Finley Let's Loose About Rebates & the Juice

In HRU, Bill Finley let fly on Joe Faraldo's criticism of the Meadowlands rebate program, calling the New York Horsemen group head's math "all wrong".

•  So what was Faraldo thinking when he penned an incendiary column the other day criticizing what
  he called "cartel wagering" at the Meadowlands? Was his calculator on the fritz? The handle from the player didn't triple. It increased by 700 percent

He then goes on to talk about lower rake:

•  The primary reason why betting on race horses is not more popular is because the takeout is so enormous that, really, no one can win. There just aren't enough people out there willing to consistently lose their shirts, especially when every other gambling game but the lottery offers fairer odds. By
  giving the player a rebate you are essentially reducing the takeout and making the game beatable.

We've discussed the topic here for many years so there's no need to rehash all the sordid details. However, just as a note, a 700% increase in handle is something the industry or non-bettors tend to think is hyperbole, or an exaggeration. It is not. The power of lower rake is absolutely amazing, if you've ever been a serious player.

I remember back in 2008, talking about Ontario and how (when slots were introduced and the 7% parimutel tax was taken off wagering pools) they blew it not giving that 7% back as a rebate, or takeout reduction.

I harken back to a friend of a friend who posted this in in the comments section of that takeout article:

• Because of a rebate I found a way to make place bets profitable. I wound up with a 3.2% loss, but a rebate of 7%. It actually was a rebate of 6.2% as they did not give a rebate on 2.20 horses. Now the kicker is, I went from betting about 30 to 50k to 1.3 million that year. It made the churn factor possible. If takeout is lowered it may have the same affect. 

Vic had an approximate 2600% increase in handle by getting some juice back.

We need more people upping their handles by 2600% or 700% like those two people did.

Why does the industry cling to higher prices which results in lower handle and fewer people enjoying the sport of racing and the fine art of handicapping? I honestly don't know. 

No Change! And Other Notes

Hello horse racing fans!

Let's say at Pull the Pocket Downs I had a bet customers really liked. They bet into it in droves. It upped the handle in the races it was offered and it was one of the better bets around. It also gave a spark of goodwill because takeout was raised a couple of years beforehand. I would not want to touch it, would I?

Rumor had it the horsemen group in California wanted to up the rake on their pick 5, and/or not give the track a fair share of it, whereby the bet might be pulled off the menu. Apparently that either was not true, or they came to their senses because the pick 5 rake will remain at 14%.  

There was an interesting article by Godin today about communities, or his coined phrase "tribes". He says we do not but in front of a line, or grab seconds at a church dinner, because we're part of it. Meanwhile, a lot of people won't report an undercharge from a bank because well, they're a bank.

•  When we steal or disrupt or game the system of a community we care about, we hurt everyone we say we're connected to, and thus hurt ourselves.

Racing, like most things, have tribes, but at times those tribes either infight where we don't like them, they mess around with each other, or (if you're a customer) you feel no one is looking out for you. We should be a "tribe". We like to think of ourselves as one, but we're not.

This is why I believe, customers balk when a track says:

"Bet at the windows while at the track please because our horsemen get more money"

They say "your horsemen group just raised takeout on me, why should I care?"

Or maybe when a commission says you should not use that vet or move to a "grey area of ethics", a horsemen might say:

"You gave that trainer a month off who was beating my brains in by milkshaking his horses every start. Why shouldn't I join him? I can't beat him."

It's nice to think of we in horse racing as a "tribe". But I don't think that's reality. It's sad, because this is a great sport filled with great people for the most part.

Speaking of "tribes", yesterday we saw a press release from the head of a New York horsemen group, talking about (and not in a nice way) a New Jersey racetrack's business.  Today, the Meadowlands and the New Jersey Horsemen Group head said, kind of politely I guess, get out of our business. 

•  .... the S.B.O.A.N.J. and it's leader, Tom Luchento had this to say: "The Meadowlands Racetrack and the SBOANJ have an outstanding relationship. We support each other in everything we do. The Meadowlands Racetrack is an industry leader in moving this sport in the right direction and utilizing new ideas to make The Meadowlands successful. The idea that the management at the Meadowlands and Jeff Gural would ever do something that would harm the horsemen of New Jersey is utterly ridiculous and offensive to both The Meadowlands and the horsemen of New Jersey.”

I guess it was good they responded, because Faraldo did talk about payoffs at the Swamp, but they probably didn't have to. From what I read on twitter and elsewhere, Faraldo's press release wasn't going over very well with the masses.

Other parts of the world do things a little different than we do. In Britain, the gambling part of the sport has had a long and storied history. For example, bookmakers run the win markets, and bettors can usually get some nice odds on likely winners, with takeouts as low as 5% or 6%. Of course, betfair and other exchanges offer punters myriad advantages. It's a true supply and demand betting market, and has been for centuries. This is probably a good reason why Britain bets $18 billion or so a year on racing and why if a horsemen group ever went to a bookie convention and asked to raise the juice "to make more money", they'd probably pelt them with fish and chips.

With other items like scheduling post times, sponsorships, targeted race meets and the like they're pretty good too.

Today, (hat tip to @keenegal) we see they do things differently in the commissioners office as well. They grant private farms, individuals and others who are trying to do something positive for racing money. This allows the private sector to hopefully move the sport forward.

We're seeing politics at its finest (worst?) in Ontario of late. It looks like there will be a private members bill with the Conservative's and Socialist's joining forces put on the docket before April 1st. The hope is that somehow the government will put the modernization plan on hold. I think it's a crock of you know what. We have two minority parties trolling for votes. If anyone out there thinks either of the other parties would be doing much different with a ballooning deficit, I've got a horse to sell them, cheap, who's gonna win the Travers. Honest.

I advance bet a couple of races today, and I think I've made better bets. One horse looked so lame she could barely catch the field. The other, who I bet at 20-1 handicapping an early lead and a good chance in a cheap field, did exactly that. Unfortunately he blew the turn and ended up in the east end parking lot.

Happy March Madness! My pick to win it all is Houston, because I like Hakeem and Clyde. Quite the team!!! I don't really follow college basketball - I have enough trouble following racing and working. However, since I saw a preview on the Wall Street Journal, I am going to cheer for Saint Louis. Go Saint Louis! (I'd say their full name, but I have no idea what it is.)

Enjoy your Thursday everyone!

Meadowlands Continues to Experiment With Customer-Centric Initiatives

This week the Meadowlands announced they were taking yet another step to cater to the customer base.

“The Meadowlands Racetrack announced that its past performance programs will now include enhanced information on horses showing no race lines for three weeks or more.

In the comment section for each race, those horses with 21 days or more away from racing will have some explanation of the reason for the inactivity and remarks on their level of preparedness for the upcoming race, provided by the trainer. Much like an NFL 'team report' that indicates why a player missed practice or a game, this report will provide bettors with a little more information that they would not normally find in the past performances.”

This is one small step to help customers understand the readiness of a horse and allowing them to make better handicapping decisions. It also goes a long way into helping shed light that horses are not machines, and that our participants have to work through myriad issues to ensure they are ready to go.

Although this seems new, it really isn’t. In Hong Kong if a horse is off, or races poorly, on condition of entry the stewards demand a full vet report. This report is then placed on the Jockey Club website and in the racing program. If your horse was eased and lost by 30, the public knows the horse scoped with sickness. The horse is then scoped again by the vets after it’s cleared up, and reported to the stewards he’s clean. This too is reported to bettors via a website and the racing program.

Betfair in the UK was one of the first companies to hire trainers and jockeys to blog their thoughts on their charges. It’s worked fairly well, and some of the top trainers in the sport have been more than happy to oblige.

Why does it work so well? Because when it comes to their charges chances the people in this sport are for the most part completely honest. I’ll type that again, because the racing press often reports the opposite: The people in this sport are for the most part completely honest. 

I, like many of you, hang around a paddock time and time again. I’ll talk to a trainer or a groom or the driver and ask them about their horse.

“He was a little sick and he might need a trip in here, but he has a shot”

“I think she should be good in here this week. He’s been kicking down the barn”

“He warmed up on one line, so I don’t know how it’s going to go. But he fits in here.”

“Not much speed in here and I think he can make front. He’s got a big shot”

Invariably all of those things are completely honest. Invariably there are six or seven sets of connections in the paddock for the exact same race who think their horse has a good chance and are trying (and hoping) for a win. If their horse races any differently as they’ve told you, they are as surprised as you and I may be.
We see this over and over again with paddock reports. 

Wendy Ross was talking to Nick Surick at the Meadowlands last week. He had a horse in the last race that had a bit of a quarter crack and was off for two weeks, vet scratched. 

Nick reported that problem to everyone and said (paraphrasing) “I trained him up good and I think we have a good shot in there. We’ll be charging”

The horse raced really well. Any handicapper in the world would’ve probably thought about putting a line through him, but Nick’s reporting helped. If Nick was trying to catch odds and cash a bet, he sure isn’t very smart about it.


When we are open about the above we let customers, potential horse owners, and the general fan into the sport. We go “inside baseball” and it is a tremendously interesting part of racing. The races are not pre-determined, they’re races with many variables. We should never run away from being open. 

We also see much of this on twitter. One of the best drivers tweeting is none other than Yannick Gingras, the leading driver at the Meadowlands.  He regularly shares his thoughts on whom he thinks is live or not live. He took tremendous pride on twitter the other day when three of his best bets all won:

Yannick also chats with trainer Ron Burke and some fans on twitter too, sharing more insight into the game. English is not even the man’s first language, but there he is. Bless him, I can barely spell “cheval”. 

 

Not every one of his tweets works out exactly as he states, and he can’t be expected to answer everyone at all times, but he states them, tries and is honest about it. That has resonated with his followers, from what I’ve seen.

Of course there is a different opinion about being open, and that’s what happens when a person gives the Meadowlands, for example, false information in these reports. 

I really don’t think that will happen and if it does it will likely be rectified in a hurry. 

First, if someone wanted to mislead someone about something with their entry, it would’ve happened many times already. They would’ve already exposed it in a paddock interview or pre-race chat. Can you think of any time that’s happened out of the thousands upon thousands of interviews? I can’t. 

Second, if a trainer really wanted to put something over on someone, and give false information, I think it’s great. Please do it. If he does it once, he’ll get a call from Gural. If he does it twice he’ll probably be exposed for what he is: Someone we don’t want around. Go race somewhere else.

This is what happens with Betfair in the UK. Recently, some less than honest participants were betting their horse to lose, just like they’ve probably done hundreds of times in the tote system. But when you do it on Betfair, there’s an electronic trail. Now they are uncovered, and kicked out. Betfair is the bait car for corrupt participants.

Regardless, trainers and drivers have been doing paddock interviews for some time now. Even if one of their horse’s races differently as they reported, the public has for the most part understood. 

Having said that, the onus is on the trainers – many of you who read this publication – to do the very best regarding this new Meadowlands initiative. You’re a vital part of marketing the sport of racing. 


Listening to customers and respecting the betting base are good things. With policies like the above, bettors not only get respected, they get to see the people behind this sport much more clearly and openly. When that happens, the sport can’t help but win.

This article originally appeared in Harness Racing Update. You can subscribe for free here.