Nick Kling on HANA et al

[DeanT]

http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19870887&BRD=1170&PAG=461&dept_id=31001&rfi=6

A handicapping forum called 'pace advantage'
appears to have generated some people who began
the Horseplayers Association of North America
(HANA). Like the Self Appointed group, this one
charges no membership fee.

The formation of grass roots fan groups like
HANA, and possibly ThoroFan, reveal the differ
ence in focus. HANA's primary goals are low
ered takeout and the resulting higher return to
bettors, as well as changes in the unfair tax laws
which plague horseplayers. The people to whom
policies like that are addressed don't stand in
line for T-shirts, nor care if they can buy a
sweatshirt for 10 percent off.

For right now, isn't it nice to know someone
cares about you?

[BillW]

http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19870887&BRD=1170&PAG=461&dept_id=31001&rfi=6

I like his use of the metaphor "sprouted like mushrooms". What else could possibly be expected after the industry has shoveled so much crap on us. :lol:

[Indulto]

http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19870887&BRD=1170&PAG=461&dept_id=31001&rfi=6DT,
Can you request permission to print it in it's entirety on the blogsite rather than just reference it?

[highnote]

http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19870887&BRD=1170&PAG=461&dept_id=31001&rfi=6

Thanks for posting this Dean.

He never once mentioned open access to video signals. Oh well.

[Indulto]

Thanks for posting this Dean.

He never once mentioned open access to video signals. Oh well.I addressed that oversight on both the HANA blog and as a comment to his piece on the Troy Record website (although it hasn't yet been accepted).

His job is to report on us, not to give us a plug. He is a nice guy with integrity and a sense of humor. If we accomplish what we intend to, we will read about it in his column, If we don't, we'll also read about it there.

[PaceAdvantage]

A handicapping forum called 'pace advantage'

How abstract! :lol:

[highnote]

For the record, I don't oppose the "special" treatment for whales who bet huge amounts of money.

I believe in volume discounts. These are no different than Holiday Inn Express points, Continental Airlines frequent flyer miles earned through flights and credit card purchases, etc.

Betting exchanges reward their biggest players lower commissions. Many commodity brokers have lower fees for their customers based on the amount of trading.

Hell, I buy 12 donuts, I get the 13th free.

[DeanT]

There is not much wrong with volume discounts. As long as they are publicized like on many offshore sites - transparent. Incentivizing play is important for casino's and poker with rakebacks.

A good example is a plce or show betting system. If you are trying something and getting 3% back, but if you up volume you get 4% or 5% it gives a player another avenue to try. This is why player tracking in ADW is also important. If someone has bet $1000 this week, but he gets a boost if he bets $1250, for example, it might incentivize the player to make a few show bets.

We really have to look at models that work and stay away from the same old monopolistic model that has given us negative growth for so long. And, imo, anything we propose in HANA must be about raising handles. We get nowhere if we do not speak about growing the pie.

[Indulto]

There is not much wrong with volume discounts. As long as they are publicized like on many offshore sites - transparent. Incentivizing play is important for casino's and poker with rakebacks.

A good example is a plce or show betting system. If you are trying something and getting 3% back, but if you up volume you get 4% or 5% it gives a player another avenue to try. This is why player tracking in ADW is also important. If someone has bet $1000 this week, but he gets a boost if he bets $1250, for example, it might incentivize the player to make a few show bets.

We really have to look at models that work and stay away from the same old monopolistic model that has given us negative growth for so long. And, imo, anything we propose in HANA must be about raising handles. We get nowhere if we do not speak about growing the pie.I agree, DT.
There's no doubt that incentivizing players to increase thair handle works and, as you have often explained with clear examples, can work for all players.

Selective volume discounts to customers competing with one another pari-mutuelly is not the same as airline and credit card promotions. In the latter situation, incentivizing one group of customers does not negatively impact or, in some circumstances, penalize the others.

Most importantly, handle is not increasing under the status quo.

It's dollars -- not donuts -- at stake here, but my esteemed colleague's argument has a hole in the middle. ;)

[DeanT]

It's all part of the give and take of getting our arguements noticed and not dismissed. We all know what the ideal is - lower takeouts by all tracks and full access. But we must bend. ADW's and tracks like the thought of volume discounts. Gotta give them a bit of that because that is how they will do business. Horsepeople want a mechanism to get more for handles, so wehave to give a bit there. It is not ideal, and never will be, but we have to incorporate much of it, for better of for worse.

[highnote]

If an ADW can negotiate a good rate with a track and then give discounts based on volume that seems like good business to me.

In any event, it is not the most important thing for HANA to focus on, in my opinion.

Signal access and eliminating the IRS withholding laws would go a long way toward helping horseplayers. Rebates can be another topic for another day.

[Indulto]

If an ADW can negotiate a good rate with a track and then give discounts based on volume that seems like good business to me.

In any event, it is not the most important thing for HANA to focus on, in my opinion.

Signal access and eliminating the IRS withholding laws would go a long way toward helping horseplayers. Rebates can be another topic for another day.Were you not among those who pointed out that the current mission statement should be the one placed in the shared user space and, later, moved to the blog site?

The IRS withholding laws affect a minority of larger players to a far greater extent than they do the vast majority of smaller players. The inability of the average player to deduct gambling losses unless he is able to itemize deductions is very frustrating and, to me, the only one we might be able to influence on the strength of significant membership without lobbying.

The NTRA "Horseplayer Coalition" is actively seeking membership to fund lobbying to change withholding laws. I suggest you support their efforts in addition to HANA's, and help us mantain focus here on the aspects of "signal access" and lower direct or effective takeout for all.

If you and others have, upon reflection, concluded that you are at odds with the stated objectives as they currently exist, then maybe it's time to revise them; taking the opinions of new signups into account as well. I've always advocated polling new members at signup. Perhaps when our website is as functional as our blog site, we can acomplish that.

Nothing is cast in stone and it might spur membership to participate in the re-establishment of goals and priorities now that we have the ability to include more interested parties.

In the meantime, I'd rather go fly a kite than play Jefferson to your Hamilton. ;)

[Cangamble]

Withholding in the US is something us Canadians don't have to deal with. To me, it affects everyone, as it takes potential churn money out of action, thus lowering the the pool sizes needlessly. It takes out a lot of churn money from the system.
Large payoffs that are subject to tax withholding occur frequently and since most people lose betting horses, it is an unneccessary speed bump at best, and at worst it takes advantage of horseplayers who may not claim back the money.

[rrbauer]

Withholding in the US is something us Canadians don't have to deal with. To me, it affects everyone, as it takes potential churn money out of action, thus lowering the the pool sizes needlessly. It takes out a lot of churn money from the system.
Large payoffs that are subject to tax withholding occur frequently and since most people lose betting horses, it is an unneccessary speed bump at best, and at worst it takes advantage of horseplayers who may not claim back the money.

When I was a regular P6 player, before they raised the cash amount to $5K before w/h kicks in, I had situations where I actually lost money on a play and still had money withheld because the payoff went over the threshhold (thich was low at the time, maybe $1K?). Yet, I had bet more money into the pool than the amount I cashed!

The other, continuing annoyance is the way they figure the 300-1 cutoff point. If I buy a P-whatever ticket, for say $128, and I cash $6K, I did not get over 300-1. It's one ticket that clearly says I bet $128. Yet, they say it's 128 one-dollar bets (or 64 two-dollar bets) which makes it over 300-1 so it's subject to W2-G reporting and withholding. It's nothing more than confiscation of capital.

As to the w/h and IRS, about 64% of the US population does not itemize deductions (presumably because they do better with the standard decuction--although, I think it's more a convenience thing). Assuming that figure holds for the horseplayer population then it's a punitive measure towards that group to make them declare winnings as income and say that you can offset it if you itemize and declare your losses when they know that the majority of them DO NOT ITEMIZE. Just one more way to screw horseplayers.

[Cangamble]

Is the money withheld at source, or can the horseplayer access the funds immediately by filling out a form?

[rrbauer]

Is the money withheld at source, or can the horseplayer access the funds immediately by filling out a form?

Money is w/h when you cash the ticket. The W2-G form is filled out then too. You get the funds (a credit on your fed income tax) when you file your income tax which could be more than a year later. There's state w/h too in some jurisdictions. That money is in limbo for a long time.

[Cangamble]

Money is w/h when you cash the ticket. The W2-G form is filled out then too. You get the funds (a credit on your fed income tax) when you file your income tax which could be more than a year later. There's state w/h too in some jurisdictions. That money is in limbo for a long time.
Thanks. That is what I thought. The money is basically taken out of the system. And any money taken out reduces churn.
The fact that most people (the overwhelming majority plus) lose money betting horses means that this rule is just unfair and has no place in the land of the free.
Maybe on hits of $15,000 or more, I can see it. That person might eek out a winning year when the dust clears.