CANGAMBLE

Fort Erie Gets More Band Aid Money

2012-01-21T11:28:00.000-05:00

Good news for the Fort Erie backstretch was announced this week. Fort Erie is getting funding for 7 more racings days, so they can prolong their race season to the end of October instead of the middle of October.

The additional funding is coming from the HBPA. The Ontario HBPA is funded from a portion of the 2% additional takeout on all wagers made in Ontario (4% on triactors). Woodbine was able to negotiate that down to 2% on triactors last year and passed the savings onto the customer as takeout was reduced from 27% to 25% on that wager. It helped make Woodbine's product more appealing to their ever growing US base.

Fort Erie on the other hand is literally hanging on by a micro thread. Total handle was down 19% last year, which was almost triple the North American average. The only bright spot was an increase in handle in the Pick 4, which was due to dropping takeout on that wager from 26.2% to 14%.

The betting public is more and more aware of takeout, and at 26.2%, Fort Erie's takeout on doubles and exactors is an insult to those who have any knowledge about track takeout. But even those who are unaware (including on track patrons) just don't get enough gambling satisfaction from churn because of the high rate. In other words, Fort Erie is doing nothing to cultivate its live Horseplayer when it comes to gambling. Fort Erie needs to reduce takeout on doubles and exactors to the 20-21% range (Woodbine has a 20.5% takeout on these wagers). California A tracks are still suffering major backlashes and a tarnished image from raising takeout on two horse wagers from 20.68% to 22.68% at the start of last year.

The four o'clock post time didn't work out. Probably an hour to an hour and a half too late. The later post time does make sense in the summer especially, and it is still something that is needed to get the dinner internet crowd on the later races.

Sunday racing is close to pointless. Even Presque Isle Downs has figured it out and have done away with weekend racing this upcoming season. B and C tracks need to find niche times and dates. Fort Erie would probably do much better with a 2 PM post time on Wednesdays instead of racing on Sundays.

Still not a fan of giving out so much money on faux allowance races. Fort Erie would be better served if they used those funds to prop up the purses for the $4,000 to $10,000 claimers. That is their niche, and at current purse levels, it is not economically viable to pay day pay for a horse that runs at Fort Erie. Fort Erie needs more owners as more owners wind up bringing newbies (potential new Horseplayers) to the game. I think by increasing bottom level purses and decreasing the higher end purses(or eliminating the higher end purses), that this could be achieved.

Fort Erie also has to aggressively push patrons to ADW wagering. Right now, they use HPI but they do little to push their visitors to open online accounts. And those with online accounts in the Fort Erie home market don't receive any rebates through HPI. Woodbine's home market members at least receive something depending on their wagering levels.

The biggest reason I don't think we will see any necessary changes is that Fort Erie is in the third and final year of a temporary bail out (a band aid) by the government. Unless there is certainty soon that the bail out will continue, I only see management having one foot in the door, one foot out the door. Without the same type of deal long term, Fort Erie will not have a chance to open in 2013, unless Nordic sells it to someone with deep pockets, and that seems highly unlikely.

I do think the Consortium is doing their best to avoid closure, and they basically saved Fort Erie and gave it the life it has right now. But, and this a big but, they don't seem to understand the gambling public, or the direction horse race gambling is going these days.

On a positive note, Fort Erie's website is very good, by the way. Free replays, free video and a free tip sheet. These are things that help, but the pricing of the bet is the most important thing these days.

DRF has increase subscription prices again, and Horseplayers aren't impressed. There is a big debate going on as to whether racing information should be free. Fantasy football fans have no problem getting stats on just about everything for free, and we've seen nothing but growth in that area. Anyway, a very good alternative to DRF is TrackMaster:

A study suggests that casinos would produce around an extra half a million a day to be given out in purses and breeder awards if Kentucky were to be able to put casinos in racetracks. That aint hay.

In case you have missed it, horse racing appears to have their own version of Casey Anthony. The Paulick Report has done a very good job covering the story of Kelsey Lefever, who allegedly sold over 120 thoroughbreds to killers, many were supposedly acquired under the guise that the race horse was going to find a good home.

Kelsey Lefever: Every One Of Them Is Dead

Pennsylvania Farm Fires Kelsey Lefever

Probable Cause Affidavit and Charges Against Kelsey Lefever

Kelsey Lefever Case: How to Prevent the Alleged Practices?

Pennsylvania congressman calls for passage of slaughter prevention bill

December Handle Numbers Buck The Trend BUT...........

2012-01-09T12:09:00.000-05:00

If only a 17.88% increase in handle in December was an apples to apples increase compared with December 2010.

First off, race days increased 10% which should mean an approximate gain of 10%. Then you have the closing of the NYOTBs in December 2010 (the OTB player has by now found an alternative), and of course Gulfstream instead of Calder had to help handle numbers.

Other factors to think about is the increased takeout in California which has a negative effect on handle overall, but then again, many tracks operating in December had lowered takeout on a few bets (like Hawthorne, Tampa Bay and Charles Town). However, signal fees have trended up from a year ago as well, which should decrease handle.

If I remember correctly, weather was pretty ugly in December and January last year causing quite a few cancellations (but that is reflective in the amount of racing dates).

And of course, the North American has improved ever so slightly.

One more thing. The US poker ban in April should have had a very positive effect on handle, however, because poker is perceived as beatable and horse racing is not, the amount of poker players horse racing was able to lure in has probably been very minuscule.

All in all, the December numbers look to me at best to be a wash over last year. Now, this is still an improvement over the 4 year huge slide we've seen, and perhaps a sign that the industry has bottomed out. But if it stays status quo as far as pricing is concerned, even a buoyant economy will mean very little when it comes to handle increases in the future.

The reality is that the new blood the game desperately needs will not be cultivated the same way the current Horseplayer was (years of going to the track with mom and dad, etc.). The new player will be attracted to the game if and only if the game is perceived as beatable by at least a few. Tomorrow's player will not be required to go the track to become a regular and the industry has to understand this.

Lower takeout across the board and betting exchanges are a must if the industry is to become relevant again.

NYRA Goof Up A Long Term Win For The Industry and NYRA

2011-12-28T11:17:00.001-05:00

Lots has been written regarding NYRA's overcharge. They were supposed to drop takeout to 25% on all exotics that had a 26% rate 15 months ago.

The end result is that mutuel payouts were shortchanged by $8 million. And contrary to what many think, NYRA didn't come out ahead by that $8 million. In fact, I'll argue that virtually nobody benefited from the mistake, until now.

Those betting through NYRA or their ADW were shortchanged $1.1 million. The reality is that most, if not all of that money would have been rebet until eventually lost. The game doesn't have very many winners, especially those who pay 26% takeout rates. So what really happened here is that New York Horseplayers didn't last as long as they should have. Most likely, there was little financial loss by the player in the scheme of things, except when players last longer they tend to add more new money (which most inevitably lose). The opposite of course occurs when takeout rates are higher and payoffs are lower.

Since 26% is higher than optimal takeout (a rate we can only speculate on), it only makes sense that bottom line revenues would have been higher had the takeout been
lowered on time. So NYRA probably lost out.

However, NYRA has vowed to pay back those who can prove they were short changed who played on track or with a NYRA ADW. The rate of shortchange isn't 1%, but 1.351% of all cashed tickets for all exotics except exactors, quinellas, and doubles, oh and Pick 6's (75% divided by 74%).

Since the damage has already been done regarding lost churn and gambler satisfaction, when NYRA actually gives the refunds back, much of this money will eventually be churned again, and those getting the refund will have a temporary jump start with a replenished bankroll. And to top it all off, they will be betting into lower takeouts as NYRA is now reducing takeout on the overcharged betting types by 2%.

Now what about the other $7 million that didn't make it to the payout prices?

Tracks sell their signal to ADWs, simulcast outlets and other tracks for a percentage that is lower than the actual takeout rate. The bet taker keeps the difference between the takeout rate and the signal fee which is used to pay track expenses, purses, technology expenses, marketing, tote fees, and wages, and in the case of ADWs that give rebates....rebates.

In the case of tracks and ADWs that either don't give rebates or don't rebate based on specific wager types and tracks, the NYRA mistake wound up with them. Instead of the difference between 25% and the signal fee, these outlets wound getting the difference between 26% and the signal fee.

However, again, gambler satisfaction (which is mostly innate) was damaged as they received less money than they should have, and couldn't churn as much as they should have. So using the same logic as with NYRA in house players, these bet takers probably showed an overall decrease in revenue than they would have had if the error was caught in time.

Regarding rebate ADWs that give specific rebates based on bet type and track, the Horseplayers there most likely wound up slightly ahead. Had the rates dropped by 1%, the rebates too, would have dropped by 1%. So instead of getting back the extra 1.1351% on cashed wagers, these players wound up getting back and extra 1% on all monies wagered on the affected bet types. Pretty much a stale mate. The industry didn't lose on these players overall, nor was gambler satisfaction and churn affected. Exception, of course, to anyone who showed an overall profit on the affected NYRA wager types, and rebate or no rebate, that number is most likely minuscule.

So going forward, this faux pas by NYRA has resulted in a takeout reduction. A forced experiment which may lead to further reductions, not just by NYRA but other tracks as well. Churn will now increase and along with that, player satisfaction is about to rise.

I'm not defending the mistake at all, but I hope NYRA handle starts showing tremendous increases. It will be great for the game if that happens.

This mistake could be the beginning of a brand new phase of growth, a turning point, much like the turning point when the first chimp actually spoke in the Planet of the Apes series. Instead of the rise of the chimp, it is the Horseplayers turn, one can only hope:)

One more thing, on a quasi related note, RIP Cheetah 1931-2011. The 1930's, those were the days, a 10% average takeout....they were onto something back then.

17-20-22

2011-12-16T11:15:00.001-05:00

Reducing takeout in today's horse racing environment is a complicated issue. For future growth, it is a must, but tracks reducing rates are bound to feel at least a little short term heat.

The problem is that the majority of track handle, in most cases, comes from sources where that particular track is not necessarily the only focus of the bettor who plays it. Much of the money that is cashed on a track with a lower takeout rate gets bet back on other tracks. The majority of ADW and simulcast players are not price sensitive to the point that they choose tracks that are more Horseplayer friendly in the way of takeout. There is good reason to believe that the majority of players fly by the seat of their pants, starting with a certain bankroll (possibly adding to what they were willing to lose at the start of the day if they don't hit early enough), and they continue playing 2-5 tracks or more until they are tapped, or they actually run out of time or races to bet for the day (which ensures they will have a bankroll for tomorrow).

The bulk of the money being bet by the price sensitive minority. Whales for the most part, but also systematic players who only bet when they get value. Value is enhanced greatly by either low takeout, or through rebates (but generally, from tracks that don't charge high signal fees, therefore keeping net takeout for those tracks to be comparatively lower).

HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America) has done an excellent job in educating the Horseplayer when it comes to takeout and price sensitivity. There has been an awakening of sort, as we've seen tracks that have lowered their takeout and haven't upped their signal fees actually shown increase in handle, even though handle continues to fall overall (thanks mainly to increased signal fees, and increased takeout in California).

There have been enough bettors who have stopped playing California (and even some who recently quit playing Turf Paradise as they too raised takeout rates) and have diverted those betting dollars to more Horseplayer friendly venues.

This minor betting revolt has turned out to be good news for tracks like Woodbine, Hastings, and Zia Park.

Churchill handle dropped a bit, and this is most likely due to higher signal fees and the fact that their signal isn't available at all ADWs.

Again, it is critical that tracks allow their current customers to last longer. Churn is synonymous with gambler satisfaction in most instances. Being able to last, keeping the Horseplayer in the game longer, gives the player more hope.

I can't state this enough: A player who lasts longer is more likely to expose others to the game. But for optimal growth, horse racing needs to produce visible long term winners, and in order for that to happen, it must either embrace rebates and/or lower takeout significantly.

However, because of the fact that tracks with lower takeout rates can get hurt by tracks with higher takeout rates, a little collusion is in order. I don't think it is unreasonable for the entire industry to get together and place a cap on takeout with long term growth in mind.

I think the 17-20-22 plan makes sense for starter. That is a 17% cap on WPS, a 20% max on exactors and doubles, and a 22% cap on all other exotics.

I know that those numbers are still too high, but it is a huge step in the right direction.

At this time, only Keeneland and Churchill Downs are within the prescribed limits. Charles Town recently dropped takeout is extremely close, falling short by .25% on WPS. There are quite a few other tracks that wouldn't have to make too many enemies with horsemen groups in order to satisfy my proposal.

The big problem in getting this to happen is herding the cats that run the racetracks. Who is going to do it?

BUY CANADIAN CAMPAIGN
Harness handle isn't off that much this year. Low signal fees, enabling larger rebates, have kept them close to status quo. Standardbred Canada is trying to up handle by year end by linking to free past performances and giving selections on a new web page. Check it out.

Harness fans, don't forget about the USTA Strategic Wagering page which offer free TrackMaster past performances for guaranteed pool sequences. Good stuff!

ADVERTISEMENT

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses. No minimums. Start getting bonuses immediately.

SPECIAL BONUS OFFER TO NEW MEMBERS AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM

BET $80 GET $40 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT

Wager at least $80 in total, win or lose, and you will get $40 deposited into your account. You will also start receiving industry high Player Reward Bonuses daily as soon as you start wagering. To earn the $40 Bonus you must wager at least $80 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.

CLICK TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT

Why Horseplayersbet.com?:

* Industry High Player Reward Bonuses added to your account daily
* User friendly betting interface makes wagering easy
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS
* FREE RACE REPLAYS
* Wager Online or by Phone
* Great customer service
* 100% Parimutuel
* Bet cancellation capabilities
* No membership or wagering fees

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, "WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST." SIGN UP TODAY AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING US BASED ADWS

Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses, or lose. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.

Horse Racing Missed Out Big Time: Is It Too Late?

2011-11-22T17:06:00.002-05:00

I watched CNN yesterday morning, and caught a story about the Full Tilt Poker disaster. I know the story is all about the problems facing Full Tilt players who have balances with the suspended company, however one bit of info resonated with me in a large way: 8% of US players make a living playing poker. And that 8% represents 35,000 players. Quick math, and you wind up with almost 4.4 million online poker players.

Here is the clip:

In horse racing there is no discussion, no figures, no studies on how many people make a living at the game. The old line is that 2% of Horseplayers beat the game long term(and this line goes back to the 1960's when collective takeout was much lower and there was oodles of dummy money in the pools).

Nowadays, 2% would be way way way too high, and the industry knows it. The industry also knows that the only long term winners are those who get rebates (and yet there are numbskull racetrack execs who state that rebates are bad for the game).

Horse racing is stuck when it comes to marketing. They can't market the game as a way to make a living, like poker can (even though poker doesn't actually go out and say it, word of mouth and the internet is all poker needs).

I believe that even if the amount of long term winners in horse racing was 2.5% or so, racing would be flourishing, and newbies would be attracted in large quantities. Horse racing has the extra hurdle in that the learning curve is much steeper than poker's learning curve. However, I also believe that horse racing would have much more broader appeal if the game was perceived as beatable.

Horse racing handle doesn't grow despite The Secretariat Movie, Zenyatta, exposure on a multitude of TV shows, and even prohibition on US poker players. There is something wrong. Just like with US congress these days, the system is broken. Even if you throw the bums on the street (the high end racing execs), the system is still broken. The system needs a complete overhaul, and racetracks need restraining orders from the racing execs and horsemen groups who believe that growth is getting a higher bigger piece of a shrinking pie.

And to the horse racing execs who believe rebates are a bad thing, THINK!!!!

Even if a $50 a day bettor gets an extra $2 or $3 bucks the next day, that player is still in the game one day more than he or she would have in many cases. The longer they are in the game, the more likely they are to keep horse racing in their head and the more likely they are to expose others to horse racing (friends, sons, daughters, coworkers, etc.).

However, horse racing execs and racing jurisdictions do almost everything possible to knock these people out of the game.

First, you have States that make it impossible to rebate because they charge a fee on every bet made within the State. Some as high as 10%.

Then you have some tracks and signal distribution companies that limit content, some tied in with ADWs, (so they attempt to limit the content of competing ADWS). If a track isn't available at a Horseplayers favorite ADW, the result is that it sours racing's every day customers. Sure, some may come over to the ADW with more content, but the result is racing ends up losing more aggregate customers in the long term.

And then there is Texas, who has written into law that internet horse race betting is amongst Texas residents is now illegal. At first I thought the horsemen groups were stupid enough to think it would bring more people to the track (and they would get more money from it in theory...in actuality, it will kill horse racing in Texas as Horseplayers will become less and less interested, and follow less even if they were used to going to the track a few days a week, the fact it is now illegal to wager when they can't make it to the track will cause them to just give up...the same thing happened in Arizona 4 years ago. HINT Yavapai is bankrupt and for sale). It turns out that the one to blame is probably Presidential candidate Rick Perry. When horse racing is dead in Texas within the next five years, try to remember his name.

Texas has 8% of the US population. Sure, part of the population is very religious, but there are many gamblers in Texas too. And tracks are sporadic. Nationwide handle could drop 5-6% thanks to the new law.

And now you have Kentucky looking to charge ADW customers an extra fee for bets made by Kentucky residents. This will result in lower rebates for all Kentucky residents which will hurt handle even more.

So racing is chasing away Horseplayers who already know its a bad bet to begin with. Tremendous logic. And the ones with all the power are the ones who are looking to get a bigger slice from a shrinking pie.

REALITY: ADWs and rebates (as long as takeout rates remain above 12%), and exchange wagering represent racing's only chance at growth going forward. We need visible winners to attract poker players and other potential young gamblers. Horse racing needs to understand and embrace this fact. But racing seems bent on increasing the cost to the rebated player while also limiting distribution.

EQUINOMETRY (Horse Racing For Intelligent Horseplayers) has some great posts about takeout and handle.

There is even a post about the growth of handle in Fort Erie's Pick 4 pool thanks to a reduced track takeout.

Jen Morrison is rightfully pissed at the lack of transparency in horse racing when it comes to information available to the betting public. Her focus was the complete form reversal by Flip Of The Coin last week at Woodbine.

For Canadian TV viewers, there is documentary on OMNITV Friday morning at 9 EST called For The Love Of Horses. It is all about the Attard family. I missed it on Sunday because Sunday is my horse racing break night (Animation Domination, yeah baby!!!!....that and I haven't figured out how to record on Blue Ray yet).

One more thing. Back to Full Tilt Poker and their "not a Ponzi scheme plea." Sorry, but the funds were not segregated (they weren't required to be segregated but that is besides the point), and at the time the plug was pulled, there was not nearly enough cash to pay the customers, yet the owners were pulling funds out that really represented possible future profits...uh, I'm going with Ponzi scheme. They are not a bank that has enough cash on hand to meet daily withdrawals with the rest invested more or less, but they acted like a bank without the collateral.

In the gambling world, that is no no. ADWs based in Oregon, for example, must segregate gambling funds. That is the way it should be. Too bad that isn't enough (nor should it be) to attract poker players to horse racing....again, VISIBLE WINNERS, VISIBLE WINNERS, VISIBLE WINNERS....

15 Million Young Viewers Get Exposed To Horse Racing: No Bettors Created

2011-11-12T11:27:00.000-05:00

A week last Thursday I watched on of my favorite show The Big Bang Theory. The show gets around 15 million viewers a week on the first run episodes. Mostly young viewers too. At 50 I'm still counted in the 25-54 crowd:)

Leonard, one of the main characters was shown playing an interactive video horse racing game:

Exposure like this would actually create more players....if it was poker instead of horse racing.
Too bad horse racing is known to be unbeatable (thanks to mindlessly high takeouts which makes the prospect of being a long term winner impossible unless one is receiving decent rebates...and still it is near impossible in that case).

Instead, this free advertising for horse racing will most likely only create more sales for the Kinect Xbox 360 Bundle and the Champion Jockey game that Leonard was playing.

I am seriously thinking of getting one myself (I'll probably wait until Boxing Day). Looks like a way I can get into exercising. And outside of forking over around $400, there is no track takeout. I can see my actual handle dropping off if I make the purchase as it looks like so much fun it might cut into my handicapping time.

Movies like Secretariat, the fan base created during Zenyatta's quest, and the new comedy movie (And They're Off) about a down and out trainer, and the upcoming HBO series Luck are wasted because there are no visible winners who beat the races long term.

Great to Caroline Betts get a seat at the table at the upcoming Race Track Industry Program Symposium in Arizona early next month. She will be giving the facts on optimum takeout.

I still don't get why Arizona is the meeting place. You can't even bet over the internet in that state. I know the weather is probably good, but why not a racing friendly state in the south instead?

Free Stuff For The Breeders' Cup

2011-11-04T09:24:00.001-04:00

Do you want free Breeders' Cup past performances?, simple, go to the Breeders' Cup website (bottom middle) and download Friday and/or Saturday's card.

For just about everything else free, go to About Horse Racing's Breeders' Cup page and you can link to videos of prep races, news coverage, handicapping info, and much more.

You can also check out Breeders' Cup Youtube page.
There is even a video about Chantal Sutherland who rides Game On Dude in the Classic (as she tries to become the first woman jockey to win that event). She is considering Playboy (as long as it is tasteful...personally, I've never seen a Playboy spread that wasn't tasteful):

She better hurry up and do Playboy as she is getting up there in age:)

Free past performances are very important to an industry that is plummeting while trying to keep old customers, and attract new ones.

Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance has a free past performance feed that picks up around a third of all the races in the USA and Woodbine.

Many harness tracks in Canada have free past performances: Flamboro Downs, Fraser Downs, Georgian Downs, Kawartha Downs, Mohawk/Woodbine, Rideau Carleton, Western Fair, and Windsor Raceway.

Another decent initiative is one called USTA Strategic Wagering. Partnered up with TrackMaster, free past performances for specific guaranteed pools each day are available.

And for my Breeders' Cup Classic pick, I am going with So You (Never Been On The Dirt Before) Think on top of Stay Thirsty, Prayer For Relief, and Ruler On Ice. I can't see Uncle Mo at all. First, the mile and a quarter seems way too far for him, and secondly, there is too much early pace. I can see him packing it in and finishing in the bottom third very easily.

ADVERTISEMENT

Playing The Breeders' Cup? Why not get back $40 for your first $80 wagered?:

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses. No minimums. Start getting bonuses immediately.

SPECIAL BONUS OFFER TO NEW MEMBERS AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM

BET $80 GET $40 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT

Wager at least $80 in total, win or lose, and you will get $40 deposited into your account. You will also start receiving industry high Player Reward Bonuses daily as soon as you start wagering. To earn the $40 Bonus you must wager at least $80 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.

CLICK TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT

Why Horseplayersbet.com?:

* Industry High Player Reward Bonuses added to your account daily
* User friendly betting interface makes wagering easy
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS
* FREE RACE REPLAYS
* Wager Online or by Phone
* Great customer service
* 100% Parimutuel
* Bet cancellation capabilities
* No membership or wagering fees

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, "WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST." SIGN UP TODAY AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING US BASED ADWS

Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses, or lose. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.

Horse Racing Needs Rats To Help Clean The Game Up

2011-10-26T11:16:00.000-04:00

Former backstretch employee T.Y. Faulkner wrote a piece on The Paulick Report, A Bounty For Cheaters, that seems to have struck a nerve (judging by many of the comments).

He pretty much sums up his proposal in one paragraph:

"The racing organizations should step up with some serious monies to "bait" this information from within the backside. I would like to see posters offering $10,000 or more for information that leads to catching cheats. This information would have to be represented to the authorities and the bounty paid only if and when we could identify by testing the substances being used. Someone held that horse for the injection or saw a veterinarian in the barn in the middle of the night."

As I pointed out in the comment section, his idea has already been implemented in Ontario:

Horse Racing Community partners with Crime Stoppers

Call 1-800-222-TIPS to anonymously report information on any crime

In order to maintain the honesty and integrity of horse racing, the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) maintains an official partnership agreement with Crime Stoppers. Crime Stoppers is a not-for profit community-based charitable program involving the co-operative efforts of the community, the media and the police in the fight against crime.

With the financial support of the industry-funded ORCEquine Medication Control and Drug Task Force, there is now a program in place to give Ontario’s horse racing community an anonymous, confidential way to report any illegal activity related to horse racing.

With the Crime Stoppers program, Called ID is never in place, callers are never asked to identify themselves, nor will they ever be asked to testify or be named. Cash rewards are offered to people who call the program and their information assists in an investigation.

By far the majority of people who work in horse racing are honest, dedicated professionals who care about the horse and play by the rules. If you witness or know of any illegal activity, don’t hesitate to take a stand. Report the activities anonymously. It’s your future. It’s your business.

Call Crime Stoppers 1-800-222-TIPS (1-800-222-8477)

This program began over 4 years ago. The obvious questions are How many cash rewards have been given out? How many suspensions has this initiative led to? and How reliable have the tipsters been?

Ontario might be one of the cleaner jurisdictions in North America, but there are still many horses that rebreak in the stretch (which to me is an indication of extra oxygen...I could be wrong, but on polytrack, I doubt I am wrong more times than not).

The biggest problem with Faulkner's idea and the ORC initiative is that there needs to be a huge fine and huge suspension associated with getting caught. What is the point if the trainer gets a slap on the wrist?, as is the case in most instances that are made public.

Disgruntled ex employees (grooms and hotwalkers etc.) may not be the most reliable source, especially if the reward is too high. But I don't see the harm in at least trying snitch programs at every track to see where it leads.

It would be great if ex trainers or ex vets had the balls to "rat out" the industry, but there seems to be some sort of mafioso club type of connection backstretch people have whether they are in the game still or out of the game. And when someone finally does talk they get slammed by their former coworkers (remember when Shane Sellers admitted to using buzzers?).

Dutrow may be a scapegoat, hopefully not. Hopefully severe fines and suspensions will become more persistent, and finally become a deterrent to the obvious cheating that is going on in horse racing.

Personally, I get turned off handicapping races and sometimes it prevents me from handicapping full cards, when I see super trainers in the race or races. They definitely do not help the game in any way shape or form. And of course, it isn't just the super trainers who cheat, but the super trainers seem to have their Teflon ways about them.

ITPP News
ITPP Research Receives Funding From PHHA

Researchers have found that mice with damaged hearts increased exercise levels by 35 per cent when given the drug orally, and 60 per cent when it was injected in the abdomen.

Hong Kong Has ITPP Test

One of the Group One Winners at the Moonee Valley meet in Australia tested positive for arsenic (one of the ingredients in ITPP)

Hanging On By A Thread
Fort Erie announced that they have applied for less dates and a shorter season next year. They intend to race 69 days, down from 78 this year.

Interesting observation:
...the track was successful in accomplishing their goal of attracting new customers with their twilight races and live music, but over the same time period, they lost many of their older, more dedicated attendees, mostly attributed to the poor economy and weak US dollar which kept many Americans on their side of the border.

I'm not sure that I buy into the excuses given. It doesn't make sense that they could attract new customers if the reasons given for losing the older customers is correct. Older customers are dying out, more people are playing online, and as for the economy I don't see people buying less lottery tickets, and as for not attracting Americans to cross the border, that is old news, long before the Consortium took over.

If they are in fact attracting new customers, it won't last too long as a 26% takeout on exactors and doubles wipe them out very quickly and take away incentive to come back.

Handle at Fort Erie this year has been abysmal. The only bet that seems to be doing well is the Pick 4 (they reduced the takeout on that bet to 14% this year).

Horse racing is in decline when it should be flourishing, but it all starts with takeout. The money returned to bettors is too low and non competitive with other forms of gambling.

Woodbine Attempts To Optimize Dates:
Woodbine is looking to dump low handle Thursdays during the summer and extend the season, so the race dates remain the same.

Great thinking on their part. Now how about optimizing takeout? Handle has been crappy lately there. Big purses, yet we still see plenty of 6 horse fields, and way too much dominance by certain outfits and jockeys. At least I can't say that super jockeys are cheating....Luis Contreras seems to be in a league of his own, but I doubt he is using ITPP or snail venom:) He just outfinesses the rest of the colony it seems.

Should Northern Dancer Have An Asterisk Next To His Name?

2011-10-14T21:40:00.004-04:00

A couple of nights ago I watched a show called The Canadians. The topic was Northern Dancer. This episode was done a few years prior to the Biography Channel Northern Dancer show, though many of the clips were the same.

Lots of recollection by those who were there, but one of the guests intrigued me enough to do a Google Search. It was Alex Harthill, Northern Dancer's Kentucky Derby vet.

What I found was new to me, or at least this is the first time I acknowledged it, if I in fact read it before. It is a story dated back 9 years ago (Harthill wasn't pushing up daisies yet):

My interest in Harthill, never dormant, was ignited again in 2001 by a remarkable interview that he gave Jay Hovdey of the Daily Racing Form. Harthill teased those of us who have been interested in his career by admitting that, before the 1964 Derby, he gave Northern Dancer a then-illegal, anti-bleeding medication known as Lasix (now used by an estimated 95 percent of the horses in training).

"Security was following me, though," Harthill told Hovdey, "so I got a vet I know from out of town to come along with me. I told him I was going to turn to the right, and he would go that way and take this little syringe down to Barn 24, stall 23, and give this to that horse. There would be a guy there named Will. He’d be waiting. So he did it, while the gendarmes followed me. They were following the mystique."

And the mystique helped Northern Dancer hold off Hill Rise’s challenge by a nose in one of the most exciting stretch runs in Derby history.

Now, read the whole article. I'll wait.

That was worth reading, wasn't it? But it really begs at least a couple of questions. Assuming Hill Rise wasn't treated with illegal (at the time) drugs, how can one not look at Northern Dancer's Kentucky Derby as anything but tainted? Then when you take the Dancer's Image fiasco into account, how did Dr. Harthill remain a prestigious vet at the world capital of horse racing, even after doing the Hovdey interview?

Being Canadian, and also being born the same year as the Dancer, I hate the idea of ruining Northern Dancer's reputation, but if this story is true, and it sure sounds true, I have no choice.

As for the second question. That one is easy too. Dr. Harthill's of the world are in high demand. In Harthill's own words:

"Everything (drugs) went through a transition period of being detected. The thing everyone wanted to find out was what didn’t show at the time. It was just part of the game, ever since I can remember. Everybody was looking for an edge. I don’t care who it was. A trainer would say, ‘Don’t get me caught, but keep me worried.’"

It seems that nothing much has changed since Northern Dancer, except more drugs are legal and more drugs are tested for. There is still the quest to get an edge that seems to motivate (the majority?) of trainers out there.

With EPO, DPO, snake and snail venom and their knockoffs, ITPP, and whatever else is still "illegal" but not tested for, the edge is always very tempting, and some trainers can pull the charade off over and over again without a blemish.

Some can't get the formulas right though. That might be what happened with Dutrow.

How many other super horses won big races thanks to trainers and vets "experimenting" with drugs that weren't being tested for? I have a feeling that the answer is lots.

Here is the 2005 DRF obit for Harthill.

As for Dutrow, it will be interesting if the industry now sighs "OK witch hunt is over, we gave the public what they wanted," or the time has come to clean up the game. It will be equally interesting if other jurisdictions honor the ban. California has climbed aboard. Good for them (who says I don't say anything good about California racing?)

A COUPLE OF STORIES YOU MIGHT NOT SEE AT THE PAULICK REPORT
10% Takeout On WPS????? No Way! Yes Way!!!!! No Way!!!!!!!!!!!
Northlands Park harness racing's 2011 Fall Meet kicks off today and they have decided to lower the takeout on Win Place and Show bets to 10%. This is phenomenal news, and I hope it works out fantastic for them.
EDITORS NOTE: Looks like I fell for something that was nothing short of a deceptive article and promotion. The association takeout is 10%, but the Alberta tax is 5% and there is a levy of .8%. Total takeout is 15.8%. Nothing has changed. Incidentally, Northlands takeout on other bets is a whopping 24.8% (exactors and doubles included).

It Appears That Tracknet Was Dissolved In Name Only
And HANA is on the case.

It is definitely horrible for the growth of the game when dominating companies like Magna or Churchill even think this way. The leaders of this industry should be focused on growing the Horseplayer base not chasing it away, unless they have given up hope that growth can be had. I believe it can, but it is going to take a lot of tracks getting together and focus on a longer than a year or two plan.

Where Is The Bottom?

2011-10-06T12:05:00.000-04:00

Handle dropped again in September. I don't need to go over the reasons why again, simply click here and read my post after August's numbers came out.

September's numbers were very ugly: Wagering was down 6.3% despite 3.3% more race dates. For the year wagering is down 7.6% and race dates are down 5.2%.

Interesting that total purses were up slightly over a half a percentage. Purse money doesn't motivate bettors very much. And the purse money would have been down if not for the artificial increase in California and the win fall in Illinois.

Speaking of California. There is now fallout from the stunned deal the racetracks made at the beginning of the year which gave the horsemen a bigger cut of the proceeds from betting and at the same time, increasing the takeout, assuring that tracks would have much less revenue bottom line. The ax is flying, and it is estimated that 100 jobs will be lost at Santa Anita.

Less workers at the track will inevitably mean less customer service and marketing....should kill racing there even quicker than before. I wonder if California horsemen are getting it yet.

Hastings, despite horrible weather early in the year, made a nice recovery and bucked the trend with a 4% handle increase this year. They dropped takeout on quite a few wagers before the meet started, and they finished very strong, which is predictable when lowering takeout....it doesn't happen overnight, but usually takes a half a year minimum for the real effects to start showing.

Last year, when doing nothing but staring in the headlights, handle at Hastings was off around 25%.

Updated Google Takeout Maps Of Thoroughbred And Harness Tracks

2011-09-23T10:54:00.000-04:00

The popular Thoroughbred and Harness Google Track Takeout Maps have been updated. There are still a few mysteries (tracks missing takeout data), and if there are any new tracks that need to be added or old tracks that need to be deleted, or takeouts that are incorrect, please leave a comment and corrections will be made.

View Thoroughbred Racetracks in a larger map

View Harness Racetracks in a larger map

ADVERTISEMENT

Horse racing isn't about to lower takeout collectively anytime soon. At least most astute Horseplayers have some options:

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses. No minimums. Start getting bonuses immediately.

SPECIAL BONUS OFFER TO NEW MEMBERS AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM

BET $80 GET $40 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT

Wager at least $80 in total, win or lose, and you will get $40 deposited into your account. You will also start receiving industry high Player Reward Bonuses daily as soon as you start wagering. To earn the $40 Bonus you must wager at least $80 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.

CLICK TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT

Why Horseplayersbet.com?:

* Industry High Player Reward Bonuses added to your account daily
* User friendly betting interface makes wagering easy
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS
* FREE RACE REPLAYS
* Wager Online or by Phone
* Great customer service
* 100% Parimutuel
* Bet cancellation capabilities
* No membership or wagering fees
* Green Dot & PINpocket fees rebated (deposits of $120 or more)
* No fees on debit/credit card deposits by phone of $100 or more
* Online credit card funding (4.5% fee rebated on deposits of $100 or more)

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, "WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST." SIGN UP TODAY AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING US BASED ADWS

Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses, or lose. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.

RCI Report On Drug Violations: C'mon Man

2011-09-13T11:40:00.000-04:00

That Racing Commissioners International report called the 2011 Report on Drug Violations really insulted my intelligence. I'm sure I am not alone.

Their major findings: Less than 1 out of 200 tested samples came up positive. And 94% of those positives were overages of "legal" drugs.

From this, they were hoping that the conclusion is that horse racing is a very clean business, and that it gets a bad rap.

The reality is that the drugs tested for are limited. Trainers and vets will go out of their way to prevent overages of known drugs, they would have to be completely dimwitted not to. But what about the drugs that aren't tested for? And what about the concoctions which make even the testable drugs undetectable? How can they possibly make the assertion horse racing is clean? It is mind boggling.

The hype from this RCI report is similar to making the assumption that from 1992 to 2007, Bernie Madoff was running a clean investment firm.

To my knowledge, most if not all the tests were after race testing. Actually, the RCI could have even used this as more propaganda, by stating that winners and usually another horse in every race is tested, and using this logic, and the assumption that overages enhance the chance for a horse to win, it would make sense that horses that lose are less likely to have a positive.

Also, and this is a big also, to my knowledge, outside of out of competition testing by some jurisdictions, drugs like EPO, DPO, ITPP, snail venom, and cobra venom are not tested for. For a longer list and what these drugs do, check this out.

And then you have things like electric shock treatment which will not yield any positives,
tapping of joints, and hyperbaric oxygen treatments (which works the same way as milk shaking), only it is legal.

Trainers sporting 30% plus win percentages aren't clean, and they are a detriment to the game, not only when it comes to bettors confidence but when it comes to attracting new owners, and keeping current owners in the game as well.

Sorry, but horse racing deserves the rap of being a drug tainted, performance enhancement game, and the RCI report is nothing but a farce. Was the report spurned on by those who don't want lasix banned?, or was it a hokey marketing attempt to get the public to rethink their prejudices against horse racing? Either way, I'm not buying into at all.

Now For Some Good News

Charles Town

Beginning September 19th, Charles Town has decided to cut takeout on trifecta, superfecta, pick three, and pick four wagers to 22% from 25%.
Charles Town takeout wasn't relatively terrible to begin with, as they ranked 19th in takeout score according to HANA's 2011 chart. This cut will easily catapult Charles Town into the top 10, probably closer to 5th or 6th in best overall takeout score.

Back To More Mind Numbingness
There is absolutely no consistency at Woodbine when it comes to thoroughbred fair starts, refunds and disqualifications when a horse obviously opens the gate earlier than the rest of the field.
Here we go again. Watch the 6 horse, Bossman's Blues at 4-5, break from the gate. Put the video on pause at either 21 seconds or 22 seconds:

Bossman's Blues finished second. There was an inquiry, unlike the Fifty Proof debacle a while back. What do you think the result of the inquiry was?
A refund (which would have cost Woodbine quite a bit of money since he was such a heavy favorite)? A DQ from 2nd to last for having an unfair start? Or no DQ and no refund? The answer will appear at the bottom of this post.

WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON WITH ALL THE BUMPING AT WOODBINE
I checked out the charts for Woodbine from Saturday and Sunday and saw all these "bump" comments next to the racing lines. I decided to count them. 19 in total. Oh, and one even resulted in a DQ.

Maybe they should stop playing this video in the jock's room:

Now the answer to the quiz. Obviously, no change in the order of finish was decided upon. I wonder if the stewards draw sticks or if they pick cards from a deck before making these decisions.

Getting A Handle On Handle Drops

2011-09-07T16:41:00.002-04:00

Total handle was down a whopping 12.3% in August, as horse racing continues with a deer in the headlights approach.

Why is this happening? Let me try to cover all the bases.

First the negatives.

Net Loss Of Horseplayers

According to the McKinsey Report "2 percent of fans die, 5 percent lapse and only 3 percent are newly attracted." Less players means less handle unless horse racing is attracting big players to overcome the loss of smaller players. It is not. In fact, horse racing is more likely losing big players while gaining small players. There is no reason for big gamblers to entangle themselves in horse racing's steep learning curve, as the perception that the game can be beaten in the long term is not there.

Less Racing Days

Less racing days doesn't mean that Horseplayers will bet more to make up for those days on existing cards, though it doesn't take long for a multi-race track player to burn themselves out no matter how many days are cut.
Less racing, kills the continuation, especially for the live one track player. They go less, and bet less.
Less racing generally means less horses, and less owners. Owners bring friends to the track. Less owners means less potential players both today and in the future.

The Hurricane and One Less Sunday

In August Hurricane Irene caused a few key weekend cancellations. Weekend handles are generally much higher than weekday handles, especially for A and B tracks. There was one less Sunday this year as well, and that was replaced with a Wednesday, which is a weak betting day.

A Focus On Pick 5's and 6's

Low takeout bets are always good, but some are much better than others when it comes to keeping players in the game and creating more churn and handle. Some racetracks have begun promoting low takeout pick 5's lately. It works out as a gimmick, and just a way to get a player to play that track as opposed to another track with at least some betting funds.
The problem is that these wagers mostly produce fewer winners, and very little churn as payoffs are large enough for winners to take some money off the table, at least temporarily.
And there is also the tax consequences of hitting large payoffs in the US. Withholding takes quite a lot of money out of the churn circulation as well.
If these low takeout gimmick pick 5's were attracting new money, it would be a good thing, but evidence seems to indicate that it is just cannibalizing other pools.
For the sake of the game's future, tracks should focus on low takeout WPS, exactor and double bets, not lottery type of wagers.

California's Takeout Hike

Old news: California raised takeout on exactors, quinellas and doubles 2%, and all other exotics 3% in January. Since then, they've seen a substantial drop in handle. Pretty simple, players have less money to churn.
However, not only do those who play California tracks have less money than last year to churn back on California tracks, they have less money to churn back on any track.
This is cannibalization of the worse kind. The less players get back, the more likely they are to leave the game or in the very least come back and play so quickly. When they do take their leaves, the more likely they are to find a new hobby. Also, the less likely they are to expose friends or family to horse racing.

More Exotics In More Races

Nowadays there seems to be a superfecta in every race at every track. More Pick 3's, Pick 4's, and Pick 5's, more High Fives too. The one thing most of these bets have in common is that they are offered at a higher collective takeout than doubles and exactors in most jurisdictions. Again, this is cannibalization, and current Horseplayers are losing at a faster rate than ever before. It doesn't matter if the super has a dime minimum bet. If the average bettor makes $20 worth of superfecta bets a day at a 25% takeout, they will go broke faster than if they wagered $20 on WPS or exactors, no matter the minimum.

The Economy

The USA economy sucks right now, but it was arguably worse a year ago. Meanwhile, things are flying in the Macau casinos.

Higher Signal Fees

This has a major affect on rebate players (the fastest growing segment as far as Horseplayers is concerned). The higher the signal fee, the higher the net takeout is for those who get rebates, including the biggest Horseplayers on this planet. Signal fees have been inching up the past two years. Jurisdictions like California increased significantly when the takeout hike occurred.
The effect of this is that there is less value, and therefore less plays (less handle) made by the most sensitive Horseplayers, which include the biggest bettors.
One offshoot is that many rebate players have shifted their action to tracks that have either kept their signal fees the same or even dropped them slightly, but overall, I would guesstimate that the shift doesn't exactly match the monies not wagered at California tracks, for example.

Now the positives, though the impact of these two things seem next to negligible at this time:

More Horseplayers Are Discovering Rebates

More Horseplayers are getting benefits from ADWs and Track ADWs (like HPI) experimenting with rebates. And many are discovering that in most jurisdictions in the USA (at least two thirds), player rewards can be found, even for not so large players.
Horseplayers getting rebates keeps them in the game longer, and gives them hope the game is game is beatable (which causes new money, money that wouldn't have been allocated to horse race betting if rebates didn't exist, as the more a player stays in action, the more they don't have other hobbies). This, of course, means higher handle. Unfortunately, the negative factors are winning the war right now.

Poker Players Itching For Action

Horse racing has been slaughtered by gambling competition. Mostly slots, but horse racing has lost many a potential customer to skilled games where takeout or rake is much lower enabling a few players to be actual visible long term winners. The US government has come down very hard on online poker of late making it very hard to be an online poker player.
There is a slew of gamblers (many poker players are price sensitive) now itching for action. However, most want a game which has the possibility of winning in the long term. Many will get their feet wet in sports betting, some will try horse racing.
The ones that do a little homework will discover ADWs that give decent rewards back, and they are the ones most likely to become a new wave of Horseplayer, something horse racing desperately needs.

I know I left out field size and purses and handle generators. True, that races with more horses generally get more handle, however, this is strictly a cannibalization effect. Existing players only have so much to lose over mid term stretches. When it comes down to it, big fields will attract betting that may have gone to another track with smaller fields, but it doesn't attract new money, and in fact, again, larger payoffs cause the tax man to get involved sometimes, so churn money is taken off the table.
As for purses, studies have shown that if you double purses, handle only rises around 6%. This is negligible in the scheme of things, though higher purses can potentially mean more owners and more exposure from newbies (friends of the owners).

Evolution And Horse Racing

2011-09-01T17:53:00.005-04:00

I've done a bit of reading on the evolution of horses lately. Really interesting topic. They share common ancestry with the zebra (branched off around 4 million years ago). Prior to that they share common ancestry with rhinos and tapirs. It is sort of like humans who share common ancestry with chimps around 7 million years ago, and monkeys around 25 million years ago. Of course, if you go back far enough all animals on this planet share common ancestry (humans and horses share a common ancestor around 65 million years ago.

Another interesting thing, horses evolved from having 3 toes in the front and four toes in the back to their current characteristic of have just one toe. The most probable reason for the change has to do with horses being pray animals. They eat grass, not other animals, so the ancestors who survived eventually needed speed to run away from predators, and balance in the plains, for example and having multi toes slowed them down.

Another cool yet disturbing reality is that horses made it to North America 2.5 million years ago, but they went extinct around 8,000 years ago. The most likely culprit for their extinction was a combination of a change in climate and man's arrival to North America.

It was around the end of the last Ice Age. The ancestors of the North American Indian came to North America via the Bering Straight which had a frozen land bridge and may have been preceded by the Clovis People who likely came from a region in what is now France (not the Coneheads). They came across the Atlantic, most likely on small watercraft, as the Atlantic was full of icebergs to rest on. This is still a controversial hypothesis (not a scientific theory based on mounds and mounds of evidence like evolution), there is also a thought the Clovis came to North America via the Bering Straight as well.

There is evidence though that the Clovis dined on horse meat amongst other animals like the mastodon. The Native Indians most likely feasted on horses as well (it was the end of the Ice Age, and there is no evidence that the horse was used as transportation back then). The Clovis too were mostly wiped and the rest absorbed in the Indian cultures. There is even a hypothesis that a comet may have been responsible for a massive extinction of mammals in North America around 12,000 years ago.

The bottom line here is that there are some facts thanks to scientific observation and analysis of evidence: evolution of horses, horses dating back to North America dating around 2.5 million years ago, and the extinction of horses around 7,000 or 8,000 years ago (horses were reintroduced to North America by the Spanish around the 1500's, and many horses escaped, and this time around weren't hunted to extinction, but used as transportation by the Native Indians). The speculation comes in when it comes to things like man's hand in the extinction event, when man made it to North America exactly, and how, etc.

Future discoveries will eventually settle just about every question posed here.

So what does this have to do with horse racing?

Scientific inquiry is a wonderful thing. It is very efficient as well in determining how the universe works and how it got to this point. Hypothesizes are made (they are generally educated guesses), if over time they aren't falsified (by contrary evidence), they are accepted as scientific theory. For example, it is a fact that evolution takes place, the theory lies in how exactly it occurs in specific cases.

Horse racing seems to dismiss the scientific process, in other words, it continually flies by the seat of its pants.

For example, take the Lasix controversy. Lasix has been used for three decades, yet there are no answers that are close being conclusive regarding masking and whether it is needed as a staple. Why? There has hardly been any research done. The best we can do is make inferences at this time, and unfortunately, the inferences turn out to be very subjective (which is the polar opposite of how science works).

This is exactly why super trainers exist. At least they are exploring science as they find ways to make concoctions that are not tested for.

What racing needs to do is play catch up. Hand out heavy heavy fines, and list only a handful of drugs that are acceptable, while doing testing on whether these drugs should be acceptable in the future. The science exists to figure this stuff out.

And what about the pricing of the game (the takeout)? There has been absolutely no attempt to search for the optimal takeout. Strong evidence exists regarding takeout being too high. Though at this time, thanks to horse racing's dysfunctional ways, empirical evidence is impossible to find (for example, all racetracks would need to start off by dropping all takeout rates so that we can see actual results, which of course will still be clouded by the economy and field size as well). However it is doable. Casinos have done it, to the point that they know exactly when to tweak a house hold when it comes to their slot machines.

Empirical evidence shows that handles are dropping, amount of players are also dropping. The one thing that hasn't been dropping, in fact, going up, is collective track takeout (supers and other exotics with the higher rates are now available in just about every race and have attracted a higher percentage of total pool money).

Now if racing was thinking with a scientific mindset, they would tweak the thing they have control of, the takeout, and they should be doing it in a desperate manner as well. By the looks of it, revenues from alternative gaming will eventually start to decline and may go away altogether. A good scientist, doesn't just think of the past and present either, they think of the future.

But the horse racing industry doesn't seem that interested in researching evidence, or acting on evidence. Maybe part of the problem is that the center of the horse racing is Kentucky, the home of the Creationist Museum, a place where scientific evidence is an invention of the Devil.

Handicappers, on the other hand, look like Einsteins compared to the rest of the industry, as most everyday player uses a very scientific approach to picking winners.

If horse racing took a more scientific approach to both drugs and pricing, the game would be growing in leaps and bounds. It is after all a great game. The controversy is in regard to how it is managed.

Like with those who deny evolution, there seems to be a willful ignorance (see California for example) that plagues horses and not only is it standing in the way of progress, but it is actually causing a regression today.

BTW, please no comments about how evolution is hooey. There is no controversy amongst scientists. And if you are an anti-evolutionist or someone who believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, no need to tell me about it, but if you want to really know what science knows, have a look at Potholer54's Made Easy Series. It is a wonderful educational tool.

McKinsey Study Misses The Mark On Takeout

2011-08-17T13:29:00.000-04:00

The McKinsey and Company report “Driving Sustainable Growth for Thoroughbred Racing and Breeding” totally misses the mark when it comes to figuring out the customer, and figuring out how to grow the customer base. So though not totally worthless, the report is nothing that will save the game, perhaps throw a few band aids on it, but that is about it. And really, there is nothing new there at all, other than some stats that just confirm what most insiders already know.

The report seems to put the horse owner ahead of the customer. Big mistake. The industry shouldn't focus on what is good for the owner, but what is good for the customer (the gambler). The more Horseplayers, the bigger the purses, the more horse owners. That is how it works.

Regarding track takeout:

The report acknowledged that 26% of core bettors consider pari-mutuel takeout a “top two concern,” but fewer than 2% of most fans know about takeout. Thus, the report makes no recommendations on an issue that has boiled over this year, particularly in California.

“We prefer rebates as the method to address the price-sensitive bettor,” Singer said.

When it comes to growth, it really doesn't matter what existing customers like. They aren't the big problem as Pull The Pocket points out. Price sensitive players are already getting rebates for the most part.

If slot players were given a similar survey, about 0% of the core players and casual players alike would state that house take was a major concern. However, it doesn't mean that slots charge a ridiculously high take (it is around 5-8% in most jurisdictions). Slots operate at something called an optimal takeout. A percentage that holds players attention the most so that they will lose the most money in the long run....not short run. A percentage that gives the player the illusion the game is beatable and/or they can get a good deal of enjoyment over time on average to keep their high going, and keep them wanting more after they leave the joint.

Horse racing operates in a way where they take as much money as possible whenever they can. The takeout is so high, that there is no chance to beat the game long term without substantial rebates, and the fact there are virtually no visible winners, makes it near impossible to attract new generations, like poker did.

The study failed to address this, instead focusing on trying to lure players by just teaching them to bet. Silliness. There has to be a reason for a newbie to get involved in the steep learning curve of horse racing handicapping. We need visible winners. We need lower takeouts.

No shocker:

But all major metrics have fallen since 2000, the study notes. Betting handle is down by 37 percent, attendance at tracks is down by 30 percent, starts per horse and race days are both down by 14 percent. If these trends continue, the findings say thoroughbred racing will lose fans at a rate of 4 percent a year.

Every year, the study said, 2 percent of fans die, 5 percent lapse and only 3 percent are newly attracted. If this trend persists, by 2020 the fan base will be only 64 percent of what it was in 2010.

I'll state it again. Horse racing is missing out on a fantastic opportunity right now with the closing of many poker sites in the US. Gamblers are itching for action, but they want to play a game that is at least perceived beatable by some.

Four Topics Four Opinions

2011-08-11T13:01:00.000-04:00

Jeff Gural's Plan To Discourage The Retirement of Three Year Olds To Stud
Great idea. In fact, Gural have he may have got that from me. Unfortunately for thoroughbred fans, Gural is only talking harness here, and only talking three tracks.
No mention of broodmares. I think it is important that they don't stop racing too quickly either.
The two good things that will come from this for either harness or thoroughbred horses, is that good horses will have careers that can be followed longer, and it gives them a chance to develop a larger fan base, and secondly, it will lead to horses being bred for longevity instead of being bred to be a shooting star.

Trainer Lou Pena Barred At Yonkers
Two harness stories in a row, well they could be thoroughbred stories just the same, as the issues overlap in both industries.

Pena was barred for winning way way way too much. The controversy here is that whatever he is allegedly using to improve horses so drastically has not been found.
Tracks are private property, so one can be guilty until proven innocent. But this line of rule is hardly used.

As for his guilt, I think John Carter's comment at Standardbred Canada says it all:

"Lou Pena has this sport figured out. He knew the exact right speed to jog his horses thru the week. He figured out the exact right amount of hay and oats to feed his horses on a daily basis. He probably also knew the exact right amount of water to let them drink every day. This was pure genius on his part, no other trainer on the planet has been able to crack this formula and step up horses like they were given rocket fuel. No it is all technique."

The reality here is that both the thoroughbred and standardbred game doesn't do enough to deter cheating. Trainers get a slap on the wrist usually when caught. How about making cheating a criminal offense. Kinda like the riots in Britain, if I was vandalizing a business, I'd expect to be shot at, and until a couple of youths are shot or hurt real bad, there is nothing to stop it.

Super trainers are bad for the game. They not only create races that many handicappers won't play, but they also deter new owners from entering the game (if you are up against cheaters, you are mainly running for third or fourth money).

California Takeout Hike Is Hurting Handle

Del Mar's handle is shrinking (doesn't seem to be the economy judging by Saratoga's results so far), and the tracks want to reduce the takeout on at least a couple of exotics but the TOC isn't too into it. As long as the purses are artificially? higher, the horsemen have no urgency to do the right thing. But since the deal that was made last year which winds up giving the horsemen a higher percentage of what is bet, handle has fallen, and it is the tracks that have been getting clobbered. This is unsustainable, and the tracks know it. The horsemen may know it too, but until they are faced with purse cuts or date cuts, they will probably tend to stay away from fair negotiations regarding the future.

The Players Boycott is hurting them too. Probably not as much as they think, though I know at least 5 players who won't even open up California past performances, and my guess is that there are probably a lot more.

No, the decrease in handle has more to do with increased signal fees and takeout which create a lot less plays for value bettors, which causes them to be pickier and play less. Secondly, those who cash tickets are getting back less, and have less to churn with. This phenomenon gets only will get worse, as these players who don't last as long as they used to have less urgency in coming back to the track as often, and some actually quit over time.

As for the Players Boycott's effectiveness, well how many tracks have increased takeout since California decided to? NONE! How many have lowered takeout on at least one wager? Lots. Even Parx and Penn have got into the action of reducing takeouts. The Boycott is good for Horseplayers, and that means it is good for horse racing's future.

VEGAS NUMBERS IMPROVING
Is this a leading indicator that the economy is about to rebound? How come we aren't seeing the same thing in horse racing?

Maybe it has a lot to do with the US government coming down hard on online poker. These players need to go somewhere, they are after all gamblers.
Too bad horse racing doesn't have the visible winners poker did. Oh wait, the takeout is too damn high for that to happen.

There is very good reason to believe that some online poker players are actually getting their feet wet in online horse racing now. Again, the fact they won't last very long means that racing is missing a golden opportunity right now. And the learning curve is very steep as well.

The online poker players willing to give horse racing a shot though are probably smart enough to get started at ADWs that give rebates, as they are by nature, very price conscious. This fact may help cultivate the odd player into a long term Horseplayer. The industry can only hope.

Lasix: The Pros And The Cons

2011-07-30T10:03:00.006-04:00

The Lasix debate is going strong right now as the Feds in the States are looking to ban race day drugs. The prevailing viewpoint is that drugs do not belong in athletes, and that competition should pit natural talent against natural talent.

Horse racing has always had a seedy side to it. From the use of cocaine at the turn of the last Century to the designer drugs of today, the idea of improving a horse's performance artificially to cash a bet or grab purse money is simply a reality in the game. The question is how prevalent it is.

From many a horseman's perspective, if it isn't on a banned list and/or it isn't tested for, it is legal. And stretching that a bit for some operations, if you can beat a test with little risk, why not go for it?

Horseplayers seem to be in favor of not only banning race day drugs but all performance enhancers.

I'm really not sure why the Feds got involved. They had to have been nudged. Who nudged them? Certainly not an HBPA groups. And why Lasix, and not other drugs that are much more potent even if taken a few days out?

One can Google search forever and still not find definitive results when it comes to concluding whether Lasix is needed or not. In Europe and Hong Kong and other jurisdictions, race day Lasix is not allowed, and reportedly most horses do not train on Lasix. However, there isn't much discussed about what they substitute, if anything, for Lasix, and what happens to most horses who are chronic bleeders. On the other side, most Horsemen in North America state emphatically that without Lasix, the percentage of horses who can not race anymore will be dramatically high.

PROS
1. Allegedly, around 5% of race horses most likely need Lasix in order to race. Again, this is a number that is speculated on. Prior to the legalization of Lasix, the amount of horses barred from racing was next to none. However, it is not known what percentage were retired or didn't make it to the races by choice.

2. It levels the playing field. Because Lasix is known to have other enhancement qualities other than preventing EIPH (for instance, it is a bronchodilator, which means it helps all horses breathe better). So, it just isn't fair that if a horse is a known bleeder that they should be the only horses to have the extra performance enhancements that Lasix gives a horse.
Another argument is that consistent use of Lasix causes less erratic form that could arise from heavy bleeding of a horse one race to mild bleeding the next race.
As a side note, when Lasix was first introduced, and only given to real bleeders, it turned out to be quite a handicapping angle. But now that virtually every horse in North America runs on Lasix, the first or second time angle means nothing.

3. If drugs are to be allowed, this is a cheap and powerful way to go.

4. The jury is out, but Lasix could have humane factors in reducing scar tissue by bleeders.

5. The controlled use of Lasix may prevent training outfits from experimenting and using other anti-bleeding medications that may even be more harmful to a horse's system than Lasix allegedly is.

CONS
1. It is a performance enhancer. Anything that potentially makes a horse run faster while having the substance in them versus not having the substance in them, in an enhancer. The "running to its potential" line is a pretty weak argument. It doesn't just help prevent bleeding, but also helps non bleeders breathe better, amongst other things as well.

2. It mask other drugs, and clouds tests. I know it, and you know it. Stop the nonsensical denial. Simply Google "Pass a marijuana test lasix"

Lasix: Take an 80 milligram dose of prescription diuretic lasix (furosemide). Prescription diuretics are the most potent. Some over the counter diuretics will color your urine blue and should be avoided. WARNING! -Diuretics can be harmful to people with kidney problems, pregnant women, and diabetics.-

Super Trainers are one of the biggest turn offs horse racing has to offer today. Not only for Horseplayers, but for honest Horsemen and as importantly owners and potential new owners. It is hard to get new blood in the game if you are consistently running for third money. Masking other performance enhancing drugs doesn't help the game at all. Outfits that experiment with drug concoctions leads to erratic performances, and this leads to lack of confidence from Horseplayers.

3. Lasix is a potent diuretic. The side effects are many. The fact that a horse needs an electrolyte jug after competition to replace vital fluids the horse lost from racing on Lasix is cause enough to question using the drug. It might even border on cruelty.

4. The North American breed is allegedly weaker because the best breeding candidates who have been successful on the track raced with Lasix. Would they still be running the same times without Lasix? Probably not in many cases because of the performance enhancement Lasix offers, whether the top horses were helped by bleeding less or breathing better, there is a good likelihood that a heredity weakness is being passed on today versus the pre-Lasix days. And there is the possibility that if Lasix wasn't used, we might see a whole different cast of top horses every year, probably running slightly slower final times collectively, but a much heartier group.

5. There is a correlation between horses starts per year and per life and Lasix usage over the past 15-20 years. Horse are making 2 less starts a year these days on average.
Whether it is a direct correlation, the jury is out again. It could be a combination of Lasix and training strategies, the higher use of other drugs (legal and illegal alike), and/or the the higher frequency of detailing (tapping of joints, etc.) that is being used by more elite and/or high percentage outfits (where horses have the kitchen sink put in them for every infrequent race).

6. Lasix is not used race day in jurisdictions outside Canada and the USA. They seem to get along fine without it. It wasn't used in North America prior to the 80's either, and horse racing seemed to get along fine without it.

7. The elimination of Lasix and other drugs would most likely make it cheaper to own horses (providing they don't really need Lasix to race). Horses may run relatively slower collectively by a few ticks, but that really isn't relevant at all. Cutting the costs of horse ownership would most likely lead to owners having bigger stables, and it would entice newbie owners to enter the game.

CONCLUSION

Horse racing would probably get along just fine if Lasix were banned on race day. However, Lasix seems to be the whipping boy of a more severe problem, and that is the other performance enhancing drugs and treatments (like EPO, DPO, synthetic venoms, and ITPP) that are being used by cheaters. Getting rid of race day Lasix is only a tiny step in leveling the playing field for bettors and honest horsemen.
Solving the problem requires making an exact list of treatments and allowable drugs, as well as severely fining anyone caught using drugs or treatments not on the list.

ADVERTISEMENT

Horse racing isn't about to lower takeout collectively anytime soon. At least most astute Horseplayers have some options:

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses. No minimums. Start getting bonuses immediately.

SPECIAL BONUS OFFER TO NEW MEMBERS AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM

BET $80 GET $40 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT

Wager at least $80 in total, win or lose, and you will get $40 deposited into your account. You will also start receiving industry high Player Reward Bonuses daily as soon as you start wagering. To earn the $40 Bonus you must wager at least $80 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.

CLICK TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT

Why Horseplayersbet.com?:

* Industry High Player Reward Bonuses added to your account daily
* User friendly betting interface makes wagering easy
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS
* FREE RACE REPLAYS
* Wager Online or by Phone
* Great customer service
* 100% Parimutuel
* Bet cancellation capabilities
* No membership or wagering fees
* Green Dot & PINpocket fees rebated (deposits of $120 or more)
* No fees on debit/credit card deposits by phone of $100 or more
* Online credit card funding (4.5% fee rebated on deposits of $100 or more)

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, "WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST." SIGN UP TODAY AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING US BASED ADWS

Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses, or lose. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.

The Score In Canada: Soccer 1 Horse Racing Nil

2011-07-19T13:45:00.001-04:00

In Canada eh, we have a Sports network called The Score. Mostly it is known for sports news and recaps, and they also show quasi sports events like WWE, martial arts fighting, poker tournaments, and soccer. Oh, they also have horse racing. On Mondays, they do a harness show called Bet Night Live, and they do the same thing for thoroughbreds on Wednesday nights. On Sundays they usually show the entire Woodbine card (until the baseball playoffs begin).

The Score is pretty much the place of final refuge for sporting events in Canada.

And to show how much horse racing is falling off the map here, on the Score on Wednesday nights, instead of showing the first four races at Woodbine, soccer is taking precedence after two or three races are run.

One aside, Canadians can still watch racing on a Premium Station (HPITV), so things aren't horrible here.

The Queen's Plate generally gets covered on CBC (Canada's largest nation wide TV station), and I remember when the other Triple Crown events were shown on CBC or, CTV I believe, as well. Those days are gone, gone, gone.

Anyway, on Sunday, Canadian racing's second Jewel of the Triple Crown (arguably the fourth to the eighth most important race of the year in Canada), was run at Fort Erie. The Woodbine Score show announced at the beginning that they would break away for soccer and come back to possibly watch a late race or two at Woodbine as well as the Prince of Wales Stakes....hopefully, if the soccer game didn't go into extra innings or whatever they do in soccer when the game is tied (actually, later in the afternoon, I found out they go into overtime).

I guess that it needs to be mentioned that the filly who won the Queen's Plate, whats her name....OK Googling...Inglorious, was a no show for the Prince of Wales, which was run on a dirt surface, so there was no chance of a Triple Crown winner this year.

That aside, this is still Canada. And the Prince Of Wales is Canadian content. I'm not sure if Brazil or Paraguay has a player on either team who has even visited Canada. But that is what won out over horse racing.

Even though Fort Erie racetrack is literally 5 minutes away from me, I just couldn't get motivated to show up there because the idea of the heat and wall to wall humans just didn't do it for me. I wound up hanging at home, watching the soccer overtime hoping for a quick goal that didn't happen, and then the shoot out (since no one scored in the overtime). The shoot out seemed to drag on, taking forever to begin, and since I knew that the POW was moments away, I was wondering what would happen if the shoot out was to continue the same time the race began. I'm pretty sure they would have stayed on the soccer game, but the game was decided with a grand 4 minutes to post time, so I can only speculate.

Even though the POW was only a 7 horse race, it did include a very exciting finish. Which brings me to the point about soccer. It seems that you have to wait intervals of around 10 to 15 minutes for a couple of seconds of excitement. It is very comparable to a live racetrack experience that way, but at least at a racetrack you know when it is going to be exciting. I just could never get into soccer. Paint drying, paint drying, paint drying, paint drying, oh there is a fly on the wall, I wonder if it will stick, paint drying, paint drying, paint drying.

Now, I think it is a fair argument that horse racing is not really a sport (if you don't believe me, check out the Score's main page and look for horse racing news), but a game of chance, but soccer over horse racing in Canada? How far has horse racing sunk in the ratings for that to happen?

I don't think Woodbine helps things when it comes to content (which I believe they control on the Score). On Sundays they show tracks like Belmont and even Monmouth ahead of the Canadian content that can be had at Fort Erie. I realize they probably make a lot more from their HPI customers at those tracks, but in order to build Canadian viewership in the long run, sacrifices need to be made. The Woodbine viewing audience is most likely more familiar with the Fort Erie horses (many come from Woodbine), and the breeders of Ontario horses and their families would most likely catch a glimpe of the has been it bred than a race from a US venue.

Nothing Much New, Except For The HANA Ratings

2011-07-09T10:43:00.000-04:00

Parimutuel handle down 5% in June, close to 8% for the year
Where is the bottom? Players continue to die off and they aren't being replaced. No reason for newbies to get into horse racing with its high learning curve. We need visible winners. That is what did it for poker. Sports betting and blackjack are perceived as beatable in the long term too, at least by a few lucky and smart gamblers. In other words, a carrot exists. There is no carrot in horse racing.

At least we are seeing a slight trend in reduced takeouts. It needs to be faster.

On the bright side, if you took California racing out of the equation, June's handle numbers might be close to on par with last year. I had to check, and yes, they are still racing in California. How long the track's can continue to absorb the losses thanks to the takeout hike is the big question? Don't expect honest answers though because they wouldn't admit it if they are only a few more boycotters away from going to 3 days a week.

Back in September I wrote a piece called "Is ITPP The Super Trainer's Drug Of Choice
Today?," well the drug finally made it to print in the DRF. Stan Bergstein states that money is needed to test for the drug. Here we are, 9 months after a hack blogger (me) gets wind what is happening, and there still isn't a test for this stuff.

By the time the racing industry gets off their butts, the next designer drug will come into play.

This is just too frustrating. Not only do bettors like myself shy away from races with super trainers in them, but horse owners who don't have super trainers have no chance to make money. Either cheat or go for third money. Either pay huge vet bills and supplement bills or go for fourth or fifth money.

Horse racing's high collective takeout rates already keep newbie Horseplayers away, now cheating trainers keep new horse owners away too.

HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America) has come out with their 2011 track ratings.
California tracks sunk badly, and the stats don't include this year's handle numbers which are down farther than the industry average.
Woodbine climbed up to 23rd in overall ratings, but in order to crack the top 5, takeout on supers, pick 3's, triactors, and pick 4's need to come down.
Apparently, according to Nick Eaves, they are working on a 2% reduction across the board, something Eaves stated was a priority when he took over the reigns at Woodbine last year.

Fort Erie climbed up a couple of tracks thanks to dropping their Pick 4 takeout to 14%.

Interestingly, the Fort Erie takeout drop was mentioned in a recent Blood Horse article about what Ohio needs to do now that they have slots:

CIS said Ohio racing must lower takeout rates “enough so that it becomes the lowest in the region and lures new bettors.” The consultants used Fort Erie Racetrack & Slots in Canada as an example, noting a reduction in the pick four takeout from 26.2% to 14% generated a 59% increase in handle in the first two weeks.

Controversy At Woodbine Yesterday
In the fourth race, the first leg of the Pick 4, the favorite 1A Kiama out broke the gate yesterday. She overcame the weird start to win the race. However, the Stewards (flipped a coin?) and decided that it was an unfair start, so they issued a refund. Well, except for those holding Pick 4 or Pick 3 tickets. They wound up with the new favorite, who didn't wind up as the official winner.

The problem is of course, that this looks like the exact situation that occurred last year when Fifty Proof broke through the gate and was allowed to keep the victory (in fact, there wasn't even an Inquiry).

Here is yesterday's race:

It would nice for bettors to have just a little consistency.

It Must Be The Economy

2011-07-01T09:10:00.002-04:00

IT MUST BE THE ECONOMY
Well, that is the excuse that seems to be prevalent over in California, as the leaders over there look to blame everything except their disastrous decision to hike takeout at the beginning of the year.

It is estimated that handle at California A tracks will be down a whopping $400,000 million.

The horsemen are getting a bigger cut of the betting, so the big losers are the tracks. I doubt the tracks will be able to hold out much longer before drastic action will have to occur....either that or they can rescind the takeout hikes.

Meanwhile, it is hard to blame the economy when tracks like Will Rogers Down increased their handle by 92% during their meet that just ended. They increased their exposure, that was big, but they also maintained decent field size. Another big thing is that they sell their signal relatively lower than the average track. This is very appealing to bettors who get rebates. And with tracks in California going the opposite direction, tracks like Will Rogers win out from price sensitive bettors.

Going forward, Will Rogers (it just doesn't sound like the name of a racetrack) should think of a name change, maybe The Great Race Place or something like that.

Also, if it is the economy, how did Woodbine pull off a record handle last Sunday on Queen's Plate Day?

Economies go up and down, and I'm sure horse racing has been affected the last two years. However, when the economy was on the rise, horse racing handle was still trending downward.

With Horseplayers able to play just about anytime from just about anywhere, more than anytime ever, why is horse racing dying?

It is the price of the product (the takeout).

Two things at play here:

Horse racing is a thinking person's gamble. It has a steep learning curve too. How do you attract a thinking person to get motivated to learn the game when there are no visible winners?

Secondly, horse racing is still gambling. I believe every gambler, no matter how outwardly emotional or how Spock like they are, get some degree of highs when handicapping and or placing a bet and or watching a race and or cashing a bet.

The more races they handicap, the more bets they will place, the more races they will watch, and the more bets they will cash.

All the above is predicated on churn. Churn goes up, the lower the takeout, and goes down, the higher the takeout.

Keeping the gambler in the game is paramount in growing the game.

Racing right now is focusing on lowering takeout on low churn wagers (Pick 4's, 5's, and 6's). This is just a competition for the existing Horseplayer. It does nothing to grow the game.

Lower the takeout on WPS, doubles, exactors, and even triactors and dime supers, and then we might start to see actual growth.

Must Read Post Over At Pull The Pocket: Why Is Optimal Takeout So Hard To Understand
If you are a racing exec or in a Horseman's Group, read this article.

One more thing. Why are so many Horseman's Groups involved in how much a track can charge in way of takeout? Does Royale tell Walmart what price they have to sell toilet paper at?

Queen's Plate Prediction: Bowman's Causeway

2011-06-26T11:43:00.000-04:00

My handicapping of big races of late has been pathetic but always keep in mind that even a broken watch is right twice a day, and I am due.

That being said, it is hard for me to state "bet the house" on Bowman's Causeway with confidence, however, it doesn't mean you can't bet the tool shed on him.

Unfortunately, jockey Eurico Rosa Da Silva isn't in the same rut as me, as he is going for his third Queen's Plate in a row, something that has never been done before.

He was second in the Plate Trial a few weeks back. He ran good, but Check Your Soul ran much better. The key word is "ran." Past tense. Horses who win generally have a lot going for them in the race they won (including being in peak form much of the time). Things change. You get better value wagering on the horse who didn't have everything go his own way the previous start, or a horse who just wasn't at a peak that race.

Here is a video of the Plate Trial. Yes, Check Your Soul won easily, however, Bowman's Causeway looks like a horse who needed the race and treated the race like a prep:

To round out the triactor, I like long shot Seawatch. Definitely worth throwing in.

There is an early post time for Woodbine's card today (12:25PM EST).

Handicapping tip. I've noticed through the years that when a jockey has a good shot in a big race, that jock might not be a good bet in the early races. I think it is a mixture of practicality (focusing on the huge purse), the possible fame that goes with it, the jockey's testing of track biases (using his mounts as guinea pigs), and possibly the idea of saving themselves for the big race and not putting themselves in a position to get injured (which might be on the back of their mind).

I would avoid Patrick Husbands mounts prior to the Plate today, unless you think he is on an immortal cinch. Eurico Rosa Da Silva may be another jockey to stay clear of. He would love to win this race a third year in a row. And possibly it might be a good idea to tread lightly on horses ridden by Luis Contreras who rides filly Inglorious.

The overall card at Woodbine today looks fairly predictable (for Woodbine which isn't saying a lot). Here are my selections (yep, I know I'll get comments afterwards on how bad a handicapper I am):

1st Race Playin'inmywhiskey
2nd Race Mollymook at a price
3rd Race Captain Raucous
4th Race Pit Alley/Aerial View
5th Race Silver Timber
6th Race Are You Kitten Me/R Unpainted Dancer
7th Race Windward Islands/Simmard
8th Race Bartletts
9th Race Opening Meet
10th Race Bowman's Causeway
11th Race Thunder Dancing
12th Race Gangster Rap

Fort Erie too, looks very predictable today. Don't forget, the Pick 4 takeout rate is only 14%.
Here you go:

1st Race: Sexy Made Simple (Best Bet of the day)
2nd Race: Vale of Avoca
3rd Race: Zlato
4th Race: Purple Satchel/Myah's Flight
5th Race: Decker West
6th Race: Limosano/Kennisis River
7th Race: Sharing The Love
8th Race: Voodoo Momma

Fort Erie 14% Pick 4 Takeout Continues To Gather Steam

2011-06-22T12:23:00.001-04:00

Crunching the numbers from the past week ending yesterday (Tuesday) shows that the recent drop in takeout on the Pick 4 from 26.2% to 14% has become very popular amongst Horseplayers.

There was improvement in handle on Sunday, as $8,900 was wagered in total for both Pick 4s. That is compared to $8,200 from a year ago. But this increase was nothing compared to Monday and Tuesday when $20,000 and over $19,000 was wagered respectively, compared with $10,100 and $11,800 last year.

Comparing the total for all 6 Pick 4s, handle was up over 59%. That is amazing considering there has been very little written about the increase.

There is obviously a group of Horseplayers paying attention to takeout these days.

Unfortunately for Fort Erie, there has been no sign of spillover to other pools, as total handle for all pools was down over 20% the past three days.

It looks like that many Horseplayers have become aware that the Pick 4 at Fort Erie is a great deal, while the rest of the exotics suck big time, as the takeout on these bets remain at a minimum of 26.2%.

Maybe it is too early in the season for the 4 PM post time, or maybe the 4 PM post time on Mondays and Tuesdays is a little too late and should be changed to 2:30 or 3:00.

A ninth race on Mondays and Tuesdays would probably pay for themselves.

And what is with short field allowance races that attract horses who should be running at Woodbine? Those relatively high purse races aren't being bet, and they aren't good for the local economy if the winner is stationed at Woodbine.

Anyway, lets hope Fort Erie comes to the realization that some of their takeouts are ridiculously high. Lets also hope that Woodbine is paying attention, because some of their takeouts are relatively on the average to low side (exactors and doubles), and a low takeout Pick 4 could create lots of spillover into other pools.

Guess Who Has The Lowest Pick 4 Track Takeout

2011-06-11T11:03:00.003-04:00

Monmouth? Close. Their Pick 4 takeout is 15%
Hollywood, Del Mar, and Santa Anita? Noooo. They raised the takeout on Pick 4's from 20.68% to 23.68% January 1st. Those dummies.
How about Woodbine? Uh that would be a no. 25%.
Keeneland or Churchill? Again close. 19%.
Aqueduct, Belmont, and Saratoga. Not even close at 26%.
Portland Meadows? You get part marks. They are now tied for the lowest rate at 14%. They used to be alone on top. But now they have been joined by Fort Erie Race Track.

You read that right. Starting tomorrow, Fort Erie has lowered the track takeout on Pick 4's from 26.2% to 14%.

From a press release: “We are testing the waters in terms of takeout reduction,” said FELRC’s Chief Operating Officer Rick Cowan. “Management will assess the results on a regular basis.”

Lets hope this is a massive success. I want Fort Erie to survive, but their track takeouts are way too high. If this drop works, I expect to see doubles and exactors to come way down too (there is plenty of room for some large drops).

This appears different than the disingenuous bone being tossed to Horseplayers by Hollywood Park when they recently put a low takeout Pick 5 on the menu. That bet has been successful despite the Horseplayers Boycott on California racing, and proof that there are plenty of cognizant players out there looking for value. But do you think they are doing anything with the empirical evidence and doing away with that larcenous takeout increase that occurred in January? The answer is a big fat no.

I'm truly hopeful that if this works, Fort Erie will make more moves that are player friendly in the near future.

There is an early Pick 4 that begins in race 1, and another that begins in race 4. If there is a 10 race card, a third one begins in race 7.

That pesky Horseplayer/Owner over at Pull The Pocket thinks "It's Time For Woodbine To Lower The Pick 4 Takeout."

It certainly is. With all the dysfunction going on in other jurisdictions, Woodbine could be on the runway to great growth. Lowering the triactor takeout from 27% to 25% recently was just is a minor step in the right direction. They need something that cries out "follow and play Woodbine daily."

BELMONT STAKES

My recent predictions haven't been all that great. You gotta keep picking yourself up and dusting yourself off though or you might as well be dead.

I'm pretty firm on my prediction today. I even think I have a decent shot at the Superfecta. I'm going with Nehro to win it, long shot Prime Cut to come second, the chalk Animal Kingdom for third, and Mucho Macho Man to finish fourth.

Tomorrow, HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America) is having another Pool Party, this time at Tioga Downs. Tioga even put together this promo on Youtube:

A few ADWs are supporting HANA on this, including Horseplayersbet.com which is giving an additional 2% reward on all wagers made on Sunday's card.

Update: TrackMaster has made free past performances available for tomorrow's Tioga card.

Handle Continues To Fall, Where Is The Bottom?

2011-06-05T10:34:00.001-04:00

Handle was down another 7.8% in May compared to 2010. Racing dates were down, races were down, and so were purses. So much for less is more.

California racing is responsible for a good chunk of the drop, as the powers that be there continue to hold out against rescinding that idiotic takeout hike that occurred at the beginning of the year. Exotic wagers had an additional 2-3% takeout increase tacked on. Taking money faster from a dying customer base is hardly a way to grow a business.

Sure, the economy isn't helping, but horse racing's handle was dropping well before the recession hit, in fact, when the economy was growing, handle was on the downswing too. At this rate, 2011 handle will be close to 1995 levels. Absolutely disgusting since horse racing is probably the best gambling game out there (not taking takeout into consideration) for the thinking person, and taking into account that it has become a whole lot easier to wager on horses from anywhere over the last 16 years.

Even the heat on online poker sites that were ramped up again in May didn't help horse racing handle. But then again, the main reason poker players don't play horses is because of the ridiculous takeout rates which makes it impossible to beat the game in the long run (if you don't get rebates, and even with rebates, it is near impossible to beat the game, though there is a lot more hope).

In 1990, handle for the US and Canada combined was $10.2 billion. Inflation since then is up 75%. This means that if horse racing was keeping pace with inflation there should be $18 billion wagered. Population rates have increased around 20% since then, so the real number should be closer to $21 billion. It is only slightly higher than half that.

What happened? On the positive side, internet and phone wagering has made it easy to play many tracks a day. That definitely helps handle immensely. However, by taking gamblers away from the track, it takes away growth. Most Horseplayers alive today were weaned at the track by parents, friends, and/or other relatives. Those days are gone. Focusing on getting those days back will be a waste of energy as technology improvements and a day at the racetrack just don't jive anymore.

Another bad consequence to being able to wager on any race at any time is that the gambler just doesn't last anymore. Bankroll breaks become more frequent, and new hobbies take the place of horse racing.

Too many high takeout wagers have been added in recent years, taking money faster from Horseplayers. There are triactors and superfectas in every race these days, and with that are takeouts that are on the much higher end. Today's blended takeout rate is higher than 21% compared with a blend rate below 20% in the early 90's. One or two percent coupled with the ability to play many more tracks just kills the Horseplayer, who was a lot more likely to end the day with at least some money in the 90's giving them incentive to play the next day.

Of course, the biggest killer to handle has been alternative forms of gambling. Slots and lotteries have grown substantially since 1990 taking away lots of the dummy money that made it easier for Horseplayers who had half a clue to last a lot longer. The dummy players were also responsible for some growth, as they would bring out friends, and some would become regular Horseplayers over time. Now these potential newbies go play slots with their addicted friends or family members instead.

Low takeout games like sports betting and poker have also taken out a lot of Horseplayers, but more importantly, potential Horseplayers, who could have easily replaced the Horseplayers who have died since 1990. The main attraction to long term gamblers who are thinkers is that they get involved in a game that is possibly beatable in the long run. Both poker and sports betting is perceived as such. Horse racing, no chance. There is no reason to get involved in racing's learning curve for a newbie.

With internet poker on the outs (at least in the USA) and rebates becoming more readily available to the majority of Americans, one would figure that we should be at the bottom, but it just isn't happening.

The takeout increase in California has hurt the chance of finding a bottom just yet, as they do a significant amount of handle per year, and even though most Horseplayers aren't cognizant of takeout when wagering, they get back less and become disenchanted a lot quicker. They wind up devoting less time to the game.

Also, we are seeing signal fees on the increase. This is hurting the rebate player who makes up a lot of the handle.

It is a misconception that most rebate players win money. Most lose, they just last longer than if they didn't receive a rebate, though they have a greater incentive to become better and possibly win money in the long run. An increase in signal fees is like a takeout hike to rebate players. They end up with less to churn, and that is bad for handle. Value players have less plays as well going into a race. Again, handle suffers.

It appears that signal fees are now going in the opposite direction of optimal levels. That and a slightly higher collective blended takeout rate are probably responsible for the decrease in handle we've seen over the past year or so. Both work against having visible long term winners, the one thing racing desperately needs if it ever going to grow again.

Tracks closing or cutting days doesn't help at all. If you are a player, there are still tons of ways to erode your bankroll every day. Less racing means less growth because there are less people being exposed to live racing (not that this is a major source of growth these days, everything helps though).

Looks like the HANA Boycott of California racing is still on.
It is disheartening to see that California Fairs, which start up in a couple of weeks, have decided to increase takeout (2% on exactors and doubles, 3% on all other wagers). Despite all the empirical evidence against a takeout hike, it seems California is just a hopeless jurisdiction for Horseplayers.

Fort Erie handle is still terrible. Looks worse than last year. Reminds me of a deer in the headlights. Sure, they are working their butts off trying to get people to the track, but they have their head in the sand when it comes to what it takes to get gamblers to play the track. A 26% takeout on exactors and doubles turns off cognizant players (a lot more players are aware of takeout today than ever before) all across North America. It also creates less value for value players with lower probable payoffs. And when it comes to the live players Fort Erie attracts, taking their money faster just isn't the way to go. More people leave broke and if they are broke, they are a lot less likely to return.

Fort Erie needs to drop takeout rates at least on doubles and exactors, and they should also introduce a $1 Pick 5 that can be carried over.

The Plate Trial and The Oaks At Woodbine

Today we'll find out if I am right and Bears Chill is the best 3 year old right now in North America. The only 3 year old in his ball park this year is the injured Uncle Mo. Lets see what kind of rating he can get going around two turns. To complete the exactor I like long shot Sandy Gully. I'm hoping they don't kill each other, and it would be nice if it isn't a closer's track. Bowman's Causeway looks to be bred for the polytrack, but may need one off his last disastrous performance.

Can a recent $20,000 claim win the Oaks. Maybe. I like Spooky's Kitten today. She should be closer to the lead this time out, and may have needed the last one. Inglorious may bounce so she is worth betting against. Marketing Mix could improve enough to be right there today, and might find the distance to her liking.

Maybe Luck Can Save Horse Racing

2011-05-25T12:35:00.003-04:00

HBO's upcoming series Luck is being touted as the next Sopranos. Luck is all about horse racing. Chantal Sutherland is in it too. She plays an exercise rider.

Horse racing definitely has a seedy side. Always has. And this series will definitely magnify it and blow it out of proportion. But so what? Some say there is no such thing as bad publicity (I'm not sure Barbaro's demise helped horse racing), I think that statement is very true here. As long as the show has some focus on gambling (and the preview indicates it), I think this will be good exposure for the game.

The key is that no matter how shady some of the gamblers are, if they even give an inkling that the game can be beat in the long run, it just may spark viewers enough to create new Horseplayers.

The movie Secretariat didn't focus on the gambling aspect of horse racing at all, nor did the rise of Zenyatta. Luck may be the catalyst horse racing needs. Now if only horse racing execs can make a concerted effort to make the game actually winnable in the long run by reducing takeouts (not just on gimmick Pick 5's), we might just see some growth and some light at the end of the tunnel for the industry which continues on its downward spiral:

HT EQUIDAILY

Pull The Pocket has a good post up on positioning horse racing from a marketing stand point. Conclusion, way too many cooks without a clue. There are right answers out there, but those who have a say today, give the wrong answers and worst of all, act on them.

HANA ANNOUNCES POOL PARTY FOR MOLSON PACE NIGHT AT WESTERN FAIR ON FRIDAY

HANA (Horseplayers Association Of North America) has organized a late PICK for Pool Party. Track takeout for Western Fair's Pick 4 is 15%.

On that night, Canadian Horseplayers through HPI will get 10 times rewards on triactors. Most American Horseplayers can get a great deal too at ADWs like Horseplayersbet.com.

Here is a free program from Western Fair's site for Friday night.