Bettor Boycott in the pursuit of takeout reduction

[Koko]

Have any racing journalists/activists actually tried to organize such an event in the last decade or so, for a weekend/week's time to knock some sense into the states and tracks?

[twindouble]

Have any racing journalists/activists actually tried to organize such an event in the last decade or so, for a weekend/week's time to knock some sense into the states and tracks?

The only time I became an activist is when Green Mountain did away with the Twin Double, we formed a group and petitioned the management with a over Two thousand signatures and they brought it back.

What your proposing does work but the majority of players would rather just complain about things than get involved, thinking you can't beat city hall. In a way I don't blame them. An organized players entity would be effective in some areas I would think.

T.D.

[Koko]

I figure there are a few things working against this being effective.


1. Newspaper racing columnists would be shut up from spreading the news by their publishers who'd not dare make enemies with the bureaucrats or racing officials or other powerful interests.

2. The stereotype of the average bettor is all too true. Degenerate, clueless, immed. gratification mentality.

Yea, it's probably a futile venture, but I thought I'd heard racing journalists discussing it some time ago.

[kid4rilla]

I would love to get involved with something like that. But it seems to me that the takeout makes up the majority of the track profits. If there wasn't suck a high takeout, wouldn't a lot of tracks have to close the doors?

It seems like an unimaginable utopia, having a reduced takeout.

[GeTydOn]

Wasn't there some kind of boycot not to long ago? Can't remember for what though.

[twindouble]

I would love to get involved with something like that. But it seems to me that the takeout makes up the majority of the track profits. If there wasn't suck a high takeout, wouldn't a lot of tracks have to close the doors?

It seems like an unimaginable utopia, having a reduced takeout.

There's plenty of issues that can be challenged, it would depend on how well organized the players are and who they could bundle up with.

I would start with the State and Federal taxes on winnings, sounds like a big nut to crack but it's so unfair it boggles the mind. Anyway, my taxes are going out Monday and I sure as heck not getting a refund from the State.

T.D.

[hurrikane]

2. The stereotype of the average bettor is all too true. Degenerate, clueless, immed. gratification mentality.


Well, you're a chipper little fellow.

I play off shore and get a 7% rebate.

I am boycotting mr clueless.

[Fwizard]

I don't think he was talking about offshore rebates--I do 80% of my betting w/pinnacle because I know that % adds to my bottom line--but I do think that most(there are exceptions-people that are informed) don't understand how much the takeout hurts when you compare 21% to 14%--in fact I have a few buddies that bet horses with a bookie ---the problem is he never pays the cents--so a 7.40 pays 7.00---I tell them they are crazy--they respond I know but its the way they play---I tried to explain how much money even a small player is just giving away...

[Koko]

Well, you're a chipper little fellow.

I play off shore and get a 7% rebate.

I am boycotting mr clueless.

Hurrikane,

You seem to be somehow offended by my statement. Let's see if I was addressing you. Do you consider yourself the "average bettor"? If you do, then I'm sorry if my opinion cast you in a bad light. If you don't, why would you be offended or annoyed by the statement?

The "average bettor" that I described is the very reason, that you, presumeably can profit in this investment arena that has such a high takeout to overcome.

Can you share your sentiments on this a bit more, I'm kind of mystified by the tone of your response. By the way I also take advantage of the same rebate.

[twindouble]

Hurrikane,

You seem to be somehow offended by my statement. Let's see if I was addressing you. Do you consider yourself the "average bettor"? If you do, then I'm sorry if my opinion cast you in a bad light. If you don't, why would you be offended or annoyed by the statement?

The "average bettor" that I described is the very reason, that you, presumeably can profit in this investment arena that has such a high takeout to overcome.

Can you share your sentiments on this a bit more, I'm kind of mystified by the tone of your response. By the way I also take advantage of the same rebate.

Koko; Lets stay on topic. This is the way I see it, what amazes this country corn flake is what we do right here on the Internet, for the first time I can talk to anyone around the world and split seconds from MA to CA, no added cost. So from my perspective that opens the door to achieving what you have in mind and as said, this isn't the first time the subject come up. Seems to me it's bantered around but never takes off. We have the tools to do it, why not give it a try?


T.D.

[Koko]

Koko; Lets stay on topic. This is the way I see it, what amazes this country corn flake is what we do right here on the Internet, for the first time I can talk to anyone around the world and split seconds from MA to CA, no added cost. So from my perspective that opens the door to achieving what you have in mind and as said, this isn't the first time the subject come up. Seems to me it's bantered around but never takes off. We have the tools to do it, why not give it a try?


T.D.

T.D.,

I wasn't necessarily looking to be an activist in this cause, although I would certainly agree to join such a movement. I was just posing the question wondering if anyone had attempted such an action lately. A lower takeout would probably help even those of us who bet offshore with rebates, maybe that's the point that Hurrikane was addressing, that he didn't think he'd have anything to gain from it, but I'm not so sure that that's the truth.

[twindouble]

T.D.,

I wasn't necessarily looking to be an activist in this cause, although I would certainly agree to join such a movement. I was just posing the question wondering if anyone had attempted such an action lately. A lower takeout would probably help even those of us who bet offshore with rebates, maybe that's the point that Hurrikane was addressing, that he didn't think he'd have anything to gain from it, but I'm not so sure that that's the truth.

To me, the takeout isn't were any group will get results, it's a can of worms and to complex ESP today with rising costs at tracks and low attendence.

So, this thread will die on the vine like many others.

Good luck,

T.D.

[toetoe]

Theoretically, the lower takeout churns more money overall in a day, otherwise we wouldn't in good faith propose it.

I prefer urban corn flakes. They have that smoky hint to them. :ThmbUp:

[hurrikane]

the takeout only affects players that churn money through the 'windows' daily and in a meaningful volumn. I don't think that is your average player.

I don't think the rake affects the average player. At least not as much as the beer.

I was not offended, and didn't mean for it to sound that way. Most people don't care about the rake, they just want to go to the track, throw back a few, have some fun, and go home. Because they don't want to join some little protest you demean them.

The fact is everyone wants to complain about the rake. So take you business elsewhere. That's capitalizism. i play at a place with a lower take. call it a rebate if you like. I would much rather play inshore but the cost of doing that business is to high. So, until they wake up this is where i'm at.

[Koko]

. Because they don't want to join some little protest you demean them.



Hurrikane,

I didn't demean them because they didn't join a non-existent protest. I made a statement of analysis that explained IMO, WHY they might not join a protest that would benefit them to SOME extent.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Dickie Moore, the general manager of racing at West Virginia's Charles Town Races & Slots - which is owned by the Wyomissing-based Penn National Gaming - said "hardcore gamblers" likely would place bets on races outside Pennsylvania for a better takeout rate, but casual or novice gamblers won't notice the difference.

"If they win a few dollars, it's fine for them," Moore said, "but the industry is just looking to make sure they have a good time and come back."
_________
Goood luck with the tracks if you are not owners wanting more gambling to result in higher purses!
According to tracks higher purses means "better product"; lower takeout means wasting money returning it to addicted gamblers.
Why shouldn't tracks treat bettors like the majority are idiots, until proven otherwise?

[Koko]

[QUOTE=kenwoodallpromosAccording to tracks higher purses means "better product"; lower takeout means wasting money returning it to addicted gamblers.
Why shouldn't tracks treat bettors like the majority are idiots, until proven otherwise?[/QUOTE]

Couldn't have said it better myself Ken.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"The horsemen are very much our partners in putting on the races. I'm hopeful that we're not finished with purse increases for them," Oaklawn Racing Secretary Pat Pope said. "The outlook for the second half of our meet is outstanding and that prospect would almost certainly mean that additional increases are very possible."

Through March 5, on-track handle at the Hot Springs, Arkansas, track was up 5% despite losing three days of the President's Day weekend due to a frozen racing surface. Off-track handle was up 45% and Instant Racing has enjoyed an 80% increase."
_______________
Here from today's T.Times is more trashing of the bettors- handle (and the track's take) up 45%- but horsemen (owners) are the partners- trash with the cash.
The reason bettors are never listened to and trainers rarely- but owners and breeders all the time- is 1 thing- organization.
Every racing organization- NTRA, HBPA, TOBAs, Brisnet (Bloodstock), Bloodhorse, Thoroughbred Times, Jockey Club, state racing associations, state racing ruling commissions, are run by owners and cater to owners.
Whether right or wrong good or bad, those are the facts.
I got no response here or other places on the internet to my new organization which required only an email to join and nothing else.
Never happen.

[Koko]

We effectively act like battered spouses. They kick our butt's day after day, we know it, hate it and still come back home every night. Apparently some co-dependancy thing going on.

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://horseracing.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.horseplayerdaily.com/stats/vig/
______________
This table shows trifecta takeout at KY tracks at 19%- Pa tracks at 30 and 31%.
14% WPS takeout at NY tracks- 20% at some others.
The tracks and states are feeling the offshore hit due to the loss of takeout- that is why they are being banned. The big bettors will still bet online or find the better net return at the tracks- small bettors do not care that their $2.00 is only worth $1.30-$1.60 when the gates open due to takeout and breakage.
Like I said prior, takeout for state or multistate lotteries and lottos are 50%- but who cares when it is still $1 to play.
Racing is $1 or $2 (or 10 cents!) to play, and the psychology is that the % does not matter- only the actual dollar amount to play.
I'm not surprised- because to the majority of bettors the ROI or % return does not matter- only the actual numbers of win tickets, win %, or if they bet the winner of the latest big stakes race. It is bragging rights, even if they have to lose real money to do the bragging!
The racing industry and tracks could not care less about the bettors or handicappers as long as the tracks' handle increases- the only way they sould care is if there were a significant numbers of minus pools at a track (a track with $2.20 minimum payout!).

[Koko]

.
The tracks and states are feeling the offshore hit due to the loss of takeout- that is why they are being banned.

Ken,

What specifically are you referring to regarding banning? Do you have any good sources for that topic? Thanks.

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/search/searchdetail.asp?RecordNo=48833&Section=1
_______
T.Times search onder "offshore" will get you to some other articles about offshores and some onshore sites that tracks want stopped because of less income for states and tracks. CHRB allows only Youbet, Xpress, and TVG. Brisnet and others stay out of Ca due to regulations.
There has been posts on PA about certain states, like PA, limiting out of state betting.
There has been various news articles in the recent past about how the rebates are hurting an some ideas tossed around in the racing industry about giving rebates themselves. I will look for that.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sounds like NY now does not allow internet horserace betting. They are also talking about raising the takeout (so high-volume bettors can get a rebate?)
Who do you think the high-volume bettors are, other than racehorse owners and breeders?

________________
"Posted: 3/9/2006 4:18:00 AM ET

Friends of New York submits legislation for proposed racing reform

Friends of New York Racing submitted proposed legislation on Thursday toward implementation of its recommendations for restructuring and reforming the state's Thoroughbred racing industry.

The proposed legislation would permit for profit, and public-private partnerships to compete for the franchise to operate Aqueduct, Belmont Park, and Saratoga Race Course. NYRA's current franchise contract expires on December 31, 2007.

The legislation also would permit advanced deposit wagering by personal computer or other electronic means, as opposed to telephone-only access; permit cash rebates to high-volume gamblers; lift the prohibition on video lottery terminals at Belmont Park; and apply the pari-mutuel tax to takeout, not handle, which would fund regulatory oversight of horse racing and dedicate 5% to compulsive gambling programs."

(in other words, screwing the live and NY OTB bettors in favor of online bettors).

I say the tracks ought to at least hire cheerleaders!

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by kenwoodallpromos:
Goood luck with the tracks if you are not owners wanting more gambling to result in higher purses! According to tracks higher purses means "better product"; lower takeout means wasting money returning it to addicted gamblers. Why shouldn't tracks treat bettors like the majority are idiots, until proven otherwise?I think the CHRB Chairman Shapiro is attempting to change that perspective.

Originally Posted by kenwoodallpromos:
Here from today's T.Times is more trashing of the bettors- handle (and the track's take) up 45%- but horsemen (owners) are the partners- trash with the cash.
The reason bettors are never listened to and trainers rarely- but owners and breeders all the time- is 1 thing- organization. Every racing organization- NTRA, HBPA, TOBAs, Brisnet (Bloodstock), Bloodhorse, Thoroughbred Times, Jockey Club, state racing associations, state racing ruling commissions, are run by owners and cater to owners.
Whether right or wrong good or bad, those are the facts.


I got no response here or other places on the internet to my new organization which required only an email to join and nothing else. Never happen.You didn’t get my e-mail address because even though you sound like a great guy, I’m suspicious of marketing types by nature.;) I’m on too many lists as it is.Originally Posted by kenwoodallpromos:
Racing is $1 or $2 (or 10 cents!) to play, and the psychology is that the % does not matter- only the actual dollar amount to play. I'm not surprised- because to the majority of bettors the ROI or % return does not matter- only the actual numbers of win tickets, win %, or if they bet the winner of the latest big stakes race. It is bragging rights, even if they have to lose real money to do the bragging!


The racing industry and tracks could not care less about the bettors or handicappers as long as the tracks' handle increases- the only way they sould care is if there were a significant numbers of minus pools at a track
Originally Posted by kenwoodallpromos:
The legislation also would permit advanced deposit wagering by personal computer or other electronic means, as opposed to telephone-only access; permit cash rebates to high-volume gamblers; lift the prohibition on video lottery terminals at Belmont Park; and apply the pari-mutuel tax to takeout, not handle, which would fund regulatory oversight of horse racing and dedicate 5% to compulsive gambling programs."

(in other words, screwing the live and NY OTB bettors in favor of online bettors).KW,
Now that’s what I call expressing an opinion – and passionately articulate as well!

I’d be happy to communicate via the PA PM initially (which shouldn’t be a problem as long as it’s just used to bring people of like-minds together for a supposedly beneficial purpose) and see how things develop. If PA isn’t inclined to support such activity by member racing fans, then I suspect the idea of a boycott couldn’t gain traction anywhere.

I’ll willing to withhold wagers indefinitely (except for the TC, BC, and their preps :D) if others are also willing to do so in order to achieve fairer treatment. Since you’re a promoter, I’m sure you have lots of ideas for getting out the message off-board..

Originally Posted by kenwoodallpromos:
Who do you think the high-volume bettors are, other than racehorse owners and breeders?
I think most owners are in the game for entertainment and breeders for profit with little risk. My guess is that very few, if any, are Moby Pricks -- professional bettors who qualify for the significant rebates and feed off the small fish that try to swim in their pools. I envision them as too focused and stressed to participate, much less enjoy, anything that requires a long-term commitment.

I would like to see takeout lowered and rebates eliminated altogether thereby effectively (as Steve Crist once put it) giving “rebates to all”. What’s your position?

[linrom1]

“Horseplayers are stupid, and will come back despite increased takeout.” The facts do not support this claim. When takeout was increased from 10% to 15% in the 1940s, handle dropped by 30%. Where are new racing fans? There aren’t any! The general public has been boycotting horse racing since 1940s and someone asks about boycotting racing? :lol:

[kenwoodallpromos]

The largest exotic takeouts are in PA, and Manor Downs; the largest WPS takeouts are in NM and AZ. If you want to be heard, get hundreds of people to send emails to Manor Downs or Sunland and tell them to lower their takeout to be on par with other USA tracks. If they do not, find pivotal races and bet enough to show to ensure minus pools, maybe $100 between 20 people.
I say owners and breeders have the power; follow the money and wealth- Stronach has the money to buy up tracks; Steinbrenner has money; Jennie Craig, Pegram, in the old days the Hollywood crowd, and now the sheiks- that is wealth in ownership.
Look at the list of breeders in the various Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Associations- they are often the directors and presidents of the racing organizations. Think about the big breeders in Ca, Fl, KY- and what the combined value of the land they own is!
When the choice is lowering the takeout for the average race bettor, or shoveling more money to the land, money, and politically connected, not much of a decision to make.
It is the TOBA members who give to state politics and candidates, not you or me. And like it or not, it is the state politicians who make or break racing.
If I were a governor, I woukd much rather have lotteries than horsreracing. It is more profitable and less trouble.
Maybe it is the owners and breeders who keep racing viable and use their influence to keep the tracks open- because as I have said before, if it was up to me only 1 track per circuit would be open all year- the rest sold off and land used for some other purpose.
How much taxes could be generated by turning Belmont and Aqueduct into hotel space? I know how valuable the land where SA, Hollywood, and DM sits is. Same way with GGF and BM out here.
For the smaller tracks, and the Ca county fairs, live betting brings in much needed taxes and spending. Their communities depend on racing much more than NY or LA.
Which ones of the smaller tracks have the biggest handle increases from simulcast or internet betting? Turf Paradise? a New Mexico track? If anybody needs a wake-up call about too high takeout they do!
I believe if a large number of bettors threatened to take their business away from a smaller AZ or NM track (whether the boycotters actually bet the track or not), all tracks would hear about it.
Good luck!

[twindouble]

I would like to see takeout lowered and rebates eliminated altogether thereby effectively (as Steve Crist once put it) giving “rebates to all”. What’s your position? Indulto


That's exactly what I said when I found out they existed and that wasn't to long ago, maybe a couple years.


The facts do not support this claim. When takeout was increased from 10% to 15% in the 1940s, handle dropped by 30%. Where are new racing fans? There aren’t any! The general public has been boycotting horse racing since 1940s and someone asks about boycotting racing? limron1


I would think we all can agree the handle is up overall for the industry as a result of online wagering but we have no stats that say it's new players or a combination of new players and the whales. Nor how much foreign money is pumped into our pools tax free on winnings from what I understand.

Like I said, any players organization taking on takeout or handle or State taxes on handle would be like taking on the IRS. Not only that each track has a unique economic condition and I wouldn't be for pushing small tracks over the edge but I would be for spreading the rebates fairly as said above.

When it comes to the IRS I think their weakest link when it comes to racing and Federal taxes is the W2G, that would take just one bill to get rid of them. Not being greedy, I would suggest they just withhold on a smaller % on huge scores for just the Jocks disability act. That would bring the Jocks Guild into our fold and maybe the horsemen and tracks if offered a piece of the pie for purces.


Another thing that comes to mind is, we can put pressure on those tracks that are deem to be weak on drug use along with running horses that are not sound. Another area of concern that always comes up is the Stewart's and their lack of uniform decision making, myself I don't worry about it but it seems there are legit complaints.


Good luck,

T.D.

[RaceIsClosed]

Theoretically, the lower takeout churns more money overall in a day, otherwise we wouldn't in good faith propose it.

I prefer urban corn flakes. They have that smoky hint to them. :ThmbUp:

The lower takeout also creates more winners who remove money permanently from the pools. However, it also creates more handle, so there's a point at which the extra handle is sufficient to cover the extra winners.

If you made the takeout 2 percent, you'd see very quickly how winning players cost the track money -- i.e., they get the money before the track has a chance to churn it.

[Koko]

The lower takeout also creates more winners who remove money permanently from the pools. However, it also creates more handle, so there's a point at which the extra handle is sufficient to cover the extra winners.

If you made the takeout 2 percent, you'd see very quickly how winning players cost the track money -- i.e., they get the money before the track has a chance to churn it.

RaceisClosed,

You're making the assumption that "winning players" have a tendency to not increase their bets as their bankroll grows. Unless you're talking about the anomaly of the player who's bankroll has gotten too big for the mutual pools, I think that is a total fallacy. Essentially what you're saying is that the very players who put in the time, effort and investment to get to be a winning player, then do not take full advantage of this acheivement and increase their bet size as their bankroll grows.

That just doesn't jibe with my vision of reality. Could you expound a bit more on why you believe that's true?

[Indulto]

Originally posted by twindouble:
When it comes to the IRS I think their weakest link when it comes to racing and Federal taxes is the W2G, that would take just one bill to get rid of them. Not being greedy, I would suggest they just withhold on a smaller % on huge scores for just the Jocks disability act. That would bring the Jocks Guild into our fold and maybe the horsemen and tracks if offered a piece of the pie for purces.TD,

Bravo! That’s exactly the kind of thinking needed to make something like this fly. The most likely way to change the status quo is to offer a more attractive alternative! Of course this particular proposal smacks both of NYC OTB’s surcharge on winnings and soaking the rich. :lol:

[twindouble]

TD,

Bravo! That’s exactly the kind of thinking needed to make something like this fly. The most likely way to change the status quo is to offer a more attractive alternative! Of course this particular proposal smacks both of NYC OTB’s surcharge on winnings and soaking the rich. :lol:

Thanks, I always get the feeling what I say is lost in the wind. Like I said, how and who we bundle up with makes for success. Even has horse players it's best to share the risk and burden when taking on something that requires more than you have. Taking that kind of position has worked well for me over the years.


T.D.

[rrbauer]

Have any racing journalists/activists actually tried to organize such an event in the last decade or so, for a weekend/week's time to knock some sense into the states and tracks?

You can't get it done with a week's or a weekend's commitment. You need at least a year and I believe that you need to cause a 20% or more reduction in handle at the track(s) that you target. You need to have a lot of people signed on to make it effective. When you get involved in something like a boycott you need to be relentless and non-compromising. State your goals up front and make those non-negotiable demands. Remember that until you have gathered some momentum and have enough players signed on that will help beat the bushes and get new people signed on, that you are a real longshot to succeed.

It helps for the target to be big....more than a single track. When we took on Magna they had succeeded in pissing off tons of players at a dozen different venues. They were an easy target and one that players everywhere could relate to as the bad guy. That made it easy for me to address specific issues in interviews with the racing press, because I knew that I was speaking for way more than just myself.

When you think about it, if you are playing at venues that feature takeout percents that are above the average for the industry, you are taking the worst of it; and, if for no other reason than that, you should look to venues that offer more reasonable terms; and, a better opportunity for profits.

The one issue today that I believe could be broad enough to attract enough "soldiers" for an effective boycott is breakage reform. With few exceptions it's a universal problem and could be addressed with universal solutions. Again, I don't know if enough people would be willing to sign on for the duration required in order to have a chance for success. Horseplayers, for the most part, have pretty compulsive personalities when it comes to betting. Getting them to "quit" for an extended period of time might be too much pain.

Setup a poll and see what people say they are willing to do.

[twindouble]

You can't get it done with a week's or a weekend's commitment. You need at least a year and I believe that you need to cause a 20% or more reduction in handle at the track(s) that you target. You need to have a lot of people signed on to make it effective. When you get involved in something like a boycott you need to be relentless and non-compromising. State your goals up front and make those non-negotiable demands. Remember that until you have gathered some momentum and have enough players signed on that will help beat the bushes and get new people signed on, that you are a real longshot to succeed.

It helps for the target to be big....more than a single track. When we took on Magna they had succeeded in pissing off tons of players at a dozen different venues. They were an easy target and one that players everywhere could relate to as the bad guy. That made it easy for me to address specific issues in interviews with the racing press, because I knew that I was speaking for way more than just myself.

When you think about it, if you are playing at venues that feature takeout percents that are above the average for the industry, you are taking the worst of it; and, if for no other reason than that, you should look to venues that offer more reasonable terms; and, a better opportunity for profits.

The one issue today that I believe could be broad enough to attract enough "soldiers" for an effective boycott is breakage reform. With few exceptions it's a universal problem and could be addressed with universal solutions. Again, I don't know if enough people would be willing to sign on for the duration required in order to have a chance for success. Horseplayers, for the most part, have pretty compulsive personalities when it comes to betting. Getting them to "quit" for an extended period of time might be too much pain.

Setup a poll and see what people say they are willing to do.

First a couple questions when it comes to breakage. Where does that money go and how much are we talking about? Does if vary from state to state as to who gets it? Are you saying with today's technology it can be set up so the breakage would be less and more money would go back to the player?

Keep in mind these are areas I never concerned myself with when it came to handicapping or wagering because I never felt it meant the difference in winning or losing and I still don't.

I think there's more potential to settle the rebate problem and the tax on winnings. Both are unfair but as you know rebates favor the rich as they exist at the present time, not the average players. Historically parimutuel wagering has been a level playing field and in my opinion it should have stayed that way.


I agree most players won't hang up their gambling for any cause for any length of time but in today's world that wouldn't be necessary. With online wagering we can send our money anywhere we want and no one has control over that but us. There's very few players that play just one track anyway or deal with just one online server. Any boycott can be planed in a way that wouldn't effect the players action or effect his bottom line. A good strategy would be to pick the right time based on what tracks are operating to have the best effect moving that money around. Like I said bringing in existing organizations is the way to go.

T.D.

[toetoe]

The best I can think of right now is the Sam Houston 12% take on pick-threes. It would be kind of a nightmare, but I think a contest using SHRP would be good. However, tracks have one or two pools apiece that are great while the other pools are usurious. Do they deserve the action on the low takeout pools, and are they wise enough to understand our intent? :confused:

[rrbauer]

td wrote:
"First a couple questions when it comes to breakage. Where does that money go and how much are we talking about? Does if vary from state to state as to who gets it? Are you saying with today's technology it can be set up so the breakage would be less and more money would go back to the player?"

About a year ago there was a thread here about breakage and I posted a very long piece about how breakage came to be and some alternatives to the "dime" breakage that exists in most states today.

In short, there is no reason for any breakage beyond a penny today and that breakage should only be applied to cash payouts. Cash vouchers and betting account payouts involve no human interface as far as the amount goes so the "keeping payouts simple" reason to apply breakage holds no water. Since breakage was originally employed to make the calculation of payout prices easier (for the manually calculated payoff prices), and those calculations today are all done by tote-network computers the "need to keep calculations simple" reason to apply breakage likewise holds no water.

The level of breakage and the recepients vary all over the place; usually, on a state-by-state basis. In most cases, some level of state legislation is required to change how breakage is handled. Since most racing authorities have one or more state legislators in their pocket that they go to whenever they want legislation sponsored, it is the racing authorities who are the culprits. And it is their indifferent attitudes towards their customers that has to change. The bottom-line is that today, every winning bet a horseplayer makes gains him/her a partner in the payout. An uninvited partner who is little more than a parasite taking advantage of the public.

[rrbauer]

td also wrote:
"I agree most players won't hang up their gambling for any cause for any length of time but in today's world that wouldn't be necessary. With online wagering we can send our money anywhere we want and no one has control over that but us. There's very few players that play just one track anyway or deal with just one online server. Any boycott can be planed in a way that wouldn't effect the players action or effect his bottom line. A good strategy would be to pick the right time based on what tracks are operating to have the best effect moving that money around. Like I said bringing in existing organizations is the way to go."

Set it up, man. I'll sign on.

[twindouble]

Set it up, man. I'll sign on.

__________________
Richard Bauer

:eek:
Why me? Koko already expressed he wasn't interested in getting anything off the ground and I would also support the idea. To do it myself, well I'd have to give that some serious thought. Being retired, actually puts me in a better position than most time wise but that would surely be new territory for me in every sense.

T.D.

[RaceIsClosed]

RaceisClosed,

You're making the assumption that "winning players" have a tendency to not increase their bets as their bankroll grows. Unless you're talking about the anomaly of the player who's bankroll has gotten too big for the mutual pools, I think that is a total fallacy. Essentially what you're saying is that the very players who put in the time, effort and investment to get to be a winning player, then do not take full advantage of this acheivement and increase their bet size as their bankroll grows.

That just doesn't jibe with my vision of reality. Could you expound a bit more on why you believe that's true?


Fallacy?

How do pro horseplayers pay their bills then? That money is removed from the pools. Also, if they already bet the max, they won't increase because to do so would kill the pools.

Picture a poker game with five guys, $100 each in the pot, and a $500 pot, with a 1 percent rake. One guy wins $400 on the first hand and goes home. The other players then churn everything they have.

In which scenario does the house get more money? The pros beat the house to the churn.

[Koko]

Fallacy?

How do pro horseplayers pay their bills then? That money is removed from the pools. Also, if they already bet the max, they won't increase because to do so would kill the pools.

Picture a poker game with five guys, $100 each in the pot, and a $500 pot, with a 1 percent rake. One guy wins $400 on the first hand and goes home. The other players then churn everything they have.

In which scenario does the house get more money? The pros beat the house to the churn.

Race is Closed,



I find your example contradictory and irrelevant. No offense mind you.

1. If a Pro has to spend all his profits paying his bills, then he's probably not at the level of betting where he's too big for the pools.

2. A typical Pro isn't starting out the game with a bankroll that is too big for the game, otherwise they'd be more likely playing in another market (financial, real estate, what have you) in the first place. If I have a $10 million dollar portfolio I'm not going to spend too much time investing a bit of it at the track. Sure I could hire someone to run some of it through the windows as diversification from my other investments theoretically.

3. A higher takeout doesn't keep the money in play, it gives it to Non-Players.

[twindouble]

Race is Closed,



I find your example contradictory and irrelevant. No offense mind you.

1. If a Pro has to spend all his profits paying his bills, then he's probably not at the level of betting where he's too big for the pools.

2. A typical Pro isn't starting out the game with a bankroll that is too big for the game, otherwise they'd be more likely playing in another market (financial, real estate, what have you) in the first place. If I have a $10 million dollar portfolio I'm not going to spend too much time investing a bit of it at the track. Sure I could hire someone to run some of it through the windows as diversification from my other investments theoretically.

3. A higher takeout doesn't keep the money in play, it gives it to Non-Players.

Koko; There's no question the more money that goes back to the players the handle goes up, it's like a rule when it comes to managing a track.

If anyone thinks about how and why the gimmicks came about, that's a good example. The more action the players have the more they will gamble. The progression was the DD, then the Ex, then my favorite the Twin Double. The problem with the Twin Double was it was it started in the 5th race and ended in the 8th. A very small percentage of players would take it down including myself and partners. That money didn't go back threw the windows, plus it sat there for 4 races. That's why they did away with it and come up with the big Exacta, two races that was like the twin tri we have today at some tracks. Then that was gone and they come up with the tri, paid out right after the race.

What the tracks failed to realize is just about every player is looking for that big score, that's why we were successful in bring back the Twin Double but they still got rid of it claiming that in some form or another the wise guys or syndicates were fixing it. When they finely came to their senses the pick 3,4 and 6 were born along with the super including the rolling picks, doubles and the twin tri. Action all over the place and they covered every base.

The beauty of the Twin Double was the exchange part, on the second half the average players leaned on the chalks whereas savvy handicappers had a huge edge that included a better overall wagering strategy. Those were my Golden years, today it's just silver now and then but mostly bronze.

T.D.

[twindouble]

I thought I'd throw this in to support what I was saying about bundling up with other organizations. I just clipped a couple paragraphs from the DRF.


Guild, racing officials continue talksBy MATT HEGARTY
Officials of the Jockeys' Guild met with representatives of racetracks and horsemen's organizations on Tuesday at Gulfstream Park in Florida in the latest round of talks between the two sides on how to improve conditions for riders, participants in the talks said.

"We didn't come up with any solutions, but we had a very productive and informative meeting," Roark said. "I think the one big subject that everyone agreed on is that we need to find a way to care for these disabled jockeys, and I think that's something the industry can solve right now."



T.D.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Guild, racing officials continue talksBy MATT HEGARTY
Officials of the Jockeys' Guild met with representatives of racetracks and horsemen's organizations on Tuesday at Gulfstream Park in Florida in the latest round of talks between the two sides on how to improve conditions for riders, participants in the talks said.

"We didn't come up with any solutions, but we had a very productive and informative meeting," Roark said. "I think the one big subject that everyone agreed on is that we need to find a way to care for these disabled jockeys, and I think that's something the industry can solve right now."
Safety+ bad PR + cheap talk that looks good.

[Indulto]

Maybe the takeout and rebate issues could be raised here

State committee seeks input from racing fans by PAUL POST, The Saratogian
http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16305539&BRD=1169&PAG=461&dept_id=17708&rfi=6 (http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16305539&BRD=1169&PAG=461&dept_id=17708&rfi=6)

“…The state Committee on the Future of Racing has scheduled a hearing for 5 to 9 p.m. Thursday, March 23, at the National Museum of Racing's Hall of Fame Room.

…A similar hearing is expected to be held on Long Island for downstate fans in late March or early April.

In January, about 50 industry leaders testified before the committee during hearings in Albany and Manhattan. Knowlton said he wants fans to voice opinions about everything they like and don't like about racing, from picnic cooler policies to proposed Internet wagering.

…Committee Executive Director Robert Williams said fans may address several issues:
- What should the committee include with any request for proposals?
- What would fans like to see from the next franchise holder?
- What changes should the next franchise holder make?
- What shouldn't be changed by the next franchise holder?”

[twindouble]

Maybe the takeout and rebate issues could be raised here

State committee seeks input from racing fans by PAUL POST, The Saratogian
http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16305539&BRD=1169&PAG=461&dept_id=17708&rfi=6 (http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16305539&BRD=1169&PAG=461&dept_id=17708&rfi=6)

“…The state Committee on the Future of Racing has scheduled a hearing for 5 to 9 p.m. Thursday, March 23, at the National Museum of Racing's Hall of Fame Room.

…A similar hearing is expected to be held on Long Island for downstate fans in late March or early April.

In January, about 50 industry leaders testified before the committee during hearings in Albany and Manhattan. Knowlton said he wants fans to voice opinions about everything they like and don't like about racing, from picnic cooler policies to proposed Internet wagering.

…Committee Executive Director Robert Williams said fans may address several issues:
- What should the committee include with any request for proposals?
- What would fans like to see from the next franchise holder?
- What changes should the next franchise holder make?
- What shouldn't be changed by the next franchise holder?”

I always find these type of meetings laughable. First off they already have in mind what they intend to do and most speakers will be well placed in support of their agenda. The whole idea is just to smooth talk the fans to find out how much they can stick it to you.

When the players have no power base just a crumb or two will come your way but utlimatly within the final wording they will get more. Mark my words on that score.

In my opinion the States have to many cash cows as it is, if they were serious about keeping racing alive and well they should get out of the game and treat every track operation like any other business, taxed on the bottom line only. The same goes for the Federal Government.

T.D.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by twindouble:


I always find these type of meetings laughable. First off they already have in mind what they intend to do and most speakers will be well placed in support of their agenda. The whole idea is just to smooth talk the fans to find out how much they can stick it to you.TD,
Your probably right, but I’d still like to see some demonstrators out there with signs bearing the motto, “Rebates for all, lower the takeout.”

I hereby second rrb’s nomination of you for chairman of a new player interest group.

rrb might not agree, but I propose the name PARR -- Players Against Restricted Rebates.

[twindouble]

TD,
Your probably right, but I’d still like to see some demonstrators out there with signs bearing the motto, “Rebates for all, lower the takeout.”

I hereby second rrb’s nomination of you for chairman of a new player interest group.

rrb might not agree, but I propose the name PARR -- Players Against Restricted Rebates.

I thank both of you for your vote of confidence.:faint:


T.D.

[twindouble]

I thank both of you for your vote of confidence.:faint:


T.D.

What I meant by the above was, I don't think I qualify for such a position. It would be like hiring Bush as an English professor. :D


T.D.

[Koko]

I just had a thought about perhaps the best strategy to pursue in attacking the takeout. Use the divide and conquer technique. Take the track or tracks with the highest takeout and boycott those tracks both live and simulcast wagering on and from their locations. In theory it's a great strategy, in practice maybe not so powerful due to the fact that many tracks are owned by the two conglomerates in the industry today.

I still think it would make sense from a strategic viewpoint, in someone were going to stage such an assault on the takeout. So Philadelphia Park and it's 30% exotic takeout would be target numero uno.

[kenwoodallpromos]

MD 17.0 27.8 30.0 n/o 27.8 30.0 30.0

[rrbauer]

Some of the higher takeouts are associated with smaller tracks that don't get a lot of action from outside their region. For that reason and for the simple fact that through our failure to play those tracks anyway there would be little to gain by a boycott of those tracks.

A strategy that might work would be to take on the tracks that are now subsidized by slots but which have not made any takeout reduction since the slot subsidies were put into place. Since they no longer rely on takeout as their sole source of revenue they should do something for their long-term customers, the horseplayers, and share the good times by reducing the pari-mutuel takeout.

Thoughts?

[The Judge]

This was over 10 years ago I'm pretty sure.but it did happen I was on the line. I don't remember the guy who organized it but I think it was also in Southern Cal at the same time. About 50 people picked ,in general the shabby treatment at the track. $5 exactas,takeout prices ect. Also those that didn't picket were encouraged to were "blue shirts" lots of "blue shirts" in the stands. Ads were ran in th DRF we sent in donations but I'm sure the cost out weighted the contributions. The guy that organized it had some money I'm sure. Got back $2 exacts a little better treatment for a while. Passed out literature, lots of horn honking etc. We picketed I think until the 3rd race.

[rrbauer]

This was over 10 years ago I'm pretty sure.but it did happen I was on the line. I don't remember the guy who organized it but I think it was also in Southern Cal at the same time. About 50 people picked ,in general the shabby treatment at the track. $5 exactas,takeout prices ect. Also those that didn't picket were encouraged to were "blue shirts" lots of "blue shirts" in the stands. Ads were ran in th DRF we sent in donations but I'm sure the cost out weighted the contributions. The guy that organized it had some money I'm sure. Got back $2 exacts a little better treatment for a while. Passed out literature, lots of horn honking etc. We picketed I think until the 3rd race.

It was early 90's. Roger Newell was the organizer and he picked up the tab for most of the expenses (I paid for the signs!). We picketed Santa Anita first and then a few weeks later Roger went north to Bay Meadows. I have a video tape somewhere of the picket line in the Bay Meadows parking lot.

But, Roger used this to his personal advantage and that turned a lot of his supporters off to the "cause".

This was the same time that R. D. Hubbard purchased Hollywood Park and the Hollywood meet that followed the Santa Anita meet with pickets was his first meet as owner of that track. Hubbard contacted Roger for a meeting and basically "bought" him to prevent any picketing at Hollywood.

To Hubbard's credit he also implemented a number of the things we were trying to get done: $1 exactas and rolling P3's were two of them. And, a "free" telephone line for race results (not the 900-line that they were using). Also, he was successful in getting Santa Anita to modify its agreement with Trevor Denman so that Trevor could call the races at Hollywood. (Later Denman begged off from the Hollywood meet so he could spend summers in Minnesota or somewhere up there where he had a farm.) Roger stayed on at Hollywood as a "consultant" to Hubbard until R. D. sold the track to Churchill. Churchill dropped him like a hot potato!

[Indulto]

rrb,

Yet another of your informative posts that satisfied a curiousity of long-standing. When are you going to write the book needed to really motivate the uninformed, unfocused, apathetic fan whose passion could still be ignited given the proper stimulus?

It just occurred to me that I never met any horseplayer really into the labor movement who wasn't a mutuel clerk.

[RaceIsClosed]

RaceisClosed,
You're making the assumption that "winning players" have a tendency to not increase their bets as their bankroll grows. Unless you're talking about the anomaly of the player who's bankroll has gotten too big for the mutual pools, I think that is a total fallacy. Essentially what you're saying is that the very players who put in the time, effort and investment to get to be a winning player, then do not take full advantage of this acheivement and increase their bet size as their bankroll grows.

That just doesn't jibe with my vision of reality. Could you expound a bit more on why you believe that's true?

You just explained my points:

1. The bet size won't increase after a certain point on the pool-size curve has been reached (the excess winnings aren't churned). This means when Beyer puts up $5,000 and nails a $117 exacta for $2,000 cold like in the 1984 Belmont, that money goes in his IRA, 401(k), or mutual fund, where it sits until he adds to it with the next big score. In other words, the tooth fairy doesn't pay the bills of a pro horseplayer, the money of losing players does.

2. It's possible to have no one profit at the track, and then you get 100 percent churn. The lower the takeout, the greater this problem becomes, so you have to set it high enough so that very few people win. On the other hand, since the rebate consists of the OTB's cut and not the tracks, that extra money is also churned, which offsets the money that is removed by the winners.

Imagine three syndicates wiping out the carryover twice a week at NYRA if you want a clearer example of this.

Or picture a poker game with five guys who each bring $100 and a 1 percent rake. Some guy wins $300 in the first hand and goes home. That money is never churned.

[Koko]

You just explained my points:

1. The bet size won't increase after a certain point on the pool-size curve has been reached (the excess winnings aren't churned). This means when Beyer puts up $5,000 and nails a $117 exacta for $2,000 cold like in the 1984 Belmont, that money goes in his IRA, 401(k), or mutual fund, where it sits until he adds to it with the next big score. In other words, the tooth fairy doesn't pay the bills of a pro horseplayer, the money of losing players does.

2. It's possible to have no one profit at the track, and then you get 100 percent churn. The lower the takeout, the greater this problem becomes, so you have to set it high enough so that very few people win. On the other hand, since the rebate consists of the OTB's cut and not the tracks, that extra money is also churned, which offsets the money that is removed by the winners.

Imagine three syndicates wiping out the carryover twice a week at NYRA if you want a clearer example of this.

Or picture a poker game with five guys who each bring $100 and a 1 percent rake. Some guy wins $300 in the first hand and goes home. That money is never churned.

Raceisclosed,

I see the validity of your poker analogy if it represented a likely scenario at the track. I don't think it does. Your whole contention is based around the presumption that "the winners" take the money home and don't reinvest it. I don't think in reality that is a legitimate concern.

Let's presume that I'm a "big winning bettor" who puts $750,000 through the windows this year and nets $150,000 (20%). After taxes I keep $100,000, live on or invest $50,000 and increase my horse betting bankroll by the other $50,000 which allows me to increase my bets proportionally by 6.6% so that next year I'm putting $800,000 through the windows and netting $160,000. Assuming I don't need the money to live on, which with this profile could well be the case, I might well reinvest nearly all my profits into the bankroll every year.

At $750,000 yearly I'm putting a little over $2K through the windows a day, which, say I'm playing 5 tracks is of course $400 per track per day, hardly enough to saturate the pool to where it significantly dilutes my payouts.

So again, I think it's a nice theory but really don't feel that winning players are removing the money from circulation at the track in a big way. I could well be wrong but I really don't think so.

[RaceIsClosed]

Raceisclosed,

I see the validity of your poker analogy if it represented a likely scenario at the track. I don't think it does. Your whole contention is based around the presumption that "the winners" take the money home and don't reinvest it. I don't think in reality that is a legitimate concern.

Let's presume that I'm a "big winning bettor" who puts $750,000 through the windows this year and nets $150,000 (20%). After taxes I keep $100,000, live on or invest $50,000 and increase my horse betting bankroll by the other $50,000 which allows me to increase my bets proportionally by 6.6% so that next year I'm putting $800,000 through the windows and netting $160,000. Assuming I don't need the money to live on, which with this profile could well be the case, I might well reinvest nearly all my profits into the bankroll every year.

At $750,000 yearly I'm putting a little over $2K through the windows a day, which, say I'm playing 5 tracks is of course $400 per track per day, hardly enough to saturate the pool to where it significantly dilutes my payouts.

So again, I think it's a nice theory but really don't feel that winning players are removing the money from circulation at the track in a big way. I could well be wrong but I really don't think so.


If the winning players are paying their bills, that money is money that the track would get ALL of if no one showed a profit. In your example, the $50,000 in taxes you pay would be churned (I think with about $400,000 in handle) by the losing players. You are effectively beating the track to the punch the same way the $400 winner at poker beat the house to the rake.

Btw, if you are getting back $1.20 for every $1.00 you wager long term, you'd make more like $7.5 million a year and would be maxing out the pools in no time flat. Lowering the takeout to 1 percent would just increase your ROI to $1.36 per dollar bet and speed up the process.

Now, on the other hand, if you look at players who score around $0.90 without rebates, and you bring them to $0.97 with say Pinnacle's rebate, this guy helps the track tremendously, because he will still churn all of his money, he'll get much more enjoyment because his bankroll will last longer, and the money that in the past would have gone to the OTB, now is going to the churn.

The biggest myth of the racetrack is that winning players help the game. They do not. However, they are a necessary evil, as they attract losing players who see their success. Still, a professional horseplayer by definition is one who pays for his living expenses with money that he went and got from the track, money the track would have gotten through churning if there were no winners taking money home.

I don't know what the ideal takeout is to maximize the "rebate" factor while minimizing the "siphoning" that the pros do. I believe 1 percent is too low, and 16 percent is too high. I would even say that 2, 3, and 4 percent are probably too low, while 15, 14 and 13 percent are too high. That leaves us with 6-12 percent, but I think those are too extreme. 7-11 percent? I'd guess myself that 7.5 percent is the ideal takeout to maximize revenue while minimizing the risk of professionals sucking too much money out of the pools.

Increased handle is necessary when the takeout is smaller. If too much money comes out of the pools, the increase won't justify the drop in takeout.

[Koko]

The biggest myth of the racetrack is that winning players help the game. They do not. However, they are a necessary evil, as they attract losing players who see their success. .

Race,

I see your point about the possibility of winnng players taking money out that MAY never come back.

As far as the winning players getting too big too fast and having a bankroll that exceeds what the pools can absorb in no time, that I believe is a non factor. My example of the $750K bettor who puts half of what he nets after taxes back into the bankroll only kicks up his bankroll by another 6.6%. If he increases bankroll every year by that same % it will take him a decade to max out, if then.

As far as winning players causing losing players to enter the game to emulate them, uh, again, that theory sounds nice but isn't reality IMO.
Think about it now. Winning players don't tend to brag to their neighbors and friends about their exploits. And if they do get their friends or associates involved in the game, they are probably going to give them a leg up to help them and to make themselves somewhat of a hero in their protege's eyes.

I just honestly think that if you did a survey of losing players that not even a sig. minority would say "I got into the game when my cousin frankie showed me how much he was making at it". The got into it because they love the action, and those players would find the game on their own. And those that do it "recreationally" aren't big enough usually to feed much into the pools as they tend to be the "responsible" $2 bettor. Disagree?

[RaceIsClosed]

Race,

I see your point about the possibility of winnng players taking money out that MAY never come back.

As far as the winning players getting too big too fast and having a bankroll that exceeds what the pools can absorb in no time, that I believe is a non factor. My example of the $750K bettor who puts half of what he nets after taxes back into the bankroll only kicks up his bankroll by another 6.6%. If he increases bankroll every year by that same % it will take him a decade to max out, if then.

As far as winning players causing losing players to enter the game to emulate them, uh, again, that theory sounds nice but isn't reality IMO.
Think about it now. Winning players don't tend to brag to their neighbors and friends about their exploits. And if they do get their friends or associates involved in the game, they are probably going to give them a leg up to help them and to make themselves somewhat of a hero in their protege's eyes.

I just honestly think that if you did a survey of losing players that not even a sig. minority would say "I got into the game when my cousin frankie showed me how much he was making at it". The got into it because they love the action, and those players would find the game on their own. And those that do it "recreationally" aren't big enough usually to feed much into the pools as they tend to be the "responsible" $2 bettor. Disagree?


You're confusing horse ROI with regular ROI.

To make 6 percent a year on a horse bankroll, you only need a return of about $1.01 on every dollar bet, if that. Probably more like $1.005 or even $1.003. If you can score even $1.06 per race, you're going to get rich very fast. The best I've ever been able to sustain for more than a few weeks was $1.17, and the track was like my personal ATM. Didn't matter what I started with, I won two out of every three days.

6 percent in 1:10.2 is not the same as 6 percent in a year.

[cj]

I've never paid much attention to ROI, other than to know it has to be better than -7% if you get a 7% rebate, or better than 0% with no rebate.

If you start a year with a $10,000, and end with $40,000, you have quadrupled your money. And, as mentioned earlier, you can do that with a very small positive ROI.

[Koko]

You're confusing horse ROI with regular ROI.

To make 6 percent a year on a horse bankroll, you only need a return of about $1.01 on every dollar bet, if that. Probably more like $1.005 or even $1.003. If you can score even $1.06 per race, you're going to get rich very fast. The best I've ever been able to sustain for more than a few weeks was $1.17, and the track was like my personal ATM. Didn't matter what I started with, I won two out of every three days.

6 percent in 1:10.2 is not the same as 6 percent in a year.

Race,

I'm not confusing anything. In my example, did I say the bankroll was $750K?
No. I said that my stereotypical "big winning bettor" was pushing $750K through the windows. Depending on a number of things that could mean the actual bankroll was $30K or maybe $250K.

I'm sure there are some active aggressive bettors with $750K bankrolls who have an annual bankroll turnover of 10-20 times. Yes, they may get to a point where they're saturating the pools and diluting their profits. I kind of think they are rather rare myself.

I think the track owners feel they have very little to gain by lowering the takeout. I'm sure they've concluded that people who will be drawn to bet the horses will do so nearly as much if the takeout is 38% or 3% so why lower it at all is probably in the forefront of their thoughts.