Derby Trail Forums
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Belmont Purses get 13% hike courtesy of 'Toga (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38477)

blackthroatedwind 09-23-2010 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms (Post 698649)
A lot of people were using similar figures in bashing Monmouth Park's inability to pay $1 million per day in purses. Doesn't this statistic really mean that, like Monmouth, NYRA was forced to run far many more cheap races at Saratoga than they had anticipated?
Actually not.

I get what you are saying, and in theory it makes sense, but it also happens not to be the case.

For what it's worth, nobody was bashing Monmouth for running the cheaper races. In fact, it helped prove the lack of quality horses to fill the mythical quality races that the delusional claimed should be occuring with regularity. The problem was in claiming they were doing something they weren't. This was never close to a big deal....it was just funny watching it be ignored by the same people who would have been the first to point it out had it happened elsewhere.

parsixfarms 09-23-2010 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 698676)
I get what you are saying, and in theory it makes sense, but it also happens not to be the case.
What am I missing? My understanding was that NYRA was projecting a 5% decline in handle for the meet. To its credit, it beat that figure. However, that marginal "increase" is not the reason given for the purse increase at Belmont; it's that purses actually paid out at Saratoga were $3 million below the projected purse levels (assuming the accuracy of the reason stated in the article). The only explanations that I can see are either that the races that filled were of a cheaper variety (when you run a $25K maiden claimer versus a MSW race, you "save" the purse account about $25K) or NYRA ran substantially less races than they anticipated (and that wouldn't seem to be a likely explanation, with 395 races contested over the 40 day meet).

A few years ago at Saratoga, maidens were running for in excess of $60K. The primary reason was that, as the winter meet got a little cheaper, there was money in the purse account that had not been expended, and NYRA used that money to great benefit at Saratoga. This feels like a similar situation.

freddymo 09-23-2010 10:37 AM
Why did NYRA bring back the overnight stakes for 70k when past experience suggested that they rarely filled and were typically not attractive races to bet?
5 to 7 horse fields before scratches seemed catered to only the horseman and owners while the bettors and NYRA got little back for the money.. Wouldnt we all like to see these races morph into 50 claimers with 85k purses were claiming activity is spurred and 100k(valued) stock drop in for 50k tag?

Seems to me MP ran at least 3 times as many Allowance type races in 2010 as they carded in 2009 with less dates. Isn't that the point, not that 70 allowance types didnt find there way onto the track on a single race card? Isn't the point of the MP experiment to see how to make the product better for the three players in the game(horseman/owners,the track, and BETTOR)?

blackthroatedwind 09-23-2010 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms (Post 698692)
What am I missing? My understanding was that NYRA was projecting a 5% decline in handle for the meet. To its credit, it beat that figure. However, that marginal "increase" is not the reason given for the purse increase at Belmont; it's that purses actually paid out at Saratoga were $3 million below the projected purse levels (assuming the accuracy of the reason stated in the article). The only explanations that I can see are either that the races that filled were of a cheaper variety (when you run a $25K maiden claimer versus a MSW race, you "save" the purse account about $25K) or NYRA ran substantially less races than they anticipated (and that wouldn't seem to be a likely explanation, with 395 races contested over the 40 day meet).

A few years ago at Saratoga, maidens were running for in excess of $60K. The primary reason was that, as the winter meet got a little cheaper, there was money in the purse account that had not been expended, and NYRA used that money to great benefit at Saratoga. This feels like a similar situation.

I was assuming you understood things better than this. Sorry.

parsixfarms 09-23-2010 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind (Post 698700)
I was assuming you understood things better than this. Sorry.
I was assuming that you could provide the explanation that wasn't provided in your earlier response. Sorry.

blackthroatedwind 09-23-2010 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms (Post 698706)
I was assuming that you could provide the explanation that wasn't provided in your earlier response. Sorry.
I honestly think you know the answer.

Cannon Shell 09-23-2010 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucklestheclown (Post 698610)
Why should bettors applaud this when no bones come our way?
Where was applause requested?

Travis Stone 09-23-2010 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerS (Post 698643)
Would love to get to the position where takeout was reasonable enough where we could find what the sweet spot is.
Racetracks don't make enough money on horse racing to experiment and find that sweet spot w/out drastically impacting their business. I'm sure it exists, and it is probably closer to 10% than where we are now.

But let's be real... and like Steve, I'm pro gambler all the way... but I'm also in a unique spot where I can see the business from the other side.

If horse racing said, "On Saturday, the nationwide takeout will be 10%" ... would handle be drastically affected? What about the visa-versa?

Another question to think about... Should horse racing gamblers pay a "premium" for gambling on a game where logic/understanding/hard work can prevail over luck (roulette, for example) in the long run? Is that fair to say?

Takeout is one of many issues facing horse racing... but having a quick slash in the takeout will not save the sport. It doesn't hurt, but it's not the Holy Grail some are painting it to be.

randallscott35 09-24-2010 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerS (Post 698953)
I think players are capable of seeing the game from all sides.

Many of us even have jobs in the business world and know a thing or two about business :)

I think most players realize that if the game doesnt work for everyone it wont work for them in the end. But the lack of appreciation of the cost of doing business is really alarming to me. Sure since the game is parimutuel you always have somewhat of a chance. But to the point about knowledge and skill could poker survive on horse racing takeout rates?

The fact that many tracks are struggling suggest more then ever this is the time to experiment. If not now when? Realize that many tracks are hamstrung by the politicians but we have seen some are more aggressive then others in getting creative and addressing the issue. In this rough economy you see other businesses discounting- even fancy restaurants in NYC.

Lowering takeout wont solve everything but it will go a long way. I dont think the reason not to act is that it wont solve all problems. Again not sure people really appreciate the churn and what even a few points in drop will mean.
I agree. I realize it isn't the only thing that will help. Less racing is the future, not more....But if I have limited dollars to wager, horse racing needs to court those dollars aggressively. You can't blame people who use rebate shops when the game is upwards of 100% more takeout than betting a crummy football game.

richard 09-24-2010 11:13 AM
I like Frank's idea of a mega "powerball" horse racing lottery . The pols have cut deeply into horse racing handle with their own lotteries . We'll see if they want to give us a chance in that arena . If so , it would increase handle and might afford an opportunity to lower takeout on existing wagers . I think handle has to go up before takeout goes down .

chucklestheclown 09-25-2010 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 698844)
Where was applause requested?
I thought it was implicit.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 AM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.