Tracknet does it again

[ponypro]

Its starting to heat up

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=39845

The HPBA nationaly ought to cut off their signal. Here is the most unbelievable rationalization Tracknet continues to use

Daruty said the recent Churchill Downs spring meet was a perfect example of how the TrackNet Media structure can work. The Churchill product this year wasn’t available through TVG and Youbet.com, so average daily account wagering handle was down 37.7%. But revenue, he said, increased 1.7% because host fees went from 3% to 8%.

TRANSLATED:
We told tens of thousands of race fans world wide to get F**ked. We saw a drastic decrease in our customer base because of our actions. Some may never return. But thru our amazing cost cutting measures, revenue actually increased.
This is beyond ludicrous. Im telling you they continue to alienate horseman and horsemans groups everywhere. They are insane to do this. CDI is being run into the ground.

[Grits]

The obvious here is . . . horseman and horse owners put on this show. Bettors carry it.

Horsemen and owners and bettors could, if we would agree to, and could handle the time away from it, bring this game, this business, to a virtual halt. A complete stop.

Then, the cancer that is this industry's greed, could possibly be put in remission for a bit.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch, including Evans and CDI.

[GoBabyGo]

wait and see what comes out of ky commission meeting when they discuss cd deal with rgs. some from cd already asked questions and gave weasely answers. you watch with all the sh** going on some of these guys in the racing industry will get fired and some end up in jail. hey ptc guy whats up on your end. you guys have been quiet.

[Premier Turf Club]

The obvious here is . . . horseman and horse owners put on this show. Bettors carry it.

We have been saying this for a year now. I think we are the only ones trying to do something for the players. The only ones that have posed a viable solution to the industry's problems.

Don't take my word for it, ask our customers how we've treated them. Deeds, not words.

[NoCal Boy]

Note the comments from the Louisiana horsemen head. He basically said Youbet is going to get the Fair Grounds later this year. My gut is there is a resolution coming relatively soon. The horsemen groups are now starting to make noise as they have had several months now to digest developments. I believe the TOC will also be following the LA. horsemen as to Santa Anita as they have in the past.

If there is a rift between Magna and CHDN over TrackNet, then Champion's comments that Youbet would pay 10% for host fees with no or limited source market fees should be very attractive to Magna. Before all of this mess, Youbet was a very important distributor for Magna.

The part that Daruty must take horsemens for foos about is the revenue side. How much additional revenues would be available to horsemen if Youbet had the signals at 8%?

TVG is no saint here, and probably more of a block than CDI, but at least they are consistent with their positions. With all due respect, the comments from Daruty are very anti-horsemen. You can not survive battling horsemen.

[ponypro]

The whole approach from Tracknet from inception in anti horesmen and anti bettor. TVG and Youbet have had plenty of battles between them even lawsuits and settlements but they never pulled their customers directly into their differences. They know who their customer is. I say Tracknet has publicly set a new low at this HPBA meeting. Im looking for a settlement sooner than later.Not even CDI shareholders can be this stupid. Tracknet will cave, Evans and Co will hopefully be forced out. Hell Magna rarely keeps their head folks more than a year.

Hopefully Ian, and anyone who wants to make this sport better by innovation and hard work gets a fair shot.
Lets send the corporate thugs packing and take the sport back.
Too bad bettors dont have a formal organization like the HPBA. I dont think that would be a bad idea. I think we have every bit as much vested as the horsemen.

[Premier Turf Club]

Hopefully Ian, and anyone who wants to make this sport better by innovation and hard work gets a fair shot.

That's all we've ever asked for.

[Zman179]

The HPBA nationaly ought to cut off their signal. .

Horsemen don't give two sh*ts about the bettors. They never have and they never will, unless they're trying to get slots...then, we're their friends all of a sudden.
As long as the revenues go up, and the purses remain stable, or increase, then the horsemen will be happy. So to say that the HBPA should cut off the signal when revenues increased is beyond laughable.

...bettors could, if we would agree to, and could handle the time away from it, bring this game, this business, to a virtual halt. A complete stop.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
There's only one way that could happen: Nuclear war.
Only owners and trainers have the power to stop racing, and you'd better believe it'll only be in their best interests if they do.

[ponyplayerdotca]

Zman has been blunt, and is probably completely correct.

They don't care (and never have) whether punters wager or not.

They have their power because they know that we "idiots" (as Jeff Mullins called bettors two years ago) will ALWAYS bet races no matter where they are.

[NoCal Boy]

The point is there would be more revenues for horsemen and tracks alike if all had acess to the signals. If PTC and Youbet had access to the TrackNet signals and paying 8%, how much more revenues would there be for everyone.

Alfortish gets this in Louisiana and the TOC will likely do the same in California. It will only take Magna coming to their senses and stepping away from the disaster that is TrackNet (to Magna's XpressBet and tracks) and then TrackNet is reduced to little more than Churchill.

If accurate, the statements out of Daruty yesterday should hasten the horsemen efforts into demanding a resolution before the major fall and winter meets.

[Premier Turf Club]

Alfortish gets this in Louisiana and the TOC will likely do the same in California.

I think you're right about Alfortish, but if you're counting on Drew Couto to do what's in the best interest of his rank and file members instead of what's in the best interest of Drew Couto you're pissing in the wind. No offense to No. Cal Boy intended.:)

If I were a TOC board member I'd be familiarizing myself with Mr. Clayton, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Patman.

[NoCal Boy]

What about New Jersey as well with their one and only option for ADW?

[rrbauer]

Its starting to heat up

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=39845

The HPBA nationaly ought to cut off their signal. Here is the most unbelievable rationalization Tracknet continues to use

Daruty said the recent Churchill Downs spring meet was a perfect example of how the TrackNet Media structure can work. The Churchill product this year wasn’t available through TVG and Youbet.com, so average daily account wagering handle was down 37.7%. But revenue, he said, increased 1.7% because host fees went from 3% to 8%.

TRANSLATED:
We told tens of thousands of race fans world wide to get F**ked. We saw a drastic decrease in our customer base because of our actions. Some may never return. But thru our amazing cost cutting measures, revenue actually increased.
This is beyond ludicrous. Im telling you they continue to alienate horseman and horsemans groups everywhere. They are insane to do this. CDI is being run into the ground.

I guess I missed the part where they discussed their partnership with the horseplayers. They carry on as if all this handle and revenue that they're splitting up is some form of entitlement.

Out of curiousity does anyone know how many members the TOC has? A couple hundred max? And how many thousand horseplayers are they holding hostage?

[Zman179]

They have their power because they know that we "idiots" (as Jeff Mullins called bettors two years ago) will ALWAYS bet races no matter where they are.

Exactly. If racing were ANY other business, then the customers would have left in droves and headed straight to the competition. But this isn't any other business...and people went back the next day, and the next, even though they were insulted. There wasn't even a regional backlash amongst bettors in Southern California where Mullins made the comment!

An outsider would think that scatology and horseplayer were synonyms.

[jma]

What about New Jersey as well with their one and only option for ADW?

This is true and not a good thing, but at least we can bet all the tracks and don't have to keep switching accounts/providers/etc. Those who can't bet all the tracks have it worse.

[Zman179]

After reading the article, I noticed that a representative from Woodbine was there to speak. I have yet to hear a good word about their operation, nor about their HPI wagering service. From what I've heard from other horseplayers, they just might be worse than NYCOTB because of one thing: Woodbine holds a monopoly on at-home wagering in Canada.

[Premier Turf Club]

Out of curiousity does anyone know how many members the TOC has? A couple hundred max? And how many thousand horseplayers are they holding hostage?

I don't think TOC management speaks for the few hundred TOC members. It certainly doesn't for the TOC members we have spoken to directly who are aghast at what has transpired. When all of this comes out (and only a small amount has thus far) its going to sound like a Tom Clancy novel.

And unfortunately for all of us this "civil unrest" is happening under the watchful eye of the Justice Department.

[Grits]

Horsemen don't give two sh*ts about the bettors. They never have and they never will, unless they're trying to get slots...then, we're their friends all of a sudden.
As long as the revenues go up, and the purses remain stable, or increase, then the horsemen will be happy. So to say that the HBPA should cut off the signal when revenues increased is beyond laughable.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
There's only one way that could happen: Nuclear war.
Only owners and trainers have the power to stop racing, and you'd better believe it'll only be in their best interests if they do.

Zman, if you are going to quote me, at least, get it right before you fall all over yourself with laughter.

I believe this was my quote:

"Horsemen and owners and bettors could, if we would agree to, and could handle the time away from it, bring this game, this business, to a virtual halt. A complete stop."

The last I heard and read, this sport remains interactive, it cannot survive without that daily business of . . "churn."

[Zman179]

Zman, if you are going to quote me, at least, get it right before you fall all over yourself with laughter.

I believe this was my quote:

"Horsemen and owners and bettors could, if we would agree to, and could handle the time away from it, bring this game, this business, to a virtual halt. A complete stop."

The last I heard and read, this sport remains interactive, it cannot survive without that daily business of . . "churn."

Oh, I read your quote all right. And I disected it, thus the usage of an ellipsis. Read my post again and you'll notice that I commented fully on your quote.

Bettors cannot, or will not, band together to form some sort of a player's union to form up against track owners and horsemen who don't treat them and their business seriously. If the players got together and locked horns with management, then they could accomplish a whole lot.

However, bettors are nothing more than people who will be handed sh*t on a platter, then they'll thank management for having given them this sh*t. You can't get together fifty bettors to band together, and you expect horseplayers to shut down the whole game if they wanted to? Are you lacking oxygen?!? There has YET to be a track that received slots then lowered takeouts. :lol:

[Grits]

Zman, I don't find you humorous. I find your comments crass.

I don't care to post anymore. Thanks for your input.

[Zman179]

Zman, I don't find you humorous. I find your comments crass.

I don't care to post anymore. Thanks for your input.

Who cares if you find my comments crass or not. Am I right, or am I wrong about what I said?

[trigger]

Note the comments from the Louisiana horsemen head. He basically said Youbet is going to get the Fair Grounds later this year. My gut is there is a resolution coming relatively soon. The horsemen groups are now starting to make noise as they have had several months now to digest developments. I believe the TOC will also be following the LA. horsemen as to Santa Anita as they have in the past.

If there is a rift between Magna and CHDN over TrackNet, then Champion's comments that Youbet would pay 10% for host fees with no or limited source market fees should be very attractive to Magna. Before all of this mess, Youbet was a very important distributor for Magna.

The part that Daruty must take horsemens for foos about is the revenue side. How much additional revenues would be available to horsemen if Youbet had the signals at 8%?

TVG is no saint here, and probably more of a block than CDI, but at least they are consistent with their positions. With all due respect, the comments from Daruty are very anti-horsemen. You can not survive battling horsemen.

The only way to get rid of exclusivity as practiced by TVG is exactly what CDI/MECA is doing. To let Youbet have Tracknet signals now re-creates the same artificial monopoly that Youbet had previously and, worse, would continue to enable TVG's exclusive activities.
After the first of the year when TVG's exclusivity over any CDI tracks runs out, Youbet will have to decide whether to continue supporting TVG or not. If Youbet decides to go with Tracknet next year AND drops TVG tracks (won't get Tracknet unless they do both) ,TVG will either go out of business or compromise (i.e. end betting exclusivity on their tracks) soon thereafter. Hopefully, the horsemen will see past their noses and not take any foolish actions that will, in effect, prolong exclusivity.
Once exclusivity is history, the ADWs (and the tracks) can compete on the quality and cost of their product not artificial monopolies based on having exclusive tracks.
Based on the Youbet's recent 2rd quarter warning , http://www.labusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=12316749.9253177.1502371.55099202. 2190714.503&aID2=115558 they appear to be in a downward spiral and may be not be around at year end so they may be forced to do something sooner. IMHO, Youbet is a poorly run company that has a bunch of outrageously high salaried executives with obscene benefits ....money that could just as well be going to the tracks/horsemen to support the racing industry .

[Indulto]

From the article:… Champion, … , said after the meeting that he just wants to satisfy his customers. He also said the discussion could be masking a more serious issue.

“Where is the true money in this industry?” Champion said. “It’s in OTBs and simulcasting. That’s still 90% of the handle. So what are we going to do with the 90%?”If that’s the case, then even organizing the more receptive ADW betting base doesn’t hold much promise. It will probably take truly visionary operators of MAJOR tracks to determine once and for all if lower takeout and widest possible signal distribution (with video) actually does increase handle over the long run. Once that occurs, then perhaps signal pricing could be addressed with less ambiguity.

I'd like to see a future panel of track operators who have lowered exotic wager minimums discuss their results, original expectations, and current projections.

[trigger]

From the article:If that’s the case, then even organizing the more receptive ADW betting base doesn’t hold much promise. It will probably take truly visionary operators of MAJOR tracks to determine once and for all if lower takeout and widest possible signal distribution (with video) actually does increase handle over the long run. Once that occurs, then perhaps signal pricing could be addressed with less ambiguity.[/color]

I'd like to see a future panel of track operators who have lowered exotic wager minimums discuss their results, original expectations, and current projections.

The problem with lowering takeout when dealing with third party non-track owned ADW's is obvious...the lower the takeout the lower the profit for third party ADWs. The third party ADW's are going to react by not carrying the low takeout tracks or encouraging its customers to bet on high takeout tracks. Another reason why track owned ,or better yet, multi track owned ADW's are the way to go to realize lower takeout for all in the long run

[DeanT]

I'd like to see a future panel of track operators who have lowered exotic wager minimums discuss their results, original expectations, and current projections.

I am not sure that would be too helpful. Lower rakes take a long time to take hold because churn is realized through players making more money, and "sending it in". And you are changing the face of the game. It takes time.

The worst part, imo, is that any empirical data from an experiment is flawed to begin with. Take the EP pick 4, for example. People make more money. That is a given. But when they cash their ticket they go and spend the winnings at Del Mar with a 25% rake and go home broke. I think that is why you see churn rates of 3, rather than 6 or 8 that professional/semi-professional players who run their bets through IRG or Pinnacle realize. I keep my EP pick 4 money in one account and do nothing but bet it. So I will churn. I know that my rate, giving up $12EV or so on $300/day in pick 4's, would be much higher than people who spread their money elsewhere and summarily get killed with egregious rakes.

JMO.

[Kelso]

The third party ADW's are going to react by not carrying the low takeout tracks or encouraging its customers to bet on high takeout tracks.


I dunno. In an open ADW market, those that don't carry the bettor-friendliest tracks would quickly lose busines. I suspect they would lose A LOT of business. I think it would clearly be in the ADWs' self-interest to carry what the customers want. Smaller portion of a bigger pie type of thing.

As to encouraging customers to wager against their own self-interest ... word gets around and experience is a dynamite teacher. Over time, fewer and fewer bettors will swallow the hype.

[highnote]

The only way to get rid of exclusivity as practiced by TVG is exactly what CDI/MECA is doing.

"exclusive racetrack partners benefit from television exposure" That makes a lot of sense to me. You gotta get the races on TV.



IMHO, Youbet is a poorly run company that has a bunch of outrageously high salaried executives with obscene benefits

Unlike CDI and MEC :lol:

[Zman179]

I dunno. In an open ADW market, those that don't carry the bettor-friendliest tracks would quickly lose busines. I suspect they would lose A LOT of business.

Not necessarily. There's a way around that.

For example, a third-party ADW that is looking to attract business on higher takeout tracks might offer a rebate for that action. A track with an 11% takeout might have problems going against a track that has a 25% rake on exotics, but offers a 7% rebate on all action. Some fans might opt for the latter as the 11% takeout only helps when you win, but a 7% rebate occurs with every wager.

Tracks offering lower takeouts can only help because it forces other entities to be creative in our favor in order to keep its business.

[trigger]

Partial "

Unlike CDI and MEC :lol:

No comparison......Youbet executives' salaries and perks (and there are lots of them) are way out of line (higher) especially when you take into account their company size. (Except for MGA/MECA founder Frank ,of course)

[trigger]

I dunno. In an open ADW market, those that don't carry the bettor-friendliest tracks would quickly lose busines. I suspect they would lose A LOT of business. I think it would clearly be in the ADWs' self-interest to carry what the customers want. Smaller portion of a bigger pie type of thing.

As to encouraging customers to wager against their own self-interest ... word gets around and experience is a dynamite teacher. Over time, fewer and fewer bettors will swallow the hype.

I also said "or encouraging its customers to bet on high takeout tracks".
Here's an example...Recently, Youbet has changed it rewards program by eliminating award points for TVG tracks such as Del Mar, Belmont, Calder, etc.

[trigger]

Partial"exclusive racetrack partners benefit from television exposure" That makes a lot of sense to me. You gotta get the races on TV.


Of course, having races on TV benefits the race tracks being televised but exclusivity should only be for televising a track's races not for betting on them. Some way to compensate TV channels for televising a track's races that does not involve exclusivity on betting needs to be developed.

[trigger]

Not necessarily. There's a way around that.

For example, a third-party ADW that is looking to attract business on higher takeout tracks might offer a rebate for that action. A track with an 11% takeout might have problems going against a track that has a 25% rake on exotics, but offers a 7% rebate on all action. Some fans might opt for the latter as the 11% takeout only helps when you win, but a 7% rebate occurs with every wager.

Tracks offering lower takeouts can only help because it forces other entities to be creative in our favor in order to keep its business.

Intuitively, I think there your statement that a 7% rebate on a 25% takeout is better for a bettor than a straight 11% takeout is incorrect.
I hope one of the more mathematically inclined posters on this message board will explain why this is so.

[highnote]

Partial

Of course, having races on TV benefits the race tracks being televised but exclusivity should only be for televising a track's races not for betting on them. Some way to compensate TV channels for televising a track's races that does not involve exclusivity on betting needs to be developed.


Does the NYRA or CD let anyone broadcast the Belmont Stakes or Kentucky Derby. Of course not. They sign exclusive deals with TV networks.

If I'm the owner of a TV network and I spend a 100 million getting it on air, I would want some assurances from my content providers.

I don't think there is anything wrong with exclusivity. No one is forcing racetracks into signing a deal.

[GMB@BP]

Intuitively, I think there your statement that a 7% rebate on a 25% takeout is better for a bettor than a straight 11% takeout is incorrect.
I hope one of the more mathematically inclined posters on this message board will explain why this is so.

well on a rebate you get it back win or lose, you could lose every race and still get something back, right?

[trigger]

Does the NYRA or CD let anyone broadcast the Belmont Stakes or Kentucky Derby. Of course not. They sign exclusive deals with TV networks.

If I'm the owner of a TV network and I spend a 100 million getting it on air, I would want some assurances from my content providers.

I don't think there is anything wrong with exclusivity. No one is forcing racetracks into signing a deal.

Exactly what I'm saying, the televising should be exclusive but not the betting!

[Indulto]

... I don't think there is anything wrong with exclusivity.Dating yes, betting no. ;) No one is forcing racetracks into signing a deal.How do you know? It's clear that some tracks are being forced into NOT signing a deal.

[Indulto]

well on a rebate you get it back win or lose, you could lose every race and still get something back, right?Overflowing with confidence, are we? ;)

[Indulto]

The problem with lowering takeout when dealing with third party non-track owned ADW's is obvious...the lower the takeout the lower the profit for third party ADWs. The third party ADW's are going to react by not carrying the low takeout tracks or encouraging its customers to bet on high takeout tracks. Another reason why track owned ,or better yet, multi track owned ADW's are the way to go to realize lower takeout for all in the long runIMO either a single ADW owned by ALL tracks or individual track ADWs that get all track signals would be preferable to what exists today. That and realistic signal pricing should have been implemented years ago by NTRA on Smith's watch. In any case, any wagering platform of choice should also be able to feed all tracks.… Of course, having races on TV benefits the race tracks being televised but exclusivity should only be for televising a track's races not for betting on them. Some way to compensate TV channels for televising a track's races that does not involve exclusivity on betting needs to be developed.I agree and would take your suggestion even further. Takeout can’t be lowered until some portion(s) of the wagered pie are eliminated or reduced. Worst case scenario is track, government, DragNet/exclusive ADW, third-party ADW, Decision Support Tool vendor(s) all feeding from the trough. Obviously, some costs could be fixed.

Account management+wagering interface, live video, pre/post race commentary, conditional wagering support, replay video, archive video, DSTs (PP data, on-line data bases, handicapping software, selections, etc.) are services that could be offered as competitor options (ideally with cross-vendor bundling); selectable and funded directly by those who actually use them.

Attendees at tracks and simulcast centers pay a daily admission fee -- why shouldn't ADW customers incur a similar overhead? Volume discounts, of course, but moving away from directly subsidized wagers beyond promotions.

[Zman179]

Intuitively, I think there your statement that a 7% rebate on a 25% takeout is better for a bettor than a straight 11% takeout is incorrect.
I hope one of the more mathematically inclined posters on this message board will explain why this is so.

Nowhere in my post does it state that I believe that one style is better than the other.

What I DID state was that some fans may prefer one takeout style over another.

[trigger]

Nowhere in my post does it state that I believe that one style is better than the other.

What I DID state was that some fans may prefer one takeout style over another.

Ok but what I'm trying to get at is I'd just like to know how to figure which option (rebate at full takeout vs. straight takeout reduction both at various percentages) generates the most cash for the bettor, that's all.
It gets complicated (at least to me) because the rebatee bettor gets his rebate no matter what based on what he bets but when he does win he gets paid less than the lower takeout bettor .
Anyone got a formula or am I missing something here?

[DeanT]

Ok but what I'm trying to get at is I'd just like to know how to figure which option (rebate at full takeout vs. straight takeout reduction both at various percentages) generates the most cash for the bettor, that's all.
It gets complicated (at least to me) because the rebatee bettor gets his rebate no matter what based on what he bets but when he does win he gets paid less than the lower takeout bettor .
Anyone got a formula or am I missing something here?
Hi Trigger,

You are right that an 11% takeout reduction is much, much more preferable than a 7% rebate, but it depends on your ROI. If your ROI is worse than 0.636 you would want the rebate, if it is better you would want the takeout reduction. You get the 0.636 figure by dividing the rebate by the increase in payouts. In this case it would be 7/11. If they offered you a 10% take out reduction and 8% rebate your ROI would need to be 0.8 or better for the takeout reduction to be better for you, and so on.

I think that is correct.