Beyer on Maryland Racing

[Thunder Gulch]

How long have we been hearing about the sad state of racing in Maryland? Seems as if every year some prominent writer pens an article like this just before the Preakness, and nobody does a thing until next year.

[smuthg]

What would be wrong with making Pimlico a meet similar to Oaklawn? I think a 12-13 week meet would be more practical than a 5 to 6 week Saratoga/Del Mar type meet if that's the only racing that would be in Maryland.

[Travis Stone]

Whether or not it happens via Maryland, Louisiana, New York, Kentucy, Illinois etc. etc. etc., a consolidation of the overall racing product is a good thing. In my opinion its basic supply/demand. If there demand isn't there, decrease the supply.

--

Scenario: Racetrack A has 1,000 horses on the grounds so they schedule a 90-day race meet. They will struggle to make big fields and struggle overall, but probably get by. They'll handle $500,00 / day over 9 races for $55k a race. If you figure a blended take-out of 20%, then a 50/50 split with horsemen, their gross revenue is probably about $50k / day.

Now consider this...

Scenario: Racetrack A has 1,000 horses but they schedule a 30-day race meet. Instead of an average field size of 7, they're in the 10-12 range. Because of the larger field size, they handle more per race... say another 20k / race. so now they handle ~$680k which breaks down to $68k in an estimated gross revenue.

Even though the second scenario does better numbers, is better for racing etc, it's hard to justify the spreadsheet which shows money is being made, albeit little, on the first scenario.

When you have a giant racetrack not generating income and lots of red numbers, those black numbers, even if they're small, are hard to ignore.

Basically at LAD the more we race the more we make. But the more we race, the worse off we (and the region) are. It's a tough balalnce, and the industry has not found it yet.

[dagolfer33]

This question brings me straight to the fundamental principle that handle, wagering, is the lifeblood of any and everything to do with this sport. As a player, 5 and 6 horse fields dont interest me at all. And while I may wager every so often at the aforementioned tracks, the short fields are a deterrant and may cause player to not bet the tracks at all even when they may have some good races carded. Bottom line, fuller fields generate more handle. They should do what they can to achieve that, and if that means shortening their racing dates then sobeit.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Whether or not it happens via Maryland, Louisiana, New York, Kentucy, Illinois etc. etc. etc., a consolidation of the overall racing product is a good thing. In my opinion its basic supply/demand. If there demand isn't there, decrease the supply.

--

Scenario: Racetrack A has 1,000 horses on the grounds so they schedule a 90-day race meet. They will struggle to make big fields and struggle overall, but probably get by. They'll handle $500,00 / day over 9 races for $55k a race. If you figure a blended take-out of 20%, then a 50/50 split with horsemen, their gross revenue is probably about $50k / day.

Now consider this...

Scenario: Racetrack A has 1,000 horses but they schedule a 30-day race meet. Instead of an average field size of 7, they're in the 10-12 range. Because of the larger field size, they handle more per race... say another 20k / race. so now they handle ~$680k which breaks down to $68k in an estimated gross revenue.

Even though the second scenario does better numbers, is better for racing etc, it's hard to justify the spreadsheet which shows money is being made, albeit little, on the first scenario.

When you have a giant racetrack not generating income and lots of red numbers, those black numbers, even if they're small, are hard to ignore.

Basically at LAD the more we race the more we make. But the more we race, the worse off we (and the region) are. It's a tough balalnce, and the industry has not found it yet.

What factor in scenario 2 would make the horses race more often? I like the idea, but wouldn't the horses just run somewhere else? This only works if a lot of tracks cut back on days I would think.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

What factor in scenario 2 would make the horses race more often? I like the idea, but wouldn't the horses just run somewhere else? This only works if a lot of tracks cut back on days I would think.

You're rigth, and bring-up a good point. Right now there is little incentive for tracks to work together, which is another item on a long list of issues.

If there was a way to model a revenue-sharing option around horse racing, it could work. If tracks had fair financial incentives to cut back on dates, I'm sure many would do it. The NFL utilizes this concept, and incentivizes clubs to better their team by allowing them to keep portions of luxury suite sales as one example.

It is of course way more complex than just sharing each other's checking account. But if racing reached a point where races and horses were optimized both for the horsemen, the bettors and the tracks, then racing would be on the right track. Right now the fragmented model is counter-productive. Racing is not optimizing its assets.