Kentucky tracks 0 MTP wager closing.

[Quesmark]

ELMONT, NY, October 20, 2009--Did you see where the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the racing municipality that started it all, is considering the 0-Minutes-to-Post option for the closing of wagering pools at its racetracks?


If the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission decides to give the practice another try at a Wagering Integrity Committee hearing scheduled for next week, good for them. The experiment was held before at Churchill Downs but later was discontinued.

The Racing Commission will decide if wagering will be halted after the betting clock clicks down to zero, whether all the horses are in the starting gate or not.
From:
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/10212009-size-matters/



For this to work properly,a digital countdown clock should be displayed on track odds boards,and TV's,and graphically inserted into all simulcasts.It could be like a NASA launch,or New Years eve :10: ,:9: ,:8: ,:7: ... kind of thing.

Right now betting through an ADW every tracks 0 is different,not absolute,a bettor has to guess how much time is actually left,which sometimes results in costly shutouts.
Shutting the pools a minute,or two before the horse's actually break would reduce suspicions about late money odds drops.

[DJofSD]

Shutting the pools a minute,or two before the horse's actually break would reduce suspicions about late money odds drops.

To make a statement like that tells me you don't understand the problem nor the solution.

[fmolf]

To make a statement like that tells me you don't understand the problem nor the solution.
what the tracks need to do is to stop taking the money from the off track wagering outlets and the adw's after they close their pools.Then the wagering outlets would be responsible for the bets either paying on them or refunding them.This would force the off track operations into stopping their betting with enough time to get their bets into the pools on time.

[DJofSD]

What they need to do is spend some money, likely, a lot of money, on a new computer network and betting system. The stock exchanges have it, why not horse racing?

[fmolf]

What they need to do is spend some money, likely, a lot of money, on a new computer network and betting system. The stock exchanges have it, why not horse racing?
If they implimented these changes it might lead to an upgrade of the wagering system now in place.This would happen if the outlets and the tracks saw a decrease in handle due to the new wagering rules.The problem is who will pay for this upgrade?They'll bicker about it for years to come and nothing will get done!

[Tom]

Why not horse racing?

1. It cost money
2. It benefits the fans
3. It doesn't help the greedy SOBs who run the show.

[DJofSD]

In the end, it is us, the betting public that will pay for it.

The fact they know it needs to be done but are apparently doing nothing about tells me they are not serious.

There are a whole host of issues that need to be fixed, a new wagering system is just one. They can kick that can down the road, again and again, however, it results in a continuation of the perception of lack of integrity.

Late odds changes and lack of control over illegal medications are the two big perception problems. Lots of studies, lots or proposals but no significant changes are taking place. How big the problems actually are compared to what the public's perception of them is where the issue lays. There's a gap there and the longer the problems are left to fester, the bigger the perception of the problem becomes.

Fixing the drug problem is a more complicated one than fixing the wagering system problem. Both will take time and money but the wagering system problem is solely technical in nature. That should be doable as long as there is a will to do it.

[Valuist]

What they need to do is spend some money, likely, a lot of money, on a new computer network and betting system. The stock exchanges have it, why not horse racing?

I can just hear track management; who's going to pay for it? Not us......lets see if we can get a takeout increase to fund it.

[CBedo]

Having the history of screwed up technology that horse racing has, it wouldn't surprise me if they pass this rule so that you can't be after 0 mtp....but still allow people to cancel bets after. :bang:

[rrbauer]

They should leave betting open until the horses hit the 3/8 pole. Allow new bets, allow cancellations, just one big cluster flock. Make the game more exciting, create all kinds of new controversies and data products. Lot's of fist fights at simulcast and OTB sites when people slow down the betting lines. We need to make this game more frenzied and frantic. Even allow quick-picks until they hit the 1/16th pole.

Why not? Nothing else seems to work!

[Valuist]

They should leave betting open until the horses hit the 3/8 pole. Allow new bets, allow cancellations, just one big cluster flock. Make the game more exciting, create all kinds of new controversies and data products. Lot's of fist fights at simulcast and OTB sites when people slow down the betting lines. We need to make this game more frenzied and frantic. Even allow quick-picks until they hit the 1/16th pole.

Why not? Nothing else seems to work!

That sounds like something that would be a big hit with the MTV generation. I think you are on to something.

[Imriledup]

I won't bet a track that closes pools at 0 mins. I like the ability to cancel a ticket of mine if my horse breaks thru the gate. I like the ability to make a wager if a heavy favorite is throwing a fit while loading.

[fmolf]

I won't bet a track that closes pools at 0 mins. I like the ability to cancel a ticket of mine if my horse breaks thru the gate. I like the ability to make a wager if a heavy favorite is throwing a fit while loading.
so do the big guys,this is a measure to restore some semblance of consumer confidence back in the game.I commend them for trying to rectify a problem that exists.

[misscashalot]

That sounds like something that would be a big hit with the MTV generation. I think you are on to something.
:lol:

[jballscalls]

Why not horse racing?

1. It cost money
2. It benefits the fans
3. It doesn't help the greedy SOBs who run the show.

i'll give you number 1, but 2 and 3 are contradictory, because doing things that benefit the fans and gamblers would help us Greedy SOB's!

the answer isnt shutting down at 0 mtp, that would just cause huge problems, especially with late scratches, or delays for a new jock or equipment, it would be a circus.

the answer is faster better technology in my opinion. it really shouldnt take more than a second or two or 3 for all the late money to come in and get final odds after the gates open.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

i'll give you number 1, but 2 and 3 are contradictory, because doing things that benefit the fans and gamblers would help us Greedy SOB's!

the answer isnt shutting down at 0 mtp, that would just cause huge problems, especially with late scratches, or delays for a new jock or equipment, it would be a circus.

the answer is faster better technology in my opinion. it really shouldnt take more than a second or two or 3 for all the late money to come in and get final odds after the gates open.
Never canceled a bet due to late jockey changes or equipment changes. Still, instead of 0 MTP, how about when the first couple of horses are loaded as a compromise. Sure, there can still be late scratches, and I've made bets after late scratches were announced if my horse was scratched, but I look at it like this, when I used to bet football, the bet had to be in before 1 o'clock. Prior to the information age, I know there were many times I bet an over only to kick myself once the TV broadcast began because the field was either full of snow, rain, or kickoff ball kept blowing off the tee. But I couldn't cancel or change the bet either. I lived with it. Point: players adapt.

Yes, the answer is to invest in quicker technology. But that isn't on the agenda unfortunately.

[rrbauer]

the answer is faster better technology in my opinion. it really shouldnt take more than a second or two or 3 for all the late money to come in and get final odds after the gates open.

This would require investments from everyone involved from the tote companies, the network hubs, the ADW's, the simulcast/OTB sites and the racetracks. Wish for this in one hand and crap in the other: You know the answer!

[raybo]

This would require investments from everyone involved from the tote companies, the network hubs, the ADW's, the simulcast/OTB sites and the racetracks. Wish for this in one hand and crap in the other: You know the answer!

What if large numbers of patrons boycott, industry wide? You think they might look at the expenditures in a different light? You betcha they would.

They ain't afraid of us , yet!!

That's what HANA is all about, organizing the patrons to the point that we can truly hold them accountable for their stupidity and force them to change, or close the doors.

[raybo]

Here's my vote:

Wagers not accepted after 0 mtp, track time, no canceled wagers after the first horse enters the gate. ADWs, whales, everyone is included in this.

Wagerers will adjust, ADWs will adjust, in order to get as much money into the pools as possible before 0 mtp, they will have to, in order to maximize their profits.

When I was a YouBet member, several years ago, they stopped accepting wagers at 1 mtp and I never saw a problem with that. If I got shut out, it was my fault for not getting my "ducks in row" before 1 mtp.

I never have tried to cancel a wager, ever. Scratches are part of the game, might cost you money, might save you money.

[Imriledup]

What if large numbers of patrons boycott, industry wide? You think they might look at the expenditures in a different light? You betcha they would.

They ain't afraid of us , yet!!

That's what HANA is all about, organizing the patrons to the point that we can truly hold them accountable for their stupidity and force them to change, or close the doors.

HANA won't boycott anything. That's not their position at this time. Its possible that their position can change somewhere down the line, but right now, they aren't starting any boycotts.

I was thinking about this on my pillow last night how can you 'reach' the masses to just stop betting. Take off a week or a month until the racing industry says "ok, we see you have some power, we will listen to your demands". Do we need Rod Serling to create an episode of Twilight Zone in order to enjoy a day/week/month where not one racing fan bets one single dollar? Think of how happy you would be if all racing fans just pulled a Nancy Reagan and said NO. That would be incredible if we all could all get along and please Mr Rodney King.

I was going to try and do my part and actually approach random racing fans at racetracks and tell them to not support higher takeout rates but then i got to thinking that the only people who really care about takeout (or even know what it is) are people who are making a serious attempt to win in the long run. Most people who are betting at the track are just paying for the gambling rush, if you approached those people they would look at you like you were crazy for suggesting they stop betting because the takeout rates are being raised 5%. They would look at you like you were from Mars if you tried to talk to them about this issue.

MOst of these people i see on the bottom levels of racetracks or simulcasting are just betting every track that's running. They have absolutely zero concept of takeout rate and i'm sure they really could care less, they're losers anyway, they know it, they would give you the 'whats the difference' speech if you tried to explain to them why they should just not bet today.

To most people, what is the difference between horse race betting and slot maching betting? Not too much. For every student of this sport who takes their handicapping and betting seriously, you have 99 out of 100 who just show up, don't buy a racing form or have done one speck of handicapping work and are betting names and numbers and not really caring that they're going to be long run losers.

Horse racing can continue to punish the 1 fan who deeply cares as long as they have the other 99 who do not.

[raybo]

HANA won't boycott anything. That's not their position at this time. Its possible that their position can change somewhere down the line, but right now, they aren't starting any boycotts.

I was thinking about this on my pillow last night how can you 'reach' the masses to just stop betting. Take off a week or a month until the racing industry says "ok, we see you have some power, we will listen to your demands". Do we need Rod Serling to create an episode of Twilight Zone in order to enjoy a day/week/month where not one racing fan bets one single dollar? Think of how happy you would be if all racing fans just pulled a Nancy Reagan and said NO. That would be incredible if we all could all get along and please Mr Rodney King.

I was going to try and do my part and actually approach random racing fans at racetracks and tell them to not support higher takeout rates but then i got to thinking that the only people who really care about takeout (or even know what it is) are people who are making a serious attempt to win in the long run. Most people who are betting at the track are just paying for the gambling rush, if you approached those people they would look at you like you were crazy for suggesting they stop betting because the takeout rates are being raised 5%. They would look at you like you were from Mars if you tried to talk to them about this issue.

MOst of these people i see on the bottom levels of racetracks or simulcasting are just betting every track that's running. They have absolutely zero concept of takeout rate and i'm sure they really could care less, they're losers anyway, they know it, they would give you the 'whats the difference' speech if you tried to explain to them why they should just not bet today.

To most people, what is the difference between horse race betting and slot maching betting? Not too much. For every student of this sport who takes their handicapping and betting seriously, you have 99 out of 100 who just show up, don't buy a racing form or have done one speck of handicapping work and are betting names and numbers and not really caring that they're going to be long run losers.

Horse racing can continue to punish the 1 fan who deeply cares as long as they have the other 99 who do not.

That's why we started HANA. I know HANA is not boycotting tracks as yet. We don't have the numbers yet for that method to have enough impact to make much of a difference, regarding a boycott. But, we are growing every day and it won't be too terribly long before we have sufficient numbers to not only boycott but we will have enough members that we won't have to boycott. Just the knowledge that we could meaningfully affect the industry by choosing to do that will carry a lot of weight.

[Irish Boy]

That sounds like something that would be a big hit with the MTV generation. I think you are on to something.
The MTV generation is in their mid 30s-40s now.

[Irish Boy]

:10: That's why we started HANA. I know HANA is not boycotting tracks as yet. We don't have the numbers yet for that method to have enough impact to make much of a difference, regarding a boycott. But, we are growing every day and it won't be too terribly long before we have sufficient numbers to not only boycott but we will have enough members that we won't have to boycott. Just the knowledge that we could meaningfully affect the industry by choosing to do that will carry a lot of weight.
LOL. Hana will never be able to boycott because its membership will never have the discipline to pass up races where they feel they can make money at particular tracks. Bitching about problems is a low-cost, feel good strategy. Boycotts and other forms of action that could possibly do something are the exact opposite.

The other problem with the boycott is the emperor has no clothes problem. If HANA says "everyone boycott Santa Anita" and handle doesn't go down, then the organization is sunk, right there.

[raybo]

:10:
LOL. Hana will never be able to boycott because its membership will never have the discipline to pass up races where they feel they can make money at particular tracks. Bitching about problems is a low-cost, feel good strategy. Boycotts and other forms of action that could possibly do something are the exact opposite.

The other problem with the boycott is the emperor has no clothes problem. If HANA says "everyone boycott Santa Anita" and handle doesn't go down, then the organization is sunk, right there.

Are you a HANA member? If so, are you saying that you would not boycott if HANA called for it?

If you're not a member then your statement is meaningless.

I have much faith in HANA membership, in mass numbers, participating in such an action. I was one of the first participants in the idea and formation of what became HANA and was privy to the comments new members made upon joining the organization. A large majority of them were extremely passionate about supporting HANA and it's goals.

I'm sorry you don't share the same faith.

[CBedo]

Are you a HANA member? If so, are you saying that you would not boycott if HANA called for it?

If you're not a member then your statement is meaningless.

I have much faith in HANA membership, in mass numbers, participating in such an action. I was one of the first participants in the idea and formation of what became HANA and was privy to the comments new members made upon joining the organization. A large majority of them were extremely passionate about supporting HANA and it's goals.

I'm sorry you don't share the same faith.I agree with Raybo. I'll be more than willing to pass up a short term small positive equity situation if I think it will make my long term substantially better, and I think most who wouldn't probably aren't HANA members anyway.

[ranchwest]

i'll give you number 1, but 2 and 3 are contradictory, because doing things that benefit the fans and gamblers would help us Greedy SOB's!

the answer isnt shutting down at 0 mtp, that would just cause huge problems, especially with late scratches, or delays for a new jock or equipment, it would be a circus.

the answer is faster better technology in my opinion. it really shouldnt take more than a second or two or 3 for all the late money to come in and get final odds after the gates open.

So, if the horse won't load or the jock won't ride or the trainer can't figure out how to put on a saddle, scratch the horse. No circus. Just load 'em and go.

[CBedo]

So, if the horse won't load or the jock won't ride or the trainer can't figure out how to put on a saddle, scratch the horse. No circus. Just load 'em and go.From time to time, I watch some international racing, and am usually amazed at how fast they get the horses load in the gate and off and racing. I've often wondered why the U.S. tracks can't do it as fast.

[Irish Boy]

Are you a HANA member? If so, are you saying that you would not boycott if HANA called for it?

If you're not a member then your statement is meaningless.

I have much faith in HANA membership, in mass numbers, participating in such an action. I was one of the first participants in the idea and formation of what became HANA and was privy to the comments new members made upon joining the organization. A large majority of them were extremely passionate about supporting HANA and it's goals.

I'm sorry you don't share the same faith.
Then do it. It's really not that hard. Just take the most egregious track, by whatever metric, and say "HANA participants: don't bet there any longer". You could do that today. Take a vote or whatever to figure out which track is going to be the focal point of attention.

It's really easy to link to news stories and make suggestions on how things could be better for horseplayers. It's also pointless -- everyone that is going to be reading your site "knows" about takeout. Meaningful action would involve doing something like avoiding a track, but, once again, one characteristic of boycotts is that cheating is rampant. I think cheating would be even worse here than in normal boycott situations, because most of your membership is going to take the attitude of "why should I limit my opportunities when I'd just be adding a small amount to the pool?" That they can participate in HANA and bet semi-anonymously only will add to that problem.

Every thread I read about HANA talks about how they're giving horseplayers a "voice". Big f'n deal. This website gives horseplayers a voice. How does slapping an acronym on it make you any more successful? Newsletters and e-mail lists are great for organization, but now you are organized. You've been around for a while now. If HANA plans on being anything more than a well-coordinated circlejerk, then do something.

[raybo]

Then do it. It's really not that hard. Just take the most egregious track, by whatever metric, and say "HANA participants: don't bet there any longer". You could do that today. Take a vote or whatever to figure out which track is going to be the focal point of attention.

It's really easy to link to news stories and make suggestions on how things could be better for horseplayers. It's also pointless -- everyone that is going to be reading your site "knows" about takeout. Meaningful action would involve doing something like avoiding a track, but, once again, one characteristic of boycotts is that cheating is rampant. I think cheating would be even worse here than in normal boycott situations, because most of your membership is going to take the attitude of "why should I limit my opportunities when I'd just be adding a small amount to the pool?" That they can participate in HANA and bet semi-anonymously only will add to that problem.

Every thread I read about HANA talks about how they're giving horseplayers a "voice". Big f'n deal. This website gives horseplayers a voice. How does slapping an acronym on it make you any more successful? Newsletters and e-mail lists are great for organization, but now you are organized. You've been around for a while now. If HANA plans on being anything more than a well-coordinated circlejerk, then do something.

This forum does give us a voice, however, only to those reading the threads here. HANA is developing a voice and a presence with the industry. There's a huge difference.

And please, don'y apply your ethics to the vast majority of HANA members, it's an insult.

[Irish Boy]

This forum does give us a voice, however, only to those reading the threads here. HANA is developing a voice and a presence with the industry. There's a huge difference.

And please, don'y apply your ethics to the vast majority of HANA members, it's an insult.
This isn't about my ethics. It's about empirical research into how people behave in those types of settings. Individuals may say "yeah, if there's a boycott I'm totally down". Guess what happens when people's backs are turned? They cheat on the edges. It's classic cartel behavior, only centralized on the purchaser side rather than the seller side. This is what happens.

Unfortunately for HANA's sake, unless, at some point, the membership as a whole is willing to forgo individual detriment on behalf of the greater good (that is, willingly giving up potentially opportunities that would have otherwise existed), track behvaior has no incentive to change that it would not have otherwise had. That both assumes that HANA has a large enough influence on purse sizes that its effect will be felt by tracks, and that HANA has a large enough participation/low rate of cheating and freeriding, which besets all collective action undertakings. I'm skeptical of both prongs.

[raybo]

This isn't about my ethics. It's about empirical research into how people behave in those types of settings. Individuals may say "yeah, if there's a boycott I'm totally down". Guess what happens when people's backs are turned? They cheat on the edges. It's classic cartel behavior, only centralized on the purchaser side rather than the seller side. This is what happens.

Unfortunately for HANA's sake, unless, at some point, the membership as a whole is willing to forgo individual detriment on behalf of the greater good (that is, willingly giving up potentially opportunities that would have otherwise existed), track behvaior has no incentive to change that it would not have otherwise had. That both assumes that HANA has a large enough influence on purse sizes that its effect will be felt by tracks, and that HANA has a large enough participation/low rate of cheating and freeriding, which besets all collective action undertakings. I'm skeptical of both prongs.

Being skeptical is fine, but to flat out say it won't work isn't. One of the reasons HANA hasn't made moves of this magnitude yet is because our membership level is not high enough yet to dramatically influence pool sizes. But, we are growing every day. BTW, we did call for a "procott" and did marginally affect pools (marginally, because our membership was low, not because our members didn't support and participate in the events).

I'm not saying that HANA, ultimately, will boycott tracks, but, once our membership becomes large enough, just the mere fact that we could dramatically impact pools, if we chose to, might be enough of a potential threat that our demands for patrons' rights at the bargaining table would, finally, come to pass.

[castaway01]

Being skeptical is fine, but to flat out say it won't work isn't. One of the reasons HANA hasn't made moves of this magnitude yet is because our membership level is not high enough yet to dramatically influence pool sizes. But, we are growing every day. BTW, we did call for a "procott" and did marginally affect pools (marginally, because our membership was low, not because our members didn't support and participate in the events).

I'm not saying that HANA, ultimately, will boycott tracks, but, once our membership becomes large enough, just the mere fact that we could dramatically impact pools, if we chose to, might be enough of a potential threat that our demands for patrons' rights at the bargaining table would, finally, come to pass.

First of all, I'm not sure why this particular move---ending betting at 0 MTP to post---led to this argument. At least the tracks are trying to address a problem here. There is no great solution to this one other than spending millions (I believe $50 million is the number thrown around) on a new wagering platform and that's not happening in this economy.

Second, Raybo, while I admire your optimism, you have to remember that the first time HANA calls for a boycott and it fails, they're dead as an organization. That is how the bettor can "vote", with his or her money. Once it's shown HANA can't deliver the "votes" (if they can't, I don't know), they're done. So, they need to be very, very careful about that sort of a move and I would advise you against being overconfident that it would work.

[TurfRuler]

HANA exist. Only last year or so did it start. I joined because I felt it was time for a horseplayers organization. It is free to join, another great marketing strategy. They have done some really good things for horseplayers as an organization. They send out newsletters about changes affecting the industry and horseplayers. I have not read where Raybo has called for a boycott of race tracks by HANA members. What I have read is that Irish Boy is daring HANA to boycott racetracks right now. Let the racetrack management disregard the welfare of their customer base like they have been doing, raising takeout rates, increasing cost to attend the races, changing racing surfaces, carding short fields, including all statebred races, maiden claimers, allowing trainers to cheat the players....just wait for the next revalation about racetrack mismanagement along the lines of Enron, Madoff or pick six fixes by programmers and then see how they will use their public relations machine to get horseplayers back into the game not because we boycott, they will shoot them selves in the foot or start jumbing off their own bridges.

[Irish Boy]

HANA is the horseracing equivalent of the People's Front of Judea from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Small membership, delusions of grandeur, and an attitude that "we'll slowly bide our time until all the pieces fall into place".

I keep hearing about all these accomplishments, which include newsletters and awareness. I understand the organization is young, but it's getting less young. Are there any prospects for anything more significant in the near future? Or are there just going to be more discussion of all the things you wish were better?

[LottaKash]

HANA is the horseracing equivalent of the People's Front of Judea from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Small membership, delusions of grandeur, and an attitude that "we'll slowly bide our time until all the pieces fall into place".

I keep hearing about all these accomplishments, which include newsletters and awareness. I understand the organization is young, but it's getting less young. Are there any prospects for anything more significant in the near future? Or are there just going to be more discussion of all the things you wish were better?

Irish One, "patience" please, 1-step at a time....HANA has been noted and accepted as a "real entity" in the "racing-realm", and our foot is in the door, and not being slammed on so far....In this day & age, and economy, that is a miracle in and of itself, especially considering the mindset that we are up against....Horse Racing has been around for a very long time, and HANA has not, so changes will be slow to come, but, we do have the ears of some of the powers that be, and to be heard & recognized, is at least, "fair", at this stage of HANA's development...

best,

[chickenhead]

Unfortunately for HANA's sake, unless, at some point, the membership as a whole is willing to forgo individual detriment on behalf of the greater good (that is, willingly giving up potentially opportunities that would have otherwise existed), track behvaior has no incentive to change that it would not have otherwise had. That both assumes that HANA has a large enough influence on purse sizes that its effect will be felt by tracks, and that HANA has a large enough participation/low rate of cheating and freeriding, which besets all collective action undertakings. I'm skeptical of both prongs.

To me, what people often don't seem to realize is that the Industry itself has organized a devastatingly effective player boycott. Handle is off 4.5 billion dollars in inflation adjusted terms in a few short years time. Horseplayers are most certainly making themselves felt in the pocketbooks of the tracks. It's the free market -- players aren't getting what they want, and they aren't playing.

Players will respond, all on their own -- one way when they get what they want, and another when they don't get what they want. All those players need to do is make sure the tracks understand what they want, why handle is down 4.5 billion dollars. If they decide they don't want to listen, then they will continue to lose customers, and they will eventually go bankrupt. I know they somehow feel they are entitled to customers, at some point they will figure out that they are not.

[raybo]

First of all, I'm not sure why this particular move---ending betting at 0 MTP to post---led to this argument. At least the tracks are trying to address a problem here. There is no great solution to this one other than spending millions (I believe $50 million is the number thrown around) on a new wagering platform and that's not happening in this economy.

Second, Raybo, while I admire your optimism, you have to remember that the first time HANA calls for a boycott and it fails, they're dead as an organization. That is how the bettor can "vote", with his or her money. Once it's shown HANA can't deliver the "votes" (if they can't, I don't know), they're done. So, they need to be very, very careful about that sort of a move and I would advise you against being overconfident that it would work.

Read the last paragraph in my post again.

There are reasons why HANA hasn't, and maybe won't, boycott. That is one of them.

Negotiation is always preferred over a show of strength resulting in such a serious action, for both parties at the table.

[raybo]

HANA is the horseracing equivalent of the People's Front of Judea from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Small membership, delusions of grandeur, and an attitude that "we'll slowly bide our time until all the pieces fall into place".

I keep hearing about all these accomplishments, which include newsletters and awareness. I understand the organization is young, but it's getting less young. Are there any prospects for anything more significant in the near future? Or are there just going to be more discussion of all the things you wish were better?

If you were to join and get involved you would know there are prospects for more significant things in the future. But, first we must get our membership level up, that takes time. If we had a large treasury with which to operate, it wouldn't take as long, but we are a non-profit organization with no costs to it's members to join or have a voice.

I'm sure if you asked HANA you would get all the answers you're looking for, so go to the HANA section of the forum and start asking., but I wouldn't advise bringing your negative attitude with you, that will get you nothing but reactions you won't like.

[raybo]

Irish One, "patience" please, 1-step at a time....HANA has been noted and accepted as a "real entity" in the "racing-realm", and our foot is in the door, and not being slammed on so far....In this day & age, and economy, that is a miracle in and of itself, especially considering the mindset that we are up against....Horse Racing has been around for a very long time, and HANA has not, so changes will be slow to come, but, we do have the ears of some of the powers that be, and to be heard & recognized, is at least, "fair", at this stage of HANA's development...

best,

Well said!! And, enough said!! If he wants action then he needs to join the fight and roll up his sleeves.

When you speak from a position of strength your voice carries much more weight.

HANA is that position of strength for players.

[skate]

Seems like an awful lot of negatives to me..

Not that anyone is wrong, just seems so neg, eventually, yes, the sport has got to adjust... downward.

So, what is the point? I mean, if you (anyone) keep up with the negative attitude, then "you lost" already. No fix to negatory, wont happen.:cool:


hey, maybe some of you worry too much, you know, about your hair or your jewelry or somethin:rolleyes:


Overall, the sport, not only appears great to me, but aint nothing better, not even sex comes close.:)

[Irish Boy]

If you were to join and get involved you would know there are prospects for more significant things in the future. But, first we must get our membership level up, that takes time. If we had a large treasury with which to operate, it wouldn't take as long, but we are a non-profit organization with no costs to it's members to join or have a voice.

I'm sure if you asked HANA you would get all the answers you're looking for, so go to the HANA section of the forum and start asking., but I wouldn't advise bringing your negative attitude with you, that will get you nothing but reactions you won't like.

Therein lies the rub. You are, essentially, a well-organized forum. You're not an association in any meaningful sense of the word until you have an actual treasury and commitments from the membership.

Look at this from the perspective of a track. If you say "I have this organization, HANA, and it has X number of members", the first thing I'll think is "prove it". Because, in all seriousness, if the membership is nonpaying and requires zero commitment, it's not a reliable indicator of forward-moving strength. People join and forget about it. People are enthusiastic when they first hear about the idea then become less so. People say that they're crazy about the idea until you recommend that you do something that adversely effects them. Etc, etc.

I've been skeptical about this fit of quixoticness from the very beginning, and I have to say that most of my fears have been realized. So far, membership hasn't been asked to do anything that could possibly inflict costs upon them in any meaningful way. The fact that dues aren't collected means that everything has to be done on a volunteer basis and on the cheap, running blogger-based websites. No money + no commitment = tracks and other industry players simply will not take you seriously. They may humor you, and you might even be able to meet with representatives from time to time. But, when execs are having these meetings, do you really think they're sitting around saying "boy, I don't know, those HANA guys aren't going to like this"? OK, obviously they're not, but here's a more pertinent question: can you imagine that they ever will have this question?

Whoever mentioned that the market is doing most of what you are advocating hit it on the head. The fact that there's a group with an acronym, an un-trademarked logo, a store where you can buy HANA boxers, a blog, and a forum section that is advocating for a bunch of policies that they know people are already advocating for, well, you're just adding water to the ocean, spoonful by spoonful.

You might say I'm being too negative. Fine. I think that the entire HANA organization is being pollyannaish about the whole operation, and, as usual about complainers on the board, they're not really willing to put their money where their mouth is when it's all said and done. don't like WPS takeout in New York? Don't bet NYRA tracks. Don't like past-posting or the appearance of past-posting? Don't use programs designed to wager at the last possible second yourself. Don't like mainstream media coverage as it exists today? Don't consume it. By doing any of those things -- or recommending that members do the same -- you could impact the game more than any awareness campaign or letter-writing exercise. But you'll never demand that members take some affirmative action, because you'll get backlash, numbers will decrease, and you won't be able to falsely claim your inflated membership statistics.

All groups have to take that next step to determine whether its combined membership goals are real, or whether this is just the adult version of playing fortress with the couch cushions. How long will it be until HANA takes that step?

[raybo]

I didn't say we didn't have a treasury, we do. We have officers just like any other legitimate organization.

It's obvious you know very little about HANA, so, why don't you do some research and when you know what we're about and what we've accomplished already then come back and talk all the "smack" you want.