NYRA Takeout

[postpicker]

I'm reading the comments about boycotting Saratoga, filing suit to reduce takeout and I find it very amusing. I would say before the author of these ideas attempts to get people to follow him like the Pied Piper, do a little research and get the facts.

First of all, there is no basis for a lawsuit to reduce takeout. If we could, then we can do the same for the lottery, slot machines at casinos, etc. Any attempt to doso will not get any publicity from the media because we know it is frivilous. Also you would lose any respect you may have within the industry and from others that are smart enough not to go along with it.

About reducing takeout, I think you are pointing at the wrong people. NYRA only has certain power with takeout. In the end, it is those politicians in Albany that control the takeout rate. Remember, NYRA fought against raising the takeout and the politicians at Albany didn't want to listen to them. You can boycott all you want, but those politicians won't do a damn thing. If you ask a politician what takeout is, they couldn't give you a proper answer. Only way to take action in New York is to educate the politicians or when it is election time, vote them out of office for someone that believes in reducing takeout. But lets be realistic, I think I'd rather vote for my politicians for more pressing issues before the issue of reducing the takeout for exotics at NYRA.

[miesque]

Now as someone who was a bit quicker to point out that filing a lawsuit was not the best of ideas, I do find it rather interesting that you are starting a new thread about it, even if to point out that you found it a "very amusing idea."


I am a pretty abrupt individual at times and as such I must apologize prior to making the following statement lest I offend you but, do you work for NYRA? Again, my sincere apologies but that was my gut reaction seeing this thread.

[postpicker]

I do not work for NYRA. I am one of those people that a poster says has his opinions affected because the racetrack greases the palms of my employer with advertising (journalist for a newspaper). I started new thread because I want people to understand reality when it comes to NYRA takeout. I'll even include a couple of links to stories that show how takeout has been handled in NY.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/21555/takeout-rates-again-fuel-conflict-in-new-york

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/3741/new-york-horsemen-back-push-for-takeout-reduction

http://nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/Notes03142009.shtml


BTW, if a takeout is too low, the OTB's in NY will complain because they claim they can't make money with a track that offers a low takeout. When Keeneland tried a very low take out years ago, there were some OTB's in NY that didn't take Keeneland for that meet specifically fo that reason.

[miesque]

I do not work for NYRA. I am one of those people that a poster says has his opinions affected because the racetrack greases the palms of my employer with advertising (journalist for a newspaper). I started new thread because I want people to understand reality when it comes to NYRA takeout. I'll even include a couple of links to stories that show how takeout has been handled in NY.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/21555/takeout-rates-again-fuel-conflict-in-new-york

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/3741/new-york-horsemen-back-push-for-takeout-reduction

http://nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/Notes03142009.shtml


BTW, if a takeout is too low, the OTB's in NY will complain because they claim they can't make money with a track that offers a low takeout. When Keeneland tried a very low take out years ago, there were some OTB's in NY that didn't take Keeneland for that meet specifically fo that reason.

Well I do appreciate not only the quickness of your response, but also noting where you are coming from. However, you also bring up an EXCELLENT point. In 2001 Keeneland experimented with a reduction of takeout to 16% across the board with all its wagers, which was met with stiff resistance such as that from the NY OTBs and Mid-Atlantic Coalition. The severity of the negative response which they encountered is something horseplayers thoughout the country should be horrified at, not making excuses for.

[Steve 'StatMan']

The poll thread on this subjet gives a helpful reading on how board members feel about this proposal:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59997

[DeanT]

It's not NYRA's fault that takeouts increased there, but they are not absolved from any responsibility, imo. It is their job to work with politicos to make sure they understand what takeout does, and does not do. If they can not convince their masters, they should be doing a better job, or perhaps someone should be put in there who can.

In the UK the government of Tony Blair was convinced that dropping the betting takeout would help bottom lines. With government economists verifying data they put together a plan and offered it out. It was passed in 2000/2001, wagering went up by 70%, and offshore money moved onshore, helping the betting business across the pond.

We need NYRA and everyone else to do that in North America, just like they did there, and we need passionate, savvy people to get that done.

It was not NYRA's idea to raise takeouts, but they sure as hell won't get a pass from me as a horseplayer.

[andymays]

I'm reading the comments about boycotting Saratoga, filing suit to reduce takeout and I find it very amusing. I would say before the author of these ideas attempts to get people to follow him like the Pied Piper, do a little research and get the facts.

First of all, there is no basis for a lawsuit to reduce takeout. If we could, then we can do the same for the lottery, slot machines at casinos, etc. Any attempt to doso will not get any publicity from the media because we know it is frivilous. Also you would lose any respect you may have within the industry and from others that are smart enough not to go along with it.

About reducing takeout, I think you are pointing at the wrong people. NYRA only has certain power with takeout. In the end, it is those politicians in Albany that control the takeout rate. Remember, NYRA fought against raising the takeout and the politicians at Albany didn't want to listen to them. You can boycott all you want, but those politicians won't do a damn thing. If you ask a politician what takeout is, they couldn't give you a proper answer. Only way to take action in New York is to educate the politicians or when it is election time, vote them out of office for someone that believes in reducing takeout. But lets be realistic, I think I'd rather vote for my politicians for more pressing issues before the issue of reducing the takeout for exotics at NYRA.


How about a lawsuit as consumers of Horse Racing, for full takeout disclosure on every wager on every ticket? It would make the NYRA a little uncomfortable don't you think?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

How about a lawsuit as consumers of Horse Racing, for full takeout disclosure on every wager on every ticket? It would make the NYRA a little uncomfortable don't you think?
It should be mandatory that every track post their takeout on their web sites. In Canada, I think it is mandatory for the OLG to post lottery takeout on their site, yet Woodbine and Fort Erie has no such info on their sites.

I also think there is potential for a lawsuit when it comes to the consumer's right to bet anywhere. But that is a state to state thing still, unfortunately.

[postpicker]

It's not NYRA's fault that takeouts increased there, but they are not absolved from any responsibility, imo. It is their job to work with politicos to make sure they understand what takeout does, and does not do. If they can not convince their masters, they should be doing a better job, or perhaps someone should be put in there who can.

In the UK the government of Tony Blair was convinced that dropping the betting takeout would help bottom lines. With government economists verifying data they put together a plan and offered it out. It was passed in 2000/2001, wagering went up by 70%, and offshore money moved onshore, helping the betting business across the pond.

We need NYRA and everyone else to do that in North America, just like they did there, and we need passionate, savvy people to get that done.

It was not NYRA's idea to raise takeouts, but they sure as hell won't get a pass from me as a horseplayer.

Have you seen NY politics in action? NYRA was allowed to have VLT's for how long? Will Albany ever announce who is going to run it? The politicians know how much it is going to bring the state when it is up and running but they still find a way to delay it. While NYRA isn't absolved from this, you need to understand the reality of what they and the horseplayer go through in this state. BTW, you think the politicians were thinking in the best interest of the horseplayers when they passed legistlation that banned ALL OTB's in New York State from betting on tbred races after 7 pm on monday nights?

[postpicker]

How about a lawsuit as consumers of Horse Racing, for full takeout disclosure on every wager on every ticket? It would make the NYRA a little uncomfortable don't you think?

What is it with you and lawsuits? I do remember many years ago on the top of the charts printed in the DRF, there was a breakdown by percentage of the takeout, on who got what per dollar bet. My guess would be DRF and/or Equibase thought it was unnessary to print that on the charts page.

Yes it would be nice for the breakdown of the takeout to be available somewhere. I'm sure if requested, NYRA or the state Wagering and Racing Board would provide it, you wouldn't need a frivilous lawsuit to get it.

[Bochall]

I just find it very sad that NYRA and the Nassau County OTB haven't resolved their beef on the eve of Saratoga. Luckily, it doesn't affect me as I am outta state, but those in NY must be STEAMING over this...how can ya not hammer out a treaty and make nice for Saratoga? Is nothing sacred???

[andymays]

What is it with you and lawsuits? I do remember many years ago on the top of the charts printed in the DRF, there was a breakdown by percentage of the takeout, on who got what per dollar bet. My guess would be DRF and/or Equibase thought it was unnessary to print that on the charts page.

Yes it would be nice for the breakdown of the takeout to be available somewhere. I'm sure if requested, NYRA or the state Wagering and Racing Board would provide it, you wouldn't need a frivilous lawsuit to get it.


It's a gimmick to bring attention to the problem and raise awareness! Nothing more!

Until someone starts thinking "out of the box" nothing will move. In fact things will get worse in my opinion.

[miesque]

It's a gimmick to bring attention to the problem and raise awareness! Nothing more!

Until someone starts thinking "out of the box" nothing will move. In fact things will get worse in my opinion.

Lawsuits should never be used as gimmicks, there is enough crap clogging up the legal system already.

[andymays]

Lawsuits should never be used as gimmicks, there is enough crap clogging up the legal system already.


......and takeout should never be 26%!

If there is something innovative and new on the table can you let us know what it is?

[miesque]

If there is something innovative and new on the table can you let us know what it is?

In the United States Tax Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Tax_Court), frivolous arguments may result in a penalty of up to $25,000 under 26 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code) § 6673(a)(1) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6673.html#a_1). Similarly, section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals may impose penalties where the taxpayer's appeal of a U.S. Tax Court decision was "maintained primarily for delay" or where "the taxpayer's position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-2)

In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-3) Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under Rule 11.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-4) In one case, the Seventh Circuit issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments".[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-5) A similar rule penalizing frivolous litigation applies in U.S. Bankruptcy Court under Rule 9011.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-6)

Congress has enacted section 1912 of title 28 of the United States Code providing that in the United States Supreme Court and in the various courts of appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-7)

Litigants who represent themselves (in forma pauperis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_forma_pauperis) and pro se (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se)) sometimes make frivolous arguments due to their limited knowledge of the law and procedure. The particular tendency of prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison) to bring baseless lawsuits led to passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions without payment.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

[andymays]

In the United States Tax Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Tax_Court), frivolous arguments may result in a penalty of up to $25,000 under 26 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code) § 6673(a)(1) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6673.html#a_1). Similarly, section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts of appeals may impose penalties where the taxpayer's appeal of a U.S. Tax Court decision was "maintained primarily for delay" or where "the taxpayer's position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-2)

In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-3) Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under Rule 11.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-4) In one case, the Seventh Circuit issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments".[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-5) A similar rule penalizing frivolous litigation applies in U.S. Bankruptcy Court under Rule 9011.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-6)

Congress has enacted section 1912 of title 28 of the United States Code providing that in the United States Supreme Court and in the various courts of appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation#cite_note-7)

Litigants who represent themselves (in forma pauperis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_forma_pauperis) and pro se (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_se)) sometimes make frivolous arguments due to their limited knowledge of the law and procedure. The particular tendency of prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison) to bring baseless lawsuits led to passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions without payment.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]


I got all the reasons not to do it and all the reasons not to do other things. Are you saying there is nothing left to do other than what has been done?

How about something along these lines/

In addition, Federal RICO statutes have been used to prosecute people in New York for serious violation of the usury statutes, for serious cases of loan sharking. Federal prosecutions occur in New York in instances in which a person loan agreement has been entered into that calls for the consumer to pay interest in the amount of twice the usury limit in the state, or in amount of 32% or more.

Doesn't exactly apply but could be wiggle room for overcharging customers who place a bet.

[lamboguy]

i think the whole wide world turned out to be one big lawsuit.

[miesque]

I got all the reasons not to do it and all the reasons not to do other things. Are you saying there is nothing left to do other than what has been done?

How about something along these lines/

In addition, Federal RICO statutes have been used to prosecute people in New York for serious violation of the usury statutes, for serious cases of loan sharking. Federal prosecutions occur in New York in instances in which a person loan agreement has been entered into that calls for the consumer to pay interest in the amount of twice the usury limit in the state, or in amount of 32% or more.

Doesn't exactly apply but could be wiggle room for overcharging customers who place a bet.

I am stating that while its been a while, I remember enough from my two Commercial Law classes in college to recognize not only when utilizing a lawsuit to achieve change is a poor idea, but also when such an idea actually increases your exposure and liabilities, something which the majority of people would agree is definitely not a prudent course of action.

[andymays]

I am stating that while its been a while, I remember enough from my two Commercial Law classes in college to recognize not only when utilizing a lawsuit to achieve changes is a poor idea, but when such an idea actually increases your exposure and liabilities, something which the majority of people would agree is not a good idea.


Miesque, Miesque, Miesque.

The point of me starting this argument on the main board is to bring attention to the problem. As of now it's being argued in one form or another on three threads.

If there is one thing I am sure of it's that the caliber of posters here is as high as it gets and I am confident that one or more posters will come up with an innovative way to address the problem of prohibitive takeout. I am not a detail oriented person by any means but many here are. The talent pool is not limited to the HANA board and ecouraging people to speak up with almost any idea on how to reduce takeout rates is better than discouraging discourse. Most of the ideas will be bad ones (maybe like the Class Action Lawsuit) but throwing a bad idea out there can lead to someone coming up with a good idea and that was my intention.

Get it?

[miesque]

Miesque, Miesque, Miesque.

The point of me starting this argument on the main board is to bring attention to the problem. As of now it's being argued in one form or another on three threads.

If there is one thing I am sure of it's that the caliber of posters here is as high as it gets and I am confident that one or more posters will come up with an innovative way to address the problem of prohibitive takeout. I am not a detail oriented person by any means but many here are. The talent pool is not limited to the HANA board and ecouraging people to speak up with almost any idea on how to reduce takeout rates is better than discouraging discourse. Most of the ideas will be bad ones (maybe like the Class Action Lawsuit) but throwing a bad idea out there can lead to someone coming up with a good idea and that was my intention.

Get it?

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't find any benefit of continuing to bring up a what I (and I might add the vast majority on those who have chimed in the topic) consider to be a very poor idea because I believe that course of action is a great way not to be taken seriously and I can guarantee you that I try very hard to not be view in that light.

[andymays]

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't find any benefit of continuing to bring up a what I (and I might add the vast majority on those who have chimed in the topic) consider to be a very poor idea because I believe that course of action is a great way not to be taken seriously and I can guarantee you that I try very hard to not be view in that light.


Haven't you figured out that when the majority go one way I go the other way? ;)

Agreeing to disagree is good for me! :)

[DeanT]

Have you seen NY politics in action? NYRA was allowed to have VLT's for how long? Will Albany ever announce who is going to run it? The politicians know how much it is going to bring the state when it is up and running but they still find a way to delay it. While NYRA isn't absolved from this, you need to understand the reality of what they and the horseplayer go through in this state. BTW, you think the politicians were thinking in the best interest of the horseplayers when they passed legistlation that banned ALL OTB's in New York State from betting on tbred races after 7 pm on monday nights?

New York is dysfunctional, on that we can agree. But I want some more leadership from NYRA. I do not let them off the hook.

You mention slots. Every time slots are introduced handle falls on the product - at some tracks on track handle has been cut in half. Where was NYRA in letting NY politicians know that something in any slot deal must go to horseplayers to protect racings customers?

Where were they on takeout when Albany wanted to raise it? I got no email from them asking for players to be heard on this issue. They did not set up a "mail your congressman" link so players could let Albany know. I did not see them on TV saying "they want to raise takeout on our players and we have to make sure they don't by educating them". They did not let press releases go so people like Pricci, Kling and others could get into some sort of action to stop it, like the NTRA does with withholding.

They control NYRA rewards and the on track product don't they? Where is a bigger rebate to players, equal to 1% on exotics to lessen the blow of the takeout increase? Does the state block them from giving a point back on their own platform? I dont think so.

Players need NYRA to be a champion of these issues. In the 1970's they could and did do much of this, however it seems that this is not the case in this century, and that is the reason I do not think we as hoseplayers should let them off the hook.

[fmolf]

New York is dysfunctional, on that we can agree. But I want some more leadership from NYRA. I do not let them off the hook.

You mention slots. Every time slots are introduced handle falls on the product - at some tracks on track handle has been cut in half. Where was NYRA in letting NY politicians know that something in any slot deal must go to horseplayers to protect racings customers?

Where were they on takeout when Albany wanted to raise it? I got no email from them asking for players to be heard on this issue. They did not set up a "mail your congressman" link so players could let Albany know. I did not see them on TV saying "they want to raise takeout on our players and we have to make sure they don't by educating them". They did not let press releases go so people like Pricci, Kling and others could get into some sort of action to stop it, like the NTRA does with withholding.

They control NYRA rewards and the on track product don't they? Where is a bigger rebate to players, equal to 1% on exotics to lessen the blow of the takeout increase? Does the state block them from giving a point back on their own platform? I dont think so.

Players need NYRA to be a champion of these issues. In the 1970's they could and did do much of this, however it seems that this is not the case in this century, and that is the reason I do not think we as hoseplayers should let them off the hook.
As a native Long Islander and also having grown up in the shadow of belmont park i speak from local knowledge when i tell you that the nyra is basically an arm of the state govt....as is the otb corporation in nassau and nycotb. Nassau otb and nyc otb corporations at one time were losing money after the state took their cut.There is is too much graft, political patronage, backdoor sweetheart deals, greed and nepotism for them to operate effectively.This is thoroughly in evidence in the long drawn out process of trying to award the contract to run the casino at aqueduct!Noone wants it on NYRA and NY states terms. It is a guaranteed loser!What I am afraid of is that they will try to run it themselves and ruin the tracks altogether!they'll never do anything to lower takeouts so do not expect them too.they stand on their thoughts that theirs is the lowest in the nation on straight wagers ...and low on dd's and exactas...and in line with most other tracks as far as the real exotics are concerned.

[rrbauer]

New York is dysfunctional

You should've stopped there.


Where were they on takeout when Albany wanted to raise it? I got no email from them asking for players to be heard on this issue.

In 40+ years I have NEVER received an email, snail_mail, phone call, etc. from a racing organization asking for me to be heard. That's the problem: The only input they want from horseplayers is our money. The bigger problem is that we continue to give it to them.

[takeout]

The only input they want from horseplayers is our money.And now, at established racinos, I doubt that they even care much about that.

[formula_2002]

Play craps for a cost of about 1.41 % of your bankroll.
You will get some of THAT back in comps.
Meanwhile, take the money you are saving by not betting the horses, buy a lots of data, come up with a system, post your picks here and if you can statistically produce a profit in 1000 picks,................do it all over again and again.

the 3rd time is the charm..now you can start to bet (max bet size $2 for the 1st year) :)

[rrbauer]

And now, at established racinos, I doubt that they even care much about that.

Good point. That's what we're seeing as state-supported subsidies swell the purse bankrolls. But, another year, or two, of state revenue shortfalls for their general funds and some of those states are going to be backtracking on how much of the "easy money" they're willing to divert from more compelling (read: politically driven) uses for their states.

In the meantime, racing's real problems get swept under the rug so long as the life support continues.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Good point. That's what we're seeing as state-supported subsidies swell the purse bankrolls. But, another year, or two, of state revenue shortfalls for their general funds and some of those states are going to be backtracking on how much of the "easy money" they're willing to divert from more compelling (read: politically driven) uses for their states.

In the meantime, racing's real problems get swept under the rug so long as the life support continues.
The biggest problem with the industry is that they have always thought short term.
Slots for example, are just a band aid solution to keep purses at reasonable levels. If anything, slots kills live handle. But as long as the purses are good and the breeding industry is viable, the racing industry is content.
Slots does have a saturation point. Just look at Fort Erie. Now the track allegedly can't make a profit even though they make $4 million a year (their 10% of profits) on slots. At one time when slots were first introduced, they made more $15 million (and $15 million for the horsemen's account as well).

As long as the industry gets band aids they do zero when it comes to solving their handle growth problem.

Of course, lower takeouts across the board is the only thing that will stimulate growth in handle growth, and racing's bottom line.

If withholding is ever stopped, that would be another band aid that will give the industry growth for about a year, but long term, it will only have a marginal affect on growth because many players will get less tax refunds, or may even owe money on taxes from their primary source of income.

[Irish Boy]

Here's a question:

If slots kill live handle (I don't have the data, but I'll asume that it does), doesn't that potentially mean that there is a huge class of horseplayers that will play the track regardless of the takeout? Granted, slot takeout can be fairly low, but the churn is very fast, and it's obviously a losing endeavor. Maybe that means the assumption about takeout is wrong- maybe tracks could even raise takeout and still wring money from the no-hope crowd.

I'm not saying this is correct, but if it is, it has huge implications for proposals to lower takeout.

[DeanT]

Here's a question:

If slots kill live handle (I don't have the data, but I'll asume that it does), doesn't that potentially mean that there is a huge class of horseplayers that will play the track regardless of the takeout? Granted, slot takeout can be fairly low, but the churn is very fast, and it's obviously a losing endeavor. Maybe that means the assumption about takeout is wrong- maybe tracks could even raise takeout and still wring money from the no-hope crowd.

I'm not saying this is correct, but if it is, it has huge implications for proposals to lower takeout.

Hi Irish Boy,

Live handle is lower. The rest of the handle, bet over the internet and so on is normal, of course.

There is a subset of people who will do things and change behavior with betting. If you add a casino to a racetrack, people that want action that would sit and bet for four hours at the track, will go find their action elsewhere. Horseplayers can want to have a decent time and get a few free drinks and so on as well, after all it is not like they get treated very well at the track, so after the races it is not at all rare to see them head to play some video poker and listen to a band. I think there has been many a score lost that was made at racing, in the after 'party' at the casino.

I think every serious player on this board knows that bankroll preservation is a key to being a long term player. If you make a score and have to pay the gas bill, or back rent, your betting volume goes down. If you have a score and have a new place to lose it on the way home, your betting handle goes down in the same way. Racing has made it very hard to go home with any money in your pocket in 2009.

It is why I have always been in favor of players cards on some sort of national basis for on track players. If they have an account and win in it, it is easier to keep their bankrolls for racing. Maybe if you hit $1000 in the last race you might take some of the cash out and play a few slots, or a table game to celebrate, but you will always be cognizant that you need to keep something in there for tomorrow's card. Every track that has slots should have some sort of players card with perks and rebates for players to keep them primarily focused on racing, imo. There are some tracks out there who get $150M in revenue from slots. it is the least that they can do for their customers. However, try finding a slots deal that has that written in it as a part of the core deal. You will not find one. The stakeholders (tracks and horsemen and the gvt) want and keep all the money.

That is something that I would love to see from NYRA on any slots deals, but I have not heard or seen anything on them from that. It's time for them to step up and protect their on track patrons.

[Irish Boy]

Right, I agree with all that. For the record, I don't want to see any more tracks become slot houses.