|
|
Post by jay44224 on May 22, 2008 7:54:37 GMT -5
Has slots helped or hurt racing as a whole.
There are many schools of thought here, and one that should bring some lively discussion.
My opinion and one that is frowned upon by several of my fellow horseman is that it has been detrimental. As a business man I believe in Darwinism - survival of the fittest. Prior to slots you had the natural
transgression of dying ventures going out of business and the stronger ones growing their share.
People could argue that handle was dwindling - in raw numbers it was and still is.
But if you looked at it in a different perspective and just took the dollars wagered on harness racing as a whole and then took the percentage of that the dying tracks were getting smaller % percentages of the shrinking pie and the stronger ones were getting a bigger share.
With slots the pie is still shrinking - but with better purses they have drawn away the talent of both horses and drivers while not increasing handle to the overall good of the business.
The tracks who were winning on an even playing field have watched their product become weaker and now must seek the hope of the alternative gambling model to survive.
I have a lot more to say on this topic - but that is enough to get the ball rolling and gets some lively debate on quoet message board
|
|
|
|
Post by trackrat on May 22, 2008 8:51:28 GMT -5
Jay, without a doubt, slots have helped the RACE TRACKS by replacing lost handle or augmenting a stagnant handle with slots revenue. My gut feeling is that these tracks have not converted many slots players into horse players. Perhaps Giss has some industry data that establishes the impact of slots on RACING revenue, not overall track revenue.
Have slots helped the horsemen? Perhaps temporarily, but only at the tracks that have slots and only until EVERY track has slots and the playing field is evened. At that point, I foresee purses either leveling off or being reduced. Haven't Yonkers and Buffalo already reduced their purses?
|
|
|
|
Post by tautog on May 22, 2008 9:53:12 GMT -5
I'm going to take the opposite point of view view and explain why. I think it's known that I pass the slots every time I go to Yonkers and never play them except once and that was waiting for my friend. Yonkers was a dead track with less than 100 people there on a weekday night. I was amazed that the Rooney's kept it open it was a morgue. The purses were extremely low and quality of stock was down.
Then the slots came and it has buzz again but not for racing. Their handle never hits a million and till this day people who take action illegally won't at Yonkers but will at NF. But the place would have been closed as it's worth a fortune in real estate even in this type of market. It's exactly the reason Roosevelt shut down to make it a shopping mall.
Is it fair to tracks like NF? NO!!! But like I've stated over and over again NF is one of the most popular tracks in the country even though I can't stand all the nw races and would prefer claiming. NJ tracks have the same problem but they get a subsidy (bribe) by the casinos. Drivers, trainers, and owners are always going to try and make the most money and I don't blame them.
Two more examples are Penn National and Charlestown two of the dumpiest tracks when I was growing up. Their purses are competitive today with Maryland who has no slots. In fact I wouldn't mind if the racinos added poker and blackjack to the gambling itinerary if it increases purses.
We have discussed before that there is no young blood going to the track. But this past Saturday (Preakness day) at the Meadowlands there were lots on young people and even a whole bunch of females. If 10% are converted the industry will be better off. It's up to the tracks to make their product one where the younger one's will replace the older regulars.
So I'll ask Jay who started this debate and is an owner what would you prefer? $2,000 purses and work your tail off just to make ends meet (I have tons of respect for people who own horses who race at NF) or 4-5 grand races with slots?
One more thing. They are building tracks now because they want slots. With more tracks the more people will see the product and the fan base might be able to grow.
The tog rests.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay44224 on May 22, 2008 10:34:21 GMT -5
No - I do not prefer racing for $2000.
The point I was trying to make is that yes slots have helped the tracks that have them as far as purse structure and giving the horseman a chance to survive.
But I have not seen those tracks attract new fans - so it makes me think how long will the subsidy last. It is sort of like welfare - profits from the slots are diverted to a loosing business - eventually you will have a greedy state government find a way to end that. Then again maybe not. With this new found subsidy what are those tracks doing to improve handle?
The Meadowlands has lost some good stock to Yonkers and have to write lower conditions and claimers. Northfield has lost stock to surrounding states that have increased purses - yet those tracks have yet to take advantage of the better product.
The question now becomes as a gambler do you start looking at these other tracks for hidden value as the races have better stock eventually hurting the tracks who once had the superior product.
I cut my teeth on harness racing at the likes of Monticello, Yonkers and Roosevelt. I still do not believe that slots will ever help Monticello - no population base. It just slowed the death a little.
Yonkers on the other hand may just be a year or 2 away of being the top handled track in the country. (IMO)
The Meadowlands - I don't know what they did there. The last couple of times I visited that facility - it just had the appearance of a place that management did not give a crap about.
Again I will not argue that slots have not helped - but looking at the big picture and the future it holds on this sport I have great concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegiss on May 22, 2008 11:11:41 GMT -5
Imo, slots have hurt racing, but not the racing business. Regardless of what you may have heard or read, the Meadows moved the Adios to Pocono becuase it would have created an inconvenience during construction, etc to the slot players to have that many horse players there.
The Battle of Lake Erie, arguable one of the more prestigious races for Invitational pacers at one time has been hurt by slot-supplemeted FFA's at Harrahs and Yonkers.
Slots are far more profitable than racing, so the major marketing emphasis goes there.
Now, as to the racing business. They have helped. Horsemen can make more money and do it wihtout upgrading stock that much (It's called class inflation and one day I will write an article about it, but basically, the $5 claimers at Meadows are no different than the $7500's at Dover or the $3s here.) It just means you have to have enough better horses to allow you ro stable yoru (relative) cheapies there.
The problem for many racetrack operators is that they have partnered with big-time Casino management companies (That's why it's called Harrah's Chester Downs, nolt Chester Downs, a Harrah's Racetrack) and racing has become the red-headed strepchild. Jeff Gural is an exception at Tioga and I would like to think we would be similar if we ever got them.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by longshotmike on May 22, 2008 11:18:51 GMT -5
In my opinion, if these traks want to attract a new fan base (regardless of age), they need to step up on their ends. You have to give to get, pend some money on promotions, take a hit just to draw in a crowd. Give out free pizza/pop, have a live band, give out $10.00 vouchers and have a introductory to wagering seminar before the post time! The lottery promo's are ok, but again for people to use their gas and get out of the house the tracks need to ptu something out there. Half the battle really is getting them to the track!
|
|
|
|
Post by jay44224 on May 22, 2008 12:09:23 GMT -5
In my opinion, if these traks want to attract a new fan base (regardless of age), they need to step up on their ends. You have to give to get, pend some money on promotions, take a hit just to draw in a crowd. Give out free pizza/pop, have a live band, give out $10.00 vouchers and have a introductory to wagering seminar before the post time! The lottery promo's are ok, but again for people to use their gas and get out of the house the tracks need to ptu something out there. Half the battle really is getting them to the track! Does that mean you think slots have helped or hurt? |
|
|
|
Post by jay44224 on May 22, 2008 12:17:38 GMT -5
Imo, slots have hurt racing, but not the racing business. Regardless of what you may have heard or read, the Meadows moved the Adios to Pocono becuase it would have created an inconvenience during construction, etc to the slot players to have that many horse players there. The Battle of Lake Erie, arguable one of the more prestigious races for Invitational pacers at one time has been hurt by slot-supplemeted FFA's at Harrahs and Yonkers. Slots are far more profitable than racing, so the major marketing emphasis goes there. Now, as to the racing business. They have helped. Horsemen can make more money and do it wihtout upgrading stock that much (It's called class inflation and one day I will write an article about it, but basically, the $5 claimers at Meadows are no different than the $7500's at Dover or the $3s here.) It just means you have to have enough better horses to allow you ro stable yoru (relative) cheapies there. The problem for many racetrack operators is that they have partnered with big-time Casino management companies (That's why it's called Harrah's Chester Downs, nolt Chester Downs, a Harrah's Racetrack) and racing has become the red-headed strepchild. Jeff Gural is an exception at Tioga and I would like to think we would be similar if we ever got them. Just my 2 cents. Keith - I can't believe I am typing this - but I agree. It would be nice to see all things on an even keel. I would be willing to say that Northfield, Balmoral, and The Meadowlands would climb back to the top of the sport and draw the talent back if the playing field was leveled. Lets face it they still have the handle with the odds stacked against them- but for how much longer as now they are selling an inferior product (IMO). Momentum only goes so far. |
|
|
|
Post by longshotmike on May 22, 2008 13:25:57 GMT -5
I believe the tracks that have the slots have helped the purse structure and obviously where the money is, is the place drivers/trainers/owners want to be. Look at the migration to the PA tracks. As a whole, over the last couple of years the quality of "the product" has dwindled at Northfield, Monday the first three races were NW 1, and the once lively Saturday cards have fallen off dramaticly. Yet , Northfield to me still has the best web site, best looking simulcasting odds board, have made improvements on the inside but the cards have greatly suffered.
Ohio needs slots period! I can not believe Strickland can sleep at night knowing how much in state money is going to surrounding areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by tautog on May 22, 2008 13:26:35 GMT -5
The point I was trying to make is that yes slots have helped the tracks that have them as far as purse structure and giving the horseman a chance to survive.
But I have not seen those tracks attract new fans - so it makes me think how long will the subsidy last. It is sort of like welfare - profits from the slots are diverted to a loosing business - eventually you will have a greedy state government find a way to end that. Then again maybe not. With this new found subsidy what are those tracks doing to improve handle?
They don't care about the handle imo. It's secondary like a loss leader at the supermarket. The tracks need slots and without racing they can't keep them. It's an easy way out for stste governments to legalize it without getting an outrage from those opposed.
The Meadowlands has lost some good stock to Yonkers and have to write lower conditions and claimers. Northfield has lost stock to surrounding states that have increased purses - yet those tracks have yet to take advantage of the better product.
See above but the purses keep getting larger so the horsemen benefit. The gambler benefits because as my friend Broadbrush says the higher the purse the easier to figure out the race. He made a couple of nice hits on Preakness day at Pimlico there's some logic to what he says.
The question now becomes as a gambler do you start looking at these other tracks for hidden value as the races have better stock eventually hurting the tracks who once had the superior product.
Agreed as I am betting Mohawk and other Canadian tracks more and more because of value.
I cut my teeth on harness racing at the likes of Monticello, Yonkers and Roosevelt. I still do not believe that slots will ever help Monticello - no population base. It just slowed the death a little.
Wonder if we ever sat by the rail together I cut my teeth there too. I agree with you but it turns out we are both wrong. They are building a new track (5/8) where the old Concord used to be so they have to be making out like bandits. I can't figure it out but why go out and build a new facility?
Yonkers on the other hand may just be a year or 2 away of being the top handled track in the country. (IMO)
Big disagreement here as I never see Yonkers going over a million consistently. The Rooney's don't care about the racetrack anymore the slots are jammed. They advertise on the radio your first $50 in slots are free if you lose as long as you come back. There's never any mention of the racetrack. Lets give it two years and we'll revisit this one lol. I've been wrong before and will be wrong again.
The Meadowlands - I don't know what they did there. The last couple of times I visited that facility - it just had the appearance of a place that management did not give a crap about.
In total agreement yet attendance and handle are going up.
Again I will not argue that slots have not helped - but looking at the big picture and the future it holds on this sport I have great concerns.
I hate the slots but it is the future. Like you said went you went to Prescott tons of Ohio plates. When I went to Pompano people were dressed (a bunch not majority) to the nines to play the slots go figure. The biggest concern is when our generation expires even though I'm seeing a bit more interest from some younger people now. Watch when NF gets poker the average age there will drop dramatically. That will be the big chance to pick up new blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by racefanmike on May 22, 2008 13:46:25 GMT -5
Frankly, every Idea and view printed here has merit.
I think slots have helped and hurt racing. It has raised the purses for horsemen, but it has also deluted the competition
thru out various tracks. So much so that the better 3 and 4 claimers at NF would be very competetive in 5-6 claimers at the racino's.
And although the racino's shamefully do not promote the racing product at there tracks, it does expose some to racing, whom
would otherwise never experience the sport. Every little bit helps.
Exposure is what this sport desperately needs.
I have long believed that the product is horse racing, and needs to be promoted enthusiastically.
With the new book About Dan Patch out, this could be a golden moment for some innovative idea's to catch public attention about the sport and the people involved in it.
Harness racing is the 2nd leading agricultural product in Ohio. It is
part of thousands of county fair venue's thru out the USA. Plus
many standardbreds have a vocation beyond racing, pulling
amish buggys, as show horses etc...
Plus harness racing is a working class sport, the horses race 30-50 times per year, and can be owned and raced by anyone with means to support the horse, if the horse doesn't take care of that with purse money. 15k a year, that is tax deductable.
Promote the product starts with presenting a good product ie:
a good claiming ladder, A competetive invitational race weekly.
The big M had over 4 mil in handle last weekend, sure the preakness, the graduate and all. But the publicity drew them in,
not the slots.
Just my opinion
|
|
|
|
Post by longtimeplayer on May 22, 2008 17:33:52 GMT -5
Not opinion this is fact. Batavia Downs, Buffalo Raceway, Vernon Downs and Tioga Downs are racing today because of slots. If not for slots Batavia Downs would probably be another d**n retail store that we don't need on that end of town. You are right Longshot, the Racino now has to promote, advertise and get people to come there. Giveaways, $1 hot puppies, .50 pop, $2.00 beer it all helps bring people back to the track. Good weather is a real draw when all these things are put into place. Bottom line, a real good marketing program along with slots will keep the fans coming, add to the fan base and keep racing going. Did anybody read the USTA article written about Northfield this week ?
|
|
|
|
Post by trackrat on May 22, 2008 17:56:22 GMT -5
Did anybody read the USTA article written about Northfield this week ? No, maybe Giss will post a copy of it here. |
|
|
|
Post by jay44224 on May 22, 2008 19:24:42 GMT -5
Here is the link to the article www.ustrotting.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=26989We only have 20 more responses to take over the coffee post as a topic that generates some sort of interest. Maybe the topic should be has harness racing fans become apathetic, the topics questioned over the past week have no right or wrong answers - just looking to liven up a quiet board with topics that should have a wide variety of opinion. My love of the sport has me wanting to discuss or watch races whenever time permits- maybe I am obsessed but if I live to see a hundred I want to be in the stands or on the apron. |
|
|
|
Post by trackrat on May 22, 2008 19:46:19 GMT -5
That's a really depressing article. I hope it never comes to that. Although I miss the 70s when the place was packed every night, I still enjoy EVERY night at Northfield, whether there are people there or not. This winter, I was often one of only a half dozen diners in the restaurant during the weeknights. Yeah, it was lonely there, but at least those half dozen people were real harness racing fans.
|
|
