Cal-Racing Boycott website

[The_Knight_Sky]

Organized Horseplayer Boycott of California Thoroughbred Racing is Launched

(San Diego CA – December 13, 2010) – Today a National Horseplayers Boycott website (playersboycott.org) was launched asking players to boycott California Thoroughbred racing. The website is calling for all concerned horseplayers to support the endeavor.

Playersboycott.org wants to emphasize that the purpose of the Players’ Boycott isn’t to punish or destroy racing in California. In fact, the opposite is true.

The organization is boycotting to create a better tomorrow and believes the actions of racing’s decision makers have been destroying racing in California, and elsewhere, for years.

If you take all sources handle today in 2010, and adjust it for inflation, and then compare it to all sources handle in 2003, you will notice that handle today is approximately half of what it was just seven years ago.

By supporting The National Players' Boycott Of California Racing effort, you can help us put a stop to this trend. We ask you to consider carefully the idea that every handle dollar spent on California racing is a vote in support of higher takeout and a vote to support the mistaken belief expressed by the CHRB and the TOC that the customer is irrelevant.

You have a choice when it comes to where you spend your money.

Every handle dollar not bet on the California racing product is a vote for change and a vote to send a very clear message to the CHRB and the TOC: The customer DOES in fact matter.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2010/12/concerned-bettors-launch.html

[andymays]

Now it's time for the leaders to get out of the shadows and lead on this.

You have to sell it for it to have any chance of success!

http://www.playersboycott.org/

[TurfRuler]

Now it's time for the leaders to get out of the shadows and lead on this.

You have to sell it for it to have any chance of success!

http://www.playersboycott.org/


By any means necessry!!!!

[jelly]

Great news! :ThmbUp:


Bet Tampa Bay Downs(just lowered the takeout) as an alternative.


Support race tracks that have lower takeout and are horseplayer friendly.

[CBedo]

Can someone give me some background on this organization? Or is it just some individual who got fed up and put up the website (my guess). I tried to take a quick look at the domain registration, and didn't see much except for the fact that the domain was just purchased recently through GoDaddy.

[Robert Goren]

Great news! :ThmbUp:


Bet Tampa Bay Downs(just lowered the takeout) as an alternative.


Support race tracks that have lower takeout and are horseplayer friendly.Tampa still has a 2% higher takeout on W-P-S pools than California. Not exactly horse player friendly in my opinion. I will continue to bet California win pools and avoid Tampa until they lower the win pool takeout.

[toussaud]

exactly. I mean, I just can't do it. I'm a Win player anyway, I dont' care about the takeout. This right now does not effect me directly.

I am however down for a boycott of Kentucky racing utnil the LAT situation is handled, correctly. I have not made a wager in the state since, and won't.

[ronsmac]

Tampa still has a 2% higher takeout on W-P-S pools than California. Not exactly horse player friendly in my opinion. I will continue to bet California win pools and avoid Tampa until they lower the win pool takeout.
I don't bet Tampa, but even with a lower win takeout, the So Cal bettors are so much sharper than Tampa that the Takeout to non Computer bettors probably adjusts higher.

[JustRalph]

exactly. I mean, I just can't do it. I'm a Win player anyway, I dont' care about the takeout. This right now does not effect me directly.


This is the mindset that keeps horseplayers at the mercy of the race track operators.

If horseplayers dont come together despite regional and personal differences, nothing will change. This is what keeps players from having absolutely no say in the game. We lay down and fail to coalesce on any issue, unless it is personal to our play. Someday it may be your game that is changed, altered or ignored on the whim of an almost anonymous group of so called racing mavens or corporate quick change artists.

Gamblers finance this game at the lowest level. They are the underpinning of the game. I believe in strength in numbers and I am also aware that a fractured constituency plays into the current powers that be. Horseplayers are taken for granted. Run the race and they will come. Not I. No longer will I support a game that hands me a dollar with one hand and takes a fiver out of my back pocket with the other. Then sell me a five dollar hot dog and a four fifty lemonade ........it's all going sour and we are standing by and watching it happen, and paying for it. No matter which pool we play into.......if HANA gets behind a boycott......I am with them. There are a bunch of guys working for free to make the game better for us and that group was born right here on PA. They have my support. I urge you to join in. I haven't seen an official statement from HANA yet, but I suspect it's coming.

[Jeff P]

Can someone give me some background on this organization? Or is it just some individual who got fed up and put up the website (my guess). I tried to take a quick look at the domain registration, and didn't see much except for the fact that the domain was just purchased recently through GoDaddy.Q. Who is behind the boycott effort?

A. Players who believe "enough is enough" who are willing to stand up for what they believe in.

Btw, that describes me and this effort has my full support. Not only that, I volunteered some of my free time to help get the site off the ground.

When I asked the JCapper user community what they thought an appropriate response to the TOC/CHRB takeout increase might be, their response was loud and clear. As players they told me (passionate 2/3rds majority) that an organized boycott of California Thoroughbred Racing was absolutely the right thing to do.

When I put the question to the HANA member database, roughly 2/3rds of our member players said exactly same thing.

Still, deciding to launch a boycott effort was not an easy decision. Over the past two years HANA has established more than a few solid working relationships with industry decision makers. By backing or sponsoring a boycott, no doubt some of those relationships will be put at risk.

That said, the actions of the TOC and CHRB towards players over the past year have been nothing short of appalling.

Your participation in The National Players' Boycott Of California Thoroughbred Racing effort will help shine a very public spotlight on the actions of the CHRB and TOC and bring about much needed change.

We ask you to consider carefully the idea that every handle dollar spent on California thoroughbred racing is a vote in support of higher takeout and a vote to support the mistaken belief expressed by the CHRB and the TOC that the customer is irrelevant.

You have a choice when it comes to where you spend your money.

Every handle dollar not bet on the California thoroughbred racing product is a vote for change and a vote to send a very clear message to the CHRB and the TOC:

The customer DOES in fact matter.



-jp

.

[DeanT]

Comment from the blog tonight.

If poker raised take to 5% from 4% there would be letters, thousands of comments, and Rome would be burning (from the Poker Player Alliance and players). In horse racing, where the people who care are all playing poker, takeout is raised 20% and no one gives a ^$&%. Horseplayers deserve what they get.

I hope horseplayers prove him wrong.

[Charlie D]

Interesting. Hope http://www.playersboycott.org/ gets the support needed to help stop people in power thinking their customers are addicts and idiots (mullins)


All the best guys.

[George Sands]

Over the past two years HANA has established more than a few solid working relationships with industry decision makers. By backing or sponsoring a boycott, no doubt some of those relationships will be put at risk.


Good! The next step should be destroying the "solid working relationships" you have with these people.

[Charlie D]

http://www.playersboycott.org/

..Why wouldn't a horseplayer want to join?
- Jens - Santa Rosa, CA (US)

Spot on from Jens in Santa Rosa imho

[Jackal]

Back in the 70s a Penn National executive said "the $2 bettor will jump the fence to get a bet down." At this time if you were a $5 bettor in vegas you were considered a high roller.

Track management has never cared about the bettor and they never will. The game is steadily shrinking and all track managers can think about is raising takeouts.

Just a few years ago a $1,000,000 pick 6 carryover was common in CA. Today it takes several days to get a $500,000 carryover.

[toussaud]

This is the mindset that keeps horseplayers at the mercy of the race track operators.

If horseplayers dont come together despite regional and personal differences, nothing will change. This is what keeps players from having absolutely no say in the game. We lay down and fail to coalesce on any issue, unless it is personal to our play. Someday it may be your game that is changed, altered or ignored on the whim of an almost anonymous group of so called racing mavens or corporate quick change artists.

Gamblers finance this game at the lowest level. They are the underpinning of the game. I believe in strength in numbers and I am also aware that a fractured constituency plays into the current powers that be. Horseplayers are taken for granted. Run the race and they will come. Not I. No longer will I support a game that hands me a dollar with one hand and takes a fiver out of my back pocket with the other. Then sell me a five dollar hot dog and a four fifty lemonade ........it's all going sour and we are standing by and watching it happen, and paying for it. No matter which pool we play into.......if HANA gets behind a boycott......I am with them. There are a bunch of guys working for free to make the game better for us and that group was born right here on PA. They have my support. I urge you to join in. I haven't seen an official statement from HANA yet, but I suspect it's coming.
While I am all for change for the better, I actually, attempt to turn a profit at this, and usually do. At least this year. I'm not going stop doing what I am doing, at the tracks I know like the back of my hand, when not has been changed to effect me personally. that doesn't make good business sense in the least bit.

AS stated, that crap in Kentucky, does effect me directly, and I haven't even considered making a wager at Churchill downs since, a track I actually wagered on while killing time to wait for Hollywood park to open.

And boycott it for what? I am a strictly win wager person, boycott it to play races, with higher takeouts rotfl? Socal has one of the lowest WPS takeouts in the country.


Heck, they even brought dirt back, they are probably going to get MORE of my money not less of it.

If you are a superfecta player you are an idiot for playing 6 horse fields in socal anyway

[Charlie D]

toussaud


I'm a win bettor, who can count the bets he's placed on Cali racing on one hand, who also has acces to exchange betting, but I will support this campaign by not playing NYRA for duration because i think it's the right thing to do.

I think others should do same tbh, because if they don't these dudes are raising Take again and again and again.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I'm not going stop doing what I am doing, at the tracks I know like the back of my hand,

TOC/CHRB/CTT/Racetrack Management 1

Horseplayers 0

[Sericm]

In my opinion this boycott b.s. is just that b.s.
If you're going to boycott California without boycotting other jurisdictions that have higher take-outs then you are a bunch of hypocrites.

The same people that are supporting this boycott are the same people that complained about polytrack and the artificial surfaces in California. Now that they have gone back to dirt at Santa Anita you have found another reason to not bet California. You know what--

TAKE YOUR BOYCOTT AND SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE!!!!

[DeanT]

Notes

Why I Support the California Boycott

This week it was announced that a new group is calling for a national boycott of California thoroughbred racing. As a good deal of you know, The California Horse Racing Board decided to raise takeout this past year, despite gambling experts, empirical data, most of the racing press, and horseplayers urging them not to.

The same board passed a takeout hike earlier in the year as a test case at Los Alamitos and on-track handle was off over 25%, with total handle off around 15%. Regardless, they pressed on and did it again.

California certainly is a dysfunctional state, in many ways. Their horse racing board, which makes wagering decisions, is mostly filled with horse owners, bureaucrats and political appointees. To many, this is a group that should not be making multi-million dollar gambling decisions - real gambling people should - while leaving horse decisions to them, yet they do.

As has been shown time and time again, raising purses through a takeout increase (or even through slots) does not help the long-term growth of your gambling business. Over time, your customer base always shrinks. In fact, the same group (the CHRB) did something similar in 2006, raising purses in the short term, and everything was supposed to be fine. It failed, and now they are back again doing the same thing. Unlike most businesses who correct mistakes after trying them and failing, California redoes them, hoping for a different result.

There are many people supporting this because they see a few more dollars waved in front of them, but in my opinion, they are focused on only one thing: Their pocketbook over the short term.

I know someone like Bob Baffert supports this hike in takeout, and he has said so. He will see a purse this spring of $20,000 for his horses that last year was $18,000. Who doesn’t like money? The problem is, ten years ago that $18,000 purse was $25,000. In ten years that purse will probably be less than $10,000. Not long ago I saw a video of a California trainer say “we should take as much as we can when it’s there, because it won’t be around much longer.” It’s the way the business functions, and thinks (and not just in California; as a good friend likes to say “racing cannot look past its own nose”).

It might help some others in the short term too. This takeout hike might get a groom tipped $20 more for a win because of a slight purse increase this spring. That’s wonderful. Who doesn’t like money? But ten years ago she got $50. Ten years from now she will be unemployed.

This takeout hike might have a pharma sales rep adding a few more dollars to his expense account for 2011, because people like John Sadler can put some of the purse increase into a new supplement. Awesome! But ten years ago the same pharma rep had ten stops on his horse route and drove a Lexus. In ten years he will have to move to Pennsylvania via his Impala.

Why am I supporting the boycott? Because I want horse racing to have a good future; and takeout hikes, a lack of customer appreciation and a dysfunctional management system whereby horsemen make gambling decisions assures a bad future, not a good one.

If people like Keith Brackpool, or Bob Baffert, or a groom, or a Pfizer sales rep won’t stand up for racing’s long-term health, who the hell will?

I bet $1833 a day on California thoroughbred racing last season. This season I will bet zero.

It is not because I want to hurt someone.

It is not because I am a fly-off-the- handle militant who wants something for free.

It is not because with takeout going up my ROI in California will go down.

It’s because in a decade’s time I want the sport I enjoy to be bigger and stronger than it is today, instead of smaller and weaker. And it appears not a soul in racing other than my fellow horseplayers want to do something about it.

[cj]

In my opinion this boycott b.s. is just that b.s.
If you're going to boycott California without boycotting other jurisdictions that have higher take-outs then you are a bunch of hypocrites.

The same people that are supporting this boycott are the same people that complained about polytrack and the artificial surfaces in California. Now that they have gone back to dirt at Santa Anita you have found another reason to not bet California. You know what--

TAKE YOUR BOYCOTT AND SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE!!!!

They went back to dirt, and are indirectly asking us to pay for it. Bet that crappy racing all you want. Good luck. You'll tap out soon anyway.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

TAKE YOUR BOYCOTT AND SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE!!!!

TOC/CHRB/CTT/Racetrack Management 2

Horseplayers 0

[toussaud]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/60315/nyra-defends-raises-others-question-timing


yet, I see not one gripe here about it, no boycott NYRA racing, when it's probably even more justified.

Telling me to boycott because "we's go die" if we don't, isn't going to work. especially when doing so would mean playing tracks with higher takeouts, than the one I am boycotting. Even more so, to do what, boycott one circuit, to play another who just gave their board members a half a million dollar pay raise at the one time they can't afford it.

[Charlie D]

Toussaud


They are not telling you, they are asking for you and other bettors to support the campaign.


You and others as bettors have a choice, either help SEND A MESSAGE or don't, it's up to you.

[redshift1]

In my opinion this boycott b.s. is just that b.s.
If you're going to boycott California without boycotting other jurisdictions that have higher take-outs then you are a bunch of hypocrites.

The same people that are supporting this boycott are the same people that complained about polytrack and the artificial surfaces in California. Now that they have gone back to dirt at Santa Anita you have found another reason to not bet California. You know what--

TAKE YOUR BOYCOTT AND SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE!!!!


Even the most naive poster here notices the continental tilt.

[CBedo]

As I previously posted in another thread about playing the upcoming SA meet, I had planned on business as usual, betting the Santa Anita meet, with the caveats of the possibility of less betting opportunities due to the takeout increase but potentially offset by more good bets due to the "synth to dirt" confusion.

My thoughts were that this was my best solution to maximize profits in California given the situation. With a more organized effort pushing a boycott, I have had to rethink that position, and after giving it some serious thought, I will support the boycott whole heartedly. I do this in the name of profit maximization. Long term positive change could lead to years and years of good bets, potentially dwarfing the profits from one meet, even taking into account the time value of money and the risk of failure of the boycott.

I think players can and should make a difference. Will this boycott work? Honestly, I'm not sure. I hope that other players, and especially large volume players will come together to make an impact. I fear that there is some game theory at work here in the form of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" which is a theorem that shows why players might not cooperate with each other, even though when they do, they both benefit. Hopefully, we as players will stand united on this front.

What is the downside of supporting the boycott? Worst case, you miss a few bets; best case, racing and its bettors benefit long term.

I will be boycotting, and hope that others will take the same step, trying to make a difference as well.

CBedo

[toussaud]

As I previously posted in another thread about playing the upcoming SA meet, I had planned on business as usual, betting the Santa Anita meet, with the caveats of the possibility of less betting opportunities due to the takeout increase but potentially offset by more good bets due to the "synth to dirt" confusion.

My thoughts were that this was my best solution to maximize profits in California given the situation. With a more organized effort pushing a boycott, I have had to rethink that position, and after giving it some serious thought, I will support the boycott whole heartedly. I do this in the name of profit maximization. Long term positive change could lead to years and years of good bets, potentially dwarfing the profits from one meet, even taking into account the time value of money and the risk of failure of the boycott.

I think players can and should make a difference. Will this boycott work? Honestly, I'm not sure. I hope that other players, and especially large volume players will come together to make an impact. I fear that there is some game theory at work here in the form of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" which is a theorem that shows why players might not cooperate with each other, even though when they do, they both benefit. Hopefully, we as players will stand united on this front.

What is the downside of supporting the boycott? Worst case, you miss a few bets; best case, racing and its bettors benefit long term.

I will be boycotting, and hope that others will take the same step, trying to make a difference as well.

CBedo

I am looking at every wager I made this year. 91% of my wagers, have been made on tracks based in southern California, and you are asking me to drop all that, to support something that doesn't effect me personally, is not feasible to me. it's just not.

They have done, absolutely everything I have asked of them which is basically 2 things, bring back dirt and dont' touch my takeout. Neither of which, becuase i am a win bettor, they have done. I would love for them to start an hour later everyday but that's wishful thinking. If you are an exotic guy and want to boycott, you are more than justified in doing so. I just can't justify it.

Someone recommended tampa bay downs instead, the takeout is a few points higher than what I would be leaving. Doesn't make sense.


How about this, instead of boycotting why just boycott the races that have the high takeout? I presume you make SOME W/P/S wagers. That would make more sense and send a more direct message.

I.can.not.justify.dismissing.every.thing.i.know.ab out.socal.tracks.to.bet.somewhere.else.for.higher. takeout.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

and you are asking me to drop all that, to support something that doesn't effect me personally, is not feasible to me. it's just not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

[Stillriledup]

In my opinion this boycott b.s. is just that b.s.
If you're going to boycott California without boycotting other jurisdictions that have higher take-outs then you are a bunch of hypocrites.

The same people that are supporting this boycott are the same people that complained about polytrack and the artificial surfaces in California. Now that they have gone back to dirt at Santa Anita you have found another reason to not bet California. You know what--

TAKE YOUR BOYCOTT AND SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE!!!!


People aren't boycotting the actual takeout numbers, they're boycotting the RAISE.

[Stillriledup]

I am looking at every wager I made this year. 91% of my wagers, have been made on tracks based in southern California, and you are asking me to drop all that, to support something that doesn't effect me personally, is not feasible to me. it's just not.

They have done, absolutely everything I have asked of them which is basically 2 things, bring back dirt and dont' touch my takeout. Neither of which, becuase i am a win bettor, they have done. I would love for them to start an hour later everyday but that's wishful thinking. If you are an exotic guy and want to boycott, you are more than justified in doing so. I just can't justify it.

Someone recommended tampa bay downs instead, the takeout is a few points higher than what I would be leaving. Doesn't make sense.


How about this, instead of boycotting why just boycott the races that have the high takeout? I presume you make SOME W/P/S wagers. That would make more sense and send a more direct message.

I.can.not.justify.dismissing.every.thing.i.know.ab out.socal.tracks.to.bet.somewhere.else.for.higher. takeout.


Here's the problem with just boycotting the exotics. In order to beat the races at a certain track, you have to do many hours of diligent work, day and night with no days off. You have to work your fingers to the bone to have any shot at success. Why work your fingers to the bone to just bet win? I mean, if you are going to work till your blue in the face and stay up till 5am crunching numbers, why not do it at a track where you can exploit more than just an edge in the win pool?

The reason you SHOULD dismiss everything you know is because if you and many others would sit on the sidelines and wait for order to be restored, you will be able to exploit your edge at a TWENTY percent takeout and not a 23 percent rake. Even if you believe there's a ONE percent chance that they'll revert back to 'old takeout levels' its worth that gamble to miss a couple weeks of racing. Or, even a couple months.

This also goes deeper than just wins and losses. Its about your fellow horseplayer. Its about you too. Those higher ups are sitting there in their suits laughing at YOU because they know that you're going to make them look good. Its important that you, the 'lowly horseplayer', lay a financial beatdown on the David Israel's of the world and put them in their place. Its SO worth it to see them crawl back to the lowly horseplayer after this massacre is over and beg for forgiveness as they go back to the 20 percent takeouts that they used to have.

Who's to say that your non participation in this boycott won't cost you your precious win pool a year from now as they raise that from 15.68 to 18.68? Ya know, to cover costs?

You need to look at the big picture, and currently, it seems, you're looking at the smaller one.

Your mind is telling you that you're doing the right thing, because, after all, they've done nothing to affect YOU. But, i believe your heart is telling you something else......after all, you are human.

[andymays]

All of the people that are behind the website need to come out, do the work, and explain how this is going to work so everyone is clear on what's happening.

Since this is not a HANA sponsored event will the website give instructions or make recommendations on how to bet or where to bet?

Offshore?

WPS only?

Total Boycott?

There will be a million questions and most of the same ones will be repeated over and over again on this site and other sites. For the boycott to be successful all of the questions need to be answered.

How does the bolded/red section below work?

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


http://www.playersboycott.org/article_boycottschedule.html

Excerpt:

The National Players' Boycott Of California Thoroughbred Racing
Bettors Acting Today For A Better Tomorrow
Boycott Schedule:

We urge players everywhere to support the National Players Boycott of California Racing effort by not betting your hard earned handle dollars on the California Racing Product. We also ask that you pass word of the Boycott on to other players you know.

Check back here frequently....

We will be announcing specific and targeted boycott races/dates right here in the very near future.

[lamboguy]

unfortunately the customers of this game have better idea's than the ones that are running the game. at this point of time i believe that a boycott will bring a less than desired result to horseracing.

i have no idea how horseracing can even exist in the shape and form that it is in right now. what is probably needed is shut the whole game down and come up with a complete revamp that makes sense. this game currently has the inmates running the assylum. its never going to work with the same old ideas. don't go by what i say, take a look at nasscar racing, it was a dead blank before fresh leadership came into the sport and implemented change. the sport is currently on overdrive. those people that go to nasscar events would have been potential customers for horseracing. they beat horseracing to a pulp and they don't even have a window in the back of the place to bet on their sport! up until the last 29 yeas horseracing used to be the #1 spectator sport. one should ask the questions as to why the popularity has dereased in this manor and focus on those reasons. i hate to hear that the horseracing fan has died off and can't be replaced. one thing we know in life is that wingtip shoes have had many deaths and has always come back. in this economy horseracing is really needed for the jobs that can be created by a successful business model. it is the perfect time to come up with a good plan because states are broke and need extra revenue, they might be willing to take less of a percentage to get the sport back off the bottom.

[Charli125]

All of the people that are behind the website need to come out, do the work, and explain how this is going to work so everyone is clear on what's happening.

Since this is not a HANA sponsored event will the website give instructions or make recommendations on how to bet or where to bet?

Offshore?

WPS only?

Total Boycott?

There will be a million questions and most of the same ones will be repeated over and over again on this site and other sites. For the boycott to be successful all of the questions need to be answered.

I'm in favor of it. But let me explain a little bit about why this is supported by HANA, but is being done separate from HANA.

There are some that have various issues with HANA. Be it a problem with us not targeting a specific issue, a disagreement with an issue we targeted, a problem with how we operate, or just a problem with HANA itself. The situation in CA is much bigger than HANA, and much bigger than any disagreements or issues anyone has with HANA or it's membership. This is truly an issue that affects us all including horseplayers, owners, backstretch workers, and tracks. This is an issue that is bigger than HANA and it is a very targeted, single focus issue.

CA has proven on multiple occasions that they're going to continue raising takeout. Despite the fact that handle has gone down every time, they continue on the same destructive path. If we stay silent, then handle will continue to shrink, and CA racing will cease to exist. Not tomorrow, and not next year, but it's just not sustainable.

The hope is that this boycott will attract everyone that cares about this sport including the HANA detractors. If there ever was an issue where we needed to put aside our differences and focus on saving this industry, it's this.



How does the bolded/red section below work?

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


http://www.playersboycott.org/article_boycottschedule.html

Excerpt:

The National Players' Boycott Of California Thoroughbred Racing
Bettors Acting Today For A Better Tomorrow
Boycott Schedule:

We urge players everywhere to support the National Players Boycott of California Racing effort by not betting your hard earned handle dollars on the California Racing Product. We also ask that you pass word of the Boycott on to other players you know.

Check back here frequently....

We will be announcing specific and targeted boycott races/dates right here in the very near future.

As has been discussed on this board previously, some people are not willing to boycott an entire meet. Some are willing to boycott a certain pool, some are willing to boycott a weekend, etc. With that in mind, the goal is to get the most boycott out of each player that they are willing/able to offer.

One good example is CBEDO's initial thoughts. He has changed his mind and is fully behind the boycott now, but at first he was willing to boycott only the raised takeout pools, and not the WPS pools. There are certainly going to be other players that feel the same way. Some large teams are willing to boycott for a weekend, but can't afford to stay out of the pools longer than that.

I think the point is that there isn't a one size fits all boycott. We want each player to do what they can, and will do what we can to enable them.

[andymays]

This is on Equidaily. http://www.equidaily.com/

>>> Anonymous website launched advocating boycott of Calif racing - critical of higher takeout rates
>>> Horseplayers group laments that 'playersboycott.org' press release not getting more exposure
[Equidaily comment/hint: Somebody has to step up and attach a name [names] to this effort. Anonymous could be a 13YO in his basement. If an anonymous press release went out to the mainstream media announcing a new, anonymous, "Stop Paying Taxes" website - how many outlets do you think would run it? Having absolutely no idea who is behind this effort makes it hard to know how seriously to take it...]

[anotherCAfan]

I have been lurking on this website for a little while. This issue is really close to me, so I wanted to step in.


Similar to the wagering and non-wagering customers, I am a stakeholder in the California Racing Environment. If not for the SoCal racing circuit, and the many jobs directly and indirectly associated with it, I don't know where I would be. There are a lot of innocent people who work in the industry. There are some with questionable viewpoints, too. I do not know anybody in the CHRB or track management. I feel that raising the takeout is a bad idea.


However, I am still a little unsure about this boycott. I hope it works, but I am fearful for the people I know closely who already have seen the jobs disappear in the last few years. I really wish there was a way to get the changes that HANA and horseplayers would like, without making the situation worse. I am pessimistic (by nature?) and am concerned this will not help.


I hope the takeout is lowered, but I also hope if it is lowered, that people will return to betting CA racing. What the CHRB, etc. do not realize is that without the wagering public, there is no racing.

[The_Knight_Sky]

I think the point is that there isn't a one size fits all boycott.
We want each player to do what they can, and will do what we can to enable them.


An off-shoot group from the HANA people is fine with me.
For those who understand the importance of righting the ship in California racing and for those of us who have long clamored for national representation from the bettors (customers) this is a good start.

It wouldn't help me one bit if the supporters names on the scroll were Clint Eastwood from Palm Springs and John Wayne from Motor City, Michigan. I agree with the principle of it and I look forward to further clarification of this anonymous group's goals:

We ask you to consider carefully the idea that every handle dollar spent on California racing is a vote in support of higher takeout and a vote to support the mistaken belief expressed by the CHRB and the TOC that the customer is irrelevant.

[Charli125]

I have been lurking on this website for a little while. This issue is really close to me, so I wanted to step in.

Similar to the wagering and non-wagering customers, I am a stakeholder in the California Racing Environment. If not for the SoCal racing circuit, and the many jobs directly and indirectly associated with it, I don't know where I would be. There are a lot of innocent people who work in the industry. There are some with questionable viewpoints, too. I do not know anybody in the CHRB or track management. I feel that raising the takeout is a bad idea.

However, I am still a little unsure about this boycott. I hope it works, but I am fearful for the people I know closely who already have seen the jobs disappear in the last few years. I really wish there was a way to get the changes that HANA and horseplayers would like, without making the situation worse. I am pessimistic (by nature?) and am concerned this will not help.

I hope the takeout is lowered, but I also hope if it is lowered, that people will return to betting CA racing. What the CHRB, etc. do not realize is that without the wagering public, there is no racing.

I appreciate your weighing in on this subject as you are most certainly a stakeholder in CA racing.

The purpose of the boycott is not to hurt the industry as a whole, and especially not to hurt people like you. The purpose is to do the exact opposite and to make the CA game more player friendly in order to increase handle as well as revenue. The thing that's important to understand is that if things continue as they are, your jobs will be impacted. The hope is that we can convince CA to make positive changes, rather than negative, in time to avoid the pain that will come from even further decreased handle.

[DeanT]

I have been lurking on this website for a little while. This issue is really close to me, so I wanted to step in.


Similar to the wagering and non-wagering customers, I am a stakeholder in the California Racing Environment. If not for the SoCal racing circuit, and the many jobs directly and indirectly associated with it, I don't know where I would be. There are a lot of innocent people who work in the industry. There are some with questionable viewpoints, too. I do not know anybody in the CHRB or track management. I feel that raising the takeout is a bad idea.


However, I am still a little unsure about this boycott. I hope it works, but I am fearful for the people I know closely who already have seen the jobs disappear in the last few years. I really wish there was a way to get the changes that HANA and horseplayers would like, without making the situation worse. I am pessimistic (by nature?) and am concerned this will not help.


I hope the takeout is lowered, but I also hope if it is lowered, that people will return to betting CA racing. What the CHRB, etc. do not realize is that without the wagering public, there is no racing.

That is a good comment.

As Charlie noted, I do not support this because I want to hurt anyone. A lot of supporters are CA horse owners. I dont own in CA, but I do elsewhere. I have a ton of friends in the business; I know how hard they work. I know how much they care about the horses. I support them by trying to be supportive in what they do (esp when things are going bad), paying my bills on time, doing right by the horse, and tipping a groom after a win (who deserves more than I can tip I am sure!).

I like each one of those people. But I want to see them have jobs and work in this business for a long time. And right now in CA, I think the industry will shrink, because nowhere on the face of the earth has a takeout increase been good for the long term growth of the sport. Perhaps if things can change and the CHRB can focus on horse owner issues, and leave gambling issues to people who understand that part of the business, we might move CA racing to the next level.

All my opinion.

[anotherCAfan]

The purpose of the boycott is not to hurt the industry as a whole, and especially not to hurt people like you. The purpose is to do the exact opposite and to make the CA game more player friendly in order to increase handle as well as revenue. The thing that's important to understand is that if things continue as they are, your jobs will be impacted. The hope is that we can convince CA to make positive changes, rather than negative, in time to avoid the pain that will come from even further decreased handle.
Thanks for the reply!


I really, really hope the bettors "win" this. It is not the best idea to raise takeouts in a recession and a time where inflation is not an issue. For the sake of CA racing, I hope those in charge have a "come to Jesus" moment sooner rather than later.

[TommyCh]

exactly. I mean, I just can't do it. I'm a Win player anyway, I dont' care about the takeout. This right now does not effect me directly.

I am however down for a boycott of Kentucky racing utnil the LAT situation is handled, correctly. I have not made a wager in the state since, and won't.

You may never come back to Kentucky because it really looks like they are going to try to let it just wither and die. Bums.

[Fager Fan]

This is the mindset that keeps horseplayers at the mercy of the race track operators.

If horseplayers dont come together despite regional and personal differences, nothing will change. This is what keeps players from having absolutely no say in the game. We lay down and fail to coalesce on any issue, unless it is personal to our play. Someday it may be your game that is changed, altered or ignored on the whim of an almost anonymous group of so called racing mavens or corporate quick change artists.

Gamblers finance this game at the lowest level. They are the underpinning of the game. I believe in strength in numbers and I am also aware that a fractured constituency plays into the current powers that be. Horseplayers are taken for granted. Run the race and they will come. Not I. No longer will I support a game that hands me a dollar with one hand and takes a fiver out of my back pocket with the other. Then sell me a five dollar hot dog and a four fifty lemonade ........it's all going sour and we are standing by and watching it happen, and paying for it. No matter which pool we play into.......if HANA gets behind a boycott......I am with them. There are a bunch of guys working for free to make the game better for us and that group was born right here on PA. They have my support. I urge you to join in. I haven't seen an official statement from HANA yet, but I suspect it's coming.

Every single product in existence is financed by its customers. Horse racing is no different. We don't see people demanding to have a say in how Microsoft operates, however, and that they set their pricing according to what its customers demand.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Thanks for the reply!


I really, really hope the bettors "win" this. It is not the best idea to raise takeouts in a recession and a time where inflation is not an issue. For the sake of CA racing, I hope those in charge have a "come to Jesus" moment sooner rather than later.
Inflation really shouldn't have anything to do with it either. It only makes sense that people should bet more if their dollar is inflated over the years. You deal with inflation by changing the minimum people can bet....at least in theory.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Every single product in existence is financed by its customers. Horse racing is no different. We don't see people demanding to have a say in how Microsoft operates, however, and that they set their pricing according to what its customers demand.
The customers demand a lower takeout rate. That is why many have left, and why handle has dropped off the way it has.
Why isn't horse racing operating like Microsoft and trying to maximize revenues by using an optimal takeout rate?

[Fager Fan]

The customers demand a lower takeout rate. That is why many have left, and why handle has dropped off the way it has.
Why isn't horse racing operating like Microsoft and trying to maximize revenues by using an optimal takeout rate?

Maybe they've determined that you're wrong.

Which track has the lowest takeout? A quick look at their handle will tell us who's right.

[anotherCAfan]

That is a good comment.

As Charlie noted, I do not support this because I want to hurt anyone. A lot of supporters are CA horse owners. I dont own in CA, but I do elsewhere. I have a ton of friends in the business; I know how hard they work. I know how much they care about the horses. I support them by trying to be supportive in what they do (esp when things are going bad), paying my bills on time, doing right by the horse, and tipping a groom after a win (who deserves more than I can tip I am sure!).

I like each one of those people. But I want to see them have jobs and work in this business for a long time. And right now in CA, I think the industry will shrink, because nowhere on the face of the earth has a takeout increase been good for the long term growth of the sport. Perhaps if things can change and the CHRB can focus on horse owner issues, and leave gambling issues to people who understand that part of the business, we might move CA racing to the next level.

All my opinion.
Thank you too for your post. Thank you also for owning some beautiful animals.

Getting a more sensible takeout is Main Idea #1. Replacing the synthetics in Del Mar and up north (I would like dirt at Hollywood too, but I am more concerned for the survival of Hollywood Park) could be Main Idea #2.



Inflation really shouldn't have anything to do with it either. It only makes sense that people should bet more if their dollar is inflated over the years. You deal with inflation by changing the minimum people can bet....at least in theory.
I was thinking along the lines of a "cost of living adjustment" increase in the takeout. It would be the wrong solution (what you propose would be correct), but at least there would be some justification. Here, again, it does not make too much sense.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Maybe they've determined that you're wrong.

Which track has the lowest takeout? A quick look at their handle will tell us who's right.
Really, I'm wrong about people leaving the game? About handle dropping off?

How did they determine I'm wrong?

Lets see, Woodbine and Remington just reported handle increases in 2010 when most tracks are reporting double digit decreases. Why? Because they sold their signals cheaper (allowing players to get larger rewards), and to more ADWs. That is why. This will tell any nincompoop that bettors want cheaper prices and they will bet when they see these prices.

[andymays]

Replacing the synthetics in Del Mar and up north (I would like dirt at Hollywood too, but I am more concerned for the survival of Hollywood Park) could be Main Idea #2.

Welcome to the board anotherCAfan! :ThmbUp:

I like what you have to say. Del Mar does need to go back to dirt. I think they will in 2011 or 2012. Let's hope.

[DeanT]

How much more positive pricing leadership can CA racing take Fager? Handle in 1990 was $2.9 billion in CA, in 2009 it was $1.9B.

If that was a MSFT chart, Bill Gates would be working for Apple.

[Sericm]

Full fields, dirt racing , top stables, and good weather will determine how successful your boycott will be. If the above mentioned happens then your boycott doesn't stand a chance.

There's probably 10 or 12 members on this site that even care about this topic and if you think your boycotting will make a difference then GOD bless you!

It seems to me it's already breaking down. Some will bet certain pools, some advocate for certain days, etc., etc. ONLY A TOTAL BOYCOTT WOULD WORK, and trust me horseplayers being what they are that will never happen.

As far as the handle comparison between 1990 and 2009 it's like comparing apples and oranges. In 1990 you had dirt racing at all tracks and large fields.
In 2009 you had a poor economy, pro-ride, cushion, and poly-track with short fields.

95% of the betting public don't even know what the take-out is and most importantly don't CARE!!!

[DeanT]

In 2009 you had a poor economy, and poly-track with short fields.
95% of the betting public don't even know what the take-out is and most importantly don't CARE!!!


Woodbine 2010: Poly, shorter fields. Handle up 9%
Reason: Lower effective takeout

Remington 2010: handle up 58%
Reason: Out of Tracknet, no anti-rebate stance, lower effective takeout

Tampa Bay 2010: All time handle record in 2009. Handle up over 100% in real dollars.
Reason: Lower effective takeout: Tampa had the 68th ranked takeout score in 2001, and they now have the 4th best.

Hong Kong: 2001-2006: Handle off by 25%
2006: Lower effective takeout, handle up by 9.6%

Australia racing: World wide recession..... handle up 5%, revenues up 4%
Reason: lower effective takeouts in 2010 due to fixed odds betting.

conversely........

Calder: Raised Takeout in 2008
Result: Handle off more than 25%, cuts in racedates, less purses

Los Al: Raise takeout 2010
Result: On track handle off 26%, overall handle off 15%


.......... sensing a pattern?

[PhantomOnTour]

The increased % at Remington is staggering...good for them. :ThmbUp:
Tampa too.

[Sericm]

And who cares about Remington, Tampa, Australia or Hong Kong!!!!!!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

95% of the betting public don't even know what the take-out is and most importantly don't CARE!!!
It might be 90%, but the fact you think this means anything means you have zero understanding how takeout and churn works.

I think many, if not all, who voted the takeout increase in are in your boat.

[JustRalph]

Every single product in existence is financed by its customers. Horse racing is no different. We don't see people demanding to have a say in how Microsoft operates, however, and that they set their pricing according to what its customers demand.

This analogy is so far off base, I can't even begin to describe it.

Microsoft has so many revenue streams that are completely separate from each other that they could drop any one revenue stream and it would be a fly on the balance sheet. Horse Racing has one revenue stream. Horseplayers!

[JustRalph]

It might be 90%, but the fact you think this means anything means you have zero understanding how takeout and churn works.

I think many, if not all, who voted the takeout increase in are in your boat.

Thanks for saying it. Somebody had to. This guy is off the scale unaware.

That 90% that don't know the takeout rate can still read the payoffs.....and they know the better ones when they see them......... it's that elementary

[DeanT]

That 90% that don't know the takeout rate can still read the payoffs.....and they know the better ones when they see them......... it's that elementary

Something that the mass in racing gambling decision making can not figure out. Thanks IPAD Ralph.

Screenshot of Sunland real time race 9 at Bris. Followed by betfair's tote. If you cant figure out 2-1 on the one horse is worse than 7-2 (and the latter will attract more money at that price), or that 3-1 on the six might bring more $$$ than the 7-5 posted, you have no business making a takeout decision in this sport.

[jelly]

And who cares about Remington, Tampa, Australia or Hong Kong!!!!!!



I do,and I no longer bet Cali.racing.


Are you a trainer or Owner in cali?

[The_Knight_Sky]

I'm interested in Tampa.
But my leisure hours are in the evening. That means
doing preparation for tracks like Charles Town and Mountaineer.

If California racing keep canceling their cards due to shortage of horses
I'm not going to keep taking Wednesday and Thursday evenings off.
My life at the track should go on. :ThmbUp:

That said, I'd like to see some clearly defined goals from this group.
What kind of handle numbers constitute "the right path"?

And for how long should horse racing customers be prepared
to tough it out before the boycott stops?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Thanks for saying it. Somebody had to. This guy is off the scale unaware.

That 90% that don't know the takeout rate can still read the payoffs.....and they know the better ones when they see them......... it's that elementary
It is not only that. It is innate, most aren't even cognizant of it. There is a point when gambling whether your brain say "you have no chance." And this has to do with how long your gambling fix lasts. It isn't an overnight thing either. But it is totally related to takeout. Sending a person home with nothing too many times will do it to you. As collective takeouts have risen throughout the year (more high takeout exotics available every race, and a generally higher takeout on everything), more and more people have been listening to their brains.

You don't need a boycott to make bettors leave, they will die out because they just don't last as much.

[DeanT]

It is not only that. It is innate, most aren't even cognizant of it. There is a point when gambling whether your brain say "you have no chance." And this has to do with how long your gambling fix lasts. It isn't an overnight thing either. But it is totally related to takeout. Sending a person home with nothing too many times will do it to you. As collective takeouts have risen throughout the year (more high takeout exotics available every race, and a generally higher takeout on everything), more and more people have been listening to their brains.

You don't need a boycott to make bettors leave, they will die out because they just don't last as much.

A comment from a horseplayers friend, about three years ago.

While I am less than expert regarding the racing products in Canada, having been around the game in the States' for almost fifty years provides me with the following insights:

1. High takeout subsidizes an inferior product. How else can you explain the continuation of flat racing in Northern California where 5-horse fields have become the norm?

2. High takeout finances rebates and enables non-parimutuel offshore operators to grow and profit. Do the math. ANY rebate gives a player a better chance at turning a positive ROI even when it's simply a return of his capital from excessive rakes.

3. High takeout positions racing at a disadvantage compared to other gambling venues. There is less to payout. There is a higher opportunity cost for playing and a higher operating cost for staying.

4. The next ten years in the racing game promise a tumultous time for those who do not overhaul their product in order to retain and grow their customer base. This includes both takeout and breakage reform and making the customer an active partner along with the tracks and owners' groups.

Richard Bauer, USA
www.trackthieves.com (http://www.trackthieves.com)

And a comment from a player he mentored.

I was using pinnacle offshore until the debacle. Because of the rebate I found a way to make place bets profitable. I wound up with a 3.2% loss, but a rebate of 7%. It actually was a rebate of 6.2% as they did not give a rebate on 2.20 horses.

Now the kicker is, I went from betting about 30 to 50k to 1.3 million that year.It made the churn factor possible. If takeout is lowered it may have the same affect. I now have changed my play where place betting is profitable, but it is so small that I have stopped. I would definitely go back if takeout is lowered significantly.

Thanks

Vic
Los Angeles

[anotherCAfan]

Welcome to the board anotherCAfan! :ThmbUp:

I like what you have to say. Del Mar does need to go back to dirt. I think they will in 2011 or 2012. Let's hope.
Thanks! I am also very intrigued by the possible sale of the Del Mar property to the city. I am sure that was talked about here (haven't lurked much since the Zenyatta loss).


If I am ever in Oklahoma, West Virginia, etc., I would love to visit Remington and Mountaineer, but to see those tracks thriving partially at the expense of CA racing is saddening. (I am not against them thriving... I want all racetracks to do well!)

[DeanT]

Player commentary via the Boycott site (http://www.playersboycott.org)


Some distinguished horseplayers discovered new disincentives to continue playing California tracks when CHRB Vice-chairman, David Israel, described their average age as “deceased” and “decomposed.” In his apparently designated role as director of disinformation, he discounted their participation relative to that of a younger demographic -- despite the fact that older bettors have more time and money at their disposal. The symposium speaker’s short-sighted remarks denied if not defied the reality that racing’s short-term survival depends on seniors.

By discouraging existing and potential customers with higher takeout and disingenuous rhetoric, the CHRB is dooming its scheme to create a “promised land” overflowing with purse money for thoroughbred horse owners at the direct expense of horseplayers. Thanks to Mr. Israel, horseplayers of all ages and geographic areas are beginning to realize just how little respect they are accorded from most horsemen, track operators, and state government representatives. At least he didn’t deploy the ultimate d-word, “degenerate;” that politically incorrect term applied by so-called industry “stakeholders” to racing’s customers with far greater frequency in private than in public. Perhaps even he was afraid to disturb sleeping dogs lest they be drawn into their own defense in the face of egregious exploitation by racing executives. Indeed one can only wonder how long horseplayers will continue to accept the decline in satisfaction they derive from a pastime they once enjoyed over the course of a lifetime.

Wake up, bettors in California and elsewhere. This isn’t just a disaster in public relations. This “racing as entertainment” hyperbole is a disguised, but determined effort to deprive players of potential for profit. Even if you bet recreationally, you do so with the expectation you can come out ahead with sufficient insight, alertness, and experience. The probability of that happening decreases as less money is distributed to winners, and greater numbers of players are driven from the game as bankrolls and enthusiasm diminish. Worse, the deck is being stacked against you so that horsemen who compete in California can be subsidized rather than be forced to reduce their costs to levels that exist at other racing venues.

The market for recreational gambling has increased, but not for betting on horses. The younger generation isn’t being deceived. They know that wagering on races is no longer a good deal or even a fair one. They are already boycotting the game. The rest of us need to share their distaste if not disgust for how racing has evolved over the last thirty years, and join them on the sidelines. Only then will any alternatives be considered for striking a balance among horseplayers, horsemen, track operators, and government regulators that enables racing to return to self-sufficiency and stability. That is what you will be helping to accomplish each time you decline to bet a race at a California track starting the day after Christmas. A train has to come to a stop before it can change direction. We need to get the attention of the conductors one train at a time.

Some players will never see the bigger picture and will refuse to join the boycott for reasons that almost always boil down to self interest. Even boycott supporters will have their resolve tested by Santa Anita’s return to a natural dirt surface and a temporary increase in field sizes expected during the first few weeks. Yet if enough of us stand in unison and with patience until the initial excitement of the new meet wears off, the drain on handle will become more pronounced and eventually the desired effect will be achieved.

[Valuist]

Count me in on the boycott. Of course, other than the BC days in 2008 and 2009, I haven't bet California racing since 2006.

[Charlie D]

Insidethepylons scoreboard needs updating.

http://www.homebased2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10672

[Fager Fan]

This analogy is so far off base, I can't even begin to describe it.

Microsoft has so many revenue streams that are completely separate from each other that they could drop any one revenue stream and it would be a fly on the balance sheet. Horse Racing has one revenue stream. Horseplayers!

Pick a product. The point is that customers ultimately pay for everything, and racing's no different than any other. In the real world, when we don't like a product or think it's too expensive, we don't buy it. So why are you still here?

[Charlie D]

Pick a product. The point is that customers ultimately pay for everything, and racing's no different than any other. In the real world, when we don't like a product or think it's too expensive, we don't buy it. So why are you still here?


we are all addicts and idiots (mullins)

[Charlie D]

and as you can see from some responses to this topic, There is a high probability Bill Finley's prediction will be spot on.

[DeanT]

Pick a product. The point is that customers ultimately pay for everything, and racing's no different than any other. In the real world, when we don't like a product or think it's too expensive, we don't buy it. So why are you still here?

Wal mart loses half their customer base.

The half who are left say "what in the hell are you people doing".

Ralph is one of the half, as are the rest of us.

Supporting management, whose policies have resulted in losing half the base, like you are doing, is your right, but people like Ralph (rightfully) are saying its part of the problem.

If Wal mart lost half their revenues, the board would be tossed. In racing they are enabled, and often time given raises.

There are very few industries that have lost half their revenues, who still get support from some people, and racing is one of them. I am pretty sure the hula hoop companies are another, but even those customers switched to the skip rope sooner or later.

[Charlie D]

Thinking about it. you can may be put some winning players into the addicted gambler category



What chance have you got of getting decent support for a boycott when the majority can't or won't leave gambling alone for a period.


The CHRB are probably :lol:

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Insidethepylons scoreboard needs updating.

http://www.homebased2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10672

Amazing the dolts over there.....Mullins was right, these guys prove it.

TOC/CHRB/CTT/Racetrack Management 3

Horseplayers 0

[Stillriledup]

Full fields, dirt racing , top stables, and good weather will determine how successful your boycott will be. If the above mentioned happens then your boycott doesn't stand a chance.

There's probably 10 or 12 members on this site that even care about this topic and if you think your boycotting will make a difference then GOD bless you!

It seems to me it's already breaking down. Some will bet certain pools, some advocate for certain days, etc., etc. ONLY A TOTAL BOYCOTT WOULD WORK, and trust me horseplayers being what they are that will never happen.

As far as the handle comparison between 1990 and 2009 it's like comparing apples and oranges. In 1990 you had dirt racing at all tracks and large fields.
In 2009 you had a poor economy, pro-ride, cushion, and poly-track with short fields.

95% of the betting public don't even know what the take-out is and most importantly don't CARE!!!


If most people don't know or care what takeout is, why didnt they just raise the take to 40 or 50 percent? Why stop at a 20 to 23 raise,why not just double it to 40? If you're right, and nobody knows or cares, its bad business to only raise it to 23.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is on Equidaily. http://www.equidaily.com/

>>> Anonymous website launched advocating boycott of Calif racing - critical of higher takeout rates
>>> Horseplayers group laments that 'playersboycott.org' press release not getting more exposure
[Equidaily comment/hint: Somebody has to step up and attach a name [names] to this effort. Anonymous could be a 13YO in his basement. If an anonymous press release went out to the mainstream media announcing a new, anonymous, "Stop Paying Taxes" website - how many outlets do you think would run it? Having absolutely no idea who is behind this effort makes it hard to know how seriously to take it...]NOW the industry wants to know our names? For all these years, they couldn't give two shits... :lol:

If the boycott is effective, names will be the last thing on their minds.

[Robert Fischer]

we are all addicts and idiots (mullins)


surprisingly and very inefficiently there actually seems to be some in racing management who believe that the addicts should be the focus group.

addicts = "entertainment"
When you hear people say "racing is entertainment", they are referring to the addicts (and to those who go for big name races or horses as well.)

When this is the focus, it is a minimalist strategy. The idea is that no mass media broadcasting or even basic advertising is needed, and pricing need not be competitive. In fact the strategy in that case wouldn't be concerned with anything that costs money, because they figure that the faithful addict demographic will be there.

The problem with that business model is
A: the small amount of money the addicts actually churn
B: the relatively high cost of having the parimutuel system in place for a given race vs the EXTREMELY low cost of taking each additional wager = meaning that minimalism is OPPOSITE of optimum use of their infrastructure.
C: the large number of dollars that are untapped due to the lack of a mass media broadcast
D: the fact that there is a very significant amount of money CURRENTLY in the pools that is wagered by value oriented customers (whales, money laundering, and for-profit horseplayers).


NOW - because of "D", the race tracks will see a significant reflection of their product in any long-term trends. D shows up as a market indicator. Without a boycott, If the product is worse, it will still decline in handle(unless santa anita did something bizarre like broadcast the sport with mass media, and then the handle would skyrocket and be misleading even with the possibility that this takeout raise will lead to less value or negate the value of changing field size and to dirt... )


finally - A boycott for takeout alone is fine in my book. Especially if you or others you influence abstain from actually betting large amounts normally wagered into california pools. Thanks to those willing. :ThmbUp:

Right now tracks have sent the message that if a horseplayer or horseplaying business doesn't cut a rebate deal for high-volume wagering, they will play the "ENTERTAINMENT"("addict") rate.

[Robert Fischer]

The future of takeout =


the tote will automatically calculate things like their initialCost to run that race and the marginalCost of accepting an additional wager.
Then based on post wager-POOL SIZE(satisfying initial costs) and the marginalCosts your wager will automatically be taxed at an appropriate level! With the marginal costs(cost of taking each additional wager 5cents?) being nearly negligable, the takeout can be offered relatively low to today's excessive rates and still generate a high marginalProfit!
In addition things like late Cancellations could be taxed according to the effects the amount cancelled had on takeout during it's time in the pools.

[Stillriledup]

I know this is a silly question, but Golden Gate is also raising takeout rates?

[andymays]

I don't know what the industry can do to Horseplayers that they haven't already done to us. With all the bombs I've dropped on them over the last two years you would think I would have been banned from the universe but the truth is that quite a few people on my email lists actually agree with me. Even people who we perceive as being on the "other side". The CHRB leadership needs to go but there are people there who support most of the issues we've raised. The same thing goes for some owners, trainers, and Track Executives.

The way I see it the CHRB board lacks transparency and has one giant conflict of interest that caters to whatever the TOC wants. If the boycott site wants to attack the CHRB over conflicts of interest and transparency then all or most of the people should step out if they believe in what they are doing. Right now if you go to the front page you would think Larry Winget is leading the boycott. I know Jeff's name is on one of the pages but that doesn't cut it. The website is asking Horseplayers to give their names and personal information if they want to participate so how can the leaders remain anonymous? They are asking supporters to make sacrifices so they should be willing to do the same. Even if some could pay a bigger price than others.

For Equidaily to put up that blurb means that there is more to come if the leaders don't put the issue to rest.

[andymays]

Pull The Pocket: Why I support the California Thoroughbred boycott Paulick Report

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/pull-the-pocket-why-i-support-the-california-thoroughbred-boycott/#PageComment_39586

[Stillriledup]

Can anyone answer this one.

Why won't the information services people honor this boycott? I'm talking about Thorograph, Ragozin, National Turf, etc. I know jerry Brown is always vocal about players rights and i know Bob Selvin posts here, what if there was no TG, RAG numbers or National Turf workout comments for California? Why can't they all 'get together' and support this stance?

If there was all of a sudden no TG, RAGs or workout comments for California races, maybe people who use those services would also stay away from the windows? I know it would be too much to ask that Beyer not print Beyer numbers for California races, but if the form would just say no to California races and refuse to publish Beyer numbers, i know the betting handle would take a HUGE hit. People are so used to seeing the Beyer numbers in the form that i can't imagine they would be betting with out them (with no option of Thorograph or Ragozin either).

I dont want to single out Jerry Brown, Selvin, Ragozin, etc because i know those people arent the only ones selling 'information' to help the horseplayer, but is there ANYONE on that side of the fence who's going to say, ENOUGH? Or, does nobody really care?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Can anyone answer this one.

Why won't the information services people honor this boycott? I'm talking about Thorograph, Ragozin, National Turf, etc. I know jerry Brown is always vocal about players rights and i know Bob Selvin posts here, what if there was no TG, RAG numbers or National Turf workout comments for California? Why can't they all 'get together' and support this stance?

If there was all of a sudden no TG, RAGs or workout comments for California races, maybe people who use those services would also stay away from the windows? I know it would be too much to ask that Beyer not print Beyer numbers for California races, but if the form would just say no to California races and refuse to publish Beyer numbers, i know the betting handle would take a HUGE hit. People are so used to seeing the Beyer numbers in the form that i can't imagine they would be betting with out them (with no option of Thorograph or Ragozin either).

I dont want to single out Jerry Brown, Selvin, Ragozin, etc because i know those people arent the only ones selling 'information' to help the horseplayer, but is there ANYONE on that side of the fence who's going to say, ENOUGH? Or, does nobody really care?

The majority of horseplayers don't support the boycott. And the above-named publications are in the business of selling products to those customers, not arbitrarily deciding what tracks players should or should not play.

[andymays]

What the CHRB has allowed in California reminds me of the tax debate going on in Washington. The difference here is that the CHRB has raised taxes on the poor (Horseplayers) to give to the rich (TOC). Even the crooks in the United States Congress don't have the stones to do that but the CHRB has no problem with it. In fact they stood up and cheered at the CHRB meeting when Mr. Brackpool received the text message from the Governator who had just signed the bill. Nice Stagecraft guys. Have you no shame? We all know the answer to that. LOL

Bottom line is that the CHRB has stolen gifts under the Horseplayers christmas tree and put them under the TOC's christmas tree. Thanks a lot for that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

What the CHRB has allowed in California reminds me of the tax debate going on in Washington. The difference here is that the CHRB has raised taxes on the poor (Horseplayers) to give to the rich (TOC). Even the crooks in the United States Congress don't have the stones to do that but the CHRB has no problem with it. In fact they stood up and cheered at the CHRB meeting when Mr. Brackpool received the text message from the Governator who had just signed the bill. Nice Stagecraft guys. Have you no shame? We all know the answer to that. LOL

Bottom line is that the CHRB has stolen gifts under the Horseplayers christmas tree and put them under the TOC's christmas tree. Thanks a lot for that.

Observation: to date, your complaining (most of it may be justified, not saying otherwise) hasn't accomplished much. Aren't most of these people political appointees? You've got a new governor coming into office soon. Why not actively lobby him on his appointees? Bombard him with suggestions.

[andymays]

The majority of horseplayers don't support the boycott. And the above-named publications are in the business of selling products to those customers, not arbitrarily deciding what tracks players should or should not play.

Mike, I think the majority of Horseplayers will say they support the boycott but when they see full fields and the "back to dirt" thing they will play. Full fields will last for a few weeks particularly since Santa Anita is going to a 4 day week (I think they are going to a 4 day week). The other thing to consider is that Santa Anita will now play the daily average handle thing because they are going to a shorter week. That move usually boosts the daily average handle numbers. My opinion is that they will see a bump in handle for a few weeks and as time goes by the weight of the takeout increae will take it's toll and handle will drop.

Some players will not play a nickel on California Racing.

Some players will play offshore.

Some players will only play WPS.

Some Players will ignore the whole thing.

In my opinion every Horseplayers should support the boycott however they choose to. If someone wants to play WPS and that's the best they can do then so be it. Slamming Horseplayers who want to take that route is a mistake.

[andymays]

Observation: to date, your complaining (most of it may be justified, not saying otherwise) hasn't accomplished much. Aren't most of these people political appointees? You've got a new governor coming into office soon. Why not actively lobby him on his appointees? Bombard him with suggestions.

I'm one guy Mike and my complaining has accomplished a lot more than you might think. I've only been working on this for about a year. It took 3 years to get Santa Anita to go back to a dirt surface and I'm proud of the small role I played in that. I don't intend to quit on this issue any time soon. ;)

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm one guy Mike and my complaining has accomplished a lot more than you might think. I've only been working on this for about a year. It took 3 years to get Santa Anita to go back to a dirt surface and I'm proud of the small role I played in that. I don't intend to quit on this issue any time soon. ;)

Fair enough, but am I right about someone like David Israel being a political appointee? I'm guessing.

[andymays]

Fair enough, but am I right about someone like David Israel being a political appointee? I'm guessing.
Yes, our useless Governator did that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Mike, I think the majority of Horseplayers will say they support the boycott but when they see full fields and the "back to dirt" thing they will play. Full fields will last for a few weeks particularly since Santa Anita is going to a 4 day week (I think they are going to a 4 day week). The other thing to consider is that Santa Anita will now play the daily average handle thing because they are going to a shorter week. That move usually boosts the daily average handle numbers. My opinion is that they will see a bump in handle for a few weeks and as time goes by the weight of the takeout increae will take it's toll and handle will drop.

Some players will not play a nickel on California Racing.

Some players will play offshore.

Some players will only play WPS.

Some Players will ignore the whole thing.

In my opinion every Horseplayers should support the boycott however they choose to. If someone wants to play WPS and that's the best they can do then so be it. Slamming Horseplayers who want to take that route is a mistake.

Besides an occassional Del Mar race in August (after the last at Saratoga), I don't think I've played more than four or five Cali races during the synthetic era, probably fewer. With the return of dirt and a takeout that is still lower than a number of tracks, I'll play it again. I suspect many East Coast players are with me on this. Now if they end up with five-horse fields, I won't be interested.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes, our useless Governator did that.

Then you, or some designated point person, should contact the head of Brown's transition team. Time is of the essence here. Get on the radar screen now.

[andymays]

Then you, or some designated point person, should contact the head of Brown's transition team. Time is of the essence here. Get on the radar screen now.

I believe Roger Way (rwwupl on this board) has already done that.

[andymays]

Besides an occassional Del Mar race in August (after the last at Saratoga), I don't think I've played more than four or five Cali races during the synthetic era, probably fewer. With the return of dirt and a takeout that is still lower than a number of tracks, I'll play it again. I suspect many East Coast players are with me on this. Now if they end up with five-horse fields, I won't be interested.

Yours is a popular point of view. One of my biggest concerns is that the people running the www.playersboycott.org website aren't out there enough selling the boycott and the reasons for it. It is my understanding that they will get out there beginning today and on the radio shows this weekend and that's what I want to see. They have to sell it to people like yourself that are kind of on the fence.

[Stillriledup]

Yours is a popular point of view. One of my biggest concerns is that the people running the www.playersboycott.org website aren't out there enough selling the boycott and the reasons for it. It is my understanding that they will get out there beginning today and on the radio shows this weekend and that's what I want to see. They have to sell it to people like yourself that are kind of on the fence.


For me personally, besides 'doing the right thing' and not betting Cali races and not wanting to cross the 'pickit' line, one lure to me staying away is that i'd love to see these arrogant 'higher ups' in California crawl back to the horseplayer when this is all said and done. To be able to hear someone like David Israel say, "we were wrong" is worth a lot to me. Its more than just dollars and cents.

Also, i know that if enough people stay away, they'll be forced to 'play ball' with the horseplayer. I'm willing to sit on the sidelines and wait a little while to get a better price on the product.

I don't 'get' these people who are 'on the fence'. This is a no brainer. Just say no and you'll get your way in a short while. If you come up with excuses as to why 'boycotting is not for you' than you're just being what they want and that's a gambler who can't control his urges to gamble. These people are banking on the fact that many people are just problem gamblers who can't skip a few days or weeks for a 'good cause'.

[cj]

Besides an occassional Del Mar race in August (after the last at Saratoga), I don't think I've played more than four or five Cali races during the synthetic era, probably fewer. With the return of dirt and a takeout that is still lower than a number of tracks, I'll play it again. I suspect many East Coast players are with me on this. Now if they end up with five-horse fields, I won't be interested.

In the beginning, you'll see horses with virtually no dirt races in the PPs. Good luck with that. By the time horses establish some dirt form, we'll be back to five horse fields.

[DeanT]

In the beginning, you'll see horses with virtually no dirt races in the PPs. Good luck with that. By the time horses establish some dirt form, we'll be back to five horse fields.

Interesting point.

I wonder along those lines (because I hate playing tracks that are new, or I cant figure out) - it's a new track, so how uniform can it be? Will we see tweaks in the bias almost daily like we see at other tracks at times? Will once bout of cold weather, hot weather or rain change it where we are in the dark?

With surface tweaks, a horse population that has not raced on it, and various changes - not to mention with a take increase - a lot of players might be cannon fodder.

I admit I had not thought of it, because I have no wish at all to play Cal Racing - but you bring up some neat points. Maybe this handle (from serious players who dont even want to boycott anything) will be smaller than they think?

[Saratoga_Mike]

In the beginning, you'll see horses with virtually no dirt races in the PPs. Good luck with that. By the time horses establish some dirt form, we'll be back to five horse fields.

Implicit in your statement is that they will start with larger fields, so why do you envision the fields getting smaller (i.e., five-horse fields)? Horses not running well over real dirt?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Implicit in your statement is that they will start with larger fields, so why do you envision the fields getting smaller (i.e., five-horse fields)? Horses not running well over real dirt?
The Poly horses may wind up leaving or waiting for a poly meet.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The Poly horses may wind up leaving or waiting for a poly meet.

Could be, but I think poly horses transition more easily to dirt than dirt horses do to poly.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Could be, but I think poly horses transition more easily to dirt than dirt horses do to poly.
I think that possibly 25-30% of Polytrack horses run terrible on the dirt. I've seen it when Woodbine horses go to Fort Erie or other dirt tracks.
But I'm sure the California brain trust has taken this into account already.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think that possibly 25-30% of Polytrack horses run terrible on the dirt. I've seen it when Woodbine horses go to Fort Erie or other dirt tracks.
But I'm sure the California brain trust has taken this into account already.

We'll see - let's give them a chance on the dirt.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

We'll see - let's give them a chance on the dirt.
The more I think about it, the horses in California have also started to be bred for artificial surfaces. And why would dirt horses go to California when they can run for identical purses at Penn and Philly where they can train for only 50-70 a day versus 100ish in California?

[Saratoga_Mike]

The more I think about it, the horses in California have also started to be bred for artificial surfaces.[B] And why would dirt horses go to California when they can run for identical purses at Penn and Philly where they can train for only 50-70 a day versus 100ish in California?

The synthetic tracks haven't been in place long enough to have an impact on breeding patterns. Perhaps true dirt horses have been shipped east by the likes of the Bafferts of the world, leaving more synthetic horses, but not b/c of breeding patterns.

Why racing in Cali vs Penn or Philly Park? That was true prior to the takeout increase was voted through and prior to the switch back to dirt. Why do I think owners stay there? They live there and want to race there. And the takeout is higher in PA, so I can't believe you suggested such a move!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The synthetic tracks haven't been in place long enough to have an impact on breeding patterns. Perhaps true dirt horses have been shipped east by the likes of the Bafferts of the world, leaving more synthetic horses, but not b/c of breeding patterns.

Why racing in Cali vs Penn or Philly Park? That was true prior to the takeout increase was voted through and prior to the switch back to dirt. Why do I think owners stay there? They live there and want to race there. And the takeout is higher in PA, so I can't believe you suggested such a move!
I'm not suggesting a move to Penn or Philly. I'm questioning why anyone would move from Penn or Philly now....at least very many horses.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm not suggesting a move to Penn or Philly. I'm questioning why anyone would move from Penn or Philly now....at least very many horses.

I was just kidding with you on the higher takeout. I agree with you - no one's going from Penn or PHA to Cali. Of course that's been the case for a long time for different reasons.

[thaskalos]

For me personally, besides 'doing the right thing' and not betting Cali races and not wanting to cross the 'pickit' line, one lure to me staying away is that i'd love to see these arrogant 'higher ups' in California crawl back to the horseplayer when this is all said and done. To be able to hear someone like David Israel say, "we were wrong" is worth a lot to me. Its more than just dollars and cents.

Also, i know that if enough people stay away, they'll be forced to 'play ball' with the horseplayer. I'm willing to sit on the sidelines and wait a little while to get a better price on the product.

I don't 'get' these people who are 'on the fence'. This is a no brainer. Just say no and you'll get your way in a short while. If you come up with excuses as to why 'boycotting is not for you' than you're just being what they want and that's a gambler who can't control his urges to gamble. These people are banking on the fact that many people are just problem gamblers who can't skip a few days or weeks for a 'good cause'.You are right my friend :ThmbUp: !

We horseplayers have a right to do whatever we want to do, of course. If we don't want to support the boycotts...fine. If we choose to be oblivious to the takeout, and its effects...that's fine too.

But our fight is not just about takeouts...our "real" fight is about changing the negative perception that the industry has of us...which is the cause of all the injustices we suffer through in this game.

We horseplayers often lament that we have no VOICE in this game, and that the industry treats us like addicts or idiots. Why do we think that is?

Why do we still see "super-trainers", "slap-on-the-wrist" suspensions for cheating trainers, Life At Ten-like incidents, steward incompetence, escalating takeouts...and many other things which are all obviously detrimental to the players' welbeing?

We see all these injustices because the industry KNOWS that the horseplayers never take an active stance to defend themselves in these matters.

The game treats us like addicts and idiots...because we behave like addicts and idiots.

Oh sure...we debate handicapping topics...often using "flowery" language, which makes us feel good about ourselves and our intelligence...but we have still - after all these years - done NOTHING to prove to the leadership of this sport that we are the driving force behind this game...and that we deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Everything is connected, you see...by taking a lackadaisical stance in the takeout issue and its effects, we prove to "them" that we will be as lackadaisical about the "super-trainer" issue...or the "Life At Ten" issue...or the "slap-on-the-wrist fines" issue.

Unless the horseplayer draws a line in the sand, nothing is going to change...and the horseplayer is always going to be the most maligned figure in the history of sport.

We all need to UNITE and FIGHT for our rights in this game!

If not now...WHEN?

[highnote]

Good point. I would think this would be an issue Ragozin would support. Has any one contacted him directly to get his opinion/ He has been around this industry for a long time and can probably offer some keen insights.



Can anyone answer this one.

Why won't the information services people honor this boycott? I'm talking about Thorograph, Ragozin, National Turf, etc. I know jerry Brown is always vocal about players rights and i know Bob Selvin posts here, what if there was no TG, RAG numbers or National Turf workout comments for California? Why can't they all 'get together' and support this stance?

If there was all of a sudden no TG, RAGs or workout comments for California races, maybe people who use those services would also stay away from the windows? I know it would be too much to ask that Beyer not print Beyer numbers for California races, but if the form would just say no to California races and refuse to publish Beyer numbers, i know the betting handle would take a HUGE hit. People are so used to seeing the Beyer numbers in the form that i can't imagine they would be betting with out them (with no option of Thorograph or Ragozin either).

I dont want to single out Jerry Brown, Selvin, Ragozin, etc because i know those people arent the only ones selling 'information' to help the horseplayer, but is there ANYONE on that side of the fence who's going to say, ENOUGH? Or, does nobody really care?

[rwwupl]

I believe Roger Way (rwwupl on this board) has already done that.

Jerry Browns transition team has this and more... no response as yet,not surprising. We need more than to reward political appointees.. we need people who know something about the game without a financial conflict of interest.

rwwupl




http://www.paulickreport.com/blogs/best-of-the-blogs/hana-chrb-dominated-by-narrow-interests/

HANA: CHRB dominated by narrow interests

excerpt:

The CHRB is tasked with serving the public interest, not the interests of one aspect of the industry over another. The CHRB has lacked appropriate balance in the membership. It is unacceptable for a public Board to be so dominated by interests of one segment of the industry they are charged with regulating.

The United States has 38 racing jurisdictions and the states of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Florida are among the largest and all prohibit their racing board members from having any financial interest in the business. Arizona allows only one member to have a financial interest in the industry and Maryland allows no more than four of its nine members to own horses.





A number of California state boards also prohibit such conflicts of interests by barring those in the industry from serving as members, including the Medical Board, Dental Board, Board of Optometry, and Board of Accountancy.

The leadership of the seven members CHRB is dominated by licensed horse owners and by law they are also members of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), a horsemen’s advocate organization that is supported by over a million dollars per year from the betting public takeout money. The TOC members pay no dues for their support, along with other horsemen advocate groups in California.

We think California would be better served by limiting the CHRB to no more than three members with a financial interest in the industry, and the Chairman should have no financial interest at all.

[rwwupl]

As a follow up, I called the new Governor Jerry Browns office today, and got a staffer who I explained what we needed and why and re- submitted the article to her and she said she would see that the request was considered .



View profileTo info@jerrybrown.org
From: ROGER WAY (wayroger_@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 12/15/10 9:05 PM
To: info@jerrybrown.org


Jerry Brown, 12-15-10

Horse racing is in trouble in California. One of the reasons is that the CHRB Board is used as a reward for supporting the Governor. The problem is that Ca. law is different from other states and allows the Board to have a majority of licensed horsemen making decisions for other horsemen at the expense of the betting public. This is an obvious conflict of interest. You can change this. We need your help.

Horse racing employs 50,000 people in all segments of the industry...but will not be for long unless changes are made. I will send an article I wrote for the Paulick Report, a popular paper for the industry.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blogs/best-of-the-blogs/hana-chrb-dominated-by-narrow-interests/


HANA: CHRB dominated by narrow interests
by Best of the Blogs | 12.08.2010 | 8:05am

Excerpt:


Written by HANA's Roger Way

Various conflicts of interests with the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) have led to the decline of support of horse racing from the citizens of California.

The CHRB is tasked with serving the public interest, not



A reply...


Jerry Brown 2010 Jerry Brown 2010info@jerrybrown.org

Send email
Find email
View detailsThank you for the suggestion, we really appreciate your feedback. I enjoyed our conversation and I will pass it along. Regards, Giselle Click links below to support Jerry Brown: http://www.jerrybrown.To ROGER WAY
From: Jerry Brown 2010 (info@jerrybrown.org)
Sent: Wed 12/15/10 9:26 PM
To: ROGER WAY (wayroger_@hotmail.com)


Thank you for the suggestion, we really appreciate your feedback. I enjoyed our conversation and I will pass it along.
Regards,Giselle
Click links below to support Jerry Brown:

http://www.jerrybrown.org/action/contribute

Jerry on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown

[cj]

Implicit in your statement is that they will start with larger fields, so why do you envision the fields getting smaller (i.e., five-horse fields)? Horses not running well over real dirt?

Because this is what has always happened at Santa Anita in the winter. They have even less horses now. Why would it change?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Because this is what has always happened at Santa Anita in the winter. They have even less horses now. Why would it change?

I've never followed Cali racing closely. I didn't realize they always started with fullier fields early in the meet and then dwindled down. That's why I asked you.

[Stillriledup]

I've never followed Cali racing closely. I didn't realize they always started with fullier fields early in the meet and then dwindled down. That's why I asked you.

Fields are full early because there's like a 5 day break. Also, a lot of guys dont race the better horses at hollywood. Also, this particular year, they know the purses are going to go up, so there are plenty of horses just sitting around, skipping hollywood, and waiting. I would expect bevys of 12 and 14 horse fields opening day and week.

I would also imagine that there's going to be injuries because of the surface changes, that will 'knock out' a bunch of runners. And, in Cali, those knocked out runners don't get easily replaced, there's not 5 tracks within a 5 hour drive to draw from the population.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]Fields are full early because there's like a 5 day break. Also, a lot of guys dont race the better horses at hollywood. Also, this particular year, they know the purses are going to go up, so there are plenty of horses just sitting around, skipping hollywood, and waiting. I would expect bevys of 12 and 14 horse fields opening day and week.

QUOTE]

Good pts - thank you.

[highnote]

I stopped wagering on HOL and GG today.

Is anyone else boycotting, yet?

[Kelso]

I stopped wagering on HOL and GG today.

Is anyone else boycotting, yet?


Not that they'll miss them, but neither is getting my nickels. Anita won't, either.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Unless the horseplayer draws a line in the sand, nothing is going
to change...and the horseplayer is always going to be
the most maligned figure in the history of sport.

We all need to UNITE and FIGHT for our rights in this game!

If not now...WHEN?




Precisely my thoughts.

I figure I'm going to be working 9-to-5 for the next 10 to 15 years
but when I do retire I hope to play the daytime tracks with regularity.
I just want it to be there when I get to that point.

A healthy, robust horse racing industry. Is that too much to ask :confused:

[andymays]

Looks like a new logo is on the site. It finally has an identity.

http://www.playersboycott.org/

[DeanT]

Good point. I would think this would be an issue Ragozin would support. Has any one contacted him directly to get his opinion/ He has been around this industry for a long time and can probably offer some keen insights.

That's a good idea.

I see your friend Fraser Rawlinson publicly added his name to support. What's he been up to?

The only boycott that will work is a complete boycott of California races.

Let's decide to COMPLETELY ignore Calif racing until the Kentucky Derby of 2011.

Fraser Rawlinson

[Spiderman]

I will go along with the boycott. Horseplayer's need to be united. To show the impact of a universal boycott, we should select one race to bet show.

[andymays]

I will go along with the boycott. Horseplayer's need to be united. To show the impact of a universal boycott, we should select one race to bet show.

Kinda like a pool riot? ;)

[Spiderman]

Kinda like a pool riot? ;)
One race where everyone bets to show. Should be about one week after opening to compare week-to-week handle.

[andymays]

One race where everyone bets to show. Should be about one week after opening to compare week-to-week handle.

That will add to the handle.

Someone once had the idea that if 1000 horseplayers put $20 to win on a horse in a particular race that had no chance of winning and drove what otherwise would be a 90-1 shot down to 2-1, and then cancelled the bets with 5 minutes to post, it would cause people to take notice.. That's a pool riot. It would of course throw some players who watch the board (who shouldn't be playing anyway) but it wouldn't add to the handle and it would raise attention.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

That will add to the handle.

Someone once had the idea that if 1000 horseplayers put $20 to win on a horse in a particular race that had no chance of winning and drove what otherwise would be a 90-1 shot down to 2-1, and then cancelled the bets with 5 minutes to post, it would cause people to take notice.. That's a pool riot. It would of course throw some players who watch the board (who shouldn't be playing anyway) but it wouldn't add to the handle and it would raise attention.
And it could cause regulators to take away the privilege horseplayers have to cancel tickets. Not a good idea.

[andymays]

And it could cause regulators to take away the privilege horseplayers have to cancel tickets. Not a good idea.

Right. For a $20 cancellation they're going to get rid of their best customers. Not likely.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Right. For a $20 cancellation they're going to get rid of their best customers. Not likely.
If it is done by many for the reason you suggest they do it, yes, they will consider taking away the privilege. One thing that doesn't sit well with regulators is odds manipulation.

[andymays]

If it is done by many for the reason you suggest they do it, yes, they will consider taking away the privilege. One thing that doesn't sit well with regulators is odds manipulation.

So if a guy had thee ADW's that he bet with and one of them took away the priveleges what would happen?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

So if a guy had thee ADW's that he bet with and one of them took away the priveleges what would happen?
I am not talking about the ADWs taking away the privilege here. I am talking racing commissions and tote companies. I'm talking about this being something that could cause an industry wide reaction.

[andymays]

I am not talking about the ADWs taking away the privilege here. I am talking racing commissions and tote companies.

You have to be kidding me. On one particular day and one particular race they're going to take away everyones betting priveleges and lose all that handle for the rest of the meet and all the other meets over a $20 wager. Not likely.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You have to be kidding me. On one particular day and one particular race they're going to take away everyones betting priveleges and lose all that handle for the rest of the meet and all the other meets over a $20 wager. Not likely.
You aren't talking a $20 wager here. You are talking about a mass effort at odds manipulation. It is just a really stupid idea that has potentially negative repercussions for all horseplayers.

[andymays]

You aren't talking a $20 wager here. You are talking about a mass effort at odds manipulation. It is just a really stupid idea that has potentially negative repercussions for all horseplayers.

So where do you stand? Are you for a boycott or not? Has your position changed again?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Richard Eng has an article about the boycott: http://www.lvrj.com/sports/takeout-boost-stirs-backlash-112054829.html

[andymays]

Can anyone tell me how this is going to work?


http://www.playersboycott.org/article_boycottschedule.html

Excerpt:

We will be announcing specific and targeted boycott races /dates right here in the very near future.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Can anyone tell me how this is going to work?


http://www.playersboycott.org/article_boycottschedule.html

Excerpt:

We will be announcing specific and targeted boycott races /dates right here in the very near future.

It's pretty damn cut and dry isn't is??You either bet the BS or you don't.I didn't read the link because the excerpt alone sounds totally stupid.

[andymays]

It's pretty damn cut and dry isn't is??You either bet the BS or you don't.I didn't read the link because the excerpt alone sounds totally stupid.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be explained. What's up with the target races? I'm waiting.

http://www.playersboycott.org/artic...ttschedule.html

Excerpt:

We will be announcing specific and targeted boycott races /dates right here in the very near future.

[toussaud]

I think you will get alot further, still make your point, and not cause as much animosity by simply boycotting the exotic wagering.

the trick is, making a point, without at the same time making enemies. by telling everyone in shouting distance that you are not wagering on cali racing, you are making enemies. your point is still being made directly: you dont' l'ike the exotic takeout, therefore you are boycotting the exotic wagering. I would get behind that, and not think twice about it. I think alot of people would.
But I think boycotting an entire circuit, actually an entire state, becuase of an increase in exotic takeout is unreasonable, too far and will do more damage to the image of hardcore players who support the lowering takeout than good

[toussaud]

To add, you have to think about the message your actions are sending. I don't think anyone here wants to say screw California racing which is what an all out boycott would be stating, even though they have screwed players for a while now, I don't think that's the message players want to say. I think they want to say that hey, I don't care if you have dirt, I don't care if there is a 3 milli9on dollar pick 6, i don't care if there are 55 horses in the late pick 4, it's not okay to raise takeout and expect horse players to happily foot the bill. I think that is a more clear and precise message.

[highnote]

I have another great reason to stop betting CA racing, my ROI on HOL and GG the past couple of months is negative. :D

[toussaud]

also, if they stay true to form, and if this did work, you know as well as I do, that if overall numbers are down, they will blame it on every last possible thing, aliens, weather, obama, wikileaks, the BCS system, whatever, except horse players taking a stand. Dont' give them a reason to overlook the horse players, and make a direct stand against EXOTIC wagers, so that the only conclusion they can come to is that this doesn't work.

[DeanT]

Can vote either way at the Paulick Report on the boycott -

http://www.paulickreport.com/

[Stillriledup]

also, if they stay true to form, and if this did work, you know as well as I do, that if overall numbers are down, they will blame it on every last possible thing, aliens, weather, obama, wikileaks, the BCS system, whatever, except horse players taking a stand. Dont' give them a reason to overlook the horse players, and make a direct stand against EXOTIC wagers, so that the only conclusion they can come to is that this doesn't work.

Agree, there's 0 chance they'll find blame with themsevles.

[CincyHorseplayer]

OK.Here it is.Are you so busy joygasming about SA that you lost all reason?

I thought so.There are going to be 2 fisted bettors out there just because the track exists.Myself,Andy,and a few others will watch the can't beat em but will make the join em club!A little irony you won't get.Bet away butterflies.

[The_Knight_Sky]

the trick is, making a point, without at the same time making enemies.


Precisely. There are quite a few people out there who still
can not comprehend what this is about - and how important it is to
both the horse racing customers and the future of horse racing - at all tracks.



But I think boycotting an entire circuit, actually an entire state,
becuase of an increase in exotic takeout is unreasonable...


This same price increase takes effect at Golden Gate Fields.
Bankrolls also figure to erode in NorCal in due course.

There has to be other alternative steps than simply overcharging the customers for a perennially weakening product.

For $80 million + wasted on synthetics surfaces they could have hired
a part-time mathematics professor who would have outlined the optimal
takeout rates for horse racing - five years ago.

Time we have wasted on the way.

BJgNxBbkmzQ

[andymays]

YouTube - Quiet Riot - Come On Feel The Noize Lyrics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSDUu3sC4IY

[toussaud]

for all we talk about the socal tracks i hvae not seen one post mention the golden gate circuit. i would not be shocked to find out most did not realize this includes them too.

this can hurt socal. this would virtually kil nocal (the boycott) they are struggling as is with 4 horse, 4 day a week cards.

But I think the handle is actually up am I right?

[exiles]

We need more B.FINLEY'S

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=finley_bill&id=5968859

[Stillriledup]

We need more B.FINLEY'S

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=finley_bill&id=5968859

Finley is awesome, he's on a mission. Thank god he's not working for an 'industry' mouthpiece, he would be silenced like a lamb.

[BlueShoe]

With hundreds of posts and many links I may have missed it, but has anyone calculated and posted a chart showing theoretical payoffs as they are now compared to what they will be on the 1st? For example, assume an exacta and a pick 3 each pay $100 for a $1 wager Friday. What would they pay starting Saturday with the increased takeout? Rounding off the numbers, since the increases are 2% and 3%, would the payoffs then be 98 and 97 dollars respectively? Or, since the percentage increases are roughly 10% and 15% increases over the old rate, would the payoffs then be $90 and $85? Or would the new payoffs fall somewhere in between? Some of you have very good math skills, and could calculate this fairly easily, I would imagine. In presenting the downsides of the takeout increase to other players it would be very helpful if we could state some hard numbers between the old and new, rather than just insisting that the higher rate is bad without some numbers to back us up.

[BillW]

With hundreds of posts and many links I may have missed it, but has anyone calculated and posted a chart showing theoretical payoffs as they are now compared to what they will be on the 1st? For example, assume an exacta and a pick 3 each pay $100 for a $1 wager Friday. What would they pay starting Saturday with the increased takeout? Rounding off the numbers, since the increases are 2% and 3%, would the payoffs then be 98 and 97 dollars respectively? Or, since the percentage increases are roughly 10% and 15% increases over the old rate, would the payoffs then be $90 and $85? Or would the new payoffs fall somewhere in between? Some of you have very good math skills, and could calculate this fairly easily, I would imagine. In presenting the downsides of the takeout increase to other players it would be very helpful if we could state some hard numbers between the old and new, rather than just insisting that the higher rate is bad without some numbers to back us up.

A $100 payout on an exacta would magically turn into a $97.47 payout and throw another $0.07 into the kitty because the computer can't calculate payouts to the penny. That leaves you with $97.40. For the Trifecta the return would be $96.21 less a penny would equal $96.20.

[Jeff P]

With hundreds of posts and many links I may have missed it, but has anyone calculated and posted a chart showing theoretical payoffs as they are now compared to what they will be on the 1st? For example, assume an exacta and a pick 3 each pay $100 for a $1 wager Friday. What would they pay starting Saturday with the increased takeout? Rounding off the numbers, since the increases are 2% and 3%, would the payoffs then be 98 and 97 dollars respectively? Or, since the percentage increases are roughly 10% and 15% increases over the old rate, would the payoffs then be $90 and $85? Or would the new payoffs fall somewhere in between? Some of you have very good math skills, and could calculate this fairly easily, I would imagine. In presenting the downsides of the takeout increase to other players it would be very helpful if we could state some hard numbers between the old and new, rather than just insisting that the higher rate is bad without some numbers to back us up.

For exotic wagers involving 3 or more betting interests (such as a trifecta, pick3, pick4, etc.) the new takeout is 14.51 percent higher than the old takeout...

calculated as:
.2368 / .2068 = 1.1451

For the sake of argument, let's assume a trifecta pool of exactly 100k where one lucky bettor has the only winning combination.

Without consideration of breakage (which is another matter entirely) the approximate payoff under the higher takeout would be: $76,320.00.

Here's the (approximate) math behind the payout:
Prize Payout = (1 minus the takeout) x (pool amount)
or:
Prize Payout = (1.00 - .2368) x (100,000)
or:
76,320.00 = (.7632) x (100,000)

Without consideration of breakage (again, another matter entirely) the approximate payoff under the old takeout would be: $79,320.00.

Here's the (approximate) math behind the payout:
Prize Payout = (1 minus the takeout) x (pool amount)
or:
Prize Payout = (1.00 - .2068) x (100,000)
or:
79,320.00 = (.7932) x (100,000)

Ok. Back to answering your question...

Under the higher takeout, the bettor receives a payoff $3,000.00 less than is paid under the old takeout.

One could argue that the reduced payoff under the higher takeout is approximately 4% lower than the payoff under the old takeout.

However:

Once that $3,000.00 is lifted from the player's wallet (and that's EXACTLY what is happening here) that $3,000.00 can not be re-bet (churned) by the player.

I once read a paper (funded by the industry) indicating an estimated churn factor of 7... Meaning that under normal conditions players can be (collectively) expected to re-bet payoffs received 7 times.

Roughly translated, that $3,000.00 lifted from the player's pocket (again, that's EXACTLY what's happening here) represents $21,000.00 in handle that completely disappears from the pools... which in turn results in less money bet into other pools by other players.

Hope I managed to answer your question in a way that makes sense.

-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

Another excellent post by Jeff P. Talking about the churn that's lost for every extra dollar the track 'robs' by raising the takeout.

Its amazing to me that these higher ups just don't know how things work. They think that they are actually getting more money, but they didnt factor in that by taking money out of the players pockets, those players won't be churning that money, so in reality, they're taking so much more out of the pools than they realize.

I'm really curious to see how this ends for California racing, maybe the bettors will 'come to their senses' and 'find' more money to stick into the pools and this will have a happy ending for California after all. Then, at the end, when they have 'won' (and the silly, nonsensical boycotters have lost) they can all stand up and give themselves another standing ovation.

Bravo guys, its looking good so far!

[BillW]

For another view:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1022301&postcount=17

[takeout]

Its amazing to me that these higher ups just don't know how things work. Something else they may want to consider is that some of the players they are running off are never going to come back.

[BlueShoe]

Thanks to BillW and Jeff for the quick response with the calculations. The cumalative effect of the reduced churn by a factor of 7 is indeed grim. As I commented on in earlier threads, have become increasingly frustrated by the lack of concern from fans at the otbs patronized. Too many of them insist that it is still just all about picking winners and that the takeout is of no concern.:bang: Perhaps in February or March when they have several hundred dollars less in their pockets these dolts will wake up and get a reality check.

[W2G]

I once read a paper (funded by the industry) indicating an estimated churn factor of 7... Meaning that under normal conditions players can be (collectively) expected to re-bet payoffs received 7 times.

Jeff, what study was that? Is it available?

[Charli125]

Jeff, what study was that? Is it available?

I believe he's talking about the Cummings Report. See page 7 for his initial mention of the "churn factor", and there is a lot more on I think page 25-28.

http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

[highnote]

Blue, most of the OTB bettors are recreational bettors. In the long run most of these people lose. Few, if any, keep records of their betting. For them, it's about socializing and entertainment. They don't care about takeout. They won't even know they're losing more because it will be a trivial amount per person. However, they will lose more and churn less. About every 4th or 5th bet, instead of making a $2 exacta or trifecta box they will make a $1 exacta or trifecta box. Or instead of betting $20 to win they will bet $10 or $15 to win. They will make smaller bets every 4th or 5th bet because they have less money in their pocket. They probably won't even realize they have less because they are used to this pattern. They don't care because their livelyhood doesn't depend on it or because they just don't care as much about money as, say, an accountant or small business person.

At the end of the week or month they will have bet, say, $100 less and maybe lost an extra $30 or $40. No big deal. However, multiply this by thousands of people and it becomes significant.

The people the track needs to be concerned about are the ones who bet larger sums. These people do notice the effect of takeout and are aware of it. The question that remains to be answered is how many of these larger wagering people will stop wagering and not come back.

The person who is losing $300 or $400 more per month may give up the game.


Thanks to BillW and Jeff for the quick response with the calculations. The cumalative effect of the reduced churn by a factor of 7 is indeed grim. As I commented on in earlier threads, have become increasingly frustrated by the lack of concern from fans at the otbs patronized. Too many of them insist that it is still just all about picking winners and that the takeout is of no concern.:bang: Perhaps in February or March when they have several hundred dollars less in their pockets these dolts will wake up and get a reality check.

[W2G]

I believe he's talking about the Cummings Report. See page 7 for his initial mention of the "churn factor", and there is a lot more on I think page 25-28.

http://www.nationalhbpa.com/resources/Cummings_report7-17-04.PDF

Thanks. I was aware that the Cummings Report referenced this churn factor. It's the foundational research that first suggested or demonstrated this statistic that I'm hoping to find.

[toussaud]

sounds like a nice crowd there today. would be interested in seeing the attendance numbers, where can I find that stuff? That type of stuff I'm usually not into so I don't know where to look.

[Stillriledup]

I was digging back in the old archives and came across some posts from 2004 where there was this big boycott of Magna and their tracks. Im not sure why there was a boycott, but this is at least the 2nd boycott of Frank Stronach and at least one of his tracks.

Where's Mark Cuban when you need him (to buy up a racetrack and make it player friendly)??

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I was digging back in the old archives and came across some posts from 2004 where there was this big boycott of Magna and their tracks. Im not sure why there was a boycott, but this is at least the 2nd boycott of Frank Stronach and at least one of his tracks.

Where's Mark Cuban when you need him (to buy up a racetrack and make it player friendly)??
The boycott was started up by Rich Bauer:
http://www.majorwager.com/forums/race-track/137579-handicappers-call-boycott-magna.html

[Stillriledup]

The boycott was started up by Rich Bauer:
http://www.majorwager.com/forums/race-track/137579-handicappers-call-boycott-magna.html


Thanks HPB.

For those of you who care, here's more on Rich Bauer's boycott, i know he would be proud of all you guys who just said no to Santa Anita during this current sitdown.

See post 58
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76343&highlight=bauer