PDA

View Full Version : Arnold signs bill to "help" horse-racing industry


ALostTexan
10-24-2009, 04:24 AM
Great news in California!!! (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/californias-horse-racing-industry-is-struggling-to-compete-with-expanding-casinos-and-other-betting-alternatives-and-gov.html) The racing industry there is going to be SAVED as the legislature has pushed through a bill, which has been signed by the movie star, which will increase the takeout by 5%!!!

Blessed be this great day, October 23, 2009, when the racing industry in California was turned around by the new additional 5% takeout. Why waste the time and effort on marketing to attract new players when all you have to do is add on an additional 5% takeout on the current players. Brilliant idea!!!

It seems the strategy of blaming the rebate shops has been completely wrong, too, as this will only further aid the rebate shops that have taken the brunt of the blame for so very long. The people hurt the most by this bill will be those who actually go the races, placing all of their money through the pools, but nicer facilities and bigger purses will obviously make up for that.

What a wonderful, glorious day for racing in California!!!

andymays
10-24-2009, 05:29 AM
Great news in California!!! (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/californias-horse-racing-industry-is-struggling-to-compete-with-expanding-casinos-and-other-betting-alternatives-and-gov.html) The racing industry there is going to be SAVED as the legislature has pushed through a bill, which has been signed by the movie star, which will increase the takeout by 5%!!!

Blessed be this great day, October 23, 2009, when the racing industry in California was turned around by the new additional 5% takeout. Why waste the time and effort on marketing to attract new players when all you have to do is add on an additional 5% takeout on the current players. Brilliant idea!!!

It seems the strategy of blaming the rebate shops has been completely wrong, too, as this will only further aid the rebate shops that have taken the brunt of the blame for so very long. The people hurt the most by this bill will be those who actually go the races, placing all of their money through the pools, but nicer facilities and bigger purses will obviously make up for that.

What a wonderful, glorious day for racing in California!!!


What a friggin surprise. :eek:

Take the low road California. You always do! :bang:

BELMONT 6-6-09
10-24-2009, 06:40 AM
Why won't these elected officials take into consideration that every study concerning loweering takeout has produced more handle and more revenue for the state...IS THIS FACT SO HARD TO DIGEST?


And the beat goes on...

RichieP
10-24-2009, 07:24 AM
They showed great restraint.

Should have raised it 10-12% especially the win and exacta pools. The serial bets should be at least 30% rake anyways man. Shoot the whales will get it rebated back to them. That's what counts right? The 8-10 people betting all these millions of dollars every day.

Same thing with the Arizona tracks. Forget the raping of normal players with their onerous rakes and the fact they shut out their own in state bettors from betting online when and where they wish. Players who bet bigger money can get rebates!!!!! Woohooo that makes everything alright now dont it!

We are very lucky to have Arnold handling things out there. All those extra hundreds of millions should be pouring in any year now.

BELMONT 6-6-09
10-24-2009, 07:37 AM
They showed great restraint.

Should have raised it 10-12% especially the win and exacta pools. The serial bets should be at least 30% rake anyways man. Shoot the whales will get it rebated back to them. That's what counts right? The 8-10 people betting all these millions of dollars every day.

Same thing with the Arizona tracks. Forget the raping of normal players with their onerous rakes and the fact they shut out their own in state bettors from betting online when and where they wish. Players who bet bigger money can get rebates!!!!! Woohooo that makes everything alright now dont it!

We are very lucky to have Arnold handling things out there. All those extra hundreds of millions should be pouring in any year now.


Nice!

Horseplayersbet.com
10-24-2009, 08:39 AM
I don't remember any racetracks in the future in any Terminator movies. I think Arnold is working towards making that a reality.

twindouble
10-24-2009, 09:02 AM
Does anyone have the details? I would think the State is going to get it's share.

Reality has struck. Now what?

andymays
10-24-2009, 09:03 AM
I don't remember any racetracks in the future in any Terminator movies. I think Arnold is working towards making that a reality.


He didn't think of it. The wonderful Racing Executives, Track Owners, and Racing Officials must have had a hand in it. Does anyone know or can anyone find out who had a hand in it? Time for an email and telephone campaign!

rwwupl
10-24-2009, 09:26 AM
How Stupid!

It just shows what our take out money has produced, more lobby efforts to get more from the people who pay, the customers.

Goodbye California, nice knowing you. :ThmbDown:

andymays
10-24-2009, 10:09 AM
This is an open letter to anyone that cares about Horseplayers and Horse Racing in California.

I am sending this out as a Horseplayer on my own behalf and I am not representing any particular group or entity. The article below in the Los Angeles Times called ďGovernor signs bill to help horse-racing industryĒ should be the final straw for any Horseplayer who plays into the pools in California. If anyone thinks a 5% increase in takeout will help the horse-racing industry in the long run then you are most certainly delusional.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/californias-horse-racing-industry-is-struggling-to-compete-with-expanding-casinos-and-other-betting-alternatives-and-gov.html

It is time for one person, group, or anyone who cares to provide Horseplayers with a list of offshore entities, rebate shops, or whatever it takes to get a better deal for yourself. Itís obvious that the industry Executives in California donít give a damn. Horseplayers didnít destroy California racing but as usual they are the ones asked to pay for the mistakes of the past. Howís that 40 million for the synthetic surfaces doing? Who has been held accountable for the bad decisions? The answer is not one friggin person. The best example of the incompetence of leadership is the now infamous Richard Shapiro. This is the man who pushed for the $40 million synthetic mandate and other geniuses went along. This guy isnít even being held accountable for vandalizing a car in the parking lot of Hollywood Park by the CHRB. If Racing Officials in California canít make a judgment about that how can they be expected to make an honest judgment about anything? How many other bad decisions did this group of egomaniacal idiots of high social standing make that have led us down this path? These people remind me of a bunch of ďAl Davis typesĒ who were sharp guys 20 or 30 years ago but have degenerated into a group of incompetents.

The problem in California in my opinion is that the some of the Track Owners, Racing Executives, Racing Officials, and Politicians beholden to the Indian Casinos have absolutely ruined Horse Racing. You didn't have to be a prophet to see this coming. The Racing Media has also been absent in most (not all) cases and has contributed to the decline by choosing to ignore the tough stories.

Some Horseplayers think that the villains in all this are the Trainers who push the envelope, Whales who get to bet (or cancel bets) after the start, and the list goes on. Yes, these are significant problems but the real villains are the some of the Track Owners and Executives who think of Horseplayers as a "necessary evil". Behind the scenes some of them joke about the degenerates who are their customers. They love it when Horseplayers concentrate their ire on anyone but them. They laugh! Those who think that these people are something special are sadly mistaken in some cases. They are the sleazy and slimy ones who have ruined and are currently ruining racing in my opinion. The buck stops with them and they need to be held accountable!


Thanks for nothing,

Andy

Tom
10-24-2009, 10:17 AM
Arnold, in an exclusive interview last night, told horse players, "I'll be baaack!"

What an idiot.

ezrabrooks
10-24-2009, 10:24 AM
Is this increase gonna catch the BC?

Pace Cap'n
10-24-2009, 10:51 AM
At a hypothetical 20% takeout, the take on a $100 wager would be $20.

Will the new takeout be $25 (adding 5%), or $21 (a 5% increase)?

Horseplayersbet.com
10-24-2009, 11:01 AM
At a hypothetical 20% takeout, the take on a $100 wager would be $20.

Will the new takeout be $25 (adding 5%), or $21 (a 5% increase)?
They are talking an extra 5% of every dollar bet....so a 25% plus increase in actual gross takeout.

Of course, it won't work that way. Betting always decreases when takeout rises. And now with the public more aware of takeout than ever before, I can see a takeout increase of even 1% being met with very negative consequences for the track that raises it.

Pace Cap'n
10-24-2009, 11:03 AM
They are talking an extra 5% of every dollar bet....so a 25% plus increase in actual gross takeout.

The article was not specific. Do you have a citation for that?

Horseplayersbet.com
10-24-2009, 11:10 AM
The article was not specific. Do you have a citation for that?
"Legislative analysts estimate that a 5% increase in the amount taken out of wagers would generate $200 million annually for the horse-racing industry."
$200 million would represent 1% of $20 billion bet. There is only around $13 billion bet in America annually.

DJofSD
10-24-2009, 11:14 AM
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_517_bill_20091023_chaptered.pdf

DJofSD
10-24-2009, 11:16 AM
Is this increase gonna catch the BC?
Yes, the bill is to take effect immediately upon being signed.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-24-2009, 11:25 AM
Yes, the bill is to take effect immediately upon being signed.
The bill goes into effect, but it is up to the track to charge anything between 10-25%.

They have flexibility now. Now lets see if the tracks have the stupidity to raise the takeout and then lets see if they can get away with it without announcing it.

rrbauer
10-24-2009, 12:13 PM
The bill goes into effect, but it is up to the track to charge anything between 10-25%.

They have flexibility now. Now lets see if the tracks have the stupidity to raise the takeout and then lets see if they can get away with it without announcing it.

As I posted in a similar thread, this gives the tracks enough rope to hang themselves. We'll see how it plays out.

rwwupl
10-24-2009, 12:19 PM
As I read the bill, It gives the Association the authority to establish the take out from 10% to 25% with the approval of the CHRB.

That is the way it used to be years ago, the Association established their own rates,before the State took over.

I like everyone else,looking at the record of our leaders, expect nothing else but to increase to the maximum. That would be a foolish mistake.

The State is throwing the ball to the Associations to do what is best for their own survival.

If we still have some sane people in California, I read it they could lower the take as well as raise it.

We need more information. A raise would be disaster.

cj
10-24-2009, 12:26 PM
If takeout is increased, I think HANA should call for an immediate boycott of all California racing.

the_fat_man
10-24-2009, 12:41 PM
If takeout is increased, I think HANA should call for an immediate boycott of all California racing.

Is that like Wyatt Earp, where Mark Harmon's character tries to ARREST Earp (Kevin Costner) after the shootout? That was real affective. :rolleyes:

DJofSD
10-24-2009, 12:49 PM
If takeout is increased, I think HANA should call for an immediate boycott of all California racing.
That would be a good idea except it will never happen.

Some way, the word should be spread that the upcoming BC races will be subjected to an increase in withholding. The perverse part of me would like to see handle take a significant drop for the pending BC event.

cj
10-24-2009, 01:09 PM
That would be a good idea except it will never happen.

Some way, the word should be spread that the upcoming BC races will be subjected to an increase in withholding. The perverse part of me would like to see handle take a significant drop for the pending BC event.

Why will it never happen? I guess we'll have to wait and see what the tracks do, but I'm not optimistic.

TFM,

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you think you are good enough to bet into even higher takeouts and win, more power to you. You talk about how easy California racing is with short fields and that you are willing to take low odds. This hurts those type bets the most.

the_fat_man
10-24-2009, 01:18 PM
TFM,

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you think you are good enough to bet into even higher takeouts and win, more power to you. You talk about how easy California racing is with short fields and that you are willing to take low odds. This hurts those type bets the most.

I pick my spots. If I can't win at CALI tracks, I'll play GP and TAM in the winter. I can win on dirt.

Why would anyone here think that the state wants to do the right thing for horseplayers? Do they do the right thing for those playing the lottery or smoking cigarettes? States figure that if you gamble (smoke) you have an addiction and they can basically do whatever they want and you'll still be there. Nothing anyone says (including the repeated postings on this forum) will do anything about that.

Sort of like the same thing for those buying data, I think. You build a database using speed, pace, power, etc. figures and then the provider changes format or goes out of business or whatever. You're screwed because you're depending on someone else to win. It's a dependency rivaling that of the addict. If you need the takeout lowered to win (which YOU don't) then you (in general) shouldn't be in the game.

Tom
10-24-2009, 01:37 PM
The take only matters if you win. So I guess that's why you don't mind? :D

the_fat_man
10-24-2009, 01:41 PM
The take only matters if you win. So I guess that's why you don't mind? :D

Exactly right, Tom. Keep spending your money on data/programs/figures of others and misinterpreting what I do.

My point is that those losing want to be in the game. I can't blame them. They have 2 options, however:

1) bet like WHALES and get rebates

2) get their games to where they can win

The states are not bailing anyone out.

Luckily, there are plenty of tracks out there and anyone serious about winning has the chance to pick his spots.

turfnsport
10-24-2009, 01:52 PM
If takeout is increased, I think HANA should call for an immediate boycott of all California racing.

I have to agree with this...This HAS to be where horseplayers draw a line in the sand.

This could actually be a good thing. It could be the catalyst for change for the "bettor".

If this blows up in California's face, it could lead to lowering takeout in other states.

Ok, maybe I'm dreaming there.

twindouble
10-24-2009, 01:53 PM
I pick my spots. If I can't win at CALI tracks, I'll play GP and TAM in the winter. I can win on dirt.

Why would anyone here think that the state wants into do the right thing for horseplayers? Do they do the right thing for those playing the lottery or smoking cigarettes? States figure that if you gamble (smoke) you have an addiction and they can basically do whatever they want and you'll still be there. Nothing anyone says (including the repeated postings on this forum) will do anything about that.

Sort of like the same thing for those buying data, I think. You build a database using speed, pace, power, etc. figures and then the provider changes format or goes out of business or whatever. You're screwed because you're depending on someone else to win. It's a dependency rivaling that of the addict. If you need the takeout lowered to win (which YOU don't) then you (in general) shouldn't be in the game.

Fat Man, there's truth to what your saying but your wise enough to know lower takeout means more money for you. Sure I've made money playing into higher takeout pools but I would have loved getting back 10 % more. Better yet, 10% on my losses as well like the whales get. Tell me that's fair? I don't mind giving the tracks their fair share but like I said, catering to just a small group and the elite of the game has been their undoing. They still don't get it, even when things are crumbling under and around them. :bang:

Jeff P
10-24-2009, 02:00 PM
This bill does not in itself change takeout rates. However, we are obviously concerned by the implications and the tone of the press releases.

HANA, on behalf of horseplayers everywhere, is currently seeking further information as to any immediate consequences from this change of law.

HANA is extremely dismayed to see the same false economics continue to be thrown about, that suggests prices can rise while sales remain constant.

A price increase would obviously only have one effect -- to further accelerate the mass exodus of players and their wagering dollars from this game.


Jeff Platt

President, HANA

HANA Sign Up Link:
http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0




.

the_fat_man
10-24-2009, 02:03 PM
Fat Man, there's truth to what your saying but your wise enough to know lower takeout means more money for you. Sure I've made money playing to higher takeout pools but I would have loved getting back 10 % more. Better yet, 10% on my losses as well like the whales get. Tell me that's fair? I don't mind giving the tracks their fair share but like I said, catering to just a small group and the elite of the game has been their undoing. They still don't get it, even when things are crumbling under and around them. :bang:

TWIN

I know you're good enough to win and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, you play 'against the grain' so you're not doing the same things that the majority in the game do, and thus are not at the mercy of your data/figs/software provider.

You're thus also smart enough to realize that the states are not going to be giving bettors a break anytime soon and that the WHALES will continue to get special treatment. The game is not fair and certainly not easy. A high takeout is certainly not the only unfair component to the game, however. If it were, then it'd be an issue. There are a combination of factors that make this game almost impossible to beat. A change in any one of them might make winners out of losers. Like, accurate and free data, for example. This is something that's DOABLE. Radically cut takeout isn't because the states don't want to cut their revenues (by their interpretation). The states' reasoning is that if they lose tbred gamblers they'll gain slot gamblers or lotto or whatever. They're not cutting back. Let's focus on what CAN be improved rather than seeing lowered takeout as the holy grail to winning.

turfnsport
10-24-2009, 02:04 PM
I don't mind giving the tracks their fair share but like I said, catering to just a small group and the elite of the game has been their undoing.

Don't kid yourself. The "undoing" of the industry started long before whales and rebates.

twindouble
10-24-2009, 02:19 PM
Don't kid yourself. The "undoing" of the industry started long before whales and rebates.

I don't kid myself about anything. Here's what I said on another forum.

quote; My discontent with those rebates goes back to when they started the dam program. Anyone with any common sense could see the direction we were headed. That kind of thinking for me come about back in 84 when the rich come up with the Breeders Cup races for the rich. Then it was cemented when they manipulated the breeding industry and sales their by pushing the smaller horsemen out of the top pedigree market. No different than when the rich manipulated the antiquities market, a freaking Van Gogh went from a hundred and fifty grand to thirty million pushing the smaller dealer out. Sixteen million dollars for freaking race horse. Higher takeout, poor service, lack of needed information for the players, no accountability, drugs, I can go on and on.

pandy
10-24-2009, 02:27 PM
This is another example of how politicians miscalculate using projected revenue. Sure, if the handle stays the same the 5% WOULD increase revenues. But when the takeout increases, the revenues will go down. It always amazes me how they don't get this. When Maria Cuomo was governor of NY state, he raised taxes on individuals and businesses every year, always "projecting" that it would increase revenues and everything would be aok. Every year things got worse as businesses fled the state in droves.

twindouble
10-24-2009, 02:37 PM
TWIN

I know you're good enough to win and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, you play 'against the grain' so you're not doing the same things that the majority in the game do, and thus are not at the mercy of your data/figs/software provider.

You're thus also smart enough to realize that the states are not going to be giving bettors a break anytime soon and that the WHALES will continue to get special treatment. The game is not fair and certainly not easy. A high takeout is certainly not the only unfair component to the game, however. If it were, then it'd be an issue. There are a combination of factors that make this game almost impossible to beat. A change in any one of them might make winners out of losers. Like, accurate and free data, for example. This is something that's DOABLE. Radically cut takeout isn't because the states don't want to cut their revenues (by their interpretation). The states' reasoning is that if they lose tbred gamblers they'll gain slot gamblers or lotto or whatever. They're not cutting back. Let's focus on what CAN be improved rather than seeing lowered takeout as the holy grail to winning.

I have never used any "data/figs/" or software of any kind. I'm a traditional handicapper.

Sure there's other things that can be improved on to help players. The most important is getting a better share of those rebates.

DeanT
10-24-2009, 02:50 PM
I like to reread this article every couple months or so, just to keep me sane.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104250.html


Charging More to Wager Is an Ill-Conceived Bet



Thursday, February 12, 2009


Imagine the following discussion in the executive suite of a modern-day corporation.

Executive 1: "The economy is killing us. Customers are deserting us. Our business is terrible. What are we going to do?"

Executive 2: "I've got an idea. Let's raise our prices!"

Executive 1: "Raise prices! Brilliant!"

Surely no business -- not even the Detroit auto industry -- would be foolish enough to do this when the country is plunging into a deep recession. But there is one industry that believes raising prices makes economic sense.

Invariably, the people who make these decisions say that customers won't notice a percentage point here or there. Maybe the bettors at Laurel won't be aware when a Pick Four payoff of $860 becomes a $742.40 payoff after March 1. But even if they don't notice the change, bettors are affected by it. Maury Wolff, an economist and gambler from Alexandria, published a definitive study on the subject years ago, and found that when tracks increase takeout significantly, their wagering totals almost always decline in the long run.

"People get less money back, so they bet less, and business goes down," Wolff explained.

andymays
10-24-2009, 02:52 PM
This is an open letter to anyone that cares about Horseplayers and Horse Racing in California.

I am sending this out as a Horseplayer on my own behalf and I am not representing any particular group or entity. The article below in the Los Angeles Times called ďGovernor signs bill to help horse-racing industryĒ should be the final straw for any Horseplayer who plays into the pools in California. If anyone thinks a 5% increase in takeout will help the horse-racing industry in the long run then you are most certainly delusional.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/californias-horse-racing-industry-is-struggling-to-compete-with-expanding-casinos-and-other-betting-alternatives-and-gov.html

It is time for one person, group, or anyone who cares to provide Horseplayers with a list of offshore entities, rebate shops, or whatever it takes to get a better deal for yourself. Itís obvious that the industry Executives in California donít give a damn. Horseplayers didnít destroy California racing but as usual they are the ones asked to pay for the mistakes of the past. Howís that 40 million for the synthetic surfaces doing? Who has been held accountable for the bad decisions? The answer is not one friggin person. The best example of the incompetence of leadership is the now infamous Richard Shapiro. This is the man who pushed for the $40 million synthetic mandate and other geniuses went along. This guy isnít even being held accountable for vandalizing a car in the parking lot of Hollywood Park by the CHRB. If Racing Officials in California canít make a judgment about that how can they be expected to make an honest judgment about anything? How many other bad decisions did this group of egomaniacal idiots of high social standing make that have led us down this path? These people remind me of a bunch of ďAl Davis typesĒ who were sharp guys 20 or 30 years ago but have degenerated into a group of incompetents.

The problem in California in my opinion is that the some of the Track Owners, Racing Executives, Racing Officials, and Politicians beholden to the Indian Casinos have absolutely ruined Horse Racing. You didn't have to be a prophet to see this coming. The Racing Media has also been absent in most (not all) cases and has contributed to the decline by choosing to ignore the tough stories.

Some Horseplayers think that the villains in all this are the Trainers who push the envelope, Whales who get to bet (or cancel bets) after the start, and the list goes on. Yes, these are significant problems but the real villains are the some of the Track Owners and Executives who think of Horseplayers as a "necessary evil". Behind the scenes some of them joke about the degenerates who are their customers. They love it when Horseplayers concentrate their ire on anyone but them. They laugh! Those who think that these people are something special are sadly mistaken in some cases. They are the sleazy and slimy ones who have ruined and are currently ruining racing in my opinion. The buck stops with them and they need to be held accountable!


Thanks for nothing,

Andy



Just got this in from the CHRB's Kirk Breed. Kirk and Mike Marten have been stand up guys responding in the past and I feel bad sending them my scathing emails but here is his response!


From Kirk Breed to Andy:

I wish you had been present at the legislative hearings when the sponsers of this bill proclaimed that increasing the takeout would save racing. That's when you could have made a difference. I was there asking the hard questions on behalf of the betting public. I was directed to be there by the CHRB.

You are correct in stating the bettors contribute the most and have the least to say about what happens to their contribution.

It is the responsibility of the CHRB to protect the betting public. That's why we insisted on the board's approval on any increases in takeout. In addition we insisted that the associations and horsemen must come before the board with facts to justify this increase.

This new law may not be perfact and the system may not be perfact but I can assure you that this board has the protection of the betting public as their most serious mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my response back to Kirk:

Kirk, thanks for the response. My email is scathing and I know you and Mike Marten bear the brunt. Time for everyone to stand up and make it or break it in California. Maybe we'll all have to live in tents before this is all over but at least we'll know we took a stand. I'm for closing it up if these guys can't get it together. I know you have your hands tied by higher powers but maybe it's time to tell the higher powers to shove it!


Thanks for listening,

Andy

CBedo
10-24-2009, 03:41 PM
Wow, let's think about this from a business standpoint. My company has a product which is not well received (poly and short fields) in an economic downturn that is hurting everyone. My marketing is ineffective at getting and keeping new customers, and it's not able to help me gain share with my existing customers.

What should we do?.......I know! Let's raise prices. :bang:

It reminds me of this DirecTV commercial:

"I learned this in business school...when I read about business school....in a book. We can't improve our service, but we can improve the price. We can make it higher."

http://directv.feedroom.com/?fr_chl=80f41521ba622188e45c8f9155bd8265c9457dbd&rf=sitemap Click on the "Charge More" commerical.

andymays
10-24-2009, 03:42 PM
Just got this in from the CHRB's Kirk Breed. Kirk and Mike Marten have been stand up guys responding in the past and I feel bad sending them my scathing emails but here is his response!


From Kirk Breed to Andy:

I wish you had been present at the legislative hearings when the sponsers of this bill proclaimed that increasing the takeout would save racing. That's when you could have made a difference. I was there asking the hard questions on behalf of the betting public. I was directed to be there by the CHRB.

You are correct in stating the bettors contribute the most and have the least to say about what happens to their contribution.

It is the responsibility of the CHRB to protect the betting public. That's why we insisted on the board's approval on any increases in takeout. In addition we insisted that the associations and horsemen must come before the board with facts to justify this increase.

This new law may not be perfact and the system may not be perfact but I can assure you that this board has the protection of the betting public as their most serious mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my response back to Kirk:

Kirk, thanks for the response. My email is scathing and I know you and Mike Marten bear the brunt. Time for everyone to stand up and make it or break it in California. Maybe we'll all have to live in tents before this is all over but at least we'll know we took a stand. I'm for closing it up if these guys can't get it together. I know you have your hands tied by higher powers but maybe it's time to tell the higher powers to shove it!


Thanks for listening,

Andy



Just got this from David Israel. Whoever he is. Sounds like an Attorney!


Where have you been? Studies were done in the 70Ēs about this stuff. Get a clue or go away! The less the take the more the churn. You say ďabsent market research we are jumping to conclusionsĒ? How about a news flash? Use common sense! How does that work for you?

In all seriousness, if youíre going to send out emails to people make a point otherwise stay out of the way with the other crowd from the Cuckooís Nest!

Iím tired of being embarrassed by California Racing. Stand up or sit down!


Andy

From: disrael17 [mailto:disrael17@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:33 PM
To: Breed, Kirk; 'onlyandy@cox.net'; 'mike.marten@prodigy.net'; 'Johnharris@harrisfarms.com'
Subject: Re: Bill 517! California Takeout

The truth is no one knows what changes in takeout will result in, because no one has done any market research.

Absent market research, everyone is jumping to conclusions based upon self interest.

It's no way to run a business.

But it is an indication of why the future of horse racing is imperiled.

TurfRuler
10-24-2009, 03:42 PM
American horseplayers just don't have enough money to gamble on horse races, lets face it we are a dieing breed. So the politicians and the race track managers are looking at the deep pockets of the gamblers in Japan, China and Europe where they will gamble on anything (so they believe) and the lip smacking greedy track managers are doing their public relations deal making best to get all the wagering pools co-mingled and to hell with us wah, wah, :( wah, :( wahing :( horseplayers in America.

andymays
10-24-2009, 03:54 PM
If anyone wants to jump in this fight let me know by PM. A bloody nose and cut eye are good for the sould once in a while. Try it you'll like it!

Just Sayin,


Andy

andymays
10-24-2009, 04:05 PM
If anyone wants to jump in this fight let me know by PM. A bloody nose and cut eye are good for the sould once in a while. Try it you'll like it!

Just Sayin,


Andy


Get busy livin or get busy dyin. (shawshank redemption) ;)

Mike_412
10-24-2009, 04:21 PM
What a kick in the nuts this development has been. I go from the high of SA possibly putting a dirt surface back in to this potential low. Ridiculous. If takeout is raised at all, I fully support any potential boycott.

andymays
10-24-2009, 04:33 PM
More from California.


David, Iím sure youíre an educated and intelligent person. This is where the rubber meets the road. Anyone who signs on to this including the Governator, Mr. Arnold Shwartzenager and whoever else needs their proverbial heads examined. Stop trying to tell me itís raining when youíre pissing on my leg.



Sincerely,

Andy

From: disrael17 [mailto:disrael17@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:19 PM
To: ROGER WAY; andy mays
Cc: kebreed@chrb.ca.gov; Mike Marten; jeff platt; Jerry Jamgotchian; Horseplayers Association of North America; randyfen@gmail.com; dan Liebman; len shulman; art wilson; jnahill@nctimes.com; Roger Stein; corona adsp
Subject: RE: Bill 517! California Takeout

Thank you. I'll take a look.

But what the industry needs is real, professional, neutral market research that reaches some legitimate conclusions based on statistical evidence about how various changes in cost change consumer behavior, gross receipts and net receipts.

Every substantial, legitimate business I have ever heard of uses polling, market research, and test marketing to provide information before making profound changes in pricing and product.

It's the mature, reasonable way to approach these things, absent emotion and bias. And I believe it is what horse racing should do.

But if everyone wants to work in a different way, vaya con dios. As Samuel Goldwyn said, "If the people don't want to come, you can't stop them."

turfnsport
10-24-2009, 04:40 PM
This is where the rubber meets the road.

Hall of Fame pun...fess up Andy, that was not intentional. :lol:

Mike_412
10-24-2009, 04:44 PM
Who is this David Israel guy? Has he always been this dense? I wouldn't hire him to run a garage sale.

andymays
10-24-2009, 04:51 PM
Who is this David Israel guy? Has he always been this dense? I wouldn't hire him to run a garage sale.


When you serve a master that aint got the truth on his side this is what you do. David Israel is no different!

andymays
10-24-2009, 04:53 PM
Who is this David Israel guy? Has he always been this dense? I wouldn't hire him to run a garage sale.


Hey, Turf, get your game on and send me some lines for my battle against the forces of evil.

Andy

takeout
10-24-2009, 05:46 PM
Mr. Israel might find the takeout part of the recent Davidowitz interview at Gamblers Book Shop informative.

turfnsport
10-24-2009, 06:07 PM
Hey, Turf, get your game on and send me some lines for my battle against the forces of evil.

Andy

Will do...will have to wait a couple of hours though...I had a real crappy day and I am very testy right now.

BlueShoe
10-24-2009, 06:12 PM
I don't remember any racetracks in the future in any Terminator movies. I think Arnold is working towards making that a reality.
If this goes forward and becomes policy then the Terminator will have all but terminated horse racing in this state.
California Horse Racing R.I.P.

InsideThePylons-MW
10-24-2009, 07:31 PM
This bill does not in itself change takeout rates. However, we are obviously concerned by the implications and the tone of the press releases. .

Concerned?

Wouldn't "outraged" have worked better?

The only way a word like outraged or worse should not be used is if you think that there is a chance that this bill was pushed through with the intent of lowering takeout. I think that the chance of that is 0% but maybe I'm wrong.

proximity
10-24-2009, 08:10 PM
to save racing in their state they could try getting with modern times and offering FULL CARD SIMULCASTING.

i was browsing oaktreeracing.com and :rolleyes: when i saw their pathetic simulcast schedule. hell, on some mondays and tuesdays you can't even bet!! sad...:(

BlueShoe
10-24-2009, 08:55 PM
to save racing in their state they could try getting with modern times and offering FULL CARD SIMULCASTING.

i was browsing oaktreeracing.com and :rolleyes: when i saw their pathetic simulcast schedule. hell, on some mondays and tuesdays you can't even bet!! sad...:(
Some Mondays & Tuesdays?How about all mondays and tuesdays,unless there is live racing in the state the simo sites are closed.Like just about everything else,California has a screwball simulcast policy.Prior to Jan 1 of this year only 23 out of state US races could be wagered on,this year it was upped to 32.Why 23 and then 32?Darned if anyone knows.To make it more confusing,instead of full cards,we get chopped up cards.Might get races 3-9 from Belmont,4-10 from Keeneland,and so on.Still not confused?Well then,Canadian races do not count against the 32.Thus earlier this year on some days we had Woodbine,Fort Erie,Northlands,and Hastings.This is fine,but why only 32 US races?As a topper,we lucky fans get to wager on races from Chile and/or Argentina.The DRF pp's only give minimal info,and only a few degenerate gamblers bet on them.As a spot player and with the decline in California racing am finding fewer plays,so yes,expanding the US simulcast menu by allowing full cards instead of partial ones would surely be welcomed by many of us out here.

andymays
10-24-2009, 09:16 PM
Hall of Fame pun...fess up Andy, that was not intentional. :lol:


When you see me on AE intervetion. Horselayer who needs held. Send me a gun. I'll sign an autograph.

chickenhead
10-24-2009, 10:05 PM
Concerned?

Wouldn't "outraged" have worked better?

The only way a word like outraged or worse should not be used is if you think that there is a chance that this bill was pushed through with the intent of lowering takeout. I think that the chance of that is 0% but maybe I'm wrong.

I think it's obvious that the entities plan to raise takeout. The person (presumably the lobbyist), paid for by the supporters:

Del Mar Thoroughbred Club
Los Angeles County Fair (Fairplex)
Oak Tree Racing Association
Thoroughbred Owners of California

Wrote in the argument for:

SB 517 would allow greater flexibility to direct the distribution of funds generated by a takeout increase to areas with the greatest economic benefit for the industry.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_517_cfa_20090528_133704_sen_floor.html

Unfortunately, as I don't think anyone knew about this...there was no argument "against" submitted to the Senate. Whether HANA says concerned or outraged here at PA doesn't really matter, getting HANA to a point where they are aware of these things as they are happening, and able to submit formal "Arguments against" when this stuff is in process is where we need to get to. I'd like, at least once, to get on the record before something happens, rather than always in the position of us hearing about it after the fact.

andymays
10-24-2009, 10:32 PM
When you see me on AE intervetion. Horselayer who needs held. Send me a gun. I'll sign an autograph.


And the case of beer I consumed prior to this post is all turfnsports fault. :lol:

Niko
10-24-2009, 10:39 PM
With the direction things have been heading does this really surprise anyone? The big guys all get what they want in the short term....and it'll only help the rebate players.....


now will horse players finally unite and stand up?? Is the pain finally enough for the medium to small player. The casual fan will keep gambling. The whales and mini-whales can get higher rebates. It's up to the "middle class" of horse racing to do something.

If the tracks make a bigger profit (forget about handle) expect other states to follow very quickly...and it may happen sooner than that. The tracks may try to lull the fans to sleep by using incremental increases over time...

Indulto
10-24-2009, 11:31 PM
With the direction things have been heading does this really surprise anyone? The big guys all get what they want in the short term....and it'll only help the rebate players.....


now will horse players finally unite and stand up?? Is the pain finally enough for the medium to small player. The casual fan will keep gambling. The whales and mini-whales can get higher rebates. It's up to the "middle class" of horse racing to do something.

If the tracks make a bigger profit (forget about handle) expect other states to follow very quickly...and it may happen sooner than that. The tracks may try to lull the fans to sleep by using incremental increases over time...Niko,
I've felt this way for some time. I'm just curious as to what is it about this particular straw that "broke the camel's back" for you? Why not the last two increments in New York takeout?

Indulto
10-24-2009, 11:48 PM
... Unfortunately, as I don't think anyone knew about this...there was no argument "against" submitted to the Senate. Whether HANA says concerned or outraged here at PA doesn't really matter, getting HANA to a point where they are aware of these things as they are happening, and able to submit formal "Arguments against" when this stuff is in process is where we need to get to.HANA can now take a position against an incease (and for a decrease), but should they be more proactive considering the national stage the upcoming BC provides?I'd like, at least once, to get on the record before something happens, rather than always in the position of us hearing about it after the fact.A frustrating, but familiar situation. Do these circumstances finally warrant formal feedback from the HANA membership?

chickenhead
10-25-2009, 12:07 AM
HANA can now take a position against an incease (and for a decrease), but should they be more proactive considering the national stage the upcoming BC provides?

HANA kind of has a longstanding position against any takeout increases, and for takeout decreases, its not a question of taking a position. It's where, and how well they make the case that matters. Submitting formal input to be read in the Senate would have been exactly the type of situation where HANA could put horseplayer concerns on the record in a way that individuals cannot.

Do these circumstances finally warrant formal feedback from the HANA membership?

Are you talking about polling? HANA has wanted polling for a long time, as has been mentioned previously. It doesn't take any external circumstances to warrant them, it takes time and effort to get it done, which I believe have been ongoing for some time. That said, this doesn't have anything to do with polling -- HANA has an email address, anyone, anywhere can and should alert HANA to stuff like this. Our legislative watch program is all of us as members.

Indulto
10-25-2009, 01:37 AM
HANA kind of has a longstanding position against any takeout increases, and for takeout decreases, its not a question of taking a position. It's where, and how well they make the case that matters.Yes, I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Does this situation merit taking ACTION of any sort ranging from a petition and/or email campaign, to advertising in the DRF (and requesting donations to finance it), to demonstrating at Santa Anita, to boycotting the BC there. Perhaps a DRF ad could publicize a petition and help recruit members for it. A press release should help that effort as well.Submitting formal input to be read in the Senate would have been exactly the type of situation where HANA could put horseplayer concerns on the record in a way that individuals cannot.Whatever happened to NoCalBoy? Wasn't he privy to stuff like this?Are you talking about polling? HANA has wanted polling for a long time, as has been mentioned previously. It doesn't take any external circumstances to warrant them, it takes time and effort to get it done, which I believe have been ongoing for some time. That said, this doesn't have anything to do with polling -- HANA has an email address, anyone, anywhere can and should alert HANA to stuff like this. Our legislative watch program is all of us as members.A self-reporting poll like here at PA, but only for HANA members, might be the ideal. But why not send an email to each HANA member requesting a reply stating their preferences in prioritizing a set of actions contemplated by the leadership? A reply containing the original e-mail with the member's target and source e-mail address should enable validation of their ballot agaimst the data base. Perhaps that can be done automatically by some utility. The tally could be reported back by e-mail, at least initially, to make the membership aware of the results.

chickenhead
10-25-2009, 01:54 AM
for the first part, my thoughts, yes something should be done. It's meaningful as it's something we don't want, Cali is a high profile arena, and it's probably the easiest arena, for a variety of reasons, for us to make a high profile stink.

Not directly as a response to this tho (at least to me. This appears to be a procedural thing that apparently makes something in some way easier to do, its not an actual doing of it, I'm no lawyer and its hard for me to tell what this actually changed), but as a response when (I'm assuming when) one of the tracks request permission to raise takeouts from the CHRB.

I can't see any reason for the tracks to request this law change unless they intend on requesting a takeout increase -- and yes, as soon as it pops up on the CHRB agenda, I'd like to see the CHRB and the tracks hit with a barrage of form emails. I think that is something we should organize in advance. And I'd certainly like to see some high profile public advocacy going on at that meeting, in person.

I like the idea of a DRF ad, I've always like the idea of DRF ads. I like the idea of TVG commericals too. Not just for this, for all sorts of things. Everyone, send in money. Now. And maybe HANA can begin to think about doing some of these things! They are miles away from being able to do them now, and they don't like to seem like they are begging for money, I think. You want to send HANA money earmarked for ads, send it earmarked for ads, and HANA can run some ads.

chickenhead
10-25-2009, 02:21 AM
As to possibly instigate others, I've just donated $200 to HANA, earmarked for ads. If anyone else would care to contribute, with or without earmark, please do so. Money is required for HANA to do the things we want them to do.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/donations.html

NoDayJob
10-25-2009, 02:35 AM
Arnold, in an exclusive interview last night, told horse players, "I'll be baaack!"

What an idiot.

An idiot, ya say? He makes an idiot look like Albert Einstein. :lol: :lol:

InsideThePylons-MW
10-25-2009, 03:15 AM
I have no idea how much these are or how these work but I'm sure this would be effective on BC days.

http://www.advertisingaerial.com/id12.html

Something like....Lower takeout or racing will die.....etc

Horseplayersbet.com
10-25-2009, 09:02 AM
There isn't one positive comment made by readers:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/californias-horse-racing-industry-is-struggling-to-compete-with-expanding-casinos-and-other-betting-alternatives-and-gov.html#comments

I especially like the one that states that bettors do not have bottomless pits of money.

andymays
10-25-2009, 11:12 AM
Santa Anita needs to be turned into a museum with a petting zoo!

GameTheory
10-25-2009, 12:02 PM
If what I've read is true, this takes the takeout rate out of the hands of the state lawmakers and back into the hands of the tracks and horsemen. Yes, it allows an increase (which is probably what they want), but isn't that transfer of power what WE want? In most places, takeout can't be lowered without the legislature doing it. Lowered takeout is now at least possible, correct?

So now we just need to make the case that they ought to lower it instead of raise it. Either way, we need to "call it" now -- tell them what's going to happen if they raise it, explain why they should lower it (again). We should be sending references to, or copies of those takeout studies to all the relevant parties -- not just make an announcement, but be stuffing envelopes to be sent by name to the individual people that matter showing them the evidence -- that they will be hurting THEMSELVES with a takeout raise. And if they do raise it, when things start to go badly we should be sending THAT evidence to the rest of the country. HANA should start keeping its own handle statistics.

This could actually be an opportunity, no?

cj
10-25-2009, 12:16 PM
If what I've read is true, this takes the takeout rate out of the hands of the state lawmakers and back into the hands of the tracks and horsemen. Yes, it allows an increase (which is probably what they want), but isn't that transfer of power what WE want? In most places, takeout can't be lowered without the legislature doing it. Lowered takeout is now at least possible, correct?

So now we just need to make the case that they ought to lower it instead of raise it. Either way, we need to "call it" now -- tell them what's going to happen if they raise it, explain why they should lower it (again). We should be sending references to, or copies of those takeout studies to all the relevant parties -- not just make an announcement, but be stuffing envelopes to be sent by name to the individual people that matter showing them the evidence -- that they will be hurting THEMSELVES with a takeout raise. And if they do raise it, when things start to go badly we should be sending THAT evidence to the rest of the country. HANA should start keeping its own handle statistics.

This could actually be an opportunity, no?

I agree, this is exactly what we not only want, but need. That is why I had the qualifier on my boycott statement. I've thought it was ok not to go crazy demanding takeout cuts for now, but any increase should be fought tooth and nail...no more Mr. Nice Guy.

Of course, like most, I expect an increase.

andymays
10-25-2009, 12:36 PM
When Horace Greeley told everybody to "go west young man" he didn't know they were going to raise the take. Shove it California! ;)


And if he didn't say that to hell with him too! :D

Space Monkey
10-25-2009, 12:37 PM
If I bet SA today, what is the takeout? The same or has it been raised immediately?

DJofSD
10-25-2009, 12:41 PM
If I bet SA today, what is the takeout? The same or has it been raised immediately?
Good question and good luck trying to get an answer.

You purchase equities via a broker, you know up-front what the commision will be. When you make a bet at a racetrack, do you know what the vig is? Do you know where to find it? Is is published anywhere at your local OTB palor, on the web site for your ADW company of choice?

BMeadow
10-25-2009, 01:33 PM
Apparently these "legislative analysts" assumed a $4 billion annual handle on California racetracks, then multiplied it by 5% to come up with the $200 million figure. This sounded good to legislators, particularly those without any knowledge of mathematics or finance.

Handle in California has fallen precipitously in the past couple of years, and this new bill is only going to make it worse. This increase figures to send many players to other tracks, to offshore bookmakers who offer rebates, or out of the game altogether.

When you have a business that's in trouble, you don't raise prices. If General Motors charges $1 million for each new car it sells, and it sells the same number of cars as last year, I guess that would be great. But at that price, it wouldn't sell any cars.

And that's where horse racing is headed. By the logic of this bill, an increase to a takeout of 95% would raise an additional $3.8 billion for the industry. Except that no one would be betting at all.

But I guess it's to be expected when not a single horseplayer was called to testify about the bill, and the first time any of us were notified was when the thing was already signed. I suppose we're just a bunch of degenerate idiots, anyway. Geez, I wish I was as smart as a legislator.

Nice headline, by the way. Maybe the next time there's a murder the headline writer can write, "Overpopulation Problem Reduced."

GameTheory
10-25-2009, 01:40 PM
Nice headline, by the way. Maybe the next time there's a murder the headline writer can write, "Overpopulation Problem Reduced."He used the sneer quotes to indicate the true meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Irony

rrbauer
10-25-2009, 02:12 PM
I have no idea how much these are or how these work but I'm sure this would be effective on BC days.

http://www.advertisingaerial.com/id12.html

Something like....Lower takeout or racing will die.....etc

We did a flyover of Santa Anita on "Big Cap" day during the Magna boycott in 2004. It cost $600 and we got 18 passes over the track for that amount. The banner (very large) simply said www.boycottmagna.com. The outfit was based at the Santa Monica airport. I can probably dig out contact info if anyone is interested and wants to contact me privately.

Niko
10-25-2009, 03:50 PM
Niko,
I've felt this way for some time. I'm just curious as to what is it about this particular straw that "broke the camel's back" for you? Why not the last two increments in New York takeout?
Indulto

I'd have to go through my old posts to find out when I actually started drifting away (which wouldn't be worth doing :lol: ), but it's been over the last year or two, I've just been worn down.

I've been fed up with some major facets of the game for some time, have expressed my opinion on the board in that regard and have expanded in other directions already.

I'm just hoping that this news is a big enough sign of the direction of racing for other people to stop betting for a while too-or curtail their activity to big racing days WITH full fields, the most fan friendly tracks like Keeneland or if they're relying on the income.

I don't bet enough to make a difference but if a lot "me's" stopped, that would make a difference.

DJofSD
10-25-2009, 04:02 PM
or curtail their activity to big racing days WITH full fields Those are seemingly fewer and farther between.

Imriledup
10-25-2009, 04:33 PM
Great post Barry, love the overpopulation comment, that got me to LOL.

Why won't one track or circuit lower takeout to 10 percent and just reap the benefits of hundreds (and hopefully thousands) of new customers?

Are all these different track owners 'in bed with each other' and they all collude to keep takeout rates in the 20/25 pct range?

Sure, we have had the odd experiment where Retama (or some other texas track) offered 10 percent pick 3s. Problem is, the pool is 4 grand.

I think that Pimlico offered 14 percent Pick 3s, but again, the pool sizes are miniscule, its not going to attract bettors to those pools.

If you are not a player of Pimlico (for example) you aren't going to spend a few hours capping their card so you can bet into one pick 3 pool at 14%. Its not worth it. But if they made all the pools in all the races 14%, than we're talking.

chickenhead
10-25-2009, 04:39 PM
I have no idea how much these are or how these work but I'm sure this would be effective on BC days.

http://www.advertisingaerial.com/id12.html

Something like....Lower takeout or racing will die.....etc

sounds good to me...we're $200 towards it, if we can get a few hundred more $$ in the next day or two, I'm sure it can be set up in time.

Indulto
10-25-2009, 05:03 PM
Niko,
I've felt this way for some time. I'm just curious as to what is it about this particular straw that "broke the camel's back" for you? Why not the last two increments in New York takeout?
Indulto

I'd have to go through my old posts to find out when I actually started drifting away (which wouldn't be worth doing :lol: ), but it's been over the last year or two, I've just been worn down.

I've been fed up with some major facets of the game for some time, have expressed my opinion on the board in that regard and have expanded in other directions already.

I'm just hoping that this news is a big enough sign of the direction of racing for other people to stop betting for a while too-or curtail their activity to big racing days WITH full fields, the most fan friendly tracks like Keeneland or if they're relying on the income.

I don't bet enough to make a difference but if a lot "me's" stopped, that would make a difference.Allegedly 99% of us are non-whales and hopefully we still contribute 85% of handle, so the potential for having an impact exists, but as activists for change, we need to acquire the focus and dedication of the whales as players.

I used to play on most of the highest purse distribution days nationally. I still handicap those cards, but have only bet on a tiny fraction of them this year. The product quality is no longer what it was anywhere, and that makes it easier to keep my wallet in my pocket. It used to be hard to get me to forego a big race day for some other activity. Now its hard for me to get enthusiastic about most of the big races.

chickenhead
10-25-2009, 05:31 PM
We did a flyover of Santa Anita on "Big Cap" day during the Magna boycott in 2004. It cost $600 and we got 18 passes over the track for that amount. The banner (very large) simply said www.boycottmagna.com. The outfit was based at the Santa Monica airport. I can probably dig out contact info if anyone is interested and wants to contact me privately.

It looks like 1/4 page x 1" ad in the Western DRF edition is also around $600, just for comparison sake.

CBedo
10-25-2009, 05:40 PM
Sure, we have had the odd experiment where Retama (or some other texas track) offered 10 percent pick 3s. Problem is, the pool is 4 grand.

I think that Pimlico offered 14 percent Pick 3s, but again, the pool sizes are miniscule, its not going to attract bettors to those pools.This is one reason why they don't. All the screaming we do is lower takeouts, but then you have a few experiments like these and the pool sizes don't seem to change much. We yell that lower takeout will mean more handle, but when it happens, we yell something else, "the pools are too small."

Warren Henry
10-25-2009, 07:13 PM
I just donated $100 for "advertising". I trust the board to make the decisions as to where to spend it.

Warren Henry
10-25-2009, 07:16 PM
It looks like 1/4 page x 1" ad in the Western DRF edition is also around $600, just for comparison sake.
Make sure your review their circulation numbers for that edition before you jump into that pool. Also compare the price for nationwide coverage - might not be that much more.

Mike_412
10-25-2009, 07:29 PM
One thing guys that may be stating the obvious, but don't forget to tell any horseplayer friends about this current situation in SoCal and about the HANA organization. Stupidly, I was pretty surprised how many at the Meadowlands have never heard of HANA the couple times I have been there. The time for a strong player movement is now.

GameTheory
10-25-2009, 07:42 PM
This is one reason why they don't. All the screaming we do is lower takeouts, but then you have a few experiments like these and the pool sizes don't seem to change much. We yell that lower takeout will mean more handle, but when it happens, we yell something else, "the pools are too small."Of course they don't change instantly. It needs be given time to bring in new money. Which is why rebates is the only way it is going to happen. Expanded rebates lowers effective takeout with no change to track's take leads to bigger handle leads to track lowering takeout to eliminate rebate. I certainly have no hope that tracks will permanently and significantly lower takeout on the most bet pools because they are smart enough to take the long view. Ain't gonna happen.

BillW
10-25-2009, 07:48 PM
This is one reason why they don't. All the screaming we do is lower takeouts, but then you have a few experiments like these and the pool sizes don't seem to change much. We yell that lower takeout will mean more handle, but when it happens, we yell something else, "the pools are too small."

Some anecdotal evidence ... when HOU lowered the rake on their pk-3 from 25% to 12% their pool size went up by 125%. This was for the meet. I can't back this up as I received this info verbally from an employee when I inquired as to the impact of the drop.

DeanT
10-25-2009, 08:11 PM
Thanks Warren very much.

And thank you too Mike412.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-25-2009, 08:28 PM
Some anecdotal evidence ... when HOU lowered the rake on their pk-3 from 25% to 12% their pool size went up by 125%. This was for the meet. I can't back this up as I received this info verbally from an employee when I inquired as to the impact of the drop.
What year was the drop? Now that we have access to Archived Charts, we can check out to see if those numbers are true.

rrbauer
10-25-2009, 08:42 PM
Horseplayers are basically creatures of habit. When Laurel dropped its takeout across-the-board for TWO WEEKS a couple years ago, not much happened vis-a-vis handle. Does that really surprise anyone? Using that experiment as PROOF of anything other than the idea that leopards don't change their spots is a fallacy of the first order. Did anyone who knows anything about the human breed called horseplayer expect them to drop whatever it was they were doing and run out and bet Laurel? I sure as hell didn't and I actually looked at a couple of those cards because I do want to support tracks and associations that are willing to engage in change that benefits horseplayers. But to run off to a new circuit for ten days of benefit simply doesn't justify the effort required to get me there and make me competitive as a player in that arena.

The same can be said for tracks that drop takeout on ONE POOL. Whether its Ellis Park or Retama or San Houston or whatever, I am not going to ramp up my game for a new circuit on the basis of lowered takeout on ONE POOL. I'm not going to do it and I hope that there's enough experience with experiments of that type to validate the idea that most other horseplayers aren't going to do it either.

There needs to be an commitment to lower takeout across the board for an extended period of time. What does that mean? Consider Tampa Bay Downs. Tampa has been lowering its takeout on a variety of pools for four (4) years now. I wish I had the takeout percentages that were in play four years ago, but I don't. (Most exotics were 25% or higher) What I do know is that they have been lowering them and that they have been one of the few tracks that have been experiencing increased handle and increased business across the board. Keeneland falls into that category also. In both cases I know that there is a desire on the part of management to improve EVERYTHING associated with these tracks as far as the customer experience goes.

Any track or association that raises takeout in today's environment deserves nothing but scorn from horseplayers. It doesn't matter why. It's a stupid business proposition to raise prices in a declining market. And it's a REALLY, REALLY STUPID proposition for any of us to pay those price increases. And, of course, the tracks that are receiving purse subsidies from alternative gaming which do not lower takeout deserve our scorn as well.

About two and a half years ago, I started a website dedicated to providing information about takeout and protesting high takeouts and the breakage process. At that time there were about three (3) people posting at this board who were outspoken about takout and its effect on the game. When I scroll through the posts at this board today I'm pleased to see that we now have a lot of company. Good company, I might add!

Imriledup
10-25-2009, 10:05 PM
Horseplayers are basically creatures of habit. When Laurel dropped its takeout across-the-board for TWO WEEKS a couple years ago, not much happened vis-a-vis handle. Does that really surprise anyone? Using that experiment as PROOF of anything other than the idea that leopards don't change their spots is a fallacy of the first order. Did anyone who knows anything about the human breed called horseplayer expect them to drop whatever it was they were doing and run out and bet Laurel? I sure as hell didn't and I actually looked at a couple of those cards because I do want to support tracks and associations that are willing to engage in change that benefits horseplayers. But to run off to a new circuit for ten days of benefit simply doesn't justify the effort required to get me there and make me competitive as a player in that arena.

The same can be said for tracks that drop takeout on ONE POOL. Whether its Ellis Park or Retama or San Houston or whatever, I am not going to ramp up my game for a new circuit on the basis of lowered takeout on ONE POOL. I'm not going to do it and I hope that there's enough experience with experiments of that type to validate the idea that most other horseplayers aren't going to do it either.

There needs to be an commitment to lower takeout across the board for an extended period of time. What does that mean? Consider Tampa Bay Downs. Tampa has been lowering its takeout on a variety of pools for four (4) years now. I wish I had the takeout percentages that were in play four years ago, but I don't. (Most exotics were 25% or higher) What I do know is that they have been lowering them and that they have been one of the few tracks that have been experiencing increased handle and increased business across the board. Keeneland falls into that category also. In both cases I know that there is a desire on the part of management to improve EVERYTHING associated with these tracks as far as the customer experience goes.

Any track or association that raises takeout in today's environment deserves nothing but scorn from horseplayers. It doesn't matter why. It's a stupid business proposition to raise prices in a declining market. And it's a REALLY, REALLY STUPID proposition for any of us to pay those price increases. And, of course, the tracks that are receiving purse subsidies from alternative gaming which do not lower takeout deserve our scorn as well.

About two and a half years ago, I started a website dedicated to providing information about takeout and protesting high takeouts and the breakage process. At that time there were about three (3) people posting at this board who were outspoken about takout and its effect on the game. When I scroll through the posts at this board today I'm pleased to see that we now have a lot of company. Good company, I might add!

Great post, i've been saying that for the longest time, unless you make at least a meet long committment to players with a lower take, they're not going to drop everything to bet into one silly lower takeout pool. I'm a takeout sensitive player and would have loved to wade into a Laurel 14% pick 3.....but, i'm not going to learn an entire circuit's nuances unless every pool at the entire meet is lowered.

BetCrazyGirl
10-25-2009, 10:31 PM
How does take out excatly work?

GameTheory
10-26-2009, 02:33 AM
How does take out excatly work?Everybody bets into the pool. The track takes the takeout percentage (different for each pool) of those dollars, and then gives back the rest to the winners. So the higher the takeout rate, the less the winners get back (the odds are lowered).

DJofSD
10-26-2009, 09:49 AM
The bill that Arnold signed and whatever actions the tracks take are just rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

rwwupl
10-26-2009, 10:23 AM
rrbauer wrote:

There needs to be an commitment to lower takeout across the board for an extended period of time


Count me in . :ThmbUp:

Horseplayersbet.com
10-26-2009, 11:19 AM
In a nutshell:
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/10/schwarzenegger-signs-amendment-to-allow.html

LottaKash
10-26-2009, 11:38 AM
. As Samuel Goldwyn said, "If the people don't want to come, you can't stop them."

I ain't coming Arnie, and you can't stop me !...:jump:

best,

twindouble
10-26-2009, 01:54 PM
Horseplayers are basically creatures of habit. When Laurel dropped its takeout across-the-board for TWO WEEKS a couple years ago, not much happened vis-a-vis handle. Does that really surprise anyone? Using that experiment as PROOF of anything other than the idea that leopards don't change their spots is a fallacy of the first order. Did anyone who knows anything about the human breed called horseplayer expect them to drop whatever it was they were doing and run out and bet Laurel? I sure as hell didn't and I actually looked at a couple of those cards because I do want to support tracks and associations that are willing to engage in change that benefits horseplayers. But to run off to a new circuit for ten days of benefit simply doesn't justify the effort required to get me there and make me competitive as a player in that arena.

The same can be said for tracks that drop takeout on ONE POOL. Whether its Ellis Park or Retama or San Houston or whatever, I am not going to ramp up my game for a new circuit on the basis of lowered takeout on ONE POOL. I'm not going to do it and I hope that there's enough experience with experiments of that type to validate the idea that most other horseplayers aren't going to do it either.

There needs to be an commitment to lower takeout across the board for an extended period of time. What does that mean? Consider Tampa Bay Downs. Tampa has been lowering its takeout on a variety of pools for four (4) years now. I wish I had the takeout percentages that were in play four years ago, but I don't. (Most exotics were 25% or higher) What I do know is that they have been lowering them and that they have been one of the few tracks that have been experiencing increased handle and increased business across the board. Keeneland falls into that category also. In both cases I know that there is a desire on the part of management to improve EVERYTHING associated with these tracks as far as the customer experience goes.

Any track or association that raises takeout in today's environment deserves nothing but scorn from horseplayers. It doesn't matter why. It's a stupid business proposition to raise prices in a declining market. And it's a REALLY, REALLY STUPID proposition for any of us to pay those price increases. And, of course, the tracks that are receiving purse subsidies from alternative gaming which do not lower takeout deserve our scorn as well.

About two and a half years ago, I started a website dedicated to providing information about takeout and protesting high takeouts and the breakage process. At that time there were about three (3) people posting at this board who were outspoken about takout and its effect on the game. When I scroll through the posts at this board today I'm pleased to see that we now have a lot of company. Good company, I might add!

Let me get this straight, you think in this environment there's a chance to get across the board reductions in takeout at all tracks? If so, good luck with that one. Sounds great but you don't mention the rebates that the whales get or how those reductions could further benefit them. Why not just let the whales wager with no takeout and be done with it? Am I getting this all wrong? I get the impression some people think the future of racing is with the whales. Please clear this up for me.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-26-2009, 01:58 PM
Let me get this straight, you think in this environment there's a chance to get across the board reductions in takeout at all tracks? If so, good luck with that one. Sounds great but you don't mention the rebates that the whales get or how those reductions could further benefit them. Why not just let the whales wager with no takeout and be done with it? Am I getting this all wrong? I get the impression some people think the future of racing is with the whales. Please clear this up for me.
If takeouts go down, rebates for whales go down too. Don't you know that?

How much they would go down depends on how much signal fees are affected.

twindouble
10-26-2009, 02:12 PM
If takeouts go down, rebates for whales go down too. Don't you know that?

How much they would go down depends on how much signal fees are affected.

Of course I know, that's my point. Read again and try this sentence. "Why not just let the whales wager with no takeout and be done with it?"

twindouble
10-26-2009, 03:22 PM
If takeouts go down, rebates for whales go down too. Don't you know that?

How much they would go down depends on how much signal fees are affected.

Where did it say the signal fees would go up? Don't the ADW's have existing contracts? How long I don't know. I understand that if fees go up, they can't keep giving the whales what they get now. I would think ADW's can do what they want with their money.

rrbauer
10-26-2009, 03:46 PM
Let me get this straight, you think in this environment there's a chance to get across the board reductions in takeout at all tracks?

Of course not. I never said that. But, I will say this: Half of the tracks HAVE to go out of business if this game is to continue. Those that are left will enjoy increased handle as a result and there will be better opportunities for them to run their businesses as businesses and not as welfare seekers.
Horseplayers could expedite this process if they would stand together and stop patronizing crap tracks with high takeouts and short fields.

Sounds great but you don't mention the rebates that the whales get or how those reductions could further benefit them. Why not just let the whales wager with no takeout and be done with it? Am I getting this all wrong? I get the impression some people think the future of racing is with the whales. Please clear this up for me.

First off, what's a whale? I never said Jack Squat about whales nor rebates. Stick with something I said and if I can sort through your sarcasm I'll try to "clear it up".

DeanT
10-26-2009, 04:05 PM
In a nutshell:
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/10/schwarzenegger-signs-amendment-to-allow.html

Very good.

twindouble
10-26-2009, 04:19 PM
Of course not. I never said that. But, I will say this: Half of the tracks HAVE to go out of business if this game is to continue. Those that are left will enjoy increased handle as a result and there will be better opportunities for them to run their businesses as businesses and not as welfare seekers.
Horseplayers could expedite this process if they would stand together and stop patronizing crap tracks with high takeouts and short fields.



First off, what's a whale? I never said Jack Squat about whales nor rebates. Stick with something I said and if I can sort through your sarcasm I'll try to "clear it up".

I mentioned you didn't say "Jack Squat" about the whales, who's being sarcastic here? Just clear it up for me. Are you for whales getting a much better takeout than the average players or not? How will they be effected by the increase in takeout, if at all. That's what I want to know. Whales are people that pump a lot money into the pools and get rewarded with much better rebates than others, as if you didn't know that.

rrbauer
10-26-2009, 04:52 PM
I mentioned you didn't say "Jack Squat" about the whales, who's being sarcastic here? Just clear it up for me. Are you for whales getting a much better takeout than the average players or not? How will they be effected by the increase in takeout, if at all. That's what I want to know. Whales are people that pump a lot money into the pools and get rewarded with much better rebates than others, as if you didn't know that.

How would I know how whales will be affected by increases in takeout? The term whale has such a pejorative connotation in general that it's not clear to me where the line-in-the-sand is between "whales" and "non-whales". "People that pump a lot money into the pools" What is "a lot money"? I guess it's a volume-discount issue. Right? I do not pump a lot of money into the pools anymore (by most standards) so I guess that I'm a "non-whale". As a "non-whale" I know what rebates I can receive at the various ADW's that I do business with. And, I know that I can take it or leave it as a business proposition. What others receive, I don't know. What do whales get in rebates? Am I really being "screwed" that much?

The way new ADW laws are being written (Illinois' law restricts ADW commissions to 6%) and with the independent ADW's (not affiliated with racetracks) being squeezed every time there's contract negotiations, I believe that their days are numbered. When they go, big rebates will go because we'll be back in the monopoly saddle again.

To your question: I'm for free enterprise. If someone cuts a deal based upon criteria that is available to everyone who meets that criteria then I don't see where I'm being disadvantaged. I always have the ultimate choice when I don't like the terms: Take my business elsewhere. My mantra has always been about reducing takeout. It's never been about increasing rebates.

What's your mantra?

CapperLou
10-26-2009, 05:13 PM
[QUOTE=rrbauer]Of course not. I never said that. But, I will say this: Half of the tracks HAVE to go out of business if this game is to continue. Those that are left will enjoy increased handle as a result and there will be better opportunities for them to run their businesses as businesses and not as welfare seekers.
Horseplayers could expedite this process if they would stand together and stop patronizing crap tracks with high takeouts and short fields.


Rich:

I agree with your opinion above; it seems that it will come to this eventually to save the industry. Too many malls today, too many tracks, to be profitable!!

We really need to stop everything with these "crap" tracks. You are on the right track, keep it up.

twindouble
10-26-2009, 05:53 PM
How would I know how whales will be affected by increases in takeout? The term whale has such a pejorative connotation in general that it's not clear to me where the line-in-the-sand is between "whales" and "non-whales". "People that pump a lot money into the pools" What is "a lot money"? I guess it's a volume-discount issue. Right? I do not pump a lot of money into the pools anymore (by most standards) so I guess that I'm a "non-whale". As a "non-whale" I know what rebates I can receive at the various ADW's that I do business with. And, I know that I can take it or leave it as a business proposition. What others receive, I don't know. What do whales get in rebates? Am I really being "screwed" that much?

The way new ADW laws are being written (Illinois' law restricts ADW commissions to 6%) and with the independent ADW's (not affiliated with racetracks) being squeezed every time there's contract negotiations, I believe that their days are numbered. When they go, big rebates will go because we'll be back in the monopoly saddle again.

To your question: I'm for free enterprise. If someone cuts a deal based upon criteria that is available to everyone who meets that criteria then I don't see where I'm being disadvantaged. I always have the ultimate choice when I don't like the terms: Take my business elsewhere. My mantra has always been about reducing takeout. It's never been about increasing rebates.



What's your mantra?

Free enterprise? This is gambling on the horses, it's called pari-MUTUAL wagering! That's my "mantra", level playing field for all players. If you think for one minute wall street types are going to hijack the whole racing industry just to cater to the rich and survive good luck with that one. I've had say.

twindouble
10-26-2009, 06:29 PM
The way new ADW laws are being written (Illinois' law restricts ADW commissions to 6%) and with the independent ADW's (not affiliated with racetracks) being squeezed every time there's contract negotiations, I believe that their days are numbered. When they go, big rebates will go because we'll be back in the monopoly saddle again. quote rrbuaer


I'll believe it when I see it happen.

Your talking just one state on that 6%. Who gets the other 20% on average? ADW's from what I understand pay squat for the signal, from what I gather it's around 5% or less. I don't know if it's gone up of late or not.

the_fat_man
10-26-2009, 06:42 PM
There's a kiss of death trip in POLY/TURF route races. It's the one where a horse, that doesn't have the speed to go to the front, nor is intended to do so, is put 6 to 8 or more paths wide by the jock going into the 1st turn. So, the jock is losing any number of lengths because he wants to make sure he gets position at the end of the pack. This pretty much sums up any attempt to make sense of it. :bang::bang:

Forgetting about what happens after that, typically the horse continuing wide, without cover on the backstretch and equally wide on the 2nd turn, needless to say, when I get this type of trip, I basically know I have ZERO shot of winning. And, I get this trip quite often at WO, GG, AP, etc.

What's my point? Well, If you allowed me to be able to CANCEL any bet where I get this ride, which, essentially, I'd know 10 seconds or so into the race, then my ROI would go through the roof. Ditto for those cases where there figures to be a ton of speed in a race YET only a single horse shakes loose and I'm allowed to bet late.

THIS is the WHALE advantage. I realize the perception argument (late into the pool BS) will be used but I'm not buying it. So, not only do these MoFo's get MONEY BACK but they also get these other perks.

So, I'm basically here to say: SCREW REDUCED TAKEOUT. Keep giving the WHALES money back. I don't care. I can still win.

But STRIP THEM of THESE ADDITIONAL PRIVILEGES. Or let EVERY bettor have the option of canceling (or betting) 15 seconds after the break. I'm sure, for example, that some of the ADW's could probably explain this as the money just being slow to enter the track pool, right?:rolleyes:

Horseplayersbet.com
10-26-2009, 06:49 PM
Hey Fat Man, do you have evidence that whales get to cancel tickets after the race begins?

Or did you get that one from an imaginary friend?

the_fat_man
10-26-2009, 06:59 PM
I don't have evidence about anything. To have evidence I'd need data that I don't have access to. But that's the point, right?

And, maybe it's all a bad interpretation of 'evidence'. After all, a particular event can be trigger by any number of causes.

A good way to alter my perception is for the after the break odds changes to stop --- especially in those loose lead cases. And, for odds in general to stop changing after they break; in some cases significantly, both in terms of time and range.

I can explain away some of the shit the stewards do by considering them idiots. What do I do when I see the odds drop AND I read about how BIG BETTORS get SPECIAL treatment?

Mike_412
10-26-2009, 07:10 PM
So, I'm basically here to say: SCREW REDUCED TAKEOUT. Keep giving the WHALES money back. I don't care. I can still win.

This is a serious question. Were you LetItRide Mike in another life? Perhaps a cousin?

Horseplayersbet.com
10-26-2009, 07:15 PM
I don't have evidence about anything. To have evidence I'd need data that I don't have access to. But that's the point, right?

And, maybe it's all a bad interpretation of 'evidence'. After all, a particular event can be trigger by any number of causes.

A good way to alter my perception is for the after the break odds changes to stop --- especially in those loose lead cases. And, for odds in general to stop changing after they break; in some cases significantly, both in terms of time and range.

I can explain away some of the shit the stewards do by considering them idiots. What do I do when I see the odds drop AND I read about how BIG BETTORS get SPECIAL treatment?
The only thing I'm aware of is batch betting technology. Usually the case is that when a horse is say 7-2 with 2 MTP but big batch bettors may give the horse a 5-2 chance, their programs hammer the win odds on this horse. The thing is that other batch bettors may be doing the same thing, which can cause this horse to go off at around 9-5 by the time all data is collected for the race.

To stop this, I'm all for stopping betting when the first couple of horses load.
You'll still see dramatic odds changes sometimes, but they will happen before the horse breaks by 2 lengths on top.

And yes, sometimes all bettors get to bet while the race is running. I'd say it has happened more than the six or seven times Scherf has documented. I have no idea how many times.

Also, in California, all bettors can cancel tickets about 4 seconds into the race. To me, this is wrong, and needs to be done away with.

rwwupl
10-26-2009, 07:38 PM
I think it's obvious that the entities plan to raise takeout. The person (presumably the lobbyist), paid for by the supporters:

Del Mar Thoroughbred Club
Los Angeles County Fair (Fairplex)
Oak Tree Racing Association
Thoroughbred Owners of California

Wrote in the argument for:



http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_517_cfa_20090528_133704_sen_floor.html

Unfortunately, as I don't think anyone knew about this...there was no argument "against" submitted to the Senate. Whether HANA says concerned or outraged here at PA doesn't really matter, getting HANA to a point where they are aware of these things as they are happening, and able to submit formal "Arguments against" when this stuff is in process is where we need to get to. I'd like, at least once, to get on the record before something happens, rather than always in the position of us hearing about it after the fact.
----------------------------------------------=---=--------------------

The complaint was noted that many people did not know about this bill. In discussing this with CHRB member David Israel and Executive Director Kirk Breed by Jeff Platt(President of HANA) and other members, it was established that the CHRB subscribes to a bill tracking service for horseracing in Ca. and all they have to do is post it to the CHRB website.

On behalf of HANA members it was requested that this service be extended to all so we can not be blindsided by bills that impact horseplayer activity in the future.

Mike Marten,Information Officer has agreed with the words "If the Executive Director wants it done, it is done"

One step at a time--rwwupl


From: Breed, Kirk (KEBreed@chrb.ca.gov)
Sent: Sun 10/25/09 3:12 PM
To: xxx(Many)


In the 30 years I have been involved with horseracing politics in Sacramento I don't recall anyone other then former Assemblyman Richard Floyd, who was an admitted gambler, caring or asking what the gamblers/bettors/horseplayers thought about a bill. Now days there is no excuse for anyone not knowing about legislation. Anyone can pay $50. Month and have access to the best bill tracking system in the world. The chrb subscribes to this service and could prepare a short summary/review on the website every month.

andymays
10-26-2009, 07:41 PM
[/B]
----------------------------------------------=---=--------------------

The complaint was noted that many people did not know about this bill. In discussing this with CHRB member David Israel and Executive Director Kirk Breed by Jeff Platt(President of HANA) and other members, it was established that the CHRB subscribes to a bill tracking service for horseracing in Ca. and all they have to do is post it to the CHRB website.

On behalf of HANA members it was requested that this service be extended to all so we can not be blindsided by bills that impact horseplayer activity in the future.

Mike Marten,Information Officer has agreed with the words "If the Executive Director wants it done, it is done"

One step at a time--rwwupl


From: Breed, Kirk (KEBreed@chrb.ca.gov)
Sent: Sun 10/25/09 3:12 PM
To: 'wayroger_@hotmail.com' (wayroger_@hotmail.com); 'Disrael17@aol.com' (Disrael17@aol.com); 'jeff@jcapper.com' (jeff@jcapper.com); 'onlyandy@cox.net' (onlyandy@cox.net)
Cc: 'art.wilson@sgvn.com' (art.wilson@sgvn.com); 'jammer999@aol.com' (jammer999@aol.com); 'jnahill@nctimes.com' (jnahill@nctimes.com); Marten, Mike (MikeM@chrb.ca.gov); 'horseplayersassociation@gmail.com' (horseplayersassociation@gmail.com); 'randyfen@gmail.com' (randyfen@gmail.com); 'dliebman@bloodhorse.com' (dliebman@bloodhorse.com); 'coronaadsp@hotmail.com' (coronaadsp@hotmail.com); 'wiseguyrog@aol.com' (wiseguyrog@aol.com); 'lshulman@bloodhorse.com' (lshulman@bloodhorse.com)

In the 30 years I have been involved with horseracing politics in Sacramento I don't recall anyone other then former Assemblyman Richard Floyd, who was an admitted gambler, caring or asking what the gamblers/bettors/horseplayers thought about a bill. Now days there is no excuse for anyone not knowing about legislation. Anyone can pay $50. Month and have access to the best bill tracking system in the world. The chrb subscribes to this service and could prepare a short summary/review on the website every month.


For those of you who don't know, Roger has been a champion of the Horseplayer for decades. keep it up rwwupl you are a true hero! :ThmbUp:

the_fat_man
10-26-2009, 07:55 PM
You'll still see dramatic odds changes sometimes, but they will happen before the horse breaks by 2 lengths on top.



Fire up the replay from AP 9/11/09 R3 and

note how long it takes for the speed, #4, to go from 20:1 to 16:1.

There are quite a few other examples similar to this from AP (not all of which won). Great track to bet but not when my prices get cut by 20% half way into the race.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-26-2009, 08:03 PM
Fire up the replay from AP 9/11/09 R3 and

note how long it takes for the speed, #4, to go from 20:1 to 16:1.

There are quite a few other examples similar to this from AP (not all of which won). Great track to bet but not when my prices get cut by 20% half way into the race.
My point is that batch bettors were most probably on the horse when it as 20-1 as a value play.

The odds always change for the final time some time around the far turn as bets made everywhere are merged into the final pool.

20% odds fluctuations happen a lot after the gate opens, but though it appears it has to do with people betting into the race, it rarely is the case.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-27-2009, 09:54 AM
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/53132/law-gives-ca-tracks-more-takeout-flexibility

A fiscal analysis states more than $4 billion is wagered in California each year on horse racing. Thus, a 5% hike in takeout rates would produce $200 million in revenue ďthat would be redirected toward the industry rather than provided to bettors as winnings," the analysis states.

The analysis didnít discuss a scenario in which pari-mutuel handle could fall because of the increase in takeout.

The analysis indicates the measure had the support of Del Mar, Golden Gate Fields, Fairplex Park, Oak Tree Racing Association, Santa Anita Park, and the Thoroughbred Owners of California.

rwwupl
10-27-2009, 10:15 AM
Horseplayersbet.com wrote:

The analysis indicates the measure had the support of Del Mar, Golden Gate Fields, Fairplex Park, Oak Tree Racing Association, Santa Anita Park, and the Thoroughbred Owners of California


There was no statement of opposition because it was done without notice and few knew about it. Not exactly transparent and open as we were assured. See post #116 on this tread.

In follow up,we have been assured that the CHRB will have an open mind before approving any request pursuent to this bill and notice given. The CHRB must still approve the changes.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-27-2009, 10:27 AM
Horseplayersbet.com wrote:




There was no statement of opposition because it was done without notice and few knew about it. Not exactly transparent and open as we were assured. See post #116 on this tread.

In follow up,we have been assured that the CHRB will have an open mind before approving any request pursuent to this bill and notice given. The CHRB must still approve the changes.
Open mind? They are still "thinking" with their collective brains. And I've yet to see a horsemen group properly tackle the real effects of either a takeout hike or takeout drop. Horsemen collectively think too much in the short term, much like racing execs. They have a "this could be my last year in the industry" attitude. It is a complete hindrance to growth.

The reality is that if not for the influx of emails and phone calls the California execs and horsemen group received on the weekend over the announcement (and don't think for a second that the posts on Pace Advantage weren't important for a moment), we probably would have seen a big takeout increase by now.

They are rightfully scared now to do anything. And I'm sure the California horsemen are thinking "damn horseplayers, why don't they just mind their own business." :D

rwwupl
10-27-2009, 10:32 AM
I am on our side. ;)

rwwupl

Horseplayersbet.com
10-27-2009, 10:44 AM
I am on our side. ;)

rwwupl
The sad thing is that we want the game to grow just as badly as horsemen and track execs.

The only difference is that we understand the only thing that will grow the game, and they obviously don't.

Horse racing lives in an alternative universe. A five year old can see why Wal Marts are successful and Mom and Pop shops are limited from the minute they charge $2.50 for a quart of milk.

CBedo
10-27-2009, 01:37 PM
All the tracks supported the bill. Why woudn't they? It gives them more flexibility to possibly change rates and to reallocate where the money goes at the current rates.

Both Hollywood Park and Santa Anita have made statements that they have no plans to raise takeout currently. They both said it would not be a good idea to do today, but fell short of saying they wouldn't do it at a later date.

twindouble
10-27-2009, 03:16 PM
The sad thing is that we want the game to grow just as badly as horsemen and track execs.

The only difference is that we understand the only thing that will grow the game, and they obviously don't.

Horse racing lives in an alternative universe. A five year old can see why Wal Marts are successful and Mom and Pop shops are limited from the minute they charge $2.50 for a quart of milk.

Using Wal Mart as a standard for horse racing doesn't make any sense to me. That's like saying the metrics for all corporations can be standardized regardless of the prevailing economic conditions or taking into consideration the type of product, the nature of existing or potential buyers. At the same time discarding or ignoring all the historical cultural and traditional influences of a uniquely different business.

I buy my milk at the "Mom and Pop" stores to save time, money and to socialize. I'm sure as heck not going drive for hr, burn the gas and stand in line to save 25 cents on milk or anything else I can get conveniently. Sure, when it comes to wagering, I sit home, bet online and save money but I'm maybe one out of 100 that made that transition when all the tracks closed around me. There's no young people in this area interested in racing because it wasn't passed on them. Close up all the "junk tracks" and see how much handle will drop including the negative effect on growth. Be careful of what you wish for. Anyone who thinks they can take the heart and sole out of racing, create something new with wall street driven ideas doesn't know the game. I don't care what kind of software they develop, it won't work. The very idea of using the pari-mutual system like it's a market for just a select few volume players turns my stomach.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-27-2009, 03:35 PM
Where did I say close smaller tracks?
Secondly, the Wal Mart example works if you have both a mom and pop store and a Wal Mart within 5 minutes of your home.
Sorry if my post went Woooooosh over your head. It isn't the first time that happened :)

CBedo
10-27-2009, 03:56 PM
I buy my milk at the "Mom and Pop" stores to save time, money and to socialize.Nothing like having to PAY extra to socialize. Maybe you need some new friends? :lol:

DeanT
10-27-2009, 03:57 PM
I buy my milk at the "Mom and Pop" stores to save time, money and to socialize. I'm sure as heck not going drive for hr, burn the gas and stand in line to save 25 cents on milk or anything else I can get conveniently. Sure, when it comes to wagering, I sit home, bet online and save money but I'm maybe one out of 100 that made that transition when all the tracks closed around me. There's no young people in this area interested in racing because it wasn't passed on them. Close up all the "junk tracks" and see how much handle will drop including the negative effect on growth. Be careful of what you wish for. Anyone who thinks they can take the heart and sole out of racing, create something new with wall street driven ideas doesn't know the game. I don't care what kind of software they develop, it won't work. The very idea of using the pari-mutual system like it's a market for just a select few volume players turns my stomach.

Your point is well taken; Wall Street in parimutuel pools is not ideal. However, racing must find a way to bring them on board in an efficient way - it is unrealistic to shun away a revenue stream and they will not do that. Other people have found a way however, and they are winning.

The parimutuel market is around 130 years old and has not changed much. As Will Cummings said in his report 'shoehorning racings customers into one system' is not efficient and the business is leaving money on the table. On one hand we have players like yourself that like the parimutuel system and want it to run better. On the other hand we have players that would not touch it with a ten foot pole; these are the players that want "Wall Street" here.

Imo, racing has not serviced either well. In the case of pari-mutuel we have three main externalities: 1) Egregiously high takeouts that scare away many 2) A mixed up pool with price breaks on rebating and 3) A non-secure system whereby closing odds are the odds that one gets for their bet, and in some cases, pools not closing, hurting the integrity of the game.

In the UK this system is different and it is one that delivers some lower take via the gross profits funding mechanism. A short shot at William Hill will be 5-1, with a 6% takeout. Pretty good for everyone - if you bet $10 or $1000 you get 5-1. As well, the price one bets at is the price they get after the race is over.

Still, without the Wall Street types having a place to make bets the business floundered. So to attack that lost market that was looking for a home, betfair was formed. Whenever someone offers choice, that choice results in higher handles.

http://www.startup-review.com/blog/betfair-case-study-target-a-niche-and-expand.php

Betfair on the other hand was built like a stock market exchange, where odds functioned as the share prices. Betfair was built on the concept that a bettor didnít really care who was booking the bet, as long as they got the best deal possible. This would enable players to trade in and out of positions on horses, much like trading in and out of positions on stocks.
Tremendous cost advantage over traditional methods

Although Betfair covers many betting markets, the majority of the wagering volume is still from UK horseracing, Betfairís initial target market. Betfairís system created an inherent cost advantage relative to the traditional bookmaker model in the UK.

So, what we have is a place for "wall street types to play" and a pari-mutuel type system that offers lower take to people like yourself, with more efficient pools.

How do we get there here? That is one hard question, imo. However, making rebates and lower takeout more available to regular players (an ontrack rewards card with real teeth and ADW's expanding their lower take to more people) and allowing more competition between providers and racetracks would be a start. As well, making the pools more secure would help everyone. If, and only if, the business expands with making these ideals more mainstream I think we can move on to making things better, more efficient and more palatable to all players.

That's my best shot at making the game a little better for stage one. that would not cure all the ills, but working together and growing a business could set the table to do more and more for the bettor in a level-the-playing field way - all types of bettors, whom this business sorely needs.

DT

twindouble
10-27-2009, 04:10 PM
Where did I say close smaller tracks?
Secondly, the Wal Mart example works if you have both a mom and pop store and a Wal Mart within 5 minutes of your home.
Sorry if my post went Woooooosh over your head. It isn't the first time that happened :)

I know you didn't mention closing tracks but that's been bantered around here a lot. I just throw in what I'm thinking at the time just to cover what I think is on the agenda of some members and to be as clear as I can where I'm coming from. That's not easy for me without offending someone. Not that it's intentional.

Anyway, horse racing isn't anything like Wal Mart, only minority think buying power is the cure all for horse racing so they support high volume players that pay a much lower takeout over those that actually keep racing in business. Wal Mart patrons get the same price as everyone else that shops in their stores, it's "Mutual".

Horseplayersbet.com
10-27-2009, 04:31 PM
My Wal Mart analogy has to do with what racing can be, but chooses not to.
Betfair is Wal Mart. The horse racing industry in North America is Mom and Pop.

Indulto
10-27-2009, 04:36 PM
How would I know how whales will be affected by increases in takeout? The term whale has such a pejorative connotation in general that it's not clear to me where the line-in-the-sand is between "whales" and "non-whales". "People that pump a lot money into the pools" What is "a lot money"? I guess it's a volume-discount issue. Right? I do not pump a lot of money into the pools anymore (by most standards) so I guess that I'm a "non-whale". As a "non-whale" I know what rebates I can receive at the various ADW's that I do business with. And, I know that I can take it or leave it as a business proposition. What others receive, I don't know. What do whales get in rebates? Am I really being "screwed" that much?

The way new ADW laws are being written (Illinois' law restricts ADW commissions to 6%) and with the independent ADW's (not affiliated with racetracks) being squeezed every time there's contract negotiations, I believe that their days are numbered. When they go, big rebates will go because we'll be back in the monopoly saddle again.

To your question: I'm for free enterprise. If someone cuts a deal based upon criteria that is available to everyone who meets that criteria then I don't see where I'm being disadvantaged. I always have the ultimate choice when I don't like the terms: Take my business elsewhere. My mantra has always been about reducing takeout. It's never been about increasing rebates.

What's your mantra?I associate "free enterprise" market pricing with the old on-track bookmakers and with current fixed-odds wagers available through exchanges, not with pari-mutuel pools.

That's not to say pools aren't manipulated, e,g., via late cancellations of earlier wagers, etc., but if these pools are to fund purses, track operations, etc., then all wagers should do so TO THE SAME EXTENT. Tracks that can't run their own interstate ADW operation have to pay independent ADWs to take bets for them, but allowing them to divert shares of takeout to some winners, but not others, violates the principle and alters the game being played.

Perhaps takeout should be inversely proportional to pool size rather than wager size, average or actual. Why should there be any reward for a losing wager of any size?

IMO players should not wait to fight an increase, but start fighting for a reduction right now since the new law allows it. No more shopping at Whales-R-Us.

My mantra is: "Equally lower takeout on every wager -- winner take ALL." Joe Horseplayer has to learn how to win, but he should win his fair share once he does.

twindouble
10-27-2009, 04:37 PM
DeanT

It will take me awhile to absorb what you had to say to respond. Right now I have to get an old fashion meat loaf ready for the oven.

twindouble
10-27-2009, 06:23 PM
[QUOTE=DeanT]Your point is well taken; Wall Street in parimutuel pools is not ideal. However, racing must find a way to bring them on board in an efficient way - it is unrealistic to shun away a revenue stream and they will not do that. Other people have found a way however, and they are winning.

The parimutuel market is around 130 years old and has not changed much. As Will Cummings said in his report 'shoehorning racings customers into one system' is not efficient and the business is leaving money on the table. On one hand we have players like yourself that like the parimutuel system and want it to run better. On the other hand we have players that would not touch it with a ten foot pole; these are the players that want "Wall Street" here.

Imo, racing has not serviced either well. In the case of pari-mutuel we have three main externalities: 1) Egregiously high takeouts that scare away many 2) A mixed up pool with price breaks on rebating and 3) A non-secure system whereby closing odds are the odds that one gets for their bet, and in some cases, pools not closing, hurting the integrity of the game.

In the UK this system is different and it is one that delivers some lower take via the gross profits funding mechanism. A short shot at William Hill will be 5-1, with a 6% takeout. Pretty good for everyone - if you bet $10 or $1000 you get 5-1. As well, the price one bets at is the price they get after the race is over.

Still, without the Wall Street types having a place to make bets the business floundered. So to attack that lost market that was looking for a home, betfair was formed. Whenever someone offers choice, that choice results in higher handles.

http://www.startup-review.com/blog/betfair-case-study-target-a-niche-and-expand.php



So, what we have is a place for "wall street types to play" and a pari-mutuel type system that offers lower take to people like yourself, with more efficient pools.

How do we get there here? That is one hard question, imo. However, making rebates and lower takeout more available to regular players (an ontrack rewards card with real teeth and ADW's expanding their lower take to more people) and allowing more competition between providers and racetracks would be a start. As well, making the pools more secure would help everyone. If, and only if, the business expands with making these ideals more mainstream I think we can move on to making things better, more efficient and more palatable to all players.

That's my best shot at making the game a little better for stage one. that would not cure all the ills, but working together and growing a business could set the table to do more and more for the bettor in a level-the-playing field way - all types of bettors, whom this business sorely needs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not against offering expanded wagering menus, be it Betfair or pari-mutual wagering. If it wasn't for the expansion of wagering menus over the years, I would have had a much tougher time making a buck. To me, any change in racing I viewed as an opportunity to make money, even synthetic tracks but a few getting higher rebates and lower takeout than I wasn't acceptable. If Betfair isn't giving kick backs to high rollers I will check it out like I do anything else.

What would concern me is Betfairs menu that includes other sports. Players being able to wager on anything through one venue, there's a risk that racing could lose more players and handle. So there's still the problem of bringing more horse players into the game. I can't except the idea that racing can't compete with other sports. Racing can compete with slots, hands down.
[QUOTE]

twindouble
10-27-2009, 06:57 PM
My Wal Mart analogy has to do with what racing can be, but chooses not to.
Betfair is Wal Mart. The horse racing industry in North America is Mom and Pop.

Ok, now I get it.:bang: I just answered deanT on Betfair. Now that they do have a foot hold in America there's nothing I can do about it, we'll see how it goes. I can except or reject what they have to offer horse players.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-27-2009, 08:45 PM
Even at Betfair they give better rates to those who bet more. Fundamentally, I don't agree with this, but it is the nature of the beast. I can only rationalize it that everyone potentially is capable of being the biggest player if they are good enough.

twindouble
10-27-2009, 09:53 PM
Even at Betfair they give better rates to those who bet more. Fundamentally, I don't agree with this, but it is the nature of the beast. I can only rationalize it that everyone potentially is capable of being the biggest player if they are good enough.

I wouldn't rule out a player that's serious about the game, that's well capitalized, spends necessary time in a professional way, could very well crack that barrier by getting incremental kick backs during the process. I don't think many players fall in that catigory but a good percentage of them do churn a lot of money and some make a profit. How many, no one knows. One other point, losers also churn money and it's not peanuts. Why not give everyone a fair shake?

Horseplayersbet.com
10-27-2009, 10:27 PM
I wouldn't rule out a player that's serious about the game, that's well capitalized, spends necessary time in a professional way, could very well crack that barrier by getting incremental kick backs during the process. I don't think many players fall in that catigory but a good percentage of them do churn a lot of money and some make a profit. How many, no one knows. One other point, losers also churn money and it's not peanuts. Why not give everyone a fair shake?
If someone becomes good enough, they become well capitalized because of it, and then they move on to highest rebate level.
That is usually how it works.

twindouble
10-27-2009, 10:57 PM
If someone becomes good enough, they become well capitalized because of it, and then they move on to highest rebate level.
That is usually how it works.

I basically agree but it's a hell of lot harder playing with short money getting to that level, plus most players have full time jobs and other responsibilities on top of it all. Those that suggest anyone can become a whale without the necessary capital or the time to put into it, is a stretch for sure. Like I said, that don't mean those people don't churn a lot money when they do play.