As I mentioned a few days ago Fairmounts inquiry about Canterbury\'s recent meet and their numbers coincided with a note I sent to them about as Miff noted \"racings 3 T\'s - takeout,testing,and transparency. I used most of the note to try to get them to at least consider reducing their takeout. As MJ noted, they have a cherry of a deal that lasts 6 more years. The have a card room, their daily handle of about $720k and about $10/day of concessions per paid admission (ave - 6700/day) pays for the current $120k/day in purses, and the topper, they are in the 4th year of a 10 year $75 million purse enhancement deal with a nearby casino, that appears to essentially amount to a no-compete clause for any other type of gaming. This combination guarantees them it seems a profit, at least until the purse enhancement deal dies. With that backdrop, I tried to impress upon them that racing is going the way of blackjack at casino\'s. (see 2 link articles below) Plus as these articles mention, racing has a double negative when it comes to any savvy bettor - to many decisions to make in wagering, combined with way to high takeout. With less than 3% of the wagering dollar now going to racing, down from 100% as short a time ago as the late 60\'s, racings fate seems sealed without major changes, which include lower takeout as #1 priority from our list of 3 T\'s. And,Canterbury is the only track in the country with the wherewithal to give it a shot. I used Tavasco\'s number, (I think it was his note), that casino\'s have figured out the 8% range as the optimum rake (up from the 6% range not to long ago - coincidence I guess that casino\'s have closed with that change??), and that if it worked for them that it seemed that would be the ceiling for any track to compete, especially given the learning curve compared to a slot machine. Surprisingly, they not only responded, but also called and talked about the suggestions for nearly an hour, and left me with a couple of questions and a \"I will call you back\" to talk more if that\'s OK! Every issue he mentioned as a concern has for the most part been discussed on this board, including the idea of the effect on the whales, which luckily I argued as JB did today that they were looking at it all wrong. I suggested 8% takeout on everything and pointed out how IF this worked, and their handle went from $720k/day to $2 million per day, they break even. Big jump I know, but, if successful, they not only take care of all the regional competition in the entire Midwest, but also any other track they run against. And, if they stay status quo, they will show a profit until the purse share agreement runs out, at which time every investor in the company will rightfully question what they did with $75 million over the past 10 years to project a favorable future? I am sure there are arguments against it, but the bottom line is they will remain in the lower third of the HANA rankings, run maybe Arlington out of business, and put a hurt on Prairie Meadows before the cash runs out in a few years, as each lacks their purse agreement, but really it seems almost negligent to not at least TRY it in some form. In the end, their question was, and I pose it to you, how much would you guess an 8% take on all wagers, would move the handle. They have a great turf course, one of the safest dirt tracks in the country, and a backstretch that appears to be as good if not better than the rest of the country -it was built in the late 80\'s. They averaged over 8 entries per race, so field size was good. I told them I depend on Thoro-Graph along with other data but that very few if any other TG users would look at Cby regularly given their current low pool totals and high takeout.They asked to actually talk to JB and any other large bettors that might influence them. Thus their first question - IF, IF they were to lower the rake to the 8-10% range on all or some pools, what impact what be felt?
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2015/09/millenial-gamblers-hats-clubs-action-or.html
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/28/the-death-of-blackjack-and-what-games-are-replacin.aspx
These guys could learn a few things from the Kid Rock business model.
Lower ticket prices ($20), concessions and parking. Concerts are packed.
Everyone drinking and buying T-Shirts.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6473080/kid-rock-20-dollar-concert-tour-announcement
If a casino in vegas decided to start paying 9/5 on blackjack instead of 3/2, how do you think that would affect their handle and the number of tables they would need?
How about having all the roulette wheels have one 0 and pay 36-1?
How many more rooms do you book?
Now same questions, but change it to an online casino.
At the racetrack, what happens to handle if the ontrack takeout was 10%, and the simulcast was 14%. Do you sell more $3 hot dogs and sodas that way than if it was just a flat 10% no matter what?
Most of the NYC OTB\'s had a 6% surcharge vs track price, yet attendance at NYRA tracks did not improve at all.
Any racing official who does not know that the game has permanently moved off track(app 80% of handle)is out of touch. Aside from boutique meets and big days, the masses are not going to the track anywhere near as often as they once did.
Spending a dollar on trying to increase attendance at the track is a waste of money.
I dunno Miff. I get it about the game moving more and more online. But I wouldn\'t throw in the towel on ontrack attendance. If I was the czar at a racetrack with carte blanche I would definitely do things to bring the regular players in (like lower takeout and offer amenities), and I would be doing things to bring the recreational players out as well. Canterbury does a very good job of this. They mail out vouchers that are guaranteed to be a winner (somewhere between $5 and $10,000) but they are only good on certain days, like Travers Day or MN Championship Day, etc. They have pony rides for kids on Sundays. They have free music and dollar hotdogs on Thursday nights. They used to have Golden Gloves boxing in between the races. All that stuff matters. Of course the facility also has to be clean and well managed with minimal hassles such as parking, lines at the bathrooms, traffic, etc.
They give me free admission and valet parking, which is nice. But if they also gave a 5% or a 3% rebate for ontrack wagers I think that would tip some people from playing online to playing onsite. There are other benefits to being on site such as being able to view the horses in the paddock, watch them warm up, note wind and track maintenance, view the entire field during the race, etc. Sometimes there are even hot women around, which never hurts. :)
MJ,
Everything I see,read,hear tells me Elvis has left the building re increasing on track attendance in a meaningful way.
At the smaller venues, it may be beneficial to do the things you suggest but at Belmont/Aqueduct type venues it won\'t fly. Weekday attendance at Belmont/Aqu is downright depressing. When I go,the place is stone dead, no buzz at all. The crowds of the past are gone, seemingly for good.NYRA tried the \"young\" concert route and it\'s going nowhere in a hurry,that crowd bet like $20 per head but loved to drink and chase the skirts.Did it create a few more new fans?, maybe, but that is not going to be meaningful going forward.
Bold innovation is required to possibly revive the game,that will not happen under the current Clueless Clowns/Politically appointed stooges.
Mike
If tracks really want people to come they can\'t run on weekday afternoons.
At one point the Betfair people (the ones I was friendly with are now gone) were looking at buying Monmouth, and asked me what I thought. I said instantly, put in lights. It\'s a beach area during the summer, run a twilight card. It\'s big bar-band area (Bruuuuuce), have an area where there\'s live music and a bar. Make it the thing to do at night.
That would help attendance and concession sales (similar things have worked at CD and Dmr), but the people who would come are not serious bettors. Having a lower takeout on track than off will make almost no difference in attendance in most markets, I believe. Lowering takeout a lot overall would be an interesting experiment.
Couldn\'t have been much more than 5,000 people on Stars & Stripes Day at Belmont with Perfect weather, 6 graded stakes, 2 G1s, the Suburban, a Food Truck Festival, a baseball Cap giveaway, petting zoo, pony rides and a post card concert by a Grammy winning Christian Rock Band.
Only things missing were a monkey riding a bicycle and Trump.
Need to attract betting customers first, then bring in the casual fan. But Belmont just too big. Never coming back to a time where anything except a Breeders Cup or Triple Crown race flatters the facility.
Beau-- yes they can talk to me, and they should talk to MJ, he\'s a very big bettor and it\'s his home track. You can tell them I\'m friends with Joe Friedberg, he\'s been involved in a lot of things with that track and is very well known. Among other things Joe was one of my lawyers in the Rachel case. (Also attorney for Prince, Dennis Green, Randy Moss etc...).
Agree on Monmouth and I think that is what they are trying to do. Delayed by 1-2 years after Sandy. Local residents have fought against lights but you are right on track with how it should be done.
Belmont has a geographical problem, and way too much competition for the entertainment dollar in NY. They are much better off going after the serious player. Places like Canterbury, Kee, CD, Del Mar and Mth are in entirely different situations.
Agree and edited/added to last sentence of previous.
NY Mayor De Blasio warming to the idea of permitting ATM type horse bettng machines across the 5 boroughs.NYRA also has go ahead on up to 7 Restaurant/theatre type simo operations.
Could be a boost for NY handle.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Places like Canterbury, Kee, CD,
> Del Mar and Mth are in entirely different
> situations.
Agreed. Many of those places, and especially Saratoga, are gateway drugs to the sport. They provide an \"experience\" for those in the maiden ranks. I was out at Turf Paradise in late March (the day that they had \"misidentified\" two horses, and one of them won). It was like a carnival out there, and it was jammed, at least for the size of the venue. I have no idea if that will have meaningful impact in terms of recidivist players, but it\'s probably the last hope for on track participation. Without that, I\'m not sure how to introduce the sport to the entry-level player. As for the more serious players, the conversation has to start with take-out.
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> They give me free admission and valet parking,
> which is nice. But if they also gave a 5% or a 3%
> rebate for ontrack wagers I think that would tip
> some people from playing online to playing onsite.
> There are other benefits to being on site such as
> being able to view the horses in the paddock,
> watch them warm up, note wind and track
> maintenance, view the entire field during the
> race, etc. Sometimes there are even hot women
> around, which never hurts. :)
The second sentence, here, is something I\'ve wanted to see seriously tried (feel free to fudge with the operative %, but it must be made worthwhile). None of this nonsensical fractional-1% pie-in-sky rebate junk; gun for 2%-3% from the opening whilstle, on everything a player cycles if he\'s on the grounds.
MonmouthGuy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree on Monmouth and I think that is what they
> are trying to do. Delayed by 1-2 years after
> Sandy. Local residents have fought against lights
> but you are right on track with how it should be
> done.
Monmouth WEEKDAY nights is a very good idea. The 800-pound gorilla is that the Trots in the Swamp would scream bloody murder.
I, for one, would immediately start betting ~$35-40k/year there. I presently play about 1x/week, sometimes 2.
Don\'t know how much difference that makes in the grand scheme (can\'t begin to guess how many or few of me there are), but there it is.
By the way, that would be up from my present Canterbury handle of $0.
Mr Brown
We spoke about 10 or 11 years ago when I bet on horses seriously.
My group and I bet about $15,000 per week in the good old days. And in the real good old days a little bit more.
In 2014-2015 I played almost every day of Gulfstream bet about $150-$200 per day. It was just for fun, give me something to do during the afternoons.
Once Gulfstream closed I played maybe 10 or 12 times DMR SAR MTH.
Again Maybe $150-$200 per day but without a doubt not more.
If you can convince Cantebury to have an 8% take and a wagering menu almost identical to Gulfstreams maybe I start betting serious again.
And that is how you convince the other tracks to do what we want. You put your money where your mouth is.
F the rebate shops; the same take for everybody, let the better man win that\'s the American Way.
Thanks
John Perona
I have always wondered why these ATM style machines haven\'t been used. Louisville just got Keno a year or so a bit in the dark ages. Still I think these machines would be widely accepted. Make little sense that it hasn\'t been tried.
John,
Tough to \"F\" the rebate shops and not adversely affect the game overall. It is estimated that up to $2 billion of handle(20% of the total handle) comes in from rebate houses/robotic batch bets from several venues.Much of this handle relates to whales/rebaters trying to hold an ROI of a couple of points, after rebate,over the long haul.
Personally skeptical that Cantebury or alike venues will attract some players regardless of takeout. Even if pool liquidity is decent, what type of quality would the racing be? Think there\'s enough players that would embrace Cantebury,but many would still be playing the higher takeout GP meet during Jan-Mar.The sum total may be that the Canterbury\'s of the game will cannibalize the pools of the GP\'s of the game but doubt handle goes up overall.
Mike
Wrong,
Fyi, it\'s a combination of NYC/NYS/NYRA as to why nothing has happened with the \"super otb\" style wagering tele theatres/atm\'s.Politicians all want a piece and the overall will to get this done may not be there.NYRA claims to have recaptured all of the lost handle from the closure of NYC OTB via NYRA 1 adw platform.
Clueless Kay/NYRA is wasting windfall slot capital on nonsense murals,HOF red jacket Bullspit el al while NYRA races continue to be mis-timed because of poor/ancient teletimer technology.There are other critical issues needing attention also but they ignore or stonewall.
Mike
Mike
Substitute Cantebury for Any Track USA, The reality is the game can only continue if the takeout is less. How we get their is one question the other question do we get their or does the game die.
I\'ve played for close to 40 years the track was the ONLY place my entire family was happy. It had something for everyone.
The only way change can come is if the players demand the change.
The only way to demand change is thru your actions.
Somebody needs to lead. And the rest of us need to follow.
Some might think the leading is the hard part, it isn\'t. The hard part is following.
If anyone wants to approach any track and offer them an increase in handle on the condition that if the increase in handle comes, they will lower their take to 8% for the next meet I would play their exclusively. Whats the worse that can happen. They change their mind. Then we call it quits. We admit defeat and start playing poker.
From what I understand this board has a following of industry insiders.
Its time for one of them to step up and lead.
Thanks
John Perona
John,
All good thoughts but uniting players/handle a tough one.Given the cost to run live race meets, handle would have to at least double for racing to survive with a takeout of 8% across.
If the 4 top venues( Cali, KY, FL, NY)somehow met in the middle, there could be some meaningful changes but that\'s a long shot, every venue 100% parochial.
Doubtful racing will ever die, more likely to stay stuck in neutral for some time.
Mike
I know I\'ve made this point before, but it\'s been a while so:
Bottom line, the thing that funds racing (ignoring horse owners and slots) is the net amount the public loses. My guess about big-money players is that they are more likely to be sensitive to how much they are winning or losing. If they stop winning, they stop playing. Bringing that kind of money into the game is of no real long-term advantage. Players who win are just another mouth for the industry to feed.
That said, the industry does need some players to win, so that others will make the attempt (and mostly fail). But the industry also needs to make it enough fun to play that people won\'t mind losing. Does the lower takeout do that, because people get more bang for their buck? I don\'t know the answer, but that\'s the real question.
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know I\'ve made this point before, but it\'s been
> a while so:
>
> Bottom line, the thing that funds racing (ignoring
> horse owners and slots) is the net amount the
> public loses. My guess about big-money players is
> that they are more likely to be sensitive to how
> much they are winning or losing. If they stop
> winning, they stop playing. Bringing that kind of
> money into the game is of no real long-term
> advantage. Players who win are just another mouth
> for the industry to feed.
>
> That said, the industry does need some players to
> win, so that others will make the attempt (and
> mostly fail). But the industry also needs to make
> it enough fun to play that people won\'t mind
> losing. Does the lower takeout do that, because
> people get more bang for their buck? I don\'t know
> the answer, but that\'s the real question.
Among the utter certainties surrounding lower takeout . . . players last longer.
Is that because it takes them longer to burn through a fixed bankroll (no net gain to the industry) or because their improved results persuade them to increase the size of their bankroll?
BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that because it takes them longer to burn
> through a fixed bankroll (no net gain to the
> industry) or because their improved results
> persuade them to increase the size of their
> bankroll?
Players will sustain their bankroll longer, obviously.
They won\'t increase the size of their bankroll, but they may be more willing to reload.
As that chart I posted reveals, it could be as simple as the public FEELING better about the game, the experience, when their bankroll doesn\'t disappear as quickly.
That\'s why Walmart is bigger than Whole Foods.
Interesting article on how real gambling execs attempt to tackle their problems vs the Clueless Clowns that run racing.A classic distinction between approaches by bonafide gambling execs at the casinos with innovation vs racing execs stuck in neutral ad infinitum.
Drudge Report;
As gamblers shun stingier slots, casinos shake things up
LAS VEGAS (AP) — Move aside one-armed bandits. The casino floor is making room for game zones with over-sized popping dice, digital spinning Big Six wheels and virtual roulette with an eye on adding arcade-style video games in the not-so-distant future.
As gamblers appear to be shunning stingier slot machines that don\'t offer as many payouts, game-makers and casinos are keen on coming up with the next big thing to keep people playing.
The changing casino floor will be on full display this week at the industry\'s premiere trade show, the Global Gaming Expo on the Las Vegas Strip and in properties across Sin City in the coming months.
Here\'s what the casino industry has been facing and their plans:
---
TIGHT SLOTS, LOST GAMBLERS
Slot machines have long been suspected of keeping a tighter grip on the money gamblers feed into them.
The proliferation of penny slots, in particular, with minimum and max-bets that far exceed a single copper coin and carry with them inherently worse odds at getting one\'s money back, has meant a gambler\'s wager doesn\'t last as long as it used to.
Casinos across the country, with few exceptions, have been keeping more of what\'s wagered on slots, according to research commissioned by the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers.
Their bottom lines, though, haven\'t gotten an obvious boost. Revenue earned from slots has been on the decline for years. That\'s because gamblers may be walking away from what they see as a raw deal among other reasons, said Marcus Prater, executive director of the industry group.
In Nevada, where the average payback on slot machines is 93.6 percent of every dollar wagered, machines must offer no less than a 75 percent average payback to the player. Most vary based on the minimum bets.
Changing the hold — the amount the casino keeps — isn\'t as easy as pressing a button. Prater said it requires alerting regulators and switching out a chip in the machine.
Tom Jingoli with slot-machine maker Konami and the association\'s president, said he hopes the survey\'s results spark conversations during the conferences between companies like his and casino operators, none of whom agreed to comment on the survey for this story except for the Downtown Grand near Fremont Street in Las Vegas. The CEO of that casino, Jim Simms, called the reasons for falling slot revenue, including slot-hold, \"nebulous\" and touted his casino\'s increasing rewards for loyal slot players.
Casinos devote most of their gambling floor to slot and video card-game machines, though the number in Nevada has been dropping since 2005 by nearly 15 percent to 152,263 slot machines as of last year, according to Gaming Control Board statistics.
The number of slot machines dropped 19 percent on the Las Vegas Strip.
---
SHIFT TO SKILL
Whether it was the recession, worse odds of winning or disinterested would-be younger gamblers, the industry has realized they need to appeal to players wanting a challenge based on skill.
This month, Nevada regulators approved rules allowing for a player\'s skill to play a role in winning, whether in part or in whole, which could lead to casinos looking a lot more like an arcade.
Casinos such as MGM Grand have already redesigned parts of their floors to accommodate elaborate electronic versions of dealer-less table-games, including craps, roulette and stadium-style seating for baccarat.
Justin Andrews, the casino\'s vice president of slots, said they\'ve crunched the numbers and players on those machines are 11 years younger on average than players on the rest of the casino floor.
\"Millennials are more attracted to the electronic table games than the traditional slots,\" he said.
Casinos aren\'t abandoning their most reliable and loyal gamblers who still prefer traditional slots, though, that often come decorated with the brands of popular movies and television shows. At the Global Gaming Expo, manufacturer IGT, for one, plans to debut TMZ, \"House of Cards\" and \"Breaking Bad\" licensed slots.
Slot revenue still accounts for 61 percent of the $11 billion Nevada casinos earned from gambling in 2014.
But casinos and game-makers are hoping to broaden their reach with an eye on the future.
---
GAMBLIFIED GAMES
The Downtown Grand casino-hotel near Fremont Street is redesigning its casino floor with plans to add skill-based games akin to an arcade at its entrance sandwiched between two bars, one focused on craft beers, as early as January.
Nearby screens would broadcast live sports and footage of e-sports where spectators watch video-game players compete for cash. The hotel hopes to eventually host its own e-sports tournaments, the \"icing on the cake,\" for their casino floor, said Seth Schorr, chairman of Fifth Street Gaming which operates the casino at the Downtown Grand.
Schorr also sits on the board of GameCo, a young company developing \"video game gambling machines\" for casino floors that will reward players who show some skill when playing first-person shooting or racing games, for example, with math behind the scenes that isn\'t entirely unlike video blackjack or poker.
\"They\'ve gamblified them,\" Schorr said.
Blaine Graboyes, co-founder and CEO of GameCo, said younger players aren\'t interested in a \"passive chance-based\" game. \"This is really the opportunity for casinos to reinvigorate slots,\" he said.
For all we know its the rebate whales that like the high takeout and pressure the tracks to keep it that way.
No, it\'s not. It\'s against their interest, as I explained somewhere on this string.
I looked at your posts on this thread , and didn\'t see any reference.
My theory is, that a high takeout makes the price on contenders unappealing (unplayable) to non rebated players, but playable for those getting. It may be a subtle point, but I\'m sure it\'s not lost on batch bettors.
If the takeout is drastically lowered, the rebate will be cut sharply. So for example, maybe a horse goes off 2-1 anyway (same price as the higher takeout) as that\'s the price the public will accept as a minimum. But, there\'s no longer a 5-8% rebate to be had.
So that particular edge will be gone.
https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,97751,97909#msg-97909
It was on another string.