Saratoga Handle And Att Decline
 

More surprised at a 3.5% attendance decline. A disappointment.

http://www.drf.com/news/saratoga-mee...dle-attendance

Important:

Agreed, which is why I said the attendance is an ongoing issue. I don't think people were waiting for the inner to go to the track.

[IMG][/IMG]

perfect timing. just got back from saratoga a few hours ago. the place was packed on sunday.

and if you live within 3 hrs or so make sure you get there. it was an experience i will never forget.

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

It isn't that important. Yes there was a bad few days at the end, but all in all this was one of the better meets I can remember weather wise. How many turf races were lost this year compared to recent years? I'm guessing the number is pretty low this year comparatively.

I found it:

http://www.drf.com/news/saratoga-201...overall-handle

Despite the article claiming spectacular weather, there were less races taken off this year:

2013
Total Races: 420 Turf Races: 209 Off Turf: 24 (89.7% stayed on)

2012
Total Races: 417 Turf Races: 197 Off Turf: 27 (87.9% stayed on)

2011
Total Races: 398 Turf Races: 158 Off Turf: 41 (79.4% stayed on)

I'm not saying in any way that the meet was good or bad, but to blame the weather on the last day is a BIG reach.

Couple things I noticed with these numbers it just reaffirms to me that the economy has very little to do with Saratoga handle, especially on track. Why its slightly down is a bit confusing. In general I think people make it a point to bet Saratoga, where Del Mar for example I believe is tied more to the economy, that combined with the new ship in program really changed that probably to the best meat I can remember in at least a decade from a betting standpoint. It has been a great 6 weeks for the player.

No one's "blaming" today's weather for anything. I was just pointing out how small the margin was between 2012 and 2013 handle since some people only read headlines and extrapolate things like "Saratoga Handle Declines".

I meant the article seemed to be blaming today. Given the weather and a few more races, "Handle Declines" would be pretty accurate in my opinion.

That was opening day ;)

ha ha, wasnt that the Cougar II handicap day...

When 85-90% of all racing handle is collected off-track, why people think focusing on attendance as an important metric for anyone but those counting gate and concession revenue is beyond me.

OK, overall handle declined.

Which basically boiled down to one day (yesterday) having a sizable difference year over year. Closing weekend this year was a disaster from a handle perspective.

Granted, handle should have been up given the terrific weather and overall number of races. There's no reasonable explanation for it at this point. However, to use attendance as a metric of any type is irrelevant.

An easy way to increase attendance is to have more give aways. It won't help handle much but an extra tee shirt day or 2 might increase paid attendance by a 20K.

About the handle I wonder how many pick six carryovers there were last year compared to this year and how big they were?

Attendance concerns are farcical because the numbers that are being used are completely artificial due to the 'spinner' phenomenon of the 90's-00's. They are 'down' because they were never that 'up'. The pairing back of giveaways guarantees lower year-to-year attendance numbers.

I disagree strongly. Lifelong fans of horse racing are created not by watching TVG but going to the track. I get the spinner phenom which Steve talked about so I have no problem if the numbers aren't apples to apples. But the idea that attendance at the most important meet in the entire nation is meaningless doesn't wash with me.

I wonder if improved racing product and weather at other venues may have hurt Saratoga? Not really sure, I know Del Mar which I follow pretty close, had its best meet probably since 2000ish. Now if we can just get real dirt.

The declines or gains had the last day not been wiped out are pretty much negligible. The attendance total figures as was pointed out are artificially enhanced and are hardly accurate anyway. The handle decline this season can be almost directly tied to those friends of Fowlers being wiped out by Andy's poor selections and not being allowed to churn the pools with their millions.

:D

This was the only point I was trying to make.

For those that are interested, handle was up double digits last year, which made gains this year extremely hard to achieve. Everything is relative.

My burying the fans, as Chuck suggested, was ultimately too much to overcome.

All kidding aside, take a look at the daily handle, the actual numbers, and every Saturday as well. Each time I would look at last year's numbers as we waited for this year's final tally, I was taken aback by the kind of numbers that we were up against.

I believe players reading of name tags as opposed to wagering cost them .004% of on track handle.

Was the Yankees attendance up or down last year?

Not sure? No one cares... Not sure why anyone cares about Saratoga's unless it is way up or way down. Drawing conclusions from overall numbers with no context taken is a waste of time. Of course most of our fearless racing leaders and dopey media members make a big deal out of it

Fair enough but wasn't last year the first year they did the Friday opening and the record number of days, which is why last year was up so much on a % basis?....The per race totals as I watch finishing totals look much less than the mid 2000 pools I used to see in terms of win place and show totals. Maybe people are playing more exotics and multirace wagers. I'm sure that's part of it.

No and don't be.

So to be clear, the numbers this year were lower per day in handle compared to 2005, which by the way was lower than 2004 by 5% b/c of a gambling scandal....http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/sp...cing.html?_r=0

10 years later and no appreciable increase in daily handle for Saratoga and there is no concern and we can spin this anyway we want? All I said in the initial post was that it was a disappointment. I have no problem with NYRA and love Saratoga. But again it is nothing but defensive reactions regarding what is a weakish number. Just say that.

And this comes off a spring/summer meet at Belmont with attendance down a staggering 14% year on year and handle on track which includes AQ/+rewards players down 10%....but if we don't mention it I assume it won't matter.

Turf Course
 

I play mainly turf racing and it seemed because of the lack of rain during the meet up to the last weekend made the turf course almost unplayable unless you had the ability to pick a lone speed type. I know it had an impact on off the pace types and I certainly passed a lot of races...
Probably just my issues...

This was the case for about a week later in the meet, and was really more about being inside than speed. Hopefully we can take advantage of these trips at Belmont this Fall.

Randall, surely a little thought might help you understand the reason for the decline in attendance at Belmont. Here's a hint, check Belmont Day for each year.

I'm not going to have any debates with you here. I am at more than an unfair disadvantage, and throughout your history here it has been evident that you have your beliefs and they won't be changed. I wish you only the best, at the races as well as in life.

And I you...except there was no triple crown on the line after Drug O'Neill scratched. And that may not have impacted the tickets already sold, but it surely impacted the walk-up...how that explains a 10% decline in handle is beyond me...again we can keep changing the bars however you would like...I just hate the idea that things have to be spun on the best horse racing message board we have as an industry. We all love the game.

Considering that overall handle numbers industrywide have dropped significantly in 10 years isn't an expectation that Saratoga's numbers should have increased odd?

Nope. I think the point is more about what the future of racing is going to look like. The fact that Saratoga is not immune is surely relevant.

a good summer though per DRF

Handle on U.S. races up 4.7% in August, according to Equibase. Purses up 5.5%, and race days up 1%.

good!

You are making no sense. Saratoga has bucked the trend and has not shown a decline in handle over 10 years when virtually every other track in America has. How is this a negative?

Are you just now figuring out handle has dropped in this country over the last 6 or 7 years? Or that handle is and has been moving off track?

Saratoga's numbers this season don't show anything really. They are well within the norm of what can be expected.

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

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