Racetrack thriving

[Grandstand Handicapper]

No, I don't think they are truly thriving-----because it's NYRA, LOL-----however, it is reflective of client/audience potential. Yes, it's a summer meet, a special meet, a unique meet, and so on. But, they raced 45 days. 4 days a week (Thursday through Sunday), then 5 days a week (Wednesday through Sunday). The all-in handle for the 45 days was over $900 million. Some may say "average" is meaningless, however, the average daily handle was over $20 million. While this was the most racing days they've had at a meet, I don't think that means "let's have more" LOL.

On a separate note-----ironically, NYRA announced that there was "a drop of $41,326,368, or 24.2 percent, in play from computer assisted wagering (CAW) players, according to NYRA. Retail play was $775.7 million, a 10.2 percent increase from last summer's Saratoga meet. Also ironic, which I think is a good thing, it was announced that NYRA is expected to go back to the traditional 40-day Saratoga meet (run over eight weeks) in 2027. Sure, after next year, they are going to consider spreading the 40 days out over a longer period of time (10 weeks), but that's far off.

Point being, I think there are plenty of wagering dollars out there. Yes, it's for t-breds, I get that. But I think the answer is-----which track management never embraces-----for reinventing, revamping, purging, and getting back on track, I think there should be less tracks and less races. Until you right the ship. Management will not embrace that. But, remember, if you lose money on every sale, every race, whatever the case may be.....you can't make it up on volume. LOL.

[Lockedin with Pace]

No, I don't think they are truly thriving-----because it's NYRA, LOL-----however, it is reflective of client/audience potential. Yes, it's a summer meet, a special meet, a unique meet, and so on. But, they raced 45 days. 4 days a week (Thursday through Sunday), then 5 days a week (Wednesday through Sunday). The all-in handle for the 45 days was over $900 million. Some may say "average" is meaningless, however, the average daily handle was over $20 million. While this was the most racing days they've had at a meet, I don't think that means "let's have more" LOL.

On a separate note-----ironically, NYRA announced that there was "a drop of $41,326,368, or 24.2 percent, in play from computer assisted wagering (CAW) players, according to NYRA. Retail play was $775.7 million, a 10.2 percent increase from last summer's Saratoga meet. Also ironic, which I think is a good thing, it was announced that NYRA is expected to go back to the traditional 40-day Saratoga meet (run over eight weeks) in 2027. Sure, after next year, they are going to consider spreading the 40 days out over a longer period of time (10 weeks), but that's far off.

Point being, I think there are plenty of wagering dollars out there. Yes, it's for t-breds, I get that. But I think the answer is-----which track management never embraces-----for reinventing, revamping, purging, and getting back on track, I think there should be less tracks and less races. Until you right the ship. Management will not embrace that. But, remember, if you lose money on every sale, every race, whatever the case may be.....you can't make it up on volume. LOL.

Didn't you hear the story about the appliance salesman who used to sell refrigerators that cost $800 for $500? He said, he makes up for it in volume.

[Grandstand Handicapper]

Sure did. Didn't hear about it for long though, because he was out of business pretty quickly.

I do think that part of the solution, in the short/near term, is less racing, more boutique meets, etc. Too much offering and too much crap. Typical excess supply. Simple economics.

[Lockedin with Pace]

Sure did. Didn't hear about it for long though, because he was out of business pretty quickly.

I do think that part of the solution, in the short/near term, is less racing, more boutique meets, etc. Too much offering and too much crap. Typical excess supply. Simple economics.

I actually think more so in T-Breds because so many tracks have short fields, which hurt the handle.

[dougie]

No, I don't think they are truly thriving-----because it's NYRA, LOL-----however, it is reflective of client/audience potential. Yes, it's a summer meet, a special meet, a unique meet, and so on. But, they raced 45 days. 4 days a week (Thursday through Sunday), then 5 days a week (Wednesday through Sunday). The all-in handle for the 45 days was over $900 million. Some may say "average" is meaningless, however, the average daily handle was over $20 million. While this was the most racing days they've had at a meet, I don't think that means "let's have more" LOL.

On a separate note-----ironically, NYRA announced that there was "a drop of $41,326,368, or 24.2 percent, in play from computer assisted wagering (CAW) players, according to NYRA. Retail play was $775.7 million, a 10.2 percent increase from last summer's Saratoga meet. Also ironic, which I think is a good thing, it was announced that NYRA is expected to go back to the traditional 40-day Saratoga meet (run over eight weeks) in 2027. Sure, after next year, they are going to consider spreading the 40 days out over a longer period of time (10 weeks), but that's far off.

Point being, I think there are plenty of wagering dollars out there. Yes, it's for t-breds, I get that. But I think the answer is-----which track management never embraces-----for reinventing, revamping, purging, and getting back on track, I think there should be less tracks and less races. Until you right the ship. Management will not embrace that. But, remember, if you lose money on every sale, every race, whatever the case may be.....you can't make it up on volume. LOL.

GH, I think that much of what you say is true. I was at Saratoga twice this meet on weekdays only. Overpriced food, expensive parking, and even overpriced water. But patrons were happy and excited to be there. The "boutique" meets like Keenland, Kentucky Downs, and Del Mar always seem to do well. Top horse flesh. Mega-rich owners. Big-time trainers. And big time gamblers. But the other 90% of the racing dates carry a lot of cheaper horses during long extended meets. To close these tracks would have a very adverse effect on local economies not to mention what would happen to the jockeys, grooms, hot-walkers, etc. In harness racing, we continue to see tracks close nationally. Freehold being the latest. I'm not sure if their closing was better for racing as a whole. As for re-inventing tracks themselves. I agree it's important. But can they do it. Less days. Better racing. That's the question.