slots the magic bullet, and a bit of waxing poetic

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

I don't really want to start another thread bemoaning racing's sad state of affairs in terms of fan decline, but here you go: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...l-sports-horse

It's no surprise that slots aren't the panacea that some people anticipated.

Yesterday, when I was at the track, I was holding a live pick 4 ticket and waiting for the last leg of the sequence. I had three horses in the last race, and the ticket in my hand included a 22 to 1 winner from the second leg. It was a beautiful day and I was outside, standing in the sun. At that moment, I felt like there wasn't anywhere else in the world that I'd rather be. It wasn't just the possible money. It was the satisfaction of making at least some sense of all the numbers and information. It was the palpable awareness that came over me at that moment of the drama and tradition that imparts that feeling of timelessness on almost every racetrack to which I've ever been. It was the recognition that I still get a thrill every time I see the desperate struggle reflected in the flattened ears and big, big eyes of two horses vying at the line. I almost laughed out loud for the utter joy of it. If only there was some way to bottle this feeling. Then I'd know that this game would never die.

Thanks for the read.
Sadly, I've seen the same thing at Finger Lakes. Downstairs (where the slots are, off the bar) was packed. Nice races were going on outside in the beautiful sunshine. Very few were involved in the wonder and glory of it all.
My guess is that when "slot players" and "horse players" got lumped together as "gamblers", and those that saw there was money to be made from them without distinction, it caused something to be lost at the other's gain.
To me, I'd rather feed carrots and windows than one arms.

[saucon17]

I've been to Del Park the last three weekends for both days, except today. The weather was great and there were a lot of people watching the live races when they were running. This writer said less than 100 people on the track apron he must have been there on a weekday in which I could see that amount of people watching the live races. Father's Day weekend was pretty crowed with the picnic area jammed with families BBQing, watching races and having a great time together. Yesterday was an OK crowd at Del Park. The weather was fantastic for late June. Even though I lost some $$$ and our first time starter ran 3rd in the opener yesterday there is no other place I rather be on a Saturday afternoon. Except maybe College football season.


Shawdoll I hope you hit your pick 4.

[ShadowRoll]

Used Saucon Meadow in my exactas, though I was afraid there might be some issues at the start with all the gate works. Can't believe got beat by that 22-time maiden.

[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.

[phystech]

The Baltimore Sun is a hugely Democrat slanted newspaper. It's unbelievable to read some of the garbage they put out - but that's another story.

The Sun has always been against slots so I'm not surprised to see the story they ran. They routinely utilize quotes from one guy who is anti-slots, in most of the slots stories. He also posts in the BS's Talk forum. Turns out the guy is a financial advisor. He gambles with other people's money for a living but is anti-slots. I bust his ass every chance I get.....

[philcski]

Originally Posted by phystech

The Baltimore Sun is a hugely Democrat slanted newspaper. It's unbelievable to read some of the garbage they put out - but that's another story.

The Sun has always been against slots so I'm not surprised to see the story they ran. They routinely utilize quotes from one guy who is anti-slots, in most of the slots stories. He also posts in the BS's Talk forum. Turns out the guy is a financial advisor. He gambles with other people's money for a living but is anti-slots. I bust his ass every chance I get.....

No, those are the guys who TALK about gambling with other people's money. They don't have the balls or smarts to gamble with others' money.

I respectfully disagree with your statement on the Baltimore Sun, but you probably read it a lot more than I do. [This article, for the reasons Chuck stated, is completely slanted anti-slots, however.]

[Riot]

"Slotsthemagicbullet"

Good name for a race horse

And i will also edit this to agree,

"I almost laughed out loud for the utter joy of it. If only there was some way to bottle this feeling. Then I'd know that this game would never die."

Yes, indeed.

[ShadowRoll]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ShadowRoll

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.

SR
I have no idea if racing has expanded or shrunk its fanbase over the last 10 years or so. I'm not sure how to even measure it. As I have stated before, racing "fans" have a much different relationship to our sport than other fans have with mainstream sports. Being that we our main (only?) stream of revenue comes through wagering, it makes more of a gambling hybrid than a traditional sport. The fact that less people are coming out to the races is not a new or surprising trend. But handle nationwide has been pretty consistent over that time. Obviously many people have moved to betting using account style, offtrack betting. I recall a poll done by ESPN a year or so ago that said that 25% of the population had at least some interest in horseracing which I thought was high and think they quoted it as being up from like 11%. Of course they were starting to do more horseracing so maybe they doctored the numbers? I think just the fact that ESPN wants the Breeders Cup and more big races leading up to it is a positive sign, but thats another topic.

Of course I as a horseman I am concerned that the racino tracks will/are focusing much of their marketing efforts on the slots. But I also recognize that because of the tremendous competition for the gambling dollar, that I would rather deal with greedy racetracks focusing on making money from slots than a closed track with zero dollars for purses. Of course if the slots tracks in conjunction with the states would make a concession and lower the takeout to a reasonable rate, I believe that handle on the races would surge, not in a small part due to the fact that the players simply would have more money in their pockets. I would trade all the marketing in the world for a 50% reduction in takeout.

The possibility that racinos will move to eliminate racing altogether is a possibility but unlikely for the reason that it would bring them a lot of grief and lawsuits. It is simply easier to subsidize racing than eliminate it.

I believe that Penn National going private after the takeover especially in light of the possibility of a PE Blackstone tax increase and all the fallout over it, may take a while before things are different.

I am always skeptical of stories like this that seem to have no general public interest other than to try to sway opinion by trying to paint a picture using half the canvas.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

SR
I have no idea if racing has expanded or shrunk its fanbase over the last 10 years or so. I'm not sure how to even measure it. As I have stated before, racing "fans" have a much different relationship to our sport than other fans have with mainstream sports. Being that we our main (only?) stream of revenue comes through wagering, it makes more of a gambling hybrid than a traditional sport. The fact that less people are coming out to the races is not a new or surprising trend. But handle nationwide has been pretty consistent over that time. Obviously many people have moved to betting using account style, offtrack betting. I recall a poll done by ESPN a year or so ago that said that 25% of the population had at least some interest in horseracing which I thought was high and think they quoted it as being up from like 11%. Of course they were starting to do more horseracing so maybe they doctored the numbers? I think just the fact that ESPN wants the Breeders Cup and more big races leading up to it is a positive sign, but thats another topic.

Of course I as a horseman I am concerned that the racino tracks will/are focusing much of their marketing efforts on the slots. But I also recognize that because of the tremendous competition for the gambling dollar, that I would rather deal with greedy racetracks focusing on making money from slots than a closed track with zero dollars for purses. Of course if the slots tracks in conjunction with the states would make a concession and lower the takeout to a reasonable rate, I believe that handle on the races would surge, not in a small part due to the fact that the players simply would have more money in their pockets. I would trade all the marketing in the world for a 50% reduction in takeout.

The possibility that racinos will move to eliminate racing altogether is a possibility but unlikely for the reason that it would bring them a lot of grief and lawsuits. It is simply easier to subsidize racing than eliminate it.

I believe that Penn National going private after the takeover especially in light of the possibility of a PE Blackstone tax increase and all the fallout over it, may take a while before things are different.

I am always skeptical of stories like this that seem to have no general public interest other than to try to sway opinion by trying to paint a picture using half the canvas.

It's crap, won't ever happen. It's inefficient public companies fearful of privatization through LBO's crying uncle that the the PE's have a built in advantage through the tax breaks (whose tax rates, with good accountants, are available to ALL companies.)

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

SR
I have no idea if racing has expanded or shrunk its fanbase over the last 10 years or so. I'm not sure how to even measure it. As I have stated before, racing "fans" have a much different relationship to our sport than other fans have with mainstream sports. Being that we our main (only?) stream of revenue comes through wagering, it makes more of a gambling hybrid than a traditional sport. The fact that less people are coming out to the races is not a new or surprising trend. But handle nationwide has been pretty consistent over that time. Obviously many people have moved to betting using account style, offtrack betting. I recall a poll done by ESPN a year or so ago that said that 25% of the population had at least some interest in horseracing which I thought was high and think they quoted it as being up from like 11%. Of course they were starting to do more horseracing so maybe they doctored the numbers? I think just the fact that ESPN wants the Breeders Cup and more big races leading up to it is a positive sign, but thats another topic.

Of course I as a horseman I am concerned that the racino tracks will/are focusing much of their marketing efforts on the slots. But I also recognize that because of the tremendous competition for the gambling dollar, that I would rather deal with greedy racetracks focusing on making money from slots than a closed track with zero dollars for purses. Of course if the slots tracks in conjunction with the states would make a concession and lower the takeout to a reasonable rate, I believe that handle on the races would surge, not in a small part due to the fact that the players simply would have more money in their pockets. I would trade all the marketing in the world for a 50% reduction in takeout.

The possibility that racinos will move to eliminate racing altogether is a possibility but unlikely for the reason that it would bring them a lot of grief and lawsuits. It is simply easier to subsidize racing than eliminate it.

I believe that Penn National going private after the takeover especially in light of the possibility of a PE Blackstone tax increase and all the fallout over it, may take a while before things are different.

I am always skeptical of stories like this that seem to have no general public interest other than to try to sway opinion by trying to paint a picture using half the canvas.

A few things: you make some very good points, especially regarding takeout reduction. It would be an interesting experiment but I doubt anyone has the balls to implement it. As a fan and a gambler, primarily, and not so much as someone involved in the business (except, of course, with SWLY), I am very concerned with fan base rather than just total handle. Fewer gamblers with the same overall handle probably means better informed gamblers, which of course means tougher competition during my occasional weekend at the park, as well as less people to commiserate with when I lose.

As for Penn National, we'll have to see. I've been buying shares for years but I think that gravy train has reached the end of the line for small-time investors like me. I'll vote in favor of the takeover and then whatever happens happens.

You seem very skeptical of the media in general (re your comments about ESPN as well as the Sun). As someone with an undergraduate degree in journalism, i have to say that...I agree with that sentiment completely. I assume you exclude from your skepticism people like Byk, who has proven himself to be a paragon of integrity. (I know it's a heavy responsibility, but remember, Steve, that when I hear news on your show, I assume that it's from God's mouth to your ear).

Finally, let me say that when I first read your reply above, I thought you began it with the word "SIR", before realizing that you wrote "SR", and I nearly spit my drink out my nose.