My Article

[betovernetcapper]

It seems like not a day goes by without someone emailing me and saying something like
"BONC your quiet reserved polite and well reasoned posts have transformed my life and the lives of my family, friends, and indeed much of the planet. When are you going to write an article?"
Well today those prayers are answered on rrbuers site

http://www.trackthieves.com/SourceThis.html

[stuball]

nice article -- I never thought about it before....now I will.

Stuball :bang:

[Indulto]

It seems like not a day goes by without someone emailing me and saying something like
"BONC your quiet reserved polite and well reasoned posts have transformed my life and the lives of my family, friends, and indeed much of the planet. When are you going to write an article?"
Well today those prayers are answered on rrbuers site

http://www.trackthieves.com/SourceThis.html
Very entertaining, BONC -- both the post and the article. I look forward to more such rewarding religious experiences.

[SMOO]

Good stuff. :ThmbUp:

[MakinItHappen]

Great dissertation, BONC!

A little disappointed that you didn't take the oppurtunity to lambast the greedy sunz-a-gunz in AZ in this diatribe though... or will it be the topic of your next article?

BONC, conceptually I am with you 100% on this topic, but realistically unless some concessions are made in this area, are we not looking at ADW's being outlawed in most, if not all states? Track owners and horseman need to be pacified to some degree for the real or perceived reduction in handle resultant from the legalization of ADW's in their state/area. If not, it is a pretty easy target to have ADW's made illegal, as AZ has proven. I have no idea what this amount should be, but 10 -20% of what they would garner if the wager was placed at their facility may be a reasonable point at which to begin negotiations. Or, am I missing something?

Just curious, do we know what %'s ADW's are typically paying to the tracks in the way of source fees? I assume this is negotiated on a track-by-track and ADW-by-ADW basis? Any info on this topic would be appreciated.

Best of Luck Everyone!

MakinItHappen

[betovernetcapper]

MakinIt Happen-your off topic-the point of this thread is for people to say what a great article. :lol:

Since you asked-the appropriate place to start negotiations with paying people for work they have no connection to is zero. That's also the place to end negotiations. If they want to make ADWs illegal, that's fine. It will leave me more time to work on my writings. I've never been sure on where to place a comma or principle or principal-stuff like that. ;)

[MakinItHappen]

If they want to make ADWs illegal, that's fine. It will leave me more time to work on my writings.

But could a writing career possibly be as lucrative as a rebate-laden handicapping career? :confused:

Best of Luck Everyone!

MakinItHappen

P.S. - There seems to be a rash of dangling participles on this site recently. Does that bug you as much as it bugs me? :lol:

[betovernetcapper]

The dangling participles would probably bother the hell out of me-but I've forgotten what they are:)

[rrbauer]

Great dissertation, BONC!

BONC, conceptually I am with you 100% on this topic, but realistically unless some concessions are made in this area, are we not looking at ADW's being outlawed in most, if not all states? Track owners and horseman need to be pacified to some degree for the real or perceived reduction in handle resultant from the legalization of ADW's in their state/area. If not, it is a pretty easy target to have ADW's made illegal, as AZ has proven.


MakinItHappen

Track owners and horse owners are not the swiftest in the race, but I doublt that suicide is high on their "to do" list. Internet wagering is the only segment of the business that is growing and it holds the potential to continue growing so long as they don't screw it up.

What we are seeing in the business right now is posturing. Arizona has their approach. Content controllers such as TrackNet and Magna have their approach. TVG uses its superior product distribution via TV and its exclusive-content arrangements that pay higher fees for its approach. What we're seeing doesn't figure to change soon.

Of course, horseplayers outnumber the ADW's, tracks, horse owners' groups, et al, by a margin of about 1,000 to 1. We (horseplayers) are the majority. Yet we are treated and we behave like we're mere pimples on a horse's butt.

[jillybeans]

Horsemen associated with Churchill downs do not vote on their contracts with kirk Brooks and RGS. Complain about it and your stall space will disappear.

[Kelso]

From the article:

"If I haven't made myself clear, source market fees are theft.

"... when horsemen have no stake in the outcome (as in the example I've used) they don't deserve any income from the event."

Richard Young
October 16, 2007



Clear, concise and correct. Very nice job, Rich. Thank you.

[Kelso]

BONC, conceptually I am with you 100% on this topic, but realistically unless some concessions are made in this area, are we not looking at ADW's being outlawed in most, if not all states?


I don't think so, MIH.

Without ADWs, there will be much less out-of-town/state money available to horsemen during those times when they are. indeed, running races. Many of those guys are demonstrably greedy and stupid ... witness Arizona and Ohio ... but once they couldn't afford the oats, they'd see the light. Even before that, though, many state treasurers would be wise to their own missing vig.

I think, however, a federal lawsuit somewhere will put an end to this interstate theivery ... and make continued ignorance on ADW issues by horsemen, track managers and assorted political hacks moot. It is clearly a restraint of interstate commerce, often compounded by equal protection violations.

[David-LV]

Richard:

Excellent article that should be posted in large print at every similcast location in the nation.

It is sad that greed seem to be running wild within our society these days.

_________
David

[MakinItHappen]

Well, I hope you guys are right, and while as a horseplayer I love the concept of ZERO percent source fees, I really think we might be dreaming to think that it is likely. Precedent has been set in the major (and low take-out) horse racing states such as California, Kentucky and New York. Not very realistic to think that these fees are going to "go away". Why should we care as long as takeouts are reasonable in total?

While reducing takeout in the high takeout states is a realistic and achievable goal, focussing on a goal of ZERO percent source fees is a bit narrow and misguided, in my humble opinion. Controlling them at a reasonable level is another story.

As a reasonable person, I think you also have to look at it from individual track's perspective. Typically they have been granted a license by the state in which they reside to conduct live racing and accept parimutual wagering. An ADW operating in their state is clearly infringing to some degree on their "turf". As long as some agreement can be reached between the ADW and the track, a satisfactory result can be achieved for both parties. Zero percent source fees is not likely to be deemed reasonable.

Just my two cents worth, please fill me in on what I am missing...

Best of Luck Everyone!

MakinItHappen

[Hosshead]

... I think you also have to look at it from individual track's perspective. Typically they have been granted a license by the state in which they reside to conduct live racing and accept parimutual wagering. An ADW operating in their state is clearly infringing to some degree on their "turf". ..If the ADW pools are already co-mingled with the track, aren't the track and the state making money off of their share of their now "larger" pool anyway ?

[boomman]

BONC: I loved your "lengths" refererral, and without naming names, know EXACTLY to whom you are referring!:D

Boomer

[MakinItHappen]

If the ADW pools are already co-mingled with the track, aren't the track and the state making money off of their share of their now "larger" pool anyway ?

Yes, Hosshead, the track and the state are making additional monies off their share of the "larger" pool if the "in-state/area" wager is placed on a race at their track. This is a host fee. If a wager which originates in their state but not at one of their locations is placed on another track they get zero, which on the surface seems correct because they are "doing nothing" (ie- not putting on the race). At issue is the source fee, which is a percentage that the track gets for the wager initiating at their location or OTB network or state/area in the case of an ADW.

The issue, in my mind, is that the state grants the track the priviledge of accepting parimutual wagers not because of their desire to proliferate gambling, but because of the benefits to the state's horse racing industry. If the track/horse racing industry in their state is in no way benefitting from the ability of in-state horseplayers to make wagers on out-of-state races, then it becomes a no-brainer for the state to make this illegal. This is why I believe there has to be compromise on the source fee issue. I hope this helps to clarify.

Best of Luck Today Everyone!

MakinItHappen

P.S. - Poor Boomer caught in the middle of the cross-fire.