H.A.N.A.

[flatstats]

I am interested in if HANA http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/ is an essential requirement for racing fans / handicappers.

[flatstats]

As a follow up I am particularly interested in:

1. Are handicappers better off with HANA or do they make no difference?
2. Is the racing industry (tracks, bookmakers, racing rulers) attentive of HANA and do they listen (but may not respond as required) to HANA?
3. Would you support HANA financially?
4. How could HANA be improved?

[Some_One]

1. No Difference
2. Aware, but for the most part, don't listen as they don't need to listen to them
3. No
4. Not possible

[Stillriledup]

I'm a fan of HANA, Jeff and Dean and those guys are great friends to the game and are always looking out for the player. Unfortunately, i don't know if the industry itself has embraced them, this is a 'horsemens game' and owners view HANA and player advocates like Andy Asaro as the 'enemy' so its hard to get much traction. Track execs think they know it all, so they probably snicker (and then toss it in the trash) when a HANA suggestion comes their way.

[DJofSD]

Yep, it's a horseman's game and they believe in the mushroom theory. HANA provides some illumination.

[Robert Fischer]

I voted 'Very'. I believe they do a great job.
I am not crazy about voting in polls that reveal the voter's name and selection to the public.
However, I feel that 'Very' was my honest answer in the context of this thread.

I feel there is room for improvement and room to grow, but I am Very happy with what they do for the most part.

[raybo]

As a follow up I am particularly interested in:

1. Are handicappers better off with HANA or do they make no difference?
2. Is the racing industry (tracks, bookmakers, racing rulers) attentive of HANA and do they listen (but may not respond as required) to HANA?
3. Would you support HANA financially?
4. How could HANA be improved?

I voted "Very", and as one of the 5 or 6 original proponents and organizers, I think they have given the handicapper a national voice that we didn't have before.

1. Yes, HANA is the one place where the serious handicapper can go to get information one needs in order to make informed decisions regarding which tracks to support and which ones under-perform, in an industry that by and large disregards their customers wants and needs.

2. Some tracks take HANA seriously, and have improved their facilities and its operations, making them more customer focused.

3. Absolutely!

4. I have lobbied for a long time to have each track's average win payouts displayed in the HANA spreadsheet. I believe that this single piece of data could allow any handicapper a better chance of becoming profitable, simply by choosing to play those tacks with higher average win payouts. So far this data is not available by HANA, but I still hold hope that someday it will be!!

[Ray2000]

Total handle at Churchill last year went down 11.5%

Churchill says that due to fewer races (94%, 372 vs 396) than the year before.

I don't buy it.

HANA's boycott had an effect so I voted "very"


http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/85957/organizers-believe-boycott-impacted-churchill

[Dave Schwartz]

1. Are handicappers better off with HANA or do they make no difference?
To date, no difference. But certainly not for lack of trying. The industry is just too resistant to change at this point in time.


2. Is the racing industry (tracks, bookmakers, racing rulers) attentive of HANA and do they listen (but may not respond as required) to HANA?

No on all counts. They may invite people to meetings as a courtesy but there is no impact.


3. Would you support HANA financially?
Beyond a small, Wikipedia-type-per-year donation? No.


4. How could HANA be improved?
Get the membership to 50,000, take a stance (i.e. boycott) and knock down the handle for a week by (say) $50m.

Anything short of that is simply ignored by the industry. Alternatively, HANA could pick one track at a time and knock their handle down by say $3 million for a weekend.

If you cannot influence the handle substantially - which is akin to holding a gun to the head of track management - then there is no power. These people will simply not change because the slimeballs known as customers want things changed.


How many members does HANA have now?

[Stillriledup]

1. Are handicappers better off with HANA or do they make no difference?
To date, no difference. But certainly not for lack of trying. The industry is just too resistant to change at this point in time.


2. Is the racing industry (tracks, bookmakers, racing rulers) attentive of HANA and do they listen (but may not respond as required) to HANA?

No on all counts. They may invite people to meetings as a courtesy but there is no impact.


3. Would you support HANA financially?
Beyond a small, Wikipedia-type-per-year donation? No.


4. How could HANA be improved?
Get the membership to 50,000, take a stance (i.e. boycott) and knock down the handle for a week by (say) $50m.

Anything short of that is simply ignored by the industry. Alternatively, HANA could pick one track at a time and knock their handle down by say $3 million for a weekend.

If you cannot influence the handle substantially - which is akin to holding a gun to the head of track management - then there is no power. These people will simply not change because the slimeballs known as customers want things changed.


How many members does HANA have now?

If HANA can get as big as PETA (and as ruthless), they can do some damage.

[Augenj]

Anything short of that is simply ignored by the industry. Alternatively, HANA could pick one track at a time and knock their handle down by say $3 million for a weekend.

How about being selective and pick a major track that has a high takeout and is financially weak (not CD of course) and pound on them in a boycott frenzy everywhere... here, racing media, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. Boycott until they drop their takeout and breakage. Not likely to work but "You never know." from Let It Ride. :D

[Stillriledup]

How about being selective and pick a major track that has a high takeout and is financially weak (not CD of course) and pound on them in a boycott frenzy everywhere... here, racing media, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. Boycott until they drop their takeout and breakage. Not likely to work but "You never know." from Let It Ride. :D

I like it. Single out someone and pound them mercilessly. Organize protests in front of the track, send "moles" inside the stable area to "find" violations, etc. #Be relentless.

[Augenj]

I like it. Single out someone and pound them mercilessly. Organize protests in front of the track, send "moles" inside the stable area to "find" violations, etc. #Be relentless.
Yes, add all that to the list also. The odd thing about all of this is if they reduced the takeout, they MIGHT just generate more profit from the increased handle. Shall we shoot for 10 per cent for all bets? ;)

[Dave Schwartz]

How about being selective and pick a major track that has a high takeout and is financially weak (not CD of course) and pound on them in a boycott frenzy everywhere... here, racing media, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. Boycott until they drop their takeout and breakage. Not likely to work but "You never know." from Let It Ride.

That is a plan. Doubt that "we" have the clout to pull it off.

[horses4courses]

4. How could HANA be improved?
Get the membership to 50,000, take a stance (i.e. boycott) and knock down the handle for a week by (say) $50m.

Anything short of that is simply ignored by the industry. Alternatively, HANA could pick one track at a time and knock their handle down by say $3 million for a weekend.

If you cannot influence the handle substantially - which is akin to holding a gun to the head of track management - then there is no power. These people will simply not change because the slimeballs known as customers want things changed.

I didn't vote in this poll.
I like HANA, and what they stand for, but wish they could accomplish more.

DS hits the nail on the head here for me.
Increasing membership would give them so much more clout.
Then, and only then, could they make a real difference.

I appreciate their efforts in identifying tracks that have
unreasonably high takeout rates.
Beyond that, there really isn't much else they can do.
As things stand right now, at least.

In an ideal world, US horse racing would have a central governing body.
HANA should be included within any such group.
Yet, if such a group were formed this week,
I doubt that HANA would be invited to the table.

[castaway01]

I think HANA has had a positive impact, but a minor one. For example, I think they've helped to get the word out about tracks like Kentucky Downs, which have seen their handle skyrocket in recent years. The HANA boycotts have had a limited impact on handle, but they've had some impact.

The issue is that no one loose configuration of horseplayers can have much power. You'd have to have the ability to speak as one and have a boycott drop handle at a track by 50%, not 5%, and that's just not possible because gamblers want to gamble and aren't going to agree on one goal---not even takeout (some just want to get their bets down and don't care if the trifecta takeout at some track went up by 2%).

Jerry Brown at Thoro-Graph has written articles about drug testing and enforcing consistent rules in that area. He's said he gets private messages of support and pats on the back from a lot of people in the industry and the big bettors he sells information to, but then nothing changes. He's someone who theoretically could organize a group to bet or not bet that would affect handle on a given day, but why bother when you realize it won't do any good? Or, even if someone running a racetrack agreed with you and wanted to make a change, that person would have to fight through a ton of red tape, battle horsemen's groups, mobilize politicians, or whatever to put new rules in place or lower takeout---what chance is there?

Those are the sort of obstacles HANA is up against. So, I think it does well, in what limited way it can, but thus far has not had a huge impact on racing.

[RXB]

I agree with Castaway's post.

At least HANA is trying; that's why I'm a member. Sometimes you just have to hang in and build awareness slowly but surely. I do think that the takeout message is being received by an increasing proportion of bettors, and at least a few relatively enlightened people in the industry-- a distinct minority, to be sure, unfortunately-- are starting to get it, too.

I prefer the concept of informing bettors and then letting them make their own decisions rather than trying to impose some kind of boycott. If people understand the issues, the money will move accordingly.

[raybo]

I agree with Castaway's post.

At least HANA is trying; that's why I'm a member. Sometimes you just have to hang in and build awareness slowly but surely. I do think that the takeout message is being received by an increasing proportion of bettors, and at least a few relatively enlightened people in the industry-- a distinct minority, to be sure, unfortunately-- are starting to get it, too.

I prefer the concept of informing bettors and then letting them make their own decisions rather than trying to impose some kind of boycott. If people understand the issues, the money will move accordingly.

The problem with merely informing people and letting them make their own decisions is that, left to themselves, with no other motivation, most of them will continue to play the tracks they have been playing. But, if they become a member of HANA, and the membership as a whole agrees that HANA should announce a boycott of a specific track, there is added motivation for those members who would otherwise just keep playing that track. As was stated earlier by several, HANA needs many more members in order to create the kind of impact that will get the attention of those boycotted tracks.

I think many people agree that very large players are, in actuality, enabling tracks to keep their takeouts high, by continuing to play tracks with high takeouts, because some of those players are already getting preferential treatment by the tracks they play, and the ADWs they use. I haven't heard of any of those large players lobbying for lower takeouts, for everyone. I may be wrong but have not heard of that being done. So, if HANA hopes to have an impact, they need many more members in order to offset those large players who will continue to bet regardless of the takeout.

[Robert Fischer]

I am interested in expanding ways that HANA can show tracks that certain lower-takeout-wagers/player-friendly-measures will actually improve the Track's or ADW's bottom line.
I feel that some of these niche market situations certainly do exist, and could be more effective than boycotts and such in the short-term.

I also love the dissemination of takeout rates and information, and the heads-up alerts, when new wagers are introduced with uncharacteristically high takeout rates.

[raybo]

Can someone post an example of what the affect on odds would be if the takeout is 18% and what those odds would be if it was reduced to 15% (with the same pool sizes, and same amount bet on each horse, in both cases)? Some people think that reducing the takeout will have no affect on the odds we receive.

[RXB]

This would be an example of a seven-horse field with each horse's % of the win pool:

40% 1.05/1.12 (both even money on standard tote odds)
25% 2.28/2.40 (both 2/1 on standard tote odds)
15% 4.46/4.66 (4/1 vs. 9/2)
10% 7.20/7.50
5% 15.4/16
3% 26.3/27.3
2% 40/41.5

It's not all that obvious on any individual bet, of course; it's the accumulation over time that adds up. And then it does become obvious and substantial.

[raybo]

This would be an example of a seven-horse field with each horse's % of the win pool:

40% 1.05/1.12 (both even money on standard tote odds)
25% 2.28/2.40 (both 2/1 on standard tote odds)
15% 4.46/4.66 (4/1 vs. 9/2)
10% 7.20/7.50
5% 15.4/16
3% 26.3/27.3
2% 40/41.5

It's not all that obvious on any individual bet, of course; it's the accumulation over time that adds up. And then it does become obvious and substantial.

Thanks! So, if my math is correct, this is the difference between the two takeouts, after multiple $2 bets. Somebody check this and make sure I calculated correctly. If so, the more bets you make and/or the larger your bets, the more the difference becomes significant. 200 $2 bets would amount to about 6.7 bets per day for 30 days. Many players make more bets than that in a month. And, many players bet much more than $2 per bet!

[RXB]

Basically, every $200 you bet, the difference between 15% and 18% takeout costs you 3%, which is $6. If someone bets $20,000 per year, that's $600 less returned to him.

[Redboard]

It's not all that obvious on any individual bet, of course; it's the accumulation over time that adds up. And then it does become obvious and substantial.

Exactly. Suppose I’m a professional horse player. I make and win 10 bets a month. I specialize in finding odds-on plays. Now that the track has increased its rake from 15% to 18%, my 1-1 play drops to .96. I start with $10. As you can see from the table below(does not include breakage, etc.), at the end of those 10 bets (assuming I put all of the winnings into the next bet) my winnings dropped from $5,120 to $4,269 , a difference of $851. This might mean I can’t buy little Johnny or little Suzie shoes or dental care that month.

http://home.comcast.net/~galacticomm/images/odds04.jpg

[castaway01]

Since we're discussing the impact of takeout, here's something I'm genuinely curious to hear opinions on (Dave Schwartz, you in particular since you know some big players, but anyone who has a theory is fine). If your average mid-level track dropped takeout to 12% across the board tomorrow, would that track make more money than it currently does because handle would skyrocket, or would the big bettors who bet through rebaters stop betting the track because they'd lose most of their rebates? I was wondering if losing the big players would cancel out the increase from the small players (which would have to be very substantial). What do you think would actually happen in 2015 if a track actually did cut takeout to 12%?

From real-world experience, we've seen NEW bets like (relatively) low-takeout Pick 5s do well, but we've also seen isolated tracks here and there (Ellis Park, Laurel) cut takeout on bets for a meet and nary a ripple was made in the wagering pools. To me, that would be the one test that would have to be passed---if HANA or whatever group could ever get a track to cut takeout substantially, that track would HAVE to reap huge benefits. If it didn't, HANA's influence would be dead, and hopes of ever turning around the takeout increase trend would be forever dead as well (except through rebates of course). Any thoughts?

[flatstats]

Thanks for the polling and the feedback. This is really useful stuff.

The UK desperately needs a similar organisation. We can use this info to help formulate it.

[RXB]

Since we're discussing the impact of takeout, here's something I'm genuinely curious to hear opinions on (Dave Schwartz, you in particular since you know some big players, but anyone who has a theory is fine). If your average mid-level track dropped takeout to 12% across the board tomorrow, would that track make more money than it currently does because handle would skyrocket, or would the big bettors who bet through rebaters stop betting the track because they'd lose most of their rebates? I was wondering if losing the big players would cancel out the increase from the small players (which would have to be very substantial). What do you think would actually happen in 2015 if a track actually did cut takeout to 12%?

From real-world experience, we've seen NEW bets like (relatively) low-takeout Pick 5s do well, but we've also seen isolated tracks here and there (Ellis Park, Laurel) cut takeout on bets for a meet and nary a ripple was made in the wagering pools. To me, that would be the one test that would have to be passed---if HANA or whatever group could ever get a track to cut takeout substantially, that track would HAVE to reap huge benefits. If it didn't, HANA's influence would be dead, and hopes of ever turning around the takeout increase trend would be forever dead as well (except through rebates of course). Any thoughts?

Pimlico's 12% P5 handled all of $6,397 today.

Neither Hastings nor Woodbine will even accept the wager.

Meanwhile WO's ripoff 25% P5 handled almost $30,000.

[Augenj]

Pimlico's 12% P5 handled all of $6,397 today.

Neither Hastings nor Woodbine will even accept the wager.

Meanwhile WO's ripoff 25% P5 handled almost $30,000.
Too bad. However, the biggest impact from takeout is WPS bets. Let's see Pimlico bring us 12% WPS and I'll bet there exclusively. ;)

[raybo]

Too bad. However, the biggest impact from takeout is WPS bets. Let's see Pimlico bring us 12% WPS and I'll bet there exclusively. ;)

I agree, if tracks really want to get serious about growing handle they have to address the "new player" problem, and that has nothing to do with the pick 5. Most new players would not even know what that is, nor would they be likely to get that "warm fuzzy feeling" about the prospect of hitting 5 winners in a row, while knowing very little about horse racing. Win, place, and show must be addressed in order to attract new players because that is how the vast majority of them get started betting.

[burnsy]

Somewhat, its better than nothing. Someone has to be there these days. That's the heart of the real issue. How about management that is actually "horseplayer friendly"? Hire horseracing people instead of cruise directors (for NY state) and "moguls" with stock holders. Everything at CDI looks great for now, how many years can they lose 11.5% (on horse racing) handle before the bottom drops out (on horse racing)? Everyone knows that never happens and all is secure forever...... :rolleyes: Wait until some of these clowns call horse racing a "business decision". Not saying it will happen but its not out of the realm either. Hey, they own 6 casinos and 5 race tracks, you figure out who will go out first.......Humans, animals and costs or machines that require grease and maintenance?

I don't what HANA can do but at least you got someone with our best interests in mind.

[dirty moose]

Pimlico's 12% P5 handled all of $6,397 today.

Neither Hastings nor Woodbine will even accept the wager.

Meanwhile WO's ripoff 25% P5 handled almost $30,000.

You can't fix stupid:bang::bang::bang:

[highnote]

The UK desperately needs a similar organisation.

Agree. I was a founding member of HANA and had mixed feelings about using "North America" in the name. A better name might have been something that was global in scope and then issue charters to various jurisdictions around the globe, but that's a huge undertaking, so limiting the scope is understandable.

Still, it might be possible to form a global coalition. Maybe call your group Horsplayers Association of the United Kingdm (HAUK) or (HAE, HAI, HAW, HAS, etc.) if you want to limit it to England, Ireland, Wales, etc.

It would be terrific to have a global network of concerned horseplayers sharing ideas.

[flatstats]

That's a good point about having a global entity, or affiliation. That will certainly help with global issues such as bent jockeys, drugs and stuff.

---

The more I read about overseas (non UK) racing the more I think you guys don't have it so rough. Here in the UK we are at the mercy of the British Horseracing Authority who are so addicted to bookmakers that every new policy they produce is anti-punter.

This year the BHA appointed a new Chief Executive. Nick Rust is an ex-manager of Ladbrokes - a bookmaker - and this has caused great concern amongst punters.

Three years ago the British government sold off the state owned Tote betting outlet. Previously the Tote used to have a take out of 13.5%, which equated to a decent advantage over the bookmakers SP (starting price - or final odds).

But the Tote was sold to the fourth largest bookmaker in the country (rather than a more punter friendly consortium). What happened next was an increase in the take out to 16.5%. This increase has totally wiped out any advantage Tote punters had over the SP.

It's stuff like this that grass roots punters do not even know about. There is no awareness of the different payouts and certainly no redress to counteract any increases in takeout. The racing media is effectively controlled by bookmakers (because they have hefty advertising and sponosoring contracts) and thus regular Joe Punter is being stiffed and probably does not even know he is being so.