Skip to main content

Takeout increase means Californian racing going downhill fast

Californian racing authorities, in their infinite wisdom, decided that to fix all their funding issues they should screw the punter for even more money by increasing margins on most exotic bet types. A basic understanding of economics will tell you that increasing price will reduce turnover and thus players will have less to bet with next time. But, to get into the hierarchy of Californian racing and the government bodies who approved this staggering concept, an understanding of economic theory won't get you a job - you might actually be able to talk sense.

HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America) and others called for a boycott of West Coast racing once the increase was implemented on January 1. Here are the figures for the first ten weeks or so of the year.

California Horse Racing Boycott - Handle Losses Exceed $100 Million

Follow the link for the full data, but from selected stats...

Santa Anita - Handle (turnover) per race down 11.9%

Golden Gate - Handle per race down 15.7%

Meanwhile on the East Coast, Tampa Bay Downs decided to cut takeout on Pick 3, Pick 4 and Pick 6 bet types. The net result - those bet types are up 14.0, 40.2 and 21.0 %, and the overall wagering revenue for the track is up 3.9%.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work these things out, just someone who understands maths and isn't so impossibly arrogant to think gamblers will put up with such crap....

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla

Racing has a Ponzi scheme - and the fallout will be enormous

When the term ' Ponzi scheme ' is mentioned these days, the names Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford instantly spring to mind. The pair of them ran multi-billion dollar frauds (US$60bn and $8bn respectively) that destroyed the lives of thousands of investors who had put their life savings into a 'wonderful' investment strategy. How so many people were sucked into the scheme is baffling to those on the outside. The lifestyle, the sales pitch, the success stories of the early investors - I suppose it all adds up. So where does this link to racing you ask? A prominent Australian 'racing identity' this week has been reported to have lost access to a bank account with punters' club funds of $194m in it. Firstly - is there a worse term for anyone to be labelled with that 'racing identity'? It ALWAYS ends up meaning shonky crook! Secondly - who the hell has a punters' club with an active bankroll in the tens of millions? It simply can't be done. T