Saratoga Handle And Att Decline

[jms62]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

If treading water is your goal then do a victory lap. The numbers are lower in daily handle than they were 12 years ago, even at Saratoga. The objective is to grow the pie. If you are a business with the same revenues as 12 years ago, you aren't happy. To say the numbers are meaningless is....Podunk tracks will be the first to go. All the slots in the world won't save handle as pols can easily redirect cash away from racing when they want to....There is now a casino around every corner in the US. There is competition for every gambling dollar (and many are hurting) that people have....Yes the fact that handle has declined most everywhere is obvious....except that Las Vegas is at a new high in terms of visitors this year. And car sales are back to 2007 levels, etc....things are getting better. It just isn't translating to racing....What to do to fix it? That's it. If it doesn't matter then let's not publish the numbers at all.

New High in terms of visitors translates into what exactly? Six month revenue for Las Vegas is up slightly HOWEVER June and July numbers are down pretty significantly. I would think that Saratoga's July Aug numbers would compare favorably in terms of pct decrease. So what do all those extra visitors mean exactly or were you just assuming we are all to lazy to look beneath the fluff of increased visitors. Gambling in general is a Very mature industry and actually racing is holding its own considering all the outlets available to attract gaming dollars.

Racing's bigger problems IMO are the watered down payouts due to .50 P4 and Dime supers. Impossible to show a profit with $100 P4 payouts being the norm.. Just look at our selections forum. No One showed a profit playing Pick 4's during Saratoga and it wasn't because they weren't hitting them. A few years ago when P4's were at a buck you hit 3 or 4 and were able to show a profit for the meet. That isnt happening anymore but I am in the minority in my feelings for the .50 P4 and dime supers.

http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports/6_month_NV.pdf

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by jms62

Racing's bigger problems IMO are the watered down payouts due to .50 P4 and Dime supers. Impossible to show a profit with $100 P4 payouts being the norm.. Just look at our selections forum. No One showed a profit playing Pick 4's during Saratoga and it wasn't because they weren't hitting them. A few years ago when P4's were at a buck you hit 3 or 4 and were able to show a profit for the meet. That isnt happening anymore but I am in the minority in my feelings for the .50 P4 and dime supers.

You know I disagree with you on this and I don't think there's any data to back it up.

[10 pnt move up]

One person was not happy with Saratoga it appears.

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/stor...aratoga-season

[randallscott35]

I don't agree that Saginaw was the memorable moment of the meet. Sad yes, but that isn't what I will remember from it....Kay is surely green. Bore in bore out and wraps....needs a rest.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

One person was not happy with Saratoga it appears.

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/stor...aratoga-season

Who is he to speak for NYRA employees? Aside from coming and going, his trips around the grounds could be measured on one hand....easily.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You know I disagree with you on this and I don't think there's any data to back it up.

I agree with you. Not only are low minimums better because they induce bettors to overuse bad longshots ... but there's nothing stopping anyone from playing a 10-cent bet ten times, or a 50-cent bet twice... and if they do, they avoid IRS signers and on some occasions, even withholding.

The only intelligent argument I've ever heard for higher minimums -- like a $2 pick six for instance -- is that they're much more likely to induce carryovers. Even so, I'm a fan of the lowest possible minimum under every circumstance.

And when one of these 50-cent Pick 5's carryover ... it's a great thing. There was a double-carryover on a 50-cent Pick 5 at Golden Gate earlier in the year that left a massive carryover into a Pick 5 on a day with all small fields and logical looking races. It was a situation where it was like welfare for horseplayers.

Low minimums equal = much better value for bettors who don't chase after hopeless longshots, less IRS paperwork, less chances of withholding, and even some generous carryover situations across the country, for those bettors who try and be optimistic.

I will never understand what JMS is talking about with this.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I agree with you. Not only are low minimums better because they induce bettors to overuse bad longshots ... but there's nothing stopping anyone from playing a 10-cent bet ten times, or a 50-cent bet twice... and if they do, they avoid IRS signers and on some occasions, even withholding.

The only intelligent argument I've ever heard for higher minimums -- like a $2 pick six for instance -- is that they're much more likely to induce carryovers. Even so, I'm a fan of the lowest possible minimum under every circumstance.

And when one of these 50-cent Pick 5's carryover ... it's a great thing. There was a double-carryover on a 50-cent Pick 5 at Golden Gate earlier in the year that left a massive carryover into a Pick 5 on a day with all small fields and logical looking races. It was a situation where it was like welfare for horseplayers.

Low minimums equal = much better value for bettors who don't chase after hopeless longshots, less IRS paperwork, less chances of withholding, and even some generous carryover situations across the country, for those bettors who try and be optimistic.

I will never understand what JMS is talking about with this.

Well said. I have no problems with the lower minimums. While I have done no scientific study, I do not feel that the lower minimums have resulted in lower payouts. I don't get why someone who has a problem with the minimums can't just make their bet mulitple times to tailor it to amounts they are satisfied with.

[Calzone Lord]

I love races, where you get like a field of 10, and about 5 horses in the race are so hopeless, they just about qualify for the Bums of the day list.

If there is a 10-cent super offered, and the outcome of the super is very logical, you'll be shocked by how well it pays. I can't prove it, but I know a lot of people can't resist the urge to use the all button or throw stupid horses in underneath, when the minimums are a dime.

I will actually try and look for these type of races on occasion. They're favorable opportunities.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by pointman

Well said. I have no problems with the lower minimums. While I have done no scientific study, I do not feel that the lower minimums have resulted in lower payouts. I don't get why someone who has a problem with the minimums can't just make their bet mulitple times to tailor it to amounts they are satisfied with.

I need to research this more but I believe most people play the same amount of money they did when it was a dollar at the .50 interval and get more coverage especially to the mid level 15-25 dollar horses they wouldn't have gotten previously. More people are sharing thus depressed payouts. Steve's base bet on the selections thread is basically the same $75 bucks it was when P4's were a dollar. I think most people (Me and You for instance) are doing the same thing. I'll take this up as a project over the winter to see average payout to $1 when the min was a dollar vs now.

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by jms62

I need to research this more but I believe most people play the same amount of money they did when it was a dollar at the .50 interval and get more coverage especially to the mid level 15-25 dollar horses they wouldn't have gotten previously. More people are sharing thus depressed payouts. Steve's base bet on the selections thread is basically the same $75 bucks it was when P4's were a dollar. I think most people (Me and You for instance) are doing the same thing. I'll take this up as a project over the winter to see average payout to $1 when the min was a dollar vs now.

I don't think the $.50 option has a negative effect on the pk4 payouts vs parlay at all.

If the rationale above were enough to influence the payouts, more logical series would pay better with all the blown coverage.

[randallscott35]

More thoughts from DRF...again they are missing the Carolina BBQ angle here.

http://www.drf.com/news/del-mar-had-...oga-lost-steam

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by jms62

Racing's bigger problems IMO are the watered down payouts due to .50 P4 and Dime supers. Impossible to show a profit with $100 P4 payouts being the norm.. Just look at our selections forum. No One showed a profit playing Pick 4's during Saratoga and it wasn't because they weren't hitting them. A few years ago when P4's were at a buck you hit 3 or 4 and were able to show a profit for the meet. That isnt happening anymore but I am in the minority in my feelings for the .50 P4 and dime supers.

http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports/6_month_NV.pdf

You should use specific examples showing how the parlay is not matching the multi race payoffs. I had run these numbers in socal quite a few times and they almost always, minus strong odds on horses in the sequence, paying more than the parlay.

Also do think its a fair comparison to use in season perfect weather February Las Vegas to 110 degree middle of the off season summer? I would imagine its a rather consistent market trend in that weather climate.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

You should use specific examples showing how the parlay is not matching the multi race payoffs. I had run these numbers in socal quite a few times and they almost always, minus strong odds on horses in the sequence, paying more than the parlay.

Also do think its a fair comparison to use in season perfect weather February Las Vegas to 110 degree middle of the off season summer? I would imagine its a rather consistent market trend in that weather climate.

How is it not fair to compare the same 2 months against the same 2 months last year? Was the weather 30 degrees cooler or something last year in June and July.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by jms62

How is it not fair to compare the same 2 months against the same 2 months last year? Was the weather 30 degrees cooler or something last year in June and July.

my bad, I see the Y-Y.

Not sure why, I can assure you the economy in the surrounding states is picking up.