HANA vs Pope

[machine]

You all know I think Pope is on the right course, which makes me persona non grata 'round these parts, but to be a member of HANA i don't have to agree to anything soo.... here I am stirring it up again.

The argument I gather from HANA's perspective is that you can't trust the tracks because they've never done anything right, head in the sand assholes all of them. Lower takeout = More players

The argument I gather from Pope is that the structure of takeout is absurd and with a new structure would come new incentives.

I really believe you're arguing over 2 different things.

I would even guess you might have an ally if you ever asked Pope, do you think in a new structure of takeout a track would have a better incentive or mechanism of rebating/rewarding players than current ADW providers?

[BillW]

The argument I gather from HANA's perspective is that you can't trust the tracks because they've never done anything right, head in the sand assholes all of them.

Where did you get that :confused:

[DeanT]

Keeneland has done things right, so have other tracks. There are some good ones and some bad ones.

What breaks down in Mr. Pope and other ideas regarding wagering is that when tracks control all betting, it is not done by a gambling enterprise (eg a place like Betfair) it is done by committee. So, we have a track and tracks buying an ADW and controlling everything (i.e. Fred Pope's idea). Here is what sets into motion.

1. 22% is the takeout.

2. A committee is formed on how to break this up (a group is always formed with various factions because they have to protect their slice). The government, for licensing it, takes 2.5%. They have a seat at the table.

3. The HBPA/THG has a seat. They "put on the show" so they take half. Usually this is around 9%. This is what they get on track now, and try reducing it. It will never happen.

4. The track takes 9% - they are "running the show. "

5. Some other folks get in on the action, like Breeders. They take 1% for breeding incentives, state wide programs etc.

6. The retirement foundations get a seat on the board, because they know someone. They (like they have in Ontario, which I actually support) get 0.5% for retirement.

The bettor gets nothing. Handle falls, and because everyone has a seat at the table, nothing is done and they blame the economy, or whomever for the reduction.

So HANA comes and presents that we want lower take and player rewards like we got before to fix the wagering malaise. We show how this raised wagering, use betfair as an example.

We ask for a few points to raise the wager and keep people interested in racing.

The Breeders say "I have my budget so you cant have it from me. We produce the racehorses and without us there are no horsemen"

The horsemen say "I have my budget and I am losing money. We race the horses and without us there is no show"

The tracks say "We provide the racetrack and you can not have it from us. Without us there is nowhere to bet on horses"

Collectively they are incentivized to do nothing.

Trying to pry a lower take, player rewards things like the 10% bonus that youbet is giving on SAR pick 4's CAN and IS being done via ADW. It's a part of their business plan because they negotiate price when they sign a deal, and they can do what they want with their cut to increase business because it is THEIR cut.

If they are eliminated in some way and that cut has to be controlled by the above group, players WILL lose. Horse racing has proven this time and time again.

I spoke recently with someone in racing that wants to try something new. He is writing a business plan that cuts out the committee mideset and starts something brand new with betting and marketing pros, to raise handle only. I asked how he was going to get funded and if he would put some people on the board of the new group. He said he would burn his business plan if he had to put everyone and their grandmother on it, as it would not work and we would have the status quo.

Fingers in the pie economics and no stand-alone or arms length leadership running gambling or marketing is the problem. And that is Mr. Pope's ideal with his plan to control wagering. It is why me (not speaking for HANA), will never support such a thing.

Places like Betfair have not won this race by accident. They have done so because they are gambling businesses and are run like gambling businesses, who make more money when handle goes up. By paying a fee they answer to no one but themselves.

[chickenhead]

I would even guess you might have an ally if you ever asked Pope, do you think in a new structure of takeout a track would have a better incentive or mechanism of rebating/rewarding players than current ADW providers?

Pope shows billions more to purses by his plan. The question he has never been able to answer, it's the simplest question there is, and he's been asked repeatedly -- is where does that money actually come from?

It's certainly not from increased handle, his own laughably optimistic revenue projections show handle staying flat. So without handle growth, where does one conjure billions from?

If you think his numbers are sound, then I guess I'd ask you: Where does all that extra money come from? The ADWs certainly don't have extra billions. You could buy them all for a fraction of that.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The reality is that under Pope's game plan handle would plummet. And I'm not convinced in the least that bigger purses equals will attract even one more bettor. Look at Woodbine, big purses and handle that is comparable to Mountaineer on many days.