Well How about this article in today's Blood Horse on Calder's 20% decline in handle:
http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/47884.htm
"Calder’s handle decline is part of this year’s overall drop in wagering on races at U.S. Thoroughbred tracks, amid an economic slowdown. On Oct. 9, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Equibase Company reported U.S. and Canadian wagering on U.S. races fell 10% during this year’s third quarter. That wagering fell 6% during this year’s first nine months, compared with the first nine months of 2007."
Breeders Cup Handle, 2006, 2007, 2008
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
Worksoplad
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:09 pm
- Location: Manhattan Beach, California
Worksoplad wrote: On Oct. 9, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Equibase Company reported U.S. and Canadian wagering on U.S. races fell 10% during this year’s third quarter. That wagering fell 6% during this year’s first nine months, compared with the first nine months of 2007."
I think that the Breeders would have been happy with only a decline of 10% compared to 2006, instead of the 25% that they experienced on Saturday.
You do notice, don't you, that there was a 6% drop early in the year, and only 10% in the third quarter? That shoots down your contention that the sudden DEPRESSION (sic) in the fall was the main cause. That extra 4% is kinda piddly in the whole scheme of things.
-
Worksoplad
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:09 pm
- Location: Manhattan Beach, California
steward wrote:Worksoplad wrote: On Oct. 9, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Equibase Company reported U.S. and Canadian wagering on U.S. races fell 10% during this year’s third quarter. That wagering fell 6% during this year’s first nine months, compared with the first nine months of 2007."
I think that the Breeders would have been happy with only a decline of 10% compared to 2006, instead of the 25% that they experienced on Saturday.
You do notice, don't you, that there was a 6% drop early in the year, and only 10% in the third quarter? That shoots down your contention that the sudden DEPRESSION (sic) in the fall was the main cause. That extra 4% is kinda piddly in the whole scheme of things.
Not so fast there Rokeby... I mean Steward. Those figures were for the THIRD Quarter. The financial tsunami didn't start until the end of the third quarter beginning of fourth quarter. Consumer spending didn't take a drastic dive until the October figures came out, showing a virtual shut down in consumer spending. Just wait a quarter.
"Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself." John Milton.
Worksoplad wrote:steward wrote:Worksoplad wrote: On Oct. 9, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Equibase Company reported U.S. and Canadian wagering on U.S. races fell 10% during this year’s third quarter. That wagering fell 6% during this year’s first nine months, compared with the first nine months of 2007."
I think that the Breeders would have been happy with only a decline of 10% compared to 2006, instead of the 25% that they experienced on Saturday.
You do notice, don't you, that there was a 6% drop early in the year, and only 10% in the third quarter? That shoots down your contention that the sudden DEPRESSION (sic) in the fall was the main cause. That extra 4% is kinda piddly in the whole scheme of things.
Consumer spending didn't take a drastic dive until the October figures came out, showing a virtual shut down in consumer spending.
On page one you were bragging about the large BC attendance. On page two, the DEPRESSION (sic) and the tsunami (sic) caused a virtual shut down (sic) in consumer spending. Well, did those people sneak in for free, or did they shell out hundreds for their tickets?
Inconsistency and comic hyperbole are signs of a weak debater. It causes me to worry about one's handicapping also. You'll be able to make it through the DEPRESSION, won't you?
It's official. There was no meltdown at the tracks this October. Betting handles fell only 6.9% compared to a year ago. In other words, there was some pullback, but not the cataclysmic results that someone else on this thread was trying to peddle.
In fact, as DRF points out, the pullback was even tinier than it looks because race dates fell 4% for the same time period.
http://www.drf.com/news/article/99674.html
There was a real, concrete reason why the BC handle has fallen so far from what it was was in 2006: American bettors didn't fully plunge because of the artificial track at SA.
In fact, as DRF points out, the pullback was even tinier than it looks because race dates fell 4% for the same time period.
http://www.drf.com/news/article/99674.html
There was a real, concrete reason why the BC handle has fallen so far from what it was was in 2006: American bettors didn't fully plunge because of the artificial track at SA.
The DRF article above has some other interesting information. Namely, wagering fell year-over-year faster in the months of July-September 2008 (9+%) than in October 2008. It seems that the drop in gas prices is freeing up more money for the average joe to bet lately. Handle problems seemed to have bottomed out in the summer, and have actually stabilized and improved.
Except for the breeders cup...
Except for the breeders cup...
Steward you are 100 percent correct.
Many larger players have backed it down a lot since the installation of the synthetics, it does add another variable and makes it impossible to bet with conviction. Like yourself, I take thousands of dollars on any big racing day, between 10-15. This Breeders Cup I gambled maybe a 1000 dollars, I bought more in drinks than I played. I enjoyed the day, it was beautiful weather, but I am not willing to wager large amounts of money when I cannot be certain Im in with a fighting chance
That being said I had the best Breeders Cup Day Ive ever had betting the grass races, and Classic only.
Many larger players have backed it down a lot since the installation of the synthetics, it does add another variable and makes it impossible to bet with conviction. Like yourself, I take thousands of dollars on any big racing day, between 10-15. This Breeders Cup I gambled maybe a 1000 dollars, I bought more in drinks than I played. I enjoyed the day, it was beautiful weather, but I am not willing to wager large amounts of money when I cannot be certain Im in with a fighting chance
That being said I had the best Breeders Cup Day Ive ever had betting the grass races, and Classic only.
-
Worksoplad
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:09 pm
- Location: Manhattan Beach, California
steward wrote:The DRF article above has some other interesting information. Namely, wagering fell year-over-year faster in the months of July-September 2008 (9+%) than in October 2008. It seems that the drop in gas prices is freeing up more money for the average joe to bet lately. Handle problems seemed to have bottomed out in the summer, and have actually stabilized and improved.
Except for the breeders cup...
Yea, Roke. Everything in the garden is rosy:
http://auctions.bloodhorse.com/article/47934.htm
"Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself." John Milton.
Who's this Roke? Goofy, wrongheaded, inaccurate guesses like that only highlight your inadequate analysis skills. Maybe the mods can help you with this one. My permission is given.
Auction sales and betting handle are two different animals. Auctions sales take into account buyer uncertainty about the future. There's no question that the economy factors into decisions somewhat. But in this political climate where no one knows what kind of surface their young purchases may be running on, buyers are wise to be hesitant. Who's to say that all tracks nationwide couldn't be mandated to have synthetics after Jan 20? What owner would want to be stuck with unproven runners with good dirt breeding?
Auction sales and betting handle are two different animals. Auctions sales take into account buyer uncertainty about the future. There's no question that the economy factors into decisions somewhat. But in this political climate where no one knows what kind of surface their young purchases may be running on, buyers are wise to be hesitant. Who's to say that all tracks nationwide couldn't be mandated to have synthetics after Jan 20? What owner would want to be stuck with unproven runners with good dirt breeding?
As part of my hobby, I plow through racing history a lot. There were odd times in American history where, even in economic contractions, betting handle per day kept constant -- or even increased. IIRC, 1944 when WWII was the bloodiest for Americans, was an example of the latter.
As was shown in the above DRF article, betting this last October was only down about 2-3% per racing day, when one factors in the lesser number of racing days year-over-year. That's not a lot, considering what the bloodbath on Wall Street has done to stock portfolios.
Betting habits aren't much influenced by stock portfolio shrinkage because middle-aged workers hold stocks for the long term to ride out the down legs in the business cycle. People who are working still have disposable income. In the last few months, they have more due to the steep drop in gas prices (now $1.99/gal and lower in my neighboring state a few miles from here).
The steep drop in BC handle on their big day Saturday is a reflection of something else at work.
As was shown in the above DRF article, betting this last October was only down about 2-3% per racing day, when one factors in the lesser number of racing days year-over-year. That's not a lot, considering what the bloodbath on Wall Street has done to stock portfolios.
Betting habits aren't much influenced by stock portfolio shrinkage because middle-aged workers hold stocks for the long term to ride out the down legs in the business cycle. People who are working still have disposable income. In the last few months, they have more due to the steep drop in gas prices (now $1.99/gal and lower in my neighboring state a few miles from here).
The steep drop in BC handle on their big day Saturday is a reflection of something else at work.
My betting went down this year as a result of the additional races added to the BC card. It started in 2007 which was the chalkiest BC day I've bet. Add in more races in 2008 = more watterred down fields, lower prices. Despite the addition of the synthethics, it still seemed rather chalky with all the talk of the unpredictability of the synthetics. I can find chalk about every day at the tracks. My first BC was 1998 starting with horses like Spain and Caressing winning at huge odds. As a result of last year, I went in this year not expecting upsets like I've seen in the past and dramatically curtailed my betting. Throw in the dime supers which spreads out the pool a little bit more. I'll have to see the return of big payouts before I can see upping my betting back to previous levels. I'm not sure how many others were like this, but it was my main reason.