The State of the Harness Betting Game

We've all seen public money dry up over the years in all of racing, where the sharp money seems to know. We've also seen (for not only this, but for many things in the sport) harness be a leading indicator of this. 

If what we're currently seeing in the harness game is a true leading indicator, the next couple of years in thoroughbred racing might be tough to handle. 

Case in point, the Open last night at Mohawk. 

This was a battle between Amigo Volo, who was 6-5 last time in this exact same class, and Safe Conduct, who was 5-2 last week in this same class. Safe Conduct, who opened at 3-5 last week, soundly defeated Amigo Volo with ease; frankly, looking like they didn't breathe the same air. 

Last night they met again, and Rob Reid, who knows what he's talking about and has bet for a hundred years, scoped the race out in the program: 

• #1 SAFE CONDUCT was a much the best winner on December 2nd when he stepped away from his foes in deep stretch and scored by more than two lengths after sitting a pocket trip behind Fashion Frenzie. This son of Archangel will likely push out for early position with rail control and is just under $1,000 away from $100,000 in earnings this season. He has raised his game at the age of five and looks like a prime candidate to double-up.

He called it perfectly, and it was an obvious choice. There were no missed weeks, driver changes, trainer changes; nothing. It was the exact same match up. 

But, when the doubles opened up showing what the board might look like in the Open, it was curious. Amigo Volo - the horse Safe Conduct made look like a 12 claimer last time - was the big chalk. 

When the board opened, Safe Conduct was not 3-5 like he was last week, but 5-2. Amigo Volo took all the cash. 

As post time approached, those not in the know - i.e. the betting "public" - were betting Safe Conduct (as they should, because again, Rob's analysis was spot on by the program lines).  He dove down to 3-2 with one minute to post, while Amigo Volo was hovering at 4-5. The handicapping line bettors were seeing this as strong value, and how could they not?

At the quarter, after all the money came in, Amigo Volo went down to 1-5, Safe Conduct went up to 5-2. 

As Robert Reid correctly predicted, Safe Conduct pushed from the wood and got a perfect two hole trip. In the middle of the lane, Amigo Volo was asked and sprinted away from Safe Conduct - the exact opposite of last time they met. Seven days later, Amigo made Safe Conduct look like the 12 claimer. 

I use the above as an example, but I could've picked hundreds of others. That's not even an exaggeration as I watch thousands of races a year. This is the state of the sport. 

Andrew Demitrious, a professional bettor I remember as far back as the late 1980's when I was a regular, opined in Trot Magazine recently (I suspect it was him, coulda been someone else) that they "better get the cell phones out of the paddock", and he was probably onto something. 

Why? Because with so little public money in the harness pools, one phone call, one text, can set off a chain reaction. Whether that's what happened last night or not is irrelevant to me. We get a hybrid of the above, race after race, night after night in this game. 

In my view, the harness betting pools are horribly broken. They feel so broken that I don't even know what I could suggest to fix them. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone. 

Other Than Promoting Bad Betting Decision Makers with Bad Gambling Ideas, the Global Symposium on Racing is Worthwhile

Bacon sizzled what I thought was a good article at the Cummings Report on the Racing and Gaming Symposium. For those who may have missed any coverage, it's a good read. 

For those who really don't want to read any details, I can't say that I blame you. The problems of the sport have been prevalent for a long, long time and this feels like Groundhog Day, minus Bill Murray and the laughs. 

I'm not quite annoyed as some with these events, though, because honestly there is often good news. 

This is a big industry and there are many key performance indicators. Oaklawn results certainly don't suck, and neither does some of the metrics on breakdowns YoY. 

But for us, though - this is a betting blog after all - it's truly frustrating. 

Bacon writes:

• The impact that computer-assisted wagering (CAW) is having on traditional horseplayers is the elephant in the room that racetracks are trying their best to ignore. Gamblers are leaving the game for sports betting, largely because the CAW players are taking a disproportionate amount of betting pools. If that trend continues, it will eventually impact the volume of the CAW players, leaving tracks to wonder where everybody went.

This is the 2024 version of events, but damn, this issue is a mess because they've - yes, through symposium topic after symposium topic from about the year 2000 onward - completely screwed it up. 

Back in the early years of this century, rebating began to take hold because pricing was too high and the internet was changing the landscape. Although initially available to bigger players, the (what I would call intelligent, when it comes to betting) independent ADW market realized the programs could be expanded to every-day players and weekend warriors. 

Many of us took advantage of it. 

I could play, through only two accounts, every single North American racetrack, and I could - even starting at smaller volume - get rebates on par with the big boys. Almost immediately, my handle skied. I was contributing more than ever through betting to purses, I was taking racing trips, buying data, consuming content and buying horses (peaking with a stable of majority or plurality interest in upwards of 25 head). 

Then suddenly at the Racing and Gaming Symposium we started to see topics like "handle up, purses down",  "how to get ADW's to pay their fair share", and "withholding signals as a growth strategy".

The industry, right on cue, did what we expect of it. 

The places I played big volume (because I was getting a better price) were gone. Woodbine, in their infinite wisdom, decided they wanted a monopoly on betting in Canada and all others had to be crushed. NYRA, So Cal, Churchill, we saw the exact same thing. 

The free market that was providing price breaks for everyday players who sought them out were slowly killed off. 12% rebates became 3%. Wagering companies sent out "Dear John" messages if you lived somewhere with a racetrack lobby. 

Presenting this topic at a conference back in the day - namely, I and many others won't play your game at these prices at any volume, and it will hurt you in the long run if you do this - I was looked at like I was from the Planet Zoltar. 

Fast forward to 2024. The rebating program Bacon says "is the elephant in the room that racetracks are trying their best to ignore" has come full circle, right back to the year 2000, where only the very best players, the highest handle players, the players who "know a guy" can take part. 

And yes, in 2024 we're again on the cusp of "tracks wondering where everybody went".  At the RTIP, it apparently makes sense that the people who broke it need to fix it (if they ever get around to it, that is). 

In the end I conclude there is a lot of worthwhile in the yearly spectacle in Arizona. 

It's important to know how inflation is hurting day rates and the influx in capital; important to know what regulations are working in helping our equine friends stay healthy; important to know the Navarro's of the world are watched for and so on. 

But concerning big betting decisions via the structure of revenue from betting and rebating, they've proven time and time again, RTIP panel after RTIP panel, that they have absolutely no idea what they're doing. 

Have a nice Thursday everyone.