Bloodhorse:
NY Lawmakers Hear Views on Internet Poker
New York\'s racetrack-based casino operators are urging state officials to go slow with any effort to legalize online poker and, if permitted, any internet poker program should be awarded only to the racinos and other land-based gambling facilities licensed in the state.
\"We\'re not here to say this will destroy racing or gaming as it exists. We are saying we should proceed carefully,\" James Featherstonhaugh, president of the New York Gaming Association, told lawmakers Sept. 9 during a Senate Racing and Wagering Committee hearing.
The hearing was called by Sen. John Bonacic, a Hudson Valley Republican who chairs the committee and is the sponsor of legislation introduced in May legalizing internet poker. The Bonacic bill does not limit online poker licenses to existing brick-and-mortar gambling facilities and it calls for a $10 million fee to be paid by the state in return for a 10-year license. There is no identical bill introduced yet in the Assembly and the administration of Gov. Andrew Cuomo has not yet advanced the issue either.
The racino trade group says New York\'s track-based casinos, which includes facilities at Aqueduct Racetrack and Finger Lakes Thoroughbred racetracks, provided nearly $900 million in revenue-sharing payments to the state last year and more than $5.5 billion since the first racino opened in 2004. Featherstonhaugh, an Albany lobbyist and part-owner of the Saratoga Casino and Raceway, said the state is the \"senior partner\" with existing racinos because of that revenue sharing arrangement and that Albany \"needs to be aware of and sensitive to protecting\" the funds that now flow from the track casinos.
New York is in the midst of an expansion of commercial casinos with real slot machines, unlike the video lottery terminals permitted at the racinos,as well as table games. The state on Sept. 10 is poised to approve regulations governing the operation of the new casinos, which sets the stage for the first three casino licenses to be awarded later this month. The state gaming commission has tentatively identified the first three sites in the southern Catskills, Schenectady, and the town of Tyre, which is located about a half-hour from Finger Lakes. A fourth is proposed for Tioga Downs racetrack, west of Binghamton, and three more licenses will not be awarded for at least several years. The commercial casino expansion was approved in a statewide referendum in 2013.
\"We certainly think we should not move forward with online poker or any expansion of gaming until the three authorized and sited casinos... are open and doing business,\" Featherstonhaugh said.
Bonacic\'s panel heard from representatives of MGM Resorts International, Caesars, and the Borgata Hotel Casino in Atlantic City. All three provided a similar theme: internet poker is already being played by numerous New Yorkers in an unregulated environment, there is money to be had for Albany in embracing the online game, and state officials should consider more than just poker if it goes the internet gambling route.
\"The internet is the future, not just for the gaming industry but for any industry,\" said John McManus, executive vice president and general counsel at MGM. He said having a \"safe and regulated\" online poker system in New York \"makes all the sense in the world.\"
Despite introducing legislation to legalize online poker, Bonacic told the hearing\'s participants that he is still in a fact-finding mode on the issue, and he did not close the door to additional online games or to limiting future licenses for internet gambling to brick-and-mortar casinos and racinos licensed by the state.
I use to be affiliated with a couple of poker rooms,the writing was on the wall for this move for about 10\'years now.
John,
Know quite a few horse players that also love poker/hold em. Does anyone feel that if online poker comes to the many States looking at it, the handle on racing will be adversely affected in a meaningful way?
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John,
>
> Know quite a few horse players that also love
> poker/hold em. Does anyone feel that if online
> poker comes to the many States looking at it, the
> handle on racing will be adversely affected in a
> meaningful way?
>
> Mike
Fear it would be so . . .
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John,
>
> Know quite a few horse players that also love
> poker/hold em. Does anyone feel that if online
> poker comes to the many States looking at it, the
> handle on racing will be adversely affected in a
> meaningful way?
>
> Mike
Attendance for a nine race card last night at Mountaineer was 2,208, handle was $8,343.00. Doubt many even saw a horse much less considered wagering on one.
metroj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> miff Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > John,
> >
> > Know quite a few horse players that also love
> > poker/hold em. Does anyone feel that if online
> > poker comes to the many States looking at it,
> the
> > handle on racing will be adversely affected in
> a
> > meaningful way?
> >
> > Mike
>
> Attendance for a nine race card last night at
> Mountaineer was 2,208, handle was $8,343.00.
> Doubt many even saw a horse much less considered
> wagering on one.
Ontrack handle was <$9K????!!!!!
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John,
>
> Know quite a few horse players that also love
> poker/hold em. Does anyone feel that if online
> poker comes to the many States looking at it, the
> handle on racing will be adversely affected in a
> meaningful way?
>
> Mike
No.
Most poker players couldn\'t care less about horse racing. In my room, I can count on my shop teacher\'s left hand how many bet on horses.
If racing wants to compete, racing simply has to offer a better product. Until we come up with a better model than tracks competing against other tracks for survival, the quality of the product will continue to decline. Whatever happened to that \"Go Baby Go\" consortium? I can\'t even remember their name.
In my opinion the far bigger long term threat to horse racing is the inevitable legalization of sports betting, which in my opinion will occur as soon the hypocritical professional leagues and NCAA figure out how to get their share of the handle such legalization would generate.The numbers sports betting generates in Las Vegas vs. betting on horse racing is huge. Putting draft kings and related existing sites aside, if some sort of sports betting on games were available, the 35-40 college games shown every Saturday on ESPN coupled with the NFL on Sunday would provide a very attractive alternative for those who enjoy betting.I see very few people in their 20\'s, 30\'s or 40\'s at Saratoga, Belmont, Las Vegas betting on horses. The Belaggio just redesigned its sports book and only a small section is now devoted to horse racing. While internet betting has been a boon for handle in horse racing, that will rapidly disappear if sports betting comes to the internet in states other than Nevada. (I still have no idea how the federal statute limiting the legalization of sports betting to only 4 states is constitutional.).
Handicapping thoroughbreds with some level of success requires intelligence, discipline, and work-- traits rarely found in today\'s youth.
They would prefer to mindlessly bet on Pats-Steelers without any clue of what zone blocking, a dime package, or what cover-2 means. They love betting sports because there\'s always the hope that the coin will comes up heads.
Same hope for the millions who pull levers all day/weekend. Mindless.
Btw: all the geniuses out there who bet the rent on over 52 1/2 tonight probably looking for the Pepto Bismol by now.
Good Luck,
Joe B
jbelfior wrote:
Handicapping thoroughbreds with some level of success requires intelligence, discipline, and work-- traits rarely found in today\'s youth.
_________________________________
I think this is a broad, sweeping generalization but there is some merit in that combining these three traits is seen far less often in today\'s youth then even 10-15 years ago. The intelligent kids want to find or know the answers FASTTT. The kids willing to work today are often not the most intelligent kids. And the disciplined youth....well they are all waiting to age to learn this trait. Handicapping requires all three of these to be successful. So, maybe with age today\'s youth will go the track......but
I recall hearing young people don\'t gamble on horses anymore when I was 21 and learning the game in earnest with every free moment possible. I thought \"oh nonsense\" young people still are learning this game. But I\'m in my late 30\'s now and there is no one younger than me and my best friend (my age) younger than us at the track except on the \"big days\" of racing whether local or national. I\'ve seen some in the contest media coverage but otherwise it is rare.
I think Sports betting at the track with table games could make a lethal business plan if they didn\'t have competition for that trifecta. I don\'t bet on sports but I love sports as much as anyone except I\'ll watch horse racing primarily 99 times out of 100 where as most wouldn\'t prioritize that way. I\'ve played poker but it contains none of the excitement of solving horse racing for me. But I could see plenty of young people at the track playing a race on those \"Big days,\" losing or winning on a race, then sitting down for a few rounds of poker or other table games, while sneaking a peak at the Pats-Steelers game to see if their wager is alive on the over/under.
What percentage of money do the whales contribute to the pools anyway? Would they all gravitate to poker or sports betting as opposed to their horse racing wagers? I don\'t know the answer but I doubt it.
Racing is still a billion dollar business. It is not a dying sport but it is contracting and shrinking and it needs to in order to create interest. Churchill, I hate to say, is ahead of the curve on this.....the big days are all that matter to the bottom line when the rest of the product is abysmal. And creating a big day experience that involves sports betting and table games including poker could be where successful tracks head in the next few decades (don\'t look to Illinois for that model though as they will continue to lag far, far, far back).
Whales will go where the money is. Interesting observation from The Wall Street Journal yesterday (behind pay wall):
Still, as the industry grows, daily fantasy companies face another risk: the possibility that increasingly sophisticated players using complicated statistical formulas will wipe out novices, say industry watchers like Ed Miller, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology-trained engineer and games strategist, and Daniel Singer, leader of McKinsey & Co.'s global sports and gaming practice.
In the first half of the 2015 Major League Baseball season, just 1.3% of daily fantasy-sports players won 91% of the profits, according to Mr. Singer.
"It's not what it pretends to be," Mr. Miller said in an interview. "It pretends to be, 'Hey pick your favorite players, spend a few bucks and root for them.' But if you pick your favorite players you will lose a lot of money."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/daily-fantasy-sports-operators-await-reality-check-1441835630
We\'ve been down this road before.
Legalizing sports betting will have a minimal effect on horse racing. There are locals all over the place, as well as offshore outfits. Some legal, some not. People are wagering billions of dollars right now.
Fantasy Sports is a game for suckers. The rake is prohibitive, the serious players have sophisticated programs to select the optimal lineups. Sure, you may get lucky and have a lineup win a few bucks. You aren\'t winning a million like those dweebs on the commercials. A very small percentage of players win the large majority of the prize money. Its popular now, lets see how popular it is in a few years when people realize they aren\'t winning.
Most people lose betting on sports. Its more entertainment than it is profitable. Its fun to watch a game with money riding on it. Same with Poker, most lose and the good players win. Its entertainment, until you really can\'t afford it or just get tired of losing.
It isn\'t difficult to bet on a sporting event, just choose a side. It isn\'t hard to play poker, its just hard to win when the other players are better than you.
Horse racing is different. You have to deal with odds, multiple horses per race (as opposed to 2 teams), multiple types of wagering (WPS< exacta, etc..). It takes work to have any idea of what you are actually doing.
You can watch a ballgame for 2-3 hours. You can sit down at a poker table and have a sociable experience with your fellow players. Horse racing? If you play semi regularly, you are by yourself in front of a computer screen. You have to Reeeaaallllyyyy love horse racing to do that.
The problem isn\'t sports wagering being legalized, fantasy sports, etc.. I play poker, I wager on sports, I was in a fantasy football league for 20 years before stopping in 2007. I do all of the stuff that would supposedly kill off horse racing, yet if I could wager on only ONE of the above its horse racing.
I enjoy the intellectual challenge, I enjoy wagering against the masses, I enjoy the possibility of large payoffs. I enjoy the excitement of a horse race.
The problem with horse racing is that they have done a poor job of educating new customers. When I see these idiots on television spewing forth about a large P6 carryover, that is the last thing they should do. Its like fantasy sports, a small percentage win the most money. Why does\'t TVG or HRTV produce a show that shows people the different ways to wager? Bet construction, i.e how to put together a P3 or 4 ticket, how to construct a tri or super ticket. etc...How about introducing them to different products, there are many different products that people use. Quit cramming the DRF down their throats, its not an easy publication to learn.
There are many products that can help novice players that are intimidated by the DRF. TG is obviously one of them. The learning curve for reading those are a hell of a lot better than trying to decipher a DRF. The daily product I use is a great product for getting to the heart of a race in minutes. We need to show people an easier and faster way to handicap. That is the way things are today.
All my sports betting friends point to the 17-24%+ rake as to why they will not expand into horses. I\'ve got no counter arguement.
Hi Paul,
Racing has lost $5billion of handle from it\'s peak. Elvis has left the building. Many theories advanced from the economy to track/OTB closures etc.It is without question that some portion of the decline in handle is attributed to other forms of gambling.Whether poker,the explosion of Casinos across the country or Fantasy Sports betting,racing\'s handle has already been affected.
Fantasy Sports betting has Wall St/private equity NFL NBA and major networks looking closely. Growth rate of FS still exploding and projections have it\'s growth potential near $7 billion within 5 years, can\'t be good for future racing handle.Racing handle projections all neutral at best,no real upside.
Racing will never go under but to think that FS,legal sports betting, new Casinos in major cities won\'t hurt racing handle is wishful thinking.The question really is how much.
Mike
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whales will go where the money is. Interesting
> observation from The Wall Street Journal yesterday
> (behind pay wall):
>
> Still, as the industry grows, daily fantasy
> companies face another risk: the possibility that
> increasingly sophisticated players using
> complicated statistical formulas will wipe out
> novices, say industry watchers like Ed Miller, a
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology-trained
> engineer and games strategist, and Daniel Singer,
> leader of McKinsey & Co.'s global sports and
> gaming practice.
>
> In the first half of the 2015 Major League
> Baseball season, just 1.3% of daily fantasy-sports
> players won 91% of the profits, according to Mr.
> Singer.
>
> "It's not what it pretends to be," Mr. Miller said
> in an interview. "It pretends to be, 'Hey pick
> your favorite players, spend a few bucks and root
> for them.' But if you pick your favorite players
> you will lose a lot of money."
>
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/daily-fantasy-sports-o
> perators-await-reality-check-1441835630
This is an absolute given. In DFS, the weak and dim are slaughtered, and Bettor\'s Disease eventually removes them from the arena.
Holy Bull said: All my sports betting friends point to the 17-24%+ rake as to why they will not expand into horses. I\'ve got no counter arguement
___________________________________________________________________________
I\'ll point to I have to be right 55% of the time just to break even.
Line was 7 last night (28-21). Over under was around 52 (49). Your friends are not better than the linemakers and if they are, not to the tune of 60% or better.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Joe B,
Horribly misguided post.
Would actually argue the EXACT OPPOSITE. Playing into a game with a 15 to 25% takeout, with obvious and wide drug problems which at times make the takeout seem like the SMALLER problem, is something our youth are too smart to do.
I have two \"kids\" in their early 20\'s, who at times have dropped me off at the local betting establishment or even had a meal with me there. And they have often looked around at the people that frequent the place and said \"Dad, really? this is your peer group that you hang out with?\".
Our kids are not the problem.
The game has the problem. Nothing about this game attracts the next generation. Don\'t kid yourself, the next generation is more computer literate, more math oriented, and can look at what this game offers and see that there are MUCH BETTER WAYS to try and beat another game than there is at horse racing.
Sorry Joe B, but your short sighted post is EXACTLY the reason the game is dying and will die. What you wrote is sort of the approach that the racing authorities are taking. They don\'t think THEY are the problem.
Anyway, no offense is meant, but this is a sensitive subject for me as i do love the game as I am guessing you do as well. But without making changes and increasing appeal, the game will die. I have no doubts about it. I am late 40\'s. When I go to a racing establishment is the ONLY TIME I feel young. The demographic has a median age in the 60\'s. There are very very few people younger than my age that go to the track.
Rob
One of several great posts on this string.
I don\'t know how much of a difference this makes but people who bet on football probably played football at some point? I don\'t know quite how to phrase it but horse racing is more purely about gambling and less about really being involved in the sport. A lot of good suggestions on this string about educating players but it\'s all about betting strategies, etc. It\'s not about riding a horse or having that experience vs. betting on a game that you actually played? Part of me getting into racing was actually riding horses as a kid, upstate in the summer and over at Prospect Park when they had stables there.
It\'s no accident that the decline in horse racing coincides with the decline in people actually going to the track and seeing it up close. There is a level of connection when you bet on football or hold cards in your hand that does not exist when you are watching something on TV. Simulcasting does not engage new players on a visceral level, and they have no memory of riding a horse that equates in their imagination with catching a TD pass at the schoolyard. When people went to the track they were more connected to the sight and sound of the sport. Except for big days that\'s over.
Casinos also do a much better job of dressing up gambling with nice facilities and chandeliers and making you feel like you are doing something special. I liked the track and OTB precisely because it was a little dirty, but I\'m afraid for most people it\'s a turnoff, and newbies are going to look elsewhere, when they aren\'t staring at their damned iPhones.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Paul,
>
> Racing has lost $5billion of handle from it\'s
> peak. Elvis has left the building. Many theories
> advanced from the economy to track/OTB closures
> etc.It is without question that some portion of
> the decline in handle is attributed to other forms
> of gambling.Whether poker,the explosion of Casinos
> across the country or Fantasy Sports
> betting,racing\'s handle has already been
> affected.
>
> Fantasy Sports betting has Wall St/private equity
> NFL NBA and major networks looking closely. Growth
> rate of FS still exploding and projections have
> it\'s growth potential near $7 billion within 5
> years, can\'t be good for future racing
> handle.Racing handle projections all neutral at
> best,no real upside.
>
> Racing will never go under but to think that
> FS,legal sports betting, new Casinos in major
> cities won\'t hurt racing handle is wishful
> thinking.The question really is how much.
>
> Mike
It hurts to an extent. Not saying it doesn\'t.
I\'m saying these other forms of gambling aren\'t the issue. We aren\'t cultivating new customers. Its been dropping long before Fantasy Sports came along.
And agree with Bull, the takeout doesn\'t help matters.
Its declining because those in charge haven\'t a clue. Blaming other forms of gambling is taking away the focus of the real problem. The decision makers of racing.
P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And agree with Bull, the takeout doesn\'t help
> matters.
P-Dub, 14% takeout on all stakes P4 at quirKY Downs tomorrow. So what if
they\'re running on a course thats probably better suited for golf or fox
hunting or maybe one of those Civil War re-creations, on the positive side the
racecaller seems to be doing a much better job of keeping off track fans in
the loop with regards to how close runners are to the finish line. I mean,
even in Living Room Downs, its good to know when to go to the whip.
>
> Its declining because those in charge haven\'t a
> clue. Blaming other forms of gambling is taking
> away the focus of the real problem. The decision
> makers of racing.
The alarmist stuff has been with us for a long time, but the major
contractions we have been talking about have never really come to pass.
In states where racing has a \"friendly government\", racing/breeding is
doing quite well. There is still a stable core of very healthy facilities --
Del Mar, Gulf, Spa, Santa Anita, Keeneland, Oaklawn, Woodbine, Tampa, among
others where racing is strong, though not without issues, and capable of
providing year round quality racing to what is now a national audience. The
marketing of the Sport probably leaves something to be desired.
jbelfior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy Bull said: All my sports betting friends
> point to the 17-24%+ rake as to why they will not
> expand into horses. I\'ve got no counter arguement
> __________________________________________________
> _________________________
>
> I\'ll point to I have to be right 55% of the time
> just to break even.
>
>
>
>
> Good Luck,
> Joe B.
Just 52.4%, actually . . . and that\'s if you\'re laying the \"standard\" 10% vig . .
As we discuss:
California Eyes Legalized Sports Betting, Introduces New BillDustin Gouker, September 11, 2015 08:47 PDT@DustinGouker
A bill that would legalize and regulate sports betting in California has been introduced in the state legislature.
What we know so far
More accurately, an old bill was gutted and amended to deal with sports betting, introduced by Assemblyman Adam Gray, who chairs the gaming committee in that chamber. AB 1441 would legalize sports betting in the state, but only if federal law and the state constitution are changed to allow it.
Here is the key passage from the California Interactive Sports Wagering Consumer Protection Act:
This bill would provide that its provisions would become operative only if the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act is amended or repealed to allow sports wagering in California and a state constitutional amendment to authorize sports wagering has been approved by the voters.
So while it's interesting that California is eyeing the potential sports betting market, the state is hardly unique in this regard, and several dominoes would have to fall before sports books start popping up, even if this bill is passed.
The bill comes as New Jersey is fighting a losing battle regarding a law it passed attempting to allow sports betting within its borders. A federal circuit court ruled that PASPA prevents states from authorizing entities to take sports bets. The state has asked for a rehearing after its latest court defeat.
Legal Sports Report has reached out to Assemblyman Gray's office for comment. Today is the final day of California's legislative session.
The legislation came on the same day that a bill seeking to regulate daily fantasy sports was also introduced.
Who could offer sports betting, and how?
The bill would authorize already licensed brick-and-mortar gaming facilities to offer sports betting, including:
Card rooms
Race tracks
Tribal casinos
Those same gaming interests in the state have had issues getting on the same page in recent years regarding the ability to offer online gambling and poker, resulting in yet another stalled iGaming effort this year.
The bill would also authorize wagers that do not have to be placed in person:
The sports wagering authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be accepted and executed only using telephone, computer, or another method of electronic wagering communication.
Other takeaways from the bill
Entities wishing to offer sports betting would have to pay a licensing fee (to be determined).
Licensees would have to pay a percentage of their total gaming win to the state each quarter. That amount is also TBD.
Bettors must be within California's borders to place a sports bet.
Bettors must be 21 years of age.
Can PASPA be repealed?
The debate over sports betting has gotten a lot of traction in recent weeks, mostly because of the New Jersey case. The latest ruling there has made it seem nearly impossible for states to offer sports betting on their own, or to win that right via the courts.
While all hope is not quite lost in the New Jersey appeal, it's becoming clear that the easiest and most likely route to legalized sports betting would be via a repeal of PASPA.
How likely is that to happen? Given the fact that the current federal prohibition (outside of Nevada) is almost completely ineffective, legalizing and regulating sports betting seems like it should be an easy choice. An estimated $95 billion will be wagered on football this fall in the United States, almost all of it illegally.
NBA commissioner Adam Silver has been at the forefront of the issue, calling for Congress to take PASPA off the books.
What remains to be seen is what kind of appetite legislators at the federal level have for potentially opening up the floodgates for sports betting to be offered at the state level.
ringato3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joe B,
>
> Horribly misguided post.
>
> Would actually argue the EXACT OPPOSITE. Playing
> into a game with a 15 to 25% takeout, with obvious
> and wide drug problems which at times make the
> takeout seem like the SMALLER problem, is
> something our youth are too smart to do.
>
> I have two \"kids\" in their early 20\'s, who at
> times have dropped me off at the local betting
> establishment or even had a meal with me there.
> And they have often looked around at the people
> that frequent the place and said \"Dad, really?
> this is your peer group that you hang out with?\".
>
> Our kids are not the problem.
>
> The game has the problem. Nothing about this game
> attracts the next generation. Don\'t kid yourself,
> the next generation is more computer literate,
> more math oriented, and can look at what this game
> offers and see that there are MUCH BETTER WAYS to
> try and beat another game than there is at horse
> racing.
>
> Sorry Joe B, but your short sighted post is
> EXACTLY the reason the game is dying and will die.
> What you wrote is sort of the approach that the
> racing authorities are taking. They don\'t think
> THEY are the problem.
>
> Anyway, no offense is meant, but this is a
> sensitive subject for me as i do love the game as
> I am guessing you do as well. But without making
> changes and increasing appeal, the game will die.
> I have no doubts about it. I am late 40\'s. When
> I go to a racing establishment is the ONLY TIME I
> feel young. The demographic has a median age in
> the 60\'s. There are very very few people younger
> than my age that go to the track.
>
> Rob
Rob, many good points here, but I will shade a couple in response. I don\'t know the impact that sports betting has had on race betting, but there will be no way for the latter to compete with the former. There is no comparison of the exposure from age five, onward, and the combination of the games themselves, ESPN coverage and computer-generated information offers them a familiarity with the sport in their teens that gives football an almost insurmountable lead over racing. It is a common language for them, and also gives them the illusion of expertise (though a few have the real thing) that is evident if you spend any time on the message board of your favorite pro or college team. It\'s woven in the social fabric of their upbringing in ways that would not have been true in the nasccent days of ESPN and internet thirty to forty years ago when many of us were first dipping our toes in the water of thoroughbred racing.
As for the takeout and drugs, I think that is more of a factor in attrition of existing players than it is a hindrance to new ones, but I\'m not suggesting that makes it any less of a problem. It effectively compounds the felony. There is no question in my mind that the sport requites major upheaval, and there is also no question that the kind of change required, apart from (and in addition to) take out and drugs won\'t occur in the current landscape, because it requires centralization of authority and visionary leadership. The sport is not without its appeal, as evidenced by success of tracks mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but the success is segmented and unique in ways that are hard to replicate because of territoriality issues of both government and short-sighted leadership. It is not a growth industry in the best and most unrealistic scenario, but rather, on most days it seems to embody the oft-quoted line from the cartoon strip, \"Pogo\" -- \"We have met the enemy and he is us.\"
Just a few observations.
When you look at old (1920\'s etc.) pictures of horse racing crowds, the grandstanders are donned in suits and hats. I don\'t see a lot of young kids in those photos.
And one could bet sports in those days....just check in with Arnold Rothstein. :). Corner bar books have been around a long time.
Today, at any big event, (Belmont Stakes, Derby, Preakness, Travers, etc. ), the crowd is inundated with young people.
Casinos and poker? At most casinos, they poker rake is 10% from every pot. A little bit more goes to their promotions (high hands, bad beat jackpots etc.).
Then, the obligatory tip to the dealer when you win the pot.
Poker tournament takeout is usually somewhere around 15 to 20%. No bargain.
Table games have lower takeout but you must play every spin and every hand. If you are not a competent blackjack or craps player, takeout could plausibly rise from the 1-2% to 10% or more.
Online poker? Most of the young players who started online will tell you they were involved they were being cheated.
All those big names (Lederer, Ferguson etc. ) were involved in poker websites that cheated the players and, then, when the gig was up transferred 10\'s of million dollars to foreign bank accounts. Many never recovered the cash left in Full Tilt etc.
I totally agree that horse racing needs to improve \'marketing\' etc. but this is hardly a recent dilemma. I cannot blame it on poker or sports betting. (what does your bookie take?)
The big advantage the horse player has versus casino games is that you have the ability to select which race to wager your money. If you feel you have no edge or \'value\', you can pass. When you judge the odds to be in your favor, you wager. At that point, if you correctly assess the \'return\' on your wager, the odds should actually be in your favor. Thus, \'effective\' take out (my phrase) is actually zero.
Au contraire, once one bets the roulette wheel, or rolls the dice, or have blackjack cards dealt, the house is the favorite. Over time, the casino takeout rules.
I suppose Poker is really the only casino game where you can overcome the takeout (rake). A player that is selective in choosing what pots to enter.(weak opponents, premium starting hands etc.) can structure bets at each street that favor him.
Probably stir the pot a bit with this post....
Regards
Bob
Not to mention they\'re considering closing the track that has hosted the second leg of the triple crown for the past 145 years but I guess that\'s outisde of the stable core of very healthy facilities you\'re referring to so everything is fine.
Just imagine if every time you won a $379 or $366 pot in poker they rounded it down to $360 because that\'s \"just how it\'s always been\".
\"If you feel you have no edge or \'value\', you can pass. When you judge the odds to be in your favor, you wager. At that point, if you correctly assess the \'return\' on your wager, the odds should actually be in your favor. Thus, \'effective\' take out (my phrase) is actually zero\"
Bob,
Nice perception, but the reality is there is no such thing as zero takeout. Guys argue that soft/dead money in the pools mitigates takeout to an extent but again that\'s perception.
Racing\'s takeout is too high.Any math guy will show you how that makes beating the game, over the long term, extremely difficult.
The three T\'s need fixing for the game to grow:
1.Takeout
2.Testing
3.Transparency
Next time you run into NYRA CEO Chris Kay, try to engage him in a conversation about the above.
Mike
There were articles written 50 years ago about how racing had no young fans. Do you think it might be because it often takes place during the day, during the week, when the average 30-year-old is working? I don\'t know why this is perceived as \"new\" to some people.
It is the increased gambling competition that has hurt handle to such a great degree. That\'s not to say racing has made many, or any, good decisions to stay competitive, but pointing out the competition is NOT an excuse but a fact. The question now is if horse racing will let itself dwindle away (with Saratoga, Del Mar, etc. still doing well the way boxing still has a few huge events each year while it\'s invisible the rest of the time to all but it\'s hardcore fanbase) or do something radical to try to turn things around. Since \"radical\" usually gets executives fired, I\'m guessing it will just continue to hang on.
I wanted to add that there is no simple path. For example, we all know the takeout is too high. There are rebates, and that\'s fine. But as far as what tracks can do, even if they want to cut takeout, they have to get various legislators/bureaucrats to agree to it, and these people don\'t understand why it could help in the long run while hurting in the short run. Also, you cut takeout and the rebate players lose some/all of their rebates, so they stop betting your track and handle drops even more. The best thing would be if the current flawed system could be scrapped and started over, but instead there\'s a ton of red tape involved in making any changes that may not even help. So there is no easy answer.
As I age and reflect it seems as though an aweful lot of life was better in the past than it is in the present. This includes the ponies.
Growing up I use to get excited about a certain horse running my dad would say Johnny this horse or that horse is running do you think he can win? We would go to Belmont or wherever to watch. I had someone to cheer for something as a child to attach to.
Today my personnal biggest issue is the breeding shed is more important than the sport itself.
Fans need something to attach to,look at AP training and the turnout,Zenyatta always brought a crowd. Look at the turnout for the Derby the triple crown races etc. Give the fans something to get excited about.
To expect a newbie to the sport to get excited about a 10K claimer or a 28K alw is unrealistic,hell I dont even get excited about those races.
Good Luck
A lot of good points. But in some ways this is more simple than we are making it. Do drugs need to be out of the sport? Yes! But I don\'t know if that keeps people away. I can tell you that losers in a casino swear that every game is fixed. Indeed if you know anything about computer programming it is much easier to rig a video or online poker game than a horse race.
Many many also bet football more often because it is simple to understand and fantasy football has exploded. Horse racing requires some basic math knowledge: Trifectas, Pick 6, super, etc... Education in this country is going down the crapper so this hurts a little too.
The main thing that has changed and has hurt this industry is the gambler has changed. No one wants to wait 30 minutes between races to root for a wager anymore. Today you can bet on multiple things in seconds. Even football gamblers are rarely betting one game. they are far more likely to be watching multiple games at once.
The way to fix this is too make it an acquired taste. Like a fine wine. Cut the takeout in half(this is a big problem too) and do your best to make every track similar to a Keeneland or Saratoga. I am leaving for Keeneland in one month and I can tell you that everyone I talk to when I am there love the experience. Often people who have visited multiple tracks say there is nothing like Keeneland. If every state had a Keeneland this sport would not just survive it would flourish.
pizzalove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of good points. But in some ways this is
> more simple than we are making it. Do drugs need
> to be out of the sport? Yes! But I don\'t know if
> that keeps people away. I can tell you that
> losers in a casino swear that every game is fixed.
> Indeed if you know anything about computer
> programming it is much easier to rig a video or
> online poker game than a horse race.
>
> Many many also bet football more often because it
> is simple to understand and fantasy football has
> exploded. Horse racing requires some basic math
> knowledge: Trifectas, Pick 6, super, etc...
> Education in this country is going down the
> crapper so this hurts a little too.
>
> The main thing that has changed and has hurt this
> industry is the gambler has changed. No one wants
> to wait 30 minutes between races to root for a
> wager anymore. Today you can bet on multiple
> things in seconds. Even football gamblers are
> rarely betting one game. they are far more likely
> to be watching multiple games at once.
>
> The way to fix this is too make it an acquired
> taste. Like a fine wine. Cut the takeout in
> half(this is a big problem too) and do your best
> to make every track similar to a Keeneland or
> Saratoga. I am leaving for Keeneland in one month
> and I can tell you that everyone I talk to when I
> am there love the experience. Often people who
> have visited multiple tracks say there is nothing
> like Keeneland. If every state had a Keeneland
> this sport would not just survive it would
> flourish.
People say, \"There\'s nothing like Saratoga!\", \"There\'s nothing like Keeneland!\" AND \"There\'s nothing like Del Mar!\" . . . and, THEY\'RE ALL CORRECT.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to mention they\'re considering closing the
> track that has hosted the second leg of the triple
> crown for the past 145 years but I guess that\'s
> outisde of the stable core of very healthy
> facilities you\'re referring to so everything is
> fine.
You know Jerry I never thought of it that way.
Racing should follow a business model which has been successful in other
industries, keeping an aged facility open based on tradition. Right.
IMHO, horse racing\'s only long term chance is to reduce the take out to be comparable to poker or blackjack (5%).
To me, that means the number of tracks need to be reduced dramatically (like 2 per time zone) similar to the Hong Kong set-up. Hopefully, this would concentrate handle enabling lower take-out.
Lower take out means more winners/players.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jerry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not to mention they\'re considering closing the
> > track that has hosted the second leg of the
> triple
> > crown for the past 145 years but I guess that\'s
> > outisde of the stable core of very healthy
> > facilities you\'re referring to so everything is
> > fine.
>
>
> You know Jerry I never thought of it that way.
>
> Racing should follow a business model which has
> been successful in other
> industries, keeping an aged facility open based on
> tradition. Right.
Besides the obvious consideration of whether you want to permit Frank to throw money at the sounder prevailing facility with a lot more space in which to grow -- or throw TONS of money at the lesser structure, with its associated tradition. This decision is also fraught with MARKED political considerations, vis a vis the job base at and surrounding the Pimlico and Laurel facilities . . . it\'s a Gordian Knot, for sure.
Think the next impending crisis is what happens to Magna racetracks when Stronach is no longer around to support them.
Mike,
Consolidation is right around the corner as economics and the foal crop will demand. Eliminating some tracks and shortening meets mandatory.
Sports betting is a binary outcome with limited returns and should not threaten the much larger payoffs thoroughbred racing offers.
For me, educating the new players is, or should be a major concern/goal. Too many irrelevant statistics/quick pick options/and ill equipped touts abound.
As a brief example; blinkers on. Many of todays newer players immediately look at how the trainer has done with this move, which is an irrelevant stat. Better players realize starter approval is required and examine the workouts for additional clues. bbb
both sides are correct.
1)We surveyed over 100 online sportsbettors and poker players that were willfully breaking the law why not bet on fully lawful horse racing? The number one answer by far and away was take out.
2)Something that has 1000outcomes at 25% is going to yield more posev bets than binomials at 4.5%.
So these kids may be smart enough to know 20% is higher than 10% is higher than 4.5% but they\'re clueless beyond the nominal take out.
Furthermore it is naïve believing that the ever expanding online handle on horse races is coming from the same crowd that still buys paper racing forms.
Even furthermore, take out is not linear, this is game theory-if they dropped the take out 10%-Dana, Wagner, Elite, zjelko etc....are going to realize most of that, not many folks are going to find racing any easier despite the nominal take out being significantly less-don\'t believe me-look at sports-
same guys who beat -110 into submission previously, are same guys beating -105 now with obviously a few exceptions.
Cutting the take out in half from 4.5% to 2.25% has not resulted in a whole lot of change in who is winning and who is losing.
also, it should be noted, contrary to the hysterics, the states with legal online poker have found that the typical online poker player is a BRAND, NEW customer.
BTW 8% is the magic number-
IGT the world\'s largest slot machine manufacturer figured out 8% take out in slots maximizes slot income and I don\'t see why racing handle would be any different.
Sounds about right.
And that , presumably would have the side effect of putting some rebater tactics out of commission, improving payoffs.
I don\'t consider \"friendly government\" subsidized businesses healthy. They\'re on life support. And I noticed you seemed to have cherry picked some of the boutique venues like Del Mar and the Spa leaving the likes of Belmont off of your list. Ready to throw in the towel on the big sandy too?
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don\'t consider \"friendly government\" subsidized
> businesses healthy. They\'re on life support.
\"Friendly government\" was a movie reference. Which movie?
Is your \"life support\" statement an assertion, a tenet or an opinion?
Where would the Big Three U.S. automakers be right now without the help
of a friendly government? How about the securities and commodities
markets?
> And I noticed you seemed to have cherry picked some of
> the boutique venues like Del Mar and the Spa
> leaving the likes of Belmont off of your list.
> Ready to throw in the towel on the big sandy too?
My first visit to Belmont was in 1977. Since then I have watched attendance
dwindle drastically and have watched the physical plant deteriorate through
neglect; NYRA has done much more to update the facilities at Aqueduct and
Saratoga. Belmont will be lucky to draw 10,000 people on its big BC preview
days during the Fall meet, so it would be irresponsible for me to include
Belmont on any list of healthy racing venues, even though the relative
quality of racing still produces a healthy \"all sources\" handle.
If you wish to continue for a few more rounds, some facts or even personal
observations would be appreciated.
After reading the part about government and the automakers I had to recheck who posted this. Richie, you okay?
Don\'t know the movie.
Feel free to explain to me the difference between assertion, tenet and opinion.
The automakers and banks got bridge loans and backstops until the credit markets opened back up and, in the case of the auto makers, they restructured. Racing wishes its problem could be solved that easily. (I don\'t know where you\'re going with this anyway. You seemed to be arguing in favor of survival of the fittest tracks and then you trumpet the virtues of \"friendly government\" bailouts. Huh?
If it\'s not a fact and it\'s not a personal observation then what is it? Maybe an assertion, a tenet or an opinion.
My original point was simply that tradition does matter, maybe not to you, but to general public it does. More people watch the triple crown races than any other event in horse racing including BC. And that\'s a fact.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jerry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don\'t consider \"friendly government\"
> subsidized
> > businesses healthy. They\'re on life support.
>
> \"Friendly government\" was a movie reference.
> Which movie?
>
> Is your \"life support\" statement an assertion,
> a tenet or an opinion?
> Where would the Big Three U.S. automakers be
> right now without the help
> of a friendly government? How about the
> securities and commodities
> markets?
>
>
> > And I noticed you seemed to have cherry picked
> some of
> > the boutique venues like Del Mar and the Spa
> > leaving the likes of Belmont off of your list.
> > Ready to throw in the towel on the big sandy
> too?
>
> My first visit to Belmont was in 1977. Since
> then I have watched attendance
> dwindle drastically and have watched the
> physical plant deteriorate through
> neglect; NYRA has done much more to update the
> facilities at Aqueduct and
> Saratoga. Belmont will be lucky to draw 10,000
> people on its big BC preview
> days during the Fall meet, so it would be
> irresponsible for me to include
> Belmont on any list of healthy racing venues,
> even though the relative
> quality of racing still produces a healthy
> \"all sources\" handle.
>
> If you wish to continue for a few more rounds,
> some facts or even personal
> observations would be appreciated.
The Godfather 2
Hyman Roth talking about Cuba.
jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don\'t know the movie.
Its a rather obscure movie from the 1970s. The \"friendly government\" quote was
made during a scene where a bunch of gentleman are enjoying a birthday cake on
a hotel roof high above an island city.
> Feel free to explain to me the difference between
> assertion, tenet and opinion.
>
> The automakers and banks got bridge loans and
> backstops until the credit markets opened back up
> and, in the case of the auto makers, they
> restructured. Racing wishes its problem could be
> solved that easily. (I don\'t know where you\'re
> going with this anyway. You seemed to be arguing
> in favor of survival of the fittest tracks and
> then you trumpet the virtues of \"friendly
> government\" bailouts. Huh?
I am reading this passage over and over and two things concern me:
Firstly, the parenthesis which begin the second sentence never close.
Secondly \"Huh?\" is most frequently used by Ken Sherman, who usually
appears here after his posting privileges are suspended by the Men of Rag.
I was not advocating survival of the fittest in this case, even though it is
probably applicable to racing facilities. I was merely making a point about
some of racing\'s successful venues to counterbalance all the negativity in
this string (ie internet poker killing racing and lack of young blood and new
fans betting the races) (as one gets older, it seems like there are NOTHING BUT
younger people at the track).
To say that \"the automakers and banks got bridge loans and backstops until the
credit markets opened back up\" is confusing in that it implies that a friendly
government had nothing to do with restoring these credit markets, that these
credit markets are somehow cyclical and would have rebounded on their own
volition. But this is not the place to argue or discuss politics; if it was I
would be submitting daily dittys praising NYC Mayor Wilhelm Sharpton -
deBlasio.
Lets return to Racing. Unfriendly and/or apathetic state governments:
Massachusetts (racing dead); Virginia (down to one day of racing per year);
Illinois (racing on the respirator, Illinois bred foal crop now just over 300,
down from a peak of about 1100); and Florida (gone from 3 major racing venues
to 1, and one of the two shuttered facilities, now relegated to poker and
quarter horses, was a very historic venue).
> If it\'s not a fact and it\'s not a personal
> observation then what is it? Maybe an assertion, a
> tenet or an opinion.
>
> My original point was simply that tradition does
> matter, maybe not to you, but to general public it
> does. More people watch the triple crown races
> than any other event in horse racing including BC.
> And that\'s a fact.
To me, \"Tradition\" is a song from a beloved Broadway play (hint:
like the \"friendly government\" scene, it also involves a roof).
Prior to the recently concluded Saratoga meet there was a lot of hand
wringing over the changes made to the physical plant. Then a strange
thing happened: the Sun shone, the recreational liquids flowed, the
bettors bet, the bugle blew, the starting gate opened. Acquaintances were
renewed. We all came to realize, I think, that the most important traditions
had been preserved.
Tradition is a bit like cholesterol: there are good traditions and bad
traditions. Fraternity hazing, flying the Confederate flag, female
circumcision, arranged marriage all activities which have been carried on,
sustained partially by what you call \"tradition\". An old racetrack tradition
involved consigning horses who were no longer competitive to the \"killers\" and
thankfully horse lovers from the humble to the most wealthy have pretty much
put an end to this.
I have to stop because I am even boring myself here. There is an outstanding
series of 4 full field stake races to be run over the undulating, irregular
shaped course at quirKY Downs this afternoon, and I intend to watch the early
races to get a sense of exactly how boggy the turf is.
Outstanding P-Dub. Will be more surprised if you can name Broadway play I mentioned in my response to Jerry.
By the way, I\'m saving room for you on the Mets bandwagon. You can even wear one
of those funky Charley O. Finley Oakland A era softball uniforms.
JB, what can I say. Just about the time I turned 60, my inner voice went from
Jack McCoy to Adam Schiff....
Fiddler on the Roof actually had many songs, besides \"tradition\", from the world of racing.
The Breeders gave us \"matchmaker, matchmaker\"
The punter\'s lament, \"If I Were A Rich Man\".
And of course the constant racetrack buzz of \"The Rumor\".
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Its a rather obscure movie from the 1970s. The
> \"friendly government\" quote was
> made during a scene where a bunch of gentleman are
> enjoying a birthday cake on
> a hotel roof high above an island city.
Just watched that for the umpteenth time with my 18 yr. old daughter before packing her off to college. It was as close as I could come to passing on fatherly wisdom, particularly the scene near the beginning when Michael explains to the Senator that the two of them really aren\'t that different.
As long as you\'re on a rooftop roll, can you come up with something from \"On the Waterfront?\" Of course, since it might involve pigeons, it probably wouldn\'t be all that flattering to our kind.
Appreciate your writing. I love Kentucky Downs as well. Still don\'t know the movie.
Thanks Edgorman, never occurred to me that \"Fiddler\" was the Yiddish version of
\"Guys and Dolls\".
I didn\'t either, until Roger chimed in. It\'s not A movie, it\'s THE movie for guys of a certain age. The always underrated Diane Keaton is great, again, in a lesser part.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn\'t either, until Roger chimed in. It\'s not A
> movie, it\'s THE movie for guys of a certain age.
> The always underrated Diane Keaton is great,
> again, in a lesser part.
I have often advised younger sorts that if they wish to fully understand \'Mmerica, Part II is required viewing. Many have come back to thank me.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Outstanding P-Dub. Will be more surprised if you
> can name Broadway play I mentioned in my response
> to Jerry.
>
> By the way, I\'m saving room for you on the Mets
> bandwagon. You can even wear one
> of those funky Charley O. Finley Oakland A era
> softball uniforms.
If you retract this part of your statement........softball uniforms.......I\'m there. Great memories of those outstanding 70\'s teams. He was a cheap bastard but way ahead of his time from a PR/marketing standpoint.
Can\'t tell you the play.
richiebee wrote: There is still a stable core of very healthy facilities
_____________________
Can someone enlighten me more on Canterbury Park? I went there around age 14 but didn\'t know much about racing whatsoever at the time.
Their meet just concluded and the numbers look very healthy understanding that these numbers are spun to be \"positive.\" I actually have encouraged friends to play their races the past two months b/c of large fields for at least a few races a card and they have an excellent variety of races including turf racing.
Their website includes Poker and table games in it\'s title btw which brings me to....
How do they calculate their attendance? Does it include casino patrons those days also?
70 racing days, approximately $41 million bet, $170k in purses a day, nearly 6700 average daily attendance. I would say the racing product when including the concessions of 6700 people is supporting itself. Not sure of how purses are connected to casino revenues if at all in Minnesota. But a small midwest track with very healthy numbers the way I read it. Fields size of 7.98 not out of this world but solid.
($41 million times 20% average takeout equals 8.2 million, 170k times 70 dates equals under 12 million paid out). While the gambling doesn\'t support the purses completely just $10 per person at the concession stand/admission fees has the purses paid completely. And I understand part of the takeout goes directly to the state but the numbers aren\'t showing an abysmal loss by any means. One of my friends believes tracks make plenty of money and that we shouldn\'t put slots in Illinois or help tracks anymore. Fairmount Park had 4300 and 4500 attendees their last 2 dates this summer which is pretty crowded and makes me wonder if Canterbury is legimately getting over 6000.
Wondering if Mj can weigh in on his home track?
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/94385/canterbury-reports-increases-for-2015-meet
Canterbury has done a nice job of getting people to the track for years. They have created a much more family friendly environment than just about any track I have ever been to. Not that I bring family out there, but it\'s nice to see all the young kids running around learning an appreciation for horses.
So although Canterbury has done a fantastic job for year, unfortunately they just didn\'t generate the handle they needed to increase purses as most of the betters out there are $2-$5 betters. They pursued approval to add slots for years to help subsidize purses, much against the tribal casino interests nearby (one is just a few miles down the road from the track). Years ago they were able to get table games and poker approved, which helped. About two or three years ago, however, they finally got some traction behind their slot approval efforts. It became apparent the legislature was probably going to approve the measure. But at the 11th hour the Tribal Casino Government reached an Agreement to pay Canterbury several million dollars a year in exchange for them to drop their request for slots.
Since that Agreement was put in place, which also includes some cross marketing promises, the daily purses have more or less doubled, and the stakes program was beefed up. My understanding is the Agreement is a 10 year Agreement, but I don\'t know how iron clad that is without seeing it.
In the meantime, the racing product has been pretty decent. The pool sizes still leave a lot to be desired IMO, especially considering their takeout on their Pick 4 pools is only 14% every day. But their MSPWT races are now run for about $35k. A first level Allowance purse is 40k for a MN bred. So they have begun to attract some decent stables that had previously been running elsewhere, primarily Chicago and Iowa. I think they have a waiting list or darn close to it for stall applications. So all in all, I would say things are on the upswing. And they should be. It\'s a clean, well run facility and the backside accommodations are top notch for horsemen. The management was forced to \"Get It\" years ago to get the stables to come although the purses weren\'t as competitive as they wanted them to be. And now that the purse levels are much higher the track management hasn\'t forgotten what they learned from 1995-2005. Their announcer, Paul Allen, is also top notch and very underrated IMO.
MJ,
You mentioned one of the main problems with the game,betting pools too small to get gamblers interested in the Canterbury\'s of the world.It could be argued that closure of all such venues,with live racing,would increase pool size at the majors(NY, Cali, KY, FL)
Even with handle stagnant at $10 billion, the game would be way better off if that money was concentrated into a few pools rather than 15+pools on many days.Unfortunately, contraction in live racing venues may take too long to give racing a jolt which attracts extra handle.
Mike
Two quick thoughts off the top of my head.
1-- Since each of the tracks is a separate entity, orderly contraction can\'t happen. The best way would be for each one to run fewer days, leaving less competition each day, but they can\'t even agree on racing dates WITHIN states, or non conflicting post times, so good luck with that.
2-- Better for whom? Every venue that closes is jobs lost. Just like every business that becomes more efficient (usually through the internet) means jobs lost.
Growth through attrition is difficult enough in the hands of the most experienced turnaround experts, never mind the clueless clowns. It seems the industry experienced it\'s first rising tide phenomenon in what, 20+ years this summer. How do we continue the momentum, well, let\'s retire the biggest star the sport has seen in 35 years, and let dancing with the stars do a better job promoting his jockey than the sport can.
The continued push for legalizing sports betting in NJ essentially is what is going on here.
It is going to happen at some point.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2015-09-14/fantasy-sports-gambling-us-rep-frank-pallone-jr-congressional-hearing-draft-kings-fan-duel
In the first half of the 2015 MLB season, 91 percent of DFS player profits were won by just 1.3 percent of players.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/07/27/Opinion/From-the-Field-of-Fantasy-Sports.aspx?hl=1.3%25&sc=0
Fairmount1 - Odd that you should bring up Canterbury as I wrote a long note to their CEO earlier this week since they are a publicly traded company. (CPHC - trading at $10.29 today. Believe they went public for something like $3/share but guessing at that. I am not a shareholder, but live in MN). The jest of the note was urging them, based exactly on the numbers you present, to take a risk on reworking how the game is managed today in the US. MJ noted their casino deal, most likely the sweetest possible casino deal you will ever find - at least for a few more years, giving them an unprecedented opportunity.
http://www.drf.com/news/canterbury-park-casino-agreement-give-meet-big-boost
They left the harness track completely out of this deal at the 11th hour by the way, so it seems others will be standing in line when/if the next deal is negotiated, which makes the current window more enticing.
I pointed out to him that the current numbers sustain the current purse levels or very close. So, what better time to be he maverick track, and as Boscar pointed out along with others on the board, (the casino\'s figured it out at 8% rake),lower the takeout to unprecedented levels that you know all of your competition CANNOT match. My suggestion was 8% takeout on pick 3,4,5\'s, and 10% on every other bet. You have 10 million a year to cover yourself if it does not work for the next 7 years, but it is the only way as Miff or someone mentioned to attract big enough bettors to make the pools viable. HANA rates them 29/62, and gives their simulcast signal an \"F\" I noted. They drew a season high attendance of 20,000 on July 3 for night racing/fireworks, but the per person average wagered was only about $48. Dollar hotdogs and beers, and camel races won\'t carry them into the future if their casino deal dries when this is what that crowd wagers. No doubt they have a young crowd, but they need bettors. Lower the take out and it seems likely a double in daily handle is well within reach, and now you also have Midwest competition from Arlington and Prairie Meadows over a barrel big time, and since they race at night during the week, could easily become the premier night track in the country. It would have to carry over some to the daytime weekend cards. Anything higher than double their current handle and they are really moving not only themselves forward, but show every other track in the country the type of model that has at least a chance to move racing back onto the radar screen for the betting public.
I have sent many such notes to NYRA, and their execs, without ever as much as an acknowledgement they got it, and I have not heard from Canterbury either, so it was probably a time waster. But like NYRA\'s use of their current windfall for seemingly unwarranted purse levels, particularly at Aqu in the winter, Cby seems poised to stand status quo with current industry formats despite all the danger ahead signs visible and squander their unbelievable opportunity as well.
BB
Beau,
When the average per capita wagered is $48.00, pool size not an issue,it should be an automatic no bet venue to any serious horseplayer.
Re NYRA, they rarely respond to pointed gambling questions. If you approach a NYRA Official they are immediately defensive,one in particular, combative. How dare a gambler raise an issue, shut the \"f\" up and bet your money.Total jackoffs, but firmly in control.
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the average per capita wagered is $48.00,
> pool size not an issue,it should be an automatic.
> no bet venue to any serious horseplayer.
Hello Mike,
I used to agree with the above...until I went poking
around in the Canterbury and Remington offerings one
night awhile back. These are not your grandfathers
leaky roof night tracks anymore.
Plenty of value around at both places, and my win bets
have never moved a number.
(If my hundred-a-throw action is not \"serious\" on the
whale scale, fine, no quibble from me.)
Rick B.
Hi Rick,
With most of the $$$ wagered going into exotics/multi race pools, cant even consider gambling at the Canterbury\'s of the world and not a whale at all.Your $100 has to move the exotics/multi\'s a bit.Can see you poking around for action. Up to a few years ago, a good friend/sheet reader was sharpshooting the smaller pools with good success.
These days would rather wait for a spot and take a swing, grinding tougher today, players/data more sophisticated, yet another variable, so to speak. That hidden TG sheet horse @ 6-1,some years back, is now 5-2.
The only thing that seems to bring most of the players out, to some excess, is big pools(carryovers) or big race days.
Mike
Not too many more well versed than this guy, written a few years back:
Reasons for the Decline of Horse Racing
By BENNETT LIEBMAN (2O10)
We all know that horse racing is in decline. Thoroughbred racing declined nationally in handle by 7.3% in 2008, by 9.8% in 2009, and by 8.4% in the first four months of 2010. In New York State, total handle on horse racing fell by more than 10 percent in 2009. When you consider the changes in the consumer price index, New York racing handle is approximately 20 percent of what it was in 1974. What happened here? This article represents a subjective attempt to review what happened both in the nation and in New York State to bring about the fall from grace of the racing industry.
1. Other Forms of Gambling. Slots and casinos provide a simpler, quicker, more honest, and for most people, a more entertaining game in a better atmosphere. Lotteries are simple, easy, and convenient. Racing had a nearly total monopoly on gambling until the lottery came in. It may not be a coincidence that racing's best year in New York was 1964, and we've been going downward since then. 1964 is the year that the lottery began in New Hampshire. By 1967, it started in New York. While it didn't become a major fiscal force until the early 1980s, it provided the first form of convenience gambling, where you did not have to go to the track to make a bet.
By now, we have a situation where horse racing, which was almost the entire gambling market 40 years ago, is now a tiny part of the overall gambling market. Total thoroughbred handle in the U.S. was $12.3 billion in 2009. If you add in other pari-mutuels, you probably have a handle of $14 billion. Assuming a 20 percent takeout rate, that translates basically into revenue of about $2.8 billion.
Nationwide, commercial casinos brought in $30.74 billion, tribal casinos $29.4 billion, and racinos $6.4 billion. New York State raised $2.54 billion alone from the lottery last year, and lotteries nationally raise approximately $18 billion. There is also revenue from bingo, charitable gaming and card rooms plus considerable revenue from Internet wagering. Pari-mutuels (horse racing, dog racing and jai-alai) probably are down to about 3 percent of the gambling industry.
2. Traditional Individual Sports. Horse racing is not alone. Many traditional individual sports have seen their popularity tumble since the 1950s. These sports initially thrived in the early days of TV, but have largely faded out. Think of boxing, bowling, track and field, tennis. At one time, these were major sports. The decathlon champion was the greatest athlete in the world, whether it was Bob Mathias, Rafer Johnson or Bill Toomey. Now hardly anyone knows who the decathlon champion might be.
Boxing in reality is a lot like horse racing. It's an individual sport regulated largely on the state level. Now, nobody cares about normal individual matches. The club fight gyms and the club fighters have disappeared, and the public is only interested in the big championship events. It's a lot like horse racing where there is tremendous interest in the Triple Crown, but little interest thereafter.
Is tennis that much different? There is considerable interest in the four major events but not that much interest in the other tournaments. By now, there are top professionals like Serena Williams who hardly bother to play in the non-major events.
3. The Suburbanization of America. Urban ethnic America in the 1940s to 1960s went to the racetrack. As these ethnic groups moved to suburbia, they largely stopped going to the racetrack. Whatever the reason, when people left Brooklyn and Queens in the 1960s and moved to Long Island, they stopped going to the track. Pretty much the same thing happened in Los Angeles and Chicago.
4. Corruption and the Inability to Prevent It. The perception that the sport is not being conducted on a fair level has harmed racing greatly and almost destroyed the sport of harness racing. When there were no other forms of legal gambling, the sport could get by with the odor of corruption. But with faster and more honest gambling venues now close at hand, the sport cannot tolerate corruption.
5. Drugs. The sport has not been able to prevent the use of drugs and the belief that many of the sport's leading trainers have regularly chemically enhanced the performances of their horses. We have never been able to explain or explain away the Oscar Barrera phenomenon, where one trainer in New York in the late 1970s and early 1980s seemed to be able to improve a horse's performance magically overnight.
6. Public Perception. Numbers 4 and 5 plus the use of whips on horses and the catastrophic injuries we have seen in major races have contributed to the public perception that horse racing is a cruel sport which has little concern for the health or the safety of the horse.
7. Government Involvement. It is not that government has taken too much money out of racing and appropriated it for itself. That may have been true before 1980, but by now, most every racetrack has a very low tax rate. Now government's problem is that it cannot let racing or racetracks fail. It has kept racetracks in existence where there was no public interest in their races. It has forced racetracks to race far too many programs than are supported by public demand. The government seems to believe that the laws of supply and demand do not apply to horse racing.
8. Inability to Present Racing Effectively on TV. Again, it's not that racing wasn't on TV. It was on TV frequently regularly in the late 1940s and 1950s. The problem has been that we have never been able to show the sport to its best advantage on TV. It's much like ice hockey — exciting sport to watch live — hard to follow and misses something on the tube. We have never been able to make the sport move quickly. We have never been able to produce announcers who seem to be the voice of the sport. There is no racing equivalent of Vin Scully, Red Barber, Mel Allen, Keith Jackson, John Madden or Marv Albert. At least tennis had Bud Collins. Maybe HDTV will help, but we've never been able to produce a compelling televised racing program.
9. Takeout Issues. Again, maybe this didn't matter when racing was the only game in town, but how with a 20 percent overall takeout does it compete with slots (a 5 to 10 percent takeout), and many table games (skill games such as blackjack and poker) which give you an even better chance at winning. When you hear from the major rebate shops, that without the rebate, even their most skilled players almost never beat the takeout, you wonder why you play the game.
10. Inability to Market Its Advantages. Racing does have some advantages. There's a tremendous international interest in horse racing. It's one of the few sports where men and women can compete equally as trainer, jockeys, and drivers. It's the only sport with legal Internet wagering. Yet, we've never been able to use these advantages to advance the sport. Horse racing should have dozens of Danica Patricks. All we have are recollections of Julie Krone who retired six and a half years ago.
11. Failure to Race Horses. The average number of starts per runner in thoroughbred racing is now 6.23 per year. (It actually went up for the first time since 1992.) It was at 11.31 in 1960. How can you build stars or attract a following when horses race so infrequently?
12. Lack of a Central System for Internet or Account Wagering. It might normally be that competition is good in racing, but the lack of a central platform for account wagers makes it difficult and confusing for people to place wagers. The overall systems are simply too confusing. Can you bet Churchill on TVG? Can you bet harness racing through NYRA One? Shouldn't there be an easier way to exploit horse racing's monopoly on legalized Internet wagering?
13. The Knowledge Base of Racing. As much as we might enjoy the art and/or skill of handicapping, the learning curve for learning how to play the horses is simply too steep. (Again, there's no learning curve with a slot machine.) We have never developed a simple way for people to bet the horses with a modicum of skill. We have never developed a racing program which works to attract newcomers to the sport. We have made the act of placing a knowledgeable bet too hard.
14. The initial 1970s OTB Experience. I'm not sure that the existing OTB experience is all that bad, but the initial encounters with OTB in the 1970s severely damaged the perception of the sport. Because of the total absence of amenities and the disreputable conditions of the parlors, horse racing in New York went from the sport of kings to the lodging place of the low lives. Again, the perception of the sport of racing (See No. 6 above) took a hit, and I'm not sure it has meaningfully recovered. Ask someone about horse racing today. Do they think of Secretariat, or do they think of elderly unshaven males hanging out at an OTB?
Also, the initial OTB experience in New York truly hurt harness racing. With the OTB's rarely open at night, numerous harness fans — who wanted to follow horses in action — became thoroughbred bettors. I doubt that harness racing in New York has ever recovered.
15. Management in Racing. Perhaps it is understandable, given all the problems, but too often, management in racing is strictly reactive. They believe that they live under a cloud much like Al Capp's Joe Btfsplk. It has too often become a passive-aggressive world where people in racing management spend their professional lives playing the victim of the government and/or the racing gods. They have become terrific crisis managers, but not leaders.
Added New York State Issues:
1. The Breeders' Cup. The Breeders' Cup has destroyed any championship nature of the Belmont fall meet. The best horses were at Belmont fall. You had to be there to be a champion. Now these races have little meaning, and coupled with the presumed rest requirements of the modern thoroughbred (and the thought process of the modern thoroughbred trainer), a great horse is hard to find at Belmont in the fall.
2. No VLT's at Aqueduct. Not only has the lack of video lottery terminals made a mockery of New York government, it has significantly hurt the New York breeding industry. Why breed in New York when you can do better in other states? Given New York racing's dependency on New York-breds, this is an extremely serious problem.
3. Winter Racing. The winter racing requirement makes little sense. Aqueduct in January does help the purse cushion for Saratoga, but it dampens whatever interest there could conceivably be for New York racing.
4. The Detention Barn. While it might have once worked to prevent milkshakes, all the detention barn does now is discourage horses from shipping to New York. Five years of an ineffective policy ought to be enough.
5. Internet Video Streaming. It may not be a major deal, but there is no reason why the races can't be shown live on the Internet.
6. The OTB Structure. I actually think that by now this may be only a minor issue. The OTB's (at least those not in bankruptcy) now do provide a decent amount of revenue to the tracks inside New York State. For example in 2008, the bettors at Western OTB, which operates in 15 counties in western New York State, bet slightly more than $29 million on races conducted at the New York Racing Association. NYRA received in direct and indirect payments slightly more than $3.7 million from Western OTB. That's a return of 12.7 percent from an OTB system which is not located anywhere near any NYRA track. (Right now NYRA is in imminent trouble because of NYCOTB not paying these fees.) We could get some savings by combing functions and by shared Internet service, but the savings might not be all that significant. We would get a more efficient system, but it might cost as much as the current system.
I used to relate everything that happened in racing to the New York OTB's, but the fact is that racing handle is declining everywhere, regardless of the statutory framework established for the OTB operation. It is convenient but probably not accurate to blame this on the structure of the New York OTB's.
A Nonissue:
The Age of the Patrons. It is said frequently that racing has been unable to attract the computer gage people: Generation X or Y. Why aren't there younger faces in the crowd like there are at Saratoga or Del Mar? The short answer is that horse racing has always appealed to an older demographic. For decades, people have been complaining that there are no young fans at the tracks. The fact is there almost never were any young fans at the track. Horse racing is not likely to appeal to Gen Y. Horse racing's problem is that baby boomers — who should now be at the right age to go to the track — are not going to the track. There are more senior citizens in the U.S. than ever before. There will be even more in the next two decades. Racing's problem is that they're going to casinos and playing the lottery instead of going to the track.
Racing has never been a young person's sport. The problem is why the baby boomers are not going to the track and what can be done to get baby boomers to go there.
Bennett Liebman was the Executive Director of the Government Law Center at Albany Law School and Cuomo\'s man on gambling up to 2014.
Miff,
That is a great read! Thank you for posting that.
Patrick
other forms of gambling is the problem, which means further consolidation is probably the answer.
tables are quietly popping up in many of the crap casinos that used to be restricted to slots (crap as in poor quality, not craps). one in upstate NY just gutted the bingo room to go Vegas style with dealers. the casino replaced a strip mall that used to host an OTB (and no, there are no protesters out there calling for the return of the OTB),
racing was having a tough time competing with slots. the lower levels of the sport (ie claimers) have zero chance of competing with more and more full-blown casinos.
Great article depicting the size of the onion all who love this sport are dealing with. That being said, anyone at the track or watching on tv June 6th, 2015 experienced something that will in all likelihood stay with them forever, horse racing fan or not. Now imagine a world where there is a 1 1/4 race for older horses run on the first saturday in May at CD, a 1 1/2 race for older horses run at Belmont on Belmont day, move the JCGC upstate for Travers day, create an older horse triple crown. These individual sports ride the waves of their stars and rivalries. Golf, was in a lull between Jack and Tiger, Tiger brought it back and the Tiger/Phil rivalry brought tee time waiting lists to the lousiest of mini golf layouts. Or was that Happy Gilmore? Sports are in an overall decline because the character\'s that once defined their genre\'s have been knocked down by political correctness. Where is the Fat Guy spike and the Fat Guy dance? Where is Johnnie Mac telling the ref to \"grow some hair\"? George Brett and pine tar? Billy and Reggie? Tyson and his incisors? Enough of that, all I\'m saying is there are few sports left that have the power to generate the interest and excitement that we witnessed earlier this year and through the Travers. There is some momentum, and imagine the buzz that would exist if you could point an AP toward a mile and a quarter race on May 7, 2016, then have everyone be able to compare the times of the winners of the two races. Changing track speeds not withstanding. Oh well, that\'s today\'s fantasy.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not too many more well versed than this guy,
> written a few years back:
>
> Reasons for the Decline of Horse Racing
>
> By BENNETT LIEBMAN (2O10)
>
>
> 2. Traditional Individual Sports. Horse racing is
> not alone. Many traditional individual sports have
> seen their popularity tumble since the 1950s.
> These sports initially thrived in the early days
> of TV, but have largely faded out. Think of
> boxing, bowling, track and field, tennis. At one
> time, these were major sports. The decathlon
> champion was the greatest athlete in the world,
> whether it was Bob Mathias, Rafer Johnson or Bill
> Toomey. Now hardly anyone knows who the decathlon
> champion might be.
How does he get away with not mentioning Bruce Jenner?
You know Miff, after reading this entire list, published in
2010, I am a bit surprised that Racing survived the last five
years. Especially given the fact that leadership is neither
passionate nor imaginative when it comes to improving Racing.
Bee,
From the beginning of its popularity, the gambler is the foundation of the game, yet they are voiceless and ignored.Said before,give someone the power of handle, and things will change rather quickly. As long as the player is voiceless and apathetic to disrespect/abuse, things will never change much.
Mike
or at least 50% ends up going to the house-is one take away from the graphic at the link.
All these things are problems, but the biggest issue is that identifying the problems doesn\'t in any way solve them. There\'s no mechanism available to do so-- no central organization, no commissioner. When I published that lasix plan last year a lot of industry people got excited, said it was a good idea... then looked around, scratched their heads, and went back to what they were doing.
PTP:
Millennial Gamblers, Hats, Clubs, \"Action\" ..... or Value?
Jeff Hwang at the Motley Fool (h/t to @derbyologist) analyzed gamblers in his demographic in a lengthy piece anyone interested in the topic (read-horse racing) should give a go.
We often hear young people won\'t bet the races, attend racetracks. They don\'t have the attention span, you see. They also don\'t want to bet slots. They\'re a different breed that wants different things. Vegas, racetracks and others have tried parties, lots of interesting action betting, hats, and concerts. Although some of that might work to get them in the house, they are still not gambling.
The problem is, virtually all of the discussion regarding millennials has centered on abstract explanations seeking abstract solutions, when the biggest problem is likely far more fundamental than that. Few if anybody discussing the millennial problem have discussed it in the context of the declining economics of gambling itself.
What he speaks of is what we\'ve spoken about here often enough - metaporically, the squeezing of the lemon.
Slot house advantage, over the last twenty years, has moved up appreciably: From below 6% in 1996 to almost 8% today. \"In short, the player is losing money faster than ever before\", he writes. Slot handle is down about $60 billion since \'06.
Blackjack tables are disappearing as they combat card counting and raised the juice, paying 6:5 for blackjack.
His view: Young people are so educated and so aware of the deleterious affect of worse and worse payouts over the last 20 years, they are moving away from casino-type gambling. No value, no bet, we\'ll go hang at the pool, or as the author alludes, play Daily Fantasy Sports, or sports bet.
He suggests the following, to try and get these young, educated people to bet:
In our discussion on blackjack and table games earlier this year, we introduced a concept I call the skill-free rate, which essentially is the lowest house advantage of a comparable game requiring no skill. The implication is two-fold:
1. That a game requiring skill should have a lower house advantage under optimal play than a comparable game requiring no skill.
2. The more skill a game requires, the lower the house advantage needs to be to both compensate the player for acquiring the necessary skills, while avoiding over-penalizing lesser-skilled players.
The above is very salient for horse racing. In effect, you need to be able to send home winners, because the demographic which is predicated to play a skill game needs to know they have a chance to win. Rakes should be lower for these games, not higher.
We often hear horse racing is about getting \"young people in the building\" so they \"get the bug\". This is completely, unequivocally wrong. To get the bug, today\'s younger demographic needs a game they perceive can be beaten. If they don\'t find it, in Vegas, or at the track, they will find it somewhere else.
Right now, that\'s exactly what they\'ve been doing, and it\'s perfectly rational gambling behavior
Until they find out they can\'t win at Draft Kings or FanDuel either.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
We\'ve known all this for decades.
The player is the last one serviced, (or the first , depending on how you define serviced).
Bigger purses, better pay for racing execs, everyone gets a break \'cept the horseplayer. A 15% pick 5 doesn\'t cut it.
Take needs to be at 10% or less, across all pools.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We\'ve known all this for decades.
>
> The player is the last one serviced, (or the
> first , depending on how you define serviced).
>
> Bigger purses, better pay for racing execs,
> everyone gets a break \'cept the horseplayer. A 15%
> pick 5 doesn\'t cut it.
>
> Take needs to be at 10% or less, across all
> pools.
And the rebate players say bye-bye....
Wrong.
The only figure that matters, whether you get rebates or not, is the net takeout you play into. Whether it\'s a 10% takeout or a 20% takeout with a 10% rebate doesn\'t matter. And if the smaller takeout brings others into the pools or keeps them alive longer, it\'s good for the stronger players, most of whom get rebates.
They would have to lower signal cost/host fees along with takeout otherwise there would be no rebate houses.
Can\'t see any math where venues like NYRA could lower exotic takeout rates substantially without tons of red ink.
Something Joseph Heller would appreciate, \"we can\'t lower the takeout because the takeout is so high now\"
Recently it was announced that Spain wants to join the NBA...the world is shrinking, and to view the health of racing, the conversation should include South America, the Caribbean(hello Cuba), Hong Kong, Japan, Southeast Asia, the Down Unders, etc...at least two horses showed up at Santa Anita from CHINA this year...another from Russia.
I worked briefly in St. Kitts...15 years ago I attended the races on Nevis at a wild, beautiful, isolated mile oval hard by the ocean...the winning groom, a Rasta, turned to the stands and announced that his horse was the greatest since Secretariat...wagers were written by hand...a few years later Arthur Sharpe developed a track on St. Kitts, and today he competes with runners from other island nations at Beaumont Park...greyhounds and real estate help support the venture in this tiny country.
Love for the Sport of Kings runs deep world wide, as it does now for basketball...racing\'s future is global, and that is where I would turn for fresh answers and solutions...just one more arena where the USA has become less relevant.
DRF
Audit raises concerns over New York OTBs' financial situations
By Matt Hegarty
New York lawmakers should examine the statutory requirements imposed on the state's five offtrack betting corporations with the intent of shoring up their deteriorating financial condition, according to the recommendations of an audit by the New York state comptroller's office examining the OTBs' operations over the past five years.
The audit, released on Friday, called the financial viability of the five corporations "questionable," citing across-the-board declines in handle, operating revenue, and contributions to local governments. It recommended that the state legislature reconsider the formulas contained in state laws requiring payments to the state's racing industry, particularly to in-state harness tracks.
"Given the significant amount of 'upfront' payments the corporations must make to the racing industry and governments in an environment of declining handle, the corporations may have trouble reducing expenses enough to ensure their long-term viability without legislative action," the report said.
New York's OTB corporations have long faced financial problems as more handle migrates away from brick-and-mortar locations to Internet and mobile wagering operations. In 2010, the state's largest OTB corporation, New York City OTB, went bankrupt, and both OTB corporations on Long Island have struggled significantly with their own financial problems.
According to the audit, total handle at the five OTB companies declined 19 percent from 2009 to 2013, and "the downward trend is continuing," the audit said. Total handle on horse racing in the U.S. declined 11.4 percent during the same period. Operating revenue for the five companies declined at an even greater rate, by 24 percent, over the same period, while operating expenses declined only 9 percent.
Distributions to local governments declined 42 percent over the same period, according to the audit, to $10.2 million from $17.6 million. All five OTB corporations are owned by the counties in which they operate, and all net profits are distributed to the localities.
The audit raised specific concerns about payments made to in-state harness tracks under a "hold harmless" clause in a state law passed in 2003 that allowed the OTBs to take nighttime simulcast signals from other tracks. The audit said that officials from one of the corporations, Capital OTB, stated that it paid the Saratoga harness track $2.5 million annually under the law from wagers that generated net revenue of $300,000 for the OTB.
"The costs the corporations have to bear under this law significantly outweigh the benefits received," the audit said.
The audit also points out that the OTBs have been paying far higher rates for some simulcast signals over the past five years. During that time frame, many racetracks have pressed simulcast sites to pay higher rates as leverage in the market has shifted to tracks that have highly attractive simulcast products and to collectives of tracks that have banded together to increase their market power during simulcast negotiations.