Paul Siegel said...

Every time I go to the track, which is pretty often, they do seem disgruntled. In fact even I'm disgruntled.

posted at 3:06 PM on May 12th 2008

Bob Marks said...

Brilliant.. wish I thought of some of the stuff Dean Towers came up with...

Disgruntled gamblers....

Remember when a racetrack called them GUESTS but reacted to them like they were marginally tolerated relatives.....

posted at 12:51 PM on May 12th 2008

Pull the Pocket said...

Just a quick story from the wagering conference I found interesting that your readers might enjoy. It has to do with anachronistic "home market areas".

A big bettor was on a panel and was asked about what they can do to attract him to bet harness racing and open an HPI account. His answer was comical, especially because of some of the reaction in the room.

He said "I tried to open an HPI account years ago. I was living in Thunder Bay and I called to open one, but was told I was not allowed since I lived in Sudbury's home market. Sudbury is a 7 and a half hour drive."

A guy who might bet $2M or more a year in an HPI account is told we don't want his money because of a simulcast agreement that was written before the Internet was invented in clung to. That's maybe $300,000 to the business in revenue. Would a trainer who has an owner come up to him and tell him they want to give him $300K for horses be happy and do everything that they can to help? Would Wal Mart be happy if you came in to buy $300,000 worth of lawn chairs a year?

Only in racing, eh? We seriously need a commissioner because a lot of this stuff is so fixable and so nonsensical that I don't think anyone would complain.

posted at 12:24 PM on May 12th 2008

Trotter Bob said...

The management at race tracks could instantly do three things to encourage new people to give racing a try and bring back some gamblers who want better returns.

1. Eliminate admission fees (where they're still in effect).
2. Offer free programs. If a track official can't stomach "free", at least attach a betting voucher to each paid program.
3. Reduce take out rates, on at least some betting options, and promote the heck out of it when larger payoffs result.

New bettors won't be as hesitant to try racing if it doesn't cost four or five dollars just to get inside and know how to bet. Casinos don't charge for access to the slot area or the payoff info.

posted at 12:19 PM on May 12th 2008

Allan Schott said...

One of my pet peeves is the current recall rule. In what is a money grab by the track owners in the United States, the current rule that there is no recall for a trailing horse or one that breaks stride is absurd. Not that not having a recall is bad, I understand that. It is when you have a race starting and a horse has not yet reached the recall pole by the time 'go' is given and the money doesn't get refunded which is absurd. How many times does this have to happen before the bettor thinks he's not getting a fair shake and never coming back.

If I recall (pardon the pun), the Ontario rule has the race going off and the money wagered on the horse who has not gotten to the recall pole by the time the race is refunded. That is customer friendly and makes sense. Do the tracks make that much money on these situations that they can afford alienating bettors?

posted at 11:13 AM on May 12th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

We are almost certainly doomed if we remain the rudderless ship we have been for far too long.

The "leaders" of our industry are still operating with a business model that was starting to become obsolete 30 years ago.

posted at 10:30 AM on May 12th 2008

Pull the Pocket said...

Thanks for the kind words Andrew. I enjoyed getting that out. The current signal fights in the states spawned that post, but it could have been any number of things in this wacky business.

We need a commissioner to fix all those things. I'd take a legal mind with a passion for the sport. Know anyone? :)

posted at 9:56 AM on May 12th 2008