While researching a story about Keeneland's plan to offer 50-cent pick three wagers , I came across an interesting statistic on the growth of Keeneland's pick four pools since the minimum was reduced to 50 cents.
Keeneland introduced 50-cent pick fours at its fall 2006 meeting. From 2005 to 2009, Keeneland's annual pick four handle has grown every year, for a total increase of 61.1%.
The 50-cent minimum is one of several factors that have contributed to the popularity of the bet. The pick four is one of the fastest growing bets in American racing. And big fields, quality racing, and a 19% takeout make Keeneland's pick four one of the most attractive in the country.
But at the very least these numbers show that pools can grow even when the minimum wager is decreased.
Year.....Spring Meet....Fall Meet.........Total (%change)
2005....$3,420,879......$3,286,424.....$6,707,303
2006....$4,483,671......$4,043,433.....$8,527,104 (+27.1%)
2007....$5,143,745......$4,102,803.....$9,246,548 (+8.4%)
2008....$5,722,696......$3,889,018.....$9,611,714 (+3.9%)
2009....$5,171,676......$5,637,777.....$10,809,453 (+12.5%)
In addition to making a bet more affordable, thereby encouraging more people to play, decreased minimums also help bettors avoid the tax man because bets that pay less than $600 are never reported to the IRS. (Two 50-cent pick four tickets that pay $500 are not reported, whereas the same sequence bet on a $1 ticket would be reported)
Keeneland's Director of Simulcasting Jim Goodman described the growth of the track's pick four pools as amazing.
"We think it’s a positive thing for the horseplayer," Goodman said. "Being player friendly is one of our mottos, and I think all tracks should look at minimum wagers and help the players if there’s something that they can do."
That's a refreshing statement, particularly coming from a racetrack employee who is in a position of influence.
If I was running a track, I would offer minimum unit wagering (and a takeout below 20%) for all multi-race/multi-horse bets.
The pick six in Southern California, where carryovers are an important part of the game and there are enough gamblers willing to play for a $2 stake, would be my one exception to the rule.
Showing posts with label betting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label betting. Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Beyer tweaks his formula
Andrew Beyer, the creator of the popular Beyer Speed Figures that appear in Daily Racing Form, has announced a change in the way he will calculate his figures for synthetic tracks.
The change is based on an interesting finding. According to Beyer, the synthetic tracks are allowing slow horses to run a little faster while making fast horses run a little slower.
At tracks that installed synthetic surfaces, the average speed figure for bottom level maiden claimers increased by about three points. Meanwhile, the average winning figure for older male stakes horses decreased by about four points, Beyer says.
His findings support the lament that the synthetic tracks are preventing our fastest horses from performing to their ability, while aiding horses we previously judged to be inferior.
Here in Lexington, the seemingly unpredictable nature of synthetic racing has been demonstrated by the results of graded stakes races run at Keeneland Race Course since Polytrack was installed for the fall 2006 meeting.
No matter when or where the race, the wagering favorite typically wins around 30% of the time. It is one of the most powerful, consistent statistics in the sport.
But on Keeneland's Polytrack, the favorite has won just six of 53 times - an 11.3% success rate over the three-year period.
Paired with Beyer's finding that the synthetics help the slow and hurt the fast, it's one more reason to question whether we should be basing the future of the breed and running some of our most important races - such as the Breeders' Cup - on experimental synthetic tracks.
The change is based on an interesting finding. According to Beyer, the synthetic tracks are allowing slow horses to run a little faster while making fast horses run a little slower.
At tracks that installed synthetic surfaces, the average speed figure for bottom level maiden claimers increased by about three points. Meanwhile, the average winning figure for older male stakes horses decreased by about four points, Beyer says.
His findings support the lament that the synthetic tracks are preventing our fastest horses from performing to their ability, while aiding horses we previously judged to be inferior.
Here in Lexington, the seemingly unpredictable nature of synthetic racing has been demonstrated by the results of graded stakes races run at Keeneland Race Course since Polytrack was installed for the fall 2006 meeting.
No matter when or where the race, the wagering favorite typically wins around 30% of the time. It is one of the most powerful, consistent statistics in the sport.
But on Keeneland's Polytrack, the favorite has won just six of 53 times - an 11.3% success rate over the three-year period.
Paired with Beyer's finding that the synthetics help the slow and hurt the fast, it's one more reason to question whether we should be basing the future of the breed and running some of our most important races - such as the Breeders' Cup - on experimental synthetic tracks.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Racing must fix tote system
Amidst calls for technological upgrades to our antiquated tote system and better monitoring of wagering pools, the Association of Racing Commissioners International kicked off its annual meeting in Lexington on Tuesday.
Just 24 hours later we had another real life example of why the industry needs to take action on the issue. On Wednesday at New York City Off-Track Betting, $2 bets processed through AmTote were deposited into wagering pools as $200 bets.
The mistake affected pools at Aqueduct, Golden Gate Fields, Gulfstream Park, Indiana Downs, Keeneland Race Course, and Tampa Bay Downs. (story)
The horse racing industry made a lot of recommendations and promises to improve tote security in the aftermath of the Fix Six scandal at the Breeders' Cup in 2002, when an Autotote employee exploited non-existent security measures and delays in the bet processing system to alter losing tickets into winners.
What has really changed since then? Not nearly enough.
A few states have taken up the issue (story), but it's arguable whether any of the objectives in this memo from the National Thoroughbred Racing Association have been fully achieved.
I think the following quote from John Sabini, chairman of the New York State Racing & Wagering Board, may sum up a big part of the problem.
"They were going on and on about how no stone is left unturned to protect the tribes and protect the casinos, to make sure the casino companies don't lose a nickel, lock-down security," Sabini told Thoroughbred Times senior writer Frank Angst at a gaming conference last year.
"Then I come to horse racing, I'm new to this, and ... You hear a lot of, 'It can't really be done right.' And it dawned on me that the difference between the two is if you steal from a casino, you're stealing the casino's money. If you steal from a pari-mutuel pool, most of the time it's the bettors' money. So there's less of an urgency to it."
Just 24 hours later we had another real life example of why the industry needs to take action on the issue. On Wednesday at New York City Off-Track Betting, $2 bets processed through AmTote were deposited into wagering pools as $200 bets.
The mistake affected pools at Aqueduct, Golden Gate Fields, Gulfstream Park, Indiana Downs, Keeneland Race Course, and Tampa Bay Downs. (story)
The horse racing industry made a lot of recommendations and promises to improve tote security in the aftermath of the Fix Six scandal at the Breeders' Cup in 2002, when an Autotote employee exploited non-existent security measures and delays in the bet processing system to alter losing tickets into winners.
What has really changed since then? Not nearly enough.
A few states have taken up the issue (story), but it's arguable whether any of the objectives in this memo from the National Thoroughbred Racing Association have been fully achieved.
I think the following quote from John Sabini, chairman of the New York State Racing & Wagering Board, may sum up a big part of the problem.
"They were going on and on about how no stone is left unturned to protect the tribes and protect the casinos, to make sure the casino companies don't lose a nickel, lock-down security," Sabini told Thoroughbred Times senior writer Frank Angst at a gaming conference last year.
"Then I come to horse racing, I'm new to this, and ... You hear a lot of, 'It can't really be done right.' And it dawned on me that the difference between the two is if you steal from a casino, you're stealing the casino's money. If you steal from a pari-mutuel pool, most of the time it's the bettors' money. So there's less of an urgency to it."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Is Betfair a good idea for America?
The biggest development related to Betfair’s purchase of Television Games Network is whether it will bring exchange wagering to America.
A fixture in Europe for almost a decade, Betfair offers players a chance to play bookmaker. It’s an exciting idea, provided integrity and handle issues can be worked out.
The handicapper/bettor in me loves the idea of a betting exchange. For one, it’s easier to pick a loser than a winner. And horse racing needs innovative ideas to combat declining handle.
Exchange wagering gives more people more reasons to bet on horse racing, whether by laying odds on horses they don’t like or by betting on a horse at a few points higher than will be offered through pari-mutuel pools.
But given the integrity problems the sport already faces, such as tote security and performance-enhancing drugs, is now the right time?
Betting exchanges amplify the power of insider trading. In the pari-mutuel system, even if someone thinks they know Horse A is going to run poorly, they still have to pick the winner in order to leverage that opinion. The ability to bet on a horse to perform badly provides direct incentive for a poor performance.
The other issue will be to ensure racetracks and horsemen get a fair share of handle from Betfair. An estimate of how much Betfair will cannibalize existing pari-mutuel handle will have to be worked into that formula.
Betfair already has made progress in winning over the horsemen’s organizations. Tracks, particularly Churchill Downs Inc., will be another matter entirely.
A fixture in Europe for almost a decade, Betfair offers players a chance to play bookmaker. It’s an exciting idea, provided integrity and handle issues can be worked out.
The handicapper/bettor in me loves the idea of a betting exchange. For one, it’s easier to pick a loser than a winner. And horse racing needs innovative ideas to combat declining handle.
Exchange wagering gives more people more reasons to bet on horse racing, whether by laying odds on horses they don’t like or by betting on a horse at a few points higher than will be offered through pari-mutuel pools.
But given the integrity problems the sport already faces, such as tote security and performance-enhancing drugs, is now the right time?
Betting exchanges amplify the power of insider trading. In the pari-mutuel system, even if someone thinks they know Horse A is going to run poorly, they still have to pick the winner in order to leverage that opinion. The ability to bet on a horse to perform badly provides direct incentive for a poor performance.
The other issue will be to ensure racetracks and horsemen get a fair share of handle from Betfair. An estimate of how much Betfair will cannibalize existing pari-mutuel handle will have to be worked into that formula.
Betfair already has made progress in winning over the horsemen’s organizations. Tracks, particularly Churchill Downs Inc., will be another matter entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
