Pricci Does It Again [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Horseplayersbet.com

11-21-2009, 08:44 AM

Great article:
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/#comments

Interestingly, he put some blame on Richard Shapiro who corrects Pricci on a few issues. For example, it was the TOC who lobbied to get the takeout increase legislation to move forward.

A couple of quotes from the article:

...a price reduction and additional low-cost wagering products are the only things that can save the racing as a wagering option in the long term.

“It seems like just yesterday when maybe 5% of Horseplayers complained about the surface. Now it’s about 70%. I’m no David Axelrod or Carl Rove, but a 30% approval rating for synthetic surfaces in areas with good weather is pretty low.

“But then again maybe horseplayers are just stupid. Who cares about what they think anyway? They’re only customers, right? Stick with Pro Ride and raise the take 5% California. That’s a parlay for the ages!

andymays

11-21-2009, 09:12 AM

Where does it claim Shapiro had anything to do with the potential raise in take?

andymays

11-21-2009, 09:43 AM

Where does it claim Shapiro had anything to do with the potential raise in take?

This was my response to Richard Shapiro along with more comments underneath the Pricci article.

I can’t see where John said Mr. Shapiro had anything to do with the increase in takeout.

Since I’m the one he is citing from an email I will take responsibility for not knowing Mr. Shapiro is no longer with the Alliance.

Mr. Shapiro in my book you are the poster child for the bad leadership in California. And as to the point whether or not you still have influence I would point to the CHRB allowing you to still attend live racing in California. It is a “no brainer” suspension in lite of your vandalism of a car in the Hollywood Park parking lot earlier in the year. If a Horseplayer did that what would have happened? Do you think the Horseplayer would have been banned from the Track? No kidding. The truth is you have buddies in high places in California racing looking out for you. It would be nice if Horseplayers had someone looking out for them.

In early 2008 Santa Anita was having trouble with the surface and in the middle of the card the Jockeys refused to ride. After a delay Santa Anita management decided to dig up the track and continue racing. The track that day was a speed favoring track to say the least and after they dug it up it was a dead closers track. Those of us that had bets in action that day like the P’3’s feel cheated to this day. The proper thing to do was to cancel the card or refund the bets and protect the bettors with bets in action. Did the CHRB do anything? Hell no. The remedy should have been to fine Santa Anita 100k and put it in a P-4 pool the next week. If you wonder why I’m on a mission that’s one example.

The example above in one example in a long list where the CHRB and the Racing Executives and Racing Officials threw the Horsplayers under the bus. It is one example and one reason why I am one pissed off Horesplayer. The Leadership of California Racing led us here but they reserve the right to go to the Horseplayers and raise the take to help them get out of the mess. No Thanks!

andymays

11-21-2009, 10:30 AM

The title of the Pricci article is: Higher Takeout Can Terminate California Racing

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/

Now I know the article just went up and I could care less about anyone defending me in this dust up. From where I see it this is a signature issue for HANA and there should be hundreds of comments from members screaming at the top of their lungs about takeout in California and everywhere else.

Talking about it over and over again but doing nothing is weak.

Have at it guys and step up! On this one I can guarantee you some big wigs are looking at the comments underneath the article. ;)

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/

andymays

11-21-2009, 02:29 PM

There are some awesome comments underneath the article. Here is an excerpt from one of them. It’s worth reading the whole thing.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/

Excerpt:

1. Jerry Jam says:
21 Nov 2009 at 04:03 pm | #

Richard (The Key Man) Shapiro’s statement that there was NO OPPOSITION to polycrap tracks coming to CA is true because HE NEVER LISTENED TO ANYONE OTHER THAN CRAIG FRAVEL AND RON CHARLES!!!

Shapiro, as a favor to the DEATH MAR TURF CLUB (FRAVEL AND JOE HARPER), pushed HARD for the CHRB mandate so that ALL CA TAXPAYERS would be forced to provide a FREE POLYCRAP TRACK TO DEATH MAR, since the state owns to racetrack property and DEATH MAR’S LEASE WAS SOON EXPIRING. Who knows how much “HAY” Shapiro and others might have received thanks to their CHRB Mandate from the parties involved????

Now, add in Florez and the State’s $144,000,000 YEARLY GIFT TO CA HORSERACING IN THE WAY OF A LICENSE FEE WAIVER. Why didn’t SHAPIRO and the CHRB seek to require that this money (BILLIONS OF $$) be used to promote CA horseracing and make much needed capital improvements at the racetracks? The answer to this question is that former CHRB Chairman Shapiro was too busy eating free food in the various director’s rooms and trying to get a job working for the racetracks, which he eventually did!!

Fortuntately, for the benefit of CA horseracing he made YET ANOTHER BAD DECISION AND KEYED MY CAR.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:lol: :ThmbUp:

DeanT

11-21-2009, 02:52 PM

A good comment here that is getting lost in the yelling and name calling:

TOC policies have resulted in horseplayers doing one thing: Betting Less.

They have been masters in that regard. Price sensitive horseplayers in most states have the option to sign up with an ADW that provides some form of rebate. Horseplayers in California do not have this option, thanks to the California ADW law that limits ADW compensation.

Now this is precisely what Pope and others (TOC) have long argued for, if only the tracks and horsemen got to keep more of the money, all would be well.

Is all well in Cali? Are the tracks providing rebates to California customers, since they’ve made it impossible for any of the ADWs to do so? They have exactly the law in Cali that has long been promised would fix everything. Is everything going great for them?

Of course not! Nothing is well in Cali racing.

They are now thinking maybe they need to raise takeout rates. Of course, because keeping rates high on the players has worked so well. Right?

The ONLY question, is how small does this game need to get before you guys figure out you need to start growing it?

In any business—you either give the customers what they want, or you go out of business. This ain’t a magical business, it works just like all the others.

andymays

11-21-2009, 02:55 PM

A good comment here that is getting lost in the yelling and name calling:

That goes without saying. The comments are a voice of reason and appear to be written by someone who knows what they're talking about. :ThmbUp:

Any guesses?

Indulto

11-21-2009, 03:25 PM

That goes without saying. The comments are a voice of reason and appear to be written by someone who knows what they're talking about. :ThmbUp:

Any guesses?Sure sounds like our own poster, rrbauer. ;)

Congratulations, AM, on being recognized beyond this board for having something worthwhile to say. And by a HANA advisory board member, no less! Maybe respect is something that trickles down. The next step is an interview with Ms. Forney.

kenwoodallpromos

11-21-2009, 03:57 PM

Ca college students know how to get heard- take over as building! I suggest it not be at a track on the last day of the meet- interest lost fast!

The title of the Pricci article is: Higher Takeout Can Terminate California Racing

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/

Now I know the article just went up and I could care less about anyone defending me in this dust up. From where I see it this is a signature issue for HANA and there should be hundreds of comments from members screaming at the top of their lungs about takeout in California and everywhere else.

Talking about it over and over again but doing nothing is weak.

Have at it guys and step up! On this one I can guarantee you some big wigs are looking at the comments underneath the article. ;)

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/

andymays

11-21-2009, 06:32 PM

Sure sounds like our own poster, rrbauer. ;)

Congratulations, AM, on being recognized beyond this board for having something worthwhile to say. And by a HANA advisory board member, no less! Maybe respect is something that trickles down. The next step is an interview with Ms. Forney.

My agent emailed me with a bunch of offers. :cool:

Larry King is a big Horseplayer and he's hounding me to come on the show! :liar:

andymays

11-22-2009, 08:08 AM

This was sent to me yesterday and the only thing I changed was to delete the persons name and the first couple of words of the last sentence. It is another example of someone making a great point. Not sure why the person did't post it themeselves but it probably has to do with the uncivilized nature of the debate so far. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Takeout and handle are linked... an elastic relationship exists between the two.

Set takeout at 100% and handle very quickly becomes $0.00... producing $0.00 for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Set takeout at 0% and handle will soar... again producing $0.00 for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Somewhere between 100% and 0% is the optimal price point for takeout... the point at which takeout drives handle to produce max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers.

Every economic study produced over the past 15 years suggests that the true optimal price point for takeout is a lot closer to 10% than the 22% blended takeout that tracks and horsemen keep forcing upon us.

One of HANA's core beliefs is that racing takeout should be set as close to the optimal price point as possible... the goal being to produce max revenue for tracks, purses, and state coffers... which in turn results in a healthy prospering industry.

The real question becomes one of "Why would leadership of the TOC seek to do the exact opposite of that?"

HANA was formed because it's obvious that a lot of the problems in racing are self inflicted... falling handles and revenue from mismanagement of takeout being a prime example.

andymays

11-22-2009, 08:33 AM

A good comment here that is getting lost in the yelling and name calling:

Dean, I thought about your comments regarding the uncivilized nature of the comments made by some (maybe me) in the article and under the article (maybe me). The words by Jerry Jam were pretty raw as well but in his case he's been screaming from the top of his lungs for over a decade about the problems in California. I have to tell you I laughed so hard my side still hurts after I read his comments because you have to know the history of his relationship with Shapiro and others in California. He has been treated unfairly by quite a few characters there including Richard Shapiro and has fought back with everything he had including filing and winning several lawsuits against the CHRB. All anyone would have had to do was listen in on a couple of CHRB meetings where Jerry spoke and people would see that it is some on the Board of the CHRB that are "out of touch" to say the least. Time has proven that Jerry has been right on a awful lot of issues including his opinion of Richard Shapiro.

On a related point maybe part of the problem is that the people who know the most on the subject like HANA leadership (And I'm not being facetious) take a path that may be too civilized when it comes to certain issues like takeout. As you pointed out the comments by RB underneath the Pricci article were outstanding but in today's world what gets attention is not only the truth but the truth in an interesting and edgy way and yes sometimes an uncivilized way. Scientific Journals are full of truthfull and important information but they never become best sellers. The point being that if you want to fire up a membership and attract new ones you have to get your message out in a more interesting and sometimes uncivilized way in my opinion.

Anyway, I took my shot and had some fun doing it yesterday although I know some were not thrilled with the piece and the comments. I kind of laughed when I saw Horseplayersbet had started a thread about it and put some of my words in the thread starter. He obviously didn't read it too carefully and he probably wouldn't have posted it if he knew those were my comments in the article. Maybe I'm wrong. ;)

Live Long and Prosper Horseplayers. God knows you deserve it! :ThmbUp:

rwwupl

11-22-2009, 09:36 AM

In the interest of “subject Drift”, Take out and Ca.Bill S/B 517 was referenced in the above article. The provisions are clear and allows for the Associations to set their own price for take out, higher or lower.

I want racing to return to dirt,clean up the drug policy and have a central authority,and make racing more fan friendly too . I want the leaders of this game to listen to its customers, which they have a tradition of ignoreing.

The subject of take out is now in the lap of the Association leaders(Santa Anita, Hollywood,Del Mar,Fairplex etc.) and the CHRB., not the State or its Government Organization Committee, currently headed by Dean Florez. The Associations can not blame the State for their business troubles from over pricing their product.

Business conditions demand that the price of the product be lowered.

They must lower the price to revive the game or possibly be replaced for poor management.

Here is a summary of the bill text:

The bill: S/B 517

1. Authorizes a thoroughbred association or fair to file a
written notice with CHRB to alter the amount deducted
(the takeout) from the total amount wagered (the handle)
on horse races.

2. Maintains the existing statutory requirement that any
adjustment to the takeout shall be approved by CHRB.

3. Maintains the existing statutory limit that the takeout
shall not be less than 10 percent or more than 25
percent of the handle.
4. Requires the written notice filed by a thoroughbred
association or fair to include the written agreement of
the thoroughbred association or fair and the
organization representing the horsemen. This
requirement replaces the provision in existing law which 4

specifies that a request to alter the takeout shall be
“a joint request” of the thoroughbred association or
fair and the horsemen’s organization.

5. Maintains the existing statutory requirement that any
adjustment to the takeout shall be approved by CHRB.

6. Provides a notice shall be filed with the CHRB to modify
or redirect a distribution and shall be accompanied by a
report detailing all receipts and expenditures over the
two prior fiscal years of the funds and accounts
proposed to be affected by the notice.

7. States if the proposed distribution modification or
reduction increases or would increase the financial
burden of any organization or entity, the consent of
that organization or entity shall also be obtained, as
described.

8. Provides that the initial approval of a distribution
modification or redirection shall be limited to a
one-year period. A prior approval may be extended upon
consent of each organization and entity that gave its
consent for the initial distribution modification or
redirection for the subsequent year contingent upon
receipt of a financial report and a determination by the
CHRB that the extension is in the economic interest of
Thoroughbred racing.

9. States that a Thoroughbred association or fair whose
written notice for a percentage deduction which was
approved by the CHRB shall provide subsequent quarterly
reports of receipts and expenditures of the affected
funds if requested by the CHRB.

10. Provides that fiscal reports must be provided to the
CHRB and the respective fiscal committees and Committees
on Governmental Organization of the Senate and the
Assembly, which accounts for all receipts and
expenditures in any of the affected funds, as specified.

rwwupl

andymays

11-22-2009, 10:44 AM

Good Stuff RWWUPL! :ThmbUp:

andymays

11-22-2009, 11:23 AM

On the subject of takeout Roger Stein reported on his radio show that of the 25 million Betfair added to the handle for the Breeders’ Cup, Santa Anita received only 100k. It did improve the handle a little though. :rolleyes:

He also takes a little shot at the CHRB. :)

He also takes a big shot at TVG and an even bigger shot at Betfair and the biggest shot at Todd Schrupp. He's a little uncivilized :) and calls Todd Schrupp "Todd T. Shmuck"!

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

Archived shows come up about an hour after the show or about 10:00 am PST.

andymays

11-22-2009, 01:00 PM

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/11212009-higher-takeout-can-terminate-california-racing/

Excerpt:

1. New York racing has many problems. However, it is now significantly ahead of California racing due to the failed leadership of Richard Shapiro. His reign of error is precisely why racing demands the stewardship of a national Czar. The local fiefdoms of the Richard Shapiros of the racing world demonstrate that this apppointment should have been made yesterday!

Seabiscuit@AR

11-23-2009, 02:15 AM

The best hope for improving things like takeout rates etc for horseplayers in the USA is for a new competitor to shake up the market. Pinnacle gave up after the laws were changed a few years back which indicates it is not easy

Of course Pinnacle were an offshore outfit. It seems Betfair are making a serious effort to get into the USA market. And to their credit they try to come through the front door not the back door like others. They are the ones most likely to improve things for American horseplayers

It is true Betfair only give a small fraction of their turnover/matched bets to the race clubs. But so far in Australia the entrance of Betfair has hardly decimated tote pools. In Australia I bet with Betfair but I still bet on the tote and with bookies too. Santa Anita should look on the bright side, they now have 100K they did not have before

In any case, if prizemoney offered by race clubs were to drop, would it really be a bad thing? It is always understood the bigger the prizemoney the better. And it is if you own a horse stud with a prized stallion and are making big dollars from stud fees. But owners of horses do not benefit from increased prizemoney as they just end up paying more for the horses at the sales. Some groups do benefit from increased prizemoney but some do not

andymays

11-23-2009, 06:48 AM

Horse Racing is a sport that has very high overhead for everyone involved in putting on the show. Santa Anita (California) probably is one of the most expensive places to race for Owners, Breeders, and Track Owners. Without purses that are higher than anywhere else the numbers just don't add up. Less and less people are going to take a shot at Breeding and Owning because the gamble is too great.

California racing will inch closer and closer to minor league racing as time goes on. You can expect the handle will tank this coming season unless they get the close to 50% carryovers they had at last years meet. I'm pretty sure they will go from 5 days a week to 4 as the meet gets into March. I'm pretty sure they will raise the take incrementally as the year goes on. The way they see it other parts of the country have much higher takeout rates on some wagers so why not them. Those two moves will wreck things even more.

Everyone points fingers at one another as to who's fault it is for high takeout and the debate gets so old and nothing is accomplished. Nobody and I mean nobody has a viable solution. The HANA guys know the issue inside and out and up and down but the only real way to get changes made is through actual votes in each State and by "voting with dollars". Both require coordination and numbers of Horseplayers. Until there is a group of 50k Horseplayers or more who bet and vote nothing will change. In fact things will change for the worse for sure in the short term.

My number one issue is getting rid of synthetic surfaces. It is my opinion that they are fraudulent surfaces for Horseplayers. Maybe they're Ok in areas with a lot of rain but certainly not in areas with good weather. They wear out like a pair of blue jeans and need to be replaced every couple of years if they want to maintain their original specifications.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it! ;)

Horseplayersbet.com

11-23-2009, 08:33 AM

rwwupl

11-23-2009, 09:03 AM

The putting on the show expense is not a viable excuse. Here is why.
Slots have takeouts that on average are around 40-45% of horse racing. It really doesn't matter how much it costs to house slots etc., operators have found that at the 8-9% level they realize that is the optimum takeout, the level which generates the highest profit for the casino in the long run.

A portion of slot profits at tracks that have them go to the track and horsemen, and takeout has nothing to do with the cost of the show for either slots or the track. It is an amount that yields the best final results.

The bottom line is what takeout level will generate the highest long run profit for tracks, and that is something the industry has failed to explore.

Correct! :ThmbUp: The industry knows this, but there are too many factions to satisfy (decentralized authority) to ever get to proving the fact. In other words there is no one to take the bull by the horns and experiment over time to reach the optimum number.

Most studies and thinkers believe it should be about 10%,but the racing managers are afraid to buck the many factions pulling in other directions,and think the safer course is the status quo or increase the price on the false hope it will bring more.

We need a central authority.

andymays

11-23-2009, 11:08 AM

The putting on the show expense is not a viable excuse. Here is why.
Slots have takeouts that on average are around 40-45% of horse racing. It really doesn't matter how much it costs to house slots etc., operators have found that at the 8-9% level they realize that is the optimum takeout, the level which generates the highest profit for the casino in the long run.

A portion of slot profits at tracks that have them go to the track and horsemen, and takeout has nothing to do with the cost of the show for either slots or the track. It is an amount that yields the best final results.

The bottom line is what takeout level will generate the highest long run profit for tracks, and that is something the industry has failed to explore.

Just about every owner in California that I know loses money at the end of the month. I could be wrong but isn't the number about 2% that show a profit at the end of the year?

Who's making all the money? Lets start there.

Horseplayersbet.com

11-23-2009, 11:15 AM

Just about every owner in California that I know loses money at the end of the month. I could be wrong but isn't the number about 2% that show a profit at the end of the year?

Who's making all the money? Lets start there.
Trainers, the people trainers employ, the jockeys, the tracks (that pays for employees), the ADWs, the vets, the industries that provide feed, straw, saddles, drugs that the horse uses.

I'm sure I'm missing a few.

But horseplayers are definitely not supposed to make money according to the industry, and owners are allowed to make money, but they have to be very lucky and very skilled too.

andymays

11-23-2009, 11:22 AM

Trainers, the people trainers employ, the jockeys, the tracks (that pays for employees), the ADWs, the vets, the industries that provide feed, straw, saddles, drugs that the horse uses.

I'm sure I'm missing a few.

But horseplayers are definitely not supposed to make money according to the industry, and owners are allowed to make money, but they have to be very lucky and very skilled too.

What percentage of Trainers do you think are making a killing. I put the number at 5% or 10%. From what I hear many of the owners aren't even paying they're bills and quite a few Trainers are getting stuck with them. I've even heard some are stealing feed for their horses. There is also a big issue in California with the grooms and other employees because of the overtime they put in, especially when they have Friday night racing. Do you think they get time and a half for overtime? Tracks are cutting purses and laying people off. Do you think some of them are going to 4 day a week racing because they're doing well?

Bottom line is that the whole show is too expensive to produce and unless the current handle is concentrated on less tracks things will get worse.

As far as takeout goes 10% on WPS and 15% on exotics would be optimum. Right now 15% on WPS and 20% on exotics would be tolerable. Anything over that amount is stealing in my opinion.

Horseplayersbet.com

11-23-2009, 11:29 AM

What percentage of Trainers do you think are making a killing. I put the number at 5% or 10%. From what I hear many of the owners aren't even paying they're bills and quite a few Trainers are getting stuck with them. I've even heard some are stealing feed for their horses. There is also a big issue in California with the grooms and other employees because of the overtime they put in, especially when they have Friday night racing. Do you think they get time and a half for overtime? Tracks are cutting purses and laying people off. Do you think some of them are going to 4 day a week racing because they're doing well?

Bottom line is that the whole show is too expensive to produce and unless the current handle is concentrated on less tracks things will get worse.

As far as takeout goes 10% on WPS and 15% on exotics would be optimum. Right now 15% on WPS and 20% on exotics would be tolerable. Anything over that amount is stealing in my opinion.
Trainers for the most part make a living. I didn't say anything about making a killing. But it is purse money (that is generated from betting and slots where applicable) and whatever the owners actually lose that pays for the trainer and all their employees in the backstretch.

andymays

11-23-2009, 11:50 AM

Trainers for the most part make a living. I didn't say anything about making a killing. But it is purse money (that is generated from betting and slots where applicable) and whatever the owners actually lose that pays for the trainer and all their employees in the backstretch.

You know we keep having these back and forths and you still haven't offered your solution because there isn't one for now. What's the point? Since HANA has been trumpeting lower takeout it has probably gone up in many cases so how effective is the argument? California just reserved the right to raise takeout 5%. Everyone screamed for a day and then nothing other than Johns article and my points in the article.

Maybe the postition should be to create some type of firewall before more and more tracks set takeout at 30%.

Horseplayersbet.com

11-23-2009, 12:08 PM

You know we keep having these back and forths and you still haven't offered your solution because there isn't one for now. What's the point? Since HANA has been trumpeting lower takeout it has probably gone up in many cases so how effective is the argument? California just reserved the right to raise takeout 5%. Everyone screamed for a day and then nothing other than Johns article and my points in the article.

Maybe the postition should be to create some type of firewall before more and more tracks set takeout at 30%.
Maybe you are just wrapped around California racing, but have we seen any takeout increases since HANA became an entity?
Did you not read that Tampa Bay is lowering its takeout on a couple of wagers this season?
Did California raise takeout? No, because of things that went on behind the scenes, they've decided it is not in their best interest to do so, at least at this time.
I have offered a solution. But it won't be overnight. I don't think it is feasible to expect tracks to lower takeouts enough across the board. There are too many factions out there and too much red tape.
My personal solution is to stop making rebate a dirty word, give all players an option to sign up at any track or ADW and receive rebates which lower the takeout to the 12-15% level for starters if the ADW chooses to. Give equal rebates to all if the ADW chooses it. More choice is bettor for the player and will drive prices down.
If someone chooses not to have an account, then they will be subject to the ridiculous takeouts the industry is offering right now.
Again, I'm not speaking for HANA when it comes to my personal solution, because again, there are laws that even my idea needs to overcome and we are lobbying to get those lifted inch by inch, as well. So in a sense, a perfect solution is not attainable YET.
Bottom line is that if players get to last longer, they will expose others to the game and the game will grow. This can only be achieved by lower takeouts or higher rebates.

As for Pricci's article, the one I wrote was timely and got lots of notice:
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2009/10/schwarzenegger-signs-amendment-to-allow.html

andymays

11-23-2009, 12:12 PM

If someone gave you a couple hundred million dollars would you buy Santa Anita and make the takeout 5% for one year?

As far as California not raising the take because of what went on behind the scenes I think you're way off. They came up with the option of increasing the take 5% behind the scenes. They got some blowback but it won't stop them from doing it in the next few months. Other tracks are higher so why not them?

Horseplayersbet.com

11-23-2009, 12:16 PM

If I gave you a couple hundred million dollars would you buy Santa Anita and make the takeout 5% for one year?
5% might be lower than the optimum takeout level, but if you called the shots, I'd do whatever you wanted :)
I think the optimum takeout level is probably between 8-12%.

The problem with just one track lowering takeout is that tracks with higher takeouts will cannibalize the extra money made by customers at the low takeout track. That isn't as much of an issue when it comes to having an account at an ADW that offers decent rewards though, but it is on track and when betting with non rebate or low rebate ADWs.

andymays

11-23-2009, 12:18 PM

5% might be lower than the optimum takeout level, but if you called the shots, I'd do whatever you wanted :)
I think the optimum takeout level is probably between 8-12%.

The problem with just one track lowering takeout is that tracks with higher takeouts will cannibalize the extra money made by customers at the low takeout track. That isn't as much of an issue when it comes to having an account at an ADW that offers decent rewards though, but it is on track and when betting with non rebate or low rebate ADWs.

More problems with no solutions. I agree with the 8-12%. Lets do it! Make it so! ;)

Should we shut everything down and go with the Betfair model? Is that HANA's position? If so how?

Horseplayersbet.com

11-23-2009, 12:32 PM

More problems with no solutions. I agree with the 8-12%. Lets do it! Make it so! ;)

Should we shut everything down and go with the Betfair model? Is that HANA's position? If so how?
HANA's position is that takeout is too high. We have not made a collective stance on Betfair, only that more competition is better for the horseplayer.

Betfair poses a problem because it would have to be something that actually makes the tracks MORE money bottom line. You can't expect the industry to use a platform that will make them less money.

The stance on lowering takeout would be a non issue if we felt the tracks would have a lower bottom line if they dropped their takes. It is pretty obvious from studies done and just common sense, that lowering takeout will help their bottom line. But when it comes to Betfair it will depend on how much of the profits the tracks get coupled with the value added that Betfair will create NEW customers, just how many, would it be worthwhile?

There is some evidence in Australia that betting has increased since Betfair came and I think the bottom line net profit the tracks have received has gone up as well. If that is the case, than I think it is a no brainer to support Betfair, but lets face it, it is illegal right now in the US right now, and I think it is prudent when it comes to HANA's focus and limited resources to let the well funded pro gambling lobby groups try to change the laws before Betfair becomes a reality in the US.

andymays

11-23-2009, 12:35 PM

HANA's position is that takeout is too high. We have not made a collective stance on Betfair, only that more competition is better for the horseplayer.

Betfair poses a problem because it would have to be something that actually makes the tracks MORE money bottom line. You can't expect the industry to use a platform that will make them less money.

The stance on lowering takeout would be a non issue if we felt the tracks would have a lower bottom line if they dropped their takes. It is pretty obvious from studies done and just common sense, that lowering takeout will help their bottom line. But when it comes to Betfair it will depend on how much of the profits the tracks get coupled with the value added that Betfair will create NEW customers, just how many, would it be worthwhile?

There is some evidence in Australia that betting has increased since Betfair came and I think the bottom line net profit the tracks have received has gone up as well. If that is the case, than I think it is a no brainer to support Betfair, but lets face it, it is illegal right now in the US right now, and I think it is prudent when it comes to HANA's focus and limited resources to let the well funded pro gambling lobby groups try to change the laws before Betfair becomes a reality in the US.

What's HANA's position on synthetic surfaces? ;)

Here are some articles from Del Mar to help>

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/eques...02273421e9.html

Excerpt:

Thumbs down to the Del Mar Polytrack this season. It was too inconsistent. Trainers couldn't wait to leave last week. Let's hope track president Joe Harper finds the fine line between the 2007 version and this year's edition.

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/eques...7debc5b864.html

Excerpt:

"Maintenance is the absolute critical thing," said Winstar Farm's Bill Casner, who owns Colonel John, the morning-line favorite in Del Mar's $1 million Pacific Classic on Sunday. "They have tightened up the Del Mar surface this year. The first year, it was slow but safe. It was pretty good last year. This year it sounds like a herd of buffalo down there on the track."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synthetic surfaces are fraudulent surfaces in my opinion! ;)

andymays

11-23-2009, 12:39 PM

By the way why haven't any of you guys commented under the Pricci article on takeout on his website? Too much of a food fight? Just wondering. ;)

rwwupl

11-23-2009, 12:52 PM

There are no entitlements nor should there be in racing for Owners or participating players. We all participate at our own risk.

Do you know any owners who become owners to make a living?

I do not think so. There are many other rewards in owning a racehorse in our great SPORT. There must remain the possibility and lure of making money if the horse you own is fast enough, and you get good fortune.

Some horsemans organizations would like to see all owners win with rule changes, special races and higher purses paid for by others no matter how foolish a price is paid for the horse but that is unrealistic and is harmful economics to the big picture of the game.

The participating players would all like to win also, and many of them have invested over time more than most owners invest in their horses. They do not have a lobby organization to work on their behalf, unless you want to consider the horseman dominated CHRB, but wait, Do they really do their job of protecting the interest of the bettor? I do not think so.

How many players win? not many, maybe about the same as owners or less.

Should players be entitled to win? no. There must remain the possibility and lure of making money if your skill and fortune is good enough.

Racing is not sending home enough winners to encourage others to try, and the fan base is shrinking.

Rebuild the fan base by lowering the take, send home more winners and it will serve all factions well. We are suffering from a bad business plan.

There are no entitlements for anyone in this sport.

chickenhead

11-23-2009, 01:17 PM

chickenhead

11-23-2009, 01:20 PM

By the way why haven't any of you guys commented under the Pricci article on takeout on his website? Too much of a food fight? Just wondering. ;)

I made a comment as RB. The focus seemed to turn to dragging Shapiro through the mud, which while fine and well, just isn't most peoples focus.

andymays

11-23-2009, 01:22 PM

Regardless of anyones frustration with anyone else -- we are all horseplayers, all working for broadly the same thing -- we all have to keep this in mind, and treat each other with a certain amount of respect. God knows I struggle with this myself at times, but anything else is unacceptable.

You are quite right but "the person who shall not be named" likes to get personal when there is dissagreement and has done it several times to me.

I'm fully aware that my postings aggravate some and they are designed to. I'm fighting for stuff I believe in and since when is that a bad thing? When I post stuff that has to do with HANA it is because I am trying to influence them in my direction. Again I'm fighting for stuff I believe in so what's wrong with that?