PDA

View Full Version : HANA involvement in saving Ellis Park?


jonnielu
08-20-2009, 12:03 AM
Is there going to be any? There is 10 days left to the meeting, a real dirt track and an owner that is determined to keep a player-focused track open. Will HANA be giving the guy a hand?

jdl

cj
08-20-2009, 12:25 AM
There are conflicting agendas there. He wants slots, but slots are bad for horseplayers.

jonnielu
08-20-2009, 08:02 AM
There are conflicting agendas there. He wants slots, but slots are bad for horseplayers.

There's no conflict in saving EP, maybe in how to do it. It is a perfect opportunity for horseplayers to step in, and save EP without slots. Turfway, Keeneland, CD follow.

In the next 4 months, horseplayers can play a huge role in convincing Kentucky racing that it doesn't need an easy way out. The way out is the positive promotion of the sport.

jdl

Jeff P
08-20-2009, 06:51 PM
posted in another thread:So then, HANA has no interest in trying to keep a race track open in Kentucky?Racing in KY and elsewhere isn't in trouble because they couldn't get slots. Slots have been a handle killer everywhere slots have been put in side by side next to racing. "We put on the show" racing can't compete with slots and never will.

Slots aren't going to save racing. Racing is the only thing that can save racing.

Huh?

Racing is in trouble because of 5 key big picture areas that drive customer dollars elsewhere:

1. Takeout
2. Signal Availability
3. Pool Integrity
4. Drugs
5. Quality of the Product

The way out is a complete paradigm shift from those running racing. Racing needs to make racing attractive enough from a gambling perspective so that racing can actually compete with the other forms of gambling that are kicking racing's ass... slots, poker, blackjack, sports betting, etc. Until that happens a lot of tracks are going to struggle and more than a few are probably going to shut their doors.

I'm guessing that Ellis Park is going to lose somewhere between $1 to $2 million over the course of the current meet - maybe more. It would take every HANA member writing a check for close to $2,000 and handing it over to Ellis Park as a donation to make enough of a difference for Mr. Geary (who IS one of the more player friendly track owners out there) to justify keeping the doors open.

Don't get me wrong. There IS player interest among HANA members in saving Ellis Park. And some of that interest is PASSIONATE. But HANA isn't big enough (yet) to realistically save Ellis Park.

It's up to track owners and horsemen to have a paradigm shift. Short of that, many track owners are going to soon be facing similar decisions to what Mr. Geary is facing now.



-jp

.

jonnielu
08-20-2009, 09:06 PM
[QUOTE=Jeff P]posted in another thread:Racing in KY and elsewhere isn't in trouble because they couldn't get slots. Slots have been a handle killer everywhere slots have been put in side by side next to racing. "We put on the show" racing can't compete with slots and never will.

Slots aren't going to save racing. Racing is the only thing that can save racing.

Huh?


Hey Jeff,

I never suggested that Kentucky, or racing anywhere else should get slots.


Racing is in trouble because of 5 key big picture areas that drive customer dollars elsewhere:

1. Takeout
2. Signal Availability
3. Pool Integrity
4. Drugs
5. Quality of the Product


Maybe there should be some definition applied to the idea that racing is in trouble. There is no trouble for those people that own it. Sure, they need your dollars to continue running their game at your expense, but, your dollars will come to them one way or another. The only people that are troubled, are those that realize this is the only arena where the common man/woman can compete with those that own him anyway.

For those people, the trouble is that they can no longer compete well at the windows. If they could, management might listen to them, but why ask or take advice on how to win the race from the trailers?



The way out is a complete paradigm shift from those running racing. Racing needs to make racing attractive enough from a gambling perspective so that racing can actually compete with the other forms of gambling that are kicking racing's ass... slots, poker, blackjack, sports betting, etc. Until that happens a lot of tracks are going to struggle and more than a few are probably going to shut their doors.


Other forms of gambling are kicking racing's ass because people believe that they have a shot at those games. They don't believe that they have a shot at horse racing. It was real simple in 1936, and it is still real simple.


I'm guessing that Ellis Park is going to lose somewhere between $1 to $2 million over the course of the current meet - maybe more. It would take every HANA member writing a check for close to $2,000 and handing it over to Ellis Park as a donation to make enough of a difference for Mr. Geary (who IS one of the more player friendly track owners out there) to justify keeping the doors open.


Is there a need for this ridiculous analogy? Nobody suggested taking up a 2 mill collection for Ellis Park. What was suggested was that 1000 people focusing play and publicity on Ellis Park over a period of 3 weeks and 10 days of racing could generate enough handle to cause Mr. Geary to re-consider folding his tent for 2010.

And, it isn't just to put money in the ELP till either, it is to demonstrate that people can influence this sport, attract other people to it, and compete well enough to announce themselves winners. I thought that perhaps HANA was an organization that could see things as they have never been, and ask, why not? Instead, you seem to have an expectation to lose.

If 1000 people go to ELP tomorrow and box 4 horses in the exacta all day long, in round numbers, that's $50,000 to ELP - X 10 days is $500,000.

If these people had some good information to work with, they might win 2 of those exactas on the first half of the card, and decide to double their bets on the second half of the card. That might be $75,000 to ELP - X 10 days is $750,000.

If those very same people were to win 2 more exactas on the second half of the card, they might have doubled what they expected to bet today. What will the strategy be tomorrow? Maybe those 1000 people could discuss their problem with 1000 other people who will decide that if those people are winning, they will try it too. Maybe only 500 more will wade in, and maybe by day 6 there will be 6000 people winning 40% of their bets because HANA and ELP are supplying them with something they have never had before. Sound information.

The problem for the common man/woman in racing is that they aren't doing the winning. Maybe not so simple to solve, because your opposition are the people that are doing most of the winning. The only way to get it back is to beat them at their own game, and the best way to do that is to turn their weakness into your strength.

Simple, 1000 winners come in to Ellis Park, 3000 leave 10 days later.



Don't get me wrong. There IS player interest among HANA members in saving Ellis Park. And some of that interest is PASSIONATE. But HANA isn't big enough (yet) to realistically save Ellis Park.

It's up to track owners and horsemen to have a paradigm shift. Short of that, many track owners are going to soon be facing similar decisions to what Mr. Geary is facing now.


Leave it up to them if you want to, I'll wager that you just get more of the same. Nobody likes change, especially when money just walks in the door. If the good stuff isn't coming in your door, you'll have to go out and change something, because there will always be more people that like things just the way they are.

jdl

Jeff P
08-20-2009, 10:13 PM
Other forms of gambling are kicking racing's ass because people believe that they have a shot at those games. They don't believe that they have a shot at horse racing. Truer words have never been spoken - especially the bolded last sentence which makes my point:

Without a complete paradigm shift from the industry itself racing is in serious trouble.

Maybe there should be some definition applied to the idea that racing is in trouble. There is no trouble for those people that own it. Are you absolutely sure about that?

Handle is off about $1 billion this year vs. this same time period from last year... and last year was off significantly vs. the same time period from the year before. If you put it on a graph it looks like Wiley Coyote in a The Roadrunner cartoon going off a cliff.

The owner of Ellis Park is seriously considering closing the doors for good after the end of the current meet. Why? Because he is losing significant money (in the low seven figures) by running a meet. If he doesn't run a meet next year he at least doesn't lose money. Other track operators are facing similar decisions. The idea of Ellis and other tracks closing kills me. I love betting Ellis Park. And I love betting other places that are sure to follow.

But my handle and the handle of others like me isn't enough. Even if I rounded up the best and brightest horseplayers that I know... and believe me when I tell you there is some serious fire power handicapping and betting-wise among the HANA Board, Advisory Board, membership, and a handful here at PA that maybe aren't HANA members... and among that last category know that I am talking about key decision makers from some of the world's largest computer teams with whom I have spoken with at length - even if I rounded up the best and brightest players on the planet - and brought them all to Ellis - and THEY gave out really solid information (I have to admit this would be an absolute blast!) - JDL, it wouldn't be enough.

Racing is a parimutuel game. For there to be winners there have to be losers. No matter how strong the information we might be able to give out... WHO are we going to win money from? There isn't enough unsophisticated money sitting in the Ellis pools to WIN the kind of money it would take to do what you are suggesting.

Simple Econ 101. Ellis park has smallish pools. An infusion of smart money into smallish pools isn't going to make those smallish pools grow.

Don't get me wrong. I hate the idea of Ellis and other tracks closing.

But for smallish pools to grow, racing needs a paradigm shift. It's the only way to bring significant new money into the game.


-jp

.

JustRalph
08-20-2009, 10:20 PM
Less Tracks, good for the game...........


Just my opine

jonnielu
08-21-2009, 09:24 AM
Truer words have never been spoken - especially the bolded last sentence which makes my point:

Without a complete paradigm shift from the industry itself racing is in serious trouble.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Handle is off about $1 billion this year vs. this same time period from last year... and last year was off significantly vs. the same time period from the year before. If you put it on a graph it looks like Wiley Coyote in a The Roadrunner cartoon going off a cliff.

The owner of Ellis Park is seriously considering closing the doors for good after the end of the current meet. Why? Because he is losing significant money (in the low seven figures) by running a meet. If he doesn't run a meet next year he at least doesn't lose money. Other track operators are facing similar decisions. The idea of Ellis and other tracks closing kills me. I love betting Ellis Park. And I love betting other places that are sure to follow.

But my handle and the handle of others like me isn't enough. Even if I rounded up the best and brightest horseplayers that I know... and believe me when I tell you there is some serious fire power handicapping and betting-wise among the HANA Board, Advisory Board, membership, and a handful here at PA that maybe aren't HANA members... and among that last category know that I am talking about key decision makers from some of the world's largest computer teams with whom I have spoken with at length - even if I rounded up the best and brightest players on the planet - and brought them all to Ellis - and THEY gave out really solid information (I have to admit this would be an absolute blast!) - JDL, it wouldn't be enough.

Racing is a parimutuel game. For there to be winners there have to be losers. No matter how strong the information we might be able to give out... WHO are we going to win money from? There isn't enough unsophisticated money sitting in the Ellis pools to WIN the kind of money it would take to do what you are suggesting.

Simple Econ 101. Ellis park has smallish pools. An infusion of smart money into smallish pools isn't going to make those smallish pools grow.

Don't get me wrong. I hate the idea of Ellis and other tracks closing.

But for smallish pools to grow, racing needs a paradigm shift. It's the only way to bring significant new money into the game.


-jp

.

Paradigm shifts are the results of other influences.

Find one little speck nugget of gold in your backyard, put the story in the newspaper, do you think anyone will show up wanting to dig?

The racing information industry has been broadcasting "you can't win" for 30 years, and two generations of people believe it because grandpa has been handicapping for 40 years, and still isn't winning. Shift that for two years.

If the brightest minds in racing can't win 4 exactas on a 10 race card with 4 horses, then they are operating with some poor information.

Which is my point. Who owns, and commands the information, and its format?
These people seem to be happy with the way things are.

jdl

Horseplayersbet.com
08-21-2009, 09:31 AM
Paradigm shifts are the results of other influences.

Find one little speck nugget of gold in your backyard, put the story in the newspaper, do you think anyone will show up wanting to dig?

The racing information industry has been broadcasting "you can't win" for 30 years, and two generations of people believe it because grandpa has been handicapping for 40 years, and still isn't winning. Shift that for two years.

If the brightest minds in racing can't win 4 exactas on a 10 race card with 4 horses, then they are operating with some poor information.

Which is my point. Who owns, and commands the information, and its format?
These people seem to be happy with the way things are.

jdl
It is harder to win now than ever before unless you are getting a substantial rebate.
40 years ago, it could be done. Certain players had their own speed figures which was a huge advantage, and there was tons of sucker money in the pools because of lack of gambling competition.

Nowadays, almost every player is equipped with past performances or a computer printout based on past performances or both, and the collective track takeout has risen from around 17% to 21% (thanks to all the supers and tris offered).

Now it is good handicappers against great handicappers at a higher rate.

"You can't win" is more true today than ever before.

jonnielu
08-21-2009, 10:31 AM
Are you absolutely sure about that?

Handle is off about $1 billion this year vs. this same time period from last year... and last year was off significantly vs. the same time period from the year before. If you put it on a graph it looks like Wiley Coyote in a The Roadrunner cartoon going off a cliff.


-jp

.

Two points:

1. How much of this is offset by racing's information industry?

2. Is there a better way to appeal to states for slots then to cut their action?

Only my opinion formed through 40 years of observation, but, things are rarely as complicated as they may seem.

A simple experiment would be to use this tremendous tool that we all have on our side, and simply bet, on paper $176, at ELP. That is what it would take to box the 4 lowest ML horses in exactas at $2 a throw, $24 X 8 races.

At the end of the day, we can see what we won or lost, and reckon on what X 1000 would have done for the handle.

jdl

jonnielu
08-21-2009, 10:36 AM
It is harder to win now than ever before unless you are getting a substantial rebate.
40 years ago, it could be done. Certain players had their own speed figures which was a huge advantage, and there was tons of sucker money in the pools because of lack of gambling competition.

Nowadays, almost every player is equipped with past performances or a computer printout based on past performances or both, and the collective track takeout has risen from around 17% to 21% (thanks to all the supers and tris offered).

Now it is good handicappers against great handicappers at a higher rate.

"You can't win" is more true today than ever before.

But, could that be due to the last big paradigm shift?

The one that resulted from the discovery that there is a lot of money in racing information, as long as you only put out enough, or the type, to create a need for more information.

jdl

ryesteve
08-21-2009, 11:37 AM
A simple experiment would be to use this tremendous tool that we all have on our side, and simply bet, on paper $176, at ELP. That is what it would take to box the 4 lowest ML horses in exactas at $2 a throw, $24 X 8 races.It'd be a lot less work, and just as profitable, to just mail them a check.

Horseplayersbet.com
08-21-2009, 11:58 AM
But, could that be due to the last big paradigm shift?

The one that resulted from the discovery that there is a lot of money in racing information, as long as you only put out enough, or the type, to create a need for more information.

jdl
I wouldn't call the new information age a paradigm shift in horse racing. We just lost most of the sucker money that was in the pools and we have to overcome higher takeouts.

The only edge information has these days is if it is pertinent and it is viewed by as few people as possible.

Charli125
08-21-2009, 12:58 PM
Two points:

1. How much of this is offset by racing's information industry?

2. Is there a better way to appeal to states for slots then to cut their action?

Only my opinion formed through 40 years of observation, but, things are rarely as complicated as they may seem.

A simple experiment would be to use this tremendous tool that we all have on our side, and simply bet, on paper $176, at ELP. That is what it would take to box the 4 lowest ML horses in exactas at $2 a throw, $24 X 8 races.

At the end of the day, we can see what we won or lost, and reckon on what X 1000 would have done for the handle.

jdl

Maybe I'm just dense, but I still fail to see what your "tremendous tool" will do to help at ELP. So because it's the guaranteed magic winner picker we can pour all of our cash through the windows there(at the detriment of other tracks by the way)?

On second thought, I don't think I'm the dense one. I also think there might be more than one "tremendous tool" on this board.

jonnielu
08-21-2009, 03:01 PM
Maybe I'm just dense, but I still fail to see what your "tremendous tool" will do to help at ELP. So because it's the guaranteed magic winner picker we can pour all of our cash through the windows there(at the detriment of other tracks by the way)?

On second thought, I don't think I'm the dense one. I also think there might be more than one "tremendous tool" on this board.

The tremendous tool is your computer, it can be used to transport you to far away places and it allows you to communicate with others in several different ways at low cost.

jdl

turfnsport
08-21-2009, 03:14 PM
We just lost most of the sucker money that was in the pools and we have to overcome higher takeouts.


That's it in a nutshell. Not even a "tremendous tool" like Jon can fix it. :D

Warren Henry
08-21-2009, 03:54 PM
Is this thread legitimately about saving Ellis, or about funding JDL?

What his theory fails to address is how the impact of his 1001 informed bettors will influence the price of the exactas he claims we will win.

If a thousand of us bet our exacta boxes into smallish pools and most of us are playing the same combos, our price on our winners will probably be below the amount of our bets. Thus, we are volunteering to lose a substantial amount of money. And, that loss will in turn attract others to do the same?

Sorry, but the way I see it, the only person/entity that would profit from this theory would be JDL who would collect our investment money.

jonnielu
08-21-2009, 08:13 PM
Is this thread legitimately about saving Ellis, or about funding JDL?

What his theory fails to address is how the impact of his 1001 informed bettors will influence the price of the exactas he claims we will win.

If a thousand of us bet our exacta boxes into smallish pools and most of us are playing the same combos, our price on our winners will probably be below the amount of our bets. Thus, we are volunteering to lose a substantial amount of money. And, that loss will in turn attract others to do the same?

Sorry, but the way I see it, the only person/entity that would profit from this theory would be JDL who would collect our investment money.

Testing the theory on paper for today would show 6 of 8 exactas won for a payoff of $205.80 Gross - $192.00 Bet = $13.80 Net.

Maybe a math guy could reckon up the impact, if any, of 1001 bettors betting the same, I believe, 5 combinations into the pool and winning on one of them. I don't think it would be a big deal.

And, if it were, perhaps we could sucker 500 of the 1000 into betting lowest 4 ML in all the Pk3's 4X4X4 with $384.00, so they would only get back $845.00 on the chalkfest of a day.

jdl

chickenhead
08-21-2009, 10:04 PM
For the 1st race, a winning $2,000 exacta box of 4 horses (cost, $24,000) would have moved the price down to $22.40, taking a $4,800 potential gain down to a $1,600 loss.

A 4 horse box of the favorites is undoubtedly a tremendously toolish way to play, but I think you'd need something even better, if possible. Hitting it cold would have taken the payout all the way down to $15, but at least you'd have made some money, though you wouldn't have contributed nearly as much to Ellis' handle or coffers.

jonnielu
08-21-2009, 10:13 PM
For the 1st race, a winning $2,000 exacta box of 4 horses (cost, $24,000) would have moved the price down to $22.40, taking a $4,800 potential gain down to a $1,600 loss.

A 4 horse box of the favorites is undoubtedly a tremendously toolish way to play, but I think you'd need something even better, if possible. Hitting it cold would have taken the payout all the way down to $15, but at least you'd have made some money, though you wouldn't have contributed nearly as much to Ellis' handle or coffers.

Setting aside, if possible, notions of what is foolish or not, for just a brief time, would there be some handle contribution to repeat this 8 times today?

jdl

Dave Schwartz
08-21-2009, 10:50 PM
A small opinion here:

Ellis Park is, perhaps, a perfect example of the stupidity of racing management. Here you have a model of a track losing money until the owner becomes convinced that he cannot change it, and therefore must close.

How many other tracks are similar enough to Ellis Park that they should be seeing the handwriting on the proverbial wall? And yet they don't?

My point is - as has been discussed ad nauseum by HANA and its followers - the tracks need to be open to change.

I can easily imagine a bunch of track executives sitting around a boardroom table looking for ideas to "right the ship." One says, "How about we become the most customer-friendly track in the country by offering a rebate scheme for the every-day medium volume player?"

The collective response, would likely be to ignore that idea because it is "customer-sided." KInd of like, "Instead, let's see what happens if we raise the take a half point."


All HANA can do is what it is doing - which is to educate and preach "change is essential" to the tracks. More members well help them do everything better, of course, but, as stated in this thread there are limits WITHOUT COOPERATION from the track(s).

Will it work? Probably not. Will tracks close? Probably so.

The more I think about this, the more I realize that it is like throwing a life preserver to someone who has jumped overboard on purpose. Some people (or race tracks) will simply not be saved.



BTW, what is the current HANA member count?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

BillW
08-21-2009, 10:55 PM
BTW, what is the current HANA member count?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Around 1250

rrbauer
08-22-2009, 08:48 AM
Ellis Park is, perhaps, a perfect example of the stupidity of racing management. Here you have a model of a track losing money until the owner becomes convinced that he cannot change it, and therefore must close.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Ellis was a loser for openers. The stupidity started when the owner put down his money. Does anyone think that CDSN would sell a winner?

Why horseplayers should go out of their way to "save" a racetrack, escapes me. The proposition should be the other way around.

jonnielu
08-22-2009, 10:21 AM
A small opinion here:

Ellis Park is, perhaps, a perfect example of the stupidity of racing management. Here you have a model of a track losing money until the owner becomes convinced that he cannot change it, and therefore must close.

How many other tracks are similar enough to Ellis Park that they should be seeing the handwriting on the proverbial wall? And yet they don't?

My point is - as has been discussed ad nauseum by HANA and its followers - the tracks need to be open to change.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I would wager that they are, just look at the weiner dog races, ostrich races, $1 beer and hot dog nights.

It is just that they like their ideas better than yours, and why not, while everybody is playing a guessing game? After all, they get paid to try to win new customers and image is everything these days. One pound of substance and a dollar will only get you a donut in most towns.

The problem is that it is obvious that no one has identified the core reason that people come to a race track in the first place. Race track management has no clue, else they wouldn't be closing, begging for slots, and trying to turn Hialeah into "Condos by the slum".

How about HANA? Hey, they are handing out something for nothing, everybody loves that concept. So, HANA has put 1250 into their stadium with this concept and proposes to instruct race track mangement in filling theirs. Maybe something for nothing is not what people are really after. Could the idea just be more imagery, lacking in real substance.

Could it possibly be that people would come back to horse racing in 2009 for the same reasons that they showed up in 1936?

Maybe it could, but there is one problem with simplicity, any dumbass that is smart enough is highly qualified to experiment with simplicity.

If some dumbass were to come along and tell both race track management and HANA to look back to 1936 for the answer to promoting racing in 2009, there is no possible way they could do it.

Both groups are too highly trained in the image of their own smartness to do something like that.

jdl

jonnielu
08-22-2009, 10:26 AM
Ellis was a loser for openers. The stupidity started when the owner put down his money. Does anyone think that CDSN would sell a winner?

Why horseplayers should go out of their way to "save" a racetrack, escapes me. The proposition should be the other way around.

Why do we believe that CDSN can discern a winner from a loser? I'd wager that they buy Ellis back just as soon as the Kentucky legislature passes slots. The plans for the ELP racino are probably already drawn.

jdl

turfnsport
08-22-2009, 10:51 AM
Why horseplayers should go out of their way to "save" a racetrack, escapes me. The proposition should be the other way around.

That is an asute observation. We are losing horseplayers at an alarming rate, not racetracks.

kroebuck67
08-22-2009, 10:58 AM
I made the attached spreadsheet for Ellis 8/21 based on the Equibase charts. I made the assumption that pools listed there were after the takeout. I came up with a bit over $300K in gaming revenue for what seemed like a slow day (judging from the HANA avg MUT pool listed on the website). Feel free to point out flaws in my computations.

Just using this day as a general benchmark, is that, along with profits from concessions, admission, parking, etc., really not enough to cover operating expenses of running a small(?.. dunno' never been there) track, with a little left for your pocket? I'm just wondering out loud, because I have no idea.

sjk
08-22-2009, 11:27 AM
Your computation supposes that all of the bets are made on track. The great preponderance of the money comes from elsewhere and the takeout for those bets goes largely to the ADWs and other betting venues that take the bets.

kroebuck67
08-22-2009, 11:45 AM
Very good point, thanks. I also did not think about KY and fed taxes... probably a pretty large chunk.

What is the % of takeout that goes to KY and/or Uncle Sam?

kroebuck67
08-22-2009, 12:10 PM
I also just came across an article saying that EP dropped the Pick4 takeout to 4%.

oop.... now I see that article is from 2007.... guess HANA's table of takeouts is more up-to-date?

BillW
08-22-2009, 12:57 PM
I also just came across an article saying that EP dropped the Pick4 takeout to 4%.

oop.... now I see that article is from 2007.... guess HANA's table of takeouts is more up-to-date?

Yes :)

Dave Schwartz
08-22-2009, 12:58 PM
Around 1250

That's a good number. However, it is still not even close to being enough to create change. I'd say that at 30-40 times that figure HANA will have some clout.

You know, I just had a thought - admittedly a bit random - Equibase was (supposedly) begun to further the Jockey Club (i.e. the horsemen's side of racing). They chose to control the data.

HANA must become big enough to control something - wagering?

If that is achieved real power to effect change will exist.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Gorrex
08-22-2009, 01:18 PM
Then you need a way to get more people joined to HANA.

How many every day bettors will EVER visit this site? There are millions of people that bet, what is Pace and HANA's unique hits up to?

If you really want to grow this, get some material together and give it out to current members that visit tracks/otbs. Some tracks would be opposed to it, but I doubt many.

Make your voice heard to the people that will enable you to have the ones that matter listen.

BillW
08-22-2009, 01:32 PM
That's a good number. However, it is still not even close to being enough to create change. I'd say that at 30-40 times that figure HANA will have some clout.



I put it at about 80x but we're in the same ballpark!

cj
08-22-2009, 01:55 PM
I put it at about 80x but we're in the same ballpark!

I don't think there are not that many horseplayers in the country if you don't count people that go once or twice a year.

BillW
08-22-2009, 02:05 PM
I don't think there are not that many horseplayers in the country if you don't count people that go once or twice a year.

I should say 80x in terms of the handle of what we calculate our avg. member to play.

BillW
08-22-2009, 03:34 PM
That's a good number. However, it is still not even close to being enough to create change. I'd say that at 30-40 times that figure HANA will have some clout.



I should also note that we have a lot of support from non-members as evidenced by recent handle trends. ;)

Dave Schwartz
08-22-2009, 06:39 PM
You are right - ultimately, it will come down to handle.

like the fact that the figure quoted in this thread:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60879

... matches my predictions of whales almost precisely. I believe I said 14-15% nationally and at smaller, high rebate tracks it was twice that or a little more.

The point is that the only bettors who could effect change NOW are the whales.

HANA will need to control at least 5% of total handle, if not more. So, how many $10 bettors does it take to wager 5% of $14 billion?

If we consider that a $10 player betting 20 races per day is wagering $50,000 per year as little as 14,000 members would be significant. Of course, it takes five $2 players to make a $10 player. How much does the average HANA player wager? Just do the math.

sjk
08-22-2009, 07:50 PM
How many people do you think are betting 5,000 races a year? I would not think as many as 14,000.

Dave Schwartz
08-22-2009, 08:14 PM
Good point.

It does illustrate how many you must have to be "powerful enough" to have clout.


Dave

jonnielu
08-22-2009, 09:55 PM
Good point.

It does illustrate how many you must have to be "powerful enough" to have clout.


Dave

Fortunately for governments and those that own things, it will probably be another century or two until things come back around to people believing that they could effect anything.

It seems that management in Kentucky is truly inspired at how quickly and easily the horseplayer was defeated in their wants and desires. The slots are on the way, a few senate votes will be like tending to a minor detail. Next, the minimum wager can go up to $50 on premises and that will keep the rif-raf over there in the slots area.

jdl

rokitman
09-10-2009, 12:24 PM
Maybe I'm just dense, but I still fail to see what your "tremendous tool" will do to help at ELP. So because it's the guaranteed magic winner picker we can pour all of our cash through the windows there(at the detriment of other tracks by the way)?

On second thought, I don't think I'm the dense one. I also think there might be more than one "tremendous tool" on this board.
:lol:

rrbauer
09-11-2009, 04:56 PM
That's a good number. However, it is still not even close to being enough to create change. I'd say that at 30-40 times that figure HANA will have some clout.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Based on what? A SWAG? 1250 members doing nothing will yield nothing and that's what 1250 members are doing: Nothing. I recall a post from you, maybe a year ago, that stated 25,000 members were needed. Now it's 50,000? As an aside, for someone who makes his living from horseplayers what have you done on HANA's behalf?

ezrabrooks
09-17-2009, 11:44 PM
Hard to believe that Dave Schwartz is getting shot at on this forum. Dave is one of the good guys, regardless if he sells a product, or not.

Ez