With all the pressure that NYRA seems to be under from the state to make racing operations at least a break even proposition, it is looking for "revenue" anywhere it can find it. Unfortunately, seeing how NYRA makes more money from an on-track dollar wagered than an off-track dollar wagered, anything that discourages patrons from wagering on track is counter-productive.

I would like prop bets and head to head wagering specifically

I agree. While in the long run, paying the extra $2 might end up being negligible,
it definitely creates a negative perception, that of NYRA trying to bilk their already regular customers for more $ without offering anything extra in return. And I agree with the statement that the extra $2 would be spent anyway in some form, be it wagering or food/drink.

Finally, many people don't simply go to Saratoga for one day, they vacation there for a week, or even a month. So that extra admission money does add up.

last time i went to arlington, admission was $7. that was probably 6 years ago, so i don't find $5 to be cause for alarm.
they could raise it much, much higher, and i'd still go there before i ever went to a casino.

Last year Arlington started charging $2 for kids to get in. Reg admission is $8, more on premium days ($20 on Million Day being the highest)

This is the fallacy we often hear. Let's try running races without gambling and see how many people show up.

I'm compairing it to other entertainment options. It has live entertainment and it charges a minimal entrance fee for it. Nightclubs with DJ's or bands charge a cover for entertainment while your local bar with no entertainment probably doesn't.

I think they are trying to draw a younger hipper more affluent crowd to the races. They know this not going to happen at Aquduct in the winter but might work at Belmont in the spring or fall. To do this they are trying to price out some of the undesirables, stoopers, unwashed people etc.... I know this is a stereotype but when I try to bring new people to the races this is often the first thing I hear.

I've heard a lot of excuses for raising prices, but there is no way I'm buying that it is to keep out undesirables.

I guess this is where the split is. For some, it is entertainment, for others it is gambling. I love racing, but take away the gambling, and I'd most likely never go again.

I agree, and probably would never go again if it weren't for the gambling. I guess I just don't mind paying a few dollars for the live product.

NYRA offers a premium product. You raise prices for premium products. Saratoga's Clubhouse admission price was lower than that of every other major racetrack in the country that charges. It was time for an increase.

I think you bring up an excellent point. Let's say you and your wife have 200.00 of discretionary income. If you go to Resort World all 200.00 is in play and its likely you grab a discounted buffet a long the way.

At the track 10% of your play allotted cash is raked for the opportunity to wager. Where would you rather play?

the track. or bet online.

i loathe casinos

It was only time for an increase IF the delta between handle rake and addtional earned admission is positive. Who did the analysis or was it "just time to increase it"?

Only in racing do prices go up when business is down.

Business is not down in NY for the year. Handle is up. Handle was down at Saratoga by a fractional margin.

I understand you're completely against the price increase. However, if you grant that a price has to be charged, the new price is quite fair based on the market.

Business is down as far as attendance goes, and that is what this price increase impacts. I guess we'll see how people respond. I think on track attendance and handle will decline. The customers will determine if the price is fair. On track handle is better than off track handle for NYRA.

Customers don't care about political maneuvering between the state and NYRA. All they know is they are going to be asked to pay more while slots money is rolling in. Think about that.

But why is attendance down?
Is it a matter of the economy and people just not having extra money to spend/gamble?

Is it a matter of the sports older clientele dying off and arent being replaced by younger fans?

Is it that people are just fed up trying to beat a game that's borderline impossible?

It's a shame that the people that will be punished the most are the track rats that are there day in and day out. If they could somehow come up with some special promotion for these people (such as a free monthly grandstand pass that you sign up for once a month {they do it at Monmouth}), then I really think that the effect from the increase will be minimal at best.

I just can't see the person/family who enjoys a day at the track, that goes once/a couple of times a month balking about a couple of dollar increase. Especially with these people living in an area where the cost of living is already high and everything (tolls, buses, trains etc) seem to go up on a quartly basis. I understand the sports/gambling argument, but compared to the ridiculous amount of sports tickets around here (mostly Yankees & anything at MSG), the track prices seem like a relative bargin.

As long as this is a one time increase for the considerable future, I don't see it be that big a deal.

Well said, gentlemen.

The spinners on give-away days at the Spa are going to be bummed...they don't contribute much to the handle but they sure enhance the attendance figs.

Outside of professional sports perhaps