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 exchange wagering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exchange wagering. Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
New Jersey takes a bold step forward
The theory that horse racing will never get its act together on a national scale because the industry players are too busy looking out for their own bottom lines (or existence in some cases) has proven true time and again.
But a piece of news from New Jersey, where Monmouth Park will focus on quality instead of quantity in a shortened 50-day 2010 meeting, has snapped me out of my blogging funk.
Under the plan approved by the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association yesterday, Monmouth will race Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays (plus a few selected holiday Mondays) from May 22 until Sept. 11. If projections of $50-million in purse money spread over 50 dates hold true, Monmouth will have the highest purse structure in America.
The horsemen, who in many states have pushed for year-round racing that has diluted the sport to the point of oblivion, should be commended for going in a different direction.
I believe the future of horse racing in America is less dates, higher quality racing, bigger fields, and lower takeout – all in a beautiful, fan-friendly atmosphere that celebrates racing as a special event.
Despite the horrendous rain-soaked conditions Monmouth experienced when it hosted the 2007 Breeders’ Cup, I came away from my first and only visit to the Oceanport track with a favorable impression.
It’s a charming property with a loyal local fan base. And although its trifecta takeout of 25% is too high, 17% on WPS wagers and 15% on the pick 4 makes Monmouth one of the good guys in terms of giving gamblers a fighting chance to make a profit (and a reason to feed the pari-mutuel pools that fuel the sport’s purse structure).
What is good for gamblers is good for the sport.
Hopefully the same will be said about the new vision for New Jersey racing.
But a piece of news from New Jersey, where Monmouth Park will focus on quality instead of quantity in a shortened 50-day 2010 meeting, has snapped me out of my blogging funk.
Under the plan approved by the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association yesterday, Monmouth will race Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays (plus a few selected holiday Mondays) from May 22 until Sept. 11. If projections of $50-million in purse money spread over 50 dates hold true, Monmouth will have the highest purse structure in America.
The horsemen, who in many states have pushed for year-round racing that has diluted the sport to the point of oblivion, should be commended for going in a different direction.
I believe the future of horse racing in America is less dates, higher quality racing, bigger fields, and lower takeout – all in a beautiful, fan-friendly atmosphere that celebrates racing as a special event.
Despite the horrendous rain-soaked conditions Monmouth experienced when it hosted the 2007 Breeders’ Cup, I came away from my first and only visit to the Oceanport track with a favorable impression.
It’s a charming property with a loyal local fan base. And although its trifecta takeout of 25% is too high, 17% on WPS wagers and 15% on the pick 4 makes Monmouth one of the good guys in terms of giving gamblers a fighting chance to make a profit (and a reason to feed the pari-mutuel pools that fuel the sport’s purse structure).
What is good for gamblers is good for the sport.
Hopefully the same will be said about the new vision for New Jersey racing.
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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Florida Pick 4 rule unfair to bettors
Last Thursday's pick four at Gulfstream Park was the latest injustice done to bettors, who continue to be a largely voiceless, under-represented group despite their contributons to the industry.
Race 6 was the first leg of the pick four, and when two horses were scratched out of the gate right before the race began, many bettors assumed they would receive refunds on the scratched horses since the scratches occurred prior to the first leg of the series and the horses were in the first leg.
Wrong! Gulfstream transferred all those bets to the 6-to-5 post-time favorite Alice's Halo. So if you were betting against Alice's Halo, now you were betting on him, in multiple combinations for some people.
I cannot think of any other business that would do this to its customers. Unable to provide the service you have purchased, they keep your money and spend it as they see fit.
As a side note, if a scratch occurs in the first leg of a pick three at Gulfstream, those wagers are appropriately refunded. Why should a pick four be different?
I called Gulfstream's Director of Mutuels Edward Mackie. He was familiar with the race in question.
"We got about a million calls on that one," Mackie said. "In the pick three you get a refund, but in the pick four and pick six, your money goes on the post-time favorite. It's a state law in Florida."
State law or not, it's a terrible rule.
To Florida and any other state that may revisit this rule in the future: if a horse scratches out of a multi-race bet before the series begins (particularly in the first leg), all wagers on that horse should be refunded.
You do not change my win bets for me when my horse scratches, or if a horse I wheel underneath in a trifecta scratches. So please do not change my selections in the pick four.
Race 6 was the first leg of the pick four, and when two horses were scratched out of the gate right before the race began, many bettors assumed they would receive refunds on the scratched horses since the scratches occurred prior to the first leg of the series and the horses were in the first leg.
Wrong! Gulfstream transferred all those bets to the 6-to-5 post-time favorite Alice's Halo. So if you were betting against Alice's Halo, now you were betting on him, in multiple combinations for some people.
I cannot think of any other business that would do this to its customers. Unable to provide the service you have purchased, they keep your money and spend it as they see fit.
As a side note, if a scratch occurs in the first leg of a pick three at Gulfstream, those wagers are appropriately refunded. Why should a pick four be different?
I called Gulfstream's Director of Mutuels Edward Mackie. He was familiar with the race in question.
"We got about a million calls on that one," Mackie said. "In the pick three you get a refund, but in the pick four and pick six, your money goes on the post-time favorite. It's a state law in Florida."
State law or not, it's a terrible rule.
To Florida and any other state that may revisit this rule in the future: if a horse scratches out of a multi-race bet before the series begins (particularly in the first leg), all wagers on that horse should be refunded.
You do not change my win bets for me when my horse scratches, or if a horse I wheel underneath in a trifecta scratches. So please do not change my selections in the pick four.
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)
