California Takeout Hike

[DeanT]

Jack Shiner via the Bloodhorse:

Horseplayer Group Battles Calif. Takeout Hike

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/58142/horseplayer-group-battles-calif-takeout-hike


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 Assembly Speaker John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles) was circulated July 28.

"I hate it," said Jeff Platt, president of HANA, when contacted July 29. He believes that a higher takeout will reduce the handle because people will be less likely to wager and 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 prices (rates), not increasing them."

California TOC quote:

Arnold Zetcher, recently elected chairman of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, said it would "be a little premature to be talking about it."

"The document is still in the formative stages," Zetcher added. "At the proper time, I'll be more than happy to talk about it."

More at the link

[Indulto]

I don't care what Shinar writes. What does the HANA board say? What does the full membership say? Is this HANA's fight? If so, should it be confned to California?

If all that happens after a full-out effort is that there is no increase, but also no decrease, then why bother? If ANA is going to the matresses, it should be to effect major takeout reform (like optimal pricing for projected handle levels and official customer representation.

Anybody got a detailed Utopian vision for exactly how racing should be structured and a central authority established and operated?

[lamboguy]

as i have said before, they ought to put buckets in front of the track so people can drive right up to the buckets to deposit their whole bankroll and not even bother running races. this way it would be more cost effective. think about it, they wouldn't have to have to many employees to service the substandard rubber track that they installed. and on that matter, who is kidding who on this deal, rubber tracks cost lots of money, the stuff is way overpriced to begin with and someone made lots of kickback money installing that bad for your health crap.

the whole california board should all go to hell

[chickenhead]

there will be no fight -- they will of course raise takeout. The only real mistake many of us made was thinking that Los Al showing a big decline would actually mean something. A lot of effort went into that behind the scenes by a lot of people, and they should have everyones thanks.

But they can't really give a bigger FU to all California players, and to any price sensitive players -- they simply do not care. And this is an especially big FU directly to HANA.

Yes, of course, please -- everyone boycott, quit playing.....most won't, maybe some will, hopeful all will end up playing a bit less, as our friend the economics says you must. Just don't expect them to care if handle plummets, they will blame it on the weather, the economy, and the chupacabra before they'd admit it had anything to do with takeout. You can't win a fight with a suicidal patient.

[Robert Fischer]

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 Assembly Speaker John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles) was circulated July 28.

"I hate it," said Jeff Platt, president of HANA, when contacted July 29. He believes that a higher takeout will reduce the handle because people will be less likely to wager and 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 prices (rates), not increasing them."

This is very good.

There is also the need to get media print that HANA believes lowering takeout will INCREASE handle, and why that works... AND even a critical statement of the flaw of horseracing's ways as a high-takeout gambling industry.

[Hoofhearted]

May I ask, what is the current takeout on exotics at California tracks please. Pardon my ignorance; I've searched but cannot find a specific figure.

The drop of 27% in the Los Alamitos handle should be a salutory lesson to those pushing Bill 2414, but sadly it seems there is a head-in-the-sand mentality endemic amongst the administrators of our great sport.

[Stillriledup]

there will be no fight -- they will of course raise takeout. The only real mistake many of us made was thinking that Los Al showing a big decline would actually mean something. A lot of effort went into that behind the scenes by a lot of people, and they should have everyones thanks.

But they can't really give a bigger FU to all California players, and to any price sensitive players -- they simply do not care. And this is an especially big FU directly to HANA.

Yes, of course, please -- everyone boycott, quit playing.....most won't, maybe some will, hopeful all will end up playing a bit less, as our friend the economics says you must. Just don't expect them to care if handle plummets, they will blame it on the weather, the economy, and the chupacabra before they'd admit it had anything to do with takeout. You can't win a fight with a suicidal patient.


They've been using that economy excuse for a while now.

The takeout is totally overpriced as it is and people still bet. So, they figure that if people are betting with the takeout at 20+ pct, why not tack on a few more points, what's the difference?

Its sort of like Cleveland Cavs fans next year. They're going to still pay good money to go to the games even though there will be no Lebron. They have a horrible team with a bunch of stiffs and people will still go to the games and pay the same ticket prices as they paid when Lebron was there. Why should the Cavs lower their prices when the fans are still going to show up? Same thing with takeout, people are still going to bet. Most people lose anyway, regardless of the takeout rate, when you plunk your 2 dollars down, you're purchasing the 'gambling rush'. The gambling rush stays the same no matter what the takeout rate is.

This is why crack never goes on sale.

[Stillriledup]

May I ask, what is the current takeout on exotics at California tracks please. Pardon my ignorance; I've searched but cannot find a specific figure.

The drop of 27% in the Los Alamitos handle should be a salutory lesson to those pushing Bill 2414, but sadly it seems there is a head-in-the-sand mentality endemic amongst the administrators of our great sport.

20.68 for exotics and 15.43 for WPS.

[Robert Fischer]

I'd like to promote the "Selective, Value-Oriented Horseplayer".


Want a say in the matter?:

Value - Know a good bet.
Selective - Wait for a good bet.

I wouldn't mind working on some basic awareness strategies.

[ronsmac]

Players and racing writers have been complaining about takeout since 1981, at least in New York. I remember reading the N.Y. post and Ray Kerrison would write articles about the takeout being too high. That's 30 yrs ago. The Tracks and Politicians will never and I mean never learn. Our sport is dead for the most part. The last time i went to the track live I saw 2 people in the entire joint 25 yrs old or so that were betting races.

[turfnsport]

You can't win a fight with a suicidal patient.

That pretty much says it all.

[DeanT]

That pretty much says it all.

That's a good line. We are getting some good lines, although horseplayers seem to be reflecting malaise.

As most know just this April California lowered the takeout on lotteries because business was bad. The first month they increased business on scratch tickets by $55M with the low take. They are budgeting a 16% increase in handle on lottos this year because of it. One horseplayer said "if lotteries are decreasing takeout and we are increasing it, we might as well pull the plug on horse racing. Pack up and go home, we're done"

If the CHRB would have done something different after the Los Al experiment it would give us some hope, but after that handle was killed they still all voted to hike it.

This is also a group who has a board member who thinks horse racing takeouts are lower than a slot machines. (http://www.turfnsport.com/los-alamito.php)

This is a tough one.

[highnote]

I'd like to present a contrarian view. I'm not saying this view will be proved true or false -- it's hypothetical.

Let's say they raise purses by 3% which causes handle to drop by 2%. That still results in a 1% increase in revenue . Let's say the horsemen's share of the 1% increase allows them to survive and maybe even add more horses to their stables which allows them to enter more horses per race.

The 3% takeout increase might actually boost field size.

If field size increases then handle should increase.

So under this hypothetical scenario a 3% increase in takeout could result it an increase in handle.

[andymays]

Sent out this morning to various people in the industry.

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

It appears that there is a bill being pushed through that will raise takeout in California. Here is an article about it.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/58142/horseplayer-group-battles-calif-takeout-hike

I’m a Horseplayer who lives in California and I guess I’m not understanding something about raising takeout. It is my hope that anyone receiving this email will help me understand the logic behind raising takeout in California. I’ve never heard of any kind of business raising the price of its product when business is bad but that seems to be the solution for California Racing. Can someone explain?

From what I know at the end of the year and overwhelming number of Horseplayers and Owners lose money. My guess is that the figure is well above 90% for both groups. Something clearly isn’t working and you have to wonder why these two groups would choose to participate in such a business. It would seem to me that there is room for some kind of an alliance but maybe I’m wrong.

It seems to me that over the years some Racing Executives and Racing Officials at the CHRB have done quite well for themselves. They enjoy guarantees while we do not. Do they deserve the guarantees when all other groups are losing money? When have they ever sacrificed a nickel? They are the people who have run California Racing into the ground yet they have benefitted the most. Synthetic surfaces, short fields and higher takeout. That’s a losing trifecta if there ever was one.

When Del Mar, Hollywood Park, or Santa Anita puts on an event (like a concert) or even sells a drink during the day does any portion of the proceeds go towards increasing purses? If not why not? Why is increasing takeout the only viable option?

I believe that if raising takeout is the only solution then there should be some sort of shared sacrifice attached to the bill. How about a 10% or 20% reduction in pay for CHRB employees and management? How about asking the Executives at Hollywood Park, Santa Anita, and Del Mar to donate 20% of their salaries to augment purses? Why is it that Customers/Horseplayers have to bear the cost of mismanagement?

By the way Los Alamitos handle is way down since they raised takeout 2%. Why would it be any different at the other Tracks? It’s the people with the big salaries and the big ego’s that are the problem in California Racing.

All responses are welcome and thank you,

Andy

[rwwupl]

http://www.turfnsport.com/los-alamito.php

Excerpt:
"Some of the commissioners simply do not belong on a board such as the CHRB. When you read the transcript it should be interesting to note that Bo Derek and I got into a brief argument where she said that even after the takeout increase, prize payouts (takeout) would still be more favorable for the player at Los Al than slots prize payouts at a local casino.

I corrected her saying that WPS takeout after the increase would be 18% returning 82 cents for every dollar wagered vs. a slots return of 91-92 cents per every dollar wagered. She told me I was wrong. It was only after John Harris corrected her that she shut up."

So here is at least one CHRB member voting on a takeout increase, and it seems obvious she really does not even understand how takeout works.

That is scary stuff indeed, but hardly surprising.

The takeout increase is supposed to be temporary, and it will be reviewed in September.

However, I am sure track executives at Santa Anita, Hollywood Park, and Del Mar are going to be watching the handle figures at Los Alamitos with keen interest.

The CHRB is dominated by a majority of licensed horse owners, and they are all members of the TOC, a horsemens advocate group. No other State allows a majority of licensed horse owners,for obvious reasons, to sit on the Board, except California. Under Gov. Arnold,there are fewer horse owners on the Board but they still are the controlling majority.

There has never been a "horse player" representative to sit on the Board

[Robert Goren]

All anyone has to do is look at past attempts raise revenue by raising takeout rates to know how really dumb this idea is. It never works.

[turfnsport]

http://www.turfnsport.com/los-alamito.php


Heck, I wrote that in January and I didn't even both plugging in my crystal ball. :lol:

[BombsAway Bob]

i posted the Bloodhorse link on my FB page, expecting full support...
Wrong'Em boyo! Some folks think HANA isn't the bettor-friendly
group we're striving to be...
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/bombsawaybob
Any FB members that can stroll on over to my FB page & leave some
positive vibes for HANA in the comment threads would be appreciated!

[kenwoodall2]

Like it or not, this is a turning point in HANA history. Hana can either be totally reactionary, like the rest of racing, or HANA can take a leadership position on 2414 ammendments. Of course raising betting TAX is wrong on this industry and in this economy; But one of HANA's stated primary goals is to eliminate cancel delays. And pushing not only against betting TAX increase but also for outlawing of cancel delays is the best way to attack this situation. I have lived in Ca all my life, and spent much of my life working for many levels of government and political doings as well as haunting local political talk shows.
The idea of throwing in last minute ammendments is the norm in the statehouse AND in Congress. This is the way a politician gets points with the voter- holding a finger into the wind and trying to add a no-brainer with no expected opposition to please big shots. In this case, horsemen. The original bill 2414 without ammendments passed with ZERO NO VOTES. That is one reason they are throwing in this added bone to racing, and to make Perez look good. To the state politicos, this is supposed to be a slam dunk. If HANA and many of its members contact the Speaker's office (George Wiley) to ****protest an added TAX now, that will only benefit racing ****(TAX to be used only for purse increase), and not for the general public), and instead say they want cancel delays outlawed, with references to TRA and the others ****showing concensus among the racing insiders to eliminate cancel delays, which ****would have the support of horseplayers through HANA AND the groups originally supporting the original bill (except maybe Stronach and other track owners- but this would also be a way to thumb their nose at Stronach! (the original BC part has support from the Jockey's Guild, Oaktree racing, CHRB, and others).
Passing 2414 with an ammendment ****outlawing cancel delays in Ca will align Ca with almost all of the rest of racing- crucial if trying to get nationwide standards. There is ****no downside for the industry, HANA, the vast majority of bettors, the public, or state politicians by outlawing cancel delays. ****It is an easy no-brainer no opposition subsitute for a bad ammendment, and ****will show the TRUE perception that Ca racing is still moving forward by eliminating a potential means of cheating by everyons on every race and every bet in Ca! The TRA says stopping cancel delays is partly an outgrowth of the old BC Pick6 scandal, which we can finally put to rest. Then and only then ****a unanimous Aye vote on 2414 will accomplish great positive PR for the politicians and all facets of the Thoroughbred racing industry.
IMHO, HANA should write a letter using my **** talking points, which can be published in the racing media immediately, so all bettors can others can jump on this and contact Perez and other ASS and SENs.
___________________
I Ken Woodall, give permission for any or all of this post to go into public domain, With Paceadvantage permission.

[Robert Fischer]

the bottom line is TBL



The case for raising takeout = the assumption that the player population will NOT decrease wagering should the takeout be raised. Further variations and extensions include the ignorant, the captive audience/addicted gambler, and the opinion that a 2% increase is such a gradual increase that it wouldn't matter in handle and turnover.
Each one of this (or as many as possible) should be shown to strongly support a takeout DECREASE.

I recommend the use of strategy to spread awareness and actually develop a platform with concerned horseplayers, starting with those most heavily invested.

[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.

[kenwoodall2]

Most current info:
The following tracks have cancel delays ranging from 3 - 10 seconds:
Turf Paradise, 8
Oaklawn Park, 7 (Live races only)
Les Bois Park, 5
Bay Meadows, 4
****Del Mar, 4
Fairplex Park, 4
Golden Gate, 4
Hollywood Park, 4
North California Fairs, 4
Oak Tree, 4
****Santa Anita, 4
Yavapai Downs, 4

Why isn’t common pool wagering available on all U.S. tracks?
The Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency (CPMA – the arm of the Federal Government that regulates racing) has set forth a number of requirements that each U.S. track must meet before they will allow Canadian tracks to participate in U.S. pools. As a result, many states will need to change their rules and regulations before complying with these requirements

the Canadien Pari-Mutuel Agency (CPMA) prohibits Canadian bettors from betting directly into many U.S. pools as long as they permit “bet cancel delays.”
Ca refusing to ban cancel delays at their tracks is costing CA many wagering pool dollars, including during the Breeder's Cup, which is what the original bill is about. Tell Perez to subsitute banning C.D.s and bring in Canada dollars instead of ripping off Ca bettors!

[rwwupl]

i posted the Bloodhorse link on my FB page, expecting full support...
Wrong'Em boyo! Some folks think HANA isn't the bettor-friendly
group we're striving to be...
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/bombsawaybob
Any FB members that can stroll on over to my FB page & leave some
positive vibes for HANA in the comment threads would be appreciated!

BombsAwayBob...

I just gave a blurb in support...Some people just do not get it.

We are working hard for you...please join us.

roger@hanaweb.org

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/

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

[kenwoodall2]

I guess betting into Ca pools is now allowed in Canada! Sure wish the TBred orgs updated their websites! I'll shut up now!

[exiles]

Nice 5 horse field in the opener today at POLYCRAP DOWNS ,instead of doing anything they can to increase field size and quality the CA morons want to increase the takeout.GO SARATOGA AND MONMOUTH

[kenwoodall2]

CHRB 2009 Annual Report- Takeout legislation passed (4):
"****AB 246 – Assembly
Member Curren Price;
Chapter 226
Requires 1) a person licensed to conduct a horse-racing meeting to hold in trust
funds for distributions made pursuant to the HorseRacing Law until the funds are
paid to the various distributes; 2)declares the funds held in trust are not the property
of the racing association and are not to be used by the racing association for
any purpose other than for payment to the distributees as directed by the Horse
Racing Law and that the funds are to be held in a separate depository account until
they are actually distributed as provided by statute; 3)authorizes harness and quarter
horse racing associations, with approval of the CHRB, to deduct up to 2 percent
more from the total amount handled in the pari-mutuel pool for any type of
wager than was authorized on May 1, 2009. Of the increase, up to one percent of
the first $50,000 handled would be distributed to eligible satellite wagering facilities,
as specified, and the remainder of the funds shall be distributed with 50 percent
to horsemen and 50 percent to the racing association.
****SB 517 – Senator Dean
Florez; Chapter 636
Allows a thoroughbred racing association or racing fair, upon the filing of a written
notice with the CHRB, and with the approval of theCHRBand the consent of the
thoroughbred horsemen’s organization, to 1) alter the amount deducted from the
total amount handled on any type of wager, provided the amount deducted is not
less than 10 percent or more than 25 percent; 2) modify or redirect the statutory
distributions from the amount deducted, with the exception of amounts payable
for support of the CHRB and the equine drug-testing program, upon approval of
the CHRB and the entities affected by the modification or redirection; and 3) establishes
specific reporting requirements in the event changes in the amount deducted
or modifications to statutory distributions are approved by the CHRB.

****AB 1499 – Assembly
Member Noreen Evans;
Chapter 151
Reinstates a program that allows an additional 0.5 percent deduction, pursuant to
approval from the CHRB and the horsemen‘s organization contracting with the
fair, from the total amount handled in exotic pari-mutuel pools of races for any
breed, other than races solely for thoroughbreds, at a fair to be placed in a fund to
defray workers’ compensation insurance costs for trainers and owners who are racing
breeds other than thoroughbreds at a fair.
****AB 1575 – Assembly
Committee on
Governmental
Organization;
Chapter 650
Allows thoroughbred racing associations, contingent upon the consent of the racing
association, horsemen’s organization and approval of the CHRB, to increase
the amount deducted from the total amount handled at satellite wagering facilities
on conventional and exotic wagers, to be distributed to simulcast wagering organizations
for operating expenses, froma minimum of 2½percent to a maximum of 4
percent; 2) revises the manner in which supplemental purses are distributed and received
by the Los Angeles County Fair from wagering on thoroughbred horse racing
conducted at the 22nd District Agricultural Association (Del Mar); 3) allows
the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to allocate an amount up to $1,100,000
from the Fairs and Exposition Fund to supplement purses at fairs that conduct a
live horse-racing meeting; 4) provides that oral examinations for stewards be conducted
by a panel of not less than three members of the Board; 6) provides that oral
examinations of official veterinarians be conducted by a panel of not less than one
member of the Board, the Equine Medical Director, and the Executive Director of
the Board, and 5) adds outriders to the list of racing officials."