem Woodbine has at this time:
Even if they were to love my advice here (and why wouldn't they?), the contracts with horsemen have to be rewritten. This plan would be unfair to Woodbine. Let me explain with an example.
Lets say that Woodbine averages 22% on a bet, where 11% goes to horsemen, 9% goes to the track, and 2% goes to the taxman, etc. Now lets say that one million is bet. Under my plan, Woodbine would rebate $70,000, and that money would eventually be bet back (it would take approximately $400,000 plus in bets to dwindle that so that the original rebated money is actually lost by the collective bettors (when factoring that rebates will continue).
Even though the $70,000 will eventually be lost by players, the horsemen will get another $40,000 from Woodbine's original rebate. The horsemen will receive approximately 14%, while the track winds up with only 6% of the initial million bet when the dust clears.
What must happen is that the horsemen have to realize for the good of the game, and for the potential growth that will come, rebates to players need to be split in the same manner it is split by bet. This way, Woodbine receives its fair share......the way it should be.
Minor to this, the existing contract that gives horsemen an additional 2% on all bets except 4% on triactors needs to be changed as a percentage of the total takeout not the total amount bet. This way, triactor takeouts can be reduced so that Woodbine doesn't lose out disproportionately.
2. Drugs Drugs Drugs
I think that if more bettors cared about horse racing, the pressure to reduce the amount of drugs allowed would increase immensely. Right now, not enough people care.
I would only allow 4 or 5 drugs to be approved. Lasix would be one that I would either eliminate or give in much more reduced amounts. Not only do studies show that Lasix doesn't do what it is supposed to do, it also masks other drugs.
Any trainer batting at 18% or more (per 100 starts) is most likely using something illegal or something that isn't being tested for. I think that if high percentage trainers were put in detention more readily (just for suspicion), there would be a lot less 18% trainers on the grounds.
Not allowing horses to ship in more than 48 hours before a race, would also throw a major curve ball at cheating trainers who are not only hurting the game from the bettors point of view, but also from the owners point of view (especially new potential owners).
Anyone nailed with a positive would get half a year minimum, and I would consider getting the courts involved. It always boggles my mind how cheating trainers aren't actually defrauding the betting public and defrauding other owners and trainers as well (by denying those who play by the rules much of the purse monies in many instances). Would the possibility of jail deter cheaters? I say give it a try and find out.
3. Quit Protecting and Deterring Horses From Being Claimed
One of the best ways to grow the game is to get new owners involved. New owners often get started by partnership. Instead of one owner showing up at the track, you wind up with 3 owners, some of their relatives and friends as well. Many of these people are potential owners as well, and for sure, they are potential bettors, and maybe potential long term bettors.
Almost every new owner comes into the game via the claim game. It is pretty tough to tell a newbie owner to go to a sales, by a yearling, and then probably wait a year or two before the horse is ready to run, if the horse makes it. In the meantime, the newbie gets to send checks monthly with no possibility of any return for quite some time.
The way it works is that a trainer or current owner gets a friend involved in a smaller way with a race ready horse, usually by claiming this horse. If things become fun and/or profitable, the new owner buys more horses, and may get other friends involved in ownership.
Many times, these owners wind up with a mare at the end of the year that they decide to breed. Also, depending on how good the year was, the newbie owner may decide to go to the sales and take a shot on a potential Stakes winner.
In other words, they get involved in breeding after they try the racing game. No matter how much breeders want it to be the other way around, it just doesn't happen that way.
Unfortunately, the rules that exist today in Ontario are in place so as to cater to the way the breeders want things to be. And the result is that it is chasing potential owners away.
I spoke to one the other day. Someone who has owned horses in Ontario for quite some time. He is not interested now in claiming an Ontario bred, because once claimed, Ontario breds do not run for full purses. In fact, he now isn't even looking to claim anything.
Ontario bred horses that are claimed should run for full purses again.
Another related point is that when owners are on the lookout, they are also more inclined to bet as well, because they are doing some handicapping.
So not only is this guy not going to claim the usual 4 or 5 horses he claims a year, he winds up losing interest in the game completely, and that means he won't show up at the year end sales either. No chance.
The B Allowance and Maiden races need to go as well. If a horse can't compete in an A protected race, it is a claimer. It should be offered to the public. I'd rather see maiden 60,000 or 80,000 races or 60,000 non winners of two, rather than B races, where true value is thrown out the door. The more horses that run for a sale tag, the more horses that will get claimed. But the way it is now is a curve ball is thrown at the capital market of buying and selling horses.
I would also add more money to the purse money of lower end claiming races and take a little off the allowance and high claimer's purse money to make up for it. This way more owners will come closer to making money and of course, come closer to breaking even, which will most likely entice them to buy more horses and even wind up at the year end sales.
4. Ontario Bred Claiming Races
Why Ontario hasn't started running Ontario bred claiming races is also beyond me. It is a no-brainer to increase the value of all Ontario bred horses. If Ontario breds can run against lesser competition and for a greater purse, more people will be inclined to spend more money at sales because they know they have a possible out if the horse doesn't make it in the allowance ranks. Owners will be looking to buy Ontario, and this will create a bigger demand for all Ontario breds.
If the price of the cheapest Ontario horse goes up, the price of all Ontario breds go up as well.
5. Start A Betting Exchange
Compete for the same market Betfair has, using the exact same commissions. Not only for horse racing but online Poker and sports betting as well. Split the proceeds with the horsemen, and don't forget to take international bettors.
Personally, I think the only real future harness racing in Ontario has right now is if harness races were put on an international exchange. And if the thoroughbreds don't clean up their act very soon, that will be their only real future too, as the industry is losing more players each day, because it fails to compete in the least, with other low priced forms of gambling.
EDIT: I don't want to appear so down on harness racing but the reality is that harness racing will always lag behind thoroughbred racing. And right now, the thoroughbred industry continues its slow swirl down the toilet.
TRACK TAKEOUT CHART: NEW AND IMPROVED
Thanks to Bill from HANA for putting together the most up to date and informative track takeout chart available anywhere. It is sortable, so you could click a heading like TRI Takeout and scroll down to find that Woodbine ranks 68th out of 71 tracks in that department. It also has a field size and pool size column. Great stuff.
12 April 2009
Rebates Are The Way Of The Future
Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a major proponent of dropping takeouts, but realistically, it just won't happen in the near future. For a drop in takeouts to be effective in growing the game, it has to happen across the board, all over North America. One problem is that every jurisdiction have their own ways of dealing with takeout. Some state or provincial governments take a big whack of taxes, while others like Ontario, take very little. Some jurisdictions require a lot of red tape just to get a takeout change, while some, like Ontario, make it easy to drop or raise takeout.
Then you have horsemen deals, like in Ontario, where H.I.P. (Ontario's Horse Improvement Program) gets 2% on each wager and 4% on triactor bets. These type of deals were not carved out by anyone looking down the road, or even thinking that perhaps a takeout drop might happen in the future.
If that was the case, the deal not be on the percent wagered, but a percent of the overall takeout. For example, even if the racing execs at Woodbine are embarrassed by having a 28.3% takeout on triactors, the way the contract is written, if they were to lower to the industry standard of 25%, H.I.P. would still be getting their 4%. If the contract would have been written correctly, at 25%, H.I.P.S. would get 3.53% at that level. This contract gives the Woodbine execs the excuse not to even look at takeout drops.
Of course, a drop in takeouts, would mean more money bottom line. It works in slots, Betfair, sports betting, online Poker, etc. Especially the skill games, which horse racing is, when winners are created, more players are created. More players means more money for the tracks in the long run. Plus the longer a player lasts, the more time they will devote to playing. The more likely they are to become hooked, and the more likely they are to bring family and friends to the track to give it a try.
But I also see a case for tracks to keep takeout levels higher than other forms of gambling. But only in the case of people who come to the track once or twice a year, and/or those who decide they don't want to have a betting account. Some tracks have their big on track handle days, and I really can't argue why they shouldn't get a bigger cut from the people they may never see again regardless. This also includes the corporate dining crowd too. I have no problem with these people having to play at a higher takeout level, as long as they have the right to open a betting account and get rebates if they choose to do so. Once a person has a betting account, they are likely to play a lot more often than those who don't anyway.
No one knows what the optimum takeout level is, but I know for sure it isn't 20-21% which is the collective takeout average in the industry today. Most studies have the average pegged between 10-13% though.
This is where rebating comes in. Once a dirty word, rebating is becoming more and more prevalent in the industry today. More and more tracks and ADWs in the US are starting to give their account players 2% on at least selective bets, and their big betting players are carving out much bigger deals (7-10%). I even know players getting 12% or more at selected ADWs.
Personally, I believe all account players should get equal rebates. I'm a firm believer that today's big player was yesterday's small player. Again, my logic behind rebating small players the same as large players also has to do with the fact that most people only have so much discretional money they can lose during the long run (in this case, the long run is 6 months to a year). If they lose quickly betting horses, they are more apt to bet other things including buying lottery tickets, etc. If they get rebated daily or weekly, they get a constant reminder to stay in the game. And 2% doesn't cut it (and the piddly stuff Woodbine rebates most players is laughable). No, rebate every account player 6% and watch handles and profits soar.
Still, there are some takeouts which have to be adjusted, as they are borderline criminal. Philly Park, for example, has a track takeout of 30% on triactors and superfectas. Just disgusting, and just a little more disgusting than Woodbine which has a track takeout on triactors of 28.3%. I have no idea how Fort Erie gets away with track takeout of 26.3% on exactors (a good 6% higher than industry standard), but maybe they aren't getting away with it, and maybe that is just another reason why the track is near death.
Speaking of Fort Erie, the proposed speedway may not be a dead issue after all. How about The Jeff Gordon Speedway? That could be good for slots and maybe even horse racing too, because fans can only watch auto racing for so long before they have to do something else.
I still find it amazing that tracks like Woodbine, Philly, and Fort Erie who have slots, have higher takeouts than those without slots (perfect example is Keeneland). It is a wonder where the track focus really is when it comes to tracks with casinos.
For an almost up to date track takeout chart of most North American tracks, click here.
A couple of other things. I want to thank those who emailed with their disdain over Woodbine/HPI when it comes to their ramping up of takeouts on some simulcast wagering propositions such as Keeneland triactors and Tampa Bay Pick 3's. I knew I wasn't alone on this issue.
HANA was able to more than double the pool at Tampa Bay during last Tuesday's Pool Party. This week, we tackle a Mountaineer exactor on Tuesday night. I'll update which race as soon as it is decided upon. UPDATE: It will be race 3 on Tuesday night. Bet the exactor to help support HANA.
Then you have horsemen deals, like in Ontario, where H.I.P. (Ontario's Horse Improvement Program) gets 2% on each wager and 4% on triactor bets. These type of deals were not carved out by anyone looking down the road, or even thinking that perhaps a takeout drop might happen in the future.
If that was the case, the deal not be on the percent wagered, but a percent of the overall takeout. For example, even if the racing execs at Woodbine are embarrassed by having a 28.3% takeout on triactors, the way the contract is written, if they were to lower to the industry standard of 25%, H.I.P. would still be getting their 4%. If the contract would have been written correctly, at 25%, H.I.P.S. would get 3.53% at that level. This contract gives the Woodbine execs the excuse not to even look at takeout drops.
Of course, a drop in takeouts, would mean more money bottom line. It works in slots, Betfair, sports betting, online Poker, etc. Especially the skill games, which horse racing is, when winners are created, more players are created. More players means more money for the tracks in the long run. Plus the longer a player lasts, the more time they will devote to playing. The more likely they are to become hooked, and the more likely they are to bring family and friends to the track to give it a try.
But I also see a case for tracks to keep takeout levels higher than other forms of gambling. But only in the case of people who come to the track once or twice a year, and/or those who decide they don't want to have a betting account. Some tracks have their big on track handle days, and I really can't argue why they shouldn't get a bigger cut from the people they may never see again regardless. This also includes the corporate dining crowd too. I have no problem with these people having to play at a higher takeout level, as long as they have the right to open a betting account and get rebates if they choose to do so. Once a person has a betting account, they are likely to play a lot more often than those who don't anyway.
No one knows what the optimum takeout level is, but I know for sure it isn't 20-21% which is the collective takeout average in the industry today. Most studies have the average pegged between 10-13% though.
This is where rebating comes in. Once a dirty word, rebating is becoming more and more prevalent in the industry today. More and more tracks and ADWs in the US are starting to give their account players 2% on at least selective bets, and their big betting players are carving out much bigger deals (7-10%). I even know players getting 12% or more at selected ADWs.
Personally, I believe all account players should get equal rebates. I'm a firm believer that today's big player was yesterday's small player. Again, my logic behind rebating small players the same as large players also has to do with the fact that most people only have so much discretional money they can lose during the long run (in this case, the long run is 6 months to a year). If they lose quickly betting horses, they are more apt to bet other things including buying lottery tickets, etc. If they get rebated daily or weekly, they get a constant reminder to stay in the game. And 2% doesn't cut it (and the piddly stuff Woodbine rebates most players is laughable). No, rebate every account player 6% and watch handles and profits soar.
Still, there are some takeouts which have to be adjusted, as they are borderline criminal. Philly Park, for example, has a track takeout of 30% on triactors and superfectas. Just disgusting, and just a little more disgusting than Woodbine which has a track takeout on triactors of 28.3%. I have no idea how Fort Erie gets away with track takeout of 26.3% on exactors (a good 6% higher than industry standard), but maybe they aren't getting away with it, and maybe that is just another reason why the track is near death.
Speaking of Fort Erie, the proposed speedway may not be a dead issue after all. How about The Jeff Gordon Speedway? That could be good for slots and maybe even horse racing too, because fans can only watch auto racing for so long before they have to do something else.
I still find it amazing that tracks like Woodbine, Philly, and Fort Erie who have slots, have higher takeouts than those without slots (perfect example is Keeneland). It is a wonder where the track focus really is when it comes to tracks with casinos.
For an almost up to date track takeout chart of most North American tracks, click here.
A couple of other things. I want to thank those who emailed with their disdain over Woodbine/HPI when it comes to their ramping up of takeouts on some simulcast wagering propositions such as Keeneland triactors and Tampa Bay Pick 3's. I knew I wasn't alone on this issue.
HANA was able to more than double the pool at Tampa Bay during last Tuesday's Pool Party. This week, we tackle a Mountaineer exactor on Tuesday night. I'll update which race as soon as it is decided upon. UPDATE: It will be race 3 on Tuesday night. Bet the exactor to help support HANA.
4 April 2009
Woodbine Opens Today: WEG Racing Execs Remain Delusional
Jane Holmes, VP of corporate affairs at Woodbine was interviewed by the Toronto Sun talking about online competition (which she refers to erroneously as illegal):
"We can't compete with them because, if we did, we'd lose our racing licences," Holmes says. "It's illegal. We can't offer the same opportunities."
***************************************
Jane, you ignor... (oh never mind), but this is total BS. Rebates would be bet back, pools would go up tremendously, and you would attract back the price sensitive bettors from the other venues they bet at. Including attracting some poker players as well. Maybe the odd winner will be created, not the one in one thousand that happens to fluke a big superfecta or win 4 and happens to win in a calendar year. Winners buzz creates more players. That is why rebate shops do well, that is why poker does well. It isn't just the lower takeout created, but the fact that some people actually make money...and this is the best advertising a racetrack can have.
Impossible at Woodbine though, with a collective takeout that is amongst the 10th highest in North America.
What a self defeated attitude Woodbine has. They don't even try, except for the secret deals they cut some horseplayers where they give them a 7-10% rebate which may or may not be illegal.
Betting offshore is not illegal. I can invite an RCMP officer to my house and let him watch me deposit money in my Betfair account, and he can watch while I play. I would get charged with NOTHING.
The racing execs at WEG are a bunch of whining babies pathetically trying to hold on to their jobs.
Beverly Smith writes a completely etherized headline that is misleading to say the least: Racing strong despite weak economy.
Nick Eaves (a Norman Bates look-a-like), President and COO of WEG was interviewed for this piece. He gave the real reasons betting is supposedly up at Woodbine but then embellished embellished embellished to make it look like his company is doing something special.
Bets on live standardbred racing is up over 10% at Woodbine. Why? Simple, eight more racing dates (an increase of 15-20%, which should yield a 15-20% increase in betting, not just 10%). And betting is up on all sources by 19%. This was just a combination of a lot more dates overall, and most importantly the fact that WEG made an extra 25% on US bets just because of currency changes from early 2008 versus the first two months of 2009.
Now for the complete utter garbage part of the interview:
***********************************
Some big bettors have come back? That is deceitful at best. A big bettor who was getting a 5-12% rebate offshore would NEVER be attracted to betting through HPI unless they were offered at least a 7% "secret deal." These bettors have also helped move up the handle figures for the first three months at Woodbine.
Only a handful of offshore house have closed, and only a couple have tied up bettor's monies. I know many people who have no problem getting checks from rebaters, and never have had a problem.
Unless Eaves wants to call Youbet, for example a pirate, there are a handful of ADWs located in the USA that will take Canadian customers and offer them a much bigger rebate than the piddly amounts offered by Woodbine.
Though Woodbine tries to screw that up by getting American ADWs to sign deals that doesn't allow them to take on Canadian clients. In other words, they try to make sure that Canadian's only option is to bet into the high takeouts Woodbine offers its faithful customers. A few US based ADWs have made the decision to not sign the contract and therefore not put Woodbine on their betting roster, in order to take Canadian customers.
Woodbine races are difficult to handicap even if with a 10% rebate, so to many Canadians, it is no loss to not be able to bet on Woodbine. Some just bet Woodbine through HPI, but it is only a very small percentage of that type of bettor's action.
Eaves just doesn't get it. To grow Woodbine needs to reduce takeout across the board, or increase rebates across the board for all its customers. Maybe he does get, maybe the WEG execs are just happy with the status quo. But they definitely do not give a rats ass about the bettors.
I wish there would be one racing journalist who has the balls to ask Eaves about the secret 7-10% rebates he gives certain players. But I guess they all want to keep their jobs.
I tried to leave a comment on Jen's blog (she interviewed Eaves as well) about the secret rebates Woodbine offers a few players, but the moderator would not print it. All I can say is, I don't have such a policy on my blog. Feel free to blast away in the comment section. I don't moderate.
HPI might get around 10% of my action. Though I'm honestly embarrassed that it isn't 0%.
"We can't compete with them because, if we did, we'd lose our racing licences," Holmes says. "It's illegal. We can't offer the same opportunities."
***************************************
Jane, you ignor... (oh never mind), but this is total BS. Rebates would be bet back, pools would go up tremendously, and you would attract back the price sensitive bettors from the other venues they bet at. Including attracting some poker players as well. Maybe the odd winner will be created, not the one in one thousand that happens to fluke a big superfecta or win 4 and happens to win in a calendar year. Winners buzz creates more players. That is why rebate shops do well, that is why poker does well. It isn't just the lower takeout created, but the fact that some people actually make money...and this is the best advertising a racetrack can have.
Impossible at Woodbine though, with a collective takeout that is amongst the 10th highest in North America.
What a self defeated attitude Woodbine has. They don't even try, except for the secret deals they cut some horseplayers where they give them a 7-10% rebate which may or may not be illegal.
Betting offshore is not illegal. I can invite an RCMP officer to my house and let him watch me deposit money in my Betfair account, and he can watch while I play. I would get charged with NOTHING.
The racing execs at WEG are a bunch of whining babies pathetically trying to hold on to their jobs.
Beverly Smith writes a completely etherized headline that is misleading to say the least: Racing strong despite weak economy.
Nick Eaves (a Norman Bates look-a-like), President and COO of WEG was interviewed for this piece. He gave the real reasons betting is supposedly up at Woodbine but then embellished embellished embellished to make it look like his company is doing something special.
Bets on live standardbred racing is up over 10% at Woodbine. Why? Simple, eight more racing dates (an increase of 15-20%, which should yield a 15-20% increase in betting, not just 10%). And betting is up on all sources by 19%. This was just a combination of a lot more dates overall, and most importantly the fact that WEG made an extra 25% on US bets just because of currency changes from early 2008 versus the first two months of 2009.
Now for the complete utter garbage part of the interview:
Woodbine is also finding, through its horse-player accounts, that some big bettors, who had left Woodbine years ago to wager at offshore operations, have returned to the Woodbine windows. "A few of those illegal, unlicensed operators have folded as the global economy has done what it's done and customer accounts have been frozen," Eaves said. "Customers haven't been able to get their money out."
Offshore wagering sites are attractive to bettors because they offer rebates of 8 to 12 per cent on wagers, but they don't have the costs that a racetrack has: paying out purses to horsemen, and maintaining the operations of a grandstand and backstretch. The racing industry calls the offshore wagering sites "pirates."
Even though some offshore sites still exist, Eaves said customers are "realizing that it's safer to do business with a land-based, accountable, licensed, tax-paying, regulated company such as ours."
***********************************
Some big bettors have come back? That is deceitful at best. A big bettor who was getting a 5-12% rebate offshore would NEVER be attracted to betting through HPI unless they were offered at least a 7% "secret deal." These bettors have also helped move up the handle figures for the first three months at Woodbine.
Only a handful of offshore house have closed, and only a couple have tied up bettor's monies. I know many people who have no problem getting checks from rebaters, and never have had a problem.
Unless Eaves wants to call Youbet, for example a pirate, there are a handful of ADWs located in the USA that will take Canadian customers and offer them a much bigger rebate than the piddly amounts offered by Woodbine.
Though Woodbine tries to screw that up by getting American ADWs to sign deals that doesn't allow them to take on Canadian clients. In other words, they try to make sure that Canadian's only option is to bet into the high takeouts Woodbine offers its faithful customers. A few US based ADWs have made the decision to not sign the contract and therefore not put Woodbine on their betting roster, in order to take Canadian customers.
Woodbine races are difficult to handicap even if with a 10% rebate, so to many Canadians, it is no loss to not be able to bet on Woodbine. Some just bet Woodbine through HPI, but it is only a very small percentage of that type of bettor's action.
Eaves just doesn't get it. To grow Woodbine needs to reduce takeout across the board, or increase rebates across the board for all its customers. Maybe he does get, maybe the WEG execs are just happy with the status quo. But they definitely do not give a rats ass about the bettors.
I wish there would be one racing journalist who has the balls to ask Eaves about the secret 7-10% rebates he gives certain players. But I guess they all want to keep their jobs.
I tried to leave a comment on Jen's blog (she interviewed Eaves as well) about the secret rebates Woodbine offers a few players, but the moderator would not print it. All I can say is, I don't have such a policy on my blog. Feel free to blast away in the comment section. I don't moderate.
HPI might get around 10% of my action. Though I'm honestly embarrassed that it isn't 0%.
3 March 2009
Bad Accident Last Night At Woodbine Harness
Luckily, it looks much worse than it was:
Accident Marred Ontario Boys Final yesterday at Woodbine (the video is 10 minutes, but there is little in the last 6:00 other than an inquiry sign):
No horses were put down. For an update click here.
I just have one question though. There was at least one horse that could have crossed the wire third. I'm not sure if he did, but why didn't he get a third placing? They wound up paying the triactor off using the first two finishers with an all. And since it was a $55,400 purse, the third horse would have stood to make at least $5,500 (I'm not sure what the jugheads payout to the third finishers exactly).
Bill Finley Chimes In On California Anti-Rebate Rule Change
Bill Finley has a great article out called It's About Time, where he, like me, points out that one of the stupidest restrictions ever appears that it will be history in California very soon: the banning of rebates:
HANA has published the 21st to 65th ranked tracks:
Woodbine came in higher than I would have liked. Going by takeout alone, they wouldn't have cracked 50, but because they offer all sorts of wagers, and their field size is on the high side, they wound up in the middle of the pack.
Fort Erie, mostly thanks to their ridiculously high takeout on exactors (over 25%), wound up next to last. Their field size last year wasn't the greatest either. If availability was factored in, Fort Erie could have scored higher. Also, Fort Erie is one of the only tracks that makes their live videos free to everyone.
HANA also has pins available for members:
Donate a minimum of $20 here and you'll get a pin sent to your home, or you can send a check here:
Horseplayers Association of North America
1926 Abbey Rd, #95
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Make all checks payable to: "Horseplayers Association of North America"
'Money is needed for basic necessities such as having a website hosted, printing business cards and letterhead, postal services, and applying to the .I.R.S. for 501(c) tax exempt status.'
No shocker as Magna Entertainment gets delisted from Toronto Stock Exchange.
Jockey Club Fact Book for 2009 is now available on-line. The parimutuel handle chart is really ugly. Take whales and rebate shops out of the ball game, and horse race betting is lucky to be on life support.
Hats off to CDI for implementing a whole slew of safety and welfare policies.
Horse Racing Unsolved Mystery: Who Killed Randy Rankin
Rankin was a potential whistle blower who was threatening to bring down the Ontario harness game when he was shot dead at his home 2 years ago. A $50,000 reward has now been offered for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the killer.
Watch the CTV story here.
FORT ERIE UPDATE-nothing new
It is less than 2 weeks before the official sign goes up on no racing at Fort Erie in 2009. Hopefully, the government will not let it happen. They can easily stop it by changing the amount that Fort Erie gets from slot revenues if a sale can't be worked out.
Accident Marred Ontario Boys Final yesterday at Woodbine (the video is 10 minutes, but there is little in the last 6:00 other than an inquiry sign):
No horses were put down. For an update click here.
I just have one question though. There was at least one horse that could have crossed the wire third. I'm not sure if he did, but why didn't he get a third placing? They wound up paying the triactor off using the first two finishers with an all. And since it was a $55,400 purse, the third horse would have stood to make at least $5,500 (I'm not sure what the jugheads payout to the third finishers exactly).
Bill Finley Chimes In On California Anti-Rebate Rule Change
Bill Finley has a great article out called It's About Time, where he, like me, points out that one of the stupidest restrictions ever appears that it will be history in California very soon: the banning of rebates:
"Horse racing needs to find ways to build its business and needs to take a harder look at things like exchange betting, proposition betting and rebates. Times have changed and they are tough. The game needs every betting dollar it can get its hands on. Rebating works, and it needs to be supported."
HANA has published the 21st to 65th ranked tracks:
Woodbine came in higher than I would have liked. Going by takeout alone, they wouldn't have cracked 50, but because they offer all sorts of wagers, and their field size is on the high side, they wound up in the middle of the pack.
Fort Erie, mostly thanks to their ridiculously high takeout on exactors (over 25%), wound up next to last. Their field size last year wasn't the greatest either. If availability was factored in, Fort Erie could have scored higher. Also, Fort Erie is one of the only tracks that makes their live videos free to everyone.
HANA also has pins available for members:
Donate a minimum of $20 here and you'll get a pin sent to your home, or you can send a check here:
Horseplayers Association of North America
1926 Abbey Rd, #95
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Make all checks payable to: "Horseplayers Association of North America"
'Money is needed for basic necessities such as having a website hosted, printing business cards and letterhead, postal services, and applying to the .I.R.S. for 501(c) tax exempt status.'
No shocker as Magna Entertainment gets delisted from Toronto Stock Exchange.
Jockey Club Fact Book for 2009 is now available on-line. The parimutuel handle chart is really ugly. Take whales and rebate shops out of the ball game, and horse race betting is lucky to be on life support.
Hats off to CDI for implementing a whole slew of safety and welfare policies.
Horse Racing Unsolved Mystery: Who Killed Randy Rankin
Rankin was a potential whistle blower who was threatening to bring down the Ontario harness game when he was shot dead at his home 2 years ago. A $50,000 reward has now been offered for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the killer.
Watch the CTV story here.
FORT ERIE UPDATE-nothing new
It is less than 2 weeks before the official sign goes up on no racing at Fort Erie in 2009. Hopefully, the government will not let it happen. They can easily stop it by changing the amount that Fort Erie gets from slot revenues if a sale can't be worked out.
28 February 2009
California Moves To Rescind Idiotic Anti-Rebate Rule
OK, So They Don't Mention HANA, But We Know, Nudge Nudge Wink Wink
Us troublemakers at HANA (the Horseplayers Association of North America) scored a small victory, as we pestered the California horsemen into moving towards rescinding their idiotic anti-rebate stance. Not so much directly, but on both the Pace Advantage and Del Mar forums, HANA members used common sense and told it like it is. Many of us sincerely avoided betting California tracks because they have shunned rebate shops in the past.
The main argument is why should California horsemen and tracks care what an ADW does with the money they bring in after they pay for the signal? They were perceived as either protecting non rebating ADWs or protecting major off shore ADWs, or both, all at the expense of dissing price sensitive bettors.
Rebates are here to stay. It is apparent that tracks will not drop takeouts, at least in the near future, so the way they have to compete and grow at this time, is to allow ADWs to rebate to their heart's content.
The tide is turning, as racetrack execs have at least taken notice of their customers. That is one of the goals of HANA. Click here to join for free.
Speaking of rebates. Ian Meyers has left Premier Turf Club. The unofficial reason cited was that the other partners wanted to take the ADW in another direction (huh?).
Does this mean that they will give lower rebates? Are they shopping around to be bought out? I guess we will find out.
Ian was a hands on man. He genuinely seemed concerned about his customers. And many PTC customers did business there because of Ian. Mind you, the rebates offered were outstanding (probably thanks to Ian). I wonder if they still will be.
Also, it is rumoured that Joe Riddell has left the company. They were the only two partners I knew about. Obviously, there are another couple of partners now running the show.
Brothers Charged in IRG Investigation
IRG was an offshore ADW owned by Youbet (they bought it in 2005). Allegedly, the Jalinsky brothers were laundering money as well as deciding what bets to book and what bets to lay off.
Scientific Games Pondering Offing Racing Operation
The company operates many betting kiosks across North America, and got themselves in trouble last year because number 20 (Big Brown) was not included in any of their quick picks. Auto-tote is also a subsidiary of Sci Games.
The Walls Are Caving In At Magna Entertainment
Magna has received its first notice. This one from PNC Bank: “failure to comply with certain financial covenants relating to the financial position and results of operation of MJC and related entities.”
The bank reserves the right to come in for the kill at any time. I don't think this should be looked at as an opportunity for Stronach to try to get himself out of this mess though. I think the PNC didn't act yet because they are waiting to see what the Bank Of Montreal does on March 6th.
The resignation of three directors in the last week or so has made MEC non compliant to be trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The stock will be headed to the pink sheets from NASDAQ very soon as well. In other words, future financings are completely out of the question, and the company continues to bleed money. As each day goes by, there will be less and less for creditors to collect, so it is just a matter of weeks before we see a full fledged bankruptcy. I can't see it going Chapter 11 either, because of continuous operating losses. This means that tracks will be put on the selling block very quickly. But are there buyers out there?
For more on MEC, read The Business Of Racing.
Tragic News
Fort Erie owner/trainer Gordon Cowie died suddenly yesterday. He was only 44.
Cowie amazingly won an allowance race last fall with El Gran Brett, a horse that was getting beat up at Fort Erie in 5,000 claiming races. A private purchase for Cowie, the horse ran 2nd for him first time out in a 4,000 claiming race Sept. 7. He won on November 28th in an 8,000 open claimer with one week to go in the season. Cowie decided to run him back December 6th in a non winners other than maiden or claiming. He won. The purse was $76,000. And because he was a private purchase, and not a claim, and was Ontario sired, Cowie got the full share of the winners portion.
Fountain Of Youth
Free past performances for the race.
I don't do much handicapping for this blog (and after you see the results of the following picks, you'll probably see why).
This is a very interesting race. The controversial This Ones For Phil makes his first start in over a month. I just see "bounce, bounce, bounce" today for Phil. The undefeated Taqarub also has over a month between races, and he definitely ensures that there will be a hot pace. The best horse in the race could be Capt. Candyman Can. He looks like he has good tactical speed, and the mile looks to be a piece of cake for him. Two longshots could wind up in the exotics. Break Even Edison, second race off a layoff. Last year he produced a very good speed figure for a mile at Aqueduct. Also, Take The Points had a real good late pace number going today's distance at today's track 4 weeks ago. And besides, I really like his name.
For more free past performances check it out at Thoroughbred Blogger's Alliance
The newest issue of Down The Stretch Newspaper is available online. Lots of news and updates with a focus on the Ontario horse racing scene.
ORC signs agreement with State of Illinois Racing Board to share investigative information
'This information will include such things as:
* Investigative files of police officers, regulation agents, and civilian investigators, including interview reports, notes, and background checks;
* Veterinary records, such as reports, x-rays, samples, and invoices;
* Photographs;
* History before administrative tribunals and in court, including decisions, findings and orders.'
Reminder for Canadians. Jockeys continues on Animal Planet tonight from 9-10PM
Us troublemakers at HANA (the Horseplayers Association of North America) scored a small victory, as we pestered the California horsemen into moving towards rescinding their idiotic anti-rebate stance. Not so much directly, but on both the Pace Advantage and Del Mar forums, HANA members used common sense and told it like it is. Many of us sincerely avoided betting California tracks because they have shunned rebate shops in the past.
The main argument is why should California horsemen and tracks care what an ADW does with the money they bring in after they pay for the signal? They were perceived as either protecting non rebating ADWs or protecting major off shore ADWs, or both, all at the expense of dissing price sensitive bettors.
Rebates are here to stay. It is apparent that tracks will not drop takeouts, at least in the near future, so the way they have to compete and grow at this time, is to allow ADWs to rebate to their heart's content.
The tide is turning, as racetrack execs have at least taken notice of their customers. That is one of the goals of HANA. Click here to join for free.
Speaking of rebates. Ian Meyers has left Premier Turf Club. The unofficial reason cited was that the other partners wanted to take the ADW in another direction (huh?).
Does this mean that they will give lower rebates? Are they shopping around to be bought out? I guess we will find out.
Ian was a hands on man. He genuinely seemed concerned about his customers. And many PTC customers did business there because of Ian. Mind you, the rebates offered were outstanding (probably thanks to Ian). I wonder if they still will be.
Also, it is rumoured that Joe Riddell has left the company. They were the only two partners I knew about. Obviously, there are another couple of partners now running the show.
Brothers Charged in IRG Investigation
IRG was an offshore ADW owned by Youbet (they bought it in 2005). Allegedly, the Jalinsky brothers were laundering money as well as deciding what bets to book and what bets to lay off.
Scientific Games Pondering Offing Racing Operation
The company operates many betting kiosks across North America, and got themselves in trouble last year because number 20 (Big Brown) was not included in any of their quick picks. Auto-tote is also a subsidiary of Sci Games.
The Walls Are Caving In At Magna Entertainment
Magna has received its first notice. This one from PNC Bank: “failure to comply with certain financial covenants relating to the financial position and results of operation of MJC and related entities.”
The bank reserves the right to come in for the kill at any time. I don't think this should be looked at as an opportunity for Stronach to try to get himself out of this mess though. I think the PNC didn't act yet because they are waiting to see what the Bank Of Montreal does on March 6th.
The resignation of three directors in the last week or so has made MEC non compliant to be trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The stock will be headed to the pink sheets from NASDAQ very soon as well. In other words, future financings are completely out of the question, and the company continues to bleed money. As each day goes by, there will be less and less for creditors to collect, so it is just a matter of weeks before we see a full fledged bankruptcy. I can't see it going Chapter 11 either, because of continuous operating losses. This means that tracks will be put on the selling block very quickly. But are there buyers out there?
For more on MEC, read The Business Of Racing.
Tragic News
Fort Erie owner/trainer Gordon Cowie died suddenly yesterday. He was only 44.
Cowie amazingly won an allowance race last fall with El Gran Brett, a horse that was getting beat up at Fort Erie in 5,000 claiming races. A private purchase for Cowie, the horse ran 2nd for him first time out in a 4,000 claiming race Sept. 7. He won on November 28th in an 8,000 open claimer with one week to go in the season. Cowie decided to run him back December 6th in a non winners other than maiden or claiming. He won. The purse was $76,000. And because he was a private purchase, and not a claim, and was Ontario sired, Cowie got the full share of the winners portion.
Fountain Of Youth
Free past performances for the race.
I don't do much handicapping for this blog (and after you see the results of the following picks, you'll probably see why).
This is a very interesting race. The controversial This Ones For Phil makes his first start in over a month. I just see "bounce, bounce, bounce" today for Phil. The undefeated Taqarub also has over a month between races, and he definitely ensures that there will be a hot pace. The best horse in the race could be Capt. Candyman Can. He looks like he has good tactical speed, and the mile looks to be a piece of cake for him. Two longshots could wind up in the exotics. Break Even Edison, second race off a layoff. Last year he produced a very good speed figure for a mile at Aqueduct. Also, Take The Points had a real good late pace number going today's distance at today's track 4 weeks ago. And besides, I really like his name.
For more free past performances check it out at Thoroughbred Blogger's Alliance
The newest issue of Down The Stretch Newspaper is available online. Lots of news and updates with a focus on the Ontario horse racing scene.
ORC signs agreement with State of Illinois Racing Board to share investigative information
'This information will include such things as:
* Investigative files of police officers, regulation agents, and civilian investigators, including interview reports, notes, and background checks;
* Veterinary records, such as reports, x-rays, samples, and invoices;
* Photographs;
* History before administrative tribunals and in court, including decisions, findings and orders.'
Reminder for Canadians. Jockeys continues on Animal Planet tonight from 9-10PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)