Texas horsemen and Lone Star/Tracknet

[NoCal Boy]

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44544

Will the horsemen stay tough with Tracknet?

[trigger]

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44544

Will the horsemen stay tough with Tracknet?

"Account wagering companies that take bets on races from Lone Star Park must agree to a new formula that gives an equal share of pari-mutuel revenue to the racetrack, horsemen, and the wagering provider."
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44544

Wave bye-bye to rebates if Texas horsemen's group is successful in their demand for a 1/3 cut between them, track, and ADW of the takeout of ADW handle at Lone Star and it spreads to other tracks. And ,for that matter, so-long to the possibility of reductions in takeouts.

[Premier Turf Club]

"Account wagering companies that take bets on races from Lone Star Park must agree to a new formula that gives an equal share of pari-mutuel revenue to the racetrack, horsemen, and the wagering provider."
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44544

Wave bye-bye to rebates if Texas horsemen's group is successful in their demand for a 1/3 cut between them, track, and ADW of the takeout of ADW handle at Lone Star and it spreads to other tracks. And ,for that matter, so-long to the possibility of reductions in takeouts.

You can wipe that smirk off your face when you say that. Anyone that's anti-rebate is anti-customer. Why do you even post on this board? It's clear you are a player hater.

Just for the record, as far as host fees go, we pay way more than brick and mortar and non-rebaters and make our business model work by keeping our expenses way down. Maybe you'd rather everyone play through bookmakers and you can get 100% of zero.

[boomman]

"Account wagering companies that take bets on races from Lone Star Park must agree to a new formula that gives an equal share of pari-mutuel revenue to the racetrack, horsemen, and the wagering provider."
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44544

Wave bye-bye to rebates if Texas horsemen's group is successful in their demand for a 1/3 cut between them, track, and ADW of the takeout of ADW handle at Lone Star and it spreads to other tracks. And ,for that matter, so-long to the possibility of reductions in takeouts.

The reduction in takeouts offered by ADW's is a GOOD thing! It keeps players "in action", creates churn and increases overall handle (which benefits EVERYONE) and most importantly: brings the offshore players back into the US pools via cash reward incentives. I can't envision any scenario where an ADW would sign contracts of this magnitude (which takes away from their ability to lower takeout for the player) when the horsemen have the capability of negotiating a smaller fee which would benefit them via increased revenue, still allow the ADWS to pay cash back to players, and STILL keep the offshore players from wandering back out of the pools AGAIN! It comes down to the same old common denominator: STOP this fracturing of signals, get everyone on the "same page" and benefit the industry as a WHOLE:mad:

Boomer

[JustRalph]

They still race horses in Texas?????????


They don't seem to be in any position to turn down money from anywhere........the racing sucks,

[Wickel]

Have any of the ADWs agreed to the contract? Is there anyone carrying Lone Star at the moment?

[Premier Turf Club]

Have any of the ADWs agreed to the contract? Is there anyone carrying Lone Star at the moment?

No, not to my knowledge.

[Cangamble]

Have any of the ADWs agreed to the contract? Is there anyone carrying Lone Star at the moment?
I saw Lone Star on HPI TV, so HPI is definitely carrying them. I can't see them buying the signal for 14% though:lol:

[trigger]

Premier Turf Club]You can wipe that smirk off your face when you say that. Anyone that's anti-rebate is anti-customer. Why do you even post on this board? It's clear you are a player hater.[/b]

Just for the record, as far as host fees go, we pay way more than brick and mortar and non-rebaters and make our business model work by keeping our expenses way down. Maybe you'd rather everyone play through bookmakers and you can get 100% of zero.

WOW!:eek:

[trigger]

"TV on hold" (http://www.star-telegram.com/808/story/575801.html)

"Opening night at Lone Star was going to be televised on HRTV. Early in the day, HRTV previewed the opening, and all was ready. Well, almost all.

Shortly before the start of the season, Lone Star officials were informed that the board of directors of the Texas Horsemen's Partnership had voted to require any advance-deposit wagering company, such as HRTV or TVG, that seeks to accept bets on Lone Star racing to enter into a licensing agreement with the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Group.

It's all rather complicated, especially since the THG also represents such racetracks as Keeneland, which allows its races to be broadcast even without such a licensing agreement.

But it comes down to this: The horsemen prevented the broadcast of opening night."

http://www.star-telegram.com/808/story/575801.html

[Wickel]

In the case of Lone Star and HRTV, I don't get it. Doesn't Magna own the network and the track? Last time I heard, it was management calling the shots at all corporations.

[Indulto]

"Account wagering companies that take bets on races from Lone Star Park must agree to a new formula that gives an equal share of pari-mutuel revenue to the racetrack, horsemen, and the wagering provider."
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44544

Wave bye-bye to rebates if Texas horsemen's group is successful in their demand for a 1/3 cut between them, track, and ADW of the takeout of ADW handle at Lone Star and it spreads to other tracks. And ,for that matter, so-long to the possibility of reductions in takeouts.You can wipe that smirk off your face when you say that. Anyone that's anti-rebate is anti-customer. Why do you even post on this board? It's clear you are a player hater.

Just for the record, as far as host fees go, we pay way more than brick and mortar and non-rebaters and make our business model work by keeping our expenses way down. Maybe you'd rather everyone play through bookmakers and you can get 100% of zero.PTC,
Just when you convinced me that sophisticated CRW technology didn't exist, you make it clear what happened to it...it's being used as a message board smirk-detector.:lol:

You can't deny that your'e a player hatter.:D

[InsideThePylons-MW]

When moronic horsemen want to control wagering rules + regulations, it's about all over for them.

Alberta bet 1 million a day when the horsemen decided they wanted to be in charge........they now are lucky to avg 150K per day.

The guy the horsemen voted to be in charge was 70 years old and had never been out of Alberta in his life..........no joke.

[trigger]

In the case of Lone Star and HRTV, I don't get it. Doesn't Magna own the network and the track? Last time I heard, it was management calling the shots at all corporations.
As usual the horse racing industry is a little different:

Interstate Horse Racing Act:
15 U.S.C. 3001, et seq.
§ 3004. Regulation of interstate off-track wagering
(a) Consent of host racing association, host racing commission, and off-track racing commission as prerequisite to acceptance of wager
An interstate off-track wager may be accepted by an off-track betting system only if consent is obtained from—
(1) the host racing association, except that—
(A) as a condition precedent to such consent, said racing association (except a not-for-profit racing association in a State where the distribution of off-track betting revenues in that State is set forth by law) must have a written agreement with the horsemen’s group, under which said racing association may give such consent, setting forth the terms and conditions relating thereto; provided

[Kelso]

Seems clear these clueless owners don't understand the concept of a smaller portion of a bigger pie ... or, in the instance of ADWs, an enormously bigger pie. They probably still won't understand when their little tracks have long since become trailer parks.

The higher quality tracks will probably be able to pull off something such as this one-third-to-each deal. I doubt they'll allow the Lone Stars of the world to interfere with their doing so.

If the ADWs hang just a little tough and refuse to pay to all what only some economically are worth, the Keenelands of this "partnership" will quickly let their partners sink from the weight of their own greed and ignorance. Hell, small-fry tracks going out of business adds supply-value to the survivors' racing product.

[JustRalph]

I can imagine a world where they no longer race in Texas, and about a half dozen other states and Keeneland has four meets a year instead of two....... :ThmbUp:

[trying2win]

In my opinion, horsemen have too much power, whether it's in Texas or any other state or province. I get the impression that they think they are the most important part of the horseracing business. I think the horsemen and their employees, the racetrack and their employees, the jockeys, drivers, trainers, the bettors, and the list goes on and on. They're all important to keep the show running. Think about that for moment. We all need each other. When you add the component of an ADW to the mix of the pari-mutuel scene, that's an extra beneficial ingredient to the revenue stream. Plus, being able to wager on the races through an ADW like PREMIER TURF CLUB, is icing on the cake for bettors.

Why should horsemen have the main say in who gets a track signal? I think that model has to change for the long-term survival of horse racing in general. Let's get over this selfishness by horsemen and/or horsemen group executives, and find a solution to the financial division of revenue etc. Otherwise, wouldn't that dissension continue to antagonize horseplayers and drive more of them to bet offshore? My suggestion is a panel of horsemen, racetrack executives, horseplayers and ADW'S working together to get fair and equitable deals done. That's my two cents worth.

[boomman]

In my opinion, horsemen have too much power, whether it's in Texas or any other state or province. I get the impression that they think they are the most important part of the horseracing business. I think the horsemen and their employees, the racetrack and their employees, the jockeys, drivers, trainers, the bettors, and the list goes on and on. They're all important to keep the show running. Think about that for moment. We all need each other. When you add the component of an ADW to the mix of the pari-mutuel scene, that's an extra beneficial ingredient to the revenue stream. Plus, being able to wager on the races through an ADW like PREMIER TURF CLUB, is icing on the cake for bettors.

Why should horsemen have the main say in who gets a track signal? I think that model has to change for the long-term survival of horse racing in general. Let's get over this selfishness by horsemen and/or horsemen group executives, and find a solution to the financial division of revenue etc. Otherwise, wouldn't that dissension continue to antagonize horseplayers and drive more of them to bet offshore? My suggestion is a panel of horsemen, racetrack executives, horseplayers and ADW'S working together to get fair and equitable deals done. That's my two cents worth.

Wow what a strange concept! Why don't we sit down together and hammer this thing out? What a model idea!;)

Boomer

[Hosshead]

The Texas horsemen act like all the money bet through ADW's would be bet at their track, .. if not for the ADW's standing in their way.
Don't they understand that ADW bets are "extra money" they would not normally have at all ?

[MikeDee]

Couldn't agree more Hosshead, if I didn't play from home I wouldn' play at all. Eliminating ADW's will not increase the on track attendance.

Horsemen need to stop acting like the rear end of the animals they train.

[alydar]

I don't have a problem with horsemen having the power that they do. What I do have a problem with is their proven inability to understand the overall industry. Time and time again horsemen's groups shoot themselves in the foot. The success fo the industry requires many participants. No one group can act only in their self interest, without understanding the industry as a whole.

[trigger]

Lone Star signal held from account-wagering sites
""If horsemen want 7 percent of account-wagering revenues, under this new model of theirs, that means we have to sell the signal for 17 or 18 percent," Daruty said. "We've got to be realistic. No one is going to buy a signal for 17 or 18 percent."

Simulcast signals are typically sold at rates ranging from 2 to 8 percent of handle. Receiving sites keep the difference between the rate and the takeout, which is typically 20 percent."
http://www.drf.com/news/article/93658.html


Florida HBPA Using THG in Negotiations
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44561

[NoCal Boy]

Daruty is full of crap. Do the math. If the blended takeout is 21%, 7% goes to purses, 7% to the host track and 7% to the ADW.

The horsemen want 1/3 to go to purses, 1/3 to the track and 1/3 to the ADW. If the takeout is only 15%, then each get 5%. If the takeout on a wager is 24%, each get 8%. Etc., etc.

Where the hell does he get off making a statement the signal needs to get sold for 18% if purses get 1/3?

Get rid of all source market fees and the model works just fine. 1/3 for purses, track and ADW.

Daruty fooled the horsemen in 2007, but it appears 2008 might be a different story.

How can Tracknet on one hand argue the 3% model does not work, but still aergue the purses shpould still get the same split as if the 3% model was in place?

[NoCal Boy]

Finally, Tracknet does not sell their signal to any other ADW's of significance. Who would they be selling it to for 18%?

What a hoot.

[Cangamble]

Where the hell does he get off making a statement the signal needs to get sold for 18% if purses get 1/3?
*************************
It is my understanding that the signal fee is what the horsemen and the track who sells the signal get. So the signal fee according to this premise would be sold for 2/3 of the takeout.

[Wickel]

As usual the horse racing industry is a little different:

Interstate Horse Racing Act:
15 U.S.C. 3001, et seq.
§ 3004. Regulation of interstate off-track wagering
(a) Consent of host racing association, host racing commission, and off-track racing commission as prerequisite to acceptance of wager
An interstate off-track wager may be accepted by an off-track betting system only if consent is obtained from—
(1) the host racing association, except that—
(A) as a condition precedent to such consent, said racing association (except a not-for-profit racing association in a State where the distribution of off-track betting revenues in that State is set forth by law) must have a written agreement with the horsemen’s group, under which said racing association may give such consent, setting forth the terms and conditions relating thereto; provided


A belated thanks, Trigger.

[Kelso]

I don't have a problem with horsemen having the power that they do.


I think the only power the horsemen should have is the power to decide whether and where to run their horses.

They have no legitimate claim ... no matter what the D.C. socialists decree ... to the power to control access to race pools at any track they do not, themselves, own.

[NoCal Boy]

I am not a horseman, and I agree there are limits to what the horsemen should get, but I have yet to see a race track generate revenues without the horsemen. Slots are at tracks because there are horsemen to run races at the track. Handle is produced by people wagering on horses owned and trained by horsemen. Some tracks have decent food offerings, but I doubt many people go to a track to buy the food and then drive home.

Don't fool yourselves. No horsemen, no racing. This does not mean they get anything they desire as they are a piece of what makes it work, but do not kid yourselves into believing the horsemen will ever lose any rights under the IHA.

[Kelso]

I am not a horseman, and I agree there are limits to what the horsemen should get, but I have yet to see a race track generate revenues without the horsemen.


Horsemen do not generate revenues for tracks. Horsemen are an expense. Absent slots, only wagering generates meaningful revenue for tracks, and there is hardly any wagering without players.

Horsemen ignore that reality until their tracks close down, consequential to players deciding they are unwilling to continue being bled to cover the expense of tracks cow-towing to horsemen.



Slots are at tracks because there are horsemen to run races at the track. Handle is produced by people wagering on horses owned and trained by horsemen.


The presence of slots/tables at tracks is strictly a matter of politics. They are not a racing-marketing consideration.

This has not, however, stopped the horsemen from benefitting to a grossly disproportionate degree from slot/table revenues ... at the direct expense of the players.

[highnote]

This has not, however, stopped the horsemen from benefitting to a grossly disproportionate degree from slot/table revenues ... at the direct expense of the players.

In my opinion, players should get a share of slot revenue. If we bet X amount at a racino, then we should get Y percent of our handle back as a rebate as long as we hit a certain threshold. Obviously, there would be a limit on the slot rebate we could get. But why shouldn't we get something back? We help keep the track and horsemen in business. Where's our cut of the pie?

In fact, every place that I can. I've been switching to businesses that give me some kind of rebate for my business. I get frequent flyer miles with my credit card. Oil companies offer rebates on charges made on their charge cards.

Websites should pay us a royalty for viewing their content that is cluttered with advertisements. If we have to be subjected to their ads we should get paid for it. Think of it as reverse subscriptions.

Some of the video sharing websites now pay royalties to people who upload content.

[NoCal Boy]

Name me a single race track where a player can make a wager on a race without a horseman involved? What do you bet on?

Of course slots are a political animal. But tracks have slots because they are race tracks. Without the horses, no slots because the track does not even exist.

[sandpit]

I agree, without horsemen, there would be no racing. It's amazing to me that despite the fact that 90% of owners lose money annually, the game continues on. Trainers dedicate their life to work 365/24/7, but many of them have a great business setup.

Imagine this: you were using someone else's product to generate $ and that other person was paying all the bills associated with the product. Moreover, the owner of the building you were using to sell the product charged you NOTHING for rent, water and electricity! Your only costs were whatever you paid in benefits to your employees and insurance liabilities. That is essentially what trainers do: they use the horses to generate revenue, and racetracks provide them a free workplace during live meets.

[facorsig]

Name me a single race track where a player can make a wager on a race without a horseman involved? What do you bet on?

Of course slots are a political animal. But tracks have slots because they are race tracks. Without the horses, no slots because the track does not even exist.

Any dog track!:lol:

[Kelso]

Name me a single race track where a player can make a wager on a race without a horseman involved? What do you bet on?


Name me a single pari-mutuel race track that stays in business without players.




Without the horses, no slots because the track does not even exist.


They don't exist without players, either. Horsemen ... and some who are willing to ignore reality and blindly swallow their line ... refuse to accept that.

[trigger]

How about splitting the ADW handle 1/4 for each.......1/4 for horsemen; 1/4 for tracks; 1/4 for ADWs; AND 1/4 for horse players (in the form of a 25% reduction in takeout) . :jump: :ThmbUp: :cool: :)

[Indulto]

How about splitting the ADW handle 1/4 for each.......1/4 for horsemen; 1/4 for tracks; 1/4 for ADWs; AND 1/4 for horse players (in the form of a 25% reduction in takeout) . :jump:I like the theory, especially at tracks with slots, but it's not clear to me that it equates to a 25% reduction in takeout.

The funny thing is, horseplayers could get virtually whatever they reasonably want from both the tracks and ADWs as well as the horsemen and governments if they would just stop betting for a decent stretch. An optimal time might be between the Derby and the Preakness to make certain tracknet gets the point without ruining it for the fans. :cool: For those who can't suppress the urge, there's always non-MEC/CDI tracks to procott.;)

Anyway, it would be nice to settle the issue as to whether or not lowered takeout is preferable to rebates. As I can't yet bet PTC in CA, perhaps those who can would be willing to share their experience in general terms as to how well rebates have worked for them, especially if they have increased their play to qualify for those rebates.
1) What been their % increase in play compared with the % rebated?
2) Has their ROI increased or decreased with more play?
3) If winning, how does the % increase in their winnings compare with their % increase in play?

This clocker info and real-time paddock feedback are excellent marketing tools for PTC to attract attention now that they are in the eye of the mainstream at KEE. I hope they can keep it up for the duration of the short meet. Also good news that CA is on their agenda for a concerted effort. As the current ADW cooperation experiment ends with HOL, I hope to see them going after DMR aggressively,and getting the entire Oak Tree met in addtion to the BC.

[CyberBet]

Track Horsemen Punter

They are interdependent.

Hell with no tracks the horsemen are back to running in fields for ribbons and blankets.
No horsemen no show
No players no tracks

[TEJAS KIDD]

I've been one of the biggest supporters of Texas racing for the past 10 years, averaging over 1 million in handle per year...I sure am glad I pulled the trigger on my move to California last week...I would have been sick, sitting at home and getting ready to wager on the card only to be cut off from wagering and the video signal...Texas racing is falling apart and I'm glad I've gotten out.

[JustRalph]

I've been one of the biggest supporters of Texas racing for the past 10 years, averaging over 1 million in handle per year...I sure am glad I pulled the trigger on my move to California last week...I would have been sick, sitting at home and getting ready to wager on the card only to be cut off from wagering and the video signal...Texas racing is falling apart and I'm glad I've gotten out.

If you are putting a million thru the windows, somebody needs to send this thread and this post to the horsemen in Texas.

[trigger]

I like the theory, especially at tracks with slots, but it's not clear to me that it equates to a 25% reduction in takeout.

.

If you are wondering about my math, I took 20% as the average overall takeout and divided it by 4= 5% takeout (or 25% of total takeout) for each of the stakeholders (Track, Horsemen, ADW, and Punters). :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :)

[boomman]

Have any of the ADWs agreed to the contract? Is there anyone carrying Lone Star at the moment?

Wickel: I have the answer to your question...Believe it or not, although the THG have refused to negotiate rates with US Based ADWs, they are continuing to send the signals offshore at the same rate as before....So let's see, shut out the money going into the pools via legitimate US licensees, and ENCOURAGE the players to go offshore to make a wager...That's BRILLIANT!!!:mad:

[jillybeans]

I guess the horsemen groups must be feeling a little melancholy towards the offshore/onshore/offshore bet shops. Its just a matter of time before those scofflaws are shut down permanently. Racing is beyond repair. Which is why our US Homeland Security Department has spent the last two years kicking doors in, seizing monetary assets,and confiscating hard drives. Depending on the extent of these criminal acts perhaps racetracks can become prison workhouses instead of crying their eyeballs out to install slots.

[trigger]

"A more equitable pricing model will help to ensure the future of our industry.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..."also has taken a firm stand on the need for fair distribution of account wagering revenue. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>“For too many years the industry has said the account wagering model is broken and needs to be fixed,” said KTA executive director David Switzer. “Until now, no one has come up with the fix. The THG program will move this issue forward and provide a fair and equitable sharing of revenue for all parties.”
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=44603

Not one mention of the bettor......the real future of the industry. Talk about disrespect.
They don't get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bang: :eek: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[john del riccio]

Horseman that will not confront the off shore ADW's are only cutting off their own noses to spite their faces. Maybe when there is no place for them to go,
they will wake up. but by ten it will be too late.

How ignorance can mess up such a great game blows my mind.

John

[DeanT]

John,

Now this nonsense is about fixing a model that frankly is keeping the game from falling even further.

In the UK where higher volume rules the roost with lower prices, the game is in decent enough shape. From Crist's blog about 1% of wagering goes to purses there. In the US and Canada 6% goes to purses. They are trying to fix a problem that is 600% worse overseas! When will they clue in that racing is in better overall shape there than here, with with a good slice of rake going into the players pockets, not theirs?

Though American racehorse owners constantly complain about not getting a sufficient return on investment, in comparison to other countries, we do a pretty efficient job of directing betting commissions back to owners through purses.

This to me is one of of two things: Greed, or having no concept of the real problem.

This 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 thing was nonsensical when it was brought up a few months ago, and is even worse today. Wagering is falling because of trying to fix problems that do not exist, on the backs of the players who are trying to bet more money at a lower rake to grow the game.

Here's a pop quiz with to me, are some frightening answers about racing here.

http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2008/02/cold-stats-and-harsh-reality.html

[Cangamble]

I have no problem with the 1/3rd 1/3rd 1/3rd solution. But it would only be acceptable if 1/3rd equalled 4% of the amount bet.

[InControlX]

CangambleI have no problem with the 1/3rd 1/3rd 1/3rd solution. But it would only be acceptable if 1/3rd equalled 4% of the amount bet.

It would be nice, but I think the "snouts in the trough" are too greedy for 4% each. Then there's the tax takeout...

ICX

[Kelso]

I have no problem with the 1/3rd 1/3rd 1/3rd solution. But it would only be acceptable if 1/3rd equalled 4% of the amount bet.


For you slow-on-the-uptake racehorse owners and track managers out there ... that means a 12% gross takeout.

Great idea, CG! (A tad too generous to the owners and the suits, perhaps, but still a great idea.)

[whaynswo]

The problem is the track owned ADWs. What they are trying to do is control the entire distribution process from racetrack to wagering outlet, effectively shutting out other wagering outlets (TVG, Youbet) and other racetracks. Stifling competition does not grow an industry.

Now, obviously the system is broken, but you can't blame horsemen for trying to get an equitable share of the pie, especially when they see racetracks receiving most of the revenue. The IHA gives horsemen the power to stop signals from being simulcast, so why not use that to level the playing field? It's not like they are asking for 90%... they simply want an equal share.

For pari-mutuel wagering to work, it needs all parties - racetracks, horsemen, and bettors. You can argue all day about which party is most important, but all three are necessary.

[trigger]

John,

Now this nonsense is about fixing a model that frankly is keeping the game from falling even further.

In the UK where higher volume rules the roost with lower prices, the game is in decent enough shape. From Crist's blog about 1% of wagering goes to purses there. In the US and Canada 6% goes to purses. They are trying to fix a problem that is 600% worse overseas! When will they clue in that racing is in better overall shape there than here, with with a good slice of rake going into the players pockets, not theirs?



This to me is one of of two things: Greed, or having no concept of the real problem.

This 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 thing was nonsensical when it was brought up a few months ago, and is even worse today. Wagering is falling because of trying to fix problems that do not exist, on the backs of the players who are trying to bet more money at a lower rake to grow the game.

Here's a pop quiz with to me, are some frightening answers about racing here.

http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2008/02/cold-stats-and-harsh-reality.html

As per the stats in this blog, the primary problem in NA is too many race tracks which means reduced handle for each track which , in turn, spreads purses too thin not to mention having to sustain multiple track operating expenses. Realistically, the only way to reduce takeout to an level that would make horse racing viable in the future is to reduce the number of NA tracks to about 10- 20.
Regrettably, the current set-up of the racing industry doesn't lend itself to this kind of self correction in the short term although, imho, it will happen over the long run (forced by continuously decreasing handles and increasing operating expenses) with the ultimate possibility that the entire horse racing enterprise will go down in flames in the meantime.
Continuously ignoring the customer (in this case, the takeout- paying horseplayer) has brought down many companies.

[Kelso]

Now, obviously the system is broken, but you can't blame horsemen for trying to get an equitable share of the pie, especially when they see racetracks receiving most of the revenue. The IHA gives horsemen the power to stop signals from being simulcast, so why not use that to level the playing field? It's not like they are asking for 90%... they simply want an equal share.


Adjectives such as "equitable," and catch-phrases such as "level the playing field," are the stock-in-trade of labor unions. They sound nice, but they're entirely subjective. Therefor, they're completely useless as a basis for decision making.

As to tracks getting "most of the revenue" ... well, they also have most of the expenses, including free barns for all those poor, victimized owners.

ADW money is "found money" to the tracks and owners. They should be most appreciative of receiving a 3%-7% ADW windfall.

[Premier Turf Club]

We were turned down by the Texas Horsemen on the RET quarters meet. This after recently signing a 6 figure a month quarterhorse player. I just got off the phone with the gentleman and he told me he will play all his handle through bookmakers.

We work pretty thin on those types, so it will cost the track and the horsemen a whole lot more than it costs me. :ThmbUp:

[NoCal Boy]

It is unbelievable Ian. On one hand you think the horsemen finally have it figured out that it is far better to have broad distribution, then the same horsemen turn you down for the RET quarters. RET is neither a Tracknet nor TVG exclusive track. Hopefully you will get Calder and Lone Star if the horsemen hang tough and force the issue with Tracknet on distribution. If they will not get Tracknet to agree on the 1/3, at least get Tracknet to agree to open the signals up so more handle can come in.

[whaynswo]

Adjectives such as "equitable," and catch-phrases such as "level the playing field," are the stock-in-trade of labor unions. They sound nice, but they're entirely subjective. Therefor, they're completely useless as a basis for decision making.

As to tracks getting "most of the revenue" ... well, they also have most of the expenses, including free barns for all those poor, victimized owners.

ADW money is "found money" to the tracks and owners. They should be most appreciative of receiving a 3%-7% ADW windfall.


Lay off the Kool Aid.

What "decision" did I make in my post? Do you mean "observation"? Tossing out statements because they contain certain words sounds like a logical idea.

ADW is found money? So all these new racing fans were created with the spread of accout wagering? Give me a break. What account wagering did was expand the distribution and allow existing players to bet more often, leading to a bump in total handle.

It's the same principle as when full card simulcasting came into existence. Do you think that increase in handle was due to "found" players going to tracks and betting? Of course not. It was the same players making more bets due to broader distribution. Should tracks be appreciative of that too?

[northerndancer]

The creator of the 1/3 model Chuck Champion so I guess if you are going to follow the vision of this individual you will end up in the same place he drove his company................

IMO the formation of THG was in response to Tracknet and now the ADW's have all been lumped together........ I hate being collateral damage or a pawn in the game.

[Kelso]

Lay off the Kool Aid. What "decision" did I make in my post?
Where in MY post did I say anything about YOU making decisions? From your comments, I sure as hell hope you are in no such position of responsibility.

You wrote of the horsemen whining for an "equitable share." They're making such nonsense economic demands in order to squeeze economically dumb decisions from the tracks and ADWs. You, I trust, will have nothing at all to do with those deliberations.


ADW is found money? So all these new racing fans were created with the spread of accout wagering? Give me a break. What account wagering did was expand the distribution and allow existing players to bet more often, leading to a bump in total handle.
You need much more than a break. You need some basic vocabulary lessons.

You answered you're own clueless question by your acknowledgement that ADWs caused a "bump" (much more like an earthquake, actually) in total handle. That increase was, and continues to be, found (i.e., new) MONEY to the tracks that export their signals to ADWs and simulcast centers.

Without ADWs and simulcast (between which there is little, operational difference of consequence) all that NEW MONEY would not have been there for the tracks to FIND.


It's the same principle as when full card simulcasting came into existence. Do you think that increase in handle was due to "found" players going to tracks and betting?
Reading for comprehension isn't your long suit, is it? Stop imputing your own inadequacies into my comments.

I wrote nothing at all about new FANS. I wrote of found (i.e., new) money.


It was the same players making more bets due to broader distribution. Should tracks be appreciative of that too?
Yes, they most certainly should ... and they should have demonstrated that appreciation by promptly and significantly lowering takeout.

[whaynswo]

Where in MY post did I say anything about YOU making decisions? From your comments, I sure as hell hope you are in no such position of responsibility.

You wrote of the horsemen whining for an "equitable share." They're making such nonsense economic demands in order to squeeze economically dumb decisions from the tracks and ADWs. You, I trust, will have nothing at all to do with those deliberations.

Before TrackNet, no one was squeezing anyone. That's cool though. Don't let the facts get in your way. Direct your anger towards the horsemen.

You need much more than a break. You need some basic vocabulary lessons.

You answered you're own clueless question by your acknowledgement that ADWs caused a "bump" (much more like an earthquake, actually) in total handle. That increase was, and continues to be, found (i.e., new) MONEY to the tracks that export their signals to ADWs and simulcast centers.

Without ADWs and simulcast (between which there is little, operational difference of consequence) all that NEW MONEY would not have been there for the tracks to FIND.

Thanks for the bold, italics, capitalized, and underlined words. Otherwise I wouldn't have understood your basic sentences.


Yes, they most certainly should ... and they should have demonstrated that appreciation by promptly and significantly lowering takeout.

So based on your reasoning, an entity that receives benefits based on a legal or regulatory change should be forever grateful and give back its new benefits to its customers? You keep showing your brilliance.

You completely ignored the fact that I already said the system is broken and needed change. Instead, you overreacted to my comment that the horsemen were within their legal right to use their leverage to achieve a more equitable revenue share. Typical message board fare.




response in bold

[whaynswo]

I forgot to add that based on your illogical reasoning, handicappers should be appreciative of ANY rebate since it too is "found" money, previously not available while wagering on-track.

[LurkingBettor]

The contact name listed on their website is: wobanan@texashorsemen.com

I found it ironic that a group formed only in December of last year could have such an affect on our potential betting. Fired off an email to the aforementioned and, of course have not heard back any kind of response. Typical of OUR industry but would encourage ya'll to do the same. Here was my email:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please forward this email to Mr. Tommy Azopardi or whomever else you find
might be interested in reading it.

I am a long-time bettor, and several times owner of horses in Texas.
Imagine my surprise when I fire up my on-line betting service Thursday April
10th and find that Lone Star Park is NOT available on their betting
platform. To make things even more frustrating, this particular ADW was set
up specifically for residents of Texas when WinTicket.com folded up and sent
most of their clients over to TwinSpires.com.

Ok. So I can't place a few $2 bets. No big deal. I figure I'll just watch
the races on HRTV. Well, imagine my surprise when there is no LSP racing on
TV. None live, none taped.....nothing.

So who are you guys really representing? I've been a licensed owner in
Texas as recently as June, 2007. Nobody ever contacted me about
representation regarding ADW's, simulcasting, television rights, or the
like.

The current situation out at Lone Star is EXACTLY the type of thing that
makes me never want to renew my owners license again OR go out there and
place a bet ( I live approximately 25 minutes away, by the way ). Heck,
I'll just take up poker or play the lottery for my desire to "gamble". I
can dang sure find a hobby less expensive than thoroughbred horse ownership.
Your horsemen's group (or is it MY horsemen's group?) has a very
shortsighted view of what it's going to take to "grow" their revenues.
Online wagering, free past performances, live races via internet or
television, free taped replays and rebates for wagering ARE the future of
horseracing. Trying to get a larger % of a smaller pie is not the answer.
The answer is making the pie larger.

I think your opening night attendance figures at Lone Star should be an
eye-opener. I don't have a clue what handle was, but I'm sure it declined
significantly too.

In conclusion, making it easier to watch live racing and get a bet down for
the "average" individual should be your goal. NOT the opposite. Thank you
for reading my vent.

Regards,
**** ****
License #*****
Former Owner, Former Handicapper, Former Bettor

[InControlX]

I'm not so worked up over who should get what piece of the takeout pie. I can see valid arguments from each group. What bothers me is how murky and hidden most of this stuff is. If you don't routinely visit Richard Bauer's site or equivalent or scroll through reams of state code you have no idea of the load and where it's way out of line.

How about a takeout summary receipt for each wager which would at least duplicate the courtesy we get from a Walmart transaction with receipts showing state and local taxes?

ICX

SAMPLE TICKET for Truth in Wagering...
Your Bet: $10 WIN, No.2, Race 1

Gross Bet $10.00
Track Support Takeout -0.75
Horsemens' Purse Takeout -0.60
State Tax Takeout -0.25
ADW Commission -0.15
---------------------------------------------------
Net Paramutual Pool Bet Value $8.25

Note: Winning tickets are further deducted
a $0.05 breakage based upon each $1.00 unit wagered.

[trying2win]

Lurking Bettor:

I admire you for taking action and sending that email to the Texas horsemen group. Too many PA members just complain here about this and that on horse racing issues, and are great at the 'TALKING THE TALK', but are unwillng on the part of 'WALKING THE TALK'. There are still too many milquetoasts here at the PACE ADVANTAGE site. (If anyone doesn't know what a milquetoast is, look up the meaning at www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/) and add to your vocabulary) then stop being one and send off that email or make that phone call to race track exectutives, horsemen group executives, etc. and state your complaint or give them a compliment if they're doing something right.

You won't always get an answer, or an answer you were hoping to get, but at least you've let your feelings be known about certain aspects of the horse racing scene. I've sent out lots of emails to these groups over time and got a lot of lame excuses, but sometimes I've gotten some positive replies and action was taken on some of my complaints. So that old excuse of 'I'm just one bettor, my complaint won't make a difference".....NONSENSE!...Especially if enough bettors complain that they are going to vote with their wallets in one form or another. I think some of the these groups would start to listen, especially if they see their bottom lines start to dwindle over a race meet.
I've told some racetracks lately, if I can't bet their tracks and get a decent rebate through their racetrack or an onshore ADW, then I'll send my bets through an offshore racebook.

T2W

[Kelso]

Before TrackNet, no one was squeezing anyone. That's cool though. Don't let the facts get in your way. Direct your anger towards the horsemen.

You read no defense of TrackNet from me, so don't try to paint me into their corner. Ain't gonna wash, fella. Peddle your straw men elsewhere.

As to "facts" ... you have offered none of substance. All you've posted are phantom attributions regarding TrackNet, decision-making and new players. Your primary contribution to this thread has been that claptrap about "equity" and "level playing fields." (I'm surprised ya forgot to use "fair" in your defense of ignorance and avarice. The stupid, the selfish and socialists just love to distract attention from FACTS with that one.)

And yes, the horsemen will continue to be targets of my anger as long as they insist on coveting a share of the pie that should be going to bettors ... via reduced takeout and rebates. As a group on the issue of takeout, they have revealed themselves to be as greedy as they are short-sighted. (On the latter characteristic, I fully understand your affinity for them.)



Thanks for the bold, italics, capitalized, and underlined words. Otherwise I wouldn't have understood your basic sentences.

It was a genuine pleasure. I try to help the mentally challenged whenever an opportunity presents itself.



So based on your reasoning, an entity that receives benefits based on a legal or regulatory change should be forever grateful and give back its new benefits to its customers? You keep showing your brilliance.

Clearly, you are no stronger at discerning reason than you are at reading for comprehension. I wrote ... IN RESPONSE TO YOUR OWN QUESTION ... that tracks should appreciate the found money dumped in their laps by simulcasting. While law was involved, certainly, I view simulcasting/ADWs to be much more a consequence of technical change than of political favor.

As to legal/regulatory change ... we all know how that comes about, don't we? Then again, you probably don't; so I'll help you out here, too. The horsemen played the system well and were amply rewarded by their captives in Congress. So their appreciation, sadly, must be directed at Capital Hill.

(Sincere congratulations for picking up on my brilliance. Perhaps there's hope for you yet.)



You completely ignored the fact that I already said the system is broken and needed change.

So what? That's about the only thing you've wrote in this thread that's true. What's with your desperate desire for positive reinforcement? Teacher didn't call on you one of the few times you actually had the correct answer? Or a mama issue, maybe?



Instead, you overreacted to my comment that the horsemen were within their legal right to use their leverage to achieve a more equitable revenue share. Typical message board fare.

There ya go, again! The wall fell, guy. Your side lost. Get over it.

(And. in my most humble opinion, my response was measured, pertinent and exceptionally well-reasoned. You really should try it that way, sometime. :D )

[Kelso]

I forgot to add that based on your illogical reasoning, handicappers should be appreciative of ANY rebate since it too is "found" money, previously not available while wagering on-track.

NOW yer gettin' it! By gum, maybe there really IS hope for you, Gomer. Good for ya!!

Domestic ADWs have demonstrated the same greed and disdain for bettors as the horesmen and tracks have. So when a Premier Turf Club comes along and offers something that nobody else offers ... you're damned right I appreciate it! You should, too!! (Unless, that is, your only association with racing and money is as an owner or a relative of one.)

[PaceAdvantage]

Kelso and whaynswo, I suggest you both brush up on the TOS (http://www.paceadvantage.com/TOS_PrivacyStatement.html) of PaceAdvantage.com

Don't bother with any more posts in this thread. They will be deleted. If you want to respond to this reply, do so via private message.

[LurkingBettor]

Lurking Bettor:

I admire you for taking action and sending that email to the Texas horsemen group. Too many PA members just complain here about this and that on horse racing issues, and are great at the 'TALKING THE TALK', but are unwillng on the part of 'WALKING THE TALK'.

T2W

Thanks for the kudos, T2W. For the record, I haven't heard anything back from the THG as of today. If anyone has a phone number, please post or private message and I'll put in a call. As I mentioned in my email to them, it's ironic, that as a horseman, I never received ANY type of communication on this action. (I do however still receive condition books for a couple of Texas tracks, so I gotta be on some type of mailing list.)

Another interesting side note: When I couldn't get Lone Star Park to come up on BetPad.com's website, I fired off an email to them about how to contact the Texas Horsemens Group. (They were the platform that WinTicket forced us Texas residents off on when TwinSpires didn't want us.) I personally talked to someone at BetPad at the time of the changeover, and they assured me they did NOT agree with the Texas Attorney General's standing on online wagering and WOULD accept bets from Texas residents accordingly.

The response to my most recent email to BetPad requesting contact info for the THG was that I needed to "contact the attorney general of Texas". I then sent that girl a link to the original BloodHorse article asking for more clarification on who is ultimately responsible for my lack of ability to get a $2 bet down.....1) the Texas Horsemen's Group, or 2) the Texas AG?

I haven't heard back from BetPad either. Imagine that. Is this a screwed up industry, or what?