Back in 2007 at a gaming conference an astute observer mentioned that he expected state by state gambling to have a life cycle, just like every other product. He thought the first to take a major hit were slots and believed that within ten or fifteen years, slot revenue would be a shadow of itself.

It wasn't really because slots are overly boring, it was because more and more gaming (including internet gambling) would spring up in state after state - in some sort of 'what can we pass next in gambling' death match - and the landscape would get so saturated, it had nowhere to go but down.

In Pennsylvania, this editorial seems to agree. 
  • In July, the state Gaming Control Board reported that for the first time since casinos opened in Pennsylvania, gross slot machine revenue declined in fiscal year 2012-13.
  •  That's because people realize that when it comes to gambling, someone's going to tap out. Probably the players. Government is encouraging citizens to gamble away their paychecks instead of growing Pennsylvania's economy and attracting jobs that pay a living wage.
  •  Average Joes realize this. A Quinnipiac University poll last month found that by 62-33 percent, Pennsylvania voters oppose online gambling in the state.
Ontario is currently ahead of that curve. The OLG knows both slots and casino games have had their revenue slashed. They looked to "modernize it", which as you all know, involved taking money away from racetracks.

Will Pennsylvania (and New York and Ohio and everywhere else) need to "modernize" too? They are at differing points on the product life cycle curve, but one would think so.

The Arts and Entertainment Network  has learned to push popular shows over and over and over again (Duck Dynasty marathon number 46 anyone?) because it adds their immediate revenue. Once the masses are saturated, the show dies and it's on to the next one. With casino or online gambling - country by country and state by state one-upping each other with more and more - the same thing tends to occur. But, in my opinion, just like with a television network, someone will be left holding the Jon and Kate Plus Eight bag.

More on gambling, @keenegal tweeted out this: "Fantasy Football is Gambling". It sure is, and it is definitely a draw away from racing bettors (more male, with disposable income, who like numbers and stats).

The Prix D'Amerique was raced this morning.  

"Complexity in anything can be a turn off. That’s why most of us don’t get involved in threesomes or options trading" . Derek is writing some funny stuff on racing (and threesomes) at his Medium blog thingy.

Santa Anita handle - for 2014 - has started to return a little bit. Is it because of great fields, better marketing? No, not really. Carryovers are happening, attracting more wagering. Like with casino gaming, horse racing in California (or anywhere) cannot survive on carryovers. In a sport that seems to be so scared of exchange wagering cannibalizing pools (which is, as the kids say, cray cray), no one seems to mind the cannibalization that carryovers do.

Finley looks at the bridgejumping/offshore money making scheme happening at Pompano (pdf here). Stories years ago were written about this phenomenon, wondering what the con is. Finley has been around the block enough to know.

In yesterday's HRU, equipment changes and reporting were looked at from a betting perspective, including the story of how the scratches and changes page was hatched, between Equibase and the Horseplayers Association of North America. (pdf page 5) 

Speaking of HANA, Paulick gave the mag a push:
Thanks Bacon.

To read the issue, you can here. 

A lot of people got their pre-Derby fix yesterday with Cairo Prince and Top Billing. I thought both of them raced really well.

Enjoy your Sunday everyone.

No comments:


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...