[GenuineRisk]

There is no pleasing racing people, is there? First it's, no one is watching the races. Then it's, oh more people are watching the races? But they're not the RIGHT kind of people. Then it's, the gamblers need more dumb money from casual bettors coming to the track. But get the chance for those and then it's, oh but casual bettors won't become serious (educated) bettors, like we gamblers. (I am not including myself in that "we;" I'm a terrible handicapper)

People talk about the past (as they do about anything) and how much better things were then, but I find it hard to believe that those packed racetracks of yore were filled with serious gamblers.

I visited my parents over the weekend and we took a night to visit Penn National/Hollywood Casino- they shuffled off to the slot machines and Angelika (my friend who adopted the Paragallo yearlings) and I went to the track to watch some races. Anecdotal observations to follow:

Saw one couple on a date- the girl explained everything going on to the guy.

Much better food options than at Aqueduct and Belmont (NYRA, I'm looking at you. And frowning at Sbarro's).

Not a lot of people, but of those, quite a few were families with small kids. Anything that happened close to the audience, the kids were riveted. They liked watching the horses walk around the ring; they liked watching the track vets check the lip tattoos and the 1m70 race loaded the horses not far from the finish line and the kids were fascinated. And it was a long load, as one of the horses had a meltdown and had to be scratched.

My uncle said back when Penn National had Sunday afternoon racing, if you didn't get to the track an hour before the first race you'd have to park way out on the grass and walk a quarter-mile or more to the entrance. Racing would probably be better served to race primarily at night and on weekends. Inconvenient for the horse people, yes, but it's a sport, and sports are entertainment, and entertainers need to work when the rest of the country is not working and looking to be entertained.

I wish TV coverage would find a middle ground in between the on-air handicappers talking above the average viewers head and the moronic "Top Chef: Kentucky Derby" fluff. In the end, it's two hours of coverage for a two-minute race and I wish they'd take that time to prep the audience so that the non-racing fan can feel like they understand what's going on. Explain (in a fun, entertaining way) different running styles and rather than Bailey solemnly saying, "Pace makes the race" and leaving it at that, take the time to explain what that actually means, and why the fractions are important. Help the casual viewer feel smart while they watch the race, and they'll want to watch another one. Gambling is good for the sport, but useless for network coverage since their money is from advertising- they just need eyeballs on the screen, and the more of those, the more races they'll cover.

As a female, with purely anecdotal evidence, I also think you have a lot fewer female gamblers and the casual female bettor spends less gambling. But for TV coverage, that's not a disadvantage, as the TV audience is comprised of more women than men and consumer spending rates are about the same (advertisers' concern). Advertisers could care less if viewers are gambling. Unless they are selling gambling.