Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 956044)

I'm not in New York, so I don't know about any gold room, but horse owners are the biggest bettors? Come on. Like anything else, some bet big, some bet small, some don't bet. And there is a difference between being a big bettor and a serious bettor, i.e. one trying to win money.

Originally Posted by MaTH716 (Post 956046)

Truthfully, I would think that serious bettors very rarely visit the track.

My perception is that these bettors find one good spot/sequance a day to wager on. Depending on where they live, it's probably not worth the hassle to go all the way to the track for one wager.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 956036)

....A serious bettor is actually being pretty foolish going to the track on a regular basis for a wide variety of reasons.

Originally Posted by Payson Dave (Post 956048)

There are plenty of SERIOUS BETTORS that go to Saratoga on a regular basis...many of them may not end up being impacted by this price increase because they have credentials...but taking your statement above as a stand alone, I cant agree.

Originally Posted by Payson Dave (Post 956053)

"at a better price"...ahhhh they do allow cellphones at the track these days

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 956054)

Well, sure, but home is still easier. I'm sure you know this. And part of the "better price" is that there are none of these track charges, not just betting.

Originally Posted by art vanderlay (Post 956037)

You do understand this thread is about price increases for admission, seats, and parking, at NYRA tracks.

Originally Posted by Payson Dave (Post 956056)

I agree home is easier..even with wifi available on track...home is still easier.
For me the best reason for going to the track is to see the horses in the paddock...and on a less serious note the Spa scenery isn't too bad either

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 956085)

yes, of course. so, that is at variance with say...admission, seats and parking at other tracks? like i said earlier in the thread, arlington was $7 each last time i went, several years ago. since it was 7 at arlington, that means i can't discuss 5 at belmont? i mean, it's still green dollars with george washington on them, right?

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 956085)

yes, of course. so, that is at variance with say...admission, seats and parking at other tracks? like i said earlier in the thread, arlington was $7 each last time i went, several years ago. since it was 7 at arlington, that means i can't discuss 5 at belmont? i mean, it's still green dollars with george washington on them, right?

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 956086)

yes, easier, but not nearly as much fun as going to the track.

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 956086)

yes, easier, but not nearly as much fun as going to the track.

Originally Posted by art vanderlay (Post 956090)

That includes a program right. I get it you go to the track once every few years of course a price increase wouldn't bother you.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 956092)

All depends on the person. I personally like going now and then. But outside of Saratoga, I don't see joy on the faces of many people when I go.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 956091)

Does Arlington get subsidized by slots?

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 956092)

All depends on the person. I personally like going now and then. But outside of Saratoga, I don't see joy on the faces of many people when I go.

Originally Posted by declansharbor (Post 955899)

I know I'm only one person, but this is what keeps me betting from my recliner. The dregs of society and stench of losing at OTB's keeps me far away, and I'll only visit a top tier track once in a blue moon and that almost always seems to be on vacation.

My gambling friends who know little to nothing about horse racing sometimes ask me (crazy i know) for a play or two. Rest assured, they always have a snarky comment to me about the people that visit these betting outlets and joke about how I'll one day be one of these guys lol. Needless to say, there's a stigma that goes along with horse players. Right or wrong, it's there, and I think it prevents some of the newbie generation from jumping in feet first.

I've also wondered what racetracks would look like if they followed the NFL's footsteps in making home viewership so much more enjoyable than year's past. Apples and oranges in comparison to product, just something that crosses my mind from time to time.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 955988)

Yeah, $15 or $30 would really bring the fans in droves.

If you bet only $100, you are already paying $18-20 in admission...but everybody seems to forget that. Let's just keep tacking on more and more.

Originally Posted by ghartman02 (Post 956007)

Somewhere, somehow racing needs a brand new business model. Like many of the comments, I remember going to Churchill in the 70's and it was $2 for the Grandstand and $5 for the clubhouse. Today it's the same. I haven't been in the past 2 years, but CD raised the price to $10 on their night cards, but they had a lot going on.
Attendance is down for a myriad of reasons. So here's my observations:
A day at the track is very long for the average person. Do we need 10, 11 race cards.
Customer Service at most tracks isn't the best. I've been all over and most tracks act as if you're in their way. I'm not a casino type, but the places I have visited the employees are so welcoming.
Concessions seem to be a sticking point. At the casino here in Cincinnati, they have several bars, and restaurants such as Margaritaville, Bobby Flay burgers etc. At Churchill Downs, I brought up the price of a drink and they're answer was other sports charge that. Racing isn't other sports. It's a gambling entity.
Women. Some tracks are so, shall we say in disrepair, and it's not a great place to take the wife or girlfriend.
In regards to Saratoga and Belmont. Both tracks to me are amazing. The racing is great, but Belmont is like a tomb. Saratoga is so awesome. I cheat when I go there though, I camp. It's a less expensive.
Bottom Line: If you increase admission, make sure there is value. Otherwise the economic situation won't improve in racing.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 955988)

Yeah, $15 or $30 would really bring the fans in droves.

If you bet only $100, you are already paying $18-20 in admission...but everybody seems to forget that. Let's just keep tacking on more and more.

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up (Post 956136)

This was the best comment in the whole discussion.

If I go and wager in a casino on a slot machine and bet $100 the casino will get an average of $5 pending on the game. If I bet $1000, which is my typical handle if I was to go to the races for an entire day, its $50.

If I go to the races they get $200 on average.

One is free and the other is charging, you would think its reversed on the who.

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 956140)

Well said. Let's face it horseplayers are portrayed as degenerate gamblers by the media and the industry is treating us like addicts. Increasing the rates for us to get our fix chasing the big score (high) . The casinos understand that giving perks and low takeout games will get more folks in the door and churning that money over and over until it is gone.

To me it seems like the horse racing industry has too many old execs unable to grasp that it is no longer the 1960's and 70's

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 956143)

i agree that the industry who makes its money from bettors seems to ignore who actually funds the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 956103)

You get that this ploy of making NYRA "profitable" on the balance sheets for 2014 is part of the plan to not "subsidize" NYRA right? Not to mention that it isnt in any way a subsidy, it is part of payment for the billion dollars of land the state now officially owns.

Having a philosophical argument about charging horsepalyers for extra's is a interesting topic. However in NYRA's case it isnt a apples to apples argument because there is real doubt about the true goals of the oversight board or at the very least the Chairman and several members. Plus virtually every racino is required by law not to charge admission. I mean who would hire Kay if the goal was to maximize profits at an entity that handles over 20% of the 10 billion or so bet in this country?

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up (Post 956173)

The sooner racing gets off slots welfare the better because it was a short term infusion of cash, no way were the politicians going to go far this arrangement.

Racing should really be hoping the NJ online betting deal works out, that could open the door to full, legalized, internet wagering in every state, and that would grow the game.

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up (Post 956173)

The sooner racing gets off slots welfare the better because it was a short term infusion of cash, no way were the politicians going to go far this arrangement.

Racing should really be hoping the NJ online betting deal works out, that could open the door to full, legalized, internet wagering in every state, and that would grow the game.

Originally Posted by Scav (Post 956182)

I don't agree at all in regards to growing the game. IMO, it will actually hurt it because right now, they pretty much have the market cornered when it comes to 'legal' online wagering.

Originally Posted by art vanderlay (Post 955976)

I guess I should just take your advice and suck it up, but from someone who actually attends the races the costs add up, $10 admission $5 program $32 for two seats in the Clubhouse and a couple of bucks for the person who wipes your seat with a dirty rag.
Multiply that by 4 or 5 days per week. So will $6 more dollars be a deal breaker, maybe.

Originally Posted by art vanderlay (Post 955976)

I guess I should just take your advice and suck it up, but from someone who actually attends the races the costs add up, $10 admission $5 program $32 for two seats in the Clubhouse and a couple of bucks for the person who wipes your seat with a dirty rag.
Multiply that by 4 or 5 days per week. So will $6 more dollars be a deal breaker, maybe.

Originally Posted by MaTH716 (Post 956188)

I must of missed this originally or it just didnt register, but where are they charging $16 seats on a daily basis?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 956103)

You get that this ploy of making NYRA "profitable" on the balance sheets for 2014 is part of the plan to not "subsidize" NYRA right? Not to mention that it isnt in any way a subsidy, it is part of payment for the billion dollars of land the state now officially owns.

Having a philosophical argument about charging horsepalyers for extra's is a interesting topic. However in NYRA's case it isnt a apples to apples argument because there is real doubt about the true goals of the oversight board or at the very least the Chairman and several members. Plus virtually every racino is required by law not to charge admission. I mean who would hire Kay if the goal was to maximize profits at an entity that handles over 20% of the 10 billion or so bet in this country?

Originally Posted by freddymo (Post 956201)

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 956171)

I know that, I also know that bettors/fans don't care (nor should they) what political maneuvering is going on behind the scenes. What fan is going to say, "well paying admission sucks, but I don't really mind because I know it is just the state trying to grab all the slots money?"

Enough on this from me, just going to see how it plays out.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 956204)

So you are willing to ask why but because you dont like the messy political realities you just dismiss them? Discussing this particular situation involving NYRA without acknowledging the politics involved being a giant pink elephant in the room makes the conversation pointless.


I'd expect a little higher level of discourse here.

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up (Post 956206)

Will racing survive once all this slot money disappears?