Kentucky Study Estimates Gambling Revenues

by TFTribe on Jan 18, 2012 4:35 PM EST

I'll keep this short, as I know most of you don't share the same passion for getting Kentucky to stop giving money away to its bordering states as do I. However, this study basically lays out that by enacting gambling (or VLTs or whatever) the thoroughbred industry would gain 152.5 million dollars annually through purse enhancement. If you follow a proportional disbursement of this money in accordance with the receipts of the gambling terminals as estimated by the study, Churchill adds $33.5 million to its yearly purses, Keeneland adds $22.7 million, Ellis Park adds $8.4 million, Turfway adds $10.5 million, and Kentucky Downs adds $48.8 million.

I think they overestimated Kentucky Downs' draw, but I'm assuming it is based off of the fact that it is between Bowling Green and Nashville and is expected to draw well due to its proximity to two cities. Additionally, Kentucky Downs only has 4 days of racing a year, so I'm not sure what they really expect out of it.

To put all of this in perspective, Churchill currently has approximately $28.7 million of purses in a 61 day meet and Keeneland has $18.2 million of purses in a 32 day meet (figures are from DRF and are as of 2010). You're talking about more than doubling these two meets' total purses (62.2 mil for CD and 40.9 mil for KEE), which I'm sure would come with a legislative mandate to increase racing days. If Keeneland and Churchill only increased their racing days by half, they would immediately be #1 and #2 in the daily purses, just ahead of Monmouth. It even vaults both tracks into the top 6 of total purses with the order being Woodbine (89 mil), CD (62 mil), Parx (60 mil), Monmouth (46 mil), Belmont (42 mil), and Keeneland (40 mil). Now, the 2010 dollars of yearly purses are mixed with 2015 projected dollars for KY gambling revenues, so there is a margin of error, but I'd bet that it's really close. And who really knows how the gambling commission in KY will divy out the dollars. Maybe the two premier tracks get a bit more, maybe Turfway and Ellis get a big boost, it's an unknown, and I'm not counting chickens until they hatch.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Those are some huge dollars in play.

The increase at Aqueduct has been quite large after the casino went in.

"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."

And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace

by Matt Gardner on Jan 18, 2012 6:16 PM EST reply actions

There was that piece in the NYTimes

That tried to portray that less people go to the track now that the casino is open. But I just came away with the impression that games of chance just drew a different crowd than handicapping. Either way, it’s a ton of money coming to the industry.

by TFTribe on Jan 18, 2012 7:33 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

I didn't get a chance to read that.

Going to have to pull that up.

It seems to me, and this is a change in view on my part from several years ago, that it makes sense to combine horses and other forms of gambling. What I mean by that, is if you look at full-blown casino gambling, they don’t just cater to one particular game. You got slots, tables games, race/sports book, keno, etc. If people want to gamble, might as well provide them the options they desire. Why shouldn’t the horse industry do the same thing?

For the tracks that add slots or other forms of gambling – sure there’s the chance that people will go to the track less, but I wonder if that’s a realistic outcome. Seems to me that if you are a horseplayer you’re going to still play the horses. If I went to a track tomorrow and saw slots I wouldn’t play slots. I’m a horseplayer, through and through. That’s my game.

If a track can add these additional games, and funnel that money back into the sport in the form of higher purses, that’s a new infusion of money…and it’s certainly needed.

The only concern, and I think it’s probably a legitimate one, is if the casino interests are running the whole operation – horses and slots, etc., and not horse people. Because then you run into the issue of ‘well, at some point would the casino interests just get rid of the horse operations if they aren’t as profitable (or profitable as all)? That does concern me to some degree.

"A bad day at the track is better than a good day at the office."

And Down The Stretch They Come | @PressThePace

by Matt Gardner on Jan 18, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions