PDA

View Full Version : Vintage DRFs Scanned Online


QuarterCrack
07-28-2009, 02:40 PM
Just found this, has complete scans of each page of 1000s of DRFs from 1890s to 1980s. I don't know how to simplify the link; I hope it works:

http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=boolean;rgn=works;q1=Daily%20Racing%20For m;g=drf;c=drf1890s;c=drf1900s;c=drf1910s;c=drf1920 s;c=drf1930s;c=drf1940s;c=drf1950s;c=drf1960s;c=dr f1970s;c=drf1980s;c=drf1990s;xc=1;subtype=bib;view =reslist;subview=short;sort=occur;start=1;size=25; ALLSELECTED=1

It's wild to see the PPs from the 1910s!
This is amazing; I never knew about this resource.

QuarterCrack
07-28-2009, 02:43 PM
Actually, as I go through it a little deeper, not every issue has every page scanned... The ones from 1910s seem pretty complete, though, so far. A couple from the 1950s only have a few pages of PPs scanned.

Still a cool find.

macguy
07-28-2009, 05:10 PM
Interesting to see all the sub 100 pound weights from pre-1900, also some weights being shown with half-pounds.

I guess I know what I''ll be doing for the rest of the week. :)

Thanks for the link. :ThmbUp:

takeout
07-28-2009, 06:04 PM
Interesting that the first result charts I noticed didn’t have trainers (!) in them. Other than that, it doesn’t appear that too much has changed in the result charts in over 100 years.

Also interesting that a Form is now 120 times the price it was back then.

http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1890s;g=drf;xc=1;q1=Daily%20Racing%20Form ;rgn=works;view=pdf;cc=drf1890s;seq=1;idno=drf1897 010101;didno=drf1897010101

njcurveball
07-28-2009, 07:49 PM
I am shocked by the amazing detail of the time. What an incredible job of printing. :ThmbUp:

QuarterCrack
07-28-2009, 10:29 PM
Check out the June 11, 1973 edition - it's the edition right after Secretariat won the Belmont.
All the articles are there and the official chart - very cool.

Horseplayersbet.com
07-28-2009, 10:31 PM
I had to search track takeout in the archives. Here is the one match I found from 1967:
http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1960s;cc=drf1960s;g=drf;xc=1;q1=track%20t akeout;rgn=full%20text;idno=drf1967052501;didno=dr f1967052501;view=pdf;seq=45;node=drf1967052501%3A4 5;passterms=1

Chances Dim For Summer Racing At South Florida.
The tracks were arguing for a 10-5 split from the 15% track takeout.
They were getting 7%, and the state was getting 8%.

What happened to the days of 15% track takeout? They vanished along with the people in the stands.

Horseplayersbet.com
07-28-2009, 10:35 PM
Even better. An article in 1935 on California racing stating that 10% takeout is plenty:

http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1930s;cc=drf1930s;g=drf;xc=1;q1=takeout;r gn=full%20text;idno=drf1935051301;didno=drf1935051 301;view=pdf;seq=2_5;node=drf1935051301%3A2.5;pass terms=1

Horseplayersbet.com
07-28-2009, 10:41 PM
This is an amazing article from 1953:
http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1950s;cc=drf1950s;g=drf;xc=1;q1=takeout;r gn=full%20text;idno=drf1953061101;didno=drf1953061 101;view=pdf;seq=1_1;node=drf1953061101%3A1.1;pass terms=1

dansan
07-28-2009, 11:19 PM
damn how old is C Borel im looking at results from april 1973 evangline race track and borels got a couple of winners :jump:

LottaKash
07-28-2009, 11:33 PM
Cool Stuff, Quartercrack.....nice find....Thanks.....:jump:

best,

Robert Goren
07-29-2009, 01:04 AM
I had to search track takeout in the archives. Here is the one match I found from 1967:
http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1960s;cc=drf1960s;g=drf;xc=1;q1=track%20t akeout;rgn=full%20text;idno=drf1967052501;didno=dr f1967052501;view=pdf;seq=45;node=drf1967052501%3A4 5;passterms=1

Chances Dim For Summer Racing At South Florida.
The tracks were arguing for a 10-5 split from the 15% track takeout.
They were getting 7%, and the state was getting 8%.

What happened to the days of 15% track takeout? They vanished along with the people in the stands. In Nebraska the take in 60's was 13% with 5% to the state and 8% to the tracks. Now it is 18% and zip to the state.

Tom
07-29-2009, 07:29 AM
Any articles about NYRA getting slots or how bad TVG is? :rolleyes::lol:

I see on June 18, 1905, Jebediah Dutrow had a positive and got 5 days.

Horseplayersbet.com
07-29-2009, 08:55 AM
Any articles about NYRA getting slots or how bad TVG is? :rolleyes::lol:

I see on June 18, 1905, Jebediah Dutrow had a positive and got 5 days.
They didn't test for drugs until 1936 I think. Jeb was splitting lines of cocaine with his runners. Half for him, half for the horse. :)

ryesteve
07-29-2009, 09:18 AM
This is an amazing article from 1953:
http://kdl.kyvl.org/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=drf1950s;cc=drf1950s;g=drf;xc=1;q1=takeout;r gn=full%20text;idno=drf1953061101;didno=drf1953061 101;view=pdf;seq=1_1;node=drf1953061101%3A1.1;pass terms=1
Holy crap... this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that anything will ever change at this point...

rwwupl
07-29-2009, 10:50 AM
Isn`t it obvious what has happened over time concerning the take?

It is also obvious who has been running the game and the results.

Horsemen have dominated the State Boards and they scratch each others backs.

They left out the most important person of all, the customer.

"Sportsman"(No beancounters or people with special interests to the game)
must return to run the the game, or it will never recover.

John Hay Whitney warned of this and he was RIGHT!

FenceBored
07-29-2009, 11:22 AM
damn how old is C Borel im looking at results from april 1973 evangline race track and borels got a couple of winners :jump:

That's not Calvin. According to an old Ky Derby Media Guide Calvin was born in Nov. 1966 and didn't start riding until 1981. In April 1973 he'd have been six.

Horseplayersbet.com
07-29-2009, 12:38 PM
Isn`t it obvious what has happened over time concerning the take?

It is also obvious who has been running the game and the results.

Horsemen have dominated the State Boards and they scratch each others backs.

They left out the most important person of all, the customer.

"Sportsman"(No beancounters or people with special interests to the game)
must return to run the the game, or it will never recover.

John Hay Whitney warned of this and he was RIGHT!

I've got the blog piece up now and it takes the two old articles and puts them in one place:

http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/07/ten-percent-track-takeout-is-sufficient.html

rwwupl
07-29-2009, 01:41 PM
I've got the blog piece up now and it takes the two old articles and puts them in one place:

http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/07/ten-percent-track-takeout-is-sufficient.html


Great Post, and thanks for the old movie.

rwwupl

OTM Al
07-29-2009, 04:26 PM
What happened to the days of 15% track takeout? They vanished along with the people in the stands.

Since that is from 1967, the only bets available would be win, place and show and perhaps a daily double. 15% WPS is still pretty much the norm these days is it not?

ryesteve
07-29-2009, 04:30 PM
Since that is from 1967, the only bets available would be win, place and show and perhaps a daily double. 15% WPS is still pretty much the norm these days is it not?That's the low, not the norm. And I also think it's beside the point. The other wagers don't justify a higher take... but perhaps we've become conditioned to think they do.

OTM Al
07-29-2009, 04:36 PM
Higher take today on other wagers is beside the point. The other wagers did not exist then so there is no comparison for them. Look around '73 when those wagers started appearing if you want to make a point about them. My only point is that we can only compare conditons then to like conditions now if you want a meaningful comparison and link people missing in the stands to higher take levels. My guess is that higher take has little to nothing to do with people not in the stands opposed to certain years of the past.

Horseplayersbet.com
07-29-2009, 05:10 PM
Higher take today on other wagers is beside the point. The other wagers did not exist then so there is no comparison for them. Look around '73 when those wagers started appearing if you want to make a point about them. My only point is that we can only compare conditons then to like conditions now if you want a meaningful comparison and link people missing in the stands to higher take levels. My guess is that higher take has little to nothing to do with people not in the stands opposed to certain years of the past.
Exactors, though maybe just one or two a day and daily doubles were available in the 60's in Ontario. For some reason, a 14% takeout comes to mind. You could go to the track with a $30-$40 bankroll and last a few days.

However, you could only bet on 8 races a day. People often left with money in their pockets...all they had to do was cash one of the last three races to do that.

Throughout the 70's and 80's exactors, which now had higher takeouts were found in every race, triactors, with much larger takeouts were introduced, and takeouts for win even crept up.

Now you can bet 100 plus races a day if you so desire. It is a lot more difficult for someone with the equivalence of a $30 bankroll (which might be $150 today) to last half the card, since there are plenty of triactors and other exotics that erode bankrolls faster than ever before.

Seriously, if you want to know a major reason why people stopped going to the track....that is a biggie.

OTM Al
07-29-2009, 06:31 PM
I have to dispute your reasoning. First, let's be clear. There is evidence that takeout is too high to represent optimal maximizing behavior for the tracks. Part of this is due to the governments having their hands out and part due to inertia by the tracks in not trying new things. However, a blunt arguement why your reasoning is wrong are state and national lotteries. 50%+ takeouts are not hurting them one bit. This is because people are only looking at potential payoffs and $60 vs $65 million isn't going to alter their behavior one bit. Therefore, optimizing behavior would likely indicate that there should be higher takes on bets that on average pay more.

Now let me address the meet of your argument about the $30 bankroll. Please explain to me why you could make it through the whole card in the past and have money left while today you couldn't make it through a like 8 races today? A 1 to 2% average difference on the same bets you could have made in 1967 vs those same bets today is not the reason you would get your bankroll chewed up. The reason it happens pople start betting too many races all over the place or multiple different wagers on individual races because they can. If the individual was betting in the same way he was back then, the results would be little different (ignoring the effects of greater information such as speed figs and other such innovations).

In fact, I would argue on average a 1% decrease in takeout would not result in a like increase in returns on many bets. Lower odds horses would still be driven down to near the same levels. I would have to believe, without seeing evidence otherwise, it would be the payoffs on the longer odds horses that would pay better. Lower take should not uniformly increase payoffs by the same % amounts across the board but should skew with proportionally greater amounts bet to the more likely winners or winning combinations. The most frequent winning bets would pay more, but not by the full amount.

No, it is not takeout that has emptied the stands. It is plentiful and available alternate forms of gambling. Back then, the "dumb" gamblers, the number players, the hunch bettors, call them what you will, had no other way to gamble than go to the track. Now in any corner store they can burn through their money on scratchoffs or lotto tickets. Now you can go and plant yourself in front of VLTs in many places. Even if you still prefer playing horses, you can stay home and bet from your computer or over the phone or go to a local OTB. Time is money as the saying goes so why spend an hour going back and forth to the track? The argument you have made is the same as saying that the loss in ratings for network TV channels is due to bad programming. The programming was crap then and still is now, the ratings have fallen because instead of 2 through 13, I now have 1 through 400+

chickenhead
07-29-2009, 06:45 PM
However, a blunt arguement why your reasoning is wrong are state and national lotteries. 50%+ takeouts are not hurting them one bit. This is because people are only looking at potential payoffs and $60 vs $65 million isn't going to alter their behavior one bit.

This actually is not true in at least one sense. Takeout has a huge effect on lotteries. Primarily though they've found the most effective use of the extra prize dollars to be paying out more small winners, rather than just increasing the grand prize. Which if you wanted to relate back to racing would argue that reducing exotic takeouts to pay out more consos would pay for itself over time...because it has for lottos.

DeanT
07-29-2009, 07:22 PM
That is true as Chick had brought up before. The MA state lottery dropped takeout from 60% to 31%. When they were at the high end they were just like the rest of the states in revenue. Now that they have chosen the low end they are number one in the nation in terms of lottery revenue.

Over time, the arguments about increases in competition, i.e. lotteries, scratch cards, sports betting, casino's, being racings problem are growing smaller and smaller. The UK has probably 100X more available outlets for betting dollars (with a bookmaking shop on every street corner plus 100% legal internet betting for all sports and games) yet somehow they blow away the US in per capita horse race wagering; $500 per person bet on racing in the UK to a paltry $40 in the US.

Of course you can make a bet on a chalk right now in the UK at anywhere between a 4% and 8% takeout. Sooner or later this has to be stop being considered a coincidence.

As time goes on, imo, the people who wrote in 1935 in this DRF piece that "if takeout is raised higher than 10% we are going to lose customers and have a tough time growing" are looking more and more correct. It is a shame that it took 74 years, and probably will take at least another decade to change takeouts for the better and grow racing again here in North America.

OTM Al
07-29-2009, 07:41 PM
Over time, the arguments about increases in competition, i.e. lotteries, scratch cards, sports betting, casino's, being racings problem are growing smaller and smaller. The UK has probably 100X more available outlets for betting dollars (with a bookmaking shop on every street corner plus 100% legal internet betting for all sports and games) yet somehow they blow away the US in per capita horse race wagering; $500 per person bet on racing in the UK to a paltry $40 in the US.



All true Dean, but this isn't the argument that was being made. The claim was the decline in race track attendance was due to takeout changes and the argument presented did not, in my opinion, support that claim in any reasonable way.

To address your point though, horseracing appears in their regular media over there. Its all but vanished here. People don't see it so its not on their radar. Add to it the general sterotype of the horseplayer that our society has developed and clearly there are going to be differences in behavior. Over there, the Queen attends the races. Here what do we get? Bobby Flay?

OTM Al
07-29-2009, 07:47 PM
This actually is not true in at least one sense. Takeout has a huge effect on lotteries. Primarily though they've found the most effective use of the extra prize dollars to be paying out more small winners, rather than just increasing the grand prize. Which if you wanted to relate back to racing would argue that reducing exotic takeouts to pay out more consos would pay for itself over time...because it has for lottos.

Now this is a good idea and the kind of thing that should be studied. Nothing like a conso payment to make the loser feel like a winner. Just like the slots in Vegas, keep giving little payoffs and you keep the sucker, er player, hitting that button until its all gone and yet he still can talk about having won, for a while at least. I have to admit on the occasion I've bought a lotto ticket that pays a couple bucks in conso prize, what do I do but turn around and give it back for a new ticket. So in the end, it looks like you did lower the take, but in actuality, you've changed the game and thus in a way effectively increased it above the stated level.

DeanT
07-29-2009, 07:57 PM
Sure Al, but is it the chicken or the egg?

All I know is we hear a lot of excuses on why wagering is poor here - culture, too much time between races, bad coffee prices and on and on. I believed a lot of it for awhile, and the tracks themselves seem to want us to.

But sooner or later we have to come to grips with a simple fact. Whereever on this earth that horse race wagering has grown and/or shown real resistance, whether it be in the UK, or Singapore or Hong Kong, or Australia, or whether it be at rebate shops, or betfair, or pinnaclesports.com........ there is only one common thread: Lower takeout.

Go Baby Go campaigns, Gene Simmons going to the Kentucky Derby, planting more pretty flowers, offering free hot dogs, hiring a Van Halen cover band, paying for a grade three race to be shown on TV, having ostrich races, and all the things done over the last ten years have resulted in lower handles.

Following what successful horse racing jurisdictions have done - lowering takeout - is something whose time has come. The excuses for not doing it are growing smaller and smaller, and fans are not believing them any longer.

OTM Al
07-29-2009, 09:29 PM
Look back Dean, I'm not arguing that takeout here is not too high. Lowering it should help, but doing that alone is a temporary bandaid and not the be all end all. New fans must be generated as well and that's where perceptions must be changed. They need to draw those fans back that have no idea what takeout is, only that they love the sport.

Furthermore, there is something far more important in those countries you mention than the simple observation that they all have lower takes. They all have strong national governing bodies. The body can get the take adjusted as a whole and find that profit maximizing level.

What we have in the US makes that far more difficult because individual tracks are faced with a complicated game theoretic issue in which it is possible that the tracks all end up in a worse situation than they were before. Honestly I don't have the energy right now to detail the argument but its akin to what happens in a sports event when people figure if they leave early they can get out of the lot faster, but when everyone starts doing it, they end up worse off than they were before. Technical term is congestion externalities. Everyone would be better off if all the tracks could get together and work cooperative, but then that's called collusion, and that could cause problems too.

Look, its an important issue, no doubt, but its not the only issue.

DeanT
07-29-2009, 09:58 PM
Lowering it should help, but doing that alone is a temporary bandaid and not the be all end all. New fans must be generated as well and that's where perceptions must be changed. They need to draw those fans back that have no idea what takeout is, only that they love the sport.

That's the point Al. Takeout is not a decision maker for people. They just know they come home with money and that has sold the game of horse racing. It breeds new fans.

Also, in the UK racing is as fractured as it is here, some might say even worse. It is like that in Australia too, yet somehow they can get things done? C'mon!

What is the biggest draw to online poker for 18-34 year olds? Believe me, they would rather, and have more fun playing Halo 16 instead, but they dont. Why? Halo 18 does not allow them to make money. In poker they can make money, in horse racing they can not make money.

I know I posted this before, but this is a kid playing racing into 5% takeouts in Britain. It is not because he saw it on TV, or because his dad took him to the track. It is because he is a smart kid who at low takeout can make money. He had never even watched a horse race up until one year before he started. Horse Racing Trader [ £0 - £350,000 Challenge ]


In 2009 I will set myself a challenge of making £350,000 (was £150,000, then £250,000) from trading horse racing using betting exchange software Bet Angel for Betfair and Betdaq whilst documenting my progress. Enjoy reading and feel free to contact me about anything.








He is up around $US390,000 so far this year, and guess what? A pile of his young friends are playing horse racing, and now even going to the track to watch live. Who wouldn't want to join him if he is making more money than all his friends combined?

I used that as an example at a conference awhile back. A racing exec said "wow, no wonder it is popular over there, that is better than any commercial for racing you can ever see!" I said "so why dont we hop on the train and create that then by lowering takeout". He said "oh that will never happen".

Winners breed fans. We need winners. We don't have enough of them with 21.8% takeouts and never will. It is the single biggest crux to the growth of this game, and has been for generations. We could have a commissioner, free admission and dancing girls and it wont make a kid like the above come and bet the track, only winning at the races does that. The problem is, imo, we have too many people saying "we can not do it" and using excuses or enabling them, instead of people who actually want to tackle this issue to save the game of racing.

Horseplayersbet.com
07-30-2009, 09:45 AM
OTM: Now let me address the meet of your argument about the $30 bankroll. Please explain to me why you could make it through the whole card in the past and have money left while today you couldn't make it through a like 8 races today? A 1 to 2% average difference on the same bets you could have made in 1967 vs those same bets today is not the reason you would get your bankroll chewed up. The reason it happens people start betting too many races all over the place or multiple different wagers on individual races because they can. If the individual was betting in the same way he was back then, the results would be little different (ignoring the effects of greater information such as speed figs and other such innovations).
**************************************
You are missing the fact that it is human nature for the gambler or horseplayer to make a score when they go to the track. Sure, if the gambler just played win place and show and forgot that there were exotics in every race today, they could last, but that isn't reality.

The reality is that today's player will take $100 or $200 to the track and play exactors, triactors, pick3's etc. all at much higher takeouts because they are looking for the score. And because there are other tracks now offered, there is very little chance that the gambler will go home most days with enough to be enthused to go back tomorrow. Not like the 60's and early 70's.


OTM: In fact, I would argue on average a 1% decrease in takeout would not result in a like increase in returns on many bets. Lower odds horses would still be driven down to near the same levels. I would have to believe, without seeing evidence otherwise, it would be the payoffs on the longer odds horses that would pay better. Lower take should not uniformly increase payoffs by the same % amounts across the board but should skew with proportionally greater amounts bet to the more likely winners or winning combinations. The most frequent winning bets would pay more, but not by the full amount.
***********************
Actually, that just doesn't make any sense. Of course, a lower takeout will result in more money be given to players every race, so collectively the gamblers will wind up with more money after a race is official the lower the takeout. I'm not arguing about what the exact prices the longshots or fave's go off at, you are speculating here, but what we see on Betfair, is that most favorites pay more at Betfair than they do at the track.

OTM Al
07-30-2009, 10:10 AM
I'm going to go one more time then I'm done with this.

Dean: One more time. I do not disagree that take needs to be lowered. Let me say that again. I do not disagree. However, it is not by itself enough. It is a part that needs addressed, but it will not fix everything by itself. It's like I always argue with baseball fans who keep parroting what they hear. Pitching and defense do not, by themselves win championships. They are only half of what is needed. Reduced take is a big component, but without other strategies the population of players will continue to dwindle and drop the take all you want, it does nothing if no money is going into the pools. Keep up your work, but there are others out there doing other things that need be done too.

As to our authiorized sponsor:


You are missing the fact that it is human nature for the gambler or horseplayer to make a score when they go to the track. Sure, if the gambler just played win place and show and forgot that there were exotics in every race today, they could last, but that isn't reality.

The reality is that today's player will take $100 or $200 to the track and play exactors, triactors, pick3's etc. all at much higher takeouts because they are looking for the score. And because there are other tracks now offered, there is very little chance that the gambler will go home most days with enough to be enthused to go back tomorrow. Not like the 60's and early 70's.

You said this was due to takeout. I said it was due to a change in behavior. Now you seem to agree. So what's your point? People that behave stupidly with their money are going to get cleaned out no matter what gaming they are involved in. Please don't blame stupid behavior on takeout. This argument is a complete non sequitur

Actually, that just doesn't make any sense. Of course, a lower takeout will result in more money be given to players every race, so collectively the gamblers will wind up with more money after a race is official the lower the takeout. I'm not arguing about what the exact prices the longshots or fave's go off at, you are speculating here, but what we see on Betfair, is that most favorites pay more at Betfair than they do at the track.

You don't understand what I'm saying. Of course with a lower take more money in total will be paid out, but as an individual bettor, what difference does that in and of itself make to me? Especially when the most likely winners are going to have their prices bid down pretty much as far as they are now. People that are willing to play a horse at 5/2 aren't going to change that assessment no matter what the take. My point is that a reduction in take is going to have the least affect on the prices paid on the most frequent winners. Longshots should start paying quite a bit more however. I'm saying that the increase in amounts paid for a winning ticket will not be uniform accross all possible prices. What do I care if a pool goes up by $100,000 if I only net $4.10 instead of $4 on a horse that was 2-1 unless I'm a whale?

Now I'm done.

Horseplayersbet.com
07-30-2009, 10:57 AM
OTM: You said this was due to takeout. I said it was due to a change in behavior. Now you seem to agree. So what's your point? People that behave stupidly with their money are going to get cleaned out no matter what gaming they are involved in. Please don't blame stupid behavior on takeout. This argument is a complete non sequitur
*******************************
If takeouts were reduced across the board on every bet to say 15% on everything, it would take longer to clean people out. The longer a person lasts, the more apt they are to return to the track or bet more on the internet, etc. The more likely they are to spend more time handicapping, and watching races too, the more likely they are to go to the track and maybe get friends and family involved. Out of the friends and family, there will be a percentage that will come back more frequently, and the odd one will eventually become a regular too.

This happened in the 60's and 70's. It doesn't happen very often anymore, because customers go broke too fast.



OTM: You don't understand what I'm saying. Of course with a lower take more money in total will be paid out, but as an individual bettor, what difference does that in and of itself make to me? Especially when the most likely winners are going to have their prices bid down pretty much as far as they are now. People that are willing to play a horse at 5/2 aren't going to change that assessment no matter what the take. My point is that a reduction in take is going to have the least affect on the prices paid on the most frequent winners. Longshots should start paying quite a bit more however. I'm saying that the increase in amounts paid for a winning ticket will not be uniform accross all possible prices. What do I care if a pool goes up by $100,000 if I only net $4.10 instead of $4 on a horse that was 2-1 unless I'm a whale?
************************
Seriously, if that is your attitude, I don't see any argument against having the takeout raised to 70%. :)

DeanT
07-30-2009, 12:14 PM
Hey Al,

Dont get me wrong, I am fully on board with you on several things. Namely, a lot has to be done, and there are a lot of good people in racing who want to do them, but are handcuffed. We have much to do.

I am just focused on this because it goes to the heart of our game. People in marketing departments have to sell racing. People at tracks do, and at ADW's do. Racing is a game with a tagline of "you can beat a race but you can not beat the races". I feel for everyone having to sell that game to people, and I think that they are up against it. It would be like marketing a restaurant with a tagline of "dont come here, the food sucks".

I sincerely think if we can get rid of that tagline and have more people going home with more money, or at the very least lasting longer, we can market the sport and grow it to new and old fans alike. I think it should be the first step, not the last.