Rebuttal to miesque's remarks in the Stronach poll thread

[Indulto]

I will have you know I was typing something up on this very issue earlier today. Just because I don't start a few thousand threads on Pace Advantage does not mean that I am sitting on my hands and not doing anything. There is a tremendous amount that goes on behind the scenes. But I thank you for you kind comments about what I should be doing with my time.I think HANA board members are entitled to offer their own opinions here at PA independently of their involvement with HANA, but it is their responsibility to make it clear where the lines are drawn. In the above post, miesque declined to separate her position from that of the HANA board, which is not necessarily that of its membership of which only about 100 of the alleged 1500 actually post here at PA.I have a few questions that I would like those who are reading this thread to ask themselves (and I am being dead serious) looking at everything from the macro level with the goal of trying to improve the status quo. Have you ever wondered why the disconnect (“out of touch”) between racing management/authorities and its customers is so great and much more so then in most other industries? I have been doing so for a bit and wondering how it got this bad and as with everything in racing there is no one simple answer due to the complex nature of the industry and there are several reasons (for example, the prominent “us versus them” mentality that is rife through the industry is one reason). That said, I do know that nothing is ever a one way street with these sorts of issues even though most of the traffic may flow in one direction. Keeping that in mind, if you were on the other side, what type of criticism would you take seriously and what would you summarily dismiss and tune out and how much would it take for you to give up figuring out what your customer wants and tune out all together? How hard would you work to address a concern if you constantly got e-mails laced with insults with imbecile being the nicest? Please be honest with yourself when you think about that. There are a lot of legitimate grievances out there for horseplayers and the reason I made the comments I did at the beginning of the thread is that too often I see well crafted criticisms, sometimes complete with rationale possible fixes, get drown out in a sea of overly negative, combative, scathing comments. This board is a great snapshot of this and it’s a public board so everybody knows what is going on.

Now I know somebody will now post that I am an apologist for the Dark Side and that is most certainly not the intent. The intent and the reason why I have dedicated so much time to HANA is that there are so many things that need to be dramatically improved and one necessary ingredient to that occurring happens to be that there needs to be better communications flow back and forth between horseplayers and the rest of the racing industry which will hopefully lead to greater cooperation and progress. Its not going to be easy and smooth sailing, but then again that's life. Now there are those who are obviously not happy with the way things are (and in many circumstances have a right to be) and are in constant Molatov Cocktail attack mode. Since they don’t have to clean up or are responsible for the resulting messes and really do not care if the situation gets worse, they keep concentrating on blowing up things until everything is the way they want it. Personally, me, myself and I, do not think this is an effective strategy for industry growth or improved conditions for anybody, but there are obviously those who do and want as many as possible to think the same and act in the same manner. Maybe I am tainted from too many years in Model UN in high school and college that I think a more diplomatic approach is the best way to proceed with the ultimate goal of success even though it is time consuming and tedious and there are a ton of road blocks.

I am sure the above will be lambasted and criticized, have fun.Thank you, miesque. Taking such liberties without an invitation might have been misinterpreted. Just as there is little transparency in dealing with Mr. Stronach, neither is there much when dealing with some HANA board members. The only recourse HANA members have is to engage them in broad daylight (pun intended) when they appear here at PA.

JP once claimed I asked him questions similar to those of horsemen and track executives suggesting I might be one. I’m wondering the same thing about miesque. Why is she so willing to devote such allegedly long and uncompensated hours on activities she won’t specify, but continually refers to with vague generalities like a politician running for office. She apparently had industry connections before joining HANA. Could she be an industry plant or merely trying to increase her influence within the industry? ;)

The problem I have with miesque attempting to be perceived as the voice of reason while characterizing AM and others as “bomb throwers” is that she is protecting the status quo while AM is making some headway in getting people mad enough to actually do something. Let’s get real. Does anyone here expect the current industry leadership to cooperate with horseplayers of its own volition in any significant way? The more press industry leaders and regulatory politicians receive, they increasingly come off as arrogant, greedy, and/or inept buffoons albeit wealthy and/or powerful ones. At the end of the day, they’ll still be there -- large and in charge -- unless Joe Horseplayer says “I’ve had enough” and stops betting to make things change.

For those ready to kiss the rings of HANA board members, remember we still haven’t heard the full results of the HANA member survey, and I think one reason for this can be found in the transcript of the CHRB meeting for January:

http://chrb.ca.gov/board_meeting_transcripts/TRANSCRIPT%2001-15-10.pdf (http://chrb.ca.gov/board_meeting_transcripts/TRANSCRIPT%2001-15-10.pdf)

JP’s participation appears on pp 92-107. The following exchange appears on pp 98-99:COMMISIONER ROSENBERG: Well you – did you survey your – another point. Do you – do you survey your – your members in terms of the amount they gamble per year per member? I mean, do they –

MR. PLATT: Yes. And it’s an average of about $43,000 per member.

COMMISIONER ROSENBERG: And did you sort out how the vote went with the lower --

MR. PLATT: Yes. Yeah. And that would be --

COMMISIONER ROSENBERG: And it was consistent throughout?

MR. PLATT: No. It’s tiered to where we have a smaller number of members generating a very large amount of handle. The 25 largest handle members probably generate two-thirds of that $65 million.

COMMISIONER ROSENBERG: And how did they vote? Is it across the board, all the lower volume gamblers voted the same as the higher volume gamblers, pretty much?

MR. PLATT: They do. They’re very much aware of the take-out. We had 510 members complete the survey in full. And I believe about two-thirds of them told us that, yes, we area aware of take-out and it definitely effects our decisions as to where to play and where not to play.Were any other HANA members bothered by the fact that the CHRB board members received that information before they did; especially those who bothered to complete the survey?

How many of those 25 largest handle members sit on the HANA board or the advisory board? For that matter, how many HANA members already have their effective takeout lowered through rebates? Too bad Mr. Rosenberg didn’t initiate that line of questioning. It seems doubtful that our “fearless leaders” will ever share it with their feckless followers.

From my perspective, HANA appears to be representing only the interests of 1) HANA board members, 2) the 25/1500=1.7% of its highest volume betting members, and 3) the x % of those willing to maintain the status quo through selective rebating with no concern for the effects of doing so on the majority of players and the viability of the game.

But wait, by showing up at that CHRB meeting, didn’t JP demonstrate HANA’s good intentions toward the smaller bettor? No question he was at the right place at the right time to do just that, but did he deliver the right message? I’ll leave that up to the reader. Pp 104-105 contained the following:Mr. Platt: Just a comment about ADW. In California, and I’m sure you’re all aware of it, ADW retention is capped at 6.5 percent by state law. If that were removed ADWs would be able to rebate money back to players and your handle would grow, I guarantee that. There’s a number of players that are based in California that are betting, not as California residents, they’re betting offshore or they’re going to other states where they can get ADW accounts and get rebates. And you’re missing out by having that 6.5percent.

There’s – there’s three things that successful companies do. And those three things are they identify a target customer, they identify the needs and wants of that target customer, and they make it their mission to satisfy the needs and wants of that target customer. Racing hasn’t tried that. And I really think a lot of problems in racing stem from not doing that.Ask yourself why it wasn’t pointed out that the proposed increase would probably not affect rebated bettors, or that only rebated bettors currently get any relief from takeout that is already too high? Customers betting with some CA-licensed ADWs might get a small break, but what about everybody else? In front of people with the power to reduce direct takeout for everyone as well as raise it, that option wasn’t even mentioned. Do you think you are one of the target customers HANA wants to satisfy? Some might say there was more advocacy above of ADWs than of smaller bettors inside CA and out.

I want to make it clear that I regard the HANA board and team members with whom I’ve communicated to be intelligent, insightful individuals, but I had hoped for more from them collectively on behalf of the recreational bettor. Professional horseplayers are already influential insiders who don’t even need HANA to advance their agenda.

[rwwupl]

Thanks to Indulto for sharing his thoughts with us. Indulto is always thoughtful ,worthy ,and a "must read". Indulto always makes a lot of good points.

Finding a consensus among horse players is a daunting task and is like trying to herd a bunch of stray cats.

I find that the members of HANA believe in the stated principles of the organization(see website) or they would not be members... but the rub comes in on how best to achieve the goals,and what takes priority.

Andy M believes that a more agressive approach is more effective and Miesque believes in personal diplomacy...thats O.K., there is a place for both, but lets do not attack each other...both agree on the goals of HANA.

I was at the CHRB meeting referred to and was at our President Jeff Platt's side, and I left proud of his effort and thought he did as well as anyone from HANA could expect ,appearing before what was considered a hostile environment. Anyone who appears before the CHRB supporting the customers/players is in a strange land, with overwhelming dominance of people who are seeking goals most counter to yours.

Anyone can be a monday morning quarterback and find things that could or should have been said in retrospect... but in this case, as with most customer issues, it would not have mattered, because of the make up of the power structure of the Board itself. They are political appointees and a majority are licensed horsemen and they are members of the TOC and that is the main interest beyond creating revenue for the State...Customer issues getting their real attention is a rare thing,racetrack and horsemen issues take priority and customers are there(they seem to assume) to provide the money to solve their problems.

They rubber stamped Dr. Allreds request for a 2% take out raise for the quarters,despite Jeffs accurate prediction of what would happen and a mountain of facts to counter, why?...because Dr.Allred was one of them and he must know more than this guy who said he represents horseplayers(HANA), and threw out a lot of stats to us.

I would like to see HANA send a representative to each meeting when feasable so that we could at least establish a presence and take a small foothold on the seat of power... and speak when appropriate.

Having a forum like PACE is a necessary part of getting everyones ideas out in the open... and refining them.

I suspect there are things going on at HANA that we are not aware of with the overall goals in mind... we have to have that faith and stick together.

Thanks, rwwupl

[twindouble]

Miesque;

I can appreciate your frustration but HANA has to take some responsibility in creating the chaos your referring to. For example HANA says they came into existence to support the "players" but when HANA openly sets an agenda to support a small percentage of players (whales) that are skimming the pari-mutual, what do you expect? Do you think the rest of use are suppose to roll over and go along with it? How many times has HANA said "we want a level playing field". Well supporting the whales and not the majority of players is a far cry from creating a level playing field. Pari-mutual wagering is being destroyed. HANA wants to draw in all the whales from the off shore operations on top of it all. The whales get that rebate on winning and losing tickets, how sweet it is. It's time for HANA to come clean as to what the real agenda is rather than give lip service to those they claim to represent. Spell out what your grand scheme is when it comes to wagering including the platforms HANA envisions. My impression is HANA wants to eliminate pari-mutual wagering and replace it with a different platform and allowing the "more sophisticated players" to take over and the hell with traditional players. Please don't tell me "everyone has a shot to be a whale." I wasn't born yesterday, wagering on the horses does not mesh well with the Wall Street type manipulators, in my opinion. Make your case and prove me wrong, that would bring me into your fold.

T.D.

[Greyfox]

Break out the butterfly nets and dart guns. Paranoia seems to be running rampant in this thread.:lol:

[andymays]

Break out the butterfly nets and dart guns. Paranoia seems to be running rampant in this thread.:lol:


Watch what you say Greyfox. Implying that others are unbalanced or Wackadoos can get you in trouble. ;)

In all seriousness there seems to be some unclear thinking that goes on in threads and maybe I'm guilty of it too from time to time.

The thread is about Indultos assertions. It's not about Indulto, rwwupl, or twindouble yet the comments above refer to them as being paranoid or unbalanced (wackadoos) ;).

The same thing happened in the Stronach thread with the Poll. For gods sake the thread is about Stronach and his interviews on the radio and in print. Most of the comments refer to Fabulous Frank as being out of touch with reality. The thread title said "Fabulous Frank" not "Wackadoo Frank". The two questions asked for opinions and posters gave them.

Then in another brilliant move the thread turns to andymays and his style. It is astonishing to me that a Horseplayer out in California with a computer who's just fighting for what he believes in can be more interesting than Fabulous Frank and his activities over the weekend. The person who chose to make it about me then cries foul when there is a response. The fact that I was the priority over the Gulfstream incident speaks volumes about unclear thinking on the part of some here.

Frank Stronach is a sad figure in Race Track ownership and the record speaks for itself. The problem I have with him is that he has a big negative effect on Horseplayers. That's why I don't respect him much. It's as simple as that.

HANA does good work and has been an asset but we all know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. It is a mistake to wait for a green light from HANA before you stick up for yourself.

Anyway, maybe clearing the air is a good thing.

[twindouble]

Break out the butterfly nets and dart guns. Paranoia seems to be running rampant in this thread.:lol:

Point out what you think qualifies as "paranoia", be a man now.

[miesque]

Break out the butterfly nets and dart guns. Paranoia seems to be running rampant in this thread.:lol:

One of the many defining characteristics of horseplayers is they are not predispositioned to trust or take anything at face value. This is why its actually quite easy for those who do not want horseplayers to have any say whatsoever to throw out divisive red herrings and divert from the key issues.


Miesque;

I can appreciate your frustration but HANA has to take some responsibility in creating the chaos your referring to. For example HANA says they came into existence to support the "players" but when HANA openly sets an agenda to support a small percentage of players (whales) that are skimming the pari-mutual, what do you expect? Do you think the rest of use are suppose to roll over and go along with it? How many times has HANA said "we want a level playing field". Well supporting the whales and not the majority of players is a far cry from creating a level playing field. Pari-mutual wagering is being destroyed. HANA wants to draw in all the whales from the off shore operations on top of it all. The whales get that rebate on winning and losing tickets, how sweet it is. It's time for HANA to come clean as to what the real agenda is rather than give lip service to those they claim to represent. Spell out what your grand scheme is when it comes to wagering including the platforms HANA envisions. My impression is HANA wants to eliminate pari-mutual wagering and replace it with a different platform and allowing the "more sophisticated players" to take over and the hell with traditional players. Please don't tell me "everyone has a shot to be a whale." I wasn't born yesterday, wagering on the horses does not mesh well with the Wall Street type manipulators, in my opinion. Make your case and prove me wrong, that would bring me into your fold.

T.D.

I probably should not respond at all in this thread but since you asked some questions which appear to be honest questions, I feel you deserve an answer. We actually have a very diverse board with different income areas, different levels of play, concentrate on different tracks, from different parts of the country and with different occupations. For the record, I am not a whale and I am not the only non-whale on the HANA Board of Directors. In fact, my annual handle is much more on target with the average HANA member in terms of median than a whale, not the upper echelon which skews the average up) and I do not receive rebates which is why I personally am an advocate for lower takouts first and foremost. Yes, there are those who are keen about the prospects of exchange betting on our board. As for myself, the vast majority of my play is exotics which means exchange betting is a much less palatable option then it is for others, but I do think it has some interesting potential here in the United States and there may well be a niche for it amongst some horseplayers. As for the Wall Street manipulating comment, I am not quite sure where are coming from. I will state that my experience the past two days on this Board have made me quite happy that I do indeed work in private sector investments and have never (and hopefully will never) have a job in the racing industry and I am not dependent on anything in the racing industry and any participation I have (including my role with HANA) is solely because I love horse racing and I am blessed to have a real job to support my interest in horse racing because the crap I put up just in a voluntary roll is ridiculous (for which I receive less than zero compensation because it costs me money), I cannot imagine what its like if its your career.

[twindouble]

As for the Wall Street manipulating comment, I am not quite sure where are coming from. quote miesque;

To answer the above, I was referring to the whales. They are "manipulating" via rebates and churning money for profit, to me that's taking advantage of the mutual system, that's the "Wall Street mentality. More of that in my opinion is not good for racing, if the exchange proponents are successful that will only add to further player mistrust and alienation. Again, that my opinion. Those that support such a wagering system prove to me all the positive aspects of it and that Whales won't increase their edge they have over us now.

[rwwupl]

miesque wrote:

One of the many defining characteristics of horseplayers is they are not predispositioned to trust or take anything at face value. This is why its actually quite easy for those who do not want horseplayers to have any say whatsoever to throw out divisive red herrings and divert from the key issues.


This is true...but it is not hard to tell where people are coming from if you pay attention... and consider the source.

Mr Stronach believes the structure of racing in California needs improvement, so do I, but we may have different ideas on what is best for the overview of the game...We have as much right to speak out for what we believe as he does,but we do not draw the attention that he does.

And now the game is on, and we know one thing for sure, there will be change, we just are unsure if the change will be good for horse players or not.

[GameTheory]

Rebates vs lower takeout: If everyone could get the same level of rebate, whales would have no advantage there. So while the playing field is unlevel, rebates per se aren't the problem, just the availability of them to the smaller player. That can be solved by EITHER eliminating them or expanding them to everybody. And realistically I don't think we'll ever get actual lower takeout without first proving the concept with rebates (where ADWs take the risk and not the host track and horsemen). So to me expanding rebates is the path to getting lower takeout.

Exchange betting: I don't follow how exchange betting would lead to greater advantage to whales. Exchange betting would be great -- it would revive Win wagering, allow you to get fixed odds (no late odds drops!) and you can even bet horses to lose if you want. What's not to like?

[twindouble]

Rebates vs lower takeout: If everyone could get the same level of rebate, whales would have no advantage there. So while the playing field is unlevel, rebates per se aren't the problem, just the availability of them to the smaller player. That can be solved by EITHER eliminating them or expanding them to everybody. And realistically I don't think we'll ever get actual lower takeout without first proving the concept with rebates (where ADWs take the risk and not the host track and horsemen). So to me expanding rebates is the path to getting lower takeout.

Exchange betting: I don't follow how exchange betting would lead to greater advantage to whales. Exchange betting would be great -- it would revive Win wagering, allow you to get fixed odds (no late odds drops!) and you can even bet horses to lose if you want. What's not to like?

I agree on the rebates and yes expanding rebates to all getting the same or putting that money back into system seeing that the tracks are so hard up for money in this economy. That's why I've said right along we won't get a reduction in takeout, maybe when better days are here, if that happens.

On the exchanges, I was told the Whales will still get big rebates and I'm inclined to think they will find other weaknesses in the wagering platform. That has been the trend in every financial market for a long time now.

[GameTheory]

On the exchanges, I was told the Whales will still get big rebates and I'm inclined to think they will find other weaknesses in the wagering platform. That has been the trend in every financial market for a long time now.Exchange betting as it exists other places (i.e. BetFair) has a low vig (around 5% I think) and there is no pool -- one person books another. But let's say in the U.S. the juice was a little higher, say 10%, but whales got a 5% rebate. What is the effect? Well, it is good for them, they get that extra 5% back, but YOU are the one booking their bets, so that just means they will be willing to accept less advantageous odds, which is good for you. Exchange betting seems automatically self-leveling since the odds are fixed and neither party has to accept any prices they don't like. Anyway, it is unlikely that rebates would even be offered for exchange betting. It doesn't really make sense.

[twindouble]

Exchange betting as it exists other places (i.e. BetFair) has a low vig (around 5% I think) and there is no pool -- one person books another. But let's say in the U.S. the juice was a little higher, say 10%, but whales got a 5% rebate. What is the effect? Well, it is good for them, they get that extra 5% back, but YOU are the one booking their bets, so that just means they will be willing to accept less advantageous odds, which is good for you. Exchange betting seems automatically self-leveling since the odds are fixed and neither party has to accept any prices they don't like. Anyway, it is unlikely that rebates would even be offered for exchange betting. It doesn't really make sense.

Either I misunderstood what was said here or I'm getting misinformation. For example, that 5% you mention is Betfairs net takeout on handle, that don't define where the other millions go or what % goes to rebates. Correct?

[GameTheory]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Exchange betting is just two individuals getting together and agreeing on a bet -- I say X horse is going to lose and I'm offering 10-1, you say that horse is going to win and you'll take that bet. The exchange offers the marketplace where we can meet to make such deals, escrows the money until the result is determined, and handles paying the winning party. For this service, they get 5% or so commission from the money we risked. The other 95% goes to the winner of the bet.

[twindouble]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Exchange betting is just two individuals getting together and agreeing on a bet -- I say X horse is going to lose and I'm offering 10-1, you say that horse is going to win and you'll take that bet. The exchange offers the marketplace where we can meet to make such deals, escrows the money until the result is determined, and handles paying the winning party. For this service, they get 5% or so commission from the money we risked. The other 95% goes to the winner of the bet.

That's clear enough, so there's no rebates at all. I have no problem with gamblers going head to head in any form. It's the current rebate system that I hate. Thinking about what you said is correct, I can live with the Exchanges but they should never replace the pari-mutual system as it was intended to be.

[Dave Schwartz]

I have a few comments I would like to make.

I know that usually my comments on this and similar topics get very little feedback. Perhaps I am not taken seriously. Perhaps I am seen as a horse racing version of "Uncle Tom." Maybe I am seen as a wanna-be whale (which I am). I am not sure.

I do know this: What you are doing is having very little affect, if any, on an industry-wide basis. Simply put, the big boys aren't listening.


First, the HANA members are to be applauded for whatever efforts they choose to make, even if they may be perceived as wrong. Remember that they are donating their time and resources. They are also giving up a great deal of their focus time. There are just so many things one can focus on in life and for HANA members, some significant portion of their time is being spent trying to promote our interests.


Second, customers (or their representatives) talking to track owners and managers, horse owners and horsemen is much like customers inviting themselves to a meeting between General Motors and the Auto Workers Union: I expect that they will be polite but the customer has no real standing in the discussion.

Understand me, please. I am not saying that they shouldn't have a voice. I am saying that the truth is that nobody is actually considering what they say to be relevant to their discussion.

Obviously the customers opinions, likes and dislikes as Jeff stated (the three things, etc. etc.) should be of concern to the track cartel, et al. and they are. Right behind how revenue should be split, cutting costs, and a dozen other things. In other words, they are not of major concern.

And make no mistake - they are a "cartel." You have several competing groups, each with an agenda of its own. What makes it a "cartel" is they effectively combine their efforts to improve the lot of all the parties.

Customers are not considered relevant to the discussion.

Ask yourselves this... Why are the parties meeting? That is, what are their primary concerns? What are their priorities?

Let's really consider the individual agendas when the Cartel gets together.

The track is interested in cutting costs, improving the bottom line and keeping the horsemen happy.

The owners are interested in lowering daily costs, raising purses and keeping the horsemen happy.

The trainers are interested in raising purses, improving their cut of the takeout pie and keeping the horsemen happy.

It is the keeping the horsemen happy part that binds them together. This is the common mutual (no pun intended) thread that keeps them talking to one another and going in the same direction.


Now a fourth entity has demanded entry into their group. This group, known as customers, (and represented by HANA) wants to improve the lot of the horse player. They are full of suggestions - and good ones, too.

The problem is that HANA's concerns do not meld with the theme of the other three groups!

Yes, I know that the other three should be concerned about customers but the bottom line is that they aren't. They have demonstrated that for years.


So, what is my solution?

I think you need to speak constantly in terms of what will benefit the horsemen. That is the common ground between the guys sitting at the table. If you want to be invited into that group and taken seriously you must change your discussion to how it will benefit them.

If HANA cannot find ways to explain all of our desires in terms of benefits to horsemen it will not be taken seriously.

Well, there is one way.


Think back to the time when there were no unions in this country. Consider the lot of meat packers in Chicago. How did the union get a voice back then?

They did it with total work stoppages. And it was an ugly battle. Eventually they (the workers) won because of sheer numbers. There were so many of them.

Why do you suppose Jeff was asked the question about big players? It is because that is the closest thing to caring you have from the tracks. They DO care about the big players. When you speak of players with an average annual handle of $43k the cartel goes to sleep. As soon as you mention guys that bet (say) $1m or more, the interest perks right up.

Now, I know this may cause a whole lot of foot-stomping from the little guys (and even the medium-sized guys) because you want and expect to be treated as equals. Sorry, but you aren't equal.


One last thing... IMHO, HANA needs to consult with a negotiation strategist of some kind. Someone has got to coach you on how to talk to these people; to say what they are willing to listen to; to say what they perceive as important; and to structure your presentations accordingly.


Okay, I am finished.


Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz

[DeanT]

Very nice Dave.

From someone who has spoken for years with track folks, I can add that you are (in my opinion) quite correct.

The major issue that you bring up is the narrative on takeout. For example, players whine that it is "too high" and tracks come back with "we can not afford it". We are trying to build some models showing that purses go up at different takeout levels (lower than they are now). We think, and frankly have always thought, unless we show the business goes up (and appease horseman groups like you allude to in your post), our number one issue (takeout) will be ignored, and at times (as we see in CA) even raised.

If someone like yourself, or Game Theory, or others whom are mathematically and software inclined want to help with takeout modeling, let me know. I have been at this for awhile in my spare time, and any help would be appreciated.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Exchange betting is just two individuals getting together and agreeing on a bet -- I say X horse is going to lose and I'm offering 10-1, you say that horse is going to win and you'll take that bet. The exchange offers the marketplace where we can meet to make such deals, escrows the money until the result is determined, and handles paying the winning party. For this service, they get 5% or so commission from the money we risked. The other 95% goes to the winner of the bet.
To correct you, Betfair takes 2-5% out of what the winner wins. Not the total bet. The loser doesn't get anything additional taken from them.

Also, there is something similar to rebates, and that is that high volume players pay closer to 2 or 3% on their winnings, while less volume players pay 4-5%

[GameTheory]

To correct you, Betfair takes 2-5% out of what the winner wins. Not the total bet. The loser doesn't get anything additional taken from them.

Also, there is something similar to rebates, and that is that high volume players pay closer to 2 or 3% on their winnings, while less volume players pay 4-5%Thanks. Is there anything wrong with my logic that rebating would simply lead to rebated players accepting worse odds and so if you have rebated players on the opposite side of your transaction (as a non-rebated player) it would actually help you get better prices? Somewhat self-leveling, eh?

As regards to takeout, I think HANA's strategy when talking to various parties has always been to stress that no one wants them to give up a dime in profit -- HANA wants them to flourish and make more money and they have the studies to back up their assertions. Those parties still aren't interested at this point, but I wouldn't expect them to be. Gotta soften 'em up for a while and be repetitive. Stubbornness is an amazing tool -- just when you think no one is ever going to listen to you something finally happens to get the ball rolling. Just have to keep hammering 'em with those ideas and never stop telling them how it is going to benefit them. I think instead of just citing those studies and holding them up, copies should be sent to every person that matters (with a one page summary on top of what it all means to them). Wouldn't it be great if a horseman got up at some meeting and said, "I've got a study here that says..." and everyone else in the room had also received a copy. Maybe a few of them would actually read it.

[TJDave]

Also, there is something similar to rebates, and that is that high volume players pay closer to 2 or 3% on their winnings, while less volume players pay 4-5%

I must admit I know little about rebates. Are they based on aggregate totals or individual/average bet size?

I'm thinking of the possibilities for sub markets.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

HANA's message is not to lower takeout just so existing players have a lower takeout. You can't tell a business to do something if they will not make more money in the end (unless we are talking environmental issues which we are obviously not).

No, HANA is saying that lowering takeout will result in larger purses and more money for the tracks.

As for the analogy with auto makers, there is a big difference in horse racing. The auto maker execs are also consumers.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I must admit I know little about rebates. Are they based on aggregate totals or individual/average bet size?

I'm thinking of the possibilities for sub markets.
Betfair isn't giving rebates just to be clear (but it is similar in that those who push through more handle get a better deal). In horse racing with respect to rebates, generally those who bet more receive larger rebates.
The ones getting the best rebates usually are the ones who bet the most handle, and they get them on what they bet win or lose based on what they bet.

[Dave Schwartz]

To correct you, Betfair takes 2-5% out of what the winner wins. Not the total bet. The loser doesn't get anything additional taken from them.

I believe you have left out the 20% of weekly profit that BetFair has recently enacted. Your commissions paid are deducted from this 20%, but 20% weekly is tough.


No, HANA is saying that lowering takeout will result in larger purses and more money for the tracks.

And the response of the cartel is overwhelmingly positive because they believe it so strongly? Of course not. If they did, they would give it a try.

My personal feeling is that it will take a more complete "Please the Player & Make More Money" package.


As for the analogy with auto makers, there is a big difference in horse racing. The auto maker execs are also consumers.


I do not believe that their own family vehicles has much impact on the decisions and negotiations made in union meetings. From that standpoint, I would say that there is a far greater likelihood of "participation" on the part of the cartel individuals.


The real point to my diatribe is that you must either be invited to join the cartel or demand into the cartel by brute force.

The brute force approach demands the ability to control (say) 15-20% of total race track handle. If you can do that with $2 players, you will be my hero 'cause you're going to need a whole lot of players.

[twindouble]

Dave;

We all know there is and has been a disconnect when it comes to the players and the industry for along time now. We are also well aware of the complex issues involved, that don't mean we should roll over and take everything that thrown at us. I have feet so I can walk away when I'm treated unfairly, hell if they don't care about me I don't care about them. I just might make a fairly good poker player. In that vain they are not equal to me it's their lose not mine. They can continue to feed the whales for all I care. No one can take me for granted and I'm sure the majority of players feel the same way. When it gets to the point that we the players can't be part of the equation as you put it, tell me what business succeeds by ignoring the very people that buy their products. Didn't that kind of attitude contribute to the problems racing has.


Here on PA I'm sure you can find a multitude of posts where players have been expressing their discontent with the industry on all levels and pertinent issues including other forums that go back many years. Not only that, some darn good ideas were laid out in those forums and it would be disheartening to think no one in the industry picked up on them but I believe the have. They finely realized the Internet existed and there's a TV in every house. They caught on that the horse is where it's at, ala RA and Zenyatta. The drug problem was splashed all over in those forums well prior to the industry getting on the bandwagon. As far as I'm concerned they were well behind the curve when it comes to players awareness of what was going wrong. I can go on and on.

[andymays]

Think back to the time when there were no unions in this country. Consider the lot of meat packers in Chicago. How did the union get a voice back then?

They did it with total work stoppages. And it was an ugly battle. Eventually they (the workers) won because of sheer numbers. There were so many of them.

Why do you suppose Jeff was asked the question about big players? It is because that is the closest thing to caring you have from the tracks. They DO care about the big players. When you speak of players with an average annual handle of $43k the cartel goes to sleep. As soon as you mention guys that bet (say) $1m or more, the interest perks right up.

Now, I know this may cause a whole lot of foot-stomping from the little guys (and even the medium-sized guys) because you want and expect to be treated as equals. Sorry, but you aren't equal.

One last thing... IMHO, HANA needs to consult with a negotiation strategist of some kind. Someone has got to coach you on how to talk to these people; to say what they are willing to listen to; to say what they perceive as important; and to structure your presentations accordingly.


Okay, I am finished.


Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz


If smaller bettors aren't equal then why have a membership?

Wouldn't HANA be far better off as a "Think Tank"? There is nothing wrong with that and it may be more prestigious. Then you wouldn't have to put up with all the "pain in the asses" like myself. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank

A think tank (also called a policy institute) is an organization, institute, corporation, group, or individual that conducts research and engages in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy, economy, science or technology issues, industrial or business policies, or military advice.

Many think tanks are non-profit organizations, which some countries such as the United States and Canada provide with tax exempt status. While many think tanks are funded by governments, Advocacy groups, or businesses, some think tanks also derive income from consulting or research work related to their mandate.[2]

There are different opinions about think tanks; supporters like the National Institute for Research Advancement, itself a think tank, hail them as "one of the main policy actors in democratic societies ..., assuring a pluralistic, open and accountable process of policy analysis, research, decision-making and evaluation".[3] Others[citation needed] consider the term to be a euphemism for lobbying groups.

A study in early 2009 found a total of 5,465 think tanks worldwide. Of that number, 1,777 were based in the United States and approximately 350 in Washington, DC alone.[4]

[TJDave]

Betfair isn't giving rebates just to be clear (but it is similar in that those who push through more handle get a better deal). In horse racing with respect to rebates, generally those who bet more receive larger rebates.
The ones getting the best rebates usually are the ones who bet the most handle, and they get them on what they bet win or lose based on what they bet.

To be clear:

It's aggregate totals, yes?

With respect to rebates, 100-$100 bets from one account is treated the same as one $10,000 bet?

[Dave Schwartz]

If smaller bettors aren't equal then why have a membership?

The goal of the organization should be to serve all members equally. However, it will be the few, more influential members that will ultimately get the job done.

The alternative is to use the brute force method - like the unions did.



I really don't want to turn this into a political discussion but there certainly is a parallel with our political system. The rank and file voters (the many) control who gets elected, but it is the relatively few big contributors (the influential few) who choose the candidates. (That's why we're in such a mess today - but let's leave that for another topic.)

[andymays]

The goal of the organization should be to serve all members equally. However, it will be the few, more influential members that will ultimately get the job done.

The alternative is to use the brute force method - like the unions did.



I really don't want to turn this into a political discussion but there certainly is a parallel with our political system. The rank and file voters (the many) control who gets elected, but it is the relatively few big contributors (the influential few) who choose the candidates. (That's why we're in such a mess today - but let's leave that for another topic.)


Dave, I'm glad you spoke the truth.

I have to tell you it enfuriates the hell out of me to think that HANA is really CHANA. Certain Horseplayers Association of North America. If this is the case then let people know. Why should the little people participate in surveys? Why do you ask for input from little people and then dismiss them as not important?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8h_v_our_Q :lol:

[Dave Schwartz]

TwinDbl,

Your post makes sense - what you say is right. But it does not contain a single reason for anything to change.


What has been taken to the cartel (I really like that name) thus far is that they will benefit if they lower the track take. Obviously, their response (via their silence) is, "We don't believe that. Discussion over." If they did believe it, they'd be doing it.


As I had a track executive tell me once, "...that model does not work for us," (the tracks). He went on to say, "Sure, we may make more money but it takes longer to make it." Then he proceeded to lecture me on "the speed of money."

That is, the fact that allowing the player to play longer defeats the fact that they make more from him.

Let's say that they make $100 per player, per month. Making $150 from that same player but having to earn it over 2 months IS a drop in income to the tracks.


Dave

[GameTheory]

To be clear:

It's aggregate totals, yes?

With respect to rebates, 100-$100 bets from one account is treated the same as one $10,000 bet?Yes, the wagering company will set your rebate level (different for every track and race type) on a sliding scale depending on your overall wagering volume, although some places that make you phone in your bets probably don't want to be bothered with thousands of $2 bets, but basically yeah it is the aggregate.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I believe you have left out the 20% of weekly profit that BetFair has recently enacted. Your commissions paid are deducted from this 20%, but 20% weekly is tough.

My understanding is that very few people get affected by this. Mainly bots.

And it isn't what you make it seem.

Lets say someone who is only having to pay 2.5%. He makes $10,000 in a week but cashes $97,500 to do so (he had an ROI of close to 1.10 that week).
He now has to pay another 2,000, which brings his takeout up from 2.5% to 4.5%.
This is an extreme example btw.

[rwwupl]

Dave Schwartz,

Thanks for your experienced opinion,you make many fine points that we all can draw from.

It is not how many responses you get, it is the quality of your offering that is important, You always have something of substance to talk about.

Thanks :ThmbUp:

[chickenhead]

Dave, I'm glad you spoke the truth.

I have to tell you it enfuriates the hell out of me to think that HANA is really CHANA. Certain Horseplayers Association of North America. If this is the case then let people know. Why should the little people participate in surveys? Why do you ask for input from little people and then dismiss them as not important?

I think Dave is correct, but the implication is not.

The goal of the organization should be to serve all members equally. However, it will be the few, more influential members that will ultimately get the job done.

From my own vantage point, such that it is -- this is absolutely true. The implicit assumption that the influence relates to handle I do not believe is true. If anything, the contributions of large players overall (no disrespect to the few who have contributed time and energy) to HANA has been really very poor.

Influence will always flow to those who have something to contribute, want to contribute, and do contribute. That is indeed a very small group, but it doesn't correlate real well to handle.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

TwinDbl,

Your post makes sense - what you say is right. But it does not contain a single reason for anything to change.


What has been taken to the cartel (I really like that name) thus far is that they will benefit if they lower the track take. Obviously, their response (via their silence) is, "We don't believe that. Discussion over." If they did believe it, they'd be doing it.


As I had a track executive tell me once, "...that model does not work for us," (the tracks). He went on to say, "Sure, we may make more money but it takes longer to make it." Then he proceeded to lecture me on "the speed of money."

That is, the fact that allowing the player to play longer defeats the fact that they make more from him.

Let's say that they make $100 per player, per month. Making $150 from that same player but having to earn it over 2 months IS a drop in income to the tracks.


Dave
The point of lowering the takeout is that the person who loses $100 a month today, will probably on average lose more a month because the game will become more of that persons gambling outlet because they will get into it more, become more familiar with the horses, handicapping, etc.

Plus the more someone plays the more likely they are to expose others to the game, and this will create new players, which means more money for the tracks and horsemen.

If the game is perceived as beatable (because of new visible winners thanks to lower takeouts), people will gladly gamble more to try to beat it.

It is like this. You get even money odds on tails on a two headed coin....you won't bet. But you get even money on a fair coin, you are more likely to bet.

[twindouble]

TwinDbl,

Your post makes sense - what you say is right. But it does not contain a single reason for anything to change.


What has been taken to the cartel (I really like that name) thus far is that they will benefit if they lower the track take. Obviously, their response (via their silence) is, "We don't believe that. Discussion over." If they did believe it, they'd be doing it.


As I had a track executive tell me once, "...that model does not work for us," (the tracks). He went on to say, "Sure, we may make more money but it takes longer to make it." Then he proceeded to lecture me on "the speed of money."

That is, the fact that allowing the player to play longer defeats the fact that they make more from him.

Let's say that they make $100 per player, per month. Making $150 from that same player but having to earn it over 2 months IS a drop in income to the tracks.


Dave

The "speed of money". Well, if they think they can survive by just cattering to the whales, good luck with that one. Our whole economy tanked because of the high rollers and the packaging of crap for profit.

[Dave Schwartz]

Andy,

Please, let's always remember that we are on the same side.

The real issue is, "How does the game get saved from extinction?"

You know, I have been thinking about this a lot recently, and have come up with some answers.


First, I would predict that the game will continue to decline for several more years. Financially unfit racetracks will close, fields will get smaller, handle will continue to drop.

Players will quit in droves. A few at first, then more. At an ever-increasing pace. It is a death spiral.


The cartel will not change until they are forced to change. Some will simply sell their land, take their massive capital gains and disappear. A few will stay on.

Then an equilibrium will be reached.

At some point the few survivors will be looking around at each other asking, "Is anyone making money?" When they see a track that is succeeding to one degree or another, they will decide to take a closer look.

Look at Tampa Bay. The track appears to be succeeding, despite having only a small (one might call it "reasonable") rebate. And that "small" rebate is available to most players. Maybe not to the $2 player, but certainly to the $43k per year player.

This problem WILL sort itself out. You'll see. And what will come out the other side will be a better, more enjoyable game.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The "speed of money". Well, if they think they can survive by just cattering to the whales, good luck with that one. Our whole economy tanked because of the high rollers and the packaging of crap for profit.
There are pros and cons to having whales. The biggest pro is that they are perceived winners (though that is probably not true of all of them).

Horse racing needs perceived winners to generate interest for growth purposes.

Let me put it this way. If there were no perceived winners in the game, handle might be at 6 billion today. Sure, there will be those who bet no matter what (just like they do at slots).

But even slots has the odd huge jackpot winner to dangle in the face of all the slot zombies.

[andymays]

Andy,

Please, let's always remember that we are on the same side.

The real issue is, "How does the game get saved from extinction?"

You know, I have been thinking about this a lot recently, and have come up with some answers.


First, I would predict that the game will continue to decline for several more years. Financially unfit racetracks will close, fields will get smaller, handle will continue to drop.

Players will quit in droves. A few at first, then more. At an ever-increasing pace. It is a death spiral.


The cartel will not change until they are forced to change. Some will simply sell their land, take their massive capital gains and disappear. A few will stay on.

Then an equilibrium will be reached.

At some point the few survivors will be looking around at each other asking, "Is anyone making money?" When they see a track that is succeeding to one degree or another, they will decide to take a closer look.

Look at Tampa Bay. The track appears to be succeeding, despite having only a small (one might call it "reasonable") rebate. And that "small" rebate is available to most players. Maybe not to the $2 player, but certainly to the $43k per year player.

This problem WILL sort itself out. You'll see. And what will come out the other side will be a better, more enjoyable game.

Dave, I have no issue with you personally but everyone is better off it the truth is spoken.

My next question is:

Since Horse Racing is headed down the drain and what will come out on the other side will be a better, more enjoyable game....

Is it the strategy of HANA to bet on the "Don't Pass" when it comes to Horse Racing in the United States?

Is Betfair what HANA is for?

[GameTheory]

Let's say that they make $100 per player, per month. Making $150 from that same player but having to earn it over 2 months IS a drop in income to the tracks.What he is failing to take into account is that before long he'd have *two* players losing $150 every 2 months instead of only one. They would take a short term hit, no question, if they just suddenly dropped takeout. Which is why I think the only path is via rebates, where they don't have to be the ones to absorb it.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

[/COLOR][/B]

Dave, I have no issue with you personally but everyone is better off it the truth is spoken.

My next question is:

Since Horse Racing is headed down the drain and what will come out on the other side will be a better, more enjoyable game....

Is it the strategy of HANA to bet on the "Don't Pass" when it comes to Horse Racing in the United States?

Is Betfair what HANA is for?
Betfair gives players more options, and everywhere it showed up so far, handle in mutuel pools have risen.

So on that basis, I would say HANA supports exchange betting.

[andymays]

Betfair gives players more options, and everywhere it showed up so far, handle in mutuel pools have risen.

So on that basis, I would say HANA supports exchange betting.


That wasn't so hard was it? We're at the sixteenth pole and headed for the wire. ;)

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better. You guys know more about it than I do and I would tend to believe you on this one.

What has been the point of not coming out with what we've learned in this thread today?

Say what you mean and mean what you say and when everyone knows where everyone stands we can have an honest discussion. :ThmbUp:

[chickenhead]

What has been the point of not coming out with what we've learned in this thread today?

Just so we're all on the same page (and really, I'm interested in your take) -- what did we learn?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

That wasn't so hard was it? We're at the sixteenth pole and headed for the wire. ;)

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better because you guys know more about it than I do and I would tend to believe you on this one.

What has been the point of not coming out with what we've learned in this thread today?

Say what you mean and mean what you say and when everyone knows where everyone stands we can have an honest discussion. :ThmbUp:
Supporting exchange betting is not the same as saying HANA is focused on bringing exchange betting to the USA, because HANA is not.

It is not a priority. But it would be welcomed, as would lower takeout rates anywhere, uniform drug rules, large penalties for cheaters, better state laws for those inhibited in any way from being able to bet like people from most states can, etc.

[andymays]

Just so we're all on the same page (and really, I'm interested in your take) -- what did we learn?


We learned that small bettors don't matter as much to HANA and HANA is for the Betfair model in the United States.

Believe me I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. The truth is better for everyone involved. :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

We learned that small bettors don't matter as much to HANA and HANA is for the Betfair model in the United States.



Huh???

[chickenhead]

We learned that small bettors don't matter as much to HANA

Believe me I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.


Not at all -- that's exactly what I think anyones takeaway would be from this thread. Thanks.

[Dave Schwartz]

The "speed of money". Well, if they think they can survive by just cattering to the whales, good luck with that one. Our whole economy tanked because of the high rollers and the packaging of crap for profit.


They can't survive. They know that. But they also cannot survive off the handle generated by the little guy.

You know, there was a time when horse racing was the number one spectator sport in the world. Back then the tracks had revenues form people who actually attended the track. They bought programs, paid for parking, bought hot dogs and beer, and generally were content to "have a good time" in exchange for their money.

Now the tracks cannot get anyone to come out because the track is inhospitable to creature comforts while we play. At least, I think that is the primary reason.

In general, the entire experience is over-priced and simply too much trouble getting to, especially if you live in the big city.

In addition, people are smarter. They are no longer willing to lose their money just to "have a good time." Sure, they'll do that a few times per year, but the 5+ time-per-month player is more likely to just sit at home in front of his computer.

The point is that they have lost the ancillary revenue from admission, parking, eats, drinks, etc. And the tend has been to make it up by over-taxing the customer. The customer no longer thinks the way he did in the '70s - he isn't willing to pay those theatre-style prices any more. He'll just play at home.


The tracks must find additional revenue sources. The logical avenue is online video of every race at every track for a reasonable fee.


You know, I believe that, given the chance and a budget, I could get the tracks, uh... back on track, so to speak. There are innovations that are do-able. And they would not take anywhere near the investment for a single installation of poly-track.

Of those many innovations, becoming a friend to the fan must be at the top of the list. Another item is that they'd better start investing in some lobbyists. When was the last time any racing-positive legislation was made?




Dave

[Horseplayersbet.com]

We learned that small bettors don't matter as much to HANA and HANA is for the Betfair model in the United States.

Believe me I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. The truth is better for everyone involved. :ThmbUp:
I honestly don't know where you learned that from. I don't read it here.

As for supporting bigger bettors. The way the game is today, anything HANA is able to change will be better for big bettors because they bet more. It is pretty simple.

Just like the Equibase scratch page. It probably is more valuable to someone who wagers $1000 a day than to someone who bets $5 a day. But it helps all horseplayers.

[Greyfox]

I honestly don't know where you learned that from. I don't read it here.



Exactly. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[andymays]

I honestly don't know where you learned that from. I don't read it here.

As for supporting bigger bettors. The way the game is today, anything HANA is able to change will be better for big bettors because they bet more. It is pretty simple.

Just like the Equibase scratch page. It probably is more valuable to someone who wagers $1000 a day than to someone who bets $5 a day. But it helps all horseplayers.


Isn't that what Dave said in #16? :confused:

[Dave Schwartz]

Boy, I asked for responses and started something. Good. Maybe something positive will come of it.

We learned that small bettors don't matter as much to HANA

Believe me I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.


Andy,
I hope you did not take that from what I said.

That is certainly not the HANA approach.

The bottom line is that the tracks are not near as much interested in "people" as they are in "handle." Get enough people and they will begin to matter.

Brute force demands foot soldiers. Lots of them.


But today they don't have that many, so they work with what they have.


Dave

[Charlie D]

Players will quit in droves. A few at first, then more. At an ever-increasing pace. It is a death spiral.



Dave

You run a business,. Would you allow your business to get to the stage above before making changes to your business model???

[andymays]

Boy, I asked for responses and started something. Good. Maybe something positive will come of it.




Andy,
I hope you did not take that from what I said.

That is certainly not the HANA approach.

The bottom line is that the tracks are not near as much interested in "people" as they are in "handle." Get enough people and they will begin to matter.

Brute force demands foot soldiers. Lots of them.


But today they don't have that many, so they work with what they have.


Dave


Ok, but if you want foot soldiers then you have to let them participate in stuff without worrying about one of them messing up a deal for you if they use a bad word in an email.

The Gulfstream incident would have been a perfect opportunity to mobilize the membership on an email campaign. That could have been done a few hours after the incident.

That's what members are looking for. They want to fight for something. If you're gonna have a membership they must be involved. If not then the "Think Tank" deal is the best way for HANA to go in my opinion.

[LottaKash]

Ok, but if you want foot soldiers then you have to let them participate in stuff without worrying about one of them messing up a deal for you if they use a bad word in an email.

The Gulfstream incident would have been a perfect opportunity to mobilize the membership on an email campaign. That could have been done a few hours after the incident.

Here, here !... (applause, applause)...Andy, that may be just the ticket, and it couldn't hurt, one bit...

best,

[DeanT]

Here, here !... (applause, applause)...Andy, that may be just the ticket, and it couldn't hurt, one bit...

best,

Hi Lotta,

Just a quick point: The GP situation was certainly disconcerting, and we all read the response here, in the press, and via email about it. In response, a letter was drafted to GP and all racing on the HANA website here:

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/03/letter-to-florida-regarding-gulfstream.html

It was discussed that doing an email blast might be appropriate to empower the members like we did in the Los Al situation, however Mr. Dunn at GP was very responsive on this matter on Tuesday:

Dunn said he is looking into the possibility of adopting a rule similar to that which exists in New York to cover the situation. That rule essentially makes all bets placed in multi-race wagers an "all" when a surface switch goes into effect.

"In my personal opinion, not having spoken to anybody else here in management or mutuels, this is an idea worth pursuing and I've already asked for a copy of the New York rule to be sent down for us to look at," he said. "Then it would be a matter of approaching the Division of Parimutuel Wagering to get the existing rule changed."

So in light of that, and since they are looking to rectify it, I think most would agree it would be good to offer support and consultation should they want it, rather than peppering someone's inbox who is helping to solve the problem already.

Thanks,

Dean

[chickenhead]

Ok, but if you want foot soldiers then you have to let them participate in stuff without worrying about one of them messing up a deal for you if they use a bad word in an email.

The Gulfstream incident would have been a perfect opportunity to mobilize the membership on an email campaign. That could have been done a few hours after the incident.

That's what members are looking for. They want to fight for something. If you're gonna have a membership they must be involved. If not then the "Think Tank" deal is the best way for HANA to go in my opinion.

If you want to take responsibility to write up responses in a manner that reflects well on the whole group, and submit them to HANA as draft proposals for email campaigns on incidents as they arise -- you have my support.

HANA receives many more suggestions than they do volunteers. And yes, subverting your personal voice in favor of a more professional voice would probably be a requirement.

[rwwupl]

Good work Dean and HANA.. :ThmbUp:

[twindouble]

They can't survive. They know that. But they also cannot survive off the handle generated by the little guy.

You know, there was a time when horse racing was the number one spectator sport in the world. Back then the tracks had revenues form people who actually attended the track. They bought programs, paid for parking, bought hot dogs and beer, and generally were content to "have a good time" in exchange for their money.

Now the tracks cannot get anyone to come out because the track is inhospitable to creature comforts while we play. At least, I think that is the primary reason.

In general, the entire experience is over-priced and simply too much trouble getting to, especially if you live in the big city.

In addition, people are smarter. They are no longer willing to lose their money just to "have a good time." Sure, they'll do that a few times per year, but the 5+ time-per-month player is more likely to just sit at home in front of his computer.

The point is that they have lost the ancillary revenue from admission, parking, eats, drinks, etc. And the tend has been to make it up by over-taxing the customer. The customer no longer thinks the way he did in the '70s - he isn't willing to pay those theatre-style prices any more. He'll just play at home.


The tracks must find additional revenue sources. The logical avenue is online video of every race at every track for a reasonable fee.


You know, I believe that, given the chance and a budget, I could get the tracks, uh... back on track, so to speak. There are innovations that are do-able. And they would not take anywhere near the investment for a single installation of poly-track.

Of those many innovations, becoming a friend to the fan must be at the top of the list. Another item is that they'd better start investing in some lobbyists. When was the last time any racing-positive legislation was made?




Dave

I agree there's innovations that would help a lot but I have a different take as to where it's headed and what could help. First and Foremost they have to recognize the very important historical and cultural thread that goes with racing. Second they need to know the players better and how that cultural influence creates new fans and maintains the existing ones. I can elaborate on that further, knowing that like you said things will continue to slide downward and they can't afford at this time a whole lot of free stuff. That reorganization has been in the works right along.

Third as they are becoming aware of, the horse is the foundation of the game and are the magnet to draw fans, young and old alike. They very well know they failed over the years promoting the game. They are catching on as we speak.

I'll leave it at that and come back later with another post.

[Charlie D]

BTW it's not all bad


NYRA


Live Feed, Replays, Talking Horses, Trips & Traps are all FREE


Hopefully the bettor appreciates this and supports them.

[andymays]

If you want to take responsibility to write up responses in a manner that reflects well on the whole group, and submit them to HANA as draft proposals for email campaigns on incidents as they arise -- you have my support.

HANA receives many more suggestions than they do volunteers. And yes, subverting your personal voice in favor of a more professional voice is a requirement.

Once again Chickenhead, maybe the "Think Tank" is the way to go.

Chickenhead, my voice is what it is and I don't intend to change a thing. I'm not lobbying for any position. I'm lobbying for a more aggressive stance that members can be directly involved in.

It's painfully obvious that you guys are uncomfortable with the rank and file membership and don't really know what to do with them. Why have them then?

[andymays]

Chickenhead, don't forget how we got to this point. It was bad behavior initiated by one of your Board Members and it wasn't an isolated incident. How about that one having a more professional voice. Not just when it's convenient.

[LottaKash]

Hi Lotta,

So in light of that, and since they are looking to rectify it, I think most would agree it would be good to offer support and consultation should they want it, rather than peppering someone's inbox who is helping to solve the problem already.

Thanks,

Dean

I see your point(s) Dean, and I tend to agree with them.....Still, perhaps, we can do both, complain and encourage, that is...Just to let them know that we as individuals, with or without HANA, do get mad and confused at the times when we perceive that, we are getting the old screw-job .....

best,

[rwwupl]

If you want to take responsibility to write up responses in a manner that reflects well on the whole group, and submit them to HANA as draft proposals for email campaigns on incidents as they arise -- you have my support.

HANA receives many more suggestions than they do volunteers. And yes, subverting your personal voice in favor of a more professional voice would probably be a requirement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not take this action through HANA because I know they are busy, but I have made an attempt to clear up one of the rules on p-3 and p-4 inconsistent handling....Read from the bottom up... some horizontal bets were refunded and some were given the favorite on a scratch in the first leg.We are talking Santa Anita.

I think the CHRB Pari-Mutuel Committee will correct it next meeting... I think HANA would approve. rwwupl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Scratches in the Pick 3 and Pick 4‏
From: Marten, Mike (MikeM@chrb.ca.gov)
Sent: Thu 2/25/10 8:40 PM
To: xxx-xxx-xxx

Roger:


You raise a good point. When these rules were written years ago, they each treated scratches in the first leg differently. You’ve correctly stated that when there are scratches in the first leg, those Pick Three wagers that include the scratched horse (s) are refunded, while the Pick Four wagers go onto another horse.



I believe this had to do with alternate selections for the Pick 4, Pick 5, Pick 6, etc. (any wager involving four or more races). Because a person at the track can designate an alternate to replace a scratched horse, and not simply be stuck with the favorite, the rationale must have been that bettors were covered and there was no need for a refund. The Pick Three does not allow for the naming of alternates, for technical reasons, so the rationale must have been that those bettors should receive refunds.



The problem is that ADW providers do not offer alternate selections to their customers. There was no ADW when those rules were written, so ADW would not have been a consideration.



I will forward this e-mail the members of the CHRB Pari-Mutuel Operations Committee, who may decide to place this on the agenda for the next PMO meeting. This would allow representatives of the totalizator company to provide input. They might know of other reasons why the two wagers are treated differently.



Thanks for the e-mail.



Mike Marten










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





--- On Thu, 2/25/10,xxx-xxx-xxx wrote:


From: xxx-xxx-xxx
Subject: Santa Anita,2-24-10, 5th race
To: "mike"
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 10:38 AM


Mike, 2-25-10

In the 5th race wednesday at Santa Anita, I played a p-3 and a pick 4. It was the starting leg for both. I played through "YouBet".

My key horse #7,Silent Stalk,was a late scratch.

I received a refund for my pick 3 and no refund for the pick 4.

I was told by YouBet rep. that I got the starting favorite for the pick 4 instead of a refund that I received for the pick3.

In the name of consistency, this makes no sense to me.

Can you clear this up for me?

Roger


xxx-xxx-xxx


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

[andymays]

Now there's a guy who knows what it takes to get something done in California. He's been fighting for Horseplayers for 40 years! :ThmbUp:

rwwupl :ThmbUp:

[chickenhead]

[/B]

Once again Chickenhead, maybe the "Think Tank" is the way to go.

Chickenhead, my voice is what it is and I don't intend to change a thing. I'm not lobbying for any position. I'm lobbying for a more aggressive stance that members can be directly involved in.

No, you're not lobbying for a stance, you're lobbying for HANA to do things. I suggested you could probably make it happen if you wanted, step up and make it happen.


It's painfully obvious that you guys are uncomfortable with the rank and file membership and don't really know what to do with them. Why have them then?

I don't really want to get into this, but from my association with HANA as I guess I'd call an intermittently contributing member, and believe me I include myself in the camp I'm about to criticize -- it's painfully obvious to me that the rank and file don't understand that they actually have to get involved and help out for there to be, well, much of anything.

Very few want to actually take any responsibility for making HANA anything --and that's understandable, who likes to work for free on stuff that isn't fun, and is bound to be criticized by at least some group of your peers? Who goes for that kind of thing? So it's plenty rational to not want to do anything, and just want it to happen on its own, that's pretty much where I am most of the time -- but still, real people actually have to step up and help to make things happen.

Actually research and write things that sound reasonable and smart, talk to people, do website stuff. It's not all that easy, and it definately not fun, and it's all for free.

[andymays]

No, you're not lobbying for a stance, you're lobbying for HANA to do things. I suggested you could probably make it happen if you wanted, step up and make it happen.

I don't really want to get into this, but from my association with HANA as I guess I'd call an intermittently contributing member, and believe me I include myself in the camp I'm about to criticize -- it's painfully obvious to me that the rank and file don't understand that they actually have to get involved and help out for there to be, well, much of anything.

Very few want to actually take any responsibility for making HANA anything --and that's understandable, who likes to work for free on stuff that isn't fun, and is bound to be criticized by at least some group of your peers? Who goes for that kind of thing? So it's plenty rational to not want to do anything, and just want it to happen on its own, that's pretty much where I am most of the time -- but still, real people actually have to step up and help to make things happen.

Actually research and write things that sound reasonable and smart, talk to people, do website stuff. It's not all that easy, and it definately not fun, and it's all for free.


Chickenhead, c'mon the last email deal on the Los Alamitos thing was fun and we made an impact although it could have been better. What happens after that when I suggest a pool riot (I never expected HANA to be officially involved)? Attacks by your Board Member. Then we find out that the board member didn't participate in the email campaign because I was leading it. What's up with that?

The truth is that HANA needs to be clear so everyone knows where they stand. HANA does lots of good stuff that helps everyone but the other side of the coin is that most members are in the dark most of the time.

[DeanT]

I see your point(s) Dean, and I tend to agree with them.....Still, perhaps, we can do both, complain and encourage, that is...Just to let them know that we as individuals, with or without HANA, do get mad and confused at the times when we perceive that, we are getting the old screw-job .....

best,

Lotta,

I hear ya. There is nothing more frustrating in the world of gambling than being a horseplayer, imo.

If you or anyone has something you see untoward, or a "screw-job" please let us know........ info at hanaweb.org. As you may know, we get these suggestions at times, and act when we can. Our main page for that (and this was a suggestion in itself from andymays) for things we try and get answers on is here:

http://hanareport.blogspot.com/

We try and update that in the post itself as we get responses.

Rwwupl, awesome stuff man.

Can we have that to add to HANA report? If anything you ever get an answer on that you look into, which is of interest to players, if you can pass that along where we can post it there, it would be appreciated.

Great work dude!:ThmbUp:

[Dahoss9698]

Hi Lotta,

Just a quick point: The GP situation was certainly disconcerting, and we all read the response here, in the press, and via email about it. In response, a letter was drafted to GP and all racing on the HANA website here:

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/03/letter-to-florida-regarding-gulfstream.html

It was discussed that doing an email blast might be appropriate to empower the members like we did in the Los Al situation, however Mr. Dunn at GP was very responsive on this matter on Tuesday:



So in light of that, and since they are looking to rectify it, I think most would agree it would be good to offer support and consultation should they want it, rather than peppering someone's inbox who is helping to solve the problem already.

Thanks,

Dean

With all due respect Dean, when this happened 3 years ago at Gulfstream, they were supposedly "looking into it" then. Well, 3 years later and it's still going on.

[DeanT]

With all due respect Dean, when this happened 3 years ago at Gulfstream, they were supposedly "looking into it" then. Well, 3 years later and it's still going on.
Hi DH,

I don't disagree, but we can't do anything about what happened three years ago, in my opinion. We are following it, and we have an ear. If it stalls because of the typical racing malaise, we will let everyone know who is standing in the way of the player, and ask for feedback on what to do about it.

Do you think that sounds like a decent strategy at this early stage or is there an alternative way to get things done that you see?

Dean

[Charlie D]

I happen to come across a thread other day from 2007 where members were posting the same or similar about racing ills as they do today and i'm sure the same or similar has been stated by others before that.


Racing industry does not listen imho as players are just seen as "addicts and idiots" (Mullins)

[miesque]

Chickenhead, don't forget how we got to this point. It was bad behavior initiated by one of your Board Members and it wasn't an isolated incident. How about that one having a more professional voice. Not just when it's convenient.

I have a question for you, if I stop posting on this Forum will you and Indulto leave HANA alone?

[chickenhead]

Chickenhead, c'mon the last email deal on the Los Alamitos thing was fun and we made an impact although it could have been better. What happens after that when I suggest a pool riot (I never expected HANA to be officially involved)? Attacks by your Board Member. Then we find out that the board member didn't participate in the email campaign because I was leading it. What's up with that?

The truth is that HANA needs to be clear so everyone knows where they stand. HANA does lots of good stuff that helps everyone but the other side of the coin is that most members are in the dark most of the time.

I don't have any idea what email campaign you led, or who didn't do what. Yes, I don't think any of the HANA board liked your pool riot idea. They don't like a lot of my ideas either. They often don't like any of their own ideas. Not sure what the takeaway from that is -- the number of good ideas is less than the sum total of all ideas, maybe.

I agree HANA needs to communicate and engage its members better. That's what I was suggesting you could probably help HANA with that like 2 posts ago. You had a positive impact already, I think thats where the whole HANA Reports thing came from, your suggestion. So someone spent time to make that website and write those articles, thats kind of an ongoing thing. Everything takes time, the more stuff HANA does, the more time involved. And that includes communication.

[andymays]

I don't have any idea what email campaign you led, or who didn't do what. Yes, I don't think any of the HANA board liked your pool riot idea. They don't like a lot of my ideas either. They often don't like any of their own ideas. Not sure what the takeaway from that is -- the number of good ideas is less than the sum total of all ideas, maybe.

I agree HANA needs to communicate and engage its members better. That's what I was suggesting you could probably help HANA with that like 2 posts ago. You had a positive impact already, I think thats where the whole HANA Reports thing came from, your suggestion. So someone spent time to make that website and write those articles, thats kind of an ongoing thing. Everything takes time, the more stuff HANA does, the more time involved. And that includes communication.


That's where it came from but it's not being used as intended.

Look, I think every Horseplayer likes the concept behind HANA and everyone understands that a lot of the stuff you do is on your own dime.

The problem keeps going back to involving the members by responding to issues on a timely basis. If you can't do that then it aint gonna work for most members. And if members who churn between 50 and 300k aren't as important to the grand scheme of things then it aint gonna work either.

I'm always willing to fight for Horseplayers but I refuse to play by the rules of the people who have fixed the game in their favor (Tracks, Racing Executives and Racing Officials). They don't respect us in California and I don't respect them.

[Dahoss9698]

Hi DH,

I don't disagree, but we can't do anything about what happened three years ago, in my opinion. We are following it, and we have an ear. If it stalls because of the typical racing malaise, we will let everyone know who is standing in the way of the player, and ask for feedback on what to do about it.

Do you think that sounds like a decent strategy at this early stage or is there an alternative way to get things done that you see?

Dean

I understand your position and I appreciate you guys looking into it. But, understand you aren't the first to approach Gulfstream's management about this very problem. I'll be following along and hope they finally decide to do what is right by the bettors.

But, I'm not very optimistic and that isn't a shot towards HANA. It's more of a lack of confidence in the industry as a whole and their stance towards the people that bet.

[Robert Goren]

Boy, I asked for responses and started something. Good. Maybe something positive will come of it.




Andy,
I hope you did not take that from what I said.

That is certainly not the HANA approach.

The bottom line is that the tracks are not near as much interested in "people" as they are in "handle." Get enough people and they will begin to matter.

Brute force demands foot soldiers. Lots of them.


But today they don't have that many, so they work with what they have.


DaveThat is almost true. What they are interested is getting the most money out the handle into their pockets. The total handle doesn't mean much these days with ADWs and rebates. Whether or not they know how to that is open to debate.

[TJDave]

What if HANA were more than a voluntary organization?

How about a union that organized players and exerted influence over their handle?

A union that hired professional arbitrators to deal with the tracks?

You think then track management would listen?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

BTW it's not all bad


NYRA


Live Feed, Replays, Talking Horses, Trips & Traps are all FREE


Hopefully the bettor appreciates this and supports them.

I love supporting 26% takeout on tris, supers and p-3/4s if it means I get all of the above for free while being robbed.

I also appreciate that they charge a very high price for their signal while giving me the opportunity to bet into 26% takeout pools.

[twindouble]

I'm still trying to swallow the idea that whales are the key to racing's success, when racing is going down the toilet. Well, many whales must have left the game and are now betting sports. Maybe the Cal tracks ended up with them, after all they pushed very hard for them by creating carryovers with lousy conditions. Or they are setting back waiting for that huge handle in the Blossom, you know that five million dollar purse that pays off a hundred grand to run dead last. I didn't know the track had that much money kicking around to throw away. Boy it sure is hard to get the truth today.
Then we have Monmouth proposing cutting their racing days in half so they can run million dollar purses every race. That's going give one hell of lift to the small horsemen. Ya sure!

Santa Anita is offering five million to the Zenyatta connections, I wonder if a horse can run dead last for hundred grand in that one also.

Anyway, we need some new and innovated ideas to help them out. What kept them in business and in a reasonably stable condition for 100 years or more doesn't work because people are a lot smarter today. Boy, that's another one that's hard to swallow. I'll let you know if I puke or swallow.

Does anyone here know or have any ideas as to how to draw in new fans, they will love what racing has to offer today. I expect all you Youtube junkies to join us. Well, I should give the new promoters at the NYRA the benefit of doubt. Anything is better than nothing at this point might be to little to late. But I hope not.

We all should be forward looking, having a positive attitude about the future of racing and our lives. Forward looking people don't like to be around those that are negative. Well I have some positive thoughts, one being screw those that are out to screw you. The racing industry elites are like a bunch of money pedophiles, all they want to do is screw the little guys, players, horsemen and breeders.

I just had to get that off my mind. I'll be back on topic next post.

[Dave Schwartz]

I'm still trying to swallow the idea that whales are the key to racing's success, when racing is going down the toilet.

Where do you get this stuff from?

[Charlie D]

Insidethepylons


If you think the deal is no good don't buy and shop elsewhere. There is plenty of choice.

Thier WPS and Exacta TO is better than most, but i think you know that.

[twindouble]

Where do you get this stuff from?

Am I wrong to suggest that HANA supports the whales and the rebates they get and did I hear wrong when Stein interviewed Stronach on SA's track surface. Stein clearly referenced the importance of "whales" dropping SA. The other "stuff" on purses is fact.

[Indulto]

DS,
Your contributions to this thread were remarkable in their clarity, veracity, and grounding in reality. If this thread inspired you to such accomplishment, then I consider myself to have finally performed a public service by starting it.

rw,
Thanks for your encouraging words. It’s comforting to know my opinions don’t fall completely on deaf ears. Also thanks for attending that CHRB meeting and maintaining productive contact with that body. I would indeed be guilty of Monday morning quarterbacking if 1) I hadn’t originally challenged the HANA board to show up (if you remember, JP announced he was going in a response to a post of mine), and 2) I hadn’t emphasized beforehand that it was as much an opportunity to request a takeout decrease as it was to protest an increase. I hadn’t thought of it this way before, but as it currently functions, HANA is indeed a “faith-based” organization. ;)

AM,
Thanks for all your efforts to cut through the crap and clarify what the effects of industry leadership have been on most CA horseplayers, why HANA’s non-transparency makes no sense, and establish once and for all that HANA offers very little benefit to the smaller player even though it claims broad support for their agenda through numbers. I had to laugh at the general reaction to the realization of the latter: so what?

Miesque,
Believe it or not, it isn’t all about you. Despite your obvious contempt for anyone who doesn’t find HANA’s current operational philosophy acceptable, I’ve come to respect your handicapping ability and appreciation of the sport at its highest level of competition. In that regard you are a welcome addition to all this board has to offer. Most of all I respect your ability and willingness to duke it out in public. I can only imagine what a formidable force you would be as a bomb-thrower. :jump:

[LottaKash]

I have a question for you, if I stop posting on this Forum will you and Indulto leave HANA alone?

Miesque, if you stop posting here, I will leave HANA.....You would be missed...And Andy and Indulto love you too, just not today....Post girl..

best,

[andymays]

I have a question for you, if I stop posting on this Forum will you and Indulto leave HANA alone?


Quit with the victim stuff. This thread is your doing. Every time you start something you turn it around and make yourself the victim. What's up with that? I support 90% of what HANA does.

The best example I can give you is the Los Alamitos Pool Party thread. Los Alamitos screws Horseplayers, you don't participate in the email campaign because I'm involved in it, and then you knock one of my so called "dumb ass" ideas when I offer one possible solution.

Where is the logic in that?

It appears that putting knives in my back is more important that fighting the real villains who in this case was Los Alamitos.

I have no problem putting aside the fighting but each and every time it has gone on it is the result of you starting the insults. Not once, not twice, but several times. You want to bury the hatchett then your actions will speak for themselves.

[Relwob Owner]

Quit with the victim stuff. This thread is your doing. Every time you start something you turn it around and make yourself the victim. What's up with that? I support 90% of what HANA does.

The best example I can give you is the Los Alamitos Pool Party thread. Los Alamitos screws Horseplayers, you don't participate in the email campaign because I'm involved in it, and then you knock one of my so called "dumb ass" ideas when I offer one possible solution.

Where is the logic in that?

It appears that putting knives in my back is more important that fighting the real villains who in this case was Los Alamitos.

I have no problem putting aside the fighting but each and every time it has gone on it is the result of you starting the insults. Not once, not twice, but several times. You want to bury the hatchett then your actions will speak for themselves.



AM,

Question for you....how is this thread her doing? Seems to me that she responded in another thread and as a result, this whole thread was a response by someone who disagreed with her....is that her fault? Maybe I am missing something......I know that you and her have a history but from what I have seen, the biggest issue is the way you try to do things. You and others seem to take pride in being "bombthrowers" and she(like me) thinks that being that way isnt always the best way to make changes.....I am reminded of the idea to flood the pool at Los Al and then have a large group cancel. I see the motivation but the action was flawed IMO because it had the potential of screwing an unknowing horseplayer.


I ask this with sincerity-why dont you and some of the others start your own group?

While I may disagree with you at points, never lose sight of the fact that your enthusiasm and passion is appreciated on this end.

[tucker6]

AM,

Question for you....how is this thread her doing? Seems to me that she responded in another thread and as a result, this whole thread was a response by someone who disagreed with her....is that her fault? Maybe I am missing something......I know that you and her have a history but from what I have seen, the biggest issue is the way you try to do things. You and others seem to take pride in being "bombthrowers" and she(like me) thinks that being that way isnt always the best way to make changes.....I am reminded of the idea to flood the pool at Los Al and then have a large group cancel. I see the motivation but the action was flawed IMO because it had the potential of screwing an unknowing horseplayer.


I ask this with sincerity-why dont you and some of the others start your own group?

While I may disagree with you at points, never lose sight of the fact that your enthusiasm and passion is appreciated on this end.
This is why you are one of my favorite posters. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: Sincerity can't be faked.

[miesque]

Quit with the victim stuff. This thread is your doing. Every time you start something you turn it around and make yourself the victim. What's up with that? I support 90% of what HANA does.

The best example I can give you is the Los Alamitos Pool Party thread. Los Alamitos screws Horseplayers, you don't participate in the email campaign because I'm involved in it, and then you knock one of my so called "dumb ass" ideas when I offer one possible solution.

Where is the logic in that?

It appears that putting knives in my back is more important that fighting the real villains who in this case was Los Alamitos.

I have no problem putting aside the fighting but each and every time it has gone on it is the result of you starting the insults. Not once, not twice, but several times. You want to bury the hatchett then your actions will speak for themselves.

That's it. I once called you an asshole and then apologized for it. Obviously this did immeasurable harm to your psyche as you have been beating me over the head with it if I EVER DARE respond counter to one of your posts. I know you guys think I am an idiot, but I am actually smart enough to realize that I have almost no chance of winning a fight on two fronts between you and Indulto when both of my hands are tied behind my back because I have to operate under a different set of rules then you are privy to. Therefore I am out of here for a while since I need a break from this nonsense and because I can post elsewhere in private without having to watch every word I say so that I don't get bashed over the head repeatedly with it and not be able to respond "in kind" and not have to see or hear either of you.

Have fun with the rest of the boys. Au Revoir!

[Grits]

Just so we're all on the same page (and really, I'm interested in your take) -- what did we learn?

Not learned. But assured, once again, that when Dave types, everyone should read, closely, because Dave has a better understanding of this game's problems than myself, 75% of the folks wagering on it, and those in management positions within it.

The disconnect between tracks, horsemen, and bettors, as many here have noted continues to grow. And Dave's observation of addressing the "boys in the club" was an excellent one. By all appearances, yes, they allow you entry, but "No One Is Listening." They're pandering in their attempts to even make you feel they are. They've gone right back to their agenda before you've made it to the elevator. But they sure sound sincere, in thanking you for coming, and letting you know how much your concerns mean to the game.

Appearances haven't ever meant much, superficial as they are, they account for so very little substance. Though, this sport is big on 'em.

Too, Dave's right about what it took to bring another industry in this country to its knees. An alliance that said, "no more" changed this nation's entire workforce. Then, moved forward and built it.

When one wants to bring about change, sooner or later, you don't rely as much on the dialogue of "nice" as you do the movement of "watch me."

And smile when you tell 'em.

[andymays]

AM,

Question for you....how is this thread her doing? Seems to me that she responded in another thread and as a result, this whole thread was a response by someone who disagreed with her....is that her fault? Maybe I am missing something......I know that you and her have a history but from what I have seen, the biggest issue is the way you try to do things. You and others seem to take pride in being "bombthrowers" and she(like me) thinks that being that way isnt always the best way to make changes.....I am reminded of the idea to flood the pool at Los Al and then have a large group cancel. I see the motivation but the action was flawed IMO because it had the potential of screwing an unknowing horseplayer.


I ask this with sincerity-why dont you and some of the others start your own group?

While I may disagree with you at points, never lose sight of the fact that your enthusiasm and passion is appreciated on this end.


Are you serious? This isn't the result of one or two insults. This has been going on for over a year. If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt go ahead but I've had enough. Because she is a HANA Board member HANA gets dragged into the discussion. As a HANA board member she decided not to participate in the email campaign against the raise in take at Los Alamitos. Is that my fault?

What is the point worrying about how I post something? In the last two cases Los Alamitos was the villain and in the Stronach thread he was the villain (particularly on the takeout issue and the Gulfstream incident). How in a million years does a harsh word or two by me in a poll or in responding to Los Alamitos compare and why is it noteworthy? I'm the guy fighting for changes. I'm not running for Mr. Congeniality!


I appreciate the advice but c'mon. The truth is the truth and anyone that wants to rewrite history to make themeselves feel better can go ahead.

[andymays]

That's it. I once called you an asshole and then apologized for it. Obviously this did immeasurable harm to your psyche as you have been beating me over the head with it if I EVER DARE respond counter to one of your posts. I know you guys think I am an idiot, but I am actually smart enough to realize that I have almost no chance of winning a fight on two fronts between you and Indulto when both of my hands are tied behind my back because I have to operate under a different set of rules then you are privy to. Therefore I am out of here for a while since I need a break from this nonsense and because I can post elsewhere in private without having to watch every word I say so that I don't get bashed over the head repeatedly with it and not be able to respond "in kind" and not have to see or hear either of you.

Have fun with the rest of the boys. Au Revoir!


I don't think you're an idiot. You just want to tell everyone what to do and how to do it or the knives come out. Who are you to set guidelines for me or anyone else when they stick up for what they believe in. Who sets guidelines for you? Then the victim stuff comes out and here you go doing it again.

[tucker6]

Are you serious? This isn't the result of one or two insults. This has been going on for over a year. If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt go ahead but I've had enough. Because she is a HANA Board member HANA gets dragged into the discussion. As a HANA board member she decided not to participate in the email campaign against the raise in take at Los Alamitos. Is that my fault?

What is the point worrying about how I post something? In the last two cases Los Alamitos was the villain and in the Stronach thread he was the villain (particularly on the takeout issue and the Gulfstream incident). How in a million years does a harsh word or two by me in a poll or in responding to Los Alamitos compare and why is it noteworthy? I'm the guy fighting for changes. I'm not running for Mr. Congeniality!


I appreciate the advice but c'mon. The truth is the truth and anyone that wants to rewrite history to make themeselves feel better can go ahead.
Andy,

I support your cause, but relwob has a good point. Sometimes, you need to run for Ms Congeniality as a means to the end. It may not have substance in the fight, but for some , it is important. It is better advice than you think at this moment. As a friend of your position, ponder it as good advice.

Tom

[andymays]

Andy,

I support your cause, but relwob has a good point. Sometimes, you need to run for Ms Congeniality as a means to the end. It may not have substance in the fight, but for some , it is important. It is better advice than you think at this moment. As a friend of your position, ponder it as good advice.

Tom


I understand what you guys are saying but don't you think that's been tried before? Jeff P was a nice as can be in the meeting with the CHRB. He presented a logical argument. Did it matter? Hell no. Why? Because they already have the deal fixed before the meeting.

[Relwob Owner]

Are you serious? This isn't the result of one or two insults. This has been going on for over a year. If you want to give her the benefit of the doubt go ahead but I've had enough. Because she is a HANA Board member HANA gets dragged into the discussion. As a HANA board member she decided not to participate in the email campaign against the raise in take at Los Alamitos. Is that my fault?

What is the point worrying about how I post something? In the last two cases Los Alamitos was the villain and in the Stronach thread he was the villain (particularly on the takeout issue and the Gulfstream incident). How in a million years does a harsh word or two by me in a poll or in responding to Los Alamitos compare and why is it noteworthy? I'm the guy fighting for changes. I'm not running for Mr. Congeniality!


I appreciate the advice but c'mon. The truth is the truth and anyone that wants to rewrite history to make themeselves feel better can go ahead.


As far as I have read in the past,I believe she did participate with an email to Los Al and she also did apologize to you at one point.....as I said in my post, I know you have a history and I made it clear I could be missing something .....the thread is about her response in one single thread, isnt it? You guys have a history but the thread asked about her response in another single thread and my thoughts were on that one response and how I agreed with her.....

My general thought is that when you go into a fight with a "bombthrower" mentality, you run the risk of being completely ignoredand there is also collateral damage....sometimes, people in charge need to have their asses kissed so that you can get them to change their minds without them even knowing it....I also feel the same way when people blame racing's ills on one particular thing. It is a combination of a ton of things and that is what makes it such a tough fix.

You highlighted me asking this but never addressed it-why dont you and some of the others start your own group? Still being sincere:)

[Red Knave]

Are you serious? This isn't the result of one or two insults. This has been going on for over a year.
Geez, talk about being a victim. Poor baby. :faint:

Is that my fault?
Of course not. Your behaviour is not your fault. It's the environment ... no, wait it's your parents ... no, it's Obama! :rolleyes:

How in a million years does a harsh word or two by me in a poll or in responding to Los Alamitos compare and why is it noteworthy?
Yes, exactly. And yet here you are making note of it.

I'm the guy fighting for changes.
No, you're not. You're just fighting.

The truth is the truth and anyone that wants to rewrite history to make themeselves feel better can go ahead.
That's all you've been doing. You keep saying you're NOT something that you really are and that you ARE something that you really are not.

FWIW, I am hereby putting you on ignore.

[andymays]

As far as I have read in the past,I believe she did participate with an email to Los Al and she also did apologize to you at one point.....as I said in my post, I know you have a history and I made it clear I could be missing something .....the thread is about her response in one single thread, isnt it? You guys have a history but the thread asked about her response in another single thread and my thoughts were on that one response and how I agreed with her.....

My general thought is that when you go into a fight with a "bombthrower" mentality, you run the risk of being completely ignoredand there is also collateral damage....sometimes, people in charge need to have their asses kissed so that you can get them to change their minds without them even knowing it....I also feel the same way when people blame racing's ills on one particular thing. It is a combination of a ton of things and that is what makes it such a tough fix.

You highlighted me asking this but never addressed it-why dont you and some of the others start your own group? Still being sincere:)

I am my own group. Anyone that wants to address problems they believe need fixing needs to act on their own and not wait for any group or any other person to help. That's why nothing gets fixed. Too much waiting! ;)

I know you're being sincere.

Who is the enemy?

Is it me or Stronach?

Is it me or Los Alamitos?

Is it me or is it Gulfsteam?

Those are simple questions with simple answers. At least for me.

[andymays]

Geez, talk about being a victim. Poor baby. :faint:


Of course not. Your behaviour is not your fault. It's the environment ... no, wait it's your parents ... no, it's Obama! :rolleyes:


Yes, exactly. And yet here you are making note of it.


No, you're not. You're just fighting.


That's all you've been doing. You keep saying you're NOT something that you really are and that you ARE something that you really are not.

FWIW, I am hereby putting you on ignore.


:(

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'll only say one thing to avoid being in the middle of something bigger - there is a place for both bombthrowers and diplomats in the same battle. Good cop, bad cop is an effective strategy for a reason. The bombthrowers express the urgency, the anger, the sincerity - the diplomats seal the deal with calm, sound reasoning and realistic solutions. A group of horseplayers can make room for, and probably welcome both strategists, using the skills and methods of both for the collective good.

[andymays]

I'll only say one thing to avoid being in the middle of something bigger - there is a place for both bombthrowers and diplomats in the same battle. Good cop, bad cop is an effective strategy for a reason. The bombthrowers express the urgency, the anger, the sincerity - the diplomats seal the deal with calm, sound reasoning and realistic solutions. A group of horseplayers can make room for, and probably welcome both strategists, using the skills and methods of both for the collective good.


Smart Man. :ThmbUp:

The problem here seems to be knowing who the enemy is. See questions in post #95

[Relwob Owner]

I am my own group. Anyone that wants to address problems they believe need fixing needs to act on their own and not wait for any group or any other person to help. That's why nothing gets fixed. Too much waiting! ;)

I know you're being sincere.

Who is the enemy?

Is it me or Stronach?

Is it me or Los Alamitos?

Is it me or is it Gulfsteam?

Those are simple questions with simple answers. At least for me.


You have the enthusiasm and effort of many put together but your response begs this question---what has changed as the result of your single efforts as compared with HANA and other groups? Not asking to start anything, I just want to know.......your "enemy" question is a good one and I think it is at the center of everything. One consideration I have found healthy in business situation is to take "enemies" and make them "targets" or "strategic allies".....for whatever reason, it has worked better. I have yet to see bombthrowing work in a business environment but maybe this will be the first.....


The poll that started this was an example of the whole problem....does he know what he is doing or is he a wackadoo? The answer IMO was neither.....

[chickenhead]

HANA offers very little benefit to the smaller player even though it claims broad support for their agenda through numbers. I had to laugh at the general reaction to the realization of the latter: so what?

Can you pinpoint me to what specific information this realization was in reaction to? I bring it up because Andy obviously misunderstood the nature of one of Dave S's post (which as it was written, I understand, it was written in a way that coming away with the wrong idea would be almost guarenteed). I'm just guessing that post is also the origin of this comment, by you.

[andymays]

You have the enthusiasm and effort of many put together but your response begs this question---what has changed as the result of your single efforts as compared with HANA and other groups? Not asking to start anything, I just want to know.......your "enemy" question is a good one and I think it is at the center of everything. One consideration I have found healthy in business situation is to take "enemies" and make them "targets" or "strategic allies".....for whatever reason, it has worked better. I have yet to see bombthrowing work in a business environment but maybe this will be the first.....


The poll that started this was an example of the whole problem....does he know what he is doing or is he a wackadoo? The answer IMO was neither.....


You still haven't answered my questions about who the enemy is in post #95

Was TVG the enemy when they didn't want to pay their customers?

Was Penn National the enemy when they didn't pay their customers?

There are numberous examples of problems that required a firm response weren't there?

What happened at Gulfstream is important to Horseplayers.

Raising the takeout is an important issue to Horseplayers.


Everyone has the right to fight for what they believe in or wait for someone else to fight for you.

[andymays]

It's been "real" guys. Good Night! :sleeping:

Too bad we can't harness all this energy and get something done.

We would be unstoppable! :ThmbUp:

[Relwob Owner]

You still haven't answered my questions about who the enemy is in post #95

Was TVG the enemy when they didn't want to pay their customers?

Was Penn National the enemy when they didn't pay their customers?

There are numberous examples of problems that required a firm response weren't there?

What happened at Gulfstream is important to Horseplayers.

Raising the takeout is an important issue to Horseplayers.


Everyone has the right to fight for what they believe in or wait for someone else to fight for you.



For you, the enemy seems to be everywhere, doesnt it? Your examples are all examples of things that needed to be addressed, so what is your point? Were you referring to them being examples where you made a difference? That is what I was sincerely asking about and figured would be the answer....II have personally seen your efforts result in individual instances being addressed but in the big picture, I think your tactics will now make too much of a dent and that is where we dont see things the same way....


Also, statements like Everyone has the right to fight for what they believe in or wait for someone else to fight for you. are the types that are frankly kind of obvious and would lead to some tuning you out IMO....in any case, good debating....

[Indulto]

... I know you guys think I am an idiot, but I am actually smart enough to realize that I have almost no chance of winning a fight on two fronts between you and Indulto when both of my hands are tied behind my back because I have to operate under a different set of rules then you are privy to. Therefore I am out of here for a while since I need a break from this nonsense and because I can post elsewhere in private without having to watch every word I say so that I don't get bashed over the head repeatedly with it and not be able to respond "in kind" and not have to see or hear either of you.

Have fun with the rest of the boys. Au Revoir!*** NEWSFLASH ***

FEMINIST MORPHS INTO DRAMA QUEEN

Poor little miesque, tag-teamed and terrified by those terrible bomb-throwing twins, Andy and Indy. ;)

I suppose it should break my heart to see the tigress who tore into me repeatedly suddenly slink away like a scared kitten claiming exemptions based on gender and victimizationm but ...

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

[LottaKash]

Andy and Indy. ;)


C'mon guys, she did say goodbye in "French".....That's got to count for something....

I see both sides of it, it will pass, if you let it.....

But, from my side of it, the tracks could give a shit less however anyone approaches them....I say Bomb them with e-mails when they are screwing the public, and talk nice later.....

best,

[cj]

I'll just say this about this thread. Do Republicans vote Republican because they believe in their stance on every single issue? Democrats for Democrats for the same? Of course not, there are many disagreements within the parties, but in the end they stand behind the leaders when it matters.

I really don't understand all this HANA bashing. Just because they may not go for every single idea posted or mentioned doesn't mean they should be trashed. They are still doing more for the bettor than 99.9999% of the other bettors.

The sad thing is, with Indy, I sense all this goes back to his not wanting to divulge his identity while being an active member of HANA. That was his choice, but he apparently can't live with it. Everybody else seems fine and miraculously enough things have progressed very nicely without him.

[Warren Henry]

And it won't be fixed overnight either.

HANA is too small right now to effectively fight all the fights that need fighting. Better to concentrate on the ones where they are most likely to have success. Success breed success. For each success we will receive more recognition and acquire more members. As we gain membership (and hopefully participation), we would be able to cover more issues. This is a long term project. It will not advance more quickly by blustering about and threatening actions we are not capable of producing (boycotts, etc).

If all of us were to make some sort of contribution to HANA (besides being critical of the actions of the board), the group would be much more effective.

I personally do not have the time to volunteer to help HANA with their projects. However, I do on occasion contribute small amounts of money with suggestions of ways it might be spent effectively. So far, I haven't heard of any banners being flown over large racing events advertising HANA, but perhaps that wasn't my best suggestion. Bottom line, I support HANA and trust the board to do what they can with the resources they have to improve the game for all of us.

I personally am happy with the progress that has been made in a relatively short time. Are we where we want to be? Not even close! Are we better off than we were a year ago? I think so.

[Track Collector]

Warren......the occasional poster who is often the voice of reason! :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

I'm not sure what you are asking. Exchange betting is just two individuals getting together and agreeing on a bet -- I say X horse is going to lose and I'm offering 10-1, you say that horse is going to win and you'll take that bet. The exchange offers the marketplace where we can meet to make such deals, escrows the money until the result is determined, and handles paying the winning party. For this service, they get 5% or so commission from the money we risked. The other 95% goes to the winner of the bet.


This is great. This is what bettors want. They just want to wager on a product with a small 'vig' for the handling fees....we don't want to be paying straw and hay bills as part of our 20% blended, we just want to bet, we don't want to be responsible for supporting the industry. We want the same thing that NFL bettors get in Vegas....a 5% 'takeout' and 0% of that takeout goes directly to the NFL for putting on the show.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dave, I'm glad you spoke the truth.

I have to tell you it enfuriates the hell out of me to think that HANA is really CHANA. Certain Horseplayers Association of North America. If this is the case then let people know. Why should the little people participate in surveys? Why do you ask for input from little people and then dismiss them as not important?Not what Dave was saying at all. You completely missed the point (unless I'm completely missing the point).

What Dave was saying was that the folks that run racing care only about the whales. He wasn't saying HANA only cares about its whale members...right Dave?

[proximity]

are not both twindouble and miesque eligible to get at least some decent rebates on many non california tracks???

[Charlie D]

we don't want to be responsible for supporting the industry.



Without support from betting revenue the racing industry would probably collapse, so be careful what you wish for.

[Dave Schwartz]

Right-o, mate.

[PaceAdvantage]

*** NEWSFLASH ***

FEMINIST MORPHS INTO DRAMA QUEEN

Poor little miesque, tag-teamed and terrified by those terrible bomb-throwing twins, Andy and Indy. ;)

I suppose it should break my heart to see the tigress who tore into me repeatedly suddenly slink away like a scared kitten claiming exemptions based on gender and victimizationm but ...

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."It's unfortunate you felt it necessary to start this thread in the first place. I'm shutting this thread down, as it is essentially a useless personal attack x100.

All of you need to grow up.

[proximity]

Without support from betting revenue the racing industry would probably collapse, so be careful what you wish for.

and when you "support" it at 31% when 13% is available..... what kind of message are you sending??