PDA

View Full Version : Is the TOC preparing to stick it to horseplayers again?


Al Gobbi
07-11-2014, 12:47 AM
Officials from Del Mar and the TOC are scheduled to sit down today and discuss the wagering menu for the track’s 36-day summer meet that begins Thursday and runs through Wednesday, Sept. 3.

Some say the TOC wants to roll back the double takeout to 22.68 percent and also hike the takeout for the immensely popular Pick 5, which currently stands at 14 percent.


http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/20140710/too-early-to-judge-numbers-at-los-alamitos-california-chrome-coming-home

Stillriledup
07-11-2014, 01:06 AM
Just the THOUGHT that these takeouts might rise should get up the dander of HANA, lets start the boycott today, why wait.

Fingal
07-11-2014, 01:27 AM
There's been rumblings before on the TOC raising the P5 takeout. :ThmbDown:

takeout
07-11-2014, 03:42 PM
Just the THOUGHT that these takeouts might rise should get up the dander of HANA, lets start the boycott today, why wait.
I'm still boycotting from the last time. :ThmbUp:

Why does the TOC have anything to do with setting takeout rates? The whole situation in California is absurd.

whodoyoulike
07-11-2014, 03:47 PM
What do you think will happen if the CHRB just sets W P S at 15% and exotics at 18%? There are millions up for grabs in purses at Dmr, SA, GG etc., the owners that don't want part of it, should just leave. I'm trying to think of the appropriate word(s), oh I remember... Screw 'em (TOC)!!!

Just some of my thoughts.

Al Gobbi
07-11-2014, 03:57 PM
well it looks like a done deal as in the CHRB July meeting package - Santa Anita's section calls for a 22% or 23% takeout on the doubles, and no request were put in for the low 18 percent rake.

(And note that during the upcoming Fairplex at Los Al all takeout except the pick 5 goes up 2 percent from the regular non-fair thoroughbred meets). That means you will be playing into 24% and 25% exotics their.

Stillriledup
07-11-2014, 04:11 PM
well it looks like a done deal as in the CHRB July meeting package - Santa Anita's section calls for a 22% or 23% takeout on the doubles, and no request were put in for the low 18 percent rake.

(And note that during the upcoming Fairplex at Los Al all takeout except the pick 5 goes up 2 percent from the regular non-fair thoroughbred meets). That means you will be playing into 24% and 25% exotics their.

no, really? they're raising exas and tri's 2 pct?

Fingal
07-11-2014, 04:20 PM
Why does the TOC have anything to do with setting takeout rates? The whole situation in California is absurd.


That's a good question. I did a quick Google search & I can't find the answer, wish I could find out the reason why they set them & not the CHRB.

BlueShoe
07-11-2014, 04:45 PM
Just the THOUGHT that these takeouts might rise should get up the dander of HANA, lets start the boycott today, why wait.
Have these loons of TOC and racing officials in agreement with them gone mad? :confused: How short are their memories, can't they read handle reports? When SA and CD upped the take these nitwits perhaps missed the boycotts and anger from players? The low takeout Pick-5 has been hugely successful, and more tracks have added it. So once again, they want to jump in and get another piece while they can. Unless these dolts wake up and realize that the answer is lower not higher takeouts, in a few years they might be donating their horses to riding stables because the tracks would all be gone. :rolleyes:

RXB
07-11-2014, 05:25 PM
Have these loons of TOC and racing officials in agreement with them gone mad? :confused: How short are their memories, can't they read handle reports? When SA and CD upped the take these nitwits perhaps missed the boycotts and anger from players? The low takeout Pick-5 has been hugely successful, and more tracks have added it. So once again, they want to jump in and get another piece while they can. Unless these dolts wake up and realize that the answer is lower not higher takeouts, in a few years they might be donating their horses to riding stables because the tracks would all be gone. :rolleyes:

Never underestimate the propensity for misguided thinking among these people.

ronsmac
07-11-2014, 05:32 PM
Just the THOUGHT that these takeouts might rise should get up the dander of HANA, lets start the boycott today, why wait.When did the boycott end?

Stillriledup
07-11-2014, 05:33 PM
Have these loons of TOC and racing officials in agreement with them gone mad? :confused: How short are their memories, can't they read handle reports? When SA and CD upped the take these nitwits perhaps missed the boycotts and anger from players? The low takeout Pick-5 has been hugely successful, and more tracks have added it. So once again, they want to jump in and get another piece while they can. Unless these dolts wake up and realize that the answer is lower not higher takeouts, in a few years they might be donating their horses to riding stables because the tracks would all be gone. :rolleyes:

its incredible greed. Its also shortsightedness, its anti "growing the game" and it reeks of get what you can get now. Lets face it, if you grow the game, there will be plenty to "Get".

Its "anti the game" behavior.

Stillriledup
07-11-2014, 05:34 PM
When did the boycott end?

Dunno, maybe it didn't. Maybe they need to remind the boycotters to keep up the great work.

whodoyoulike
07-11-2014, 06:19 PM
I just checked, in June I only bet on 2 days. For July so far, I've made 2 bets. Last year, I recall making about 90 - 100 bets some months. I've decreased my Cali bets because of the last increase. I'm kind of PO'd over these takeout increases.

takeout
07-12-2014, 04:55 AM
That's a good question.I thought it was a fair question. They're not the CHRB and they're not the track owner, so why should they have any say in takeout rates?

Something I didn't understand about the first boycott (which I'm still on and will be for life, it looks like) is how switching pools and dumping money into a Pick 5 was going to get the point across. Obviously it didn't. I have much respect for all involved in the boycott but can't help thinking that had none of the Pick 5 money ever been bet, hence a more real boycott, then maybe some of the head cheeses might have “smelled the coffee”. As it happened, by being too nice and continuing to bet in the state, we didn't nip it in the bud and now they're giving us more of the same. To make matters worse, CD picked up on how easy we are and pulled the same crap. They need a real boycott, too.

There probably aren't enough of us serious about this to make an impact (casual players don't know what takeout is and whales probably just get fancier rebates) but how about a real boycott this time? NOT ONE PENNY AT ANY TRACK IN CALIFORNIA UNTIL THEY GET A CLUE! If they never do, then so be it. I've been boycotting so long I'm way past withdrawal pains. :)

Stillriledup
07-12-2014, 05:01 AM
I thought it was a fair question. They're not the CHRB and they're not the track owner, so why should they have any say in takeout rates?

Something I didn't understand about the first boycott (which I'm still on and will be for life, it looks like) is how switching pools and dumping money into a Pick 5 was going to get the point across. Obviously it didn't. I have much respect for all involved in the boycott but can't help thinking that had none of the Pick 5 money ever been bet, hence a more real boycott, then maybe some of the head cheeses might have “smelled the coffee”. As it happened, by being too nice and continuing to bet in the state, we didn't nip it in the bud and now they're giving us more of the same. To make matters worse, CD picked up on how easy we are and pulled the same crap. They need a real boycott, too.

There probably aren't enough of us serious about this to make an impact (casual players don't know what takeout is and whales probably just get fancier rebates) but how about a real boycott this time? NOT ONE PENNY AT ANY TRACK IN CALIFORNIA UNTIL THEY GET A CLUE! If they never do, then so be it. I've been boycotting so long I'm way past withdrawal pains. :)

There's just too many people who are making wagers for "Action" and they're just paying for their action and won't stop betting, they could care less if the takeout is 22 percent of 222 percent, its all the same to them, they place the bet, they get action, winning and losing is an afterthought, so those people are just going to hurt the people who care deeply about the price of the bet.

Maybe it has to get worse before it gets better.

DeanT
07-12-2014, 11:49 AM
Fascinates me that handle charts can display this behavior the last ten years, yet the same people who presided over it are still making all the decisions.

DeanT
07-12-2014, 12:22 PM
Old Andy gets in the San Diego paper about this. On twitter he is telling everyone he does not speak for HANA, FYI. I don't know if he's a member or not, but he's a bulldog for the horseplayer.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Jul/12/del-mar-gamblers-takeout-issue/?#article-copy

The track is on the horseplayer's side in this. They seem to realize what's going on.

Craig Dado, Del Mar’s executive vice president and chief marketing officer, met with Thoroughbred Owners of California board members Friday to try and hammer out a consistent policy on takeout.

“Right now, there isn’t an apples to apples comparison,” Dado said. “What we want is for the whole industry to do something together. We’re trying to come up with numbers that will work for everyone.

RXB
07-12-2014, 12:43 PM
The funny thing is, they make these decisions on takeout without ever bothering to actually consult their customers! Trainers & owners have a big say but bettors-- the ones actually affected by takeout and the ones whom you could consult on the matter-- are ignored. Honestly, you just have to scratch your head at how this industry is operated. It's no wonder at all that racing is declining.

whodoyoulike
07-12-2014, 02:12 PM
I think we're (bettors) being slowly hustled out of our money. And, I don't like being hustled especially by such bad hustlers. Hustlers take your money and you normally don't realize it until later.

Stillriledup
07-12-2014, 03:08 PM
Fascinates me that handle charts can display this behavior the last ten years, yet the same people who presided over it are still making all the decisions.

Alarming for them and the players who keep betting. The bettors who have stopped betting are laying on the beach sipping pina coladas caring less.

DeanT
07-12-2014, 04:14 PM
HANA Blog has something up about this

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/07/horseplayers-understand-how-dinny.html

RXB
07-12-2014, 04:16 PM
The funny thing is, they make these decisions on takeout without ever bothering to actually consult their customers! Trainers & owners have a big say but bettors-- the ones actually affected by takeout and the ones whom you could consult on the matter-- are ignored. Honestly, you just have to scratch your head at how this industry is operated. It's no wonder at all that racing is declining.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2014/07/horseplayers-understand-how-dinny.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

"Takeout rates should be set in a professional way, with professional people who know gambling economics. How horse racing lets a horsemen group set rates in a capricious fashion should've never happened in the first place."

Amen, brothers.

PaceAdvantage
07-12-2014, 09:11 PM
Fascinates me that handle charts can display this behavior the last ten years, yet the same people who presided over it are still making all the decisions.They will look at it and conclude that the recession that hit during 2008 was the major reason for revenue fall-off...and they would be correct to a large extent...how else to you explain the tick-up in revenue in 2013 as the economy started picking back up in earnest (despite takeouts remaining at their high levels?)

Al Gobbi
07-12-2014, 09:22 PM
20% double takeouts at Del Mar

http://www.dmtc.com/media/press-releases/del-mar-bet-menu-includes-guarantees-bonuses-reductions-132

AndyC
07-12-2014, 11:32 PM
The funny thing is, they make these decisions on takeout without ever bothering to actually consult their customers! Trainers & owners have a big say but bettors-- the ones actually affected by takeout and the ones whom you could consult on the matter-- are ignored. Honestly, you just have to scratch your head at how this industry is operated. It's no wonder at all that racing is declining.

Are there really a lot of businesses that consult their customers when raising prices? What customer would actually respond and say " ya know, raising prices on me sounds like a good idea"?

Stillriledup
07-13-2014, 12:09 AM
Are there really a lot of businesses that consult their customers when raising prices? What customer would actually respond and say " ya know, raising prices on me sounds like a good idea"?

They don't need to consult customers, but they do need to "do the math" as there is plenty of evidence that lower takeout begets higher handle.

DeanT
07-13-2014, 12:33 AM
They will look at it and conclude that the recession that hit during 2008 was the major reason for revenue fall-off...and they would be correct to a large extent

You mean the same people that say gambling is recession proof?

Slots revenue at racetracks in North America went up from 2008-2012.

Hong Kong, in a recession, had horse racing handles go from $7.8B US in 2008 to this year's record $13.3B

Australia had, over the same period, handle set record after record, to $13B last year.

The economy has always been a convenient, yet inaccurate excuse.

Jeff P
07-13-2014, 01:16 AM
They will look at it and conclude that the recession that hit during 2008 was the major reason for revenue fall-off...and they would be correct to a large extent...how else to you explain the tick-up in revenue in 2013 as the economy started picking back up in earnest (despite takeouts remaining at their high levels?)
Oddly enough, on p4 of the CHRB Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2011, CHRB Chairman Keith Brackpool blamed THE ECONOMY as the reason handle fell off a cliff:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2011_annual_report.pdf

Handle continued to suffer as the economy continued to struggle. This is a national phenomenon and one that won’t change substantially for the better without a real bounce in the economy.Brackpool went on to cite SB1072, the bill that brought 22.68% exacta takeout to California's major thoroughbred tracks, as a good thing.

I see just one fly in the ointment with all of this... FACTS.

SB1072 didn't deliver as promised. Not only did the bill fail to cause an increase in field size, the bill's takeout increase provision brought lower handle, fewer race dates, smaller total purse dollars paid out, not more as touted, cuts in hours for union workers, and eventually layoffs. (If you'd rather not take my word about the lost hours and layoffs I suggest you listen to the audio of the June 2014 CHRB Meeting where you can hear union members and officers pleading with the Commissioners of the CHRB not to do anything to cause them further losses of hours and jobs.)

The bill also undid the historical 50/50 split between tracks and horsesmen. For those who may not know the bill mandated the revenue split be made 52% horsemen and 48% tracks.

The only player friendly provision in the bill - exchange wagering? Well THAT appears to have been put on perma-hold by the horsemen.

By now most of you reading are probably familiar with SB1072. I say that because the pros and cons of SB1072 have been argued about endlessly both here at Paceadvantage and elsewhere.

However, I'm guessing most of you are not aware there was another gambling bill in California passed in 2010: AB142.

For those of you who may not know, AB142 gave the California Lottery the authority to use LOWER TAKEOUT - or higher prize payout percentages - for scratchers tickets.

Unlike horse racing (which took the opposite approach and raised racing takeout with SB1072) the CA Lottery was able to leverage LOWER TAKEOUT to drive brand recognition and generate significant increases in both sales and total revenue for Education.

Here's a quote from Linh Nguyen, Acting Director, California Lottery:
"Increasing the prize payout percentage improves the product's value to the consumer, provides us with a powerful message that gets consumer attention, and gives us a tool to drive sales and profits.

A relatively small increase in prize payout percentage can be leveraged into a much more significant increase in top-line sales.

Although the increase in prize payout percentage leaves a smaller percentage to be transferred to education, the total dollars going to our beneficiary goes up. And at the end of the day, you can spend a dollar, but you can't spend a percentage. So these changes have resulted in increased funding to education and that's what our constituents care most about and the reason the Lottery was created in 1984."

Read more at the link:
http://www.publicgaming.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9590:public-gamin


So I have to ask the obvious:

If, as cited by the CHRB Chairman in the CHRB 2011 Annual Report, the economy was responsible for California racing's fall-off in handle, how in the world did the California Lottery generate an uptick in sales and total revenue flowing to education during the same fiscal time period?



-jp

.

Stillriledup
07-13-2014, 03:15 AM
Oddly enough, on p4 of the CHRB Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2011, CHRB Chairman Keith Brackpool blamed THE ECONOMY as the reason handle fell off a cliff:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2011_annual_report.pdf

Brackpool went on to cite SB1072, the bill that brought 22.68% exacta takeout to California's major thoroughbred tracks, as a good thing.

I see just one fly in the ointment with all of this... FACTS.

SB1072 didn't deliver as promised. Not only did the bill fail to cause an increase in field size, the bill's takeout increase provision brought lower handle, fewer race dates, smaller total purse dollars paid out, not more as touted, cuts in hours for union workers, and eventually layoffs. (If you'd rather not take my word about the lost hours and layoffs I suggest you listen to the audio of the June 2014 CHRB Meeting where you can hear union members and officers pleading with the Commissioners of the CHRB not to do anything to cause them further losses of hours and jobs.)

The bill also undid the historical 50/50 split between tracks and horsesmen. For those who may not know the bill mandated the revenue split be made 52% horsemen and 48% tracks.

The only player friendly provision in the bill - exchange wagering? Well THAT appears to have been put on perma-hold by the horsemen.

By now most of you reading are probably familiar with SB1072. I say that because the pros and cons of SB1072 have been argued about endlessly both here at Paceadvantage and elsewhere.

However, I'm guessing most of you are not aware there was another gambling bill in California passed in 2010: AB142.

For those of you who may not know, AB142 gave the California Lottery the authority to use LOWER TAKEOUT - or higher prize payout percentages - for scratchers tickets.

Unlike horse racing (which took the opposite approach and raised racing takeout with SB1072) the CA Lottery was able to leverage LOWER TAKEOUT to drive brand recognition and generate significant increases in both sales and total revenue for Education.

Here's a quote from Linh Nguyen, Acting Director, California Lottery:

Read more at the link:
http://www.publicgaming.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9590:public-gamin


So I have to ask the obvious:

If, as cited by the CHRB Chairman in the CHRB 2011 Annual Report, the economy was responsible for California racing's fall-off in handle, how in the world did the California Lottery generate an uptick in sales and total revenue flowing to education during the same fiscal time period?



-jp

.

Saying its the economy is a shot at the players intelligence, why can't these people ever just say "we raised the prices, so people made less purchases". Just call a spade a spade, they act is if horseplayers were born yesterday.

OTM Al
07-13-2014, 10:11 AM
They don't need to consult customers, but they do need to "do the math" as there is plenty of evidence that lower takeout begets higher handle.

Except from their perspective takeout is exactly the same as before except on one bet where the takeout is lower than last year, this shouldn't they have higher handle?

AndyC
07-13-2014, 02:50 PM
They don't need to consult customers, but they do need to "do the math" as there is plenty of evidence that lower takeout begets higher handle.

Clearly, the people who need to do the math are the players! I don't think for a minute that players have some sort of intellectual superiority when it comes to business decisions.

whodoyoulike
07-13-2014, 04:57 PM
Oddly enough, on p4 of the CHRB Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2011, CHRB Chairman Keith Brackpool blamed THE ECONOMY as the reason handle fell off a cliff:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2011_annual_report.pdf

Brackpool went on to cite SB1072, the bill that brought 22.68% exacta takeout to California's major thoroughbred tracks, as a good thing. ...

So I have to ask the obvious:

If, as cited by the CHRB Chairman in the CHRB 2011 Annual Report, the economy was responsible for California racing's fall-off in handle, how in the world did the California Lottery generate an uptick in sales and total revenue flowing to education during the same fiscal time period?



-jp

.

Is he this Keith Brackpool, who is now in charge of Stronach's West Coast operations? I think I read, he is President of SA race track.

http://www.drf.com/news/brackpool-resigns-chrb-take-position-stronach-group

Something doesn't seem right about this situation. I think the CHRB should report to the CA State AG to make sure they comply with their fiduciary duties. And, they should SPELL OUT what exactly is their fiduciary duty.

Oh, I forgot. I'm pissed off.

whodoyoulike
07-13-2014, 07:47 PM
Are there really a lot of businesses that consult their customers when raising prices? What customer would actually respond and say " ya know, raising prices on me sounds like a good idea"?

I don't know which part of the country you reside but, if Target raises their prices one or more businesses will maintain or lower theirs (I'd bet on it). It's called competition in the market place. Race tracks are the only businesses I can think of where one raises prices and the reaction of another is to match or increase it more.

There's something wrong here, I wish I was smart enough to figure it out.

In other words, businesses don't really have to say to their customers "would you like me to raise the cost to you" because we had a bad month?

AndyC
07-13-2014, 11:28 PM
I don't know which part of the country you reside but, if Target raises their prices one or more businesses will maintain or lower theirs (I'd bet on it). It's called competition in the market place. Race tracks are the only businesses I can think of where one raises prices and the reaction of another is to match or increase it more.

There's something wrong here, I wish I was smart enough to figure it out.

In other words, businesses don't really have to say to their customers "would you like me to raise the cost to you" because we had a bad month?


Your first mistake is thinking that a racetrack is like other businesses able to respond to changes in the marketplace at the drop of a hat. They can proceed with good ideas and good intentions but have to go through the gauntlet of regulatory and other organizational approval. And that never seems to produce good results.

whodoyoulike
07-14-2014, 02:14 PM
Your first mistake is thinking that a racetrack is like other businesses able to respond to changes in the marketplace at the drop of a hat. They can proceed with good ideas and good intentions but have to go through the gauntlet of regulatory and other organizational approval. And that never seems to produce good results.

I think I see what you're saying. But, there are plenty of other businesses reviewed by a regulatory agency and they're competitive e.g., airlines, telephone, gas and electric etc. A recent example is the T-Mobile campaign of taking over your service contract if you switch to them. My cell phone provider called me up and upon their review based on my usage they will lower my monthly bill if I'll agree to change plans which also allowed additional reductions.

I've always believed in the free market environment. Competition is always good e.g., cell phones if there wasn't any competition we would still be carrying around 5 lb. phones which we would keep in our cars when we go out.

Maybe the race tracks should try an develop other revenue streams to grow their business instead of ... I'd go for the 1/4 $billion spent on the first Friday and Saturday in May. If someone was to successfully do that, the CDI racetracks would be a footnote. A business who initiated their own demise in racing. And, I think they need racing. Racing doesn't need them.
They tout tradition (it's BS, they're not serious).

AndyC
07-14-2014, 02:37 PM
I think I see what you're saying. But, there are plenty of other businesses reviewed by a regulatory agency and they're competitive e.g., airlines, telephone, gas and electric etc. A recent example is the T-Mobile campaign of taking over your service contract if you switch to them. My cell phone provider called me up and upon their review based on my usage they will lower my monthly bill if I'll agree to change plans which also allowed additional reductions.

I've always believed in the free market environment. Competition is always good e.g., cell phones if there wasn't any competition we would still be carrying around 5 lb. phones which we would keep in our cars when we go out.

Maybe the race tracks should try an develop other revenue streams to grow their business instead of ... I'd go for the 1/4 $billion spent on the first Friday and Saturday in May. If someone was to successfully do that, the CDI racetracks would be a footnote. A business who initiated their own demise in racing. And, I think they need racing. Racing doesn't need them.
They tout tradition (it's BS, they're not serious).

An airline doesn't need approval to drop its ticket prices. A track in CA needs the approval of the TOC and the CHRB and that doesn't happen with just a phone call.

Jeff P
07-14-2014, 04:51 PM
Link to a Youtube video that landed in my email inbox over the weekend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEy10S6MFM


-jp

.

Stillriledup
07-14-2014, 05:09 PM
Link to a Youtube video that landed in my email inbox over the weekend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEy10S6MFM


-jp

.

I want my Todd Pletcher Jersey strange betting lady!! :D

thaskalos
07-14-2014, 05:15 PM
An airline doesn't need approval to drop its ticket prices. A track in CA needs the approval of the TOC and the CHRB and that doesn't happen with just a phone call.

I used to think that too. And then I witnessed the recent NYRA takeout overcharging "mistake"...after which, CEO Charles Hayward was quick to announce an even deeper takeout reduction than previously advertised...without any lengthy negotiations with the horsemen groups.

Am I wrong?

OTM Al
07-14-2014, 06:28 PM
I used to think that too. And then I witnessed the recent NYRA takeout overcharging "mistake"...after which, CEO Charles Hayward was quick to announce an even deeper takeout reduction than previously advertised...without any lengthy negotiations with the horsemen groups.

Am I wrong?

Do you wonder if the ones that really made the "mistake" were the ones that changed this? Still waiting for the final report on what really happened. Horseman's groups don't have quite as much say under NY laws as they seem to have in other places as well. They are just another lobby for the most part.

takeout
07-14-2014, 11:56 PM
Link to a Youtube video that landed in my email inbox over the weekend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyEy10S6MFM
-jp
That so nails it! :ThmbUp: :bang:
The first two comments after, really nail it, too!

PaceAdvantage
07-15-2014, 01:31 PM
You mean the same people that say gambling is recession proof?

Slots revenue at racetracks in North America went up from 2008-2012.

Hong Kong, in a recession, had horse racing handles go from $7.8B US in 2008 to this year's record $13.3B

Australia had, over the same period, handle set record after record, to $13B last year.

The economy has always been a convenient, yet inaccurate excuse.Why is handle ticking up then as the economy regroups? Shouldn't handle continue to decrease as these high takeouts remain in effect? Or level off at best?

Slot revenue going up from 2008-2012...does this distinguish between slot parlors that have been in existence vs. brand new ones? Aqueduct's opening in 2011 certainly padded those stats, did it not?

AndyC
07-15-2014, 02:42 PM
I used to think that too. And then I witnessed the recent NYRA takeout overcharging "mistake"...after which, CEO Charles Hayward was quick to announce an even deeper takeout reduction than previously advertised...without any lengthy negotiations with the horsemen groups.

Am I wrong?

I was referring primarily to California where nothing gets done without the approval of the TOC.

whodoyoulike
07-15-2014, 03:54 PM
I was referring primarily to California where nothing gets done without the approval of the TOC.

After the last CA takeout raise and boycott, I was doing some research and your independent opinion seems to verify my conclusion. I recall there was an effort to establish another more friendlier owner's group. I think it was being proposed by that big car dealer (horse owner) and a couple of prominent owner/trainers. Do you know what happened to that effort?

Apparently, it must have fizzled out.

Why does the TOC have so much influence over or with the CHRB? Harris was once the chair and Moss was(is) a long time member. Billion$ are wagered and spent by the betting public every year. There should be no questions of integrity or complying with fiduciary duties in operating this thing we call horse racing.

I did read parts of the Horse Racing Act of 1978, was this the intent because people can always submit amendments to correct unintentional results? That's their job.

Stillriledup
07-15-2014, 04:00 PM
After the last CA takeout raise and boycott, I was doing some research and your independent opinion seems to verify my conclusion. I recall there was an effort to establish another more friendlier owner's group. I think it was being proposed by that big car dealer (horse owner) and a couple prominent owner/trainers. Do you know what happened to that effort?

Apparently, it must have fizzled out.

Why does the TOC have so much influence over or with the CHRB? Harris was once the chair and Moss was(is) a long time member. Billion$ are wagered and spent by the betting public every year. There should be no questions of integrity or complying with fiduciary duties in operating this thing we call horse racing.

I did read parts of the Horse Racing Act of 1978, was this the intent because people can submit amendments to correct unintentional results?

For some reason, trainers and owners run the game in California, the track owners just sit back and let the inmates run the asylum. Santa Anita is owned by a horsemen so he "Sympathizes" with those who "put on the show"

takeout
07-15-2014, 10:18 PM
Everyone that had anything to do with this should be forced to bet the lion's share of their dough in to this 22.68% take-out of their own making. See how they like it.
Then, we could bet with each other, without any take-out, on who would last the longest. :)