Playersboycott.com Active. Grassroots Movement Starts

[GregReinhart]

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/John-Pricci/comments/04242014-horseplayers-to-churchill-downs-and-industry-wake-up


The boycott isn't only about the egregious takeout increase. This is about an industry that refuses to listen intently to what their customers are saying. It happens time and again.

This is about an industry that's still stuck in the 1980s when it comes to eliminating breakage, or timing races more meaningfully and upgrading coding of the tote system so that the information you see is what you get in real time and not after a race has begun.

Horse Racing 2014 style is still being played on eight-track cassettes, as if there were no such thing as the digital age. Haven’t you had enough?


http://playersboycott.org/

[Stillriledup]

Time to get your game back, brick by brick.

Its time to stand for something.

Its time to say "enough is enough".

[thaskalos]

I have emptied out my Twinspires account...and I vow never to place another bet at an CHDN-owned racetrack again. This is about much more than just the most recent takeout increase. It's about the horseplayers finally uniting...and proving that they are a force to be reckoned with. CHDN is only the tip of the iceberg here. In this, the era of the ever-decreasing parimutuel pools, the other racetracks are contemplating similar takeout increases...and they are patiently waiting in the wings to see what the horseplayer's reaction will be. The horseplayer's reaction should be clear and unmistakable; WE ARE AS MAD AS HELL...AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

When we act as if we are gambling-addicted degenerates, then we invite them to treat us as such...and we have no right to complain.

[tzipi]

Time to get your game back, brick by brick.

Its time to stand for something.

Its time to say "enough is enough".

I feel like the boycott and change should've been called for 10-20 yrs ago. I feel with the government backed casinos now in the door, the mass drug exposure(to the public) and fan decline, it might be too late. :(

[PaceAdvantage]

This is looking like it's going to end up like all other player "boycotts" end up...not working out too well.

Unless you can get some whales to join the movement, it isn't going to amount to much.

How are you going to get the whales to join?

[thaskalos]

This is looking like it's going to end up like all other player "boycotts" end up...not working out too well.

Unless you can get some whales to join the movement, it isn't going to amount to much.

How are you going to get the whales to join?
Who cares about the whales? Aren't we constantly being told that the $2-bettor is the backbone of the industry?

[OTM Al]

You missed the bet part of that article a few paragraphs earlier

"If everyone reduced the size of their wagers--playing smarter, not higher--handle can be impacted dramatically, perhaps 15% or more on opening night and at least 5% on Oaks and Derby Day."

Huh?

The message seems to be boycott CDI but go ahead and play the Derby at the least (or at the worst bet less but make better bets????).... I think this is exactly what CDI wants you to do. The people that run this company are not stupid despite what many seem to think. The fact that a large number of responses to this action say that they are still going to play the Derby tells me that the optimal takeout rate for the Derby must be much higher than that previously employed. The amount CDI make on the Derby covers them pretty well for the rest of the meet and do realize they get more from ADWs on Derby and Oaks day than they do the rest of the year. Throw in ticket revenue, food sales and sponsorships and the loss from such a boycott will amount to about nothing.

Whatever people want to do is up to them but this "kinda boycott" stance has me a bit confused.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who cares about the whales? Aren't we constantly being told that the $2-bettor is the backbone of the industry?$2 bettors don't wake up the people making the decisions about takeout.

People don't notice $2 bettors. Even a lot of them combined.

They will notice, however, if just one whale stops betting a certain track.

[luisbe]

I have emptied out my Twinspires account...and I vow never to place another bet at an CHDN-owned racetrack again. This is about much more than just the most recent takeout increase. It's about the horseplayers finally uniting...and proving that they are a force to be reckoned with. CHDN is only the tip of the iceberg here. In this, the era of the ever-decreasing parimutuel pools, the other racetracks are contemplating similar takeout increases...and they are patiently waiting in the wings to see what the horseplayer's reaction will be. The horseplayer's reaction should be clear and unmistakable; WE ARE AS MAD AS HELL...AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

When we act as if we are gambling-addicted degenerates, then we invite them to treat us as such...and we have no right to complain.

I second that word by word.

[luisbe]

This is looking like it's going to end up like all other player "boycotts" end up...not working out too well.

Unless you can get some whales to join the movement, it isn't going to amount to much.

How are you going to get the whales to join?

The little from a crowd is huge as well as huge is from a very few.

[Dave Schwartz]

Who cares about the whales? Aren't we constantly being told that the $2-bettor is the backbone of the industry?

There are two potential answers here:

1. Only by $2 bettors.

2. Not in about the last 40 years.

Sad, but true.



The "backbone of the industry" (if you ask a track exec) is either:

1. a guy who is willing to lose $500 per day 4 or 5 days per week (told to me by a track exec).

2. a guy who buys race horses because they are the customer in racing (told to me by a track consultant).


Again, sad, but true.

[Stillriledup]

This is looking like it's going to end up like all other player "boycotts" end up...not working out too well.

Unless you can get some whales to join the movement, it isn't going to amount to much.

How are you going to get the whales to join?

Whales might not completely boycott the product, but most whales got to be whales by being very price sensitive, and when their effective rebate gets lowered (rebate gets higher, but effective takeout for them gets higher too and doesn't offset the raise) they will bet less, or, some of them, not at all.

Here's the thing about Whales, they are more price sensitive than 2 dollar bettors and if you take away part of the rebate that they are used to getting, they will notice...and react. They also realize that if they don't react to this "takeout raise" by Churchill, other tracks will keep jacking up signal fees and their rebates will get lower and lower.

So, will they stop altogether? Probably not. Will they bet less? Almost a certainty.

[PhantomOnTour]

I boycott CD every year for ~363 days...only bets are Oaks and Derby days, and if I like the Stephen Foster or Clark cards.
Never even look at the pp's from CD on any other day.

[therussmeister]

If takeout increases are so bad for business, (and I think they are), there is no need to organize a boycott, handle will drop of it's own volition, which is a good thing because I guarantee only a tiny fraction of horseplayers will ever be aware of this boycott.

For the record, I'm playing Churchill on Wednesday when only two tracks are running early.

[Robert Goren]

Who cares about the whales? Aren't we constantly being told that the $2-bettor is the backbone of the industry?Who is saying that?

[Stillriledup]

Who are the "industry insiders" who are talking about this boycott on their twitter accounts? Maybe Privman and a few of the other DRF insiders need someone to remind them....whoever has Twitter, go to work. :D

[JustRalph]

You missed the bet part of that article a few paragraphs earlier

"If everyone reduced the size of their wagers--playing smarter, not higher--handle can be impacted dramatically, perhaps 15% or more on opening night and at least 5% on Oaks and Derby Day."

Huh?

The message seems to be boycott CDI but go ahead and play the Derby at the least (or at the worst bet less but make better bets????).... I think this is exactly what CDI wants you to do. The people that run this company are not stupid despite what many seem to think. The fact that a large number of responses to this action say that they are still going to play the Derby tells me that the optimal takeout rate for the Derby must be much higher than that previously employed. The amount CDI make on the Derby covers them pretty well for the rest of the meet and do realize they get more from ADWs on Derby and Oaks day than they do the rest of the year. Throw in ticket revenue, food sales and sponsorships and the loss from such a boycott will amount to about nothing.

Whatever people want to do is up to them but this "kinda boycott" stance has me a bit confused.

Exactly how I read it :ThmbUp:

I am pretty much in the Thask camp. For the first time in 15 yrs I won't be playing the Derby. I'll probably cap it because every year my friends and relatives want to know my picks. But I will let them know I'm not betting and they shouldn't either. I usually drop about $500 in the Derby pools and maybe another $3-400 on the rest of the card. This year, I'll find something else to do with it.

OTM Al is right though. A half ass boycott won't turn any heads

[baconswitchfarm]

Whales might not completely boycott the product, but most whales got to be whales by being very price sensitive, and when their effective rebate gets lowered (rebate gets higher, but effective takeout for them gets higher too and doesn't offset the raise) they will bet less, or, some of them, not at all.

Here's the thing about Whales, they are more price sensitive than 2 dollar bettors and if you take away part of the rebate that they are used to getting, they will notice...and react. They also realize that if they don't react to this "takeout raise" by Churchill, other tracks will keep jacking up signal fees and their rebates will get lower and lower.

So, will they stop altogether? Probably not. Will they bet less? Almost a certainty.
Whales get a larger rebate with the take out increase. Why would I boycott? It hurts the industry long term. Helps all big bettors today.

[sjk]

Whales get a larger rebate with the take out increase. Why would I boycott? It hurts the industry long term. Helps all big bettors today.

I wondered about that. Makes it that much worse on the small player.

So if I understand, takeout goes up but signal fees do not and the whales get an increased rebate to make whole.

[Poindexter]

If takeout increases are so bad for business, (and I think they are), there is no need to organize a boycott, handle will drop of it's own volition, which is a good thing because I guarantee only a tiny fraction of horseplayers will ever be aware of this boycott.

For the record, I'm playing Churchill on Wednesday when only two tracks are running early.

The takeout increase is bad for business, but it is a subtle long term process(just like rebates and computer betting is). For those who aren't even aware of what the takeout is or do not really care, it just rears its ugly head by them getting less back. Players will eventually feel the effect, but it may not take place initially. The typical player may have funds to reload, eventually however, more people drop out or run out of money or just plain churn less........The way the racing industry is, if players just go on and accept the takeout increase, it may not even affect the handle much the first year. Then the geniuses who came up with the plan conclude "see how smart we are, we raised the takeout, generated more revenue, attracted better horses...." This is now a model for other geniuses to follow and suddenly everyone starts raising the takeout levels. Then 2 years down the line when handle starts shrinking, they find something else to blame and then ...........................more major problems. Thats why I advise hitting them everywhere, so that their staff at Bris or Twinspires or whatever casinos they own says we had 100's of cancellations because people are angry. Don't give them the option of making it a year without negative consequences. Make them respect you. If you do not hurt them financially, they never will.

[DeanT]

Whales get a larger rebate with the take out increase. Why would I boycott? It hurts the industry long term. Helps all big bettors today.

Signal fees are going up, although Vegas is pushing back.

Rebates will be crap.

[Poindexter]

Whales get a larger rebate with the take out increase. Why would I boycott? It hurts the industry long term. Helps all big bettors today.

That is sort of what I figured. Rebate goes up an =% of the increase in takeout? Just amplifies racing's biggest problem.

or

Maybe not.

Stay tuned....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[DeanT]

That is sort of what I figured. Rebate goes up an =% of the increase in takeout? Just amplifies racing's biggest problem.

or

Maybe not.

Stay tuned....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1625049&postcount=21

[Stillriledup]

That is sort of what I figured. Rebate goes up an =% of the increase in takeout? Just amplifies racing's biggest problem.

or

Maybe not.

Stay tuned....:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
This is false information.

This is not true.

[baconswitchfarm]

This is false information.

This is not true.
I don't understand what part is false.

[Poindexter]

This is false information.

This is not true.

Just for clarification I saw Deans post shortly after posting and edited with the maybe not and the stay tuned. The maybe not meaning "it appears from Deans post that perhaps they are not getting that % rebated", the stay tuned meaning that somewhere down the line this might change or different info might be provided. I did not initially present the info, I was quoting it and addressing that quote.

[Stillriledup]

I don't understand what part is false.

The part where he suggests that the entire takeout raise is rebated back.

[baconswitchfarm]

The part where he suggests that the entire takeout raise is rebated back.
As long as you are not betting through Churchill, and are a major bettor, it is.

[Stillriledup]

Just for clarification I saw Deans post shortly after posting and edited with the maybe not and the stay tuned. The maybe not meaning "it appears from Deans post that perhaps they are not getting that % rebated", the stay tuned meaning that somewhere down the line this might change or different info might be provided. I did not initially present the info, I was quoting it and addressing that quote.

CD knows a lot of their handle comes from rebate shops, so, they raised the takeout enough that they can gain additional money by raising signal price and at the same time, increasing the rebates of many players. So, for example, if a player was originally getting a 5% rebate (for example) on a 16% win takeout and they raise the win takeout to 17.5, they're not going to raise the rebate to 6.5, it will get raised to 5.something or 6.

That way, they can ease the pain of many rebaters by actually raising the rebate, even though that player's effective takeout is going down, those bettors can justify getting an additional percentage point even though they're giving up 2 or 3 pts in takeout raise.

[Stillriledup]

As long as you are not betting through Churchill, and are a major bettor, it is.

I disagree, not all rebate bettors are getting it all back. Its possible that a monster whale who's betting 100 million per year or more can get carte blanche service from his rebate shop and get a sweet deal, but most people arent betting 100 M per year, those bettors are not getting it all back.

[Jeff P]

Individual rebate shops, ADWs, brick and mortar outlets, etc. will each have to sign a contract with Churchill in order to carry the signal. Individual contracts will have terms, fees, etc. spelled out between bet taker and host track.

The terms can vary from one bet taker to another.

Whether or not the rebate shop has enough room margin-wise to rebate 100% of the takeout increase back to the customer really depends on the terms spelled out in the signal contract.


-jp

.

[baconswitchfarm]

I disagree, not all rebate bettors are getting it all back. Its possible that a monster whale who's betting 100 million per year or more can get carte blanche service from his rebate shop and get a sweet deal, but most people arent betting 100 M per year, those bettors are not getting it all back.


Anyone who bets more than 5 is getting it all back. If I didn't get it all, I would simply say I was going to shop myself around. I would get a call back in two minutes. I once told a management guy that it would be easier for me to find a place to play than for him to go out on the corner and find another 7 million a year player. I don't even remember the argument, but he conceded. That's why big players wont boycott.

[baconswitchfarm]

Individual rebate shops, ADWs, brick and mortar outlets, etc. will each have to sign a contract with Churchill in order to carry the signal. Individual contracts will have terms, fees, etc. spelled out between bet taker and host track.

The terms can vary from one bet taker to another.

Whether or not the rebate shop has enough room margin-wise to rebate 100% of the takeout increase back to the customer really depends on the terms spelled out in the signal contract.


-jp

.



Jeff is right that only a signal fee increase can effect large players. A takeout raise alone will not.

[Robert Goren]

Jeff is right that only a signal fee increase can effect large players. A takeout raise alone will not. Only signal fee can hurt large players. A takeout raise without a signal fee may in fact help large rebate players by giving them more room to maneuver.

[Dave Schwartz]

Whales get a larger rebate with the take out increase. Why would I boycott? It hurts the industry long term. Helps all big bettors today.

The host fees went up as well. And on other CDI properties.

Therefore, the whales rebate does not go up. In fact, it may go down.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

This thread is priceless

It captures perfectly the unfairness inherent in rebates where a takeout rise becomes selective and only impacts some players but not others. I still maintain that rebates have been a major cause in the decline of betting on horses as they make the pools unfair and unfair pools will shrink your game long term not grow it

As I mentioned in another thread, these days takeout rates and betting handle for meets are meaningless figures as different players are on their own individual takeout rates. The figure tracks should be reporting is not betting handle but how much they collected in takeout for a meet. It is easy to sign up a new whale bettor and give them a big rebate. This might see your handle go up 10% but the takeout you collect might drop because you are selling your tickets to this player at a discount

Anyways it looks like the boycott of CD is dead because the takeout rise does not apply to all players equally and some rebate players will be happy to bet big there this meet

[DeanT]

The host fees went up as well. And on other CDI properties.

Therefore, the whales rebate does not go up. In fact, it may go down.

Thanks Dave.

[DeanT]

Anyways it looks like the boycott of CD is dead because the takeout rise does not apply to all players equally and some rebate players will be happy to bet big there this meet

Do you ignore what Dave and others have said, or did you read the thread?

The signal fees are going up so the rebates will not get larger, and they may go down.

[PaceAdvantage]

This thread is a perfect illustration why boycotts don't work in horse racing.

I don't even believe half the people who say they are going to boycott actually will...

[Stillriledup]

Do you ignore what Dave and others have said, or did you read the thread?

The signal fees are going up so the rebates will not get larger, and they may go down.

Banging the "woe is me, life is unfair" drum will keep on, one thing about Biscuit, he's consistent.

[Stillriledup]

This thread is a perfect illustration why boycotts don't work in horse racing.

I don't even believe half the people who say they are going to boycott actually will...

Boycotts arent necessarily needed if everyone who bets Churchill knows that the prices have been raised dramatically. We don't really need to have some mythical "boycott" we just have to be really smart about the numbers, percentages and how the takeout affects each bettor.

If you know that you win less money by betting at Churchill, that should be good enough to get you to stop playing them. When a product that i normally purchase at the grocery store gets raised to a price that i don't want to afford, i tell myself that they effectively priced me out of that market and don't buy that product.

Winning money at the track is an extremely difficult task, so if a track just puts a bettor in a position to have to be 1 to 3 percent "better" than he was yesterday just to win as much as he won before (or lose less than he lost before) that is a MASSIVE increase. Its like if Las Vegas told NFL bettors that from now on, they have to risk 120 dollars to win 100, that wouldnt go over too well with sports bettors, but with racing, the people in charge act as if racing fans are idiots (and addicts) and either won't notice a 1 to 3 percent increase OR they'll notice it and not care OR they'll notice it, care and bet anyway because of their addiction or need for action.

Imagine a Las Vegas racebook saying that they're going to raise NFL wagers from -110 to -120 and "hope the fans don't notice".

If a bettor's ROI is 1.04 or 1.05, that means by definition he or she is an elite horseplayer. If you're overcoming the takeout AND winning 4 or 5 cents per dollar, you're pretty special, you're 1 in 1000 or maybe even 1 in 10000. BUT, this raise essentially takes HALF of your profit, chops you down from 1.04/1.05 to 1.02 and 1.03.

Imagine handing over half your profit to Churchill "just because".

[duncan04]

Sigh, I remember when California racing was going to be boycotted. :rolleyes: Now its Churchill. Who's going to be next?? All this talk is pointless because its never going to happen

[OTM Al]

Sigh, I remember when California racing was going to be boycotted. :rolleyes: Now its Churchill. Who's going to be next?? All this talk is pointless because its never going to happen

FYI the author of the piece quoted by the OP claimed success for the California boycott as well in the article as well as elsewhere.

[badcompany]

This thread is priceless

It captures perfectly the unfairness inherent in rebates where a takeout rise becomes selective and only impacts some players but not others. I still maintain that rebates have been a major cause in the decline of betting on horses as they make the pools unfair and unfair pools will shrink your game long term not grow it

As I mentioned in another thread, these days takeout rates and betting handle for meets are meaningless figures as different players are on their own individual takeout rates. The figure tracks should be reporting is not betting handle but how much they collected in takeout for a meet. It is easy to sign up a new whale bettor and give them a big rebate. This might see your handle go up 10% but the takeout you collect might drop because you are selling your tickets to this player at a discount

Anyways it looks like the boycott of CD is dead because the takeout rise does not apply to all players equally and some rebate players will be happy to bet big there this meet

From my understanding, many of the big rebate players are only profitable because of the rebate. So, without this business model, why would these astute, big players continue to play?

[DeanT]

http://www.gambling911.com/horse-racing/churchill-downs-boycott-could-provide-wakeup-call-execs-stuff-their-pockets-042414.html

From gambling911.com

[DeanT]

This was kind of funny. Nice to see the rank and file DRF readers not let stuff like this go. If you don't say something when tracks walk on you, you will be walked on. Good for them.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/04/daily-racing-form-spring-is-in-air.html

[alydar]

This is looking like it's going to end up like all other player "boycotts" end up...not working out too well.

Unless you can get some whales to join the movement, it isn't going to amount to much.

How are you going to get the whales to join?

I agree with you. I have watched a number of boycotts attempted over the last few years, and they have had limited success. I can only do what I think is right. I personally am fed up with Churchill as a corporation. They define greedy to me. Take away one day of racing and it's racing business would be a loser.

I will vote with my dollars and not play CDSN, and even pass on the Derby. I will watch, but CDI will not get any of my money.

[thaskalos]

It's pretty sad that we can't even boycott a single racetrack, just to make a point. Don't the other racetracks provide us with enough of the action that we crave?

[Poindexter]

Do you ignore what Dave and others have said, or did you read the thread?

The signal fees are going up so the rebates will not get larger, and they may go down.

I have a hunch that IF Whales are priced out of the market, and handle drops significantly, that the first thing done will be to go back and reduce the signal fees to entice them back in the market, long before they even consider bringing the takeout back down. The drop in handle would be blamed on pricing the rebate bettors out and not on the takeout increase.

[Stillriledup]

I have a hunch that IF Whales are priced out of the market, and handle drops significantly, that the first thing done will be to go back and reduce the signal fees to entice them back in the market, long before they even consider bringing the takeout back down. The drop in handle would be blamed on pricing the rebate bettors out and not on the takeout increase.

They arent going to "admit" they made a mistake, they'll just keep the signal fee the way it is and blame the weather for natural decline.

[badcompany]

Individual Boycotts eventually are successful. In Saratoga, the Casino owners submitted an application to build a full service casino in East Greenbush, near Albany.

If this goes through, the Racino in Saratoga will become redundant and probably will go bye bye. The horsemen, there, will then have to seek another form of employment, as their product has been boycotted by horseplayers and can no longer support itself.

[Dave Schwartz]

have a hunch that IF Whales are priced out of the market, and handle drops significantly, that the first thing done will be to go back and reduce the signal fees to entice them back in the market, long before they even consider bringing the takeout back down. The drop in handle would be blamed on pricing the rebate bettors out and not on the takeout increase.

I disagree with your hunch.

If, in fact, the whales were "priced out of the market," the pricing structure change for the whales only. Remember, this is how this entire mess started.

I liken it to a bumper sticker I saw today: "30 miles per gallon equals no foreign oil."

What a joke that is. In my opinion this is the same thing.

[thespaah]

This is looking like it's going to end up like all other player "boycotts" end up...not working out too well.

Unless you can get some whales to join the movement, it isn't going to amount to much.

How are you going to get the whales to join?
The only way I see to get the whales to go along is to make up a spreadsheet using real comparative analyses showing the how much more it is costing the whales to bet with the higher takeouts.
Say for instance a syndicate which bets $50 or $100 million per year is spending an additional $200,000/yr just to place bets, they may say "wow! I had no idea. I'm not betting there anymore."

[DeanT]

Press release from the PB.org folks.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/04/press-release-playersboycottorg.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[thespaah]

Whales get a larger rebate with the take out increase. Why would I boycott? It hurts the industry long term. Helps all big bettors today.
How long those rebates last is another matter.
Correct me if I am incorrect, but are there not states that are introducing new fees regarding signal carriage and other related issues?

[Stillriledup]

Whales get a larger rebate with the take out increase. Why would I boycott? It hurts the industry long term. Helps all big bettors today.

How would smaller pools help large bettors? Also, the larger rebate doesn't matter if the takeout is increased beyond that "larger" rebate. For example and hypothetically speaking, an 8 pct rebate into an 18% takeout is better for the rebate player than a 9 pct rebate into a 21% takeout.

[thespaah]

This thread is a perfect illustration why boycotts don't work in horse racing.

I don't even believe half the people who say they are going to boycott actually will...
No matter the issue of public discourse, we used to be a nation of 'can do'...That's why we had "The 60's"...Enough people tired of the way things were being done.
Fast forward to today....We are now a nation of "why should we"...
You can't three people to agree that blue is the color of a clear sky.
This thread is evidence of that.
In general, most people care about their own self interest. Meaning, unless it crawls across their front lawn, they just don't care.

[AndyC]

Press release from the PB.org folks.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/04/press-release-playersboycottorg.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Platt is inferring that the increase in officers compensation is using money that should have been used for purses and other items that would have precluded the need for a take-out increase. I suspect that the increase in officers comp was probably fueled by stock option cash outs which costs zip in cash. The cost is borne by the shareholders through dilution of their holdings.

[thespaah]

Individual Boycotts eventually are successful. In Saratoga, the Casino owners submitted an application to build a full service casino in East Greenbush, near Albany.

If this goes through, the Racino in Saratoga will become redundant and probably will go bye bye. The horsemen, there, will then have to seek another form of employment, as their product has been boycotted by horseplayers and can no longer support itself.
I read about that. The original proposal was to build the casino at the racino site.
Many people involved with the center city as well as Saratoga Race Course advocates uttered a collective "no way"..
It's probably just as well. The racino property does not cover a lot of acreage. Parking would be a nightmare.

[Jeff P]

Platt is inferring that the increase in officers compensation is using money that should have been used for purses and other items that would have precluded the need for a take-out increase. I suspect that the increase in officers comp was probably fueled by stock option cash outs which costs zip in cash. The cost is borne by the shareholders through dilution of their holdings.Please do not put words in my mouth.

The point I was trying to get across in the press release is twofold:

1. Once you move the takeout needle north of the optimal price point: The result is lower handle and lower purses not higher.

I suppose we could argue where the optimal price point might be or if it can be found at all. But if we do that I'm pretty sure I can present evidence to support the position that optimal is lower not higher than CHDN takeout rates prior to the increase.

Another tangent that could be argued is that the widely accepted industry practice of pouring money into purses is not very effective when it comes to growing handle and market share. (According to the work of Thalheimer pages 8-9 (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/economic20analysis.pdf) and others.)

Examining the own-elasticities, it can be seen that of the four variables, wagering on a subject racetrack's races is most elastic with respect to its takeout rate, least elastic with respect to its average purse and comparably elastic with respect to number of races and average field size. The median takeout rate elastici~ was found to be -2.30 indicating that wagering is strongly responsive to takeout rate changes. This is consistent with prior findings in the literature (Gruen, 1976; Morgan and Vasche, 1979, 1980, 1982; Suits, 1979; Thalheimer and Ali, 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Ali and Thalheimer, 1997).

The takeout rate of -2.30 indicates that revenue will increase with a drop in takeout rate up to the optimum level where takeout rate elasticity is -1.00. If host fee cost is deducted from the takeout rate the optimum level will occur at an elasticity greater than -1.00. It can be shown that for elasticities of the order of magnitude found in this study, the present level of takeout rate is such that it can be lowered without changing the host track fee, to increase net revenue to the racetrack-racebook (after host fee deduction). ..However, the racetrack-racebook will get a proportionally lower increase in net revenue than the host racetrack. For example, at a takeout rate level of 20% and a host fee of 3%, the net revenue maximizing elasticity is computed to be -1.18 which is still less than the typical elasticity of -2.3 found in this study. Of course, if the host track fee is lowered in proportion to the change in takeout rate, revenue for all parties (host track, racetrack-racebook, horsemen) will in crease in the same proportion.

Median own-elasticities with respect to number of races and average field size were found to be 0.64 and 0.58, respectively. There is no prior study to gauge the magnitudes of these elasticities but it seems wagering is moderately responsive to changes in number of races or field size. Finally, median average purse elasticity was found to be 0.06 which is considerably smaller than elasticity with respect to takeout rate, number of races or field size. This average purse elasticity is quite small and it suggests, for example that wagering would increase by only 6% if purse were doubled. This is a surprising finding considering the importance that is attached to the purse variable in all major policy decisions to increase the wagering in this industry.


2. Provided the goal was to actually raise purses and not lower them, the Key Execs at CHDN who decided to hit horseplayers with a takeout increase did in fact have other options available to them.

According to their financial statements CHDN had $80.782 million in Cash or Cash Equivalents on their balance sheet as of Dec 31, 2013:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CHDN+Balance+Sheet&annual

I'll stick to my guns. I'll not spend one penny of my money this summer on a CHDN owned track, CHDN owned ADW, or CHDN owned data provider.

I'm boycotting everything CHDN (and telling the world to boycott everything CHDN) because I think:

1. Hitting horseplayers with a takeout increase when other options exist is the wrong thing to do.

2. Not spending my money with them is the right thing to do.




-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

Its amazing to me that smart human beings, which horseplayers certainly are, have to be prodded with red hot pokers (boycotts) in order to stop playing a track with a massive takeout. NFL bettors are paying approximately 5% "vig" and that 5% vig is what essentially prevents most experts from showing a profit as sports bettors.

5%.

Race fans, are handing over a blended TWENTY percent and liking it and saying "thank you sir, may i have another".

When that 20 becomes higher, it makes you wonder why ANYONE is betting a dollar on these races.

If sports betting is hard to beat at a 5% take, how are people accepting a takeout raise into what is already an obnoxiously high rake at a blended 20%.

Maybe one day i'll be smart enough to figure it out.

[OTM Al]

Simple answer. There are more than two betting interests. This creates the potential for higher returns than in sports wagering. Because of the potential for higher returns, bettors are willing to pay more for the wager. The price of the wager is the takeout. Pretty simple really.

[Stillriledup]

Simple answer. There are more than two betting interests. This creates the potential for higher returns than in sports wagering. Because of the potential for higher returns, bettors are willing to pay more for the wager. The price of the wager is the takeout. Pretty simple really.

What about in situations where people bet horses who are 4-5 or even money, they're giving up a 15% rake to "double their money" and they have to beat MORE than "1 horse" to get that 4-5 or even money. They could just bet a sports game and only have to beat one other entity to cash, and get 9-10 on their money.

I see what you're saying, if you are betting a 12 horse field and trying to hit a tri or super that pays over 1,000-1 than its not as bad as betting an even money shot in horse racing.

Yet, the short priced runners, and there are plenty of even money shot type horses around the country on a daily basis, people are paying 15 to 18 percent on that bet. Even in 2, 3 and 4 horse fields, horse racing keeps their takeout at the same levels.

[OTM Al]

What about in situations where people bet horses who are 4-5 or even money, they're giving up a 15% rake to "double their money" and they have to beat MORE than "1 horse" to get that 4-5 or even money. They could just bet a sports game and only have to beat one other entity to cash, and get 9-10 on their money.

I see what you're saying, if you are betting a 12 horse field and trying to hit a tri or super that pays over 1,000-1 than its not as bad as betting an even money shot in horse racing.

Yet, the short priced runners, and there are plenty of even money shot type horses around the country on a daily basis, people are paying 15 to 18 percent on that bet. Even in 2, 3 and 4 horse fields, horse racing keeps their takeout at the same levels.

And exactly how productive is betting Alabama when they play some division II school at home? Bout the same isn't it. You can't use individual counter examples to disprove this. Because the prices are fixed you need to look at average/median returns.

[thaskalos]

Simple answer. There are more than two betting interests. This creates the potential for higher returns than in sports wagering. Because of the potential for higher returns, bettors are willing to pay more for the wager. The price of the wager is the takeout. Pretty simple really.
Yes...but there is a counter-argument to this, Al.

The fact that there are more than two betting intetests does not only greatly increase the potential returns...thus justifying the higher takeouts; it also greatly increases the complexity of the bet. The greater complexity of the bet is the reason for the higher potential returns...so the takeouts should never even enter into this conversation...IMO.

The player shouldn't have to pay a higher takeout for the chance at the higher potential returns that horseracing offers. He is already paying for this chance at the higher returns...with the higher RISK that he has to take in this game.

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm boycotting everything CHDN (and telling the world to boycott everything CHDN) because I think:

1. Hitting horseplayers with a takeout increase when other options exist is the wrong thing to do.

2. Not spending my money with them is the right thing to do.

:ThmbUp:

I must agree with your actions. I doubt that it will make a difference but I support you.

[Stillriledup]

:ThmbUp:

I must agree with your actions. I doubt that it will make a difference but I support you.

It only needs to make a difference to the people who just say no. If a person who doesn't support them looks in the mirror, they'll be proud of what they see. They'll see a backbone and for at least once in their lives they can say:

I stood for something.

[Vigorish]

Greetings everybody,

Even though Twin Spires has some of the worst player rewards in the industry, I have been a loyal customer since they bought out YouBet in late 2010. I always loved their software, programming, hand histories, and lightning fast cashier. However, all of that came to a screeching halt when I read about their cynical scheme to bilk their already overburdened customers.

A couple of days ago I wrote the following letter to Twin Spires through their customer support client. Surprisingly, one of their customer support agents responded with a promise to put me in touch with a manager. Not surprisingly, management has opted to remain silent.

Here is my letter: "Why are you raising your takeout on Churchill Downs? Do you think your customers have been 'getting a free ride' and should be paying more for the privilege to place a wager? The takeouts are excessive and not competitive with any other form of wagering. One of the reasons I played at Churchill was the reasonable takeout (at least in terms of industry average). Now I feel like you do not respect my business. Takeout hikes will lower business and profits."

I will not bet the Kentucky Oaks, the Derby, or any race affiliated with Churchill Downs. We can gripe all we want about other players not supporting previous boycotts. It does not matter one bit whether other players support or do not support boycotts. Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether some players receive rebates. This is about behaving in a way that reflects our personal values. Perhaps you feel the product is so valuable that a price hike is a small price to play for the thrill of betting their product. For some players, the inexorable advance towards higher and higher takeouts is an accepted part of 'getting in on the action.' Fortunately, there are other outlets that offer lower takeouts, larger fields, and high quality racing. There is a saying, falsely attributed to Gandhi, that goes, "be the change you want to see in the world." One can passively accept insulting price increases or decide to do something different. The beauty about boycotting Churchill Downs is that it takes very little effort. You just have to re-orient your wagering habits so they more closely reflect your values (and often your rational self interest).

[appistappis]

this pretty much follows the premise of most casino games....the more you can win on one bet the higher the house edge is.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

DeanT

Where is the announcement that signal fees are going up so that rebate players will see their rebates shrink?

[Seabiscuit@AR]

badcompany

No rebates and the big rebate players will bet a lot less (and maybe even not bet at all). But so what? If you sell tickets to an event for half price you need to sell twice as many tickets to get the same return. Offering rebates to big players has never seen big enough handle rises long term to offset the discount prices the tickets are sold at PLUS the lost handle from players paying full price takeout who are driven away by the rebate players

The goal of the tracks should not be to increase handle but to increase the amount they collect from the takeout. 5% of 1 million is better than 2% of 2 million

[DeanT]

DeanT

Where is the announcement that signal fees are going up so that rebate players will see their rebates shrink?

They don't issue press releases on such things.

[OTM Al]

Yes...but there is a counter-argument to this, Al.

The fact that there are more than two betting intetests does not only greatly increase the potential returns...thus justifying the higher takeouts; it also greatly increases the complexity of the bet. The greater complexity of the bet is the reason for the higher potential returns...so the takeouts should never even enter into this conversation...IMO.

The player shouldn't have to pay a higher takeout for the chance at the higher potential returns that horseracing offers. He is already paying for this chance at the higher returns...with the higher RISK that he has to take in this game.

Not a counter argument at all. This would be (in a basic example anyway) true if you could only bet one straight combination. But no one does that. By buying multiple combinations you are effectively imposing an even higher take on yourself, but you do it to decrease the risk you face. Risk and price are certainly inversely related, that part is correct, but not the rest of what you say. Consider the take people are willing to pay for lotto if you still don't believe me. There buying multiple tickets does very little to change your risk but people are willing to pay takeout on the order of 50%.

[thaskalos]

Not a counter argument at all. This would be (in a basic example anyway) true if you could only bet one straight combination. But no one does that. By buying multiple combinations you are effectively imposing an even higher take on yourself, but you do it to decrease the risk you face. Risk and price are certainly inversely related, that part is correct, but not the rest of what you say. Consider the take people are willing to pay for lotto if you still don't believe me. There buying multiple tickets does very little to change your risk but people are willing to pay takeout on the order of 50%.
I disagree with your main premise. The powers that be were not thinking about the higher potential rewards of the game when they imposed the high takeouts. They had a nice gambling monopoly going...and they knew that people would play no matter what they were charged. The excuse that the industry has been giving since day-1 to justify the high takeouts has been that the takeouts were necessary in order to cover the costs of running the show. I say "excuse"...because that's exactly what it was. Unfortunately, we found that out many years later...when the racetracks didn't reduce the takeouts even after their casino profits went a long way towards covering the expenses of "running the show".

[OTM Al]

I disagree with your main premise. The powers that be were not thinking about the higher potential rewards of the game when they imposed the high takeouts. They had a nice gambling monopoly going...and they knew that people would play no matter what they were charged. The excuse that the industry has been giving since day-1 to justify the high takeouts has been that the takeouts were necessary in order to cover the costs of running the show. I say "excuse"...because that's exactly what it was. Unfortunately, we found that out many years later...when the racetracks didn't reduce the takeouts even after their casino profits went a long way towards covering the expenses of "running the show".

I'm giving you an argument based on economic theory here. Don't care what your straw men did or didn't do. I'm telling you it is very clear that people are willing to pay more for bets with higher returns. Abstracting from risk for a moment, what are you willing to pay more for, a bet that gives you a 50% chance of winning $1 or one that gives you a 50% chance of winning $100?. We can build from there to include risk/price trade offs but all you have to do is look at the markets out there to see what I'm saying is true.

[thaskalos]

I'm giving you an argument based on economic theory here. Don't care what your straw men did or didn't do. I'm telling you it is very clear that people are willing to pay more for bets with higher returns. Abstracting from risk for a moment, what are you willing to pay more for, a bet that gives you a 50% chance of winning $1 or one that gives you a 50% chance of winning $100?. We can build from there to include risk/price trade offs but all you have to do is look at the markets out there to see what I'm saying is true.

Again I disagree. People are not "willing" to pay more. They pay more because they have no choice in the matter. People love to gamble, and all the other reasonable gambling options were illegal then...and now -- even if legal -- they are largely inaccessible. Horse racing survives today NOT because people have "chosen" to pay the higher takeouts so they could have a chance at the potentially higher rewards that the game offers. The game survives today because this country is the most anti-gambling country in the civilized world. If sports betting were to become legal tomorrow, then horse racing closes up shop...even though this game offers "higher potential rewards".

[thaskalos]

Its amazing to me that smart human beings, which horseplayers certainly are, have to be prodded with red hot pokers (boycotts) in order to stop playing a track with a massive takeout. NFL bettors are paying approximately 5% "vig" and that 5% vig is what essentially prevents most experts from showing a profit as sports bettors.

5%.

Race fans, are handing over a blended TWENTY percent and liking it and saying "thank you sir, may i have another".

When that 20 becomes higher, it makes you wonder why ANYONE is betting a dollar on these races.

If sports betting is hard to beat at a 5% take, how are people accepting a takeout raise into what is already an obnoxiously high rake at a blended 20%.

Maybe one day i'll be smart enough to figure it out.

Where have you seen the proof that the horseplayers are "smart human beings"?

[DeanT]

Where have you seen the proof that the horseplayers are "smart human beings"?

This should make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy. We're really

http://www.thorotrends.com/news-and-views-20526/77-those-brainy-horseplayers

[Hoofless_Wonder]

In contrast to the title of the article, Keeneland was down in handle this spring.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/84604/keeneland-reports-robust-spring-meet-results?source=rss

"All-sources wagering on Keeneland totaled $138,033,442 compared to $158,640,589 last spring".

The death spiral of the sport is well underway. That's a decline of 13%, though granted about half or so is due to a 15 day meet versus 16 days last year. IMHO, it reflects the overall health of the economy when one of the premier meets of the sport is dropping off like that.

Churchill's move to raise takeout simply accelerates the downward trend. We're well past the tipping point of becoming South America, and it doesn't matter much now about rebates, whales, medication rules, or the like. Once the takeout level gets high enough to drive down handle, the margin between the whale's profits and the surplus dumb money in the pool goes negative, and it's profitable for nobody. Nobody.

I'll join the boycott. Hello Woodbine, hello Sha Tin.

[Stillriledup]

Where have you seen the proof that the horseplayers are "smart human beings"?

The tv show horseplayers? :D

[Seabiscuit@AR]

DeanT

No press releases on the signal fees going up? Well then I will have to trust the word of rebate player baconswitchfarm on what the deal for rebate players might be after the takeout increase

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Hoofless Wonder

You cannot tell anything from these Keeneland figures. On track turnover was OK vs last year but off track was down. Does this make sense??? I posted some figures on another thread about Santa Anita where the opposite was true, on track and Californian turnover down long term but off track outside California turnover up massively after being down a few years before. The numbers are all over the place these days

You just don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Last year there might have been some rebate shop that was betting into Keeneland and this year it was not. With the reported figures you don't have enough information to get the full picture

With Churchill Downs, it was always going to be a logical move for them to raise the takeout but then cut sweet deals with some big rebate players behind the scenes to make any players boycott look a failure on the reported turnover figures. Divide the players and conquer them

[OTM Al]

Again I disagree. People are not "willing" to pay more. They pay more because they have no choice in the matter. People love to gamble, and all the other reasonable gambling options were illegal then...and now -- even if legal -- they are largely inaccessible. Horse racing survives today NOT because people have "chosen" to pay the higher takeouts so they could have a chance at the potentially higher rewards that the game offers. The game survives today because this country is the most anti-gambling country in the civilized world. If sports betting were to become legal tomorrow, then horse racing closes up shop...even though this game offers "higher potential rewards".

Again, this is no proof of your argument and more ridiculous examples. You can wager on about anything in England but their racing is still there and still world class. And they pay more because they have no choice?????Who forced them to play in the first place?

[thespaah]

I'm giving you an argument based on economic theory here. Don't care what your straw men did or didn't do. I'm telling you it is very clear that people are willing to pay more for bets with higher returns. Abstracting from risk for a moment, what are you willing to pay more for, a bet that gives you a 50% chance of winning $1 or one that gives you a 50% chance of winning $100?. We can build from there to include risk/price trade offs but all you have to do is look at the markets out there to see what I'm saying is true.
I had no idea it worked this way.
If I am reading this correctly, I figured the cost of a bet was just that.
So lets take Penna for a moment. Unless the takeout has been changed, that state takes 30% of all trifecta and super bets.
The Meadows in suburban Pittsburgh takes a whopping 35% of trifecta bets...
here's an article from the Pittsburgh Tribune..I have bruises from just reading it.
DAMN!!!! THRITY FIVE PERCENT....
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_749278.html

I guess the point of this is , are all bettors paying the same takeout percentage?

[thespaah]

Again, this is no proof of your argument and more ridiculous examples. You can wager on about anything in England but their racing is still there and still world class. And they pay more because they have no choice?????Who forced them to play in the first place?
I gave an example of racing in Japan. The meets at their larger tracks often draw crowds in excess of 50,000. The 2013 average All Sources handle per day for ALL JRA tracks is $over $80 million...
I had to use a currency exchange calculator, etc to get this..
Japanese people LOVE to gamble. They even gamble on powerboat racing. Or at least they had that at one time.
The point is, there are several nations with just as much ( relatively speaking) competition for the gambling dollar as we have here, yet their racing industries are healthy.
http://japanracing.jp/en/jpn-racing/jra-statistics/index.html
http://japanracing.jp/_statistics/2013/s01.html

[thespaah]

Now in looking at the JRA stats, their peak in attendance and handle was in the mid 90's. As most folks know, the Pacific Rim nations suffered a tremendous economic downturn starting in the late 90's.
The JRA numbers reflect this.
For example, as compared to 1997, the 2013 numbers number show attendance to be less than HALF of the 1997 figs. Handle is down almost 50% from the same year as compared to 2013.
One encouraging note, over the last two years, attendance and handle has increased over the previous year.
This is no doubt tied directly to the Japanese economy experiencing a rebound.
The point is though, that the interest in horse racing in Japan appears to be much stronger that it is here in the US.

[OTM Al]

I had no idea it worked this way.
If I am reading this correctly, I figured the cost of a bet was just that.
So lets take Penna for a moment. Unless the takeout has been changed, that state takes 30% of all trifecta and super bets.
The Meadows in suburban Pittsburgh takes a whopping 35% of trifecta bets...
here's an article from the Pittsburgh Tribune..I have bruises from just reading it.
DAMN!!!! THRITY FIVE PERCENT....
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_749278.html

I guess the point of this is , are all bettors paying the same takeout percentage?

Price and cost aren't quite the same thing here. The price is clearly the takeout. The cost would be your total outlay.

[AndyC]

I'm giving you an argument based on economic theory here. Don't care what your straw men did or didn't do. I'm telling you it is very clear that people are willing to pay more for bets with higher returns. Abstracting from risk for a moment, what are you willing to pay more for, a bet that gives you a 50% chance of winning $1 or one that gives you a 50% chance of winning $100?. We can build from there to include risk/price trade offs but all you have to do is look at the markets out there to see what I'm saying is true.

What you are saying is true just based on pool sizes of the exotics versus W-P-S. There is a choice and the choice has been to pay more for the chance to win more.

[DeanT]

As noted earlier, Las Vegas officially drawing line in the sand on the fee hike. Will book bets.

https://twitter.com/RichEng4ProPick/status/460079470699757569

[DeanT]

Jerry Bossert "Churchill Downs has yet to comment"

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/theraces/horse-players-boycott-churchill-downs-blog-entry-1.1769923

[OTM Al]

Jerry Bossert "Churchill Downs has yet to comment"

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/theraces/horse-players-boycott-churchill-downs-blog-entry-1.1769923

I believe that is the only part he wrote himself.....

[jballscalls]

As noted earlier, Las Vegas officially drawing line in the sand on the fee hike. Will book bets.

https://twitter.com/RichEng4ProPick/status/460079470699757569

I don't believe there is an agreement between Monarch and CDI also. We're not taking them yet at PM and I believe CA, Turf Paradise and I think Meadowlands also part of the Monarch group?

Already talked to some CD bettors this morning at PM who are very unhappy they can't play the races there tonight.

[DeanT]

I don't believe there is an agreement between Monarch and CDI also. We're not taking them yet at PM and I believe CA, Turf Paradise and I think Meadowlands also part of the Monarch group?

Already talked to some CD bettors this morning at PM who are very unhappy they can't play the races there tonight.

Interesting. More handle at PRM then!

I like Mutti Blues in the third.

[thaskalos]

Again, this is no proof of your argument and more ridiculous examples. You can wager on about anything in England but their racing is still there and still world class. And they pay more because they have no choice?????Who forced them to play in the first place?
Ok, Al. My examples are ridiculous...and your lotto example was germane. I was a fool to argue with you about this in the first place...knowing how well-versed you are on the "economics" which govern this sport. You did, after all, propose, in a prior NYRA thread, that a 26% trifecta takeout might in fact be TOO SMALL...from an optimal takeout point of view.

Now that I think about it a little more...this way of thinking is beginning to make sense to me. And I've come up with a new idea:

As the parimutuel pools continue to decline...the industry should just keep introducing new super-exotic wagers at even higher takeouts. After all...the players have already shown their willingness to "pay more" for a shot at the higher rewards. I propose a trifecta-triple with a 35% takeout...where the bettor is asked to pick the trifecta in three concecutive races. Or the twin-pick 6 with a 50% takeout...where the bettor is asked to pick the winners of six consecutive races, at two different racetracks. I realize, of course, that a 50% takeout may seem a little extreme at first sight...but people have already shown that they are willing to pay that much for a chance at a "real" score. Just look at the lotto if you don't believe me.

Using progressive thinking such as this...the industry should be back on its feet in no-time.

[jballscalls]

Interesting. More handle at PRM then!

I like Mutti Blues in the third.

Actually we don't take PrM. Never got any handle with them. But plenty of other options indeed

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Hoofless Wonder

You cannot tell anything from these Keeneland figures. On track turnover was OK vs last year but off track was down. Does this make sense??? I posted some figures on another thread about Santa Anita where the opposite was true, on track and Californian turnover down long term but off track outside California turnover up massively after being down a few years before. The numbers are all over the place these days

You just don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Last year there might have been some rebate shop that was betting into Keeneland and this year it was not. With the reported figures you don't have enough information to get the full picture

With Churchill Downs, it was always going to be a logical move for them to raise the takeout but then cut sweet deals with some big rebate players behind the scenes to make any players boycott look a failure on the reported turnover figures. Divide the players and conquer them

I won't argue that the numbers are crazy, and I agree that the picture is incomplete. I believe Wall Street "creative accounting" is in play for almost all publicly traded companies, and lots of private ones as well. I suspect Keeneland's sales numbers might show some interesting trends too, if one can read between the lines.

But that's a pretty big drop off in handle, for one less day's racing.

What I do know for sure is the number of tracks showing an increase in handle from "all sources" can be counted on one hand, if not two fingers. Racing is mirroring the economy in that respect, where any "recovery" or "robustness" doesn't really stand up to scrutiny...

[raybo]

Personally, I don't care if my boycotting all CDI entities will change anything in the industry, I will boycott anyway. I have seen what happened to Brisnet after CDI and it wasn't pretty. I no longer use Brisnet products, and now I will not bet any CDI track. It's that simple, CDI is not good for me.

[baconswitchfarm]

Here is what I can tell you about signal fees. It would take some major spying to find out the real signal fees being paid. They are more secret than large rebates. I know of some instances where they are determined by the sheer pettiness of people in management. There is no exact schedule so you just charge what you want. But you might charge one track a price , and a different track a different price because you don't like someone in management there. This effects how much rebate can be offered. It is run just as poorly as every other aspect of racing.

[OTM Al]

Ok, Al. My examples are ridiculous...and your lotto example was germane. I was a fool to argue with you about this in the first place...knowing how well-versed you are on the "economics" which govern this sport. You did, after all, propose, in a prior NYRA thread, that a 26% trifecta takeout might in fact be TOO SMALL...from an optimal takeout point of view.

Now that I think about it a little more...this way of thinking is beginning to make sense to me. And I've come up with a new idea:

As the parimutuel pools continue to decline...the industry should just keep introducing new super-exotic wagers at even higher takeouts. After all...the players have already shown their willingness to "pay more" for a shot at the higher rewards. I propose a trifecta-triple with a 35% takeout...where the bettor is asked to pick the trifecta in three concecutive races. Or the twin-pick 6 with a 50% takeout...where the bettor is asked to pick the winners of six consecutive races, at two different racetracks. I realize, of course, that a 50% takeout may seem a little extreme at first sight...but people have already shown that they are willing to pay that much for a chance at a "real" score. Just look at the lotto if you don't believe me.

Using progressive thinking such as this...the industry should be back on its feet in no-time.

So you don't understand the argument and as a result you attack me with another argument I made that you also don't understand rather than making any effort to grasp the concept. You may wish to review the thread as a few others grasped it right off.

[Some_One]

WPS + Ex/Tri/Super handle on the Derby Trial up 21% versus last year (last year also had 1 more horse in the field)

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Yes Derby Trial betting turnover well up on last year

I just looked at the whole meeting 2014 vs 2013

Now 2013 the weather was reported as Showery with a Fast dirt track and Good Turf track and this can dampen turnover somewhat. 2014 was Clear weather with a Fast dirt track and Firm Turf track

2014 had stronger looking fields but only had 10 races with 79 total runners. 2013 had 11 races with 82 total runners. I think the extra race in 2013 compensates for the smaller fields and weaker fields vs 2014

So maybe the weather is an excuse for lower turnover in 2013

But anyways, 2014 turnover looks to be $6.8 million vs 2013 turnover of $6.4 million

Total turnover for the day up 6.6% or so in 2014 vs 2013

The Churchill Downs rebate players have rallied to the cause and got behind CD management. I would like to know if CD collected any extra takeout after rebates and commissions were paid out. But everyone else will just focus on the handle/turnover figures which makes this a win for CD management

Divide and Conquer is working well for CD management. Expect more takeout increases at other tracks in the future

After Day One the score is

CD Management 100 Players 0

[Stillriledup]

Yes Derby Trial betting turnover well up on last year

I just looked at the whole meeting 2014 vs 2013

Now 2013 the weather was reported as Showery with a Fast dirt track and Good Turf track and this can dampen turnover somewhat. 2014 was Clear weather with a Fast dirt track and Firm Turf track

2014 had stronger looking fields but only had 10 races with 79 total runners. 2013 had 11 races with 82 total runners. I think the extra race in 2013 compensates for the smaller fields and weaker fields vs 2014

So maybe the weather is an excuse for lower turnover in 2013

But anyways, 2014 turnover looks to be $6.8 million vs 2013 turnover of $6.4 million

Total turnover for the day up 6.6% or so in 2014 vs 2013

The Churchill Downs rebate players have rallied to the cause and got behind CD management. I would like to know if CD collected any extra takeout after rebates and commissions were paid out. But everyone else will just focus on the handle/turnover figures which makes this a win for CD management

Divide and Conquer is working well for CD management. Expect more takeout increases at other tracks in the future

After Day One the score is

CD Management 100 Players 0

Players 0?

I don't know, i kinda skipped their card...me thinks i won. ;)

[raybo]

Players 0?

I don't know, i kinda skipped their card...me thinks i won. ;)

Me too! :)

[Stillriledup]

Again I disagree. People are not "willing" to pay more. They pay more because they have no choice in the matter. People love to gamble, and all the other reasonable gambling options were illegal then...and now -- even if legal -- they are largely inaccessible. Horse racing survives today NOT because people have "chosen" to pay the higher takeouts so they could have a chance at the potentially higher rewards that the game offers. The game survives today because this country is the most anti-gambling country in the civilized world. If sports betting were to become legal tomorrow, then horse racing closes up shop...even though this game offers "higher potential rewards".

This is a brilliant post, one of the best i read here, couldn't agree more.

If sports betting was legal in all 50 states, racing would be crushed, people wouldn't be tossing money at 20% blended when they could bet at 5%.

As far as Al's comments about the higher rewards, well, it has some merit, but i think it really comes down to with the higher prices, the "takeout" gets kind of lost in the shuffle...its sort of like Megamillions or powerball...tell any layperson that the takeout is 50% or 80% or whatever they rob from the public, you'll have people laugh in your face and say "what's the difference if you win 150 million". so right there, its not that they're consciously deciding to pay obnoxious takeouts, the large score essentially "tricks" the weak brains of the slot pulling lottery crowd into thinking takeout doesnt matter as long as the "comeback" is really high.

[Dark Horse]

I'm in. Power to the players, who make this game possible. We're not at the bottom of the pyramid, but at the top.

[Stillriledup]

I'm in. Power to the players, who make this game possible. We're not at the bottom of the pyramid, but at the top.

Thank you Horse. Proud of you man.

[Lono]

It was called for years ago, Richie Bauer started it at Gulfstream, Boycott Magana. Had over a thousand boycotters when he called it off after a few years. Had a lot of guy's who are now calling for the present Boycott that didn't want to get involved. They wanted the Wine and Dine approach, so here we are 10 to 20 years later going through the same thing. You reap what you sow.

[AndyC]

This is a brilliant post, one of the best i read here, couldn't agree more.

If sports betting was legal in all 50 states, racing would be crushed, people wouldn't be tossing money at 20% blended when they could bet at 5%.

As far as Al's comments about the higher rewards, well, it has some merit, but i think it really comes down to with the higher prices, the "takeout" gets kind of lost in the shuffle...its sort of like Megamillions or powerball...tell any layperson that the takeout is 50% or 80% or whatever they rob from the public, you'll have people laugh in your face and say "what's the difference if you win 150 million". so right there, its not that they're consciously deciding to pay obnoxious takeouts, the large score essentially "tricks" the weak brains of the slot pulling lottery crowd into thinking takeout doesnt matter as long as the "comeback" is really high.

Regardless of what the reason is a large percentage of players will disregard a high take-out to chase a large payout.

Players are not victims as you seem to indicate. They do have choices.

[duncan04]

Players 0?

I don't know, i kinda skipped their card...me thinks i won. ;)

Kinda skipped? What does that mean? Either you did or didn't.

[fmhealth]

Indian Charlie weighs in on this matter.

http://www.indiancharlie.com/current/

[thaskalos]

Regardless of what the reason is a large percentage of players will disregard a high take-out to chase a large payout.

Players are not victims as you seem to indicate. They do have choices.
I never meant to imply that the horseplayer is a "victim". To call the horseplayer a "victim" is to trivialize the plight of all the REAL victims in this world. What the average horseplayer is is a sucker...a mark...an addict -- and then he gets pissed when he gets treated as such. He couldn't care less about the takeouts or their effects...nor does he bother to calculate what playing this game is costing him long-term. He grew up playing this game, damn it...and he has an entire lifetime invested in it. To stop playing the game now would be akin to admitting that his lifetime pursuit of this game was a mistake...and that his life is a do-over. And who could make an admission like that.

I don't make excuses for us horseplayers. We get what we deserve in the end...and no sympathy should be wasted on an addict. When I say that the horseplayer has no choice in regards to this game's takeouts...I am not comparing him to the "victims" of this world; I am comparing him to the ADDICTS of this world...who will spend $10 for a pack of cigarettes even during the worst economic climates...while also ruining their health in the process. To the rest of the world it seems that he has the option of quiting...but it doesn't seem that way to him.

No one can be protected from himself...

[Lono]

I am very sure you are the definition of someone who does not make a profit at what your doing.

[thaskalos]

I am very sure you are the definition of someone who does not make a profit at what your doing.
And you, no doubt, are one of the internet's countless winners...right?

[Stillriledup]

And you, no doubt, are one of the internet's countless winners...right?

Yes, "mr 3 posts" is one of the games brightest handicapping stars. You would be wise to pay close attention and hang on every word he says. :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

Kinda skipped? What does that mean? Either you did or didn't.

I used "kinda" in the same way this girl uses kinda at the end of this commercial.

She says "they're kinda not" but really means "they're not"

Sorry for the confusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCJ8mCV39M8

[lamboguy]

And you, no doubt, are one of the internet's countless winners...right?what's the matter with you, don't you already know that everyone on the internet wins betting on horses except for myself?

[AndyC]

I never meant to imply that the horseplayer is a "victim". To call the horseplayer a "victim" is to trivialize the plight of all the REAL victims in this world. What the average horseplayer is is a sucker...a mark...an addict -- and then he gets pissed when he gets treated as such. He couldn't care less about the takeouts or their effects...nor does he bother to calculate what playing this game is costing him long-term. He grew up playing this game, damn it...and he has an entire lifetime invested in it. To stop playing the game now would be akin to admitting that his lifetime pursuit of this game was a mistake...and that his life is a do-over. And who could make an admission like that.

I don't make excuses for us horseplayers. We get what we deserve in the end...and no sympathy should be wasted on an addict. When I say that the horseplayer has no choice in regards to this game's takeouts...I am not comparing him to the "victims" of this world; I am comparing him to the ADDICTS of this world...who will spend $10 for a pack of cigarettes even during the worst economic climates...while also ruining their health in the process. To the rest of the world it seems that he has the option of quiting...but it doesn't seem that way to him.

No one can be protected from himself...

My post wasn't directed at your comments but you raise an interesting question. If gambling, specifically racing, has so many addicts that are hopelessly doomed to bet regardless of the take-out or their chance of winning why do people get upset when states try to restrict such activity?

Personally I don't believe there are nearly as many addicts as there are just uninformed or uneducated bettors. (mathematically speaking)

[thaskalos]

My post wasn't directed at your comments but you raise an interesting question. If gambling, specifically racing, has so many addicts that are hopelessly doomed to bet regardless of the take-out or their chance of winning why do people get upset when states try to restrict such activity?


For the same reason that drug addicts react negatively to people who try to curb their drug use. The addict values his freedom...and wants to be left alone to do as he pleases.

I used to think that there weren't many addicts in this game too...but many years of live attendance at the OTBs have cured me of this misconception. I have probably attended the OTBs more than anybody else here...and I have befriended countless horseplayers during my tenure there. By way of direct experience, I place the horseplayer addiction rate at 90%.

[badcompany]

For the same reason that drug addicts react negatively to people who try to curb their drug use. The addict values his freedom...and wants to be left alone to do as he pleases.



I'll disagree, here.

From what I've seen, addicts aren't happy about their state of being, but, they can't muster up the inner strength to make a change.

[Stillriledup]

I'll disagree, here.

From what I've seen, addicts aren't happy about their state of being, but, they can't muster up the inner strength to make a change.

lack of a backbone is usually the culprit.

[AndyC]

For the same reason that drug addicts react negatively to people who try to curb their drug use. The addict values his freedom...and wants to be left alone to do as he pleases.

I used to think that there weren't many addicts in this game too...but many years of live attendance at the OTBs have cured me of this misconception. I have probably attended the OTBs more than anybody else here...and I have befriended countless horseplayers during my tenure there. By way of direct experience, I place the horseplayer addiction rate at 90%.

I lean towards being a libertarian and I respect everybody's right to screw up their life as they see fit. However, I have seen too many times how addicted gambling affects more than just the gambler's life and then the "freedom" to gamble becomes society's problem.

[thaskalos]

I'll disagree, here.

From what I've seen, addicts aren't happy about their state of being, but, they can't muster up the inner strength to make a change.
My experience with drugs is limited...so I might be wrong here. But I will add that my best friend became hopelessly addicted to crack cocaine in college...and returned from college an entirely different person than the one his family and friends ever knew. All of us tried to help him break his addiction...and we suggested a variety of ways for doing it. He resented all of us for trying to help him, offering only open hostility and even violence in return. When I put him up in my own home for a few days, because I was concerned about his safety...he left while I was asleep...after setting my couch on fire. A couple of years later, he left for Hollywood under the cover of night...to fulfill his new ambition to become an actor/screenwriter. None of us have heard from him for over 20 years.

If he acknowledged his problems and was looking for any help...he sure kept it a secret from us.

[highnote]

Sigh, I remember when California racing was going to be boycotted. :rolleyes: Now its Churchill. Who's going to be next?? All this talk is pointless because its never going to happen

How'd that takeout increase in California work out for Hollywood Park?

[OTM Al]

How'd that takeout increase in California work out for Hollywood Park?

Ummmmm......yeah. Hollywood Park was in California but otherwise not much here.....

[badcompany]

My experience with drugs is limited...so I might be wrong here. But I will add that my best friend became hopelessly addicted to crack cocaine in college...and returned from college an entirely different person than the one his family and friends ever knew. All of us tried to help him break his addiction...and we suggested a variety of ways for doing it. He resented all of us for trying to help him, offering only open hostility and even violence in return. When I put him up in my own home for a few days, because I was concerned about his safety...he left while I was asleep...after setting my couch on fire. A couple of years later, he left for Hollywood under the cover of night...to fulfill his new ambition to become an actor/screenwriter. None of us have heard from him for over 20 years.

If he acknowledged his problems and was looking for any help...he sure kept it a secret from us.

Sorry about your friend.

I strongly doubt he was happy about being addict. IMO, the reason addicts resent those who try to help is that it rubs the addicts' nose in the fact that he can't do what he, deep down, knows should be done.

[highnote]

Keeneland could probably discontinue betting on their races and still remain in business just from the revenue from their horse auctions.

In contrast to the title of the article, Keeneland was down in handle this spring.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/84604/keeneland-reports-robust-spring-meet-results?source=rss

"All-sources wagering on Keeneland totaled $138,033,442 compared to $158,640,589 last spring".

The death spiral of the sport is well underway. That's a decline of 13%, though granted about half or so is due to a 15 day meet versus 16 days last year. IMHO, it reflects the overall health of the economy when one of the premier meets of the sport is dropping off like that.

Churchill's move to raise takeout simply accelerates the downward trend. We're well past the tipping point of becoming South America, and it doesn't matter much now about rebates, whales, medication rules, or the like. Once the takeout level gets high enough to drive down handle, the margin between the whale's profits and the surplus dumb money in the pool goes negative, and it's profitable for nobody. Nobody.

I'll join the boycott. Hello Woodbine, hello Sha Tin.

[highnote]

Ummmmm......yeah. Hollywood Park was in California but otherwise not much here.....


If Hollywood Park was making money hand over fist do you think they'd still be in business?

There is only one reason they no longer exist -- they weren't profitable.

Profitable businesses don't close their doors.

[highnote]

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/John-Pricci/comments/04242014-horseplayers-to-churchill-downs-and-industry-wake-up



http://playersboycott.org/


The Indian Charlie piece on how to tell if a person who is applying for a job with your stable is a member of PETA is priceless. It's funny, but it's actually very good advice.

Who is the person(s) behind Indian Charlie? [Nevermind -- I was able to find out by doing a little searching on the internet. His name is Ed Musselman.]

[highnote]

Ummmmm......yeah. Hollywood Park was in California but otherwise not much here.....


Not much here -- unless you happened to be employed by Hollywood Park and ended up losing a job.

But losing Hollywood is probably good for NYRA. Consolidation is good for the survivors.

Things didn't work out so well of Yavapai, either, but Turf Paradise surely benefitted by Yavapai closing.

[duncan04]

Not much here -- unless you happened to be employed by Hollywood Park and ended up losing a job.

But losing Hollywood is probably good for NYRA. Consolidation is good for the survivors.

Things didn't work out so well of Yavapai, either, but Turf Paradise surely benefitted by Yavapai closing.

What does Hollywood Park have to do with the NYRA? :rolleyes:

[highnote]

What does Hollywood Park have to do with the NYRA? :rolleyes:


Really? Are you serious?

[duncan04]

Really? Are you serious?

Ok what am I missing. One in California and the New York Racing Association

[highnote]

Ok what am I missing. One in California and the New York Racing Association


It's pretty simple. One less racetrack to bet on means more money bet at tracks that are still in business.

Turf Paradise benefits from not having to compete with Yavapai.

The amount of benefit may be large or small or hard to determine, but the fewer racetracks there are, the more money that goes to the survivors.

What hurts racetracks? It's simple. Competition.

Lower betting rates with bookies who don't send money into pools hurts racetracks.

Competition is bad for racetracks. Fewer betting outlets are good for racetracks.

The best thing for any racetrack would be to be the ONLY racetrack -- kind of like in Hong Kong. There are two tracks in HK -- Sha Tin and Happy Valley. Huge handle. Very little competition.

[duncan04]

It's pretty simple. One less racetrack to bet on means more money bet at tracks that are still in business.

Turf Paradise benefits from not having to compete with Yavapai.

The amount of benefit may be large or small or hard to determine, but the fewer racetracks there are, the more money that goes to the survivors.

What hurts racetracks? It's simple. Competition.

Lower betting rates with bookies who don't send money into pools hurts racetracks.

Competition is bad for racetracks. Fewer betting outlets are good for racetracks.


I get that but I'm sure the NYRA could care less about the fate of Hollywood Park. It's not like they were in competition. Hollywood started when NY was winding down their card

[OTM Al]

If Hollywood Park was making money hand over fist do you think they'd still be in business?

There is only one reason they no longer exist -- they weren't profitable.

Profitable businesses don't close their doors.

Sure they do. They close when even more money can be made by using the resources in another way. Hollywood had been on the chopping block well before the takeout change. To say one caused the other is dishonest.

[OTM Al]

What does Hollywood Park have to do with the NYRA? :rolleyes:

I am going to assume that he thinks I work for NYRA, which would be incorrect.

[highnote]

I get that but I'm sure the NYRA could care less about the fate of Hollywood Park. It's not like they were in competition. Hollywood started when NY was winding down their card


I thought NYRA raced year round? At least they used to when I used to bet their races.

[highnote]

Sure they do. They close when even more money can be made by using the resources in another way. Hollywood had been on the chopping block well before the takeout change. To say one caused the other is dishonest.


You're entitled to your opinion, but there is a correlation whether you like to admit it or not.

[OTM Al]

You're entitled to your opinion, but there is a correlation whether you like to admit it or not.

Correlation on a sample of one.....and as is said in statistics, correlation is not causality.

[Stillriledup]

Sure they do. They close when even more money can be made by using the resources in another way. Hollywood had been on the chopping block well before the takeout change. To say one caused the other is dishonest.

And ironically, it was Churchill Downs who sold hollywood to a company that wouldnt continue it as a racetrack.

[thespaah]

If Hollywood Park was making money hand over fist do you think they'd still be in business?

There is only one reason they no longer exist -- they weren't profitable.

Profitable businesses don't close their doors.
Beg to differ. A successful business that takes up a bunch of real estate is for sale if the land on which it sits becomes more valuable as something else.
In the real estate appraisal business it is known as "highest and best use".

[Stillriledup]

Beg to differ. A successful business that takes up a bunch of real estate is for sale if the land on which it sits becomes more valuable as something else.
In the real estate appraisal business it is known as "highest and best use".

Too bad Hollywood wasnt registered as a nat'l landmark. I think Santa Anita is a landmark and can't be torn down, even though they probably could make more money tearing it down than keeping it as a racetrack.

[thespaah]

I lean towards being a libertarian and I respect everybody's right to screw up their life as they see fit. However, I have seen too many times how addicted gambling affects more than just the gambler's life and then the "freedom" to gamble becomes society's problem.
That's fine. There is a political faction in this country that believes it is they who have been appointed the "protectors from one's self"...
If in this nation we outlawed every single vice in order to be 100% risk averse, we'd be a pretty boring country.

[thespaah]

You're entitled to your opinion, but there is a correlation whether you like to admit it or not.
The takeout increase might have been a factor in as much as loss of some business at BHP..
The primary reason the track property is to be redeveloped is the track was no longer the highest and best use for the land.

[ReplayRandall]

Everything in life is a gamble.....The career you choose, the car you drive, the airline you fly, the lover you embrace, the food you eat, the friends you hang out with................and which track you play. The lesson is not to avoid gambling, but to learn how to gamble WELL........and CDI is a poor gamble. :ThmbDown:

[Stillriledup]

Everything in life is a gamble.....The career you choose, the car you drive, the airline you fly, the lover you embrace, the food you eat, the friends you hang out with................and which track you play. The lesson is not to avoid gambling, but to learn how to gamble WELL........and CDI is a poor gamble. :ThmbDown:

:ThmbUp:

[highnote]

Beg to differ. A successful business that takes up a bunch of real estate is for sale if the land on which it sits becomes more valuable as something else.
In the real estate appraisal business it is known as "highest and best use".


You're also entitled to your opinion, but you're missing my point.

If Hollywood was more profitable than the real estate was worth it would not have shut its doors.

Belmont and Aqueduct real estate is also more valuable than the racetracks.

Aqueduct is now the red-headed step-child to the casino.

Aqueduct and Belmont are not that profitable compared to a casino.

Aqueduct only exists because of politics, not because it makes financial sense.

How long will the casino keep subsidizing the track?

If Aqueduct would have been a money machine before the casino, the casino never would have been built. Problem is, racing is dying because it no longer enjoys monopoly protection.

Well, it kind of enjoys it in New York. No one is building any new racetracks near Manhattan and it's unlikely they would be approved. And the real estate is too valuable.

And raising takeout will not save the tracks. :D

[whodoyoulike]

The takeout increase might have been a factor in as much as loss of some business at BHP..
The primary reason the track property is to be redeveloped is the track was no longer the highest and best use for the land.

Speaking of HP, does anyone know what has been done with that site?

I know a little off the subject, but I'm curious.

Thanks,

[highnote]

Everything in life is a gamble.....The career you choose, the car you drive, the airline you fly, the lover you embrace, the food you eat, the friends you hang out with................and which track you play. The lesson is not to avoid gambling, but to learn how to gamble WELL........and CDI is a poor gamble. :ThmbDown:


Thanks for getting us back on topic! I agree. It's a poor gamble when there are lower takeout tracks around.

Maybe a boycott won't make much difference, but it is one thing a horseplayer can do. If you don't like the way a company does business then you can do business with another company.

It's good to raise awareness of CDI increasing takeouts. It's good to call for a boycott. After that, each person can decide.

[OTM Al]

Everything in life is a gamble.....The career you choose, the car you drive, the airline you fly, the lover you embrace, the food you eat, the friends you hang out with................and which track you play. The lesson is not to avoid gambling, but to learn how to gamble WELL........and CDI is a poor gamble. :ThmbDown:

Their investors would disagree.

[highnote]

Their investors would disagree.


Maybe not:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/faruqi-faruqi-llp-launches-investigation-233000716.html


NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Juan E. Monteverde, a partner at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities firm headquartered in New York City, is investigating the Board of Directors of Churchill Downs Inc. (“Churchill” or the “Company”) (CHDN) for potential breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with their conduct in seeking shareholders’ approval for the Company’s 2007 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan.

Specifically, in the Proxy Statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2014, the Board of Directors recommends that Churchill’s shareholders vote to approve an increase of the total shares of common stock for issuance by 1,800,000 under the 2007 Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan. The issuance of these shares could have a substantial dilutive effect on the shares of Churchill common stock.

[ReplayRandall]

I see a BIG market correction in their future prospects........

[highnote]

I see a BIG market correction in their future prospects........

They're down 10 points since the end of February -- while the S&P is up in the same period.

[OTM Al]

They're down 10 points since the end of February -- while the S&P is up in the same period.

And the price doubled over the last two years. I think i'd be quite happy with that.

[highnote]

And the price doubled over the last two years. I think i'd be quite happy with that.


Maybe offshore bookmakers haven't hurt them as much as people are claiming? Maybe CDHN has found a way to compete? Good for them.

As I wrote in the "Offshore ADW" thread, CHDN is now selling bingo cards on their website luckity.com. A player can win depending on the outcome of horse races around the world.

I wonder if the track that produces the races on which the bingo card winners are determined get a piece of the bingo card revenue?

Wouldn't it be ironic if a player bought a bingo card and it was tied to the outcome of the Arc d'Triomphe and Longchamp racetrack did NOT get a commission?

Imagine that -- Churchill Downs playing the role of offshore bookmaker. :lol:

[iceknight]

Too bad Hollywood wasnt registered as a nat'l landmark. I think Santa Anita is a landmark and can't be torn down, even though they probably could make more money tearing it down than keeping it as a racetrack. Money is not everything. On the other hand, you can assign economic values to intangible things too.

For, e.g. you could probably melt any number of "national monuments" in different countries and use that metal in something valuable at the moment. But, I digress.

[JustRalph]

A new Twitter account

[Stillriledup]

A new Twitter account

Is he related to TVG's "quarter hog" ? :D

[DeanT]

Roger Stein says what a lot of you seem to want to say, and he gets printed.

http://www.gambling911.com/horse-racing/top-horse-trainer-agrees-boycott-churchill-downs-050114.html?utm_source=twitterfeed

Asked why a boycott of the classic Kentucky track with the famous twin spires is a great idea, the 60-year-old Stein didn't mince words in giving his opinion about the powers that be that run Churchill Downs. "These greedy ****s are ruining our game," Stein declared.

[BIG49010]

And the price doubled over the last two years. I think i'd be quite happy with that.

Problem moving forward, if they begin to loose gambling property (FG), piss everyone off in KY (CD) so they don't get expanded gambling in KY, and do similar activities in IL (AP), how do they continue to grow the stock. My guess is these guys running CD Inc. have no long-term hopes for CD, and are trying to get as much as they can, as fast as they can.