2009 NY handle -10%, attendance just -4%

[Kasept]

NYRA business down for 2009
By David Grening

http://www.drf.com/news/article/110160.html

The New York Racing Association suffered a 10.24 percent decline in total handle on its races in 2009, slightly above the 9.88 percent drop in total handle industry-wide for the year.

Total handle on races at NYRA's three tracks - Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga - was about $2.2 billion on 250 cards of racing, compared with just below $2.5 billion on 249 cards conducted in 2008. Ontrack handle on NYRA races in 2009 was $249,789,824, a 9 percent decline from the $274,646,554 wagered in 2008.

According to figures released by NYRA, industry-wide handle dropped to $12.3 billion in 2009 compared with $13.7 billion in 2008. Money wagered on NYRA's races made up 18 percent of the total racing industry handle in 2009. Total attendance at NYRA tracks in 2009 dropped 4.24 percent, from 1,735,715 in 2008 to 1,662,154 in 2009.

NYRA's business was not helped by a less-than-stellar Belmont Stakes Day in 2009. Without a Triple Crown at stake, attendance on Belmont Day was 52,861, down 44 percent compared to 2008 when 94,476 witnessed Big Brown's failed Triple Crown attempt. Total handle on the Belmont card was down 10.2 percent to $89.7 million while ontrack handle was down 31.8 percent that day to $9.02 million.

Business on Travers Day at Saratoga was hurt by rainy weather that kept the crowd to 34,221, the lowest in 30 years. Total handle was down 18 percent on Travers Day. Rain also wreaked havoc with NYRA's turf racing in 2009, forcing 144 races to be taken off the turf between May and October.

[10 pnt move up]

So the same degenerates who came out to the track every day still came...they just bet less?

[herkhorse]

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but my personal NY handle is down because I'm not allowed to watch NY races online, due to the fact that I live in NY.

[3kings]

Does the lack of $0.10 supers on races with an entry or less than 8 horses have an effect? Does it drive the big score for a few buck players to other tracks?

[johnny pinwheel]

Originally Posted by 3kings

Does the lack of $0.10 supers on races with an entry or less than 8 horses have an effect? Does it drive the big score for a few buck players to other tracks?

i don't think that matters much. but they should get the .50 cent pick 4. i don't know how much they can do about attendance, its weather related up here and you can't control triple crown attempts. the horse has to win two legs first, before belmont matters. getting the big names to race each other would go a long way to help interest.

[Patrick333]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

i don't think that matters much. but they should get the .50 cent pick 4. i don't know how much they can do about attendance, its weather related up here and you can't control triple crown attempts. the horse has to win two legs first, before belmont matters. getting the big names to race each other would go a long way to help interest.

I agree with you. I think to get people to the track they need The Belmont to be for the triple crown. I think that gives racing in New York a big lift. Of course if they can get Rachel and Zenyatta together this spring that won't hurt either.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

i don't think that matters much. but they should get the .50 cent pick 4..

Disagree completely.

A .50 minimum on the P4 dillutes the play and takes the entire lure of it's big return away.

[Travis Stone]

I think lowering minimums is generally overrated. There is a finite amount of money in play in racing each day. Minimums just dictate where that money goes. Conversely, I think it would be cool to explore the opposite and the possibility of a "high stakes" wager.

[jballscalls]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Disagree completely.

A .50 minimum on the P4 dillutes the play and takes the entire lure of it's big return away.

i know looking at the pools for the 6th race yesterday with 3 minutes to post, the pick 4 had far and away the most money into it, so clearly that's not the wager that is hurting.

and i agree, the fractional wagers suck! man up and bet a dollar! nothing more annoying than waiting in line to make a bet and someguy is taking a year to read off his 5.40 superfecta play for a 7 horse field at SA!!

ok rant over

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Kasept

NYRA business down for 2009
By David Grening

http://www.drf.com/news/article/110160.html

The New York Racing Association suffered a 10.24 percent decline in total handle on its races in 2009, slightly above the 9.88 percent drop in total handle industry-wide for the year.

Total handle on races at NYRA's three tracks - Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga - was about $2.2 billion on 250 cards of racing, compared with just below $2.5 billion on 249 cards conducted in 2008. Ontrack handle on NYRA races in 2009 was $249,789,824, a 9 percent decline from the $274,646,554 wagered in 2008.

According to figures released by NYRA, industry-wide handle dropped to $12.3 billion in 2009 compared with $13.7 billion in 2008. Money wagered on NYRA's races made up 18 percent of the total racing industry handle in 2009. Total attendance at NYRA tracks in 2009 dropped 4.24 percent, from 1,735,715 in 2008 to 1,662,154 in 2009.

NYRA's business was not helped by a less-than-stellar Belmont Stakes Day in 2009. Without a Triple Crown at stake, attendance on Belmont Day was 52,861, down 44 percent compared to 2008 when 94,476 witnessed Big Brown's failed Triple Crown attempt. Total handle on the Belmont card was down 10.2 percent to $89.7 million while ontrack handle was down 31.8 percent that day to $9.02 million.

Business on Travers Day at Saratoga was hurt by rainy weather that kept the crowd to 34,221, the lowest in 30 years. Total handle was down 18 percent on Travers Day. Rain also wreaked havoc with NYRA's turf racing in 2009, forcing 144 races to be taken off the turf between May and October.

considering the state of the economy these numbers are not bad at all

we had one of the worst years in recent history as a country

if nyra had slots the numbers would have been better

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by gales0678

considering the state of the economy these numbers are not bad at allwe had one of the worst years in recent history as a country

if nyra had slots the numbers would have been better

I was thinking the same thing

[jballscalls]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I was thinking the same thing

it's funny because on most of these boards, everytime one of these handle releases would come out, the gm's would say "it's the economy" and everyone would bash them for saying and thinking it!

the economy is certainly a major factor, but there are other factors as well for all of us tracks. Our business has been up 3 straight years going into this year, it's up again, but just barely.....it's very tough with the economy, but we as an industry must market the product as good as we can, and put out a good product, full competetive fields, good wagering menu's, very clean facilities and good simulcast products.

[Travis Stone]

It's always relative as welll.... 3% of a massive number versus 3% of a small number can be a big difference.

[Max Caidy]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I think lowering minimums is generally overrated. There is a finite amount of money in play in racing each day. Minimums just dictate where that money goes. Conversely, I think it would be cool to explore the opposite and the possibility of a "high stakes" wager.

I disagree.
Anything that can save the bettor a tax ticket by ducking the 300-1, I support.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Disagree completely.

A .50 minimum on the P4 dillutes the play and takes the entire lure of it's big return away.

I don't get it. You don't like .50 pic-4 because it "dilutes the play," but always seem to use that denomination (at tracks that allow fractional wagering) when posting your wagers in the selections forum. Am I missing something?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I don't get it. You don't like .50 pic-4 because it "dilutes the play," but always seem to use that denomination (at tracks that allow fractional wagering) when posting your wagers in the selections forum. Am I missing something?

Why would I not use the minimum amount as the denomination where the bet is taken at .50? I don't set the minimums. And how does using the .50 denomination have anything to do with a preference for pools maintaining a higher minimum? Should I bet or suggest $2 denominations for Magna 5 plays now that they take it for $1?

When pools accept reduced minimums, they make it far easier to hit and thereby generally diminish the average payouts of said wager. This whole conversation has been had regarding the creation of the Super High 5 from focus group discussions with disaffected Superfecta bettors at Santa Anita. They complained that the .10 super had so greatly impacted the payouts that they were no longer interested in the play. Hence the creation of a higher minimum/higher risk/higher reward wager in the '5'.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Why would I not use the minimum amount as the denomination where the bet is taken at .50? I don't set the minimums. And how does using the .50 denomination have anything to do with a preference for pools maintaining a higher minimum? Should I bet or suggest $2 denominations for Magna 5 plays now that they take it for $1?

Because, using your own words, it "dilutes the play."

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Because, using your own words, it "dilutes the play."

The track has established the minimum... If people want to focus in/heavy up on the denomination to try and press the return, they can.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

When pools accept reduced minimums, they make it far easier to hit and thereby generally diminish the average payouts of said wager. This whole conversation has been had regarding the creation of the Super High 5 from focus group discussions with disaffected Superfecta bettors at Santa Anita. They complained that the .10 super had so greatly impacted the payouts that they were no longer interested in the play. Hence the creation of a higher minimum/higher risk/higher reward wager in the '5'.

I agree that fractional denominations make the wager easier to hit for the player with a limited bankroll, but I've never seen any study that establishes that fractional wagers lower the average payouts of those wagers (although recognizing that dime supers may permit a super to get hit, where it previously would have had an "all" in the fourth slot). Pic-4 payoffs at tracks like Keeneland and Gulfstream are plenty generous (often more so than corresponding wagers at NYRA which has the $1 minimum), despite the lower minimums.

I understand the tracks' desire to foster carryovers with wagers like the pic-6 (and am willing to accept the $2 minimum), but for non-carryover wagers, it's about catering to the tracks' customers. The arguments that you are advancing are same as those made by the "whales" or other large bankroll players who want the pools to themselves. If you are going to try to grow participation in the sport, I don't believe that's the way to go. And this speaks nothing to the IRS reporting benefits associated with fractional wagering.