PDA

View Full Version : Item#16,CHRB meeting,7-22-10,Del Mar


rwwupl
07-22-2010, 04:55 PM
Item 16,CHRB meeting 7-22-10,Del Mar‏
From: xxxroger@hanaweb.org
Sent: Wed 7/14/10 5:03 PM
To: xxx CHRB et,al
Names and e-mails protected

This e-mail is pursuant to item #16 on the agenda for the CHRB meeting July 22, 2010 at Del Mar Surfside.



Revenue Stream; The takeout dollar in California, where it goes, and how it is used and the sources of handle.



excerpt:#1

I hope this discussion will result in asking the organizations and others who receive takeout dollars to be asked to justify the expenditures and what they have accomplished with the granted money.



What have they done to improve the industry?

excerpt#2

I would like to see the Van and Stabling program be addressed again and have it explained why a subsidized program at Hollywood for stall space had the Racing Secretary say late in the season in print “We are down to 2,800 horses, and 1300 of them have not run”. I thought all horses had to be race ready to qualify. What can we do about this?


It was agreed 0n 7-22-10 by the CHRB that this matter will be carried forward with further data/information.

andymays
07-22-2010, 05:13 PM
What happened at the meeting?

rwwupl
07-22-2010, 05:23 PM
What happened at the meeting?


I think I will defer to Jeff on item #15, but item #16 gained some traction.

Need some more time to analyze...no new plan from Stronach. The TOC has some data that they have been working on to offer on item #16,CHRB agreed to look it over.

andymays
07-22-2010, 07:49 PM
I think I will defer to Jeff on item #15, but item #16 gained some traction.

Need some more time to analyze...no new plan from Stronach. The TOC has some data that they have been working on to offer on item #16,CHRB agreed to look it over.


It's my understanding that they did what the always do. Predetermined outcome once again. They decide before the meetings and put on the show.

Jeff P
07-22-2010, 09:05 PM
Item #15 Review of Los Al takeout increase:

Not that all of the Commissioners voting today actually read the entire meeting package that dealt with the Los Al increased takeout experiment before voting at today's meeting... Hint: They didn't and one of the Commissioners admitted as much right before the motion was called to a vote...

Not that everyone who filled out a card to speak on this agenda item was actually given the chance to speak before a decision was reached... Hint: The Chairman made his motion to continue the takeout increase and it was seconded before Barry Meadow was given his chance to speak... That little factoid should appear as part of the meeting transcript too...

But by including the spreadsheet that I prepared as part of the meeting package, the CHRB at least acknowledged the fact that on track handle for Los Al since the start of the experiment was off 27% on a 2010 vs. 2009 per calendar basis.

Handle off significantly during the time period of the experiment was not enough to sway them. They voted unanimously today to continue the increased takeout experiment until it is scheduled to automatically sunset on or about Sept 8, 2010.

I can tell you from talking with some of the industry participants present at today's meeting that handle off significantly doesn't matter. There is an element among the horsemen where takeout increases are seen as somehow having the potential to pay for purse increases... which are now "needed" because for some strange reason handle keeps going down.

Today I was pulled aside and thanked by some of the CHRB members and staff for volunteering my time and getting involved. That's refreshing I guess.

But I have to call it like I see it. On track handle off 27% is a pretty clear sign (at least to me) that increased takeout isn't the answer. Apparently, racing's decision makers in CA don't see it that way. I don't know what the breaking point is... 30%... 45%... 60%???... It appears for the time being that 27% just isn't a clear enough sign.


-jp

.

andymays
07-22-2010, 09:24 PM
The only way to get things to change is to publicize the dishonesty. It has to be brought out in the open not just to a few but to many. These guys know that only a few people are paying attention to this and they have no problem going back on their word.

This is just another in a long line of dirty dealing that has gone on in California for decades. The tracks run the CHRB and the customer be damned.

rwwupl
07-22-2010, 09:34 PM
Jeff,

You were well prepared and got the "treatment" again on this issue. You are correct that the decision was in advance and I know there was considerable letters and data to support your conclusion that were not considered. Barry Meadow was allowed to talk after the decision was made.

They all concluded that a raise in takeout has no impact on handle and is a good thing...How Sad!

Maybe we will have to buy a horse to be taken seriously by the CHRB


Ps... I have been in your position several times with this Board, and after a decision that did not add up , they all would be friendly and say "you did well and I understand your point... but....

andymays
07-22-2010, 09:47 PM
Jeff,

You were well prepared and got the "treatment" again on this issue. You are correct that the decision was in advance and I know there was considerable letters and data to support your conclusion that were not considered. Barry Meadow was allowed to talk after the decision was made.

They all concluded that a raise in takeout has no impact on handle and is a good thing...How Sad!

Maybe we will have to buy a horse to be taken seriously by the CHRB


Ps... I have been in your position several times with this Board, and after a decision that did not add up , they all would be friendly and say "you did well and I understand your point... but....

It's part of "the treatment". They make you feel like you took a good shot and almost got there and they appreciate your effort. But now go away and remember to bet on California Racing every chance you get. :rolleyes:

What a load of crap. :mad: This was another dishonest deal by the CHRB.

InsideThePylons-MW
07-22-2010, 10:22 PM
I can tell you from talking with some of the industry participants present at today's meeting that handle off significantly doesn't matter. There is an element among the horsemen where takeout increases are seen as somehow having the potential to pay for purse increases... which are now "needed" because for some strange reason handle keeps going down.

I officially gave up a month ago. I'm done.

InsideThePylons-MW
07-22-2010, 10:25 PM
Maybe we will have to buy a horse to be taken seriously by the CHRB

That definitely has no influence with them.


I'll sell you one of mine if you think it will help.

andymays
07-22-2010, 11:05 PM
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/58023/chrb-frustrated-again-by-mi-developments

Excerpt:

In other action, the CHRB extended a 2% increase in takeout at Los Alamitos Race Course through the end of the year. The board originally improved the hike Jan. 15 on a temporary basis.

Richard English, representing Los Alamitos, told the board, "This increase in takeout is vital to our operation."

English said the increased takeout has helped the track deal with a downturn in hande of about 16% from 2009, which he blamed on smaller field sizes.

Bettors Barry Meadow of TR Publishing and Jeff Platt of Horseplayers Association of North America disagreed with that assessment, blaming the dip in wagering directly on the takeout hike. It raised the Quarter Horse track's deduction to 16.62% on conventional win, place, and show wagers, and 22% on exotics.

"I don't see how you can raise prices in these economic conditions," Meadow said. "If anything, you should be cutting the takeout, not increasing it."

Indulto
07-22-2010, 11:42 PM
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/58023/chrb-frustrated-again-by-mi-developments

... Bettors Barry Meadow of TR Publishing and Jeff Platt of Horseplayers Association of North America disagreed with that assessment, blaming the dip in wagering directly on the takeout hike. It raised the Quarter Horse track's deduction to 16.62% on conventional win, place, and show wagers, and 22% on exotics.

"I don't see how you can raise prices in these economic conditions," Meadow said. it."If anything, you should be cutting the takeout, not increasing "That's the message that needed to be delivered. Thank you, Mr. Meadow.

California tracks have seen my last dollar until significant changes are made. Thanks to rw, JP, and BM for their efforts. If three people with their abilities coudn't make an impact on the board, nobody should be wasting their time and money trying.

highnote
07-23-2010, 04:00 AM
Telling CHRB what they should do is not using enough leverage to change their minds. A lot of leverage is needed. It's the old carrot and the stick. If you can make the carrot attractive enough then they will move toward the carrot. If that doesn't work then you need a really big stick to whack them with. If giving them pleasure doesn't work then giving them pain is the only other option.

One thing is obvious -- if getting CHRB to reduce takeout was the goal then not enough leverage was used. It might be the case that the only thing that will cause them to move on this is one or more tracks going into bankruptcy. Even bankruptcy may not be enough to induce them to lower takeouts. They may blame low handle on the economy.

Maybe PA members should do some brainstorming on what can be done to pursuade CHRB to lower takeout? If the things that have been tried aren't working then try something else.

That's my free advice -- and it's worth every penny.

Indulto
07-23-2010, 06:13 AM
Telling CHRB what they should do is not using enough leverage to change their minds. A lot of leverage is needed. It's the old carrot and the stick. If you can make the carrot attractive enough then they will move toward the carrot. If that doesn't work then you need a really big stick to whack them with. If giving them pleasure doesn't work then giving them pain is the only other option.

One thing is obvious -- if getting CHRB to reduce takeout was the goal then not enough leverage was used. It might be the case that the only thing that will cause them to move on this is one or more tracks going into bankruptcy. Even bankruptcy may not be enough to induce them to lower takeouts. They may blame low handle on the economy.

Maybe PA members should do some brainstorming on what can be done to pursuade CHRB to lower takeout? If the things that have been tried aren't working then try something else.

That's my free advice -- and it's worth every penny.Trying to talk tough again, eh sj? I recall tough talking in your posts and chats here in 2008 that subsequently morphed into advocacy of the influential insider approach. I suppose it's possible you could help create another movement that would actually confront these people in some meaningful fashion, but it’s going to take more than euphemisms like "big stick" and "whack." Sometimes "free" is still too expensive.

andymays
07-23-2010, 09:30 AM
http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/chrb-beyond-frustrated-with-mi-developments/

Excerpt:

When Jeff Platt of the Horseplayers Association of North America testified on a matter relating to a takeout increase at Los Alamitos, Platt made the mistake of bringing his laptop computer and coffee mug to the witness table. “Mr. Platt has brought his coffee to the table, thinking he’s going to be here for a long time,” said Brackpool, who sets strict time limits on witnesses and public comments. “I’ve never seen that before.”

During that same discussion, horseplayer Barry Meadow addressed the board and tried to use several analogies to explain why an increase in takeout was a bad idea. Brackpool cut him off, saying, “I’m only going to permit you two analogies per comment.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope everyone can see what a group of dirt rotten S.O.B's the CHRB really is.

They really think they're something when in fact there a bunch self serving and corrupt jerk*ffs. That's the clean version. ;)

Does everyone get it now?


You have to fight outside the box and not play their silly little game anymore. :mad:

andymays
07-23-2010, 09:59 AM
http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/chrb-beyond-frustrated-with-mi-developments/


Everyone should send an email to the CHRB and comment on this at the Paulick Report. Here is the link. Don't be nice.

andymays
07-23-2010, 10:06 AM
CHRB BEYOND FRUSTRATED WITH MI DEVELOPMENTS
http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/chrb-beyond-frustrated-with-mi-developments/comment-page-1/#comment-33994
Excerpt:

When Jeff Platt of the Horseplayers Association of North America testified on a matter relating to a takeout increase at Los Alamitos, Platt made the mistake of bringing his laptop computer and coffee mug to the witness table. “Mr. Platt has brought his coffee to the table, thinking he’s going to be here for a long time,” said Brackpool, who sets strict time limits on witnesses and public comments. “I’ve never seen that before.”
During that same discussion, horseplayer Barry Meadow addressed the board and tried to use several analogies to explain why an increase in takeout was a bad idea. Brackpool cut him off, saying, “I’m only going to permit you two analogies per comment.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Take!

First of all Stronach is obviously out to bust out the CHRB and get a few board members to resign. He'll probably succeed. The CHRB keeps threatening them and they keep making fools out of the CHRB.

Regarding this thing with Jeff Platt and Barry Meadow of the Horseplayers Association I'd like to know who the hell Brackpool thinks he is?

The CHRB went back on their word regarding the takeout hike at Los Alamitos. They are a dishonest bunch who fixes the outcome of the meetings before they happen. Brackpool ought to apologize for treating Jeff that way.

Brackpool blew it on this one and ought to get the hell out if he's going to treat Horseplayers/the people of California this way. If you can't stand the heat Mr. Brackpool then take a hike and hand the CHRB over to Stronach.

What a group here in California. Disgrace after disgrace. And the hits keep coming.

Thanks for nothing again,

Andy

Jeff P
07-23-2010, 11:31 AM
When Jeff Platt of the Horseplayers Association of North America testified on a matter relating to a takeout increase at Los Alamitos, Platt made the mistake of bringing his laptop computer and coffee mug to the witness table. “Mr. Platt has brought his coffee to the table, thinking he’s going to be here for a long time,” said Brackpool, who sets strict time limits on witnesses and public comments. “I’ve never seen that before.”
In all fairness to Mr. Brackpool, the above is being taken out of context. He was joking when he made the comment about my coffee.

However, a unanimous vote to keep a takeout increase in effect after being shown very clear evidence that Los Al's on track handle during the time period of the experiment was off 27 percent is no laughing matter.

In my opinion, yesterday's vote runs contrary to the mission statement of the CHRB which says:The purpose of the California Horse Racing Board is to regulate pari-mutuel wagering for the protection of the betting public, to promote horse racing and breeding industries, and to maximize State of California tax revenues. In my opinion yesterday's unanimous vote is also a slap in the face to horseplayers everywhere and should be taken as a wake up call.




An Open Letter to Los Alamitos Horseplayers

Yesterday HANA President Jeff Platt spoke at a CHRB meeting in opposition to the 2% takeout increase at Los Alamitos. The CHRB Board, despite being presented clear evidence that on track handle for Los Al is off more than 27% during the time period of the experiment, voted unanimously to keep the takeout increase in effect until it sunsets on or about Sept 8, 2010.

Their unanimous vote implies that higher takeout rates have little to no negative impact on handle and revenues and sets the stage for other California tracks to follow suit with takeout raises of their own.

We know this would have a very negative effect on you, as a horseplayer, and in return on California Racing as a whole.

You, as a California bettor, still have a very big say in all of this:

Each dollar bet on a race at Los Alamitos is a vote for making the takeout increase permanent, and a vote towards seeing higher takeouts across California. Each dollar withheld from Los Alamitos is a vote towards rescinding this takeout increase, and discrediting the notion that racing's revenue problems can be solved by simply raising the price of an already overpriced product. You are in the enviable position to have a direct and measurable impact on the future of California racing, and to make a statement on behalf of horseplayers everywhere.

We ask you to consider these facts, and we trust that your actions and decisions about where you spend your wagering dollars will help to bring about a better and brighter future for this game.

Please pass this message on to fellow horseplayers everywhere.


Jeff Platt

President, HANA

http://www.HorseplayersAssociation.com



.

rwwupl
07-23-2010, 11:56 AM
E-Mail sent to CHRB,other interested parties,copy to Gov. Arnold...


CHRB...My opinion..

I want you to know how many core horseplayers feel that item 15 on your agenda for the 7-22-10 meeting at Surfside,Del Mar was not one of your best moments or actions.

Please read the thread posted here below to get a flavor of how the bettors feel about how you are failing in your mission to "protect" the bettor .

Despite overwhelming evidence sent in e-mails and just common sense,and it was apparent much of the data sent in was not even read by your members,all it took was for the representative of the benefit racetrack to say "This increase in takeout is vital to our operation".

Bettors Barry Meadow of TR Publishing and Jeff Platt of Horseplayers Association of North America disagreed with that assessment, blaming the dip in wagering directly on the takeout hike. It raised the Quarter Horse track's deduction to 16.62% on conventional win, place, and show wagers, and 22% on exotics.

"I don't see how you can raise prices in these economic conditions," Meadow said. "If anything, you should be cutting the takeout, not increasing it."


What is so hard to understand that when handle takes a dive,you should lower the takeout and not raise it?

The pattern is unmistakable. Many bettors feel they are not given equal consideration when they come before you with their issues.

I think you can do a lot better. I think you know it too.

See link for some reaction....

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73220

rwwupl
07-23-2010, 01:09 PM
It has been pointed out that the new # 's for takeout at los Al may be incorrect as posted above,from a Bloodhorse article...Checking them out now.

16.62 or17.63 WPS? and 22.00 or 22.88? or...?

According to the chart link below, Los Al previous was 15.63WPS and 20.68 other making the new number s 17.63WPS and 22.88 other.

http://www.sportsbettingacumen.com/horse-racing-track-takeout-chart.asp

BillW
07-23-2010, 01:27 PM
It has been pointed out that the new # 's for takeout at los Al may be incorrect as posted above,from a Bloodhorse article...Checking them out now.

16.62 or17.63 WPS? and 22.00 or 22.88? or...?

According to the chart link below, Los Al previous was 15.63WPS and 20.68 other making the new number s 17.63WPS and 22.88 other.

http://www.sportsbettingacumen.com/horse-racing-track-takeout-chart.asp

Yes it is 17.63% WPS and 22.88% all others

JustRalph
07-23-2010, 01:44 PM
I have said for years

The only way to get their attention is to take money out their pockets

Jeff, I applaud you for choosing your words wisely

But I think u should have made a video asking for a boycott of del mar and ended it by hoisting your coffee cup........ :lol:

rwwupl
07-23-2010, 02:17 PM
Yes it is 17.63% WPS and 22.88% all others


Working with Bloodhorse(Jack Shriner)CHRB,Los Al to get correction,HANA Chart also verify the real numbers. Bloodhorse says that was the numbers they (los Al,Rick English) gave earlier at the meeting which I think were incorrect. Still working, but I think we are correct. If so all will correct the record.

turfnsport
07-23-2010, 03:31 PM
I officially gave up a month ago. I'm done.

I think everyone should follow ITP's lead on this one.

HANA can do plenty of other things for the industry overall.

Focusing on racing in California is a complete waste of time.

Why not just pretend racing in California does not exist?

The CHRB has shown time and time again they are a bunch of idiots.

**** them...move on to something else and let racing in California continue to go down the toilet.

DeanT
07-23-2010, 03:44 PM
That's got my vote.

highnote
07-23-2010, 07:00 PM
That's the message that needed to be delivered. Thank you, Mr. Meadow.

California tracks have seen my last dollar until significant changes are made. Thanks to rw, JP, and BM for their efforts. If three people with their abilities coudn't make an impact on the board, nobody should be wasting their time and money trying.


I agree, Indy. That is the correct message and if rw, JP and BM can't pursuade the board then it probably is a waste of time trying. Not that trying won't eventually get results, but it's kind of like Freudian and Gestalt Therapies -- they will work, but how long do you want to wait to get the desired results.

In lieu of better ideas this approach is probably better than nothing. But if you want to get quicker results then a bigger carrot or stick is needed. Maybe that's obvious and doesn't need to be stated? It's just an observation.

I'm just trying to help get the creative juices flowing. There are a lot of sharp minds here on PA that can be tapped for ideas. When a politician (or public handicapper) lags behind his competition he can be bolder. I think the same applies here. Take some bold and dramatic action like Richard Bauer did when he started Boycott Magna. What is there to lose?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/19953/handicappers-call-for-boycott-of-magna

InsideThePylons-MW
07-23-2010, 09:27 PM
Don't worry....everything will be fine in CA now.....They just announced that Arnold Zetcher is the new Chairman of the TOC

"And our owners, who provide the major part of the funding for our sport must be recognized for their contribution."

WTF?

Has he ever heard of the bettors?

How could anybody with an IQ above 10 say that the funding for racing comes from the owners?

Also, I love he says "our" sport as if the owners own the sport.

highnote
07-23-2010, 11:16 PM
I wonder... if you added up all the money all the owners spend on thoroughbred racing at pari-mutuel tracks and you add up all the money spent by bettors at pari-mutuel tracks which is greater?

Collectively, both are probably large numbers. Any estimates on each of these? There must be some industry data about this out there some where.

Horseplayersbet.com
07-23-2010, 11:50 PM
How do owners fund the sport? I don't get it? They don't contribute any money to purses (outside of staking a horse for a stake race, and that money comes back to the top 5 finishers anyway). Purses are funded pretty much 100% by what the betting public loses (both on horses and slots where applicable). The tracks operations is funded by what the betting public loses (both on horses and slots where applicable), and admission and concession sales.

Saying horse owners fund the sport is like clothes manufactures saying they fund Walmart.

highnote
07-24-2010, 01:01 AM
Saying horse owners fund the sport is like clothes manufactures saying they fund Walmart.

Yes. And who runs WalMart? Not the customer. However, if WalMart wants to stay in business they have to offer either the best price or the best customer service.

Damn. It just hit me. That's the problem with racetracks -- their prices are too high and their customer service is non-existent. Pretty simple, really. Why has no one noticed this sooner? :D

Horseplayersbet.com
07-24-2010, 09:15 AM
Yes. And who runs WalMart? Not the customer. However, if WalMart wants to stay in business they have to offer either the best price or the best customer service.

Damn. It just hit me. That's the problem with racetracks -- their prices are too high and their customer service is non-existent. Pretty simple, really. Why has no one noticed this sooner? :D
The suppliers certainly do not run Walmart. And I believe it can be successfully argued that horses and their owners have to fall in the supplier category.

The players don't run the NFL either. The cards or card manufacturers don't run a poker room either.

rrbauer
07-24-2010, 12:15 PM
From the CHRB press release on Thursday's meeting:

"The Board extended until December 31, 2010, the authorization it granted Los Alamitos Race Course in January to temporarily increase the takeout by two percent on wagers placed races at the quarter-horse meet. Handle figures provided by Los Alamitos suggested that the takeout increase had not adversely affected handle. Los Alamitos Chairman Rick English pointed to per-race handle and purse increases during the year, and he asked the Board to grant a permanent increase to the takeout. But critics of the takeout increase, principally Jeff Platt, president of the Horseplayers Association of North America, and Barry Meadow , a bettor and author of handicapping books, argued that the numbers could be viewed in different contexts. They called for a halt to the two-percent increase. The Board decided to extend the waiver from its original September sunset date to the end of the year to give both sides more time to analyze the handle and present their positions to the Board."

When "presenting your position" is severely restricted, made fun of and totally disregarded, while the industry position gets rubber stamped, what is the point of soliciting input? It's all a charade. I feel that horseplayers will never wise-up to the extent necessary to get meaningful change accomplished. They will bitch about conditions while they're emptying their pockets sending in the next bet. Every bet made on a California track simply perpetuates the status quo and guarantees more of the same.

Jeff P
07-24-2010, 12:29 PM
This is the exact wording of the agenda item as it appeared in the meeting package on the CHRB website: Discussion and action by the Board regarding areport from Los Alamitos Racing Association regarding the impact the two percent increase in the take-out on conventional and exotic wagers on races conducted by the racing association has had on handle, and if the take-out increase should continue until September 8, 2010 as approved by the Board.

This is what the board voted unanimously to do: The Board extended until December 31, 2010, the authorization it granted Los Alamitos Race Course in January to temporarily increase the takeout by two percent on wagers placed races at the quarter-horse meet. Handle figures provided by Los Alamitos suggested that the takeout increase had not adversely affected handle. Los Alamitos Chairman Rick English pointed to per-race handle and purse increases during the year, and he asked the Board to grant a permanent increase to the takeout. But critics of the takeout increase, principally Jeff Platt, president of the Horseplayers Association of North America, and Barry Meadow, a bettor and author of handicapping books, argued that the numbers could be viewed in different contexts. They called for a halt to the two-percent increase. The Board decided to extend the waiver from its original September sunset date to the end of the year to give both sides more time to analyze the handle and present their positions to the Board.


Posted by rrbauer: When "presenting your position" is severely restricted, made fun of and totally disregarded, while the industry position gets rubber stamped, what is the point of soliciting input? It's all a charade. I feel that horseplayers will never wise-up to the extent necessary to get meaningful change accomplished. They will bitch about conditions while they're emptying their pockets sending in the next bet. Every bet made on a California track simply perpetuates the status quo and guarantees more of the same.

Richard, at this point I agree with you.


-jp

.

highnote
07-24-2010, 01:08 PM
So barring presenting at the meetings of the CHRB what can be done to pursuade them to lower rates in CA?

andymays
07-24-2010, 01:14 PM
So barring presenting at the meetings of the CHRB what can be done to pursuade them to lower rates in CA?


You have to hammer the hell out of them in the media (print and radio)by telling the truth.

The truth is that the CHRB went back on their word. Not only that they treated someone who was following their rules (which is almost always a mistake) poorly.

Brackpool or should I say the CHRB's own Horatio Hornblower (or Blowhard) is a real jerk and his antics during meeting have worn very thin with just about everyone including some of his own people.

The web address of the CHRB is a .gov address.

Not .brackpool

Not .losalamitos

Not .trackowners

It's .friggingov


The meeting was a disgrace and so is the leadership of the CHRB!

turfnsport
07-24-2010, 01:21 PM
You have to hammer the hell out of them in the media (print and radio)by telling the truth.


And by horseplayers stopping their wagering on Cal tracks.

andymays
07-24-2010, 01:32 PM
And by horseplayers stopping their wagering on Cal tracks.

In theory that's true but until there are 20,000 members or more, or a way to reach the majority of Horseplayers that isn't gonna happen.

The increase in take will eat at handle over time at Los Alamitos like it already has.

The next owner to take a shot at a take hike will be Stronach in my opinion.

highnote
07-24-2010, 01:49 PM
And by horseplayers stopping their wagering on Cal tracks.

Wagering on CA tracks is only a problem if you DO NOT get a rebate.

In general, horseplayers betting with a decent rebate are not going to stop betting CA, nor do I think they should.

I don't think ADWs who give rebates should be boycotted. They are trying to keep rates low for their customers.

Charli125
07-24-2010, 02:14 PM
Wagering on CA tracks is only a problem if you DO NOT get a rebate. I don't entirely agree. Less money in the pools isn't good for anyone. The takeout increase might not be apparent right away if you're getting a rebate, but it will have a negative effect.

In general, horseplayers betting with a decent rebate are not going to stop betting CA, nor do I think they should. Horseplayers need to start thinking as a whole rather than just looking at their bank account. Delmar is profitable for me, but I'm not going to play it this season. Is my handle going to make a material impact? Of course not, I'm a relative minnow compared to most. But, it's my small way to say that I completely disagree with the way the CHRB is treating the players.

I don't think ADWs who give rebates should be boycotted. They are trying to keep rates low for their customers. I agree. It's just too bad the industry as a whole can't see the positive impact that LOW RATES have on handle.

turfnsport
07-24-2010, 02:16 PM
In general, horseplayers betting with a decent rebate are not going to stop betting CA, nor do I think they should.


I disagree. The idiots at the CHRB are only looking at handle.

If they see handle rise, eventually so will the takeout.

I get a healthy rebate at Los Al, but no way I am betting ANY track that raises takeout in the current environment.

Anyone that does is only making the problem worse.

rwwupl
07-24-2010, 04:28 PM
I disagree. The idiots at the CHRB are only looking at handle.

If they see handle rise, eventually so will the takeout.

I get a healthy rebate at Los Al, but no way I am betting ANY track that raises takeout in the current environment.
Anyone that does is only making the problem worse.



Sooo... It was YOU! they need more 2%, takeout at Los Al. to keep up with your rebate.The rest of us are subsidizing YOU!

I thought rebates were illegal in California :)

highnote
07-24-2010, 07:56 PM
Charli and Turf I agree with you. I just think it is dubious that a critical mass of horseplayers who get rebates on CA tracks will stop betting CA tracks.

You're right... bigger handles, even if it means lower rebates, are good for everyone.

If the pools got large enough hedge funds would start betting into them. The pools at most tracks are so small that it isn't worth the time and trouble to bet for many large investors and even some large bettors.

As far as Los Al -- the rise in takeout doesn't affect me. My rebate just increases -- so it's a wash. I have found it is better for me to deal with change and find ways to adapt rather than fight the change.

I know it's selfish on one level, but on another it makes sense.

If the tracks want to keep shooting themselves in the foot, who am I to stop them? If they don't want to listen to horseplayers tell them that rates are too high, then let them find out the hard way. Whether I tell them or not the outcome is going to be the same.

Jeff P
07-24-2010, 08:47 PM
As far as Los Al -- the rise in takeout doesn't affect me. My rebate just increases -- so it's a wash.During the process - and well before the meeting - there was a lot of communicating back and forth about how to interpret the numbers.

Los Al maintained that they could find no evidence whatsoever that price elasticity existed in their handle numbers. In other words, the higher the takeout, the higher the revenue generated for Los Al and their horsemen.

One little known facet almost lost in this experiment:

When Allred initially asked for the takeout increase, he knew that if he passed the full 2% increase on to his largest bettors, Los Al's ADW handle stood a very good chance of not only dropping but dropping sharply.

If that were to happen, the handle numbers during the time period of the experiment stood a very good chance to have painted a much darker picture about the effects of increased takeout on handle. If the picture were dark enough, there was a greater likelihood the experiment might be rescinded.

So instead of passing the entire 2% takeout hike on to ADWs offering rebates, Los Al gave them a 1% break on the signal fee.

This changed the nature of the experiement for ADW handle.

It's just as John said: Rebates on Los Al went up with the takeout.

Here is the percentage change for the numbers during the time period of the experiment 2010 vs 2009 broken out by where handle originated:
On Track Wagering: -27.48%
Intra State Wagering: -24.27%
Inter State Wagering: -9.03%
All Sources Wagering: -15.66%

In light of the 1% break in Los Al signal fee given to ADWs, I contend that the above numbers represent clear evidence of price elasticity in the handle numbers during the time period of the experiment.

Of course the Commissioners voted unanimously to ignore this.



-jp

.

rwwupl
07-24-2010, 09:16 PM
Sooo..

Some of us are hammered if we follow the law and depending on where you live, to attract others who are redistributed our money with rebates from an excessive take out.

With this business model,demonstrating privilige and favorites, how are they going to rebuild the fan base? Ohhh... I guess I just do not get it,after all the trend lines are all up? ...are they not ? ughhh...I need to clean my glasses, something is wrong.


This is no way to run anything.Things will change.. but a few good men will have to step forward and join us.

highnote
07-24-2010, 09:30 PM
Sooo..

Some of us are hammered if we follow the law and depending on where you live, to attract others who are redistributed our money with rebates from an excessive take out.

That's partly true. However, if rebates at Los Al were done away with, what would happen to handle? I can answer that... You would probably have one less track to handicap because Los Al might cease to exist.


This is no way to run anything.Things will change.. but a few good men will have to step forward and join us.

What is your plan? If the plan makes sense and would get results I might join.

andymays
07-24-2010, 09:44 PM
Here's the first part of the plan.

Start a site like Paulick but for Horseplayes. Do the same thing but make the commentary edgy and gear it toward Horseplayers and their issues. It would take a while but using the media to fight back is a must. If you tell the truth enough people will learn to respect you and eventually follow you. There would be no reason you couldn't get 10,000 members or more within a year. Then you must constantly involve the members in issues using email and phone. Enough issues come up where you could have campaigns two to four times a month.

Some of us are basically doing the same thing here on PA. Why not take charge instead of letting the deeds and misdeeds of other interests have center stage?

Attack!

Indulto
07-24-2010, 09:58 PM
During the process - and well before the meeting - there was a lot of communicating back and forth about how to interpret the numbers.

Los Al maintained that they could find no evidence whatsoever that price elasticity existed in their handle numbers. In other words, the higher the takeout, the higher the revenue generated for Los Al and their horsemen.

One little known facet almost lost in this experiment:

When Allred initially asked for the takeout increase, he knew that if he passed the full 2% increase on to his largest bettors, Los Al's ADW handle stood a very good chance of not only dropping but dropping sharply.

If that were to happen, the handle numbers during the time period of the experiment stood a very good chance to have painted a much darker picture about the effects of increased takeout on handle. If the picture were dark enough, there was a greater likelihood the experiment might be rescinded.

So instead of passing the entire 2% takeout hike on to ADWs offering rebates, Los Al gave them a 1% break on the signal fee.

This changed the nature of the experiement for ADW handle.

It's just as John said: Rebates on Los Al went up with the takeout.

Here is the percentage change for the numbers during the time period of the experiment 2010 vs 2009 broken out by where handle originated:
On Track Wagering: -27.48%
Intra State Wagering: -24.27%
Inter State Wagering: -9.03%
All Sources Wagering: -15.66%In light of the 1% break in Los Al signal fee given to ADWs, I contend that the above numbers represent clear evidence of price elasticity in the handle numbers during the time period of the experiment.

Of course the Commissioners voted unanimously to ignore this. ....It’s clear that a real opportunity now exists to shine the light on the way horseplayers are regarded by industry and government, but any confrontation without the support of currently rebated players will be ineffectual

Jeopardizing your recent recognition, JP, by the CHRB as an expert/authority/horseplayer representative would seem a net loss to horseplayers as well as to you, personally, but without a leader of the stature you’ve attained, who among the rebated would follow?

Is it hypocritical for rebated players to boycott tracks in only one state? Not if one agrees with rw, tns, C5, rrb, and ITP, that it is in their long-term interest to do so.

highnote
07-24-2010, 11:13 PM
My contention is that it is not necessary to boycott any tracks because, one by one, the tracks without slots in all likelyhood will become insolvent. Not all of them will, though. Waterford Park/Mountaineer survived for years on $1,000 purses and no slot machines.

Tracks like Hollywood can always cut their purses or offer lower quality racing if their survival is in jeopardy . There are ways for a track to survive without lowering takeout and increasing handle.

It doesn't matter to me what business strategy a track uses. The winning ticket on a 10-1 shot in a $2,000 claiming race pays the same as a 10-1 winner of a race like the Hollywood Gold Cup.

The only risk for me is if the pools shrink to the point where a large bet moves the pools too much.

Indulto
07-24-2010, 11:40 PM
I agree, Indy. That is the correct message and if rw, JP and BM can't pursuade the board then it probably is a waste of time trying. Not that trying won't eventually get results, but it's kind of like Freudian and Gestalt Therapies -- they will work, but how long do you want to wait to get the desired results.

In lieu of better ideas this approach is probably better than nothing. But if you want to get quicker results then a bigger carrot or stick is needed. Maybe that's obvious and doesn't need to be stated? It's just an observation.

I'm just trying to help get the creative juices flowing. There are a lot of sharp minds here on PA that can be tapped for ideas. When a politician (or public handicapper) lags behind his competition he can be bolder. I think the same applies here. Take some bold and dramatic action like Richard Bauer did when he started Boycott Magna. What is there to lose?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/19953/handicappers-call-for-boycott-of-magnaMy (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/19953/handicappers-call-for-boycott-of-magnaMy) contention is that it is not necessary to boycott any tracks because, one by one, the tracks without slots in all likelyhood will become insolvent. Not all of them will, though. Waterford Park/Mountaineer survived for years on $1,000 purses and no slot machines.

Tracks like Hollywood can always cut their purses or offer lower quality racing if their survival is in jeopardy . There are ways for a track to survive without lowering takeout and increasing handle.

It doesn't matter to me what business strategy a track uses. The winning ticket on a 10-1 shot in a $2,000 claiming race pays the same as a 10-1 winner of a race like the Hollywood Gold Cup.

The only risk for me is if the pools shrink to the point where a large bet moves the pools too much.So your legendary drive all the way from CT to AZ and back was just to preserve your odds-crushing bankroll?:lol:

IMO the above two posts appear to contradict each other.

highnote
07-25-2010, 12:40 AM
So your legendary drive all the way from CT to AZ and back was just to preserve your odds-crushing bankroll?:lol:

IMO the above two posts appear to contradict each other.


I certainly didn't drive round trip with the intention of losing my bankroll! Though, I think JP won a lot more money that weekend than I. :D

It wouldn't be the first time I have contradicted myself. As always, you are a keen obverver. Not much gets by you. :ThmbUp:

Remember... I'm just trying to get the creative juices flowing. I don't necessarily have all the right answers. Someone once said something to the effect of "if you were always right you would be the ruler of the world within a month". Hell, I'd just settle for Racing Czar. :D

highnote
07-25-2010, 09:03 PM
Andy,

I just looked at Paulick's site and it seems like there is a lot of news for horseplayers. I would think that many serious horseplayers follow the industry news, too. So you can get both kinds of news there.

If you ran a site like Paulick's for horseplayers how would it be different from Paulick's?

It's a lot of work to run a professional website. Would it generate revenue and pay salaries -- or would it be run by volunteers?

John



Here's the first part of the plan.

Start a site like Paulick but for Horseplayes. Do the same thing but make the commentary edgy and gear it toward Horseplayers and their issues. It would take a while but using the media to fight back is a must. If you tell the truth enough people will learn to respect you and eventually follow you. There would be no reason you couldn't get 10,000 members or more within a year. Then you must constantly involve the members in issues using email and phone. Enough issues come up where you could have campaigns two to four times a month.

Some of us are basically doing the same thing here on PA. Why not take charge instead of letting the deeds and misdeeds of other interests have center stage?

Attack!

andymays
07-26-2010, 06:24 AM
Andy,

I just looked at Paulick's site and it seems like there is a lot of news for horseplayers. I would think that many serious horseplayers follow the industry news, too. So you can get both kinds of news there.

If you ran a site like Paulick's for horseplayers how would it be different from Paulick's?

It's a lot of work to run a professional website. Would it generate revenue and pay salaries -- or would it be run by volunteers?

John

More opinion targeted at Horseplayer issues including recruiting people/Horseplayers who want to get involved in email and/or phone campaigns. Whenever there is an issue like a bad inquiry or a situation like the Gulfstream deal where they don't give players all when there is a turf to dirt situation because of weather you would act withing hours/minutes of the incident. Once you have a group that is willing to participate and fight back you would email the Racing Executives, Racing Officials, and members of the media in the area asking for an explanation. The group doesn't even have to agree on the issue. The object is to bring attention to the issue. When these guys see an issue getting publicity they act on it or at least give an explanation. When you only send an email to a Racing Executive or Official they will usually bury it or delete it.

Ray plays the horses but his site is more for industry insiders than horseplayers. I like his site and visit it several times a day for breaking news. I don't see anything on his site about the CHRB going back on it's word concerning the Los Alamitos take hike. I did send him the link to the HANA blog yesterday. I would have a headline that the CHRB lied and so did Los Alamitos. Why not call them out on it? It's a fact and very few people know about it. The CHRB knows that very few people know about it and that's why they don't want to keep their word.

Here's the headline! Extra Extra Read all About It! ;)

Dishonesty at the CHRB: CHRB and Los Alamitos Lie to Horseplayers.

rwwupl
07-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Sooo..

Some of us are hammered if we follow the law and depending on where you live, to attract others who are redistributed our money with rebates from an excessive take out.

With this business model,demonstrating privilige and favorites, how are they going to rebuild the fan base? Ohhh... I guess I just do not get it,after all the trend lines are all up? ...are they not ? ughhh...I need to clean my glasses, something is wrong.


This is no way to run anything.Things will change.. but a few good men will have to step forward and join us.



When the Regulators for California(CHRB),who are there for and dedicated to protect California bettors(A primary mission),allow a request to substantually raise the takeout rates for California bettors,with the purpose to give that money to bettors other than Californians in the form of rebates for playing a California track through an ADW, that is a slap in the face to California
bettors,who can not get rebates,because the CHRB says so.

I do not think that is in the interest of Californians. How do we grow the fan base,which has to be the solution to the long term health of the industry in California,by asking California horseplayers to subsidize other horseplayers across the country in the form of rebates?

The CHRB is failing in its promise and mission. If it happens in California,what is to prevent this in your State? It is putting one group of horseplayers against another,playing favorites and dictating unequal treatment by price of the bet... and that is not in the interest of the industry.

I hope we can have a few good men step forward and do what is right,and I hope among those good men will be the CHRB.

highnote
07-26-2010, 12:09 PM
Andy, It sounds like a good idea and a worthwhile cause. You might be able to force change if you can get enough people in your group who agree to volunteer to contact the various interests when there is an issue.

Maybe you can ask HANA if they want to help form the group? Seems like working with HANA would be a major shortcut rather than doing this from the ground up.

More opinion targeted at Horseplayer issues including recruiting people/Horseplayers who want to get involved in email and/or phone campaigns. Whenever there is an issue like a bad inquiry or a situation like the Gulfstream deal where they don't give players all when there is a turf to dirt situation because of weather you would act withing hours/minutes of the incident. Once you have a group that is willing to participate and fight back you would email the Racing Executives, Racing Officials, and members of the media in the area asking for an explanation. The group doesn't even have to agree on the issue. The object is to bring attention to the issue. When these guys see an issue getting publicity they act on it or at least give an explanation. When you only send an email to a Racing Executive or Official they will usually bury it or delete it.

Ray plays the horses but his site is more for industry insiders than horseplayers. I like his site and visit it several times a day for breaking news. I don't see anything on his site about the CHRB going back on it's word concerning the Los Alamitos take hike. I did send him the link to the HANA blog yesterday. I would have a headline that the CHRB lied and so did Los Alamitos. Why not call them out on it? It's a fact and very few people know about it. The CHRB knows that very few people know about it and that's why they don't want to keep their word.

Here's the headline! Extra Extra Read all About It! ;)

Dishonesty at the CHRB: CHRB and Los Alamitos Lie to Horseplayers.

andymays
07-26-2010, 12:10 PM
Andy, It sounds like a good idea and a worthwhile cause. You might be able to force change if you can get enough people in your group who agree to volunteer to contact the various interests when there is an issue.

Maybe you can ask HANA if they want to help form the group? Seems like working with HANA would be a major shortcut rather than doing this from the ground up.


They're not to fond of my methods of operation. ;)

Jeff P
07-26-2010, 12:28 PM
When the Regulators for California(CHRB),who are there for and dedicated to protect California bettors(A primary mission),allow a request to substantually raise the takeout rates for California bettors,with the purpose to give that money to bettors other than Californians in the form of rebates for playing a California track through an ADW, that is a slap in the face to California bettors...Absolutely agree with this part!


However......who can not get rebates, because the CHRB says so.The CHRB changed their long standing position on rebates last year.

Meaning that as of right now, the reason California residents can't get rebates through an ADW has nothing to do with the CHRB.

It has everything to do with a state law put in place as a direct result of lobbying efforts by the TOC.

The statute caps the percentage amount of revenue that an ADW can retain from each dollar of handle wagered by a CA resident through an ADW at 6.5%.

The effect is the same as a source market fee.

The blame for this rests with TOC leadership, not the CHRB.



-jp

.

rwwupl
07-26-2010, 12:47 PM
Yes,that is so...but,

All horse owners with a license are members of the TOC, including members of the CHRB. Horse owners have been the majority on the CHRB for a long time.

The TOC members do not pay dues (approx. 9000) because they are supported indirectly for the most part from the fans takeout, like many other causes and organizations. Yes, they lobby for their own membership.

The CHRB created the TOC. The CHRB is responsible for all matters concerning horse racing per the California Constitution written in 1933,except when Congress allowed Interstate betting they named the TOC to represent the horsemens interests,not the CHRB. That has caused some problems.

turfnsport
07-26-2010, 01:09 PM
They're not to fond of my methods of operation. ;)

It seems to be just as effective if not more than HANA's...and more entertaining I might add.

andymays
07-26-2010, 01:13 PM
It seems to be just as effective if not more than HANA's... and more entertaining I might add.
I'm all about the entertainment. ;)

andymays
07-26-2010, 02:19 PM
Andy,

I just looked at Paulick's site and it seems like there is a lot of news for horseplayers. I would think that many serious horseplayers follow the industry news, too. So you can get both kinds of news there.

If you ran a site like Paulick's for horseplayers how would it be different from Paulick's?

It's a lot of work to run a professional website. Would it generate revenue and pay salaries -- or would it be run by volunteers?

John

To give you a recent example of how the news can be shaped at the Safety Summit some months ago a TOBA report was leaked to the Paulick Report in order to preempt the real report about the safety of synthetic surfaces coming out later that morning.

Here is the article about the leak:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/57670/study-looks-at-number-of-dnfs-by-surface

Excerpt:

The report, which hasn’t been officially released by TOBA, was leaked to The Paulick Report that published a story about it in advance of the June 28-29 Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit. During the summit, The Jockey Club released more details of an analysis of catastrophic injuries in Thoroughbreds based on one year of data from its Equine Injury Database.
Equibase is a partnership between the Thoroughbred Racing Associations and The Jockey Club.

Not surprisingly given the timing of the leak, the findings in the TOBA report contradict those from the EID report , though they are based on much different data. The EID report, which stemmed from injury reports submitted by racetracks that account for 86% of total flat racing starts in North America, shows there was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of fatal injuries on dirt, synthetics, or grass in a one-year period from November 2008 to November 2009.
---------------------------------

This was a blatant attempt to change the news from the Safety Summit. The report was leaked by a person who is a synthetic surfaces advocate and who is very well know although his name was never released. More than one person attending the summit gave me the persons name. After I heard the name it all made sense.

This goes on all the time. It's just one example of many.

The news can be shaped. It can be shaped more effectively with the truth on your side. ;)

rrbauer
07-26-2010, 06:13 PM
Know what?

You can build all the websites and start all the organizations that you can think of and you won't be any farther along than you are now. When horseplayers put their money away and tell the industry to eff off and keep the money put away until meaningful change occurs then you might get somewhere.

When Kentucky, the womb of the thoroughbred industry in North America, rallies behind a one-arm-bandit-style game called "Instant Racing" as a solution to its pathetic product woes there needs to be some kind of sanity check invoked on those people. Seriously, is there ONE horseplayer that posts/lurks here that will put money into that stupid enterprise?

It's an insult to those of us who have kept this game going over the years and needs to be treated as such.

andymays
07-26-2010, 06:18 PM
Know what?

You can build all the websites and start all the organizations that you can think of and you won't be any farther along than you are now. When horseplayers put their money away and tell the industry to eff off and keep the money put away until meaningful change occurs then you might get somewhere.

When Kentucky, the womb of the thoroughbred industry in North America, rallies behind a one-arm-bandit-style game called "Instant Racing" as a solution to its pathetic product woes there needs to be some kind of sanity check invoked on those people. Seriously, is there ONE horseplayer that posts/lurks here that will put money into that stupid enterprise?

It's an insult to those of us who have kept this game going over the years and needs to be treated as such.


Most Horseplayers don't know about most of this stuff. How can you expect them to act if they're ignorant? Once you educate them as to what's going on then you have to let them fight for change.

A popular website for Horse Racing/Horsplayers with strong opinion and breaking news will go a long way to eductating Horseplayers. I guarantee you that most of the people who go to and play Los Alamitos don't even know what the takeout is let alone that they had a controversial increase in takeout.

You need 10,000 active members at a minimum to make things happen.

rrbauer
07-26-2010, 06:22 PM
Most Horseplayers don't know about most of this stuff. How can you expect them to act if they're ignorant? Once you educate them as to what's going on then you have to let them fight for change.

A popular website for Horse Racing/Horsplayers with strong opinion and breaking news will go a long way to eductating Horseplayers.

You need 10,000 active members at a minimum to make things happen.

Go for it man.

andymays
07-26-2010, 06:23 PM
Go for it man.

One person can't do it.

turfnsport
07-26-2010, 08:02 PM
You need 10,000 active members at a minimum to make things happen.

Heck,

I don't think there are 10,000 active horseplayers anymore.

highnote
07-26-2010, 08:33 PM
It should be fairly easy for a database person to replicate this study. Just look at all the DNFs from, say 2008, and see how how many of them raced back within a year and how many did NOT race back within the year. Sort by surface. Compare the actual amount of horses that raced back compared to expected.

To calculate expected, I suppose you would look at all the horses that finished in 2008 and tally how many raced back within 1 year.

Then compare the two samples.

Basic stuff, it seems to me.



To give you a recent example of how the news can be shaped at the Safety Summit some months ago a TOBA report was leaked to the Paulick Report in order to preempt the real report about the safety of synthetic surfaces coming out later that morning.

Here is the article about the leak:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/57670/study-looks-at-number-of-dnfs-by-surface

Excerpt:

The report, which hasn’t been officially released by TOBA, was leaked to The Paulick Report that published a story about it in advance of the June 28-29 Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit. During the summit, The Jockey Club released more details of an analysis of catastrophic injuries in Thoroughbreds based on one year of data from its Equine Injury Database.
Equibase is a partnership between the Thoroughbred Racing Associations and The Jockey Club.

Not surprisingly given the timing of the leak, the findings in the TOBA report contradict those from the EID report , though they are based on much different data. The EID report, which stemmed from injury reports submitted by racetracks that account for 86% of total flat racing starts in North America, shows there was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of fatal injuries on dirt, synthetics, or grass in a one-year period from November 2008 to November 2009.
---------------------------------

This was a blatant attempt to change the news from the Safety Summit. The report was leaked by a person who is a synthetic surfaces advocate and who is very well know although his name was never released. More than one person attending the summit gave me the persons name. After I heard the name it all made sense.

This goes on all the time. It's just one example of many.

The news can be shaped. It can be shaped more effectively with the truth on your side. ;)

andymays
07-26-2010, 08:45 PM
It should be fairly easy for a database person to replicate this study. Just look at all the DNFs from, say 2008, and see how how many of them raced back within a year and how many did NOT race back within the year. Sort by surface. Compare the actual amount of horses that raced back compared to expected.

To calculate expected, I suppose you would look at all the horses that finished in 2008 and tally how many raced back within 1 year.

Then compare the two samples.

Basic stuff, it seems to me.

I used the story only as an example of how people try to shape the news. Sometimes they do it with success and sometimes they get caught.

highnote
07-26-2010, 09:25 PM
I used the story only as an example of how people try to shape the news. Sometimes they do it with success and sometimes they get caught.


I know you did. But my point is that if the results were fudged to give the desired result then it would be easy to replicate the study and see if the new study results differ from their results.

Indulto
07-27-2010, 03:23 AM
Sooo..

Some of us are hammered if we follow the law and depending on where you live, to attract others who are redistributed our money with rebates from an excessive take out.

With this business model,demonstrating privilige and favorites, how are they going to rebuild the fan base? Ohhh... I guess I just do not get it,after all the trend lines are all up? ...are they not ? ughhh...I need to clean my glasses, something is wrong.

This is no way to run anything.Things will change.. but a few good men will have to step forward and join us.When the Regulators for California(CHRB),who are there for and dedicated to protect California bettors(A primary mission),allow a request to substantually raise the takeout rates for California bettors,with the purpose to give that money to bettors other than Californians in the form of rebates for playing a California track through an ADW, that is a slap in the face to California

bettors,who can not get rebates,because the CHRB says so.

I do not think that is in the interest of Californians. How do we grow the fan base,which has to be the solution to the long term health of the industry in California,by asking California horseplayers to subsidize other horseplayers across the country in the form of rebates?

The CHRB is failing in its promise and mission. If it happens in California,what is to prevent this in your State? It is putting one group of horseplayers against another,playing favorites and dictating unequal treatment by price of the bet... and that is not in the interest of the industry.

I hope we can have a few good men step forward and do what is right,and I hope among those good men will be the CHRB.] … Absolutely agree with this [bolded preceding] part!

However... [regarding the underlined preceding]

The CHRB changed their long standing position on rebates last year.

Meaning that as of right now, the reason California residents can't get rebates through an ADW has nothing to do with the CHRB.

It has everything to do with a state law put in place as a direct result of lobbying efforts by the TOC.

The statute caps the percentage amount of revenue that an ADW can retain from each dollar of handle wagered by a CA resident through an ADW at 6.5%.

The effect is the same as a source market fee.

The blame for this rests with TOC leadership, not the CHRB.Yes,that is so...but,

All horse owners with a license are members of the TOC, including members of the CHRB. Horse owners have been the majority on the CHRB for a long time.

The TOC members do not pay dues (approx. 9000) because they are supported indirectly for the most part from the fans takeout, like many other causes and organizations. Yes, they lobby for their own membership.

The CHRB created the TOC. The CHRB is responsible for all matters concerning horse racing per the California Constitution written in 1933,except when Congress allowed Interstate betting they named the TOC to represent the horsemens interests,not the CHRB. That has caused some problems.The above exchange contains some of the sharpest thinking I’ve been exposed to on this board.

Unfortunately it also reinforces my conclusion that the main reason horseplayers haven't been successfully united to effect a change to the status quo is that most rebated players aren't willing to suspend their rebated play in the short term for potentially greater benefit in the long term.

If admittedly rebated professional players who are also prominent HANA members/leaders such as Messrs. Maloney, Fotias, and Platt aren't willing to "step up" as rw suggests, why should any rebated player be expected to do so? Without inspiration and support from well-known horseplayers allegedly working on behalf of ALL horseplayers, how could any effort to eliminate a "business model demonstrating privilege and favorites" possibly succeed?

rw,
You’ve clearly identified the CHRB's malfeasance with regard to California horseplayers whom they are "asking ...to subsidize other horseplayers across the country in the form of rebates …" The legality of this practice of "redistributing" portions of the excessive takeout -- from the former to the latter -- OUTSIDE the pari-mutuel payoffs intended solely for WINNING pool participants, should be challenged in the courts.

AM,
Perhaps a class action suit against the CHRB (and TOC?) should be explored. What an opportunity for JJ to play the hero!

highnote
07-27-2010, 03:45 AM
The above exchange contains some of the sharpest thinking I’ve been exposed to on this board.

Agreed!


Unfortunately it also reinforces my conclusion that the main reason horseplayers haven't been successfully united to effect a change to the status quo is that most rebated players aren't willing to suspend their rebated play in the short term for potentially greater benefit in the long term.

There are probably a lot more unrebated players than rebated players who continue to bet CA racing. They need to step up, too. Where is the grass roots effort asking unrebated players to stop betting en masse? Indy, you should take the lead on this! You're passionate about it!!


The legality of this practice of "redistributing" portions of the excessive takeout -- from the former to the latter -- OUTSIDE the pari-mutuel payoffs intended solely for WINNING pool participants, should be challenged in the courts. [/font][/color]

Why isn't there a California group like TOC or CHRB? Why don't Cal horseplayers petition the gov for one! It's probably much easier organizing horseplayers at the local level than the national level. Nationally, there are just too many problems. HANA can't possibly address all of them adequately. That's not to say HANA isn't effective. What I'm saying is that there are sooooo many problems to be addressed for one organization to be able to tackle them all effectively. HANA has to pick and choose.

Local organizations can focus on problems unique to their jurisdication that a national organization can not.

Players need to get involved at the local level!

Indulto
07-27-2010, 11:38 AM
… There are probably a lot more unrebated players than rebated players who continue to bet CA racing. They need to step up, too. Where is the grass roots effort asking unrebated players to stop betting en masse? Indy, you should take the lead on this! You're passionate about it!!

… Why isn't there a California group like TOC or CHRB? Why don't Cal horseplayers petition the gov for one! It's probably much easier organizing horseplayers at the local level than the national level. Nationally, there are just too many problems. HANA can't possibly address all of them adequately. That's not to say HANA isn't effective. What I'm saying is that there are sooooo many problems to be addressed for one organization to be able to tackle them all effectively. HANA has to pick and choose.

Local organizations can focus on problems unique to their jurisdication that a national organization can not.

Players need to get involved at the local level!With 90% of handle coming from off-track sources, sj, any effective collective “influence” would require “national” participation from a betting (or non-betting) standpoint. I doubt you’d be asked to drive here from CT to participate in any demonstration, but it seems reasonable to suggest that you, especially as a participant in this discussion, refrain from betting CA tracks.

I think rw has already demonstrated impeccable leadership credentials, and hasn’t burned any bridges along the way. I suspect that many on and off this board would follow him with confidence, if given the opportunity. You may have fooled me, but I’m pretty sure he’s the real deal.

No-one expects HANA to fight on multiple fronts, but many would like to see them continue on the front lines in CA where player representation is critical to turning things around. How would you characterize JP’s appearances at the CHRB meetings – national or local?

Igeteven
07-27-2010, 01:23 PM
How to make a Governing board listen,

One can post, one can complain, one can pray, one can scream,
one can write letters to all the people in the industry, one can try to talk in front of a governing body of people and get cut off.

I tell you all how it's done with out a revolution or voting them out of office.

Nothing will be done, unless you sue them in Federal Court, on failure to do their mission.

One must embarrass them. One must put their back against the wall, one must force them to do something they don't want to do.

When a suite is filed, sooner or later, they have to take the witness stand and explain their actions, their lawyer will be their to protect them, but they still have to answer for their actions.

So people from Hana, California Hana members, lets do a class action and put the problems where the sun doesn't shine on the members of the CHRB.

highnote
07-27-2010, 01:48 PM
Indy, All good points. I haven't stopped betting CA, but I have stopped betting NYRA because I can't get a rebate (in effect, a lower takeout). NYRA is local to me. I think NYRA should lower their takeouts or sell their signal to more ADWs who offer rebates. If NYRA lowers their takeouts they still need to sell their signal to more ADWs.

If someone made a compelling argument I may stop betting CA to help the "cause". However, because CA tracks sell to ADWs that offer rebates, in effect, it is possible to get a lower takeout. With most of the money bet on CA racing coming from off track and many off track bettors getting rebates it seems to me the locals need to be complaining the loudest. It makes sense that most money in CA comes from off track. What local bettor wants to compete against non-local people who are getting a lower takeout?

It seems to me CA racing, with the exception of Del Mar maybe, is dying a slow death. I will probably not have to make the decision to stop betting CA. I may be forced to stop betting CA because CA racing ceases to exist. However, maybe it will just shrink to some small level and survive at that level.

As long as there are enough betting opportunities for which reasonable sized bets don't affect the payoffs then I imagine there will always be someone willing to bet on CA racing. Even if the takeout rises to 50%, there will probably be someone who will bet there. It won't be me betting at 50% takeouts!

I would like to see a plan that I think will result in major growth for them, but I'm not holding my breath.

JPs CHRB appearance seems like it could be characterized as both local and national. Local to him, but national in importance. I would not expect him to make the same presentation in NY because of the cost and distance. Coming to NY would not be local to him, but it would still be of national importance.

With 90% of handle coming from off-track sources, sj, any effective collective “influence” would require “national” participation from a betting (or non-betting) standpoint. I doubt you’d be asked to drive here from CT to participate in any demonstration, but it seems reasonable to suggest that you, especially as a participant in this discussion, refrain from betting CA tracks.[/color]

I think rw has already demonstrated impeccable leadership credentials, and hasn’t burned any bridges along the way. I suspect that many on and off this board would follow him with confidence, if given the opportunity. You may have fooled me, but I’m pretty sure he’s the real deal.

No-one expects HANA to fight on multiple fronts, but many would like to see them continue on the front lines in CA where player representation is critical to turning things around. How would you characterize JP’s appearances at the CHRB meetings – national or local?

Indulto
07-28-2010, 04:27 AM
... Nothing will be done, unless you sue them in Federal Court, on failure to do their mission.

... When a suite is filed, sooner or later, they have to take the witness stand and explain their actions, their lawyer will be their to protect them, but they still have to answer for their actions.

So people from Hana, California Hana members, lets do a class action and put the problems where the sun doesn't shine on the members of the CHRB.IGE,
My guess is that this is NOT an issue for HANA, but rather one for CA resident horseplayers who have actually suffered damages.

Can anybody suggest hpw to go about estimating those damages to see if a law firm were interested in taking the case? How likely is it that CHRIMS would provide that data without a subpoena?

Indulto
07-28-2010, 06:09 AM
Indy, All good points. I haven't stopped betting CA, but I have stopped betting NYRA because I can't get a rebate (in effect, a lower takeout). NYRA is local to me. I think NYRA should lower their takeouts or sell their signal to more ADWs who offer rebates. If NYRA lowers their takeouts they still need to sell their signal to more ADWs.

If someone made a compelling argument I may stop betting CA to help the "cause". However, because CA tracks sell to ADWs that offer rebates, in effect, it is possible to get a lower takeout. With most of the money bet on CA racing coming from off track and many off track bettors getting rebates it seems to me the locals need to be complaining the loudest. It makes sense that most money in CA comes from off track. What local bettor wants to compete against non-local people who are getting a lower takeout?

It seems to me CA racing, with the exception of Del Mar maybe, is dying a slow death. I will probably not have to make the decision to stop betting CA. I may be forced to stop betting CA because CA racing ceases to exist. However, maybe it will just shrink to some small level and survive at that level.

As long as there are enough betting opportunities for which reasonable sized bets don't affect the payoffs then I imagine there will always be someone willing to bet on CA racing. Even if the takeout rises to 50%, there will probably be someone who will bet there. It won't be me betting at 50% takeouts!

I would like to see a plan that I think will result in major growth for them, but I'm not holding my breath.

JPs CHRB appearance seems like it could be characterized as both local and national. Local to him, but national in importance. I would not expect him to make the same presentation in NY because of the cost and distance. Coming to NY would not be local to him, but it would still be of national importance.It seems to me that players "local" to NY and CA tracks should support each other with reciprocal wallet closing, but you're illustrating my contention that rebated players seldom feel compelled to change the status quo.

Since JP is local to So Cal, Del Mar, Oak Tree, ADWs, and Equibase should pay him to conduct periodic automated handicapping seminars on-track to attract potential and existing internet bettors who aren't interested in traditional handicapping, but might embrace a less time-consuming approach that could also support more frequent action. It would also increase data sales.

rrbauer
07-28-2010, 11:01 AM
It seems to me that players "local" to NY and CA tracks should support each other with reciprocal wallet closing, but you're illustrating my contention that rebated players seldom feel compelled to change the status quo.


It's not clear to me that very many horseplayers period (rebated or non-rebated) are interested in proactively changing the status quo. And until those attitudes get changed, I don't see anything meaningful resulting from the efforts of the folks who are trying. And, I don't see those attitudes getting changed short of their possessors' getting out of the way (read: leaving the game); because, they certainly are not going to lead/join/help sustain any contra-efforts. My experience (and I have plenty) in this battle is that there are lots of people willing to "sign up" but damn few willing to do anything; except when it comes to their compulsive, habit-driven desire to bet their money, which they will do until their money runs out; or, the last race of the day has been run. Why do you think they started offering racing from Great Britain and Australia here in N.A.? It extends the racing day giving the eastern time zone something to do in the morning and the western time zone something to do in the evening.

Earlier this month, after 3 years, I took down my trackthieves.com web site because it was no longer generating interest or proving fruitful in the battle to just expand the flow of information and knowledge across the horseplayer community. Its only "saving grace" was that the use of comparative tables showing takeout information did stimulate some interest in that issue. Now, that the HANA group has developed their track-info tables and seems committed to keeping them up to date, those efforts on my part are redundant.

I suppose that this is much like a defeated-politicians's concession speech; but, being old, tired and in ill-health makes it easy to move to the sidelines and conduct my own private boycott(s) because that is what I have absolute control over. If there was a "movement" out there that I felt showed promise towards meaningful change then I would support it with my energy and finances; but, I don't see it.

highnote
07-28-2010, 01:04 PM
but you're illustrating my contention that rebated players seldom feel compelled to change the status quo.

It is the on-track bettors who should be boycotting -- and judging from handle and attendance numbers, they are.

If players stop betting CA then the ADWs they use would be hurt.

Why should rebating and non-rebating ADWs, that are run by people who have nothing to do with setting rates, have to suffer financial hardship due to the boycotting actions of horseplayers?

andymays
07-28-2010, 01:11 PM
Does anyone remember the game called Twister?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sG8y38jvF0


This is Horse Racing in 2010. Every group has a hand or a foot on a spot that is tying someone else up.

It's called a cluster f**k. Until someone or some group can untangle the mess the downward spiral will continue.

Indulto
07-28-2010, 04:31 PM
It's not clear to me that very many horseplayers period (rebated or non-rebated) are interested in proactively changing the status quo. And until those attitudes get changed, I don't see anything meaningful resulting from the efforts of the folks who are trying. And, I don't see those attitudes getting changed short of their possessors' getting out of the way (read: leaving the game); because, they certainly are not going to lead/join/help sustain any contra-efforts. My experience (and I have plenty) in this battle is that there are lots of people willing to "sign up" but damn few willing to do anything; except when it comes to their compulsive, habit-driven desire to bet their money, which they will do until their money runs out; or, the last race of the day has been run. Why do you think they started offering racing from Great Britain and Australia here in N.A.? It extends the racing day giving the eastern time zone something to do in the morning and the western time zone something to do in the evening.

Earlier this month, after 3 years, I took down my trackthieves.com web site because it was no longer generating interest or proving fruitful in the battle to just expand the flow of information and knowledge across the horseplayer community. Its only "saving grace" was that the use of comparative tables showing takeout information did stimulate some interest in that issue. Now, that the HANA group has developed their track-info tables and seems committed to keeping them up to date, those efforts on my part are redundant.

I suppose that this is much like a defeated-politicians's concession speech; but, being old, tired and in ill-health makes it easy to move to the sidelines and conduct my own private boycott(s) because that is what I have absolute control over. If there was a "movement" out there that I felt showed promise towards meaningful change then I would support it with my energy and finances; but, I don't see it.Once again this thread is graced by an unusually sharp post. You expressed many of my own feelings more succintly than I could. It's unfortunate that two like-minded, but stubborn individuals like ourselves have been separated on principle by other issues.

Perhaps your website with message board software like this one could bring together dedicated supporters without distracting from discussion and diluting the message. The internet is the future of horse racing. A credible on-line presence dedicated to reform is still critical, but it must be interactive and transparent. Encourage participation by letting others see what options are being considered. Motivate and challenge with op-eds; direct and correct through discussion thread commentary.

Your determination and counsel should continue as long as you're breathing. Even if we can't/won't work together, there are still people like AM and rw who are available, capable, and perhaps willing to carry the torch.

Indulto
07-28-2010, 04:51 PM
It is the on-track bettors who should be boycotting -- and judging from handle and attendance numbers, they are.

If players stop betting CA then the ADWs they use would be hurt.

Why should rebating and non-rebating ADWs, that are run by people who have nothing to do with setting rates, have to suffer financial hardship due to the boycotting actions of horseplayers?Because the way the ADW model is presently implemented, ADWs are taking money away from the game that should be going to increase parimutual payoffs and race purses (although stake purses and races need contraction until full, competitive fields are restored to the game).

ADWs should not be compensated by a % of handle; a situation that makes selective rebating possible as well as winners out of some with cumulative parimutual losses, and additional exotic wager coverage at no additional cost.

rrbauer
07-28-2010, 06:03 PM
It is the on-track bettors who should be boycotting -- and judging from handle and attendance numbers, they are.

If players stop betting CA then the ADWs they use would be hurt.

Why should rebating and non-rebating ADWs, that are run by people who have nothing to do with setting rates, have to suffer financial hardship due to the boycotting actions of horseplayers?

Why shouldn't they be hurt. Are they part of the problem or part of the solution? What have they done to show their allegiance to horseplayers?
Kowtow to whatever the owners' groups and racing associations tell them to do? And, when they are forced to pay higher signal rates, they plead poverty as they reduce the horseplayers' payouts from the high takeout which made their business possible to begin with and which remains.

It's OK for horseplayers to take it in the shorts but Gawd forbid that the ADW's should be bit by the hand that feeds them. Spare me.

highnote
07-28-2010, 09:51 PM
Why shouldn't they be hurt. Are they part of the problem or part of the solution?

Some have been part of the solution by getting lower takeouts for the player.

In the case on non-rebating ADWs they are probably not part of the solution. So you are probably correct on that point.

What have they done to show their allegiance to horseplayers?

Some have lowered the effective takeout to horseplayers via rebates.


Kowtow to whatever the owners' groups and racing associations tell them to do?

Perhaps some do. I can't speak for all of them, but some of the ones I've dealt have worked to help the player.

And, when they are forced to pay higher signal rates, they plead poverty as they reduce the horseplayers' payouts from the high takeout which made their business possible to begin with and which remains.

It's never easy being the middleman.

It's OK for horseplayers to take it in the shorts but Gawd forbid that the ADW's should be bit by the hand that feeds them. Spare me.

In a perfect world, no one should be shorted. They're businesses and they must do what they can to survive -- just like the rest of us.

It's the racetrack management that is the source of the problem, in my opinion. They control the rates and most are not willing to lower rates in order to grow handle.

I've pretty much been quite happy with the ADWs I've dealt with. And when I haven't been, I've complained. If I still didn't get results then I found a better one to work with.

chickenhead
07-28-2010, 10:25 PM
It's a travesty. Gorgeous tracks, perfect weather, still an engaged base of fans and players, plenty of wealth swirling around, high class horses -- every single advantage you could possibly want, and they just insist on finding bottom. No reason for it at all, no reason.

They are just getting started. An utter travesty.

chickenhead
07-29-2010, 02:34 PM
can't say we didn't see it coming:

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/07/thoroughbred-takeout-increase-in.html

HANA has reason to believe that California's thoroughbred tracks and horsemen are spearheading an effort calling for a takeout increase on exotic wagers at California's thoroughbred tracks.

Sources tell us that California tracks and horsemen have asked John A. Perez, the Speaker of the Assembly, to sponsor a bill mandating a 2 percent takeout increase on exotic wagers involving two betting interests (double and exacta.)

Further, the measure calls for a 3 percent increase on exotic wagers involving three or more betting interests (trifecta, pick3, pick4, pick6, pick all, and super high five.)

Time is of the essence. Bill 2414 sponsored by John A. Perez is slated for a hearing on Monday August 2, 2010.

We have reason to believe that the final amended version of this bill will contain language about the takeout increase and is NOT YET SHOWN on the California Assembly website.