Offshore ADW

[Tara73]

Can someone recommend an offshore ADW that accepts wagers from all states?

[ReplayRandall]

I overheard a conversation of bankers at a convention in Las Vegas talk highly of an off-shore site out of Panama City.......betonline.ag

[egreen]

I've used AllHorseRacing.ag for years. Nice platform, outstanding customer service, quick payments, just positive all the way around.

[Mineshaft]

I overheard a conversation of bankers at a convention in Las Vegas talk highly of an off-shore site out of Panama City.......betonline.ag



but do they pay track odds?

[BettinBilly]

I have a friend in Hawaii (illegal gambling state) that told me he uses AllHorseRacing.ag
He stated that he's not had any issues with them.

I would imagine that since he's a fairly serious player, if they didn't pay track odds, he'd have mentioned that. No one has ever discussed betonline around me so I can't chime in on that one.

[Dave Schwartz]

Please note: I am not trying to be a buzz-killer here. This is just the reality of our era.

If you are looking for track odds, you will have to go with a LEGAL bet-taker as they are the only ones with co-mingled pools. Those will ALL demand legal residency requirements.

The other alternative is to bet with an ILLEGAL bookmaker. And make no mistake - they are illegal FOR YOU, from your state.

In that case you will probably have no problem signing up, but it is very unlikely that you will receive FULL track odds. There are always limits on pay-outs. Also, if you are a winning player of some significance, expect to have your wagers curtailed or shut off completely at some point.

[highnote]

I agree with all of Dave's points below. I'd also add that if the "illegal" offshore ADW decides to close up shop you will likely lose the money in your account.

I have lost money with 3 different offshore bookmakers when they went out of business. One was called inter-bets.com and the other was ibetx.com. inter-bets.com just closed up shop one day and never returned my balance. ibetx.com was bought, I seem to recall, and would NOT return my money. Lost about $50 each with those two.

interjockey.com also kept a few dollars of mine when they closed up shop.

I can't remember if it was xpressbet or Ameritab that also kept a dollar or two when they closed my account. I think it was xpressbet. It was only a dollar, but still, it was my money, not theirs.

There are some "legal" offshore ADWs that work with U.S. racetracks. So I want to be clear about the difference between illegal and legal.

Now that I think about it, it might not make a difference whether the ADW is legal or not. Once they've got your money it may not be easy to get it back.



Please note: I am not trying to be a buzz-killer here. This is just the reality of our era.

If you are looking for track odds, you will have to go with a LEGAL bet-taker as they are the only ones with co-mingled pools. Those will ALL demand legal residency requirements.

The other alternative is to bet with an ILLEGAL bookmaker. And make no mistake - they are illegal FOR YOU, from your state.

In that case you will probably have no problem signing up, but it is very unlikely that you will receive FULL track odds. There are always limits on pay-outs. Also, if you are a winning player of some significance, expect to have your wagers curtailed or shut off completely at some point.

[Unome]

Bookmaker.eu is the only offshore site I would play at, they have been in business forever, they have a spotless record paying players, have decent rebates and and probrably highest payout odds for exotics.

Offshore Books aren't a ADW but if you live in a state where you can't play it's your only option other than playing with a local bookmaker which isn't much of a option.

[Robert Goren]

Bookmaker.eu is the only offshore site I would play at, they have been in business forever, they have a spotless record paying players, have decent rebates and and probrably highest payout odds for exotics.

Offshore Books aren't a ADW but if you live in a state where you can't play it's your only option other than playing with a local bookmaker which isn't much of a option.Moving or not playing at all are both better options than playing with an offshore book. At some point you have to make a decision on what is important to you. If playing the ponies is important, then move. Do you really want to be involved with a risky illegal behavior the rest of your life? It is not going to get any easier the longer you put it off.

[Unome]

Moving or not playing at all are both better options than playing with an offshore book. At some point you have to make a decision on what is important to you. If playing the ponies is important, then move. Do you really want to be involved with a risky illegal behavior the rest of your life? It is not going to get any easier the longer you put it off.

You have a better chance of getting a speeding ticket everyday next month than being arrested for betting offshore.

[Robert Goren]

You have a better chance of getting a speeding ticket everyday next month than being arrested for betting offshore. True, but you have a real chance of being scam out of your money. I played Poker online and was scammed twice. Once by Full Tilt , the second largest poker site and once by another player on Absolute. You have no legal recourse when you are knowingly involved in an illegal enterprise. Plus this stuff always rears its ugly head at the most inconvenient time.
Then there is the problem you have with yourself when you are involved in an ongoing criminal activity. I know not everybody has those qualms, but ........
Somebody a lot wiser than me said "The road to jail has a lot of small stepping stones and not many side roads off"

[thaskalos]

I am surprised that independent local bookmakers aren't mentioned more in discussions like these. I know that not many of them take bets on horses anymore, and that they are not a bargain on the exotics bets...but they are not a bad choice when it comes to straight betting.

Most local bookies offer full odds up to 15-1 on win bets, and 6-1 to place...they are now "computerized"...they offer "credit"...and the chances of you not getting paid are next to nil.

What more could the resident of a non-betting state want? :)

[BettinBilly]

Indeed.

I toyed with the idea a few years ago of moving to Hawaii since many of my friends live there, and my vocation does very well there.

Then thought, no horse wagering or betting of any kind allowed and the closest Track is 1800 miles away.
They call this paradise? ;)

[Predator35]

The sites mentioned betonline and bookmaker are both top class. 5dimes is better though IMO but you cant go wrong with any of those 3.

Just yesterday I played just under $400 worth of exotic wagers and recieved a $35 rebate the next morning.

[mannyberrios]

Indeed.

I toyed with the idea a few years ago of moving to Hawaii since many of my friends live there, and my vocation does very well there.

Then thought, no horse wagering or betting of any kind allowed and the closest Track is 1800 miles away.
They call this paradise? ;)forget about Hawaii

[Johnny V]

I am surprised that independent local bookmakers aren't mentioned more in discussions like these. I know that not many of them take bets on horses anymore, and that they are not a bargain on the exotics bets...but they are not a bad choice when it comes to straight betting.

Most local bookies offer full odds up to 15-1 on win bets, and 6-1 to place...they are now "computerized"...they offer "credit"...and the chances of you not getting paid are next to nil.

What more could the resident of a non-betting state want? :)
Most bookmakers will have no problem taking bets on horses from their customers as long as they are betting baseball, football or whatever with them somewhat regularly. As far as betting the horses day in and day out with them I am not so sure they want or will take that type of action these days anymore. They are somewhat suspicious of racing and don't want to get nailed by some perceived betting coup.

[Unome]

True, but you have a real chance of being scam out of your money. I played Poker online and was scammed twice. Once by Full Tilt , the second largest poker site and once by another player on Absolute. You have no legal recourse when you are knowingly involved in an illegal enterprise. Plus this stuff always rears its ugly head at the most inconvenient time.

How many people got paid when Racing Services & Hinsdale shutdown? They were both legal & regulated ADW's but players got the shaft at both places, IRG was on life support before it was bought by YouBet.

Be it a ADW or offshorebook you always run the risk once you send them money.

[Robert Goren]

How many people got paid when Racing Services & Hinsdale shutdown? They were both legal & regulated ADW's but players got the shaft at both places, IRG was on life support before it was bought by YouBet.

Be it a ADW or offshorebook you always run the risk once you send them money.There is risk when you deal with any business in financial trouble. I got stung by J C Whitney back in the 1970s. But your risk sky rockets when you start illegally dealing with companies out of the country. I guess if you want to do something bad enough, you talk yourself in to believing there is little risk. Hey, it is your money and you have been warned. but if you get stung, don't expect any sympathy around here.

[davew]

What kind of bets do you usually place? How many tracks do you bet? Do you want your money to hit the pool? How much money do you plan on keeping in the account? How often do you add or withdraw from your account? How soon do you want your money when you ask for a withdrawal?

[Fager Fan]

There is risk when you deal with any business in financial trouble. I got stung by J C Whitney back in the 1970s. But your risk sky rockets when you start illegally dealing with companies out of the country. I guess if you want to do something bad enough, you talk yourself in to believing there is little risk. Hey, it is your money and you have been warned. but if you get stung, don't expect any sympathy around here.

Not to mention that it's akin to buying stolen goods, and talking yourself into believing the great deal you got makes it alright.

[highnote]

Not to mention that it's akin to buying stolen goods, and talking yourself into believing the great deal you got makes it alright.


"Akin to buying stolen goods" -- How so?

[Poindexter]

Not to mention that it's akin to buying stolen goods, and talking yourself into believing the great deal you got makes it alright.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This industry does everything it can to screw the small bettor, and when the small bettor decides he wants to get a better deal that may not be available in his state or he may not qualify for because he doesn't bet enough, you call it akin to buying stolen goods.

Maybe if the industry had some sense and brought the takeout levels to a competitive level and stopped giving charity to the biggest bettors then nobody would even need to look for an offshore ADW. But since that is not the case I will continue to :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And RG, are you serious? Move to another state? To bet horses?

I am all for doing the right thing, but not when doing the right thing is not an option...........

There is no question there is some risk to betting with offshore sites, but the good ones have been doing this for many years and pay. Most people that get burned usually are ones that take chances. If you keep your pulse on the industry and stick with the strong books your chances of being burned are pretty small.

[Robert Goren]

"Akin to buying stolen goods" -- How so?In both cases you are breaking the law.

[Robert Goren]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This industry does everything it can to screw the small bettor, and when the small bettor decides he wants to get a better deal that may not be available in his state or he may not qualify for because he doesn't bet enough, you call it akin to buying stolen goods.

Maybe if the industry had some sense and brought the takeout levels to a competitive level and stopped giving charity to the biggest bettors then nobody would even need to look for an offshore ADW. But since that is not the case I will continue to :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

And RG, are you serious? Move to another state? To bet horses?

I am all for doing the right thing, but not when doing the right thing is not an option...........

There is no question there is some risk to betting with offshore sites, but the good ones have been doing this for many years and pay. Most people that get burned usually are ones that take chances. If you keep your pulse on the industry and stick with the strong books your chances of being burned are pretty small.So you are say because you don't like the way the industry is legally run, you can ignore the law?

[highnote]

In both cases you are breaking the law.

People jaywalk everyday. Assisted suicide happens in hospitals everyday with the terminally ill.

If it is illegal why are bettors rarely arrested or fined?

If the authorities wanted to arrest a bettor they could surely find plenty of people to arrest just by reading racing message boards.

The attorney general of my state told me I would NOT be arrested for betting on horse races online when it was clearly illegal at the time.

Laws cannot always keep up with industries and social trends.

[Robert Goren]

People jaywalk everyday. Assisted suicide happens in hospitals everyday with the terminally ill.

If it is illegal why are bettors rarely arrested or fined?

If the authorities wanted to arrest a bettor they could surely find plenty of people to arrest just by reading racing message boards.

The attorney general of my state told me I would NOT be arrested for betting on horse races online when it was clearly illegal at the time.

Laws cannot always keep up with industries and social trends.Well, that settles it, it is between you and your conscience.

[highnote]

Well, that settles it, it is between you and your conscience.

Being illegal and being immoral are two different things.

Using the services of an "illegal" ADW or bookmaker is not necessarily immoral -- especially when an attorney general says you will not be arrested for using the services.

Marijuana has been illegal in this country for 70 years, but that didn't mean it was good law. I never felt there was anything immoral about people using marijuana.

[Poindexter]

Actually I think the akin to buying stolen goods is more of a reference to offshore books benefitting from the product that racetracks put out by stealing there customers and making the profits themselves, rather than the racetracks making the profit.

The answer RG is yes. I do not follow stupid laws because they are the law. Obviously there is a penalty to breaking a law and that obviously would be the determinant factor. Jaywalking a classic example as mentioned by highnote. The penalty I guess would be a ticket for $100, $150 dollars then again I have done it at least 1000 times in my life and have never been ticketed. If I carefully cross the street, there is no harm done by me and no reason why my breaking the law is causing a detriment to society. Speeding same thing. I rarely follow the speed limit. I would arue that it is safer for me to drive 75 than it is to drive 55 or 65 on the freeway. I have never been in an accident on the freeway. Just because something is the law doesn't make it right.

re offshore betting, if it had anything to do with right or wrong I would have more respect for the law, but no it is simply about greed and politics. Offshore betting has nothing to do with right or wrong or morality. Now the only moral issue in this discussion is whether the offshore bettor is hurting the racetracks by betting offshore. The answer is yes. However, since the racing industry does not give a rats ass about joe public, why should joe public give a rats ass about the racing industry. Now I will go deal with my conscience. That was easy. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[thaskalos]

So you are say because you don't like the way the industry is legally run, you can ignore the law?

Yes...in cases like these, we should ignore the law.

After "black Friday", I worry whenever an offshore gambling establishment holds a lot of my money...but that concern is strictly about the possible seizure of my funds. I don't recall ever feeling conscience pangs as a result of running afoul of the gambling laws...

[highnote]

Just because a racetrack holds races does not mean bettors are obligated to bet on the outcome of the race with bookmakers authorized by the racetrack.

The NFL receives no money from wagers and yet every week they continue to stage football games.

[Poindexter]

Just because a racetrack holds races does not mean bettors are obligated to bet on the outcome of the race with bookmakers authorized by the racetrack.

The NFL receives no money from wagers and yet every week they continue to stage football games.

The difference is however that if nobody ever bet a football game the NFL would still have a HUGE fan base and do just fine whereas if nobody bet on a horse race there would not be a horse race (you would not be able to get 100 people to watch it with the exception of special races). Sports have a wide appeal even without the gambling aspect (though gamblers know that the gambling aspect definitely helped build the NFL), horse racing is strictly a gambling vehicle.

[highnote]

The difference is however that if nobody ever bet a football game the NFL would still have a HUGE fan base and do just fine whereas if nobody bet on a horse race there would not be a horse race (you would not be able to get 100 people to watch it with the exception of special races). Sports have a wide appeal even without the gambling aspect (though gamblers know that the gambling aspect definitely helped build the NFL), horse racing is strictly a gambling vehicle.


Racing did not start out as a gambling sport, but evolved into one. Choice of a poor business model is not a reason to support a business.

Horse racing made it's own bed now it must sleep in it. Their poor business model should not be forced on others through bad law.

People should use ADWs of the racetrack's choice because they are superior places to bet, not because it is illegal to bet somewhere else.

Even if it is immoral to use "illegal" bookmakers to bet U.S. races it is wise to keep this old saying in mind: "You can't legislate morality."

[Robert Goren]

Racing did not start out as a gambling sport, but evolved into one. Choice of a poor business model is not a reason to support a business.

Horse racing made it's own bed now it must sleep in it. Their poor business model should not be forced on others through bad law.

People should use ADWs of the racetrack's choice because they are superior places to bet, not because it is illegal to bet somewhere else.

Even if it is immoral to use "illegal" bookmakers to bet U.S. races it is wise to keep this old saying in mind: "You can't legislate morality." They can and do all the time. On everything from DUI to bank robbery to murder. I will give this. Some of these laws work better than others, but they work to some extent. In this country, if you do like a law you can get it changed. It may not be easy or cheap but you can. Remember it was easy or cheap for the people who wanted the law enacted in first place either.
I am pretty sure the law in Hawaii and in a lot of other places has nothing to do with a business model for the horse racing industry. They are there because of the anti-gambling zealots at one time (probably many years ago) got them passed. The recent laws on ADWs may or may not passed with blessing of parts of the industry, but one thing is for sure the was no one there opposing them. What bettors and ADWs need to do is fight these laws before they are passed. Until now they have just hoped for the best. As far as I know there is nobody even tracking these bills in the various state legislatures. They seem to come to shock to everybody when it comes time for them to be enforced.
A bet was probably the reason for the first horse race.

[davew]

Robert Goren, have you ever placed a bet on a football, basketball or baseball game? If so, can you tell me where you made this legal bet?

These sports thrive partly because they have infiltrated the youth with HOPE of someday making it rich, they have figured out how to monetize them with advertizers so radio and television is palatable for viewers/listeners, and people with vested interest in outcome because of illegal gambling.

Even if you live and/or bet in Nevada/New Jersey, you are breaking federal laws.

[Fager Fan]

The difference is however that if nobody ever bet a football game the NFL would still have a HUGE fan base and do just fine whereas if nobody bet on a horse race there would not be a horse race (you would not be able to get 100 people to watch it with the exception of special races). Sports have a wide appeal even without the gambling aspect (though gamblers know that the gambling aspect definitely helped build the NFL), horse racing is strictly a gambling vehicle.

The NFL doesn't get their income from gambling. They do get income from broadcast rights and property/publicity rights. Try broadcasting their games or selling team jerseys without their permission and the NFL's lawyers will be all over you.

Racing spends a lot of money putting out the racing product, and they get their income from gambling on that product. Offshores steal and sell racing's product, and those who gamble with them are buying stolen goods. It can't be justified.

[Robert Goren]

The NFL doesn't get their income from gambling. They do get income from broadcast rights and property/publicity rights. Try broadcasting their games or selling team jerseys without their permission and the NFL's lawyers will be all over you.

Racing spends a lot of money putting out the racing product, and they get their income from gambling on that product. Offshores steal and sell racing's product, and those who gamble with them are buying stolen goods. It can't be justified.Spoken like a true horseman. Although I think it foolish for a bettor to bet with an overseas bookie in today's climate, I have hard time working up any sympathy for the tracks and the horsemen who lose their cut when they get so much money from the slot player.

[Robert Goren]

Robert Goren, have you ever placed a bet on a football, basketball or baseball game? If so, can you tell me where you made this legal bet?

These sports thrive partly because they have infiltrated the youth with HOPE of someday making it rich, they have figured out how to monetize them with advertizers so radio and television is palatable for viewers/listeners, and people with vested interest in outcome because of illegal gambling.

Even if you live and/or bet in Nevada/New Jersey, you are breaking federal laws. I think you are wrong about betting in Nevada and federal law. The federal law that outlawed sports betting exempted Nevada. NJ is another matter and it is the courts now. The case involving NJ will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court.
I have made a few illegal bets on sports and a lot more on pockets Aces. The older I get the more I realize how very foolish I was in my younger days. I let the lure of "easy money" suck me in. But that is something for another thread on another day.

[Poindexter]

The NFL doesn't get their income from gambling. They do get income from broadcast rights and property/publicity rights. Try broadcasting their games or selling team jerseys without their permission and the NFL's lawyers will be all over you.

Racing spends a lot of money putting out the racing product, and they get their income from gambling on that product. Offshores steal and sell racing's product, and those who gamble with them are buying stolen goods. It can't be justified.

I understand your point. That being said respect is earned and when the racing industry has zero respect for what should be it's fan base, the recreational horse bettor, as highnote said, they made their bed, now lie in it. What I find so amusing is that we live in a climate that RG alluded to that most people are very leery of sending money offshore. It is risky, difficult, pricey and requires every day people to break the law, yet racing doesn't seem to want to find a way to compete. You think people want to send their money offshore when they can send it to a reputable US company? You think that people who love this game do not want to support this dying game? The problem is racing plays this silly little game of rebating whales and raising takeouts, pricing recreational bettors out of the market and leaving and enormous profit margin that offshore books can capitalize on by giving rebates of their own. Racing has no desire to fix the problem and the option they leave recreational bettors is to find rebates of their own or donate. So cry all you want about there being no justification for it. My counter is that there is no justification for whales to get rebates north of 10%, while joe fan at the racetrack gets diddly squat. So as long as the deck is loaded against recreational bettors, these recreational bettors have 2 choices, get a somewhat fair shake where they can (whether it supports the pools or not) or donate. In your perfect world they will donate. In the real world, racing either fixes the problem properly (which they refuse to do) or they live with the ramifications of their stupidity. Racing seems to think they have the perfect system. Smart recreational gamblers have the perfect solution.

[Stillriledup]

I understand your point. That being said respect is earned and when the racing industry has zero respect for what should be it's fan base, the recreational horse bettor, as highnote said, they made their bed, now lie in it. What I find so amusing is that we live in a climate that RG alluded to that most people are very leery of sending money offshore. It is risky, difficult, pricey and requires every day people to break the law, yet racing doesn't seem to want to find a way to compete. You think people want to send their money offshore when they can send it to a reputable US company? You think that people who love this game do not want to support this dying game? The problem is racing plays this silly little game of rebating whales and raising takeouts, pricing recreational bettors out of the market and leaving and enormous profit margin that offshore books can capitalize on by giving rebates of their own. Racing has no desire to fix the problem and the option they leave recreational bettors is to find rebates of their own or donate. So cry all you want about there being no justification for it. My counter is that there is no justification for whales to get rebates north of 10%, while joe fan at the racetrack gets diddly squat. So as long as the deck is loaded against recreational bettors, these recreational bettors have 2 choices, get a somewhat fair shake where they can (whether it supports the pools or not) or donate. In your perfect world they will donate. In the real world, racing either fixes the problem properly (which they refuse to do) or they live with the ramifications of their stupidity. Racing seems to think they have the perfect system. Smart recreational gamblers have the perfect solution.

Many of these great rebate bettors started out as Mr Diddly Squat, most bettors don't start betting thousands of dollars on their first ever day at the track, we all start out betting 2 bucks to show....and the great ones eventually get to such a higher level that they can procure their own rebates, so, no "deck is stacked" against anyone, nobody gets held down by race, religion or color, we all have exactly equal shots to become that "great bettor" who gets his skill level high enough where he can shop for a rebate.

Also, no math supports that other people getting rebates hurts the person not getting a rebate....what hurts all bettors is computer bettors who can make the pools and odds much more efficient with the help of a computer who is betting for them, the efficiency of odds has nothing to do with some people sharing profits with their ADW, those transactions are done behind the scenes after everyone goes home, it has no effect on the odds that the non rebater sees, if a track charges 15% for win, and you bet win, you are betting at a rate that you know, the rate doesnt change, if 100k is bet into the pool, 15k comes out and 85k gets payed back to bettors, whether or not the 100k is from rebate bettors or little old ladies from Pasadena.

[Fager Fan]

I understand your point. That being said respect is earned and when the racing industry has zero respect for what should be it's fan base, the recreational horse bettor, as highnote said, they made their bed, now lie in it. What I find so amusing is that we live in a climate that RG alluded to that most people are very leery of sending money offshore. It is risky, difficult, pricey and requires every day people to break the law, yet racing doesn't seem to want to find a way to compete. You think people want to send their money offshore when they can send it to a reputable US company? You think that people who love this game do not want to support this dying game? The problem is racing plays this silly little game of rebating whales and raising takeouts, pricing recreational bettors out of the market and leaving and enormous profit margin that offshore books can capitalize on by giving rebates of their own. Racing has no desire to fix the problem and the option they leave recreational bettors is to find rebates of their own or donate. So cry all you want about there being no justification for it. My counter is that there is no justification for whales to get rebates north of 10%, while joe fan at the racetrack gets diddly squat. So as long as the deck is loaded against recreational bettors, these recreational bettors have 2 choices, get a somewhat fair shake where they can (whether it supports the pools or not) or donate. In your perfect world they will donate. In the real world, racing either fixes the problem properly (which they refuse to do) or they live with the ramifications of their stupidity. Racing seems to think they have the perfect system. Smart recreational gamblers have the perfect solution.

I understand that you're a disgruntled customer, and I won't go into whether your reasons for being disgruntled are justified. But being justifiably disgruntled still isn't a justification for stealing the product.

I may love a restaurant's food, but think their customer service lacks and their prices too high. Do you think that justifies walking out on the tab? Of course not.

I don't even get your complaint about discounts for whales. That's a common business practice in every business.

[Poindexter]

Many of these great rebate bettors started out as Mr Diddly Squat, most bettors don't start betting thousands of dollars on their first ever day at the track, we all start out betting 2 bucks to show....and the great ones eventually get to such a higher level that they can procure their own rebates, so, no "deck is stacked" against anyone, nobody gets held down by race, religion or color, we all have exactly equal shots to become that "great bettor" who gets his skill level high enough where he can shop for a rebate.

Also, no math supports that other people getting rebates hurts the person not getting a rebate....what hurts all bettors is computer bettors who can make the pools and odds much more efficient with the help of a computer who is betting for them, the efficiency of odds has nothing to do with some people sharing profits with their ADW, those transactions are done behind the scenes after everyone goes home, it has no effect on the odds that the non rebater sees, if a track charges 15% for win, and you bet win, you are betting at a rate that you know, the rate doesnt change, if 100k is bet into the pool, 15k comes out and 85k gets payed back to bettors, whether or not the 100k is from rebate bettors or little old ladies from Pasadena.

Well computer betting is a big part of what they do. There is a lot of overlap between what I call rebated Whales and you call computer bettors. For the sake of the current discussion, whether you blame it on computer batch betting, or on rebates or on both(which is the correct answer) the end result is the recreational bettor is up against it. For this reason they need to seek rebates if they want to survive.

[highnote]

But being justifiably disgruntled still isn't a justification for stealing the product.


Rebroadcasting a signal without the express written consent for profit is stealing.

Shoplifting and robbery is stealing.

Betting on the outcome of an event with a bookmaker is not stealing.

What is being stolen?

[davew]

I think you are wrong about betting in Nevada and federal law. The federal law that outlawed sports betting exempted Nevada. NJ is another matter and it is the courts now. The case involving NJ will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court.
I have made a few illegal bets on sports and a lot more on pockets Aces. The older I get the more I realize how very foolish I was in my younger days. I let the lure of "easy money" suck me in. But that is something for another thread on another day.

You might be correct about grandfather clauses in NV. But just like the BLM is asserting, they don't mean squat.

I do find it very odd the mutual pool companies are selling the entries, conditions, scratches, ML, results and pay-offs to off-shore / non-pool racebooks.

[Poindexter]

I understand that you're a disgruntled customer, and I won't go into whether your reasons for being disgruntled are justified. But being justifiably disgruntled still isn't a justification for stealing the product.

I may love a restaurant's food, but think their customer service lacks and their prices too high. Do you think that justifies walking out on the tab? Of course not.

I don't even get your complaint about discounts for whales. That's a common business practice in every business.

As addressed by highpoint, you cannot compare the betting of races with an offshore bookmaker to going into a restaurant, eating a meal and walking out without paying. The latter is stealing. The former is not. I do understand where you are coming from however.

Regarding Whales. Here it goes. Local Downs has a 16% take on $100,000 bet by the locals. Then at the last minute they accept $40,000 by some whales. The Whales lose about 3% pre rebate but get a nice 6% rebate. So of the $40,000 they bet they lose $1200. However, their $40,000 bet requires 16% or $6400 removed from the pool for Takeout. Where does that extra $5200 come from? Everybody else, of course. So instead of losing 16% collectively, the locals now lose 21.2% collectively.

Now I understand that the Whales are going to bet whether they get a rebate or not, but if they were not getting a rebate they might bet $10,000 at +3%. What would that mean? $1600 removed from the pools plus $300 profit by Whales would be $1900. So the locals now would lose $1900 more or 17.9% Takeout. Smart bettors are going to always hurt other bettors. By rebating the smartest bettors, you are encouraging them to bet more, iron out all the value out in the pools (since they just have to get to -3% while the non rebated bettor has to actually win money). What they end up doing to the pools at local downs is drive up the prices on the horses who are overbet (which seems to excite sru) and drive down the prices on the horses who are underbet. Any horse who was offering value will no longer offer value. Now I understand that there are some sharps who will zig where the whales zag and be able to extract value out of this game, but for the vast majority, it is much tougher than it used to be, and this has always been a tough game.
This is why Sru is wrong when he says rebates do not hurt the non rebated bettor and this is why you cannot compare pari-mutuel betting to other businesses. If Vegas gives some whale 10% back on what he bets (or 30% back on losses), it has zero influence on whether I win or lose at the blackjack table or crap table……They can do it. If racing does the same thing, it enables smart bettors to iron out inefficiencies in the pools artificially (they are not betting money they would bet if they had to actually win money) and as illustrated above the net effect is the general public loses a higher percentage of their money bet.

What I find so amusing is that anybody reading my viewpoint comes to the conclusion I am a disgruntled horse player.I am just reporting the facts. I enjoy playing the horses when I can and there is not a chance I would ever do so without a rebate the way the game is currently set up(with the exception of a pick six carryover or a pick 5 low takeout situation).I want this industry to succeed, but I hate that the fact that the decision makers in this industry do not feel that giving the general public a reasonable chance of winning or staying in the game has anything to do with the game growing and succeeding. After all the current system has worked so well. Offshore sportsbooks would not be offering rebates if takeout was where it belonged (even if they did it would be so small I would not have even the slightest interest). It is because of the greed, short sightedness and stupidity of the racing industry that they are able to.

[Predator35]

Very sharp and accurate posts Poindexter. I agree 100%

[highnote]

Racing built its business model on having a monopoly on legalized gambling. It no longer has a monopoly so it tries to shame people into betting on their product through their licensed ADWs or telling people it is illegal to bet with unlicensed offshore bookmakers or they are stealing by betting with unlicensed bookmakers.

True story:

20 or 25 years ago the big brokerage firms who were used to charging $100+ per stock trade complained about the discount brokers "stealing" their clients by charging a lower price. They complained to an IBM consultant that if the discount brokerages kept charging lower fees it would put them out of business.

The IBM consultant said, "Well then you better change your model or you will be out of business."

What more needs to be said? Racing needs to change its model. It's already too late for a track like Hollywood Park.

Rebroadcasting a signal without the express written consent for profit is stealing.

Shoplifting and robbery is stealing.

Betting on the outcome of an event with a bookmaker is not stealing.

What is being stolen?

[BettinBilly]

Thanks Highnote. Agreed on your Discount Brokerage story. I switched to Daytek when that was in business for quick on floor NASDAQ trades, then Sure Trade for their $7.00 trades and finally to Trade King for $4.95 trades when Sure Trade was Acquired by a bigger house. I was a Day Trader and it made a BIG diff if I could get cheap trades.

As I stated earlier, I was on the verge of moving to Hawaii, and I can say that I'd definitely be using an Offshore Book to keep playing. Since I didn't move, it's not an issue, but I sure would have pursued it.

[highnote]

You're welcome, BettinBilly.

I still don't see how betting on the outcome of a race is stealing.

Every year during the KY Derby people at work and at parties around the country will bet on the big race and the money from those bets will NOT go into the pari-mutuel pools at the racetrack.

Does anyone seriously believe that these office and party bets result in something being stolen from the company that stages the Derby?

How is betting with a bookmaker in another country on the Derby any different?

So far, I have not read one good argument. But I'm always willing to consider a different opinion.



Thanks Highnote. Agreed on your Discount Brokerage story. I switched to Daytek when that was in business for quick on floor NASDAQ trades, then Sure Trade for their $7.00 trades and finally to Trade King for $4.95 trades when Sure Trade was Acquired by a bigger house. I was a Day Trader and it made a BIG diff if I could get cheap trades.

As I stated earlier, I was on the verge of moving to Hawaii, and I can say that I'd definitely be using an Offshore Book to keep playing. Since I didn't move, it's not an issue, but I sure would have pursued it.

[BettinBilly]

I am in agreement. It is not stealing, it's simply "Illegal" in the U.S for certain residents in certain states to use an ADW company.

Now, are all "Laws" fair? Of course not. Lawmakers (I don't like that word but that's what Senators and Congressmen call themselves) don't look at fairness, they look at commerce and trafficing and re-election. Lobbyists push them toward their paradigms of what the Laws should enforce. State Laws are even more inconsistent and thus not equitable for all citizens. The problem with "Lawmakers" is they feel they have to "Make Laws" continually. On any given day in any given state in the U.S., normally law abiding citizens are breaking laws they aren't even aware of, because, there are just too many damn laws to feasibly keep track of. And more are being added whenever Congress is in session.

Not to be redundant, but if I had moved to Hawaii, I would have signed up with an Offshore Book before you could say "ALOHA!" ;):ThmbUp:

You're welcome, BettinBilly.

I still don't see how betting on the outcome of a race is stealing.

Every year during the KY Derby people at work and at parties around the country will bet on the big race and the money from those bets will NOT go into the pari-mutuel pools at the racetrack.

Does anyone seriously believe that these office and party bets result in something being stolen from the company that stages the Derby?

How is betting with a bookmaker in another country on the Derby any different?

So far, I have not read one good argument. But I'm always willing to consider a different opinion.

[highnote]

No one has given a rebuttal to why betting on a horse race with a bookmaker not licensed by a host track is NOT stealing.

So it seems to be the case that while it may be illegal for U.S. citizens to bet on horse races with unlicensed offshore bookmakers, it is NOT stealing.

[Robert Goren]

No one has given a rebuttal to why betting on a horse race with a bookmaker not licensed by a host track is NOT stealing.

So it seems to be the case that while it may be illegal for U.S. citizens to bet on horse races with unlicensed offshore bookmakers, it is NOT stealing.The betting is the way the people who put on the racing get paid. You are using their product in the way it was intended without paying for it. If that isn't stealing, then what is.

[highnote]

The betting is the way the people who put on the racing get paid. You are using their product in the way it was intended without paying for it. If that isn't stealing, then what is.

That is only partly true. Parking, ticket sales, TV rights, concessions, merchandising, venue rental, etc. are also ways the people who put on racing get paid.

NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA do not rely on gambling income. The sell TV rights, merchandise, tickets, etc.

Racing wants to have their cake and to eat it, too, and expects sympathy because they on hard times and tries to shame people into betting on their product.

As I have already stated, people who bet on the KY Derby in their office pools and private parties are not stealing. Advertisers pay to have their ads shown during the broadcast of the Derby. TV networks pay for the rights to broadcast the races.

The outcome of the race is not "owned" by anyone. There is no common-sense reason that suggests that racetracks own the outcome of a race. They own the rights to allow networks to come onto their property, set up TV production and then license the video of the running of the race over networks, but racetracks don't own the outcome.

I can report the outcome of a race on my website and not have to pay anyone to talk about the race or to tell the world who won it.

Just because racetracks are living in the 1950s when they had a monopoly on gambing does not mean bettors have to live with a 1950s model.

The failure of racetracks to adjust their business model to compete in a world of global betting options does not obligate bettors to bet on their product through their betting networks.

As I said in an earlier post, racetracks better change their model or face extinction. When the racing business ceases to exist then racing will get back to its roots. Two people with fast horses trying to prove who has the fastest one. They only thing they will earn are bragging rights.

[pandy]

What they've done here in PA., and other states, locking us out of ADW's, is probably unconstitutional, and it shows how clueless the racing industry is. It really ticked me off. Of course many players are going to bet off shore when they are locked out like this. And those of you who warned about betting offshore, there are a few reputable companies that have been in business for a long time.

[highnote]

The one good thing about racetracks convincing people to bet their authorized networks is that all the money that is bet is "pooled" which makes the pools larger. So the big players who get rebates can bet quite a bit of money into those pools.

If everyone had to bet through unauthorized bookmakers the pools would probably be smaller and big bettors would have to spread their bets around with various bookies.

One problem for bettors is that takeouts are higher when betting through the authorized networks.

[Robert Goren]

As a side note, it looks like Arizona is changing their laws and will allow ADWs soon.

[highnote]

As a side note, it looks like Arizona is changing their laws and will allow ADWs soon.


Too little, too late, for Yavapai.

[Fager Fan]

No one has given a rebuttal to why betting on a horse race with a bookmaker not licensed by a host track is NOT stealing.

So it seems to be the case that while it may be illegal for U.S. citizens to bet on horse races with unlicensed offshore bookmakers, it is NOT stealing.

Could the ADWs or offshores book a bet on a product that doesn't exist?

The fact is that it costs tens of millions of dollars to produce the product of horse races. From the facility to track surface to track maintenance to the costs of the horses and their training, it adds up to tens of millions or more per location.

Racing's customers (just like all customers of a product or service) pay for the product and give income to the producer of the product. An offshore has entered into no "wholesale" agreement from which income goes to the product producer - they steal the product and keep 100% of the income off of what racing spends millions to produce. And those who buy from the offshore are buying stolen goods and supporting offshores' theft of racing's product.

How much would the offshores make if they had to put up the tens of millions to make the racing product? How much would the offshores make if they had to pay racing as a wholesaler? The reason why they can offer a better deal is directly due to the fact that they have neither of those costs. So how can you claim their "business model" is somehow better when they don't have the costs that racing has?

[pandy]

If you bet the football parlay sheets that often get passed around the office, that's also illegal, but millions of people do it.

[Fager Fan]

If you bet the football parlay sheets that often get passed around the office, that's also illegal, but millions of people do it.


That's different. That's illegal or immoral (or whatever) only because the State has decided that it should be in charge of gambling (and alcohol, etc). If you partake in that activity, I think it's a perfectly valid difference of opinion about whether the State should control (and get its piece) of gambling. And the State knows how ridiculous it'd be to enforce against office pools and the like and don't bother.

[highnote]

Could the ADWs or offshores book a bet on a product that doesn't exist?

That's an irrelevant question because the product exists. There will always be the existence of some product to bet on.

To use your logic... What if racetracks and ADWs didn't offer a network to bet through? Should people then refrain from betting because a network is unavailable?




The fact is that it costs tens of millions of dollars to produce the product of horse races. From the facility to track surface to track maintenance to the costs of the horses and their training, it adds up to tens of millions or more per location.

No one is denying that it is expensive to stage a sporting event, but that does not obligate one to bet through a particular network.

Steeplechase racing takes place in the U.S. and there is no betting on the outcome and yet, year in and year out those races are produced. Somehow, the racetracks and owners find a way to produce the races without betting revenue.

Racing's customers (just like all customers of a product or service) pay for the product and give income to the producer of the product.

If the product offered is inferior then customers search elsewhere. If the same quality product is available at Amazon.com for a lower price then why pay more for it with a different company?

An offshore has entered into no "wholesale" agreement from which income goes to the product producer - they steal the product and keep 100% of the income off of what racing spends millions to produce. And those who buy from the offshore are buying stolen goods and supporting offshores' theft of racing's product.

Again, how is betting on the outcome of an event stealing? If people bet on a U.S. football game in Las Vegas are they stealing the outcome? I don't understand how an "outcome" can be stolen and no one has explained it, yet.

How much would the offshores make if they had to put up the tens of millions to make the racing product?

Another hypothetical question that doesn't address the reality of what is going on. Consumers bet with offshore bookmakers who do not send money into the pari-mutuel pools because the rates are lower. Plain and simple.

How much would the offshores make if they had to pay racing as a wholesaler? The reason why they can offer a better deal is directly due to the fact that they have neither of those costs.

Discount brokers also had lower costs than the major brokers and were able to price their product lower. Major brokers cried the blues. While the major brokers were busy crying the discount brokers were busy growing their businesses.

So how can you claim their "business model" is somehow better when they don't have the costs that racing has?

You're misinterpreting me a little. A typical U.S. racetrack's business model relies on betting income. Racetracks have competition from offshore ADWs who take bets on the outcome of their races, but who don't send money into their pools. That's the reality. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant. It's happening whether you or I or the racetracks like it or not.

It doesn't matter what I think. I'm just telling you that racetracks better find a way to make their model more desirable or they will be out of business.

So go ahead and tell me how bad it is and how wrong it is and how much it hurts racetracks. It doesn't matter because I can't change it. I just call it like I see it. The only ones who can change it are racetracks.

The racetracks at one time had a monopoly on betting. That monopoly no longer exists. It's time for them to fight back with a better, more competitively priced product or a lot of them are going to end up like Yavapai.

[highnote]

That's different. That's illegal or immoral (or whatever) only because the State has decided that it should be in charge of gambling (and alcohol, etc). If you partake in that activity, I think it's a perfectly valid difference of opinion about whether the State should control (and get its piece) of gambling. And the State knows how ridiculous it'd be to enforce against office pools and the like and don't bother.

It's not different. It's the same thing -- people betting on the outcome of a sporting event where the producers of the event do not get a slice of the betting revenue.

This is the problem with racetracks. They think they're different. They think they're entitled. Well, the days of monopoly are over. Offshore ADWs who pay zero commissions to racetracks are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Racetracks better deal with it or they will end up like Yavapai.

[Fager Fan]

It's not different. It's the same thing -- people betting on the outcome of a sporting event where the producers of the event do not get a slice of the betting revenue.

This is the problem with racetracks. They think they're different. They think they're entitled. Well, the days of monopoly are over. Offshore ADWs who pay zero commissions to racetracks are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Racetracks better deal with it or they will end up like Yavapai.


Racing IS different. Their revenues come almost solely from parimutual gambling. Name another sport that you can say that about.

This sport pumps in billions per year for your enjoyment and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs. And you want to justify offshores just so you can get some tiny percentage increase in your payout? That's selfish to the core.

[highnote]

Racing IS different. Their revenues come almost solely from parimutual gambling. Name another sport that you can say that about.


Other sports are successful because they DO NOT rely on gambling revenue. They found ways to make money. Keeneland could probably survive without gambling revenue. Steeplechase racing in the south survives without gambling revenue. NASCAR, NFL, etc. all do well without gambling revenue. Why? -- because they found a way to make the sport interesting. Triple Crown is exciting to watch on TV and I haven't bet on those races for years.

Just because racing relies on gambling revenue to stay in business does not mean that is a good business model. It's an outdated model. I wouldn't want to own a racetrack and have to compete against offshore ADWs who don't co-mingle their money into my pools.



This sport pumps in billions per year for your enjoyment and provides hundreds of thousands of jobs.

So what. Plenty of companies spend billions of dollars and provides jobs. That doesn't mean they deserve to stay in business if they are not profitable.

Hey -- maybe U.S. racetracks can get a taxpayer subsidy like the banks and automobile companies since they're such a vital part of our economy?!



And you want to justify offshores just so you can get some tiny percentage increase in your payout? That's selfish to the core.

I'm not justifying anything. I'm just telling you the way it is. I don't even have an offshore account with an ADW. When I do bet it is with a U.S. ADW that sends my money into the host track pools.

If racetracks can keep their doors open because they can convince enough people to bet on their product then more power to them.

It is more likely that we will see more tracks go the way of Yavapai before we see more like Keeneland.

[Fager Fan]

Keeneland? Not exactly a copyable model, unless you suggest that each track can host several of the largest and most profitable sales in the country each year, and run two three-week elite meets per year.

Or maybe each track can have the Kentucky Derby.

Have any other suggestions?

Realistically, the tracks need to get more income from the legal ADWs and from being the signal host. What's left? Want them to charge baseball prices for admission? Charge more for parking and programs? Raise takeout?

[highnote]

Keeneland? Not exactly a copyable model, unless you suggest that each track can host several of the largest and most profitable sales in the country each year, and run two three-week elite meets per year.

Or maybe each track can have the Kentucky Derby.

Have any other suggestions?

Yes. I have a great suggestion: Lower takeouts. Too bad the racetracks don't want to listen to the customer.

Gambling income is not the only possible source of revenue. It's not my job to solve the racetrack industry's problems. Figure it out or perish.

Realistically, the tracks need to get more income from the legal ADWs and from being the signal host.

So racetracks need to get more income from legal ADWs and being the signal host. That sounds like you are saying they need to increase takeout and charge more for the signal.

Raising prices has not worked very well so far. Good luck.

What's left?

How about they close up shop like Yavapai?

Want them to charge baseball prices for admission? Charge more for parking and programs? Raise takeout?

Or they can keep crying the blues and woe is me and lamenting the good ol' days.

I have no horse in this race. I wish the racetracks luck. They're going to need it.

Which racetrack do you work for Fager Fan? Maybe I can think of some ideas for you -- not that you'll actually use them.

[Poindexter]

Keeneland? Not exactly a copyable model, unless you suggest that each track can host several of the largest and most profitable sales in the country each year, and run two three-week elite meets per year.

Or maybe each track can have the Kentucky Derby.

Have any other suggestions?

Realistically, the tracks need to get more income from the legal ADWs and from being the signal host. What's left? Want them to charge baseball prices for admission? Charge more for parking and programs? Raise takeout?

Since you asked.

There is only 1(and only 1) way that this sport will ever grow again. Eliminate rebates and lower the takeout (I think 8% wps and 12% exotics (they can even go up to 15% on the extreme exotics such as pick 5's and pick 6's) will do). Eliminating computer batch betting would help a lot as well, eliminating past posting if it is going on is mandatory. Eliminating breakage would help quite a bit but is probably not needed. Working with the government to eliminate people having to sign for anything less than $5000 would help tremendously as well. How they work this into their models with ADW's and states is what they will have to figure out. This nonsense of keeping whales in the game artificially is what has killed the sport and will ultimately be the final dagger. Eventually it will be whale vs whale until it's not worth their effort anymore. that is if the racetracks make it that long.

If they were willing to go with the above takeout structure they would now be competitive with other forms of gambling (offshores likely would not be even willing to offer rebates) and they can actually attract sports bettors and poker players. More importantly new players playing the game would not be losing their bankrolls as quick as they can come up with one and dropping out of the game. Good players that aren't getting rebates would start winning or losing a lot less and would churn a lot more money.....Racetracks might also want to re-evaluate the silliness of pulling out over 5 million dollars in bettors gambling bankroll for this rainbow six nonsense which will not be paid out until the last day. Once you have a model that will work then you market the sport, learn how to respect and treat your customers (all of them, not a select few in the Turf club or directors room or whatever they have these days), educate your customers and reach your customers on all cable and satellite options with HD signals, cell phone apps....

If you have a model that will work, the possibilities are endless. 300 million people are on cellphone every day. Racing is legal, sports betting and poker are not and online casinos are not. But if you have a model that prices everyone but a few out of the market then you have too few customers and you tend to lose most of the new blood that you may acquire because they realize that the game is too expensive and too hard to beat. To think that a slot machine is competition to the sport of horse racing is laughable. But of course if you price everyone out of the racing market, they suddenly slots is a better option.

What is so ridiculous is that racing when they get all this slot revenue, instead of using an intelligent approach as mentioned above, they choose to put in all into purses, as if that is every going to grow the sport. Maybe if they are lucky and nobody realizes who needs racing, we can have races with empty stands(the 6 owners in each field) and full casinos, but owners running for big fat purses. Now that is something to look forward to.

The racing industry needs to man up, stop looking for slot subsidy's and build the sport all by themselves or perish (because if they do not build the sport, it will ultimately perish).

Meanwhile while the industry fails to do what it should do, smart recreational bettors will look to play offshore unless they are eligible for and can find an adw that offers a better deal. Horse bettors betting offshore has nothing to do with the demise of the racing industry. Poor policy does. If you are worried about the jobs in the industry, talk to the decision makers. They are the idiots making stupid decisions and the ones that are quickly killing this sport and all of its jobs. But good news casino jobs are on the horizon.

[highnote]

Churchill Downs operates a site called Luckity.com that has something to do with gambling and bingo.

Customers (gamblers) buy a bingo card and then depending on the outcome of a horse race somewhere in the world the customer can win.

So CD offers gambling on horse races that take place around the world. I wonder if the racetrack that hosts the races on the bingo card get a share of the revenue from the bingo card sales?

Wouldn't it be ironic if a bingo card was based on the winner of the Arc d'Triomphe, for example, and no money from the bingo card sales went to the French! :lol:

That would make the argument about people betting offshore hurting racetracks kind of empty. CD surely shares the revenue with the host tracks, right?


Luckity.com's cash prizes and winners are determined by the outcomes of live horse races taking place worldwide. Each cash bingo card purchased is randomly assigned to a particular horse in a specific race. When the horse wins, the associated bingo card provides a winning bingo pattern experience and awards the applicable cash prize. Luckity Bingo not only plays like traditional bingo games, but it also awards exciting cash prizes that other online bingo games can't.

"Millions of Americans already enjoy playing Bingo, and we're thrilled to provide a new level of excitement to the beloved game by offering cash prizes in a legal, safe, and secure online experience," says Eric Hartness, Vice President of Marketing at Luckity. "Understanding horse racing isn't necessary to play and win big at Luckity.com. However, basing the outcome on real horse races certainly makes Luckity.com bingo thrilling and can increase the chance of winning as well as the size of cash prizes. Because it's horse racing, Luckity.com's bingo games can result in huge cash payouts when the long-shots win."

[highnote]

I'm reposting this because I didn't make the most important point. So I rewrote the point I wanted to make and put it in bold.
---------------------

Churchill Downs operates a site called Luckity.com that has something to do with gambling and bingo.

Customers (gamblers) buy a bingo card and then depending on the outcome of a horse race somewhere in the world the customer can win.

So CD offers gambling on horse races that take place around the world. I wonder if the racetrack that hosts the races on the bingo card get a share of the revenue from the bingo card sales?

Wouldn't it be ironic if a bingo card was based on the winner of the Arc d'Triomphe, for example, and no money from the bingo card sales went to the French!

That would make the argument that people betting offshore are stealing from racetracks kind of empty. CD surely shares the revenue with the host tracks, right?





Luckity.com's cash prizes and winners are determined by the outcomes of live horse races taking place worldwide. Each cash bingo card purchased is randomly assigned to a particular horse in a specific race. When the horse wins, the associated bingo card provides a winning bingo pattern experience and awards the applicable cash prize. Luckity Bingo not only plays like traditional bingo games, but it also awards exciting cash prizes that other online bingo games can't.

"Millions of Americans already enjoy playing Bingo, and we're thrilled to provide a new level of excitement to the beloved game by offering cash prizes in a legal, safe, and secure online experience," says Eric Hartness, Vice President of Marketing at Luckity. "Understanding horse racing isn't necessary to play and win big at Luckity.com. However, basing the outcome on real horse races certainly makes Luckity.com bingo thrilling and can increase the chance of winning as well as the size of cash prizes. Because it's horse racing, Luckity.com's bingo games can result in huge cash payouts when the long-shots win."

[Hoofless_Wonder]

There's lots of shades of gray in the business models of various sports, and the political forces in play reaching into your pocket only complicates matters.

The argument that using an offshore book is "stealing", makes sense if you look at it from the point of view of pirating content. Just like downloading a DVD of "Gone With the Wind" or the album "Hotel California" from a Russian pirate website is stealing. Most law abiding people don't mind paying for their favorite movie or music, but many will get it for free if technology allows it. Is it stealing? Yes.

The argument of comparing office pools on the Super Bowl to horse racing doesn't make sense. The Super Bowl and Final Four are televised on national TV, and are topics of conversation around the water cooler for most at work. The runaway winner of the 3rd at Aqueduct that paid $27.40 is never mentioned, though maybe in Hong Kong the races come up more often, since something like 1 out 6 people there play the horses.

Is the NFL hurt financially if $40 of the $200 office Super Bowl pool in "Widgets are Us" in Poughkeepsie doesn't make it into the corporate coffers? Of course not. They want the office pools to increase the audience to charge more for their bread and butter income, broadcasting rights. Is it stealing? Perhaps, but you won't see the NFL whine about it. However, try to open a sports bar with a pirated feed of the NFL network and see how long that lasts....

Is Aqueduct hurt financially if $40 of a $200 win bet on the 3rd race goes offshore instead of their own pools? Yes. Is it stealing? Perhaps, and the argument can be made that unlike the NFL, the financial impact on their business is far greater than that of the NFL not being able to enforce copyright fees on office pools. But, unlike downloading an unauthorized copy of a DVD, it's easier to justify betting offshore given the recent history of the casual racing fan being treated like a red-headed stepchild.

One of the potential side benefits of the economy declining might very well be an increase in the legalization of online gambling to include sports, poker, casinos and racing. The politicians will be looking for additional sources of "revenue", and raising taxes will be less popular than allowing the sinful practice of gambling....

[highnote]

The argument that using an offshore book is "stealing", makes sense if you look at it from the point of view of pirating content.

Still don't see how it's stealing. The outcome of a race is publicly known -- just like the outcome of a football game.

So if Vegas bookmakers take bets on NFL games and not pay a commission to the NFL either they are stealing from the NFL or they are not.

How is the outcome of a football game different from the outcome of a horse race? How can you "steal" one, but not the other?

The argument that it is stealing makes no sense.

You can steal a broadcast signal, but you cannot steal an outcome. Especially when the outcome is easily found on the internet and in newspapers.


Just like downloading a DVD of "Gone With the Wind" or the album "Hotel California" from a Russian pirate website is stealing. Most law abiding people don't mind paying for their favorite movie or music, but many will get it for free if technology allows it. Is it stealing? Yes.

See my previous line. An outcome is nothing like a broadcast.



The argument of comparing office pools on the Super Bowl to horse racing doesn't make sense. [quote]

They are identical in that they both are bets on an outcome of an event.

[quote]The Super Bowl and Final Four are televised on national TV, and are topics of conversation around the water cooler for most at work.

So are the Triple Crown and Breeders' Cup races. Every day horse racing is broadcast nationally by TVG and by ADWs and racetracks over the internet.


The runaway winner of the 3rd at Aqueduct that paid $27.40 is never mentioned, though maybe in Hong Kong the races come up more often, since something like 1 out 6 people there play the horses.

Well, the outcome of the Indians and Rangers are never mentioned, either. :D



Is the NFL hurt financially if $40 of the $200 office Super Bowl pool in "Widgets are Us" in Poughkeepsie doesn't make it into the corporate coffers? Of course not. They want the office pools to increase the audience to charge more for their bread and butter income, broadcasting rights.[quote]

That's because the NFL is smarter than racing. They figured out how to sell their product. Racing never did because they were granted a monopoly on gambling.

[quote] Is it stealing?


Absolutely not, otherwise the NFL would be all over them and all over Vegas. Good luck trying to sue Vegas to get gambling on NFL games to stop.


Perhaps, but you won't see the NFL whine about it. However, try to open a sports bar with a pirated feed of the NFL network and see how long that lasts....

Using an NFL broadcast for profit without paying for it is prohibited. A broadcast is not the same as a bet.

Is Aqueduct hurt financially if $40 of a $200 win bet on the 3rd race goes offshore instead of their own pools? Yes.

That's because U.S. racetracks are relying on an outdated business model. It's called a monopoly. They no longer have a monopoly and the sooner they accept this fact the sooner they can get on with growing their business.

Aqueduct has a casino. They are getting plenty of subsidies now.


Is it stealing?

No


Perhaps, and the argument can be made that unlike the NFL, the financial impact on their business is far greater than that of the NFL not being able to enforce copyright fees on office pools.

Poor planning on the part of the racetrack industry to adjust to competition does not constitute an obligation to bet their product through a particular network.



But, unlike downloading an unauthorized copy of a DVD, it's easier to justify betting offshore given the recent history of the casual racing fan being treated like a red-headed stepchild.

I'm sure some people feel that way, but betting is a money game and cost-minded bettors want the lowest costs.

One of the potential side benefits of the economy declining might very well be an increase in the legalization of online gambling to include sports, poker, casinos and racing. The politicians will be looking for additional sources of "revenue", and raising taxes will be less popular than allowing the sinful practice of gambling....

It remains to be seen if the proliferation of gambling is a benefit to society.

You can now play roulette on your cell phone if you're a New Jersey citizen. I can't imagine blowing money on a negative expectation gambling game with my cell phone.

[highnote]

Does anyone remember if the Las Vegas bookmaker "Sport of Kings" gave racetracks a commission on the bets they took in?

Sport of Kings was not a pari-mutuel bookmaker. They were a traditional bookmaker like the British bookies. Sport of Kings laid odds.

If a bookmaker tried to book bets on horse races in Vegas would they have to pay a commission to the host racetracks?

[highnote]

Not to mention that it's akin to buying stolen goods, and talking yourself into believing the great deal you got makes it alright.


Fager Fan: Churchill Downs new bingo game available at luckity.com uses real horse races from around the world to determine the payouts on their bingo cards. Do you know if CHDN shares revenue with ALL the racetracks they use in their bingo cards?

I assume they would. That means they must get the feeds from the host tracks. It sounds complicated. Any idea on how this works?

[Unome]

Does anyone remember if the Las Vegas bookmaker "Sport of Kings" gave racetracks a commission on the bets they took in?

Sport of Kings was not a pari-mutuel bookmaker. They were a traditional bookmaker like the British bookies. Sport of Kings laid odds.

If a bookmaker tried to book bets on horse races in Vegas would they have to pay a commission to the host racetracks?

They paid a fee for the TV signal like all other Race Books did.

That experiment only lasted about 6 months, after getting crushed they went to pari mutuel.

[highnote]

They paid a fee for the TV signal like all other Race Books did.

That experiment only lasted about 6 months, after getting crushed they went to pari mutuel.


When they booked the bets did they give a commission on the bets to the host racetracks?

[highnote]

According to CHDN Investor Relations they do pay a fee to the host racetrack that is used in their bingo games.



Fager Fan: Churchill Downs new bingo game available at luckity.com uses real horse races from around the world to determine the payouts on their bingo cards. Do you know if CHDN shares revenue with ALL the racetracks they use in their bingo cards?

I assume they would. That means they must get the feeds from the host tracks. It sounds complicated. Any idea on how this works?

[Unome]

When they booked the bets did they give a commission on the bets to the host racetracks?

Yes they paid a percentage on all booked bets, part went to track and part to the horsemen.

[highnote]

Yes they paid a percentage on all booked bets, part went to track and part to the horsemen.

That sounds similar to the way U.K. bookmakers operate.