Monmouth Handle Doubles!

Boutique meets can work if you force the slot states that had horrendous racing before the slots out of the game.

Indiana and West Virginia should stick to John Mellencamp concerts and jug-blowing.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Boutique meets can work if you force the slot states that had horrendous racing before the slots out of the game.

Indiana and West Virginia should stick to John Mellencamp concerts and jug-blowing.

LOL

[Holland Hacker]

I know an increase of 100% in handle and attendence is great news. Being the "doubting Thomas" that I am about NJ racing as I have seen it decline steadily since the NJSEA took over from the Hess Family. My question is how much did the handle increase on a per race basis? How many races were run last year on opening day versus this year. Lets not forget that Monmouth will have significantly fewer racing days while offering nearly the same amount of races. I would think the critical metric is handle per race rather than handle per day.

On the bright side I'm sure it is up but is it truly up 100%?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Holland Hacker

I know an increase of 100% in handle and attendence is great news. Being the "doubting Thomas" that I am about NJ racing as I have seen it decline steadily since the NJSEA took over from the Hess Family. My question is how much did the handle increase on a per race basis? How many races were run last year on opening day versus this year. Lets not forget that Monmouth will have significantly fewer racing days while offering nearly the same amount of races. I would think the critical metric is handle per race rather than handle per day.

On the bright side I'm sure it is up but is it truly up 100%?

2009: 11 races, 90 runners, $4,279,438 ($389k/race; $47.5k/horse)
2010: 13 races, 126 runners, $9,357,444 ($720k/race; $74.2k/horse)

Originally Posted by Kasept

2009: 11 races, 90 runners, $4,279,438 ($389k/race; $47.5k/horse)
2010: 13 races, 126 runners, $9,357,444 ($720k/race; $74.2k/horse)

Oh so it really didn't double. HUGE FAILURE. They should quit while they are ahead.

2+2 = 5

[Travis Stone]

Opening Day was virtually guaranteed a success giving the hype and buzz surrounding the meet, the pent-up demand of local racing fans who are used to seeing a live race a few weeks earlier and nice weather as well.

What a lot of folks seem to be missing, however, is that this whole plan is about streamlining for an entire summer, not just one day. Day #1 is a good start, but now as the meet wears-on, and the novelty wears-off, what happens? Then we'll know how well this consolidation move worked. It's early to declare it a rousing success, but early indications are certainly positive.

One day a meet does not make.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Day #1 is a good start, but now as the meet wears-on, and the novelty wears-off, what happens?

You comment makes no sense from a horse players perspective, the ones that wager the real money, not the 2 dollar fan who shows up on opening day. How do big fields, lots of multi race sequences with good value wear off after opening day?

Or am I missing what the big players are looking for? I think on a day by day comparison it might be bigger than double the handle, opening days tend to produces bigger numbers then drop off dramatically, I would imagine we dont see the same percentage drop say for next fridays card when compared to last years same day.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

2009: 11 races, 90 runners, $4,279,438 ($389k/race; $47.5k/horse)
2010: 13 races, 126 runners, $9,357,444 ($720k/race; $74.2k/horse)

This is the important metric IMO. Race/race comparison.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Kasept

2009: 11 races, 90 runners, $4,279,438 ($389k/race; $47.5k/horse)
2010: 13 races, 126 runners, $9,357,444 ($720k/race; $74.2k/horse)

[herkhorse]

Nice. A few more days like that and they could afford to fix their website.

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Not sure understand all the emotion about this. Steven Crist has pointed out Monmouth going to need handle of $10 million a day to make the numbers work.

I guess that means he hates Monmouth too

Hang with it Homer. You are not alone.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by HomerS

Not sure understand all the emotion about this. Steven Crist has pointed out Monmouth going to need handle of $10 million a day to make the numbers work.

I guess that means he hates Monmouth too

This entire operation is puzzling to me. The objective, apparently is to INCREASE HANDLE. The method utilized is INCREASING purses. The immediate effect is:

1) MORE MONEY for TRAINERS
2) MORE MONEY for TRAINERS
3) MORE MONEY for JOCKEYS

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but most gamblers are probably playing from their homes. So, good quality horses and top jocks are not exactly going to be enough of an enticement to get them out of their homes and over to MTH. And, it follows, neither will bigger purses. I mean, the idea is to find advantages in one's plays and it doesn't necessarily follow that there will be more of them in better quality and probably better matched fields.

So, maybe the way to really increase handle is by giving some to the GAMBLER. ****, everyone else seems to be getting theirs. So how about they cut those purses a bit and then cut takeout a bit. Or, maybe, they go the way of WO and KEE and DMR and get TRAKUS so their data can be as accurate relatively as their fields are good.

This is going to fail. The dirt (and turf) course is NOT a FAIR one. Only the DRF/BEYER old schoolers who thrive on the AQU INNER and the present GP meet will be eating this **** up. Everyone else will be at WO and CRC and other fair tracks.