Thoroughbred Takeout Increase in California?

[Jeff P]

HANA has learned that California's thoroughbred tracks and horsemen are spearheading an effort calling for a takeout increase on exotic wagers at California's thoroughbred tracks:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/07/thoroughbred-takeout-increase-in.html


HANA Sign Up Link:
http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0



-jp

.

[DeanT]

Anatomy of a dysfunctional state, and a dysfunctional horse racing board:

1. Wagering falling. October 27, 2009, horse racing asks for the ability to change takeout. It passes.

2. January 23rd 2010, Takeout hike at Los Al, with the hopes of growing horse racing.

3. April 15th, California Lotteries drop takeout because sales are off ""When people win more often, they feel like playing more often, which in turn will increase sales, and as sales go up . . . our contribution to education goes up." a spokesman says.

4. July 15th. 2010. Los Al handle is off by 27% on track, horse racing does not grow, it shrinks. The takeout hike extended by the CHRB.

5. July 29th 2010, in response to further handle losses, the horse racing industry in California asks to raise takeout by close to 3%, with the hopes of growing horse racing.

[DJofSD]

Time for a strike but this time the target should be exotic wagers.

[JustRalph]

Time for a strike but this time the target should be exotic wagers.

Don't sugar coat it....I understand your point....going after the higher takeout tickets etc........ if there is to be action....I say ..it needs to be a total blackout

But then again I stopped playing Ca about 2/3rds of the way thru the HOL meet

[DeanT]

California lowered lottery takeout in April. The result is below.

http://www.lotterypost.com/news/216909

Californians who play lottery Scratcher games have apparently noticed a new and not unwelcome change in the way some of the games are structured: They win more.

As a result, they're playing more.

Scratcher sales leaped by $55 million in June, the first month that a new law allowed lottery officials to increase the percentage of revenues returned in prize money.

Officials are confident that trend will continue. In its budget for the fiscal year that began July 1, the Lottery Commission projects total annual revenues, including all games, will climb from $3 billion to $3.5 billion, a 16 percent increase. All of that increase is fueled by expectations of robust Scratcher sales, which are projected to jump 33 percent, to $2.2 billion.

"We're on a pretty good path," Lottery Director Joan Borucki said. "We're able to put a lot more prizes into the game."



Can we hire Joan for California racing? At the very least she would probably not recommend horse racing does the exact opposite of what is successful.

[kenwoodall2]

If true, JMO, The failure of the CHRB to get anything done to bring Ca extra $$$ by growing racing, coupled with the ease altough naitivety of raising Los Alamitos takeout resulting in decreased handle and so less gross takeout, has resulted in this backdoor method of trying to bring a few dollars into the state. It shows that the state racing authority is out of ideas and has no concept of drawing new customers (bettors). This and avoiding public comment is why the horsemen are bypassing the CHRB. Since polling shows 50% of the public supports the idea of horse race betting yet only 5% bet on horses, more betting AND non-betting fan support is needed. There are good, low cost ideas available from bettors on how to draw new bettors and fans, including what CHRB wanted, which was "a simple, non-thinking bet". (My feature longshot pool is such a workable idea, as is ny trading/playing card decks with contest code numbers them.) "A business which is afraid of public customers deserves neither customers or to be in business".

[kenwoodall2]

California lowered lottery takeout in April. The result is below.

http://www.lotterypost.com/news/216909



Can we hire Joan for California racing? At the very least she would probably not recommend horse racing does the exact opposite of what is successful.
That lottery law requires lowering of admin costs, which happened prior. But chasing away horseplayers is true. And those residents driven are not going to play the lottery- they want non-random gaming. They will be going to other states' tracks; non-residents will just support Ca racing less.

[kenwoodall2]

It passed the full Assembly June 1- Monday vote in Senate Appropriations committee. So far no political opposition. My ASS. office advised me this bill is moving fast.

[Greyfox]

if there is to be action....I say ..it needs to be a total blackout



I agree. If they up the take out, it will be time for a total blackout.

[TheBid9]

Looks like the vultures believe there's a little flesh left on the carcass!!!

[kenwoodall2]

It passed the full Assembly June 1- Monday vote in Senate Appropriations committee. So far no political opposition. My ASS. office advised me this bill is moving fast.
THIS IS NOT BIll #2414!

[andymays]

Vote!

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=941881#post941881

[kenwoodall2]

Thier guy listened when I said cappers will not bet other Ca venues but go out of state because they do not bet random gamimg.

[rwwupl]

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_bill_20100630_history.html


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_bill_20100714_status.html

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_cfa_20100628_143024_sen_comm.html

http://asmdc.org/speaker/

Capitol Office
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0046
Tel: (916) 319-2046
Fax: (916) 319-2146

District Office
320 West 4th Street
Room 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Tel: (213) 620-4646
Fax: (213) 620-6319


Click the above links for info....
This bill(AB2414) is in process...it is expected that like many bills will be changed through give and take at the end. We are informed that the bill, carried by Assembly Member John A. Perez will contain the version predicted by HANA and Jeff Platt. There is much to be done and much has been done.

Your interest and help(write something to the people involved per the HANA website) are appreciated.

roger@hanaweb.org

http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0

[highnote]

I agree. If they up the take out, it will be time for a total blackout.


If they up the takeout you won't have to worry about boycotting because at the rate and direction the industry is moving SoCal racing will eventually cease to exist. Only suckers will be betting at tracks with those high takeouts.

Then again, maybe there are enough suckers to allow them to survive?

You probably know this old quote wrongly attributed to P. T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born everyday."

or how about this W. C. Fields quote: "It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."

or this one by W. C. Fields: "Never give a sucker an even break."

Who is the sucker who will bet at these rates?

[kenwoodall2]

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_bill_20100630_history.html


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_bill_20100714_status.html

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_cfa_20100628_143024_sen_comm.html

http://asmdc.org/speaker/

Capitol Office
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0046
Tel: (916) 319-2046
Fax: (916) 319-2146

District Office
320 West 4th Street
Room 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Tel: (213) 620-4646
Fax: (213) 620-6319


Click the above links for info....
This bill(AB2414) is in process...it is expected that like many bills will be changed through give and take at the end. We are informed that the bill, carried by Assembly Member John A. Perez will contain the version predicted by HANA and Jeff Platt. There is much to be done and much has been done.

Your interest and help(write something to the people involved per the HANA website) are appreciated.

roger@hanaweb.org

http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0
My confusion was tha the 2414 is the original and still has that number- the takeout increase is an ammendment. The original is about the Breeder's Cup amd is supported my many racing groups who may or may not support the ammendment, including the Jockey's Guild.

[kenwoodall2]

When communicating to anyone in Govt, takeout= betting tax. My ASS, Sen, and Perez' guy George got quiet when I mentioned they were trying to raise betting TAX in a bad ecomony!

[rwwupl]

When communicating to anyone in Govt, takeout= betting tax. My ASS, Sen, and Perez' guy George got quiet when I mentioned they were trying to raise betting TAX in a bad ecomony!


I also spoke to "George" in the Sacramento office of Assembly Speaker John A. Perez and gave him my thoughts. He was very nice and said he would keep us updated with the bill AB 2414 and we would talk further. I gave him the HANA website link to tell him more about us.

George is at the Sacramento office...(916)-319-2046...you are welcome.

[Mike_412]

This is going to sound extremely heartless, but I hope they do raise takeout in Cali. Their racing sucks, their surfaces suck, let them raise prices a few percentage points and be the guinea pig for racing as far as what not to do.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Heard the logic on this one from someone in the industry yesterday at Del Mar........His whole sales pitch was even with the 3%, CA's takeout levels are still below Saratoga and Monmouth.

I cut him off quickly, told him "Sounds great! Gotta go because my garlic fries are getting cold"

I'm done talking to these dolts.

Let them die.

[kenwoodall2]

Instead they should be ammending to outlaw cancel delays in Ca!

[highnote]

Interesting article at Bloodhorse.com today about takeout and HANA.

[kenwoodall2]

"According to the four-page proposal, the increase would be to augment Thoroughbred purses, which are falling statewide in the face of declining handle." More raising prices and taxes "takeout" because the businessmen (owners groups) have no clue how to run a business.
The horsemen are ruining racing- "Grow or Die".
Cancel Delay, from HANA homepage: "

Goals-"Pool Integrity - Odds changes after the bell, outright theft through abuse of the cancel delay". A better ammendment for all of racing.

[rwwupl]

Interesting article at Bloodhorse.com today about takeout and HANA.


http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/58142/horseplayer-group-battles-calif-takeout-hike?&utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100730

excerpt:

A national horseplayer's group is hoping to head off a takeout increase of 2% to 3% for exotic wagers on California races being discussed by Thoroughbred interests and the speaker of the state Assembly.

The Horseplayers Association of North America is urging its membership to contact elected officials to protest the rate hike after language to amend a pending horse racing bill by Democratic Assembly Speaker John A. Perez of Los Angeles was circulated July 28.

According to the four-page proposal, the increase would be used to augment Thoroughbred purses, which are falling statewide in the face of declining handle. The takeout hike would be for 2% on exotic wagers involving two betting interests (such as an exacta or double), and 3% on exotic wagers involving three or more wagering interests (trifecta, superfecta, and the pick six, for example). Everyone making such wagers on California races, whether inside the state or out, would be affected.

[rwwupl]

excerpt from above article...

"I hate it," said HANA president Jeff Platt when contacted July 29. He believes higher takeout will reduce the handle because people will be less likely to wager, and he points to a big downturn in handle at Los Alamitos Race Course after it received approval for a 2% takeout increase this year as an example.

"I feel it is the wrong action to take," Platt said. "They should be lowering (rates), not increasing them."

But Platt admits that he expects the bill, AB 2414, to be amended as planned. If it is signed into law, he's hoping the California Horse Racing Board will have the ultimate say on whether the hike goes into effect.

The recent extension of the takeout at Los Alamitos by unanimous vote of the board, however, leaves him concerned about where the CHRB would stand.

While discussions of the takeout increase have apparently been ongoing between Thoroughbred owners, the tracks, and Perez's office, nothing has been brought publicly to the CHRB, which has a legislative committee headed by board chairman Keith Brackpool.

[rrbauer]

The racing product in California has been in steady decline for years. Owners, Trainers and Horses are leaving the state for other venues. So, while the product deteriorates and participation in racing in the state declines, the answer is to raise prices? Especially on exotic bets because with 4-horse fields what else is there to play?

[rwwupl]

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_bill_20100630_history.html


http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_bill_20100714_status.html

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2414_cfa_20100628_143024_sen_comm.html

http://asmdc.org/speaker/

Capitol Office
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0046
Tel: (916) 319-2046
Fax: (916) 319-2146


District Office
320 West 4th Street
Room 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Tel: (213) 620-4646
Fax: (213) 620-6319


Click the above links for info....
This bill(AB2414) is in process...it is expected that like many bills will be changed through give and take at the end. We are informed that the bill, carried by Assembly Member John A. Perez will contain the version predicted by HANA and Jeff Platt. There is much to be done and much has been done.

Your interest and help(write something to the people involved per the HANA website) are appreciated.

roger@hanaweb.org

http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0


It has been requested that an e-mail address be furnished that does not require a California address, to contact the Speaker of the California Assembly, and you do not live in California...

speaker.perez@assembly.ca.gov

[kenwoodall2]

Perez' racing man did not know Californians can legally bet on races outside Ca! These politicos vote on racing matters as someone tells them to, as uninformed as the public that lower handle does NOT mean that horseplayers must bet randomly at other CA gaming venues! No clue about existence of simulcasting, etc. He called this (redistribution of wealth upward) a "stopgap measure". A gap from a declining industry to what? So far Ca has nothing in the future to gap to!

[rwwupl]

It has been requested that an e-mail address be furnished that does not require a California address, to contact the Speaker of the California Assembly, and you do not live in California...

speaker.perez@assembly.ca.gov

There are problems with the listed e-mail directly above,...Here is a new one.

assemblymember.john.perez@assembly.ca.gov

[Indulto]

It has been requested that an e-mail address be furnished that does not require a California address, to contact the Speaker of the California Assembly, and you do not live in California...

speaker.perez@assembly.ca.gov
There are problems with the listed e-mail directly above,...Here is a new one.

assemblymember.john.perez@assembly.ca.gov
rw,
I'm confused. I assume that "California address" means postal address which should included in the body of the e-mail. If so, what exactly is the correct e-mail address for Perez to use if one is a California resident?

Thanks,
I

[rwwupl]

E-Mail to California Assembly Speaker John A. Perez

Sent: Sat 7/31/10 4:59 PM
To: John Perez (assemblymember.john.perez@assembly.ca.gov)
Cc: Distribution to principals involved
Speaker John A. Perez...
Att: George Wiley

The following radio segment explains how most players(customers) feel about an increase in takeout in California.The Roger Stein Show,AM830 and available through the internet is a 10 minute discussion of the issue. It will be worth your while to listen to the archive version.

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

Then download Saturday 7-31-10

Push the timer to about 50 minutes in... Featuring Roger Stein, Bettor Bob and John Hardoon and hear about HANA and its opposition to the proposed takeout increase in California

Thanks, Roger

roger@hanaweb.org

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/

Sign up here(Free)

http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0

[DJofSD]

Horse racing needs a truth in advertizing law. Every race track and OTB should have posted what are the various rates for withholding.

There should be a law requiring the rates to be posted in areas where the wagers are made: near or at the windows, right on the self service machines and for the online bettor, an item on the screens detailing the different rakes.

Transparancy is a beautiful thing. Or, we need some consumer protection, starting with what are the taxes -- they've got it at the gas stations, why not the betting window?

[rwwupl]

rw,
I'm confused. I assume that "California address" means postal address which should included in the body of the e-mail. If so, what exactly is the correct e-mail address for Perez to use if one is a California resident?

Thanks,
I


The problem is that if you go to the Speaker website, and use that form to send a e-mail or other note to him, it requires that you fill in a California address. If you live in California,the Speaker website address and form is good. It is confusing and impossible for someone outside of California to do that. So they gave me another e-mail address and it was inaccurate. The latest that I have posted is the one anyone can use, and if you do you will get a "acknowledge reply" that it has been received by the Speaker right away.

assemblymember.john.perez@assembly.ca.gov

[Charli125]

While this doesn't exist currently, if you are curious, we have all of the rates listed here. (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbytrackname2010.html)

Horse racing needs a truth in advertizing law. Every race track and OTB should have posted what are the various rates for withholding.

There should be a law requiring the rates to be posted in areas where the wagers are made: near or at the windows, right on the self service machines and for the online bettor, an item on the screens detailing the different rakes.

Transparancy is a beautiful thing. Or, we need some consumer protection, starting with what are the taxes -- they've got it at the gas stations, why not the betting window?

[rwwupl]

This is the latest e-mail letter sent to the California Speaker,John A. Perez:
Attention: George Wiley...

Who benefits from a takeout increase?
There is no benefit to a raise in takeout rates, to anyone in racing if the pricing point is above optimal level. Every study, even those paid for by the racetracks indicate that California is currently higher than any study recommended optimal pricing point. Racing has an optimal pricing point…the point at which maximum revenue is generated for those who put on the show.

For slots, the optimal pricing point has fallen from over 20% takeout in the 1970’s, to today, where some casino’s offer a 1% takeout on some machines. For betting giant betfair, they make the most money by taking less of their customers. From their 2008 Annual review:

But shouldn’t we want customers to lose money as quickly as possible?

Slot machine operators around the world routinely return a higher percentage to punters than they are required to under regulation. Altruism or commercial nous?

Racing knows that customers who go racing, and a) feel they had no value for money at the racecourse, and b) don’t win a single bet all day, don’t have much fun. They may not come back. In just the same way, we know that the least valuable customers to Betfair are the ones who lose all their money quickly. They go away and never come back. So, we are happy to take less off our customers per bet.

Business is all about offering your customer the product he wants at the price he wants. If you can do that, he’ll spend his money with you.

Source: Betfair Annual Review, 2008

California should be lowering the takeout to find the optimum pricing point to maximize revenue, not raising the take to move further away from optimal pricing than it is now. That would bring them in line with other gambling businesses, and further: With their competitors. For example, the California state lottery lowered takeout in April of 2010. In the first month of lower takeout, scratch ticket sales “were up $55 million” and in their upcoming budget, they are looking for even more increases:

"In its budget for the fiscal year that began July 1, the Lottery Commission projects total annual revenues, including all games, will climb from $3 billion to $3.5 billion, a 16 percent increase.

"We're on a pretty good path," Lottery Director Joan Borucki said. "We're able to put a lot more prizes into the game.""

Source: http://www.lotterypost.com/news/216909

Economics always determine success or failure in business and racing is no different than any other business.

The only thing that can happen from moving in the wrong direction from optimal pricing is a drop in total revenue.

Most bets are now transmitted electronically to California tracks and “rebates” have been a popular for ADWs’ to attract out of State customers to California tracks. Many out of State ADW rebate bettors think that a raise in takeout in California will not affect them because they will just get a higher rebate…that is not so. When a signal fee goes up, a rebate goes down. When a rebate goes down, takeout for the rebated player goes up.



Even if the signal fee was increased at half the takeout rate, handle will still fall for these players, because there is less money in the pool for them to optimally bet to.

The non-rebated bettor gets hurt by a takeout increase, and so does the rebated player.

Handle will obviously drop with a takeout increase, hurting everyone that depends on handle.

California bettors are prevented from getting rebates now through an ADW because of a law on the books sponsored by the TOC that caps the percentage amount of revenue that an ADW can retain from the California bettor through an ADW at 6.5% which leaves little wiggle room for an ADW.

No one benefits from a takeout increase…in fact everyone suffers the opposite of the intended effect.

roger@hanaweb.org



If we had a seat on the CHRB, this is what we would do…See next link below



http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/



We are: See next link below



http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/



Sign up here… http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0

[BMeadow]

I called George Wiley, the legislative aide, in Sacramento and he told me there's some possibility of approving betting exchanges (yay!) going in hand with the proposed takeout increases (boo!). If you have an opinion, I suggest you contact him at 916 319-2046.

[andymays]

I called George Wiley, the legislative aide, in Sacramento and he told me there's some possibility of approving betting exchanges (yay!) going in hand with the proposed takeout increases (boo!). If you have an opinion, I suggest you contact him at 916 319-2046.
I admire the fact the you and others took the time to speak up on behalf of Horseplayers.

Your points were reasonable and well thought out. Just about everyone including the people that are pushing for higher takeout know it's not the right thing to do for California racing in the long term.

You've been to two meetings now on this particular issue so I'd like to ask you a few questions.

Why would they choose to take the destructive path of raising the takeout?

Do you feel like what you had to say was ever taken seriously by the CHRB or the power players in California racing?

Do you feel like the issue was decided prior to the meeting?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

You've been to two meetings now on this particular issue so I'd like to ask you a few questions.

Why would they choose to take the destructive path of raising the takeout?

Do you feel like what you had to say was ever taken seriously by the CHRB or the power players in California racing?

Do you feel like the issue was decided prior to the meeting?

1. DDDDD Desperate Dolts Doing Destructive Demolition

2. Absolutely Not.....Barry is a degenerate gambling loser

3. Yes.....They do what they are told that is why they vote without reading the packet material or listening to the speakers

[jballscalls]

DeanT,

earlier in the thread you said los al is down 27% since the hike a few months back. are you referring to year over year? just curious what exactly the number includes.

i know their field size is pathetic recently, was curious to know field sizes were for the time frame for the 27% loss.

any info you can provide would be greatly appreciated

[Jeff P]

Jason,

At the start of the takeout increase Los Al dropped Thursdays (their weakest day.) This caused the number of races to go down and field size to go up. A few weeks in, Los Al gave the horsemen a purse increase. This also led to an increase in field size. (Same strategy as Monmouth but on a smaller scale.)

Despite that, Los Al suffered a 27% on track handle drop year over year from the start of the takeout increase in January through the end of June.

The numbers can be found on the CHRB website in the meeting package for Agenda item 15 here:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/board_packages/July-2010.pdf

Hint: After the pdf loads, click the bookmark for agenda item 15 on the left.

If you look at the numbers presented by Los Al, year over year handle is (purposely) ignored. Los Al's numbers as presented to the CHRB were designed to emphasize handle per race instead of handle on a per calendar basis.

The spreadhseet that I presented to the CHRB can be found in the meeting package for agenda item 15 as attachement 3. (You have to scroll past the other presentations for the agenda item to see it.)

That spreadhseet as simple as I could make it:

It shows handle numbers for each race date with 2009 on the left side... 2010 on the right side... totals and percentage change at the bottom.

As directed by the Commissioners at the April 15, 2010 CHRB meeting, I met with CHRB Audit Staff and management from Los Al at Los Al in mid May 2010. The purpose of that meeting was to reconcile any differences between Los Al's reported handle numbers (which came from CHRIMS) and the numbers in my spreadhseet (which were pulled from the Equibase charts.)

Within about 30 minutes, Rick English from Los Al and I quickly agreed that the handle numbers as reported by CHRIMS were not materially different than the handle numbers reported on the Equibase charts. Any differences between numbers Los Al was reporting to the CHRB and numbers on my spreadsheet were due to report design. My spreadsheet is based on year over year change and Los Al's report is based on handle per race.

Long story short:

Los Al's year over year on track handle was down 27% during the time period of the increased takeout experiment.

By way of comparison, Del Mar's on track handle is (so far this meet) down 10%. I'm told Hollywood Park's on track handle was down a similar amount.

No takeout increase at either Del Mar or Hollywood yet; although management at both tracks are pushing for it next year.



-jp

.

[BMeadow]

"Why would they choose to take the destructive path of raising the takeout?"

Because they sincerely believe that horseplayers won't be bothered by the 2% additional takeout, and there will be virtually no effect on handle.

"Do you feel like what you had to say was ever taken seriously by the CHRB or the power players in California racing?"

Somewhat...maybe. (I did write a four-page analysis of the effects of the takeout at Los Alamitos, but this was not included in the Board's packet of information.) But they disagree with the interpretations of the Los Alamitos figures as expressed by Jeff and me.

"Do you feel like the issue was decided prior to the meeting?"

Yes, although the issue was simply whether to extend the Los Alamitos takeout increase for several more months. I believe that at the end of the year, when the Board will take up the matter again by looking at the comparison between 2009 and 2010, they may have a different opinion. Or maybe I'm just an optimist.

[andymays]

"Why would they choose to take the destructive path of raising the takeout?"

Because they sincerely believe that horseplayers won't be bothered by the 2% additional takeout, and there will be virtually no effect on handle.

"Do you feel like what you had to say was ever taken seriously by the CHRB or the power players in California racing?"

Somewhat...maybe. (I did write a four-page analysis of the effects of the takeout at Los Alamitos, but this was not included in the Board's packet of information.) But they disagree with the interpretations of the Los Alamitos figures as expressed by Jeff and me.

"Do you feel like the issue was decided prior to the meeting?"

Yes, although the issue was simply whether to extend the Los Alamitos takeout increase for several more months. I believe that at the end of the year, when the Board will take up the matter again by looking at the comparison between 2009 and 2010, they may have a different opinion. Or maybe I'm just an optimist.

My opinion is that they don't care what Horseplayers think. They could care less if Horseplayers are bothered or not. Anyone who has followed these guys closely knows that some of them look upon Horseplayers as a necessary evil and the treat us that way.

There is the truth and then there is the lie. These guys are choosing to lie to the public to justify the increased takeout. They anticipated that the numbers would be better than they turned out to be. Los Alamitos was a trial ballon for increased takeout at all California tracks. They are moving forward as they always planned.

I think you're being an optimist. These guys could care less about keeping their word if going back on their word suites them. They will lie and manipulate everyone all the way to the bank. Who are the ones with guaranteed salaries and benefits? That is what they're all about. It's all about protecting their selfish interests and their own territories at the expense of the long term interests of California racing and California Horseplayers.

[DJofSD]

My opinion is that they don't care what Horseplayers think. They could care less if Horseplayers are bothered or not. Anyone who has followed these guys closely knows that some of them look upon Horseplayers as a necessary evil and the treat us that way.

There is the truth and then there is the lie. These guys are choosing to lie to the public to justify the increased takeout. They anticipated that the numbers would be better than they turned out to be. Los Alamitos was a trial ballon for increased takeout at all California tracks. They are moving forward as they always planned.

I think you're being an optimist. These guys could care less about keeping their word if going back on their word suites them. They will lie and manipulate everyone all the way to the bank. Who are the ones with guaranteed salaries and benefits? That is what they're all about. It's all about protecting their selfish interests and their own territories at the expense of the long term interests of California racing and California Horseplayers.

Andy, FWIW, I share your opinion. I believe what you assert to be both accurate and true. As far as I'm concerned, the CHRB, the TOC and other organizations (excepting HANA) are all run by a pack of liars. I have absolutely no reason to believe or trust them.

[andymays]

Andy, FWIW, I share your opinion. I believe what you assert to be both accurate and true. As far as I'm concerned, the CHRB, the TOC and other organizations (excepting HANA) are all run by a pack of liars. I have absolutely no reason to believe or trust them.
My guess is that at the end of the year over 95% of Horseplayers and Owners lose money. You would think there would be a natural alliance. It's pretty easy to know who the villains are when you look at it that way. Once again I think it's a class thing and most owners think they're a little better than Horseplayers in general. I do know that if the two groups got together they would both benefit.

[jballscalls]

Jason,

At the start of the takeout increase Los Al dropped Thursdays (their weakest day.) This caused the number of races to go down and field size to go up. A few weeks in, Los Al gave the horsemen a purse increase. This also led to an increase in field size. (Same strategy as Monmouth but on a smaller scale.)

Despite that, Los Al suffered a 27% on track handle drop year over year from the start of the takeout increase in January through the end of June.

The numbers can be found on the CHRB website in the meeting package for Agenda item 15 here:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/board_packages/July-2010.pdf

Hint: After the pdf loads, click the bookmark for agenda item 15 on the left.

If you look at the numbers presented by Los Al, year over year handle is (purposely) ignored. Los Al's numbers as presented to the CHRB were designed to emphasize handle per race instead of handle on a per calendar basis.

The spreadhseet that I presented to the CHRB can be found in the meeting package for agenda item 15 as attachement 3. (You have to scroll past the other presentations for the agenda item to see it.)

That spreadhseet as simple as I could make it:

It shows handle numbers for each race date with 2009 on the left side... 2010 on the right side... totals and percentage change at the bottom.

As directed by the Commissioners at the April 15, 2010 CHRB meeting, I met with CHRB Audit Staff and management from Los Al at Los Al in mid May 2010. The purpose of that meeting was to reconcile any differences between Los Al's reported handle numbers (which came from CHRIMS) and the numbers in my spreadhseet (which were pulled from the Equibase charts.)

Within about 30 minutes, Rick English from Los Al and I quickly agreed that the handle numbers as reported by CHRIMS were not materially different than the handle numbers reported on the Equibase charts. Any differences between numbers Los Al was reporting to the CHRB and numbers on my spreadsheet were due to report design. My spreadsheet is based on year over year change and Los Al's report is based on handle per race.

Long story short:

Los Al's year over year on track handle was down 27% during the time period of the increased takeout experiment.

By way of comparison, Del Mar's on track handle is (so far this meet) down 10%. I'm told Hollywood Park's on track handle was down a similar amount.

No takeout increase at either Del Mar or Hollywood yet; although management at both tracks are pushing for it next year.



-jp

.

thank you for posting Jeff, i'm printing this out for Mr. Mills :)

[DeanT]

Balmoral's Pick 4 Wager Proving Popular
Aug 4 On the heels of a very successful Southland Festival of Racing, Balmoral Park recently released figures that show the popularity of its Pick 4 wager continues to grow. The Pick 4 takeout was reduced 40 per cent for the 2010 season. The industry low takeout of 15 per cent, which was instituted in 2010, has made a big difference.

When racing began in 2010, the January Pick 4 pools averaged $7,698.As word spread that Balmoral had reduced the takeout, bettors throughout the country responded. In February the average pool size rose to $10,277. Just two months later, the April Pick 4 pool averaged over $11,000 a night. Three months later, the results are pretty compelling.

The July Pick 4 pools at Balmoral totaled $212,641 for the 13 nights of live racing, averaging $16,357 per card. In 2009 with the higher takeout, pick 4 pools averaged $8,888. The average 2010 July Pick 4 pools were 84 per cent higher with the lower takeout than the July 2009 pools.

The average 2010 race in the Pick 4 sequence handled $92,410 in July, a sizable increase over 2009.

Because of the favourable change for the player, every winning Pick 4 wager now receives 13.3 per cent more than in 2009. The Pick 4 is contested on races seven through 10 nightly. The minimum wager is $1.

Remember on August 14th as part of the Back To The Track promotion going on throughout North America there will be a $50,000 Guaranteed Pick 4 pool with a 15 per cent takeout. Balmoral Park will be a part of that Pick 4 sequence.

Old payout-New Payout-Added winnings
$100 $113 $13
$200 $226 $26
$400 $453 $53
$600 $680 $80
$800 $906 $106
$1,000 $1,133 $133
$2,500 $2,833 $333
$5,000 $5,666 $666
$10,000 $11,333 $1,333
$15,000 $17,000 $2,000
$20,000 $22,666 $2,666

The 10 cent Super High Five had a record payoff of $15,080.68 on Saturday, July 31st. This is the only 10 cent High 5 wager available in harness racing.

(Balmoral)

[andymays]

Dean the payout is bigger but when you take into consideration that the pool is probably bigger because of reduced takeout the payoffs are really much larger.

The pool is probably 25% larger than it was right?

[DeanT]

That's correct Andy. I think pool size is lost on some.

There are bigger bettors betting $1M or $2M a year in US racing, but there are people in Hong Kong betting $1 or $2M a card.

[rrbauer]

"Why would they choose to take the destructive path of raising the takeout?"

Because they sincerely believe that horseplayers won't be bothered by the 2% additional takeout, and there will be virtually no effect on handle.



1. They go after the exotic pools because with the short fields that is where most of the money is. Exotics (in CA) are the only place that most horseplayers feel there is a chance to make money. Also, since exotics, especially those targeted for the 3% increase, usually involve large payoffs any pool reduction via takeout increase won't be that noticeable.

2. I think that they also feel that a large body of horseplayers are basically compulsive, habit-driven gamblers and that they will continue to play until their pockets are empty regardless of takeout.

They may be correct in these assessments but they conveniently overlook that as the increased takeout reduces handle, that the horseplayers' pockets will be emptied sooner. The other problem is that the owners and racing associations really think that raising the takeout will ultimately put more money in their pockets and that it is the answer to their problems. I know that the facts do not substantiate this position but this is what they think.



"Do you feel like the issue was decided prior to the meeting?"

Yes, although the issue was simply whether to extend the Los Alamitos takeout increase for several more months. I believe that at the end of the year, when the Board will take up the matter again by looking at the comparison between 2009 and 2010, they may have a different opinion. Or maybe I'm just an optimist.

It's been many years since I made a presentation to the CHRB or one of their committees. Ridicule of horseplayers is the norm when they do show up, which Jeff and Barry experienced. They are great at stonewalling and delaying especially when horseplayers make a compelling case or advance ideas that are contrary to the CHRB's "party line". Horseplayers are told, "We'll look into this and get back to you."

I don't know if they ever look into the issues, or not. They sure are good at NOT getting back to you, and effectively delaying decisions figuring that they can outlast horseplayers' persistence and allow the issues to die. So that's what they do. And, if in this case, the issue doesn't die because HANA keeps it on the table, then it gives them time to concoct a new story and push through whatever action they've decided on.

[andymays]

And They're Off: August 4, 2010

Watch part 4. Takeout or Fakeout!

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/videos/watch/B6DB273A-B300-4FF7-981E-3AB907FBD6C9

[andymays]

And They're Off: August 4, 2010

Watch part 4. Takeout or Fakeout!

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/videos/watch/B6DB273A-B300-4FF7-981E-3AB907FBD6C9
If you like it send an email to Lenny and Steve and thank them for looking out for the Horseplayer!


VideoFeedback@bloodhorse.com

[Indulto]

And They're Off: August 4, 2010

Watch part 4. Takeout or Fakeout!

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/videos/watch/B6DB273A-B300-4FF7-981E-3AB907FBD6C9
Hopefully this is the start of turfwriters zeroing in on the takeout issue and making a concerted effort to support their audience. Where would turfwriters be without horseplayers?

Hat's off to you, Lenny, if you're reading this thread. :jump:

[Stillriledup]

The takeout or Fakeout segment here was spot on. No truer words have been spoken.

[mikejlb]

It's too late for sending mail to our Calif Rep's in Sacramento but it isn't too late to prepare for the next issue that will require a lot of mail to express our feelings on future legislation.

I started talking to my next door neighbor this morning. He is not a horse player but he & his wife go to Los Alamitos once in awhile. Los Al is almost in our back yard. Anyway I told him about the tax increase and he said that he would have written letters to our Congressmen & Senators if I had mentioned it earlier. One letter wouldn't have made any difference but he might have mentioned this issue to others and the net result might have been enough mail to make a difference. He said he would help the next time and he also said he would join HANA just to show his support.

What I did took very little effort and it did expand public awareness just a little bit so I feel good about that.

[BillW]

It's too late for sending mail to our Calif Rep's in Sacramento but it isn't too late to prepare for the next issue that will require a lot of mail to express our feelings on future legislation.

I started talking to my next door neighbor this morning. He is not a horse player but he & his wife go to Los Alamitos once in awhile. Los Al is almost in our back yard. Anyway I told him about the tax increase and he said that he would have written letters to our Congressmen & Senators if I had mentioned it earlier. One letter wouldn't have made any difference but he might have mentioned this issue to others and the net result might have been enough mail to make a difference. He said he would help the next time and he also said he would join HANA just to show his support.

What I did took very little effort and it did expand public awareness just a little bit so I feel good about that.

Thanks Mike :ThmbUp: . That's the type of action from all horseplayers that we need!

[pandy]

It's amazing how stupid these people are. They estimate that they'll have 25 million more to increase purses, etc. by raising the takeout. This of course won't happen because the handle will drop proportionately. It's just like state politicians, New Jersey being a classic example, they increase taxes thinking that it's going to bring in X- amount of additional tax revenue, but they don't take into consideration that businesses and wealthy individuals, or retirees are going to leave the state, and they will not actually take in more money.

[Stillriledup]

It's amazing how stupid these people are. They estimate that they'll have 25 million more to increase purses, etc. by raising the takeout. This of course won't happen because the handle will drop proportionately. It's just like state politicians, New Jersey being a classic example, they increase taxes thinking that it's going to bring in X- amount of additional tax revenue, but they don't take into consideration that businesses and wealthy individuals, or retirees are going to leave the state, and they will not actually take in more money.


This begins with their deep core belief that all horseplayers are idiots.