Industry concerned about Federal Intervention, etc.

[rrbauer]

"Confidential" insights from Paulick

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/exclusive-ntra-confidential/


Guest editorial from Rep. Ed Whitfield (KY)

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/guest-editorial-congressman-ed-whitfield/

I would suggest becoming familar with the Interstate Horseracing act of 1978; as suggesting amendments to it could be a way for horseplayers to remedy some of our complaints.

[highnote]

Indulto,

I noticed you replied to Congressman Whitfield's editorial.

What do you mean ADWs should be compensated on a per-transaction fee basis?

Nowadays, even NYRA is offering rebates based on volume. Why do you think rebates are a perversion of the pari-mutuel system?

John Swetye

PS
Doesn't Hong Kong offer rebates?



http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/guest-editorial-congressman-ed-whitfield/

Indulto:

If ADWs are to continue to exist as independent businesses, they should be compensated on a per-transaction fee basis, and video availability should be funded independently of wagering directly by the customer who could then choose between options including live paddock viewing as well as handle-prompting “expert opinions.”

The perversion of the pari-mutuel system known as rebating which provides high-volume bettors with effectively lower takeout needs to be terminated, and a level playing field re-established for all participants through lower direct takeout comparable with those of Hong Kong and Australia This is achievable by supplementing the preceding ADW reform with.....

[rrbauer]

Indulto,

I noticed you replied to Congressman Whitfield's editorial.

What do you mean ADWs should be compensated on a per-transaction fee basis?

Nowadays, even NYRA is offering rebates based on volume. Why do you think rebates are a perversion of the pari-mutuel system?

John Swetye

PS
Doesn't Hong Kong offer rebates?

That post sounds like something right out of the TVG SOP Manual.

[highnote]

That post sounds like something right out of the TVG SOP Manual.


Indulto also mentioned video and expert opinions:

"video availability should be funded independently of wagering directly by the customer who could then choose between options including live paddock viewing as well as handle-prompting “expert opinions"

Can you explain why video availability should be funded independently of wagering? Why shouldn't it be funded like the old BRISBET model based on volume? Or is that too much like a rebate? ;)

I'm sure expert opinions help promote handle, but to what degree?

I have to agree with rrbauer. Your reply to Whitman does sound like you favor a TVG model -- per-transaction fees, video feeds, expert opinions, no rebates.

Is the TVG model what you are advocating?