Skip to main content

Posts

Racing's Competition Excuse

I read with interest yesterday's Bloomberg piece on Hong Kong racing. Some of it was certainly perfectly good fact, but I found it a little doom and gloom; talking about 1% growth rates, n' all.

The fact is Hong Kong racing has seen a major resurgence since 2006 when handles were US$7.7B. Last year's US$13.6B was more than a 70% increase since the so called "great recession". If the same thing happened in North America, handle would be about $24B instead of its current $11B, and I don't think anyone would be saying we're doing poorly.

It doesn't mean there are no storm clouds on the horizon in Hong Kong, and the article rightly talks about them. But the bottom line is, despite massive competition, leaks in the betting pools on the interwebs and all the rest we see in Hong Kong, the product, and business, is very strong.

Soccer betting, for example, has been up leaps and bounds. But handle keeps chugging.

Meanwhile on the competition front, something s…
Recent posts

More Narrative Busting

In horse racing we read over and over again (mainly from insiders) that the big problem with ADW wagering is that purses don't get enough of a share; that it's an upside down business model. In some quarters companies who take bets are considered 'pirates'.  You've heard it all before. It's a narrative that has lived on for many years, and is probably believed more now than ever.

Yesterday on the twitter machine we saw this tweet:
Most don't know that ADWs make next to nothing in Cali. If u live there and bet a PENN super bulk of 32% takeout goes to TOC NOT the ADW. — Ian Meyers (@ihmeyers) June 21, 2017 He's absolutely correct. California racing's pricing is steep. A bigger share of wagering than anywhere else in the nation from ADW goes directly to California purses. It's why you see such small rebates from the state (and, rebating is almost totally prohibited in-state). It's why in-state players play (and get ground down) by massive…

The Gambling Little Things

After being immersed in the gambling world for too long to mention, the differences between what goes on with the private companies who try and earn your business versus North American racing never ceases to amaze me.

I like to scan for carryovers now and again. If work is a little slow during the week or I am sitting around in the evening and have a bit of time to handicap, I figure why not look for an edge and invest a few dollars.

Today, DeRosa posted there's a pick 5 carryover at Fort Erie, so I decide to have a look. Carryovers are value, attract money, and are some of the best things this sport offers gamblers. In fact, it's one of the very few edges this sport has in the gambling world. 

I log into the Canadian ADW to research and I see this:

That tells me just about nothing.

I don't know what race the carryover starts on, if it's a jackpot or not. It's relatively meaningless to me.

Since DeRosa is not an idiot, I kind of figure he's not betting into a …

The Unbearable Lightness of Being There

This past weekend the North America Cup charged $10 for entry, for the first time in a long, long time.  As most know, with slots tracks, the doors were thrown open for anyone to enter, big day or small, and this is simply the way the (harness sport) works. The full story, with some thoughts, was penned here.

Most people like the idea of not charging admission to the races, because of one simple premise: If you don't let people in free you are limiting the audience, and racing needs an audience. Further, this audience - if only one person out of 1,000 loves the races and comes back - is positive for growth.

I never really get this line of thinking.

Google is google, not because of flying cars, or Motorola buys and sales, Google Glass, Google Home, or Android operating systems. Google is google because when people visit their search engine they are prequalified to do something, and google gets them where they want to be for a fee. Out of $100B in revenue for Google, about 90% comes…

Fooled By Randomness

We as horseplayers, industry watchers, and well, humans, immediately want to look for reasons for something when it happens. As someone much smarter than I wrote, we look for causality in just about everything. The problem with that is, much of the time there is none.

Today it was reported that Belmont viewership was down over 15%.

That was because, of course, there wasn't a Derby runner in the field, that the field wasn't deep enough, the card wasn't as good, and maybe people didn't really like Andy Grammer. 

Maybe one of those are correct, or (more likely) none of them are.

The fact is, this is a one-off horse race, with little long term data to compare it to that makes any sense. The result could be completely and utterly random.

This is a characteristic of small data, and we fall for it often. If a trainer is 8 for 11 over three years with a move, we should bet him each and every time thereafter. What often happens, is the trainer then goes 0 for 14 and we lose ou…

UK Rake Hikes - Tote Betting Has Its Place, But It Can't Be King

It was announced this week that (again) the UK tote has raised takeout on UK punters:

"From June 29 the win pool deduction is set to increase to 19.25 per cent from 16.5 per cent, while the place pool deduction is to increase by two percentage points to 20 per cent."

Although that might be a shockingly high increase to many of you, the UK tote - set up in the 1920's by Churchill to combat corruption in the betting pools - only represents 3% of the betting market (as of 2015). 

The reasons for the hike are probably pretty obvious. In the unregulated, mature UK gambling market, products like fixed odds wagering and exchange wagering generate the most net worth to the punter. Customers flock to those high volume low takeout (overround) products -  $3 of every $4 are spent with fixed odds bookies and exchanges. Betfred (who runs the tote), appears to have decided in the sunset of their deal with racing, that the only strategy they have left is squeezing the lemon.

While the t…

Why Horseplayer Advocates (& Horseplayers) Give Up the Fight

As most know by now, the $891,000 pick 6 jackpot was hit last week at Santa Anita, but as the DRF reports, it was not without controversy

The controversy arose a half-hour before the race when Horse Identifier Jennifer Paige discovered Fly to Mars was a gelding, even though he was listed as a colt in the track program and past performances.

Paige immediately phoned the stewards, who said they were alerted as the horses were loading the gate for race 10. Stewards quickly investigated and learned the Peter Miller-trained Fly to Mars had in fact been gelded since his most recent start in June 2016.

He was a “first-time gelding,” a piece of information that most bettors consider to be a potentially significant handicapping factor.

The problem Saturday is that no one knew Fly to Mars was a “first-time G” until after race 10 had been run.

At the present time there are insiders, horseplayers and others calling for changes to the "first time gelding" reporting rules, because t…