Start Times, Speed Racing

Hoosier Park is experimenting this year with post times in an effort to develop a greater live audeince and maximize handle. So far it has been 'challenging'. With post times being moved from 6:45pm to 4:45pm (12:45 on Saturdys), over all handle is down roughly 25% (13% on-track). Management at Hoosier noted the vast majority of their handle came from the 7 to 9m window with wagering decreasing afterwards. The thought was to get the later races earlier to increase the handle but this has not occured. No doubt some of the drop off is due to the economy.

Kudos to Hoosier for attempting to grow their live audience. Not only does a track get to keep a greater share of the amount wagered on track, it is important to build fans that will fill the grandstand and keep interest in the sport. Other tracks have already given up on attracting a live audience and schedule their races merely where they can maximize their signal concentration; those tracks have given up on the future for their immediate goals.

That being said, a different approach may make more sense. By all means, race Saturday afternoon. Here is a chance to bring the casual fans (and families) to the track and build their interest in racing. It may mean sacrificing handle, but it is a price to pay to get people interested in the sport.

As for during the week, starting at 4:45pm doesn't make sense; their original start time works best. The local heavy hitters who play Hoosier will continue to come to the track at the 6:45PM start time; the issue is how accessible are you making the races for everyone else? Many people who gamble on horses still have regular jobs. How many people get out of work in time to make the track at 4:45? Not as many as management would like to think. By starting at 6:45, people have the time to either go home after work and come to the track or to head to the track directly from work.

Yes, the wagering drops off after 9:00PM; that is probably because some of the people have to get home and go to work the following day. Rather than shifting the races so you start earlier, the answer is to compress the time it takes to complete the card so more races are run during the period you have your greatest attendance. Last Thursday, it took almost four hours to complete the 13 race card. Why not complete the card in 2 or 2.5 hours instead? People want action, they don't want things to drag out. Look at Baseball, they have made rule changes to get the games to go quicker. Shouldn't we?

I hear the arguements now:

• People need time to handicap and place their bets. Give people 20 minutes, give them 30 minutes some will wait to the last minute to wager. If you give them 12 to 15 minutes between races it will be enough time.
• People wager more than one track and we have to give them time to do so - Any smart gambler knows you can't bet more than one or two tracks successfuly at a time. You can offer them twenty tracks, but they will stick with the same ones most of the time. They will be able to continue to wager on those tracks.
• Those that play more than two tracks? They are not playing every races; they are picking their spots so a short time between races should not impact them.

People crave action. Running an accelerated card will give people their action (and who knows, some of those simulcast dollars may actually stay at your local track as thye may be wagering on the simulcast signal to kill the time. Many people don't bother coming to the track because it is a long night. Tell people that the races start at 6:45 and will be over by 9:00? More people will be coming because it is not a long night.

Please take a look at the poll questions on the right side of this blog and respond. They relate to this topic and it would be interesting to see what you think. Of course, feel free to comment as well.

Sports Betting - Hypocrisy and Parochialism

The Record of New Jersey reports that Governor Corzine backs a lawsuit against a federal ban on sports betting which a state senator has brought against the federal government at the behest of NJ horsemen from both breeds. The current federal ban allows sports betting only in Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon. The lawsuit claims that by denying New Jersey the opportunity to offer sports betting it discriminates against New Jersey and the 44 other states who are not allowed to offer it. Understandably, the NJ horsemen from both breeds want the ban overturned so additional revenue will be brought in for purses.

The statement that Governor Corzine made in wanting to join this suit is hypocritical. The Governor claims that Delaware's entry into sports betting and table games are a severe threat to New Jersey casinos and racetracks.

Really Governor? If you are so concerned about the long term viability of racing in the State of New Jersey, how come you have never attempted to bring VLTs to any racetrack in New Jersey despite the studies that show it would benefit racing and the state? Aren't slot machines in NY, PA, and DE a threat to the long term viability of racing in NJ? Wouldn't it be better to allow VLTs in the NJ racetracks rather than allow the money to flow out of state? Not once did you even attempt to expend political capital and introduce legislation to allow VLTs. Surely you would have had to fight the casino lobby but you didn't even try. By freezing the operators of Freehold out of the negotiations for the most recent casino supplement bill and have not invited them to be represented on your blue ribbon committee on the future of racing you have clearly indicated that you don't consider Freehold Raceway important enough to save; especially as long as they are owned partially by Penn National Gaming.

Whether this suit is successful remains to be seen. First of all, being the legislation that eventually banned sports betting in NJ gave the state a one year window to approve sports betting so the state had the opportunity to legalize it. I am no legal scholar but that may mean unless another state gets involved, the court may find that NJ has no legal standing to bring the suit as they did have a chance to get sports betting in the past and decided not to; the state in fact brought the harm upon itself.

Let's assume the suit is successful. What happens one the genie is out of the bottle?

According to earlier reports, it will require a constitutional amendment to permit sports wagering in NJ. The first time NJ tried for a casino gambling amendment it failed; it only passed the second time when casino gambling was limited to Atlantic City. While I assume it would not be a problem, who can say for sure sports gambling doesn't follow the same route?

Hypocrisy aside, this parochial approach by NJ horsemen from both breeds concerns me. There should have been a decision made at a national level by the USTA, AQHA and The Jockey Club whether or not to attempt to support a fight against the federal ban on sports wagering. While this attempt may be beneficial to the NJ horsemen in the short term, in the long run it may hurt racing.

Assuming NJ's efforts are successful, consider this:

1. Once again we are introducing another form of gambling to our fans in an effort to increase revenue without attempting to improve the racing product. As a result, we may be diverting money from our handles to sports betting.
2. If handles decreases because less interest in racing, will we be giving opponents of racing another excuse to convert racinos to casinos?
3. Any state with a casino will attempt to get sports wagering. Will they allow sports wagering their racetracks or only their casinos? This may be the final nail to harness racing in those states without racinos.
4. Harness racing is regional enough as is. If racing becomes more regional, can it survive?

I am not saying racing should or should not support these efforts. What I am saying is we can't keep making major policy decisions on a local level. Each state is not an island; what happens in New Jersey will impact racing throughout the country. In the long run, those in the sport will prosper or wither on the vine together.

When will we wake up and realize this? Hopefully before it is too late.

FREEHOLD UPDATE: Here is a press release from the SBOANJ regarding a horsemen's meeting on the last day of the spring meet.

Arguement Against Slots at New Jersey Tracks: I disagree with this article but thought I'd share it with you. Please remember this article was printed in an Atlantic City newspaper so realize the article is biased towards the casino industry.

Who is Protecting the Public?

Not the racing commissions. Yes, the title of this entry could just as easily be called Fair Start (Not)Part 2, a continuation of a previous blog entry. Watch the start of the fourth race at Monticello Raceway today and see for yourself.

Can someone explain to me why wagers on the #8, Attempt to Deliver, were not refunded? Yes, I know NY like other states does not have the Canadian Fair Start rule. What I really am asking is if someone can explain the rationale for not refunding the money in this type of situation. Can racing expect attendance and wagering to increase when they commit this 'highway robbery'?

Shame on the tracks for asking for this recall rule when the old rule was revised. Double shame on the racing commissions for authorizing this thievery.

Question: Who is representing the public at the racing commission level?
Answer: No one.

Yes, you can tell me the public can write in comments to the racing commission and may attend commission meetings, but other than feeling good that they had their say, the racing commission will do the bidding of the tracks.

I can see the discussion when the recall rule was revised. The tracks indicated that the refunding of the money would hurt the track. The racing commission said what the heck, the people playing are degenerate gamblers so if we screw them a little bit more who cares.

The racing commissions as currently formed are not protecting the public's interest. In New Jersey, there is a Department of the Public Advocate which is charged with making government more accountable and responsive to the residents. What fans (gamblers) need is their own representative who is a full voting member on each racing commission. This way, the fan would have someone looking out for their interests rather than expressing their concerns to those people who solely have the interest of the racing industry. We should expect no less; after all, if not for the gambler, who would be paying the salaries of the drivers, trainers, racetrack owners and commission members?

We should demand nothing less.