Philadelphia Park

[speedking]

I'm sure many have noticed that Philadelphia Park is conspicuously absent from the PTC track list. This is certainly not the fault of Ian or anyone at PTC. None of his calls or emails to Phil. officials have ever been returned and when I attempted to intervene and expedite the process on Ian's behalf I was met with the same wall of disregard and silence. I allowed them time to regroup after the departure of Handel and expected a much more player friendly attitude, but it appears that management will continue to ignore the horseplayers while catering to the growing slots business.

This is a track which has 30% takeout rates on tri's and super's and 26% on P3's. Through their Philly Park Rewards Program you may receive up to 1.75% back in vouchers if you wager over $100K a month consistently.

Anyone who has been to the racetrack since the inception of slots knows what a miserable experience it now is. All horseplayers have been forced to the top level since they dedicated the lower floors to the slots. The owners recently tried to renege on the agreement to build a separate slots emporium and return the racetrack to it's former state. Fortunately, this attempt was met by a serious outcry from a wide group of people who are determined to make them follow through with the terms of the original agreement. How long this will take, however, is anybody's guess.

As of now, this track and those involved in its operation deserve no support at all. What follows is an excerpt from an email I received from a racing writer who has covered Philadelphia racing for a long time. I think this demonstrates the contempt and disregard for their fans and long time supporters...

speedking


"Don't worry about the selections on Pa. Derby day - I
did very little wagering because it was so crowded
there and I got busy talking to people and before I
knew it the Pa. Derby was going off. Steve Haskin
from the Blood-Horse was there with his wife and we
were talking about a lot of things, plus it was so
damn hot I couldn't wait to get out of there.
Actually the track did a nice job of adding tellers,
automated machines, bathrooms, etc. out in the Picnic
Grove and throughout, and I sent Joe Wilson an e-mail
telling him what I thought, but of course he doesn't
respond anymore to phone calls or e-mails. When the
Victor Molina horse-kick incident erupted, I guess
they figured they were being too accomodating to the
press so now they have this gag order in effect - no
communication from the stewards, Sal Sinatra or
Wilson. Shows you what a high-class operation it is.
I have covered Philly since 1992 when I worked for the
Form and the only people I used to be able to rely on
for info were the stewards, but now the Pa. Commission
has told them not to talk to the press either. Craig
Donnelly of the Inquirer was saying how ticked off he
is at Wilson, the weasel won't answer his calls,
either. Well, guess what, I always thought the
phrases "didn't return multiple phone calls" or "was
unavailable for comment" made the person in question
look silly, so that's what they'll get from now on."

[GaryG]

Didn't they have plans to bury all of their regional competitors as soon as the slot money started rolling in? Sure hasn't happened. I wouldn't bet Philly if it was the only track running. I have friends in the area who drive to Monmouth instead.

[cj]

They think because the purses are big people will want to bet on the races. With those takeout rates, it isn't going to happen. It is disgusting they are so high at a slot track.

[betovernetcapper]

They think because the purses are big people will want to bet on the races. With those takeout rates, it isn't going to happen. It is disgusting they are so high at a slot track.

If this is what they think I've got two words for them- Presque Isle.

[cj]

On second thought, I'm probably right. They actually probably don't give a damn if people bet the races or not with slots. I wish the government would wise up and realize they don't need horse racing to drain money from the poor with slots. While slots help horsemen, they do NOTHING for the bettor.

[OTM Al]

They clearly don't care about the racing at Pha Park now that they got slots. If you'd visited there recently, it would be quickly apparant. Gone is the luster of the Smarty Jones days already.

[Premier Turf Club]

I wish the government would wise up and realize they don't need horse racing to drain money from the poor with slots. While slots help horsemen, they do NOTHING for the bettor.


I guarantee at some point that will happen. It's being talked about regularly in Iowa re Prairie Meadows which pays out more in purses most nights than they take in wagering. Politicos there have seen through the premise of "slots will bring horses back which will bring back wagering, etc." They now view slots as a subsidy for track owners that supports a losing business model. BTW, Prairie refused to give us the signal, as has Penn National Gaming.

Mark my words, there will come a time when the states allow stand alone slots parlors to compete with the tracks and/or begin taxing the proceeds at 70%. And we're not talking ten years down the road, IMHO.

[BillW]

Mark my words, there will come a time when the states allow stand alone slots parlors to compete with the tracks and/or begin taxing the proceeds at 70%. And we're not talking ten years down the road, IMHO.

I read a story where PHA management was discussing moving the 10 race days to Mon./Tues and gearing back on the weekend to not inconvenience the slot players when their traffic was high. Can't be much more obvious than that.

BTW stand alone casinos are being built now in Pa.

[jma]

I read a story where PHA management was discussing moving the 10 race days to Mon./Tues and gearing back on the weekend to not inconvenience the slot players when their traffic was high. Can't be much more obvious than that.

BTW stand alone casinos are being built now in Pa.

I think they already did that, at least in the winter. There were some Saturday and Sunday cards with eight races. With turf racing through the summer, they're running about the same number of races during the week as on the weekend.

And yes, stand-alone casinos in PA. The racetracks all got the slots, leading to some new ones being built (Presque Isle, Chester), plus there will eventually be several casinos in Philadelphia once they decide who and where they'll be built (a very, very slow process with all the $$$ involved).

Philly Park never does the horseplayer any favors, and it's not going to get better in the future.

[DeanT]

I know we will never speak of the tracks and horsemen unions as forward thinking.......... but imo, they should have been with slots.

Most slot deals call for around 10% to the purses and 10% for the track. If they had some foresight and took 7.5% each and given 5% to the bettor in slashed rakes or big rebates it would have given this game a chance to grow, imo. Right now with slots the horse owners win and the track wins. We get nothing but smaller pools, which snowball into even smaller pools.

[Tom]

What happens to the slot revenue in a specific location as more and more locations spring up?

$X drive to Pha now to play slots, but when they open a slot-house in the city where these X's come from, they will no longer be playing at Pha. Proliferation of slot venues is going to dry some of them up. And those that are "hosts" to troubled tracks might be taking horses down the drain with them.

[Premier Turf Club]

BTW stand alone casinos are being built now in Pa.

See. I post once and the world changes. ;)

But seriously, I think it will happen with most slots/tracks in the near future.

[ldiatone]

aahh so the track takes what it takes for p3's and ex's and whatever. so one plays the other tracks because its easier to hit the bets or because PHA is so unpredictable with the wins,dd's etc. does one blame the takeouts for losses? what percent is the difference between the the other tracks and pha, or any other tracks. if i bet at pha and hit a 2h 2$ ex box for $50 instead of maybe losing one or hitting one for $56 at another track, I will not worry about the take out. when does one really care about takeout unless it's about pha? any other tracks with high takeouts no one bets?
ldiatone
ps andy, are you reading/

[turfnsport]

most tracks are around 24-25 on tris and supers.... horseplayerdaily has CRC listed at 27%...PA tracks are the highest in the nation that I am aware of...31% at PENN and 30% at PHA..PI is 29% from what I heard..

Would you shop at a retail store that charged 4-8% more for the same product everyday?

The last time I bet a PA track I was wearing a leisure suit. Those tracks are dead to me.

MikeD

[Kelso]

Most slot deals call for around 10% to the purses and 10% for the track. If they had some foresight and took 7.5% each and given 5% to the bettor in slashed rakes or big rebates it would have given this game a chance to grow, imo. Right now with slots the horse owners win and the track wins. We get nothing but smaller pools, which snowball into even smaller pools.


Surely it's not too late in any jusisdiction to set aside an additional 10% for the bettors. That's how much profit there is in those machines ... even after the political-class gets its cut.

Takeout at slots-subsidized tracks should not exceed 10% for any pool.

[speedking]

Surely it's not too late in any jusisdiction to set aside an additional 10% for the bettors. That's how much profit there is in those machines ... even after the political-class gets its cut.

Takeout at slots-subsidized tracks should not exceed 10% for any pool.

Thank you, Kelso...Doesn't this make sense to everybody?

speedking

[The Hawk]

This makes NO sense.

I've been posting this for some time, but I'll make my point as clear as I can when it comes to "racinos":

THEY DON'T NEED YOU to bet on the races. They don't care if you bet the races or not. They need to run races in order to keep the slot license. They don't need you to bet "X" number of dollars on the races. They just need to run "X" number of races. You are last on the food chain. This game goes on without you.

Your strength lies in supporting those tracks where you're NOT considered a nuisance to the slot players. Which is why the "Procotts" should be supported whenever possible.

[alydar]

Philly Park management operates in their own world, unnlkie the one we know of.

They are adamant about rebating. They don't like it and do what they can not to work with operations that do. I funny thing is that they see themselves as some sort of great regulator of the integrity of simulcast wagering. The reality is that they operate one of the shadier operations out there. Just look at how many law suits have been filed against these guys, it really is a joke.

[john del riccio]

Philly Park management operates in their own world, unnlkie the one we know of.

They are adamant about rebating. They don't like it and do what they can not to work with operations that do. I funny thing is that they see themselves as some sort of great regulator of the integrity of simulcast wagering. The reality is that they operate one of the shadier operations out there. Just look at how many law suits have been filed against these guys, it really is a joke.

Two Words:

Jane Vaders

John

[Kelso]

This makes NO sense.

I've been posting this for some time, but I'll make my point as clear as I can when it comes to "racinos":

THEY DON'T NEED YOU to bet on the races. They don't care if you bet the races or not.


It makes plenty good sense to those who bother to READ THE POSTS.

I didn't say it's up to the racinos to take care of the bettors. I said it's up to the damned politicians ... who missed the boat at first sailing ... to take care of their constituents who bet on horses.

This will have the added advantage of drawing more out-of-jurisdiction money into the pools ... and from there into their respective public treasuries.

[ldiatone]

comparing apples to oranges, i might like a "brand" that store offers and shop there. i have an example here in pittsburgh i will not get into dealing with food shopping.
if one is hitting p3's at pha, and complaining about the take out, then take the money ones betting on the p3's and bet the win and place pool. when i do bet p3's thats 30-60$. a 30$ win bet on a 7/2 shot ain't no chump change.
ldiatone

[turfnsport]

I find its just easier to bet other tracks. It's not like the racing in PA is very appealing anyway.

The fact they collect all those $$$ in slot money and charge those takeout rates makes me want to puke.

MikeD

[northerndancer]

As demonstrated by Laurel's attempt (which was a tremendous flop) to reduce the takeout you need to build a better mousetrap. I have not heard anyone in the industry or on this board attempt to explain why Laurel's experiment was such a disaster.

IMO until a majority of tracks agree to reduce their takeout singular efforts will continue to fail. The problem is the economic model of the industry. Due to the fact a majority of the revenue comes from simulcast wagering on other product and not from live wagering a reduction in a track's takeout is reducing the income derived by the simulcast outlet (only compounded when that particular outlet is not receiving revenue from slot or instant racing).

Let me give a hypothetical....... lets say that Philadelphia Park cuts the takeout. The reduction equates to a 12% reduction across all pools. This means that for every dollar wagered there will be 12% less revenue to be distributed among the entities. Now Suffolk Downs who does not have slot revenue but has a nice simulcast on Philadelphia Park what incentive will they have to keep taking the Philadelphia signal. The reduction in takeout will cause Suffolk to net less revenue from every dollar wagered by their patrons on Philadelphia Park. Suffolk would now be making 9% less on the Philadelphia Park product.

Therefore what Suffolk would do is bury the Philadelphia product inside their facility and instead put Delaware Park and Fort Erie up on the big screens. Philadelphia Park would be on the TV by the dumpster with the rats.

In order for a reduction to be successful we will need to have a majority of the tracks commit to it and that will never happen......

I would also ask that when you make your points about slot jurisdictions you have to also include the Priarie Meadows and Oaklawn in your list of tracks who have not done anything for the punters after receiving another form of revenue (instant racing).

[DeanT]

A 12% reduction across all pools does not mean a 12% drop in revenue. Never has and never will. The problem we have, imo, is tracks and horsemen groups actually think like that.

At Laurel the savings went into someones pocket, and that money might have been played on a Del Mar pick 6, or a Woodbine pick 4, or whatever other races were at the simulcast outlet.

[The Hawk]

This is what you wrote:

Surely it's not too late in any jusisdiction to set aside an additional 10% for the bettors. That's how much profit there is in those machines ... even after the political-class gets its cut.

Takeout at slots-subsidized tracks should not exceed 10% for any pool.

Ok, you meant politicians. I thought by jurisdiction you meant racing state. But the point is the same: WHY would ANYONE do this for the bettor? We're not needed, not part of the equation anymore. What purpose would it serve the politicians, OR the racetracks? We missed our opportunity to unite and be heard years ago. Now, they cater to slot players, and run races merely to keep the slots in the buildings. If you bet their races, that's great. If not, that's fine too, as long as the races are run, the machines keep churning, whethere you bet or not. Why would they want to hand you money?

I didn't say it's up to the racinos to take care of the bettors. I said it's up to the damned politicians ... who missed the boat at first sailing ... to take care of their constituents who bet on horses.

This will have the added advantage of drawing more out-of-jurisdiction money into the pools ... and from there into their respective public treasuries.

I wish there were a particle of truth in this. The truth is, no one gives a shit about horseplayers. The horse racing industry, yes, in some cases. Horseplayers, no. We're looked at as degenerates and lowlife gamblers. Do you think there's a politician in the entire country -- from the President to senators to congressmen down to city councilmen -- who thinks about drawing more money into local simulcast pools? You need to face reality.

As demonstrated by Laurel's attempt (which was a tremendous flop) to reduce the takeout you need to build a better mousetrap. I have not heard anyone in the industry or on this board attempt to explain why Laurel's experiment was such a disaster.

I can't speak for anyone else but I'll tell you why I didn't play Laurel, and maybe someone else will give their reasons: There were few bettable races during that 10 day stand. It's great what they tried to do, but just dropping takeout isn't going to do it, especially with races being run at Saratoga and Del Mar at the same time. If they dropped the takeout at Penn National to 3% I still wouldn't play it, because I find the form there to be indecipherable. Low takeout in an of itself is great, but if that was the only thing that drew us to gamble we'd all be playing blackjack.

[turfnsport]

As demonstrated by Laurel's attempt (which was a tremendous flop) to reduce the takeout you need to build a better mousetrap. I have not heard anyone in the industry or on this board attempt to explain why Laurel's experiment was such a disaster.

Ten days is not long enough and they could not have picked a worse time of year with SAR and DMR running.

Terrible timing.

MikeD

[Kelso]

Let me give a hypothetical....... lets say that Philadelphia Park cuts the takeout. The reduction equates to a 12% reduction across all pools. This means that for every dollar wagered there will be 12% less revenue to be distributed among the entities.


SUF would continue to get the same percentage OF EACH WAGER that it currently gets. The difference ... benefitting players ... would materialize at PHA when more money (90% of all wagers) would make it into the pools. The lowered take at PHA would be (has already been) made up by the slots revenue.

[Kelso]

WHY would ANYONE do this for the bettor?


I answered this already. The more that is wagered ... the more there is to tax. The larger the pools, the larger the amount of out-of-state money coming in-state. The lower the take, the larger the (taxable) pools. Simple, really.

Where racinos are allowed, takeout is no longer a track issue. It's a political issue. And politicians REALLY like to have people from outside their jurisdictions paying taxes into them. Get it?




You need to face reality.


And you need to stop swallowing all the hopeless horseshit the industry has been feeding you.

Get off your ass and start hounding YOUR politicians to expand the tax base (read, pools) so that they can take credit for spreading their constituents' burdon. The only time they'll listen is if people ... such as yourself ... YELL AT THEM! And then, they will listen.

[jma]

I answered this already. The more that is wagered ... the more there is to tax. The larger the pools, the larger the amount of out-of-state money coming in-state. The lower the take, the larger the (taxable) pools. Simple, really.

Where racinos are allowed, takeout is no longer a track issue. It's a political issue. And politicians REALLY like to have people from outside their jurisdictions paying taxes into them. Get it?





And you need to stop swallowing all the hopeless horseshit the industry has been feeding you.

Get off your ass and start hounding YOUR politicians to expand the tax base (read, pools) so that they can take credit for spreading their constituents' burdon. The only time they'll listen is if people ... such as yourself ... YELL AT THEM! And then, they will listen.

Honestly though, do you REALLY think you're going to convince politicians to care about the takeout at racetracks? I think The Hawk was dead on here. Politicians understand money. You REALLY think it makes more sense that you're going to explain that if you cut takeout, you might eventually get an increase in handle, which would lead to more revenue even though takeout is lower? Show me an example of ONE TIME politicians understood that---they tried in NY for years to get takeout lower (read Steven Crist's book) when all the politicians wanted to do was raise it for a quick fix. You're NOT going to convince them that lowering their percentage of the take will equal more revenue. That's the BS part, that you'd have a 1% shot at that. The Hawk was right---racing is a tiny piece of the slot money, and once Philly or any other track has the slot money, forget the racing.

[njcurveball]

Honestly though, do you REALLY think you're going to convince politicians to care about the takeout at racetracks? .

Sure you will! Right after you convince them cashing for $600 isn't big money in 2007! I am sure when they made that law $600 was a lot of money. Now you would think they would do away with all of the unnecessary paper work that comes with the signers under $5,000.

[DeanT]

Honestly though, do you REALLY think you're going to convince politicians to care about the takeout at racetracks? I think The Hawk was dead on here. Politicians understand money. You REALLY think it makes more sense that you're going to explain that if you cut takeout, you might eventually get an increase in handle, which would lead to more revenue even though takeout is lower? Show me an example of ONE TIME politicians understood that---they tried in NY for years to get takeout lower (read Steven Crist's book) when all the politicians wanted to do was raise it for a quick fix. You're NOT going to convince them that lowering their percentage of the take will equal more revenue. That's the BS part, that you'd have a 1% shot at that. The Hawk was right---racing is a tiny piece of the slot money, and once Philly or any other track has the slot money, forget the racing.


The politicians were convinced in the UK. The bookmakers had a decent lobby and convinced them that a decrease in rake would help the business.

They chopped off 6 or 8% and instead asked for money from profits as a tax. That was in 2001. Wagering was $7B in all forms of domestic gambling in 2001. After it was introduced, wagering went to I believe $15.5B or something like that.

They can be convinced, but there is no one in racing to convince them, imo.Too many cooks in the kitchen, looking to protect their dwindling slice.

[northerndancer]

SUF would continue to get the same percentage OF EACH WAGER that it currently gets. The difference ... benefitting players ... would materialize at PHA when more money (90% of all wagers) would make it into the pools. The lowered take at PHA would be (has already been) made up by the slots revenue.

If there is a reduction in the takeout there is no way that the simulcast outlet does not bear the brunt of the reduction in takeout. The host track will charge a certain percentage (currently most rates are between 4% - 8%) for the signal. Therefore if the takeout goes from 25% to 15% the 10% has to come from either the host or simulcast outlet. The host track may reduce their charge but in no way would it be below 50% of the current rate as the host track horsemen will not give up their current percentage that currently goes to their purses.

Let's assume that the takeout is 25% currently and the racing jurisdiction decides on a 10% reduction in takeout. Therefore the net takeout of 15%. The host track reduces their charge to 4% (this takes care of horsemen and their respective state tax authorities and tote fees). This will leave 11% for the simulcast outlet for each dollar wagered.

Under the old formula with a takeout of 25%. The host charge would be 8% (since in the aforementioned example we took a 50% reduction in the hosst track charge). This would leave a net to the simulcast outlet of 17% of every dollar wagered through the simulcast outlet.

The net result of a 10% reduction in takeout will be a loss of 6% to the simulcast outlet (a 35% reduction in revenue). When you mention that the simulcast outlet will not lose one dollar of revenue where will the 6% of every dollar wagered. Please do not state that the host track will make it up out of their slot revenue.

You also can not make a statement that a reduction in takeout will definitively increase handle. In order for the simulcast outlet to make up the reduction in revenue they would need a 1/3 increaase in handle. That is a very tough sell to the simulcast outlet.

[turfnsport]

You also can not make a statement that a reduction in takeout will definitively increase handle. In order for the simulcast outlet to make up the reduction in revenue they would need a 1/3 increaase in handle. That is a very tough sell to the simulcast outlet.

I will. If takeout was dropped across the board handle WOULD GO UP...More than enough to offset any short term losses the tracks would suffer, and this game would be healthier....thats a FACT.

Lower take=more betting=more CHURN....It's really quite simple.

MikeD

[northerndancer]

I will. If takeout was dropped across the board handle WOULD GO UP...More than enough to offset any short term losses the tracks would suffer, and this game would be healthier....thats a FACT.

Lower take=more betting=more CHURN....It's really quite simple.

MikeD

You are living on Fantasy Island as it will NEVER happen because the one who benefits the most is us the punters and we do not have enough leverage. The only possible way to gain attention to this issue is for the punters to stop punting and that will not happen........... therefore your comment is a great hypothesis that would make for a great dissertation topic but will not play in the real world.

If you want it to happen you better figure out how to make sure that the simulcast operator has very limited exposure..... because that simulcast operator who does not have slots or instant racing will not be willing to risk what they currently have for a POSSIBLE increase in his revenue stream.

[turfnsport]

You are living on Fantasy Island as it will NEVER happen because the one who benefits the most is us the punters and we do not have enough leverage. The only possible way to gain attention to this issue is for the punters to stop punting and that will not happen........... therefore your comment is a great hypothesis that would make for a great dissertation topic but will not play in the real world.

If you want it to happen you better figure out how to make sure that the simulcast operator has very limited exposure..... because that simulcast operator who does not have slots or instant racing will not be willing to risk what they currently have for a POSSIBLE increase in his revenue stream.

I'm not living in Fantasy Island. I did not say it would happen, I said IF it did happen handle would go up. Since the industry is run mainly by dipshits that have no clue about GAMBLING (they ARE experts on $11 drinks, see Joe Harper) I too think its a longshot takeout will be reduced on a wholesale basis.

MikeD

[The Hawk]

I answered this already. The more that is wagered ... the more there is to tax. The larger the pools, the larger the amount of out-of-state money coming in-state. The lower the take, the larger the (taxable) pools. Simple, really.

Where racinos are allowed, takeout is no longer a track issue. It's a political issue. And politicians REALLY like to have people from outside their jurisdictions paying taxes into them. Get it?.

We all know this, Kelso. Yes, the more that is wagered, the more there is to tax. But when it comes down to it, you're not talking about enough money to interest any politician. Simple, really, yes.

Again, you seem to be deluded into thinking that any politician cares about you as a horseplayer. They don't. As someone else suggested, if that were the case, we wouldn't be paying taxes on $603 winning tickets, just as we did in the 60's. Now THAT'S a cause you should get behind, with your considerable influence with your politicians.

Get off your ass and start hounding YOUR politicians to expand the tax base (read, pools) so that they can take credit for spreading their constituents' burdon. The only time they'll listen is if people ... such as yourself ... YELL AT THEM! And then, they will listen.

Yes, you're right, that always works. I shoulda thought of that.

The politicians were convinced in the UK. The bookmakers had a decent lobby and convinced them that a decrease in rake would help the business.

This is where we need to be, as opposed to "yelling" at politicians over the phone. The English bookmakers had a decent lobby...what do we have? We generate so much money in taxes, our wagering dollars fund a billion dollar horse racing injury, and we're treated like lepers. That's why this "Procott" was interesting to me, because at least there's a movement to unite. When I first heard about the NTRA years ago I hoped that would be our salvation, until it was immediately made clear that the organization existed only to hold lots of parties for their employees any time a big race rolls around.

We need an organized group which speaks for the majority, and has the power to influence decisions through our considerable financial clout. Until then, we're treated like assholes, and we are just that, as long as we continue to bet into a 30% take.

[Kelso]

Honestly though, do you REALLY think you're going to convince politicians to care about the takeout at racetracks?






I think politicians are always interested in increasing all tax bases ... including pari-mutuel pools ... particularly when a major portion of those bases are comprised of out-of-state payers. They always want more money ... and larger pools will give it to them.

They get the larger pools by telling the slot pits to give back 10% of the handle ... which, by the way, will likely be considerably less than 10% of their take from the machines.




You REALLY think it makes more sense that you're going to explain that if you cut takeout, you might eventually get an increase in handle, which would lead to more revenue even though takeout is lower? Show me an example of ONE TIME politicians understood that


I'll show you two. Both Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan understood the concept with regard to income taxation. Both reduced tax rates (read, "takeout"). The current crop of idiots can, indeed, be taught.

But it takes US ... the bettors ... to show them.

[Kelso]

If there is a reduction in the takeout there is no way that the simulcast outlet does not bear the brunt of the reduction in takeout. The host track will charge a certain percentage (currently most rates are between 4% - 8%) for the signal.need a 1/3 increaase in handle.


Well then signal fees will have to be cut by those tracks on whom the pecuniary blessing of slot machines has been bestowed. If that means they get only 1% from the ADWs, so be it ... so long as the rest is (has already been) made up from the slots.

This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to grasp. A lot more money to the tracks from the slots ... a little less money to the tracks from bettors. The tracks still come out golden. Sheesh!

[njcurveball]

If that means they get only 1% from the ADWs, so be it


How much is gas in your world? I am coming to fill my tank! :jump:

Pamela Anderson is engaged, so maybe you can get me a date with Heather Locklear too? :jump:

[Kelso]

But when it comes down to it, you're not talking about enough money to interest any politician. Simple, really, yes.


Simple, indeed. Also entirely untrue. Please reveal the identity any politician of whom you are aware who is not interested in ALL sources of revenue of WHATEVER size.



Again, you seem to be deluded into thinking that any politician cares about you as a horseplayer.


And, yet again, you are unwilling to read the damned posts. I never said that any politician did, does or would. I did say ... in more words than this ... that even politicians can be brought to heel. (I also said they can even be taught!)



This is where we need to be, as opposed to "yelling" at politicians over the phone. The English bookmakers had a decent lobby.


Not really good at this reading thing, are you? "Yelling" is a metaphor for attacking them in strength; or, as you put it in that quaint, milquetoast way of yours, with a "decent lobby."

[Kelso]

How much is gas in your world? I am coming to fill my tank! :jump:

Pamela Anderson is engaged, so maybe you can get me a date with Heather Locklear too? :jump:


Folks such as yourself are the reason I tell people I was home-schooled, even thought I went through Jersey public schools.

At any station one chooses, the price of gas is not dependent upon who is opening his wallet.

And I seriously doubt I could get you a date with any intellectually viable female. (Ask someone to 'splain it to ya.) :sleeping:

[njcurveball]

At any station one chooses, the price of gas is not dependent upon who is opening his wallet.

:sleeping:

I know you are quick to talk and slow to read from your posts, but the basic point is that wishing for tracks to take less profit to the point of giving the money back to customers is the same as wishing oil companies would take almost no profit and lower gas to a ridiculously small amount.

Same with me wishing I could get a date with Heather Locklear. I know you are probably the type to understand metaphors and hyperbole, so I won't try to explain that one to you either.

Thanks for the home school stuff though. Now I feel really important! :ThmbUp:

[northerndancer]

Well then signal fees will have to be cut by those tracks on whom the pecuniary blessing of slot machines has been bestowed. If that means they get only 1% from the ADWs, so be it ... so long as the rest is (has already been) made up from the slots.

This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to grasp. A lot more money to the tracks from the slots ... a little less money to the tracks from bettors. The tracks still come out golden. Sheesh!

I really want whatever you are drinking or smoking.... did anyone ever tell you not to drink the kool aide............

First there is not a snowballs chance on the sun to get the slot/instant racing tracks to accept 1% for their signals (hint look at what TrackNet Media is trying to do with signal fees). If a track was to take only 1% they would lose money on every dollar wagered..... oh yeah but the increase in handle due to the reduced takeout would offest that loss....... doh.... they lose money at a 1% charge...... do you have any idea of what the costs are that the track has to pay for every dollar wagered...... is the tote company going to accept sharing in the loss or will they still want their .5% of every dollar wagered.... will the state tell the track hey you are taking care of the punters so we will not charge you the state tax on every dollar wagered...... again do you really think the horsemen in the host track will accept no purse monies from the handle...... oh yeah it will be made up from the increased handle due to the reduced takeout.......

Wake up Cinderella and start to understand all the parties position in regard to the revenue generated from a wager..... it is not just about the punters and the track owners.

[Kelso]

I know you are quick to talk and slow to read from your posts, but the basic point is that wishing for tracks to take less profit to the point of giving the money back to customers is the same as wishing oil companies would take almost no profit and lower gas to a ridiculously small amount.


That's why I'm not suggesting asking the tracks to do anything. They didn't give slots to themselves ... the politicians gave it to them. The same crew can tell them they have to share some of the slot loot with the bettors.

You might try reading-for-comprehension yourself, sometime. (Say, were you a classmate of The Hawk?) :rolleyes:

[Kelso]

oh yeah but the increase in handle due to the reduced takeout would offest that loss


You really are an ignorant ass, aren't you?

The reduced takeout has ALREADY BEEN REPLACED ... AND MORE ... by the gift of slots that the politicians gave the tracks. Now it's up to those of us capable of rational thought (you can stand by and watch) to get those same politicians to tell the tracks to put some of that NEW CASH back into the pools (another way of saying reduce takeout.) And the resulting increase in pool sizes are what will give the politicians something to grab for themselves (via the tax department).



Wake up Cinderella and start to understand all the parties position in regard to the revenue generated from a wager..... it is not just about the punters and the track owners.


I understand the positions of the parties a hell of a lot more correctly than you have revealed yourself to do. What I don't understand is your own position ... ass-up over a barrel, smiling inanely, waiting for the tracks to pound it in again. :bang:

[betovernetcapper]

Pha Park had an early Internet presence-still has a great tote board and could have had major market share. A lot of guys on this board have had PHA accounts over the years but drifted to other ADWs. I still have a funded PHA account and it never occurs to me to use it. At this point they'd have to work to get me as an active customer.
Someone overthere droped the ball.

[Tom]

They dropped the ball and it rolled out into traffic!
Pha uses to be a great track to go to! It was comfortable, fan-friendly, well organized and they offered a good product. they even sold thier own pace and speed figures for thier races - a long time ago. the they contracted cancer of the slots and turned into just another crap house.

[cj's dad]

Ten days is not long enough and they could not have picked a worse time of year with SAR and DMR running.

Terrible timing.

MikeD

You're assuming that the MJC actually wanted it to work. Hypothetically, if it fails, which it did, the MJC can now point out that reduced take-out does not attract wager increases and therefore has evidence to return to the good old days (for them) of 20+% takeouts and never look back.

Why didn't they reduce the takeout on Maryland Million Day? That effort would have given the fans a huge break and been a public relations coup.

[DeanT]

again do you really think the horsemen in the host track will accept no purse monies from the handle...... oh yeah it will be made up from the increased handle due to the reduced takeout.......

Wake up Cinderella and start to understand all the parties position in regard to the revenue generated from a wager..... it is not just about the punters and the track owners.

The horsemen of course are a problem. They want every cent they can get. Eventho slots were there to "grow the business" and if it doesn't grow they will lose slot revenue (as Ian said), they still can't see past their own noses. So they to me are a non starter.

The bottom line is this, imo, for both horsepeople and track owners: Life is politics. We had a right wing government in Ontario that gave slots to horses, because they wanted the rural vote. We have a centrist government now that likes the cash. Politics. Soon the question will be changed and the politics will change and the public will ask "why are we giving billions of dollars to horse racing, where no one bets, when we can keep it all and use it for education, or tax cuts, or a hospital".

When that question changes and the politics change, say goodbye to racing in a lot of these places. It will be their own fault, because they had a chance to make this game great, and F'd it up, just like short-sighted people tend to always do. If they find a way to give back to their core customer base they have a shot. Until they realize that and make it work, the game is pretty much doomed to ending up with a few big tracks and nothing else.

[turfnsport]

You're assuming that the MJC actually wanted it to work.

LOL..No, I'm not. I know the MJC too well to think that. I have not seen them do much right the past 20 years.

MikeD

[alydar]

PP was the first ADW that I worked with. They were slow to get a web site up and running, and their operators, well, they could be better. I too have drifted away to other providers.

[PaceAdvantage]

I apologize for getting into this thread late. Any future post in this thread that contains useless personal attacks will be deleted....

[PaceAdvantage]

Two posts deleted so far....

[Doc]

The horsemen of course are a problem. They want every cent they can get. Eventho slots were there to "grow the business" and if it doesn't grow they will lose slot revenue (as Ian said), they still can't see past their own noses. So they to me are a non starter.

To me, the biggest problem at a place like Philly Park is that the trainers who haven't been able to train Lassie to bark for years are now being rewarded for their incompetency in the form of higher purses and races being paid down to last place. There's a trainer at Philly right now who is 0-for-100+ this year alone, yet is allowed to keep his stalls. There are many others who have won maybe 5 or 6 races in the last 3 years, yet they keep their stalls. Competent, winning trainers from other circuits have applied for stalls at Philly, but are turned away, while the long-time slugs remain.