Derby Trail Forums - 2009 NY handle -10%, attendance just -4%

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - 2009 NY handle -10%, attendance just -4% (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33821)

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I agree that fractional denominations make the wager easier to hit for the player with a limited bankroll, but I've never seen any study that establishes that fractional wagers lower the average payouts of those wagers (although recognizing that dime supers may permit a super to get hit, where it previously would have had an "all" in the fourth slot). Pic-4 payoffs at tracks like Keeneland and Gulfstream are plenty generous (often more so than corresponding wagers at NYRA which has the $1 minimum), despite the lower minimums.

I understand the tracks' desire to foster carryovers with wagers like the pic-6 (and am willing to accept the $2 minimum), but for non-carryover wagers, it's about catering to the tracks' customers. The arguments that you are advancing are same as those made by the "whales" or other large bankroll players who want the pools to themselves. If you are going to try to grow participation in the sport, I don't believe that's the way to go. And this speaks nothing to the IRS reporting benefits associated with fractional wagering.

Good points... A study actually would be very cool for review, since I think a lot of the thoughts on this are anecdotal (like the Santa Anita Super v. High 5 story). Can't argue at all with the benefits of the minimum in regards to tax (as currently structured) and participation... Don't you feel there are plenty of 'wade in' wagering minimums already available between the current crop of .10 and .50 increments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

The problem is that at NYRA tracks and wagering platform, the dime super is currently the only "wade in" opportunity.

I know that there have been plenty of studies showing that, to date, there has been little, if any, cross-over between the lottery/slots players and horse wagering. However, I think that is partly because the owners of the slots parlors do nothing to facilitate or encourage horse wagering. (Saratoga Harness is a perfect example in this regard.) While the gaming parlors often trumpet big scores for small denominations at their facilities, I've often wondered why racing doesn't do the same. Imagine if the lottery/slots players were informed that they could win thousands for a .50 pic-4 wager (or hundreds for a .10 super bet). Would it change their gambling habits? I don't know, but perhaps it would at least be worth a try.

the .10 cent super players are great......you have seen them, spending all that time with their .60 cent vouchure shutting you out of a race.:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I know Iowa has a study that concluded that casino traffic and volume was impacted positively (significantly) when race meets were being conducted (as opposed to the periods when PrMtrack is not running).

You're right about certain facilities not engaging in any cross-promotion of racing/gaming. An exception to that is Remington where a huge glass-enclosed viewing platform runs along the middle of the slots parlor and mutuels are easily accessed in the casino.

And totally agree that the failure to properly demonstrate to the masses how they can win big with lottery style ease continues to be a missed opportunity...

A study of the correlation between minimums and pool size would be really be interesting to me. Perhaps the UA-RTIP people have one? I can ask around for that. Stan Bergstein's (HTA) people may have one too...