Racing Don't Need This!

[Topcat]

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.

[jbelfior]

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.

[ringato3]

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

[TGJB]

One of several great posts on this string.

[HP]

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.

[P-Dub]

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.

[richiebee]

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.  

[Topcat]

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 . .

[miff]

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.

[moosepalm]

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.\"

[belmont3]

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

[jerry]

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.

[Holybull1]

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\".

[miff]

\"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

[jma11473]

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.