Churchill Downs Players Boycott
 

Seems the numbers are down Anyone playing there anymore, excluding Oaks/Derby days ?

http://www.playersboycott.org/handleupdate05112014.html

I played opening night and Oaks/Derby days. Other than that, my handle that would usually go there is going to Monmouth b/c of the takeout gap.

Not only does the takeout suck, but the field sizes are a joke.

Oaks / Derby only - other than those two days the racing is pathetic. To take that kind of a takeout hit with 6 horse fields you would litterlally need your head examined.

Must admit, I haven't paid much attention to this issue, but since all the discussion about it here, I looked it up and here is a chart I found. My apologies, if someone already put this up, at some other time.

http://www.sportsbettingacumen.com/h...eout-chart.asp

I thought the jump in takeout from exactas to tris and other multi horse wagers was interesting. About 3 to 6 percentage points, if I am reading that right, just about everywhere.

What is this Churchill Downs you speak of?

We now know Churchill downs isn't in the horse racing or hospitality business anymore.

Scroll doWn to change in executive compensation graph :wf

http://www.playersboycott.org/

I played my usual on Derby weekend because I was there. Actually I played part of it with an offshore account, which isn't part of Churchill's handle. Last week at the OTB when considering which tracks to look over, I intentionally skipped looking at Churchill, and I won't bet there again until next Derby weekend.

BH article w/quotes from Churchill:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...handle-decline

There are no quotes from CDI in here. Otherwise, interesting.

Yeah my bad. I confused the empty suits defending the takeout increase.

According to an economist and horse racing expert named Maury Wolff:

I am very good with simple math and horse racing math -- but I'm FAR from an accredited expert in the general field of math.

I wanted to get as much information from charts starting in 1940 and I wanted to know how to properly determine the impact of both raising and lowering takeout, and the value it a/effect it has.

As you can see above, I don't even properly know if effect or affect was the right word in that sentence.

There's a high school teacher who teaches statistics and regularly attends the races here. I sought his advice and help.

Based on what he was telling me, it was just too hard for me to obtain all the information I needed to do an authoritative enough study.

However, based on what he told me and what information I had, I think Maury Wolff is actually understating the a/effect.

I'd love to pursue this more, but A.) I'd need to spend a lot of time in the Keeneland Library. B.) I'd need the help of an actual mathematician. C.) I'm now associated with BRIS and Twinspires, Churchill Downs owned companies...and they are of the belief that bettors don't care about takeout (they're basically right) but they also seem to believe (based on God only knows what) that takeout doesn't have a damaging a/effect on the racing product. So, it's probably not in my best interest to pursue this.

Travis Stone, a fairly smart person and a poster here, made the unbelievably preposterous argument to me that bettors don't react favorably enough to takeout reductions in order to even justify experimenting with them. And, he based his entire argument on a super-low takeout Ellis Park Pick 4 and a super low takeout 10-day experiment that Laurel ran one summer, a few years ago. In both instances, these were not true takeout reductions. They were short-term marketing gimmicks, and in both instances they were done at periods where Ellis and Laurel were in-competition with the Saratoga and Del Mar meets.

Regarding the a/effect of the 'Players Boycott' -- it's hard to say that it's really made a big difference.

Churchill Downs has a few marquee racing days that are virtually immune to the heinous cancer that is increased takeout. Opening day, Oaks day, Derby Day, Foster day, Clark day. If anything, the Boycotters are an asset to Churchill Downs on those days, because they spam social media to the point that it's Churchill Downs this, and Churchill Downs that. On bread and butter days, the boycotters probably hurt CD a bit.

Unfortunately, a lot of suits in racing don't care about the glory days of horse racing. You can't expect them to ever crack a book or do meaningful research. And they certainly don't come from serious betting backgrounds.

It is the providers of handicapping material who have the best interest to promote takeout reductions -- and surprisingly, they're as indifferent as possible about the subject. DRF, BRIS, TimeformUS, Thoro-Graph, Ragozin etc. For these entities, it is in the best interest to conduct all-out wars for takeout reduction. Quite surprisingly though, they're indifferent about it. They place their faith in the wisdom of the suits. They don't see takeout increases as the great scourge. They don't see the long-term benefits and growths of steadily reducing takeout rates.

It all boils down to an understanding of a gamblers behavior. It's more than just about churn. Bettors feel it when they fail. They bet less money on fewer races. Neophyte bettors are so discouraged, they're stunted and can't be cultivated into serious horseplayers.

However, when bettors truly believe they can win, and have sustained and credible results to back it up... their behavior changes wildly. Over a century ago, it was nothing for dozens of old-time bettors to bet $10,000 or more on a horse race. Adjusted for inflation, those would be ungodly large bets today. The $1 million win bet on Candy Boy in the Derby is small potatoes compared to what some bettors fairly regularly did in the days of wide-open bookmaking and very low-rakes.

Refuting Maury probably isn't your dopiest decision....but it's close.

I don't even know him.

However, I'd like to know if he factored in, to his conclusion, evidence from the 1940's. In that period, the DRF editorials hit hard against takeout increases.

Also, I'm not sure you can factor in the period from say, the 1880's through 1930's.

Really, until the "O'Dwyer Bite" takeout increase, where the takeout spiked from 10% to 15% at NYRA tracks -- horse racing received better press coverage than any sport, except for maybe Major League Baseball.

I havent been playing because the field sizes are horrible, they are Golden Gate small

Almost whenever anyone does a study relative to racing, there is a near instant reaction that some other variables that should be considered, weren't. In other words, most studies about racing-related items are discounted immediately by many opinionated viewers, whether warranted or otherwise.

I'd suggest the reason that it all happens is the very nature of the sport - 8 horses in a race, someone makes a case for two and suddenly, the other six look like potentially attractive options. It's in our nature, as horseplayers, to take a viewpoint contrary to the one being offered.

All that said, even if the "O'Dwyer Bite" was taken into account by Wolff, it is near impossible to accurately account for the changes in market conditions from the 1940s to 2010s.

Final update:

http://playersboycott.org/handleupdate06292014.html

Handle was down over 25% once you break out Oaks/Derby days. Pretty cut and dry that the boycott worked. Arlington is down over 18% right now as well.

Rees

http://www.courier-journal.com/story...meet/12186911/