PDA

View Full Version : Vic Zast On Takeout


Horseplayersbet.com
10-19-2009, 12:14 PM
He doesn't really get it. Hopefully, I set him straight.
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/Zasts-TrackWords/comments/2009-10-19takeout-take-two/

andymays
10-19-2009, 12:31 PM
Wake me when someone has a solution and is willing to take the steps to do something about it and not just talk about it.

More theories........... :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:


:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Horseplayersbet.com
10-19-2009, 12:34 PM
Wake me when someone has a solution and is willing to take the steps to do something about it and not just talk about it.

More theories........... :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:


:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
The solution is there (lower all takeouts to 10%-12%). As Vic points out, it is going to be very hard to implement. You need to convince the tracks (this is what HANA is trying to do), and then you need to convince the individual jurisdictions.

Right now we are focusing on step one.

Go back to sleep if you feel that isn't good enough.

andymays
10-19-2009, 12:39 PM
The solution is there (lower all takeouts to 10%-12%). As Vic points out, it is going to be very hard to implement. You need to convince the tracks (this is what HANA is trying to do), and then you need to convince the individual jurisdictions.

Right now we are focusing on step one.

Go back to sleep if you feel that isn't good enough.


You want a Racing Executive to commit to significantly lower take for say a 60 day meet, keep purses high in order to attract large fields, and pay all it's bills.

It's no skin off my nose if they did and it would be great for all Horseplayers, but how many months do you expect a Track to lose money before the experiment pays off? Will it pay off in a month? A year? Where do they get the financing if they go bankrupt?

Until you can answer those questions, why is any Racing Executive going to listen to what you have to say?

In another thread Jeff implied that they read this stuff and he's right they always have.

Don't you think they're asking the same questions I did above?

Since they're reading give them an answer!

Horseplayersbet.com
10-19-2009, 12:43 PM
You want a Racing Executive to commit to significantly lower take for say a 60 day meet, keep purses high in order to attract large fields, and pay all it's bills.

It's no skin off my nose if they did and it would be great for all Horseplayers, but how many months do you expect a Track to lose money before the experiment pays off? Will it pay off in a month? A year? Where do they get the financing if they go bankrupt?

Until you can answer those questions why is any Racing Executive going to listen to what you have to say?
Studies suggest that lowering takeout will work.

It will work in the long run.

How is the current plan working out for the Racing Industry right now?

Tracks are losing money right now. The industry is in negative growth mode. If they were smart, they would grab the bull by the horns.

jballscalls
10-19-2009, 12:49 PM
the part of the article i disagree with most is when he says "the horse racing industry is doing all it can to attract gamblers" that is BS. we have so much more we can do and need to do to get people in the doors, and when they are there, we need to show them a great time and a great product.

andymays
10-19-2009, 12:55 PM
Studies suggest that lowering takeout will work.

It will work in the long run.

How is the current plan working out for the Racing Industry right now?

Tracks are losing money right now. The industry is in negative growth mode. If they were smart, they would grab the bull by the horns.


The only thing they're gonna grab is all the cash they can in the short term and they're gonna grab with both fists probably by raising take.

You want them to gamble on banckruptcy without giving them anything but a theory to go on. God forbid they should try the 50% sale for one big day to get their feet wet. Big days work for the Kentucky Derby, Breeders' Cup, and the yearly sale at Nordstroms. Handle is increased in all instances but you don't believe it will increase for the 50% sale even it is promoted for three months.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-19-2009, 01:00 PM
The only thing they're gonna grab is all the cash they can in the short term and they're gonna grab with both fists probably by raising take.

You want them to gamble on banckruptcy without giving them anything but a theory to go on. God forbid they should try the 50% sale for one big day to get their feet wet. Big days work for the Kentucky Derby, Breeders' Cup, and the yearly sale at Nordstroms. Handle is increased in all instances but you don't believe it will increase for the 50% sale even it is promoted for three months.
A one day event won't work. But you can keep thinking it will. People don't care about takeout in that way. Sorry.

Again, studies have been made that show they are not risking bankruptcy. Also, Betfair proves they are not risking bankruptcy.

People bet until they dry up. Most people dry up quite a few times a season. When they dry up, they find they can live without horse racing. They stop following jockeys, trainers, horses in trouble. They are less likely to expose any family members, friends, and coworkers to horse racing.

It is pretty simple. And there is no risk to the industry at all.

andymays
10-19-2009, 01:15 PM
A one day event won't work. But you can keep thinking it will. People don't care about takeout in that way. Sorry.

Again, studies have been made that show they are not risking bankruptcy. Also, Betfair proves they are not risking bankruptcy.

People bet until they dry up. Most people dry up quite a few times a season. When they dry up, they find they can live without horse racing. They stop following jockeys, trainers, horses in trouble. They are less likely to expose any family members, friends, and coworkers to horse racing.

It is pretty simple. And there is no risk to the industry at all.


It is my understanding that some Racing Execs from California read this section in PA on a daily basis.

Lets suppose you are in front of them to make your case.

What's your pitch to get them to lower take for the upcoming Santa Anita meet?

Horseplayersbet.com
10-19-2009, 01:22 PM
It is my understanding that some Racing Execs from California read this section in PA on a daily basis.

Lets suppose you are in front of them to make your case.

What's your pitch to get them to lower take for the upcoming Santa Anita meet?
Unfortunately if one or two tracks lower to 12%, it won't help them much. It might even cost them, because people bet back the extra money they win at other venues.
This needs to be done by many tracks at the same time. Almost an impossibility for such a dysfunctional industry.

andymays
10-19-2009, 01:28 PM
Unfortunately if one or two tracks lower to 12%, it won't help them much. It might even cost them, because people bet back the extra money they win at other venues.
This needs to be done by many tracks at the same time. Almost an impossibility for such a dysfunctional industry.



The big guys in California are looking in. Although they're a contemptible bunch in my opinion (and they know it) you have to give them a reason to listen to you.

This is sales and you have to sell it!

andymays
10-19-2009, 01:34 PM
What if we tried a hypothetical.


There is only one track in America.

What would the handle most likely be?

What would the takeout likely need to be for the only track in America to make a good profit and have big fields with big purses?


Build the industry over again from there. At what point do we have too many Tracks and not enough handle? 5 Tracks, 10 Tracks, 50 Tracks?

andymays
10-19-2009, 02:55 PM
90 Days from now Company X is going to have a 50% off sale and they are going to advertise the hell out of it for the next 89 days.

Socks are going to be 50% off. On that day I'm gonna buy a bunch of socks whether I need them or not because they are 50% off.

Flat Screen TV's are going to be 50% off. On that day I'm gonna buy 2 or three flat screen TV's because they are 50% off.

Cars are going to be 50% off. On that day I'm gonna buy at least one car and maybe two because they are 50% off.

50% off takeout day will work if it's promoted properly and the industry will be forever changed. Believe it or not!

MONEY
10-19-2009, 04:44 PM
Retama has a 12% takeout on it's DDs and big fields. They usually don't get even $1000. a race bet on their DDs.
I'm in my mid 50s. When I go to the track, i'm usually one of the youngest people there.
The only way to attract more money, is to find new customers. With lotteries and slot machines to compete against, getting new gamblers interested in horse racing will be a difficult task. Free PPs and a little TV advertising showing off some big winners might help.

money

rrbauer
10-19-2009, 06:56 PM
I will waste my time once more.

Horseplayers are customers. Customers who are not getting what they want: Lower takeout, an improved product, a say in the future of the game, an industry that will throw off its old, worn out approaches and embrace a new direction with customers as partners.

Horseplayers have an organization: HANA. It's been around for a year, or so, and has received some recognition. HANA's problem is that it embraces a low-key, "positive" approach in its relations with the industry. HANA needs to be a proactive force in the industry. HANA needs to recognize and embrace the idea that the only bargaining chip that horseplayers have with the rest of the industry is their MONEY. HANA needs to call out those policies that are hurting the game and INSIST that they be changed; or, the industry will see a loss of revenue and customers if they aren't changed. HANA needs to do this. The time for being nice is over. If HANA and its membership truly wants to change the game and be a part of the future then they need to play their bargaining chip to the hilt. If HANA and its membership will not make a stand NOW....then it will never make a stand.

So let's stop kidding ourselves about what HANA will or won't do; what HANA can or can't do. Let's do it; or, let's quit wasting our time and energy over issues that conversation will not resolve.

twindouble
10-19-2009, 09:32 PM
Race tracks know very well players that churn money raises handle and ups their bottom line. The biggest mistake they made was providing their signals for peanuts. The net result was takeout did drop considerably but for just a few that churn lots of money. The whales. The average player gets peanuts for rebates. I don't know if this is true or not but it's said those whales account for 30 percent of handle industry wide. Where did that figure come from?

There's no question in my mind, the trend has been cater to the rich. Ala Breeders Cup. The tracks go one step further for the whales, that's padding the conditions to create carryovers in the pick 6 and high five to bring the whales into the pools. Carryovers are at an historical high. The unintended consequence is the average players can't afford to play into those pools to have a FAIR shot for the big score. Those conditions also limits players in their ability to score in other pools, like the pick 4,5, and supers. If it wasn't for the dime super they wouldn't play them at all, I wouldn'think.

What's next for lower rung players, relegate them to penny wager off in a corner somewhere so they won't be seen. Those that get those unfair rebates rob the track, horsemen and the players. They are skimming everyone. To add salt to the wound the whales get reductions in takeout win or lose, whereas the player feels the hit on takeout when they win. Less money to put back through the windows and a short playing life. Well, at one time most will replenish the bankroll and come back but in today's economy racing will and has been losing more. The horsemen new exactly what to do with the slot revenue, they got their cut but the players got squat.

Get the players a better cut of the rebates, then every player will clearly see and experience the value of lower takeout. Give us more of the rebates and you'll see more money going through the windows. What's left of us anyway. I don't want 200,000 points for a garden tool I don't need, give me back more of my money to PLAY THE HORSES! LIKE THE WHALES GET.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-19-2009, 09:41 PM
I'm all for getting players a better cut.

Dave Schwartz
10-19-2009, 10:06 PM
Whales are about 14% industry wide but as much as 35% at some tracks.

twindouble
10-19-2009, 10:11 PM
Thanks Dave; I would think that 35 % whales are playing into tracks like Del Mar, Santa Anita and Hollywood. Well noted for carryovers in the pick 6.

DeanT
10-19-2009, 11:31 PM
Twin,

I am a believer in lower takeout for small to medium players because once they get a taste of it, and start making some headway they tend to bet more and more, and have more fun. If you look at what the business does it always leads towards the big player only benefitting from it, and paying the business back with more volume. I personally think this is misguided, and I think we all agree.

I think the business mixes up the small player, with the casual player. They are not the same, imo. The casual guy who goes to the track three times a year is not price sensitive, but a smaller player who plays weekly, or maybe a bet or two a day, in my opinion is not the same player. He should have lower takeout.

Two anecdotal examples, Rich's friend, and a small harness player. I have posted them at times before, and they are featured on the horseplayer blog, but I think we can not hear from them enough. They are important and can grow racing.

I was using pinnacle offshore until the debacle. Because of the rebate I found a way to make place bets profitable. I wound up with a 3.2% loss, but a rebate of 7%. It actually was a rebate of 6.2% as they did not give a rebate on 2.20 horses.

Now the kicker is, I went from betting about 30 to 50k to 1.3 million that year.It made the churn factor possible. If takeout is lowered it may have the same affect. I now have changed my play where place betting is profitable, but it is so small that I have stopped. I would definitely go back if takeout is lowered significantly.

Thanks

Vic

and http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2008/07/churn.html This is a student with little money to play, but he had some fun with his modest bankroll he saved up to give racing a try with. To my knowledge he is still playing today. This was over a year ago.

I received an interesting email awhile ago I thought I would share. It is from a small harness player.

I registered for a XXXX account and I must say I am impressed. All they need now is free video and programs. I like the smaller tracks like Monticello and Northville... I even tried a place ticket on a 3-1 greyhound...... best yet.... I started with 100........ betting frivilously and stupid, I blew it all... but next day I had 23 dollars in my account.... and then last night.... I got the 23 all the way back up to 100 and then blew it all again ... but anyway I managed to bet about $700.... So now they throw $35 back in my account....... Thanks for playing!!......... Back to the slow grind.

If this player took his $100 to the track, he is broke after the first day. Instead, by getting a boost through an overnight rebate he bet well over 7 times that amount. Instead of contributing $21 to racing through takeouts, he contributed over $150. There is a genuine excitement in his email, and I found that infectious. That is exactly what we need in this business.

This is a small player; and that folks is churn. Lower takeouts should not be just for whales. Whales started as minnows once too.


I can not stress it enough - we are working to make more and more of these stories the rule, not the exception.

Indulto
10-19-2009, 11:31 PM
Race tracks know very well players that churn money raises handle and ups their bottom line. The biggest mistake they made was providing their signals for peanuts. The net result was takeout did drop considerably but for just a few that churn lots of money. The whales. The average player gets peanuts for rebates. I don't know if this is true or not but it's said those whales account for 30 percent of handle industry wide. Where did that figure come from?

There's no question in my mind, the trend has been cater to the rich. Ala Breeders Cup. The tracks go one step further for the whales, that's padding the conditions to create carryovers in the pick 6 and high five to bring the whales into the pools. Carryovers are at an historical high. The unintended consequence is the average players can't afford to play into those pools to have a FAIR shot for the big score. Those conditions also limits players in their ability to score in other pools, like the pick 4,5, and supers. If it wasn't for the dime super they wouldn't play them at all, I wouldn'think.

What's next for lower rung players, relegate them to penny wager off in a corner somewhere so they won't be seen. Those that get those unfair rebates rob the track, horsemen and the players. They are skimming everyone. To add salt to the wound the whales get reductions in takeout win or lose, whereas the player feels the hit on takeout when they win. Less money to put back through the windows and a short playing life. Well, at one time most will replenish the bankroll and come back but in today's economy racing will and has been losing more. The horsemen new exactly what to do with the slot revenue, they got their cut but the players got squat.

Get the players a better cut of the rebates, then every player will clearly see and experience the value of lower takeout. Give us more of the rebates and you'll see more money going through the windows. What's left of us anyway. I don't want 200,000 points for a garden tool I don't need, give me back more of my money to PLAY THE HORSES! LIKE THE WHALES GET.TD,
Are you arguing that rebates should no longer be based on wagering volume over some time period, or that effective takeout be set at an equal level for all who want rebates; or something else entirely? Is your goal a level playing field for all, or would whales still get a better deal?

Though I'd personally prefer lower direct takeout for all without any rebating as it used to be prior to simulcasting, I can see that rebates allow players who aren't profitable to stay in the game longer. I just wonder what the resulting effects would be on the tax liabilities and reporting requirements for most non-professional players. I don't know if tax liability on rebates is uniform nationwide, or if tracking for tax purposes is required for rebates under all circumstances under which they could be delivered. Would it reach the point where one's SSN is required even for an on-track bet?

If you're willing to respond, please be as explict as possible as to what you're proprosing.

twindouble
10-19-2009, 11:57 PM
TD,
Are you arguing that rebates should no longer be based on wagering volume over some time period, or that effective takeout be set at an equal level for all who want rebates; or something else entirely? Is your goal a level playing field for all, or would whales still get a better deal?

Though I'd personally prefer lower direct takeout for all without any rebating as it used to be prior to simulcasting, I can see that rebates allow players who aren't profitable to stay in the game longer. I just wonder what the resulting effects would be on the tax liabilities and reporting requirements for most non-professional players. I don't know if tax liability on rebates is uniform nationwide, or if tracking for tax purposes is required for rebates under all circumstances under which they could be delivered. Would it reach the point where one's SSN is required even for an on-track bet?

If you're willing to respond, please be as explict as possible as to what you're proprosing.

I'm being realistic. Under these economic conditions there's no way players will get back to the level playing field you and others would like. If I thought that was possible I wouldn't compromise on the rebate issue and that's get rid of them or give equal amount to all players. Player groups have to fight the battles they can win. Hell, at this point just getting the players something of real value they will respond in kind and all concerned would benefit. A substantail increase in rebates is a decrease in takeout plus.

twindouble
10-20-2009, 12:27 AM
Twin,

I am a believer in lower takeout for small to medium players because once they get a taste of it, and start making some headway they tend to bet more and more, and have more fun. If you look at what the business does it always leads towards the big player only benefitting from it, and paying the business back with more volume. I personally think this is misguided, and I think we all agree.

I think the business mixes up the small player, with the casual player. They are not the same, imo. The casual guy who goes to the track three times a year is not price sensitive, but a smaller player who plays weekly, or maybe a bet or two a day, in my opinion is not the same player. He should have lower takeout.

Two anecdotal examples, Rich's friend, and a small harness player. I have posted them at times before, and they are featured on the horseplayer blog, but I think we can not hear from them enough. They are important and can grow racing.



and http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2008/07/churn.html This is a student with little money to play, but he had some fun with his modest bankroll he saved up to give racing a try with. To my knowledge he is still playing today. This was over a year ago.



I can not stress it enough - we are working to make more and more of these stories the rule, not the exception.

I agree, there's all kinds of players that make up the game and they all contribute to handle, some more than others. One thing I don't agree with is only a small percentage of players make money playing the horses. Players rotate to the top, then fall somewhere in between. Then there's the losers that don't know the game and they all aren't degenerates. Racing can't afford to cater to one group over many, that's a big mistake in my opinion. The product isn't meant for just the rich.

Niko
10-20-2009, 11:34 PM
I will waste my time once more.

Horseplayers are customers. Customers who are not getting what they want: Lower takeout, an improved product, a say in the future of the game, an industry that will throw off its old, worn out approaches and embrace a new direction with customers as partners.

Horseplayers have an organization: HANA. It's been around for a year, or so, and has received some recognition. HANA's problem is that it embraces a low-key, "positive" approach in its relations with the industry. HANA needs to be a proactive force in the industry. HANA needs to recognize and embrace the idea that the only bargaining chip that horseplayers have with the rest of the industry is their MONEY. HANA needs to call out those policies that are hurting the game and INSIST that they be changed; or, the industry will see a loss of revenue and customers if they aren't changed. HANA needs to do this. The time for being nice is over. If HANA and its membership truly wants to change the game and be a part of the future then they need to play their bargaining chip to the hilt. If HANA and its membership will not make a stand NOW....then it will never make a stand.

So let's stop kidding ourselves about what HANA will or won't do; what HANA can or can't do. Let's do it; or, let's quit wasting our time and energy over issues that conversation will not resolve.

I have to agree with this. Companies and people typically don't change until the pain is too great. And remember it's really not increasing handle that counts, it's profit. If you can handle half the volume, have half the overhead and make more profit, why wouldn't you? I'm still waiting for a track with slots to drop their take-out. They're in the best position to do it for a year to see what happens. And it would be great to see a track with decent handle like Mountaineer do it and see if the players do indeed follow.

Instead smart tracks like Philly are experimenting in the opposite direction which tells you what they really think about horse racing.

We need the liquidity of the whales which means a rebate of some type due to the destructive take-outs but not at the expense of essentially raising the take even higher for the smaller casual players. I voted with my measly pittance and haven't bet in a while (except I will play Keeneland because I like what they stand for and the racing is top notch (although it can be tough with dirt going to poly), instead enjoying the ride in the market...and I must say I'm surprised that I'm not missing it that much. Although I'm looking forward to the Breeders Cup.

Having a family I can't play like I'm retired or single. Tired of some races taken off the turf that I wasn't aware of unless I'm watching because the updated web information is incorrect, having to watch track maintenance to see what they're doing that day, what trainers are doing what and who's being watched, lack of information, the past posting that really doesn't happen, antiquated technology, high takes yadda yadda. I'm sure I'll be back next year because I do enjoy the game, but that depends on other ventures that are more pleasant at the time. Guess I'll have to stick to one track. But then again my shortcomings at this point are the professionals dream.....

twindouble
10-23-2009, 02:29 PM
What makes anyone think the "whales" can't compete with you know, all the "losers", degenerates, casual players or unsophisticated computer illiterates without rebates?? Are they men, mice or just plan rip off artist? You tell me!

Niko
10-23-2009, 04:12 PM
Do you think they'd be able to maintain their current strategies and bet limits without rebates?

Do you think elimination of rebates would chase some of the whales away?

twindouble
10-23-2009, 04:29 PM
Do you think they'd be able to maintain their current strategies and bet limits without rebates?

Do you think elimination of rebates would chase some of the whales away?

The Pari-mutual system has served ALL players well and fairly for many years. Racing got by just fine without the whales and rebates of today. If they can't compete with us on a level playing field that's their problem, I don't care where they go or what their so-called "strategies" are, it's nothing more than highway robbery.

Niko
10-23-2009, 06:27 PM
Not disagreeing with you Twin, I'm on your side but I also understand the need to keep big players in the game which helps everyone out on the liquidity side (with odds)--not to mention the track. There's a reason the casino's chase the whales and it helps all of us have a better experience because they help finance the nice large properties. Problem is the take-out is beyond ridiculous and in horse racing because of the pari-mutuel system the model doesn't work for the smaller player because the whale can place a losing bet and still make a profit while the average person can't...and then it gets harder to get overlays.

But people still bet into it complaining all the way supporting the current system and high take-outs.

I can understand continuing to bet on the big days for fun, or any day if you're a winning player and rely on it. But if you're not, maybe it's time for some folks to take a stand and shake out the horse racing industry a little bit. Players on professional teams go on strike all the time..I'm waiting for the day when fans reverse it. I'm doing it in my own little way.

twindouble
10-23-2009, 07:16 PM
Not disagreeing with you Twin, I'm on your side but I also understand the need to keep big players in the game which helps everyone out on the liquidity side (with odds)--not to mention the track. There's a reason the casino's chase the whales and it helps all of us have a better experience because they help finance the nice large properties. Problem is the take-out is beyond ridiculous and in horse racing because of the pari-mutuel system the model doesn't work for the smaller player because the whale can place a losing bet and still make a profit while the average person can't...and then it gets harder to get overlays.

But people still bet into it complaining all the way supporting the current system and high take-outs.

I can understand continuing to bet on the big days for fun, or any day if you're a winning player and rely on it. But if you're not, maybe it's time for some folks to take a stand and shake out the horse racing industry a little bit. Players on professional teams go on strike all the time..I'm waiting for the day when fans reverse it. I'm doing it in my own little way.

I understand the reality, racing is in trouble and it could get worse in this economy. Like I said in another post here, I'm willing to compromise on rebates to keep tracks operating. HANA or any other group isn't and won't be in any position to take on all the states, the political and all other interests involved to get "track takeout" lowered. My position as of now is to get a better cut of the rebates for the players, to me that's not as complicated in my opinion. Going in any other direction will be a waste of time and efford. Like I said, something is better than nothing. There no question in my mind, with more money to wager with the average players will churn more money and all will be better off in the long run. Sure, I would feel a lot better if they did away with rebates but I realize that's not going to happen. Not now anyway.

I've been playing the horses on a regular bases for 49 years and I can get a little riled up and passionate about what I believe is the right thing to do, so excuse me if I come off being blunt. Anyone who thinks a small percentage of players should be allowed to get a much lower takeout is on the wrong side of the majority of players and fairness. For HANA to take the position in favor of the whales isn't a good idea. That's very obvious to me. I get the impression that elites of the game really don't understand the players that support the game.

Thanks,

TD

Imriledup
10-23-2009, 08:17 PM
Studies suggest that lowering takeout will work.

It will work in the long run.

How is the current plan working out for the Racing Industry right now?

Tracks are losing money right now. The industry is in negative growth mode. IF THEY WERE SMART, they would grab the bull by the horns.


Too bad Stupid can't be cured.