Jockey Club -- they don't get it.

[Calzone Lord]

Looks like they have a 'plan for growth!'

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...wth?source=rss


My favorite part:

The report touched on exchange wagering, which is not yet available in the United States. McKinsey believes exchange betting has the potential to attract new patrons; Singer said the platform is “unlikely to be profitable at a takeout rate under 10%.

Forget about exchange wagering if that is the case ... absolutely dead on arrival. What a bunch of friggen worthless morons.

An exchange with a takeout of 10+% is going to have no liquidity and will be an absolute disaster.

An exchange with a 3% takeout would be more profitable early-on - from the first week - and infinitely more profitable after a few months.

Exchange wagering even works very well in freaking Europe ... and European horse racing is an absolute pile of sh!t for someone who wants to handicap and bet seriously.

I'll give Jerry Brown credit for thinking you can make figures for those races over there...but in most instances, you can't... and even attempting to do so is foolish unless you have races on the same day and same distance run with
a similar pace.


As for this gem:

The report acknowledged that 26% of core bettors consider pari-mutuel takeout a “top two concern,” but fewer than 2% of most fans know about takeout. Thus, the report makes no recommendations on an issue that has boiled over this year, particularly in California.

“We prefer rebates as the method to address the price-sensitive bettor,” Singer said.

All bettors are "price sensitive" -- even the ones who have no idea about what a takeout is and don't really care that much if they win or lose.

I'm a fan of rebates - rebates are great --- but, in my opinion, they are not the way to go for industry growth. By rewarding (often) the best players -- and giving them a reason to jack up their handle -- you're only making it that much harder for the small-fries who bet $20 a race at the same wildly inflated takeout levels as before.

I'm not ever going to argue against rebates -- that would be too hypocritical even for me ... but its my opinion (and I could be very wrong about this) -- rebates will have no positive impact a couple of years later -- and they might actually even be bad for the industry in the long run.

[Calzone Lord]

By the way --- the head-to-head match-ups at Del Mar - With a sky-high 10% takeout for that kind of bet -- have flopped badly.

Handled just 18K yesterday?

-110 VS -110 works ... ask bookmakers. -250 VS +110 ... that will NEVER work. Impossible. It's almost amusing that they even tried it.

[Kasept]

Without elaborating too much, I found the presentation rather depressing. They paid $2,000,000 to hear what everyone already knows and receive 'growth plans' that have been circulating throughout the industry for 20+ years. Ridiculous.

[Calzone Lord]

I'd have paid them $200 if they'd just listen to me rant for a few minutes -- and I get very nervous talking to people I don't know.


The baffling thing to me is how little they seem to understand about betting and the behavior of hardcore bettors who think they have an edge.

You get the feeling that if you ask these guys if they'd rather have 10% of Bill Gates net worth or 22% of RandallScott35's net worth ... they'd take Randall's "because 22% is a lot more than 10%!"


You had 20 different men who each bet at least $10,000 a day in the ring at Sheepshead Bay racetrack in 1895 ... 10K from the year 1895 - adjusted for inflation - would equal a pretty large number today.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Without elaborating too much, I found the presentation rather depressing. They paid $2,000,000 to hear what everyone already knows and receive 'growth plans' that have been circulating throughout the industry for 20+ years. Ridiculous.

In a nutshell, Rebates are good, most people are clueless about takeout, betting is complicated, we need more races on tv, social networks are a way to attract fans, owners are screwed, free games for the idiots who cant figure out how to make a bet, "best" practices (whatever those are?), safety improvements and new ownership "tools".

Not a single actual mention of a coordinated plan or how to make industry "partners" work together. Nothing specific about anything really. Hopefully the actual report will be a lot more detailed and the premises that they use aren't as flawed as some of the things presented.

[Cannon Shell]

ADW systems, launched more than 10 years ago, account for roughly 12%-15% of total handle in the United States each year; McKinsey estimates it could reach 44% in 10 years. But the company also said ADW is not attracting new fans to horse racing, and in fact is “frustrating” for beginners.

“The system has been built for experienced bettors,” Singer said.


Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...#ixzz1V3Ksy5LQ

I hate to break it to these guys but if people aren't sharp enough to figure out how to make a bet on an ADW site they arent going to be fans too long anyway (too stupid to ever win).

The idea that horse race betting is too complicated is tiresome. Obviously new players usually aren't sophisticated enough to make big ticket plays but it is hard to believe that people can't pick up WPS and exacta or Double wagers pretty quickly. Sure handicapping takes some intellegence and effort but as stated above, the people who don't pick up the basics pretty quick are too dumb to worry about.

[Cannon Shell]

And yet as clueless as they are on the gambling aspects, they continue to baffle with the incredibly moronic view of the medication issues.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ng-called-goal

“Veterinarians have shared their concern that the majority of their revenue is derived from the administration and dispensing of medication while receiving little or no compensation for examinations, diagnostics, or other professional serves,” Janney said. “Is it any wonder that our industry is criticized for being overmedicated?

“We agree with the American Association of Equine Practitioners, which addressed this very subject in a white paper, that such a revenue model is fundamentally flawed. Veterinary fee structures should place emphasis upon the value of professional services rather than the administration and dispensing of medication, and further illustrates the importance and need for good communication between the owner, trainer and veterinarian.”


What the hell does this mean? That Vets are being somehow tricked into giving medications? That if we paid them to examine or perform diagnostic tests or give their professional opinion they would dispense less medication?
So paying vets for something currently done complimentary is going to make more money for vets but how exactly does this help owners or horses? Is there an inference that vets are dispensing meds to make money as opposed to doing the right thing for the horse? Or are these people so ignorant that they think that trainers are somehow dictating what to do to the horses without the vet examining the horse? Are the vets providing a service for free that they would get paid for if they were small animal or human doctors? Sure but the sheer volume of work that they do for their clients makes it far too expensive to charge everytime they examine a horse. Perhaps the stuffed shirts think that making vet work more expensive, trainers/owners will do less which will be detrimental for the horse despite the spin to the contrary.

"The Thoroughbred Safety Committee issued two recommendations: adoption of the revised rules by RCI, and restructuring of a veterinary fee schedule that favors administration of drugs over diagnostics and preventative measures"

Of course Janney and company continue to choose to ignore the advice that racetrack vets give in regards to the preventative measure against horses bleeding in regards to lasix. Perhaps they think that that $20 a shot they get is clouding their "professional" opinion?

"Consistent with application of rules concerning those found to have mistreated Thoroughbreds, under Rule 19 The Jockey Club may now deny privileges to The American Stud Book to individuals determined to have been either the subject of medication violations involving certain classes of drugs with no legitimate use in racing, or have been determined to have violated medication rules three or more times in a 365-day period,” Jockey Club chairman Ogden Mills Phipps said."

I'm sure banning juice trainers from breeding horses will be very impactful...

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Without elaborating too much, I found the presentation rather depressing. They paid $2,000,000 to hear what everyone already knows and receive 'growth plans' that have been circulating throughout the industry for 20+ years. Ridiculous.

McKinsey & Company are my idols. I always wonder how these outfits get these gigs taking 2 mil to really produce nothing new.

Bigs & Company could have written that report for a fraction of that money.