In the Horse Racing Casino Revenue and Land Asset Bubble, All KPI's Lead to Bad Places

Bacon is covering the Gulfstream Park mess, and he provided an excellent summary here.  

Since AI is the new fancy version of Cliff's (Coles in Canada) Notes, the AI version of the above is that Gulfstream will probably be no more come 2028 (or sooner). 

In a presentation made by Keith Brackpool (there's a blast from the past in California takeout hike lore; these people seem to just move around), it was detailed the land was worth over $1B, which is a lot of scratch. Stronach bought the track for $95M in the late 1990's. 

Further to that, and this is most interesting to me, is the casino revenue. 

Look who tops the list - Pompano Park. The old time historic track that closed a (de)couple of years ago. Yes, the one with purses that rivalled a county fair, with horses (no offence) to match. 

Unpacking that disconnect: The entire sport of Florida harness racing (including the breeding industry in the state) was at a track that brought in $132M of revenue and no one could save the place. Even as it was receiving what many would consider scraps. 

If the sport of horse racing mattered to important people, Gulfstream would be racing, along with Pompano (with some of the highest purses in the world), Hialeah and Calder. But it doesn't. 

If your racing venue brings in tons of casino money it doesn't matter. 

If your racing venue is a storied track patronized by Andy Williams, Ed Sullivan or Colonel Sanders himself, it doesn't matter. 

If an entire industry, including racing and breeding, depends on your track, it doesn't matter. 

If your track has Pegasus races, and Pegasus statues, and is a staple of the sport's wagering make-up for the entire continent, it doesn't matter. 

This is nothing really that new. Balmoral Park in Chicago was quite a successful place in year's past and the home for Illinois racing. They'd do over a million a night, with purses most nights totalling less than $40,000. If we add $20,000 in cost to run a card, their handle revenue to cost ratio was probably in decent shape, but it went the way of the dodo bird, too. 

Casino revenue, check. 

Good horses, good trainers, a good place to watch a race, check. 

Storied races, historic venues that host Breeders Crowns and Breeders Cups, check. 

Big handles, check. 

You can have all of those things and still end up a parking lot or a strip mall. It's sadly the state of the sport.

Do the CRW Teams Have Body Language Covered?

There was an interesting discussion on the twitter recently with Chris asking, "we all know about the advantages for the CAW teams, but what are some advantages for the human player?"

There were some good suggestions, one of which was inside info which is a human trait, and I agree with that completely. We've seen some sharp fair odds computer players look dumbfounded when a horse they didn't figure runs off the screen where on-track they know. 

But intuitively, I suspect the answer to this question is frankly "not much". If you're going to bet hundreds of millions of dollars and have any skill in setting up an organization, you're probably going to have most bases - whether computer or human - covered. 

One area the teams try to cover is body language, but I'm not convinced they are particularly excellent at it (yet). 

First off, if a horse looks sore, it's pretty hard to change a line on the fly, especially with the extent of the soreness. Sore horses who are 8-5 on paper can be 5-2 fair odds, or 520-1 fair odds. Lame horses for me, you and many are an auto-pitch; we're not guessing degrees. 

Second, (and I'm the first to admit this could be anecdotal and I miss things like everyone else) I see little adjustment in the late betting when I personally see a lame or sore horse. 

Just in the past week there was a race where a horse came out looking horrible (who usually looks okay), and in my view should've been scratched. The multi-race wagers (wagers bet before you can see the animal on the track) indicated a strong betting team horse: odds of about 6-5 in the win pool. 

The betting opened hard with an even money win price, but after the parade the horse moved like we'd expect from sharp people noticing the soreness; he closed at 9-5. But it was only 9-5. If the teams were that sharp, wouldn't we expect a higher price? (The horse ran 8th).

I don't know exactly what goes on inside the "team room" but I have been around the block a little outside of it. 

Back before the word "CAW" was a thing, many sharps were betting on Betfair; but by sharps I mean some of the human folks Chris alludes to in his question. I'd often see movement after a post parade at the exchange based on how a horse looked. 

I particularly remember a stakes race at Saratoga where I faded a horse for more than I ever have, based on stiffness. She was from a top barn, and was 7-5, but not long after the parade she was 5-2 on the exchange, then 3-1. She finished at 3.9-1 and ran out of the money. Who were myself and others getting filled by on the buy end? From the betting bots. 

It's dumb to think we'd know more than a well-capitalized, well-run team of sharps. But to Chris's point I do believe there are avenues where we can be better than they are. We see it on the tote board each and every day. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone. 

Horse Racing's Fake News

There's, once again, plenty of chatter about late odds moves on the twitter; in this case, 8-1 to 3-1 from the gate to the finish.  

Similarly, like "community notes" this gets challenged or modified through more information. This time added by Crunk:

"BSP 4.5-1. PPWAP 3.7-1. Never traded anywhere near 8-1. It doesn't have to be this way for the normie horseplayer."

The horse was never, ever, ever going to be 8-1. He was never 8-1. On no planet was he 8-1. It's good for everyone to know the 8-1 price wasn't real. 

In horse racing, the tote board is fake news which is of course bad and I don't blame people for complaining, but it goes well beyond that because everything that follows isn't real either.

In the third race on Friday at the Meadowlands, McNuggets' odds, off a 5-2 morning line, were 2-1 for most of the betting. The horse was obviously a contender, and in fact she was Greg's best bet at the DRF.

 Dave and Jessica doing the commentary were talking at great length about the horse, and why wouldn't they. Dave Little even surmised with the early betting the horse may end up below even money, as she's taking supposed steam. 

I can't blame him. The horse opened well bet, the exacta pool showed similar early and everyone seemed to dipping in on McNugget. And, our trusty friend - multi-leg wager will pays - were not available that race. 

McNugget, the horse that dominated all the pre-race chatter on the feed, went from 2-1 to 6-1 at the gate and closed as the fifth choice. 

We walk into a diner. We've heard the burgers are the favorite of many. We read the menu, we order. Then our bill comes and we noticed they changed the price of the burger from $5 to $10 and it turns out it tasted bad. 

Like Crunk noted. It doesn't have to be this way. Horse racing can stop spreading fake news. It can stop commentators from spending five minutes of their time talking to customers about the fifth choice like it's Seattle Slew. It can stop the tweets, the articles on the Bacon Report, the commiseration, the "they cheat" narrative. And it's really not that difficult. 

We often hear people lament that horse racing is run in an alternate universe. When the menu that people use to wager the sport is completely and utterly incoherent and they don't seem to want to fix it, that statement probably isn't fake news. 

Have a nice Monday everyone.