JC / Railbird

Increase Takeout, Decrease Wagering

I can only assume that many of the people who populate the Thoroughbred racing corner of the blogosphere also wager on the product, so it was with some surprise that I surveyed the landscape and found that only Steve Crist mentioned (with appropriate outrage) that New York will increase the takeout on its bets to 1%.
As one commenter on the Cristblog noted, some mucky-mucks cited New York’s “relatively low takeout” compared to other states. This holds true in the WPS pools and possibly in the two-horse wager pools (DD and exacta), but the trifecta, superfecta, and pick N pools were never a bargain at 25% and are even less so at 26%.
To me, an increase in takeout is far more grievous than Breeders’ Cup Ltd. moving the female races to Friday or renaming the Distaff the Ladies Classic. I realize that both changes rubbed people the wrong way, but the change is made in the spirit of trying something new in the hopes of increasing interest.
A raise in takeout, however, is nothing but a spit in the face to the game’s customers, the people who largely conduct the economic engine. I just plain don’t understand why anyone would want to support that kind of treatment by funneling their hard-earned dollars into New York’s wagering pools — especially those with the 26% takeout.
The only thing I like more than horse racing is a good old-fashioned boycott, and I am already looking forward to focusing my summer wagering dollars on Arlington, Ellis, and Del Mar. That is, away from Saratoga.


6 Comments

Hey, I was going to get to that, along with the early recommendations from the Thoroughbred Safety Committee. Thanks for bringing up the subject, though. The 1% takeout increase is egregious, and that it applies to bets on out-of-state races made in NY is revolting. That’s just a bizarre, self-defeating surcharge, to which my response will be to wager solely through another ADW, including when I’m at the track and wanting to play a race at Del Mar or Monmouth. Out will come the iPhone — forget NYRA Rewards.

Posted by Jessica on June 17, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

Hey… I’m just sitting down to “read in” and blog now (at 9pm).
Here’s some outrage.
So why don’t you try to organize a boycott? You’ll feel better if you don’t engage with NYRA but will that make the point to them? Will they feel any impact from you boycotting them (of course, I don’t know what kind of budget you have, so perhaps they will!).
While renaming the Distaff isn’t the same type of problem as increased take out, it’s easier to send a clear message by organizing people to withhold handle, ratings and attendance for the specific event. It’s much harder to organize a clear signal over increased take out in general at a track. Believe me, we had plenty of people who agreed with our petition but couldn’t agree to not wager on one damn race let alone a whole circuit!

Posted by dana on June 17, 2008 @ 9:15 pm

Its pretty simple, if you continue to screw the consumer (in this case, the bettor) he will eventually no longer be a consumer.

Posted by robert on June 18, 2008 @ 7:56 am

Hey, Jessica, don’t let Ed steal your thunder! I’d love to read a complementary post to his fine one with your views on the takeout change. We’re on the cusp of Saratoga, and this is what the racing fans get? I think I’m letting my wallet take a large portion of the summer off (right, fat chance), but it will break my heart to have to largely turn away from the great Saratoga meet. 26 percent is an absolute joke. Why can’t these people realize you lose a lot of money before you win any? And then there is the withholding above $600 and then there is the greater withholding above $5,000 and after awhile only an idiot — line up and raise your hands — continues to play what should be the greatest game in the world. Question to you New Yorkers: If the OTBs of your state were folded under NYRA’s wing, would this solve or exacerbate the problem? – J.S.

Posted by John S. on June 18, 2008 @ 9:15 am

With the increase in take, this should force horseplayers, at least those of us not already so, to become “value” players. For “bettor” or worse, I fancy myself such a player and have pretty much limited my play to New York over the years. As take increases, more tier 1 options become available: California, Keeneland, Churchill, and Gulfstream, even some 17% takeout states. Politicians expose their weak will when they use higher anything (takeout, taxes, prices, etc) of other countries, states or municipalities as an excuse to dig their hands deeper into the general public’s pockets.

Posted by harryo on June 18, 2008 @ 9:46 am

The boycott is a charming idea, but an empty threat. The general horseplayer population doesn’t care about takeout. They bet the tracks they’re used to betting. They bet where they think they have a chance to cash a ticket.
If horseplayers cared about takeout, the handle at Ellis Park would have gone through the roof last year when they lowered their pick-4 takeout to 4%. Four percent! It should have been easy for the increase in handle to offset the loss of revenue from the takeout reduction. It wasn’t. Handle didn’t go up near enough to make the move profitable for the track. As the saying goes, horseplayers stayed away in droves.
Laurel also tried reducing the takeout on ALL wagers to an effective 11.4% during a short meet last year. I don’t believe they saw the boost in handle that would justify making the move permanent.
If horseplayers cared, a smart track like the two mentioned about would steal millions of wagering dollars from the greedy tracks/governments that screw horseplayers on a daily basis.
Now, voting out of office the bums who voted for the takeout increase…that’s a plan I can get behind!

Posted by Greg on June 19, 2008 @ 6:35 pm