My point is that, if you look at the history of casino gambling, there has been an ebb and flow of public and governmental sentiment for the past couple of hundred years.

I think what is interesting in Russia is that in the midst of a global recession, they are willing to take the move they did.

Racing would be making a big mistake to get in bed with casino people. It is unsafe on several levels.

Yeah sure Putin and gang are closing (actually “relocating” them to Siberia) those casinos for the ‘good’ of the russian people. How much you wanna bet Barry that in a year or two those same casinos reopen under new management of Putin’s cronies?

Ray said, “If anything, the resulting higher purses attract bigger, more competitive fields that will be more attractive betting races.”

I would say this depends on where the extra money goes. If, as is the case at many racinos, the money goes to fatten the purses of $5,000 conditioned claiming races, events restricted to statebreds or other races where the animals participating are typically slow and frequently undependable from race to race, I and many other horseplayers would still find those races unworthy of time and investment.

Do you actually think that people like Geary,Fields and others would have purchased their racetracks with out the prospect of Slots or Casinos.They are gambling,If It fails I don’t feel sorry for them.(Fields will get his casino next year)

Horseracing is Secondary to these people.

I also would like to say that any state that passes Slots/Casinos (with benefits to a Racetrack) should have to give back to the Horseplayer.

I recommend one pick 3 and one pick 4 a weekend with zero Takeout.

What do you think,any takers?

Only to the extent that it continues to mask the problems. I actually would like to see full casino/resorts, including blackjack, poker, nightclubs, hotels, etc. at the racetracks. Some are already doing that. But, like the owner/breeders, I am selfish. I want to bet on horses. But not with a 20%+ rake. It is insane to bet against such an enormous takeout. Like owner/breeders, I want more money for my efforts and “investment”. I read your post about HKJC. Interesting, but not conclusive. I’m not sure the effective drop in rake was enough to change behavior that much. It also didn’t state the timeframe. I think Laurel had a 10% takeout for a 14 day meet a few years ago. Not long enough to cycle through an average fans attendance. As far as economics, perhaps owner/breeders have to adapt to the “new normal”. The $40,000 stud fee becomes a $20,000 fee. The $200,000 yearling becomes an $80,000 yearling. After all, they weren’t always at the current elevated level. I own stock in an oil tanker company. Since oil prices have dropped, ship prices have been halved. Why shouldn’t that be the case with horses?

I’m not sure how the addition of slot machines to a racetrack’s wagering menu hurts horseplayers in any way. If anything, the resulting higher purses attract bigger, more competitive fields that will be more attractive betting races. In addition, the revenue racetracks should make from slots might actually allow them to reduce takeout, something that is an economic impossibility given the current economics of pari-mutuel wagering.

I’d love to see takeout reduced, but I have yet to see any examples where reduction in takeout has led to enough of an increase in handle to make up for the lost revenue of lower takeout. Bill Nader, the former NYRA exec now with the Hong Kong Jockey Club, gave a good presentation at last year’s Asian Racing Conference on a rebate program that effectively lowered takeout for the biggest players. (See the section under “Do Lower Prices Increase Sales?: at the following link: http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/why-does-racing-hate-us-old-men/)

I do agree with anyone who says slots are not the answer…I consider them an economic necessity. I would like to see a specified percentage of slots revenue earmarked to promote racing, something that isn’t done at many racinos. Pari-mutuel handle has fallen at many tracks since slots were introduced, suggesting either a) that horseplayers have converted to slots players (unlikely), or b) horseplayers feel like they are being treated as second-class citizens behind the slots players.

I would hope that Kentucky’s horse heritage would convince track owners to use slot revenue to invest in what has been their core business: pari-mutuel wagering. Maybe that’s a naive thought, but I see a difference between the ownership of Kentucky’s tracks and those in West Virginia, Indiana, or Pennsylvania.

As John Greathouse said in a comment above, the playing field isn’t level. Take slots away from all the other states that have them and I’d bet Kentucky racing would do just fine, but that’s not going to happen.

(Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls!)