Saturday Round Up - Trixton, Kentucky Downs and a Little More

Good morning racing friends.

A lot happened yesterday.

In harness, Father Patrick won the Canadian Trotting Classic, with Trixton appearing to be injured, or at least sore.( Harnessracingupdate.com has a really good synopsis of all the festivities. ) That made the CTC one of the more anticipated races of the year, to just another race. The trotting field, outside Takter's big three, is not very deep. They just can't go with them.

Trixton is a wonderful horse, and we can only hope he's fine. Whatever may happen, he sure does have a stud career ahead of him. The owners, and him, will be clearly okay.

The sad part about matchups in horse racing is that we rarely get to see them. I am not convinced that Father Patrick is the better horse, and I know some of you aren't either. He's handier, flashier, and he makes his own race - if you bet Trixton against him on a half mile track demand odds - but I really don't know. Trixton has never had a two hole trip against him so we could see who fires home quickest.

Handle last evening at Mohawk was over $2.3 million, which rarely happened four years ago. Woodbine Entertainment Group is a long way from being bettor friendly (those rakes, and taking more takeout out of simulcast like they do is anything but), however they have come a long, long way. They've turned into a betting company by offering signals, asking for handle, and putting some thought into what they're doing. For years I documented what I thought they were doing wrong on this blog, and right now that list has grown shorter and shorter. The days of $800,000 of harness handle on a Thursday and a $1.3 million Saturday being considered "good" are long gone.

For a track that executives might want to look at as bettor friendly, take a look at Kentucky Downs. They had a record handle of over $4.2 million yesterday, and as noted on the HANA blog,  not long ago they did only $4 million for their entire five day meet.

Churchill Downs yesterday did $3.1 million. Los Al Thoroughbreds $3.9 million. Both those tracks raised rakes and made bettors feel like a necessary evil the past couple of years. Kentucky Downs, who could have as high a rake as Churchill (by Kentucky law), chose not to. They offer the lowest blended takeout nationwide, and had the largest takeout decrease this sport has ever seen in 2012.

They also used their instant racing money smartly, again with the bettor in mind. Creating races with full fields is most important. Four horse stakes races are not allowed.

Rome was not built in a day and neither is a racetrack. But those who actually do their best to cater to customers, end up getting them. Those who shoo them away end up doing exactly that. Sam Walton would say that being customer friendly is not rocket science, and it isn't.

Have a nice Sunday everyone.

Churchill Downs Withholds Signal & The Meadowlands Super High Five

Good morning everyone!

I am getting emails from players informing me that Churchill Downs Inc has withheld their signal to (at least one) ADW. I will dig a little deeper into this to see what's been happening (edit - just got a note saying "CDI might not be the bogeyman here").

Churchill is in a unique position of owning or controlling several racetracks as well as a national ADW (Twinspires).

Players have long-complained that they need more than one ADW account to play all tracks, and this is another example of that. Churchill, its tracks and properties, have been under a boycott by the Horseplayers Association of North America, since spring, when they raised takeout. That boycott continues. For more information, you can visit playersboycott.org. 

On the flipside of the coin, the Gural-owned Meadowlands has bowed to demand and created a new Super High Five. Rather than go with the egregious 50%+ effective rake route like many have with jackpot bets, they start with a seed, an 8% rake and a 25% hold.

For an analysis of that bet in HRU, please click here (pdf page 5) 

Enjoy your Friday folks. 

Odds Changes Are Just Silly & a Little Twitter Gambling Talk

Well, we've all seen it:

4-1 turning for home in the 1st at Remington, win, get $5.60...tough game.
— Craig Milkowski (@TimeformUSfigs) September 11, 2014

It's annoying. But part of the game, so they tell us.

The problem is, it strikes right at the heart of what a true gambler needs to do to survive.

 CJ is (presumably) betting a TimeformUS horse he likes at 4-1. At 4-1 he is making his play on the assumption that this horse will win more than 20% of the time; probably thinking he will win 25% of the time, so it's a green light. Instead at 8-5, his horse - to break even - has to win 38% of the time. In other words, he made an absolutely terrible bet.

This is like betting a 4 point line on a football game and realizing you have just bet an eight point line. "Hold it, I like the other team at 8 points!"

Several years ago Mike Maloney lobbied to have the odds shut off at one minute before post, so the real odds could be shown with that late money. This would help with past posting and offer the consumer a better odds board. That died because handle would be hurt. It's true it would, in the short term anyway. However, if racing cares so much about gaining handle, one wonders why the take of 22% blended is not lowered.

Regardless, there are some things players can do. Look at the pick 3 payoffs and do a quick calculation. Is this horse who is paying $32 in the pick 3, really 5-1, when the 8-5 horse is paying $44 in the pick 3 with two minutes to go? Also, check the exacta payoffs and see what you can come up with.

It's a shame we have to do this to make a bet in this day and age, but without fixed odds betting (don't hold your breath, racing here hates the idea) it's not going away any time soon.

Gambleriffic

I guess I am one to get a little worked up with the industry, but it's simply because I want players to enjoy the game more. People who play once a week can be enticed to play much more if their ROI approaches flat, of course. That's basic. And it can attract more dollars.

When asked about playing into a high rake pool when you think you have a good bet, versus a lower rake pool where you are not sure, I choose the latter. Why? Because in the long run, the odds board is very close to fair. If you think you have an edge into a 20% win takeout pool, you might that day, or a few times that week, but over time beating 20% is almost impossible. This is because we truly do not know if that 5-1 is an overlay because we have him at 2-1, or he is dead on the board, or we read the race wrong, or literally 1000 other reasons why we are wrong. We can't predict the random. We only have our long term edge numbers to go by.

Conversely, with low rake pools money can be made much easier.

Take Peter Webb playing into Betfair. He knows nothing about "circuits" or riders, or trainers. He just knows some math. Trading and betting into a pool with 3% takeout he bets $500 million dollars per annum. At 20% at Turf Paradise, he bets zero dollars because he knows it's unbeatable.

This is why rebated action takes off exponentially. It has nothing to do with handicapping knowledge (I know dozens of better handicappers who are betting $10 a day than a few that make a living at horse racing), it has to do with math. You can bet so much more when you get a lower price, because your edge goes up. When your edge goes up, you can bet more money.

Ask yourself why there are so few long term (probably none, quite frankly) winners who bet into track owned ADW's here in North America. It's because even the best players in a world of 7 billion people, with all the technology, skill, know-how, knowledge and everything else, can't beat track owned ADW rakes of 22%.


Have a great day everyone.