Horseplayers are going to get the worst of it again

[InsideThePylons-MW]

From The Paulick Report........

Longtime Monmouth Park executive Robert J. Kulina, the track’s vice president and general manager, talked with the Paulick Report about how he is planning to put Monmouth Park back on the map of major league racetracks.

"I have a great relationship with the horsemen, and they bought into the concept. We’re now trying to work on the purse schedule. Part of the plan is to put meaningful money back to last place. Right now we are talking about $2,000 for the last-place horse. That’s a lot of money. Too many small owners can’t make it, and just because you’re small doesn’t mean you’re not good. If you can run a horse, and you perform, the $2,000 helps pay some of the training and offsets part of your losses. We’ll try to stop people from abusing the system by running just for $2,000."


Trust me.....This is absolutely horrendous for the bettors.

Many horses will be getting $2000 for workouts and others won't be 100% but will still race for the $2000.

Once again, the horseplayers take it in the shorts due to tracks subsidizing owners.

Hey, they'll have full fields for sure but a few of them probably are just running for the $2000......Let the bettors try and guess which ones are.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I've seen trainers put in a horse to make it fill so that they could get $500 bucks. It really isn't a good move.

[jballscalls]

isn't that part of handicapping a race knowing when a trainer is using a race as a work or prep?? i always view it as such.

[GameTheory]

I think I'd like the full fields. The odds will go up on the contenders. I have never assumed all are trying anyway.

[Igeteven]

From The Paulick Report........

Longtime Monmouth Park executive Robert J. Kulina, the track’s vice president and general manager, talked with the Paulick Report about how he is planning to put Monmouth Park back on the map of major league racetracks.

"I have a great relationship with the horsemen, and they bought into the concept. We’re now trying to work on the purse schedule. Part of the plan is to put meaningful money back to last place. Right now we are talking about $2,000 for the last-place horse. That’s a lot of money. Too many small owners can’t make it, and just because you’re small doesn’t mean you’re not good. If you can run a horse, and you perform, the $2,000 helps pay some of the training and offsets part of your losses. We’ll try to stop people from abusing the system by running just for $2,000."


Trust me.....This is absolutely horrendous for the bettors.

Many horses will be getting $2000 for workouts and others won't be 100% but will still race for the $2000.

Once again, the horseplayers take it in the shorts due to tracks subsidizing owners.

Hey, they'll have full fields for sure but a few of them probably are just running for the $2000......Let the bettors try and guess which ones are.


IMO , we as players are going to have too give up our home track, for many reasons

If one is going to make any type of money in this game as a players, we are going to have too pick and choose a our races all over the United States.

The day has come, as we as players don't have the options of sticking to one track.

There are winners, looses as we all know, however if you are ever going to beat this game. One must be careful where he or she places their bet.


However, we have our addicts, who play the pick 3, pick 4 or the pick 6, at a regular pace, however, they never get over the hump or hit a big ticket


As the old say goes, show me a happy loser, and I will show you an idiot

[InsideThePylons-MW]

isn't that part of handicapping a race knowing when a trainer is using a race as a work or prep?? i always view it as such.

I guess.

I'm sure most horseplayers like it when trainers enter short horses with no chnace in a race to get $2000 for a workout instead of waiting until the horse is fit and ready to race.

Once the trusted topic of intent to win is violated because incentives to just enter are so lucrative that horses with no chance to win are racing.....racing now enters the same category as professional wrestling.

[lamboguy]

I guess.

I'm sure most horseplayers like it when trainers enter short horses with no chnace in a race to get $2000 for a workout instead of waiting until the horse is fit and ready to race.

Once the trusted topic of intent to win is violated because incentives to just enter are so lucrative that horses with no chance to win are racing.....racing now enters the same category as professional wrestling.
i never liked paing down to 5th, now they reward you for finishing last. give me a break, is KULINA that stupid.

people that bet want to bet competive races, it really doesn't matter how good the class of the horse is, the key word i am stressing is competetive. whatever good KULINA thought he was doing with this boutique meet just went down the sewer with this stupid move.

[tzipi]

Players might know when a bad horse is moved up in class and onto turf and say ok that's a workout but 80% of the time players have no idea and bet good money on workout horses. A top form horse is moved up slightly in class and the trainer tells the jock keep the horse wide alll race. They know a top form winning horse is in for a workout dark form race because of a slight price raise? I don' think so. These horses go off at short prices. Horse finishes 4th then drops down a bit for a win. Players have no idea what trainers tell jockeys to do.
That's why players think jockeys are dumb yelling, "you IDIOT. You had the horse wide the whole time. What a moron. He killed the favorite!" No not really. :D That's why the game is so tough. Alot of horses are not running full blast most races.

Plus this is bad for horses. So horses not in top form or maybe sore will have to run for money so the owners can make money. Just bad.

[Deepsix]

I'm no East coaster, and I don't recall ever betting MTH, however I'll wait to see how the fields shape up AND if they pull some quality horses, and the races are full because of the higher purses, then I'd certainly throw a few $$$
at them. Seems that with 3-day racing for big $$$ my worry is not about who finished 7th, 8th, 9th..... If, after a few cards you think something smells then just bet elsewhere. If this is to work for MTH then they'll want to put on their best racing.

[GameTheory]

It could also work out that there will be competition to get into the race, and so the better horses might be able to fill out the field. If a guy is entering a seriously overmatched horse just for the money, it should be pretty obvious, and the odds will show that. Claiming prices will still be in effect, and people already enter allowance races for the purpose of losing and picking up small checks. The horse will still have to fit the conditions, after all.

I don't think it is going to make a big difference from a betting stand-point, and could actually be a positive. Trying to attract horses to enter races is a good thing. They still get paid more for placing better, so it isn't like they've lost incentive to place the best they can. Horses can race only so often -- trainers aren't going to skip over spots they can win in order to enter some other race to come in last. (At least trainers that don't already do this sort of thing because they never want to lose stock to claim slips, and those trainers have few horses and win 3% of the time so what's the difference?)

[Dave Schwartz]

I think a large scale trend change such as this would have consequences of some kind - even if no more than impacting the analysis of older data.

[PhantomOnTour]

Players might know when a bad horse is moved up in class and onto turf and say ok that's a workout but 80% of the time players have no idea and bet good money on workout horses. A top form horse is moved up slightly in class and the trainer tells the jock keep the horse wide alll race. They know a top form winning horse is in for a workout dark form race because of a slight price raise? I don' think so. These horses go off at short prices. Horse finishes 4th then drops down a bit for a win. Players have no idea what trainers tell jockeys to do.
That's why players think jockeys are dumb yelling, "you IDIOT. You had the horse wide the whole time. What a moron. He killed the favorite!" No not really. :D That's why the game is so tough. Alot of horses are not running full blast most races.

Plus this is bad for horses. So horses not in top form or maybe sore will have to run for money so the owners can make money. Just bad.
Exactly...the most important piece of pre-race info you can get is to be privy to the trainer-jock conversation in the paddock. You will know if your horse is well meant or not. Too bad we cant hear those conversations huh?

[chickenhead]

Exactly...the most important piece of pre-race info you can get is to be privy to the trainer-jock conversation in the paddock. You will know if your horse is well meant or not. Too bad we cant hear those conversations huh?

thats why I pack one of these

http://effectivegadgets.com/sound-amplifier-with-monoscope-p-72.html

[PhantomOnTour]

thats why I pack one of these

http://effectivegadgets.com/sound-amplifier-with-monoscope-p-72.html
I believe you chickenhead...you are holding it in your avatar. :D

[twindouble]

I'm not apposed to what Monmouth is doing to survive but a million a day in purses could be spread around in a fair way. The condition book will spell out "who" they intend to cater to and I think there's a good possibility that many small horsemen will be left out in the cold. I also don't agree with two grand for running last. The most obscene thing I ever saw was the purse structure of the Blossom, a hundred grand for last place. Unheard of! I don't like the idea of these huge purses going to the top all the time. To dam greedy in my opinion. We all like large fields and that's a good thing and I'm not opposed to up grading the quality of horses runing at any track, just be fair to all. That seems to be out of the norm today. The only agenda I have is "fairness".

[Stillriledup]

The theory should be that if a horse is 50-1 or higher, he doesn't qualify for the 2k. The public is a great judge (oddswise) of contenders and pretenders, let the odds determine if you are worthy of the last place money. This is also great because if a trainer or owner sees that they are 55-1 with one minute to post, they might stick 1k on their runner just to get him under the 50-1 cap. This way, the bettors will get some of that money (possibly) when a grand goes on a horse with no chance and that money will get divvied up by the bettors.

I don't really like this theory, paying off to last. I don't like it because bettors have to run 1-2-3 in order to get paid (or, 4th and 5th in supers and pentas).Bettors HAVE to win in order to get paid. Owners shouldn't really get paid for board spots where their horse is not finishing in a position where bettors can benefit. Most races are not Penta races, so paying down to 4th is probably the best thing for everyone.

[GameTheory]

I think a large scale trend change such as this would have consequences of some kind - even if no more than impacting the analysis of older data.Other places have paid out to 10th place and beyond forever, but only a paltry amount, and the examples I can think of are smaller tracks where the winners share is only a few grand. It is just a question of the amount and whether that changes behavior in "artificial" ways. I assume that if the last place horse gets $2K, we're talking about races with very substantial purses, right? (100K or more I'd think.) These aren't going to be bottom-level claimers here, so the 2K won't be that big a deal that people are going to risk the health of their high-class animals.

[cj]

If they are going to pay $2000 for running last, doesn't that mean they don't need as much takeout?

[Deepsix]

? I suppose it depends on the intent. Its my guess that the concept is to pull in full fields (using increased monies/payouts for all entrants), and IF the concept proves itself then more bettor interest, increased handle, larger fields will result. IF the fields prove to be 'less than desired" (not sufficiently high class horses/nor full fields), the handle suffers, and quality fields fail to develop then they will be required to change the formula.

Is there a case to be made that by doing all the above EXCEPT employing reduced takeout across the board in exchange for hopes of higher churn/purses------ I don't think you'll get the horses. This is an effort to attract the horses and see if bettors will follow.

Film at Eleven.

[Stillriledup]

The biggest problem with this stance from Monmouth is that this idea, while it might seem good in theory, its not something that will increase betting handle. This helps the horsemen who don't have a supertrainer training their stock, but how does this help increase betting handle?

[cj]

The biggest problem with this stance from Monmouth is that this idea, while it might seem good in theory, its not something that will increase betting handle. This helps the horsemen who don't have a supertrainer training their stock, but how does this help increase betting handle?

Field size is a huge factor when it comes to handle.

[Charlie D]

Field size is a huge factor when it comes to handle.


Really CJ?? (and thats a genuine query ) can't say i've noticed Sunland pools bursting at seams and they seem to have good fields in most races.

[Charlie D]

I've just had a look at HANA track ratings and Sunland is 45th on MUT Pool per race with a 9.3 average

Highest two with a 9.0 or above are GP (9th) and OP (12th)

[Charlie D]

Looking Top Ten tracks on HANA, it looks like quality of races may be the main factor in attracting the US betting dollar.


Maybe, just maybe Monmouth is done for with it's cheap Claimers running for big pots

[Stillriledup]

Looking Top Ten tracks on HANA, it looks like quality of races may be the main factor in attracting the US betting dollar.


Maybe, just maybe Monmouth is done for with it's cheap Claimers running for big pots

Good insight.

People assume big fields are important, but maybe they need to be big fields of good horses. Personally, i like handicapping fields of 8 or 9. Bigger fields just take me too long to handicap, those 14 horse fields would take much longer than a 8 horse field to cap and also those huge fields put my selection in a position to get bad racing luck and lose because of some slowpoke getting in my way. I'd rather lose because the horse i bet on is too slow and not because one of the stragglers in the 14 horse field stopped on the turn and i got caught in behind.

[Charlie D]

I'm now thinking the people who put this reshape together should have consulted HANA track data first.


5 of the Top Ten tracks have B take out Grade

[InsideThePylons-MW]

What about the 20K claimer who is 5/2 that shows a 1st, 2nd and 3rd at the level in his last 3 starts that has been off 45 days (nothing unusual) but was sick for a couple of weeks and is not ready to race but needs a workout or two so the trainer/owner puts him in to race to get the $2000 while getting him fit......also with the added incentive of showing a bad line so he gets to drop him a level or two without the fear of being claimed in a spot where he is now fit and racing against inferior horses which he most likely will crush.

I'm sure many owners/trainers would love to do this if it was an option for them.

[Charlie D]

The horsemen are not going to turn these paid workout opportunities down Inside the Pylons.


I think i'll stay at NYRA :D

[GameTheory]

What about the 20K claimer who is 5/2 that shows a 1st, 2nd and 3rd at the level in his last 3 starts that has been off 45 days (nothing unusual) but was sick for a couple of weeks and is not ready to race but needs a workout or two so the trainer/owner puts him in to race to get the $2000 while getting him fit......also with the added incentive of showing a bad line so he gets to drop him a level or two without the fear of being claimed in a spot where he is now fit and racing against inferior horses which he most likely will crush.

I'm sure many owners/trainers would love to do this if it was an option for them.I don't think you'll be seeing any 20K or lower claiming races paying out $2K for last. The purses would have to be so huge that ALL the horses would be in there for the wrong reasons. But then I guess that would level things somewhat. As long as the last place money isn't totally out of whack with what you get for coming in 1st/2nd/3rd etc (i.e. a lot less) then I don't see it as a big problem. I do understand the "it isn't fair" argument to be paying for coming in last, but I don't see how it is a big problem from a betting standpoint. Getting paid for just "showing up" happens in every other sport -- plenty of people are still happy to bet on those.

[Tom]

I heard $30Kfor nickel claimers.

What a waste money.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Getting paid for just "showing up" happens in every other sport -- plenty of people are still happy to bet on those.

Huh?

Horse Racing = 100% dependent upon betting

Any other sport where they get paid for just "showing up" = 0% revenue derived from betting

[cj]

Really CJ?? (and thats a genuine query ) can't say i've noticed Sunland pools bursting at seams and they seem to have good fields in most races.

Look at any individual track and see when people bet more.

[DeanT]

Each additional horse adds just short of 5% to handle. I assume there is a diminishing return point, but not sure where it is.

[Charlie D]

Look at any individual track and see when people bet more.



Yep, you could be right there CJ

[DSB]

This thread is pure nonsense.

First of all, how horsemen are compensated for putting on the show is between the racetrack and the horsemen.

I'm sorry, but bettors should concern themselves with things that are between themselves and racetracks. I never recall a horseman saying "man, they are only charging 21% for a superfecta? They should be charging 25%!"

The theory that trainers will constantly be putting horses into spots they don't belong doesn't make sense. I, and just about every guy who has a $5k or $7.5 claimer could put their horse in a $50,000 allowance race if they want to and collect $500 for finishing out of the money. How many times have I done it? Zero. And I'd say that's true of the vast, vast majority of trainers. I'd rather run my horse where he belongs and have a chance of winning a few thousand than to waste a race to pick up $500. '

Now as far as it affecting handicapping..... how so? A horse either belongs in a spot or he doesn't. Any worthwhile handicapper can seperate the two. And guys tuning a horse up after a layup has been going on since the beginning of time. Is a $2,000 payoff really going to change that? I doubt it. Again, it comes down to handicapping to determine whether that horse is ready or not.

And before anybody chimes in and says "Well, its our money. Monmouth wouldn't be able to pay to last if it wasn't for betting." Ummmm you're wrong. The majority of this year's purses comes from a casino subsidy as well as savings from less racing days and cutting out the Meadowlands meet. So unless you bet a lot of money at the Atlantic City casinos, you didn't contribute as much as you'd like to believe.

In order to give bettors the biggest and best, NJ had to cut the legs out from under the small horsemen who kept racing alive in the state for the past couple of decades.

What nobody here can tell me - because it isn't known yet - is just how many races are they going to have for $5k claimers. Yes, there will be big purses, but most lower class horses will most likely be lucky to race once a month.

How would you like it if you could only get in one race a month and your horse stumbles coming out of the gate and finishes up the track, then the next month it comes up sloppy but you run anyway because if you scratch it will be another month before you can get in? Before you know it, you're out several thousand dollars.

I think Mth. paying $2,000 is for two basic reasons.

1. They know they have crippled the small horseman in the state with this plan.

2. They know there will be very few opportunities for small horsemen to race.

They are just trying to compensate the small guys so they don't go totally broke this summer.

It's between the track and the horsemen.

[Charlie D]

They are just trying to compensate the small guys so they don't go totally broke this summer.





Hold on here, why shouldn't horsemen go broke or out of business like other business do that cannot compete???

[cj]

This thread is pure nonsense.

I'm sorry, but bettors should concern themselves with things that are between themselves and racetracks. I never recall a horseman saying "man, they are only charging 21% for a superfecta? They should be charging 25%!"


I thought you were being serious until I stumbled upon this paragraph. Of course they don't ask for specifics increases, but they certainly have been proponents of increases in the past.

They also get involved in issues that should be between tracks and bettors. Oh, and for the record, the tracks put on the show, not the horsemen.

[DSB]

Hold on here, why shouldn't horsemen go broke or out of business like other business do that cannot compete???

Have you ever had your phone ring at 3:00 to fill a $5k claimer so the office can close the box for day? I have - on several occasions.

I don't recall many local horsemen saying that Monmouth should go out of business if they couldn't compete. Shouldn't it be the same the other way around?

Loyalty should be a two way street.

[Charlie D]

Have you ever had your phone ring at 3:00 to fill a $5k claimer so the office can close the box for day? I have - on several occasions.

I don't recall many local horsemen saying that Monmouth should go out of business if they couldn't compete. Shouldn't it be the same the other way around?

Loyalty should be a two way street.

Utter rubbish


The horsemen are running a business, like i ran a business and i can tell you no one gave me a penny for turning up.

[DSB]

I thought you were being serious until I stumbled upon this paragraph. Of course they don't ask for specifics increases, but they certainly have been proponents of increases in the past.

They also get involved in issues that should be between tracks and bettors. Oh, and for the record, the tracks put on the show, not the horsemen.

There are also a good number of horsemen - myself included - who believe the way to prosperity would be to drop takeout rates. Any horseman's group that advocated increases may have acted against the wishes of their constituents. It's done all the time.

If horsemen don't put on the show, then they (and their horses, of course) are the show.

Whichever semantics suits you is fine with me.

[DSB]

Utter rubbish

The horsemen are running a business, like i ran a business and i can tell you no one gave me a penny for turning up.


Apparently nobody needed you to make a profit. Racetracks need horses - even those who run up the track - to run their business.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

However, your plight has garnered my deepest sympathies...

[classhandicapper]

Unlike many other handicappers, I often struggle with full competitive fields because I often have just as difficult a time separating some of the contenders and assigning the fair odds as the public. What I like is large fields with a lot of dead horses. I can throw horses like that out with confidence. Dead horses tend to get overbet fairly significantly by the public. That often allows me to get an extra tick or two on the board on a horse I really love.

[Charlie D]

Apparently nobody needed you to make a profit. Racetracks need horses - even those who run up the track - to run their business.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

However, your plight has garnered my deepest sympathies...

They need you about as much as we need you, turn tracks that can't compete into Casino's as people seem to prefer putting money in those instead of betting on horses.


No plight here btw as i competed and didn't go broke.

[Rutgers]

First of all, how horsemen are compensated for putting on the show is between the racetrack and the horsemen. .


I am a New Jersey tax payer, so in a way I am part owner of the racetrack.


I'm sorry, but bettors should concern themselves with things that are between themselves and racetracks. I never recall a horseman saying "man, they are only charging 21% for a superfecta? They should be charging 25%!".

But horseman have and do block simulcast signals for percentage points of the takeout amount.



And before anybody chimes in and says "Well, its our money. Monmouth wouldn't be able to pay to last if it wasn't for betting." Ummmm you're wrong. The majority of this year's purses comes from a casino subsidy as well as savings from less racing days and cutting out the Meadowlands meet. So unless you bet a lot of money at the Atlantic City casinos, you didn't contribute as much as you'd like to believe.

If I (and my fellow horseplayers) were not going to the track but to AC instead they would not be giving you the subsidies. They are giving you the subsidies because they want our business, not because they want to support you. To be honest, they really don’t like horsemen.

Please have the legislature lower the takeout the horsemen’s share for this year. I know it’s not much, but it means a lot to the horseplayers.

If you want our money in the fall and next year, you will need to put up with us in the spring and summer.


I think Mth. paying $2,000 is for two basic reasons.

1. They know they have crippled the small horseman in the state with this plan.

2. They know there will be very few opportunities for small horsemen to race.

They are just trying to compensate the small guys so they don't go totally broke this summer.


On the positive side, I agree with you here.

[DSB]

They need you about as much as we need you, turn tracks that can't compete into Casino's as people seem to prefer putting money in those instead of betting on horses.

Well now that I know you're anti-racing, I feel a lot better.

I thought you were just anti-small horseman.

[Charlie D]

Well now that I know you're anti-racing, I feel a lot better.

I thought you were just anti-small horseman.

I love racing actually as it's the Greatest Game in World, but i don't need the leeches as there are these guys about who have more money than sense and they love spending millions on this horse and that horse and then race them against others who have more money than sense.

And while there are these kind of people about there will be trainers and jockeys and racetracks with racing for me and others to bet on.

[Robert Goren]

I don't if it is true everywhere, but here in Nebraska the purse money comes a specific % of the handle. It set at one rate for live racing and another rate for simulcasting. It set by law. There is no negatiation between the track and the NHBA. Over the years the track's % has gone down and purse % has gone up. At one time the state got a % but that now goes to purses.

[DSB]

Rutgers:

I am a New Jersey tax payer, so in a way I am part owner of the racetrack.

So are most of the small horsemen I refer to.

But horseman have and do block simulcast signals for percentage points of the takeout amount.

If horsemen didn't protect their portion of takeout, they wouldn't get it. It's that simple.


If I (and my fellow horseplayers) were not going to the track but to AC instead they would not be giving you the subsidies. They are giving you the subsidies because they want our business, not because they want to support you. To be honest, they really don’t like horsemen.

Now, you should know better. Racetracks get a casino subsidy in return for NOT lobbying for slots. That's the sole reason.

Please have the legislature lower the takeout the horsemen’s share for this year. I know it’s not much, but it means a lot to the horseplayers.

Pick your poison. If you want this year's experiment to be sustainable, the purses will have to be high. If you don't, then lobby for a reduction. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you want our money in the fall and next year, you will need to put up with us in the spring and summer.

I'm not sure what this means.

[/QUOTE]

[Valuist]

Getting paid $2000 to run dead last is just another example of socialism creeping into racing. Kind of like kids soccer games now: don't keep score and give everyone a trophy. What bull$hit. Everyone isn't meant to win, and if an owner is losing money, they ought to look at how they run their operation.

[DeanT]

Many good points on the small horsepeople getting killed today. Racetracks (esp those with slots, or those who curtail dates for larger purses) invite the commodity horse factories in, which have taken over the game.

[Stillriledup]

The problem is that horsemen and bettors are fighting for the same piece of pie. The game could actually, theoretically survive without horsemen but not without bettors. The horse races could be changed to ant races at a 5% across the board takeout. Bettors could have 10 ant fields and wouldnt have to support trainers, owners and jockey's 'ways to make a living. Ant trainers wouldn't be charging 70 bucks a day, the food for ants would come from the crumbs of a doughnut and there would be no extra percentage for jockeys, so there's just more money saving right there.

Bettors can wager on an NFL game in Vegas without part of their 'takeout' going to support the NFL players, owners and employees. Bettors can't wager on a horse race in Vegas without some of their bet going to support the people putting on the show.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The problem is that horsemen and bettors are fighting for the same piece of pie. The game could actually, theoretically survive without horsemen but not without bettors. The horse races could be changed to ant races at a 5% across the board takeout. Bettors could have 10 ant fields and wouldnt have to support trainers, owners and jockey's 'ways to make a living. Ant trainers wouldn't be charging 70 bucks a day, the food for ants would come from the crumbs of a doughnut and there would be no extra percentage for jockeys, so there's just more money saving right there.

Bettors can wager on an NFL game in Vegas without part of their 'takeout' going to support the NFL players, owners and employees. Bettors can't wager on a horse race in Vegas without some of their bet going to support the people putting on the show.

People love to say this and use the ant analogy to support the cause of the bettor, but when I read it, I hear someone essentially stating that horse bettors are nothing more than compulsive gamblers that will bet on anything regardless of its sophistication.

I've bet on horses my entire adult life and I promise you, as someone that has never so much as played a casino game once nor bet on sports, ant betting would not appeal to me with a takeout as low as .0000000000000000000000000001%

[Stillriledup]

People love to say this and use the ant analogy to support the cause of the bettor, but when I read it, I hear someone essentially stating that horse bettors are nothing more than compulsive gamblers that will bet on anything regardless of its sophistication.

I've bet on horses my entire adult life and I promise you, as someone that has never so much as played a casino game once nor bet on sports, ant betting would not appeal to me with a takeout as low as .0000000000000000000000000001%

Ant betting would appeal to me if there was a way to make good money betting at a very low takeout. When i bet, i'm betting on the BET, not the horse....or, the ant in this case.

[DeanT]

I'd bet ants if they held their form and had some decent running lines. I wonder how they'd test them. It would be hard to draw blood one would think. They could be juiced with sugar or something and we would not know it.

Seriously, a few places have done some software work to bet computer generated racing, with real PP's, njockey mistakes, trainer changes, et al; like is shown on ESPN sometimes. And they actually get some handle. I dont think it is as far-fetched as it might seem.

[Stillriledup]

I'd bet ants if they held their form and had some decent running lines. I wonder how they'd test them. It would be hard to draw blood one would think. They could be juiced with sugar or something and we would not know it.

Seriously, a few places have done some software work to bet computer generated racing, with real PP's, njockey mistakes, trainer changes, et al; like is shown on ESPN sometimes. And they actually get some handle. I dont think it is as far-fetched as it might seem.


First time sugar! :lol:

[Rutgers]

Rutgers:

I am a New Jersey tax payer, so in a way I am part owner of the racetrack.

So are most of the small horsemen I refer to.




My point wasn't that the horsemen aren't taxpayers. My point was in response to your comment that the matter is between the horseman and the track, I was merely pointing at that some people on this board have an interest in the financial success/failure of the track because it is owned by a state agency



But horseman have and do block simulcast signals for percentage points of the takeout amount.

If horsemen didn't protect their portion of takeout, they wouldn't get it. It's that simple.



My comment was in response to saying horsemen do not get between the track and horseplayer regarding takeout. I was merely pointing out that in matters between the horseman and the tracks, horsemen (and the track) do drag in the horseplayer.



If I (and my fellow horseplayers) were not going to the track but to AC instead they would not be giving you the subsidies. They are giving you the subsidies because they want our business, not because they want to support you. To be honest, they really don’t like horsemen.

Now, you should know better. Racetracks get a casino subsidy in return for NOT lobbying for slots. That's the sole reason.




You are correct. I apologize for not making my point very clear. You are not getting the subsidy because AC wants to support horse racing. You are getting it for not lobbying for slots. That is because AC does not want people going to MP and other tracks to play the slots, they want us to go down to AC to play slots. I grouped horseplayers and slot player in a group.



Please have the legislature lower the takeout the horsemen’s share for this year. I know it’s not much, but it means a lot to the horseplayers.

Pick your poison. If you want this year's experiment to be sustainable, the purses will have to be high. If you don't, then lobby for a reduction. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



My comment was in response to you commenting that most of the money for the purses will not come from handle.You sounded as if the horsemen really do not need the money that the handle provides. BTW, the 2010 AC purse subsidy is $20 million, the purse structure is $50 million, so it looks like most of the purse money will need to come from the handle.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Seriously, a few places have done some software work to bet computer generated racing, with real PP's, njockey mistakes, trainer changes, et al; like is shown on ESPN sometimes. And they actually get some handle. I dont think it is as far-fetched as it might seem.

This is a level of sophistication that a horseplayer can go for... a little different than the tried and true ant racing tale...

In fact, about six years ago, I had a serious notion to push this concept on the lottery division as a web-based, interactive idea that merged betting with the same human elements that exist in "real" racing as an alternate racing subsidy. Of course, I bought into the idea enough that in time, I realized it may implemented so well that "real" racing would be obliterated, not promoted and supported. (I still like real racing) :)

[GameTheory]

Huh?

Horse Racing = 100% dependent upon betting

Any other sport where they get paid for just "showing up" = 0% revenue derived from bettingI know that. But why is that an important distinction (for the question under discussion)? My point was sports bettors are still able to gauge the odds, pick their spots, and find bets they like. The possibility that one of the competitors may just be there to pick up a check when they know they are seriously overmatched doesn't stop the bettor from betting. (Especially in sports like tennis where they aren't playing a set schedule and one guy might get paid to take a beating from Roger Federer in the first round of a tournament.) So you get paid a certain minimum just for qualifying. So what?

I just don't see how this is going to screw up my handicapping when we already have to take into account that certain horses may not be trying too hard to win. Like someone said above, who is going to enter a race to come in last when they can enter some other race where they actually have a chance? Horses can't race every day -- you'd be throwing away money to do this sort of thing. The guy from the track DID say he was aware of the possibility of abuse and that they wouldn't let that happen so I don't think you'll see a 5k claimer in a 62.5k race just to come in last.

All of these arguments about the business part of it, tracks and owners, etc etc make some sense, but you started the thread saying horseplayers are getting screwed here somehow and I just don't see it. Won't affect me much, and if it does it will be in good way by filling up the fields and raising the odds on the horses that do have a chance to win. And if it manages to raise handle by doing so, maybe it actually makes sense financially for the track. If so, good for them. (After all, I doubt their intention here is to just throw away money, although it is a possibility that they would be willing to throw away some this year to establish themselves as an alternative to Saratoga.)

Anyway, this seems like a big non-issue from a betting perspective...

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Anyway, this seems like a big non-issue from a betting perspective...

$2000 is enough money to make people enter horses that seem to be competitive but aren't competitive in their present condition.

There is no way for the bettor to figure out many of them.

I know many owners/trainers that would race thier horse for $2000 even though they knew it had no possible chance.....and some of them would be favorites.....not just the non-competitive types that you talk about.

Horsemen will start buying bumper stickers that say "Honk if you just got $2K for a workout"

[Sekrah]

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/103/popeye1.png

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/881/popeye2.png

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3149/popeye3.png




Sucking Lemons for the win!!!

[hansend]

Seriously, a few places have done some software work to bet computer generated racing, with real PP's, njockey mistakes, trainer changes, et al; like is shown on ESPN sometimes. And they actually get some handle. I dont think it is as far-fetched as it might seem.

State of Nebraska is doing exactly that. Trying to get a bill through for those machines which let you bet on past races. You get the PP of the horses with no horse name, jockey name, trainer etc..

http://www.theindependent.com/articles/2010/03/18/sports/fonner/doc4b9f130828fbd677504493.txt

[Tom]

If horsemen don't put on the show, then they (and their horses, of course) are the show.

Whichever semantics suits you is fine with me.

Here's the deal - you might put on a sow, but is sure as hell ain't the oly show in town. And no one has to watch yours.

Try putting your sow on without our betting dollars.
WE fund your show, baby. And YOU guys have screwed us long enough.
If you ar looking for sympathy, wrong address - the new deal, thank to you guys, is who cares about the horsemen? Not me., Not on iota. The less of you there is the better the game gets. I route tracks closing and trainers getting shut out of it. Cream rises, baby, and there is always on line poker.

[toussaud]

I think the point about the 2000 last place thing that is lost on everyone is that it's another "competitive advantage" that other tracks...i.e Del Mar/Saratoga AREN'T doing.

Say you have a tried and true 15k claimer in your barn and he came in 2nd last out, you'd like to run him at 25k, and monmouth is going to give you 2k for just running and saratoga is just going to give you the opportunity to run, if you earn a check you earn a check if you don't you don't, that's not a very hard decision to make.

I really do not see the big deal here. If you can't spot a horse that is hopless and is not in it to win it but to collect a 2k check (very overexaggerted anyway, you will not get very far as an owner collecting 2k last place checks lol) than you are not a very good handicapper and that's all there is to it.

[cj]

Seriously, a few places have done some software work to bet computer generated racing, with real PP's, njockey mistakes, trainer changes, et al; like is shown on ESPN sometimes. And they actually get some handle. I dont think it is as far-fetched as it might seem.

They actually show these and have betting during live race cards at The Curragh! They have dogs, jumpers and flats. I had to look very hard to realize it wasn't real racing.

[DSB]

Here's the deal - you might put on a sow, but is sure as hell ain't the oly show in town. And no one has to watch yours.

Try putting your sow on without our betting dollars.
WE fund your show, baby. And YOU guys have screwed us long enough.
If you ar looking for sympathy, wrong address - the new deal, thank to you guys, is who cares about the horsemen? Not me., Not on iota. The less of you there is the better the game gets. I route tracks closing and trainers getting shut out of it. Cream rises, baby, and there is always on line poker.

Wow, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were a frustrated gambler based on these comments.

I think I can decipher - spelling notwithstanding - what you're trying to get at. I'll give it my best shot anyway.....

No, we are not the only game in town. I never said we were, so any thought that I did came from your imagination, not my comments.....

Also, I never said that parimutuel take doesn't provide purse money. (why are you attributing things to me that I never said?)

As far as YOU funding our show, baby, don't go patting yourself on the back just yet.... if you choose Monmouth Park to make this point, you picked the wrong place. At best, the horsemen's cut from parimutuel handle funds somewhat less than half of the amount Monmouth offers for purses. The rest comes from the casino subsidy and even, at times, subsidies from the state of NJ. If Monmouth had to conduct racing solely using the horsemen's cut from parimutuel take, they would be offering less than $150k a day.

Sympathy? Don't make me laugh. If you had read the first couple of paragraphs from my very first post, you'd know that I weighed in to tell people like you to butt out. Save your sympathy for yourself. I'm sure you need it more than I do.

So, you have a hatred for horsemen in general, huh? You think that the less of us there are, the better off YOU are? Interesting. Do you think that maybe this hatred skews your views on everything that's been discussed in this thread?

Btw, the truth is, the more of us there are, the better it is for racing. Years ago, a trainer had one main string which he traveled with. In recent years you have people "training" 250 horses or more spread out over 5 tracks. The less trainers there are in the game, the more control the remaining few have. Tell me how that is good for the sport.

Oh, and I never screwed you - or any other bettors - out of anything, so shove your accusations... well... you get the idea....

[cj]

One thing people are forgetting, and it is also true at Monmouth, is that racing is not 100% funded by betting any longer. It is making it harder for the bettors to have any say at all. The horsemen are basically getting welfare from slots.

If the racing product can't generate enough betting to support the purse structure needed for horsemen to make a living, the racing product should just go away. Slots money and casino subsidies are only slowing the bleeding. It will eventually go away. The problem is when it does, most of the bettors will already be gone...and they aren't coming back.

[DSB]

One thing people are forgetting, and it is also true at Monmouth, is that racing is not 100% funded by betting any longer. It is making it harder for the bettors to have any say at all. The horsemen are basically getting welfare from slots.

If the racing product can't generate enough betting to support the purse structure needed for horsemen to make a living, the racing product should just go away. Slots money and casino subsidies are only slowing the bleeding. It will eventually go away. The problem is when it does, most of the bettors will already be gone...and they aren't coming back.

CJ,

I see you are from Oklahoma. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Remington have slots, which subsidize purses?

Are you advocating they give them up and close if they can't make it solely on parimutuel handle?

[cj]

CJ,

I see you are from Oklahoma. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Remington have slots, which subsidize purses?

Are you advocating they give them up and close if they can't make it solely on parimutuel handle?

Yes, I am. I already think we have way too many tracks. I also don't want my tax dollars paying to run a sport that can't sustain itself. Here in Oklahoma, there are tons of casinos. If Remington closes, people will still find a way to slot machines.

By the way, Blue Ribbon Downs, with slots, closed last year.

[DSB]

Yes, I am. I already think we have way too many tracks. I also don't want my tax dollars paying to run a sport that can't sustain itself. Here in Oklahoma, there are tons of casinos. If Remington closes, people will still find a way to slot machines.

By the way, Blue Ribbon Downs, with slots, closed last year.

Oh, now I understand.

You don't have anything against casinos, as long as the racetracks don't have them....

As a guy who is co-breeder of an Oklahoma bred filly that was foaled a couple of weeks ago, I can only hope you don't get your wish....

[Tom]

I posted this 10 years ago - eventually, the slots people will realize that the horse side of the business is an anchor and convince everyone they do not need them. No huge land parcels, no big buildings, no drains on their revenues.

What I am saying is you guys better get your heads out of your asses and realize that your business depends on two things: the bettors and the fact that the casinos need you as a host. The latter is a forgone conclusion that it will go away - you are a leech to slots. You bring nothing to the table but an artificial regulation. Two reason for your existing, and you are making a game of pissing off one of them while trying to hide your heads in the sand on the other.

Maybe if the general consensus was that this game was honest and YOU horsemen could be trusted, the specter of fixing with the new purse structures would be the first thing we thought of. But the honesty of horse racing is in a match race with Vince McMahon and the WWE.

And no, not a frustrated gambler, a frustrated CUSTOMER.

(btw, it's not my spelling you need to worry about, it's the hand writing on the wall) ;)

[cj]

Oh, now I understand.

You don't have anything against casinos, as long as the racetracks don't have them....

As a guy who is co-breeder of an Oklahoma bred filly that was foaled a couple of weeks ago, I can only hope you don't get your wish....

Surely you can understand that as a bettor, I can see having slots at racetracks does nothing for me. It makes me, the customer, unnecessary. Why would I like that?

[DSB]

I posted this 10 years ago - eventually, the slots people will realize that the horse side of the business is an anchor and convince everyone they do not need them. No huge land parcels, no big buildings, no drains on their revenues.

What I am saying is you guys better get your heads out of your asses and realize that your business depends on two things: the bettors and the fact that the casinos need you as a host. The latter is a forgone conclusion that it will go away - you are a leech to slots. You bring nothing to the table but an artificial regulation. Two reason for your existing, and you are making a game of pissing off one of them while trying to hide your heads in the sand on the other.

Maybe if the general consensus was that this game was honest and YOU horsemen could be trusted, the specter of fixing with the new purse structures would be the first thing we thought of. But the honesty of horse racing is in a match race with Vince McMahon and the WWE.

And no, not a frustrated gambler, a frustrated CUSTOMER.

(btw, it's not my spelling you need to worry about, it's the hand writing on the wall) ;)

The first two paragraphs of your diatribe should be directed to track management. They have much more ability to affect these concerns than a guy with a few horses.

The remainder of your tirade just demonstrates - once again - your hatred and contempt for horsemen. If you really think that Monmouth is just going to be a huge fix-fest for high purses, I don't know what to tell you. I don't think this is the "general consensus", and certainly not the belief of the average person who posts on this site.

As far as you being a "frustrated gambler", I stick by that observation. It was you who suggested you'd just as soon bet on online poker as horse racing. That's the mark of a gambler - not a horse racing fan.

[Charlie D]

Reading your posts DSB, i am thinking. If the majority of horsemen are like DSB, the current broken model will not be changed and horse racing will continue on it's downward spiral.

[Tom]

As far as you being a "frustrated gambler", I stick by that observation. It was you who suggested you'd just as soon bet on online poker as horse racing. That's the mark of a gambler - not a horse racing fan.

Wrong. I don't play poker on line. I pointed out that there are other options.
I don't hate horsemen, but l have no respect for you and no sympathy for you. You groups greed has been going on for decades, and now that we really only need about 50% of less of you, I see noneed to consider horsemen at all. WE could get by better with about 10 tracks total. With simulcasting, there is no need for most of the tracks running now. 5 and 6 horse fields are welfare.

[Charlie D]

In a few years time they may be changing word in headline from dog to Horse

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100318/NEWS09/3180347/1001/


and it will all be because the racing industry has pissed off a large percentage of it's customers.

[Relwob Owner]

Wow, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were a frustrated gambler based on these comments.

I think I can decipher - spelling notwithstanding - what you're trying to get at. I'll give it my best shot anyway.....

No, we are not the only game in town. I never said we were, so any thought that I did came from your imagination, not my comments.....

Also, I never said that parimutuel take doesn't provide purse money. (why are you attributing things to me that I never said?)

As far as YOU funding our show, baby, don't go patting yourself on the back just yet.... if you choose Monmouth Park to make this point, you picked the wrong place. At best, the horsemen's cut from parimutuel handle funds somewhat less than half of the amount Monmouth offers for purses. The rest comes from the casino subsidy and even, at times, subsidies from the state of NJ. If Monmouth had to conduct racing solely using the horsemen's cut from parimutuel take, they would be offering less than $150k a day.

Sympathy? Don't make me laugh. If you had read the first couple of paragraphs from my very first post, you'd know that I weighed in to tell people like you to butt out. Save your sympathy for yourself. I'm sure you need it more than I do.

So, you have a hatred for horsemen in general, huh? You think that the less of us there are, the better off YOU are? Interesting. Do you think that maybe this hatred skews your views on everything that's been discussed in this thread?

Btw, the truth is, the more of us there are, the better it is for racing. Years ago, a trainer had one main string which he traveled with. In recent years you have people "training" 250 horses or more spread out over 5 tracks. The less trainers there are in the game, the more control the remaining few have. Tell me how that is good for the sport.

Oh, and I never screwed you - or any other bettors - out of anything, so shove your accusations... well... you get the idea....



I agree with many of your sentiments.....I can comment on the ownership side of things(I am a bettor as well) and I dont think many people realize just how hard it is to own horses and how many horse owners make money(it isnt many at all)......you pretty much have to go into it knowing you will lose money and consider it a bonus to break even or make anything,,,I wont go into some of the other headaches but there are a ton and you do have to own a horse to go through it and understand that just like you have to bet on horses to understand bettor's issues.....

[PhantomOnTour]

It is obvious that horsemen and horseplayers see things from different points of view.
Players are generally concerned with competitive races, full fields, and low takeout.
Horsemen are concerned with purse structure.
We both want safe surfaces.
My other concern (as a player) is what Tom and many others are worried about: horses need slots-slots dont need horses. What happens when the slot owners come to this realization???
Yes, the purses are great with slot subsidies, but the owners certainly cant expect that one way relationship (like the U.S. and Israel!!) to continue.
Then whatchagonnado?

[Relwob Owner]

It is obvious that horsemen and horseplayers see things from different points of view.
Players are generally concerned with competitive races, full fields, and low takeout.
Horsemen are concerned with purse structure.
We both want safe surfaces.
My other concern (as a player) is what Tom and many others are worried about: horses need slots-slots dont need horses. What happens when the slot owners come to this realization???
Yes, the purses are great with slot subsidies, but the owners certainly cant expect that one way relationship (like the U.S. and Israel!!) to continue.
Then whatchagonnado?



Fair points and I like to think I see all sides of the issue.....your question about the slot owners not needing the horses is what concerns me the most....I worry that the racing side of things doesnt have a plan for this and eventually, racing will be gone.....I will say that even with the slots, it is still hard to make money running horses in a fair and honest way....

It is funny-when I first came on here, I went back and forth with people(I think CJ in particular) about slots being the only things saving racing....as time goes on, I wonder if there really were the sort of welfare that will lead to the ultimate end long term.....

[johnhannibalsmith]

Any horsemen's group and track that agrees to take the allotted percentages from slot subsidies and pour it straight into purses (horsemen) and non-racing ventures (track) and avoid using most of the money to solve the problems that the core product (horse racing) needs to addressto be self-sustaining deserves their ultimate and inevitable eradication.

[Relwob Owner]

Any horsemen's group and track that agrees to take the allotted percentages from slot subsidies and pour it straight into purses (horsemen) and non-racing ventures (track) and avoid using most of the money to solve the problems that the core product (horse racing) needs to addressto be self-sustaining deserves their ultimate and inevitable eradication.


Question(and I am being sincere here)---how would use the money to address these needs(in bold) and what specific needs do you think need to be addressed?

Also, when you put "track" in parentheses(sp?), what did you mean specifically?

[Robert Goren]

They could start by lower the takeout and by hiring tellers who have an IQ above 85(not necessarily in that order).

[johnhannibalsmith]

Question(and I am being sincere here)---how would use the money to address these needs(in bold) and what specific needs do you think need to be addressed?

Also, when you put "track" in parentheses(sp?), what did you mean specifically?

Bah... I posted a gazillion word essay on this and when I tried to search for it, I believe it is stuck in the Mike Gill thread and I wasn't about to wade through that mess, so...

1) Takeout studies/reductions: I'm pretty well sold on the notion that there is a better rate than the standard blends used currently, rates that will increase handle significantly if you can give players a reason to bet on the product. I'm sure that there are those players that would gravitate towards playing a track with a 12-15% across the board take just for that reason alone and in doing so, boost handle, but to maximize the potential of the lowered rake, it makes sense to do the most that you can do to provide those that would unwittingly reap the benefits incentives to play the track, takeout nothwithstanding.

Obviously, there are a few obstacles to meaningful takeout reductions. The import/export issues are a problem, but one that I believe can be overcome if you can overcome the primary problem: immediate revenue shortfall to the State. You can speculate convincingly that takeout reductions will boost handle long-term till you are blue in the face, but the reality is that it is pure speculation (particularly without any meaningful scientific studies) and there isn't a state that is going to rubber-stamp reductions that will lead to revenue shortfalls immediately for the optimistic belief that long-term overall gains will be yielded. Redirecting slot subsidies to bridge these shortfalls quiets those sincere and justified concerns.

2) Testing/Integrity: Our sport suffers badly from an image problem that compromises its ability to compete for the gambling dollar effectively. Many people would rather play a "losing proposition" type game that they believe to be well-regulated and fair than play a game that they can beat, but don't consider to be well-regulated and fair.

The reality is that there is only so much that can be done. But, that should be the minimum expectation. You can't catch the guy using something that cannot be detected by traditional testing, but in many jurisdictions, that is not the standard being applied. For heaven's sake, Pennsylvania recently had two of its graded stakes stripped of their graded status because the failed to implement tc02 (milkshake) testing for those two races. The shining example of gaming subsidies couldn't be bothered to do a simple procedure for the minimal select races because they "couldn't afford it". That's ridiculous.

There is much more that our sport can and should do to reassure the wagering public that integrity is in fact a priority. This is certainly something that slot subsidies should fund if the state budget can't handle the task.

3) Promotions/benevolence: Certainly the industry could do more to promote racing. We all seem to be in agreement on this fact. Yet, when tracks become conjoined with gaming facilities, we usually see extensive new promoting. The problem is that a disproportionate amount of it exclusively promotes the gaming and the racing promotion is limited to the title of the racetrack named in the promotions. Surely there can be room for promoting both parts of the equation.

Again back to perception issues - I do believe that if you are going to take money that could be used to fund any number of public benefits, there is something of a need to appear benevolent and responsible. For starters, there needs to be a way to react to inherent opponents of racing by taking care of retired or disabled racehorses better. Funding for retirement homes and things of this nature that demonstrate a conscience in the face of the allure of big money goes a long way to improve perception.

I don't think that it would hurt to keep people off your back by helping out the local community charities where possible either. If you can be portrayed as greedy, in this contemporary world, you will be portrayed that way and gaming subsidized racing runs a greater risk of bearing that perception.

There is much more that I would like to see happen, but I have about ten minutes before I have to shut down and do a little work, so I'm trying to wrap up the basics.

Suffice it to say, I certainly think that the consistent and steady growth is much healthier for racing than is a jarring infusion of purse money. When you triple purses overnight, there is a massive reaction to that burst of new money. Quickly, that money isn't worth as much as it was. The cost of everything tends to go up - the day rate increases heftily, the shoer charges 40% more, the bedding and feed jump in price, the hauler starts charging more, the vet gets a little grabby - it's just natural for everyone involved to want a piece of a sudden influx of money after years of fighting over scraps. Quickly, that money isn't worth quite as much.

Gradual, but worthwhile increases tend to be a much healthier way to fend off that devaluation, particularly as there is a general trend towards gaming revenues peaking early in their inception and then levelling off or declining as saturation takes hold.

Obviously, at some point many of these slot subsidized industries are going to be threatened with the end of gaming revenue. Nevermind the reality that as each new jurisdiction fights for gaming, that new jurisdiction in some small or large way becomes a threat to those that already exist. The perceived eventuality that either the state will seek to recapture those revenue streams for other budget issues or that the gaming operator will try to cut loose of the unprofitable catalyst industry seems a certain reality to me.

Welfare is a dirty word for many, but there are instances where it has given someone a chance to survive, and use the opportunity to stay afloat as a means towards improving from within. Striving for more, working for more, hoping to shed the constraints of reliance and better themselves. Racing has this opportunity with gaming subsidies - a chance to look hard at what it does well and what it does not do well, a chance to listen and react to its customers, a chance to position itself as a tough competitor for the gambling dollar.

To sit back and take those subsidies and roll them over into purses and gaming expansions while ignoring the inherent issues that have made slots a necessity to their survival is exhibiting a willingness to fail if and when those subsidies disappear.

Now I've really left myself with a matter of minutes before I have to leave, so I regret that I've ventured off into this in such a hurried manner that I couldn't be more explanatory, but this is the basic gist of my complete response to your question.

[Relwob Owner]

Bah... I posted a gazillion word essay on this and when I tried to search for it, I believe it is stuck in the Mike Gill thread and I wasn't about to wade through that mess, so...

1) Takeout studies/reductions: I'm pretty well sold on the notion that there is a better rate than the standard blends used currently, rates that will increase handle significantly if you can give players a reason to bet on the product. I'm sure that there are those players that would gravitate towards playing a track with a 12-15% across the board take just for that reason alone and in doing so, boost handle, but to maximize the potential of the lowered rake, it makes sense to do the most that you can do to provide those that would unwittingly reap the benefits incentives to play the track, takeout nothwithstanding.

Obviously, there are a few obstacles to meaningful takeout reductions. The import/export issues are a problem, but one that I believe can be overcome if you can overcome the primary problem: immediate revenue shortfall to the State. You can speculate convincingly that takeout reductions will boost handle long-term till you are blue in the face, but the reality is that it is pure speculation (particularly without any meaningful scientific studies) and there isn't a state that is going to rubber-stamp reductions that will lead to revenue shortfalls immediately for the optimistic belief that long-term overall gains will be yielded. Redirecting slot subsidies to bridge these shortfalls quiets those sincere and justified concerns.

2) Testing/Integrity: Our sport suffers badly from an image problem that compromises its ability to compete for the gambling dollar effectively. Many people would rather play a "losing proposition" type game that they believe to be well-regulated and fair than play a game that they can beat, but don't consider to be well-regulated and fair.

The reality is that there is only so much that can be done. But, that should be the minimum expectation. You can't catch the guy using something that cannot be detected by traditional testing, but in many jurisdictions, that is not the standard being applied. For heaven's sake, Pennsylvania recently had two of its graded stakes stripped of their graded status because the failed to implement tc02 (milkshake) testing for those two races. The shining example of gaming subsidies couldn't be bothered to do a simple procedure for the minimal select races because they "couldn't afford it". That's ridiculous.

There is much more that our sport can and should do to reassure the wagering public that integrity is in fact a priority. This is certainly something that slot subsidies should fund if the state budget can't handle the task.

3) Promotions/benevolence: Certainly the industry could do more to promote racing. We all seem to be in agreement on this fact. Yet, when tracks become conjoined with gaming facilities, we usually see extensive new promoting. The problem is that a disproportionate amount of it exclusively promotes the gaming and the racing promotion is limited to the title of the racetrack named in the promotions. Surely there can be room for promoting both parts of the equation.

Again back to perception issues - I do believe that if you are going to take money that could be used to fund any number of public benefits, there is something of a need to appear benevolent and responsible. For starters, there needs to be a way to react to inherent opponents of racing by taking care of retired or disabled racehorses better. Funding for retirement homes and things of this nature that demonstrate a conscience in the face of the allure of big money goes a long way to improve perception.

I don't think that it would hurt to keep people off your back by helping out the local community charities where possible either. If you can be portrayed as greedy, in this contemporary world, you will be portrayed that way and gaming subsidized racing runs a greater risk of bearing that perception.

There is much more that I would like to see happen, but I have about ten minutes before I have to shut down and do a little work, so I'm trying to wrap up the basics.

Suffice it to say, I certainly think that the consistent and steady growth is much healthier for racing than is a jarring infusion of purse money. When you triple purses overnight, there is a massive reaction to that burst of new money. Quickly, that money isn't worth as much as it was. The cost of everything tends to go up - the day rate increases heftily, the shoer charges 40% more, the bedding and feed jump in price, the hauler starts charging more, the vet gets a little grabby - it's just natural for everyone involved to want a piece of a sudden influx of money after years of fighting over scraps. Quickly, that money isn't worth quite as much.

Gradual, but worthwhile increases tend to be a much healthier way to fend off that devaluation, particularly as there is a general trend towards gaming revenues peaking early in their inception and then levelling off or declining as saturation takes hold.

Obviously, at some point many of these slot subsidized industries are going to be threatened with the end of gaming revenue. Nevermind the reality that as each new jurisdiction fights for gaming, that new jurisdiction in some small or large way becomes a threat to those that already exist. The perceived eventuality that either the state will seek to recapture those revenue streams for other budget issues or that the gaming operator will try to cut loose of the unprofitable catalyst industry seems a certain reality to me.

Welfare is a dirty word for many, but there are instances where it has given someone a chance to survive, and use the opportunity to stay afloat as a means towards improving from within. Striving for more, working for more, hoping to shed the constraints of reliance and better themselves. Racing has this opportunity with gaming subsidies - a chance to look hard at what it does well and what it does not do well, a chance to listen and react to its customers, a chance to position itself as a tough competitor for the gambling dollar.

To sit back and take those subsidies and roll them over into purses and gaming expansions while ignoring the inherent issues that have made slots a necessity to their survival is exhibiting a willingness to fail if and when those subsidies disappear.

Now I've really left myself with a matter of minutes before I have to leave, so I regret that I've ventured off into this in such a hurried manner that I couldn't be more explanatory, but this is the basic gist of my complete response to your question.



I asked the question and I got the answer......I would love to sit down with executives at a track, put your post in front of them and tape their reaction. Great post IMO....one of the things I like the best about it is that it points out the long term, which I feel like is something that is rarely looked at by those in charge.....thank you for your response and I only wish I could be so articulate as you are when you say you are "hurried":)

[Stillriledup]

The biggest reason that takeouts can't be lowered is because the percentage of the takeout is divided up and everyone has their share. If a 25 percent take was lowered to 15, that would mean 10 percent has to go somewhere....which hand in the till is going to want to have THEIR percentage lowered?

I have a solution.

When all is said and done, the pie that is distributed is 100% of the money. Every dollar goes somewhere. All they would need to do is to lower the takeout rates to 10 or 15 pct (depending on wager), get the big pile of money at the end of the day, and divide up THAT pile in the same way it was divided up before.

The money that is profit should be divided up AFTER the day is over. When the track determines how much money was made in profit, you take that profit and divide it up with everyone getting their same 'percentage' of the pie. In other words, nobody's percentage changes, its just figured out differently.

[Valuist]

First time sugar! :lol:

I'm sure California would probably allow race day salt as well.

[Stillriledup]

I'm sure California would probably allow race day salt as well.

They might say that the salt is a masking agent for other PEDs.

[JustRalph]

Too many shitty tracks.........too many shitty horseman....... I have said it before.......close half the tracks right away and that would be a good start.

[Tom]

They could start by lower the takeout and by hiring tellers who have an IQ above 85(not necessarily in that order).

New rule - the teller IQ must be greater than the change you get back.

[Foolish Pleasure]

How many ways can the same individual be wrong in one thread?

Let's count.

1)The majority of this year's purses comes from a casino subsidy as well as savings from less racing days and cutting out the Meadowlands meet. So unless you bet a lot of money at the Atlantic City casinos, you didn't contribute as much as you'd like to believe.


-WRONG IT IS PAYOLA FOR NO CASINO AT MED, ATC, GSP, MON, FREE.

A casino at the MED the last 32 yrs would have been the single busiest casino on planet earth, a casino at GSP for the 30yrs before it shut down would have been one of the busiest casinos on earth-instead you idiot NJ taxpayers tried to funnel all gaming money to the rat infested shithole known as AC.

Further if slot machines were stationed in every 7-11 like they should be instead of being under the strong arm of the commies in NJ gov't-the racetrack novelty would return in spades. It is a joke of titanic proportions that the state has rationed gambling to the point that people would rather play idiot machines than bet on a horse race.


2)If horsemen don't put on the show, then they (and their horses, of course) are the show.

-WRONG THERE IS NO FORM OF COMMERCE THAT TAKES PLACE WITHOUT A SALE TO A CUSTOMER FIRST-HOW YOU IDIOTS MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING IN YOUR LIVES WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION IS SOME KIND OF MIRACLE.

3)Wow, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were a frustrated gambler based on these comments.


POT KETTLE MEET BLACK, IF 99% OF YOU HORSEMEN HAD CLUE ONE YOU WOULD NOT BE PICKING HORSESHIT OUT OF YOUR FINGERNAILS WHEN YOU JUST AS EASILY COULD BE BETTING.




WOW ONLY THREE-ACTUALLY I GOT SICK OF LOOKING,

IF IT IS NOT ALREADY OBVIOUS 99% OF THE HORSEMEN HAVE NO CLUE-YEA THEY FOR LOWERING TAKEOUT IN SAME BREATH THEY TELLING YOU THEY BETTER GET THEIR CUT OR ELSE.


Sport crumbling due to two entities,

the tracks and the horsemen.


How many generations you think you can get away with crapping on the player's heads without it eventually mattering?

:bang: :bang: :bang:

[Foolish Pleasure]

BTW the ADWS are in one of those two groups.

The idea that they get anything more than a fraction of one percent when they largely nothing but transactional processors aka a commodity is ridiculous.

This a large problem with society in general, processing transactions regardless of who it is-from banks to insurance companies to mortgage brokers to realtors et al all provide a commodity that should be done for a nominal fee,

not some billion dollar profit center-the idea that the ADWS who have brought almost zero new patrons to the table get more than half of one percent is ludicrous beyond comprehension.

Online poker boomed in part because of the strong affiliate programs,
they brought in tons of new business and were handsomely rewarded,
here they bring in next to nothing and they getting several times the rates and people wonder why it is something as boring as poker can boom while something so exciting such as horse racing dies.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

[Stillriledup]

How many ways can the same individual be wrong in one thread?

Let's count.

1)The majority of this year's purses comes from a casino subsidy as well as savings from less racing days and cutting out the Meadowlands meet. So unless you bet a lot of money at the Atlantic City casinos, you didn't contribute as much as you'd like to believe.


-WRONG IT IS PAYOLA FOR NO CASINO AT MED, ATC, GSP, MON, FREE.

A casino at the MED the last 32 yrs would have been the single busiest casino on planet earth, a casino at GSP for the 30yrs before it shut down would have been one of the busiest casinos on earth-instead you idiot NJ taxpayers tried to funnel all gaming money to the rat infested shithole known as AC.

Further if slot machines were stationed in every 7-11 like they should be instead of being under the strong arm of the commies in NJ gov't-the racetrack novelty would return in spades. It is a joke of titanic proportions that the state has rationed gambling to the point that people would rather play idiot machines than bet on a horse race.


2)If horsemen don't put on the show, then they (and their horses, of course) are the show.

-WRONG THERE IS NO FORM OF COMMERCE THAT TAKES PLACE WITHOUT A SALE TO A CUSTOMER FIRST-HOW YOU IDIOTS MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING IN YOUR LIVES WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION IS SOME KIND OF MIRACLE.

3)Wow, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were a frustrated gambler based on these comments.


POT KETTLE MEET BLACK, IF 99% OF YOU HORSEMEN HAD CLUE ONE YOU WOULD NOT BE PICKING HORSESHIT OUT OF YOUR FINGERNAILS WHEN YOU JUST AS EASILY COULD BE BETTING.




WOW ONLY THREE-ACTUALLY I GOT SICK OF LOOKING,

IF IT IS NOT ALREADY OBVIOUS 99% OF THE HORSEMEN HAVE NO CLUE-YEA THEY FOR LOWERING TAKEOUT IN SAME BREATH THEY TELLING YOU THEY BETTER GET THEIR CUT OR ELSE.


Sport crumbling due to two entities,

the tracks and the horsemen.


How many generations you think you can get away with crapping on the player's heads without it eventually mattering?

:bang: :bang: :bang:


FP this is an UNBELIEVABLE post. Well done, nominee for post of the year.

Love the comment about the horsemen shoveling 'crap' instead of betting.

[DSB]

How many ways can the same individual be wrong in one thread?

Let's count.

1)The majority of this year's purses comes from a casino subsidy as well as savings from less racing days and cutting out the Meadowlands meet. So unless you bet a lot of money at the Atlantic City casinos, you didn't contribute as much as you'd like to believe.


-WRONG IT IS PAYOLA FOR NO CASINO AT MED, ATC, GSP, MON, FREE.

A casino at the MED the last 32 yrs would have been the single busiest casino on planet earth, a casino at GSP for the 30yrs before it shut down would have been one of the busiest casinos on earth-instead you idiot NJ taxpayers tried to funnel all gaming money to the rat infested shithole known as AC.

Further if slot machines were stationed in every 7-11 like they should be instead of being under the strong arm of the commies in NJ gov't-the racetrack novelty would return in spades. It is a joke of titanic proportions that the state has rationed gambling to the point that people would rather play idiot machines than bet on a horse race.


2)If horsemen don't put on the show, then they (and their horses, of course) are the show.

-WRONG THERE IS NO FORM OF COMMERCE THAT TAKES PLACE WITHOUT A SALE TO A CUSTOMER FIRST-HOW YOU IDIOTS MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING IN YOUR LIVES WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION IS SOME KIND OF MIRACLE.

3)Wow, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were a frustrated gambler based on these comments.


POT KETTLE MEET BLACK, IF 99% OF YOU HORSEMEN HAD CLUE ONE YOU WOULD NOT BE PICKING HORSESHIT OUT OF YOUR FINGERNAILS WHEN YOU JUST AS EASILY COULD BE BETTING.


I wasn't going to post anymore to this thread because the original premise had been completely derailed, but this "post" was too good to pass up.

Obviously there's no IQ test to post here, or this kind of nonsense would never see the light of day......

First of all, moron, the subsidy from the casinos is in return for the tracks NOT lobbying for slots. No joke, Sherlock. I said that in another post. Tell us something we don't already know.....

Secondly, imbecile, a sale to a customer involves a commodity, doesn't it? Could the commodity referred to here be, I don't know, A BET ON A HORSE RACE? Who do you think provides the horses that race? I don't know, could it be HORSEMEN? (I know this must be difficult for you, but is any of this sinking in?)

Finally, simpleton, the third thing you have charged me with being wrong about, can be neither right nor wrong. It's an opinion based on an observation. But then again, I suppose the objective here was to hurl insults, not to make meaningful comments.

The only horseshit around here is your idiotic post....