University of Arizona Global Symposium

U of A Symposium: Trying to Find a Way Forward Amid Track Closures

A panel about racetrack closures in the prime afternoon time slot on the first day of Tuesday's Global Symposium on Racing hosted by the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program (RTIP) in Tucson had the potential to be a somber and eulogistic affair, but it did yield some interesting back-and-forth when the discussion turned to how the industry might best stem the tide of Thoroughbred venues going dark for good.

The topic “Land For Sale. How Will Race Track Closures Impact the Industry's Long-Term Sustainability?” elicited some of the commonly debated plights facing the industry, such as the decline of the foal crop, the fierce competition for the thinning horse (and horse owner) population, how to shore up field sizes, and the emergence of so-called “super” trainers and multiple-owner partnerships.

The panelists largely agreed those practices are consolidating the remaining equine assets into the hands of too few entities, but each speaker had a slightly different take on how to best deal with those woes.

Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), didn't shy from rhetorically asking what he termed as “the hard question” about racing in the state that he represents. California is facing outsized upheaval because of the planned 2024 closure of Golden Gate Fields, right on the heels of a 10-year span that also saw top in-state tracks Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows slide off the Thoroughbred grid.

“What's the best path forward, and can California support two circuits?” Nader postulated before following up with the TOC's perspective.

“We know we have the [Northern] fairs, that's a given,” Nader said. “And we have Southern California. But can we support two circuits, knowing what we know?” in terms of the above-referenced downward trends.

Nader continued: “One avenue would be to look at something new [as a flagship track] in the north. [Plus] there is no alternative [revenue stream from gaming to fund purses], which makes it really hard, because we're doing it the old-fashioned way, pari-mutuel wagering only, sort of one arm tied behind your back…

“If there's something in the north that we think is viable and can really form a good business case, that would be option one. If not, then we have to redirect to suitable opportunities in the south, and make use of our assets at our racetracks at not only Del Mar and Santa Anita, but also Los Alamitos.

“If the foal crop can rebound, and we can get some positive momentum, maybe we can stay a little bit close to even” in terms of nationwide track closures, Nader said.

“It's really important that California stay strong, that we keep supporting [it],” Nader said. “Our owners are big players at the Keeneland sale and many of the major yearling sales. [So] in terms of understanding the worth and the value of what everybody brings, less racing may not be the worst thing if we can improve the product and make it better for the people who bet on the races, because that triggers the handle, and that drives the engine.”

Nader explained that for Californians, it can be difficult to see other iconic, nationally important tracks, like Belmont Park and Keeneland, planning substantial long-term facility upgrades while grand places like Santa Anita and Del Mar are more focused on the year-to-year survival of their underlying state circuit.

“That's great that they're leveraging that [financial] advantage to make their venues better, no problem with that,” Nader said. “But I want everybody to be reminded how important California is. California doesn't have those [secondary revenue] advantages…. In terms of expectation management, we're okay, but we still want to escalate to the next level…. I think for the rest of the country, everybody should recognize [how] important California is to the rest of the country: Racing, breeding, history, tradition.”

Smaller tracks weren't left out of the discussion. Phil Ziegler, the president of Emerald Downs in Washington, made the observation that all too often the big-name track closures get the headlines, while it is often the disappearance of the smaller venues, like county fair race meets, that quietly erode the sport from the bottom up.

Chris McErlean, the vice president of racing for Penn Entertainment, Inc., whose Thoroughbred track holdings include Penn National in Pennsylvania, spoke candidly about how well-intended racing executives in Penn's home region of the mid-Atlantic unintentionally contribute to the very problems they're trying to fix.

This includes, McErlean said, giving big-outfit trainers “unlimited” stall allotments or writing so many conditions that races either become hard to fill or go with too few entries to be appealing to bettors.

“We do that out of convenience, [and] that's kind of self-perpetuating. That's kind of what works, but it's probably not the right thing to do,” McErlean said.

McErlean talked about how difficult it can be for a racing executive to deny alleged “super” trainers stall space and dominance across race conditions knowing that if they clamp down, that trainer will just move on to the next track down the road that will be more accommodating.

“I think we've hurt ourselves that way, and it just becomes more difficult to bring that genie back into the bottle once you let it go,” McErlean said.

“I've been involved in the mid-Atlantic for maybe 25, 30 years,” McErlean continued. “Tracks always work together very well there. But every year the discussion is, 'Let's coordinate race dates' or 'We need to coordinate race dates, it makes sense.' And it never happens. So, yeah, we're our own worst enemies.

“But at the end of the day, we run our individual businesses. We're not a league,” McErlean said. “We compete against each other [and] it's difficult to do those changes [because] we can step out and make the right choices, and then everybody else keeps doing what they're doing, and then we end up being the net loser. People want to cooperate. It's just very difficult to be able to actually pull the trigger…. In theory it sounds good. In practice, it's just much more difficult to execute.”

Craig Fravel, the executive vice chairman of 1/ST Racing and Gaming, whose portfolio of tracks includes Santa Anita, Gulfstream Park, and the to-be-closed Golden Gate, underscored a focus-on-owners mantra.

“We do have to make sure that owners are sustained in a more profound manner, that they're engaged, and that they have, you know, a fighting chance to make some money,” Fravel said. “It's a game of hope. We don't want to fool them into thinking that this is a [can't-miss] investment in Microsoft in 1978. But we do want to give them hope, and we want to make sure they're well-treated…

“If we're going to try to change things, we're going to have to try things,” Fravel said. “We're going to have to do things that are new and different and sometimes make us uncomfortable.”

The post U of A Symposium: Trying to Find a Way Forward Amid Track Closures appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Sixty Incidents of Pool Manipulation. The Industry Shrugs

A month ago, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation (TIF), a think tank that uses independent research to try and drive changes in the sport, brought to light an example of what it said was brazen quinella pari-mutuel pool manipulation at Gulfstream Park. The scheme was apparently designed to jack up the odds the manipulator would receive on winning bets placed with non-pari-mutuel offshore bookies that paid on-track prices.

On Wednesday, Pat Cummings, the TIF's executive director, told an audience at the Global Symposium on Racing hosted by the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program in Tucson that this incident was one of more than 60 purported pool manipulations he has documented at North American racetracks since the spring.

“The reason we wrote about that particular incident was because it was easily the biggest of more than five dozen incidents that we've tracked in the last six or seven months affecting, really, a significant number of racetracks, most of whom don't seem to know any of this is going on,” Cummings said.

And in the cases where regulators and racetrack operators do acknowledge that pool manipulation exists, Cummings said, they often believe the practice is victimless, without harm to the sport, or beyond their power to change.

All of those ideas are incorrect, Cummings said in a panel discussion titled “Illegal Betting's Threat to the Racing Industry.”

“I've approached regulators across America with this,” Cummings said. “And they say, 'Well, it is handle, right?' I mean, the tracks want this money…”

Cummings trailed off midsentence, giving the impression that industry bigwigs often shrug when faced with evidence of pool manipulation (Gulfstream, however, did discontinue quinella wagering days after becoming aware of the Nov. 11 pool irregularities). A recent report titled “The State of Illegal Betting,” compiled earlier this year by the Asian Racing Federation, exposed the proliferation of unlicensed and unregulated online horse racing and sports wagering companies. The report found the global demand for online wagering is increasing faster than industry's ability to react. The suspicious betting patterns detected by the TIF in American pools may have a connection to non-pari-mutuel bookmaking.

Wednesday's panel, which also included global perspectives from Matt Fowler, the London-based director of integrity for the International Betting Integrity Association, and Martin Purbrick, the chairman of the Asian Racing Federation's Council on Anti-Illegal Betting and Related Financial Crime, outlined some major threats and discussed what actions could be taken going forward.

But it was the presentation by Cummings–who isn't even a regulator or investigator, but is more akin to an ombudsman for U.S. wagering–that hit closest to home for most stateside racing stakeholders.

Cummings said the first fundamental step is to recognize that pool manipulation is never going to be eradicated entirely. It's not even explicitly illegal. A good chunk of it, he said, occurs with the aid of the “vast” gray-market global bet-booking business whose handle is “far in excess of the legal market, and it has infiltrated American racing. There is absolutely no question.”

Cummings gave an overview of how a manipulator might work, using show pools as an example. (If you want to read a more in-depth TIF writeup on the process, click here.)

A manipulator might bet $2,000 to show on a horse or horses who look certain to finish in the money at a track where the fields are uncompetitive and/or short and the show pools are miniscule. But instead of betting that money in the pools, he instead spreads it across a number of different offshore bookmakers in smaller increments. These are bets he intends to win, and it's important to note that the offshore outlets don't often “lay off” this money into the mutuel pools.

In the same race, the manipulator then bets, say, $4,500 into the show pool on one of the longest shots on the board, and this money does go through the mutuels, making a horse who is unlikely to hit the board based on past performances the overwhelming favorite in that pool. This bet he intends to lose–it's a business cost whose sole function is to abnormally drive up the show prices on the more likely horse(s) to hit the board that he backed with the offshore bookies who pay the on-track prices.

If the race unfolds as the manipulator envisioned it will, the hapless heavy show favorite runs out of the money, while the more talented horse(s) he backed via bookmakers cruises home in the top three, triggering something like a $21.00 show payoff.

“So they sacrificed $4,500 to win maybe $21,000,” Cummings said. “The manipulator is spreading his or her risk, likely across multiple accounts, because the offshore operator may not pay them. That's just part of the risk.”

Cummings continued: “I don't see a lot of [bettors] talking about this or noticing it. And the reason is, if you bet an even-money shot to show thinking you were going to get $2.20, and [instead] got $21.20, who's complaining?”

That's an obvious example that should stand out, Cummings said. But this pattern occurs with more subtlety using smaller dollar amounts, he explained, like when a manipulator might be content not to make a single big score, but instead routinely inflate 1-to-5 shots in the show pool so they pay off like a 4-5 shot would.

And occasionally, the horse who was supposed to be a dud wins or hits the board, Cummings said. That's when bettors do speak up and complain about the pools not being on the level, because the big long shot they legitimately bet in the mutuels returns a vastly underlaid show payout.

That can lead to image and integrity problems, Cummings said.

“You do not want a bad name associated with your product. And every time someone manipulates your pool, if it's noticed, it's bad for your product,” Cummings said.

Beyond creating bad perceptions, Cummings said, rampant pool rigging could also encourage manipulators to get a bit bolder with their actions, perhaps by spending a bit extra to bribe participants to ensure desired outcomes in races.

“If someone's willing to bet $4,500 to show in a race where the winning jockey is earning $900, what's an extra $500 to make sure they don't run in the money?” Cummings said. “Or an extra $500 to the trainer to tell the jockey to maybe be a little slow out of the gate today.”

Cummings stressed that to his knowledge, there is no current evidence that pool manipulators are reaching out to arrange fixed races.

“That's a good thing–for now. But it's out there. And it happens. And there is no reason that others might not try to copy this,” Cummings said.

Cummings explained that he's a proponent of the “best defense is a good offense” strategy to try to keep pool manipulation at bay. The industry can do this, he said, by recognizing that our pari-mutuel system is ripe for being controlled in the manner he described, and by increasing stewards' awareness and oversight so there is a better focus on pool-watching.

A fixed-odds system might be a better long-term solution. But that style of betting is not completely immune from manipulation, either, Cummings said.

Reinventing our wagering menus could be an option, Cummings said, with an eye on pruning off the low-volume pools.

“Should a track that has offered win, place and show betting for the last 60 years continue to do so when the place and the show pools only average $1,200?” he postulated.

In that case, maybe the solution is to get rid of the place and/or show pools.

The proliferation of rolling horizontal wagers on practically every race card on the continent is also a hazard waiting to happen, Cummings said, because those bets, too, draw very little mutuels action and have low base-bet increments.

“We have to rethink the way we're doing this, because every small pool is a way to manipulate the outcome, to corrupt a participant, to help exact these sorts of outcomes,” Cummings said.

Cummings said he has spoken with various groups of officials and regulators over the past year about the problem of pool manipulation.

Their reactions?

“Interested, but [there was] very little they thought they could do about this,” Cummings said.

“This falls back on track operators. It falls back on horsemen's groups,” Cummings said, pointing out that the idea of looking the other way when pool manipulation occurs is not justifiable simply because it increases handle and thus fuels purses.

“If you don't recognize it, [or] if you bury your head and say, 'I don't want to hear about it–not interested,' it's going to keep happening,” Cummings said.

The post Sixty Incidents of Pool Manipulation. The Industry Shrugs appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Sportsbook Panel Featured at Global Symposium on Racing

A panel of sportsbook operators was decidedly bullish on the near-future prospect of fixed-odds horse race wagering during a discussion titled “Integrating Horse Racing into the U.S. Sports Betting Environment” during Tuesday's Global Symposium on Racing hosted by the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program in Tucson.

But even though they acknowledged a transition from pari-mutuels would likely take several years and that fixed odds and pari-mutuels could coexist in some hybrid future form, now is the time to start taking baby steps in that direction, largely because America's layers of gambling regulation and a current takeout system that hovers at around 20% payment for providing content aren't quite what global sportsbooks are used to dealing with.

Nor are customers familiar with or eager to try and figure out the complexities of the pari-mutuel system, in which odds fluctuate during the event and you have to wait several minutes after the race has been run to figure out your winnings.

“Horse racing has to understand that you're in direct competition now with sports wagering.”

Matt Cosgriff, the director of retail wagering and customer analysis for BetMGM. “And this sports wagering is using fixed odds. That's what the new-age gambler is using. And the pari-mutuel product itself isn't being well received by the newer age.”

Bettors want to be able to have trust in pricing, Cosgriff said.

And, he added, they want to be able to create their own bets, like making a three-way parlay wager involving two horse races and the featured football game.

“That's how the modern gambler is now working,” Cosgriff said. “And horse racing can't afford to sit back and just let the old system run itself into the ground.”

One interesting aspect that came up several times during this panel discussion was how lucrative a product the sportsbook operators perceive U.S. racing to be in a fixed-odds form.

Richard Ames, the chief executive officer for SIS Content Services, Inc., said part of the appeal is raw volume: The sheer number of races going off every day, year-round, at just about three minutes apart when scaled across the nation.

Paul Hannon, the senior vice president of corporate development at PointsBet, said racing should embrace what bookmakers might call being a type of “filler product,” because there is tremendous value in providing a “next to jump” betting market that can function as a collective, constant presence while other sports matches are being played out over the course of hours.

“It's attractive to sportsbook operators as a product because it is always-on content,” Hannon said. “And the availability of content is really important for any sportsbook that is generating engagement on their products…. As long as the underlying economics make sense, it is a very investible product.”

Hannon might have even made the boldest challenge uttered during Day One of the symposium presentations by telling the racing industry it is in a position to become the dominant summertime betting option in the country.

“In the U.S. in particular, one thing that I think is not highlighted as much as it should be is the idea of seasonality, and the fact that in the summer months, sports books are looking for content to be able to market,” Hannon said.

“In my opinion, horse racing should absolutely be the number on bet-on sport during the summer, ahead of baseball, ahead of tennis, et cetera. I think that absolutely should be the goal for the entire industry, to make sure that happens in the coming years, coming decade,” Hannon said.

Pari-mutuels and fixed odds can live side-by-side, Hannon explained. But, he added, “I think horse racing doesn't reach its full potential over the long term unless fixed-odds racing does become the new standard.”

Asked to compare pros and cons, Hannon continued: “The con, as I see it, is that it's going to be uncomfortable. It's going to take a little bit of risk-on appetite [on the part of] the major U.S. powers in horse racing. And that's going to come with an element of uncertainty…. But I guess what I'd say [is because of bold entrepreneurship decisions made by current U.S. sportsbooks], that's how modern-day, U.S. sports betting exists now. And that's what horse racing is going to have to look at far as fixed-odds goes.”

Andrew Moore, the vice president of racing for FanDuel, admitted that getting the proper balance of fixed-odds and pari-mutuel betting is going to take some time. But the payoff will likely be worth it, he added.

“With a fixed-odds product, obviously there's variability of margin. There's been some argument that books will not be able to make adequate margin [if U.S. racing content providers insist on getting paid takeout-era rates for their fixed-odds products], and I don't agree with that point, because I've seen us do very well on margin in Australia, and the U.K., and Ireland [with] double-digit margins on horse racing,” Moore said.

But, Moore acknowledged, “There is that sort of 'cannibalization' factor,” in which racing's stakeholders fear that fixed odds will totally gut the mutuel pools, or that fixed odds works, “but not maybe to the degree that people hoped,” he said.

“It does have to work for everyone. It does have to work for the content provider and the customer, Moore said.

But, Moore continued at a different point, the long-term industry-wide investment should be worth it.

“The economics per dollar unit probably wouldn't be the same as a tote bet,” Moore conceded. “But we would all tell you that-and it's proven out in other markets-that fixed odds would be exponentially bigger than tote. So the net revenue's coming to you at the end of the day even though your margin-per-dollar would not be the same.”

Christian Stuart, chief executive officer for North America for BetMakers Technology Group, pointed out that American racing has an opportunity to improve the sport via purse increases while both helping sportsbooks flourish and giving the customer a better overall experience.

“This whole ecosystem is ripe for creative innovation right now,” Stuart said.

The post Sportsbook Panel Featured at Global Symposium on Racing appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Symposium Panel: Act Locally Before Thinking Globally

It might seem odd that during a Tuesday panel discussion titled “Capitalizing on Racing's Global Footprint,” one presenter at the 2022 Symposium on Racing hosted by the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program insisted that localism trumps globalism when you're trying to market the sport worldwide.

Yet Simon Fraser, the senior vice president in charge OF international simulcast signal distribution for 1/ST Content, made his case effectively by drawing upon his experiences in managing the content rights, data, odds and signals on behalf of a broad portfolio of global partners who work with the world's leading fixed-odds, spread-betting and commingled wagering companies.

“One of the points that I've learned over the years is that racing is an inherently local sport. It isn't a global sport. It's a very local sport,” Fraser said.

As example, he pointed out that racetrackers worldwide, “all speak a version of the same language, and we all can understand each other when we talk.”

But when a bettor from one part of the planet opens up a racing publication or looks at past-performance data from another corner of the globe, it can be very difficult for them to interpret the information with enough familiarity to confidently place a wager.

Other local/global differences exist. Think fixed odds-versus-mutuels, dirt-versus-turf, jumps-versus- flats. Now toss into the mix different rules and officiating styles, plus the inherent disorientation of working across multiple time zones.

“To take advantage of the fact that people really do like racing, and they like to bet on racing internationally, you have to react to what the local market needs,” Fraser said. “First of all, the local product has to be right. If the local product isn't right, then it doesn't matter what happens internationally. And all of the revenue that you're really going to make to make the local product right comes from the local market. Anything international is just the cherry on top.

“Now, when you do the local product right, you can take it to countries and you can adapt it, and you can work with local partners and local betting companies and local journalists to turn that product into a suitable product for that market.”

Fraser gave the specific example of selling North America simulcast signals to Turkey, where the only wager routinely attractive to players in that market is a Pick Six. That means his focus on providing content to that market revolves around providing six strongly bettable races.

“But that work for Turkey doesn't translate to Italy,” Fraser explained. “It doesn't translate to Australia. It's very specific for that market, and you have to do everything differently for each market.”

Bill Nader, currently the president and chief executive officer for the Thoroughbred Owners of California, drew upon his decades of executive-level experience with the New York Racing Association and the Hong Kong Jockey Club to remind his U.S.-based audience that global participation is a two-way street.

“Not just America trying to find out what it can gain from venturing outside the country, but also horses coming in and running in our races, and trying to capitalize, from their own way, on global participation,” Nader said.

As a prime example, Nader cited the recent rise in international prominence for Japan-based Thoroughbreds. He, too, tied in that global shift to what's happening locally in Japan.

“You don't really see the top Japanese horses running in the [GI] Breeders' Cup Turf, because at that time of the year they have their own races. But in the dirt program, they don't. So where will they go? They'll go to where dirt racing is at the center of the global universe, America, and target [Grade I] races like the [G] Kentucky Derby, the [GI] Belmont Stakes, and the Breeders' Cup,” Nader said. “In Japan, there's only one Grade I race on dirt. And I think that's their next chapter, and they'll develop more with their dirt program in the next five to 10 years.”

Maybe not so much in sprint races, Nader postulated. But because Japan's bloodstock program is adept at cultivating runners that excel between nine and 12 furlongs, their horses as a whole tend to be, “stronger in more [of] the staying races,” he said.

“You've seen the broodmares that they continue to buy, especially here in America. They're just getting stronger and stronger. But I do think that eventually, they'll come for us on the dirt. And when they do, it's a good thing.”

Why good for American entities?

“Because if a Japanese horse is running in those races, all of Japan is watching. The benefit of that is incredible,” Nader said, in terms of long-term, trickle-down economics.

At one point, Fraser was asked what a typical, mid-level American racetrack can do to stand out to international bettors.

“One thing to remember is internationally, people don't necessarily know what is a mid-range [American] track [or] what is a top track. I know that might come as a surprise,” he said.

“Some of what you would think of as mid-range tracks are very popular internationally because they run on the right days. They run on days when there is not much going on. So if you are in the winter on the East Coast, there's not a lot of evening racing happening in France, or the U.K., or in Ireland during the winter. So those tracks that run Tuesday are pretty prominent tracks [overseas]. Whereas some of the bigger tracks that all run on Saturday and are crowding against each other don't get much share or voice.”

Data compatibility across different cultures is a topic that has percolated at racing's international conferences since the advent of global simulcasting. Tuesday's panel discussion re-examined the issue.

Dean McKenzie, the managing director for McKenzie Sport International, Ltd. in New Zealand, noted that bettors in other parts of the world are baffled when they encounter an American equipment change listed simply as blinkers on or off. They're used to being able to find out exactly what type of blinkers are being used among the many variations. And if a trainer decides to tell his rider to switch running-style tactics, in many foreign jurisdictions that gets communicated to the public via stewards.

Nader noted that gamblers in other parts of the world are used to judging a horse's fitness based on its body weight, which is a standard and widely available stat outside of the U.S. but practically unheard of here except for a couple of brief experiments at various tracks.

Tallulah Wilson, the head of international partnerships for UK Tote, pointed out that global rules conflicts, such as a horse running for “purse money only” in a big race like the Breeders' Cup, can create significant confusion. (Such a concept is unheard of outside the U.S.)

But, Wilson added, stakeholders have to overcome these sorts of challenges.

“You have to adapt for the benefit of your customers,” she said.

When Fraser chimed in on the topic of what U.S. content providers need to do right to be more internationally appealing, he pinpointed two nagging issues that the American racing industry has long debated but just can't seem to get right: offering decent field sizes and adhering to published post times.

“Eight-plus runners, and [going] off on time is crucial,” Fraser said.

Although the tie-in went unspoken by anyone on the panel, that final comment from Fraser dovetailed neatly with his initial point about racing entities needing to optimize local practices before trying to scale up to the global level.

The post Symposium Panel: Act Locally Before Thinking Globally appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post