Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Belmont Purses get 13% hike courtesy of 'Toga (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38477)

Kasept 09-22-2010 03:13 PM
Belmont Purses get 13% hike courtesy of 'Toga
 
ELMONT, N.Y. – Starting with the card on Saturday, September 25, The New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) will increase purses at Belmont Park’s fall championship meet by approximately 13 percent. Average daily purses for the Belmont meet will be $480,000, up from the initial projected figure of $425,000. With purses for overnight races increasing roughly 13 percent across all categories, some of the changes include:
  • Overnight stakes races will increase to $70,000 from $60,000
  • Open money allowance routes will increase to $63,000 from $56,000
  • Open maiden special weight routes will increase to $52,000 from $46,000
  • Starter allowance routes will increase to $47,000 from $42,000
  • New York-bred maiden special weight routes will increase to $44,000 from $39,000
NYRA was able to increase overnight purses for the Belmont Meet due to higher than projected wagering activity at the 2010 Saratoga Race Course meeting and a purse underpayment by $500,000 at the Saratoga meet instead of the projected $2.5 million overpayment.

randallscott35 09-22-2010 03:14 PM
Awesome news. Happy for the trainers/owners and jocks. Let's get that takeout down to 10% and we will be rolling.

Kasept 09-22-2010 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallscott35 (Post 698406)
Awesome news. Happy for the trainers/owners and jocks. Let's get that takeout down to 10% and we will be rolling.
...brought up as if NYRA controls takeout.

randallscott35 09-22-2010 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 698409)
...brought up as if NYRA controls takeout.
No not at all. Just a general statement about takeouts.

Kasept 09-22-2010 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallscott35 (Post 698411)
No not at all. Just a general statement about takeouts.
A non-sequitor and pointless canard given that the wagering at Saratoga with existing takeout levels in place produced the purse increase.

randallscott35 09-22-2010 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 698413)
A non-sequitor and pointless canard given that the wagering at Saratoga with existing takeout levels in place produced the purse increase.
Totally disagree. From that rationale, takeout doesn't matter at all. If that were the case why would DRF and others publish the takeout information and bloodhorse run a story about online wagering where within the story, the fact that takeout needs to be lowered is the key point? Saratoga and all tracks would do better, not worse if takeout were lowered.

Kasept 09-22-2010 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus (Post 698426)
It's tough getting pointless canards past you, Steve.
Ain't that the truth!

And it's hysterical that you bring it up because as I typed 'pointless canard', I swear to G-d, I said to myself, "Where the heck has Cardus been???"

Kasept 09-22-2010 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallscott35 (Post 698419)
Totally disagree. From that rationale, takeout doesn't matter at all. If that were the case why would DRF and others publish the takeout information and bloodhorse run a story about online wagering where within the story, the fact that takeout needs to be lowered is the key point? Saratoga and all tracks would do better, not worse if takeout were lowered.
Well, my issue with the takeout debate, (as it is), is that it's a "Johnny One Note" hot button. Would careful management and a coherent approach to takeout benefit handle overall by promoting churn? Yes. Is pell mell takeout reduction a panacea to pari-mutuel handle? No. It isn't.

By economic standards, there is a threshold that makes ideal sense in the takeout discussion which benefits all sides. However, the foil hat 'lower takeout' mantra chanters have no idea what it is, have no interest in discussing what it might be, or no actual stake in trying to work with anyone to try and discover it.

If the takeout topic is such a deal maker, why has there been close to no applause for Delaware's very noble and practical exacta expirement?

Coach Pants 09-22-2010 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 698433)
If the takeout topic is such a deal maker, why has there been close to no applause for Delaware's very noble and practical exacta expirement?
Because it's limited to one wager type when it should be all.

It's like bringing home a whole chicken and giving the man of the house one wing.

randallscott35 09-22-2010 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 698433)
Well, my issue with the takeout debate, (as it is), is that it's a "Johnny One Note" hot button. Would careful management and a coherent approach to takeout benefit handle overall by promoting churn? Yes. Is pell mell takeout reduction a panacea to pari-mutuel handle? No. It isn't.

By economic standards, there is a threshold that makes ideal sense in the takeout discussion which benefits all sides. However, the foil hat 'lower takeout' mantra chanters have no idea what it is, have no interest in discussing what it might be, or no actual stake in trying to work with anyone to try and discover it.

If the takeout topic is such a deal maker, why has there been close to no applause for Delaware's very noble and practical exacta expirement?

Where is my foil hat? Let's start with 10% for WPS and better breakage and start from there. That is the same as pro sports betting....Better yet, let's encourage people to go to the track and offer reduced takeout on track...What was the attendance for Saturday at Belmont? 5500....in NYC. Also really you aren't comparing apples to apples when you deal with Saratoga. It is a destination. What about the other 10.5 months of the year? Takeout is hardly a canard and someone with a radio show who should be pro bettor should know that, especially with guys like Sanan who say precisely what I'm saying.

Coach Pants 09-22-2010 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallscott35 (Post 698448)
Where is my foil hat? Let's start with 10% for WPS and better breakage and start from there. That is the same as pro sports betting....Better yet, let's encourage people to go to the track and offer reduced takeout on track...What was the attendance for Saturday at Belmont? 5500....in NYC. Also really you aren't comparing apples to apples when you deal with Saratoga. It is a destination. What about the other 10.5 months of the year? Takeout is hardly a canard and someone with a radio show who should be pro bettor should know that, especially with guys like Sanan who say precisely what I'm saying.
That would involve aggressive marketing and quite frankly there aren't enough bold entrepreneurs to take that risk in an industry that has little faith in itself to bring people to the track.

GPK 09-22-2010 08:00 PM
All we need now is a "u slurp my large ass" out of Byk and this thread will be complete:)

Kasept 09-22-2010 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallscott35 (Post 698448)
Where is my foil hat? Let's start with 10% for WPS and better breakage and start from there. That is the same as pro sports betting....Better yet, let's encourage people to go to the track and offer reduced takeout on track...What was the attendance for Saturday at Belmont? 5500....in NYC. Also really you aren't comparing apples to apples when you deal with Saratoga. It is a destination. What about the other 10.5 months of the year? Takeout is hardly a canard and someone with a radio show who should be pro bettor should know that, especially with guys like Sanan who say precisely what I'm saying.
Actually, Sanan has little regard for the one trick pony takeout drum-beaters which only serves to tell me you haven't listened too carefully to his weekly visits on ATR.

It's a phony issue. While it is a part of the overall equation, it's far from the lynchpin. Few are more pro-bettor than me. I just have a wider appreciation for all the stakeholding parties involved in this than those that think magically slashing takeout will be some miracle elixer.

asudevil 09-22-2010 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 698445)
Because it's limited to one wager type when it should be all.

It's like bringing home a whole chicken and giving the man of the house one wing.

I read that and all I could think about was Archie Bunker.

chucklestheclown 09-23-2010 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 698404)
ELMONT, N.Y. – Starting with the card on Saturday, September 25, The New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) will increase purses at Belmont Park’s fall championship meet by approximately 13 percent. Average daily purses for the Belmont meet will be $480,000, up from the initial projected figure of $425,000. With purses for overnight races increasing roughly 13 percent across all categories, some of the changes include:
  • Overnight stakes races will increase to $70,000 from $60,000
  • Open money allowance routes will increase to $63,000 from $56,000
  • Open maiden special weight routes will increase to $52,000 from $46,000
  • Starter allowance routes will increase to $47,000 from $42,000
  • New York-bred maiden special weight routes will increase to $44,000 from $39,000
NYRA was able to increase overnight purses for the Belmont Meet due to higher than projected wagering activity at the 2010 Saratoga Race Course meeting and a purse underpayment by $500,000 at the Saratoga meet instead of the projected $2.5 million overpayment.
Why should bettors applaud this when no bones come our way?

parsixfarms 09-23-2010 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept (Post 698404)
NYRA was able to increase overnight purses for the Belmont Meet due to higher than projected wagering activity at the 2010 Saratoga Race Course meeting and a purse underpayment by $500,000 at the Saratoga meet instead of the projected $2.5 million overpayment.
A lot of people were using similar figures in bashing Monmouth Park's inability to pay $1 million per day in purses. Doesn't this statistic really mean that, like Monmouth, NYRA was forced to run far many more cheap races at Saratoga than they had anticipated?

blackthroatedwind 09-23-2010 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms (Post 698649)
A lot of people were using similar figures in bashing Monmouth Park's inability to pay $1 million per day in purses. Doesn't this statistic really mean that, like Monmouth, NYRA was forced to run far many more cheap races at Saratoga than they had anticipated?
Actually not.

I get what you are saying, and in theory it makes sense, but it also happens not to be the case.

For what it's worth, nobody was bashing Monmouth for running the cheaper races. In fact, it helped prove the lack of quality horses to fill the mythical quality races that the delusional claimed should be occuring with regularity. The problem was in claiming they were doing something they weren't. This was never close to a big deal....it was just funny watching it be ignored by the same people who would have been the first to point it out had it happened elsewhere.

parsixfarms 09-23-2010 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 698676)
I get what you are saying, and in theory it makes sense, but it also happens not to be the case.
What am I missing? My understanding was that NYRA was projecting a 5% decline in handle for the meet. To its credit, it beat that figure. However, that marginal "increase" is not the reason given for the purse increase at Belmont; it's that purses actually paid out at Saratoga were $3 million below the projected purse levels (assuming the accuracy of the reason stated in the article). The only explanations that I can see are either that the races that filled were of a cheaper variety (when you run a $25K maiden claimer versus a MSW race, you "save" the purse account about $25K) or NYRA ran substantially less races than they anticipated (and that wouldn't seem to be a likely explanation, with 395 races contested over the 40 day meet).

A few years ago at Saratoga, maidens were running for in excess of $60K. The primary reason was that, as the winter meet got a little cheaper, there was money in the purse account that had not been expended, and NYRA used that money to great benefit at Saratoga. This feels like a similar situation.

freddymo 09-23-2010 10:37 AM
Why did NYRA bring back the overnight stakes for 70k when past experience suggested that they rarely filled and were typically not attractive races to bet?
5 to 7 horse fields before scratches seemed catered to only the horseman and owners while the bettors and NYRA got little back for the money.. Wouldnt we all like to see these races morph into 50 claimers with 85k purses were claiming activity is spurred and 100k(valued) stock drop in for 50k tag?

Seems to me MP ran at least 3 times as many Allowance type races in 2010 as they carded in 2009 with less dates. Isn't that the point, not that 70 allowance types didnt find there way onto the track on a single race card? Isn't the point of the MP experiment to see how to make the product better for the three players in the game(horseman/owners,the track, and BETTOR)?

blackthroatedwind 09-23-2010 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms (Post 698692)
What am I missing? My understanding was that NYRA was projecting a 5% decline in handle for the meet. To its credit, it beat that figure. However, that marginal "increase" is not the reason given for the purse increase at Belmont; it's that purses actually paid out at Saratoga were $3 million below the projected purse levels (assuming the accuracy of the reason stated in the article). The only explanations that I can see are either that the races that filled were of a cheaper variety (when you run a $25K maiden claimer versus a MSW race, you "save" the purse account about $25K) or NYRA ran substantially less races than they anticipated (and that wouldn't seem to be a likely explanation, with 395 races contested over the 40 day meet).

A few years ago at Saratoga, maidens were running for in excess of $60K. The primary reason was that, as the winter meet got a little cheaper, there was money in the purse account that had not been expended, and NYRA used that money to great benefit at Saratoga. This feels like a similar situation.

I was assuming you understood things better than this. Sorry.

parsixfarms 09-23-2010 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 698700)
I was assuming you understood things better than this. Sorry.
I was assuming that you could provide the explanation that wasn't provided in your earlier response. Sorry.

blackthroatedwind 09-23-2010 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms (Post 698706)
I was assuming that you could provide the explanation that wasn't provided in your earlier response. Sorry.
I honestly think you know the answer.

Cannon Shell 09-23-2010 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucklestheclown (Post 698610)
Why should bettors applaud this when no bones come our way?
Where was applause requested?

Travis Stone 09-23-2010 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerS (Post 698643)
Would love to get to the position where takeout was reasonable enough where we could find what the sweet spot is.
Racetracks don't make enough money on horse racing to experiment and find that sweet spot w/out drastically impacting their business. I'm sure it exists, and it is probably closer to 10% than where we are now.

But let's be real... and like Steve, I'm pro gambler all the way... but I'm also in a unique spot where I can see the business from the other side.

If horse racing said, "On Saturday, the nationwide takeout will be 10%" ... would handle be drastically affected? What about the visa-versa?

Another question to think about... Should horse racing gamblers pay a "premium" for gambling on a game where logic/understanding/hard work can prevail over luck (roulette, for example) in the long run? Is that fair to say?

Takeout is one of many issues facing horse racing... but having a quick slash in the takeout will not save the sport. It doesn't hurt, but it's not the Holy Grail some are painting it to be.

randallscott35 09-24-2010 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerS (Post 698953)
I think players are capable of seeing the game from all sides.

Many of us even have jobs in the business world and know a thing or two about business :)

I think most players realize that if the game doesnt work for everyone it wont work for them in the end. But the lack of appreciation of the cost of doing business is really alarming to me. Sure since the game is parimutuel you always have somewhat of a chance. But to the point about knowledge and skill could poker survive on horse racing takeout rates?

The fact that many tracks are struggling suggest more then ever this is the time to experiment. If not now when? Realize that many tracks are hamstrung by the politicians but we have seen some are more aggressive then others in getting creative and addressing the issue. In this rough economy you see other businesses discounting- even fancy restaurants in NYC.

Lowering takeout wont solve everything but it will go a long way. I dont think the reason not to act is that it wont solve all problems. Again not sure people really appreciate the churn and what even a few points in drop will mean.
I agree. I realize it isn't the only thing that will help. Less racing is the future, not more....But if I have limited dollars to wager, horse racing needs to court those dollars aggressively. You can't blame people who use rebate shops when the game is upwards of 100% more takeout than betting a crummy football game.

richard 09-24-2010 11:13 AM
I like Frank's idea of a mega "powerball" horse racing lottery . The pols have cut deeply into horse racing handle with their own lotteries . We'll see if they want to give us a chance in that arena . If so , it would increase handle and might afford an opportunity to lower takeout on existing wagers . I think handle has to go up before takeout goes down .

chucklestheclown 09-25-2010 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 698844)
Where was applause requested?
I thought it was implicit.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.