PDA

View Full Version : HANA Track Ratings w/ a Bell Curve


machine
08-27-2009, 01:20 PM
Ever since the HANA ratings came out they really made no sense to me, there is just far too much subjectivity in them, thanks to the new resources tab I put all the numbers on a bell curve and they make a lot more sense now.

the link is here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tMwjoVIyNPhGd9AEKn3nT6w&output=html
(http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tMwjoVIyNPhGd9AEKn3nT6w&output=html)
For tracks that don't have a takeout on a bet because they don't offer the bet I put the max in. I summed up the bell scores for TO, higher the worse and then subtracted from 1, and added the other bell scores (the rest are all good things, offering a .10 super etc etc) If a track offered it I scored it a 1, if not a 0.

I think this top 10 jives a lot more than seeing Remington #3 =
1 Keeneland, 2 Del Mar, 3 SA, 4 Churchill, 5 Gulfstream, 6 Oaklawn, 7 Hollywood, 8 Hoosier, 9 Tampa, 10 Saratoga


The only thing I think that should be added is purse size.

rrbauer
09-06-2009, 12:33 PM
I think this top 10 jives a lot more than seeing Remington #3 =
1 Keeneland, 2 Del Mar, 3 SA, 4 Churchill, 5 Gulfstream, 6 Oaklawn, 7 Hollywood, 8 Hoosier, 9 Tampa, 10 Saratoga


The only thing I think that should be added is purse size.

Remington was never #3. That was a mistake and it wasn't convenient (or whatever) for HANA leadership to correct it even though they knew about it within a day of its announcement.

Jeff P
09-06-2009, 01:36 PM
The only thing subjective about the ratings was a decision to rate tracks on takeout, field size, and wager variety. And that decision was made long before we ever had data in our hands - and we certainly had no idea which tracks would end up rated where. To imply that the rating system system was "subjective" is simply ridiculous.

And Richard is absolutely right about Remington. My understanding is that we realized the mistake shortly after the "final" list had already been given to The Blood Horse. It was a group decision (in which I said ok) to make the correction known afterwards when the final list was published on our site.

But Remington still ended up at #6:
http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbyoverallscore.html

Which means they were player friendly when it comes to takeout, field size, and wager variety.


-jp

.

highnote
09-06-2009, 06:29 PM
The only thing I think that should be added is purse size.


I don't know about you, but I've never bet on a race because of it's purse was a certain size. Does it matter whether the KY Derby has a $2 million purse and not a $5 million purse?

I've bet more on races with low purses at Mountaineer than I have at any other track in the country.

Higher is not necessarily better, in my opinion.

You might like races with higher purses. If you do and I don't then "purse size" would be a subjective rating, in my opinion. I might feel that tracks with lower purses are more desirable than tracks with higher purses, all else being equal. You may feel just the opposite. If that is the case then how what is the proper way to rate a track on purse size?

DeanT
09-06-2009, 07:15 PM
I agree, purse size is totally subjective and linked to slots and racedates.

Each metric used is one that a track can improve: Offer new wagers which are player friendly. Lower takeout which is player friendly or increase field size by writing races and working hard to fill them. All achievable things that shoudl be rewarded.

Increasing purse size? Two ways: Get slots or cut your dates. I think it would be crazy if KEE or SAR cut their meet to two weeks to get purse size up and get rewarded for it in the HANA ratings.

To think Woodbines $77k maiden special weight races and 27% exotic takes would get rewarded is not something I would be comfortable with.

chickenhead
09-06-2009, 09:41 PM
I think it's good to talk about how things are weighted....saying they're subjective is not terribly useful, it's misleading in the sense most people use it. You can't design something like this without being subjective (because you designed it), your design is no less subjective than the first HANA model. I think arbitrary is a better word, the weightings are somewhat arbitrary.

I think/hope there are some plans in place to decide the weightings by more generally transparent method for next years model.

Horseplayersbet.com
09-07-2009, 07:20 AM
I think it's good to talk about how things are weighted....saying they're subjective is not terribly useful, it's misleading in the sense most people use it. You can't design something like this without being subjective (because you designed it), your design is no less subjective than the first HANA model. I think arbitrary is a better word, the weightings are somewhat arbitrary.

I think/hope there are some plans in place to decide the weightings by more generally transparent method for next years model.
True, no matter what we do it is subjective, no matter if it is purely based on objective data, as long as we use at least more than one factor to make the rankings.

rokitman
09-18-2009, 10:39 AM
Ever since the HANA ratings came out they really made no sense to me, there is just far too much subjectivity in them, thanks to the new resources tab I put all the numbers on a bell curve and they make a lot more sense now.

the link is here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tMwjoVIyNPhGd9AEKn3nT6w&output=html
(http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tMwjoVIyNPhGd9AEKn3nT6w&output=html)
For tracks that don't have a takeout on a bet because they don't offer the bet I put the max in. I summed up the bell scores for TO, higher the worse and then subtracted from 1, and added the other bell scores (the rest are all good things, offering a .10 super etc etc) If a track offered it I scored it a 1, if not a 0.

I think this top 10 jives a lot more than seeing Remington #3 =
1 Keeneland, 2 Del Mar, 3 SA, 4 Churchill, 5 Gulfstream, 6 Oaklawn, 7 Hollywood, 8 Hoosier, 9 Tampa, 10 Saratoga


The only thing I think that should be added is purse size.
There is some smart people involved with HANA , and I'm sure the ranking system will be better the next time than the last because that's what smart people do. Fortunately, they already showed their smartness by leaving purse size out of it, and not rewarding the parasitic slots tracks with inflated purses who, having sucked the life out of horseplayers, have left them for dead and moved onto new hosts.

CBedo
09-18-2009, 02:33 PM
I think that something that might be helpful (not in rankings but for information purposes) in the track info would be the track layout. Length of stretch, Bullring, one versus two turn mile, etc.

miesque
09-18-2009, 02:39 PM
Personally, I would like to see a version of the ranking that included customer service/valuing their customers because based on my experiences there is quite a discrepancy and it does make a difference. I know that is a very qualitative/subjective measure, so maybe there should be two versions each year, one that is as quantitative based as it can be (aka a tweaking of the version we did last year) and then a second one with the qualitative factors like customer service, ambience, aestherics, cleanliness, attention to detail, or whatever).

CBedo
09-18-2009, 02:44 PM
Personally, I would like to see a version of the ranking that included customer service/valuing their customers because based on my experiences there is quite a discrepancy and it does make a difference. I know that is a very qualitative/subjective measure, so maybe there should be two versions each year, one that is as quantitative based as it can be (aka a tweaking of the version we did last year) and then a second one with the qualitative factors like customer service, ambience, aestherics, cleanliness, attention to detail, or whatever).I like the two version idea, one quantitative, and maybe one where all the HANA members pick their top ten or something similar, then total the points. I guess the issue with this is separating the on track versus living room player.

miesque
09-18-2009, 03:01 PM
I like the two version idea, one quantitative, and maybe one where all the HANA members pick their top ten or something similar, then total the points. I guess the issue with this is separating the on track versus living room player.

While on a day to day basis the customer service element is perhaps a bit more important for on track clientele, I do believe that a track's commitment customer (or lackthereof) is evident throughout the organization and hence does in some facet end up affecting those playing via simulcast/ADW. For a current example, just reference "No NYRA Video on 4NJBets" thread, now while that specifically does not affect me, I will state that I will be at Belmont in two weeks and part of me is dreading that instead of looking forward to it based on some of my past experiences.

BillW
09-18-2009, 03:18 PM
I envision a member rating system as Miesque describes (seperate from our present track rating system) here once we get our Website together. We need to set up our own site and have member login capability just to start. I equate what I have in mind to the something similar to what they have on Amazon.com or other web commerce sites only with maybe 5 or 10 different categories and the ability to write a commentary. This has been my vision for awhile now but, unfortunately most my ideas seem to be work intensive :bang: . We will get there.

CBedo
09-18-2009, 03:30 PM
I envision a member rating system as Miesque describes (seperate from our present track rating system) here once we get our Website together. We need to set up our own site and have member login capability just to start. I equate what I have in mind to the something similar to what they have on Amazon.com or other web commerce sites only with maybe 5 or 10 different categories and the ability to write a commentary. This has been my vision for awhile now but, unfortunately most my ideas seem to be work intensive :bang: . We will get there.Another way would be to have the objective HANA numbers/rankings, and then let a user input a his on weighting scheme to arrive at an overall ranking.

andymays
09-18-2009, 03:54 PM
Synthetic Surfaces :ThmbDown:

Two recent polls say so! :)

miesque
09-18-2009, 04:06 PM
Synthetic Surfaces :ThmbDown:

Two recent polls say so! :)

Well no matter how you are doing at the windows today you should consider yourself lucky you are not within arms length of me at the moment. :)

BillW
09-18-2009, 04:23 PM
Another way would be to have the objective HANA numbers/rankings, and then let a user input a his on weighting scheme to arrive at an overall ranking.

Noted - we had a similar idea for rebates - we can't publish them as they vary player to player. But we can (again once we have a login shell to allow us to save preferences) allow members to enter their own rebate levels and adjust the ratings based on "real takeout" for that individual.

BillW
09-18-2009, 04:27 PM
Synthetic Surfaces :ThmbDown:

Two recent polls say so! :)


Andy, we represent all horseplayers and as such respectfully decline. BTW not all polls indicate that ...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61515 ;)

Bill

andymays
09-18-2009, 04:30 PM
Well no matter how you are doing at the windows today you should consider yourself lucky you are not within arms length of me at the moment. :)


I figured you had me on ignore by now Miesque. ;)


Racing Executives should pay attention to their Customers and HANA should pay attention to the Horseplayer (Member) polls! ;)

Either way I'm more of an Independent Contractor anyway! ;)

andymays
09-18-2009, 04:35 PM
Andy, we represent all horseplayers and as such respectfully decline. BTW not all polls indicate that ...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61515 ;)

Bill


More than 2-1 hate it over love it in that poll!

There is no question that a majority would rather play dirt surfaces in areas with good weather.

miesque
09-18-2009, 04:38 PM
I figured you had me on ignore by now Miesque. ;)


Racing Executives should pay attention to their Customers and HANA should pay attention to the Horseplayer (Member) polls! ;)

Either way I'm more of an Independent Contractor anyway! ;)

By the way, please inform your wife/girlfriend that I will happily be a character witness in their defense if they ever snap and kill you because you just don't shut up and keep repeating the same simple minded thought over and over again and think of it as the singular truth. :)

BillW
09-18-2009, 04:40 PM
More than 2-1 hate it over love it in that poll!

There is no question that a majority would rather play dirt surfaces in areas with good weather.

There's something wrong with your browser. The poll says 30% "hate it" all others play it. In any case hating a racing surface is not part of our agenda.

andymays
09-18-2009, 04:42 PM
By the way, please inform your wife/girlfriend that I will happily be a character witness in their defense if they ever snap and kill you because you just don't shut up and keep repeating the same simple minded thought over and over again. :)


Actually she finds me very "you know" and interesting! Kinda like..........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bc0WjTT0Ps


As far as simple minded "back at you"! Over and Over again!

miesque
09-18-2009, 04:47 PM
As far as simple minded "back at you"! Over and Over again!

Thank you for further emphasizing my point.

andymays
09-18-2009, 04:54 PM
Thank you for further emphasizing my point.



Thank you for further emphasizing my point! :rolleyes:



In all seriousness and as you guys well know synthetic surfaces are my #1 issue and everyone I know knows it. It would be totally hypocritical of me to lend my name to any organization that promoted any Track with a synthetic surface at this point in time. If you intend to use the same rating system then please take me off the member list. If there is a way you can accomodate me and the majority of your members then I would be happy to stay on.

No hard feelings!

rokitman
09-18-2009, 07:57 PM
Thank you for further emphasizing my point! :rolleyes:



In all seriousness and as you guys well know synthetic surfaces are my #1 issue and everyone I know knows it. It would be totally hypocritical of me to lend my name to any organization that promoted any Track with a synthetic surface at this point in time. If you intend to use the same rating system then please take me off the member list. If there is a way you can accomodate me and the majority of your members then I would be happy to stay on.

No hard feelings!
Wait....you forgot your ball.
http://www.tampaturfandsupply.com/products/thmb_1062007_voly006_x.jpg

Indulto
09-18-2009, 08:10 PM
A horseplayer group rating tracks
Rated highest one with races run on wax
A hater of surfaces synthetic
Viewed their results as pathetic
Leading to an exchange of wisecracks

The initial takeout-based rendition
Was consistent with the groupís mission
Implemented silently by insiders
Without input from outsiders
It successfully fulfilled its ambition

Indeed takeout affects all players
And synthetics only their naysayers
But no reform for which we wished
Has actually been accomplished
In the seclusion of proven stayers

Collective voice is just a myth
Minus clout to back it up with
The key to player demands is getting
All of us to simply stop betting
Even accounts that rebates refilleth

Those who bet for a living will not refrain
Unless there is nothing in the pools to gain
A group led by such players will not be giving
Support to anything depriving them of a living
Or stature within the status quo not retain.

andymays
09-18-2009, 08:11 PM
Wait....you forgot your ball.
http://www.tampaturfandsupply.com/products/thmb_1062007_voly006_x.jpg


Curious shot Rokitman??

I expressed my opinion and wrote "no hard feelings" on the bottom.

It seems you have hard feelings of some sort towards me for expressing my opinion as is my right as a HANA member.

Can you expand a little on your hard feelings?

andymays
09-18-2009, 08:17 PM
A horseplayer group rating tracks
Rated highest one with races run on wax
]A hater of surfaces synthetic[/B] :) That's me!
Viewed their results as pathetic
Leading to an exchange of wisecracks

The initial takeout-based rendition
Was consistent with the groupís mission
Implemented silently by insiders
Without input from outsiders
It successfully fulfilled its ambition

Indeed takeout affects all players
And synthetics only their naysayers
But no reform for which we wished
Has actually been accomplished
In the seclusion of proven stayers

Collective voice is just a myth
Minus clout to back it up with
The key to player demands is getting
All of us to simply stop betting
Even accounts that rebates refilleth

Those who bet for a living will not refrain
Unless there is nothing in the pools to gain
A group led by such players will not be giving
Support to anything depriving them of a living
Or stature within the status quo not retain.


Roses are red and violets are blue and andymays hates synthetic surfaces! :eek:

chickenhead
09-18-2009, 09:35 PM
It seems you have hard feelings of some sort towards me for expressing my opinion as is my right as a HANA member.

Do ultimatums ever really go over very well?

In my opinion not including something some people think should be, is better overall than including something many people don't think should be. For the first go 'round takeout, field size, and wager variety as constraints make a whole bunch of sense because there is so much consensus behind them. Poly is not going to win any popularity contests, but it's no where close to that kind of consensus. The biggest difference being no one, really, likes high takeout, small fields, or lack of wager options. Plenty of people actually like poly.

I'd argue ADW availability and something related to drug testing standards should be the next additions...if a reasonable way to actually do them turned up (ideas, anyone?). Further down the importance list, but easier to implement, would be stuff related to video and replays.

andymays
09-18-2009, 09:51 PM
Do ultimatums ever really go over very well?

In my opinion not including something some people think should be, is better overall than including something many people don't think should be. For the first go 'round takeout, field size, and wager variety as constraints make a whole bunch of sense because there is so much consensus behind them. Poly is not going to win any popularity contests, but it's no where close to that kind of consensus.

I'd argue ADW availability and something related to drug testing standards should be the next additions...if a reasonable way to actually do them turned up (ideas, anyone?). Further down the importance list, but easier to implement, would be stuff related to video and replays.


It's not an ultimatum at all. I'm just one guy!

Take a look at the "slowly but surely the truth about synthetic surfaces thread". This isn't something I take lightly. I truly believe synthetic surfaces are fraudulent surfaces. Why would I want to have anything to do with promoting a Track like Keenland with a surface I believe is fraudulent and detrimental to both Horse Racing and Horseplayers?

The Track Ratings are the most high profile thing HANA does right? I already had to endure the jabs from my friends and associates over the Keenland #1 rating for last year. It would seem to me that there would be a more accomodating way to rate the top Tracks but that's just me.

chickenhead
09-18-2009, 10:32 PM
It would seem to me that there would be a more accomodating way to rate the top Tracks but that's just me.

Such as?

DeanT
09-18-2009, 10:35 PM
Hey Andy,

The track surface debate is a wedge issue and wedge issues (hence the name I guess) can break apart coalitions. As you said to us once (super sound advice I thought) "let people know that they do not have to agree with everything on the mission statement to be a member, or for them to offer suggestions."

It is kind of like the Indulto hating whale stuff. Whales versus small players is a wedge issue. Altho I think the only way to lower takeout is through rebating, that is my opinion only. HANA's mission statement policy is for lower take for everyone and we work to trying to sail the morass of rules and regulations to push that vision. Steering clear of that as a wedge issue is important for horseplayers (imo).

Since everyone can get behind : different wager types for them to play, lower take and good field size (and since studies have shown these metrics are directly correlated to handle), I think those are good issues for the building blocks of a good rating system.

With the HANA survey I think we may get some ideas regarding the track rating system for 2010. Hopefully that is out in awhile and mad scientist BillW will get some ideas and work them out.

Thx for reading. I know it is an issue you are worried about. It is not that I dont care, or Jeff does not care, it is just because right now it is such a polarizing issue, and for a new group like HANA, trying to grow it is hard to do, and it is made harder when we have horseplayers fighting horseplayers.

D

andymays
09-18-2009, 10:49 PM
Such as?


I would put them in groups of 10 or 15 without rating any one Track above or below the rest in their respective groups!

chickenhead
09-18-2009, 11:02 PM
they actually were kind of constructed with that in mind I think...they have letter grades. Whether a track comes out 0.04 higher than another track isn't really important to anyone, the letter grade is what really matters. But, from a marketing point of view, no question that people love top ten lists and countdowns...

One idea, don't know if its on the drawing boards or not...would be to not really have just 1 monolithic list, but to have a large track, med. track, and small track list. It's not any kind of change to the ratings, just a change in presentation, but I think that in itself would eliminate some of the complaints about the ratings. Not to mention then you get 3 top 5 lists to announce : )

andymays
09-18-2009, 11:21 PM
they actually were kind of constructed with that in mind I think...they have letter grades. Whether a track comes out 0.04 higher than another track isn't really important to anyone, the letter grade is what really matters. But, from a marketing point of view, no question that people love top ten lists and countdowns...

One idea, don't know if its on the drawing boards or not...would be to not really have just 1 monolithic list, but to have a large track, med. track, and small track list. It's not any kind of change to the ratings, just a change in presentation, but I think that in itself would eliminate some of the complaints about the ratings. Not to mention then you get 3 top 5 lists to announce : )


Now you're on the right track I think. The 1-2-3-10 thing pisses off more people than it makes happy and gives people more of a reason not to join than to join if their favorite track is dissed. The countdown last year was so anticlimactic that it had the opposite effect in my opinion. Too much hair splitting over numbers. Most Horseplayers are not analytical Mensa types (no disrespect intended).

Indulto
09-19-2009, 12:43 AM
... The track surface debate is a wedge issue and wedge issues (hence the name I guess) can break apart coalitions. As you said to us once (super sound advice I thought) "let people know that they do not have to agree with everything on the mission statement to be a member, or for them to offer suggestions."

It is kind of like the Indulto hating whale stuff. Whales versus small players is a wedge issue. Altho I think the only way to lower takeout is through rebating, that is my opinion only. HANA's mission statement policy is for lower take for everyone and we work to trying to sail the morass of rules and regulations to push that vision. Steering clear of that as a wedge issue is important for horseplayers (imo).Don't take it so personally, Dean. I don't hate you. I don't hate whales, generally. Their money is as good as mine, I just don't believe it's any better than that of small bettors no matter how much of it there is.Since everyone can get behind : different wager types for them to play, lower take and good field size (and since studies have shown these metrics are directly correlated to handle), I think those are good issues for the building blocks of a good rating system.I agree.

I don't think inflated stakes purses should be factors, but perhaps the number of graded stakes run within each level should be, and possibly the number of eclipse award contenders that raced there during some previous period as well.... Thx for reading. I know it is an issue you are worried about. It is not that I dont care, or Jeff does not care, it is just because right now it is such a polarizing issue, and for a new group like HANA, trying to grow it is hard to do, and it is made harder when we have horseplayers fighting horseplayers. ...Pretending that differences separating players don't exist won't eliminate the deleterious effects they create. How can players expect reform from horsemen and track management when part of the problem lies among the horseplayers as well? It's not compromise when one side provides all the concessions.

Horseplayersbet.com
09-19-2009, 10:08 AM
Indulto, I still maintain and write on blog that the price of betting is too high and is killing the sport. But getting all tracks to lower takeouts, or most tracks to lower takeouts is a momentousness task. Since HANA started, I've learned it is more difficult than I ever dreamed of. Every jurisdiction has laws, and it is easy in some to change takeouts, but pretty much impossible in others. Then you need the horsemen groups and tracks to agree before anything can get done too.
The reality is that unless HANA gets big enough to boycott high takeout tracks, and actually make a difference in handle, we will not see any significant changes in the industry, and even if we can organize an effective boycott, there is no guarantee any major changes will happen.
Until a new form of betting comes along that is legal (ie exchange betting), the industry is stuck on stupid. The best we can hope for right now are minor changes in takeout, new low takeout bets that might be introduced, and through repeated education we may have taught many players what takeout is and why it is significant, and just as important, by making the public aware of takeout, we may have pressured just about every track out there to not even think about raising takeouts.
I'm with Dean and many of the people in the know that in at least the short term, the best and more realistic road is make rebates available to all, significant enough that there won't be much a difference between what a $100 a week bettor can get, and a whale can get.
Even this is a near impossible situation because of different laws in every jurisdiction.
You may live in a state where it is illegal to shop around and get rebates, or a state where rebates aren't allowed. I think it is easier to try to get state laws regarding rebates changed versus changing tracks, horsemen and state laws regarding takeout. It would be like pulling teeth just to get a one or two point decline in takeout in one jurisdiction for example, but waking up the industry and governments as to how much they are losing out to offshore companies because of state laws that don't allow their residents to shop around for the best rates on shore, should be easier in at least some jurisdictions.
I suggest that you go on a recruiting campaign for us, and try to get us another 3,000 to 5,000 average to big players willing to boycott, and then HANA can try to see if it can force track takeouts to drop.
Until that happens, the most realistic way to help the player is to try to help them come closer to beating the game.
Just remember one more thing, the more advertised winners we have in the game, the more new customers who will be attracted to play. We do want the game grow, that is the bottom line.

Indulto
09-19-2009, 03:34 PM
Indulto, I still maintain and write on blog that the price of betting is too high and is killing the sport. But getting all tracks to lower takeouts, or most tracks to lower takeouts is a momentousness task. Since HANA started, I've learned it is more difficult than I ever dreamed of.CG,
I understand the magnitude of the task, but IMO a group representing ALL horseplayers should not be the one who blinks. I appreciate the fact that you are one of the few team members who -- at least at one time -- endorsed EQUALLY lower effective takeout for all. What no-one will explain is why such an approach, which could conceivably unite horseplayers, is not being pursued by HANA. I can only assume that HANA is not willing to publicize the disparity of rebated percentages and scarcity of application necessary to rally support because it doesnít want to jeopardize the existing practice for beneficiaries of the status quo.Every jurisdiction has laws, and it is easy in some to change takeouts, but pretty much impossible in others. Then you need the horsemen groups and tracks to agree before anything can get done too.

The reality is that unless HANA gets big enough to boycott high takeout tracks, and actually make a difference in handle, we will not see any significant changes in the industry, and even if we can organize an effective boycott, there is no guarantee any major changes will happen.

Until a new form of betting comes along that is legal (ie exchange betting), the industry is stuck on stupid. The best we can hope for right now are minor changes in takeout, new low takeout bets that might be introduced, and through repeated education we may have taught many players what takeout is and why it is significant, and just as important, by making the public aware of takeout, we may have pressured just about every track out there to not even think about raising takeouts.A horseplayer group trying to leverage increased membership to enhance recruitment with a unifying message would really educate the public.I'm with Dean and many of the people in the know that in at least the short term, the best and more realistic road is make rebates available to all, significant enough that there won't be much a difference between what a $100 a week bettor can get, and a whale can get.If there wonít be MUCH difference, why should there be ANY difference at all?Even this is a near impossible situation because of different laws in every jurisdiction.

You may live in a state where it is illegal to shop around and get rebates, or a state where rebates aren't allowed. I think it is easier to try to get state laws regarding rebates changed versus changing tracks, horsemen and state laws regarding takeout.Since youíve started your won ADW, perhaps you could tells us if a horseplayer-owned ADW could overcome residency restrictions on its owners.It would be like pulling teeth just to get a one or two point decline in takeout in one jurisdiction for example, but waking up the industry and governments as to how much they are losing out to offshore companies because of state laws that don't allow their residents to shop around for the best rates on shore, should be easier in at least some jurisdictions.

I suggest that you go on a recruiting campaign for us, and try to get us another 3,000 to 5,000 average to big players willing to boycott, and then HANA can try to see if it can force track takeouts to drop.Iím not sure how ďaverageĒ is being used here, but may I respectfully suggest that existing HANA members are more likely candidates to recruit big players. When HANA has an effective message as beneficial to the small-bankroll bettor as the big-bankroll bettor that is also passionately promoted by its membership, Iíll be happy to try and recruit players for HANA even if Iím not counted as a member.Until that happens, the most realistic way to help the player is to try to help them come closer to beating the game.

Just remember one more thing, the more advertised winners we have in the game, the more new customers who will be attracted to play. We do want the game grow, that is the bottom line.If it is small bettors you want to attract, then it's non-professional players who are winners that need to be promoted to that group; NOT rebated whales.

Horseplayersbet.com
09-19-2009, 04:16 PM
CG, I understand the magnitude of the task, but IMO a group representing ALL horseplayers should not be the one who blinks. I appreciate the fact that you are one of the few team members who -- at least at one time -- endorsed EQUALLY lower effective takeout for all. What no-one will explain is why such an approach, which could conceivably unite horseplayers, is not being pursued by HANA.
****************************
Again, I don't know if you are being willfully ignorant here or not, but it is unrealistic to try to make lower take outs for all. Why don't we try to unit Horseplayers by saying our goal is to make sure all Horseplayers get a house? It is just unrealistic for all the reasons I cited. We can push towards trying to lower takeouts, keeping higher takeouts from happening and even pushing for higher rebates (which is realistic), and preventing rebates from being taken away or shrinking without lower takeout to go along with that.

I can only assume that HANA is not willing to publicize the disparity of rebated percentages and scarcity of application necessary to rally support because it doesnít want to jeopardize the existing practice for beneficiaries of the status quo.
****************************
If anything we don't want it to become more difficult for those playing to win or try to win. It isn't about protecting what few are capable of getting, it is to try to increase what many are incapable of getting. There is disparity that happens in every single business, it is just a fact of life.

A horseplayer group trying to leverage increased membership to enhance recruitment with a unifying message would really educate the public.
*****************************
Takeout is not the only issue, and even though it is the most important issue, we could probably get more unity and get more members if we focused solely on drugs in racing. We are trying to make it a bettor world for all bettors, and we are looking to make it a better world so that new bettors will come around.


If there wonít be MUCH difference, why should there be ANY difference at all?
*********************************
There is always going to be differences in how the best customers are treated. This is still a people business.

Since youíve started your won ADW, perhaps you could tells us if a horseplayer-owned ADW could overcome residency restrictions on its owners.
*************************************
This issue has nothing to do with the ADW and the fixes have nothing to do with me starting an ADW. Again, change will come from education, behind the scenes meetings and letter campaigns.


Iím not sure how ďaverageĒ is being used here, but may I respectfully suggest that existing HANA members are more likely candidates to recruit big players. When HANA has an effective message as beneficial to the small-bankroll bettor as the big-bankroll bettor that is also passionately promoted by its membership, Iíll be happy to try and recruit players for HANA even if Iím not counted as a member.If it is small bettors you want to attract, then it's non-professional players who are winners that need to be promoted to that group; NOT rebated whales.
**********************************
We want more non professional players to become winners. We have five goals on the HANA website, I suggest you check them out again. It is impossible to get everyone to agree on everything. If you agree with four of the goals or even three you should be plugging for HANA as should any horseplayer.

As for your problem with whales. Everyone has the capability of becoming a whale. It doesn't matter what your age is (as long as you are old enough to legally bet), what your sex, race, or height and weight is. In today's current environment there is nothing wrong with having that as an ultimate goal.

Most whales have better weapons. Better betting systems, tried computer programs that actually work, even better ways of making multiple bets at once, but the thing is, the technology is available to everyone and their systems aren't based on anything supernatural either.

We are all horseplayers here. We all want to win, or at least have fun and not get hurt betting that much (if you are really realistic). In order for any individual to win, they have to have a system of sorts that can beat a 10%-31% house take.

Now lest say Indulto, you have a system that breaks you even. That means your system according to what I'm reading, NOT AN LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with the average bettor's way of playing.

Should you be forced to share your system to level the playing field, or should you try to refine your system so that you can win money and in affect make it harder for the rest of the public to win because you are effectively raising every ones takeout because without you, there would be more money left to win?

chickenhead
09-19-2009, 05:02 PM
I appreciate the fact that you are one of the few team members who -- at least at one time -- endorsed EQUALLY lower effective takeout for all.

I think most all HANA members would endorse equally lower takeout for all, meaning they would be happy with it. I think the main discrepancy is when figuring out how to effect change and what steps can be taken -- whether the focus should be on EQUAL, or the focus should be on LOWER.

I think HANA is hesitant to endorse anything, in any way, that results in equally HIGHER takeout rates -- which is what focusing on eliminating rebates would effectively result in, at first (and maybe ultimately, who knows). Rather than getting them all equal first, and then work on lowering the (effectively higher) takeout -- I think HANA sees pushing the expansion of lower takeout via the back door of rebates to more and more bettors, which, if successful, would improve the equality by vastly reducing the takeout spread amongst bettors -- as a more obtainable goal within the framework that we are facing (which we do not control). I do not think it has anything whatsoever to do with "whales", favoring whales, being whales, etc etc.

In other words bringing more bettors into the low takeout world directly via rebate is tactically more achievable than fighting to take all bettors into a high takeout world, and then, as a second step, lowering all the takeouts. I personally would be very skeptical of an org that wanted to take the second approach -- and I don't get rebates. Quite the opposite, as a California bettor, I'd very much like the get rebates. The fact that California, with what, 1/6th the US population and maybe 1/4 of its money, that those residents can't easily get rebates is ridiculous, and I very much want an org that can help extend the opportunity to receive those lower takeouts enjoyed by others to me. I want that 1000x more than I want them to lose their lower takeout so we can be equal.

Indulto
09-20-2009, 06:52 AM
Since youíve started your won[own] ADW, perhaps you could tells us if a horseplayer-owned ADW could overcome residency restrictions on its owners.This issue has nothing to do with the ADW and the fixes have nothing to do with me starting an ADW. Again, change will come from education, behind the scenes meetings and letter campaigns.CG,
Trying to separate yourself from that role defies reality since you are now posting as both an ADW owner and a HANA team member. I was simply addressing a question to you as an acknowledged source of greater knowledge of ADW inner workings.Ö We can push towards trying to lower takeouts, keeping higher takeouts from happening and even pushing for higher rebates (which is realistic), and preventing rebates from being taken away or shrinking without lower takeout to go along with that.

If anything we don't want it to become more difficult for those playing to win or try to win. It isn't about protecting what few are capable of getting, it is to try to increase what many are incapable of getting.I hope youíre not suggesting that that effective takeout for whales (combined direct takeout and rebate) must be preserved at all costs (along with their bet-takerís percentage) just because that enables them to win.There is disparity that happens in every single business, it is just a fact of lifeÖ The rate of return is the same for all players of casino games and thatís the way it was for racing prior to simulcasting and rebating.Ö There is always going to be differences in how the best customers are treated. This is still a people business.Comps to big players donít alter the return on their wagers. First class airline passengers pay more for service and comfort, but the plane doesnít take off and land any sooner for them. Etc., etc., etc.

The rest of your post doesnít appear to warrant detailed rebuttal. I have to ask if it is you who is being willfully ignorant by suggesting 1) that everyone consider becoming a whale, and 2) equating a betting subsidy (dependent upon the total amount one wagers over an extended period) to information, tools, experience, skill, temperament, risk-taking ability, bankroll, and any other factor that enables one to consistently and continually identify wagers of proper size and contestant involvement that makes oneís aggregate wagers profitable.

Up until now, Iíve considered your posts here and comments elsewhere to be well-thought out and well-intentioned. I hope the one Iím responding to was just an aberration.

Indulto
09-20-2009, 07:05 AM
I think most all HANA members would endorse equally lower takeout for all, meaning they would be happy with it. I think the main discrepancy is when figuring out how to effect change and what steps can be taken -- whether the focus should be on EQUAL, or the focus should be on LOWER.

I think HANA is hesitant to endorse anything, in any way, that results in equally HIGHER takeout rates -- which is what focusing on eliminating rebates would effectively result in, at first (and maybe ultimately, who knows).Rather than getting them all equal first, and then work on lowering the (effectively higher) takeout -- I think HANA sees pushing the expansion of lower takeout via the back door of rebates to more and more bettors, which, if successful, would improve the equality by vastly reducing the takeout spread amongst bettors -- as a more obtainable goal within the framework that we are facing (which we do not control). I do not think it has anything whatsoever to do with "whales", favoring whales, being whales, etc etc.

In other words bringing more bettors into the low takeout world directly via rebate is tactically more achievable than fighting to take all bettors into a high takeout world, and then, as a second step, lowering all the takeouts. I personally would be very skeptical of an org that wanted to take the second approach -- and I don't get rebates. Quite the opposite, as a California bettor, I'd very much like the get rebates. The fact that California, with what, 1/6th the US population and maybe 1/4 of its money, that those residents can't easily get rebates is ridiculous, and I very much want an org that can help extend the opportunity to receive those lower takeouts enjoyed by others to me. I want that 1000x more than I want them to lose their lower takeout so we can be equal.Chick,
I applaud your non-inflammatory logic.

The way I see it, the focus should be on stopping the slide in handle from the vast majority of non-rebated players, and restoring the game's attractiveness to the non-professional players who are inexorably being forced out of the game. Instead of being able to participate as long as their skills and bankrolls could be expected to permit in the normal course of pari-mutuel competition, they are being forced to the sidelines pre-maturely by crushing takeout from which only a tiny minority of selectively rebated players get any relief. This relief is currently provided through subsidies from bet-takers able to subvert the system with assistance from racing industry leadership.

My interpretation of what you posted is that you believe players should keep trying with only the help of other horseplayers to find ADWs that can and will provide rebates for lower volume of play than whales without even temporarily impacting the whalesí effective takeout. I believe another approach would be more successful in eventually lowering effective takeout to an optimally equal low level for all players. It may well require multiple steps to achieve a situation where handle increases to the point of supporting that optimal level.

The problem is that as handle keeps shrinking, the portions of the takeout distributed to various parties also shrinks. These parties include governments, tracks, horsemen, ADWs, and rebated players. None is willing to give up any of its current share because each expects that either 1) handle will continue to shrink if takeout isnít reduced, or 2) that handle will not increase sufficiently to maintain current levels of net takeout even if gross levels are increased by lowering takeout.

Correct me if Iím wrong, but any handle increases will have to come from a) currently unrebated bettors who will bet more because they will either be winning or not losing as fast, b) returning bettors who left the game previously because takeout became too high, c) new bettors willing to try a game which has become more competitive, and d) professional/winning bettors who will bet more into larger pools.

So, lowering effective takeout for the formerly unrebated will require giving them a share of takeout that is currently appropriated by other parties. The sacrifice must be borne by all those parties incrementally until handle reaches a level that can simultaneously support an effective takeout of 10% for all players, appropriate purses for horsemen, sustainable profits by tracks and ADWs, and increased revenue to governments.

Tracks cooperating with horsemen, large bettors, (and each other) are likely to be able to obtain cooperation from jurisdictional governments. None of the preceding wants the industry to fail and would welcome increased participation. The key is identifying each level of handle that triggers another incremental decrease in effective takeout, increase in purse allocation, ďbonusesĒ to tracks, bonuses to ADWs, or increases in payments to governments; in any combination of the preceding.

If the end goal is equally low effective takeout for all, and the immediate need is to get more non-professional money into the pools, the starting point must be equal effective takeout for all that is somewhere between 10% and current levels. For their part, horsemen would have to initially forego stake purses exceeding the minimum for their grade with some minimum less than G3 minimum for ungraded events. Further, purse distribution in all events may need to be reduced on a sliding scale when fields were not full. By necessity, tracks would have to schedule cooperatively to avoid cannibalizing each otherís events. Tracks would also have to rebate on-track and internal ADW customers as well as offer live video of their own races on their websites. All ADWs and OTBs would have to meet the current effective takeout rate. How that would affect contracts with tracks and horsemen, I honestly donít know, but it is reasonable to expect both to benefit in the long run.

A horseplayer organization willing to promote this concept to whales -- and to represent the common goal of all players to save the industry for a time when all will receive maximum benefit -- is one I could support wholeheartedly.

rrbauer
09-20-2009, 08:57 AM
Chick,
I applaud your non-inflammatory logic.

[font=Verdana]The way I see it, the focus should be on...restoring the game's attractiveness to the[color=black] non-professional players who are inexorably being forced out of the game.

How are "non-professional" players inexorably being forced out of the game? It they're "non-professional" then they must be "recreational" or "casual" players to whom cost-related issues such as takeout and breakage are non-issues. So how are they being forced out of the game?

While you're at it, how about a definition for "whale".

Horseplayersbet.com
09-20-2009, 10:52 AM
Again, HANA is not motivated in any way by what is good for whales. But what is good for all horseplayers is usually good for whales too. Indulto needs to get this in what appears to be his overly thick skull.

I'm not saying everyone should be a whale or needs to be a whale to win, but the opportunity is there for everyone, and that is why I'm not anti-whale, just as I'm not anti-computer handicapping program either.

Whales would much rather see takeout reductions, because it will bring in new money from new players and more money from existing player and bottom line takeout rate will not change for the whales.


HANA wants the game to grow. Any of the following will increase growth, but reduced takeout or increased rebates will increase growth the most because winners create buzz which attracts new players.

1. Decreased takeout or increased rebate (and availability of rebates to as many households as possible).

2. Stricter more uniform drug policies. Also related, humane procedures such as bringing in new whipping policies.

3. Pool integrity issues cleaned up.

4. Availability of ADWs to more and more households, where ADWs are not restricted to the content they have. This type of competition will be great for the horseplayer.

5. Better dissemination of information from first time geldings to trainer violations to whether a race comes off the turf or not.

6. Larger fields (which I think is the least important issue right now, because I don't think it attracts new or extra money from horsemen, it just is a factor in how some players decide what races to bet on).

What is also important is that we don't lose any more players, therefore it is important that HANA lobbies any potential takeout increases, or signal fee increases (which will cause less players as well).


PS, Indulto, I like how you swept away all the other points I made and just cherry picked anything to do with whales and takeout.

Also, yes comps do count has extra rewards for players. Just because you say they don't doesn't make it true. Free plane, room, food is equal to extra rebate. Even on the simplest level, if Joe Blow doesn't get a comp and pays $75 for a hotel, $50 for a show and $40 to eat in a day, the "whale" blackjack player has an extra $165 a day plus air fare, in this example to play with. I'm not even going into the fact the whale probably gets much more in comps in this example, but just the basics of the average players hard costs.

Mike_412
09-20-2009, 12:00 PM
In other words bringing more bettors into the low takeout world directly via rebate is tactically more achievable than fighting to take all bettors into a high takeout world, and then, as a second step, lowering all the takeouts. I personally would be very skeptical of an org that wanted to take the second approach -- and I don't get rebates. Quite the opposite, as a California bettor, I'd very much like the get rebates. The fact that California, with what, 1/6th the US population and maybe 1/4 of its money, that those residents can't easily get rebates is ridiculous, and I very much want an org that can help extend the opportunity to receive those lower takeouts enjoyed by others to me. I want that 1000x more than I want them to lose their lower takeout so we can be equal.

Great post. I feel your rebate pain. I'm in Jersey and we're only allowed to use 4NJbets. The site itself isn't horrendous, but no rebates or any sort of comps through a players card or anything. No choice to use another site. Nothing. Basically, here it is, take it or leave it. It's really ridiculous.

I'd love to have access to rebates without having to use an offshore book. Hopefully, one day that will be available. This industry is way too frustrating for the horseplayer.

For the record, I'm 30, adore the sport from both a gambling and fan aspect, and bet a considerable amount of money each year. You'd think the industry would want someone like me around. Instead, they slowly push me away whether they realize it or not.

DeanT
09-20-2009, 01:26 PM
Mike,

Thanks for that. This biz needs more of your voices heard. I think what you and Chick speak of is one of the things in the game that can, and needs to be fixed. For the monopoly years everyone was lumped into "degenerate gambler who will play no matter what" fold, and that was completely wrong. I just finished the Betfair book and what they did to target the dissatisfied people who were silent with pricing was eye-opening. They targeted the gripers, and built a business. In NA we need to target those unsatisfied people and actually offer them something so they do not leave. Having a policy delivering better prices to the group of players who are demanding them is vital and we need horseplayers to work towards that. The niche big players (i.e. $1M plus) get served, but others are left dieing on a vine, or penalized, because of the archaic rules on what state they reside in.

D

Indulto
09-20-2009, 02:07 PM
How are "non-professional" players inexorably being forced out of the game? It they're "non-professional" then they must be "recreational" or "casual" players to whom cost-related issues such as takeout and breakage are non-issues. So how are they being forced out of the game?

While you're at it, how about a definition for "whale".Isn't it a violation of your principles to directly engage a poster whose name you don't know in a player organization-related dialogue? ;)

Imriledup
09-21-2009, 12:00 AM
Synthetic Surfaces :ThmbDown:

Two recent polls say so! :)

I'll bet if they look hard enough, they can get 4 out of 5 Doctors to recommend betting on Polytrack. What Track surface do YOU BET DOCTOR? :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

Indulto
09-21-2009, 05:59 PM
... they're "non-professional" then they must be "recreational" or "casual" players to whom cost-related issues such as takeout and breakage are non-issues. So how are they being forced out of the game?I believe it was CG who once opined to the effect that even if a "casual" bettor is not "price-sensitive" per se, he still knows when he's running out of bankroll sooner. In that regard, some are forced out of the game on a temporary basis, while others simply find some other way(s) to spend their entertainment dollar. In any event, it is handle lost.While you're at it, how about a definition for "whale".You're on to something, rrb.

To clarify any further discussion/debate regarding horseplayers/bettors/racing fans, all descriptive terms/labels/categories must be defined as accurately as possible.

If interested parties on the PA board can at least establish a common understanding of the following, I'd certainly be willing to rephrase any argument of mine in those terms upon demand:

1) Whale
2) Professional Bettor
3) Serious Bettor
4) Weekend Warrior
5) Recreational Bettor
6) Casual player
7) Racing Fan
8) Average Bettor
9) Non-professional Bettor
10) Hobbyist

Since many terms overlap, perhaps some additional terms need to be added to describe the more common set intersections as well as other groups not already listed.

andymays
09-22-2009, 08:09 AM
In my opinion the point of the Track Ratings is to inform the public, get some publicity for HANA, and maybe shame some of the worst Tracks with the highest takeout into changing their evil ways. The hope is that some of the worst ďtakeout banditsĒ will want to improve their image and move up the list. The problem is that while there could be an incentive for #2 to challenge #1 for the top spot because of the PR value, there is very little incentive for #6 or #21 or #31 to move up.


If we had categories of say a top 5 with no track being rated above or below another in that category, and then a top 10, and then a top 20, we might create some competition from year to year for Tracks to move up the list and get in more highly rated category. In addition, instead of one Track using the #1 designation we would have five Tracks using the top 5 in America designation, or top 10 or top 20. This could create more broad based publicity for HANA because more than one Track would be beating their chests to the public, and more would put the high HANA rating on their marketing material.

The other part of the equation should be to point out Tracks with the most prohibitive takeout and even the ones like Woodbine for example that have takes above 25% on certain wagers. While we would all like to see the takeout at 10% right now it just aint gonna happen. The goal should be to see if HANA and its members could get a Track like Saratoga to get its pick 4 takeout down to 24% from26%. In other words use the 25% number as a line in the sand for now. It's a small victory for HANA but a win nonetheless!



I know that the Ratings are not solely based on takeout but you get my point. Hope this makes some sense to someone!

rokitman
09-22-2009, 09:59 AM
HANA and Betfair are proud to announce....

andymays
09-22-2009, 11:10 AM
In my opinion the point of the Track Ratings is to inform the public, get some publicity for HANA, and maybe shame some of the worst Tracks with the highest takeout into changing their evil ways. The hope is that some of the worst ďtakeout banditsĒ will want to improve their image and move up the list. The problem is that while there could be an incentive for #2 to challenge #1 for the top spot because of the PR value, there is very little incentive for #6 or #21 or #31 to move up.


If we had categories of say a top 5 with no track being rated above or below another in that category, and then a top 10, and then a top 20, we might create some competition from year to year for Tracks to move up the list and get in more highly rated category. In addition, instead of one Track using the #1 designation we would have five Tracks using the top 5 in America designation, or top 10 or top 20. This could create more broad based publicity for HANA because more than one Track would be beating their chests to the public, and more would put the high HANA rating on their marketing material.

The other part of the equation should be to point out Tracks with the most prohibitive takeout and even the ones like Woodbine for example that have takes above 25% on certain wagers. While we would all like to see the takeout at 10% right now it just aint gonna happen. The goal should be to see if HANA and its members could get a Track like Saratoga to get its pick 4 takeout down to 24% from26%. In other words use the 25% number as a line in the sand for now. It's a small victory for HANA but a win nonetheless!



I know that the Ratings are not solely based on takeout but you get my point. Hope this makes some sense to someone!


Maybe you could call the top five rated Tracks the HANA FAB FIVE? ;) :ThmbUp:

DeanT
09-22-2009, 11:26 AM
Maybe you could call the top five rated Tracks the HANA FAB FIVE? ;) :ThmbUp:

.............. And when one raises takeout and gets bounced out of the top five we can say that they got "Chris Webbered" :)

andymays
09-22-2009, 11:33 AM
.............. And when one raises takeout and gets bounced out of the top five we can say that they got "Chris Webbered" :)


Exactly!

And as they "jockey" for position year after year in order to get into the HANA FAB FIVE they begin to move in the right direction. Some Genius from HANA can even call the Tracks that are close and let them know they have a shot at the HANA FAB FIVE if they adjust this or that. How :cool: is that?

Indulto
09-22-2009, 03:26 PM
In my opinion the point of the Track Ratings is to inform the public, get some publicity for HANA, and maybe shame some of the worst Tracks with the highest takeout into changing their evil ways. The hope is that some of the worst ďtakeout banditsĒ will want to improve their image and move up the list. The problem is that while there could be an incentive for #2 to challenge #1 for the top spot because of the PR value, there is very little incentive for #6 or #21 or #31 to move up.

If we had categories of say a top 5 with no track being rated above or below another in that category, and then a top 10, and then a top 20, we might create some competition from year to year for Tracks to move up the list and get in more highly rated category. In addition, instead of one Track using the #1 designation we would have five Tracks using the top 5 in America designation, or top 10 or top 20. This could create more broad based publicity for HANA because more than one Track would be beating their chests to the public, and more would put the high HANA rating on their marketing material.

The other part of the equation should be to point out Tracks with the most prohibitive takeout and even the ones like Woodbine for example that have takes above 25% on certain wagers. While we would all like to see the takeout at 10% right now it just aint gonna happen. The goal should be to see if HANA and its members could get a Track like Saratoga to get its pick 4 takeout down to 24% from26%. In other words use the 25% number as a line in the sand for now. It's a small victory for HANA but a win nonetheless!

I know that the Ratings are not solely based on takeout but you get my point. Hope this makes some sense to someone!AM,
If I remember correctly, your suggestion to start emphasizing the biggest offenders was first mentioned by the poster Rook who came up with the ratings concept. Unfortunately, the evolving HANA theme song appears to be "Don't Say Nothin' Bad About My Baby." ;)

Maybe the new board member :ThmbUp: will give us some indication of what he wants to bring to the table.:jump:

Getting back to your "top 10," if they haven't already been mentioned, let me suggest the "Ten Most Unwanted" and the "Forbidden Five." :lol:

andymays
09-22-2009, 03:29 PM
AM,
If I remember correctly, your suggestion to start emphasizing the biggest offenders was first mentioned by the poster Rook who came up with the ratings concept. Unfortunately, the evolving HANA theme song appears to be "Don't Say Nothin' Bad About My Baby." ;)

Maybe the new board member :ThmbUp: will give us some indication of what he wants to bring to the table.:jump:

Getting back to your "top 10," if they haven't already been mentioned, let me suggest the "Ten Most Unwanted" and the "Forbidden Five." :lol:


Or the "Dirty Dozen"!

I believe something could be done like my example that might create a little movement and competition between the top 25 Tracks. Just sayin!

miesque
09-22-2009, 03:37 PM
Or we can have an Annual Hall of Shame for all sorts of categories, Worst Trifecta takeout, Worst Super takeout, Worst ADW availability and of course Worst Customer Service.

andymays
09-22-2009, 03:43 PM
Or we can have an Annual Hall of Shame for all sorts of categories, Worst Trifecta takeout, Worst Super takeout, Worst ADW availability and of course Worst Customer Service.


I love it! You're so smart! :)


or should I say " FABulous"?