New Deal For Pari-Mutuel Racing

[Sea Biscuit]

He makes a whole lot of sense to me.


http://www.ustrotting.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=34435&z=56


Sea Biscuit

[toetoe]

I just had a thought (uh oh ... :rolleyes: ):

How about randomly generated win tickets on upcoming races as comps for ontrack slots players ? These would have the advantage, housewise, of being perishable, thus clearing the books --- or at least converting to parimutuel debit/credit --- the very day they were issued. Slotplaying wiseguys would be able to sell or trade their tickets, and horseplaying wiseguys would have a shot at getting value on preferred runners.

Come to think of it, the more tickets generated, the more the prices would regress to the middle, right ? Also, it might generate interest in racing, something that lotteries have failed miserably to do.

[Pacingguy]

He makes a whole lot of sense to me.


http://www.ustrotting.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=34435&z=56


Sea Biscuit

Yes, John Berry speaks a lot of truth. The horsemen are probably ready to tar and feather him.

[Sea Biscuit]

Yes, John Berry speaks a lot of truth. The horsemen are probably ready to tar and feather him.


Well PNG: Maybe thats your answer to saving the industry which is going downhill since the urging rule.

If something is not done soon, the horseman may not even have the money to buy the tar or the feathers. His last line says it all

"Again, if you’re running a business, would you rather take 20½% of $500,000 or 8% of $2,000,000?"


Sea Biscuit.

[Pacingguy]

Well PNG: Maybe thats your answer to saving the industry which is going downhill since the urging rule.

If something is not done soon, the horseman may not even have the money to buy the tar or the feathers. His last line says it all

"Again, if you’re running a business, would you rather take 20½% of $500,000 or 8% of $2,000,000?"


Sea Biscuit.

Biscuit, I am sorryt if you didn't catch my sarcasm. It is also obvious you are not a regular reader of my blog as I addressed this a couple of days ago in support of the idea (that's all right) :D I think this is a great idea. The problem is the horsemen are too clueless or don't care, happy to collect their welfare checks (slot revenue) as long as they can to be willing to make a change.

I know this because I have been in meetings with people in the industry and the horsemen groups represented at the meetings kept saying, 'the track should do this, the track should do that' or 'why is it always us that have to give'. They don't realize they are not dealing from a position of strength. Many tracks would be happy to get rid of racing as long as they got to keep the slots; the horsemen would be out in the cold while the ex-track operators will be raking in the profits.

What should happen is the tracks and horsemen should both give up part of their revenue and give it a try.

Here is my original blog entry on this: http://viewfromthegrandstand.blogspot.com/2009/10/time-for-new-deal.html

I will be writing more about how we should test this theory today.

[Sea Biscuit]

Biscuit, I am sorryt if you didn't catch my sarcasm. It is also obvious you are not a regular reader of my blog as I addressed this a couple of days ago in support of the idea (that's all right) :D I think this is a great idea. The problem is the horsemen are too clueless or don't care, happy to collect their welfare checks (slot revenue) as long as they can to be willing to make a change.

I know this because I have been in meetings with people in the industry and the horsemen groups represented at the meetings kept saying, 'the track should do this, the track should do that' or 'why is it always us that have to give'. They don't realize they are not dealing from a position of strength. Many tracks would be happy to get rid of racing as long as they got to keep the slots; the horsemen would be out in the cold while the ex-track operators will be raking in the profits.

What should happen is the tracks and horsemen should both give up part of their revenue and give it a try.

Here is my original blog entry on this: http://viewfromthegrandstand.blogspot.com/2009/10/time-for-new-deal.html

I will be writing more about how we should test this theory today.

I knew you would agree. Any sane man would also agree.

I saw the sarcasm in your tar and feathers remark. I was coming down hard on the hilly billy horsemen (and not you) who don't see the writings on the wall.

The time to act is now otherwise it might be too late.


Sea Biscuit

[melman]

Let's see now, Pacingguy is fully in support of a silly new "urging" rule which changes the game for the worse. This new rule is chasing away serious players from harness racing areas which have adopted it. His attitude is you must adjust or else. Then he proceeds to blame everyone else. I have written many times that the number one issue is reduction of the takeout. That is another issue and the prime issue.

[Pacingguy]

Let's see now, Pacingguy is fully in support of a silly new "urging" rule which changes the game for the worse. This new rule is chasing away serious players from harness racing areas which have adopted it. His attitude is you must adjust or else. Then he proceeds to blame everyone else. I have written many times that the number one issue is reduction of the takeout. That is another issue and the prime issue.

Melman, I don't understand your comment "Then he proceeds to blame everyone else." I don't see where you can't be in favor of both the new whipping rule and reducing the takeout; they are two separate issues. The primary problem racing has is pricing; the takeout is to high in comparisson to other gambling options. Old whipping rules or not, you are pricing yourself out of the market. While the takeout rate may be one of the primary problems, you can't sit there adressing one problem at a time. You will run out of time to fix things.

As for the whipping rules (and this is my final comment on them), my support of the new rules are primarily based on the fact that the old whipping rules are eventually going to send harness racing down the same path as greyhound racing; on the path of being outlawed in every state. If you don't see this happening, you are either in denial or don't care what happens to harness racing; just looking at racing as a means to gamble, content to switch to the next gambling game when it gets outlawed. I like harness racing as a sport as much as a gambling option; I want to see the game being around for a long time. Hence, I make no apologies for my position on whipping.

[melman]

Pacingguy you and the track operators who have passed this silly new rule have succeded in doing what high takeouts have been unable to do, and that is chase away serious bettors from the game. Make no mistake harness racing is a gambling business. You can dress it up any way you like but that is the bottom line.

[melman]

Now that i think about it somemore maybe the BUSINESS of harness racing and for that matter t-bred racing should die. With people still thinking that a silly new rule will change abuse of the whip or of abuse of the horse. There where rules in place for that before the silly new rule. When people speak of the "sport" of racing and forget that they are in the gambling business first and foremost then I wonder just who is "in denial".

[Pacingguy]

Now that i think about it somemore maybe the BUSINESS of harness racing and for that matter t-bred racing should die. With people still thinking that a silly new rule will change abuse of the whip or of abuse of the horse. There where rules in place for that before the silly new rule. When people speak of the "sport" of racing and forget that they are in the gambling business first and foremost then I wonder just who is "in denial".

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think greyhound racing has been outlawed and getting outlawed in many states and in other places the dog tracks just close up? After all, their takeout rates are no worse than the horses.

[melman]

You keep bringing up greyhound racing which is a bogus question. And one which I really believe you know is bogus. Why? To cast people such as myself as somehow in favor of abuse of the whip/horse. NOTHING could be further from the truth. I am in favor on heavy fines/suspend those who do such things. This silly new rule which you choose to defend does NOTHING to prevent a driver from abuse of the whip. In other sports when they make a rule change it is for an improvement in the game. This rules change does NOT make any improvement. It is taking two steps back. Of course you do not answer ANY of my questions just go back to the bogus "greyhound racing" and ignore the serious bettor.

[Pacingguy]

You keep bringing up greyhound racing which is a bogus question. And one which I really believe you know is bogus. Why? To cast people such as myself as somehow in favor of abuse of the whip/horse. NOTHING could be further from the truth. I am in favor on heavy fines/suspend those who do such things. This silly new rule which you choose to defend does NOTHING to prevent a driver from abuse of the whip. In other sports when they make a rule change it is for an improvement in the game. This rules change does NOT make any improvement. It is taking two steps back. Of course you do not answer ANY of my questions just go back to the bogus "greyhound racing" and ignore the serious bettor.

No, I don't think it is a bogus question and I never suggested you are in favor of abuse. I do believe the rule does reduce the potential for abuse.

Since you did not answer my question, I will answer it for you. Greyhound racing is on it's way out because it is perceived as being cruel. The greyhound people can argue till they are blue in the face about how they take care of the greyhounds; tracks have rescue groups; one track in my area (which bit the dust) went as far as paying for the vet care of any dog seriously hurt so it could be adopted and had a 100% adoption rate. That did not stop people from attacking the greyhound industry amd forcing this greyhound track closed.

Under the old way of whipping, the general public (read that as the people who can get their legislators to cut the VLT revenue to the tracks, make it financially hard for racetracks to operate and yes, get the sport outlawed) perceive the whipping as being cruel; their opinions matter. You can argue all you want how it isn't cruel but when they see the lines in one hand and see the driver reach back with the whip before they whip the horse or whip them multiple times; to them it is cruel and as they say perception is reality. This is what the new rules are all about, making the sport more palatable to current sensibilities of the general public. So yes, the greyhound question is relevant; we are heading down a parallel path. The racing industry all through out the entire world knows this and are implementing similar rules. I have to think with a movement this broad, they know what they are talking about.

As much as people give me credit for the whipping rule, I didn't create it. Quite honestly, the Ontario rule is too strict; disqualifying the horse is too much. Fine the driver twice what the winning driver could make and give them days, but don't disqualify them. The implementation was not the best either. In Australia, before they implement the rules in betting races, they are racing their qualifiers for two months under the new rules so drivers get a feel for it and can learn the best way to motivate the horses under the new rule. That makes a lot of sense. Ontario should have done the same thing. They should have required any driver who is going to race in Ontario to drive a specified number of qualifiers under the new rules before they could drive in a betting race under the new rules.

Now, to answer what I believe is your questions. If I don't answer your question this time it is not because I am ducking it, I just didn't pick it up. Absolutely, we need our big bettors. I happen to think if they left, they will be back. Looking at handle after a couple of months is not an accurate picture. Look at it six months or a year later and I suspect most of them will be back after they see the world did not change that much. Yes, some of the players stopped playing Ontario, Kentucky, Indiana and Florida. What are they going to play, the Maine Circuit? My prediction, not because I want it, but because the way I see it is similar rules will expand to other states/provinces so the big gambler won't be able to avoid it. Go to the runners? Most of the people have a preference for one breed or another so they likely won't switch breeds permenantly, but if they do, what are they going to do when similar type rules come to the runners?

We also need to develop our future big bettors. If we turn the general public off due to perceived cruelty, what chance will we have to get new big bettors? None. They will be busy playing casino games. Most of the future big bettors are not going to start betting online day one; they are going to start at the track where the will hear the crack of the whip and see the exagerated movement (exagerated because the driver is in the sulky) of the whip. Try explaining to them it is not cruel; they know what they think they are seeing and that is what matters to them.

Yes, takeout is the biggest problem we have with our current gambling base. We need to get that addressed. However, like any business, you don't always have the convenience of dealing with one issue at a time. The whiping rule issue should not preclude people from dealing with the takeout problem and vice versa. After all, let's say we got all bets down to a 10% takeout, what good will that be if the sport is outlawed or VLT revenue is taken away causing racinos to get rid of racing?

I hope I answered your question. I am done with this thread. Not because I can't keep debating. You have your opinion and I have mine and unfortunately, we are not going to convince each other so why bother trying. I look forward to reading your comments on other topics.

[DeanT]

http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/trot/november-2009/view.html


What happened in Quebec is disturbing. The government essentially abandoned racing and as can be expected, the public outcry was minimal. Even across Canadian harness racing circles, was there much more than a whimper regarding the loss of the country’s second largest standardbred jurisdiction?

No.

Yet somehow month after month, meeting after meeting, we are met with industry leaders who have no problem distributing hundreds of millions of dollars in purse money without any plan to drive bettors or new patrons to the track.

A few weeks ago, I watched a five horse Gold Final at Kawartha Downs go for $170,000. One owner had four of the five horses. The single-file event had less betting on it than a $4,000 claiming race later in the program.

A Sires Stake program, mares residency, breed improvement and new ownership initiatives are all very positive things. They’re vital pieces of the puzzle. But without a product that is relevant to the consumer, harness racing is hurling head first toward its demise.

Right across North America, despite mounting evidence that the sport is out of touch with the general public, the event is presented in a manner that, aside from the odd superfecta, is virtually identical to what it looked like 15 years ago.

So now, it’s just a waiting game. Waiting for courageous leadership to stand up and invest in the future. Or waiting for the next press release to take everything away.