Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
They have some real ground breaking stuff in this article. Like live handle is decreasing on horseracing at tracks with slots. Really? No kidding? Well it is decreasing at tracks without slots too mostly because you dont have to actually drive to the track and bet like you did 20 years ago! They fail to mention that off track handle on places like Delaware is probably up 300% from 10 years ago. Of course things were great in West Virginia and Delaware 10 years ago when the tracks were all on the verge of going out of business!
The thought that slots would "make" horseplayers is and was a stupid idea. Slots give racetracks a chance to capture a segment of the gambling market that was not betting on the races but was very much competitive with their core business. By using a portion of the profits to boost purses these states have revitalized and perhaps salvaged the racing industry in Delaware and West Virginia. They have created jobs and saved jobs while funneling money back into the local communities and the state, where a standalone casino most likely owned and run by Las Vegas or foreign interests would take 100% of the money and run.
Many articles like this especially in states where issues like slots are hotly contested, I always get the feeling that the story is little more than a front for a politicians stand. Planted stories like this one seems to be, rarely examine the issue from both sides and often are too brief to really discuss the matter thoroughly.
|
There's a few things I hope you will clarify from your post, because I am very interested in your point of view.
First of all, do you feel the state of racing, in terms of the number of people who are fans, is better or worse than it was 10 years ago? If it's worse, then the addition of slots (and, inevitably, table games) is just a stopgap that will at some point fail to justify the continued support of a failing industry. The warning I take from the article is that there should be a refocusing on racing, as opposed to just slots, in the advertising and marketing of racinos, so that the fan base of racing increases along with overall revenues.
Secondly, there's no doubt that slots saved Delaware and Charlestown. But I wonder how long it will be until the owners of these establishments come to believe (if they don't already) that their floor space would be better used only for slots (and, inevitably, table games) rather than for a racebook or even for a racetrack. Just imagine how many machines you could fit in the space that the track at Delaware, for example, currently takes up. Although I believe that such thinking is fallacious because there must be a saturation point (i.e., just because you add more machines doesn't mean you will make more money), I nevertheless don't trust racetrack managements to take the long view on things instead of trying to cash in on what at least appears to an instant and guaranteed source of revenue. Plus, let me point out that Penn National (which also owns Charlestown) will likely go private in a year or so, and I trust private entities (such as Greenwood Racing, the owners of Philly Park) even less than publicly traded companies. Slots has become the tail that wags the dog, and I'm afraid that eventually the tail will come to believe that it doesn't need the dog.
Third, I'm not sure who you think are the politicians behind the story (and I don't mean to sound like I'm picking a fight here, 'cause I'm not). Are you saying that you believe that there's an anti-racing contingent out there, because it appears that the story isn't anti-slots (it seems to acknowledge that slots have made a lot of money), it's essentially anti-racing with slots.