Improving the product

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

imagine how annoying the betting lines would be. I am not a serious horseplayer so I'll glance at the form the night before maybe but the majority of the time I just look that the form is in between races. Wouldnt have time for that if I immediately had to get in line after the last race ended.

If a track ever had a problem with too many people betting, then I am sure they will be happy to come up with a solution.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Will we have 20 races a day? I understand the concern, but God knows I'm not going to go out to the track as often if I have to get all ready, drive over there to see live racing, spend all my time handicapping etc etc, and then get there, watch the races, and have to turn around and drive home 90 minutes later. No chance.

No have 9 or 10 races. You are thinking like a gambler. Think more like a casual fan. With the decrease amount of time it takes to run the races the race track would save 1000's in operating costs.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by whodey17

No have 9 or 10 races. You are thinking like a gambler. Think more like a casual fan. With the decrease amount of time it takes to run the races the race track would save 1000's in operating costs.

Damn right I'm thinking like a gambler.

And frankly, it would be a terrible idea that would likely bring in an insignificant amount of 'casual fans' while turning off a large segment of the industry's existing bread and butter. Trade gamblers for casual fans -- it doesn't make sense.

[slotdirt]

Honest question: how many "casual fans" who hit the track don't then gamble? I'd suggest somewhere between zero and zero.

The logistics of of trying to space races only ten minutes apart would be a complete nightmare.

[hockey2315]

10 minutes between races is one of the stupider things I've heard today. . . Ok so let's save a few $s on operating costs and lose 100 times that on handle. . . Brilliant. . .

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Damn right I'm thinking like a gambler.

And frankly, it would be a terrible idea that would likely bring in an insignificant amount of 'casual fans' while turning off a large segment of the industry's existing bread and butter. Trade gamblers for casual fans -- it doesn't make sense.

A gambler will gamble. I remember people saying that people would not bet on a synthetic surface, however most meet for those synthetic tracks are up. Good thing about trying new things is that if it doesnt work you can always go back.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by whodey17

If you cannot afford the $2 or $3 entrance fee, then you shouldn't be going to the racetrack.

Did you read the thread before posting? It's not about the $3 entrance fee that people who go to the racetrack once a year have to pay - it's about the regulars who actually generate most of the handle and make real money for the tracks. The tracks are already getting 20% or so of what they put through the windows and then suck another $1000+ probably on admission. Not to mention the cost of PPs, food/drinks at the track, etc... People who play for a living shouldn't have to be subjected to all this unnecessary overhead when they're the ones generating the most handle.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Did you read the thread before posting? It's not about the $3 entrance fee that people who go to the racetrack once a year have to pay - it's about the regulars who actually generate most of the handle and make real money for the tracks. The tracks are already getting 20% or so of what they put through the windows and then suck another $1000+ probably on admission. Not to mention the cost of PPs, food/drinks at the track, etc... People who play for a living shouldn't have to be subjected to all this unnecessary overhead when they're the ones generating the most handle.

Why not? I don't understand this concept. And yes I read the post. I disagree 100% with giving people who play "regualry" free admission. And one who cares about the health of the sport should want to pay the admission fee, pp's, and food. I can get into Churchill and Hoosier free anytime I want, but I always pay the $2. I am happy to pay this. As a lover of the sport, I feel it is my duty to support the tracks.

[hockey2315]

You don't support the tracks with your $2 admission fees. . . You support them with bets. . .

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

You don't support the tracks with your $2 admission fees. . . You support them with bets. . .

I think it is a combination of both. I would love to find out what a place like Hoosier makes a year in admission fees. I think you would be surprised by how much they make. That money is important to off-set the operating costs.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by whodey17

This is what I would do increase the take-out.

1) Change the negative image of racing
2) Make the time between races 10 minutes
3) I think racing should be a single owned entity (this will never happen).
4) There needs to be national laws governing racing--not at the state level.
5) Make the racetrack "the place to be" with agreassive marketing.

This is just a start.

Just for fun, you should see if you can come up with a suggestion that is MORE vague than this one.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Just for fun, you should see if you can come up with a suggestion that is MORE vague than this one.

Explain how it is vague. What is vague about it? There is a negative image out there--go and change it. Simple.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Since I've done my share of bitching about the industry, here are a few things I think could help INCREASE handle and the shrinking pie everyone is fighting over.
(no particular order)

1) Modernize the information. No more about distances, no more stupid run ups, precision timing, no more "eyeballed" charts.

2) Lower takeout. Nothing new to say here.

3) Free admission and basic PP information available online, along with replays and live video.

4) Close racetracks, and I mean a good number of them, at all levels of racing. We need more competitive races with bigger fields.

5) Open all tracks to all licensed Account Wagering companies at the same price.

6) Change existing tax laws. The industry has done little to change laws that hurt them and the player. There is a new organization at NTRA that I did sign up for (once again the players are asked to foot the bill)

7) Open our pools to international bettors. Europeans love the vast amount of information we provide compared to other countries.

8) Rules reform regarding DQs...way too many people are baffled by some of the happenings.

Again, just a few that could help make the pie bigger.

I too think all of your ideas are good, for the most part. However, I think they are all part of a much more strategic plan for the sport and the industry. One of the biggest issues is the "alternatives" people have today, both internal to the sport/industry and external. Closing racetracks however will have major ancillary effects -- on breeders, owners, tracks, handle, etc. That is not the answer in my opinion. Racetracks will close, but it will be a function of market mass, economics, and the overall marketplace.

The industry must reinvent itself while very much keeping their eye of the ball and the end game, and that is remember what our product and business is. Economics alone dictate that alternative revenue sources are a major part of the (economic) answer. If handled properly, VLT's can be part, only part of that solution. In and of itself, it will cause regress, not progress. I think you will see short term progress, but long term regress and ultimately, possible destruction. I think I know what Woodbine will look like in the future, but I don't the the future is bright at Finger Lakes.

Alternative revenue sources, changes in legislation, simulcasting, internet wagering, and so on -- they are all part of the much larger, global landscape solution.

Eric