Conference Call with TOC Members and Horseplayers on Friday (10-22)

[andymays]

Friday afternoon I was invited on a conference call with several Horseplayers and a couple of influential members of the TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of California). They are mainly responsible for raising the takeout and the 6.5% retention cap that prevents California Horseplayers from receiving significant rebates. The reason I was invited was that several of these people are on my email list and contacted me about the issues I've raised. Basically they're trying to shut me up because they get anxiety from the emails. The other thing is that most of these people aren't even aware of how badly they affect Horseplayers in the State of California. It's hard to believe but it's true.

Anyway, here's what happened:

I (we) wanted them to do something for Horseplayers before the Santa Anita meet starts and the others agreed with me. What I(we) suggested was the Horseplayers Early Pick 4 with 10% takeout (I've been pushing that for several months). I also suggested that they come out in support of at least one Horseplayers on the CHRB board. I told them that if they could get something done it could offset a boycott but there was no guarantee.

As far a the Early Pick 4 goes they said they would try and get back to us within 10 days. They thought that 10% may not be realistic. I told them that because of the short fields in California especially in the earlier races that it has to be that low to attract attention. They promised to give it a try. Do I think they'll get it done? No, I don't think they'll get it done but you never know. I had to ask.

As far as getting a Horseplayer on the board of the CHRB they told me that they couldn't appoint anyone to the board. I told them that I knew that but if they put out a press release in support it would carry a lot of weight. That probably won't happen either.

Everyone agreed that those two things were achieveable in the short term and that we would have the best chance of success with them. We'll see what happens and when they get back to me I'll post their response.

Anyway, it's worth a shot. I just wanted everyone to know what happened. If the other people want to identify themeselves then they can but I didn't want to post their names at this time.

And by the way I don't represent HANA (although I am a member) when I talk to these guys I represent California Horseplayers because that's what I am.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Early p-4 with 10% takeout = 2% chance

Early p-4 with appx 15% takeout = 12% chance

Horseplayer (real one) on CHRB = <1% chance

TOC putting out a press release in support of horseplayer on board = 15% chance

I know it's a longshot any of these happen but please tell me that you didn't agree to shut up or suggest that horseplayers would be happy and shut up if any of the above actually happened.

[Indulto]

AM,
Can you tell us why these horsemen are talking to this group you're a part of rather than HANA? Is it related somehow to the video and/or HANA's positions at the CHRB meetings?

[andymays]

Early p-4 with 10% takeout = 2% chance

Early p-4 with appx 15% takeout = 12% chance

Horseplayer (real one) on CHRB = <1% chance

TOC putting out a press release in support of horseplayer on board = 15% chance

I know it's a longshot any of these happen but please tell me that you didn't agree to shut up or suggest that horseplayers would be happy and shut up if any of the above actually happened.

I was only speaking for myself and the other Horseplayers on the call were only speaking for themeselves. They asked me to give them about 10 days and they would give me an answer.

The chances of anything being done are probably less than the chances you listed above.

[DJofSD]

I wouldn't call it anxiety, guilt would be more like it.

If they want to do something for me, take the cap off of the number of races and/or tracks they can import.

[andymays]

I wouldn't call it anxiety, guilt would be more like it.

If they want to do something for me, take the cap off of the number of races and/or tracks they can import.

There are probably 15 things that need to be done. We agreed on the ones I listed because everyone thought there was a chance to get them done over the next couple of months.

[Jeff P]

Andy, you are to be applauded for trying to get them to do something positive for players.

However, and with all due respect, in my opinion a 10% pick 4, or any other "bone" they decide to throw to players at this point is just that... a "bone" designed to divert attention away from the real elephants sitting in the room.

Make no mistake, these "elephants" were deliberately put there by track management, the CHRB, and the TOC.

1. Takeout - In my opnion, raising takeout in the face of player objections and falling handle is beyond simply not acceptable - it is deplorable and a violation of the public trust.

2. Integrity - in my opnion, odds that change after the gate opens are simply not acceptable in this day and age.

3. Integrity - in my opnion, "Slap on the wrist" penalties for those caught cheating through the use of drugs is no longer acceptable.

4. Fairness - The TOC's 6.5% ADW Retention Cap statute prevents CA residents from getting rebates. This state law must be stricken from the books.

5. Violation of the Public Trust - In my opnion, through its actions, the CHRB has violated its own mission statement and therefore the public trust it was empowered to protect.

For those who do not know, the CHRB's misison statement reads:The purpose of the California Horse Racing Board is to regulate pari-mutuel wagering for the protection of the betting public, to promote horse racing and breeding industries, and to maximize State of California tax revenues.In my opinion, player representation on the CHRB is the only sure way to prevent continued violation of the public trust in the future.


-jp

.


PS. DJ, I agree with you on the need for full card simulcasting - but would rank it as elephant #6 behind the others listed above.

.

[andymays]

AM,
Can you tell us why these horsemen are talking to this group you're a part of rather than HANA? Is it related somehow to the video and/or HANA's positions at the CHRB meetings?

They responded to my emails. Quite a few of the people on this board are on the email list. Their response to the emails was passed on months ago to Jeff and other HANA board members. It wasn't a secret. The reason they are reaching out is that the TOC along with Brackpool and Israel are getting a ton of bad publicity and they really never expected the backlash. Most of these people don't have any idea how their manipulations over the years have helped destroy the game. The same with the CHRB. They might be successful owners, breeders, or businessmen but when it comes to gambling they are totally and completely ignorant.

[Deepsix]

AndyM, I'm trying to place your telephone conference in perspective--- You participated (as an individual horseplayer expressing only your own views) in the telecon with a couple of influential TOC members BUT were these individuals representing the TOC, or did they offer a similar disclaimer that they were participating outside the TOC, and that the TOC did, or did not endorse their participation? I'm unsure of the significance, at this point, but wanted to be clear on that point.

[andymays]

AndyM, I'm trying to place your telephone conference in perspective--- You participated (as an individual horseplayer expressing only your own views) in the telecon with a couple of influential TOC members BUT were these individuals representing the TOC, or did they offer a similar disclaimer that they were participating outside the TOC, and that the TOC did, or did not endorse their participation? I'm unsure of the significance, at this point, but wanted to be clear on that point.
They were representing the TOC. They did not commit to anything except making the effort to advance our (mine and the other Horseplayers on the call) position and give us an answer within 10 days.

[chickenhead]

Legacy matters less than current action, what the people you're dealing with are actually doing is what matters. Every track has a legacy position that the current people had nothing at all to do with. You deal with them based on what they're currently doing. You deal with management based on how they are managing things.

No management gets a pass for not dealing with their legacy situation -- but the only logical approach is to treat them all the same, with a hope that they are amenable to make things better, with a hope that they are honest brokers until they prove otherwise. Because many tracks with poor legacy situation will prove themselves amenable to positive change, are receptive to working with players.

Some people don't seem to get the idea that a track leaving all their legacy rates alone, but choosing to lower one of them represents a net positive to the players at the track -- their lot is now better than it was before. It is a move in the right direction, a promising sign by management.

Portland Meadows has higher takeout rates than they should, across the board. They have chosen to lower one of them. There is a reasonable expectation that, if it is successful, and handle grows on that bet, they may lower other takeout rates. Because they have shown by their actions that they are amenable to the idea -- there is a yet to be broken hope that they may be honest brokers.

We have seen this with other tracks, such as Tampa. From a starting point of clearly unacceptable rates -- they have in an honest and forthright fashion been lowering takeouts in a very systematic fashion, and honestly judging the results. Life gets better each year for their players.

No track is even remotely close to perfect, but the management at some places are doing some of the sorts of things you want them to be doing. They are looking for people to work with them, have shown it by their actions. The management at other places just simply aren't doing anything. Nothing positive, nothing negative, they are not changing things. At a few places, from time to time, the management makes changes that are very bad.

California had relatively low takeout rates. They weren't the lowest, and like all tracks they were still much too high, but they were relatively low. They have just raised those rates, on many of their bets. Life for their bettors has just gotten much much worse. It is a move in the wrong direction, a very big public wrong move.

They have shown themselves, with Los Al, to not be honest brokers. To not operate in an honest and forthright fashion. To not be amenable to the idea of the effect of rates, that it matters. The combination of ADW cap and increasing the takeouts arguably marks them as the LEAST amenable to the idea of any jurisdiction in the country, because they are currently operating in a fashion that puts them out of sync with the entire industry -- they are the only ones raising blended prices, whereas many tracks are lowering them. Arguably making the management in California the least horseplayer friendly in the country.

Again, every track has a legacy position that the current people had nothing at all to do with. You deal with them based on what they're currently doing. You deal with management based on how they are managing things.

If the idea is offered them that they can do some kind of weird appeasement, by still raising the blended rates, but including some lipstick on that pig by touting "we've spoken with the horseplayers, and we've done what they asked" by offering one pick 4 at a great new price of 15%, who knows, they might think its a savvy move. They get exactly what they want, higher overall rates -- and they get a great PR partner for cover.

That doesn't speak to anything about what you're doing Andy, you are representing yourself, and I'm glad you're talking to them. But for me it is clear that I wouldn't want HANA, as the horseplayer group I want to speak for me, as a California bettor -- to say "that's ok" to what the CHRB and TOC have done, a pick 4 wouldn't change that.

[andymays]

Andy, you are to be applauded for trying to get them to do something positive for players.

However, and with all due respect, in my opinion a 10% pick 4, or any other "bone" they decide to throw to players at this point is just that... a "bone" designed to divert attention away from the real elephants sitting in the room.

Make no mistake, these "elephants" were deliberately put there by track management, the CHRB, and the TOC.

1. Takeout - In my opnion, raising takeout in the face of player objections and falling handle is beyond simply not acceptable - it is deplorable and a violation of the public trust.

2. Integrity - in my opnion, odds that change after the gate opens are simply not acceptable in this day and age.

3. Integrity - in my opnion, "Slap on the wrist" penalties for those caught cheating through the use of drugs is no longer acceptable.

4. Fairness - The TOC's 6.5% ADW Retention Cap statute prevents CA residents from getting rebates. This state law must be stricken from the books.

5. Violation of the Public Trust - In my opnion, through its actions, the CHRB has violated its own mission statement and therefore the public trust it was empowered to protect.

For those who do not know, the CHRB's misison statement reads:In my opinion, player representation on the CHRB is the only sure way to prevent continued violation of the public trust in the future.


-jp

.


PS. DJ, I agree with you on the need for full card simulcasting - but would rank it as elephant #6 behind the others listed above.

.
In my younger days on of the things I love to do most was bodysurf. Occasionally, depending on where and when I decided to go out I would get absolutely slammed by a wave. There were times when I got slammed so hard I didn’t know up from down for several seconds. This is exactly what happened when the CHRB lied to you and to Horseplayers by raising the takeout. We were all slammed. Nobody is happy with the outcome. It is also true that nobody has slammed them back more than me. Several people on this board get the emails so it's no secret.

When you come out with a nuanced position contrary to what HANA is all about then I’m thinking maybe you’ve lost your way and need to think about what your goals are. To take a position that a major track lowering takeout on a popular exotic wager to 10% is somehow just a “bone” makes no sense to anyone. We need several more bones thrown at us just like it. HANA should be throwing pool parties to support such bets instead of minimizing the wager or the people trying to get them approved. Which major track is in the process of lowering takeout across the board?

All of the other points you make are valid but some are not unique to California. They apply everywhere. As far as the retention cap goes that opens up the debate about rebating. Most people agree that in a perfect world we would have lowered takeout for all and no rebates. If that’s the case then HANA should be working toward that end. Why isn’t it?

For some reason you’ve chosen to ignore your California representative and myself by not returning phone calls or most emails. You also chose to disengage a couple of months ago when you were told about the responses I received from members of the TOC, CTT, and some Track Executives. You said that you were done so please don’t imply that we are somehow a rogue group trying to undermine anything. I’ve never heard of not engaging anyone up until the last minute when it comes to negotiating a successful settlement. Maybe I'm reading too much into your response and the response of other board members so far.

If you and HANA are going to lead a boycott then you have a responsibility to Horseplayers everywhere to put forth a maximum effort for a successful action. When we spoke more than a couple of months ago you assured me that you were holding a winning hand. By that I mean that you had several high volume players who played California races on a regular basis that would stop playing. You also told me that you would get out there and make the case. So far I haven’t heard you or any board members on any popular southern California radio shows.

Do you have the high volume players I mentioned up above lined up or not? Are you sure they’re telling you the truth about how much and how often they play California races?


Are you and some HANA board members planning on getting out there and selling a boycott all Horseplayers in California?

I am all for a boycott if I see a maximum effort on your part and on HANA’s part. So far I don’t see it and I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept a half hearted effort when it comes to something so important. Many of us have long term relationships with people involved in Southern California racing. We will support a boycott but we should not be made fools of by any half hearted effort that has little chance of success. Any action on our part should be as close to a certainty as possible. That means knocking down handle at least 15% more than the current trend. If you're not sure then you probably don't have the support.

You can choose to take this personally or you can choose to involve your members and make your best effort. I would like to support the effort. It’s up to you.

[andymays]

If the idea is offered them that they can do some kind of weird appeasement, by still raising the blended rates, but including some lipstick on that pig by touting "we've spoken with the horseplayers, and we've done what they asked" by offering one pick 4 at a great new price of 15%, who knows, they might think its a savvy move. They get exactly what they want, higher overall rates -- and they get a great PR partner for cover.

I went over the deal with them. 15% doesn't get it done because of field size especially in the early races. It has to be around 10% to work. They know that.

[Jeff P]

When you come out with a nuanced position contrary to what HANA is all about then I’m thinking maybe you’ve lost your way...Just to be clear, HANA's goals are right on the home page of the HANA website. Those goals relate to the following "elephants in the room" that I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread:

1. Takeout

2. Pool Integrity

3. Drug Integrity

Add to that: The TOC's 6.5% ADW Retention Cap Statute and the deplorable behavior of the CHRB.

Andy, I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree about this.

I see a 10% pick-4 as a move in the right direction... something I'd normally be supporting in a big way.

Call me cynical, but I can also see them seeing it a "bone" they can use to keep players quiet about the elephants in the living room.

Believe me when I say this:

I applaud your efforts to get them to do ANYTHING positive for players.

However, they want to shut us up. They don't want their elephants brought to public attention in any significant way.

It is my opinion that a national players' boycott of the California racing product is going to take place. It is also my opnion that this is going to happen with or without HANA support, and that it absolutely WILL draw massive public attention to the elephants in the room...

In my opinion, shining the spotlight on the elephants is more important when it comes to bringing about change related to HANA's goals than loss of handle (as evidenced by their actions in light of what happened at Los Al.)

That's all I can say (or am willing to say) for now.



-jp

.

[Charli125]

To take a position that a major track lowering takeout on a popular exotic wager to 10% is somehow just a “bone” makes no sense to anyone.


Andy,

When you look at this in a vacuum, then it doesn't make sense. But, if you look at the entire situation, and see that they're raising takeout on the other bets while possibly lowering this one, it's obviously being done to draw attention from what they're doing. If they wanted to help out the player, then they wouldn't be raising takeout, it's as simple as that.

All boycott/don't boycott arguments aside, I find it hard to believe that you are seriously going to treat this as a win. Here's something I asked Roger the other day, and I'd pose the same question to you.

What CA is doing is raising takeout on the majority of their bets, while lowering takeout on one small bet. You are asking us to praise and support them for this action. I just don't understand that rational. Please explain.

[andymays]

Andy,

When you look at this in a vacuum, then it doesn't make sense. But, if you look at the entire situation, and see that they're raising takeout on the other bets while possibly lowering this one, it's obviously being done to draw attention from what they're doing. If they wanted to help out the player, then they wouldn't be raising takeout, it's as simple as that.

All boycott/don't boycott arguments aside, I find it hard to believe that you are seriously going to treat this as a win. Here's something I asked Roger the other day, and I'd pose the same question to you.

What CA is doing is raising takeout on the majority of their bets, while lowering takeout on one small bet. You are asking us to praise and support them for this action. I just don't understand that rational. Please explain.

The odds of them doing the 10% takeout early pick 4 are long. Most likely it won't happen.

They didn't propose the 10% takeout wager I did. I've been pushing it since way before Del Mar started. Del Mar doesn't have a early pick 4 at all. That is where it started. And yes, they're not going to do a damn thing unless they think something might be in it for them. If the decision makers take a look and see some upside to it then they'll try it. If not they'll toss it in the trash.

As far as asking you to praise and support it you're going way overboard on that. If a bet like that were put in place and it was successful for an entire meet then they couldn't say no to one more like it and one more after that. How do you intend to get them to begin lowering takeout if not incrementally?

By the way I don't know how many times I've asked these same questions over the last month but here I go again:

Do you have the high volume players I mentioned up above lined up or not? Are you sure they’re telling you the truth about how much and how often they play California races?

Are you and some HANA board members planning on getting out there and selling a boycott all Horseplayers in California?

I can support a boycott but for some unknown reason nobody wants to answer these questions.

[Charli125]

Do you have the high volume players I mentioned up above lined up or not? Are you sure they’re telling you the truth about how much and how often they play California races?

Are you and some HANA board members planning on getting out there and selling a boycott all Horseplayers in California?


I don't know the answer to the first question, and I don't know how we could ever be sure.

As for the 2nd question, if HANA decides to officially boycott CA, then we would have to sell it to all players in CA. There's no other way to make it work.

I know this, I'm not playing CA until the items we talked about in the other thread happen. I don't care if they have a zero takeout Pick 4; I'm not playing it.

[andymays]

I don't know the answer to the first question, and I don't know how we could ever be sure.

As for the 2nd question, if HANA decides to officially boycott CA, then we would have to sell it to all players in CA. There's no other way to make it work.

I know this, I'm not playing CA until the items we talked about in the other thread happen. I don't care if they have a zero takeout Pick 4; I'm not playing it.

You make sure by asking Jeff the right questions. I am no longer a big player but when I was I was churning anywhere from 5k to 20k a day and occasionally 30k or 40k. 90% of that was at a California Track. Most of the large bettors we seem to be talking about play several races at several tracks per day so the money bet is spread out. Why wouldn't these specific questions be asked so you have a good idea as to how much they bet on California races?

I will be satisfied if I see you guys out there selling it to the public but let me ask you this. Why aren't you out there now and why haven't you guys been out there trying to get more members for the last year?

[rwwupl]

Andy,

Those were the days. I remember when you hit the p-6 for over a half million dollars.

rwwupl

[Indulto]

... That's all I can say (or am willing to say) for now.

-jpjp,
Respecfully, as I see it, HANA’s lack of transparency together with the absence of widespread legitimacy, has resulted in multiple initiatives being explored. By a lack of transparency I mean that HANA leadership’s tendency to involve only HANA board members and a few others with inside connections in the decision-making process -- without regularly apprising the general membership of its progress and direction – suggests a lack of accountability, or worse, a lack of representation of all affected.

I believe it also reflects uncertainty if not disparity over what goals should be pursued. In such a vacuum, it is no wonder these TOC representatives sought to circumvent HANA, and may have thought they had the ear of people more willing to engage in discussion. Until HANA is willing to demonstrate that both rebated and unrebated players -- as well as both California residents and residents of other states -- will benefit from their representation, then there may well be a need for other groups supporting California and/or unrebated players.

In my opinion, if HANA wants to run the show, they should make it CLEAR that:
1) They represent the interests of the casual player to the same extent as the dedicated one.

2) A level playing field with respect to takeout is their LONG-TERM goal
...a) It should not be considered simply a nice idea or idealistic concept, but something it is actively working toward and NEVER against.

3) Respect for -- and fair representation of -- all horseplayers is their IMMEDIATE goal.

4) They will NOT settle for merely rescinding the takeout raise, but will demand actually lowering it from its current levels, either directly or effectively, so that the maximum effective takeout for ALL bettors -- residents or non-residents, on-track and off -- is at least 5 percentage points BELOW the maximum effective takeout (which was full-price for on-track and other unrebated players) PRIOR to the Santa Anita meet.
...a) I do agree that a 10% early Pick 4 in the face of all the increases is, by itself, just a bone. However, someone should keep talking to horsemen about what additional bones they might chew on rather than bury. ;)

5) They will assist California players in obtaining representation on the CHRB board; even if it is NOT a HANA official.
...a) The video, while useful, may make it impossible to get a HANA official on the CHRB, at least initially. If another prominant California resident horseplayer able to provide competent representation should step forward with significant horseplayer support, HANA will not present an obstacle.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Quick question Indulto. If you were HANA what measures would you take to level the playing field. What would be your first course of action?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Quick question Indulto. If you were HANA what measures would you take to level the playing field. What would be your first course of action?

Win and Show wagering only.

5% takeout on all bets.

No breakage.

No simulcasting.

No ADWs.

Bets can only be made on live races held at that track.

[JustRalph]

Andy,

Those were the days. I remember when you hit the p-6 for over a half million dollars.

rwwupl

Andy, I don't remember those days....but would love a souvenir

Send me 5k of it............................... :lol:

I promise I won't put it thru the windows in Socal :lol:

I agree with Jeff on his theory of "throwing players a bone" I think that is all it will be

[Indulto]

Quick question Indulto. If you were HANA what measures would you take to level the playing field. What would be your first course of action?First of all, I was just advised that the average rebate for non-CA residents on CA tracks is 8% so I would revise my 5% figure to 8% to at least level the playing field for non-whales in CA.

What I would do in order to WORK TOWARD getting the playing field leveled in CA for all bettors would be to work with the TOC and CHRB to specify incrementally higher levels of handle at which incrementally lower takeout could be implemented that guaranteed them at least the same NET as the previous level. Such a schedule would involve purse increases as well. Perhaps they would have to alternate with takeout reduction in some fashion as handle increased. The principal thing to be gained here is the establishment of conditions (and adjustments as necessary) under which the optimal pricing point and/or "best-case scenario" of 10% direct takeout for all could be achieved.

I would also pursue whatever changes (legislative or otherwise) that would permit registered groups of players who collectively bet as much as a whale to get whale-sized rebates.

If a level playing field can be achieved in CA, then it can be achieved elsewhere.

It seems to me that once a Handle Increment/Reward Schedule (HIRS) is defined, than a level playing field could be established on a pool-by-pool basis -- simultaneously rewarding horseplayers and horsemen for situations in which high handle was produced without any penalty to the track or state when expectations weren't met. If one is willing to bet/run under unpopular circumstances (for whatever reason), one shouldn't complain that either the takeout was too high or the purse too low.

If track executives, horsemen, and state officials indeed prove unwilling to contemplate favorable circumstances for everyone involved, then I would agree that nothing could be done, and I would give up on racing as my primary source of recreation.

[rwwupl]

I find the following quotes from above inconsistent,(posted below) and could it be the negatives assigned to Andys proposal is because anything positive that may happen for California racing would take away from the plan to boycott?

I guess I should also say that I (Roger Way) arranged for the meeting to hear Andy's proposal with the TOC, with the best of intentions and try for something positive for horseplayers. I arranged for the people there, and I hope they are not the elephants being refered to below.
We know the chances are slim, but the TOC was positive and willing to try, as we were. They are carrying the ball to the ADW's and S/A and the CHRB.

I think that is a good thing. The boycotters do not seem to like it, but would normally be all for it.... Go figure.

P.S. The TOC is now going to establish a "Players Panel" to advise them on player issues and going to hire a full time professional to coordinate issues on gaming, which they have lacked expertise.



However, and with all due respect, in my opinion a 10% pick 4, or any other "bone" they decide to throw to players at this point is just that... a "bone" designed to divert attention away from the real elephants sitting in the room.

Make no mistake, these "elephants" were deliberately put there by track management, the CHRB, and the TOC.----------------------------------------------------------------------


I see a 10% pick-4 as a move in the right direction... something I'd normally be supporting in a big way.
Call me cynical, but I can also see them seeing it a "bone" they can use to keep players quiet about the elephants in the living room.

Believe me when I say this:

I applaud your efforts to get them to do ANYTHING positive for players.

However, they want to shut us up. They don't want their elephants brought to public attention in any significant way.

It is my opinion that a national players' boycott of the California racing product is going to take place. It is also my opnion that this is going to happen with or without HANA support, and that it absolutely WILL draw massive public attention to the elephants in the room...

In my opinion, shining the spotlight on the elephants is more important when it comes to bringing about change related to HANA's goals than loss of handle (as evidenced by their actions in light of what happened at Los Al.)

That's all I can say (or am willing to say) for now.

[DeanT]

This is a no-brainer.

Just like looking forward at the Los Al takeout hike and drawing a line in the sand (like many horseplayers did) because you could see the future - i.e. the TOC and CHRB would set their sites on thoroughbred, this is the same situation.

CHRB/TOC raise takeout by 15% on 78% of the betting pools. Horseplayers give them (rightfully) bad press. Some talk of a boycott. This is the largest takeout increase (by my count) since 1993 when Hialeah raised takeout about 15%. It was 1950 before such a takeout increase happened.

Then the CHRB and TOC listen to some players about a 15% pick 4, which would effect 2%-5% of the betting money per day. They do this because:

1) They need better press because they screwed players and now players are mad and they are hurting their brand
2) Horseplayers are degenerates and if they give them something, they will suddenly be back betting their product.
3) if they succeed in throwing this bone, players will be playing into their higher takeout, just like they want

This (just like Los Al) is a line in the sand, because if the TOC and CHRB throw players a bone and they run with their tails between their legs to support this gimmick, it says to every other track in America: Riase your take, but offer a gimmick bet to players and they will happily come grovelling back to work with you and support you.

In one year, Magna tracks hike take to 24% blended, but offer a 15% pick 4, down from 19%, for example.

In two years, Calder hikes take to 25% blended but lowers a show pool to 14% as a bone.

In two years, when the takeout increase in CA has raised purses a little bit, they are back to raise them again - knowing that if they do it and throw players a bone they will fall into line.

etc, etc, etc.

In every case, takeout is higher than previous even with adding the gimmick. They dupe us into playing into higher effective takeout. And they confirm what they think we are - stupid.

It sets a precedent that players can be walked all over and tricked to support a takeout hike.

If Cali offered a zero percent takeout rate on pick 4's I would not play it. I will not be duped into supporting a track which hikes takeout. I dont care what track it is, where it is located, or what their rate was before. If you hike takeout you are dead to me as a player.

[andymays]

This is a no-brainer.

Just like looking forward at the Los Al takeout hike and drawing a line in the sand (like many horseplayers did) because you could see the future - i.e. the TOC and CHRB would set their sites on thoroughbred, this is the same situation.

CHRB/TOC raise takeout by 15% on 78% of the betting pools. Horseplayers give them (rightfully) bad press. Some talk of a boycott. This is the largest takeout increase (by my count) since 1993 when Hialeah raised takeout about 15%. It was 1950 before such a takeout increase happened.

Then the CHRB and TOC listen to some players about a 15% pick 4, which would effect 2%-5% of the betting money per day. They do this because:

1) They need better press because they screwed players and now players are mad and they are hurting their brand
2) Horseplayers are degenerates and if they give them something, they will suddenly be back betting their product.
3) if they succeed in throwing this bone, players will be playing into their higher takeout, just like they want

This (just like Los Al) is a line in the sand, because if the TOC and CHRB throw players a bone and they run with their tails between their legs to support this gimmick, it says to every other track in America: Riase your take, but offer a gimmick bet to players and they will happily come grovelling back to work with you and support you.

In one year, Magna tracks hike take to 24% blended, but offer a 15% pick 4, down from 19%, for example.

In two years, Calder hikes take to 25% blended but lowers a show pool to 14% as a bone.

In two years, when the takeout increase in CA has raised purses a little bit, they are back to raise them again - knowing that if they do it and throw players a bone they will fall into line.

etc, etc, etc.

In every case, takeout is higher than previous even with adding the gimmick. They dupe us into playing into higher effective takeout. And they confirm what they think we are - stupid.

It sets a precedent that players can be walked all over and tricked to support a takeout hike.

If Cali offered a zero percent takeout rate on pick 4's I would not play it. I will not be duped into supporting a track which hikes takeout. I dont care what track it is, where it is located, or what their rate was before. If you hike takeout you are dead to me as a player.
Dean, quit lying about the bet. You keep lying to the people reading this thread and it's total bullshit.

The truth is that the Horseplayers Early Pick 4 with a 10% takeout was proposed to Del Mar management back in May or June because Del Mar is one of the few tracks that doesn't offer the bet. I proposed the bet and spoke with them about it. I wouldn't be surprised to see them have one next year. Will they have 10% takeout? Probably not. Let me say it again. I proposed the bet. Not Del Mar, not the TOC, not the CHRB, not the CTT. WTF don't you understand about that?

That's what happened so stop friggin lying to the people reading this thread and stop knocking Roger and myself over it.

What exactly happens to people like yourself who get on a board of anything? Do you lose your minds? Is playing politics and having a big ego all part of the deal? How does a HANA board member take the position that a popular exotic wager with a 10% takeout is bad unless he is playing total politics and lying. Knock it off.

The truth is that in the unlikely event that they did offer the bet it would make your position a little less sympathetic to the public. That's the truth not the other bullshit your posting here. If your position is so weak that you have to trash the bet and the people trying to get it done then maybe you don't have the support to pull it off.

If HANA and the board members didn't always have to answer direct question with indirect answers and if HANA board members kept people informed then this may not have happened. But to now minimize two people who are most active in California trying to help Horseplayers is a bunch of crap.

Tell the damn truth Dean and quit giving bullshit answers to direct questions.

Quit rewriting history when it comes to this bet along with who initiated it.

[DeanT]

I am a horseplayer and I do not support CA racing when they raised takeout. I do not as a horseplayer want to work with them on giving us this bet.

Good for you if you want to work with them. Good for you if you want to support them and this bet. I do not. It's a free country.

It is my opinion.

PS; No need to call me names Andy. Track execs do that, so I am immune.

[andymays]

I am a horseplayer and I do not support CA racing when they raised takeout. I do not as a horseplayer want to work with them on giving us this bet.

Good for you if you want to work with them. Good for you if you want to support them and this bet. I do not. It's a free country.

It is my opinion.

PS; No need to call me names Andy. Track execs do that, so I am immune.

Let me tell you something slick. I'm working on behalf of Horeplayers and not "with them". You can keep trashing people who are doing the same but there's a paper trail to back up what I'm saying and all you have are your lies.

No need to call you names? WTF do you think all your post defaming myself and Roger are? WTF exactly do you mean now by "working with them"?

If HANA is about integrity then you ought to resign for lying about my effforts and Rogers efforts. The record is what it is and you can lie about it all you want.

[DeanT]

Your pick 4 idea was brought up here way back, so there is no need to rehash it. I said at the time I did not support it, because I told you they were raising takeout and it would be nothing more than a PR move for them and you would play into their hands.

I believe this has happened. There is no lie in my post, because I said the exact same thing five months ago.

I know it is your idea and you are passionate about it. You are free to support or push it, not push it, work at it, or not work at it. It's a free country and you can choose what you want.

I, like in May of this year, do not support it, because even with it, takeout is higher in 2010, than it was in 2009. Pushing tracks that have higher takeout this year than last, is not something I will support - ever.

That is as simple as I can make it. I do not support your idea. I am sorry if that offends you.

[andymays]

Your pick 4 idea was brought up here way back, so there is no need to rehash it. I said at the time I did not support it, because I told you they were raising takeout and it would be nothing more than a PR move for them and you would play into their hands.

I believe this has happened. There is no lie in my post, because I said the exact same thing five months ago.

I know it is your idea and you are passionate about it. You are free to support or push it, not push it, work at it, or not work at it. It's a free country and you can choose what you want.

I, like in May of this year, do not support it, because even with it, takeout is higher in 2010, than it was in 2009. Pushing tracks that have higher takeout this year than last, is not something I will support - ever.

That is as simple as I can make it. I do not support your idea. I am sorry if that offends you.

What offends me is you implying that Roger and I are working for the other side. You are totally misrepresenting what happend. Knock it off or I can do this all day. Quit the falsehoods.

[DeanT]

What offends me is you implying that Roger and I are working for the other side.

Then this is even simpler. If you think I am implying that, I can clear it up. I, in no way shape or form, think you and Roger are working for the other side.

I think this is simply a bad idea.

Fair enough?

[DJofSD]

OK, you guys have come to a better understanding, shake hands and let's move on to the real problem: on 12/26/2010 multi-tiered wagers in CA will have the state withholding increased.

[andymays]

Then this is even simpler. If you think I am implying that, I can clear it up. I, in no way shape or form, think you and Roger are working for the other side.

I think this is simply a bad idea.

Fair enough?

Yes Dean, it's fair enough but stop with the rewriting of the history of the 10% takeout bet.

[rwwupl]

Are the "Goals" of any proposed boycott shifting?.

In my opinion, shining the spotlight on the elephants is more important when it comes to bringing about change related to HANA's goals than loss of handle (as evidenced by their actions in light of what happened at Los Al.)


This seems inflexible:

It is my opinion that a national players' boycott of the California racing product is going to take place. It is also my opnion that this is going to happen with or without HANA support, and that it absolutely WILL draw massive public attention to the elephants in the room...


Question/Comment:
Are we lowering expectations to hurt California handle with a boycott? Are there any racing jurisdictions that has gotten the publicity for all the things wrong than California already? Is this a new goal? Is it worth it?

[rwwupl]

...My thoughts.

About me...

California racing is my passion and has dominated my life. There is no one anywhere that needs to remind or inform me of the disasters from poor leadership that have fell on my state,concerning horseracing.

I prefer a low profile and that was born when I spent 24 years on the circuit as a full time bettor,and the low profile was necessary. I seek nothing more now, except to return racing in California to the great game it once (as close as can be) was and provided me with a lifetime of pleasure at the greatest customer participation sport in the world.

I have learned a few things along the way, and think I may have something to contribute to
an organization that exists for the horseplayers.I was there when Brian McGrath was hired as the original Czar of racing and I was a live part of the action that created it, and the horseplayers were to be represented, but it did not turn out that way,so it failed and now they call it the NTRA.

I was there in the room When Ed Friendly and Ron Charles asked for the TOC to be created...and I was on the official agenda too that day and presented a plan with Cliff Goodrich, Santa Anita President at the time and a bunch of horseplayers to create a horseplayers organization supported from the takeout. The TOC forces won the day and the horseplayers were turned down... mainly for one reason... they were afraid if we got any power from a takeout subsidized organization that we would or could be calling a strike or boycott when things did not go our way.

The current problems...

I support Jeff and HANA on everything he has said above about what is wrong in California,and he has it right, except the conlusions by several here of what to do about it. And by the way, I am not easily conned as suggested, I have opinions based on experience.

As swetyejohn said on Pace (paraphrase),when you go to war you must know the outcome before you start or there may be better ways to approach the problem, rather than a formal sponsored boycott.

A sponsored boycott would harm HANA more than California unless you were certain about the outcome, and that case has not been made. Show me, how HANA will influence California to recind the takeout increase, or lower the take, correct the pari-mutuel change in odds problem after the gates open,Review and correct the integrity issues and get the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the CHRB to move on, I will be first in line to support a formal boycott.. if these issues can be forced by HANA with confidence in the outcome , that is the real question.

What would be considered success, what are the specific goals and how do we get there?

I offer to you to think about the Los Alamitos experience, Jeff proved the point and nothing happened. Did we learn anything then or not? All that happened was that our side got angry.

I council you to not act from anger and emotion but with clarity of facts.

Do we really have the economic authority to force the issue? Where is it?

The fact is California is doing a good job of forcing change on their own, look at the numbers.. Even California will turn to lowering the takeout and finding the optimum price point of the bet when economics dictate and not HANA... and that is in sight,despite the recent foolishness.

Why California?

I can pick apart a lot of jurisdictions that have insulted players with higher rates on certain bets and anti-customer attitudes on many issues other than California, except California has "shit" on the wrong people at the wrong time so we will make them pay and make an example out of them... and that is not good enough reason.

That is not smart or achievable starting on Dec. 26th at Santa Anita,(IMO) in view that we will have a new dirt surface, with players and horses and horsemen returning for a well advertised meet that many have been waiting for.

I look for HANA to be a force for change to improve things for the customers, and that has to be one brick at a time, and not a force for destruction by declaring war,because things did not go our way and we were insulted and got angry.

Make a new plan for success, with facts, not emotion.

Roger Way(rwwupl)

[rwwupl]

PS.
If Andy's bet goes through....

Anytime you can get a 10% take out on a major track for a season for horseplayers that is a good thing. It may turn out to be the most popular bet on the card,if we can get it going.

I do not recall anyone else lately even trying,We seem to have other things on our mind.

[Charli125]

PS.
Anytime you can get a 10% take out on a major track for a season for horseplayers that is a good thing. It may turn out to be the most popular bet on the card,if we can get it going.

I do not recall anyone else lately even trying,We seem to have other things on our mind.

See Roger, this is where you and Andy are losing me. I mean no disrespect, and I acknowledge that you're much more in tune with the CA environment that I am. I'm certainly not trying to belittle you(or Andy) at all, I just don't see where you're coming from. I just don't see how raising takeout on the majority of bets(I believe Dean said it was 78%), and then lowering takeout on one bet can be described as "trying". At the end of the day, it's a net takeout increase.

If the TOC really wants to do something to help horseplayers, then they should rescind the takeout increase, and offer a 10% Pick 4.

[DJofSD]

I don't play pick 4's, so, even a 0% wager is of no use to me. But, if that's what floats your boat, great, I will not argue against a reduction in the withholding. Change has to start somewhere, or, IOW, don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

[andymays]

See Roger, this is where you and Andy are losing me. I mean no disrespect, and I acknowledge that you're much more in tune with the CA environment that I am. I'm certainly not trying to belittle you(or Andy) at all, I just don't see where you're coming from. I just don't see how raising takeout on the majority of bets(I believe Dean said it was 78%), and then lowering takeout on one bet can be described as "trying". At the end of the day, it's a net takeout increase.

If the TOC really wants to do something to help horseplayers, then they should rescind the takeout increase, and offer a 10% Pick 4.

It doesn't erase what they did with takeout increase at all. It still sucks. It just won't suck quite as much. Again it is highly unlikely that they will even do the 10% pick 4.

Brackpool and Israel need to resign.

We need at least one or two Horseplayers on the Board of the CHRB.

We need a Horseplayers group comparable to the TOC with equal standing.

We need them to reverse the takeout increase. If it can't be done all at once then it needs to be done incrementally.

If there is overwhelming support that can force a change now then lets do it. (emphasis on overwhelming)

Be absolutely positively sure. Failure is not an option.

[rwwupl]

See Roger, this is where you and Andy are losing me. I mean no disrespect, and I acknowledge that you're much more in tune with the CA environment that I am. I'm certainly not trying to belittle you(or Andy) at all, I just don't see where you're coming from. I just don't see how raising takeout on the majority of bets(I believe Dean said it was 78%), and then lowering takeout on one bet can be described as "trying". At the end of the day, it's a net takeout increase.

If the TOC really wants to do something to help horseplayers, then they should rescind the takeout increase, and offer a 10% Pick 4.


Charlie125

You sound like we approve of the raise in take. Heck no. We both fought as hard against it as anyone you can find(we must have missed you). We lost
that one.

Horseplayers have lost before, does that mean we start a war or jump off a building ,full of anger, ..OR....try to do something positive. We do not have do-overs.

In your jurisdiction, when you have someone do the wrong thing for the fans what do you do, Quit, jump off a building, ask for a do over......OR try to do something positive and go on ? When was your last boycott and how did it work out?

Maybe you have never had anyone do anything wrong.

[Mike_412]

I wonder if there's a point that players get sick and tired hearing about all things California that a formal boycott isn't even necessary. They just decide that they're tired of hearing about it and take their money elsewhere regardless of what happens.

That's not a wise a$$ statement for the record. I'm just curious if players get turned off at some point by the amount of California threads on this forum and other forums.

Any thoughts?

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I'm hoping they decide to do the 10% early P-4 and it is wildly successful while all other handle stays flat.

Next year, I can maybe convince them to do a 10% takeout early and late double when they decide to raise WPS takeout 3%.

I love double-doubles. Yum-Yum! :ThmbUp:

[andymays]

I wonder if there's a point that players get sick and tired hearing about all things California that a formal boycott isn't even necessary. They just decide that they're tired of hearing about it and take their money elsewhere regardless of what happens.

That's not a wise a$$ statement for the record. I'm just curious if players get turned off at some point by the amount of California threads on this forum and other forums.

Any thoughts?

It's already happening Mike. If I had to guess I'd say that Oak Tree is down over 20%.

[Mike_412]

It's already happening Mike. If I had to guess I'd say that Oak Tree is down over 20%.

Wow, is it that bad? I haven't followed their handle that much. Sad state of affairs. Hopefully, 5 years from now things look much different not only in California, but the industry as a whole.

[andymays]

Wow, is it that bad? I haven't followed their handle that much. Sad state of affairs. Hopefully 5 years from now things look much different not only in California, but the industry as a whole.

For the first time in a long time I could care less who's running or what's happening there. I'm already suspending play on my own. Santa Anita will get the Oak Tree dates next year. Hollywood Park doesn't work.

[rwwupl]

I wonder if there's a point that players get sick and tired hearing about all things California that a formal boycott isn't even necessary. They just decide that they're tired of hearing about it and take their money elsewhere regardless of what happens.

That's not a wise a$$ statement for the record. I'm just curious if players get turned off at some point by the amount of California threads on this forum and other forums.

Any thoughts?


There are other threads to read.

[Charli125]

Charlie125

You sound like we approve of the raise in take. Heck no. We both fought as hard against it as anyone you can find(we must have missed you). We lost
that one.

Horseplayers have lost before, does that mean we start a war or jump off a building ,full of anger, ..OR....try to do something positive. We do not have do-overs.

In your jurisdiction, when you have someone do the wrong thing for the fans what do you do, Quit, jump off a building, ask for a do over......OR try to do something positive and go on ? When was your last boycott and how did it work out?

Maybe you have never had anyone do anything wrong.

Roger,

I don't recall anywhere saying I'm perfect, or that you didn't work against the takeout increase. I also didn't say you were for the takeout increase. It's a low blow to accuse me of not doing anything about it. I don't live in CA, so I'm sorry I'm not around like you, Jeff, and Andy are, but that wasn't called for. I'm not sure why we can't have a rational discussion about this without instantly jumping to personal insults.

As for my jurisdiction doing something wrong. They are, and I've done all I can to make sure that every one including my state representatives, the track, and anyone else that would listen knows what's going on. I'm also not playing any WA racing, and I don't visit Emerald Downs. So far, it's not working, but I did get an angry call from the track asking why I would bring this to my representatives attention, so I'm making some progress. We have a ridiculous source market fee here which makes it very difficult to get rebates. Not quite as bad as the ADW cap, but it still has a disastrous effect.

Charlie

[andymays]

Maybe we all should concentrate on the real enemies. They are easy to see.

[Charli125]

Maybe we all should concentrate on the real enemies. They are easy to see.

Agreed.

[chickenhead]

"quiet periods" are kind of normal after a large change, so people can digest things, and see where things are.

No, you don't go jump off a bridge. No, you also don't need to show right back up the next day like nothing happened, and lead with "may we have another, please".

I believe a quiet period is kind of what some people are going for...its a very normal process to go through. There isnt any need to demand over and over again "Go on the radio and call for boycott NOW, before you have decided what to do!", or "Why aren't you talking to CHRB immediately after they shafted your members, whadya you, a little baby, look what the toc said might be on the table!"

People of zee world, relax. Nobody has lied about anyone. Nobody needs to boast about how great they are. Nobody has jumped off a building. Nobody is freaking out.

People are examining their options, a pretty normal, rational thing to do, and based on all the hysterics, something needed.

Nothing NEEDS to happen RIGHT NOW, today. Maybe something will happen later, maybe nothing will. Phew, we can all relax for a bit.

[rwwupl]

Roger,

I don't recall anywhere saying I'm perfect, or that you didn't work against the takeout increase. I also didn't say you were for the takeout increase. It's a low blow to accuse me of not doing anything about it. I don't live in CA, so I'm sorry I'm not around like you, Jeff, and Andy are, but that wasn't called for. I'm not sure why we can't have a rational discussion about this without instantly jumping to personal insults.

As for my jurisdiction doing something wrong. They are, and I've done all I can to make sure that every one including my state representatives, the track, and anyone else that would listen knows what's going on. I'm also not playing any WA racing, and I don't visit Emerald Downs. So far, it's not working, but I did get an angry call from the track asking why I would bring this to my representatives attention, so I'm making some progress. We have a ridiculous source market fee here which makes it very difficult to get rebates. Not quite as bad as the ADW cap, but it still has a disastrous effect.

Charlie


Charlie

You keep saying you do not understand, and the math did not come out right for you. There is more to it than that.
There was no insult intended, but just trying to get you to see us in a light that makes sense to you. You jumped too fast for your intrepretation. I do not think it a "low blow" to ask about your problems and what you did.

Always appreciate your input, sorry if I was inarticulate to explain.

I think I have demonstrated respect for all, and I think I have been most generous of my time to answer and explain the best I can.

Yeah, I know you have problems too, but you do not have a bunch of outsiders from other states threatning to come in no matter what and solve everything at once with a boycott, because they were insulted over something, and not listening to the home team.

[andymays]

"quiet periods" are kind of normal after a large change, so people can digest things, and see where things are.

No, you don't go jump off a bridge. No, you also don't need to show right back up the next day like nothing happened, and lead with "may we have another, please".

I believe a quiet period is kind of what some people are going for...its a very normal process to go through. There isnt any need to demand over and over again "Go on the radio and call for boycott NOW, before you have decided what to do!", or "Why aren't you talking to CHRB immediately after they shafted your members, whadya you, a little baby, look what the toc said might be on the table!"

People of zee world, relax. Nobody has lied about anyone. Nobody needs to boast about how great they are. Nobody has jumped off a building. Nobody is freaking out.

People are examining their options, a pretty normal, rational thing to do, and based on all the hysterics, something needed.

Nothing NEEDS to happen RIGHT NOW, today. Maybe something will happen later, maybe nothing will. Phew, we can all relax for a bit.

Do you want to explain what you're talking about? In a way that makes a little sense.

[highnote]

I'm hoping they decide to do the 10% early P-4 and it is wildly successful while all other handle stays flat.


ITP -- I agree. Why not procott the 10% takeout bet and boycott the higher takeout bets? This way you get the best of both worlds. You get to boycott CA on the one hand and you get to bet with lowered takeouts on the other.

A compromise might be the easiest, most achievable outcome.

[andymays]

ITP -- I agree. Why not procott the 10% takeout bet and boycott the higher takeout bets? This way you get the best of both worlds. You get to boycott CA on the one hand and you get to bet with lowered takeouts on the other.

A compromise might be the easiest, most achievable outcome.

Sensible post. The odds of the 10% happening are long.

[rwwupl]

ITP -- I agree. Why not procott the 10% takeout bet and boycott the higher takeout bets? This way you get the best of both worlds. You get to boycott CA on the one hand and you get to bet with lowered takeouts on the other.

A compromise might be the easiest, most achievable outcome.


An obvious solution.. thank you John :ThmbUp:

[highnote]

An obvious solution.. thank you John :ThmbUp:

Well.... there you have it... problem solved. Next. :D

[Indulto]

... I have learned a few things along the way, and think I may have something to contribute to
an organization that exists for the horseplayers.I was there when Brian McGrath was hired as the original Czar of racing and I was a live part of the action that created it, and the horseplayers were to be represented, but it did not turn out that way,so it failed and now they call it the NTRA.

I was there in the room When Ed Friendly and Ron Charles asked for the TOC to be created...and I was on the official agenda too that day and presented a plan with Cliff Goodrich, Santa Anita President at the time and a bunch of horseplayers to create a horseplayers organization supported from the takeout. The TOC forces won the day and the horseplayers were turned down... mainly for one reason... they were afraid if we got any power from a takeout subsidized organization that we would or could be calling a strike or boycott when things did not go our way.

... As swetyejohn said on Pace (paraphrase),when you go to war you must know the outcome before you start or there may be better ways to approach the problem, rather than a formal sponsored boycott.

A sponsored boycott would harm HANA more than California unless you were certain about the outcome, and that case has not been made. Show me, how HANA will influence California to recind the takeout increase, or lower the take, correct the pari-mutuel change in odds problem after the gates open,Review and correct the integrity issues and get the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the CHRB to move on, I will be first in line to support a formal boycott.. if these issues can be forced by HANA with confidence in the outcome , that is the real question.

What would be considered success, what are the specific goals and how do we get there?

I offer to you to think about the Los Alamitos experience, Jeff proved the point and nothing happened. Did we learn anything then or not? All that happened was that our side got angry.

I council you to not act from anger and emotion but with clarity of facts.

Do we really have the economic authority to force the issue? Where is it?

... Why California?

... California has "shit" on the wrong people at the wrong time so we will make them pay and make an example out of them... and that is not good enough reason.

That is not smart or achievable starting on Dec. 26th at Santa Anita,(IMO) in view that we will have a new dirt surface, with players and horses and horsemen returning for a well advertised meet that many have been waiting for.

I look for HANA to be a force for change to improve things for the customers, and that has to be one brick at a time, and not a force for destruction by declaring war,because things did not go our way and we were insulted and got angry.

Make a new plan for success, with facts, not emotion. ... What rw said needed to be said because caution is never unwise.

I appreciate his sharing his experiences with us all. It surely helps those of use trying to deal with the current situation to understand what events and thoughts have preceded us, and how they were dealt with by our predecessors. It would appear that horseplayers have yet to prevail on any issue in California without forcing it.

Horseplayers have good reason to be angry about what has recently occurred in California, just as they did when New York raised takeout 1% when the state took over NYCOTB. The additional burden on horseplayers in the latter case proved to be a waste of money, but the entire racing industry in NY were the intended beneficiaries, not just the horsemen. Further, it was done over the objections of NYRA and with expressed regret by some state officials – not as a slap in the face.

Is emotion a factor in this case. Of course, but it is a positive factor because boundaries were exceeded past the point of being ignored. Emotion is an excellent motivator, but I agree that it has no other role in determining tactics.

The goals of any boycott will be used to measure its results, but success may be as much in the interpretation as it is in the measurements. Sometimes, though, you just have to stick up for yourself and fight the bully. This is one of those times. The CHRB chairman and his sidekick cannot be rewarded for their egregious behavior, and the horsemen cannot be permitted to transfer their share of the burden in tough economic times to the horseplayers.

This is tyranny, and if we don’t put a stop to it now, it will only get worse – even outside CA. This is our tea tax and it’s time to dump the tea into the harbor. HANA has far more to gain by leading a boycott than it has to lose. We just have to be sure who the winners of a HANA-led boycott are supposed to be.

We are trying to change dynamics here. A revolution is considered a success if the tyrant is overthrown. Who among us can guarantee any specific result? Does anyone have a crystal ball here besides sj? Certainly, we should be deliberating as carefully (and as widely) as possible, but there will always be some risk involved to be evaluated against the return. There is also risk associated with doing nothing.

There is always a chance that unintended changes will occur resulting in both benefits and detriments we never envisioned. Where do we draw the line? When will we have had enough of a bad situation that keeps getting worse? Frankly, I doubt the present CHRB is capable of reversing itself, even in the face of economic failure, but if enough players become involved on a nationwide basis, the CA state government under a new governor is more likely to act responsibly and appropriately.

The combined procott/boycott concept introduced strikes me as something that would not only dilute the effects of a boycott, but confuse observers. Individuals will do as they please, but resolve will be a critical tool for serious supporters of a boycott.

[jelly]

The sooner HANA boycotts Ca. racing the better(it should have started at the Oak tree meet)Look at the positive press the boycott would have when Oak tree releases their negative handle at the end of the meet.

Everyone knows Ca.racing is hurting,this is the time to attack.The last thing they want is negative press.


Send them an Email,tell them to call off the 10-15% takeout increase and we will call off boycott this year.


You can then have discussions about the future of Ca. racing

[highnote]

The odds of the 10% happening are long.


That's what I figured.

[LowerTakeout]

The sooner HANA boycotts Ca. racing the better(it should have started at the Oak tree meet)Look at the positive press the boycott would have when Oak tree releases their negative handle at the end of the meet.

Everyone knows Ca.racing is hurting,this is the time to attack.The last thing they want is negative press.


Send them an Email,tell them to call off the 10-15% takeout increase and we will call off boycott this year.


You can then have discussions about the future of Ca. racing

Handle drop at Oak Tree will be blamed on change of racetrack. A boycott should start on Dec 26. The best would be a significant drop in handle just after Dec 25 as compared to just before Dec 25.

[highnote]

One suggestion I would like to make is that every time a letter is written to TOC, CHRB, the Governator, etc., relating to horse racing, the letter should be cc'd to major CA newspapers. If some of these letters appear in the editorial pages maybe politicians will take notice. Nothing a pol hates worse than bad press.

[andymays]

One suggestion I would like to make is that every time a letter is written to TOC, CHRB, the Governator, etc., relating to horse racing, the letter should be cc'd to major CA newspapers. If some of these letters appear in the editorial pages maybe politicians will take notice. Nothing a pol hates worse than bad press.

That's already been happening for well over a year now. To tell you the truth it had a small impact on the elimination of the synthetic surface at Santa Anita. Especially with the people who write about Horse Racing.

Politicians respond to numbers of potential voters. One of the factors in the takeout increase was that the TOC had a lot more potential voters than HANA had in California. Membership numbers matter. That's why in the long run the $2 bettor is just as important as the big bettor. When things go to the legislature the numbers of voters can play a huge role in any outcome.

[Indulto]

Quick question Indulto. If you were HANA what measures would you take to level the playing field. What would be your first course of action?I answered your question, promptly, but you still haven't responded. Was there some part you didn't understand?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I answered your question, promptly, but you still haven't responded. Was there some part you didn't understand?
I appreciate the response. But I believe you are asking the impossible. My opinion. It is hard to ask volunteers to put in that kind of work for something that is most likely improbable to happen.

[Indulto]

I appreciate the response. But I believe you are asking the impossible. My opinion. It is hard to ask volunteers to put in that kind of work for something that is most likely improbable to happen.Thank you for responding. We are in agreement that we can't get DIRECTLY from where we are today to a level playing field for ALL bettors. That can't happen until it can be proven to officials that handle will rise as takeout is lowered. That’s why I'm supporting incremental steps to get there.

The first step is to get non-whale CA residents on a par with non-whale, non-CA residents betting CA tracks. The next step, if successful, is to get the field leveled for non-whale residents of another state with similar circumstances, and so on.

If all goes according to plan, we would simultaneously be working with now cooperative officials to establish exactly how much handle would need to rise at their venue to justify a takeout decrease of 1%, subsequently another 1%, and so on. All the while, we would steadfastly be dedicated toward that goal, recruiting new players to carry the ball in their state, state-by-state, as we promoted cooperative venues.

If it is too much to ask volunteers to work in such fashion, then perhaps MORE volunteers are needed to assume more responsibility AND/OR eventually HANA's DEMONSTRATED value to ALL horseplayers might be recognized as worthy of funding in some fashion. In the meantime, as handle grew and the game got stronger, financial support might be attracted from other racing stakeholders -- particularly if purses and other revenue increases were attributable to HANA's efforts.

I’m convinced that all the above is achievable if the perception of what HANA stands for is the long-term satisfaction and participation of horseplayers without regard to wallet size, motivation, or frequency of play.

It seems to me that the only people that would NOT support such a goal are people who believe it is a good thing to PERMANENTLY provide a minority of big bankroll bettors with a SUBSTANTIALLY greater opportunity to show a profit than everybody else. In my opinion, a horseplayer organization that condones, supports, advocates, and/or promotes such CONTINUED inequity does not represent ALL horseplayers.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Indulto, there is a very small minority that think the biggest problem HANA should go after is putting all bettors on an equal playing field with respect to rebates. The biggest issues found have been takeout, drugs and pool integrity. This is what the majority of Horseplayers want HANA to deal with.

Though I strongly agree that takeout should be 12% or less everywhere, just by seeing California's latest action, this is not going to occur anytime soon. This isn't a defeatist attitude, it is playing the hand that the industry is dealing.

It was found that even just getting Arizona to allow internet betting has turned into a near impossible feat.

The reality is that Horseplayers come in a far third to tracks and horsemen when it comes to what direction state governments take.

Although tracks, horsemen and HANA all want the same thing, to see the industry grow, many tracks and horsemen groups seem to be OK with trying to take a higher percentage of shrinking pie in order to grow, all but giving up on the idea that significant new numbers of Horseplayers can be created or come back to the game.

Is the equal playing field situation preventing growth? I don't think so. It might be a sore point amongst some players, but the reality is most people don't care. In fact, I think the idea that the game can be beat by a few is motivation for many players and this can create growth (bring in new players) if it was marketed properly.

Again, if people cared about an equal playing field or a near equal playing field, ADWs that attempt to equal the playing field, even a little bit, would have the majority of customers. Again, in reality that is not going on. Whether that is due to lack of knowledge by the majority of Horseplayers or a variety of other reasons, I'm not sure.

And again, the idea of an equal playing field is something that can never be achieved. From inside information in the backstretch to home market fees some states have imposed to computers that have the sophistication to seek out overlays at 1 MTP, some Horseplayers (not always the same Horseplayers) will always have certain advantages over the rest in various situations. But the thing is that if someone wants to put in the time and effort, anyone can gain the same advantages or most of them (of course, in some instances it might require moving :) ).

[Indulto]

Indulto, there is a very small minority that think the biggest problem HANA should go after is putting all bettors on an equal playing field with respect to rebates. The biggest issues found have been takeout, drugs and pool integrity. This is what the majority of Horseplayers want HANA to deal with.HPB,
I assume that “horseplayer majority” falls within HANA’s current membership. What is HANA actually accomplishing with respect to the latter two issues whose priority appears to be supported primarily by the largest of professional players? Would those issues be addressed in any boycott of CA tracks?Though I strongly agree that takeout should be 12% or less everywhere, just by seeing California's latest action, this is not going to occur anytime soon. This isn't a defeatist attitude, it is playing the hand that the industry is dealing.Then why is HANA even contemplating leading a boycott over the takeout issue?It was found that even just getting Arizona to allow internet betting has turned into a near impossible feat.Unfortunately, the media isn’t up in arms about it the way they have been about the takeout raise in CA.The reality is that Horseplayers come in a far third to tracks and horsemen when it comes to what direction state governments take.

Although tracks, horsemen and HANA all want the same thing, to see the industry grow, many tracks and horsemen groups seem to be OK with trying to take a higher percentage of shrinking pie in order to grow, all but giving up on the idea that significant new numbers of Horseplayers can be created or come back to the game.

Is the equal playing field situation preventing growth? I don't think so. It might be a sore point amongst some players, but the reality is most people don't care.If there is a boycott, more people will care. If the boycott is successful, still more will care.In fact, I think the idea that the game can be beat by a few is motivation for many players and this can create growth (bring in new players) if it was marketed properly.We have no argument here unless you think that leveling the playing field wouldn’t result in more winners to promote.Again, if people cared about an equal playing field or a near equal playing field, ADWs that attempt to equal the playing field, even a little bit, would have the majority of customers. Again, in reality that is not going on. Whether that is due to lack of knowledge by the majority of Horseplayers or a variety of other reasons, I'm not sure.Isn’t the main problem here that such ADWs don’t offer the most popular venues?And again, the idea of an equal playing field is something that can never be achieved. From inside information in the backstretch to home market fees some states have imposed to computers that have the sophistication to seek out overlays at 1 MTP, some Horseplayers (not always the same Horseplayers) will always have certain advantages over the rest in various situations.Determining what horses to bet on and how to bet them are different issues. Also, how many of those who deploy “sophisticated computers” would be profitable if they didn’t enjoy a takeout disparity advantage?But the thing is that if someone wants to put in the time and effort, anyone can gain the same advantages or most of them (of course, in some instances it might require moving :)).This is what should be called the Enron model for the horseracing industry.

[andymays]

I hope you guys keep going on with this debate.

Even though it might raise the blood pressure the debate is important. :ThmbUp:

[rwwupl]

A commentary...


Horse racing will never return to prominence until we expand the fan base (handle) instead of creating conditions that chase the newcomer away. As long as this industry has no other way to finance purses for horsemen, we are going to have to rely on the customer takeout from bets. Concerts and Hat Contests do not create purse money. This industry is not primarily entertainment, it is supported by gaming dollars produced by a customer participation in a pari-mutuel system.

The facilitator takes money from the top of a finite pool and the rest is divided among the winners. The more winners there are, the lower the payout , the fewer winners there are the higher the payout. Customers are in competition with each other. On the original premise of the pari-mutuel system, and over the long term, the only way a customer should be rewarded to prevail over his competition is through skill and knowledge and it is called in a larger sense … handicapping.

In order for this man to man competition to be fair, there must be a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, for all the competitors.

When one of the players are granted rebates (for whatever reason) by being selected by an unqualified person who does not care about the competition among individuals, and only to lure business to his interest, it creates an advantage for the person with a rebate (lower cost of bet) over the person without a rebate. (higher cost of bet). If the rebate person was a horse, it would be like giving him a head start in a race.…this is called an unlevel playing field. It is most common in use by the ADW’s. With all things being otherwise equal, the rebate player will play more horses, cash more bets, churn more money through the pools, and will last longer ,have an opportunity to learn more about the game, and maintain a huge advantage over the non-rebate player, while spending the same amount of money, because of his rebate.. The player with a bigger wallet will get rebates over the backbone of the game, the two dollar bettor . It is hard to maintain a fan base, much less encourage growth under these conditions.

The requirement and time for the non-rebate player to develop higher skill levels to succeed is diminished. Handicapping has become less important and takes a back seat to “who you know” and how big is your rebate? Newcomers do not get rebates, unless it is under the “who you know” rule.

People understand after a while that if they are a non- rebate player, they are subsidizing the rebate player, who bets more , cashes more tickets, for the same money, even if the non-rebate player is more skillful. This destroys the fair competition of man to man and makes handicapping moot. Why should a newcomer learn about the game?

Certain States have laws that make rebates for their citizens a no- no, others do not.

Old fashioned favoritism has triumphed over man to man competition.

Those players who get an advantage through rebates, will fight to maintain their advantage, with lame excuses to deny others, but they know it is not right for the good or growth of the game, but like everything else in horse racing , the “Me First” attitude prevails.

All of this has occurred because of short sighted, bean counting racing managers who do not understand the gaming portion of the industry, handicapping or what the pari-mutuel system is about. It is broken.

Can we return to prominence? Can we fix it?... Heck yes, Those who say no, it is too far gone and difficult to change are grinding their own axe, and they prefer the current arrangements out of greed and have little vision.

It starts with leaders who understand what they are leading, and that is lacking, but that will change too… and when you rebuild something that is broken, you lay one brick at a time.

Existing conditions have nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

It is not too late, we can fix it, let us get started, the people love horse racing, lets give them our best...because horse racing will be here long after we are gone.

Roger Way (rwwupl)

[andymays]

Great commentary Roger. :ThmbUp:

It should be in the general racing section with it's own thread.

The title could read.

The Corruption of the Parimutuel Wagering system: What happened to fair competition?

[Indulto]

A commentary...

Horse racing will never return to prominence until we expand the fan base (handle) instead of creating conditions that chase the newcomer away. As long as this industry has no other way to finance purses for horsemen, we are going to have to rely on the customer takeout from bets. Concerts and Hat Contests do not create purse money. This industry is not primarily entertainment, it is supported by gaming dollars produced by a customer participation in a pari-mutuel system.

The facilitator takes money from the top of a finite pool and the rest is divided among the winners. The more winners there are, the lower the payout , the fewer winners there are the higher the payout. Customers are in competition with each other. On the original premise of the pari-mutuel system, and over the long term, the only way a customer should be rewarded to prevail over his competition is through skill and knowledge and it is called in a larger sense … handicapping.

In order for this man to man competition to be fair, there must be a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, for all the competitors.

When one of the players are granted rebates (for whatever reason) by being selected by an unqualified person who does not care about the competition among individuals, and only to lure business to his interest, it creates an advantage for the person with a rebate (lower cost of bet) over the person without a rebate. (higher cost of bet). If the rebate person was a horse, it would be like giving him a head start in a race.…this is called an unlevel playing field. It is most common in use by the ADW’s. With all things being otherwise equal, the rebate player will play more horses, cash more bets, churn more money through the pools, and will last longer ,have an opportunity to learn more about the game, and maintain a huge advantage over the non-rebate player, while spending the same amount of money, because of his rebate.. The player with a bigger wallet will get rebates over the backbone of the game, the two dollar bettor . It is hard to maintain a fan base, much less encourage growth under these conditions.

The requirement and time for the non-rebate player to develop higher skill levels to succeed is diminished. Handicapping has become less important and takes a back seat to “who you know” and how big is your rebate? Newcomers do not get rebates, unless it is under the “who you know” rule.

People understand after a while that if they are a non- rebate player, they are subsidizing the rebate player, who bets more , cashes more tickets, for the same money, even if the non-rebate player is more skillful. This destroys the fair competition of man to man and makes handicapping moot. Why should a newcomer learn about the game?

Certain States have laws that make rebates for their citizens a no- no, others do not.

Old fashioned favoritism has triumphed over man to man competition.

Those players who get an advantage through rebates, will fight to maintain their advantage, with lame excuses to deny others, but they know it is not right for the good or growth of the game, but like everything else in horse racing , the “Me First” attitude prevails.

All of this has occurred because of short sighted, bean counting racing managers who do not understand the gaming portion of the industry, handicapping or what the pari-mutuel system is about. It is broken.

Can we return to prominence? Can we fix it?... Heck yes, Those who say no, it is too far gone and difficult to change are grinding their own axe, and they prefer the current arrangements out of greed and have little vision.Well said, rw. I'm with you all the way (pun intended) up to this point. but I'm not sure where you're headed in the following portion.It starts with leaders who understand what they are leading, and that is lacking, but that will change too… and when you rebuild something that is broken, you lay one brick at a time.

Existing conditions have nothing to do with what is right or wrong.

It is not too late, we can fix it, let us get started, the people love horse racing, lets give them our best...because horse racing will be here long after we are gone.

Roger Way (rwwupl)

[rwwupl]

I left out the ... do not part of the line:

It starts with leaders, who do not understand what they are leading, and that is lacking, but that will change too… and when you rebuild something that is broken, you lay one brick at a time.


Thanks for pointing it out. Hope this clears it up. The time for edit has expired.

[Indulto]

I left out the ... do not part of the line:

Thanks for pointing it out. Hope this clears it up. The time for edit has expired.You're welcome, but I'm still confused by "Existing conditions have nothing to do with what is right or wrong."

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I believe rebates are very important for the growth of the game. Today, almost any player can get them as long as they live in states that don't make it a problem. These players get to last longer and some actually win money, something impossible to do with a 20% average takeout rate. These players can get others involved in horse racing too because they spend so much time at playing.

Take away rebates and any growth the game has is gone right out the door, as we've seen, takeout rates aren't going down to levels where growth can occur.

As for being fair, I've already pointed it out that it will never be fair because of good insider info which has always existed, better computer software that comes up with great selections and great odds analysis.

Horse racing isn't fair to begin with. It is the owners with the big bucks who are most likely to win the big stake races. Why, because their money buys it.

Every business out there offers better deals for those who buy in bulk. Not a lame excuse. And everyone has the capabilities to get rebates even if it means moving.

[rwwupl]

Great commentary Roger. :ThmbUp:

It should be in the general racing section with it's own thread.

The title could read.

The Corruption of the Parimutuel Wagering system: What happened to fair competition?


I have smoothed it up (edit) and put it out on the west coast to all the mucky mucks.

Thanks.

[andymays]

I have smoothed it up (edit) and put it out on the west coast to all the mucky mucks.

Thanks.

Yes, we're lighting up the internet as we speak. :)

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Parimutuel wagering isn't allowed in a few states. Because potential horseplayers in those states can't ever be on an equal playing field with people even in Arizona, maybe we should just take away all parimutuel wagering.
There is no reason for someone to learn about horse racing and handicapping in those states. Lets be fair and not allow anyone to bet. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I'm going to make my point a bit clearer. Lets say you live in Saudi Arabia but want to be on an equal playing field with Horseplayers in Michigan. You can't.
The same is true if you live in California. Horseplayers in Saudi Arabia or California shouldn't begrudge a Horseplayer in Michigan.

The Horseplayer in Michigan has every opportunity to bet enough to get the largest rebates out there. But that ability isn't there for Saudi Arabians or Californians.

But why prevent the growth in Michigan because other jurisdictions have laws that discourage growth?

[Charli125]

I have no problem with everyone playing on a level field. I think it's great, and I support it. I just think that the way to accomplish that is not through attacking rebates, but rather through attacking high takeout. Bring takeout down, rebates will come down, until eventually we're all playing at the same 10-12% takeout.

[andymays]

I'm going to make my point a bit clearer. Lets say you live in Saudi Arabia but want to be on an equal playing field with Horseplayers in Michigan. You can't.
The same is true if you live in California. Horseplayers in Saudi Arabia or California shouldn't begrudge a Horseplayer in Michigan.

The Horseplayer in Michigan has every opportunity to bet enough to get the largest rebates out there. But that ability isn't there for Saudi Arabians or Californians.

But why prevent the growth in Michigan because other jurisdictions have laws that discourage growth?

The SAHRB (Saudi Arabian Horse Racing Board) doesn't allow wagering do they? You want a rebate over there? Off with your head. :)

[Indulto]

I have no problem with everyone playing on a level field. I think it's great, and I support it. I just think that the way to accomplish that is not through attacking rebates, but rather through attacking high takeout. Bring takeout down, rebates will come down, until eventually we're all playing at the same 10-12% takeout.We are almost on the same page. Now what is the first step in "bringing takeout down?" Is it getting takeout lowered in CA? If so, is it getting direct takeout lowered or effective takeout lowered through rebates? Should rebates to CA residents equal those to residents of other states? How would a boycott address these issues?

[Charli125]

We are almost on the same page.
Now that is progress!

Now what is the first step in "bringing takeout down?" Is it getting takeout lowered in CA?
Yes, I do believe the first step is getting a major circuit to lower takeout. CA is a great place to start.

If so, is it getting direct takeout lowered or effective takeout lowered through rebates? Should rebates to CA residents equal those to residents of other states?Both direct and effective takeout should be lowered by allowing rebating, and by lowering takeout. Yes, CA residents should definitely be allowed rebates on the same level as other states.

How would a boycott address these issues?
I think a boycott(formal or informal) gets CA's attention and gets us a seat at the table to bring these kinds of ideas up. Personally, I think a formal boycott will work better, but there are many that disagree with me. They're not going to remove the ADW cap, and they're not going to lower takeout without someone showing them the viability of those ideas. That's why I think it's so important that the CHRB actually be representative of those that it's supposed to stand up for by allowing horseplayers on the board.

[andymays]

Now that is progress!


Yes, I do believe the first step is getting a major circuit to lower takeout. CA is a great place to start.

Both direct and effective takeout should be lowered by allowing rebating, and by lowering takeout. Yes, CA residents should definitely be allowed rebates on the same level as other states.


I think a boycott(formal or informal) gets CA's attention and gets us a seat at the table to bring these kinds of ideas up. Personally, I think a formal boycott will work better, but there are many that disagree with me. They're not going to remove the ADW cap, and they're not going to lower takeout without someone showing them the viability of those ideas. That's why I think it's so important that the CHRB actually be representative of those that it's supposed to stand up for by allowing horseplayers on the board.

A successful one week boycott would certainly get their attention and they might give you a seat at the table if it was only for one week prior to Santa Anita. They're probably not going to give you a seat at the table if we try to destroy California racing.

What are the goals?

Exactly what are we going to ask for?

How do we define success?

[Charli125]

A successful one week boycott would certainly get their attention and they might give you a seat at the table if it was only for one week prior to Santa Anita. They're probably not going to give you a seat at the table if we try to destroy California racing.

What are the goals?

Exactly what are we going to ask for?

How do we define success?

I think we already agreed on what we're asking for in the other thread. Representation, lower takeout, and no ADW retention cap. At least that's what I think the goals should be, and I think Indulto agreed with those.

Success would be all 3 of those things happening, with lesser degrees of success being attained by 1 or more of those things happening.

[andymays]

I think we already agreed on what we're asking for in the other thread. Representation, lower takeout, and no ADW retention cap. At least that's what I think the goals should be, and I think Indulto agreed with those.

Success would be all 3 of those things happening, with lesser degrees of success being attained by 1 or more of those things happening.

And what happens after a couple of weeks or a couple of months?

Unless any action is overwhelming they will not respond. I'm up for it if someone can assure me that the response will be overwhelming for more than one week. Traditionally these things start off with a bang but the bang doesn't last too long.

[Indulto]

And what happens after a couple of weeks or a couple of months?

Unless any action is overwhelming they will not respond. I'm up for it if someone can assure me that the response will be overwhelming for more than one week. Traditionally these things start off with a bang but the bang doesn't last too long.Who can guarantee that? I would be surprised if the initial impact were as great as the eventual one that would be built up with publicity and media coverage. I believe it will be the numbers of players rather than dollars involved along with resolve, creativity, and dedicated ideals that turns the tide.

rw's email to relevant parties within the industry that contained his earlier commentary in this thread will get people outside this board thinking. If HANA is perceived to be a tool of professional players, then they will give up less.

For the sake of argument, let's assume HANA does have the whale-power to conduct a "shock and awe" operation for a week. What would that be likely to accomplish? I imagine they would rescind the takeout raise so that whales would be as well-off as before, but what about the rest of us?

It will probably take a signed petition from California residents specifying an end to the cap and horseplayers on the CHRB to accomplish that --- maybe even the removal of Brackpool and Israel to make room for them. Would HANA be there for that phase in support of the recreational bettor?

[Indulto]

I think we already agreed on what we're asking for in the other thread. Representation, lower takeout, and no ADW retention cap. At least that's what I think the goals should be, and I think Indulto agreed with those.

Success would be all 3 of those things happening, with lesser degrees of success being attained by 1 or more of those things happening.C5,
We're getting closer, but we're not there yet. ;)

For me it would take ALL THREE and a bit more. First of all, eliminating the cap wouldn't necessarily cause the existing "big four" ADWs to give CA residents those 8% rebates. That would probably take competition, so we'd need independents like HPB licensed in the state as well.

Secondly, there is that nagging perception that HANA -- and therefore any CA-resident HANA official on the CHRB (other than rw) -- does not represent the interests of recreational betters to the same degree it does professional bettors. That perception has stuck with me and a few others that I'm in contact with for the last two years. It is reasonable to think it is also the reason HANA's membership has not yet approached expectations. It needs to be addressed.

Both you and HPB (and JP in response to rw's email) have once again paid lip-service to the concept that a level-playing field, e.g., 10-12% direct takeout for all, is a desirable situation, yet nobody is willing to adopt that as an official objective, long-term or otherwise. Instead, all I saw was some philosophical crap about horseracing not being fair in general, and some nonsense about Saudi Arabia and Michigan. Is that leadership?

[andymays]

Who can guarantee that? I would be surprised if the initial impact were as great as the eventual one that would be built up with publicity and media coverage. I believe it will be the numbers of players rather than dollars involved along with resolve, creativity, and dedicated ideals that turns the tide.

rw's email to relevant parties within the industry that contained his earlier commentary in this thread will get people outside this board thinking. If HANA is perceived to be a tool of professional players, then they will give up less.

For the sake of argument, let's assume HANA does have the whale-power to conduct a "shock and awe" operation for a week. What would that be likely to accomplish? I imagine they would rescind the takeout raise so that whales would be as well-off as before, but what about the rest of us?

It will probably take a signed petition from California residents specifying an end to the cap and horseplayers on the CHRB to accomplish that --- maybe even the removal of Brackpool and Israel to make room for them. Would HANA be there for that phase in support of the recreational bettor?

Because if you do it once for a week you can do it again and they would know that. If they think you just want to destroy California racing they will dig in. They could get over a short term show of force. Again, what are we trying to do here? Do we want to destroy or get incremental change?

[Indulto]

Because if you do it once for a week you can do it again and they would know that. If they think you just want to destroy California racing they will dig in. They could get over a short term show of force. Again, what are we trying to do here? Do we want to destroy or get incremental change?How long after that initial week would HANA and its members outside of CA continue to show support for a boycott to achieve any remaining, but yet to be achieved objectives, especially if the takeout raise were rescinded?

[andymays]

How long after that initial week would HANA and its members outside of CA continue to show support for a boycott to achieve any remaining, but yet to be achieved objectives, especially if the takeout raise were rescinded?

What members? I don't know for sure but the response to the survey was pretty light. Some of the returns were probably duplicates since it went out two or three times.

They are not going to rescind the takeout increase in the short term unless you could drop handle 40% or more. Then they might think about it.

Why do people think it's going to be so easy to bust out Frank Stronach. After the initial publicity and the thrill of fighting back what happens as the days roll into months?

[Indulto]

What members? I don't know for sure but the response to the survey was pretty light. Some of the returns were probably duplicates since it went out two or three times.

They are not going to rescind the takeout increase in the short term unless you could drop handle 40% or more. Then they might think about it.

Why do people think it's going to be so easy to bust out Frank Stronach. After the initial publicity and the thrill of fighting back what happens as the days roll into months?That's what I'd like to know. What support activities and/or appearances are planned. Have any journalists been approache for extended support? What about demonstrations?

Or is this a boycott to be conducted from keyboards and telephones only? ;)

[andymays]

That's what I'd like to know. What support activities and/or appearances are planned. Have any journalists been approache for extended support? What about demonstrations?

Or is this a boycott to be conducted from keyboards and telephones only? ;)

It is my understanding the John Stossel is doing a special on it called "Takeout Freakout".

Government Kills Businesses « John Stossel

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/10/26/government-kills-businesses/

[andymays]

Has anyone thought about how the tracks might respond to a boycott.

Would they raise rebates to their biggest out of state players to keep their business during any boycott?

We're not dealing with people without options. When you get beyond the romantic idea of boycotting or striking there is "stuff" to consider.

Santa Anita owns Xpressbet do they not? They have a few more options than the other Southern California Tracks. Just sayin.

[rwwupl]

Something else to consider in the mix.... The positives on this meet are going to be many, and keeping people away will be difficult. When this meet opens traditionally ,the day after Christmas...the people or horsemen do not care about takeout, HANA or anything else. It is magic.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/santa-anita-to-open-dec-26-stall-applications-now-being-accepted/


excerpt:

The 2010/2011 race meeting will be the first conducted on a dirt surface since the winter/spring of 2006/2007. Along with the implementation of a natural dirt surface, it is estimated there will be a 25 percent increase in overnight purses, making the upcoming meet even more attractive to local and out-of-state horsemen.



“With the return to natural dirt and the prospect of significantly higher purses, it makes it easier for us to attract quality barns,” said Racing Secretary Rick Hammerle. “We’re already sensing a high degree of anticipation for this meet and we’ll be at the Breeders’ Cup next week in Kentucky recruiting horsemen to come to Santa Anita this winter. We’re very optimistic.”

Director of Racing Mike Harlow echoed Hammerle’s sentiments, noting, “Anytime you’re able to significantly increase your purses across the board, it’s a good thing. Along with the fact that we’ve resolved the situation with the main track, we expect a good response from horsemen this year.”

[GatetoWire]

That's what I'd like to know. What support activities and/or appearances are planned. Have any journalists been approache for extended support? What about demonstrations?

Or is this a boycott to be conducted from keyboards and telephones only? ;)

Gentlemen....this 2010.
Sure we need to protest, carry signs and takeout a large ad in the DRF promoting a boycott but we also need to get one person at every simulcast center and racetrack to spread the word not to bet Santa Anita when it opens. We need to get the word out....everyday after the BC ends.

We also need to be very internet savvy......All of the horseplayers are on these boards...we all read the same racing news sites......we need to take this viral on the internet and touch as many people as possible.

When Santa Anita opens we need to get players to just think twice about wagering in California.....there are other tracks racing at the same time and if they decide not to bet Santa Anita and spend their money elsewhere the TOC and CHRB will have to do something.

We need to show the other tracks that if they try something like this that it will be a death sentence.....Every track Exec will have this burned in their mind.....Remember in 2010 when Santa Anita raised takeout....it nearly killed racing in California.......I am sorry but California need to be the guinea pig for the rest of the industry to see what happens when you increase takeout.

[Indulto]

Gentlemen....this 2010.
Sure we need to protest, carry signs and takeout a large ad in the DRF promoting a boycott but we also need to get one person at every simulcast center and racetrack to spread the word not to bet Santa Anita when it opens. We need to get the word out....everyday after the BC ends.

We also need to be very internet savvy......All of the horseplayers are on these boards...we all read the same racing news sites......we need to take this viral on the internet and touch as many people as possible.

When Santa Anita opens we need to get players to just think twice about wagering in California.....there are other tracks racing at the same time and if they decide not to bet Santa Anita and spend their money elsewhere the TOC and CHRB will have to do something.

We need to show the other tracks that if they try something like this that it will be a death sentence.....Every track Exec will have this burned in their mind.....Remember in 2010 when Santa Anita raised takeout....it nearly killed racing in California.......I am sorry but California need to be the guinea pig for the rest of the industry to see what happens when you increase takeout.GTW,
Perhaps I've interpreted your last statement incorrectly, but this boycott should not be an experiment merely to find out what will happen. To be sure, we have a situation here that must be corrected and never be repeated anywhere else. We certainly need the support from East Coast players like yourself -- hopefully many with your concern, energy, and willingness as possible -- but also in the spirit of enlightened self-interest as a bettor of CA tracks, a player who may want help in the future to correct inequities in his own jurisdiction, and a fan who wishes to restore racing's popularity.

While I personally believe the CHRB chair and vice-chair are undeserving of any respect, are a threat to the game, and need to be replaced, I have no particular desire to see others go down with them.

We will both be needed as recruiters of other activists; able to convince them of the seriousness of our purpose as well as the correctness of our cause. Hopefully the boycott leaders will effectively communicate our collective motivation, goals, and expectations so that we will all be on the same page.

[GatetoWire]

GTW,
Perhaps I've interpreted your last statement incorrectly, but this boycott should not be an experiment merely to find out what will happen. To be sure, we have a situation here that must be corrected and never be repeated anywhere else. We certainly need the support from East Coast players like yourself -- hopefully many with your concern, energy, and willingness as possible -- but also in the spirit of enlightened self-interest as a bettor of CA tracks, a player who may want help in the future to correct inequities in his own jurisdiction, and a fan who wishes to restore racing's popularity.

While I personally believe the CHRB chair and vice-chair are undeserving of any respect, are a threat to the game, and need to be replaced, I have no particular desire to see others go down with them.

We will both be needed as recruiters of other activists; able to convince them of the seriousness of our purpose as well as the correctness of our cause. Hopefully the boycott leaders will effectively communicate our collective motivation, goals, and expectations so that we will all be on the same page.

My point was that we all need to be involved in this....I am not a big player of California races so my boycott will not matter...what we need to get is all of the players together. We East Coast players need to take notice and support this anyway we can.
I just think that the issue may be ignored by non California players but my position is that we all need to jump in and support this anyway we can.

[Indulto]

My point was that we all need to be involved in this....I am not a big player of California races so my boycott will not matter...what we need to get is all of the players together. We East Coast players need to take notice and support this anyway we can.
I just think that the issue may be ignored by non California players but my position is that we all need to jump in and support this anyway we can.I totally agree. Any suggestions for ways to support the boycott besides not betting CA tracks?

[andymays]

Drum roll please............................

The Horseplayers Early Pick 4 with a 10% takeout is dead.

The TOC was for it and some of the lower level brass at Santa Anita were for it but it was killed at the top.

And the beat goes on...... and on....... and on..................

The only way for them to get it is to cause them some pain so let's get it on.

[Deepsix]

As fractured/disjointed as things appeared here that isn't much of a surprise.

Now I guess the only thing left to do is see if you can cause them some pain.

Press on McDuff.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

but it was killed at the top.

Nothing changes.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=936181&postcount=16

"Are you concerned that lowering the P-6 takeout might create an "entitlement effect" if it successfully drove net commissions? The concern might be that certain player groups would point to its success and expect all pools to be similarly lowered."

That quote above is from somebody in charge.

It's impossible anybody could be this stupid. He is basically saying that if lowereing takeout on one wager is successful and increases revenue, he is worried about having pressure put on him to lower takeout on other wagers.

Are you fukking kidding me?

I gave up talking to anybody in charge after this one. Let them kill the sport in CA.

I fold!

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73048

[InsideThePylons-MW]

The only way for them to get it is to cause them some pain so let's get it on.

Not so quick.

The fact is California is doing a good job of forcing change on their own, look at the numbers.. Even California will turn to lowering the takeout and finding the optimum price point of the bet when economics dictate and not HANA... and that is in sight,despite the recent foolishness.

[andymays]

Not so quick.

It is going in the toilet on it's own. I figure Oak Tree was down at least 20%.

If they have the people to pull off a significant move and drive handle down 20% more than it is currently going down to make a statement then let's do it. I just want them to be sure.

[PaceAdvantage]

As fractured/disjointed as things appeared here that isn't much of a surprise.

Now I guess the only thing left to do is see if you can cause them some pain.

Press on McDuff.You're a very interesting cat in terms of when and where you choose to post.