What's wrong with this picture and why don't I understand it

[pktruckdriver]

I want to know what this big issue over the track's not working it out with ADW's/OTB's, or is it a seperate issue with each entitity??


Why are the online betting sites not sharing with the horsemen, should they????
I think that they should , why not?? Really why not???

What is wrong with the horsemen, of course they mostly are spoiled rich people, (this is not my opinion, just what I was told, no offense meant, ok) and only want what is bet on their horses, isn't that fair, and they want bigger purses with that money, isn't that fair, I think so, if not , why not???

Some one please explain this to me and am I really that stupid and that I can't figure this out, isn't it just greed on everyone's part, or not??


What am I missing on this issue, or is it just this simple???


By the way, I've read most of the posts in this section, trying to learn what I can, and I keep coming back to this, ADW does not want to share the money, it seems they want to keep all the money, man that is greed, isn't it?? OTB has been sharing the money, so why are they now also cut-off from wagering from these tracks??? What a mess, just like the economy, and getting worst.



Hope someone can make me understand this mess, please, maybe I need my sign, huh.

Patrick

[pktruckdriver]

I have researched more on the board and have come to think that all everyone is greedy, to one degree or another.


But I am having trouble locating the current contract's between these (ADW/OTB/Horesmen/Tracks) people and was wondering if y'all could help me find those contracts to see who's greedier ?????

Now is it not true there is no horse racing without the horses, of course not, but are they the guilty party here, to me no, but I need more info, where can I get it??

Does the state agencies have the info there, websites, or google it??

We have horsemen on the site, right?

We have ADW's like PTC on the site too, right??

What about track people, do we have them here too?


Am I to insignificant ,(hope I spelled it right) ,to be asking you people why this is so hard to work out?? I just want to learn why these people are affecting my right to bet on the tracks I use to like, where as Calder is no longer a track I'll play, thanks to this boards enlightment of the takeouts,etc.... and the same goes for certain ADW's too.

Hope I get some response this time, please.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure betting on any track is a "RIGHT" as you put it....in fact, I know it's not a right. Be that as it may, I'm not sure where or why these contracts you seek would be public information....they probably are not....

[russowen77]

In this area few of the horsemen are rich. The ones who get Graded stakes winners usually are but not the average horseman for sure. Without them there would not be many races and few horses in them. Those are the people that are getting clobbered right now and need some relief. The costs are skying and the purses are not that high at the level most of those guys get to compete.

[HUSKER55]

It is my understanding that the issue is over the horsemen getting their fair share. ADW and OTB Centers basically take your money give you track odds and bank the difference. Some of the bets, but not all, are run through the track.

The issue is, as I understand it, that the horsemen and track are cut out of the loop. It is like dealing with a car salesman. He is not leaving the table as long as there is money on it.


That means that those that do go through the track are paying the fees and purses and those that don't end up not contributing to the pot, (so to speak), which means the tracks take has to go up.

Then there is the issue of bradcasting the video and all I know about that is that if you have one feed you can rebroadcast that signal around the world if you have the right equipment. Beyond that I am lost.

This is just my understanding and I could be wrong. So take it with a grain of salt, perhaps two grains.

:)

[pktruckdriver]

Now Bossman


Why wouldn't those contract be public knowledge, are they not overseen by state agencies to insure they are legal and within the laws.

Thay should be like the takeouts, common knowledge, no??


Now to me if the ADW's and or the OTB's do not co-mingle there money in the pools at the track they carry, then what do they do with the money, keep it all for themselves, now that would be just wrong, really wrong, and I could understand then where the horsemen are coming from, heck I'd be mad too. But is this how it is or not, that's what I don't know?

And why don't I have the "right " to bet at the track, why else would they have a race track if I didn't have the right to bet, seems kinda ridiculous, just my opinion, though.


Am I not right in wanting to know how this works, heck it affects me, true, so then I think I have right to know.

Patrick

[asH]

y' know ,I’ve been reading post after post after post, and I'm finding that people who call themselves cappers don’t have a clue as to the events happening around them; haven’t a clue as to the relationship between the events at Calder and CD today, and even NYRA few months ago; don’t know who the Horsemen’s Group are, or CDI, MEC/Magna; how the ADW's, track-ADW's play a role; how all this plays towards in the 'grand scheme of things' today and tomorrow. Most post I read are uninformed mindless opinions, substantiated by what(!?). It is not surprising cappers concerns are not considered/respected…

is this how you handicap??

From the looks of it we ( cappers )are fish food, fodder, due to our ignorance of current and past events… don’t expect TVG or HRTV to report these happening; if you didn’t know, they are owned by the players of this game, and would probably prefer you in the dark about the relationships of these events… Be aware of posters with their own agendas in mind….there is a war going on for your dollars …read (DRF,Bloodhorse,ESPN) question …you have the time anyway, with Calder closed.

[Kelso]

It is my understanding that the issue is over the horsemen getting their fair share.
In business, there is no such thing as "fair." Fair (and the almost-as-often misused and abused adjective "equitable") is an entirely subjective assessment. Thus it is without value in economic matters. (That's why labor unions love to toss it into their press releases and mob scenes. It means whatever the user wants it to mean.)

The matter of splitting takeout among tracks, ADWs and OTBs is strictly an economic issue. Each has its own cost and expense bases to consider. Fairness has no valid place in the discussion.

(I intentionally excluded horsemen and players from the foregoing because their economic decisions are made subsequent to the on-track/off-track fee negotiations. The result of the negotiations determines how much is left, respectively, for the tracks to offer the owners as purses, and for the tracks, ADWs and OTBs to offer the players as reduced takeout and/or rebates. The greedy horsemen, however, are trying to screw the players by cutting in line to grab a fatter slice of the pie for themselves at the fee-negotiation stage.)



ADW and OTB Centers basically take your money give you track odds and bank the difference.

Some of the bets, but not all, are run through the track.

the horsemen and track are cut out of the loop.
Incorrect on all three points. ADWs and OTBs ... at least in the US ... pay a negotiated fee to the tracks. (Important point: They negotiate with the tracks, because the tracks own the races to which the ADWs and OTBs seek wagering access.)

The same portion of every ADW/OTB wager gets into the wagering pools as do bets placed at the track, and the payouts are entirely from those same pools ... albeit with the funds being received and disbursed at and by the various wagering sites.

The horsemen enter the "loop" in two ways:
First, when they make the economic decision of whether the risk/reward of racing at a particular track is worthwhile.
Second, when they buy off enough Congressmen to get sweetheart treatment in such bills as the Interstate Horseracing Act ... the sweeheart aspect of which will, hopefully, soon be overturned by a federal court.

Perhaps you are confused by the situation with foreign race books, which might or might not pay the tracks for access to the tracks' races.



That means that those that do go through the track are paying the fees and purses and those that don't end up not contributing to the pot, (so to speak), which means the tracks take has to go up.
A hundred-eighty degrees off target. As stated above, every ADW/OTB wager enters the track-controlled pools in the same proportion as the on-track wagers.

Furthermore, almost every nickle (excluding those from bettors who are close enough to a track to otherwise bet at that track) wagered off-track is "found money" ... as both fees and pool contributions ... to the tracks. It is money that the tracks would have no chance in hell of ever receiving without the existence and cooperation of the ADWs and OTBs, because the vast majority of patrons of off-track wagering facilities don't live anywhere near the tracks they play.

This is the very reason "all-source" handle has exploded over the past twenty or so years. It is also the reason tracks have been able to remain in business in the face of insurmountable competition for on-site gambling dollars from casinos nationwide.

Therefor, ADWs and OTBs do more to hold takeout down than anything any horseman ever has or ever could do. That's why the tracks are quite satisfied to allow the off-track sites the incentive of retaining the lion's share of takeout.

Without ADWs and OTBs, there would be smaller pools, higher takeout .... and SMALLER PURSES FOR THE GREEDY BASTARDS BEHIND THG.

[northerndancer]

[QUOTE=Kelso]The horsemen enter the "loop" in two ways:
First, when they make the economic decision of whether the risk/reward of racing at a particular track is worthwhile.
Second, when they buy off enough Congressmen to get sweetheart treatment in such bills as the Interstate Horseracing Act ... the sweeheart aspect of which will, hopefully, soon be overturned by a federal court[QUOTE=Kelso]

Kelso IMO I can ascertain by your posts that you are not a fan of the horsemen in this particular battle therefore I will not spend time debating the issue of the horsemen.

What I will provide you is a clarification as to the rights each horsemen's group has under their specific agreements with each track. The recognized horsemen's group of the contract with the track has the right to approve or disapprove the simulcast of the signal. All simulcast contracts negotiated by the track must be apporved by the horsemen's group in order for the track to accept the simulcast wager. This also answers the question why are simulcast contracts only for the current meet and not negotiated over a multi year deal.

In regard to the Interstate Horseracing Act all parties (tracks, horsemen and players) benefit from this particular legislation. This Act is what keeps the industry from being lumped into the internet gambling fiasco. Therefore IMO that is a piece of legislation none of the parties want to mess with....... I am fearful that this bitter civil war that has broken out will cause issue with the Act.

In closing I appreciate your passion and principle in relation to your disdain of the horsemen.

[Kelso]

All simulcast contracts negotiated by the track must be apporved by the horsemen's group
Certainly true ... this is the "sweetheart" provision of the IHA to which I referred.


In regard to the Interstate Horseracing Act all parties (tracks, horsemen and players) benefit from this particular legislation.It's probably true that each party can find a particular provision or two that appeals to them. I doubt, however, that the tracks appreciate having their ownership prerogatives pre-empted by a pack of politicians looking to finance their next election. (Did you catch my disdain for that particular demographic? :D )


In closing I appreciate your passion and principle in relation to your disdain of the horsemen.This has been, for me, the toughest aspect of participating in this debate. The parties and points are clear and simple enough to grasp comfortably.

But as I mentioned yesterday, in another thread, I like and respect horsemen who care for their animals and who contribute to improving the breed. And I admire anyone who tries to make an honest buck from an avocation. What could be better?

But this debate is about business ... and only business. If my statements therein, all made in defense of my own potential ROI, come across as disdain, then I regret that and I'll have to live with it. (The next round for the owners' box at MTH, however, is on me.)

[Murph]

The horsemen enter the "loop" in two ways:
First, when they make the economic decision of whether the risk/reward of racing at a particular track is worthwhile.
Second, when they buy off enough Congressmen to get sweetheart treatment in such bills as the Interstate Horseracing Act ... the sweeheart aspect of which will, hopefully, soon be overturned by a federal court

Kelso IMO I can ascertain by your posts that you are not a fan of the horsemen in this particular battle therefore I will not spend time debating the issue of the horsemen.

What I will provide you is a clarification as to the rights each horsemen's group has under their specific agreements with each track. The recognized horsemen's group of the contract with the track has the right to approve or disapprove the simulcast of the signal. All simulcast contracts negotiated by the track must be apporved by the horsemen's group in order for the track to accept the simulcast wager. This also answers the question why are simulcast contracts only for the current meet and not negotiated over a multi year deal.

In regard to the Interstate Horseracing Act all parties (tracks, horsemen and players) benefit from this particular legislation. This Act is what keeps the industry from being lumped into the internet gambling fiasco. Therefore IMO that is a piece of legislation none of the parties want to mess with....... I am fearful that this bitter civil war that has broken out will cause issue with the Act.

In closing I appreciate your passion and principle in relation to your disdain of the horsemen.

I do not see any good reason that horsemen from every jurisdiction should not recieve 30% to 33% from all wagering revenue no matter where a bet originates. This is a much kinder agreement than the major pro sports unions currently share with their ownership interests. Track operators must make due with providing services for horsemen and bettors.

Hoosier Park is so screwed up right now it cannot possibly be by design. Indiana horsemen have every right to be concerned with how the casino operations will acccount for and distribute the funds from slots. The track operators do not care about ME, the horse race bettor. Both in state track management staffs have demonstrated that clearly to me in person. They seem to enjoy me even less when I speak as an advocate for horseplayers when I comment on their terrible service and lies to people about most anything that is asked of them.

Horsemen are not without responsibility in these matters. They are making efforts to clean up their end of the game and bring the entire industry forward with regional and national initiatives designed to bring our sport to the new millenium and insure it's survival for the long term. Certain states are listening and providing solutions designed to make this happen in a positive manner.

Track operators continue to demand increasing portions of wagering source revenues like they invented the concepts. Plus the posts here of how fans are treated nationwide demonstrate where the bulk of contempt for change lies. The more accountable and transparent racing becomes to the public eye, the less the track operators can hide for themselves and their profits IN SPITE of their service to their customers, ultimetly horsemen and horse players. The customer service for any meaningful progress is hopelessly hamstrung by methods such as the CDI lawsuit against THG. Hoosier Park operators are complicit when they limit wagering opportunities for fans. This only serves to cheat horsemen out of a share of revenue they are working hard to support. Tactics like these are not acceptable to horsemen or horse players. We are serving notice NOW!

Tracks do not deserve to profit at the expense of my work. They should provide services that will make me a willing patron and provide EVERY option for me to wager that is currently available. My track is making it hard to bet. They have kept 15yr old SAM's in operation while hiding the new style technology SAM where I cannot find them or must stand in cue to use them. That's not acceptable when I have been promised an electronic wagering interface that would eliminate any lines.

The track has reduced bet intake options without providing the electronic relief needed to keep me from waiting to make a wager or have a modern terminal that enhances my experience rather than hindering it with a NON functional and under serviced terminal that is based on last century technology. 2,400 brand new slot machines on the way, YET I have to stand on line to bet at a 15 yr old terminal?

Track operators nationwide are hearing from players eveyday that the conditions they are subjecting us to on track and off track are not acceptable and we do not have to spend our money with them. Ditto for the horsemen as they holdout for 33% Notice they are NOT asking for 35-40% of the revenue, why should the track get any more than horsemen when the purse accounts are not properly managed by the tracks to begin with.

Everyone is sick of bending over for the operators and getting nothing in return. It is time for them to earn their keep in this sport. I can find a way to race and bet and love horses without them if things keep on as they are now.

[HUSKER55]

Thanks for the info Kelso. I appreciate you taking the time to clear that up for me.


Perhaps you could clear this point up for me as well.

I have an off-shore account and, (to make a long story short), I was told up front that not all wagers went through the tracks. In other words they only send the money that they don't want to cover.

My point is that I think there is a lot of money being left out of the loop.

For example: Suppose you place a wager on a horse going off at 20:1 and facility decides you are off base and decide to hold the bet themselves. How would that money ever be put into the mix?

We have all seen screwy pay-outs, (ie: $40 to win, $6 to place and $4 to show),and I think a large part of that is because not all money is being run through the tracks.


What is to stop them from holding bets themselves? If I tell you Horse A is going to win and you say "when donkeys fly", are you really going to send that money in or are you going to put it in your hip pocket and take it all?


I started betting horses last summer and I would like to know how this works. I am almost confined to a chair so I have to do everything over the internet and I am curious as to how this works and how it gets enforced.

BTW, you are correct. "Fair share" was a poor term to use. I was more interested in how this works and not their point of view. Didn't mean to rile anybody up.

I appreciate your efforts and any information you can give me.

Thank you
husker55

:)

[Murph]

Wagering into "off shore" pools that are not put into the track pari-mutuel is a bookie operation. Traditionally bookies keep all of the profits from their operations. They can afford to indulge in the free buffet casino type shops. Nice work if you can get it.

Thanks for the info Kelso. I appreciate you taking the time to clear that up for me.


Perhaps you could clear this point up for me as well.

I have an off-shore account and, (to make a long story short), I was told up front that not all wagers went through the tracks. In other words they only send the money that they don't want to cover.

My point is that I think there is a lot of money being left out of the loop.

For example: Suppose you place a wager on a horse going off at 20:1 and facility decides you are off base and decide to hold the bet themselves. How would that money ever be put into the mix?

We have all seen screwy pay-outs, (ie: $40 to win, $6 to place and $4 to show),and I think a large part of that is because not all money is being run through the tracks.


What is to stop them from holding bets themselves? If I tell you Horse A is going to win and you say "when donkeys fly", are you really going to send that money in or are you going to put it in your hip pocket and take it all?


I started betting horses last summer and I would like to know how this works. I am almost confined to a chair so I have to do everything over the internet and I am curious as to how this works and how it gets enforced.

BTW, you are correct. "Fair share" was a poor term to use. I was more interested in how this works and not their point of view. Didn't mean to rile anybody up.

I appreciate your efforts and any information you can give me.

Thank you
husker55

:)

[northerndancer]

Husker,
Your situation is part of the problem according to the industry. The 'bookie' operation keeps money coming into the pools. When this money does not make it to the pools then the tracks, horsemen, state government, Workers comp programs, etc do not get thier share.

What we have going on is a civil war between two of the three parties that make this industry go (the punters, the horsemen & the track). I do not see where one is more important than the other two. That is not to say that at times one is not a more required necessitiy at certain points in time (for example in a slots jurisidicition the punters importance is less critical to the other two parties as the slot revenue fuels purses as well as operating capital). In a depressed racing environment (Ohio for example) without slot revenue the punter becomes more critical to the success of the process.

As a horsemen and punter I do not agree with the 1/3 economic model whether it be gross or net. Though the net 1/3 model can get close to what I see as being an acceptable solution. IMO the division of the wagering revenue should be no more than 50% to the ADW (place accepting the wager), 25% to the horsemen and 25% to the track operator. I also believe that their should be tiered pricing based on a players handle for the ADW..... the more a player wagers the lower the signal fee paid by the ADW on that players action. There has not been an argument presented to me that has swayed my opinion to support the tracks and horsemen recieving an equal amount as the operation who is taking and facilitating the wager. This greed will only increase the use of the bookie operations forcing money out of the pools and when that happens no one wins.

Kelso maybe disdain was the incorrect adjective to discribe your emmotion on the subject. A better adjective would be frustration for the THG and the horsemen that the group represents. I implore you to keep voicing your opinions as I look forward to reading and learning from them.

[Cangamble]

The customer is by far the most important person in the industry.
Here is why:
It is our choice where to bet, what to bet, how much to bet, etc.
Without us, there is no horse racing industry, but if horse racing were to disappear tomorrow, we could still bet on cockroaches going up the wall.

[northerndancer]

The customer is by far the most important person in the industry.
Here is why:
It is our choice where to bet, what to bet, how much to bet, etc.
Without us, there is no horse racing industry, but if horse racing were to disappear tomorrow, we could still bet on cockroaches going up the wall.

I respectfully disagree and it is that particular attitude that has created this civil war....... it seems that every participant thinks that their goals and desires are more important than the other parties. If everyone would realize that each party must share in the pie then and maybe then we could move forward.

If your hypothesis is correct that us punters could chose to wager on something else then why has it not happened to a greater extent with all the issues that have been dogging the punters the last 5 plus years in our loved industry.

We need all parties to understand that each of the other two parties are important to the success of the endeavor failure in that regard is not an option.

[njcurveball]

If your hypothesis is correct that us punters could chose to wager on something else then why has it not happened to a greater extent with all the issues that have been dogging the punters the last 5 plus years in our loved industry.



It HAS! The increases in handle are mostly due to increased betting venues. Why do you think local attendance for most tracks has declined more than 50% the last 20 years?

"punters" are choosing to wager on "something else" at an alarming rate. When you look at the total amount of money bet today compared to 20 years ago, it is comparing apples to oranges.

In New Jersey, for example, on a given day you had to drive to Monmouth, Garden State, Meadowlands, or Atlantic City to bet. Today, ANYONE can bet ANY race at ANY time.

Racetrack handles should be showing explosive growth! The industry is bass ackwards! :mad:

When the customer is embraced as the most important person in the process, everyone prospers. This goes for almost every business, racing included. :ThmbUp:

[Cangamble]

If your hypothesis is correct that us punters could chose to wager on something else then why has it not happened to a greater extent with all the issues that have been dogging the punters the last 5 plus years in our loved industry.
**************************
It has happened. Racing has lost many bettors to offshores, rebate shops, and most importantly, they have lost many to online poker, which includes potential new customers.

Gambling is growing on this planet. But horse racing is languishing.

[Kelso]

I do not see any good reason that horsemen from every jurisdiction should not recieve 30% to 33% from all wagering revenue no matter where a bet originates.That's because you and your fellow-owners are blinded by greed. Try the following:;

1 - Owners have nothing to do, and assume absolutely no risk, with funding, establishing or maintaining the venues ... the tracks, ADWs and OTBs.

2 - Owners have nothing to do, beyond meeting conditions, with conducting the events ... the races.

3 - Owners have nothing to do with soliciting, securing or otherwise managing the medium of exchange ... the cash that goes to takeout and pools.

All the owners do is decide which horse to buy, which trainer to pay and for which purses to compete. Owners have not a damned thing to do with wagering ... only with maintaining and racing their horses. The only money to which owners have any legitimate claim is whatever purse money they might win.

Owners "deserve" nothing from tracks, ADWs, OTBs ... or from PLAYERS.


And stop with the nonsense of trying to cloak yourselves with the players' interests. We're might be dumb, but we're not blind ... and we see right through your charade.

You are trying to grab huge amounts of money ... to which you have absolutely no legitimate claim ... that might otherwise go to players as reduced takeout or rebates. If that cash goes into race purses, it will wind up in only OWNERS' PURSES.

[Kelso]

Thanks for the info Kelso. I appreciate you taking the time to clear that up for me.

Perhaps you could clear this point up for me as well.

I have an off-shore account and, (to make a long story short), I was told up front that not all wagers went through the tracks. In other words they only send the money that they don't want to cover.A pleasure "speaking" with you, Husker.

Regarding offshore wagering facilities, I know only that what you were told is often ... though I think not always ... correct.

I think some offshore facilities do pay into North American pools, but I might be wrong. Certainly there are those ... and I think some of them do a very good business ... that do not pay either signal fees or send wagers to the pools.

One consideration is whether the facility acts as a "book" ... in other words it is taking the opposite side of your wagers ... or is operating in a manner similar to North American ADWs. The books, I think, will pay at most only a signal fee to the tracks on which they take bets. The overseas "ADWs" will, I think, pay a fee and send the net wager (after takeout) into the pools.

There are PA folks who are much more informed on this than I, however, and I'm sure some will chime in with some genuinely authoritative information for you.

(Keep in mind, by the way, that Canadians are free to use "foreign" betting facilities. Americans are prohibited from doing so by yet another typically-poorly-thought-out federal law. :rolleyes: )

[Kelso]

Kelso maybe disdain was the incorrect adjective to discribe your emmotion on the subject. A better adjective would be frustration for the THG and the horsemen that the group represents. I implore you to keep voicing your opinions as I look forward to reading and learning from them.

Happy to oblige, ND, and very happy to read your voice of reason in this debate. ;) Best to ya!

[pktruckdriver]

Well Kelso

You have almost convinced me that the Horsemen are the truly greediest of the bunch, but w/out knowing for sure what it is they get, how can I make that decision??

Without ADW's and OTB's I think some tracks would for sure go under, correct?

What % of the money put into the pools are for purses currently , now each track would be different, correct?

Now Horse owners have had expenses go up as has everyone else in the country, heck for example, just moving the hoirses from track to barn to track, has gone up, it must have as FUEL HAS GONE UP, and thats just 1 thing, many things have gone up, do we not agree with this?

Now takeouts go up too, look at Calder takeouts have gone, I no longer will play Calder because of this, but where doers this takeout money go to, who benifits from it, not the better, and probally not the horsemen either, right??

ADW"s and OTB's negotiate fees, or do they send ALL MONEY BET , INTO THE TRACKS POOL for the track to divide accordingly??? Now what % do the ADW's and OTB's keep from the money bet thru their particular business, what do they keep 15% or 50% or is ti 75%, what is fair for them keep, what could they survive on and still profit nicely???


These are my questions Kelso, and I do believe that ypou may help me out here, you've been very enlightening so far, thou maybe a little leaning towards the way of ADW's /OTB's and less toward the track and horsemen. That is ok if you feel that way, opinions are based mostly on information one gathers, and you must'a gathered enough to base your opinion as you do, you seem to be one willing to look at all sides, or at least know all sides before judging one side one, and another one ,another way.


But overall thank all of you for helping to better understand whats going on here, GREED, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, RIGHT?

BUT STILL WHO IS GETTING WHAT % OF $$$$$ RIGHT NOW, HOW IS IT BROKE DOWN , NOW?????

Patrick

[Kelso]

Patrick ... responses within:


Without ADW's and OTB's I think some tracks would for sure go under, correct?

I think that is a fair assumption; but I have no first-hand knowledge of any specific track's financial situation. It is logical, I think, to expect that tracks in less densely populated states ... Arizona and New Mexico come to mind as a guess ... could not survive as anything other than boutique meets without large out-of-area revenue sources. (That probably applies to a whole bunch of major tracks in the bigger states, as well.)


What % of the money put into the pools are for purses currently , now each track would be different, correct?

The same % of an ADW/OTB bet goes into any track's pools as it would if the bet was made at the track. The only difference between on-track and off-track wagers is who gets to keep what portion of the takeout, and I think that's negotiated track-by-track (including associations of tracks for OTBs).


Now Horse owners have had expenses go up as has everyone else in the country, heck for example, just moving the hoirses from track to barn to track, has gone up, it must have as FUEL HAS GONE UP, and thats just 1 thing, many things have gone up, do we not agree with this?

True enough, but that's not the problem of any track, ADW or bettor. We all have challenges of our own to meet. That's why I object to the horsemen looking to solve their problems with money that could just as easily be used to address mine.

It makes sense for them to want it, but they're whining like a bunch of spoiled kids that they "deserve" the ADW money. Well, the horsemen didn't put that money into the ADWs/OTBs - the players did. So the players have just as valid a claim on it as the owners. (And if racing didn't exist, players would just play some other game. The horsemen are far from essential to gamblers.)


Now takeouts go up too, look at Calder takeouts have gone, I no longer will play Calder because of this, but where doers this takeout money go to, who benifits from it, not the better, and probally not the horsemen either, right??

Short-term, the horsemen get to run at Calder a little while longer ... even if it is for lower purses ... while management tries to stop the bleeding. I doubt the track will see any positive result from raising takeout, though, either short or long-term.

You're not alone in telling the morons at CDI to shove their higher takeout (and shrinking pools) up their butts. Maybe they'll learn in time, maybe they won't ... but the free market is a wonderful teacher when it's allowed to work.


ADW"s and OTB's negotiate fees, or do they send ALL MONEY BET , INTO THE TRACKS POOL for the track to divide accordingly??? Now what % do the ADW's and OTB's keep from the money bet thru their particular business, what do they keep 15% or 50% or is ti 75%, what is fair for them keep, what could they survive on and still profit nicely???

The ADWs/OTBs keep the bulk of the takeout for wagers into any given track and pool. As I understand it, the range of fees is roughly in the 4% to 7% range and is negotiated track-by-track (or with track associations). The wagers enter the pools electronically, but the cash remains with the ADW for a while.

I don't know the precise legal arrangements but, effectively, the ADWs act as the tracks' agents for all the bets they take in ... paying out to winners at track odds and settling up with the track at some point (don't know when) for the fees they owe and for the pool money they didn't have to pay out on-site. (The tracks could also owe cash to the ADW, if the ADW's bettors were net winners. Ernie Dahlman's ADW has a long-overdue million dollar tab owed to it by NYRA because of just that situation.)


But overall thank all of you for helping to better understand whats going on here,

A pleasure. Thanks for taking the time to read my rants on the subject. :D
(Keep the bugs off your glass and the cops off your a**!)

[asH]

Churchill Downs cable TV venture has lost money

Hope is to grow with Net betting

http://www.kentucky.com/304/story/389037.html

............
But HRTV's longevity could be in question, industry observers say, as the future could bring Internet-only broadcasting for Churchill's tracks.
Before Churchill bought half of HRTV from Magna Entertainment, races from its five tracks were shown on TVG, a subsidiary of the company that owns TV Guide.

Unlike TVG, HRTV does not offer a wagering service. The channel promotes individual services -- XpressBet and TwinSpires -- owned by Magna and Churchill, respectively.

Magna operates seven thoroughbred tracks