CA Takeout Increase? Yea or Nay

[Jeff P]

From the CHRB Site:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/board_meeting_agendas/2010_01_jan_agenda.pdf

Of special interest is agenda item #7:
7. Discussion and action by the Board regarding an increase in the take-out on conventional and exotic wagers on races conducted by quarter horse racing associations as permitted pursuant to Assembly Bill 246 (Price), Chapter 226, Statutes of 2009.

Anyone here in favor of this?... against?

Please Vote.


-jp

.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Is this just the quarter horses trying to up takeout in California? It really is a shame that higher takeout is still being considered. Look what has happened at Belmont, Aqueduct, Pimlico, Laurel and Calder this year thanks to their expectation that raising takeout would mean more money to split up.

[RichieP]

Hoping that every member here who reads this takes the couple of seconds to VOTE
:)

[tzipi]

They want to raise it 5% I read so they can get 200 million more a year out of the racing bettors? Oh Geez. :(

[CBedo]

Who voted yes?

[tzipi]

Who voted yes?

Probably Senator Dean Florez :lol: . Florez quote about the takeout raise below.

Florez was quoted to say that the bill "is about self-reliance, reinvesting in California for growth, and protecting jobs for the future."

[lamboguy]

the track takeouts have already gone beyond law of diminishing returns. its like raising prices to high on fresh fish. when it gets overdone people run to eat chicken.

what everyone argues is that takeout decrease the amount of money the sharp people here can make because they have great programs and numbers and they are going to have an edge on people that don't have what they have. the days of people going to a race track without a racing form or some type of an idea on what they are doing are gone. what you have left are humans that sit behind a computer and have various algorithims batting against each other while the track chop eats them up and they can no longer make any money in this game.

throw in a few after the bell bettors, some trainers that supposedly use miracle drugs that create way to random results for the numbers to explain, and the sharps really have a problem. so the people that laid out all the money for their great programs to give them the edge have just come to the conclusion that they are not going to win at the game no matter how good their calculations are.

[rrbauer]

It's fine to have an opinion poll to validate what seems intuitively obvious.

But, until you start voting on takeout issues and other game-killing behavior with your pocketbooks, opinions mean nothing.

[andymays]

What a surprise. :eek:

[LottaKash]

CA racing has been taking & taking for years and years....When do they start giving back ?....

I hope it is soon CA-racing, your days are numbered.....And, you still don't get it....haha...

I don't personally care, as I have stopped betting CA altogether this year....Baloney on them, I say....

best,

[andymays]

Here's the email exchange when this was brought up in October. Kirk Breed is the Executive Director of the CHRB. I took out the personal email addresses of all involved.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Breed, Kirk [mailto:KEBreed@chrb.ca.gov]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:40 AM
To: 'Andy'; 'mike.marten'; 'Johnharris'; 'Disrael17'
Subject: Re: Bill 517! California Takeout

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.



----- Original Message -----
From: Andy
To: Executive_Offices@santaanita.com <Executive_Offices@santaanita.com>
Cc: equidaily@equidaily.com <equidaily@equidaily.com>; editor@horseplayerdaily.com <editor@horseplayerdaily.com>; Breed, Kirk; hank.wesch@uniontrib.com <hank.wesch@uniontrib.com>; info@equidaily.com <info@equidaily.com>
Sent: Sat Oct 24 10:52:12 2009
Subject: Bill 517! California Takeout

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 “Governor signs bill to help horse-racing industry” 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.



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. It’s obvious that the industry Executives in California don’t give a damn. Horseplayers didn’t destroy California racing but as usual they are the ones asked to pay for the mistakes of the past. How’s 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 isn’t even being held accountable for vandalizing a car in the parking lot of Hollywood Park by the CHRB. If Racing Officials in California can’t 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 “Al Davis types” 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



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

Los Angeles Times

Governor signs bill to help horse-racing industry

October 23, 2009 | 5:39 pm

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



Excerpt:

California’s horse-racing industry is struggling to compete with expanding casinos and other betting alternatives, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday he has signed a measure allowing horse track groups to take a larger cut from wagers to fix up their facilities and offer bigger purses.

Senate Bill 517 was backed by several race-related organizations, including the Los Angeles County Fair, Santa Anita Park and the Oak Tree Racing Assn.

The bill by Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter) allows a thoroughbred association or fair to increase the amount it deducts from horse-race wagering. It also provides the groups more flexibility to spend the money on improvements, including the purchase of tracks and training areas, and allows winnings that are more competitive with those offered in other states.

Legislative analyst’s estimate that a 5% increase in the amount taken out of wagers would generate $200 million annually for the horse-racing industry.

Florez said the bill "is about self-reliance, reinvesting in California for growth and protecting jobs for the future."

--Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento

[Zman179]

This is the worst poll ever. Why would you ask horseplayers whether or not they'd like to have their winnings reduced? Instead, why don't you ask: "Are you looking forward to dying?"

-Yes! So many people over the centuries have done it and I want to see what the rave is all about!

-No. I still haven't got my bet down for the early double at Beulah.

[andymays]

This is the worst poll ever. Why would you ask horseplayers whether or not they'd like to have their winnings reduced? Instead, why don't you ask: "Are you looking forward to dying?"

-Yes! So many people over the centuries have done it and I want to see what the rave is all about!

-No. I still haven't got my bet down for the early double at Beulah.


or "do you want the black casket or the brown casket"?

California Finest Caskets - Big Sale Now California
Quality & Lowest Price Guarantee! Next Day Free Shipping
www.divinecaskets.com

[Indulto]

From the CHRB Site:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/board_meeting_agendas/2010_01_jan_agenda.pdf

Of special interest is agenda item #7:


Anyone here in favor of this?... against?

Please Vote.


-jp

.Voting in a poll here at this forum, and even sending emails to the CHRB, will not get the argument against any increase out in public before the board and into the meeting's transcript. That can only happen if an official representative of HANA were to attend the meeting to present it orally in a well-thought out 3-minute statement.

If such an address were to also advocate reducing takeout for all players and not just for the tiny minority of players currently receiving rebates, HANA would go a long way in demonstrating that it represented recreational bettors as well as professionals.

Unless people actually show up there to protest, why should the CHRB consider other options? If HANA were to show up in force and have multiple people make statements to cover more ground, that would even be more effective. This seems as much an opportunity for HANA as a responsibility.

Another option, of course, is to do nothing and then -- after the CHRB raises takeout -- conduct another poll to see how we like it. ;)

[lamboguy]

This is the worst poll ever. Why would you ask horseplayers whether or not they'd like to have their winnings reduced? Instead, why don't you ask: "Are you looking forward to dying?"

-Yes! So many people over the centuries have done it and I want to see what the rave is all about!

-No. I still haven't got my bet down for the early double at Beulah.

these people only complain about takeouts because they have systems that have been compromised from being able to show a profit for their time that they put into the game. truth of the matter is that the rebates for california tracks from adw's or any other wagering providers are almost nothing today. unless you are a million dollar player WPS is only 2% compared to others that are over 7%.

when you figure in rebates the track takes are less in the year 2010 than they were in 1980.

[rrbauer]

these people only complain about takeouts because they have systems that have been compromised from being able to show a profit for their time that they put into the game. truth of the matter is that the rebates for california tracks from adw's or any other wagering providers are almost nothing today. unless you are a million dollar player WPS is only 2% compared to others that are over 7%.

when you figure in rebates the track takes are less in the year 2010 than they were in 1980.

You're so far off base that it's pathetic. High takeout and breakage affect every horseplayer regardless of their betting-volume level.

Voting in a poll here at this forum, and even sending emails to the CHRB, will not get the argument against any increase out in public before the board and into the meeting's transcript. That can only happen if an official representative of HANA were to attend the meeting to present it orally in a well-thought out 3-minute statement.



There's a meeting in Arcadia coming up...next week, I believe.

[alydar]

Who wants higher gas prices?

What is the point of this poll?

Bauer is right, until a real boycott or similar movement that will take money away from these people, nothing will change.

Eventually the forces of simple economics will take their toll.

[lamboguy]

You're so far off base that it's pathetic. High takeout and breakage affect every horseplayer regardless of their betting-volume level.



There's a meeting in Arcadia coming up...next week, I believe.well of course they effect everyone. but when its all said and done after the rebate's that people can get, you have a takeout rate that is less than 10%. that is lower than it was 30 years ago. i don't have the exact proportions of how many play with a rebate and how many play without one. my guess it is over 50% of handle that rebate players contibute to it. i know of alot of people that are playing the game these days because they do recieve good rebates.

getting back to this thread about raising the takeouts in california. they can make the takeout 75% as long as the rebate goes up with it its not going to make to much of a diference in what the track does for business. if the rebates don't adjust with the same amount as the state raises in takeout then all you will have are a bunch of closed tracks in california.

this thread is all about creating some noise and getting people all bent out of shape. we still live in a free market economy, if they want to slash the throats of the racetracks in california then people will no longer bet there and play in tracks in other states. the track record for california is that they could care less about horseracing and don't need the tracks for their economy. this raise in takeout for california explains it all, first "cushion track" now high takeout. might as well close the doors right now the handwriting is on the wall. even if the sport comes back they will penalise the people in it more and more until they finally get rid of horseracing in that state.

[rrbauer]

well of course they effect everyone. but when its all said and done after the rebate's that people can get, you have a takeout rate that is less than 10%. that is lower than it was 30 years ago. i don't have the exact proportions of how many play with a rebate and how many play without one. my guess it is over 50% of handle that rebate players contibute to it. i know of alot of people that are playing the game these days because they do recieve good rebates.



Tell you what. Give a few FACTS: Actual examples of people receiving and bet takers rebating so much that the players' takeout rate is less than 10%. Anybody can "guess". We need to move this issue forward based on the facts.

[lamboguy]

Tell you what. Give a few FACTS: Actual examples of people receiving and bet takers rebating so much that the players' takeout rate is less than 10%. Anybody can "guess". We need to move this issue forward based on the facts.i will get you signed up right this second for rebates with the most legal adw in this country and you will be paying less than 10% for some tracks on WPS as long as you are a big enough player.

[jonnielu]

From the CHRB Site:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/board_meeting_agendas/2010_01_jan_agenda.pdf

Of special interest is agenda item #7:


Anyone here in favor of this?... against?

Please Vote.


-jp

.

Yes, they should jack up takeout and all forms of taxation to intolerable levels as soon as possible. Government should continue to do it in blatant fashion whether people like it or not, just like it has been for the last 50 years or so. Only more.... and faster.

Maybe it would finally piss people off enough that they would actually do something about it.

jdl

[Tape Reader]

Who voted yes?

Me! The sooner we get capitulation, the better.

Takeout is never going to be lowered voluntarily. It will only happen when handle increases due to sensible betting options. For a start, they must allow bettors to take the other side of the bet. Yes, shorting horses.

Minus pools and guaranteed payouts would be a thing of the past. Handle would soar and so would attendance.

[iwearpurple]

The fact that 4 people voted yes shows that poll questions are ofter mis read by people.

There is no way on this earth that any horse player would be in favor of increased takeout.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The fact that 4 people voted yes shows that poll questions are ofter mis read by people.

There is no way on this earth that any horse player would be in favor of increased takeout.
Not necessarily. If you've ever been to the Del Mar forum, the majority there think they'd make a killing if takeout was 50%.

[andymays]

Not necessarily. If you've ever been to the Del Mar forum, the majority there think they'd make a killing if takeout was 50%.

:lol: It's so true it's scary!

[Jeff P]

This is the worst poll ever. Why would you ask horseplayers whether or not they'd like to have their winnings reduced? Instead, why don't you ask: "Are you looking forward to dying?" I agree. It absolutely IS the worst poll I've ever put up here at paceadvantage.com... It deals with subject matter that I wish I didn't have a reason to deal with in the first place.

Go to the CHRB website... http://chrb.ca.gov/ ... on the left hand side menu put your mouse cursor on Board Meeting... then Package... then Board... and then select "Board." Then click on the meeting for JAN 2010...

A .PDF doc will open in your browser window. After it does, click the Bookmarks icon on the left hand side of the .PDF reader. Then click on the Bookmark for Agenda Item 7...

There you can read about AB 246...

Excerpt:
Assembly Bill (AB) 246, Chapter 226, Statutes of 2009 added Business and Professions Code section 19601.3 which provides that (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a quarter horse racing association, subject to approval by the board, may deduct from the total amount handled in the parimutuel pool for any type of wager up to 2 percent more of the total amount handled than was authorized on May 1, 2009.

Excerpt:
Blonien & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Los Alamitos requested that the Horsemen's Quarter Horse Racing Association be allowed to increase its takeout by two percent as provided in AB 246.


Also presented is a CHRB Staff Analysis showing the effect of the the takeout increase.

IMHO, The CHRB Staff Analysis fails to take into account that takeout and handle share an elastic relationship and that both real world case studies and paid for economic studies funded by the racing industry very clearly show that whenever takeout goes up handle is driven downward.

Yes. This is one of the more stupid polls ever run here at paceadvantage.com.

I ran it for the following reasons.

1. This poll raises awareness that Los Al and their horsemen are asking for a 2% takeout increase. IMHO, it appears AB 246 was quitely passed in the hopes a takeout increase might go into effect unnoticed.

2. This poll, like other polls, industry paid for economic studies, and real world case studies before it, shows what we at HANA already know. Players simply will not support takeout increases. Any increase in takeout is going to result in further erosion of handle.

3. The Staff Analysis being used to support this proposed takeout increase is flawed. It does not account for the decrease in handle that will result from an increase in takeout.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Voting in a poll here at this forum, and even sending emails to the CHRB, will not get the argument against any increase out in public before the board and into the meeting's transcript. That can only happen if an official representative of HANA were to attend the meeting to present it orally in a well-thought out 3-minute statement.

If such an address were to also advocate reducing takeout for all players and not just for the tiny minority of players currently receiving rebates, HANA would go a long way in demonstrating that it represented recreational bettors as well as professionals.

Unless people actually show up there to protest, why should the CHRB consider other options? If HANA were to show up in force and have multiple people make statements to cover more ground, that would even be more effective. This seems as much an opportunity for HANA as a responsibility.

Another option, of course, is to do nothing and then -- after the CHRB raises takeout -- conduct another poll to see how we like it.

I fully agree with you.

I have contacted the CHRB and have been promised the opportunity show up, wait for agenda item 7 to be called, to stand up, be recognized, and speak on behalf of HANA members for 3 minutes.

I plan on doing just that.

Indy, you are more than welcome to join me.


-jp

.

[andymays]

I fully agree with you.

I have contacted the CHRB and have been promised the opportunity show up, wait for agenda item 7 to be called, to stand up, be recognized, and speak on behalf of HANA members for 3 minutes.

I plan on doing just that.


Indy, you are more than welcome to join me.


-jp

.


:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

If you can avoid vomiting after they go through item #2 you'll be ok. I'm glad you're going. :ThmbUp:

[turfnsport]

I would like to see California raise the takeout.

Racing in California is in the shitter anyway.

Maybe if they do, horseplayers might FINALLY be ready to say FU to these idiots running the game, and stop wagering.

The climate among horseplayers might be at that point. Might be.

If all the other juristictions see an angry revolt, maybe they will get a hint, and perhaps then we might actually start seeing some takeout reductions.

Maybe it is time for the shit to hit the fan.

[fmolf]

I would like to see California raise the takeout.

Racing in California is in the shitter anyway.

Maybe if they do, horseplayers might FINALLY be ready to say FU to these idiots running the game, and stop wagering.

The climate among horseplayers might be at that point. Might be.

If all the other juristictions see an angry revolt, maybe they will get a hint, and perhaps then we might actually start seeing some takeout reductions.

Maybe it is time for the shit to hit the fan.
I do not care how many e mails are sent how many polls taken until the horseplayer refrains from wagering on any california race they will continue to raise the takeout.I have not wagered a nickel on any track that offers a synthetic surface fron keeneland to delmar not one nickel,not breeders cup day or a wed in january.Maybe handle goes down a little bit and they only realize an extra 100 million they will still be happy.If people stopped wagering en mass and their handle went down to cause state qand horseman to lose monies,then an only then might they consider lowering the takeout!

[fmolf]

I would like to see California raise the takeout.

Racing in California is in the shitter anyway.

Maybe if they do, horseplayers might FINALLY be ready to say FU to these idiots running the game, and stop wagering.

The climate among horseplayers might be at that point. Might be.

If all the other juristictions see an angry revolt, maybe they will get a hint, and perhaps then we might actually start seeing some takeout reductions.

Maybe it is time for the shit to hit the fan.
stop betting ,then an only then will they get the message.no betting no horse racing.Quality has gone down and takeout up.Shame on them and shame on anyone betting on their races!

[tzipi]

stop betting ,then an only then will they get the message.no betting no horse racing.Quality has gone down and takeout up.Shame on them and shame on anyone betting on their races!

I think if everybody stopped betting even for a bit,the sport in its state now would fold like a cheap suit and the racinos would take over quicker than they are now.

[rwwupl]

Not necessarily. If you've ever been to the Del Mar forum, the majority there think they'd make a killing if takeout was 50%.


The old DMFF is nothing more than a promotional arm for the racetrack and the horseman. If you speak out for the customer or horseplayer you are attacked in so many subtle(and some not so subtle) ways. The administration allows this to go on.

[rwwupl]

I fully agree with you.

I have contacted the CHRB and have been promised the opportunity show up, wait for agenda item 7 to be called, to stand up, be recognized, and speak on behalf of HANA members for 3 minutes.

I plan on doing just that.

Indy, you are more than welcome to join me.


-jp

.




Thanks Jeff, from all the players I know. If they get this raise it will encourage them to request more in all other venues in short order. I wonder if you could get more time if others in support of your our position would request three minutes and defer their allocation of time and give you their time, like they do in Congress.? The Members love to fillibuster and tell you what they think and then tell you your time is up.

I think HANA should be a regular member on the agenda of the meeting to comment on what is going on,without the time restrictions imposed by the members.

If I can make it, I will be there in support of HANA. I call on other members close enough to Santa Anita to show their support also.

rwwupl

[andymays]

The Roger Stein Show - Radio Show Archive for January 10th

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

In the last fifteen minutes they address the upcoming CHRB meeting and in particular the potential rise in takeout.

[chickenhead]

I hope all horseplayers who feel strongly on this issue and have voiced concerns that live in the area show up at the meeting as a show of support for the horseplayers who can't be there, and in support of the message being brought by HANA and Jeff.

Feel free to rock some fresh HANA gear. ;)

http://www.cafepress.com/hana_swag

[andymays]

According to Mike Marten:

The other item submitted by the TOC does not ask for a takeout in the thoroughbred handle. All they are asking for is a redistribution of the existing takeout.

[rwwupl]

According to Mike Marten:

The other item submitted by the TOC does not ask for a takeout in the thoroughbred handle. All they are asking for is a redistribution of the existing takeout.


If they get away with raising the rates on the Quarters we know the next move. It is old stuff and all horseplayers should hold their nose.

[Fingal]

This is the worst poll ever. Why would you ask horseplayers whether or not they'd like to have their winnings reduced? Instead, why don't you ask: "Are you looking forward to dying?"

-Yes! So many people over the centuries have done it and I want to see what the rave is all about!

-No. I still haven't got my bet down for the early double at Beulah.

Evidently a few here that that voted for the increase would vote yes on that one too.

[Indulto]

I fully agree with you.

I have contacted the CHRB and have been promised the opportunity show up, wait for agenda item 7 to be called, to stand up, be recognized, and speak on behalf of HANA members for 3 minutes.

I plan on doing just that.

Indy, you are more than welcome to join me.


-jp

.JP,
I’m pleased to hear that you intend to address the CHRB regarding the takeout issue. Such exposure can only enhance HANA’s standing among horseplayers. I hope that your “full agreement” with my post includes advocating lowering takeout for all players as part of your statement, which should receive extensive press coverage.

I appreciate your invitation to join you. Unfortunately, I have commitments elsewhere next Friday, and I also have doubts that a small showing of HANA members comprising a rooting gallery (as opposed to multiple speakers) would impress the board. It might even distract them from the intellectual aspects of your arguments as well as from asking further questions that could lead to additional opportunities to make your case.

Best of luck and I hope this will set a precedent for further HANA involvement on behalf of its members in direct contact with relevant state government entities.

[rwwupl]

JP,[/color]
I’m pleased to hear that you intend to address the CHRB regarding the takeout issue. Such exposure can only enhance HANA’s standing among horseplayers. I hope that your “full agreement” with my post includes advocating lowering takeout for all players as part of your statement, which should receive extensive press coverage.

I appreciate your invitation to join you. Unfortunately, I have commitments elsewhere next Friday, and I also have doubts that a small showing of HANA members comprising a rooting gallery (as opposed to multiple speakers) would impress the board. It might even distract them from the intellectual aspects of your arguments as well as from asking further questions that could lead to additional opportunities to make your case.

Best of luck and I hope this will set a precedent for further HANA involvement on behalf of its members in direct contact with relevant state government entities.


Indulto,

Of course horseplayers agree with your thought that everyone should have lower take out rates. This is not new.

I do not understand why you think by showing up in support of the HANA position may be detrimental to Jeff's message. If you are convinced that showing support by showing up, you are implying that people in support of HANA may be out of control and hurt the message, you are taking a dim view of things you can not know about and making a lot of assumptions. Are you saying that showing up in support will destroy Jeffs intellectual arguments? Are you saying it is best to have Jeff go it alone?

How would you feel if no one showed up,would you be critical of that?

I am mostly on the Indulto side of things,but I can not understand what you are talking about here. Sorry your commitments will not allow you to show up and show your support for your thoughts.

[andymays]

According to Mike Marten:

The other item submitted by the TOC does not ask for a takeout in the thoroughbred handle. All they are asking for is a redistribution of the existing takeout.


Does anyone know what Mike means? Is it raising the take on exotics while lowering the wps?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I would suspect that they are looking to devote less to things like the breeding program and more to the purse fund.

The breakdown for what goes where percentage-wise is bet specific, in terms of on-track/off-track, in-state/out-of-state, ADW, non-ADW... the breakdowns are unique to each type in the "origin" sense.

Obviously, the bulk of the take is divided between purses and track (probably between 8-15% depending on origin of wager) - but the remainder is used to fund the breeding program, licensing, taxes, stabling, vanning, promotion, equine rescue funds, random expenses, etc....

I'm guessing that the line quoted reflects a will to alter some of the percentages for each of those recipients on some or all of the various wager "origins".

[andymays]

I would suspect that they are looking to devote less to things like the breeding program and more to the purse fund.

The breakdown for what goes where percentage-wise is bet specific, in terms of on-track/off-track, in-state/out-of-state, ADW, non-ADW... the breakdowns are unique to each type in the "origin" sense.

Obviously, the bulk of the take is divided between purses and track (probably between 8-15% depending on origin of wager) - but the remainder is used to fund the breeding program, licensing, taxes, stabling, vanning, promotion, equine rescue funds, random expenses, etc....

I'm guessing that the line quoted reflects a will to alter some of the percentages for each of those recipients on some or all of the various wager "origins".


Thanks John! :ThmbUp:

[castaway01]

I would suspect that they are looking to devote less to things like the breeding program and more to the purse fund.

The breakdown for what goes where percentage-wise is bet specific, in terms of on-track/off-track, in-state/out-of-state, ADW, non-ADW... the breakdowns are unique to each type in the "origin" sense.

Obviously, the bulk of the take is divided between purses and track (probably between 8-15% depending on origin of wager) - but the remainder is used to fund the breeding program, licensing, taxes, stabling, vanning, promotion, equine rescue funds, random expenses, etc....

I'm guessing that the line quoted reflects a will to alter some of the percentages for each of those recipients on some or all of the various wager "origins".

Good take JHS.

In the past 10 years maybe 0.01 percent of what I bet has been on CA races, so I can't really vote with my betting handle, but I support those who do. Obviously that's the only recourse we actually have as horseplayers. I doubt it will do much good, but if a large state such as California did experience an organized boycott after they raise takeout, something to the point where their handle drops 25% or 30%, that MIGHT get someone's attention. More so, than, say, boycotting Philadelphia Park's trifecta pool because the takeout is 30% (a good idea too, but not as noticeable). If organizing a boycott would hurt HANA politically when it's trying to get established, that's understandable---we should all just do so on our own.

[Valuist]

Is there any reason at all to bet California racing? Its almost as if they are trying to see how fast they can blow the whole thing up.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Here Andy - you might find this interesting, I just found it and it covers a lot of this in terms of California's breakdowns.

http://www.calracing.com/pdf/Takeout-WhoGetsWhat.pdf

EDITED to note that it appears to be several years old, but still gives you a basic idea of the premise.

[andymays]

Is there any reason at all to bet California racing? Its almost as if they are trying to see how fast they can blow the whole thing up.


In item #2 they are thanking Richard Shapiro for his prior service. That says it all if you want to know where their priorities are.

[andymays]

Here Andy - you might find this interesting, I just found it and it covers a lot of this in terms of California's breakdowns.

http://www.calracing.com/pdf/Takeout-WhoGetsWhat.pdf


Thanks!

To tell you the truth I have enough trouble concentrating on the PP's anymore let alone the details of takeout. I just know I want it lowered and I would be happy with 15% and 20%. Those amounts should be "firewall" levels for Horseplayers.

When California sees the rest of the country raising take and getting away with it they think it's OK. They should separate themeselves from the pack and stay where they are. It will help them in the long run.

[rwwupl]

[/SIZE]


Does anyone know what Mike means? Is it raising the take on exotics while lowering the wps?


The agenda is posted below. I don't think so, but we will see.

I understand HANA (Jeff) will be speaking to Item 7 on the agenda only. I think you are refering to Item 8, and I understand HANA will not oppose or speak to.



STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD
1010 HURLEY WAY, SUITE 300
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825
(916) 263-6000
FAX (916) 263-6042
NOTICE OF MEETING
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the California Horse Racing Board will be held on
Friday, January 15, 2010, commencing at 9:30 a.m., in the Baldwin Terrace Room at the
Santa Anita Park Race Track, 285 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California. The
meeting will open at 9:00 a.m., then the Board will adjourn into Closed Session with the
regular meeting commencing at approximately 9:30 a.m.
The agenda for the regular meeting will consist of the following matters:
Action Items:
1. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of November 17, 2009.
2. Presentation of the California Horse Racing Board Resolution to Richard Shapiro.
3. Discussion and action by the Board on the Application to Operate a Satellite Wagering
Facility submitted by the San Bernardino County Fair in Victorville.
4. Public hearing and action by the Board regarding the proposed amendment to CHRB
Rule 1632, Jockey’s Riding Fee, to revise the jockey riding fee scale pursuant to Business
and Professions Code section 19501(b)(1). (Note: This concludes the 45-day public
comment period. The Board may adopt the proposal as presented.)
5. Public hearing and action by the Board regarding the proposed amendment to CHRB
Rule 1685, Equipment Requirement, to allow the use of an alternative whip in flat
racing. (Note: This concludes the 45-day public comment period. The Board may adopt the
proposal as presented.)
6. Discussion and action by the Board regarding random drug testing of jockeys.
7. Discussion and action by the Board regarding an increase in the take-out on conventional
and exotic wagers on races conducted by quarter horse racing associations as
permitted pursuant to Assembly Bill 246 (Price), Chapter 226, Statutes of 2009.
8. Discussion and action by the Board regarding the SCOTWINC Shortfall Agreement
submitted by the Thoroughbred Owners of California and the Los Angeles Turf Club
in response to the Board’s April 29, 2009 approval of a request for modification of
California advance deposit wagering (ADW) distributions on thoroughbred races as
permitted under Business and Professions Code section 19604(f)(5)(E).
Notice of CHRB Meeting
January 5, 2010 -2-
9. Discussion and action by the Board regarding a report from TrackNet, which served as
representative of Santa Anita Park Race Track and Golden Gate Fields, and from
advance deposit wagering (ADW) provider ODS Technologies, L.P., dba TVG, on the
resolution of litigation and the successful conclusion of negotiation, which resulted in
TVG continuing to accept wagers on races at Santa Anita Park Race Track and
Golden Gate Fields, and, and how the settlement impacts their relationship going
forward.
10. Discussion and action by the Board regarding a report from Southern California racing
secretaries concerning the different categories of the race horse population at tracks
and subsidized off site facilities and the participation levels in actual races that
materialize.
11. Discussion and action by the Board regarding the allocation of 2010 Northern California
fair race dates.
12. Discussion and action by the Board regarding the update from the Los Angeles Turf
Club, Inc. operating at Santa Anita Park Race Track and the significance of the
bankruptcy filing of Magna Entertainment Corporation on its racing operations and
the status of statutory funds that may still be owed money from pre and post
bankruptcy accounts.
13. Election of Board Chairman and Vice Chairman.
14. CHRB Executive Director’s Report.
15. Public Comment: Communications, reports, requests for future actions of the Board.
Note: Persons addressing the Board under this item will be restricted to three (3) minutes
for their presentation.
16. Closed Session: For the purpose of receiving advice from counsel, considering pending
litigation, reaching decisions on administrative licensing and disciplinary hearings, and
personnel matters, as authorized by section 11126 of the Government Code.
A. The Board may convene a Closed Session to confer with and receive advice from its legal
counsel regarding the pending litigation described in the attachment to this agenda
captioned "Pending Litigation," as authorized by Government Code section 11126(e).
B. The Board may convene a Closed Session to confer with and receive advice from its legal
counsel regarding the pending administrative licensing or disciplinary matters described
in the attachment to this agenda captioned “Pending Administrative Adjudications,” as
authorized by Government Code section 11126(e).
Notice of CHRB Meeting
January 5, 2010 -3-
Additional information regarding this meeting may be obtained from the CHRB Administrative
Office, 1010 Hurley Way, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone (916) 263-6000; fax (916)
263-6042. This notice is located on the CHRB website at www.chrb.ca.gov. *Information for
requesting disability related accommodation for persons with a disability who require aid or
services in order to participate in this public meeting, should contact Jacqueline Wagner.
CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD
John C. Harris, Chairman
David Israel, Vice Chairman
Keith Brackpool, Member
Jesse H. Choper, Member
Bo Derek, Member
Jerry Moss, Member
Richard Rosenberg, Member
Kirk E. Breed, Executive Director
Date of Notice: January 5, 2010

[andymays]

I wonder if anyone might "key" Richard Shapiro's car while he's getting his commendation????


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/12/sports/sp-horse-allegation12

Excerpt:

The former chairman of the California Horse Racing Board is the focus of a criminal investigation for allegedly keying a longtime nemesis' pricey foreign car in Hollywood Park's parking lot last month, the Inglewood Police Department said Monday.

Richard Shapiro, who directed the CHRB for four years until his December resignation, allegedly scratched horse owner Jerry Jamgotchian's 2007 Jaguar XJS after an April 24 CHRB meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He was convicted of the vandalism.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Thanks!

To tell you the truth I have enough trouble concentrating on the PP's anymore let alone the details of takeout...

To tell you the truth - the same can be said of horsemen, management, legislators and virtually everyone else that is either influenced by or influences takeout.

Therein lies a large part of the problem. People like yourself that command respect of the issue with takeout would be wise to become a literal expert on every facet of takeout so that you can coherently explain its function to those that do not understand it one bit and convey the important message that you have.

I'm telling you Andy - most people in the business, particularly horsemen, have no idea what takeout means or what it does. Unfortunately, when someone attempts to educate them, they generally recoil with the same reaction that you had - "I don't care about specifics, I just want good purses." At some point, if this is really the hot-button issue that many want it to be, it needs to be something that most people DO comprehend, rather than something that most people not only DO NOT comprehend, but have no desire to bother their cluttered little minds grasping.

[andymays]

To tell you the truth - the same can be said of horsemen, management, legislators and virtually everyone else that is either influenced by or influences takeout.

Therein lies a large part of the problem. People like yourself that command respect of the issue with takeout would be wise to become a literal expert on every facet of takeout so that you can coherently explain its function to those that do not understand it one bit and convey the important message that you have.

I'm telling you Andy - most people in the business, particularly horsemen, have no idea what takeout means or what it does. Unfortunately, when someone attempts to educate them, they generally recoil with the same reaction that you had - "I don't care about specifics, I just want good purses." At some point, if this is really the hot-button issue that many want it to be, it needs to be something that most people DO comprehend, rather than something that most people not only DO NOT comprehend, but have no desire to bother their cluttered little minds grasping.

All good points! :ThmbUp:

This is one issue I have complete faith in Jeff and HANA addressing. In my opinion they are the experts and I support anything they say on the matter. I would like to see a more aggressive posture but going to the CHRB meeting is a good sign of things to come I hope.

You know what my number one issue is! ;)

[Indulto]

Indulto,

Of course horseplayers agree with your thought that everyone should have lower take out rates. This is not new.

I do not understand why you think by showing up in support of the HANA position may be detrimental to Jeff's message. If you are convinced that showing support by showing up, you are implying that people in support of HANA may be out of control and hurt the message, you are taking a dim view of things you can not know about and making a lot of assumptions. Are you saying that showing up in support will destroy Jeffs intellectual arguments? Are you saying it is best to have Jeff go it alone?

How would you feel if no one showed up,would you be critical of that?

I am mostly on the Indulto side of things,but I can not understand what you are talking about here. Sorry your commitments will not allow you to show up and show your support for your thoughts.rw,
First of all, I take great pleasure in finally being able to welcome you to the circle of aggressive posters here at PA. I sincerely hope our own paths will eventually cross at a CHRB meeting when resolution of an issue would benefit from or -- even require -- a demonstration of support.

I am not implying that people appearing in support of HANA would be out of control and I think you know that. I did not say his arguments would be destroyed, but rather that nothing should distract attention from them. Had the CHRB previously listened carefully to the logical arguments presented in support of board member Moss’s reservations about taking a similarly questionable step in mandating synthetic surfaces, a lot of agony might have been avoided.

As far as advocating collective action is concerned, I won’t take a back seat to anyone here other than rrbauer. We still haven’t heard any more about the survey results; particularly as to what characterizes and motivates the people who joined HANA (and took the survey). At this point IMO, HANA still represents the decisions and intent of its board of directors who have previously eschewed confrontation in favor of cooperation with industry leaders.

I see this as their opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach which, if successful, should spur recruitment. HANA is fortunate to have a speaker as effective and knowledgeable as JP to present their position as evidenced in his interview by TVG. I suspect DT would also perform impressively in addressing the board, and I would like to see him accompany JP.

I honestly feel it would be better for no HANA members outside the board to show up THIS TIME rather than too few. Perhaps a significantly large number would be positive, say 100 or more, but that would be difficult on such short notice. What I do think members should do is contribute toward reimbursing their leadership’s personal expenses in going to that meeting. If JP will PM me as to where I can mail a $20 bill, I’ll be more than happy to do so.

I hope I've clarified my position to your satisfaction.

[tzipi]

I wonder if anyone might "key" Richard Shapiro's car while he's getting his commendation????


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/12/sports/sp-horse-allegation12

Excerpt:

The former chairman of the California Horse Racing Board is the focus of a criminal investigation for allegedly keying a longtime nemesis' pricey foreign car in Hollywood Park's parking lot last month, the Inglewood Police Department said Monday.

Richard Shapiro, who directed the CHRB for four years until his December resignation, allegedly scratched horse owner Jerry Jamgotchian's 2007 Jaguar XJS after an April 24 CHRB meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He was convicted of the vandalism.


Geez,and these are the people who run or were running our sport :rolleyes: No wonder things are the way they are.

[andymays]

Geez,and these are the people who run or were running our sport :rolleyes: No wonder things are the way they are.


Don't roll your eyes. He's getting an award from the CHRB on Friday for his outstanding service. It's item #2 on the agenda. Really! I'm not making it up.

He should be suspended from being at any track for a couple of years given the keying was done in the Hollywood Park parking lot and all on video. If it was a Horseplayer who did it they would be banned for life.

[tzipi]

Don't roll your eyes. He's getting an award from the CHRB on Friday for his outstanding service. It's item #2 on the agenda. Really! I'm not making it up.

He should be suspended from being at any track for a couple of years given the keying was done in the Hollywood Park parking lot and all on video. If it was a Horseplayer who did it they would be banned for life.

I thought that was a joke. "oustanding Service" Ughh unbelievable. :bang:

[Stillriledup]

The takeout in racing is so high because the player is being forced to subsidize horse owners expenses. Its really expensive to own thorouhghbreds and that expense is being passed onto the bettor. I'd rather bet Ant racing at a 5% takeout than horse racing at 20 blended. Trainers and jockeys are driving around in expensive cars and living in nice houses and aren't taking on the same financial risk as the player.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The takeout in racing is so high because the player is being forced to subsidize horse owners expenses. Its really expensive to own thorouhghbreds and that expense is being passed onto the bettor. I'd rather bet Ant racing at a 5% takeout than horse racing at 20 blended. Trainers and jockeys are driving around in expensive cars and living in nice houses and aren't taking on the same financial risk as the player.
If it was felt that purses would suffer one iota by a drop in takeout, we would have no business asking for takeout drops.

The reality is that horse racing takeout is way above the optimum takeout level.

The optimum takeout level is the level where the bottom line of the track and the horsemen is at its highest.

For instance, slots at 8% takeout is pretty much the optimum level. At 16% they don't even get half the total handle they do at 8%.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The takeout in racing is so high because the player is being forced to subsidize horse owners expenses. Its really expensive to own thorouhghbreds and that expense is being passed onto the bettor.

Aside from the obvious reality that purses are generated from the takeout drawn from handle, what do you mean?

...Trainers and jockeys are driving around in expensive cars and living in nice houses and aren't taking on the same financial risk as the player.

This is a fairly broad generalization. I can't dispute that the financial risk taken by each party is a distinctly different flavor, but if we were to get a true cross-section of all licensed trainers and jocks, I'm not sure that the masses would draw the conclusion that is being implied here.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

The high takeout is for the benefit of certain groups but it is not the horse owners

Horse owners like bettors are big net losers across the board. Some horse owners don't even control their own horse as the trainer will act as the owner

The biggest beneficiaries of the high takeout are the breeding barons as they sell the horses to the owners who then lose plenty. If purse values increase then horse prices increase often above the purse value increase. So owners don't benefit but the people selling to the owners do

Jockeys and trainers do well out of purse increases too. I don't mind jockeys being well paid as you need horses and jockeys for racing to work. Not so sure you need all the trainers to be A grade though. Plenty of trainers seem to have no idea where to place their horse so you have to wonder if they know how to train either. So you could probably get by having mostly hobby trainers who train for fun rather than to make money

Auction houses that sell the horses at the sales are another beneficiary of purse increases

I suspect owners and bettors have always been net losers while ever racing has been run. For both groups it is essentially a hobby where fun is No 1. Increasing purses does not make racing any more enjoyable for either group. Instead it just increases the costs for people to participate in ownership of horses so you get less owners, which means smaller fields which means less interest from bettors

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The high takeout is for the benefit of certain groups but it is not the horse owners

Horse owners like bettors are big net losers across the board. Some horse owners don't even control their own horse as the trainer will act as the owner

The biggest beneficiaries of the high takeout are the breeding barons as they sell the horses to the owners who then lose plenty. If purse values increase then horse prices increase often above the purse value increase. So owners don't benefit but the people selling to the owners do

Jockeys and trainers do well out of purse increases too. I don't mind jockeys being well paid as you need horses and jockeys for racing to work. Not so sure you need all the trainers to be A grade though. Plenty of trainers seem to have no idea where to place their horse so you have to wonder if they know how to train either. So you could probably get by having mostly hobby trainers who train for fun rather than to make money

Auction houses that sell the horses at the sales are another beneficiary of purse increases

I suspect owners and bettors have always been net losers while ever racing has been run. For both groups it is essentially a hobby where fun is No 1. Increasing purses does not make racing any more enjoyable for either group. Instead it just increases the costs for people to participate in ownership of horses so you get less owners, which means smaller fields which means less interest from bettors
A higher takeout does not mean higher purses. As long as the takeout rate is higher than the optimum level, the takeout rate actually hinders the optimum purse levels.

Let me put it this way. If takeout was 80%, purses would be a lot less than they are today.....actually, there would be no racing in a hurry.

[rwwupl]

rw,
First of all, I take great pleasure in finally being able to welcome you to the circle of aggressive posters here at PA. I sincerely hope our own paths will eventually cross at a CHRB meeting when resolution of an issue would benefit from or -- even require -- a demonstration of support.

I am not implying that people appearing in support of HANA would be out of control and I think you know that. I did not say his arguments would be destroyed, but rather that nothing should distract attention from them. Had the CHRB previously listened carefully to the logical arguments presented in support of board member Moss’s reservations about taking a similarly questionable step in mandating synthetic surfaces, a lot of agony might have been avoided.

As far as advocating collective action is concerned, I won’t take a back seat to anyone here other than rrbauer. We still haven’t heard any more about the survey results; particularly as to what characterizes and motivates the people who joined HANA (and took the survey). At this point IMO, HANA still represents the decisions and intent of its board of directors who have previously eschewed confrontation in favor of cooperation with industry leaders.

I see this as their opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach which, if successful, should spur recruitment. HANA is fortunate to have a speaker as effective and knowledgeable as JP to present their position as evidenced in his interview by TVG. I suspect DT would also perform impressively in addressing the board, and I would like to see him accompany JP.

I honestly feel it would be better for no HANA members outside the board to show up THIS TIME rather than too few. Perhaps a significantly large number would be positive, say 100 or more, but that would be difficult on such short notice. What I do think members should do is contribute toward reimbursing their leadership’s personal expenses in going to that meeting. If JP will PM me as to where I can mail a $20 bill, I’ll be more than happy to do so.

I hope I've clarified my position to your satisfaction.


Indulto:

Thanks for welcoming me to your list of aggresive posters here at PA. I have considerable experience in the matters at hand,and I know that you have also because I follow things close on the issues. No one is questioning your credentials as an advocate for our issues.

I repeat that I mostly support your dialog,here and elsewhere but I think in this case you are on both sides of the fence and want to change the focus.

How can you say no one should show up in support of the HANA position and let Jeff go it alone and that would somehow be better?

I think you would be the first to be a critic if no one did show up to support the HANA position at an open Board meeting. People might say,see,no one cares. If I am wrong about this,sorry.

I Have an e-mail from Jeff to me outlining what his approach will be and he is looking forward to seeing me there. I suspect he would welcome mine and other support. I do not think anyone would have plans to take the microphone away or try to dilute his message.

Except for your proposed donation to HANA,I think you blew this one.

Can we just agree to dis-agree on this matter? :)

You are a most valuable asset to HANA and have a great record and I continue to support most of what you advocate, but I have a mind of my own and will act as I think it is right.

Thanks,rw

[Indulto]

Indulto:

Thanks for welcoming me to your list of aggresive posters here at PA. I have considerable experience in the matters at hand,and I know that you have also because I follow things close on the issues. No one is questioning your credentials as an advocate for our issues.

I repeat that I mostly support your dialog,here and elsewhere but I think in this case you are on both sides of the fence and want to change the focus.

How can you say no one should show up in support of the HANA position and let Jeff go it alone and that would somehow be better?

I think you would be the first to be a critic if no one did show up to support the HANA position at an open Board meeting. People might say,see,no one cares. If I am wrong about this,sorry.

I Have an e-mail from Jeff to me outlining what his approach will be and he is looking forward to seeing me there. I suspect he would welcome mine and other support. I do not think anyone would have plans to take the microphone away or try to dilute his message.

Except for your proposed donation to HANA,I think you blew this one.

Can we just agree to dis-agree on this matter?

You are a most valuable asset to HANA and have a great record and I continue to support most of what you advocate, but I have a mind of my own and will act as I think it is right.

Thanks,rwrw,
Thank you for the kind words and I respectfully agree to disagree with you as the independent thinker I have found you to be. It’s encouraging to learn that JP has shared his intended approach with you. You are therefore now in a better position than I to determine how the presence of non-speakers would be helpful to him, to HANA, and to horseplayers, generally.

I think I’ve already made it clear which situations IMO would be the most productive without access to that same information. While I think your getting closer to HANA leadership is a good thing, I’m sorry that you feel I’m on multiple sides of the same issue as I try very hard to be consistent in my positions.

Is it changing focus to try and promote takeout reduction as well as to protest increasing the burden on unrebated players even as some rebated players would remain unaffected by raises in takeout?

Is it changing focus to suggest that one or more superior communicators be given an opportunity to initiate a foothold for a horseplayer group under optimal circumstances and bring additional light to bear on horseplayer interests?

Is it changing focus to continue pursuing HANA transparency to make them as credible a representative as possible for the full range of racing customers of California tracks?

Might people say “see, no-one cares” if no-one came in addition to speakers or might they say “how few people care” without a show of strength? I think people are just as likely to say “I can see why players have confidence in these guys.” I suppose it will all depend on exactly what is said at the podium.

Like any other poster here, you are free to disagree with and/or discredit anything I post. I just fail to see how you concluded that I “blew this one [thread, position?]” while allegedly agreeing with others.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Economics 101: Track takeout is simply a tax on betting. When a government wants to increase spending, it cuts taxes. So what happens when taxes increase? You don't need to be rocket scientists to figure this one out.

When taxes go up, people still need need life's necessities. Betting isn't a necessity.

[tzipi]

When taxes go up, people still need need life's necessities. Betting isn't a necessity.

But also betting customers are a necessity for the track and for the governement who wants to make money off of them. Without the bettors...*poof* gone.

I wonder if California looked at the attendances and handles over the last decade before writing up this takeout increase?

[CBedo]

Economics 101: Track takeout is simply a tax on betting. When a government wants to increase spending, it cuts taxes. Huh? When government needs more money, they cut taxes to take in less? If there is a relationship between spending and tax rates, it's definitely not an inverse relationship.

I look at it even more simplisticly. To the bettor, the takeout rate is the price to play, and price in some sense should be related to supply/demand and the quality of the offering. Racing, over the last number of years, seems to be charging us more and more for what seems like a product whose quality is less and less. Add on top of this that there is more competition from not only other tracks, but other forms of gambling, and it's clear the the long term equilibrium under the current model is not sustainable.

What business increases its prices in the face of more competition and a lower quality product?--Not one that wants to be an ongoing concern!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Huh? When government needs more money, they cut taxes to take in less? If there is a relationship between spending and tax rates, it's definitely not an inverse relationship.


I'm talking about if the government wants to increase spending by the public. If they want to stimulate the economy.

[LottaKash]

The "People" running California Horse Racing are:...."Dumbasses", that's alll...

[rwwupl]

The high takeout is for the benefit of certain groups but it is not the horse owners

Horse owners like bettors are big net losers across the board. Some horse owners don't even control their own horse as the trainer will act as the owner

The biggest beneficiaries of the high takeout are the breeding barons as they sell the horses to the owners who then lose plenty. If purse values increase then horse prices increase often above the purse value increase. So owners don't benefit but the people selling to the owners do

Jockeys and trainers do well out of purse increases too. I don't mind jockeys being well paid as you need horses and jockeys for racing to work. Not so sure you need all the trainers to be A grade though. Plenty of trainers seem to have no idea where to place their horse so you have to wonder if they know how to train either. So you could probably get by having mostly hobby trainers who train for fun rather than to make money

Auction houses that sell the horses at the sales are another beneficiary of purse increases

I suspect owners and bettors have always been net losers while ever racing has been run. For both groups it is essentially a hobby where fun is No 1. Increasing purses does not make racing any more enjoyable for either group. Instead it just increases the costs for people to participate in ownership of horses so you get less owners, which means smaller fields which means less interest from bettors


Outstanding post... There is a direct relationship between the price of horses and purse structure,and vice versa. When purse structure is raised, all costs go up,including the price of horses. When buyers pay to much for horses, the demand for higher purses is heard.

The problem with all this is that it does not bother the deep pocket owners, because they have motives for racing other than money. The less affluent owners it makes it much more difficult to remain competitve and survive due to the higher costs,so they chime in to get bigger purses.
The people who pay for most of the purses is the third party participant, the customers or players. When the takeout is raised beyond the tipping point(10%) not enough people can win so there is no point to gamble.

There must remain a realistic hope for economy owners and customers to make money or the game will wither away. Sound familier? We are there now!

Give everyone a real chance to profit by lowering the take, and watch horseraceing rebound. History has shown that people love horseracing and we are no different.

rwwupl

[Robert Goren]

Where did you get the tipping point of 10%? I am not saying you are wrong, just wonder how you got it.

[DeanT]

That's a good post SB. If purse increases made people more profitable, then we would not be talking about this. As well, purse increases dont make people bet more. Who is benefitting from all this cash? I would argue, vets and others who supply the suppliers. -those costs have skyrocketed the last ten years.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook/images/Charts/Chart_RPFC.jpg

[rwwupl]

Where did you get the tipping point of 10%? I am not saying you are wrong, just wonder how you got it.


I get the 10% figure from reading most of the studies on the subject (see HANA library) which come in around 10-12% and the history of Pari-Mutuel take out.

Pari -mutuel take was introduced in Fance and was established at 8%. When Del Mar started it was 10% . In those days it was high success for all concerned.

We now have blended take of 20% and more at most tracks in the USA and the people who live from the take are crying their eyes out for more. The people who pay the take are saying enough of this and walking away to other venues.

The optimum take has not been established for certain because those who control the game refuse to recognize that there is such a thing as optimum take and give a fair trial (10% across the board for a season at a major track).

We need leadership who will lead for success instead of trying to prolong the demise of our great game.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

It is important to stress that optimum takeout is the takeout level where the public will lose the most money in the long run collectively.

The idea is that many more people will become players in the long run, and existing players will devote more time and money playing.

But the other reality is that horseplayers will be able to win and that will draw in the extra money from others.

If tracks and horsemen make the most money at a 20% blended rate, then horseplayers have no argument. But as stated, this is not the case, and the optimum takeout is most likely 12% or less.

[rwwupl]

It is important to stress that optimum takeout is the takeout level where the public will lose the most money in the long run collectively.

The idea is that many more people will become players in the long run, and existing players will devote more time and money playing.

But the other reality is that horseplayers will be able to win and that will draw in the extra money from others.

If tracks and horsemen make the most money at a 20% blended rate, then horseplayers have no argument. But as stated, this is not the case, and the optimum takeout is most likely 12% or less.


Thanks for the added input... It is a difficult proposition to explain.