1991- TBred handle begins downward, casino handle begins upward spiral

[kenwoodallpromos]

Through reading HANA site article of 2004 Cummings report, I saw the graph (Exhibit C), showing 1991 as start of falling per capita racing handle, and rising of casino "handle". That led me to "http://www.casinocreations.com/new/clients.htm", and their home page. They basically since 1991 have taught a great many casinos about customer service, marketing, entertaining, and efficiency at the gaming tables and slot machines. I invited the head of the company, by email, to look at the HANA site and to post on PA about themselves and anything they can on sportsbook experience. IMHO Tracks need to look into this company for possible use in the rascing industry, if applicable.

[Sid]

. . . start of falling per capita racing handle, and rising of casino "handle".
Is that right? Intuition suggests the opposite. Tourists, newbies, weekenders all bail out in favor of the other gambling games, leaving behind the hard-core (who churn by far the highest per-capita handle). And racing's response has been, of course, to reward the hardest of the hard-core with rebates, handing them an easy opportunity to be winners while simultaneously screwing players who put a measly few hundred dollars per day through the windows day in and day out.

The per-capita handle on opening day at Keeneland (when the place was full and then some) was around $50.

[fmolf]

Is that right? Intuition suggests the opposite. Tourists, newbies, weekenders all bail out in favor of the other gambling games, leaving behind the hard-core (who churn by far the highest per-capita handle). And racing's response has been, of course, to reward the hardest of the hard-core with rebates, handing them an easy opportunity to be winners while simultaneously screwing players who put a measly few hundred dollars per day through the windows day in and day out.

The per-capita handle on opening day at Keeneland (when the place was full and then some) was around $50.
unless an effort to bring new players to the game, in addition to lowering the takeout is made. People will continue to flock to the casinos to get their free rooms and meals. They'll play blackjack with a 1.5% house edge, roulette with its 5.35% edge, let it ride with its 3.25% house edge.and the slots with a big 10 to 20% house edge.Which is still better than the track with its 18 to 27% vig

[Sid]

unless an effort to bring new players to the game, in addition to lowering the takeout is made. People will continue to flock to the casinos to get their free rooms and meals. They'll play blackjack with a 1.5% house edge, roulette with its 5.35% edge, let it ride with its 3.25% house edge.and the slots with a big 10 to 20% house edge.Which is still better than the track with its 18 to 27% vig
I disagree with just about all your rationale. But then, I may be wrong.

[fmolf]

I disagree with just about all your rationale. But then, I may be wrong.
i do not know about you but i have not met any new players to this game in a long long while...the few that i have met are not very serious players and just go to belmont casually a few weekends a year.If new players and new money are not introduced to the game, tracks will continue to close or cutback racing days.This is a product of racing not being as profitable from an ownership point of view.The reason for this is decreased handle = decreased purses.I really do not know what rationale you disagree with?The way i see it, it is basic economics.I play blackjack only in the casinos when i go with my wife and i will tell you they treat you a lot better than any racetrack i have ever been to!we need the casual players in the game.These are the people choosing to play other gambling games.

[Sid]

i do not know about you but i have not met any new players to this game in a long long while...the few that i have met are not very serious players and just go to belmont casually a few weekends a year.If new players and new money are not introduced to the game, tracks will continue to close or cutback racing days.
Nothing there I disagree with.

This is a product of racing not being as profitable from an ownership point of view.
Correct. That would include ownership of racetracks, except to the extent a particular racetrack might be making money from non-racing activities. Any scheme to save the game as we know must be based on making racing itself profitable. Takes a lot of bandwidth to fully discuss that. But that's a fact from my point of view.

The reason for this is decreased handle = decreased purses.I really do not know what rationale you disagree with?The way i see it, it is basic economics.I play blackjack only in the casinos when i go with my wife and i will tell you they treat you a lot better than any racetrack i have ever been to!we need the casual players in the game.These are the people choosing to play other gambling games.
Going from the bottom, yes, clearly the casual racegoer is the endangered species. That's why I entered the thread asking to a link to see where any study shows a lower per capita handle after slots and casinos became as common as 7-Elevens.

But the basic economics of casinos and racetracks are quite dissimilar. Have almost nothing in common, in fact. Casino companies are not making money off the racing side of racinos, and the biggest mouth in North America regarding the alleged incompetence of racetrack owners has 25 percent of our racing in bankruptcy. Be it a casino high-roller or a little old lady getting off the bus to play nickel slots, they are sitting down to a random game -- and no amount of comping will get them to sit still and make a significant contribution to racetrack handle . . . let alone make up for the cost of capturing their business (if that can be done). To say nothing of getting them to rent a luxury room and stay a couple days while their bottom line drips like an outgoing I.V.

Casinos are a game in which the host is legally allowed to run off any customer who shows a profit. That ain't gonna fly real well with horseplayers, who even in the face of draconian takeout see 75 percent of every dollar wagered to come back their way. Only the racetrack, of all gambling games, doesn't care who wins.

It's just apples and oranges. Which is not to say that some takeout structures are oppressive, and a lot more tracks would do well to see that the grandstand men's rooms are usable after the fourth race.

My attitude toward rebates isn't very popular here, either. But when I try to explain my stance I do so citing the very people you say need to be brought back in the door.

This game is in big, big trouble. But put aside all the scrums about drugs and all the scrums about takeout and all the scrums about rebates and all the scrums about comps. Take a week off. Have some runners go out and round up a couple hundred pre-qualified potential horseplayers. Sit down in a room with them individually or in small groups. Start your pitch. Tell 'em what a great intellectual game horseplaying is (I agree with that whole rap, by the way). Tell them the wonders of sitting up at night with a set of PPs. See how many bites you can get if there is a slots parlor across the hall. See how many you can get past "Yeah, but the races are fixed" -- which was the prevailing public view way back when racing had a gambling monopoly.

Big, big challenges. I have no answers. But I think reasonable due diligence can toss a lot of popular proposed solutions.

[fmolf]

Nothing there I disagree with.


Correct. That would include ownership of racetracks, except to the extent a particular racetrack might be making money from non-racing activities. Any scheme to save the game as we know must be based on making racing itself profitable. Takes a lot of bandwidth to fully discuss that. But that's a fact from my point of view.


Going from the bottom, yes, clearly the casual racegoer is the endangered species. That's why I entered the thread asking to a link to see where any study shows a lower per capita handle after slots and casinos became as common as 7-Elevens.

But the basic economics of casinos and racetracks are quite dissimilar. Have almost nothing in common, in fact. Casino companies are not making money off the racing side of racinos, and the biggest mouth in North America regarding the alleged incompetence of racetrack owners has 25 percent of our racing in bankruptcy. Be it a casino high-roller or a little old lady getting off the bus to play nickel slots, they are sitting down to a random game -- and no amount of comping will get them to sit still and make a significant contribution to racetrack handle . . . let alone make up for the cost of capturing their business (if that can be done). To say nothing of getting them to rent a luxury room and stay a couple days while their bottom line drips like an outgoing I.V.

Casinos are a game in which the host is legally allowed to run off any customer who shows a profit. That ain't gonna fly real well with horseplayers, who even in the face of draconian takeout see 75 percent of every dollar wagered to come back their way. Only the racetrack, of all gambling games, doesn't care who wins.

It's just apples and oranges. Which is not to say that some takeout structures are oppressive, and a lot more tracks would do well to see that the grandstand men's rooms are usable after the fourth race.

My attitude toward rebates isn't very popular here, either. But when I try to explain my stance I do so citing the very people you say need to be brought back in the door.

This game is in big, big trouble. But put aside all the scrums about drugs and all the scrums about takeout and all the scrums about rebates and all the scrums about comps. Take a week off. Have some runners go out and round up a couple hundred pre-qualified potential horseplayers. Sit down in a room with them individually or in small groups. Start your pitch. Tell 'em what a great intellectual game horseplaying is (I agree with that whole rap, by the way). Tell them the wonders of sitting up at night with a set of PPs. See how many bites you can get if there is a slots parlor across the hall. See how many you can get past "Yeah, but the races are fixed" -- which was the prevailing public view way back when racing had a gambling monopoly.

Big, big challenges. I have no answers. But I think reasonable due diligence can toss a lot of popular proposed solutions.i think we are basically saying the same thing in a different way.Racing needs to become customer friendly...lowering takeout perhaps cutting back on race days and races in general(trend is already started this way).then they needto market racing better to the younger generation ...go to night racing so young people have other young people to meet and dance with ,drink with bet with...until racing does this young people will not come to the track....i think night racingand bands and things geared to the younger set is the way to go.see belmont fri nights/churchill fri nights and hollywood fri. nights

[kenwoodallpromos]

Ky today turned down track request for slots- many track have or want slots; Stronach wants slots.
Some here are commenting about the customer service being much better in casinos, that they are consumer aware, and going to a few casinos so my other half could bet slots I have seen how they all learn from others and constantly give the customers what they want- ambience, live music, free drinks, free admission, lower takeout, venue integrity, etc. Isn't that what some here want? I'm just letting you know that one guy who had a big hand in that (is a horseplaer and) is ready to contact racing.
Per capita- yes, average daily betting per current customer may be rising, but by "per capita" I mean average bet per person in the potential customer base-often the same base as casino law allows- a concept not always thought about in horseracing!!

[slewis]

[QUOTE= to reward the hardest of the hard-core with rebates, handing them an easy opportunity to be winners.
[/QUOTE]

Sid I think you need to re-phrase this...or risk being in the running for the PA dumbest comment of the year award.

[Robert Goren]

Gamblers want action. Casinos give it to them. It used to be that in most places horse racing was the only legal game in most places. Now there is a casino almost everywhere. The person who prefers handicapping to other forms of gambling is a special (and some say dying) bred. I used to think the time between races drove gamblers to other forms of wagering. But simulcasting proved me wrong. This much I do know, racing needs to figure out why someone would rather put his money in a slot machine than bet it on a horse and how to change their reasoning.

[macguy]

This much I do know, racing needs to figure out why someone would rather put his money in a slot machine than bet it on a horse and how to change their reasoning.

I think there's actually an easy answer to this question.

Why do people put their money in a slot machine?
It's easy. :rolleyes:

Humans are lazy. Why spend the night reading the racing form when you can plunk yourself down in front of a machine and simply push a button.

I don't know how many times I've seen first timers coming back from the mutual windows, look at their friend and say "I won 60 cents."

That's kind of where the problem is...
With the slots you can put your nickle in and win $1000 without doing anything. If you don't win you can play again instantly. When you're at a live racetrack you can really only play every 30 minutes or so, and if you're only playing $2 on the favorite to show, you're likely not going to win more than a dollar or two.

[chickenhead]

Is that right? Intuition suggests the opposite. Tourists, newbies, weekenders all bail out in favor of the other gambling games, leaving behind the hard-core (who churn by far the highest per-capita handle)

The chart is actually of total industry handle, adjusted for inflation, it does not have anything to do with what an "average" customer looks like.

[kenwoodallpromos]

1-2 minutes on the track. Is that where the vast majority of the track's focus is in drawing customers? Not with other growing sports. here is a reason why baseball has stuff between innings, basketball has cheerleaders and mascots, football has bands, auto racing has direct deals in store and at the track with general merchandise sellers, international is the olympics' biggest selling point, pro wrestling the ring is almost the soap opera anticlimax. And after listening to team or car racing sports on the radio or tv, turn your head when TVG, HRTV is on or at the track between live races.
There is a reason why casinos now are putting in bowling alleys, shops, tie-ins to their hotels, cars parked inside for giveawauys, discounted bus transport.
IMO at tracks you see mostly people studying the form even after marking their picks because they have nothing better to do between races. Hooters gives customers something to do (or at least look at) while waiting. Harris Farms Ranch Restaurant, which produced Tiznow and the CHRB President John Harris, has old farm-related items on their walls, as well as a Ca legislature letter proclaiming "Tiznow Day" in Ca. They also have coloring books and brochures for meal-wating. But I doubt if John, owner of the restaurant, has any clue what people at the track are supposed to do between, before, or after races! Very few in Northern Ca go to the paddock or watch the parade, and the Simo screens are too small to watch other races from the chairs.

[Cangamble]

1-2 minutes on the track. Is that where the vast majority of the track's focus is in drawing customers? Not with other growing sports. here is a reason why baseball has stuff between innings, basketball has cheerleaders and mascots, football has bands, auto racing has direct deals in store and at the track with general merchandise sellers, international is the olympics' biggest selling point, pro wrestling the ring is almost the soap opera anticlimax. And after listening to team or car racing sports on the radio or tv, turn your head when TVG, HRTV is on or at the track between live races.
There is a reason why casinos now are putting in bowling alleys, shops, tie-ins to their hotels, cars parked inside for giveawauys, discounted bus transport.
IMO at tracks you see mostly people studying the form even after marking their picks because they have nothing better to do between races. Hooters gives customers something to do (or at least look at) while waiting. Harris Farms Ranch Restaurant, which produced Tiznow and the CHRB President John Harris, has old farm-related items on their walls, as well as a Ca legislature letter proclaiming "Tiznow Day" in Ca. They also have coloring books and brochures for meal-wating. But I doubt if John, owner of the restaurant, has any clue what people at the track are supposed to do between, before, or after races! Very few in Northern Ca go to the paddock or watch the parade, and the Simo screens are too small to watch other races from the chairs.
For gamblers at a live track there are plenty of races from other tracks between live races.

[Cangamble]

unless an effort to bring new players to the game, in addition to lowering the takeout is made. People will continue to flock to the casinos to get their free rooms and meals. They'll play blackjack with a 1.5% house edge, roulette with its 5.35% edge, let it ride with its 3.25% house edge.and the slots with a big 10 to 20% house edge.Which is still better than the track with its 18 to 27% vig
I don't think I've ever heard of slots ever having more than a 12% edge, and I believe that in Ontario, the edge is never more than 10%.
What that means is that a slots player can gamble theoretically $1000 before they lose $100.
In horse racing in theory you only get to gamble $500 before you lose the same $100 on average (the average player has a ROI of .8).

Typically those who play slots were the same players who were had ROI's of .7 or so because they are not the type to put in an effort handicapping, so really, they would only be able to gamble around $333 before losing $100. In other words, slot players get around 3 times their bang for the buck when playing slots over horses.

[Sid]

Sid I think you need to re-phrase this...or risk being in the running for the PA dumbest comment of the year award.
If a two percent loser is rebated 10 percent he or she is instantly an eight percent winner. For all the talk about earning an edge though acquired skill, I can't think of an easier -- and totally unfair -- way of getting an edge over the unrebated player.

Which, of course, doesn't mean PA can't or won't regard that as the dumbest comment of the year or decade.

[Cangamble]

If a two percent loser is rebated 10 percent he or she is instantly an eight percent winner. For all the talk about earning an edge though acquired skill, I can't think of an easier -- and totally unfair -- way of getting an edge over the unrebated player.

Which, of course, doesn't mean PA can't or won't regard that as the dumbest comment of the year or decade.
Are you not capable of being a 2% loser who can get a 6-8%? If such a person exists, it means it is possible. I don't see what is unfair about it if anyone can do it.

[DanG]

What that means is that a slots player can gamble theoretically $1000 before they lose $100. In horse racing in theory you only get to gamble $500 before you lose the same $100 on average (the average player has a ROI of .8)

In other words, slot players get around 3 times their bang for the buck when playing slots over horses.
In all fairness they also play into that rake at warp speed. When I lived in Vegas the Smith’s near my house had a row of slots as you went in the door. It was nothing to see the grocery money being fed to 3 machines simultaneously while the kids were baby sat by random customers.

Sorry CB; when I hear slot machines its like Niagara Falls from the old Abbott & Costello routine. :eek:
http://www.slotmachinesdaddy.com/slot-machines/addiction/slot-machine-addiction.jpg

[badcompany]

Sorry CB; when I hear slot machines its like Niagara Falls from the old Abbott & Costello routine. :eek:
http://www.slotmachinesdaddy.com/slot-machines/addiction/slot-machine-addiction.jpg

Horseplayers and Slot Players are simply two different breeds. I've walked through the Saratoga racino slots obstacle course many times on my way to simo, and, not once have I ever had the inclination to put money in any of those machines.

[Cangamble]

In all fairness they also play into that rake at warp speed. When I lived in Vegas the Smith’s near my house had a row of slots as you went in the door. It was nothing to see the grocery money being fed to 3 machines simultaneously while the kids were baby sat by random customers.

Sorry CB; when I hear slot machines its like Niagara Falls from the old Abbott & Costello routine. :eek:
http://www.slotmachinesdaddy.com/slot-machines/addiction/slot-machine-addiction.jpg
I understand that, they get 3 times the bang the buck, but they probably lose their money just as quickly as if they were playing horses. But they still get 3 times more action.

_yJBhzMWJCc

[Cangamble]

Horseplayers and Slot Players are simply two different breeds. I've walked through the Saratoga racino slots obstacle course many times on my way to simo, and, not once have I ever had the inclination to put money in any of those machines.
Before slots, many of those we call slot players, were betting horses making it easier for handicappers to have a chance to win.

[DanG]

LOL… :D

Know your on my level CB; the age old intellectual debate of the Stooges vs. the Abbott & Costello classic bit. :ThmbUp:

[Sid]

The following is from Bill Finley, who in my opinion has absolutely no clue about the impact of rebates on the future of horse racing. His stance would apparently be welcomed by the vast majority of posters here. Finley loves rebates. And while writing a column about the wondrousness of rebates, he said this:

But rebates change everything. The same bettor who used to lose can become a winner when a rebate is factored in.

Which is exactly what I have said here (and which earned me a nomination for dumbest P.A. post of the year). And which is exactly the final point made by IMHO the best post I read in the recent thread that ostensibly was about whether it is possible to be a "professional horseplayer" today. Wanna win? Get rebated.

Meanwhile, most everyone posts about the need to get newcomers out to the racetrack. Where are you going to recruit your newbies? Grade school? The loony bin? The National Association of the Incredibly Naive?

One thread here a couple weeks ago as I recall ended up by more or less saying, "Well, I see your point -- but EVERYBODY should be rebated." Sounds very much like Lake Woebegone, where all the horseplayers are above average.

I was attracted to this game as a young man because if I backed the right parimutuel proposition, my two bucks was worth every penny of what that wiseguy over there got for two bucks. That is the essence of the game, in my opinion. And in terms of attracting newbies, it IS the game.

[slewis]

If a two percent loser is rebated 10 percent he or she is instantly an eight percent winner. For all the talk about earning an edge though acquired skill, I can't think of an easier -- and totally unfair -- way of getting an edge over the unrebated player.

Which, of course, doesn't mean PA can't or won't regard that as the dumbest comment of the year or decade.


Well I cant speak for everyone on PA, but in my book, you win.

(Im sure you'll get lots of votes from many many others)

First of all, 10% is not a realistic rebate, (but of course you know many huge players in this game).
If anyone gets a full 10% or close, they are a HUGE player. Plus, without the rebate, their handle would drop off considerably.
I hope you're not going to make the second dumbest statement and say that if they took rebates away, the huge players would bet just as much, just as often, except that money would go to the tracks instead of back into their hands.

Next, and Im giving YOU and education here... if you're a big big player who gets a big rebate.... you are one of two things:

a) Very good at handicapping.... or

b) Have so much money that it means nothing to drop 100-200k per week.

Both are out there....

In virtually EVERY business there are retailers and wholesalers and the amount of business one does is often a determining factor regarding the cost and/or price to keep and maintain that customer.

Why should racing be different? If all the tracks get together and squeeze who they want to squeeze (which they somewhat do already), which could happen, it would be against all the principles of free enterprise this country USED to stand for.

Then of course people like Bill Gates have been skirting this for years, and racing's elite club has members almost as wealthy and just as politically powerful, so it could happen...... but that would REALLY be the beginning of the end.

[badcompany]

Before slots, many of those we call slot players, were betting horses making it easier for handicappers to have a chance to win.

I doubt it. Most of the crowd at the slots are blue haired elderly women. If anything, they migrated from Bingo.

[Cangamble]

I doubt it. Most of the crowd at the slots are blue haired elderly women. If anything, they migrated from Bingo.
They didn't have blue hair back when there weren't any slots, and I'm not saying that everyone who plays slots would have played horses back in the days when there were no slots, but a percentage of them would have.

[Sid]

Well I cant speak for everyone on PA, but in my book, you win.
Slewis, I suspect you come very near to speaking for everyone on P.A. So it goes.

First of all, 10% is not a realistic rebate, (but of course you know many huge players in this game).

If anyone gets a full 10% or close, they are a HUGE player.
Make up your mind would you, please? Or clarify your mind. What do you mean by "10% is not a realistic rebate." Do you mean nobody gets that kind of rebate. Or do you mean what you say in your next paragraph, that no one gets 10% except huge players? Do I take it in context -- as any rational reader able to sit up and take nourishment would -- that you are saying I am not a "huge player," and my cousin Harley Smedlap is not a "huge player," so therefore I don't know squat regarding this subject, couldn't if I wanted to, and in any case am incapable of analyzing the economics of this game and this industry? Wow.

Plus, without the rebate, their handle would drop off considerably.
Double wow. If somebody handed me a way to make 10% on my money by breaking even, then took that phony edge away, my handle would drop off considerably too.

I hope you're not going to make the second dumbest statement and say that if they took rebates away, the huge players would bet just as much, just as often, except that money would go to the tracks instead of back into their hands.
I hope you don't think anyone on this planet is that dumb . . . but mostly I wish you would track my own argument instead of projecting yours onto mine.

[trigger]

In virtually EVERY business there are retailers and wholesalers and the amount of business one does is often a determining factor regarding the cost and/or price to keep and maintain that customer.

.

Slewis, This isn't a business that is selling widgets or chicken salad sandwiches.
This is a parimutuel gambling pool where each bet affects the final payoff. IMHO, the underlying principle of a parimutuel gambling pool is a level playing field for all bettors.
Say, you are in a casino Hold'em NO-Limit poker game (a game similar to horse race betting..i.e. playing against the other players not the house) and ,say, the takeout is 20% (really only about 5%), and the pit boss gives one of the other players back 10% of whatever he bet after each hand to use to bet in subsequent hands.
I know Sid would turn over the table and stomp out of the casino as soon as he saw this happening, what would you do?
Trigger

[Bruddah]

What advantage(s) do Race Tracks have over Casinos? Yeah, yeah, the higher rake, but the real advantage is they can allow 18+ year olds in the gates. (most states)

If I were a Marketing director for a Race Track, who do you think I would Market towards. I know they have less disposable income and would bring my betting averages down. But, I would have a "Newbie" anxious to learn, and open to the Right of Passage to being a "grown up". I would be grooming my customer of the future. Have a room set aside with an instructor to teach the basics of handicapping and the racing form. In other words, create interest (a Hobby) with the young fertile minds. A few years later and you have developed an upwardly mobile customer with a much larger spendable income. How do you think Baseball, Football and Basketball became so popular? It didn't start with old men on the play grounds. Just the reverse, with the young becoming the old men in the bleachers.

Unfortunately, Horse Racing's business mentality and modeling has always been directed toward immediate gratification and results. Never any sight toward the future. I have always said Oaklawn has a proportionate segment of their Marketing aimed at the Young. Since the early 60's they have taken time to Mine and Market the next generation. I call it putting young butts in the bleachers.

Racinos will never work unless you have butts in the bleachers. You need to cultivate young butts and allow them to mature into old wrinkled asses. :lol:

[Cadillakin]

Slewis, This isn't a business that is selling widgets or chicken salad sandwiches.
This is a parimutuel gambling pool where each bet affects the final payoff. IMHO, the underlying principle of a parimutuel gambling pool is a level playing field for all bettors.

Hear Hear! Here's a man who understands the game we are playing...

Say, you are in a casino Hold'em NO-Limit poker game (a game similar to horse race betting..i.e. playing against the other players not the house) and ,say, the takeout is 20% (really only about 5%), and the pit boss gives one of the other players back 10% of whatever he bet after each hand to use to bet in subsequent hands.
I know Sid would turn over the table and stomp out of the casino as soon as he saw this happening, what would you do?
Trigger
Not only does the man understand the game, he understands human nature. Hear hear!

I guess there is at least two votes against when that vote on Sid's post being the dumbest of the year on PA, comes up.. In fact, Sid is one of those rare guys who doesn't open his mouth to voice an opinion unless he knows the subject. I knew in a short while some of the more astute thinkers in here would get the gist of it.

[DeanT]

Say, you are in a casino Hold'em NO-Limit poker game (a game similar to horse race betting..i.e. playing against the other players not the house) and ,say, the takeout is 20% (really only about 5%), and the pit boss gives one of the other players back 10% of whatever he bet after each hand to use to bet in subsequent hands.

That is generally the way online poker works with rakebacks.

[Cangamble]

That is generally the way online poker works with rakebacks.
Yep they give back some of their take to the biggest bettors.
Also, big bettors get the best comps.
That being said, I'm all for an equal playing field.

[slewis]

Slewis, This isn't a business that is selling widgets or chicken salad sandwiches.
This is a parimutuel gambling pool where each bet affects the final payoff. IMHO, the underlying principle of a parimutuel gambling pool is a level playing field for all bettors.
Say, you are in a casino Hold'em NO-Limit poker game (a game similar to horse race betting..i.e. playing against the other players not the house) and ,say, the takeout is 20% (really only about 5%), and the pit boss gives one of the other players back 10% of whatever he bet after each hand to use to bet in subsequent hands.
I know Sid would turn over the table and stomp out of the casino as soon as he saw this happening, what would you do?
Trigger

That may be YOUR underlying principle... but that is NOT the true underlying principle of pari-mutuel wagering.....
The term is derived from the French "amoungst ourselves" and the point is that the house takes NO risk, just a cut of the pool.

How the house chooses to divy up "the pool" to keep "the pool" numbers up is their perogative (within the boundaries of state rules and regulation).
After that, it's just smart business.

Now here's a news flash for you: 98% of all horseplayers dont nickel and dime percentages. They bet for the action and entertainment. Look at the take on triple wagers in most juristictions. It's around 25% or more... but many still play.

15%, 16.%, 17.5% on WPS.. do you think the avg Joe racetrack thinks about this?
It's like buying horses... If you're in it as an investment vehicle, you're in for a big surprise.
When one is ready to make this their 9-5, then bitch about rebates unfair advantage, until then, take racing for what it is.
Entertainment.

[jonnielu]

I was attracted to this game as a young man because if I backed the right parimutuel proposition, my two bucks was worth every penny of what that wiseguy over there got for two bucks. That is the essence of the game, in my opinion. And in terms of attracting newbies, it IS the game.

Now we are getting somewhere, the core allure. The poorest of paupers can buy as much as the richest man in town at the racetrack.

The one message that hasn't been getting out lately is "anybody can win, even you".

jdl

[Bruddah]

What advantage(s) do Race Tracks have over Casinos? Yeah, yeah, the higher rake, but the real advantage is they can allow 18+ year olds in the gates. (most states)

If I were a Marketing director for a Race Track, who do you think I would Market towards. I know they have less disposable income and would bring my betting averages down. But, I would have a "Newbie" anxious to learn, and open to the Right of Passage to being a "grown up". I would be grooming my customer of the future. Have a room set aside with an instructor to teach the basics of handicapping and the racing form. In other words, create interest (a Hobby) with the young fertile minds. A few years later and you have developed an upwardly mobile customer with a much larger spendable income. How do you think Baseball, Football and Basketball became so popular? It didn't start with old men on the play grounds. Just the reverse, with the young becoming the old men in the bleachers.

Unfortunately, Horse Racing's business mentality and modeling has always been directed toward immediate gratification and results. Never any sight toward the future. I have always said Oaklawn has a proportionate segment of their Marketing aimed at the Young. Since the early 60's they have taken time to Mine and Market the next generation. I call it putting young butts in the bleachers.

Racinos will never work unless you have butts in the bleachers. You need to cultivate young butts and allow them to mature into old wrinkled asses. :lol:

Maybe the Kentucky inbred Blue Bloods will learn a lesson by accident. I think this just backs up my post above. Taken from the DRF.

Another shot at the club crowd
By Marty McGee - Posted 5:14 pm

On any given day at any given track, the typical crowd is an older one, but the turnout for the inaugural night of racing at Churchill Downs was a much younger, hipper gathering, turning the home of the Kentucky Derby into a veritable nightclub,

[Indulto]

... When one is ready to make this their 9-5, then bitch about rebates unfair advantage, until then, take racing for what it is.
Entertainment.slewis,
I'm sure the highly rebated players take racing for whatever they can and are entertained by their unfair advantage over unrebated players that the latter appears so willing to ignore.;)

Some at HANA maintain that whales as a group are actually in favor of equally low direct takeout for all since it would bring more money into the pools for them to go after. Do you agree? If so, realistictically, what would you estimate takeout would have to be in order attract sufficient handle to a level playing field, keep purses competitive, and meet operationg costs?

[Sid]

Some at HANA maintain that whales as a group are actually in favor of equally low direct takeout for all since it would bring more money into the pools for them to go after. Do you agree? If so, realistictically, what would you estimate takeout would have to be in order attract sufficient handle to a level playing field, keep purses competitive, and meet operationg costs?
There is exactly the proper question, coming from the proper perspective. In my brief time here I have read 10 gazillion posts coming from some virtual universe that likes to pretend the question is baseless. It is not baseless. It is fundamental. Rebates drive away ordinary players who aren't being handed slop in the trough. A mindless rant for takeout reduction, if realized, would put racetracks out of business -- as if they needed a push in that direction.

Let us not forget that this entire matter arose because a fair number of horseplayers decided that horse racing was not a necessary part of horseplaying, took their business offshore, and as a result were handed wads of cash by people who did not have to put on the show. The tracks in utter desperation did whatever necessary to lure some of that money back. Even if it meant screwing me -- and a very large percentage of posters to P.A.

[DeanT]

A mindless rant for takeout reduction, if realized, would put racetracks out of business

Sid,

You are the most interesting person I have ever read in racing. Up to about 2005 racing said that over and over, but those people are all gone. You can not find any track executive that even says that any longer, at industry conferences, or even in private. You are a dieing breed, and thank goodness, we might be able to save this game.

[fmolf]

There is exactly the proper question, coming from the proper perspective. In my brief time here I have read 10 gazillion posts coming from some virtual universe that likes to pretend the question is baseless. It is not baseless. It is fundamental. Rebates drive away ordinary players who aren't being handed slop in the trough. A mindless rant for takeout reduction, if realized, would put racetracks out of business -- as if they needed a push in that direction.

Let us not forget that this entire matter arose because a fair number of horseplayers decided that horse racing was not a necessary part of horseplaying, took their business offshore, and as a result were handed wads of cash by people who did not have to put on the show. The tracks in utter desperation did whatever necessary to lure some of that money back. Even if it meant screwing me -- and a very large percentage of posters to P.A.i liken it a little to this.Everyone gets angry when the government wants to give the rich a tax break so they will invest more in the economy.well the trickle down effect did not really work!I do not think it will work in horse racing either.the whales are betting x no matter whether they get rebated y.They probably aren't betting x+y.....most of the little people like me could use the lowered takeout to stay ahead of the game.

[DeanT]

most of the little people like me could use the lowered takeout to stay ahead of the game.

Sssssshhhhh.... lower takeout will make all the tracks go out of business :D

[Sid]

You are the most interesting person I have ever read in racing. Up to about 2005 racing said that over and over, but those people are all gone. You can not find any track executive that even says that any longer, at industry conferences, or even in private. You are a dieing breed, and thank goodness, we might be able to save this game.
I am honestly not sure whether to say, "Thanks, I appreciate that" -- or if you mean that because my cohorts and I are dying out, the game might be saved.

In either case, I should re-enforce, clarify, amplify and in all possible ways remind that I have no problem whatsoever with horseplayers -- singly or in unison -- seeking to make takeout realistic in venues where takeout is not realistic.

As I already have pointed out here once early on, my longtime home track -- under the ownership of the largest gambling corporation on Earth -- shut down and became a strip mall in a year its handle INCREASED 50 PERCENT. Tell me, folks, the last time you saw a track increase its handle 50 percent from the previous year. There is handle, and then there is handle.

Pretending that rebated handle is like your handle or mine is silly. Pretending that handle on somebody else's simulcast signal is as meaningful as handle on your own live racing is asinine. Lots of people here know how to read a balance sheet. Racetrack economics is a little more complex than how many raw dollars you handled and how many almost raw hot dogs you sold. Go toe to toe with track ownership by all means, but don't carry a howitzer to a fight where the other guy is kinda wobbly and carrying a pea-shooter. He drops dead at the sight of you, and you have nothing left but a very expensive toy you might be able to wholesale down at your local Army-Navy story. Or not.

When I first started thinking about this stuff, and observing it to the best of my ability almost 30 years ago, one of my best friends used to be sitting next to me in the grandstand, and would say in skepticism about my concerns for the future: "Tom, they don't build these places to lose money." Guess what? That is exactly right.

[Sid]

I am honestly not sure whether to say, "Thanks, I appreciate that" -- or if you mean that because my cohorts and I are dying out, the game might be saved.
Oops. Now I see I should have taken it the way I suspected I was supposed to take it.

Lotsa luck. But let me explain to you that you are not dealing with a dinosaur. You are dealing with someone who respects facts, is not a true believer, and is really amazed at the Amen Choir that seems to have been organized here.

Is this a place where questions like those asked by Indulto go unanswered? It's really the same question I am asking.

[Bruddah]

Takeouts and Rebates will be moot issues if you don't replace the aging player of today. No new blood in the Sport in the next 10-20 years and you won't need this web site to argue the point. Young Butts in the Bleachers will cure a lot of the problems. Albeit, not over night. But, Racing didn't get into this situation over night. It's come to it over 20+ years of not havng a Marketing focal point for the Industry. I cringe over the NRA's big Marketing roll out of Go Baby Go. There are truly some inbred people in control of the Blue Blood sections.

Rebates to certain players or reduced rake for all , will not save this Sport in the long run.

[Sid]

Takeouts and Rebates will be moot issues if you don't replace the aging player of today. No new blood in the Sport in the next 10-20 years and you won't need this web site to argue the point. Young Butts in the Bleachers will cure a lot of the problems. Albeit, not over night. But, Racing didn't get into this situation over night. It's come to it over 20+ years of not havng a Marketing focal point for the Industry. I cringe over the NRA's big Marketing roll out of Go Baby Go. There are truly some inbred people in control of the Blue Blood sections.

Rebates to certain players or reduced rake for all , will not save this Sport in the long run.
That's absolutely correct, Bruddah. The game, though, first needs to have a customer base that understands how the business paradigm works instead of running amok with 30-year-old truisms about the fact that if the customer is given 10 more bucks in his pocket, he will tend to bet those 10 bucks back.

I would be very, very happy to get a thread going where the Kool-Aid drinkers lay down some real-world bottom lines and give their expert analysis of how their ideas about takeout would save the day . . . and precisely what their analysis calls for in terms of a new paradigm. That would truly be fun. And meaningful. Instead of suggesting that I -- someone who was preaching the meaning of churn and the magic of reduced takeout when many here didn't yet know that a maiden was a horse -- might yet solve the problem by going to the grandstand mezzanine in the sky and taking my fossil friends with me.

Ain't this fun? I think so. I am, however, ready for some substance instead of rant. Us pre-2005 old farts can be like that.

[DeanT]

Honestly Sid, the debate that someone gets $10 and bets $10 back (it is more like bet $50 back for lower ROI players, to $100 for high ROI players) is long over. The NTRA and HBPA commissioned work on this long ago. Hong Kong's study is over. The Aussie study is over. Betfair (who used the principles in these reports and didnt just talk about them in meetings) is now the 4th largest web company in the world, trailing only facebook and a couple of others.

No one will get in a debate with you on this because the debate happened in the late 1990's and ended about four years ago. We're all debated out.

It's over. Your side lost.

[slewis]

slewis,
I'm sure the highly rebated players take racing for whatever they can and are entertained by their unfair advantage over unrebated players that the latter appears so willing to ignore.;)

Some at HANA maintain that whales as a group are actually in favor of equally low direct takeout for all since it would bring more money into the pools for them to go after. Do you agree? If so, realistictically, what would you estimate takeout would have to be in order attract sufficient handle to a level playing field, keep purses competitive, and meet operationg costs?


What are you talking about leveling the playing field??? This is nonsense.
The professional player who relies on rebates takes that into account and plays accordingly. It's a very different game. He is like a day trader.
This "unfair advantage" crap is the biggest bull I've heard at the track.
If you gave me 100 "unfair advantage" complainers and I gave them back 10% each day they play, of all their wagers over six months, I GUARANTEE that 99 (maybe all) would have the same bankroll as if I hadn't rebated 10%.

The 10% wont make the avg player a winner, it will give him slightly more $$ (since his handle isn't that large anyway) to lose.

Regarding the handle... It's a pretty solid theory that lowering the takeout increases the handle as bettors, even weekend warriors, churn winnings back into the pool.... but Im not an actuary and dont know the precise takeout rate to cover all the bills, show profitability, and give the state their rightful cut.

[Sid]

This "unfair advantage" crap is the biggest bull I've heard at the track.
And that is hilarious. Though I'm sure you'll be sitting next to one of your "huge" friends the day he goes all in and it can be written that it was the final day of horse racing as we know it.

Dean T., you are such a true believer that if I were still a reporter or an editor, after a month of trying to do an honest story on this issue I'd just have to close my notebook and stop talking to you.

Look. Name three tracks. Talk to me about the bottom line at each. Explain to me in detail (a) precisely what takeout adjustments you would make, and (b) precisely how you would expect that to impact their results over the next four quarters. Don't peddle any ranting B.S. to me or the other readers which, post after post, says nothing except takeout should be lowered. Right. Everyone should have a nice day. Let's get serious here and stop with the old-fart baiting, OK?

Then, after you do the real work, explain to me why YOUR contacts in the racetrack business know that you have it right, but they just can bring themselves to do it your way and survive, because they would much rather fall on their sorry dumb asses.

Be specific, please.

Many thanks.

[fmolf]

all that people are asking for is a level playing field....i happen to agree with bruddah and have said as much on this thread and others that the tracks are not doing enough to get new fans into the game...new fans new money increases handle...that being said lower takeout even if slightly so all benefit the same!...The tracks should give free food for a certain amt. wagered ....most guys would then buy a beer or soda to go along with their free food!

[Indulto]

What are you talking about leveling the playing field??? This is nonsense.
The professional player who relies on rebates takes that into account and plays accordingly. It's a very different game. He is like a day trader.
This "unfair advantage" crap is the biggest bull I've heard at the track.
If you gave me 100 "unfair advantage" complainers and I gave them back 10% each day they play, of all their wagers over six months, I GUARANTEE that 99 (maybe all) would have the same bankroll as if I hadn't rebated 10%.

The 10% wont make the avg player a winner, it will give him slightly more $$ (since his handle isn't that large anyway) to lose.I appreciate your honest response -- and especially its naked contempt for the entertaiment bettor which I've been trying to convince them actually exists. While I generally respect your opinions, this one seems less fact-based than most.Regarding the handle... It's a pretty solid theory that lowering the takeout increases the handle as bettors, even weekend warriors, churn winnings back into the pool.... but Im not an actuary and dont know the precise takeout rate to cover all the bills, show profitability, and give the state their rightful cut.I suppose HANA's next advisory board member should be someone with the professional credentials for building such a model. I suspect the Jockey Club has already constructed one.

[Bruddah]

That's absolutely correct, Bruddah. The game, though, first needs to have a customer base that understands how the business paradigm works instead of running amok with 30-year-old truisms about the fact that if the customer is given 10 more bucks in his pocket, he will tend to bet those 10 bucks back.
I would be very, very happy to get a thread going where the Kool-Aid drinkers lay down some real-world bottom lines and give their expert analysis of how their ideas about takeout would save the day . . . and precisely what their analysis calls for in terms of a new paradigm. That would truly be fun. And meaningful. Instead of suggesting that I -- someone who was preaching the meaning of churn and the magic of reduced takeout when many here didn't yet know that a maiden was a horse -- might yet solve the problem by going to the grandstand mezzanine in the sky and taking my fossil friends with me.

Ain't this fun? I think so. I am, however, ready for some substance instead of rant. Us pre-2005 old farts can be like that.


You would have the the Racing Industry educate all that go through the turnstiles on the Economics and Business disciplines of running a Race Track? Hell, the Industry can't figure out how to get them thru the turnstiles and educate them on PP's, or even how to bet.

I still say you'd better be more concerned about putting butts in the bleachers before trying to make the customers into Wharton MBA's. :rolleyes:

[Grits]

Dean, it may help you if you would stop indicating what anyone other than yourself will or will not do. You've used this one a few times now.

Also, it might help you (I know it would me) if you would indicate when your remarks are representing yourself, and when they are representing all of HANA. At this point, its difficult to tell. At this point too, Jeff Platt may need to step in and help HANA recover--the "fire and submit" ain't working out too well. Not here, or in the HANA folder. Honestly--as you often note, the "we" vs "you" rants, each time someone disagrees with or questions you, are not helping to forward your dialogue or your cause. And they're not benefitting your organization either. Just an observation from days of reading, and one I hope you'll think about.

[jonnielu]

[B]


You would have the the Racing Industry educate all that go through the turnstiles on the Economics and Business disciplines of running a Race Track? Hell, the Industry can't figure out how to get them thru the turnstiles and educate them on PP's, or even how to bet.

I still say you'd better be more concerned about putting butts in the bleachers before trying to make the customers into Wharton MBA's. :rolleyes:

Putting the horse in front of the cart is always a good idea. The best way to move forward also. Once again, Bruddah displays genius. :ThmbUp:

jdl

[Sid]

You would have the the Racing Industry educate all that go through the turnstiles on the Economics and Business disciplines of running a Race Track? Hell, the Industry can't figure out how to get them thru the turnstiles and educate them on PP's, or even how to bet.

I still say you'd better be more concerned about putting butts in the bleachers before trying to make the customers into Wharton MBA's.
Bruddah, you will recall that my post began by saying that "you are absolutely correct." When I said "but first" I was referring to something that could use some doing BEFORE rounding up new butts to put in the seats -- like disabusing existing customers (the mentors everyone talks about) of the idea that racetracks are profit centers these days, and that giving select players an advantage (higher payoffs, actually) is a great way to entice lambs to the slaughter.

That said, it only takes a couple minutes to learn the basics of racetrack economics, to have some sense of what it costs to put on the show and where that money comes from. That's a couple minutes as opposed to the several years (of genuinely trying) it takes to become a decent handicapper. I see nothing wrong with taking that couple minutes. It helps intercept conspiracy theories, which do tend to discourage the newbie. And it's interesting stuff. At least, I for one like to know things like why airplanes stay in the sky before I climb aboard. What makes a racetrack stay afloat is incredibly simple by comparison.

[slewis]

I appreciate your honest response -- and especially its naked contempt for the entertaiment bettor which I've been trying to convince them actually exists. While I generally respect your opinions, this one seems less fact-based than most.I suppose HANA's next advisory board member should be someone with the professional credentials for building such a model. I suspect the Jockey Club has already constructed one.


Indulto,

I thank you for your response but please, I have no "contempt" for the casual player. That's silly. The playing field is VERY level in terms of who crosses the finish line first and I'll stand by my statement regarding the P & L of casual horseplayers. That does not mean that many of those will enjoy racing for what it's meant to be... entertainment (not an investment vehicle).

[jonnielu]

Indulto,

The playing field is VERY level in terms of who crosses the finish line first.

At least a few can recognize the truth when they see it, to bad that those hearing it can not believe. Because the way it actually works is, first you believe it, then you see it.

Perhaps knowledge is the only real advantage of the successful whale.

jdl

[DeanT]

Dean, it may help you if you would stop indicating what anyone other than yourself will or will not do. You've used this one a few times now.

Also, it might help you (I know it would me) if you would indicate when your remarks are representing yourself, and when they are representing all of HANA. At this point, its difficult to tell. At this point too, Jeff Platt may need to step in and help HANA recover--the "fire and submit" ain't working out too well. Not here, or in the HANA folder. Honestly--as you often note, the "we" vs "you" rants, each time someone disagrees with or questions you, are not helping to forward your dialogue or your cause. And they're not benefitting your organization either. Just an observation from days of reading, and one I hope you'll think about.

Hi Grits,

My posts on this board is me. My posts on the HANA board is us (unless I say imo, which I often do).

I've been following rake stuff and studies for a long time now, well before HANA, and have had these discussions as a private player at industry gatherings and in private with the business for many years now, long before HANA was formed.

HANA's mission statement is on the website, and those are HANA planks. One of the planks is lower takeout, which I agree with, of course. But when I post here, I post as me. I am sorry if it comes across as we or if I say that sometimes, but since there are so many of us with this view, on this board and in the business I consider us a we.

I know you disagree with me on many issues and don't like me much, and that is fine. Everyone has a view and you are more than welcome to it just like everyone else. But you are disagreeing and disliking me and my posts, not Jeff or the others. They post what they want to as well, and looking at their posts in the same micro way is preferred.

Thx.

[Cangamble]

Rebates to certain players or reduced rake for all , will not save this Sport in the long run.
Wrong.

Reduced rake for all will cause players to last longer. I agree that if everyone got an 8% rebate, almost everyone's bankroll will be the same in a year than if they didn't receive the rebate, HOWEVER, those players will have played a heck of a lot more over the course of the year, and perhaps devoted all or most of their gambling money to horse racing. Also, and this is big, if someone devotes more time to betting and handicapping, it is very likely that more of their family and friends will get involved in at least a smaller way to begin with, and these people represent the new blood horse racing desperately needs.
And by reducing rates, the winners that are created, will cause more people to try horse racing because of the better opportunity to win (if you are good enough), as word gets out that people are actually beating the game, a buzz now occurs, and we've seen what this buzz can do at places like Betfair or in online poker.

The reality is that the ONLY way this game will grow is if takeout is reduced significantly (by at least 6-8%) either at source or through rebates for all.

[Grits]

Dean, you're wrong on one count. I have no reason, whatsoever, to dislike you, I don't know you, but you can be sure, I don't dislike you. Again, I have no reason to. We can disagree, we all do at times, that's life. What surprises me is your approach, your condemnation when someone does disagree with you.

You wise off, "read, educate yourself". Yet, you're not as knowledgable as some others may be in what is required to successfully put on racing 365 days a year.

And this is my only point, and it has nothing to do with you as a person. It has been evident in the advertising thread of the HANA folder, the reduced takeout vs rebates thread, and on and on.

Indulto is correct, there could be benefit in having not only horseplayers represented, but having a track official or two in the fold to facilitate dialogue on both sides of the table. How could such be of harm?

[DeanT]

You wise off, "read, educate yourself". Yet, you're not as knowledgable as some others may be in what is required to successfully put on racing 365 days a year.

Indulto is correct, there could be benefit in having not only horseplayers represented, but having a track official or two in the fold to facilitate dialogue on both sides of the table. How could such be of harm?

Hi Grits,

Regurgitating age-old and long proven wrong arguments is a waste of time. It is not me who has proven that "the tracks will go broke with lower takeout" argument wrong, it is now in 2009 common knowledge.

I know you know horses, so say in 2000 you were on a committee with vets about lasix where you participated in a study that showed Lasix made horses lose weight. It was accepted as fact and you were close to the issue and discussed it on chat boards in 2001 to 2004, with the debate long over. Then in 2009, someone comes along and posts repeatedly to you that you are wrong, and he/she wants to get in a long winded debate about it, ad nauseum would you not post the words "I dont have time for this, so educate yourself" ?

Look, we all post things here, and sometimes we are frustrated, sometimes not, but please dont place a broad brush to me. Just like you would not want to get into the hypothetical lasix debate above after speaking of it for years, I do not want to get into another takeout debate asking me for studies and metrics. A google search is all that is needed if that person wants to know more about that issue. It is common knowledge in 2009.

[Grits]

Dean, no Broad Brush.

[chickenhead]

Indulto is correct, there could be benefit in having not only horseplayers represented, but having a track official or two in the fold to facilitate dialogue on both sides of the table. How could such be of harm?

HANAs stated, most fundamental purpose to exist is to talk to the Industry. And, not so shockingly, they do. With a very broad cross section of the Industry.

Johnnie argues that the "Industry" will never talk to HANA since they are so "negative", and Dean lists a dozen meetings HANA has had with the Industry in the last couple months.

The perceptions seems to be lagging reality sometimes. And some horseplayers seem to be actually lagging the Industry. They are still making arguments that the Industry, or at least parts of the Industry, don't even make anymore.

[Cadillakin]

HANAs stated, most fundamental purpose to exist is to talk to the Industry. And, not so shockingly, they do. With a very broad cross section of the Industry.

Johnnie argues that the "Industry" will never talk to HANA since they are so "negative", and Dean lists a dozen meetings HANA has had with the Industry in the last couple months.

The perceptions seems to be lagging reality sometimes. And some horseplayers seem to be actually lagging the Industry. They are still making arguments that the Industry, or at least parts of the Industry, don't even make anymore.
I used to think JohnnieLu was a disruptive sort.. but over the days I have listened to him going back and forth with HANA.. And then more recently, Sid, whom I respect greatly, has been doing the same thing... going back and forth with HANA and others of like-mind.

And both are shunned as nearly idiots.. Well, I don't think so...

I don't know Johnnie well, but in the context of this forum, he is starting to look better and better. Sid, I do know.. and these not so subtle remarks about his thinking being outdated simply do not fly with me... He is not only a brilliant writer, but he is a brilliant thinker.. and for his thoughts to be discarded like last years news, I find offensive...

You can keep my small donation with no hard feelings.. but I won't be proudly wearing the HANA avatar, nor will I continue my hope that in the future, HANA will be doing any good for racing..

[chickenhead]

What makes you think I was talking to or about Sid? I responded to Grits, about something she wrote. And referencing probably several hundred conversations I've had on this board, regarding dozens of topics. I haven't been involved in this thread, other than to help Sid out with regards to what the original poster was talking about -- and I wasn't referencing anything in this thread with my latest post -- other than Grits argument that HANA should talk to the Industry, which I obviously agree with.

It's more than ironic that me posting that people make a lot of assumptions about HANA that are not so accurate (like they don't talk to the industry) -- results in someone making an assumption about me -- that was also not accurate.

I am in no way a spokesman for HANA -- I am merely an enthusiastic HANA supporter. I guess if I can't speak my mind as an individual -- I'm the one that should be doing some thinking about how active I can be in supporting HANA.

[chickenhead]

after going back and reading some more of this thread, particularly page 3, which I hadn't read -- I can see how you came to that assumption. I don't really have anything in particular to disagree with Sid about tho -- because I don't know what his position is. Is takeout too high, too low, just right? I don't know what he thinks.

I think racing needs lower takeout. There are tracks I will not play because their takeout is too high. I want HANA to tell them that for me. I want to make sure the tracks know there are people like me. If they decide they'd rather have 27% of zero that's ultimately up to them.

On the topic of pricing, that's what I want from HANA. Pretty modest. But it's also why I personally am not going to listen to anyone tell me that 99.9% of horse players are not sensitive to price. I don't need a chart or a graph to tell me they are wrong, I know they are wrong. And they are doing me, and I believe the Industry a disservice by making that argument.

Since those are my opinions -- the person who has stated their opinion in this thread that I probably disagree with the most fundamentally is slewis.

[Indulto]

I used to think JohnnieLu was a disruptive sort.. but over the days I have listened to him going back and forth with HANA.. And then more recently, Sid, whom I respect greatly, has been doing the same thing... going back and forth with HANA and others of like-mind.

And both are shunned as nearly idiots.. Well, I don't think so...

I don't know Johnnie well, but in the context of this forum, he is starting to look better and better. Sid, I do know.. and these not so subtle remarks about his thinking being outdated simply do not fly with me... He is not only a brilliant writer, but he is a brilliant thinker.. and for his thoughts to be discarded like last years news, I find offensive...

You can keep my small donation with no hard feelings.. but I won't be proudly wearing the HANA avatar, nor will I continue my hope that in the future, HANA will be doing any good for racing..Cad,
First of all, l share your assessment of Sid's contributions to the board, but I think you do him a disservice by mentioning him in the same breath as JL who often appears as close to an intentional disrupter as I have encountered here. I say that knowing that some here view me in the same light.

As informed, astute, and articulate as I find Sid to be, so I've observed those same qualities in chick who I consider the most rational person on the PA board during the 3+ years I've been here. The extent he is willing to participate in HANA has been, and will be, to the benefit of most horseplayers. I believe that despite the fact that he and I don't see eye-to-eye about several issues.

HANA is way ahead of whatever is in second place, and deserves our support which should include our criticism and disagreemnt when we find it necessary. We are all finally getting some needed interaction and feedback from HANA leadership through several current threads here at PA, and that's a good thing.

Your obvious passion for the game is what is needed to change it. To lose someone like yourself is much worse that losing many who care less. Please reconsider your perception of what is happening here and stay with it -- continuing to add your voice as you see fit. It's virtually impossible to post here without one's feathers getting ruffled or ruffling those of others.

Our game attracts opinionated people without an abundance of patience. Remember, the HANA board/"team" is as frustrated by the underwhelming lack of participation and support as some of us are with their results, which are limited by funding and hours in the day. Perhaps if they would identify tasks they might be willing to delegate, then maybe interested, capable members would volunteer more readily.

[jonnielu]

after going back and reading some more of this thread, particularly page 3, which I hadn't read -- I can see how you came to that assumption. I don't really have anything in particular to disagree with Sid about tho -- because I don't know what his position is. Is takeout too high, too low, just right? I don't know what he thinks.

I think racing needs lower takeout. There are tracks I will not play because their takeout is too high. I want HANA to tell them that for me. I want to make sure the tracks know there are people like me. If they decide they'd rather have 27% of zero that's ultimately up to them.

On the topic of pricing, that's what I want from HANA. Pretty modest. But it's also why I personally am not going to listen to anyone tell me that 99.9% of horse players are not sensitive to price. I don't need a chart or a graph to tell me they are wrong, I know they are wrong. And they are doing me, and I believe the Industry a disservice by making that argument.

Since those are my opinions -- the person who has stated their opinion in this thread that I probably disagree with the most fundamentally is slewis.

I doubt that it comes as news to management that horseplayers are sensitive to price. The complaints have been voiced for several decades. The problem is that management sees the local horseplayer as the most dependable customer in spite of the pricing.

But, how can management take the horseplayer seriously when they gladly pay over $100 per month for data.

jdl

[jonnielu]

Our game attracts opinionated people without an abundance of patience. Remember, the HANA board/"team" is as frustrated by the underwhelming lack of participation and support as some of us are with their results, which are limited by funding and hours in the day. Perhaps if they would identify tasks they might be willing to delegate, then maybe interested, capable members would volunteer more readily.

Our game attracts every kind under the sun, and you do point out a ray of hope. Maybe if HANA gets frustrated enough with the lack of participation, they will open their minds to solutions that they could participate in.

jdl

[chickenhead]

I doubt that it comes as news to management that horseplayers are sensitive to price. The complaints have been voiced for several decades.

That goes right to my point, tho -- horseplayers don't even agree that horseplayers are sensitive to price. I come across the opinion that horseplayers aren't sensitive to price just as often on this board as I do in reading anything some Industry spokesman says. But that aside -- you hear it all the time from the Industry. People here are critical of HANA -- because they don't offer fully fledged business plans for the Industry. I'm supposing they're supposed to have their extensive legal staff working on that full time.

What irks me though -- is those people aren't spending their time criticizing the business plans that the industry does put out.

Fred Popes plan, which basically says lets double how much we charge -- so we can double revenue. And a bunch of Industry types come around and applaud, and say how great it is. WHAT? There is absolutely NOTHING in the projections to show the guarenteed reduction in handle that would result. And when confronted with that fact -- they are basically speechless. They have no answer.

I know I personally don't see reduced takeouts as anything but a long term investment, and only a part of the puzzle. I don't have any beliefs that it's a silver bullet -- or that it will even be revenue neutral right away. In my opinion -- based on observing what the Industry, when left to their own devices comes up with, and what HANA proposes -- say what you will -- but HANAs proposals and thinking are grounded in reality to a greater degree, because they at least attempt to be honest.

So yeah, I think having HANA around, so when the industry thinks about doing things like that, doubling fees to double revenue -- to step forward and speak on behalf of the people who actually wager -- and who know what the result would be -- is a worthwhile thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

But, how can management take the horseplayer seriously when they gladly pay over $100 per month for data.$100 a month for every track in the country is a steal....

You should see some online trading establishments...they charge $100 a month for nothing but a real-time Dow Jones news feed...just the news feed itself...(other outfits give this stuff away for free depending on how much you trade and how much commission you generate)...

Not sure why you think $100 a month for data is so outrageous.

[jonnielu]

That goes right to my point, tho -- horseplayers don't even agree that horseplayers are sensitive to price. I come across the opinion that horseplayers aren't sensitive to price just as often on this board as I do in reading anything some Industry spokesman says. But that aside -- you hear it all the time from the Industry. People here are critical of HANA -- because they don't offer fully fledged business plans for the Industry. I'm supposing they're supposed to have their extensive legal staff working on that full time.

What irks me though -- is those people aren't spending their time criticizing the business plans that the industry does put out.

Fred Popes plan, which basically says lets double how much we charge -- so we can double revenue. And a bunch of Industry types come around and applaud, and say how great it is. WHAT? There is absolutely NOTHING in the projections to show the guarenteed reduction in handle that would result. And when confronted with that fact -- they are basically speechless. They have no answer.

I know I personally don't see reduced takeouts as anything but a long term investment, and only a part of the puzzle. I don't have any beliefs that it's a silver bullet -- or that it will even be revenue neutral right away. In my opinion -- based on observing what the Industry, when left to their own devices comes up with, and what HANA proposes -- say what you will -- but HANAs proposals and thinking are grounded in reality to a greater degree, because they at least attempt to be honest.

So yeah, I think having HANA around, so when the industry thinks about doing things like that, doubling fees to double revenue -- to step forward and speak on behalf of the people who actually wager -- and who know what the result would be -- is a worthwhile thing.

Why? If anyone were completely outraged at such a move, they could go play cards like everyone else has done. Lowering the takeout might make HANA feel good for awhile, but I doubt that it will draw a crowd to the front gate.

I would see HANA, and it's efforts in a different light had HANA had ever asked the industry how it could help to market this sport. Because that is what it needs first and foremost.

Because it has done as best as it could for the past twenty years, in spite of all the negativity that has been hung on it. Instead HANA protests that the appeal is not being made specifically to them, and it is affecting them because they refuse to evolve with the sport.

Maybe people aren't signing up because you aren't bitching enough to enough people. Or, it could be that your club is too exclusive.

jdl

[jonnielu]

$100 a month for every track in the country is a steal....

You should see some online trading establishments...they charge $100 a month for nothing but a real-time Dow Jones news feed...just the news feed itself...(other outfits give this stuff away for free depending on how much you trade and how much commission you generate)...

Not sure why you think $100 a month for data is so outrageous.

I didn't say a word about it being outrageous. People will pay according to the value they find. 1000 come and go, 2 hang around to tell you that your prices are too high. Do you lower the prices because those two could not find value?

Then what if the same two said you were a dumbass running a rigged game anyway to 742 of the other people before they left?

jdl

[chickenhead]

This post is so full of contradiction I'm not even sure where I'm supposed to begin. So -- you are perfectly fine with the industry chasing away customers by raising prices:

Why? If anyone were completely outraged at such a move, they could go play cards like everyone else has done.

yet your knock on HANA is that:

I would see HANA, and it's efforts in a different light had HANA had ever asked the industry how it could help to market this sport. Because that is what it needs first and foremost.

Hello?

Industry shitting on customers = OK
HANA, a group of customers, not being happy about it = not ok

How can I offer to do free marketing for a company that just threw me under the side of the bus, and told me to go do something else if I care so much about things as meaningless as what they charge me? Or whether there is a disincentive to cheat? Or that people are betting after the race begins? Or that I can actually bet the race in the first place?

I don't think racing should even want new customers until they fix some of the things that have caused their oldest and best customers to sour on them so terribly. What makes them think these "new" customers will care about different things than the old ones?

Your opinion seems to be that the current customers suck, and the Industry would be fine if they just had different customers. That's fine, but I'm not sure who you think those customers are, or where you are going to find them. Neither does anyone in racing. HANA is taking a different tact -- and just trying to make sure they understand the customers they do have, or should I say, the customers they are throwing under the bus regularly, and telling to go away -- and who properly -- are going away.

So those are the options for this industry:

A: Fix the problems that are driving customers away.
B: Find Customers that are willing to pay for the show, that don't care about those problems.

If you can do B Johnnie, you can make a zillion dollars working as an industry consultant. I'm not that smart.

[Bruddah]

Bruddah, you will recall that my post began by saying that "you are absolutely correct." When I said "but first" I was referring to something that could use some doing BEFORE rounding up new butts to put in the seats -- like disabusing existing customers (the mentors everyone talks about) of the idea that racetracks are profit centers these days, and that giving select players an advantage (higher payoffs, actually) is a great way to entice lambs to the slaughter.

That said, it only takes a couple minutes to learn the basics of racetrack economics, to have some sense of what it costs to put on the show and where that money comes from. That's a couple minutes as opposed to the several years (of genuinely trying) it takes to become a decent handicapper. I see nothing wrong with taking that couple minutes. It helps intercept conspiracy theories, which do tend to discourage the newbie. And it's interesting stuff. At least, I for one like to know things like why airplanes stay in the sky before I climb aboard. What makes a racetrack stay afloat is incredibly simple by comparison.

I am owner of a restaurant. I open the doors everyday to new and repeat customers. The new customers, I won't seat until I have given them a 5 minute discourse on my costs, explain my pricing and profits (if any). Those which aren't totally frustrated and confused by now, I seat and allow them to order from the menu. Are you part of the Obama transparency movement?

I'm sorry, I refuse to accept this business concept as part of the real world and insist on seating the customer first. :D

P.S. I know the management at Walmart wants to keep all those shoppers waiting at the door before they confer Economic degrees on them. "Wait a minute, Wait a minute, you can't go in until we explain our costs, pricing and marketing strategies". Excuse me, What Universe are we living in ?

[jonnielu]

[QUOTE=chickenhead]This post is so full of contradiction I'm not even sure where I'm supposed to begin. So -- you are perfectly fine with the industry chasing away customers by raising prices:


No, the industry is free to set prices according to the value that they supply, if they go higher then that, it would be at their peril. All I could do is to vote with my money as to whether prices are too high, or at value according to me.

Your conclusion that management is chasing off customers with current pricing is noted along with the fact that you are not yet chased off, although HANA is most vocal in putting forth this conclusion.

Therefore, I see your conclusion as made from assumption, and question its validity. As opposed to agreeing with it.

Hello?

Industry shitting on customers = OK
HANA, a group of customers, not being happy about it = not ok


It appears that the industry is not shitting on all customers, since the stands still show some population.

If the relationship between the industry and HANA has become a shit slinging contest, it appears to me that HANA tossed the first scoop. Much of it is the same shit that has been tossed around for decades.



How can I offer to do free marketing for a company that just threw me under the side of the bus, and told me to go do something else if I care so much about things as meaningless as what they charge me? Or whether there is a disincentive to cheat? Or that people are betting after the race begins? Or that I can actually bet the race in the first place?


You can't, unless you have the truth, and can open your mind to the possibilities of demonstrating it. Even then, you will have to agree that the worst of enemies can trade with each other for common cause and benefit.


I don't think racing should even want new customers until they fix some of the things that have caused their oldest and best customers to sour on them so terribly. What makes them think these "new" customers will care about different things than the old ones?


And, even then, you may have to set some of your beliefs aside in order to seek objective verification. Which would put them at risk, should you find that they are only beliefs as opposed to truths.

Your opinion seems to be that the current customers suck, and the Industry would be fine if they just had different customers. That's fine, but I'm not sure who you think those customers are, or where you are going to find them.

In every gathering, there are those that suck. If racing management does not embrace all, HANA does no better.



Neither does anyone in racing. HANA is taking a different tact -- and just trying to make sure they understand the customers they do have, or should I say, the customers they are throwing under the bus regularly, and telling to go away -- and who properly -- are going away.

So those are the options for this industry:

A: Fix the problems that are driving customers away.


Perhaps mangement is taking your advice, in throwing you under the bus.


B: Find Customers that are willing to pay for the show, that don't care about those problems.

If you can do B Johnnie, you can make a zillion dollars working as an industry consultant. I'm not that smart.

That's too bad, because you have been smart enough to be a big influence on the industry, and you could easily change gears to become a positive influence in spite of the problems that you percieve.

jdl