PDA

View Full Version : Gulfstream Park and Santa Anita


BobD
12-14-2009, 11:03 AM
Is anybody familiar with the signal distribution arrangements for these two Magna tracks for this upcoming season?

I've heard that there are issues but I don't know if the issues relate to specific ADWs (twinspires.com for example) or the general distribution.

I'd like to proactively establish a new ADW account if I need to before the start of these racing dates.

Jeff P
12-14-2009, 12:22 PM
Whether or not you are impacted depends on your state of residence... see this thread:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63953

Along the lines of proactively establishing a new ADW account... If you are interested in being treated well (with access to just about all track signals) by a rock solid parimutuel ADW willing to earn your business by offering the best rebates out there...

Contact me privately (private message or email) and I'll put you in touch with somebody uniquely qualified to answer your questions, evaluate your situation, and help you find a "home" matching your specific needs.


Jeff Platt

.

slew101
12-14-2009, 12:55 PM
Twin Spires will be offering Santa Anita and Gulfstream. They are a rock solid operation. Easy withdrawal, despoit methods.

Their bonus program is mostly geared to the really big players, so you won't make much back in their rewards program, but even a little something back is better than nothing.

Jeff P
12-14-2009, 01:48 PM
CDI/Twinspires will treat you well in a lot of different areas... high quality video, free past performances, etc.

But philosophically I can't support them.

CDI/Twinspires is behind Tracknet which has a history of doing a lot of things behind the scenes that are player unfriendly.

Take the current Mid Altantic signal impasse for example. Tracknet is the side trying to drive prices up.

Quietly behind the scenes, for about the past two years - Tracknet has been forcing non CDI/Twinspires ADWs to accept signal contracts with ever higher signal fees - effectively driving up the wholesale cost of a wager.

This has an effect. It leaves ADWs with less room margin wise to give incentives back to the everyday player.

This creates a domino effect. As track signal fees go up, ADWs have no choice but to cut rebates... which in turn causes players to bet less... which in turn means lower handle... which in turn leads to purse cuts... which in turn leads to owners pulling out of the game... which in turn leads to smaller fields... which in turn leads to players betting even less... which feeds back into the cycle... causing the seemingly never ending loop that we find ourselves in.

It would be different if CDI/Twinspires were doing something proactive about better pricing for the everyday player. But that's not the case.

Want rebates? Tracknet has a long standing policy. In order to qualify for rebates, players must meet a min handle threshhold of $1 million a year. That averages out to about $4k a day if you play every day. Fail to meet that and you are out of luck.

Even if you meet it for an extended time period -- if you decide to take a break - and allow your play to fall off as a result -- Tracknet subjects ADWs to audit. If their auditors notice that you took an extended break causing your play to drop off -- Tracknet will force your ADW to cut off your rebates... further feeding the cycle described above.

Think I am making this up? It happened to Barry Meadow.

CDI/Twinspires will treat you well in a lot of different areas... but philosophically they are doing a lot of things behind the scenes that are unfriendly to the everyday player.

As a result, I can't support them.


-jp

.

rrpic6
12-15-2009, 07:39 PM
Well said Jeff. I'll sum up your post: Twinspires=beancounters extroidinaire.

RR

David-LV
12-15-2009, 09:34 PM
CDI/Twinspires will treat you well in a lot of different areas... high quality video, free past performances, etc.

But philosophically I can't support them.

CDI/Twinspires is behind Tracknet which has a history of doing a lot of things behind the scenes that are player unfriendly.

Take the current Mid Altantic signal impasse for example. Tracknet is the side trying to drive prices up.

Quietly behind the scenes, for about the past two years - Tracknet has been forcing non CDI/Twinspires ADWs to accept signal contracts with ever higher signal fees - effectively driving up the wholesale cost of a wager.

This has an effect. It leaves ADWs with less room margin wise to give incentives back to the everyday player.

This creates a domino effect. As track signal fees go up, ADWs have no choice but to cut rebates... which in turn causes players to bet less... which in turn means lower handle... which in turn leads to purse cuts... which in turn leads to owners pulling out of the game... which in turn leads to smaller fields... which in turn leads to players betting even less... which feeds back into the cycle... causing the seemingly never ending loop that we find ourselves in.

It would be different if CDI/Twinspires were doing something proactive about better pricing for the everyday player. But that's not the case.

Want rebates? Tracknet has a long standing policy. In order to qualify for rebates, players must meet a min handle threshhold of $1 million a year. That averages out to about $4k a day if you play every day. Fail to meet that and you are out of luck.

Even if you meet it for an extended time period -- if you decide to take a break - and allow your play to fall off as a result -- Tracknet subjects ADWs to audit. If their auditors notice that you took an extended break causing your play to drop off -- Tracknet will force your ADW to cut off your rebates... further feeding the cycle described above.

Think I am making this up? It happened to Barry Meadow.

CDI/Twinspires will treat you well in a lot of different areas... but philosophically they are doing a lot of things behind the scenes that are unfriendly to the everyday player.

As a result, I can't support them.


-jp

.

How about Churchill shutting down TSN and saying the hell with all of you customers that have supported TSN all these years.

This group of bean counters at Churchill could care less about their customer base.

I refuse to support any, and all their tracks now and in the future.

________
David-LV

lsosa54
12-26-2009, 12:18 PM
I haven't been this ticked off in quite awhile. Because of the dispute with Tracknet, NJ Bets is NOT taking the SAX, GP, or OAK signals. Living in NJ, NJ Bets is the only ADW I can legally use. This is literally the 1st time since I started 'capping in late 1988 that I CAN NOT BET SAX, period. I have to tell you that opening day is always a favorite of mine. What the hell happened to freedom of choice?!

Thank you Magna, Tracknet, CDI, and NJ Bets for not giving a #@%* about racing or your customers.

If anyone knows a way around this that doesn't involve offshore companies keeping in mind my NJ address, please PM me. Thanks.

I'm still flabbergasted.

bettheoverlay
12-26-2009, 12:47 PM
If you live in Jersey, there is no internet alternative, outside of off shore.

castaway01
12-26-2009, 01:21 PM
This situation is ridiculous---the sides need to just meet in the middle and not deny the bettors in NJ, Del, PA, Md. and VA a chance to bet. There are plenty of other options these days, in every sense of the phrase---offshore, other tracks, or just not wagering at all. When times are tough, you need to make things EASIER for people who might otherwise not wager to do so, not harder. Shame on all companies involved.

InsideThePylons-MW
12-26-2009, 03:09 PM
Daruty and Tracknet are the bad guys.

They are a middleman in charge of a product and have absolutely no regard for customers or horse racing.

lsosa54
12-27-2009, 09:55 AM
4NJBets finally got a message up today upon login (should have been there yesterday!) that due to a contractual dispute, SAX and GGX are not available for wagering. Of course, nothing about "we apologize" or "sorry for the inconvenience", etc.

RichieP
12-27-2009, 10:43 AM
Welcome back Al Capone

Pacingguy
12-27-2009, 12:38 PM
Being an exclusive harness player, this impasse doesn't bother me; this time. But here is my question:

I realize we all have our favorite tracks. If my faves are not available, then I will go on to my next favorite track. What if the Mid-Atlantic Cooperative just said "Thank you but no Thanks" and just stopped negotiating with Tracknet and featured other tracks? I realize these may be "B' tracks but if they featured a "B" track and all the tracks in the cooperative took wagers on say, Hawthorne, wouldn't Hawthorne's handle get big enough to be worth wagering on?

I realize retaliation may take place in that the Magna and Churchill Downs tracks may refuse to take the signal from Mid-Atlantic Coop tracks but if MAC tracks played hardball, Tracknet may fold quicker. Also, if Tracknet tried to withhold their signal or charge more to tracks that took Mid-Atlantic Coop track signal's, they would definitely run afoul of anti-trust legislation.

Perhaps I am thinking to simple but sometimes the obvious is missed.

castaway01
12-27-2009, 01:39 PM
4NJBets finally got a message up today upon login (should have been there yesterday!) that due to a contractual dispute, SAX and GGX are not available for wagering. Of course, nothing about "we apologize" or "sorry for the inconvenience", etc.

I know it's impossible to ever defend njbets, but if it's not their fault, maybe that's why they didn't apologize? From what I've read in the past 24 hours, Tracknet seems to be the culprit here.

njcurveball
12-27-2009, 01:50 PM
I know it's impossible to ever defend njbets, but if it's not their fault, maybe that's why they didn't apologize?

In a service business, you always need to treat the customer with respect and appreciation. Two words not in the vocabulary of Racing Management.

If you order a steak and it is not cooked correctly, the waitress will apologize. Certainly she did not cook it, the point being that whoever is in contact with the customer has to convey respect and appreciation.

I can tell you 100% they did not even realize they were not carrying Golden Gate until I contacted them. A week or two ago they completely forgot to put Remington into the system. I waited all night, just to see if they would catch it. After the last race I wrote them for a reason. The reason was basically they forgot.

Their business is very simply, people betting. If they were run as a service business, they would have contacted all customers before the Fair Grounds meet, made every thing clear on what would happen and why they are the mercy of a group of slot machine Managers who could care less about racing. :ThmbDown:

cj
12-27-2009, 02:32 PM
You nailed it njcurve. Racing is in the customer service business, but they forget about the customer.

Track Collector
12-28-2009, 12:06 AM
This situation is ridiculous---the sides need to just meet in the middle and not deny the bettors in NJ, Del, PA, Md. and VA a chance to bet. There are plenty of other options these days, in every sense of the phrase---offshore, other tracks, or just not wagering at all. When times are tough, you need to make things EASIER for people who might otherwise not wager to do so, not harder. Shame on all companies involved.

The mid-Atlantic tracks have the power, not Tracknet. Folks soon learn to bet other tracks, which there are more of, than those represented by Tracknet. Tracknet is a bully without the power. Some of the mid-Atlantic state tracks even run year around (like CT, Pha, Pen, and Mnr which will run at least 10 months). Lack of agreement will benefit their signals more than those of SA, FG, etc. Meeting in the middle means another price increase. If/When Tracknet finally decides to settle and keep pricing at last year's level, the mid-Atlantic track alliance should say sorry, but we want lower prices than last year. Tracknet loses with the continuation of the stand-off. Yes, some players are inconvienced for a while, but as Jeff P. stated, Tracknet cares nothing about players. (If they did, they would have approached this year's negotiations that pricing would remain the same as last year.) If enough entities stand up to Tracknet, they will eventually dissolve due to their arrogance and lack of power.

castaway01
12-28-2009, 12:10 PM
The mid-Atlantic tracks have the power, not Tracknet. Folks soon learn to bet other tracks, which there are more of, than those represented by Tracknet. Tracknet is a bully without the power. Some of the mid-Atlantic state tracks even run year around (like CT, Pha, Pen, and Mnr which will run at least 10 months). Lack of agreement will benefit their signals more than those of SA, FG, etc. Meeting in the middle means another price increase. If/When Tracknet finally decides to settle and keep pricing at last year's level, the mid-Atlantic track alliance should say sorry, but we want lower prices than last year. Tracknet loses with the continuation of the stand-off. Yes, some players are inconvienced for a while, but as Jeff P. stated, Tracknet cares nothing about players. (If they did, they would have approached this year's negotiations that pricing would remain the same as last year.) If enough entities stand up to Tracknet, they will eventually dissolve due to their arrogance and lack of power.

Guess you didn't read what i posted after that.

castaway01
12-28-2009, 12:19 PM
In a service business, you always need to treat the customer with respect and appreciation. Two words not in the vocabulary of Racing Management.

If you order a steak and it is not cooked correctly, the waitress will apologize. Certainly she did not cook it, the point being that whoever is in contact with the customer has to convey respect and appreciation.

I can tell you 100% they did not even realize they were not carrying Golden Gate until I contacted them. A week or two ago they completely forgot to put Remington into the system. I waited all night, just to see if they would catch it. After the last race I wrote them for a reason. The reason was basically they forgot.

Their business is very simply, people betting. If they were run as a service business, they would have contacted all customers before the Fair Grounds meet, made every thing clear on what would happen and why they are the mercy of a group of slot machine Managers who could care less about racing. :ThmbDown:

So you say it's NJ Bets fault and insidethepylons says it's Tracknet. Based on your posting history, I'll go with him being right and not you. Funny how I posted a bunch of other paragraphs but you ignored them to jump on one sentence. You always find time to troll me though, that you're reliable about.

If you have a personal problem with me, why don't you contact me so we can discuss it rather than just troll me constantly, especially when the rest of my post agreed with you anyway.

Track Collector
12-28-2009, 03:45 PM
Guess you didn't read what i posted after that.

With no sarcasm intended, please tell me what you think I missed in your post(s).

My response advised you that I disagreed with the statement that both sides should meet in the middle. Tracknet has been steadily increasing wholesale signal prices over the past few years, and the end result is that less rebates/rewards are available to players who benefit from them. When it involves Tracknet, meeting in the middle usually means a net increase to the wholesale signal prices.

Some players simply want the dispute resolved ASAP so that they can return to wagering on tracks that they like. Others want the dispute resolved ASAP too, but not at the cost of higher wholesale signal prices. There is nothing wrong holding to either perspective, however, a solution IS available that would satisfy both groups. :)

Mike_412
12-28-2009, 09:34 PM
Posted this in the HANA section, but in case anybody misses it.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/midlantic-cooperative-takes-on-tracknet-statement/

Track Collector
12-28-2009, 10:05 PM
Posted this in the HANA section, but in case anybody misses it.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/midlantic-cooperative-takes-on-tracknet-statement/

Thanks Mike for posting this.

There are always two sides to a story, but if this article is correct, Tracknet's (arrogant) stance is my way or the highway. Tracknet is helping their wagering customers to try and get used to other tracks, thus helping them to take the highway! I hope their collective handle goes down 50% :lol:

FenceBored
12-29-2009, 09:07 AM
Thanks Mike for posting this.

There are always two sides to a story, but if this article is correct, Tracknet's (arrogant) stance is my way or the highway. Tracknet is helping their wagering customers to try and get used to other tracks, thus helping them to take the highway! I hope their collective handle goes down 50% :lol:

Or, maybe they're trying to get players to use ADWs and abandon simulcasting. The tracks get higher host fees from the ADWs now.

affirmedny
01-16-2010, 11:28 AM
The mid-Atlantic tracks have the power, not Tracknet. Folks soon learn to bet other tracks, which there are more of, than those represented by Tracknet. Tracknet is a bully without the power. Some of the mid-Atlantic state tracks even run year around (like CT, Pha, Pen, and Mnr which will run at least 10 months). Lack of agreement will benefit their signals more than those of SA, FG, etc. Meeting in the middle means another price increase. If/When Tracknet finally decides to settle and keep pricing at last year's level, the mid-Atlantic track alliance should say sorry, but we want lower prices than last year. Tracknet loses with the continuation of the stand-off. Yes, some players are inconvienced for a while, but as Jeff P. stated, Tracknet cares nothing about players. (If they did, they would have approached this year's negotiations that pricing would remain the same as last year.) If enough entities stand up to Tracknet, they will eventually dissolve due to their arrogance and lack of power.

so much for this theory, it's not working. can somebody explain to me why the signal is not too expensive for bankrupt NYRA and OTB? also why is NJ letting a bunch of tracks that have slots and are not as desperate for business negotiate for them?