PDA

View Full Version : California Boycott, H.A.N.A, and the Sacred Cow called Rebates!


andymays
10-16-2010, 10:51 AM
Over the last several weeks we’ve heard from Jeff on the real possibility of boycotting California Racing in the near future. The other day we also heard the same thing from John Pricci who is also a HANA board member. A couple of months ago I was all for a boycott but since then I have gone from supporting a boycott to being on the fence to being against a boycott and here’s why:

A couple of months ago I was told that there were several high volume players who played California races on a regular basis that would suspend their play because of the raise in takeout. I was also told that the case would be made as to why HANA should single out California for a boycott and not states like Pennsylvania or New York. Both states have and will have higher takeout than California. To date I am not seeing or feeling the necessary support for a successful boycott. Unless I see HANA board members out there on radio shows and in print making a clear case as to why California Racing needs to be boycotted over other states with higher takeout I will not support a boycott. Unless I am assured that there are really several high volume players who normally play California and will suspend play in California I will not support a boycott. Maybe a one week suspension of play in November would serve as a test run. I would certainly support that.

The truth is that there aren’t enough HANA members in the State and in the Country to cause effective changes that will benefit Horseplayers. Why not? It doesn’t take resources to go on a radio show or to work a reporter for an interview. It takes effort and a few hours a week. Quite frankly HANA needs to decide whether it supports the majority of Horseplayers or the majority of high volume players. There is a huge difference. Numbers of members are just as important as how much a member bets because ultimately it comes down to the number of voters you have on the membership roles. The Legislature in any give state counts potential votes not the amount of dollars a particular voter bets. That fact hurt us in California.

HANA also needs to decide where it stands on rebates. In California the maximum rebate that the highest volume players can receive is 3%. In other states rebates on exotic wagers can range from about 8% up to over 20% for the highest volume players. This is an issue that would resonate with California Horseplayers. Quite frankly it would be much easier to get members if HANA explained how rebates are hurting Horse Racing instead of concentrating on boycotting California alone. From where I’m standing it appears that HANA doesn’t want to touch the rebate issue because far too many of the largest bettors outside of California benefit from them. Once again does HANA want to represent the majority of Horseplayers or the majority of high volume players? There is a difference.

On December 26th the Santa Anita meet will open with much fanfare because of the return to a dirt surface. That is something I fought for along with Roger Way(rwwupl) and a few others. We are very proud of the small role we played in the return to dirt at Santa Anita. Opening day of the Santa Anita meet is always a big deal in California and there is a migration of Horseplayers who go to the track and to Satellite facilities to get the Santa Anita Calendar. It’s a long standing tradition out here. The return to a dirt surface is going to be a big deal and to attempt a boycott on that day would be a big mistake. In my opinion on of the biggest mistakes made by HANA over the last couple of years was promoting Polytrack/Keenland to #1 in their track ratings. Whether you want to admit it or not the “surface thing” was a big factor in turning off potential members. With the return to dirt many Horseplayers who left will return and a nuanced explanation of why we should not play Santa Anita will fall on mostly deaf ears.

I also would like to hear from HANA board members who don’t normally post here so they can make their case and answer some of the questions I have asked and address the issues I have raised. The Board Members need to interact with the “little people” like myself and get involved. The issues are way too important not to.

Thanks,

Andy

DJofSD
10-16-2010, 10:55 AM
Thanks for posting this Andy.

andymays
10-16-2010, 10:59 AM
Thanks for posting this Andy.

I just want to get it out in the open so we all know what's going on. I hope everyone posts their honest opinion on these important matters. The truth is that Horseplayers in California are in a different position than most other States.

DeanT
10-16-2010, 12:12 PM
Over the last several weeks we’ve heard from Jeff on the real possibility of boycotting California Racing in the near future. The other day we also heard the same thing from John Pricci who is also a HANA board member. A couple of months ago I was all for a boycott but since then I have gone from supporting a boycott to being on the fence to being against a boycott and here’s why:

This is exactly what people who are involved with HANA day to day want to hear - horseplayer opinion. Because horseplayer opinion and involvement will make a boycott work or fail, not the direction of Jeff Platt or John Pricci.

A couple of months ago I was told that there were several high volume players who played California races on a regular basis that would suspend their play because of the raise in takeout. I was also told that the case would be made as to why HANA should single out California for a boycott and not states like Philadelphia or New York. Both states have and will have higher takeout than California.

Through the survey HANA has sent out, to the comments on boards, comments on DRF, TVG the blog etc, California is an energizing story. Players are sick and tired of takeout hikes, and are sick and tired of them in a down economy where a hike is assured to cripple handles. They are venting their frustration on a jurisdiction that has raised takeout this season (they are the only jurisdiction to raise takeout in two years). That jurisdiction is California.

In addition, the HANA board and several players like Turf n Sport on his site warned California players and horseplayers that the Los Al takeout hike was a harbinger of things to come; and it was. This takeout hike in CA for thoroughbreds is too another harbinger. If horseman groups see a short term gain with this, they are sure to do it in other locales. The snowball effect takes hold and racing goes (further) down the drain.

Whether we like it or not, the front-lines in this battle are in the state of California.

HANA did not start this fight; the TOC and CHRB did.


Unless I see HANA board members out there on radio shows and in print making a clear case as to why California Racing needs to be boycotted over other states with higher takeout I will not support a boycott. Unless I am assured that there are really several high volume players who normally play California and will suspend play in California I will not support a boycott. Maybe a one week suspension of play in November would serve as a test run. I would certainly support that.

Radio shows and interviews about a boycott can not happen until there is a boycott. Before there can be a boycott HANA members and other serious players on PACE and elsewhere have to rally around the concept and get involved in it to push it. It takes time, money, effort and a whole lot of blood sweat and tears. Three people like Platt, Bill W and Barry Meadow for example are not, and can not do it alone. After a mass of players who are energized and want to work are assembled, the message can be brought to the masses.

The HANA survey asked for player feedback and email addresses of people who might want to help if there is critical mass for a boycott. That is the first step. If there is enough player involvement I imagine a steering committee will be formed with several grass roots players involved in such things as the following:

1) Creating facebook, twitter pages
2) managing email lists & mobilizing players for commenting, writing letters etc
3) Media contacts
4) Youtube videos and info packages
5) Grassroots information sessions and handouts at various racetracks
6) Raising money: Some of the things it would need are: money for billboards, ads on the web and in print, pdf construction, banner ad construction, business cards etc.

As for big players and small - it is irrelevant. Everyone is being asked for their opinion if they care about the issue. Big players may help with a handle loss more than small, but a gaggle of passionate race goers who care like hell about racing, mobilized and ready to roll will be the most important and vital people in this entire process.

In California the maximum rebate that the highest volume players can receive is 3%. In other states rebates on exotic wagers can range from about 8% up to over 20% for the highest volume players. This is an issue that would resonate with California Horseplayers.

We, as you should know, have been on CA racing about this since inception. It reached a crescendo when the signal fee hike at HOL occurred late 2008, which was another harbinger. California racing did what they usually do with players - they told us to take a hike and it was none of our business what they do with rebating to CA players.

On December 26th the Santa Anita meet will open with much fanfare because of the return to a dirt surface. That is something I fought for along with Roger Way(rwwupl) and a few others. We are very proud of the small role we played in the return to dirt at Santa Anita. Opening day of the Santa Anita meet is always a big deal in California and there is a migration of Horseplayers who go to the track and to Satellite facilities to get the Santa Anita Calendar. It’s a long standing tradition out here. The return to a dirt surface is going to be a big deal and to attempt a boycott on that day would be a big mistake.

You may be right. That might not be a good day for a boycott, or a boycott might not even be a good idea. That, along with myriad other issues is what exploring the issue is for.

I would imagine after this survey and contact with players whome want to help and go ahead with something, there will be another set of strategy sessions with interested horseplayers sharing their thoughts and what they are willing to do to help.

If you would like to be a part of it, please add your name to the contact list. If you do not, or do not support player action, your opinion is welcomed as well here, or elsewhere. It is all part of the process, because HANA does not dictate to horseplayers what to do in this situtation, they listen to horseplayers who might want to do something and help put the infrastructure in place to hopefully achieve maximum success.

If anyone else has read this far and wants to help, or wants to share an opinion, please email info@horseplayersassociation.org or horseplayersassociation@gmail.com

andymays
10-16-2010, 12:24 PM
Dean, the notion that California is targeted because they are the only ones to recently raise takeout does not a will not resonate with 99% of Horseplayers when there are other states with much higher takeout. I know the details about what happened at the CHRB but 99% of Horseplayers don't know.

Waiting until there is a boycott before going on radio shows and making the case doesn't make sense to me at all.

You do not want any action to be looked upon as a bunch of guys from outside of California picking on California racing. California players should be given extra weight in any decision.

Anyway, thanks for the response. The last thing I want from this thread is a food fight. The issues are too important.

lamboguy
10-16-2010, 12:32 PM
big players that get rebates get more than 3% in either ELITE or RGS. the higher takeout in california probably didn't effect those players for one penny either.

the rebates in california tracks for people that do business with those rebate shops are alot higher than what they can get anywhere on NYRA tracks. i don't see anyone complaining about NYRA's takeout which is higher than california after rebate.

i don't play with either of these 2 rebate shops now, and i don't ever play california tracks, and hardly ever play NYRA

DeanT
10-16-2010, 12:35 PM
Waiting until there is a boycott before going on radio shows and making the case doesn't make sense to me at all.


You don't fire a gun until you have bullets in the chamber.

Dean, the notion that California is targeted because they are the only ones to recently raise takeout does not a will not resonate with 99% of Horseplayers when there are other states with much higher takeout.

I understand what you are saying but (with respect) it makes no sense to me.

Idaho has a 0% state tax. New York's is like 20%. If Idaho raises their state tax to 19.9% people would be energized to protest there, not New York, despite NY having higher taxes. It is the simplest analogy I can find.

CA is the front line; it's just the way it is. If a boycott happens, it will happen there. People are not running half cocked to do this. It will be planned, it will be promoted, and they will feel it.

andymays
10-16-2010, 12:37 PM
You don't fire a gun until you have bullets in the chamber.



I understand what you are saying but (with respect) it makes no sense to me.

Idaho has a 0% state tax. New York's is like 20%. If Idaho raises their state tax to 19.9% people would be energized to protest there, not New York, despite NY having higher taxes. It is the simplest analogy I can find.

CA is the front line; it's just the way it is. If a boycott happens, it will happen there. People are not running half cocked to do this. It will be planned, it will be promoted, and they will feel it.

Dean, you have to build support by educating the casual Horseplayers in California. You don't fire a gun until you have bullets to put in the gun. ;)

DJofSD
10-16-2010, 12:42 PM
"Happiness (is a warm gun), Bang Bang Shoot Shoot"

cj
10-16-2010, 12:47 PM
I know many here support rebates. I get them, but I'd rather they didn't exist. As long as they do, the sport is not going to grow. You will not get new players come into a game where they have to pay 20% while the best players with the most money pay less than 10. Where is the incentive for the new player?

The whole "secret society" thing is bad for the industry as well. Why does everything have to be such a secret with regards to rebates? I suspect it is because the industry would then be forced to admit lower takeout drives handle.

PhantomOnTour
10-16-2010, 12:51 PM
I know many here support rebates. I get them, but I'd rather they didn't exist. As long as they do, the sport is not going to grow. You will not get new players come into a game where they have to pay 20% while the best players with the most money pay less than 10. Where is the incentive for the new player?

The whole "secret society" thing is bad for the industry as well. Why does everything have to be such a secret with regards to rebates? I suspect it is because the industry would then be forced to admit lower takeout drives handle.
Well said CJ...that about sums it up for me too. When your bets return more you play more. Some get 'returns' for losing bets.

andymays
10-16-2010, 12:53 PM
I know many here support rebates. I get them, but I'd rather they didn't exist. As long as they do, the sport is not going to grow. You will not get new players come into a game where they have to pay 20% while the best players with the most money pay less than 10. Where is the incentive for the new player?

The whole "secret society" thing is bad for the industry as well. Why does everything have to be such a secret with regards to rebates? I suspect it is because the industry would then be forced to admit lower takeout drives handle.

Exactly! :ThmbUp:

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 01:07 PM
Racing lost me as a real customer due to the high takeout rates. I did not get rebates. If I could easily get rebates, or if takeout was much lower, I'd probably consider wagering on racing something worth pursuing, rather than something that takes an exorbitant amount of work for at the best of times very small gains.

Which all leads back to takeout -- the only way to get rid of rebates in a meaningful way that is positive, is to lower the takeout and increase the amount of monies being given back to players in each race.

DeanT
10-16-2010, 01:07 PM
The whole "secret society" thing is bad for the industry as well. Why does everything have to be such a secret with regards to rebates? I suspect it is because the industry would then be forced to admit lower takeout drives handle.

Absolutely. Whenever you hear an exec say lower take does them no good ask them why they dont cut off rebate shops.

It is a secret and they do like it that way. Most execs only want rebates to go to already big players. This is typical racetrack insular thinking: Small players can be big players with a rebate. They are leaving money on the table.

The simplest thing would be to lower take. But as we see with the line drawn in the California beach - the opposite is happening.

lamboguy
10-16-2010, 01:11 PM
I know many here support rebates. I get them, but I'd rather they didn't exist. As long as they do, the sport is not going to grow. You will not get new players come into a game where they have to pay 20% while the best players with the most money pay less than 10. Where is the incentive for the new player?

The whole "secret society" thing is bad for the industry as well. Why does everything have to be such a secret with regards to rebates? I suspect it is because the industry would then be forced to admit lower takeout drives handle.i totally agree, but its still the band-aid for the sport now. the principle behind the rebates were that if you get the big action, smaller action will follow and the rebates all blend in to the total.

rebates have wiped out the smaller players along with the high takeouts. but we are talking now about rebates and takeouts as being a problem for this game, i can list 10 things that are killing this game alot more than takeout and rebates and nothing is done about them.

probably the best thing for horseracing would be to let the sport die and restart it with a better plan than what we have today. horseracing done right will thrive with less than 10% takeout if done properly. i guarantee it would make more money with a 10% takeout than with this rediculous 30% for superfecta's and trifecta's in pennsylvania.

andymays
10-16-2010, 01:16 PM
Absolutely. Whenever you hear an exec say lower take does them no good ask them why they dont cut off rebate shops.

It is a secret and they do like it that way. Most execs only want rebates to go to already big players. This is typical racetrack insular thinking: Small players can be big players with a rebate. They are leaving money on the table.

The simplest thing would be to lower take. But as we see with the line drawn in the California beach - the opposite is happening.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the most California offers is about 3% and 8% to the largest bettors outside the state. Other tracks can offer 15% to 20% or more to the largest bettors outside of California right?

andymays
10-16-2010, 01:17 PM
Racing lost me as a real customer due to the high takeout rates. I did not get rebates. If I could easily get rebates, or if takeout was much lower, I'd probably consider wagering on racing something worth pursuing, rather than something that takes an exorbitant amount of work for at the best of times very small gains.

Which all leads back to takeout -- the only way to get rid of rebates in a meaningful way that is positive, is to lower the takeout and increase the amount of monies being given back to players in each race.

Or you ban rebates and then tracks will have to lower takeout to compete with one another.

rwwupl
10-16-2010, 01:19 PM
I know many here support rebates. I get them, but I'd rather they didn't exist. As long as they do, the sport is not going to grow. You will not get new players come into a game where they have to pay 20% while the best players with the most money pay less than 10. Where is the incentive for the new player?

The whole "secret society" thing is bad for the industry as well. Why does everything have to be such a secret with regards to rebates? I suspect it is because the industry would then be forced to admit lower takeout drives handle.

CJ,

Obviously you are correct. You are looking at the big picture.

Very sound reasoning. We have a lot of problems here in California, and I think the rest of the country does too. Can't we work on one problem at a time without talk of a boycott that no one will be a winner ?

May I ask who are the advocates or primary movers of a boycott in California and why I have not heard much from them, except through rumors? I am the HANA representitve for California, and at this time I think it is a bad idea and wasting valuable time. Convince me.

We all know what the problems are and it seems that many HANA members are no different than the rest of the industry..some want others (Californians) to sacrifice for them, but leave their advantage alone when talking about rebates.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 01:25 PM
Or you ban rebates and then tracks will have to lower takeout to compete with one another.

you could if you wanted to first enter an "even greater depression" era than we are in. There is no reason to ban rebates, then wait for handle to get absolutely obliterated, and then reduce takeout incrementally. You're just chasing more people off, hoping they someday will return.

Reducing takeout makes life better for all your small betters, while essentailly leaving takeout the same for rebate bettors. So life gets better for small bettors, things stay the same for rebate bettors. The two states converge. Reducing takeout solves both problems at the same time.

Eliminating rebates, by itself doesn't solve a problem, it does create a massive one, tho. I could never say YES do that, because for most tracks it would be catastrophic. Reducing takeout cuts straight to the chase, and skips the whole "courting catastrophe" phase.

cj
10-16-2010, 01:28 PM
CJ,

Obviously you are correct. You are looking at the big picture.

Very sound reasoning. We have a lot of problems here in California, and I think the rest of the country does too. Can't we work on one problem at a time without talk of a boycott that no one will be a winner ?

May I ask who are the advocates or primary movers of a boycott in California and why I have not heard much from them, except through rumors? I am the HANA representitve for California, and at this time I think it is a bad idea and wasting valuable time. Convince me.

We all know what the problems are and it seems that many HANA members are no different than the rest of the industry..some want others (Californians) to sacrifice for them, but leave their advantage alone when talking about rebates.

Honestly, I couldn't care less if California is boycotted or not. They are doing it on their won anyway with pathetic fields and bad surfaces. The only saving grace they had was decent takes in relation to other tracks. Now, however, they are killing that. Good luck to them. Who would want to bet those crap products with similar takeouts to other venues?

andymays
10-16-2010, 01:34 PM
you could if you wanted to first enter an "even greater depression" era than we are in. There is no reason to ban rebates, then wait for handle to get absolutely obliterated, and then reduce takeout incrementally. You're just chasing more people off, hoping they someday will return.

Reducing takeout makes life better for all your small betters, while essentailly leaving takeout the same for rebate bettors. So life gets better for small bettors, things stay the same for rebate bettors. The two states converge. Reducing takeout solves both problems at the same time.

Eliminating rebates, by itself doesn't solve a problem, it does create a massive one, tho. I could never say YES do that, because for most tracks it would be catastrophic. Reducing takeout cuts straight to the chase, and skips the whole "courting catastrophe" phase.

Then I guess you're for California offering better rebates to their players right?

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 01:35 PM
CJ,
We all know what the problems are and it seems that many HANA members are no different than the rest of the industry..some want others (Californians) to sacrifice for them, but leave their advantage alone when talking about rebates.

As a California resident and member of HANA, I consider the California takeout raise an outrage, terrible for the tracks, the horsemen, and the customers -- and do not consider my own stoppage of play, my withdrawal of support, for California to be a sacrifice, in the first instance, or something that has been requested of me, in the second instance.

Just so you've heard that directly, from someone you represent.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 01:37 PM
Then I guess you're for California offering better rebates to their players right?

As a far, far second choice behind lowering takeout rates, yes.

rwwupl
10-16-2010, 01:37 PM
Honestly, I couldn't care less if California is boycotted or not. They are doing it on their won anyway with pathetic fields and bad surfaces. The only saving grace they had was decent takes in relation to other tracks. Now, however, they are killing that. Good luck to them. Who would want to bet those crap products with similar takeouts to other venues?


Right,...So what would a boycott do that is not already happening.

andymays
10-16-2010, 01:40 PM
As a California resident and member of HANA, I consider the California takeout raise an outrage, terrible for the tracks, the horsemen, and the customers -- and do not consider my own stoppage of play, my withdrawal of support, for California to be a sacrifice, in the first instance, or something that has been requested of me, in the second instance.

Just so you've heard that directly, from someone you represent.

Why aren't you just as outraged by tracks like Woodbine, Belmont, and on and on? Once again that California is the only one to recently raise takeout is not going to resonate with 99% of casual Horseplayers. I know the details but most don't.

turfnsport
10-16-2010, 01:42 PM
Right,...So what would a boycott do that is not already happening.

If somewhat successful, a boycott would send a strong message to other racing jurisdictions not to raise their takeout.

andymays
10-16-2010, 01:43 PM
Just another point in the discussion.

Nobody goes after California racing as much as I do. Anyone on my email list would know that. This cannot be percieved as picking on California racing and that is what's going to happen if board members don't get out and make the case on radio and in print prior to any action.

andymays
10-16-2010, 01:45 PM
If somewhat successful, a boycott would send a strong message to other racing jurisdictions not to raise their takeout.

I agree. If it's successfull. Right now HANA leadership hasn't shown me anything to make me believe they are holding a winning hand. Wouldn't you like to know more before you jump in. It seems to me that that's the least they could do. Guys like myself and rwwupl have decades old relationships out here. We do not want to be made fools of with a half hearted effort. We have to keep living here.

rwwupl
10-16-2010, 01:45 PM
As a California resident and member of HANA, I consider the California takeout raise an outrage, terrible for the tracks, the horsemen, and the customers -- and do not consider my own stoppage of play, my withdrawal of support, for California to be a sacrifice, in the first instance, or something that has been requested of me, in the second instance.

Just so you've heard that directly, from someone you represent.


We all feel the outrage over the increase in takeout , it is out of step with the world and good sense.

Those who feel strong enough about it will do as they see fit, and I am for that, but a formal boycott asking others to do the same is a different thing.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 01:48 PM
Why aren't you just as outraged by tracks like Woodbine, Belmont, and on and on? Once again that California is the only one to recently raise takeout is not going to resonate with 99% of casual Horseplayers. I know the details but most don't.

I've always played Cali for 90% of my handle. I don't care what resonates with 99% of horseplayers, I don't ask them what to do. I'm saying what I care about. That's a start. There is 1. That's all. If other Cali players don't care they're just got a tax hike, then they don't care. So be it.

andymays
10-16-2010, 01:52 PM
I've always played Cali for 90% of my handle. I don't care what resonates with 99% of horseplayers, I don't ask them what to do. I'm saying what I care about. That's a start. There is 1. That's all. If other Cali players don't care they're just got a tax hike, then they don't care. So be it.

Your not answering the question about other tracks. If a boycott is to be successful and you want people to support it then the case has to be made.

rwwupl
10-16-2010, 01:53 PM
If somewhat successful, a boycott would send a strong message to other racing jurisdictions not to raise their takeout.



Repeat...What would a boycott do that is not already happening?

cj
10-16-2010, 02:09 PM
Why aren't you just as outraged by tracks like Woodbine, Belmont, and on and on? Once again that California is the only one to recently raise takeout is not going to resonate with 99% of casual Horseplayers. I know the details but most don't.

I think the reason is that the product sucks. Who raises prices with a bad product that isn't selling, other than idiots?

cj
10-16-2010, 02:10 PM
Repeat...What would a boycott do that is not already happening?

It would speed things up.

Deepsix
10-16-2010, 02:12 PM
As I read RW's posts concerning an 'official/organized HANA boycott' and/or simply 'letting the current economics and voluntary withholding of action on California tracks work its will' there is an interesting distinction. If an organized boycott is endorsed by HANA and it fails to meet the desired goals (whatever the bottom line goal is??) then HANA loses credibility. If, on the other hand, the voluntary boycott fails then HANA holds the safe ground by saying they didn't call for a boycott, anyway.

RW, have I broken the code?

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 02:14 PM
Your not answering the question about other tracks. If a boycott is to be successful and you want people to support it then the case has to be made.

99% of casual horseplayers are not going to resonate with any argument. They don't care. They don't know what takeout is. They have no idea how tracks pay for races. Even if they did know, they wouldn't care. This is not news to me. You're asking for an argument that doesn't exist.

The 1% of the savviest bettors have more than enough handle to make a meaningful difference to handle -- the 99% one day a year 4 horse $0.10 super box crowd are going to do what they do. Getting them to do anything else is a pipe dream, and is actually a waste of time and effort, imo.

Boycotts, or any sort of action, just like in politics -- are going to have traction primarily with the most engaged, the most in-tune, the most die-hard. That's just the way it works. People that don't care about politics don't give money to campaigns, or donate time at the phone banks. People that don't know this issue, and already care, and already want something to happen about it, aren't going to do anything. They aren't even going to be mildly receptive -- because you're encroaching on something they want to be fun.

rwwupl
10-16-2010, 02:15 PM
As I read RW's posts concerning an 'official/organized HANA boycott' and/or simply 'letting the current economics and voluntary withholding of action on California tracks work its will' there is an interesting distinction. If an organized boycott is endorsed by HANA and it fails to meet the desired goals (whatever the bottom line goal is??) then HANA loses credibility. If, on the other hand, the voluntary boycott fails then HANA holds the safe ground by saying they didn't call for a boycott, anyway.

RW, have I broken the code?



Thank you.

andymays
10-16-2010, 02:19 PM
99% of casual horseplayers are not going to resonate with any argument. They don't care. They don't know what takeout is. They have no idea how tracks pay for races. Even if they did know, they wouldn't care. This is not news to me. You're asking for an argument that doesn't exist.

The 1% of the savviest bettors have more than enough handle to make a meaningful difference to handle -- the 99% one day a year 4 horse $0.10 super box crowd are going to do what they do. Getting them to do anything else is a pipe dream, and is actually a waste of time and effort, imo.

Boycotts, or any sort of action, just like in politics -- are going to have traction primarily with the most engaged, the most in-tune, the most die-hard. That's just the way it works. People that don't care about politics don't give money to campaigns, or donate time at the phone banks. People that don't know this issue, and already care, and already want something to happen about it, aren't going to do anything.


Wrong. If you get on the radio or an interview and explain why the California takeout raise is worthy of a boycott when other venues have higher takeout then some will come to your side. Otherwise the Track Owners will spend the money to make the case that outsiders are just bashing California racing. We're not going up against a bunch of dummies.

Explaining the disparity in rebates for California players would certainly resonate. People understand basic fairness.

You still haven't said why California is more worthy of a boycott than other states with higher takeout. This has to be explained clearly.

cj
10-16-2010, 02:24 PM
You still haven't said why California is more worthy of a boycott than other states with higher takeout. This has to be explained clearly.

I did. The product sucks.

andymays
10-16-2010, 02:26 PM
I did. The product sucks.

CJ, I get it you hate California racing. But you don't play it anyway or you play it rarely. I could say the same thing about the racing in another state.

I've had some pretty good success out here before it went synthetic. Even though I go after a lot of the people running racing out here I'm still a California guy and I still intend to play here and win here especially when it goes back to dirt.

cj
10-16-2010, 02:29 PM
CJ, I get it you hate California racing. But you don't play it anyway or you play it rarely. I could say the same thing about the racing in another state.

I've had some pretty good success out here before it went synthetic. Even though I go after a lot of the people running racing out here I'm still a California guy and I still intend to play here and win here especially when it goes back to dirt.

I don't hate California racing, I hate the current product. Small fields, tons of MCL races, poor surface, weather cancellations, etc. What other tracks with such a poor product have raised takeout lately? Last I checked Los Al is in California.

andymays
10-16-2010, 02:35 PM
I don't hate California racing, I hate the current product. Small fields, tons of MCL races, poor surface, weather cancellations, etc. What other tracks with such a poor product have raised takeout lately? Last I checked Los Al is in California.

I get it. But the deal is that you're not a California guy. A boycott would be entertainment for you. Its' different with me. I want California to get back on it's feet. I'm for a boycott if HANA proves to me that they're putting forth the effort to make it work. I've changed my mind recently because I don't see anything close to a good effort. Why all the secrecy from this point out?

cj
10-16-2010, 02:37 PM
I get it. But the deal is that you're not a California guy. A boycott would be entertainment for you. Its' different with me. I want California to get back on it's feet. I'm for a boycott if HANA proves to me that they're putting forth the effort to make it work. I've changed my mind recently because I don't see anything close to a good effort. Why all the secrecy from this point out?

I already said I don't care if there is a boycott.

I'll say this, those profits you made on dirt will be less with a higher takeout. They'll also be harder to come by with 5 horse fields. Putting dirt in isn't going to make horses spring from the ashes.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 02:41 PM
You still haven't said why California is more worthy of a boycott than other states with higher takeout. This has to be explained clearly.

Californians, I know from personal experience, consider California to be the center of the universe. Because we are special, because we are huge, because we are trendsetters for the rest of the country.

So let us not follow down the same disastrous path as some other wayward states, with crippling high takeout. Nay, we must be the shining beacon on the hill in these dark days, we must reinstate ourselves back into the mantle of leadership -- and we can, and easily, folks -- we must simply cut our takeout rates to the lowest in the land.

And the responsibility for this falls upon us, the small folks, to correct this egregious wrong foisted upon all of California, this blanket of darkness, by the sinful CHRB --by showing our displeasure with this wrong-headed move by completely foregoing all of our betting in California. This is the only message they will understand, and it will be understood, and if we act as one, with brotherhood and a quiet and steadfast determination in our efforts, we will turn the tide, and win the day. Not just for California, but for America.

Thank you, and God Bless America, and God Bless California.

Deepsix
10-16-2010, 02:45 PM
Uhhh, you forgot Apple Pie and Motherhood.

andymays
10-16-2010, 02:46 PM
Californians, I know from personal experience, consider California to be the center of the universe. Because we are special, because we are huge, because we are trendsetters for the rest of the country.

So let us not follow down the same disastrous path as some other wayward states, with crippling high takeout. Nay, we must be the shining beacon on the hill in these dark days, we must reinstate ourselves back into the mantle of leadership -- and we can, and easily, folks -- we must simply cut our takeout rates to the lowest in the land.

And the responsibility for this falls upon us, the small folks, to correct this egregious wrong foisted upon all of California, this blanket of darkness, by the sinful CHRB --by showing our displeasure with this wrong-headed move by completely foregoing all of our betting in California. This is the only message they will understand, and it will be understood, and if we act as one, with brotherhood and a quiet and steadfast determination in our efforts, we will turn the tide, and win the day. Not just for California, but for America.

Thank you, and God Bless America, and God Bless California.

Look, if you got on the radio and answered my question that way the emails to the host of the show would be off the charts negative. You have to make the case without turning it into the Gettysburg address.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 02:48 PM
this would be a televised address. And I would be seated atop Zenyatta. And she would be weeping about the takeout.

Believe me, it would kill.

andymays
10-16-2010, 02:50 PM
I already said I don't care if there is a boycott.

I'll say this, those profits you made on dirt will be less with a higher takeout. They'll also be harder to come by with 5 horse fields. Putting dirt in isn't going to make horses spring from the ashes.

I get that too.

If you've been following things like the Byk show yesterday Rich Hammerle was talking about the positive feedback he's been getting form Handicappers and Trainers alike. Some Trainers and Owners are sending horses out here again because of the return to dirt.

cj
10-16-2010, 02:55 PM
I get that too.

If you've been following things like the Byk show yesterday Rich Hammerle was talking about the positive feedback he's been getting form Handicappers and Trainers alike. Some Trainers and Owners are sending horses out here again because of the return to dirt.

I'm skeptical with the current purse structure. We'll see in a few months.

GameTheory
10-16-2010, 02:56 PM
We have to keep in mind that a takeout raise is a self-imposed boycott. The laws of economics dictate that, so whether there is an organized boycott or not, CA will lose handle. A boycott is an "above and beyond" explicit message to the powers-that-be that we intend to make the result of this takeout raise WORSE than it otherwise would be (even though it will still be negative without a boycott).

I don't really support the idea of boycotts on economic grounds -- economics takes care of itself. They raise takeout, they will suffer exactly the amount they should via the laws of economics. So I would boycott because I have an ethical or other ADDITIONAL problem with the way things are being run, and unfortunately there are still plenty to choose from. (Political nonsense, unresponsiveness, bad product, cheaters not punished, etc.) But if you need a boycott to make your economic point, then you're really conceding that it is not an economically bad idea in the first place. So in that sense it is almost better just to point out how their handle will suffer instead of saying, "Raising takeout, eh? Now we'll MAKE you suffer." We don't actually have to do anything that won't happen naturally to make them suffer after a takeout raise. So far as the economic point goes, education of the horsemen might be a better approach, because they always seem to get their way.

andymays
10-16-2010, 02:57 PM
I'm skeptical with the current purse structure. We'll see in a few months.


They're raising them. That's where 100% of the take increase is going.

cj
10-16-2010, 02:58 PM
They're raising them. That's where 100% of the take increase is going.

Again, time will tell. 100% of nothing is nothing.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 02:59 PM
They're raising them. That's where 100% of the take increase is going.

A takeout increase does not mean more revenue. Short term it might, or it might not.

andymays
10-16-2010, 02:59 PM
We have to keep in mind that a takeout raise is a self-imposed boycott. The laws of economics dictate that, so whether there is an organized boycott or not, CA will lose handle. A boycott is an "above and beyond" explicit message to the powers-that-be that we intend to make the result of this takeout raise WORSE than it otherwise would be (even though it will still be negative without a boycott).

I don't really support the idea of boycotts on economic grounds -- economics takes care of itself. They raise takeout, they will suffer exactly the amount they should via the laws of economics. So I would boycott because I have an ethical or other ADDITIONAL problem with the way things are being run, and unfortunately there are still plenty to choose from. (Political nonsense, unresponsiveness, bad product, cheaters not punished, etc.) But if you need a boycott to make your economic point, then you're really conceding that it is not an economically bad idea in the first place. So in that sense it is almost better just to point out how their handle will suffer instead of saying, "Raising takeout, eh? Now we'll MAKE you suffer." We don't actually have to do anything that won't happen naturally to make them suffer after a takeout raise. So far as the economic point goes, education of the horsemen might be a better approach, because they always seem to get their way.

There are special circumstances in California and I know them well. What I'm trying unsuccessfully to get these guys to do is explain the special circumstances in a clear way so everyone will understand. So far nobody has come close.

andymays
10-16-2010, 03:00 PM
A takeout increase does not mean more revenue.

It means bigger purses for next year.

In the long run it means smaller purses and way way smaller handle. I get that.

andymays
10-16-2010, 03:02 PM
Again, time will tell. 100% of nothing is nothing.

Yes, it's short term gain at the expense of long term health. I get it. California will never get slots so they're taking the easy way out instead of trying to grow handle with lower takeout. It's a matter of time before it blows up.

cj
10-16-2010, 03:03 PM
It means bigger purses for next year.

In the long run it means smaller purses and way way smaller handle. I get that.

There is no guarantee it will mean bigger purses this year. What if handle shrinks as many expect?

andymays
10-16-2010, 03:06 PM
There is no guarantee it will mean bigger purses this year. What if handle shrinks as many expect?

They're not going to lower purses right away. I seriously doubt Santa Anita will think about lowering purses for the first few months of the meet. After that maybe.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 04:02 PM
We have to keep in mind that a takeout raise is a self-imposed boycott. The laws of economics dictate that, so whether there is an organized boycott or not, CA will lose handle. A boycott is an "above and beyond" explicit message to the powers-that-be that we intend to make the result of this takeout raise WORSE than it otherwise would be (even though it will still be negative without a boycott).

I don't really support the idea of boycotts on economic grounds -- economics takes care of itself. They raise takeout, they will suffer exactly the amount they should via the laws of economics. So I would boycott because I have an ethical or other ADDITIONAL problem with the way things are being run, and unfortunately there are still plenty to choose from. (Political nonsense, unresponsiveness, bad product, cheaters not punished, etc.) But if you need a boycott to make your economic point, then you're really conceding that it is not an economically bad idea in the first place. So in that sense it is almost better just to point out how their handle will suffer instead of saying, "Raising takeout, eh? Now we'll MAKE you suffer." We don't actually have to do anything that won't happen naturally to make them suffer after a takeout raise. So far as the economic point goes, education of the horsemen might be a better approach, because they always seem to get their way.

Maybe that is actually part of the problem, however. If they thought it was actually a result of a conscious choice, or a disgust, on behalf of their customers maybe they would be more receptive to listen to them. The general economics argument doesn't seem to have much sway. Maybe part of the problem with getting anyone to listen is that we're too honest.

We tell them to listen, but then point to economic studies, rather than laying claim to that behavior ourselves. Rather than say "We will do this, if you do that" we say "Studies show this happens when you do that". Both statements are true. Saying a takeout hike causes a handle drop is the same thing as saying "We as horseplayers, are going to play less if you do that". Which is in essence a statement of boycott, even if it's not really conscious.

It's the same statement, other than the first is much more humbly stated, as if it's an observation by a third party, observing horseplayers, rather than a statement by the customers themselves.

I'm not saying I know, but laying claim to that power, directly, may be what's needed to bring home the point. Who cares where that power is actually derived, if they want to believe it comes from us, consciously, rather than from economics, so be it.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 04:22 PM
p.s. as to the point about credibility, of HANA and of horseplayers -- I'd argue the same risk is present either way, as well, since the argument is essentially the same. Arguing that if "you do this, handle will go down", and then having handle rise is in no way different than saying "if you do this we are boycotting you and handle will go down" and having handle rise. There is not much of a corner case where you're gonna be right in one instance but wrong in the other.

Just making that argument, in front of the CHRB, having it be a central plank of HANA -- that already puts HANAs ass out there, and any horseplayer who agrees with that plank. If like Andy said, handle needs to be down 15% or the boycott will be a disaster -- then also without a boycott handle needs to be down 15% or it will be a disaster. There isn't any running away from it.

The thesis of takeouts mattering, and the customer behavior in reaction to them is what is at risk here -- and it is on the line. The takeout increase is what put it on the line. Like Dean said, is not HANA or horseplayers that chose to put that issue into play in Cali, the TOC did. And, since it's in play, it's in play -- there is no way out of it, boycott or no boycott -- the thesis about the effects of takeout is going to be tested in California, like right now. And it only ever clearly gets tested around changes in takeout. That's why we're talking about Cali and not Belmont.

Handle needs to be lighter than it otherwise would have been without the takeout raise, in either case, or the thesis looks bad. Proving that it is lighter, and because of the takeout increase, is of course the real problem in both cases. See every track that has ever raised takeout, for examples.

highnote
10-16-2010, 04:34 PM
I know many here support rebates. I get them, but I'd rather they didn't exist. As long as they do, the sport is not going to grow. You will not get new players come into a game where they have to pay 20% while the best players with the most money pay less than 10. Where is the incentive for the new player?

I recently got a new player to sign up with an ADW that offers rebates. The new player may not win right away, but at least the new player will be in the game longer -- assuming the rebate is bet back.

So if you're going to bring in new players at least steer them towards a place where they can get rebates.

andymays
10-16-2010, 04:35 PM
I recently got a new player to sign up with an ADW that offers rebates. The new player may not win right away, but at least the new player will be in the game longer -- assuming the rebate is bet back.

So if you're going to bring in new players at least steer them towards a place where they can get rebates.

In California you have to go offshore to get anything over 3% and that's a pain in the ass.

andymays
10-16-2010, 05:16 PM
Hey Jeff, I knew this thread would smoke you out. :lol:

rwwupl
10-16-2010, 05:18 PM
I recently got a new player to sign up with an ADW that offers rebates. The new player may not win right away, but at least the new player will be in the game longer -- assuming the rebate is bet back.

So if you're going to bring in new players at least steer them towards a place where they can get rebates.

No new player in California is going to get a rebate, unless he is related to some mucky muck. You have demonstrated the unfair way players are treated. There are many loyal veteran players in California and elsewhere who get nothing if they follow the law and the excess they pay for a bet allows your new friend to get a rebate. Just because your jurisdiction is being subsidized for the ability to offer rebates you think all is fine. All is not fine.

John, No offense please, but your me first approach does not serve the big picture well,and does not solve problems, it expands them for the growth of the industry fan base. Fairness matters.

I know, I know, I should move to Ohio,or Canada or?

Yeah...Thats the answer, that solves it. Thanks.

DeanT
10-16-2010, 05:23 PM
Californians, I know from personal experience, consider California to be the center of the universe. Because we are special, because we are huge, because we are trendsetters for the rest of the country.

So let us not follow down the same disastrous path as some other wayward states, with crippling high takeout. Nay, we must be the shining beacon on the hill in these dark days, we must reinstate ourselves back into the mantle of leadership -- and we can, and easily, folks -- we must simply cut our takeout rates to the lowest in the land.

And the responsibility for this falls upon us, the small folks, to correct this egregious wrong foisted upon all of California, this blanket of darkness, by the sinful CHRB --by showing our displeasure with this wrong-headed move by completely foregoing all of our betting in California. This is the only message they will understand, and it will be understood, and if we act as one, with brotherhood and a quiet and steadfast determination in our efforts, we will turn the tide, and win the day. Not just for California, but for America.

Thank you, and God Bless America, and God Bless California.

if you said something about the horses there made of fine grained unicorn tusk I was gonna bust a gut :D

Gallop58
10-16-2010, 05:52 PM
Re: Andy's: "Quite frankly HANA needs to decide whether it supports the majority of Horseplayers or the majority of high volume players."

Long time listener, first time caller :)

I think at this stage HANA best represents all horseplayers. It's best effect is to give a voice to the entire spectrum, from minnow to whale.(It's HANA, not WANA or $2BANA) It's best effect is as an advocate for each and primarily a lobbying group in the best sense of the word. Maybe "advocacy group" is better. Instead of advocating particular policies, I'd say just keep teasing out horseplayer issues and try to keep it on the boil.

IMHO, that people are even talking about a boycott is purely a function of internet based organization and what seems to be the beginnings of a voice for horseplayers, where before there was none. It's a long haul to pull an entire industry out of decline. IMO, the best strides can be made by getting the ear of the power players or become a power player. Educate, cajole, scream from the mountain top, whisper in the corridors of power, have a coffee with Bo.....

To an earlier point, previous takeout raises elsewhere have been just as offensive, but people have just shrugged and let their personal compass guide them. When you finally figure out that there are like minded people around and that they don't like it either and especially when you get a small rolodex of contacts in all these new media channels that need "programming" and story's, you start to think you can do something about it. In all likelihood you're punching above your weight, but hey, it feels better to be in a fight. Makes me feel more important.

Just keep on going on. Slow and steady. Just keep up the pre-fight promotion. Do a Don King.

A tip toe peak around the curtain (boycott) to see if you actually hold the sword of damocles ends poorly when it turns out you can't even pull excalibur out of the stone.

This may not speak to the action oriented among us. It's the firebrands who are initially drawn to organizing efforts, and they're usually the first to leave when things aren't radical enough. They will say "We must take ACTION! NOW!"

Whoa Boys. Just keep on going on. One foot in front of another. No need to make the lead if you're really just cheap speed. IMO, California or any jurisdiction will not change for the better (or bettor) unless the end product is always tried to be made more appealing.

Fair competition.

High quality horses.

High purses.

Full fields.

Racetracks that have cache.

Low takeout.

High effective handle.

HANA has a rightful place in the industry. And it will be more "rightful" when it's the voice of the horseplayer's on all of the above. An articulate and passioned voice is what my HANA is.

Keep up the good work.

andymays
10-16-2010, 05:54 PM
Nice Post Gallop! :ThmbUp:

Indulto
10-16-2010, 06:00 PM
… There is no reason to ban rebates, then wait for handle to get absolutely obliterated, and then reduce takeout incrementally. You're just chasing more people off, hoping they someday will return.

Reducing takeout makes life better for all your small betters, while essentailly leaving takeout the same for rebate bettors. So life gets better for small bettors, things stay the same for rebate bettors. The two states converge. Reducing takeout solves both problems at the same time. … It sounds as if you’re advocating lowering takeout directly rather than effectively by giving everyone a rebate of some sort? Isn’t that a reversal of your and/or HANA’s previous position?

I’m for any and all types of collective action led simultaneously against the raise in takeout at California tracks. Boycotting is one of them, but it would seem counterproductive to try to conduct one against Santa Anita on weekends, as well as to be led officially by HANA until its membership in CA at least matches that of the TOC.

However, HANA should be perceived as 1) considering a boycott as a viable option if supported by a super majority of its demonstrably increasing membership, 2) totally opposed to the increase in CA as the first of many existing high takeout venues to be addressed subsequently with similar membership support, 3) totally in favor of leveling the playing field for all bettors as soon as practical.

Toward that end HANA might consider becoming funded to create a not-for-profit ADW that provides equal rebates to all its members regardless what they bet or where they live while CONTINUING TO WORK to lower direct takeout to an equal level for all bettors when that model is supportable by handle levels. If we collectively bet as much as a whale, why shouldn’t we collectively benefit from a whale-sized rebate?

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 06:09 PM
It sounds as if you’re advocating lowering takeout directly rather than effectively by giving everyone a rebate of some sort? Isn’t that a reversal of your and/or HANA’s previous position?

What I'd prefer and what's easier are probably two different things. Rebates are easier, and have a huge effect for those that get them because they effect most all tracks that person plays. Takeout reductions are hard, and one track at a time. If I had a magic wand, it'd be instantaneous takeout reductions everywhere.


Toward that end HANA might consider becoming funded to create a not-for-profit ADW that provides equal rebates to all its members regardless what they bet or where they live while CONTINUING TO WORK to lower direct takeout to an equal level for all bettors when that model is supportable by handle levels. If we collectively bet as much as a whale, why shouldn’t we collectively benefit from a whale-sized rebate?

I think that is available to small bettors, in lots of states. Not by non-profit ADWs, but from ADWs that aren't making much profit. :) Some of the difficulty around that is as CJ said, secret society. They simply can't really advertise things properly, and the smaller the bettor, the more you're really gonna have to advertise to get them to notice you. But not available to California bettors, in any case.

I think HANA has been trying to advocate for both of those things, by both arguing for reduction in takeouts AND advocating for freeing up the ADW restrictions Ca has in place, so that rebates can get expanded to in state residents.

Those do appear to be contradictory positions to a lot of people, tho.

rwwupl
10-16-2010, 06:18 PM
Re: Andy's: "Quite frankly HANA needs to decide whether it supports the majority of Horseplayers or the majority of high volume players."

Long time listener, first time caller :)

I think at this stage HANA best represents all horseplayers. It's best effect is to give a voice to the entire spectrum, from minnow to whale.(It's HANA, not WANA or $2BANA) It's best effect is as an advocate for each and primarily a lobbying group in the best sense of the word. Maybe "advocacy group" is better. Instead of advocating particular policies, I'd say just keep teasing out horseplayer issues and try to keep it on the boil.

IMHO, that people are even talking about a boycott is purely a function of internet based organization and what seems to be the beginnings of a voice for horseplayers, where before there was none. It's a long haul to pull an entire industry out of decline. IMO, the best strides can be made by getting the ear of the power players or become a power player. Educate, cajole, scream from the mountain top, whisper in the corridors of power, have a coffee with Bo.....

To an earlier point, previous takeout raises elsewhere have been just as offensive, but people have just shrugged and let their personal compass guide them. When you finally figure out that there are like minded people around and that they don't like it either and especially when you get a small rolodex of contacts in all these new media channels that need "programming" and story's, you start to think you can do something about it. In all likelihood you're punching above your weight, but hey, it feels better to be in a fight. Makes me feel more important.

Just keep on going on. Slow and steady. Just keep up the pre-fight promotion. Do a Don King.

A tip toe peak around the curtain (boycott) to see if you actually hold the sword of damocles ends poorly when it turns out you can't even pull excalibur out of the stone.

This may not speak to the action oriented among us. It's the firebrands who are initially drawn to organizing efforts, and they're usually the first to leave when things aren't radical enough. They will say "We must take ACTION! NOW!"

Whoa Boys. Just keep on going on. One foot in front of another. No need to make the lead if you're really just cheap speed. IMO, California or any jurisdiction will not change for the better (or bettor) unless the end product is always tried to be made more appealing.

Fair competition.

High quality horses.

High purses.

Full fields.

Racetracks that have cache.

Low takeout.

High effective handle.

HANA has a rightful place in the industry. And it will be more "rightful" when it's the voice of the horseplayer's on all of the above. An articulate and passioned voice is what my HANA is.

Keep up the good work.



Sharp post, many good points,don't be a stranger.

Thank You

Deepsix
10-16-2010, 06:31 PM
None of Gallops' points are anything new..... youse guys have been saying this same stuff for 2+ years. I'm simply waiting to see where HANA is going to lead, or get off the pot.

andymays
10-16-2010, 06:32 PM
None of Gallops' points are anything new..... youse guys have been saying this same stuff for 2+ years. I'm simply waiting to see where HANA is going to lead, or get off the pot.

Are you just going to complain or vote? You don't have to be a member to vote.

Indulto
10-16-2010, 06:38 PM
... I think that is available to small bettors, in lots of states. Not by non-profit ADWs, but from ADWs that aren't making much profit. :) Some of the difficulty around that is as CJ said, secret society. They simply can't really advertise things properly, and the smaller the bettor, the more you're really gonna have to advertise to get them to notice you. But not available to California bettors, in any case.

I think HANA has been trying to advocate for both of those things, by both arguing for reduction in takeouts AND advocating for freeing up the ADW restrictions Ca has in place, so that rebates can get expanded to in state residents.

Those do appear to be contradictory positions to a lot of people, tho.Why does HANA not see the takeout debacle in CA as an opportunity to increase its membership? Is it because they don't want to be accountable to a membership at all -- especially one of considerable size?

Deepsix
10-16-2010, 06:39 PM
Voting in such 'polls' is a waste of time, in my view. How many times, over how many years must we ask the same questions, over and over again?

I've voted with my $$$$.

btw: Andy and RW--- though we disagree and I'm often jabbing you guys in the ribs I do recognize the effort you put in to this game.

JustRalph
10-16-2010, 06:42 PM
Let me answer one point. Andy asks why not boycott Woodbine and other tracks with larger takeout.

I used to not play Woodbine specifically because of takeout. We had a poster here (Cangamble? maybe?) that really turned me on to why the Woodbine take was onerous etc. I stayed away. I was a huge California player. Okay, Huge might not be the right word on handle, and dollars. But I loved playing Ca and had a ball. It was fun as hell and about 6 yrs ago the lack of horses etc started to push me away. Then came poly etc. I only played HOL with a few exceptions and as of last HOL meet stopped. I have been searching for decent fields, competitive races and trying to avoid Super trainers. Guess where I ended up playing more? Woodbine. The track is consistent (better than any other poly) and I have enjoyed it. It's the only place I can find decent fields and avoid the cheating trainers that show up just about everywhere in the mid west now.

I had to bail on Keeneland because of the mess they made of the track. I avoid Ca and Churchill has gone to hell the last few meets. What the hell is a guy supposed to do? I get tired of searching for decent races. I now pick and choose some NY racing and a little bit of other stuff but I get tired of searching for good racing. I am not a huge player. The most I have ever put through the windows in a year is about 10k (and that was 5 or more years back) but I was also a winning player most years. The result is I don't win anymore (California was my profit center) and I work my ass off to find decent races to play. I don't lose a bunch, but I might as well go find a job working 10-20 hours a week, because that is what it takes to find any decent racing....and I still don't make any money...at least it is that way for me. So why not sit on the sidelines. How many guys like me are out there?

I haven't bet into a live pool since Saratoga. I am so damned burned out on chasing decent races that I decided to wait for the Breeders Cup. I have played a few contests (and that is fun, with no takeout) to keep in practice and in touch with the game. But this Ca takeout hike is the hot button issue now and HANA and "Horseplayers" should be screaming their lungs out. HANA isn't going to be able to scream loud enough without Horseplayers themselves working on this problem also.

The damn sport is falling apart around our ears and if you give a damn about it, you should be letting it known and known outside this board. I haven't done as much as I should, but I am starting to maybe hear a clarion call off in the distance. Every other sport in America has fallen off my radar for many different reasons, but this one sticks with me more than the others. I thought Bud Selig was bad, but there are at least ten guys just like him running race tracks. I do support a Ca boycott because it is timely and is in line with all the work HANA has done on takeout analysis. I don't care if it is a one percent handle drop... that's the only thing the bloodsuckers who run the game are going to understand.

chickenhead
10-16-2010, 06:49 PM
Why does HANA not see the takeout debacle in CA as an opportunity to increase its membership? Is it because they don't want to accountable to a membership at all -- especially one of considerable size?

Not sure what you'd think either of those is true. I think they'd love to have 10,000 members, and if they thought they knew an easy way to make that happen, they'd trip over themselves to do it. Having tried for so long to get in the press at all, to get any traction, and observing what sort of response they see so far as membership sign-ups, maybe they just have a more realistic opinion of what kind of returns to expect.

I personally think you've always been of the opinion that things are easier than they are. Nothing is easy, that includes gaining members, and being accountable to them. But I commend HANA, tremendously, for trying.

Indulto
10-16-2010, 06:56 PM
... The damn sport is falling apart around our ears and if you give a damn about it, you should be letting it known and known outside this board. I haven't done as much as I should, but I am starting to maybe hear a clarion call off in the distance. Every other sport in America has fallen off my radar for many different reasons, but this one sticks with me more than the others. I thought Bud Selig was bad, but there are at least ten guys just like him running race tracks. I do support a Ca boycott because it is timely and is in line with all the work HANA has done on takeout analysis. I don't care if it is a one percent handle drop... that's the only thing the bloodsuckers who run the game are going to understand.Way to go, JR. :ThmbUp:

andymays
10-16-2010, 06:57 PM
Voting in such 'polls' is a waste of time, in my view. How many times, over how many years must we ask the same questions, over and over again?

I've voted with my $$$$.

btw: Andy and RW--- though we disagree and I'm often jabbing you guys in the ribs I do recognize the effort you put in to this game.

You should vote what you think is right. I expect the people for a boycott will outnumber the ones against by at least two to one. California residents might be close. The reason I'm taking this position right now is to raise the bar for HANA so if they do it they won't fall short. I intend to keep raising the bar until I get a phone call or an email letting me know what's going on and how many people who bet are on board. I am still open to changing my mind if I see that the work is being done. I am especially troubled by the lack of contact with rwwupl who is the California representative. If they thought they were getting a yes man they are sadly mistaken. He knows more about California racing than all of us put together.

The bar will continue to be raised. ;)

DeanT
10-16-2010, 06:58 PM
Let me answer one point. Andy asks why not boycott Woodbine and other tracks with larger takeout snip.


Nice post Malph. You reflected what a lot of players are feeling the past several years quite well.

andymays
10-16-2010, 07:02 PM
Anyone want to give up the email survey results?

Indulto
10-16-2010, 07:12 PM
Not sure what you'd think either of those is true. I think they'd love to have 10,000 members, and if they thought they knew an easy way to make that happen, they'd trip over themselves to do it. Having tried for so long to get in the press at all, to get any traction, and observing what sort of response they see so far as membership sign-ups, maybe they just have a more realistic opinion of what kind of returns to expect.

I personally think you've always been of the opinion that things are easier than they are. Nothing is easy, that includes gaining members, and being accountable to them. But I commend HANA, tremendously, for trying.You are right about one thing. There is no easy way. That's why there's no point in waiting for an easy way, but rather work like hell when the opportunity presents itself.

I'll admit that I used to think recreational players would be more concerned about the takeout disparity than they have been proven themselves to be so far, but neither have they had an issue to motivate them like this one.

InsideThePylons-MW
10-16-2010, 07:27 PM
CA (TOC, CHRB, CTT, etc) kick every horseplayer in the nuts, especially CA horseplayers.......what happens?.......some CA horseplayers argue that rebates should be taken away from all other horseplayers...WTF?

This is pretty much why the people in charge of racing laugh their asses off at us and won't listen to us.

andymays
10-16-2010, 07:29 PM
CA (TOC, CHRB, CTT, etc) kick every horseplayer in the nuts, especially CA horseplayers.......what happens?.......some CA horseplayers argue that rebates should be taken away from all other horseplayers...WTF?

This is pretty much why the people in charge of racing laugh their asses off at us and won't listen to us.

No, they should offer California players comparable rebates. The TOC is the main culprit from what I understand.

In a perfect world and it's never going to happen racing would be better off with lower takeout for all and no rebates.

highnote
10-16-2010, 07:31 PM
No new player in California is going to get a rebate, unless he is related to some mucky muck. You have demonstrated the unfair way players are treated.

Lack of rebates in California is a local issue, not a national issue, IMHO. Players outside of California are treated fairly. Why aren't you fighting for players from Tennessee or South Carolina or Alaska or Hawaii or whatever states don't allow pari-mutuel wagering? I haven't heard a single word about helping them.

Californians are trying to get non-Californians to fight your fight. I don't hear anyone trying to help change the law in Connecticut so players here can bet legally over the internet.


There are many loyal veteran players in California and elsewhere who get nothing if they follow the law and the excess they pay for a bet allows your new friend to get a rebate. Just because your jurisdiction is being subsidized for the ability to offer rebates you think all is fine. All is not fine.


Look, prosititution is legal in Nevada, but I don't hear anyone in other states saying it's unfair. If someone outside of NV wants a prostitute they are free to fly to NV.

John, No offense please, but your me first approach does not serve the big picture well,and does not solve problems, it expands them for the growth of the industry fan base. Fairness matters.

I know, I know, I should move to Ohio,or Canada or?

Yeah...Thats the answer, that solves it. Thanks.

No offense taken. I recognize the problem you have in CA. However, I think the problem is a local one. More players live outside CA than within. The majority are being served. Players outside CA can't help it if players inside CA aren't fighting hard enough to get the law changed.

andymays
10-16-2010, 07:33 PM
Lack of rebates in California is a local issue, not a national issue, IMHO. Players outside of California are treated fairly. Why aren't you fighting for players from Tennessee or South Carolina or Alaska or Hawaii or whatever states don't allow pari-mutuel wagering? I haven't heard a single word about helping them.


Californians are trying to get non-Californians to fight your fight. I don't hear anyone trying to help change the law in Connecticut so players here can bet legally over the internet.


Look, prosititution is legal in Nevada, but I don't hear anyone in other states saying it's unfair. If someone outside of NV wants a prostitute they are free to fly to NV.

No offense taken. I recognize the problem you have in CA. However, I think the problem is a local one. More players live outside CA than within. The majority are being served. Players outside CA can't help it if players inside CA aren't fighting hard enough to get the law changed.

What are you talking about? :confused:

highnote
10-16-2010, 07:39 PM
What are you talking about? :confused:


Can you be a little more specific? I hit on several points. Is there anything in particular on which you'd like to know my opinion. Opinions are what I have the most of, so fire away. :D

andymays
10-16-2010, 07:40 PM
Can you be a little more specific? I hit on several points. Is there anything in particular on which you'd like to know my opinion. Opinions are what I have the most of, so fire away. :D

How can you say Californians are trying to get others to fight our fight?

What does that mean?

InsideThePylons-MW
10-16-2010, 07:42 PM
No, they should offer California players comparable rebates. The TOC is the main culprit from what I understand.



I agree......but since they don't.....be mad at them.....not at other horseplayers.

In a perfect world and it's never going to happen racing would be better off with lower takeout for all and no rebates.

I've said countless times for years that 10% takeout would be better for all than the current takeout and rebates.

andymays
10-16-2010, 08:01 PM
I agree......but since they don't.....be mad at them.....not at other horseplayers.



I've said countless times for years that 10% takeout would be better for all than the current takeout and rebates.

What makes you think I'm mad at other Horseplayers?

My point is that players in California can easily understand the lousy rebates we get compared to other states and that might be a rallying point that makes a lot more sense than trying to explain why we're boycotting California and not states with much higher takeout. That was my point.

I did also make the point that it's easy for out of state players to boycott California because most of them can get higher rebates at other tracks. If that is a factor in the decision to only boycott California then it is wrong. Players in California are screwed no matter which states they bet on.

highnote
10-16-2010, 09:05 PM
How can you say Californians are trying to get others to fight our fight?

What does that mean?


I've kind of gotten lost in this thread. Maybe I was referring to RW when he wrote: "John, No offense please, but your me first approach does not serve the big picture well,and does not solve problems, it expands them for the growth of the industry fan base. Fairness matters."

Specifically the "does not solve problems". I don't think it is a me first approach and I don't think it is a non-Californian problem.

Why should non-Californians be concerned with a California problem? Californians are not concerned by lack of pari-mutuel wagering in Hawaii or lack of internet betting from Connecticut. I guess my question is, Why should players in HI or CT be concerned about problems local to CA?

Indulto
10-16-2010, 09:11 PM
I agree......but since they don't.....be mad at them.....not at other horseplayers.

I've said countless times for years that 10% takeout would be better for all than the current takeout and rebates.Are you taking the position that every thing was hunky dory before the increase? This raise is the last straw which is making us look at everything that's wrong about CA racing.

If we're going to make the big effort, collectively, we should accomplish more than just a return to the status quo, but rather obtain a real correction to the game.

Who's expressing anger in your direction? I'd just like you to get the opportunity to play against recreational bettors when we all play by the same rules -- ones you say you'll endorse. Are you willing to boycott to get us to that 10% direct takeout for all that you've been advocating all along?

andymays
10-16-2010, 09:15 PM
I've kind of gotten lost in this thread. Maybe I was referring to RW when he wrote: "John, No offense please, but your me first approach does not serve the big picture well,and does not solve problems, it expands them for the growth of the industry fan base. Fairness matters."

Specifically the "does not solve problems". I don't think it is a me first approach and I don't think it is a non-Californian problem.

Why should non-Californians be concerned with a California problem? Californians are not concerned by lack of pari-mutuel wagering in Hawaii or lack of internet betting from Connecticut. I guess my question is, Why should players in HI or CT be concerned about problems local to CA?

Even though I originally supported a boycott I am currently against a boycott so I'm not asking for them to do me any favors.

Deepsix
10-16-2010, 09:17 PM
SCREAM.... Pulling Hair Out!!!!! HANA has no idea of how to represent this mass.



They are lost.

andymays
10-16-2010, 09:21 PM
SCREAM.... Pulling Hair Out!!!!! HANA has no idea of how to represent this mass.



They are lost.


Everyone is waiting for you to vote.

Deepsix
10-16-2010, 09:25 PM
I vote "absent" (geez, hope that doesn't count me at a later date!!)

highnote
10-16-2010, 09:27 PM
Even though I originally supported a boycott I am currently against a boycott so I'm not asking for them to do me any favors.

Same here. I was originally for a boycott when I helped start HANA a couple of years ago, but there were so many who were against a boycott because HANA didn't have the numbers. It sounds like HANA still does not have the numbers -- nor the support.

I came to realize a boycott isn't necessary because horseplayers were and are boycotting. All you have to do is look at the industry numbers to see this. The industry is shrinking.

Maybe this is the natural cycle? Maybe the industry will contract and then at some point expand again? Maybe it's a 60 or 100 year super cycle? Who knows?

In the meantime, my position is that rebates are good for the game because they are available to a large number of players even if players in CA can not get them. And it is unfortunate for CA players, but CA players will probably have to deal with the problem on their own.

DeanT
10-16-2010, 09:28 PM
Who's expressing anger in your direction? I'd just like you to get the opportunity to play against recreational bettors when we all play by the same rules -- ones you say you'll endorse. Are you willing to boycott to get us to that 10% direct takeout for all that you've been advocating all along?

Considering that he and some of his cohorts were a major reason for the Los al handle drop (that the CHRB thinks was "phantom") I would think he is on your side.

andymays
10-16-2010, 09:30 PM
Same here. I was originally for a boycott when I helped start HANA a couple of years ago, but there were so many who were against a boycott because HANA didn't have the numbers. It sounds like HANA still does not have the numbers -- nor the support.

I came to realize a boycott isn't necessary because horseplayers were and are boycotting. All you have to do is look at the industry numbers to see this. The industry is shrinking.

Maybe this is the natural cycle? Maybe the industry will contract and then at some point expand again? Maybe it's a 60 or 100 year super cycle? Who knows?

In the meantime, my position is that rebates are good for the game because they are available to a large number of players.

Under the right circumstances and with the right preparation and effort a boycott can be very successful. I don't see the effort so far and for some reason the people in charge are being very secretive even though Jeff mentioned a boycott several weeks ago and Pricci did his article a couple of days ago. What's up with that stuff?

andymays
10-16-2010, 09:31 PM
Considering that he and some of his cohorts were a major reason for the Los al handle drop (that the CHRB thinks was "phantom") I would think he is on your side.

Well, how would anyone know that?

highnote
10-16-2010, 09:35 PM
Under the right circumstances and with the right preparation and effort a boycott can be very successful. I don't see the effort so far and for some reason the people in charge are being very secretive even though Jeff mentioned a boycott several weeks ago and Pricci did his article a couple of days ago. What's up with that stuff?


I think the board is doing their best to make sure they take the right action.

Sometimes taking no action is the best action to take.

DeanT
10-16-2010, 09:35 PM
Well, how would anyone know that?

Because the handle went down. The reason it went down is because players stopped playing Los Al. He was one of them and said so on this very board when he warned the CHRB would be after the thoroughbreds next. In case you have not noticed from his posts, he prolly bets as much or more than anyone on this board.

andymays
10-16-2010, 09:35 PM
I think the board is doing their best to make sure they take the right action.

Sometimes taking no action is the best action to take.

They're taking action. It's not if it's when.

andymays
10-16-2010, 09:38 PM
Because the handle went down. The reason it went down is because players stopped playing Los Al. He was one of them and said so in this very board when he warned the CHRB would be after the thoroughbreds were next.

I must have missed that post. I'll take your word for it.

Quite a few people knew the Los Alamitos thing was a trial balloon and a sign of things to come.

andymays
10-16-2010, 09:39 PM
Because the handle went down. The reason it went down is because players stopped playing Los Al. He was one of them and said so on this very board when he warned the CHRB would be after the thoroughbreds next. In case you have not noticed from his posts, he prolly bets as much or more than anyone on this board.

I haven't noticed how much he plays but I'll take your word for it.

Indulto
10-16-2010, 10:17 PM
Considering that he and some of his cohorts were a major reason for the Los al handle drop (that the CHRB thinks was "phantom") I would think he is on your side.I've always thought it would be good to have ITP on one's side. ;) You too, for that matter. Wouldn't it be great if this issue put us all on the same side?

andymays
10-17-2010, 04:23 AM
Well, so far it's been a pretty good thread with some great points and counter points.

I still don't see some of the questions being answered and I still don't see some of the HANA board members contributing to the discussion. One of the issues I have with groups like the CHRB is that the board members could really give a crap about Horseplayers and they treat us badly. One great example of that was the poor treatment of Jeff and Barry Meadow at one of the CHRB meetings. I believe I was the one to fire off an email a couple of days after the incident.

Here is the email sent on July 23rd to some of the CHRB board members, TOC members, Track Executives, Reporters, and Horseplayers.

Excerpt:

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


For a boycott to be successful the average Horseplayer needs to hear from board members to show that they care about all Horseplayers and not just a select few who they think bet a lot. So far it looks like a lot of the board doesn't want to interact with the membership. Are we representing all Horseplayers or just the ones that bet the most?

These are easy questions to answer. Going on the radio and making the case to gain support is easy as well. A clear case has to be made as to why California should be singled out and not states with higher takeout. My email of July 23rd is one example of why a boycott is probably warranted. The thing is, why do I have to answer my own questions in the thread? C'mon people. :rolleyes:

rwwupl
10-17-2010, 12:12 PM
Because the handle went down. The reason it went down is because players stopped playing Los Al. He was one of them and said so on this very board when he warned the CHRB would be after the thoroughbreds next. In case you have not noticed from his posts, he prolly bets as much or more than anyone on this board.




The Los Alamitos experience WAS a formal boycott in California, It was talked about daily here and elsewhere, and it was successful, as far as HANA was concerned and the handle went way down.

What was gained in terms of concessions to the horseplayers as a result?

What did we learn from that? What would be different this time in the face of a new track at Santa Anita, A traditional big opening, Horsemen coming home with horses to make larger fields,Players coming home after three years that were put off by the synthetics.

We learned that the regulators and the racing managers in California do not listen to facts, that they have no ears for horseplayers, and the ultimate insult was to say we should pay more for the "entertainment" value of the game and raised the cost of the bet at Santa Anita to make up for the loss of handle from fans who have had enough and found other things to do.

Again, A formal boycott from HANA will only aggravate all and harden attitudes and reflect poorly on HANA because the racing people will have someone else to blame for their bad management, if handle does go down.

If handle does not go down, HANA will have wasted capital and will have proved that they are not something management should be concerned about.

The best course is to let those fools hang themselves, and from what I see in California, they are doing a good job of that. There is plenty of pressure to assure the outcome.. if you have been playing close attention.

Horseplayers ,seeking value with free choice will continue to drop the trend lines... we know the additional takeout will decrease the handle, not increase the handle on the target bets... If HANA calls a boycott or not.

If we believe what HANA, Cummings Report and others has taught us about the takeout and what happens when takeouts are raised and lowered, why don't we just let the data prove the point?

Horse racing in California will look for the optimum price point when there is no other way to go, and we are getting there fast. We should not get in the way and give them more excuses.

The only other factor is to act on emotion as a reaction to the intellectual insults, and that is rarely a good idea,and may backfire.

Roger Way (rwwupl)

DJofSD
10-17-2010, 12:48 PM
This thread is all over the map.

First, an important question about the proposed boycott: exactly, what is being proposed to be boycotted: all of CA racing or just the mulit-tiered wagers?

andymays
10-17-2010, 12:49 PM
This thread is all over the map.

First, an important question about the proposed boycott: exactly, what is being proposed to be boycotted: all of CA racing or just the mulit-tiered wagers?

Another good question. :ThmbUp:

Keep asking them.

DJofSD
10-17-2010, 12:57 PM
Will do -- after some golf. Be back later.

andymays
10-17-2010, 12:58 PM
Will do -- after some golf. Be back later.

Where are you playing?

Horseplayersbet.com
10-17-2010, 01:04 PM
This thread is all over the map.

First, an important question about the proposed boycott: exactly, what is being proposed to be boycotted: all of CA racing or just the mulit-tiered wagers?
No boycott has been called, but it lets say you boycotted a department store because they have many goods that are made by under aged children overseas, you don't go into the department store to buy goods made by adults either.

andymays
10-17-2010, 01:06 PM
No boycott has been called, but it lets say you boycotted a department store because they have many goods that are made by under aged children overseas, you don't go into the department store to buy goods made by adults either.

Where should CA players bet?

cj
10-17-2010, 01:09 PM
Where should CA players bet?

You don't have to bet anywhere. Since most people lose, is it really that big of a strain?

DJofSD
10-17-2010, 01:15 PM
Where are you playing?
My son has a group lesson at Torrey Pines then we'll pick a place to play 18. I love football season -- for all of the "wrong" reasons. Likely an executive course like Lomas Santa Fe or perhaps Tecolote (home course). Both par 56.

andymays
10-17-2010, 01:24 PM
My son has a group lesson at Torrey Pines then we'll pick a place to play 18. I love football season -- for all of the "wrong" reasons. Likely an executive course like Lomas Santa Fe or perhaps Tecolote (home course). Both par 56.

Have a good game. Don't get wet.

andymays
10-17-2010, 01:27 PM
You don't have to bet anywhere. Since most people lose, is it really that big of a strain?

CJ, c'mon. I've been playing most days for years now. Since California players aren't eligible for significant rebates anywhere and since most takeout is higher at other venues, you're basically asking people to stop betting indefinitely.

Again, it's different if you live in California.

And again, if HANA leadership wants California players to stop playing they need to make the case in public.

andymays
10-17-2010, 01:38 PM
I have to say if the situation was reversed and I was telling people in New York they have to stop playing because they have high takeout and they couldn't get rebates do you think there would be any blowback?

Just a little. ;)

cj
10-17-2010, 03:03 PM
I have to say if the situation was reversed and I was telling people in New York they have to stop playing because they have high takeout and they couldn't get rebates do you think there would be any blowback?

Just a little. ;)

Andy,

People are walking away every day. Have you seen the decline in handle over the years? I love racing too, but at some point there are just better things to do. I haven't reached that point yet, but if I were in California I probably would have.

andymays
10-17-2010, 03:07 PM
Andy,

People are walking away every day. Have you seen the decline in handle over the years? I love racing too, but at some point there are just better things to do. I haven't reached that point yet, but if I were in California I probably would have.

I agree, people are going to keep walking away. It's crazy for someone to get into betting on the horses these days.

JustRalph
10-17-2010, 06:23 PM
I agree, people are going to keep walking away. It's crazy for someone to get into betting on the horses these days.

Andy, sometimes it's hard to detect sarcasm...........this is one of those times

jelly
10-17-2010, 07:59 PM
Where should CA players bet?



If you're a horizontal bettor the pk4 and pk5 15% take at Monmouth is the best as of now,It's mostly what I bet.

I lived near Del mar during the 80's and 90's and bet the cali circuit all the time(had too It was all you could bet)and the racing was great.

Unfortunately It's not the same so, I haven't bet cali In over a year and don't miss it.

andymays
10-17-2010, 09:15 PM
If you're a horizontal bettor the pk4 and pk5 15% take at Monmouth is the best as of now,It's mostly what I bet.

I lived near Del mar during the 80's and 90's and bet the cali circuit all the time(had too It was all you could bet)and the racing was great.

Unfortunately It's not the same so, I haven't bet cali In over a year and don't miss it.

The Monmouth pick 5 has low takeout for an exotic wager. What are the other takeout rates there for wps, ex, tri, ......?

jelly
10-17-2010, 09:51 PM
The Monmouth pick 5 has low takeout for an exotic wager. What are the other takeout rates there for wps, ex, tri, ......?


Pk4 is pretty good too.

The others are probably as high as anywhere else.I hardly ever bet them(except backups),i stick with the PK4 and 5.


I'd bet you would feel pretty good right now if Oaktree dropped the pk 4 to 15%.I know I would.

andymays
10-17-2010, 10:05 PM
Pk4 is pretty good too.

The others are probably as high as anywhere else.I hardly ever bet them(except backups),i stick with the PK4 and 5.


I'd bet you would feel pretty good right now if Oaktree dropped the pk 4 to 15%.I know I would.

I've been trying to get them to do a Horseplayes Early Pick 4 with a 10% takeout. I would make the odds of them trying it at about 30-1.

Monmouth

wps is .1700

Tri's and Supers are .2500

You see Jelly some bets will still be higher than California after the raise. When Monmouth closes where should California horseplayers bet?

Remember we're not eligible for significant rebates.

andymays
10-17-2010, 10:19 PM
I hope people start to get it.

If a boycott is called and I think it's a lock, HANA will be asking California Horseplayers to give up stuff they've been doing for decades. Because of the rebate situation there aren't enough lower takeout wagers at any one track to settle in on. So the California player would be forced to play here and there indefinitely. Does that sound reasonable? I used to play offshore but since they changed the laws it's much harder to transfer money. At a typical offshore website you can get a 3% rebate on wps and 8% on exotics with some restrictions. The biggest problem with that are the deposits and withdrawals.

Since HANA will be asking Horsplayers in California to boycott doesn't anyone think it's reasonable to ask the leadership to go on the California radio shows and interview with the California reporters that cover racing? That seems very reasonable to me.

They have to make the case to California Horseplayers and tell them why they are singling out California and not other venues with higher takeout.

andymays
10-17-2010, 10:38 PM
Just another note on the offshore thing they also have limits on payouts.

jelly
10-17-2010, 11:39 PM
I've been trying to get them to do a Horseplayes Early Pick 4 with a 10% takeout. I would make the odds of them trying it at about 30-1.

Monmouth

wps is .1700

Tri's and Supers are .2500

You see Jelly some bets will still be higher than California after the raise. When Monmouth closes where should California horseplayers bet?

Remember we're not eligible for significant rebates.




I wouldn't take 1000-1 on a 10% takeout coming to Cali.


Churchill is better than cali.


You've got to shop around. look for the good takeout it pays off. Step away from your comfort zone.

andymays
10-18-2010, 05:18 AM
I wouldn't take 1000-1 on a 10% takeout coming to Cali.


Churchill is better than cali.


You've got to shop around. look for the good takeout it pays off. Step away from your comfort zone.

Yes, I should have clarified. While I think California might do something to lower takeout on an early pick 4 to say 15% the odds are significantly higher than that for the 10%.

Thanks for the advice Jelly. When you've been playing something serioiusly for as long as I have experimenting with "getting out of your comfort zone" means losing regardless of takeout. Playing a venue you know well makes a big difference. The options for California Players seems to be to not play at all or play certain wagers at several tracks.

You still haven't answered my questions Jelly.

For one don't you think it's reasonable to ask HANA leadership to go on the radio shows in California and make the case to California Players as to why they should boycott California and not other venues with higher takeout?

Maybe the leaders should get out of their comfort zone right? ;)

andymays
10-18-2010, 01:59 PM
Yea Baby! This is what I want to see.

Must watch video. :ThmbUp:


http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/10/chrb-hana-member-meeting-tapes.html

DJofSD
10-18-2010, 02:37 PM
This is funny but on point. There was another video I watched earlier this year that was in the same style and was about the dumb customers asking about the new iPhone. Rumor was the guy was going to lose his job over it. I doubt any one will lose a job over this spoof! Way to go! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Deepsix
10-18-2010, 02:39 PM
Very entertaining. No mention of higher takeout in other jurisdictions, nor what the end game will be when the boycott is launched. BUT, very entertaining.

andymays
10-18-2010, 02:42 PM
Very entertaining. No mention of higher takeout in other jurisdictions, nor what the end game will be when the boycott is launched. BUT, very entertaining.

This video is a home run in my opinion. It makes the case.

Deepsix
10-18-2010, 02:46 PM
Its silly.

andymays
10-18-2010, 03:05 PM
Its silly.

That's why it's good. It is exactly what is needed because it helps make the case as to why we should boycott California and not other venues.

Jeff should still tell his story because there is a lot more to it. For example when he went to the CHRB meeting he was treated badly by Brackpool. Here is an excerpt from BloodHorse magazine.

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.”

andymays
10-18-2010, 03:21 PM
This thing is starting to get a lot of hits. :ThmbUp:

Horseplayersbet.com
10-18-2010, 04:34 PM
Its silly.
Why? Are you saying Israel likes ham?

andymays
10-18-2010, 08:26 PM
Looks like the video created a surge in the voting.

The more you make the case the better.

CincyHorseplayer
10-18-2010, 09:45 PM
Has there ever been a case as so underlining such as this?To where there is this much positive going on with the new dirt base vs a takeout hike??I think California is dying for self destruction.If they aren't they are acting out as best as witnessed.

jelly
10-18-2010, 10:43 PM
Yes, I should have clarified. While I think California might do something to lower takeout on an early pick 4 to say 15% the odds are significantly higher than that for the 10%.

Thanks for the advice Jelly. When you've been playing something serioiusly for as long as I have experimenting with "getting out of your comfort zone" means losing regardless of takeout. Playing a venue you know well makes a big difference. The options for California Players seems to be to not play at all or play certain wagers at several tracks.

You still haven't answered my questions Jelly.

For one don't you think it's reasonable to ask HANA leadership to go on the radio shows in California and make the case to California Players as to why they should boycott California and not other venues with higher takeout?

Maybe the leaders should get out of their comfort zone right? ;)



Yes,i agree with you.


Before I do this I would contact Mr Charles Hayward of NYRA and get him on record saying he would lower the take with in the next 12 months.


This will give HANA a more convincing case.

Mike_412
10-19-2010, 02:21 AM
Yes,i agree with you.


Before I do this I would contact Mr Charles Hayward of NYRA and get him on record saying he would lower the take with in the next 12 months.


This will give HANA a more convincing case.

Not to try and take this thread a completely different direction, but for those that missed it, Charles Hayward spoke once again about lowering takeout at the end of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CrRLKez0JA&feature=player_embedded

chickenhead
10-19-2010, 02:35 AM
that bit about Mullins being very smart made me choke on my drink. Bravo guys, bravo.

PaceAdvantage
10-19-2010, 04:03 AM
Its silly.Actually, it's not. It hits its mark with remarkable precision and should be mandatory viewing at the next CHRB meeting.

Deepsix
10-19-2010, 05:53 AM
Well, actually its not "accurate".... its parody. Its to mock the CHRB, and specifically Israel and Derek. I suppose it makes some punters feel good BUT I doubt that it is an effective approach to take a serious matter and distort /exaggerate it in an effort to create an emotional reaction. BUT, maybe you are right.... ?

andymays
10-19-2010, 06:37 AM
Well, actually its not "accurate".... its parody. Its to mock the CHRB, and specifically Israel and Derek. I suppose it makes some punters feel good BUT I doubt that it is an effective approach to take a serious matter and distort /exaggerate it in an effort to create an emotional reaction. BUT, maybe you are right.... ?

What you're missing is that those conversations actually happened at more than one CHRB meeting so everyone there that watches it will get it. Boy will they get it. I made sure they all got a copy by email.

The video was a perfect first step. Now they have to go on the Southern California Radio shows and talk to some southern california reporters.

I can tell from the replies I get to my emails that this is beginning to work.

Keep making the case to the general public.

Indulto
10-19-2010, 07:43 AM
What you're missing is that those conversations actually happened at more than one CHRB meeting so everyone there that watches it will get it. Boy will they get it. I made sure they all got a copy by email.

The video was a perfect first step. Now they have to go on the Southern California Radio shows and talk to some southern california reporters.

I can tell from the replies I get to my emails that this is beginning to work.

Keep making the case to the general public.Methinks the first warning shot from HANA has been fired across the CHRB's bow.

andymays
10-19-2010, 08:02 AM
Methinks the first warning shot from HANA has been fired across the CHRB's bow.

Yes. I can't tell you how good that video is. I know some people aren't familiar with the specifics of what went on at the CHRB meetings and some other meetings but the video nails it perfectly.

Now HANA has to make the case to California Horseplayers. As I said earlier in the thread I though players outside of California would be 2-1 for a boycott and the California Players would be split. California players do not think a boycott is warranted right now but they might if HANA leadership makes the case on radio and in print out here in California. Not doing so would be doing a disservice to California Horseplayers who already take the worst of it when it comes to rebates.

DeanT
10-19-2010, 10:51 AM
Well, actually its not "accurate".... its parody. Its to mock the CHRB, and specifically Israel and Derek. I suppose it makes some punters feel good BUT I doubt that it is an effective approach to take a serious matter and distort /exaggerate it in an effort to create an emotional reaction. BUT, maybe you are right.... ?

It is a parody of course - which is why they are computer generated people.

However, please research some of your comments please.

Mr Israel said "People often say we're competing with the casinos," Israel said. "I think that's shortsighted and wrong. We're not competing with casinos. We're in the entertainment business. We're competing with the Dodgers and the Giants and the Angels and the Lakers, and we're putting on a show."

As relayed on Bill Christine's article. It was a part of the video.

Bo Derek, at a March CHRB meeting got into an argument with Jeff Platt because she thought slot takeout was more than horse racing takeout. The woman voting on takeout increases at the CHRB does not even know that. Thus, when she was referred to in the video in that way, it stems from that fact.

In addition, at the CHRB meeting in April it was relayed in the minutes that the Olympics in Vancouver were a reason that handle was down.

If you said "you can't make this stuff up" you would be correct - each of the above instances which make up 99% of that video actually happened at 2010 CHRB meetings.

rwwupl
10-19-2010, 12:49 PM
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/west-coast-wash/09272010-get-out-the-lifeboats/

For me, the Bill Christine article "Get out the Lifeboats" was the kick off and the animated parody was great.

The CHRB creates problems, it does not solve them. A boycott creates problems it does not solve them.(unless it is crushing) There are 55,000 jobs at stake in California in the industry.

turfnsport
10-19-2010, 01:01 PM
The CHRB creates problems, it does not solve them. A boycott creates problems it does not solve them.(unless it is crushing) There are 55,000 jobs at stake in California in the industry.

If there is a takeout hike followed by a boycott and it creates job loss, you can toss that right in the lap of the CHRB, NOT horseplayers.

I'll sleep just fine.

DJofSD
10-19-2010, 01:01 PM
55,000? No wonder my shoulders are so tired.

andymays
10-19-2010, 02:02 PM
55,000? No wonder my shoulders are so tired.
We have to remember that it's 1 tenth of 1% of the people in California Racing that are wrecking it. I don't want to see any inncocent people get hurt in this. Having said that I don't think it's the Horseplayers responsibility. The CHRB is the one doing the damage. It is HANA's responsibilty to sell they boycott to California Horseplayers by (for the hundredth time) going on the southern California radio shows and by talking to southern california racing reporters.

cj
10-19-2010, 02:31 PM
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/west-coast-wash/09272010-get-out-the-lifeboats/

For me, the Bill Christine article "Get out the Lifeboats" was the kick off and the animated parody was great.

The CHRB creates problems, it does not solve them. A boycott creates problems it does not solve them.(unless it is crushing) There are 55,000 jobs at stake in California in the industry.

Part of racing's problems are there are too many people running the show.

andymays
10-19-2010, 02:38 PM
Part of racing's problems are there are too many people running the show.

That is a great point. Individually I would imagine that many of the people on the board of the CHRB are nice people. But collectively they are a total disaster who could care less about their customers. They are a pompous group who has been steamrolling horseplayers for years and doing it with a smile. They are also completely ignorant on all things gambling.

Something happens to people when they become part of a small circle. They surround themeselves with people that agree with them and they hold meetings where they pat themeselves on the back and reinforce each others super egos. Maybe in the case of the CHRB it's eliteism. I really don't know.

DJofSD
10-19-2010, 02:41 PM
Wouldn't it be better if the CHRB was not an appointed position but was an elected office?

andymays
10-19-2010, 02:43 PM
Wouldn't it be better if the CHRB was not an appointed position but was an elected office?

Anything would be better than what it is now. The board should have at least one Horseplayer/gamber on the board.

They are a California State Agency but they really only represent the Track Owners and Horse Owners.

Deepsix
10-19-2010, 02:45 PM
Andy, that is something that we ALL must be alert to and avoid (group think). Lets hope that we learn and are smart enough to ask the right questions.

andymays
10-19-2010, 03:09 PM
Andy, that is something that we ALL must be alert to and avoid (group think). Lets hope that we learn and are smart enough to ask the right questions.
Believe me, I've asked so many questions I'm surprised they haven't paid someone to have me "clipped". ;)

CincyHorseplayer
10-19-2010, 04:08 PM
Anything would be better than what it is now. The board should have at least one Horseplayer/gamber on the board.

They are a California State Agency but they really only represent the Track Owners and Horse Owners.

This is a good point.How the F are they ever going to satisfy their bread and butter=the customer without ever being inside their head??The answer is they won't,look contemptuously at said individual,and call it a day.

Aaaahhh the joys of this game!!!!

Indulto
10-19-2010, 04:48 PM
Andy, that is something that we ALL must be alert to and avoid (group think). Lets hope that we learn and are smart enough to ask the right questions.D6,
What do you think might be important questions to ask?

DJofSD
10-19-2010, 04:51 PM
Anything would be better than what it is now. The board should have at least one Horseplayer/gamber on the board.

They are a California State Agency but they really only represent the Track Owners and Horse Owners.
Right, they're beholding to the governor that appoints them and selected from the ranks of the industry they purport to oversee.

I'll repeat myself: maybe these positions on the CHRB should be elected offices that way those ...expletive... will know who's buttering their bread.

Deepsix
10-19-2010, 06:11 PM
I think AndyM has asked some specific questions--- and I believe they are reasonable questions. I don't need to repeat them since AM has asked them multiple times. Additionally, even as of this thread, I read RW's comments which are against a Calif. boycott. This difference of opinion between/within HANA leaves me questioning the unity of thought. This essential question (unity of thought) MUST be resolved one way, or another, before continuing any farther. Or so it seems to me.

Good luck and no animosity intended.

Indulto
10-19-2010, 07:42 PM
I think AndyM has asked some specific questions--- and I believe they are reasonable questions. I don't need to repeat them since AM has asked them multiple times. Additionally, even as of this thread, I read RW's comments which are against a Calif. boycott. This difference of opinion between/within HANA leaves me questioning the unity of thought. This essential question (unity of thought) MUST be resolved one way, or another, before continuing any farther. Or so it seems to me.

Good luck and no animosity intended.No animosity taken or intended as well. I'm genuinely interested in your specific priorities as well as those of everybody concerned enough to participate in this thread. A consensus could be useful, especially if all HANA leaders were willing to weigh in.

My hat is off to HANA on the video because I think they finally took an irreversible step in the right direction. I doubt they will be as welcome again at CHRB meetings, and other industry leaders got a taste of what they may subsequently be in store for if they are as blatant in their disrespect for horseplayers as the California crowd.

As HANA is very conservative, I suspect they have already determined they have sufficient support from big bettors to pull this off. The leadership has probably also already framed the objectives for a boycott which may or may not benefit all players. I look forward to their announcement as to how they intend to proceed.

Charli125
10-19-2010, 09:08 PM
I'm late to the game on this thread as I've been on vacation, but my thoughts to the various items in this thread are below. I think the most important thing out of all of this is that we, the horseplayers, need to present a united front. We need to find the common ground, and then do all we can to further that agenda. I’m writing this as a HANA member, and I can’t speak for all of the members of the board. These are just my thoughts.

Andy’s specific questions. As I stated in another thread, they are important questions that need to be asked and answered prior to any boycott or any other action. I’m paraphrasing, so Andy, correct me if I misstated any of your questions.
Why should we target CA when there are many other jurisdictions with higher takeout?
HANA has spent more time on CA than any other jurisdiction. Maybe it was because we were foolish enough to think that they would listen to reason, maybe it was because we see that CA is a huge player in the industry that has the chance to lead us in the right direction, and maybe it’s because we have a very passionate membership based in CA. No matter what the reason, we’ve spent more time in CA than anywhere else. We’ve explained the problems with their thinking and predicted what would happen if they raised takeout. Then, when we were proven correct, they decided to lie about the results, and then duplicate their mistake by applying a takeout increase to Thoroughbreds.

I’d equate it with this saying: “To whom much is given, much is required”. Jeff, Roger, Andy, and many others have given CA every opportunity to help themselves and have been belittled and ignored for those efforts. That alone is enough for me at least to stop playing CA.

What do we want CA to do in order to not boycott?
That’s a more difficult question, but here’s what I would demand.



Takeout should, at a minimum, go back to pre-December 26th rates.
The archaic rules which make it impossible for CA residents to get rebates need to go away.
The CHRB needs to have a mandatory horseplayer or two on the board. They’re the CA Horseracing Board, not the CA Horse Owner Board, not the CA Horse Trainer Board, and not the CA Track Management Board.
Why CA and not Penn National/Woodbine/etc.?
I would hope that horseplayers everywhere are being selective with their dollar and only playing low takeout wagers. Tracks with high takeout are seeing the natural decline in handle that comes from being priced above the optimal level. The one big difference between current high takeout tracks and CA is that CA is RAISING their takeout. Other tracks do have higher takeout on some/all bets, but there aren’t any other tracks stupid enough to RAISE takeout right now. This shows a complete disconnect with reality and is something that just can’t be allowed to go unnoticed. Once the takeout increase goes into effect, we’ve essentially taken 5 steps back. In a year they can capitulate and “lower” takeout back to original levels and we’re still worse off than when we started.


Rebates: I see a lot of anti-rebate talk, and I understand where it comes from, but I think attacking rebates is the wrong way to achieve our mutual goals. I receive rebates, and they provide me with a lot more money to play with. Without rebates, I'd bet a lot less than I do now. This does NOT mean that I agree with the current rebate system. There is no reason why CA residents(or anyone else for that matter) shouldn't be able to get rebates while still playing into the parimutuel pools. Also, I'm not a whale, and I don't think only whales should receive rebates.

Let's say that the ADW's offer a 5% across the board rebate(this isn't true but it simplifies the example). In my opinion, everyone should be eligible for these rebates, and if that's the case, then why not drop take by 5% across the board? The ADW's are happy with their margins while paying out the rebate so they won't care, and the tracks are happy with their current margins so they shouldn't care.

I think that by focusing negative energy on those that do receive rebates, we're losing track of the fact that everyone should receive rebates, and that once everyone is receiving rebates, there is no reason to keep takeout at such a high level. IMHO, rebates are the first step in actually getting to optimal pricing for our product.

andymays
10-19-2010, 09:25 PM
Thank you Charli125 for the honest answers. You're a good man.

I'm sure your answers will carry the thread for a while and I look forward to the responses from everyone else as well.

The rebate thing resonates with California Horseplayers because they are being cheated from receiving any significant rebates by the TOC. Remember you have to make the case to California Horseplayers.

Indulto
10-19-2010, 11:39 PM
... I think the most important thing out of all of this is that we, the horseplayers, need to present a united front. We need to find the common ground, and then do all we can to further that agenda.

... HANA has spent more time on CA than any other jurisdiction. Maybe it was because we were foolish enough to think that they would listen to reason, maybe it was because we see that CA is a huge player in the industry that has the chance to lead us in the right direction, and maybe it’s because we have a very passionate membership based in CA. No matter what the reason, we’ve spent more time in CA than anywhere else. We’ve explained the problems with their thinking and predicted what would happen if they raised takeout. Then, when we were proven correct, they decided to lie about the results, and then duplicate their mistake by applying a takeout increase to Thoroughbreds.

I’d equate it with this saying: “To whom much is given, much is required”. Jeff, Roger, Andy, and many others have given CA every opportunity to help themselves and have been belittled and ignored for those efforts. That alone is enough for me at least to stop playing CA.Well said, C5. The way in which racing's customers are being regarded and treated is the most significant issue to be addressed.That’s a more difficult question, but here’s what I would demand.

Takeout should, at a minimum, go back to pre-December 26th rates.
The archaic rules which make it impossible for CA residents to get rebates need to go away.
The CHRB needs to have a mandatory horseplayer or two on the board. They’re the CA Horseracing Board, not the CA Horse Owner Board, not the CA Horse Trainer Board, and not the CA Track Management Board.
I Agree with the 2nd and 3rd completely, but I would demand that the MAXIMUM effective takeout among all players become at least 5% below what it is currently for exotic wagers and somewhat less for WPS. We should have fought to lower takeout in the first place, rather than merely avoid an increase.I would hope that horseplayers everywhere are being selective with their dollar and only playing low takeout wagers. Tracks with high takeout are seeing the natural decline in handle that comes from being priced above the optimal level. The one big difference between current high takeout tracks and CA is that CA is RAISING their takeout. Other tracks do have higher takeout on some/all bets, but there aren’t any other tracks stupid enough to RAISE takeout right now. This shows a complete disconnect with reality and is something that just can’t be allowed to go unnoticed. Once the takeout increase goes into effect, we’ve essentially taken 5 steps back. In a year they can capitulate and “lower” takeout back to original levels and we’re still worse off than when we started.I hope what you’re saying is that merely a return to the status quo is insufficient.Rebates: I see a lot of anti-rebate talk, and I understand where it comes from, but I think attacking rebates is the wrong way to achieve our mutual goals. I receive rebates, and they provide me with a lot more money to play with. Without rebates, I'd bet a lot less than I do now. This does NOT mean that I agree with the current rebate system. There is no reason why CA residents(or anyone else for that matter) shouldn't be able to get rebates while still playing into the parimutuel pools. Also, I'm not a whale, and I don't think only whales should receive rebates.C5,
Perhaps we can agree that the issue is not so much rebates vs no rebates, but rather one of a leveling the playing field as it pertains only to wager costs. Let's say that the ADW's offer a 5% across the board rebate(this isn't true but it simplifies the example). In my opinion, everyone should be eligible for these rebates, and if that's the case, then why not drop take by 5% across the board? The ADW's are happy with their margins while paying out the rebate so they won't care, and the tracks are happy with their current margins so they shouldn't care.

I think that by focusing negative energy on those that do receive rebates, we're losing track of the fact that everyone should receive rebates, and that once everyone is receiving rebates, there is no reason to keep takeout at such a high level. IMHO, rebates are the first step in actually getting to optimal pricing for our product.It sounds as if you are saying that as long as everyone gets SOME takeout relief, the continued disparity in that relief is acceptable.

As I see it, there are at least 4 alternatives to achieving a level playing field:
1) Reduce direct takeout for all to a point where whales are willing to play without a rebate.
2) Give the maximum rebate fo all players on demand
3) Allow defined groups of players to qualify collectively for the highest rebate.
4) Automatically determine takeout level on a pool by pool basis and set both direct takeout and purse distribution for each based on the collective handle generated by the pool participants. Both player and horsemen support for popular product would be rewarded as larger and/or more competitive fields would normally produce greater handle.

Charli125
10-20-2010, 12:34 AM
I Agree with the 2nd and 3rd completely, but I would demand that the MAXIMUM effective takeout among all players become at least 5% below what it is currently for exotic wagers and somewhat less for WPS. We should have fought to lower takeout in the first place, rather than merely avoid an increase. I agree with you; I took the easy way out on that one.

I hope what you’re saying is that merely a return to the status quo is insufficient. Yes, I am saying that. I'm also saying that if they're raising takeout, then they're even farther from getting to optimal pricing than if they already have high takeout. High takeout automatically erodes handle, so I have to think that the high takeout tracks are going to start looking into ways to fix that(i.e. lower takeout). CA is doing the opposite. That's why, to me, we need to focus on CA.


Perhaps we can agree that the issue is not so much rebates vs no rebates, but rather one of a leveling the playing field as it pertains only to wager costs.

It sounds as if you are saying that as long as everyone gets SOME takeout relief, the continued disparity in that relief is acceptable.

As I see it, there are at least 4 alternatives to achieving a level playing field:
1) Reduce direct takeout for all to a point where whales are willing to play without a rebate.
2) Give the maximum rebate fo all players on demand
3) Allow defined groups of players to qualify collectively for the highest rebate.
4) Automatically determine takeout level on a pool by pool basis and set both direct takeout and purse distribution for each based on the collective handle generated by the pool participants. Both player and horsemen support for popular product would be rewarded as larger and/or more competitive fields would normally produce greater handle.

Here's where our opinions diverge. I don't see anything wrong with whales getting better rates than the rest of us. Of course option 1 is what we're all shooting for, and the closer we get to that the lower rebates will be. It means that everyone is getting the lowest rate possible. In the real world though, the bigger customers get the better deal and I don't have a problem with that.

I know you don't agree with that, but we don't need to agree on everything!

cj
10-20-2010, 01:28 AM
That is a great point. Individually I would imagine that many of the people on the board of the CHRB are nice people. But collectively they are a total disaster who could care less about their customers. They are a pompous group who has been steamrolling horseplayers for years and doing it with a smile. They are also completely ignorant on all things gambling.

Something happens to people when they become part of a small circle. They surround themeselves with people that agree with them and they hold meetings where they pat themeselves on the back and reinforce each others super egos. Maybe in the case of the CHRB it's eliteism. I really don't know.

I was getting at the point that racing needs downsizing, just like every other failing business. It is particularly pertinent to bettors since we fund many of the positions.

Indulto
10-20-2010, 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by Indulto
Perhaps we can agree that the issue is not so much rebates vs no rebates, but rather one of a leveling the playing field as it pertains only to wager costs.

It sounds as if you are saying that as long as everyone gets SOME takeout relief, the continued disparity in that relief is acceptable.

As I see it, there are at least 4 alternatives to achieving a level playing field:
1) Reduce direct takeout for all to a point where whales are willing to play without a rebate.
2) Give the maximum rebate fo all players on demand
3) Allow defined groups of players to qualify collectively for the highest rebate.
4) Automatically determine takeout level on a pool by pool basis and set both direct takeout and purse distribution for each based on the collective handle generated by the pool participants. Both player and horsemen support for popular product would be rewarded as larger and/or more competitive fields would normally produce greater handle.Here's where our opinions diverge. I don't see anything wrong with whales getting better rates than the rest of us. Of course option 1 is what we're all shooting for, and the closer we get to that the lower rebates will be. It means that everyone is getting the lowest rate possible. In the real world though, the bigger customers get the better deal and I don't have a problem with that.

I know you don't agree with that, but we don't need to agree on everything!
No, we don't. But as you pointed out earlier, if we are to indeed present a united front, then we need to find common ground, and that means being willing to fully discuss issues rather than gloss over them, or worse, simply dismiss them.

The disparity issue isn't merely one of fairness to existing players, it's also the only hope for attracting new players to the game which is what all interested parties including our opponents wish to achieve.

We have to show them that we are willing to get involved in new player recruitment and education. The same inventiveness and industriousness used to create the parody video can also be applied to those areas. In recruiting new members, HANA should also be seeking new players. It is likely that such players will prove to be even more successful as recruiters of newer generation than ourselves. Such activity would merit industry funding as well.

We will never convince industry leaders that we can be trusted as partners in such a venture, nor will we achieve racing board representation if continued promotion and support for disparity is interpreted as NOT truly representing ALL their customers. How can we convince these horsemen to stop exploiting us when it is clear that bigger bettors are exploiting smaller ones, and that even lesser rebates represent a subsidy that enables one bettor to effectively purchase more exotic wager combinations than both his unrebated or less-rebated competitor for the same amount.

PaceAdvantage
10-20-2010, 07:01 AM
Well, actually its not "accurate".... its parody. Its to mock the CHRB, and specifically Israel and Derek. I suppose it makes some punters feel good BUT I doubt that it is an effective approach to take a serious matter and distort /exaggerate it in an effort to create an emotional reaction. BUT, maybe you are right.... ?Not sure if this was addressed to me, but I never stated it was accurate, as in, actual conversation between the two.

I stated it hit its mark with remarkable precision, as all biting satire should...

Horseplayersbet.com
10-20-2010, 09:52 AM
Indulto, I've already pointed out that when dealing with reality, Horseplayers in certain jurisdictions just can't be on an equal playing field with each other, and it isn't just rebates.
Arizona players can't bet on the internet. Should HANA push for all internet betting to be removed because of this?
Internet players don't have to go to a window to make a last second change if a horse acts up at the gate, or bet on their next selection if a key horse is scratched at the gate. So again, should HANA push for internet betting to be removed?
There are some States which make it almost impossible for smaller ADWs to compete in. So some Horseplayers (most actually) have a lot more choice than others. Should HANA try to get choice eliminated?
Some states have home source fees (and California has a unique structure which makes significant rebating impossible) which means the players in those states are forced to bet offshore if they want rebates. Should HANA lobby for every jurisdiction to make it impossible to rebate?
Some states don't allow pari-mutuel or online betting period. Should HANA take a stand to ban pari-mutuel wagering?
If you bet at an American based ADW, you can't make fractional wagers on Canadian tracks even if this is offered to those who bet in Canada, and those who place a wager at a Canadian ADW or track can't make fractional bets on US tracks that offer them. Should HANA take a stand to eliminate fractional bets?
Delaware patrons on track now get to bet on exactors as if the takeout was 10%. Should HANA tell Delaware to stop this because it isn't fair to those who don't bet on track?

Of course, the answer to all questions is to do the opposite. In a real world, the task to put everything on a level playing field is impossible at this time and for the near future.

andymays
10-20-2010, 10:10 AM
This went out to the whole world (almost) this morning. Many of the posters here recieved it by email and they can see who's on the list.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it looks like HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America) will be calling for a national boycott of California racing. It’s not a certainty but its damn close to one. It’s unfortunate that it has come to this but here we are. Right now the overwhelming majority of Horseplayers outside the State of California are for a boycott. California Horseplayers on the other hand would rather not boycott California Racing. I’m currently against a boycott but not by much. Those of us that follow California racing closely know the details of the sad story that led up to this.

A while back Los Alamitos raised takeout with the promise of reducing takeout if handle dropped. Well handle dropped close to 30% but the CHRB went back on its word and didn’t dial back the take. We all knew at the time that this was just a “trial balloon” for raising takeout at Santa Anita, Del Mar, and Hollywood Park. The CHRB lied to Horseplayers and did it with a smile. It seems that the leadership of the CHRB has become the poster children for what’s wrong with Horse Racing. The first part of the mission statement of the CHRB is this:

“The purpose of the California Horse Racing Board is to regulate pari-mutuel wagering for the protection of the betting public.”

Really? Who knew? Thanks for protecting us.

We all know about the recent foolish comments from Keith Brackpool and David Israel. They have been quoted endlessly by turf writers and radio personalities around the country. In my opinion and the opinion of many others they should both resign. If that’s not enough does anyone remember how Mr. Brackpool treated two Horseplayers and just about everyone else including his own staff at the July 22nd CHRB meeting? How about this?

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/chrb-beyond-frustrated-with-mi-developments/comment-page-1/#comment-33994

Excerpt:

The Magna Four weren’t the only ones who felt the sting of chairman Brackpool’s wit.

“We’re rapidly approaching the position of don’t push it,” he told one witness who testified in favor of including complaints from farms and equine clinics in financial responsibility hearings of licensees.

“It’s obvious this agenda item is clear as mud,” he said during another part of the meeting in a swipe at the CHRB’s staff.

“This was a case of executive director (Kirk) Breed giving his impression of counselor (Robert) Miller,” Brackpool said after Breed tried to interrupt a legal issue.

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.”


These two Horseplayers followed all the rules. They went to the CHRB meeting with facts fully ready to make their case. Instead Mr. Brackpool saw fit to ridicule them. Does anyone think this is OK? Does anyone think that the CHRB leadership is protecting the betting public? Now do you think Brackpool should resign? It’s really a no brainer.

I certainly hope that in the next several weeks some accommodation can be made to avert a boycott. These things aren’t good for anybody. Where’s the leadership?

HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America) leaders need to go out and make the case to California Horseplayers as to why we should boycott California racing and not venues that currently have and will have higher takeout. There are several popular radio shows in California and if they’re going to lead then they need to get out there and make the case. Not to do so would be to cheat the Horseplayers they claim to represent. Horseplayers have gotten the short end of the stick for too long. HANA leadership needs to step up and make the effort.

Thanks,
Andy

Indulto
10-20-2010, 07:00 PM
Indulto, I've already pointed out that when dealing with reality, Horseplayers in certain jurisdictions just can't be on an equal playing field with each other, and it isn't just rebates.
Arizona players can't bet on the internet. Should HANA push for all internet betting to be removed because of this?
Internet players don't have to go to a window to make a last second change if a horse acts up at the gate, or bet on their next selection if a key horse is scratched at the gate. So again, should HANA push for internet betting to be removed?
There are some States which make it almost impossible for smaller ADWs to compete in. So some Horseplayers (most actually) have a lot more choice than others. Should HANA try to get choice eliminated?
Some states have home source fees (and California has a unique structure which makes significant rebating impossible) which means the players in those states are forced to bet offshore if they want rebates. Should HANA lobby for every jurisdiction to make it impossible to rebate?
Some states don't allow pari-mutuel or online betting period. Should HANA take a stand to ban pari-mutuel wagering?
If you bet at an American based ADW, you can't make fractional wagers on Canadian tracks even if this is offered to those who bet in Canada, and those who place a wager at a Canadian ADW or track can't make fractional bets on US tracks that offer them. Should HANA take a stand to eliminate fractional bets?
Delaware patrons on track now get to bet on exactors as if the takeout was 10%. Should HANA tell Delaware to stop this because it isn't fair to those who don't bet on track?

Of course, the answer to all questions is to do the opposite. In a real world, the task to put everything on a level playing field is impossible at this time and for the near future.
HPB,
Your post reminded me of my old cyber-sparring partner, SMTW’s one-time trailer, “Perception is reality.” Your perception of reality is either defeatist or one of self-interest, depending upon which hat you were wearing when you wrote the above -- that of a HANA board member or that of an ADW owner. The reality here is that you are not debating in good faith, but simply mocking my position, even though you continue to pay lip service to its correctness.

You keep telling me what CAN’T be accomplished; perhaps to justify the lack of progress to date in getting takeout lowered (although ground work has been laid by raising awareness of the issue). HANA’s original and subsequently updated mission statements both set a high priority on respect for the horseplayer. Indeed it is the CHRB’s utter lack of respect for us that is motivating us now to finally react. However, short-sighted goals will at best achieve short-sighted results. No one will respect horseplayers if we don't respect each other.

I accept the limitation on effecting change elsewhere at this time, but we can put the ship back on course in California for other jurisdictions to follow – under similar subsequent pressure, if necessary. Nothing is easy, but once a united front is established, no restraints on its potential effectiveness should be applied. Wide-spread support requires wide-spread rewards. Thus any scenario for change should reflect benefits to horsemen as well.

I know you are personally capable of far better arguments, so I challenge you to address the issue head-on, and explain exactly why continued unequal relief from excessive takeout for any reason is a good thing for horseplayers in general. Assuming we can establish a reasonable vision of how the game should be structured to provide a satisfactory experience for all participants, then it will be worthy of being pursued through the combined efforts expected from every member.

DJofSD
10-20-2010, 07:11 PM
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not."
- Robert Kennedy

Indulto
10-20-2010, 08:22 PM
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not."
- Robert KennedyDJ,
We all have to do both.

rwwupl
10-20-2010, 08:56 PM
What is wrong in doing the right thing? As the Chinese say, The longest journey starts with the first step. Those who argue that the first step is too difficult, are only delaying success.

The real questions that must be decided is : What is the right thing, what is success, where are we going and how do we get there and what will it cost, and is it worth it?

Mawkishly old-fashioned and corny, but true.

The answers have not been defined.

Horseplayersbet.com
10-20-2010, 09:01 PM
I was hardly mocking you. You are talking from your own perspective, you live in a state that doesn't allow you rebates of any significant magnitude.
Pretend you live in Arizona. What would you want HANA to focus on? What if you lived in Canada. What would be your focus?
I see rebates as being good for growth. There are people out there who actually make money, making it something for Horseplayers to strive for. When they strive for it, they play more, they also get friends and family possibly involved too.
Maybe not in California, but throughout most of America.

highnote
10-20-2010, 09:13 PM
RW I agree. I always remember some good advice I got: "Know your outcome."
If you don't know what your outcome is then how do you know what strategy will get you there?

What is the purpose of a boycott? What outcome is desired? How will it be measured? How do you know if it's working?

If it isn't working then something different needs to be tried.

It's not difficult if you break it down into little steps. The first step is knowing your outcome.

It might be the case that once an outcome is defined a boycott might NOT be the best way to reach the outcome.


What is wrong in doing the right thing? As the Chinese say, The longest journey starts with the first step. Those who argue that the first step is too difficult, are only delaying success.

The real questions that must be decided is : What is the right thing, what is success, where are we going and how do we get there and what will it cost, and is it worth it?

Mawkishly old-fashioned and corny, but true.

The answers have not been defined.

rwwupl
10-20-2010, 09:18 PM
RW I agree. I always remember some good advice I got: "Know your outcome."
If you don't know what your outcome is then how do you know what strategy will get you there?

What is the purpose of a boycott? What outcome is desired? How will it be measured? How do you know if it's working?

If it isn't working then something different needs to be tried.

It's not difficult if you break it down into little steps. The first step is knowing your outcome.

It might be the case that once an outcome is defined a boycott might NOT be the best way to reach the outcome.

Yes, John , We agree , I like your thoughts. :ThmbUp:

Deepsix
10-20-2010, 09:20 PM
Nice word of the day. RW. (Mawkishly) I must say that I've never heard, nor used that word. <don't think I will in the future, either>

Indulto
10-20-2010, 10:20 PM
I was hardly mocking you. You are talking from your own perspective, you live in a state that doesn't allow you rebates of any significant magnitude.
Pretend you live in Arizona. What would you want HANA to focus on? What if you lived in Canada. What would be your focus?
I see rebates as being good for growth. There are people out there who actually make money, making it something for Horseplayers to strive for. When they strive for it, they play more, they also get friends and family possibly involved too.
Maybe not in California, but throughout most of America.My residence is coincidental with regard to my position on the disparity issue. I would support collective action at this time in California even if I lived outside the state, and whether or not I could get a rebate as a resident of that state.

The main (if not only) reason collective action is being considered in California is because of the indefensible actions and attitude of the CHRB which have made the CHRB and the TOC public enemies $! and #2, respectively, of horseplayers in all states. If the proposed action makes me and bettors like me in all states more competive when betting California races, then I will do all I can to support it. If we are still to be left with the same disparity as before, then there seems little reason for us to get involved and pursue it all the way to its conclusion, whatever that may take.

Indulto
10-20-2010, 10:57 PM
I was hardly mocking you. You are talking from your own perspective, you live in a state that doesn't allow you rebates of any significant magnitude.
Pretend you live in Arizona. What would you want HANA to focus on? What if you lived in Canada. What would be your focus?
I see rebates as being good for growth. There are people out there who actually make money, making it something for Horseplayers to strive for. When they strive for it, they play more, they also get friends and family possibly involved too.
Maybe not in California, but throughout most of America.I was distracted and forgot to address the bolded portion. Of course things are likely to improve for those who have an advantage. Equal rebates to all would solve the disparity problem. Lower direct takeout for all might help horsemen as well.

Perhaps you could tell us if ADWs could survive on a flat 3% if tracks and horsemen each got 6%? How much more would be added to that 15% for the aplicable governments' shares?

Indulto
10-20-2010, 11:28 PM
What is wrong in doing the right thing? As the Chinese say, The longest journey starts with the first step. Those who argue that the first step is too difficult, are only delaying success.

The real questions that must be decided is : What is the right thing, what is success, where are we going and how do we get there and what will it cost, and is it worth it?

Mawkishly old-fashioned and corny, but true.

The answers have not been defined.rw,
What is right about doing the wrong thing? ;)

There may be a shortage of horses in California, but there's certainly no shortage of philosophers on this board. :jump:

rwwupl
10-21-2010, 09:16 AM
rw,
What is right about doing the wrong thing? ;)

There may be a shortage of horses in California, but there's certainly no shortage of philosophers on this board. :jump:



Indulto,

This is the political season. In politics, when questions are asked and you do not have the answers, you answer with more questions and label the original messenger that asks the questions, with a name. That (IMO) is not productive or helpful.

We agree on many things, and some, not so much, lets give each other some wiggle room, without labels.

Indulto
10-21-2010, 10:45 AM
Indulto,

This is the political season. In politics, when questions are asked and you do not have the answers, you answer with more questions and label the original messenger that asks the questions, with a name. That (IMO) is not productive or helpful.

We agree on many things, and some, not so much, lets give each other some wiggle room, without labels.rw,
No offense was intended, merely a humorous observation on the heels of the Kennedy reference. The reversal of your original postulation was introduced as irony similar to that of the "Golden Rule" and its inverse. Sometimes my inspiration works to my detriment. Please accept my apology for any unintended injury inflicted as I have only the highest regard for your efforts.

rwwupl
10-21-2010, 11:12 AM
rw,
No offense was intended, merely a humorous observation on the heels of the Kennedy reference. The reversal of your original postulation was introduced as irony similar to that of the "Golden Rule" and its inverse. Sometimes my inspiration works to my detriment. Please accept my apology for any unintended injury inflicted as I have only the highest regard for your efforts.


Of course,we are on the same page, and I also have the highest regard for what you do.

Now, we need some answers to some basic questions.

rwwupl
10-21-2010, 11:41 AM
Of course,we are on the same page, and I also have the highest regard for what you do.

Now, we need some answers to some basic questions.


P.S. The questions above recently from John S. and myself are just a few, Lets add that any boycott will need money to be effective for advertisements and so forth.

Money should be raised after the boycott is announced, if there is one, because money promised before the announcement( which might be from sources other than HANA members) could be described as special interests promoting it, which would not be good.

How do we know that adequate money can be raised? Without money, the chances of success would be limited.

The questions have not been answered.

Indulto
11-11-2010, 10:58 PM
Once they held a secret boycott
For which support appeared half-hearted
All too soon that secret boycott
Was over before it even started


Is the Society for the Preservation of Rebated Whales -- that secret agency without transparency -- sequestered somewhere in cyberspace plotting how several men and one woman in a cyber-room can bring down the CHRB leadership? Will its membership in-name only ever engage in any collective exercise beyond whale-watching? Will this covert college of cardinal conspirators ever confirm clear objectives for a horseplayer rebellion to be conducted in California pari-mutuel pools? Only the shadow knows. ;)

netbet
11-12-2010, 03:51 PM
I am probably going to play the Santa Anita meet. I don't like the idea of higher takeout but they are still lower than many of the other tracks. I will not play Hollywood as their product is absolute crap in my eyes.

I am hoping the California horseman show up at Santa Anita and there are larger fields.

I will give SA a chance...if it is the same old crap....they won't get a dime from me.

highnote
11-12-2010, 04:00 PM
Same crap, higher prices. :D




I am probably going to play the Santa Anita meet. I don't like the idea of higher takeout but they are still lower than many of the other tracks. I will not play Hollywood as their product is absolute crap in my eyes.

I am hoping the California horseman show up at Santa Anita and there are larger fields.

I will give SA a chance...if it is the same old crap....they won't get a dime from me.

jelly
11-12-2010, 11:55 PM
I am probably going to play the Santa Anita meet. I don't like the idea of higher takeout but they are still lower than many of the other tracks. I will not play Hollywood as their product is absolute crap in my eyes.

I am hoping the California horseman show up at Santa Anita and there are larger fields.

I will give SA a chance...if it is the same old crap....they won't get a dime from me.


:D :D :D

Indulto
11-13-2010, 12:47 AM
The following is an advertisement by CalRacing on PaulickReport.com

http://bigcalpurses.com/ (http://bigcalpurses.com/)Of all the reasons to race in California, one clearly stands out.

A 25% purse increase.

Starting Dec. 26th, you'll definitely want to be racing here. On average, we'll be offering $425,000/day at Santa Anita and $150,000/day at Golden Gate Fields. So if you weren't planning on racing here next season, you might want to reconsider.

Here are examples of how purses will change:


… Maiden Special Weight purse

$54,000


… First Level Allowance purse

$56,000


Flat out, you can run for more money this winter in California than anywhere else. …Here's another way of looking at the increase:

http://drf.com/news/racing-board-delays-talks-over-californias-fall-2011-race-schedule (http://drf.com/news/racing-board-delays-talks-over-californias-fall-2011-race-schedule)
Racing board delays talks over California's fall 2011 race schedule
By Matt Hegarty11/09/2010… Horsemen and officials of Santa Anita said that overnight purses at the upcoming Santa Anita meet are slated to increase 26 percent compared with last year because of an increase in takeout passed by the legislature earlier this year. The bill allowing for the takeout increase earmarks all of the money that had previously been distributed to bettors to purses.Maybe horseplayers should run a similar ad:There are several reasons horseplayers should consider NOT betting on races in California, but the most significant one is this:

On Dec. 26th, takeout will rise on two-horse exotic wagers by 2% from 20.68% to 22.68%, and on bets requiring three or more horses by 3% from 20.68% to 23.68%.

The intended result is that total purses distributed to horsemen will be increased by $25 million to $30 million annually, all of which was formerly distributed to bettors through payoffs on winning tickets.

Steven Crist put it in perspective: “… a 22.68 takeout rate on exactas and daily doubles is exorbitant and by far the highest at any major circuit in the country,” pointing out that “Only three tracks in the United States (Arapahoe Park, Canterbury and Suffolk) take more than 22 per cent on two-horse bets …”

Here are a few examples of how payoffs will change:


After Dec. 25, the exacta that paid %xx.xx will pay $uuu.uu

After Dec. 25, the pick three that paid %yyy.yy will pay $vvv.vv


Flat out, you could do better betting at other triple crown prep venues than Santa Anita this winter without going flat broke.

highnote
11-13-2010, 03:19 PM
I imagine I will play SA, too. However, only when I have an edge.

It stands to reason that the problem with the higher takeout is that there will be fewer profitable plays. So that means I will probably bet less money there and the same is probably true for other players who only bet when they have an edge.

I expect handle to shrink again despite the higher purses. What good are higher purses if less money is bet? How long can purses remain high if fewer dollars are spent on the product?

We'll see. It should be interesting to see what the handle numbers are.






I am probably going to play the Santa Anita meet. I don't like the idea of higher takeout but they are still lower than many of the other tracks. I will not play Hollywood as their product is absolute crap in my eyes.

I am hoping the California horseman show up at Santa Anita and there are larger fields.

I will give SA a chance...if it is the same old crap....they won't get a dime from me.

Indulto
11-14-2010, 04:08 PM
No word yet from the secret agency of non-transparency here, at their blog, or on their website -- so we still don’t know whether or not “the time has come.” Is the window of opportunity shrinking or are new options and/or initiatives being considered? Has the Life At Ten fiasco replaced the Calif. takeout hike as the most egregious example of industry malfeasance?

Does self-appointed, self-financed, and self-accountable imply self-serving just like the rest of racing, or merely self-deluded like a non-participating membership functioning merely as an audience?

Perhaps the best hope for all horeplayers would be the creation of a national racing commissioner's office requiring the support of activist fans and horsemen as well.

highnote
11-14-2010, 07:53 PM
The irony is not lost on me:

The secret agency of non-transparency whose biggest critic prefers anonymity.

:lol: Too funny.

I'm just teasing. You make a lot of good posts, Indy. :ThmbUp:

Saratoga_Mike
11-14-2010, 07:55 PM
No word yet from the secret agency of non-transparency here, at their blog, or on their website -- so we still don’t know whether or not “the time has come.” Is the window of opportunity shrinking or are new options and/or initiatives being considered? Has the Life At Ten fiasco replaced the Calif. takeout hike as the most egregious example of industry malfeasance?

Does self-appointed, self-financed, and self-accountable imply self-serving just like the rest of racing, or merely self-deluded like a non-participating membership functioning merely as an audience?

Perhaps the best hope for all horeplayers would be the creation of a national racing commissioner's office requiring the support of activist fans and horsemen as well.

You really are obsessed with HANA - why do they bother you so much?

Indulto
11-14-2010, 08:27 PM
You really are obsessed with HANA - why do they bother you so much?Why are you so obsessed with HOY?

highnote
11-14-2010, 08:50 PM
What is HOY?

JustRalph
11-14-2010, 08:55 PM
What is HOY?

It's Japanese Oatmeal.............

andymays
11-14-2010, 08:58 PM
What is HOY?

It's a seafaring term. A HOY Matey.

highnote
11-14-2010, 08:58 PM
It's Japanese Oatmeal.............

It's also an island in Orkney, Scotland.

I think it means "today" in Spanish.

Since this is a horse racing site, it must mean .... drumroll ...

"horse of the year".

Brilliant deduction, eh? :lol:

Saratoga_Mike
11-14-2010, 09:26 PM
Why are you so obsessed with HOY?

First, that's a non sequitur. Second, it isn't true, rendering it even less effective. I've posted maybe 5 or 6 times on that matter this yr. Again, why your obsession with HANA?

Indulto
11-14-2010, 10:44 PM
First, that's a non sequitur. Second, it isn't true, rendering it even less effective. I've posted maybe 5 or 6 times on that matter this yr. Again, why your obsession with HANA?I guess one man's "obsession" is in another man's yawn. Let's see. When you're not posting about HOY, Zenyatta, or Rachel, it seems you're posting about Mine That Bird. Start posting about something I care about like the alleged boycott, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

riskman
11-15-2010, 12:47 AM
I guess one man's "obsession" is in another man's yawn. Let's see. When you're not posting about HOY, Zenyatta, or Rachel, it seems you're posting about Mine That Bird. Start posting about something I care about like the alleged boycott, and maybe I'll take you seriously.

This is really interesting… I got your post here on the PA message board here when I typed in Google “What can I do on the Internet when I’m bored?”

Who gives a damn what interests you -- this a horse racing forum. Now, don't go off on a tangent or get too verbose.

Indulto
11-15-2010, 02:02 AM
This is really interesting… I got your post here on the PA message board here when I typed in Google “What can I do on the Internet when I’m bored?”

Who gives a damn what interests you -- this a horse racing forum. Now, don't go off on a tangent or get too verbose.RM,
Since you also posted in the "Has the time come" and other related threads, I take you very seriously and assume you must be a HANA member.

What I find interesting about you, however, is that you indicate that your location is New York, yet it appears you voted in this thread's poll that you live in Calif. and are against the boycott.

Indulto
11-15-2010, 08:00 PM
This is really interesting… I got your post here on the PA message board here when I typed in Google “What can I do on the Internet when I’m bored?”

Who gives a damn what interests you -- this a horse racing forum. Now, don't go off on a tangent or get too verbose.Well, RM, I see you decided to have your vote withdrawn. Should I take your silence as an anti-verbosity gesture, or did you go off on a tangent of your own? ;)

harntrox
12-20-2010, 10:33 PM
If you bet offshore and win (100% legal for horse racing) , the IRS money that wasnt stolen at the window-- pays you back ... as long as you win 600x the wager.

Simply win, Declare a gambling loss, and the american taxpayer becomes your rebate.

In the case you have never had the IRS steal 5k from you at the betting window, you will have no idea of the travesty and tyranny our gov't levels upon its winners.

What happens if california bettors move offshore, and both the state and fed lose some taxed gambling revenue? We can still bet, win more money, and send some kind of message...?

TheGhostOfOscarB
12-27-2010, 09:43 PM
A decent handicapper can overcome any takeout.

:D
SaRcAsm AlErT