Did any brainiac ever think that the reason California A tracks have such great handle is because they have one of the lowest takeouts in North America? I don't think anyone who voted for the takeout hike that begins January 1 gave it any consideration.
The winter meet began at Santa Anita on Sunday. Optimism was all over the place. I listened to a segment on the Steve Byk radio show and you would think that the move back to the dirt was more significant than if man were to land on Mars. BTW, don't waste your time listening to Byk, I find him to be a nauseating anti-horseplayer cheerleader for tracks and horsemen groups. Roger Stein, on the other hand is well worth listening to each week. He gets it. Byk doesn't.
With all this anticipation and exuberance, handle must have gone through the roof on Sunday. It didn't, far from it. All source handle was off over 21% from the previous year. Granted there were weather issues on the East Coast, and they did have an extra race the year before. However, in 2009, Santa Anita signal wasn't being picked up by the Mid Atlantic Co-Op. That cost Santa Anita anywhere between 5-10% in handle last year. Handle was back to 1992 levels, and that doesn't even take into account inflation.
Things were a little better yesterday. Handle was only off 2%. But they ran an extra race yesterday compared to the corresponding first Monday of the meet last year.
So who exactly was demanding a move back to the dirt? The horsemen and a few existing Horseplayers.
Existing Horseplayers will look for all sorts of excuses as to why they lose money. 99% of them lose. Artificial surfaces in California was just one more scapegoat for some existing Horseplayers. Bottom line, the movement back to dirt didn't create any new Horseplayers. At best it could shift betting money from one track back to California.
Excuses from Horseplayers stem from them losing money or not winning enough on the day. Sure, they are valid, but in the end, the overwhelming majority of Horseplayers will lose. What matters is how long they last. The longer they last, the more likely they are to expose others to the game, the quicker they lose, the more excuses they will make, the more negative they will be, and the less likely they are to expose others to the game.
Sidetracking a bit. My father was a $2 bettor his whole life. Almost never missed a day betting. He used to make $500 to a couple of thousand almost every year. But I remember him going bad for about 3 years (breaking even or losing a bit on the year). He started blaming the cat. "Since I got this cat, I can't win anymore. The cat is a jinx. She is looking at me right now with her evil eyes." Cats or polytrack. If a Horseplayer starts to lose faster, they look for excuses.
Back to California. The timing was bad for this switch as it comes just a few days before takeout is hiked on all exotic bets in California. This has caused talk of a Player's Boycott.
Horseplayers who 1) Understand that takeout is the barrier between winning and losing and/or 2) Care about the future of horse racing, have already stopped playing California tracks. Many more are expected to stop or slow down once the boycott is officially called.
Even without a boycott, handle is going to go down the tubes in California. There is going to be less value on most combinations once takeout rates go up 9-14%. Price sensitive players who still believe they can make money will bet less, and in the meantime, the dummy money will lose quicker and some of it will disappear creating less value.
In the end. No Horseplayer will have a chance at beating California in the long run (not that very many are today).
Let me explain why this is a 9-14% increase in takeout and not a 2-3% hike that those not in the know are preaching:
Takeout is increasing on exactors and doubles from 20.68% to 22.68%. So if $100,000 is bet in a double pool, the track is now takeout $22,680 instead of $20,680 which represents an increase to the track of 9.7%.
Now lets look at it from the bettor's long term perspective. If the bettor makes $100,000 in double bets over a period of time, the bettor has to overcome $22,680 being taken out as opposed to $20,680. That means they are expected to lose collectively close to 10% more than they lost previously. That is if handle remains the same. It won't because that extra 10% lost will do a lot of wear and tear on the existing Horseplayer's bankroll.
It is is greater on other exotics which shoot up from 20.68% to 23.68%.
If you still don't get it. Lets say you have a $100,000 line of credit and you are paying interest only. If interest rates go up from 3% to 4%, you are not paying an extra 1% per year, but an extra 33%, as your yearly payments just rose from $3,000 to $4,000.
Personally, since Los Alamitos rose takeout early last year, I bet one card there. I felt very dirty afterward even though I broke around even. I won't do it again. And I'm not about to feel dirty by betting on any California thoroughbred track until California does the right thing and the takeout is at least rescinded.
I'm not alone here. There are a lot of pissed off players who are passionate about the game willing to treat California racing as "entertainment only."
I don't bet on Family Guy, Dexter, Two and a Half Men, and now California racing. I only watch them for entertainment purposes only. I have to tell you though, California racing gives me the least entertainment value of these four "shows" by a very good margin.
I'll watch Tampa Bay, Hawthorne, etc. for gambling purposes. Oh, and I bet as much as I did when I was playing California. It just goes to other tracks.
Oh, and blaming the weather on Sunday?
Turf Paradise a year ago last Sunday: $1,212,049
Last Sunday: $1,552,112
Hawthorne a year ago last Sunday: $2,297,748 (10 races)
Last Sunday: $2,311,654 (9 races)
Both tracks started just a half hour earlier than Santa Anita.
Even Golden Gate was up a little. Apparently, HANA forgot to tell its members that Golden Gate is in California:) Actually, the Boycott still hasn't been called yet, and the takeout hike doesn't happen until January 1st. All I can say is look out below.
I'm sure the handle numbers from the first day are helping those horsemen on the fence who were thinking about sending a few horses to California, make up their mind.
Field size looks like it will remain on the weak side in California, and there just won't be any value in the majority of races thanks to the hike.
VOTE HERE FOR THE THOROUGHBRED BLOGGER'S ALLIANCE PHOTO CONTEST
Canadian Horseplayers Advocacy Group founder Eric Poteck now has a regular article up at Down The Stretch Newspaper Online. In the current issue he tackles the integrity issue of promoting fictitious payoff prices. For example, when there is only $35,000 available in a superfecta pool at Woodbine, and someone has the pool for 20 cents. The price promoted is $175,000 (which is the dollar price). It is blatant false advertising.
In a related topic. Does anyone proof read the HPI Quarterly?
Though the WEG Pick 4 has a 21.7 per cent takeout, Martin (Jamie) said the track now honours lower takeout rates for other tracks’ Pick 4 wagers, some as low as 15 per cent.
“So, we’ve made it attractive for people not only to play our own, but to play all the other ones,” Martin said.
“I think it’s a good bet,” Hamilton said. “It’s better than the high-percentage takeout we have with superfectas (23 per cent),...”
*********************************************
Note to editor: Takeout on superfectas at Woodbine is 26.3% and it is 25% on Pick 4's. The 2% that is tacked on for the Horsemen, and the 1.3% to the government on each wager is still part of the takeout.
Note to Dave Briggs: For future articles involving takeout, please refer to this chart.
Note to Jamie Martin: How about honouring all lower takeout rates, including triactors and superfectas as well? Woodbine has no right to partner themselves with winning bets made by their customers.
In 1968, horse racing in Toronto was in its glory days. People were in the stands, and they came back for more because takeout was lower and you could only bet WPS on most races. Bankrolls lasted. There were even some known winners. The public was addicted. Great stories from that time. Here is one. Just remember, this story is not supposed to endorse the concept of hidden ownership. It was hip in the 60's. It can be costly today.
28 December 2010
19 December 2010
Who Should Boycott California Thoroughbred Racing?
Just in case you haven't heard yet, California thoroughbred track takeout goes up starting on December 26th January 1. Takeout on doubles and exactors will now be 22.68%, while other exotic bets will now be "taxed" at 23.68%. The takeout on all exotics used to be 20.68%, which used to be on the relative low side. It was one of the biggest reasons why California A tracks had such good handles relative to the industry.
Now their double and exactor takeout rates make California racing one of the worst bets in North America.
An organized Players Boycott has been started at PlayersBoycott.org sponsored by HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America).
I want to reiterate what I've written in previous post that I can't fault the horsemen groups for pushing the takeout hike because the horsemen get the entire proceeds from the hike. What is does is change the cut from takeout of what goes towards purses. If the cut used to be around 45%, it is now over 50%.
Horsemen groups typically do not think of the long term welfare of the game. So their take it while you can attitude is expected. Most horsemen have no clue when it comes to the gambler, especially when it comes to Economics 101 and the concept of optimal pricing.
The blame clearly lies on the State of California and the racetrack owners. Why do horsemen groups have a say in the pricing of the product to the bettors? It makes no sense. It is akin to dentists setting prices at amusement parks. It isn't their business at all.
It is their business to negotiate what cut they get from the betting proceeds...this is much different than having a say in takeout. This power to be involved in what the takeout is must be evoked everywhere.
As for the track owners. I cannot believe their stupidity. Lets say handle drops 15% because of this takeout hike. Before, it was shared with the owners (purses would drop because of it). But now, the owners will absorb the entire loss on the first 15% decrease (purses will only have to go back to 2010 levels). Any losses above 15% in handle will be shared by tracks and purse losses.
The track owners, if they were under proper advisement, should have just changed the cut so as to increase purses. They are going to look like dimwits when the dust settles. They did have a choice.
It is the height of arrogance/idiocy to believe that handle won't suffer when prices go up to the consumer. Will going back to dirt at Santa Anita help? Maybe a little, but there are many tracks out there that run on dirt, some have actually dropped takeout recently. Field size? Maybe to begin with, but California has attracted a pool of horses who prefer artificial surfaces over the years. The different surfaces do matter to quite a few horses. That is going to eventually hurt the horse population going forward. Other than a few outfits bringing in some horses, I don't see much of an attraction to go to California for basically the same purses available at Penn and Philly, especially at around $100 a day in day rate versus $50 to $70 at Penn and Philly.
Boycott or not, those who bet California tracks will be lasting a lot less. If someone used to bet $100,000 a year on California exotics, they will now be out $2,500 a year, or $50 a week. The $2500 could be the difference in winning or losing or breaking even. It could be enough to turn the player off completely.
Smaller players will also not last as much. They will wind up going less. They will wind up taking their family or friends to the track or exposing them to racing on TV a lot less. This means the likelihood of newbies coming to the track and the growth this brings will be close to non existent.
The dummy money will dry up, creating a lot less value for huge bettors. Pool size will suffer big time.
Horse racing has been on a major downhill slide, especially the last 10 years, as total handle continues to diminish. Why? Horse racing's failure to compete with other games of chance. Instead of moving closer to optimal takeout, California went the other way and has put another nail in horse racing's coffin.
WHO SHOULD BOYCOTT GAMBLING ON CALIFORNIA RACING?
1. Any Horseplayer who gives a damn about horse racing's future. The sooner a boycott like this works, the quicker this takeout hike will be revoked. Handle will drop over time as explained above, but sometimes it does take a year or two to see the economics work. If the boycott is successful, the thought of raising takeout anywhere in North America will become a non issue.
2. Anyone who loses or breaks even betting on California tracks. It is only going to get worse. As for those who win at it, your days are numbered, you might as well boycott. The whales will still suck the value out of the pools and their will be a lot less dummy money in the pools.
WHO SHOULD BET CALIFORNIA RACING?
1. The old people who live in California that David Israel was talking about. They have nothing better to do. They'll just lose their pension checks a little faster and become a bit more miserable to their kids and grand kids. You can't expect them to care about the future of racing in most cases either.
2. Racing execs and California horsemen. Horsemen especially better learn how to bet more if they want to keep their purse structure half decent. Won't happen, but they should still try.
3. Those who consider horse racing to only be a sport or a form of entertainment other than gambling. That should account for a couple of hundred bucks in handle a day in total.
4. Mindless gamblers who just don't give a crap about anything but betting where it is convenient to do so. This is the major group that the California "brain-trust" is counting on.
5. Bettors who can still actually make money long term playing California racing. I still have a problem with anyone shelving the good of the game concept for profit, but business is business. Now, I'm talking about people who really do make money, and that list isn't very long as even a 20.68% takeout is way too high.
The Player's Boycott is now starting to receive a lot of ink on the internet:
Bill Finley: 22.68 Reasons To Boycott Calif. Racing
Players Launch Boycott Website
Horseplayers Need To Represent And Be Represented
Boycott Launched To Protest Cal Takeout Increase
Richard Eng: Takeout Boost Stirs Backlash
Why I Support The California Thoroughbred Boycott
Thar She Blows Santa Anita
There is no reason not to bet as much as you usually do. You can simply divert it to other tracks like Tampa Bay which continues to lower takeout gradually, Hialeah (yeah I know, quarter horses) which has a 12% takeout on all bets, or Gulfstream which is also cognizant when it comes to lowering takeout to grow business. This way horse racing doesn't collectively suffer while California and any other jurisdiction that is thinking of upping takeout rates learns a valuable lesson which will lead to growth.
Sign up for PlayersBoycott.org here.
Now their double and exactor takeout rates make California racing one of the worst bets in North America.
An organized Players Boycott has been started at PlayersBoycott.org sponsored by HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America).
I want to reiterate what I've written in previous post that I can't fault the horsemen groups for pushing the takeout hike because the horsemen get the entire proceeds from the hike. What is does is change the cut from takeout of what goes towards purses. If the cut used to be around 45%, it is now over 50%.
Horsemen groups typically do not think of the long term welfare of the game. So their take it while you can attitude is expected. Most horsemen have no clue when it comes to the gambler, especially when it comes to Economics 101 and the concept of optimal pricing.
The blame clearly lies on the State of California and the racetrack owners. Why do horsemen groups have a say in the pricing of the product to the bettors? It makes no sense. It is akin to dentists setting prices at amusement parks. It isn't their business at all.
It is their business to negotiate what cut they get from the betting proceeds...this is much different than having a say in takeout. This power to be involved in what the takeout is must be evoked everywhere.
As for the track owners. I cannot believe their stupidity. Lets say handle drops 15% because of this takeout hike. Before, it was shared with the owners (purses would drop because of it). But now, the owners will absorb the entire loss on the first 15% decrease (purses will only have to go back to 2010 levels). Any losses above 15% in handle will be shared by tracks and purse losses.
The track owners, if they were under proper advisement, should have just changed the cut so as to increase purses. They are going to look like dimwits when the dust settles. They did have a choice.
It is the height of arrogance/idiocy to believe that handle won't suffer when prices go up to the consumer. Will going back to dirt at Santa Anita help? Maybe a little, but there are many tracks out there that run on dirt, some have actually dropped takeout recently. Field size? Maybe to begin with, but California has attracted a pool of horses who prefer artificial surfaces over the years. The different surfaces do matter to quite a few horses. That is going to eventually hurt the horse population going forward. Other than a few outfits bringing in some horses, I don't see much of an attraction to go to California for basically the same purses available at Penn and Philly, especially at around $100 a day in day rate versus $50 to $70 at Penn and Philly.
Boycott or not, those who bet California tracks will be lasting a lot less. If someone used to bet $100,000 a year on California exotics, they will now be out $2,500 a year, or $50 a week. The $2500 could be the difference in winning or losing or breaking even. It could be enough to turn the player off completely.
Smaller players will also not last as much. They will wind up going less. They will wind up taking their family or friends to the track or exposing them to racing on TV a lot less. This means the likelihood of newbies coming to the track and the growth this brings will be close to non existent.
The dummy money will dry up, creating a lot less value for huge bettors. Pool size will suffer big time.
Horse racing has been on a major downhill slide, especially the last 10 years, as total handle continues to diminish. Why? Horse racing's failure to compete with other games of chance. Instead of moving closer to optimal takeout, California went the other way and has put another nail in horse racing's coffin.
WHO SHOULD BOYCOTT GAMBLING ON CALIFORNIA RACING?
1. Any Horseplayer who gives a damn about horse racing's future. The sooner a boycott like this works, the quicker this takeout hike will be revoked. Handle will drop over time as explained above, but sometimes it does take a year or two to see the economics work. If the boycott is successful, the thought of raising takeout anywhere in North America will become a non issue.
2. Anyone who loses or breaks even betting on California tracks. It is only going to get worse. As for those who win at it, your days are numbered, you might as well boycott. The whales will still suck the value out of the pools and their will be a lot less dummy money in the pools.
WHO SHOULD BET CALIFORNIA RACING?
1. The old people who live in California that David Israel was talking about. They have nothing better to do. They'll just lose their pension checks a little faster and become a bit more miserable to their kids and grand kids. You can't expect them to care about the future of racing in most cases either.
2. Racing execs and California horsemen. Horsemen especially better learn how to bet more if they want to keep their purse structure half decent. Won't happen, but they should still try.
3. Those who consider horse racing to only be a sport or a form of entertainment other than gambling. That should account for a couple of hundred bucks in handle a day in total.
4. Mindless gamblers who just don't give a crap about anything but betting where it is convenient to do so. This is the major group that the California "brain-trust" is counting on.
5. Bettors who can still actually make money long term playing California racing. I still have a problem with anyone shelving the good of the game concept for profit, but business is business. Now, I'm talking about people who really do make money, and that list isn't very long as even a 20.68% takeout is way too high.
The Player's Boycott is now starting to receive a lot of ink on the internet:
Bill Finley: 22.68 Reasons To Boycott Calif. Racing
Players Launch Boycott Website
Horseplayers Need To Represent And Be Represented
Boycott Launched To Protest Cal Takeout Increase
Richard Eng: Takeout Boost Stirs Backlash
Why I Support The California Thoroughbred Boycott
Thar She Blows Santa Anita
There is no reason not to bet as much as you usually do. You can simply divert it to other tracks like Tampa Bay which continues to lower takeout gradually, Hialeah (yeah I know, quarter horses) which has a 12% takeout on all bets, or Gulfstream which is also cognizant when it comes to lowering takeout to grow business. This way horse racing doesn't collectively suffer while California and any other jurisdiction that is thinking of upping takeout rates learns a valuable lesson which will lead to growth.
Sign up for PlayersBoycott.org here.
10 December 2010
Hidden Message In Woodbine Duck Video
In case you haven't seen this yet, a video of a duck and her ducklings at Woodbine during a high wind. Over 4 million hits. When was the last time a horse racing website got 4 million hits? Well here it is:
Funny, yes, but I see something more in this video. Something symbolic. The mother duck took newbies to the track, and they got blown out by Woodbine's high takeouts. They were unable to last very long, and they are likely not to return to Woodbine again. There is a computer term called Baby Duck Syndrome. It has to do with imprinting. Baby ducks bond with the first moving thing they see. It doesn't have to be a parent. In computer land it has to do with newbies having a tendency to stick with the keyboard, software programs, etc. that they were first exposed to.
Now in psychology, it has to do with keeping up with the status quo, and not trying different things. Hmmmm, sounds like what has plagued horse racing for years and years, especially when it comes to pricing the product and appeasing Horsepeople instead of Horseplayers.
Now back to the ducks on the video. Reports are that they haven't given up altogether (they liked betting). They are heading to Tampa Bay Downs. Tampa Bay, which opens up their 2010-2011 season tomorrow, has reduced takeout once again. They have dropped takeout on Pick 3's, 4's, the Pick 6, and their High Five to 18%.
The ducks are also going to take a gander at Hialeah, which has a 12% track takeout on all bets. They don't really understand quarter horse racing, but they are willing bet a few bills at a lower takeout venue after their not so pleasant experience at Woodbine.
The ducks have been educating themselves on the internet since their first exposure to horse racing, and they've decided to boycott California racing due to the upcoming takeout hike which comes into effect on December 26th. I wonder if it was the ducks who started this rumor that has shown up on Youtube:
H/T Andy Mays at Pace Advantage
I can't finish this post without applauding Woodbine (sort of) for bucking the industry trend and increasing handle. The fact handle dropped a little domestically was very predictable, because of their high takeouts and their continued practice of underpaying Horseplayers on many exotic wagers (they chase domestic Horseplayers away and have an impossible time creating new ones, as new Horseplayers will only get involved significantly if there are visible long term winners).
Pull The Pocket points out what Woodbine did right. It started out with David Willmot getting out of the way.
By the way, Willmot had a successful year this year as a quasi-lawyer. His presence and testimony was tantamount in winning the Fifty Proof case this year ("the gate was in working order, eh"). Of course, in order for him to have a future in law, he'll need to seek out more Kangaroo Courts.
On a sad note, Fort Erie trainer Billy Lane passed away after a long courageous fight with cancer. My condolences go out to his family and friends. He was a great guy.
Funny, yes, but I see something more in this video. Something symbolic. The mother duck took newbies to the track, and they got blown out by Woodbine's high takeouts. They were unable to last very long, and they are likely not to return to Woodbine again. There is a computer term called Baby Duck Syndrome. It has to do with imprinting. Baby ducks bond with the first moving thing they see. It doesn't have to be a parent. In computer land it has to do with newbies having a tendency to stick with the keyboard, software programs, etc. that they were first exposed to.
Now in psychology, it has to do with keeping up with the status quo, and not trying different things. Hmmmm, sounds like what has plagued horse racing for years and years, especially when it comes to pricing the product and appeasing Horsepeople instead of Horseplayers.
Now back to the ducks on the video. Reports are that they haven't given up altogether (they liked betting). They are heading to Tampa Bay Downs. Tampa Bay, which opens up their 2010-2011 season tomorrow, has reduced takeout once again. They have dropped takeout on Pick 3's, 4's, the Pick 6, and their High Five to 18%.
The ducks are also going to take a gander at Hialeah, which has a 12% track takeout on all bets. They don't really understand quarter horse racing, but they are willing bet a few bills at a lower takeout venue after their not so pleasant experience at Woodbine.
The ducks have been educating themselves on the internet since their first exposure to horse racing, and they've decided to boycott California racing due to the upcoming takeout hike which comes into effect on December 26th. I wonder if it was the ducks who started this rumor that has shown up on Youtube:
H/T Andy Mays at Pace Advantage
I can't finish this post without applauding Woodbine (sort of) for bucking the industry trend and increasing handle. The fact handle dropped a little domestically was very predictable, because of their high takeouts and their continued practice of underpaying Horseplayers on many exotic wagers (they chase domestic Horseplayers away and have an impossible time creating new ones, as new Horseplayers will only get involved significantly if there are visible long term winners).
Pull The Pocket points out what Woodbine did right. It started out with David Willmot getting out of the way.
By the way, Willmot had a successful year this year as a quasi-lawyer. His presence and testimony was tantamount in winning the Fifty Proof case this year ("the gate was in working order, eh"). Of course, in order for him to have a future in law, he'll need to seek out more Kangaroo Courts.
On a sad note, Fort Erie trainer Billy Lane passed away after a long courageous fight with cancer. My condolences go out to his family and friends. He was a great guy.
3 December 2010
Hialeah's 12% Takeout: Is There A Conspiracy To Make It Fail?
Hialeah opens their short quarter horse meet today. They are doing something phenomenal for Horseplayers: A 12% track takeout on all wagers. Many studies suggest that the optimal takeout for horse racing is somewhere between 10-12%, the optimal takeout being the price where tracks and horsemen make the most money.
Last year, Hialeah only did around $100,000 a day in handle. Wouldn't it be great to see that number double or triple this year thanks to increased churn and meeting many a Horseplayer's desire for lower takeouts? This is a great opportunity to give the industry some hard core evidence that lowering takeout will work.
The problem with this takeout reduction is that many internet betting sites are not offering Hialeah to their customers.
It makes me question whether there is a conspiracy going on. It is no skin off an ADW's nose to add a track. Why then are Twinspires, TVG, XPressBet, HPI, and NYRA Rewards not offering Hialeah? When I looked at their menus this morning Hialeah was nowhere to be found.
The fee that Hialeah charges for its signal is most likely minimal, and there will be a lot more churn thanks to the takeout reduction, so the argument that they are not making enough money is bogus. Besides, the overwhelming majority of smaller ADWs have Hialeah on the menu.
To my knowledge most, if not all of the major ADWs offered Hialeah last year, so the excuse that there is not demand for the product doesn't wash either, because if anything, there will be more demand this year thanks to the lower takeout.
Does the fact that California will have a takeout increase in place come December 26th have something to do with it? Or that a few of these ADWs own racetracks that have much higher takeouts have something to do with it? Do they want this venture to fail so that pressure is not placed on them to lower takeout?
One thing is certain, ADWs not offering Hialeah do not have their customer's best interest at heart. In fact, the customer is being completely disregarded.
There is a lot of buzz on the internet already. Check out this thread on Pace Advantage.
I urge all Horseplayers to make as much of an effort as possible to support Hialeah and their takeout decrease by playing it.
TrackMaster has recently revamped their speed figures for Quarter Horse Racing, if you are looking for decent past performance help.
UPDATE: Hialeah is on TVG's menu.
Last year, Hialeah only did around $100,000 a day in handle. Wouldn't it be great to see that number double or triple this year thanks to increased churn and meeting many a Horseplayer's desire for lower takeouts? This is a great opportunity to give the industry some hard core evidence that lowering takeout will work.
The problem with this takeout reduction is that many internet betting sites are not offering Hialeah to their customers.
It makes me question whether there is a conspiracy going on. It is no skin off an ADW's nose to add a track. Why then are Twinspires, TVG, XPressBet, HPI, and NYRA Rewards not offering Hialeah? When I looked at their menus this morning Hialeah was nowhere to be found.
The fee that Hialeah charges for its signal is most likely minimal, and there will be a lot more churn thanks to the takeout reduction, so the argument that they are not making enough money is bogus. Besides, the overwhelming majority of smaller ADWs have Hialeah on the menu.
To my knowledge most, if not all of the major ADWs offered Hialeah last year, so the excuse that there is not demand for the product doesn't wash either, because if anything, there will be more demand this year thanks to the lower takeout.
Does the fact that California will have a takeout increase in place come December 26th have something to do with it? Or that a few of these ADWs own racetracks that have much higher takeouts have something to do with it? Do they want this venture to fail so that pressure is not placed on them to lower takeout?
One thing is certain, ADWs not offering Hialeah do not have their customer's best interest at heart. In fact, the customer is being completely disregarded.
There is a lot of buzz on the internet already. Check out this thread on Pace Advantage.
I urge all Horseplayers to make as much of an effort as possible to support Hialeah and their takeout decrease by playing it.
TrackMaster has recently revamped their speed figures for Quarter Horse Racing, if you are looking for decent past performance help.
UPDATE: Hialeah is on TVG's menu.
25 November 2010
The Best Horse Racing Links On The Internet
Happy Thanksgiving to my many US readers. As a way of thanking you, I will now provide a list of what I think are the best sites on the internet for horse racing. I'm sure I will leave a few out, but I can always re edit my post when I get some suggestions I may have temporarily forgot about. Most relevant sites pertaining to horse racing can be found on my sidebar. But here are the best:
Best sources to find news stories. There are five sites I go to at least once a day. Paulick Report, Equidaily, Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance News Feed, Bloodhorse, and Racing 360.
Free stuff: Thoroughbred Blogger's Alliance links to a slew of free past performances every day. Equibase has made life easier and cheaper on handicapper's and horsemen who used to pay for certain information or didn't go after certain info because there was a cost involved. For example, check out Stats Central on their main page. You can even do a dam search now. Put in the name of a dam, and you will get her offspring, and then you can even look at the individual charts of each run for free. On the left hand side of their main page you can also do a horse, jockey or trainer search. I typed in Magnusson, and I found out they had stats for Glenn Magnusson dating back to 1953.
Best site for information regarding fines and suspensions: Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. Unfortunately it isn't complete as either many tracks make it harder to get this info, or there is something lacking in communication. Woodbine has done a very good thing in putting up an Ontario Racing Commission Rulings page on their Splash site, though their explanation for letting Fifty Proof's result stand was beyond laughable (the gate did open early but the Stewards deemed it to be a fair start and that is all that really matters, so it was a fair start, na na na na na!).
The best resource for scratches and change in track surfaces, etc. is at Equibase as well. Thank HANA and Equibase for that one.
Best track takeout information: HANA's Track Rating Chart, it is updated frequently, though it only covers thoroughbred racing. Google Maps has a separate takeout map for both harness and thoroughbred tracks in North America.
Best Horse Racing Forum: Pace Advantage. There are other good ones (see my sidebar) but nothing is close to PA.
Best Past Performances. I'm a pen and paper handicapper. I've never used a computer program to pick horses, so keep that in mind. I used to buy Daily Racing Forms regularly, and then bought TSN, and then Brisnet past performances, but the most success I've ever had in my life as a Horseplayer has occurred since using TrackMaster Standard Plus Pro Past Performances.
One of the best places to bet, if not the best place, Horseplayersbet.com. Free video and replay for active accounts. Industry high player rewards, and great customer service. You have to live in one of the right States to join though.
Off to watch some football. I need Brady to pass for 500 yards today to still have a shot in my Fantasy Football league.
Best sources to find news stories. There are five sites I go to at least once a day. Paulick Report, Equidaily, Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance News Feed, Bloodhorse, and Racing 360.
Free stuff: Thoroughbred Blogger's Alliance links to a slew of free past performances every day. Equibase has made life easier and cheaper on handicapper's and horsemen who used to pay for certain information or didn't go after certain info because there was a cost involved. For example, check out Stats Central on their main page. You can even do a dam search now. Put in the name of a dam, and you will get her offspring, and then you can even look at the individual charts of each run for free. On the left hand side of their main page you can also do a horse, jockey or trainer search. I typed in Magnusson, and I found out they had stats for Glenn Magnusson dating back to 1953.
Best site for information regarding fines and suspensions: Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. Unfortunately it isn't complete as either many tracks make it harder to get this info, or there is something lacking in communication. Woodbine has done a very good thing in putting up an Ontario Racing Commission Rulings page on their Splash site, though their explanation for letting Fifty Proof's result stand was beyond laughable (the gate did open early but the Stewards deemed it to be a fair start and that is all that really matters, so it was a fair start, na na na na na!).
The best resource for scratches and change in track surfaces, etc. is at Equibase as well. Thank HANA and Equibase for that one.
Best track takeout information: HANA's Track Rating Chart, it is updated frequently, though it only covers thoroughbred racing. Google Maps has a separate takeout map for both harness and thoroughbred tracks in North America.
Best Horse Racing Forum: Pace Advantage. There are other good ones (see my sidebar) but nothing is close to PA.
Best Past Performances. I'm a pen and paper handicapper. I've never used a computer program to pick horses, so keep that in mind. I used to buy Daily Racing Forms regularly, and then bought TSN, and then Brisnet past performances, but the most success I've ever had in my life as a Horseplayer has occurred since using TrackMaster Standard Plus Pro Past Performances.
One of the best places to bet, if not the best place, Horseplayersbet.com. Free video and replay for active accounts. Industry high player rewards, and great customer service. You have to live in one of the right States to join though.
Off to watch some football. I need Brady to pass for 500 yards today to still have a shot in my Fantasy Football league.
17 November 2010
Ray Paulick, C'mon Man
I like The Paulick Report. Great source for news stories on horse racing. They also allow comments on many stories and editorials over there. It opens the door for lots of fact from informed readers, innuendos, debate, etc.
Over the past few months, it appears that Ray Paulick has drank the CHRB Kool-Aid and has fallen for all the bs coming from them when it comes to the takeout hike that is going to happen at all major thoroughbred tracks in California on December 26th.
There is some question whether his judgment is being influenced because of the fact that he is getting advertising dollars from California racing groups. I honestly don't know. I actually hope that is the case, for Paulick's sake. I'd hate to think he was either that stupid or gullible to believe a takeout hike will help horse racing in California.
Anyway, Paulick has hit a peak when it comes to either selling out or just plain stupidity with his post California's Push For Purses.
In the article he mentions "cost of putting on the show." Sorry, but the cost of putting on the show has absolutely no connection with what takeout should be. The only thing that matters with regard to takeout is the optimum takeout percentage (the percentage where tracks and horsemen receive the most money collectively from bettors).
He compares horse racing to blackjack when it comes to cost of putting on the show. Last I heard, it costs millions a year to operate a casino. But casino operator know if they made a push go to the house in blackjack, the blackjack tables would be empty. They also know is they raise the hold on slots from 7% to 12%, their bottom line would suffer in a big way.
The point that most tracks have higher takeout rates even after this hike is just bad propaganda. Any takeout hike anywhere helps kill the game. As you move away from optimum takeout, this is a gimme. There is no good rationalization for a takeout hike.
He also writes that "to my knowledge no studies have proven the point that reducing the cost of a bet will increase the revenue to tracks and purses."
Either he has a short memory or he doesn't bother reading many of the comments on his site. I know for a fact that the Cummings Report has been linked there on many occasions.
As Caroline Betts states in the comment section: Google Scholar is your friend. There have been many studies regarding track takeout and optimum revenue.
Two things are certain regarding these studies. Racing has ignored all these studies. Racing has never tried to find out what the optimum takeout really is (all studies conclude that it is much lower than 20%).
Again, I don't blame the horsemen here (though they aren't looking out for the future of the industry). They are now getting a higher percentage of the pie. For the life of me, I can't see how the track owners allowed it to happen. Again, if handle drops by around 15%, horsemen will still get the same money they did last year (obviously they are hoping handle will at least stay stagnant), but the track owners will absorb the total loss. On any extra handle loss over 15%, it will be split between horsemen and tracks.
The track owners would have been best advised to just change the split to December 26th new split, and even lower overall takeout, or at least keep takeout rates the same.
This takeout hike has massive failure written all over it. Bigger purses, possible bigger fields, and a dirt track will not save the day.
In the comment section, well known handicapper/author Barry Meadow chimed in:
This triggered a response from yours truly:
I do give Ray Paulick credit for allowing comments on his ridiculous post and also linking to Pull The Pocket's post Has Paulick Jumped The Shark
Not sure if it was done out of fairness, guilt/remorse, fear of losing readership, or maybe he just likes being compared to The Fonz.
Where do I stand on the California takeout hike? I think my comment over at Pull The Pocket sums it up:
Over the past few months, it appears that Ray Paulick has drank the CHRB Kool-Aid and has fallen for all the bs coming from them when it comes to the takeout hike that is going to happen at all major thoroughbred tracks in California on December 26th.
There is some question whether his judgment is being influenced because of the fact that he is getting advertising dollars from California racing groups. I honestly don't know. I actually hope that is the case, for Paulick's sake. I'd hate to think he was either that stupid or gullible to believe a takeout hike will help horse racing in California.
Anyway, Paulick has hit a peak when it comes to either selling out or just plain stupidity with his post California's Push For Purses.
In the article he mentions "cost of putting on the show." Sorry, but the cost of putting on the show has absolutely no connection with what takeout should be. The only thing that matters with regard to takeout is the optimum takeout percentage (the percentage where tracks and horsemen receive the most money collectively from bettors).
He compares horse racing to blackjack when it comes to cost of putting on the show. Last I heard, it costs millions a year to operate a casino. But casino operator know if they made a push go to the house in blackjack, the blackjack tables would be empty. They also know is they raise the hold on slots from 7% to 12%, their bottom line would suffer in a big way.
The point that most tracks have higher takeout rates even after this hike is just bad propaganda. Any takeout hike anywhere helps kill the game. As you move away from optimum takeout, this is a gimme. There is no good rationalization for a takeout hike.
He also writes that "to my knowledge no studies have proven the point that reducing the cost of a bet will increase the revenue to tracks and purses."
Either he has a short memory or he doesn't bother reading many of the comments on his site. I know for a fact that the Cummings Report has been linked there on many occasions.
As Caroline Betts states in the comment section: Google Scholar is your friend. There have been many studies regarding track takeout and optimum revenue.
Two things are certain regarding these studies. Racing has ignored all these studies. Racing has never tried to find out what the optimum takeout really is (all studies conclude that it is much lower than 20%).
Again, I don't blame the horsemen here (though they aren't looking out for the future of the industry). They are now getting a higher percentage of the pie. For the life of me, I can't see how the track owners allowed it to happen. Again, if handle drops by around 15%, horsemen will still get the same money they did last year (obviously they are hoping handle will at least stay stagnant), but the track owners will absorb the total loss. On any extra handle loss over 15%, it will be split between horsemen and tracks.
The track owners would have been best advised to just change the split to December 26th new split, and even lower overall takeout, or at least keep takeout rates the same.
This takeout hike has massive failure written all over it. Bigger purses, possible bigger fields, and a dirt track will not save the day.
In the comment section, well known handicapper/author Barry Meadow chimed in:
There are two types of bettors–those who care very much about the takeout (e.g., professional gamblers, big bettors, rebate players, etc.) and those who don’t.
An increase hurts both. A professional works off a tiny margin; if he bets $1 million to earn $50,000 after rebates (5%), an increase of just 2% in the takeout can cut his profits nearly in half. At that point, he may feel there is no reason to continue betting on that track. Handle is unlikely to increase after a takeout rise, and every dip in handle forces him to cut his bets; already, it’s virtually impossible to bet any serious money on a daily double in northern California, which on November 10 featured a live crowd at Golden Gate of exactly 753 patrons.
The casual fan who knows little or nothing about takeout is affected as well, since he has less money in his pocket. He may not notice it after ten races, but after 500, the effect kicks in, whether he realizes it or not. He cannot contribute to churn because he has gone broke faster. If this doesn’t seem realistic, imagine a 90% takeout and you will quickly get the idea.
What most people may not realize is that racing handle has been artificially propped up for years:
In the 1980’s, the advent of cash-sell machines resulted in handle jumps since patrons didn’t have to run to five different lines to make and cash their bets.
In the 1990’s, simulcasting exploded, so fans who wanted to bet Santa Anita could do so from 400 locations instead of from one, again resulting in handle gains.
As 2000 dawned, rebate houses made it possible for big players to turn losses into profits, and begat the high-powered computer groups who dominate rebate play today. (Some track executives complained of “Handle up, purses down,” but failed to understand that without the hundreds of millions of dollars bet through rebate houses, they would have had “Handle down, purses down” instead.)
Some people think that exchange wagering will be the next big thing to save racing’s handle, but exchange betting, while it will increase the action, won’t prove a panacea. It’s just for win betting, you need a computer (who is going to lug a computer to a racetrack?), and if the liquidity isn’t high enough right from the start, the whole enterprise may be reduced to just a sidelight.
Certainly, it makes little sense to raise the price of a product during an economic downturn, particularly when it’s been shown that fewer people each year care about the product. Yes, it’s nice that we have films like Sea Biscuit or Secretariat, and Zenyatta thrilled us all, but none of this has much to do with the overall trend of the game, which is on a straight downhill slide. The comments of the CHRB members show how out of touch they are with the realities of the game (Racing as entertainment? So why do networks pay the football and basketball and baseball leagues millions to televise their games, yet racing has to shell out millions to get its own product on TV?)
The old days of huge crowds and huge handles are long gone, gone the way of the telegraph and the stagecoach–and they’re never coming back. Not with rock concerts (the youngsters who attend these have no time, no money, and no interest in betting thoroughbreds). Not with social media (it’s like having a huge mailing list filled with non-prospects). Not with catchy slogans (how many serious bettors came from ”Go Baby Go”?). Not with T-shirt giveaways or mugs.
We’d all like a minuscule takeout, but there are costs to run the show. But that doesn’t mean the customers have to absorb all the costs. The talk of a players’ boycott, whether it materializes or not, is the customers’ visceral response to being asked, time and again, to pay a higher price for a lesser product. The customers are simply fed up. And no industry can survive with fed-up customers.
This triggered a response from yours truly:
Barry, that was an excellent post, but I will take exception to your comment about “cost to run the show.” The cost to run the show is separate from what would be the optimum takeout (the takeout which creates the biggest revenue for the tracks and horsemen). If that takeout number is 30%, then takeout should be 30%. However, we know it isn’t for the reasons you mentioned. You can’t have optimum takeout when there is money that could be on the table that from former horseplayers, or potential horseplayers that won’t go near the game because they know it isn’t beatable.
Takeout needs to be reduced because players who last longer are great for growth. Their family and friends are almost forced to see what the fascination is all about. Some may start going. The opposite happens when players don’t last as long. Letting players last longer opens up the possibility for new money for purses and tracks, from new players being exposed to the game.
Secondly, not all rebate players make money, far from it. But they all last longer, and most believe that with rebates, if they start improving on their skill and have a few more lucky breaks, that they can beat the game. This is the way it was back in the 60’s and 70’s for many who played horses every day (of course, without rebates). Especially because there were not very many exotics (collective takeout was much lower), there was no intertrack betting…you had 8 races to play, and there was a good likelihood that you would leave with enough money to keep your interest so that you couldn’t wait to come back the next day that was free in your calendar. There was also lots of dummy money in the pool (money which is now gone to casinos and lotteries) Those using speed figures back then were in the same boat as many rebate players today…some were marginal winners, and some were marginal losers…but there was a feeling that the game could be beat.
That feeling is gone today for almost any horseplayer who doesn’t get rebates or who isn’t able to bet on an exchange. With high takeout exotics every race, which temp just about everyone, and the ability to play 4-15 cards a day, it doesn’t take long before any horseplayer is completely discouraged.
It was a shame that horse racing couldn’t pick up new players thanks to the movie Secretariat and the build up to Zenyatta’s last race. The reason why is simple. Horse racing is about gambling, and the only way to get the masses interested in gambling is to have visible winners.
You can’t have them in today’s high takeout environment. It is impossible.
Poker gained momentum with the movie Rounders. Why? Poker is gambling, and it is possible to beat the game. Even if very few do it in a big way, they are in our face. This attracts new players galore. The fact that if you can have a beatable game that someone with a little study and a fairly inexpensive learning curve, can move from their parent’s basement to become a King. This is what gambling is all about. This is how horse racing needs to be marketed. But we need lower takeouts to begin with, so players can last while they are learning, and winning players need to have the light shone on them.
Racing can do it right now with those who make money at rebate shops, but that is pretty much a secret society, unlike the poker stars. Racing won’t embrace these players because it is an admission that takeout is way too high, and that the only way to win today or even have a chance is to play with a substantial rebate.
But doing what California is doing is just putting another nail in the coffin when it comes to growing horse racing. Shame on California, and shame on the Paulick Report for supporting their action in any way shape or form.
I do give Ray Paulick credit for allowing comments on his ridiculous post and also linking to Pull The Pocket's post Has Paulick Jumped The Shark
Not sure if it was done out of fairness, guilt/remorse, fear of losing readership, or maybe he just likes being compared to The Fonz.
Where do I stand on the California takeout hike? I think my comment over at Pull The Pocket sums it up:
I proudly haven't wagered on any California race since the bill was signed.
When a California race is on TV, I view it like a commercial, I either get up to grab a snack, handicap a race at a venue I do play, get up to take a wizz, or, if my wife is talking to me at the time of the race, I actually listen to what she is saying to me.
9 November 2010
The Price Of Cheating In Ontario Has Just Gone Way Up
POLICE LAY CHARGES IN HORSE RACING INVESTIGATION
If the parties charged are in fact guilty, and their consequences are more than a slap on the wrist, this should be very good for horse racing in the long run.
Will it cause more betting? Not very much. Those who are staying away from horse racing aren't being deterred by the use of untestable drugs, but either have no interest in betting or they are betting where they last much longer.
However, it creates the foundation for non cheating horsemen to flourish. They will get a chance to grow as they will now most likely be getting a bigger share of purses available. If it plays out right, this will create more owners. More owners usually means more Horseplayers being introduced, though for Horseplayers to stick, takeout needs to be reduced.
The big question here is that if you are a horseman using non testable drugs like ITPP or snake or cobra venom, would you be scared straight by this arrest, or do you need more convincing?
See also Pull The Pocket, who I just found out, beat me to the punch by an hour.
WINDSOR, ON, Nov. 8 /CNW/ - Officers from the Ontario Racing Commission's Equine Medication & Controlled Drug Task Force who are seconded from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau (OCEB) have charged three Windsor residents as a result of an investigation into the use of non-therapeutic, performance enhancing substances on Ontario race horses.
On November 7, 2010 OPP officers from OCEB, as well as the Essex OPP detachment, the Windsor Police Service and the OPP Assets Forfeiture Unit, assisted the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) Task Force members and Special Constables in the execution of search warrants at a Windsor residence and a Tecumseh horse stable.
The OPP has charged: 1) Christopher HASKELL, age 33 of Windsor
2) Cassie NANTAIS, age 24 of Windsor and
3) Derek RIESBERRY, age 40 of Tecumseh.
The accused have all been charged with one count each of cheat at play, fraud, and offences under the Pari-mutuel (betting) regulations of the Criminal Code. All charged persons have been released on an Undertaking which prohibits involvement in horse racing. They are to appear in Windsor court on January 5, 2011.
In addition to the charges, police seized drugs, medications and documents related to the criminal investigation, as well as offence related property including business vehicles and horse trailers.
Horse racing in Ontario is one of the most closely monitored and regulated sports in Canada. The vigilance is based on a philosophy of intelligence-led regulation, and the unique partnership of the racing community, the OPP, and the ORC. As a result, Ontario is recognized as a world leader of investigations into criminal and regulatory offences related to horse racing.
The investigation is continuing and police encourage anyone with knowledge of criminal activity to contact their local police or Crime stoppers.
If the parties charged are in fact guilty, and their consequences are more than a slap on the wrist, this should be very good for horse racing in the long run.
Will it cause more betting? Not very much. Those who are staying away from horse racing aren't being deterred by the use of untestable drugs, but either have no interest in betting or they are betting where they last much longer.
However, it creates the foundation for non cheating horsemen to flourish. They will get a chance to grow as they will now most likely be getting a bigger share of purses available. If it plays out right, this will create more owners. More owners usually means more Horseplayers being introduced, though for Horseplayers to stick, takeout needs to be reduced.
The big question here is that if you are a horseman using non testable drugs like ITPP or snake or cobra venom, would you be scared straight by this arrest, or do you need more convincing?
See also Pull The Pocket, who I just found out, beat me to the punch by an hour.
5 November 2010
Go Zenyatta Go, But Not With My Money
I will be rooting for Zenyatta to make it 20 for 20, but I don't think she has a hope in H-E-Double Hockey sticks. For the record, I didn't like her last year either. But this year she running against the top male horses on a dirt track.
She looks like she is at least 5 lengths inferior to Quality Road and my second choice, long shot Musket Man.
But I really want to see her win. She is great for the game.
My main concern is that lightning fast tracks can really hurt horses that try. I don't doubt Mike Smith when he says she has yet to have had to go 100%. Tomorrow will be different. I just hope her heart and desire to win doesn't turn into a serious injury.
I'll be torn if the horses I bet on are running one two with a sixteenth to go and Zenyatta is making her usual move. I actually think I will rooting for Zenyatta in this case.
I handicapped the entire Breeders' Cup for today and tomorrow. You can see my picks as well as those from fellow Thoroughbred Blogger's Alliance members here.
Drugs are in the news again. Here is a New York Times article At Breeders’ Cup, a Volatile Mix of Speed and Drugs Check out the chart in the left hand corner. Jamie Ness leads all top money winning trainers in the starts per medical violation category.
In what is hopefully a positive move, The Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC) has a list of recommended thresholds and withdrawal guidelines for numerous drugs that are commonly used. It would be great for the game if every jurisdiction is on the same page.
There is an in depth article on undetectable drugs over at Standardbred Canada. ITPP is mentioned. I did a piece on this drug recently.
The horse racing industry should be ashamed of themselves as handle for 2010 now looks like it will drop to 1996 levels. We've seen a handful of tracks recently doing something about it as they try to compete by lowering takeout on at least one of their betting items, but what is needed is a cut everywhere in takeout. Racing is a great game, but there needs to be visible long term winners for the masses to be attracted to it.
CANADIAN BREEDERS' CUP BETTORS BEWARE
HANA (The Horseplayers Association Of North America) is pissed at Woodbine, and rightfully so. There practice of skimming some of the winnings of their customers on low takeout triactors, superfectors and Pick 3's needs to stop.
Tom Says:
I actually have faith that the new regime under Nick Eaves will abolish this practice soon.
Speaking of tracks trying. Western Fair has reduced their Pick 4 wagers track takeout to 15% starting today.
Zenyatta on 60 Minutes. In case you missed it:
She looks like she is at least 5 lengths inferior to Quality Road and my second choice, long shot Musket Man.
But I really want to see her win. She is great for the game.
My main concern is that lightning fast tracks can really hurt horses that try. I don't doubt Mike Smith when he says she has yet to have had to go 100%. Tomorrow will be different. I just hope her heart and desire to win doesn't turn into a serious injury.
I'll be torn if the horses I bet on are running one two with a sixteenth to go and Zenyatta is making her usual move. I actually think I will rooting for Zenyatta in this case.
I handicapped the entire Breeders' Cup for today and tomorrow. You can see my picks as well as those from fellow Thoroughbred Blogger's Alliance members here.
Drugs are in the news again. Here is a New York Times article At Breeders’ Cup, a Volatile Mix of Speed and Drugs Check out the chart in the left hand corner. Jamie Ness leads all top money winning trainers in the starts per medical violation category.
In what is hopefully a positive move, The Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC) has a list of recommended thresholds and withdrawal guidelines for numerous drugs that are commonly used. It would be great for the game if every jurisdiction is on the same page.
There is an in depth article on undetectable drugs over at Standardbred Canada. ITPP is mentioned. I did a piece on this drug recently.
The horse racing industry should be ashamed of themselves as handle for 2010 now looks like it will drop to 1996 levels. We've seen a handful of tracks recently doing something about it as they try to compete by lowering takeout on at least one of their betting items, but what is needed is a cut everywhere in takeout. Racing is a great game, but there needs to be visible long term winners for the masses to be attracted to it.
CANADIAN BREEDERS' CUP BETTORS BEWARE
HANA (The Horseplayers Association Of North America) is pissed at Woodbine, and rightfully so. There practice of skimming some of the winnings of their customers on low takeout triactors, superfectors and Pick 3's needs to stop.
Tom Says:
Just to get this straight. A bettor makes a wager on a Churchill Downs races and cashes. The money bet actually goes into the pool, and Churchill pays Woodbine based on real track odds. Woodbine keeps some of it and gives the rest to the customer.
Can't Woodbine see how wrong this is? What about the Canadian government? This just isn't right.
I actually have faith that the new regime under Nick Eaves will abolish this practice soon.
Speaking of tracks trying. Western Fair has reduced their Pick 4 wagers track takeout to 15% starting today.
Zenyatta on 60 Minutes. In case you missed it:
31 October 2010
The Ideal Racing Format
I've been handicapping and betting horses since I was 12, and probably even earlier than that (my memory escapes me as to when I actually began system handicapping). I'm 49 right now, so you can do the math.
Things have definitely changed in the world of horse race betting. Now, more than ever before, tracks are competing against each other for the online and simulcast player. Horseplayers like consistency, not only when it comes to form, but also betting format. Every player knows there is an exactor in every race, and there is a double that begins in the first race. This is true everywhere. But after these consistencies, chaos reigns supreme when it comes to betting formats.
Here is my idea of the perfect racing format:
1. 9 races a card. Not 10, not 8, and especially not 7,11, or 12. 9 races is just right when it comes to handicapping. 8 is too few. 10 or more races gets to be a bit overwhelming if you are handicapping by pen and paper as most people do.
Though not carved in stone, there are a few tracks that at least informally look to card exactly 9 races a day, no more, no less.
2. All races must have at least 7 betting interests or the race should just carryover. I realize racing secretaries these days are having a hard time filling some races thanks to a horse shortage brought on because owning a race horse has become less and less economical (especially in bad economic times), however a good racing secretary knows their local horse population, and most realize that if they put 2 or 3 bottom maiden claiming races in the book every day, they can almost be assured to fill 9 races a day.
3. Rolling doubles and pick 3's should be mandatory at each track. Daily doubles give savvy Horseplayers a possible edge over betting two horses to win, pick 3's too often pay much more than a three horse parlay (though the edge isn't as great at most tracks as the takeout is usually higher for pick 3's).
4. Two Pick 4's a day. One starting in the second race, the other in the 6th race. Hawthorne, when they run 9 races a day (which is their usual norm), does this. I know one thing I can't stand, and that is the Pick 4 overlap race. Woodbine often does this with race 7 in a 10 race card. If a handicapper who likes betting pick 4's can't stand the 7th race, he or she might pass the whole card. I think it also causes the late pick 4 to have less money bet into it as many players who are alive may bet less or not bet the late pick 4 at all.
5. Superfectas in every race with 9 or more separate mutuel entrants only. The track takeout is usually highest for supers than any other bets at most tracks, and I realize the public likes them. But having supers on races with short fields really wipes the Horseplayer out much faster. It is kind of like putting a large double cheese pepperoni pizza in front of me instead of a small. I'll eventually eat the large pizza, but it isn't good for me. Superfectas on short fields is not good for the growth of the game.
6. 50 cent minimums on superfectas, pick 4's, pick 5's and pick 6's. $1 minimums on all other bets. The movement towards 10 or 20 cent minimum supers and pick 4's (in Canada) again has a negative affect as it lures small players into high takeout bets that produce very little churn, and this causes players to go broke quicker, and disillusioned faster. The idea of these bets is (or should be) to give Horseplayers the shot at a year changing cash. 50 cent minimums leads to more pool shots and it is the chance of this that will build interest not only from existing players (especially the big bank roll players), but the lottery/slots player as well. Churn will still happen, as there will be more 3 out of 4's or three horses all results for supers. It will also curb the smaller every day player into wagers that produce more churn.
I'll add a few more ideas here that will do nothing but grow the game:
7. A 12% cap on takeout, 10% on WPS. Maybe eventually the powers of racing will get it, but the horsemen need to step aside and let it happen.
8. Eliminate breakage. It is the customer's money. Give it to them. It will get churned back. In today's day and age breakage is simply a way the track rips the Horseplayer off, as the technology is there to pay off in pennies, especially in account wagering systems.
9. Any trainer who is hitting at 25% or greater gets to race from a detention barn until their average drops. If a trainer has at least 50 starts and the field size average is at least 8, there is no way in heck they should be hitting at better than 25% or better without using something that isn't being tested for. That is my story and I'm sticking to it. Drugs not being tested for are bad for the game.
Zenyatta will be on 60 Minutes tonight. Horse Racing Simulation created a race pitting Zenyatta against some of the greatest horses ever:
If it were a true simulation, a race with a field of 10 would produce a different result every time (I wonder if that is the case with this program). I don't think the result of the race will hurt Rachel Alexandra's value as a broodmare.
One thing about this simulation program is that if racing keeps going in the direction it is going, it might be all that is left. The thing is, it could really catch on and attract Horseplayers of today and the future, especially if the takeout was low enough and the possibility of cheating within the program was at least perceived to not exist.
Fort Erie Handle Down 12%
This is worse than the industry average which is between 8 and 9%. And new management was "trying." Imagine if they weren't trying. The reality here is that Fort Erie has the third highest blended track takeout rate in North America. They bleed the Horseplayer, especially the ones that go to the track. The higher the takeout, the less the churn, the quicker the Horseplayer loses interest. It isn't only that, now, more than ever before, Horseplayers are collectively informed and many avoid high takeout tracks when given choice.
The new management is really the old management of Woodbine, and they just don't get takeout. Coupled with being directed by what Horsemen want as opposed to what Horseplayers want or whats best for Horseplayers, Fort Erie's 2010 results were a predicted disaster.
There is a reason why slot takeout is 8-10%. It is the highest rate slot players will tolerate, and most slot players wouldn't be able to tell you what the rate is, it is all about optimal pricing.
Advertisement
WAGER ON THE BREEDERS CUP AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM
Horse racing isn't about to lower takeout collectively anytime soon. It is a good thing that many astute Horseplayers have some options.
HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers everyday Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses.
INTRODUCTORY OFFER FROM HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM
BET $100 GET $50 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT*
*Open up an account and deposit at least $100 in total. Once you wager $100, you will get $50 deposited into your account the very next day. You will also start receiving the regular Excellent Player Reward Bonuses on anything you bet in excess of the initial $100 going forward. Note: To earn the $50 Bonus you must wager at least $100 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.
CLICK LOGO TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT
Why Horseplayersbet.com?:
* GREAT PLAYER REWARDS added to your account daily.
* User friendly betting interface making wagering easy.
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS.
* FREE RACE REPLAYS.
* Wager Online or by Phone.
* Great customer service.
* 100% Parimutuel.
* No membership or wagering fees.
* No fees on debit or credit card deposits of $100 or more.
HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST. SIGN UP TODAY AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING US BASED ADWS
Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses or lose. The better the rewards, the more of a chance you have to beat the game. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, but at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.
Things have definitely changed in the world of horse race betting. Now, more than ever before, tracks are competing against each other for the online and simulcast player. Horseplayers like consistency, not only when it comes to form, but also betting format. Every player knows there is an exactor in every race, and there is a double that begins in the first race. This is true everywhere. But after these consistencies, chaos reigns supreme when it comes to betting formats.
Here is my idea of the perfect racing format:
1. 9 races a card. Not 10, not 8, and especially not 7,11, or 12. 9 races is just right when it comes to handicapping. 8 is too few. 10 or more races gets to be a bit overwhelming if you are handicapping by pen and paper as most people do.
Though not carved in stone, there are a few tracks that at least informally look to card exactly 9 races a day, no more, no less.
2. All races must have at least 7 betting interests or the race should just carryover. I realize racing secretaries these days are having a hard time filling some races thanks to a horse shortage brought on because owning a race horse has become less and less economical (especially in bad economic times), however a good racing secretary knows their local horse population, and most realize that if they put 2 or 3 bottom maiden claiming races in the book every day, they can almost be assured to fill 9 races a day.
3. Rolling doubles and pick 3's should be mandatory at each track. Daily doubles give savvy Horseplayers a possible edge over betting two horses to win, pick 3's too often pay much more than a three horse parlay (though the edge isn't as great at most tracks as the takeout is usually higher for pick 3's).
4. Two Pick 4's a day. One starting in the second race, the other in the 6th race. Hawthorne, when they run 9 races a day (which is their usual norm), does this. I know one thing I can't stand, and that is the Pick 4 overlap race. Woodbine often does this with race 7 in a 10 race card. If a handicapper who likes betting pick 4's can't stand the 7th race, he or she might pass the whole card. I think it also causes the late pick 4 to have less money bet into it as many players who are alive may bet less or not bet the late pick 4 at all.
5. Superfectas in every race with 9 or more separate mutuel entrants only. The track takeout is usually highest for supers than any other bets at most tracks, and I realize the public likes them. But having supers on races with short fields really wipes the Horseplayer out much faster. It is kind of like putting a large double cheese pepperoni pizza in front of me instead of a small. I'll eventually eat the large pizza, but it isn't good for me. Superfectas on short fields is not good for the growth of the game.
6. 50 cent minimums on superfectas, pick 4's, pick 5's and pick 6's. $1 minimums on all other bets. The movement towards 10 or 20 cent minimum supers and pick 4's (in Canada) again has a negative affect as it lures small players into high takeout bets that produce very little churn, and this causes players to go broke quicker, and disillusioned faster. The idea of these bets is (or should be) to give Horseplayers the shot at a year changing cash. 50 cent minimums leads to more pool shots and it is the chance of this that will build interest not only from existing players (especially the big bank roll players), but the lottery/slots player as well. Churn will still happen, as there will be more 3 out of 4's or three horses all results for supers. It will also curb the smaller every day player into wagers that produce more churn.
I'll add a few more ideas here that will do nothing but grow the game:
7. A 12% cap on takeout, 10% on WPS. Maybe eventually the powers of racing will get it, but the horsemen need to step aside and let it happen.
8. Eliminate breakage. It is the customer's money. Give it to them. It will get churned back. In today's day and age breakage is simply a way the track rips the Horseplayer off, as the technology is there to pay off in pennies, especially in account wagering systems.
9. Any trainer who is hitting at 25% or greater gets to race from a detention barn until their average drops. If a trainer has at least 50 starts and the field size average is at least 8, there is no way in heck they should be hitting at better than 25% or better without using something that isn't being tested for. That is my story and I'm sticking to it. Drugs not being tested for are bad for the game.
Zenyatta will be on 60 Minutes tonight. Horse Racing Simulation created a race pitting Zenyatta against some of the greatest horses ever:
If it were a true simulation, a race with a field of 10 would produce a different result every time (I wonder if that is the case with this program). I don't think the result of the race will hurt Rachel Alexandra's value as a broodmare.
One thing about this simulation program is that if racing keeps going in the direction it is going, it might be all that is left. The thing is, it could really catch on and attract Horseplayers of today and the future, especially if the takeout was low enough and the possibility of cheating within the program was at least perceived to not exist.
Fort Erie Handle Down 12%
This is worse than the industry average which is between 8 and 9%. And new management was "trying." Imagine if they weren't trying. The reality here is that Fort Erie has the third highest blended track takeout rate in North America. They bleed the Horseplayer, especially the ones that go to the track. The higher the takeout, the less the churn, the quicker the Horseplayer loses interest. It isn't only that, now, more than ever before, Horseplayers are collectively informed and many avoid high takeout tracks when given choice.
The new management is really the old management of Woodbine, and they just don't get takeout. Coupled with being directed by what Horsemen want as opposed to what Horseplayers want or whats best for Horseplayers, Fort Erie's 2010 results were a predicted disaster.
There is a reason why slot takeout is 8-10%. It is the highest rate slot players will tolerate, and most slot players wouldn't be able to tell you what the rate is, it is all about optimal pricing.
Advertisement
WAGER ON THE BREEDERS CUP AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM
Horse racing isn't about to lower takeout collectively anytime soon. It is a good thing that many astute Horseplayers have some options.
HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers everyday Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses.
INTRODUCTORY OFFER FROM HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM
BET $100 GET $50 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT*
*Open up an account and deposit at least $100 in total. Once you wager $100, you will get $50 deposited into your account the very next day. You will also start receiving the regular Excellent Player Reward Bonuses on anything you bet in excess of the initial $100 going forward. Note: To earn the $50 Bonus you must wager at least $100 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.
CLICK LOGO TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT
Why Horseplayersbet.com?:
* GREAT PLAYER REWARDS added to your account daily.
* User friendly betting interface making wagering easy.
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS.
* FREE RACE REPLAYS.
* Wager Online or by Phone.
* Great customer service.
* 100% Parimutuel.
* No membership or wagering fees.
* No fees on debit or credit card deposits of $100 or more.
HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST. SIGN UP TODAY AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING US BASED ADWS
Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses or lose. The better the rewards, the more of a chance you have to beat the game. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, but at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.
24 October 2010
Fort Erie's Season Winding Down
At least they had a 2010 season. But that is about it. The highlight for Fort Erie this year was being able to negotiate with the government to stay alive. Other than that, nothing significant was accomplished. The track is still being run like it is 1965 and there is no competition out there. It will be interesting to see their handle numbers, but my guess is that they will be down.
Fort Erie continues to murder their on track patrons with sky high track takeouts, and that was the first thing that should have been fixed. It is impossible to grow a gambling business with high takeouts.
The government has found it out too, though they don't realize what they found out. Perkins: Internet Forcing Government's Hand On Sports Betting. The government "thinks" that single game sports betting will be a win fall for them allowing them to compete with sites like Betfair or bookies, etc. Well, apparently not if the government runs it:
'...the OLG’s Pro-Line parlay game is drying up; for the fiscal year ended in March of 2009, OLG sports lotteries took in only $249 million (and paid out only $156 million, or 63 per cent, to winners). Most smart bettors have long since tossed aside parlay cards in favour of single-game betting on the Internet, with its 10 per cent “juice.'
No, Pro-Line is drying up because of the 37% takeout. A three team parlay with most bookies has a takeout of 12.5%. Only the true brain dead play Pro-Line, and because of the high takeout, they get wiped out very quickly.
Will they have single games where the house edge is 4.6% like bookies offer? I highly doubt it. We will see.
The government (OLG) has a license to print money by allowing parlays, but so far they have blown it. They, like the racing industry have forced most moderate and big gamblers to gamble anywhere but Canada.
Battle Of The Breeds At Fort Erie Today
Definitely an interesting concept. This is probably the first time that a race pitting thoroughbreds and quarter horses has ever occurred in Ontario. Yesterday's race didn't count, as it attracted one thoroughbred (Black Napkins), and quarter horses in the gate with her must have confused the heck out of her. When the gate opened, it appeared she started looking for thoroughbreds to race against.
According to figures, quarter horses have a huge edge going a quarter of a mile. But today's distance is around 4 furlongs. I believe the thoroughbreds have the edge today. I can see Daverick and Wasted running one two.
Another excellent blog piece by Craig Walker over at TrackMaster Blog
Craig has posted the best deals out there as far as takeout goes in both harness racing and thoroughbred racing.
His ideas on increasing handle are right on, though his idea about artificial tracks can be definitely argued against in regards to increasing handle.
Another Typical Bad Move By Woodbine When It Comes To Retaining Long Term Customers
In case you haven't noticed, Woodbine has now put a superfecta in every race that has at least 7 betting interests.
This is something the Woodbine brass feels is the right thing because the public wants it. Just because the general public wants it, doesn't mean it will increase business.
The problem is the takeout for the bet is 26.3%. The payoffs tempt the Horseplayer to bet these things, and putting them in every race, especially races with fields of less than 9 horses, will erode the Woodbine player's bankroll even faster than before.
Because Woodbine core customer's don't have an endless supply of money, what this does is take the Horseplayer out of the game faster, and it is terrible for long term business. The blended takeout to the Horseplayer is now higher, as they won't be putting new money towards these bets, but money that might have gone on other bets with lower takeouts like WPS or exactors.
Fort Erie continues to murder their on track patrons with sky high track takeouts, and that was the first thing that should have been fixed. It is impossible to grow a gambling business with high takeouts.
The government has found it out too, though they don't realize what they found out. Perkins: Internet Forcing Government's Hand On Sports Betting. The government "thinks" that single game sports betting will be a win fall for them allowing them to compete with sites like Betfair or bookies, etc. Well, apparently not if the government runs it:
'...the OLG’s Pro-Line parlay game is drying up; for the fiscal year ended in March of 2009, OLG sports lotteries took in only $249 million (and paid out only $156 million, or 63 per cent, to winners). Most smart bettors have long since tossed aside parlay cards in favour of single-game betting on the Internet, with its 10 per cent “juice.'
No, Pro-Line is drying up because of the 37% takeout. A three team parlay with most bookies has a takeout of 12.5%. Only the true brain dead play Pro-Line, and because of the high takeout, they get wiped out very quickly.
Will they have single games where the house edge is 4.6% like bookies offer? I highly doubt it. We will see.
The government (OLG) has a license to print money by allowing parlays, but so far they have blown it. They, like the racing industry have forced most moderate and big gamblers to gamble anywhere but Canada.
Battle Of The Breeds At Fort Erie Today
Definitely an interesting concept. This is probably the first time that a race pitting thoroughbreds and quarter horses has ever occurred in Ontario. Yesterday's race didn't count, as it attracted one thoroughbred (Black Napkins), and quarter horses in the gate with her must have confused the heck out of her. When the gate opened, it appeared she started looking for thoroughbreds to race against.
According to figures, quarter horses have a huge edge going a quarter of a mile. But today's distance is around 4 furlongs. I believe the thoroughbreds have the edge today. I can see Daverick and Wasted running one two.
Another excellent blog piece by Craig Walker over at TrackMaster Blog
Craig has posted the best deals out there as far as takeout goes in both harness racing and thoroughbred racing.
His ideas on increasing handle are right on, though his idea about artificial tracks can be definitely argued against in regards to increasing handle.
Another Typical Bad Move By Woodbine When It Comes To Retaining Long Term Customers
In case you haven't noticed, Woodbine has now put a superfecta in every race that has at least 7 betting interests.
This is something the Woodbine brass feels is the right thing because the public wants it. Just because the general public wants it, doesn't mean it will increase business.
The problem is the takeout for the bet is 26.3%. The payoffs tempt the Horseplayer to bet these things, and putting them in every race, especially races with fields of less than 9 horses, will erode the Woodbine player's bankroll even faster than before.
Because Woodbine core customer's don't have an endless supply of money, what this does is take the Horseplayer out of the game faster, and it is terrible for long term business. The blended takeout to the Horseplayer is now higher, as they won't be putting new money towards these bets, but money that might have gone on other bets with lower takeouts like WPS or exactors.
16 October 2010
Big Day At Woodbine Today
Woodbine's Super Saturday is upon us. $3,500,000 in purses (The Canadian and US dollar are almost at par, so it really is $3.5 million) will be given out over three successive races.
Even if track takeout was 30% (Woodbine isn't quite that high), it would take almost $12 million in live handle to pay for those purses alone, and that is assuming all the money goes to purse accounts.
Is it worth giving out that much money in only three races? When you look at the handles on weekdays, I would say no. Not as long as Woodbine still has high takeout levels that stifle growth to the extent that a big show like today is meaningless in the long run.
The total purse money given out today represents half the money Fort Erie gives out in an entire year. I'm not a Communist, but I think it would be best to spread out that kind of dough amongst all the owners, and not just a few. Besides Horseplayers, growth can occur out of new owners who think they have a reasonable shot at breaking even or making money. There is only a tiny amount of elite owners who are in it for the home run.
Before I get to my picks, I have to bring up one more thing that bothers me when it comes to purse distribution, and even betting. It is the what seems to be endless amount of races at Woodbine that have big purses, that are made to go because one trainer enters two horses. If you look back at this year, overnight handicaps with $100,000 purses have been able to go thanks to this loop hole.
The bad thing about the loop hole is that almost every single time this has occurred, one of the trainer's horses mysteriously needed to be vet scratched. I don't blame trainers like Nick Gonzalez, Terry Jordan, Don MaCrae and others for taking advantage of the loop hole, I blame the system which makes this an easy thing to make a mockery of.
Today's first race is a good example of what could happen. A six horse barely bettable race where the one and two are both trained by Sid Attard. These horses have a reasonable shot of running 1-2, but there is a high likelihood one of them will come up with a cough and have to be scratched (at the time of this writing scratches are not out). It would turn the race into a five horse affair, and it is lousy for betting, and lousy for racing in general.
OK, now for my selections.
NEARCTIC STAKES
I've always like Grand Adventure. He has the best figures going, and just needs a little give to the turf and a little racing luck to come out ahead.
EP TAYLOR STAKES
I think Reggane will beat Shalanaya today. It has to do with cycles.
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL
I didn't want to pick the now infamous Fifty Proof, but because of the way I handicap, and all the angles I consider, Fifty Proof has as good of a chance as anything in this field. This is jockey Justin Stein's biggest race ever, and I do give the connections Kudo's for sticking with him. The horse is vastly improved, and seems to love the lawn and the distance. One thing that could hurt him though is weight. He is picking up 9 pounds, while the horse who beat him last time out, Redwood, is picking up 7. Redwood though is more likely to bounce. The horse to beat is Chinchon.
As an aide, I wonder if the Stewards would at least put up the Inquiry sign if Fifty busts through the gate before the other horses are dispatched today. My guess is yes, and it would rightfully lead to a disqualification this time around.
It is still going to be hard for me root for a horse owned by a bunch of Woodbine board members who wound up receiving extraordinary consideration by the track Stewards and then the Ontario Racing Commission.
Science Stuff from MSNBC: THE SCIENCE OF HORSE RACING
Interesting stuff about the positioning of a jockey on a horse. It explains why a jockey out of the stirrups gives the horse no chance to win.
THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO CLEAN UP CHEATING: TRAINER FACES FELONY CHARGES FOR INJECTING HORSE
Muse denied it. The Stewards let him go. But tapes showed up. Caught in the act.
Maggi Moss has her panties in a knot, saying this is an abuse of power. She also said that racing authorities are set up to be stricter than any court. Really? When was the last time a trainer was sent to jail by a racing commission?
The reality is that there is defrauding of the public happening here because, people bet their money on races. There is also defrauding of the other horsemen who have clean operations that are run by the book.
A jail sentence could be what is needed to scare the bejeebers out of the cheaters.
By the way, one of the horses injected on tape won a $68K stake race and the other was third is a race with a purse of over $140K.
The horses in question did not test positively, which is not a shocker. Trainers generally stay clear of drugs that are tested for. The big question is what was in the syringes?
It surely wasn't a placebo which was given to fool the horses into believing they were drugged. I don't think horses are that smart.
What I find to be the biggest problem here, is the horsemen's attitude that this should stay out of criminal court. If I was a horseman who trained clean, I would want criminal charges to weed out the cheaters. It makes me wonder if this is not just a rare occurrence but a very widespread one.
Even if track takeout was 30% (Woodbine isn't quite that high), it would take almost $12 million in live handle to pay for those purses alone, and that is assuming all the money goes to purse accounts.
Is it worth giving out that much money in only three races? When you look at the handles on weekdays, I would say no. Not as long as Woodbine still has high takeout levels that stifle growth to the extent that a big show like today is meaningless in the long run.
The total purse money given out today represents half the money Fort Erie gives out in an entire year. I'm not a Communist, but I think it would be best to spread out that kind of dough amongst all the owners, and not just a few. Besides Horseplayers, growth can occur out of new owners who think they have a reasonable shot at breaking even or making money. There is only a tiny amount of elite owners who are in it for the home run.
Before I get to my picks, I have to bring up one more thing that bothers me when it comes to purse distribution, and even betting. It is the what seems to be endless amount of races at Woodbine that have big purses, that are made to go because one trainer enters two horses. If you look back at this year, overnight handicaps with $100,000 purses have been able to go thanks to this loop hole.
The bad thing about the loop hole is that almost every single time this has occurred, one of the trainer's horses mysteriously needed to be vet scratched. I don't blame trainers like Nick Gonzalez, Terry Jordan, Don MaCrae and others for taking advantage of the loop hole, I blame the system which makes this an easy thing to make a mockery of.
Today's first race is a good example of what could happen. A six horse barely bettable race where the one and two are both trained by Sid Attard. These horses have a reasonable shot of running 1-2, but there is a high likelihood one of them will come up with a cough and have to be scratched (at the time of this writing scratches are not out). It would turn the race into a five horse affair, and it is lousy for betting, and lousy for racing in general.
OK, now for my selections.
NEARCTIC STAKES
I've always like Grand Adventure. He has the best figures going, and just needs a little give to the turf and a little racing luck to come out ahead.
EP TAYLOR STAKES
I think Reggane will beat Shalanaya today. It has to do with cycles.
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL
I didn't want to pick the now infamous Fifty Proof, but because of the way I handicap, and all the angles I consider, Fifty Proof has as good of a chance as anything in this field. This is jockey Justin Stein's biggest race ever, and I do give the connections Kudo's for sticking with him. The horse is vastly improved, and seems to love the lawn and the distance. One thing that could hurt him though is weight. He is picking up 9 pounds, while the horse who beat him last time out, Redwood, is picking up 7. Redwood though is more likely to bounce. The horse to beat is Chinchon.
As an aide, I wonder if the Stewards would at least put up the Inquiry sign if Fifty busts through the gate before the other horses are dispatched today. My guess is yes, and it would rightfully lead to a disqualification this time around.
It is still going to be hard for me root for a horse owned by a bunch of Woodbine board members who wound up receiving extraordinary consideration by the track Stewards and then the Ontario Racing Commission.
Science Stuff from MSNBC: THE SCIENCE OF HORSE RACING
Interesting stuff about the positioning of a jockey on a horse. It explains why a jockey out of the stirrups gives the horse no chance to win.
THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO CLEAN UP CHEATING: TRAINER FACES FELONY CHARGES FOR INJECTING HORSE
Prosecutors have brought criminal charges for a horse-racing violation - believed to be a first in the state of Iowa.
Brian Muse faces three felony counts of cheating at a gambling game for allegedly injecting two animals with unknown substances Sept. 24, hours before their quarter-horse races at Prairie Meadows.
Muse denied it. The Stewards let him go. But tapes showed up. Caught in the act.
Maggi Moss has her panties in a knot, saying this is an abuse of power. She also said that racing authorities are set up to be stricter than any court. Really? When was the last time a trainer was sent to jail by a racing commission?
The reality is that there is defrauding of the public happening here because, people bet their money on races. There is also defrauding of the other horsemen who have clean operations that are run by the book.
A jail sentence could be what is needed to scare the bejeebers out of the cheaters.
By the way, one of the horses injected on tape won a $68K stake race and the other was third is a race with a purse of over $140K.
The horses in question did not test positively, which is not a shocker. Trainers generally stay clear of drugs that are tested for. The big question is what was in the syringes?
It surely wasn't a placebo which was given to fool the horses into believing they were drugged. I don't think horses are that smart.
What I find to be the biggest problem here, is the horsemen's attitude that this should stay out of criminal court. If I was a horseman who trained clean, I would want criminal charges to weed out the cheaters. It makes me wonder if this is not just a rare occurrence but a very widespread one.
9 October 2010
Hialeah Gets It
Hialeah Park recently announced they are dropping their takeout to 12% on all bets. Now this is forward thinking at its finest. It is unfortunate that Hialeah runs such a short meet, and that they don't have thoroughbred racing (only quarter horse racing) yet.
This is a track looking to rebuild. Another track looking to rebuild is Fort Erie. They have done nothing in the takeout reduction area, and now have an average takeout twice the amount of Hialeah's new rates. I'm disappointed in Fort Erie and their new regime. Problem is that they went with the old guard who just don't get takeout. No clue. Fort Erie has the second worst blended takeout rate in North America. And since the overwhelming majority of bets happen at venues where they only get a fraction of the takeout rate, the only people getting constantly slaughtered by the rate are those who attend races live. They give these patrons who cash tickets less than 99% of the tracks in North America. The players have less to bet back, go broke quickest, and are likely to come back less.
This is not how to grow a business. Give players more money back and they will bet more and come back more often.
It took John Brunetti Jr. to do the opposite of what his dad did 17 years ago which helped put the final nail in Hialeah's coffin at the time when he raised takeout to levels that resemble Fort Erie's today.
The biggest problem Hialeah will have now is exposure. Barring a miracle of Biblical proportions, Canadians won't be able to find Hialeah at HPI or any Canadian racetracks, unless the tracks pay a lot less than what Hialeah patrons would get on track.
This is what is sad about the industry today. Even in the USA, I don't expect many tracks to carry Hialeah. ADWs will probably have them, but only ADWs like this one will actually look forward to having them on the menu.
Hialeah's drop in takeout comes into effect around the same time as the mindless takeout hike in California. I believe a lot of pissed off Horseplayers are going to divert some funds and give Hialeah a try.
TrackMaster recently upgraded the way they do speed figures for Quarter Horse racing, probably giving their customers the best edge amongst past performance distributors.
They also added a trouble indicator in their thoroughbred past performances.
I know for a fact that this company actually listens to the customer.
The Breeder's Crown, harness racing's version of the Breeder's Cup races tonight (Saturday) at Pocono Downs. Post time is 5PM. Here are free past performances for the event.
The Knight Sky has put all the finalists in the University of Arizona's Racetrack Industry Program's Funniest Horse Racing Video contest on his website.
The one I laughed at the most was the one on the top right. The one done by Grand River (the one at the bottom right of the second section) also gave me a chuckle.
The ORC released their ruling which allows Woodbine to ban Bruno Schickedanz indefinitely from stabling and running horses at Woodbine because of the Wake At Noon tragedy.
It is a pretty long ruling, but interesting nonetheless. The most damning part of the report to me was this:
Interesting that this is track specific, and I believe Schickedanz can still stable and race at Fort Erie.
They nailed him on conduct unbecoming to horse racing, because it appears he didn't violate any other rules.
The ORC should put in new rules so that morally bankrupt acts like this are dealt with in not such a vague manner.
Of course, at least to me and probably many others, the ORC has major credibility issues due to their recent mind numbing decision in letting Fifty Proof's result to stand. A couple of comments from Jen's Blog:
W. McGovern - October 5th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
This is a track looking to rebuild. Another track looking to rebuild is Fort Erie. They have done nothing in the takeout reduction area, and now have an average takeout twice the amount of Hialeah's new rates. I'm disappointed in Fort Erie and their new regime. Problem is that they went with the old guard who just don't get takeout. No clue. Fort Erie has the second worst blended takeout rate in North America. And since the overwhelming majority of bets happen at venues where they only get a fraction of the takeout rate, the only people getting constantly slaughtered by the rate are those who attend races live. They give these patrons who cash tickets less than 99% of the tracks in North America. The players have less to bet back, go broke quickest, and are likely to come back less.
This is not how to grow a business. Give players more money back and they will bet more and come back more often.
It took John Brunetti Jr. to do the opposite of what his dad did 17 years ago which helped put the final nail in Hialeah's coffin at the time when he raised takeout to levels that resemble Fort Erie's today.
The biggest problem Hialeah will have now is exposure. Barring a miracle of Biblical proportions, Canadians won't be able to find Hialeah at HPI or any Canadian racetracks, unless the tracks pay a lot less than what Hialeah patrons would get on track.
This is what is sad about the industry today. Even in the USA, I don't expect many tracks to carry Hialeah. ADWs will probably have them, but only ADWs like this one will actually look forward to having them on the menu.
Hialeah's drop in takeout comes into effect around the same time as the mindless takeout hike in California. I believe a lot of pissed off Horseplayers are going to divert some funds and give Hialeah a try.
TrackMaster recently upgraded the way they do speed figures for Quarter Horse racing, probably giving their customers the best edge amongst past performance distributors.
They also added a trouble indicator in their thoroughbred past performances.
I know for a fact that this company actually listens to the customer.
The Breeder's Crown, harness racing's version of the Breeder's Cup races tonight (Saturday) at Pocono Downs. Post time is 5PM. Here are free past performances for the event.
The Knight Sky has put all the finalists in the University of Arizona's Racetrack Industry Program's Funniest Horse Racing Video contest on his website.
The one I laughed at the most was the one on the top right. The one done by Grand River (the one at the bottom right of the second section) also gave me a chuckle.
The ORC released their ruling which allows Woodbine to ban Bruno Schickedanz indefinitely from stabling and running horses at Woodbine because of the Wake At Noon tragedy.
It is a pretty long ruling, but interesting nonetheless. The most damning part of the report to me was this:
“I was spending money on the horse and I was researching what the possible options could be.” “No decision had been made on any of those options.”
“Q. And when you say you were spending money on the horse I take it that if he was racing you were hoping to get some of that back?
A. I think anybody would be thinking that if they were doing it. Is that a bad thing by the way?”
Interesting that this is track specific, and I believe Schickedanz can still stable and race at Fort Erie.
They nailed him on conduct unbecoming to horse racing, because it appears he didn't violate any other rules.
The ORC should put in new rules so that morally bankrupt acts like this are dealt with in not such a vague manner.
Of course, at least to me and probably many others, the ORC has major credibility issues due to their recent mind numbing decision in letting Fifty Proof's result to stand. A couple of comments from Jen's Blog:
W. McGovern - October 5th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Excellent blog Jen. This is a great source for racing info covering Ontario. Regarding Fifty Proof: this stinks. I’ve seen similar starts result in a DQ…and then there’s the Wilmot (sic) angle which further makes it stink. If I were racing at Woodbine, I’d keep a copy of that start on hand just in case you ever got a DQ for a similar situation.
Keep up the excellent work, Jen. Your blog is a pleasure to read. I have written to the ORC regarding the Fifty Proof matter. I hope that others do too. The decision is nonsensical. If the gate was functioning properly then the only explanation is that Fifty Proof pushed it open. Totally contrary to what the Chairman says. A disgrace for horse racing in Ontario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)