Protectionism in Betting Products Works for Awhile, but Not Forever

The Paulick Report ran a story yesterday about the closing of 24 racetracks in France in a cost-cutting move. 

However, perhaps the lede was buried because a whopping "231 racetracks hosted spectators in 2025"; to me a mind-boggling number. 

For some conference or another back in the day, I was on a panel with someone from France's PMU, (which runs horse racing) and I later looked into it with fascination. The PMU was a near-perfect protectionist organization, and it was inexorably linked with the governing bodies, and central government. It was, in a way, what many hoped for in North America from an umbrella. 

What it wasn't good for (both back in the day and now) was for consumers of the betting product. It took and continues to take about 27% out of the pools, paying back punters around 69% to 75% on wagers. 

Particularly egregious, in France itself, rebates are outlawed. However, not for offshore participants who can get up to a 15% rebate on their action. The big boys are getting their money back, while the people onshore are SOL at massive high takeouts. 

France and the PMU - before markets opened up around the world in 2010 to 2012 - drew about 10 billion Euros in wagering for horse racing. In 2025 that number had fallen to about 6 billion. 

No matter how much you try and protect, or how much you use rebates for large bettors to keep the top line from cratering (raising takeout at least marginally on everyone else), revenues shrink. 

Like in the US, sports betting's legalization in France has eaten into racing's market share. But again, it's a state-led protectionist hell hole for customers. 

It is illegal for operators to payout more than 85% in any bet, resulting in -125 each side pricing. The house edge for a three game parlay is 39%, five game almost 56%. 

Remarkably, (and again I don't have the foggiest what these people are doing but it's common in protectionist cultures), scratch off tickets and lotteries payout at over 70%, with scratch offs around 75%. This puts them in-line with the "smart states" like Massachusetts in regulating churn and encouraging play. Non-skill game scratch offs are priced near what an exacta is. 

Despite the fact that many of us who bet sports or racing would immediately stop betting sports or racing at these prices, protectionism has its merits. Sports betting has grown to about 11 billion Euros per year in betting volume in France. This puts them at about $159 per capita, or about 300% less than the free market (for the most part) US and Canada, but it's a fair number at 2X the margins. 

And yes, back in my old conference days I noted to my French colleague that I suspected the sport could not continue at this pricing in France as the world opened up. But alas, there it is. Sure they closed a few tracks, revenue is down, and handle is down, but quite honestly, French horse racing continues to roll along. 

Protectionism is inefficient, it's sub-optimal; for us left brainers and business people it's utterly maddening. And most importantly, it's terrible for customers. 

But, for awhile at least, it works. It just won't work forever. 

Have a great Wednesday everyone. 

CAWs are not Fine-Tuned Machines, Pentland's Rocket, & Notes for a Sunday

Hello everyone, and a special Happy Kickoff Sunday to NFL super-fan Marcus Hersh!

Yesterday, I watched the huge card of harness racing at Yonkers Raceway, headlined by the $1M International Trot. 

I have to hand it to Yonkers, quite honestly - they've tried to make that place work, especially on big days. 

Not only do they have their own ADW where even small bettors can get an 8% rebate and a 10% winning ticket bonus (imagine if HPI - who actually charges more than track takeout for some U.S. tracks - did this), they seed some pools. 

And that $25,000 seed for the $100k guaranteed pick five was certainly lucrative for punters, with only $59k bet into it. The problem, of course - the CAW's are not shadowy organizations who know everything about everything in this sport, contrary to popular belief. If they did, they would've hammered such pools. 

The bottom line with seeded pools - if the carryover is in the Equibase ADW feed the CAW's see it; if it's a seeded pool that isn't in their automation they couldn't find an elephant in a phone booth. 

Speaking of blind as a bat, I missed my takeout reduced ticket foray due to the massive clunker thrown by Devilish Hill in the 6th. If I have been good at one thing lately, it's betting horses who run ten lengths slower than their par times. 

We (well, me at least) complain a lot about short prices in harness racing, but we ain't the only ones who can complain. On Saturday, Churchill Downs assembled multiple millions in horse flesh for their stakes-laden late pick five. The races were won by Built (2-5), Manuka Honey (4-5), Splendora (1-5) and Salahudin (4-5). I find that over the last several years this game is so tough to make exciting. 

Over at Scioto, I thought Big Ranger looked pretty good off the Hambo razor-thin loss to Apex. Is there a world where this horse is the 3YO Trotter of the year? Apex, I thought, has looked awful in his last two. If he's cooked, and Ranger wins out maybe so. Big Ranger is trotting like a metronome for Annette. 

How about Redland Rocket Man? OK, I have the track last night 4/5's fast, but 146.4 is nothing to shake a stick at, either way. Trainer John Pentland and team should be rightfully ecstatic about this gelding. 

This horse, like many Pentland horses, seem to just get better over time, and they aren't doing it with fancy pedigrees, or with high price tags. Again and again this man enters sound horses who improve. 

In a world of flash and pomp, this horse began his career at Grand River Raceway a little over a year ago, off a 2:02 qually where he was 6th by 11.   In last night's Simcoe, he stamped himself as the best colt in the province, and it should be noted, Pentland had two of five entrants; the other colt a homebred from a mom and pop with one broodmare. 

Earlier this spring I posted that I thought by the end of the year, either Sweet Lovin Lou or Fragment would end up the fastest and best colt in the division. You were probably right to flame me for that, because it might end up being little-known Redland Rocket Man. Well done John Pentland. 

Beau Jangles continues to confound his backers, but perhaps it's not their fault. 

Beau Jangles disease (noun) has infiltrated this sport, because horses now race in sires stakes at two. They can go undefeated and look all-world in restricted races, and if they run the table in a grade I beating suspect stock, some crazy proclamations can follow. 

This is not a world where Dragon's Lair can one-up Nihilator, Western Shooter can get beat by another fast colt like McArdle, Artsplace has to show Die Laughing who's boss, or Niatross has to beat Whamo as second choice in the Wilson. That was a time of Open stakes, where the top two year old colts banged heads ten or twelve times at several racetracks. They traveled, they fought, they threw it down. There was absolutely nowhere for a colt to hide. 

This world doesn't exist anymore - there are probably five or six undefeated two year olds this minute who haven't left the home stall. But in my view, we have to be better in handicapping these things and think in context if we really want to understand how good a horse is, or isn't. 

I love Randy Waples, but post-race last night - where I thought (my new pal) James drove Beau fine - he was on a narrative that the colt needs a helmet, still focused on what once appeared to be. Co-host John Rallis seemed to try to move him back to the topic at hand (Rocket's Canadian record), but it was futile. 

In my opinion, Beau Jangles disease can make us think a horse is racing well below his par - where changes have to be made or drivers have to be fired - when in reality this reputation was never earned in the first place. Beau's top, all-out under the stick at two was 48 and change; his top at three was probably last night - all-out in 47 and change.

He's a nice horse, but over the last five or ten years there have been dozens and dozens of horses with those tops. I don't think there's any mystery here. 

There are times I wish Frantic Hanover was just a bit better horse and beat him in the Metro; maybe that would've cured the disease for some. But it's still here, and it still confuses me. 

Have a great Sunday everyone!

Analyzing Results Track by Track. Is it Me or is It You?

In Chris's Bet With the Best book, a common theme from the players was about checking your results. 

Are we good or better at a certain class, a type of wager; on sloppy days or fast ones; at harness or thoroughbred, or by track. Are we bad at MSW, or at Saratoga or Mountaineer over a large sample size?

Data and statistics are hard and they can fool us pretty easily. A losing streak at a track or wager for a month or two months, when one mostly wins, might not be what it seems. Variance is a bear. 

We generally have to dig deeper. Then, hopefully answer a question - is it you (the venue or class or sport) or me (my handicapping and wagering).

I spent the better part of two days doing just that. 

I currently have a massive divergence of betting results based solely on venue. And that venue is Mohawk Racetrack. 

My play through each and every pool at harness racing "all other" is smooth. Variance is muted, and has been for quite awhile. My most voluminous betting handle is at the Meadowlands, and tracking it by month, by wager, things have a completely normal distribution. 

Over the last three months at Mohawk, it's been nothing close to a normal distribution. The results are completely different than not only "all other" but also by historical results. 

When I dug deeper, I found that not only win ROI is abysmally low at the Campbellville oval, multi leg wagers are as well. Digging into those, yes, I have had several potential scores the last months that had Portnoy type bad luck, however stripping those out, or even converting a couple, still shows bad multi-leg results (it's always wise to look at the median and strip out the noise with multi-legs because the hits are infrequent). 

Regardless, I knew this was happening, and stopped investing in multi-leg wagers. My results have slightly improved at Mohawk, but on much less volume. 

How can one be handicapper of the year in '26 at the Meadowlands and a dart throwing monkey at Mohawk, after years of decent to good results at both tracks? 

On Saturday night a seasoned player sent me a text. He doesn't play Mohawk but did because of the stakes events and after watching it for a couple of days he typed, "they have tomorrow's newspaper at that place".  Indeed, this is a point of view echoed by many, i.e., the horses who are going to win at Mohawk are crushed, the ones who are left alone have little chance in a fixed race. 

I have had, through other conversations, people lament the mystery horse phenomenon in, say, leg three of an event (exhibit number 42 why newbies should not play much of their bankroll on multi legs); namely, a horse well bet, that smart handicappers would completely avoid. The Bax trotter in leg two of the late pick 5 a week or two ago (my fair odds around 15-1, bet to 4-5 and dropped 20 lengths), crushed many, many pick 5 tickets. 

The other theory I have looked at is field quality. At the Big M I have avoided betting TM 68/71 and MADC races. I had previously cut my multi-leg play considerably on those because my results are poor. 

At Mohawk, which is now racing 5 days a week, the horses are all racing (overracing) super frequently, and the classes are beginning to look like the Big M TM 68's. As well, to fill cards we've seen 8 conditioned claimers and pop-up series' which end up invariably in a drench battle. 

My results on races I have tabbed "cheap" the last four months at Mohawk (hold your nose please):  Win ROI -31%. 

After spending some time on this problem the last few days I think I can answer the question: is it me or you?

I think it's both. 

I am doing the right thing not playing sub-par classes as much as I did in 2022-2025, and I am also doing the right thing spending less on multi-leg wagers overall at Mohawk to avoid the "mystery/tomorrow's newspaper" horse.

If I do want to continue to play harness racing at the levels I have been at Mohawk (and despite good results, even the Big M), I will need to be better. 

Kentucky slots (or historical racing, or whatever we're calling it) have wreaked havoc on us as serious horseplayers.  Owners are not going to leave a zero handle, slot infused purse promised land for the big signals. I'm not going to suddenly be able to decipher a shipping 4 claimer in an 8 claiming condition at Mohawk or the Big M better. 

So, in this tough game I find it's a never ending struggle. But struggle we must. I hope how I analyzed my own play above perhaps helps you with yours. 

Have a nice Tuesday everyone.