HANA response to Paulick on his blog today

[andicap]

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/horseplayers-lock-horns-with-owners-group/

[Tom H]

Well done! Couldn't have said it better.

[Cangamble]

We just need to buy racing execs some high quality hearing aids.

[trigger]

Hey, I didn't realize that HANA was for high volume bettors only.

[DeanT]

That was a first salvo that got noticed, but we need more. If anyone wants to writ ADW piece number '2' with suggestions (I think a piece on open access would be great at this point). If we can get three or four more pieces about ADW, tackling the other major issues about it, I think that would be excellent.

I did not overly like the fact that it came off like a plank, but hopefully the part at the end tells readers that. It explains clearly that HANA is working on something and this is an opinion piece.

Anyhow, response just now on the Report. I think HANA responses should be about growing the game, and that the full ADW plank is to come. We should all reply, imo, with a little bit about how we want the game to grow. (again that is just my opinion)

Hi Everyone,

These are some excellent comments. Very nice Allison. That one really caught me eye.

We are starting a discussion about the best way to grow the game - nothing more. This is a stab at a couple reasons why the writer thinks that taking more money from ADW is not the best way to go. Is it about "getting a slice because bettors are 'greedy'"? Absolutely not. It is because having the player involved and giving benefits and better prices allows all people to bet more. We want people to bet more don't we? We all want the game to grow - owners, players, blacksmith's, grooms, tracks - everyone. And raising handles is a great way to do that.

In the recent Jockey Club report the US was ranked 11 out of 12 countries in terms of per capita betting on racing. The only country surveyed the US beat was Turkey. This really burns us! How do we fix that? I think we all want to.

Did you know that Mr Nader in Hong Kong (to compete against the offshore Macau casino's) recently gave rebates for the first time ever? Handle was up 5.75% last meet.

Did you know that in other countries people can bet every track at a one stop shop? They dont have to have five or six betting accounts?

Did you know that takeout has a ceiling in Australia? At certain times a year when there are overpayments to the 'fund' that it is given back, promoted and people flock to the bets?

If we all want to help wagering we should be doing more, and HANA is offering some suggestions. In a week or two they will be done their paper on ADW. It will be a suggestion. I hope that people in the business take a look at what the customer thinks should be done, and offer out some thoughts.

Maybe we can beat Turkey by a wide margin in the coming years in per capita wagering if we work together on these things.

[DeanT]

Another comment:

Just a quick note to Bitplayer,

The takeout examples in the piece (hopefully) exemplified that all players can bet more if helped. There are several ADW’s currently who help smaller players bet more though churn. There are wagering credits at several and Premier Turf Club does apparently give cash rewards.

At the very least the ADW’s like Youbet and Twinspires cut some costs to the player that help them bet more. In a recent column by Barry Meadow in American Turf Monthly he explains some of the ways that players are helped and encouraged to play. Unfortunately, some things like bookmakers work best, and we think we have to attack that and keep that money here at home and going into purses.

[DeanT]

Hey, I didn't realize that HANA was for high volume bettors only.

No surprise you stuck your snout in that :)

AS Indulto says we have to have responses to these things.

Trigger, you know and I know that when you give examples about churn that high volume players are used to show that. Why? Because this business does not allow small players to get the same benefits and we have no data.

From going to HANA meetings the goal is to get everyone the same benefits - lower prices and more churn. Then they will bet more as well, and finally get put on the same playing field as everyone else.

I assume (hope) you are for that arent you?

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by trigger
Hey, I didn't realize that HANA was for high volume bettors only.

No surprise you stuck your snout in that :)

AS Indulto says we have to have responses to these things.

Trigger, you know and I know that when you give examples about churn that high volume players are used to show that. Why? Because this business does not allow small players to get the same benefits and we have no data.

From going to HANA meetings the goal is to get everyone the same benefits - lower prices and more churn. Then they will bet more as well, and finally get put on the same playing field as everyone else.

I assume (hope) you are for that arent you?DT,
Great article, follow ups, and initiative in getting HANA recognition there, but starting a sentence with "As Indulto says" is likely to leave the remainder unread. ;)

Trig,
I don't consider myself a high volume bettor, but as long as others have a competitive advantage, I want it too. I would like to become a customer of PTC, but I would also like to see all tracks and ADWs rebate competitively in the absence of lower direct takeout for all.

I read all your posts and I know what an asset you could be if you were a supporter of HANA. How about taking that chip off your shoulder, sign up, and become a person who comes up wth answers to questions like yours?

[DeanT]

We can keep the replies coming to the piece, and I hope you do Indy - I disagree that "as Indulto says" is a bad thing :)

Here is something to fire up there at Paulick, imo.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/46253.htm

Wagering is getting crushed in the ADW mess and time is of the essense. Not sure if Ray wants a bloodhorse url up there, but damn this piece could not have come at a better time for our cause. People who read the opine on Ray's sitre should see thsi in the comments section. And we should have a writer (Indy?) pop up some thoughts on this on the HANA blog. It might be good to let John's fine piece run for awhile more as the lead tho. Hell that is an awesome piece of writing John! Well done friend.

PS: The draft sent to Ray did not have the edits from yesterday near the end of the article. He (after someone at HANA got off their sorry ass :)) added the last two lines to the Paulick piece.

Everyone needs to work together in the current ADW impasse and the business must know where players stand. If players are not heard from and respected, we will not grow the pie, we will simply end up having less of a pie to split.

We will be discussing the ADW situation and offering solutions over the next few weeks; including a white paper. The paper will show what we think ADW should look like for the 21st century and beyond - it will include, but it is not limited to, open access, fair prices for all players (not just whales), and fairness to the producers - the track and horsepeople. The overall goal is one thing and one thing only - to grow the sport. This is an opinion to kick off the discussion - players matter. We matter. If you would like to join HANA click here (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2008/07/join-horseplayers-associati). It’s free.

[rrbauer]

Very good stuff. I really believe that one of things that will help our position are intelligent and well-worded posts such as this one.

[trigger]

DT,
Great article, follow ups, and initiative in getting HANA recognition there, but starting a sentence with "As Indulto says" is likely to leave the remainder unread. ;)

Trig,
I don't consider myself a high volume bettor, but as long as others have a competitive advantage, I want it too. I would like to become a customer of PTC, but I would also like to see all tracks and ADWs rebate competitively in the absence of lower direct takeout for all.

I read all your posts and I know what an asset you could be if you were a supporter of HANA. How about taking that chip off your shoulder, sign up, and become a person who comes up wth answers to questions like yours?

Indulto, I may be oversensitive about the takeout/"whale" rebate issue but I hope HANA maintains a balance in its mission that strongly favors takeout reductions for all which I think is essential to the successful long term future of horse racing. IMHO, an emphasis on rebates will turn off a lot of horseplayers.
BTW, I have already signed up as a member of HANA and I continue to support its goals and hope that I can express my opinions freely in this venue(with or without a chip).
Thanks for your kind words....I read all your posts also. Trigger

[chickenhead]

Indulto, I may be oversensitive about the takeout/"whale" rebate issue but I hope HANA maintains a balance in its mission that strongly favors takeout reductions for all which I think is essential to the successful long term future of horse racing. IMHO, an emphasis on rebates will turn off a lot of horseplayers.
BTW, I have already signed up as a member of HANA and I continue to support its goals and hope that I can express my opinions freely in this venue(with or without a chip).
Thanks for your kind words....I read all your posts also. Trigger

I think you have to be flexible. I strongly favor an across the board takeout reduction. Who can I call to make that happen?

There is no law of the universe that says rebates have to be reserved for big bettors alone. That is the first thing everyone needs to realize. The fact that the industry has had a rather unhealthy relationship to how it has implemented rebates, does not mean that rebates are unhealthy. We simply must push for rebates to be implemented in a healthier manner.

Can you or anyone else explain to me why Tracknet restrict rebates to whales? Do you think they are serving your interest by doing so? Of course not. If an ADW accepted anyone at any handle level, and offered them a base 3% rebate, who is that bad for?

Just because you favor rebates in a high takeout environment doesn't mean you can't push strongly for takeout reduction. No one here is looking to protect rebates by keeping takeout so high. I think the mindset is more that we need to expand rebates, so long as takeout is so high.

[Indulto]

Indulto, I may be oversensitive about the takeout/"whale" rebate issue but I hope HANA maintains a balance in its mission that strongly favors takeout reductions for all which I think is essential to the successful long term future of horse racing. IMHO, an emphasis on rebates will turn off a lot of horseplayers.
BTW, I have already signed up as a member of HANA and I continue to support its goals and hope that I can express my opinions freely in this venue(with or without a chip).
Thanks for your kind words....I read all your posts also. TriggerTrig,
Glad you're on our side. We need all the people willing to challenge the status quo that we can muster.

I first become aware of your posts in discussions of batch betting. This is a level-playing-field component that hasn't been explored by HANA so far. Perhaps your focus on this issue could produce an insightful contribution to the blog. The more informed horseplayers are with respect to their competition, the more likely they are to succeed. That's why rook's track rating's are so valuable.

So jump out of that comic-book cover and bring those betting Borgs out into the sunlight. Who knows, you might even find your own "Seven of Nine!" :lol:

[BUD]

Someone mentioned HANA being only for high volume players.....


This is my personal example.....My wife...She wont play my picks...She is a name number/color gal......

Now these .10cent super's are like candy to here.....It fits her MO.......She has noticed most tracks have none...And some tracks only offer a few.....

Without her knowing any of this stuff... She says Bud if you ask me I would say these tracks really do not want to grow nor do they want new blood.....

Very perceptive.....You guys fight the good fight......And remember the next time we go into battle I'll be right behind you......Harold Ramos- Stripes....Sorry had to

[Indulto]

I think you have to be flexible. I strongly favor an across the board takeout reduction. Who can I call to make that happen?
:lol:There is no law of the universe that says rebates have to be reserved for big bettors alone. That is the first thing everyone needs to realize. The fact that the industry has had a rather unhealthy relationship to how it has implemented rebates, does not mean that rebates are unhealthy. We simply must push for rebates to be implemented in a healthier manner.

Can you or anyone else explain to me why Tracknet restrict rebates to whales? Do you think they are serving your interest by doing so? Of course not. If an ADW accepted anyone at any handle level, and offered them a base 3% rebate, who is that bad for?

Just because you favor rebates in a high takeout environment doesn't mean you can't push strongly for takeout reduction. No one here is looking to protect rebates by keeping takeout so high. I think the mindset is more that we need to expand rebates, so long as takeout is so high.I think this belongs in an opinion piece, chick. It answers a lot of questions newly aware players will ask.

[DeanT]

Nice post Bud. Candy eh? :)

The argument is a pretty simple one -pick the battles. If we try and get takeout lowered at every track, in every state, with every horseman group it is a non starter. Will never happen. Not in our lifetimes.

If we say "hmm, here is a mechanism that you can give something back to players - all players - and here is how we propose we do it" we are onto something.

If the ADW environment had a free market model there would be lower takes offered. If tracks had to compete by giving something back through rewards points for the people who choose to become members of that program (like a slots card) it would lower prices, or at least be an attractive way to help handles. Those two things are very achieveable, imo, and that should be a focus. It caters to the internet bettor, the on track guy; the small bettor and the large bettor. It's the only way to lower rakes and increase handles in the present environment.

I dont have that opinion without thinking about it. I have sat on wagering panels and have had discussions with several people I respect that tell me it is the best way to go. We will never lower rakes across the board, imo.

We might all love to bake a cake filled with sugar, but there is not enough sugar in the cupboard. And there is nothing we can do about that.

[highnote]

Someone mentioned HANA being only for high volume players.....


This is my personal example.....My wife...She wont play my picks...She is a name number/color gal......

Now these .10cent super's are like candy to here.....It fits her MO.......She has noticed most tracks have none...And some tracks only offer a few.....

Without her knowing any of this stuff... She says Bud if you ask me I would say these tracks really do not want to grow nor do they want new blood.....

Very perceptive.....You guys fight the good fight......And remember the next time we go into battle I'll be right behind you......Harold Ramos- Stripes....Sorry had to


Hi Bud,

I'll add 10 cent supers to the list of things HANA can push for.

[trigger]

Nice post Bud. Candy eh? :)

The argument is a pretty simple one -pick the battles. If we try and get takeout lowered at every track, in every state, with every horseman group it is a non starter. Will never happen. Not in our lifetimes.

If we say "hmm, here is a mechanism that you can give something back to players - all players - and here is how we propose we do it" we are onto something.

If the ADW environment had a free market model there would be lower takes offered. If tracks had to compete by giving something back through rewards points for the people who choose to become members of that program (like a slots card) it would lower prices, or at least be an attractive way to help handles. Those two things are very achieveable, imo, and that should be a focus. It caters to the internet bettor, the on track guy; the small bettor and the large bettor. It's the only way to lower rakes and increase handles in the present environment.

I dont have that opinion without thinking about it. I have sat on wagering panels and have had discussions with several people I respect that tell me it is the best way to go. We will never lower rakes across the board, imo.

We might all love to bake a cake filled with sugar, but there is not enough sugar in the cupboard. And there is nothing we can do about that.

Disagree, imho, we have to think out of the prevailing-wisdom box. We should demand lower takeout for all from all tracks.
And, perhaps settle for something less if absolutely necessary. Let's not give up on the best remedy before we even try it.

[cj]

Disagree, imho, we have to think out of the prevailing-wisdom box. We should demand lower takeout for all from all tracks.
And, perhaps settle for something less if absolutely necessary. Let's not give up on the best remedy before we even try it.

If you demand something that is simply not possible, you just look silly. Takeout changes usually have to be approved by the state. While the tracks can fight for them, how would you get every track to do it? It just isn't going to happen.

[highnote]

Disagree, imho, we have to think out of the prevailing-wisdom box. We should demand lower takeout for all from all tracks.
And, perhaps settle for something less if absolutely necessary. Let's not give up on the best remedy before we even try it.


I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but maybe lowering takeout for all is not the answer.

If on-track casual players don't care about takeout levels, then why would a track want to lower them -- their handle might not increase anyway.

The off-track ADW bettors can get rebates from some providers which is the same as a lowered takeout and they adjust their handle accordingly.

So in a way, the market is working and everybody is happy.

Even if HANA or some other organization started lobbying every state commission to lower takeouts how much success would they have given the amount of work involved? (Like CJ just said above) Is the amount of work required worth the outcome?

The big problem, as I see it, is that not everyone has access to all the signals. However, every player should be able to choose where they want to bet and with whom.

In my case, as a Connecticut resident, I'm not allowed to bet online. I can make telephone wagers, though. So I can't bet with Xpressbet, example, because according to CT Xpressbet does not have a way to distinguish between phone and internet bettors. However, I was able to keep my old BRISBET account and bet online. Now that TwinSpires owns it, I don't know what my status is. It's become all too confusing.

All I want is to be able to bet every track from one ADW. Why is that need so difficult to meet?

[rrbauer]

Disagree, imho, we have to think out of the prevailing-wisdom box. We should demand lower takeout for all from all tracks.
And, perhaps settle for something less if absolutely necessary. Let's not give up on the best remedy before we even try it.

Let's start with one or two tracks that are susceptible. For example, in Florida, the tracks can change takeout without legislative approval. So, in that state, pressure on a track directly will have more impact than at a track in a state where new legislation is required for such changes.

Now it may be that if the feds get involved then going after the whole enchilada is more feasible, but right now that's not the case. We need to use the same "divide and conquer" approach that has been taken against us all of these years. We need to find situations where we can effect change because we have enough influence to make it happen. Find the cracks in the armor, then follow the cracks!

[trigger]

Let's start with one or two tracks that are susceptible. For example, in Florida, the tracks can change takeout without legislative approval. So, in that state, pressure on a track directly will have more impact than at a track in a state where new legislation is required for such changes.

Now it may be that if the feds get involved then going after the whole enchilada is more feasible, but right now that's not the case. We need to use the same "divide and conquer" approach that has been taken against us all of these years. We need to find situations where we can effect change because we have enough influence to make it happen. Find the cracks in the armor, then follow the cracks!

I agree with the tactic of starting with the "easiest" one or two tracks (like in Florida) to push for low takeout but that should not mean we abandon low takeout for all as one of our major objectives.
Unions want to unionize all industries but they attempt to do it one company at a time.
If we could convince Florida tracks to substantially reduce takeout across the board and higher net revenues for the Florida tracks resulted, the pressure on other states(laws or no laws) to follow suit would be tremendous.
On someone's comment that many bettors don't seem to care about takeout.... we need to focus on the present and the future.
IMHO, the current high takeout will have an increasingly adverse affect on recruiting new (younger) players(both serious and weekend warriors) into our game due to competition in the gambling arena and the probability of more sophisticated potential gamblers in the future.

[trigger]

By the way, the movers and shakers of HANA should be congratulated for getting this enterprise off the ground and for making HANA's impact felt on the horse racing industry in such a short time. Sincere congrats!!

[JustRalph]

I don't think you can "push" anybody into lowering the takeout. The fact that Florida might be the perfect target is nice. But a simple push won't do it.

You have to take an axe to them. This would involve a shut out or boycott of a track that would actually work. Cause a track to stop running because of no income...........and you might get some attention.

Otherwise you will be ignored. Just my opine.

[DeanT]

From what I heard today at the conference I was at it is ever more apparent that the only way to get lower prices is via rebate. Everything else, and anything else across the board is a pipe dream.

Think Chickhead having a date with Jessica Alba while flying to Mars on his private shuttle. That kinda pipe dream :bang:

PS: Sorry for singling you out. I could have said CJ on a date with Jessica. But CJ sounds like a name she'd go out with. A guy named Chickenhead? Nah.

[BillW]

From what I heard today at the conference I was at it is ever more apparent that the only way to get lower prices is via rebate. Everything else, and anything else across the board is a pipe dream.

Think Chickhead having a date with Jessica Alba while flying to Mars on his private shuttle. That kinda pipe dream :bang:

PS: Sorry for singling you out. I could have said CJ on a date with Jessica. But CJ sounds like a name she'd go out with. A guy named Chickenhead? Nah.

Dean,

I am not surprised at your conclusion. Lower take across the board is 100x as complicated as via rebate. Remember, the across the board case involves 38 state governments (do all state govt's set takeout? all probably at least set limits) and a few provincial govt's to boot. Advocating an environment where ADW's/tracks are more free to operate in a competitive environment free to negotiate for all signals, including having the choice to use rebates to differentiate their product from their competitors seems to be the smarter approach.