Monday, December 20, 2010

Pick 6's, Z's 'Seconditist' and Big Plans

Gulfstream introduces two new bets - one, a 15% rake pick 5 and the other, a 10 cent pick 6, like the one in Puerto Rico. The pick 5 is a good idea as it gives players a chance to play a sweep in (perhaps) a higher pool that GP's anemic pick 6 at a low rate. The pick 6 is a good idea because lottery players can shovel some cash in them. Serious players, unless there is a huge value-added carryover (where 5 of 6 money makes it worth it), or on mandatory payout day, will not be looking at this bet too hard.

What's the NFL and racing have in common? Not much, other than both are being bet. In the old days they were a little bit similar though. They were fractured and had no real purpose, with defending factions fighting each other tooth and nail, and they were insular. In fact, would you believe that in the early 1960's several of the big gate teams wanted nothing to do with television, because (get this) it might hurt live attendance.

Thank goodness for them, they had leadership that can think beyond yesterday because this season, 18 of the top 20 watched television shows are NFL games.

When someone (and we see this almost every day from some groups) tell us we have to stop at home wagering, tax it more to squeeze more revenue from customers, or make people go to the track to grow, point them to the NFL.

Zenyatta ran second! Again. They're in the Gate looks at the latest athlete to beat her.

Jeff Gural speaks of his plans for the Meadowlands via

Saddest commentary one can ever read on the California boycott by Steve Davidowitz.

"I do not agree that a boycott of the wagering windows can be effective. not when the handle has been sliding downward for years. [ and ] there is no way that a further decline will wake up California racing officials any more than the steady declines have to date."

Let's look at that for a minute: Handle is off about half in the past "x" years. In fact, if CA racing would have grown at the rate of inflation since 1990, handle would be close to $5B. Instead it is $1.9B.

So players have been telling racing for years that they dislike the product, they don't want the product, it is too pricey and too static, and all the rest. That fell on deaf ears of course. So now, Steve says even if handle dropped another 50% they won't listen anyway. The sad thing to me: If history holds, he is probably right.

I am a shareholder in a lot of different stocks, as are many of you. I can tell you with certainty that if sales were off by half in any of the stocks that we own, the board of directors and management would look nothing like they did from day one. In racing it seems the same people trying to fix the business are the ones who presided over its demise. Why does the sport let this happen?

Cangamble lets his thoughts be known. HANA has a list of commentary from Pricci and Eng.

No comments:

Most Trafficked, Last 12 Months


Carryovers Provide Big Reach and an Immediate Return

Sinking marketing money directly into the horseplayer by seeding pools is effective, in both theory and practice In Ontario and elsewher...