Bill Finley and Steve Davidowitz comment on the proposed Boycott of California Racing

[andymays]

ESPN Bill Finley: 22.68 reasons to boycott California racing - ESPN

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=finley_bill&id=5939190


Excerpt:

Apparently, the people who run the California Horse Racing Board don't have any sense, not an ounce. They believe the answer to the sport's problems in California is to raise the price of a bet.

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

A Matter of Timing: THE HORSEPLAYER’S BOYCOTT AT SANTA ANITA

by Steve Davidowitz

http://www.gradeoneracing.com/davidowitz.htm?read=86

Excerpt:

If clearer heads were to prevail, a betting boycott actually would make more sense if it were to be initiated a month or so after SA wagering trends were set into place.

[thaskalos]

Andymays...would you help me in understanding the Davidowitz viewpoint, because I seem to be a little confused.

He states that declaring a boycott beginning Dec. 26th is akin to "spitting in the wind".

A little later on, he says that "unless the boycott is orchestrated perfectly...the intent will fall flat and leave horseplayers WORSE than they are now".

Considering how maligned we horseplayers are NOW, and how little respect we CURRENTLY receive from the sport's "governing body"...how can things possibly get WORSE for us?

How is a boycott - whether perfectly orchestrated or not - like "spitting in the wind"?

Is there a threat of retaliatory measures from the industry...in the event that the boycott fails to serve its purpose? :)

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I think every bettor agrees, or should agree, that over time, the takeout increase will be very detrimental to the health and handle of CA racing. Not to mention that if there is no immediate handle drop (which there probably won't be) and other tracks see that, then raising takeout looks tempting to them and lowering takeout becomes a distant memory.

So as a horseplayer, you either stop betting whether there's a boycott or not.....or you keep betting and prove that Israel, Brackpool, TOC, CHRB, Mullins, racetrack management, etc. are spot on when they say that all horseplayers are degenerate moronic $2 whores.

[andymays]

Andymays...would you help me in understanding the Davidowitz viewpoint, because I seem to be a little confused.

He states that declaring a boycott beginning Dec. 26th is akin to "spitting in the wind".

A little later on, he says that "unless the boycott is orchestrated perfectly...the intent will fall flat and leave horseplayers WORSE than they are now".

Considering how maligned we horseplayers are NOW, and how little respect we CURRENTLY receive from the sport's "governing body"...how can things possibly get WORSE for us?

How is a boycott - whether perfectly orchestrated or not - like "spitting in the wind"?

Is there a threat of retaliatory measures from the industry...in the event that the boycott fails to serve its purpose? :)


Opening day at Santa Anita is a huge deal in Southern California. Getting one of their calendars is something everyone looks forward to. When you add in the return to dirt and the fact that everyone loves Santa Anita, they will see an increase in handle for the first week or two. They will have big fields for the first week or two as well.

He's saying that if you boycott opening day and the handle goes up significantly then the entire boycott will look like a failure to the public. It's better to wait two or three weeks for maximum effect.

I for one am feeling very positive about a successful action if done correctly. Today seems to be some sort of turning point where we're gaining momentum. We are also seeing a reluctance on the part of some ADW's to give back the 2% and 3% increase in takeout that was supposed to go to purses. It is possible that a war could develop over this and some ADW's might not be able to take bets. That would hurt handle tremendously.

[thaskalos]

I think every bettor agrees, or should agree, that over time, the takeout increase will be very detrimental to the health and handle of CA racing. Not to mention that if there is no immediate handle drop (which there probably won't be) and other tracks see that, then raising takeout looks tempting to them and lowering takeout becomes a distant memory.

So as a horseplayer, you either stop betting whether there's a boycott or not.....or you keep betting and prove that Israel, Brackpool, TOC, CHRB, Mullins, racetrack management, etc. are spot on when they say that all horseplayers are degenerate moronic $2 whores.I am with you! :ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

I think there's no way that the 'higher ups' in Cali racing will ever admit that the takeout raise was responsible for the handle drop.

Here is Letterman's top 5 reasons for the handle drop in California.

Number 5 *with the drums rolling*

El Nino, lots of rain, players weren't able to dry off their hundred dollar bills in time

Number 4:

Kobe Bryant (the racetracks' main competition according to David Israel) is just playing so well these days that all the horserace bettors are at Staples Center instead of being at Santa Anita.

Number 3:

All the So Cal fans purchased Henry Winkler's reverse Mortgage DVD that he's hawking on TVG, so they're a little short on cash these days.

Number 2:

All the Southern California horseplayer's cars got keyed by unknown assailants, so all the bettors are out getting their cars fixed and couldnt attend the races opening week.

And the Number one reason that Southern California horseplayers have not been betting the Santa Anita product with two fists ISSSSSSSSS:

How can they possibly be at the races when they're all rooting on Jeff Mullins at the Bodybuilding World Championships!!

:jump:

[The_Knight_Sky]

So as a horseplayer, you either stop betting whether there's a boycott or not.....or you keep betting and prove that Israel, Brackpool, TOC, CHRB, Mullins, racetrack management, etc. are spot on when they say that all horseplayers are degenerate moronic $2 whores.




That's not entirely true. ;)

Some of us are degenerate moronic $20 and $50 whores
with no hope in hell of crossing over to the black (true).

[Mike_412]

One other reason that shouldn't be forgotten as to why early Santa Anita handle probably won't be down compared to last year is the inclusion of the MidAtlantic states in the betting this year. Last year, we had that nasty signal dispute that went on until the 3rd week of January I believe. That included all tracks, otb's, and track owned ADW's that are part of the MidAtlantic Cooperative. That's a decent chunk of the betting dollar that wasn't available the 1st few weeks of the meet last year that will be available this year.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Last year, we had that nasty signal dispute that went on until the 3rd week of January I believe.

That included all tracks, otb's, and track owned ADW's that are part of the MidAtlantic Cooperative.




Good point.
But those in this boycott are prepared to tough it out until the closing weeks.

How the numbers looks in the fourth month of 2011 will have a lot more bearing on future of takeout increases, than what the numbers look like in the fourth week.

This boycott is a marathon.
Only wimps will drop out after crossing the Verazanos.

[Mike_412]

Good point.
But those in this boycott are prepared to tough it out until the closing weeks.

How the numbers looks in the fourth month of 2011 will have a lot more bearing on future of takeout increases, than what the numbers look like in the fourth week.

This boycott is a marathon.
Only wimps will drop out after crossing the Verazanos.

I completely agree. My point in the reminder is that I am fairly certain there are some out there that can't wait to write articles early on how handle is fairly static and how great purses are at the present, facts be damned.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

One other reason that shouldn't be forgotten as to why early Santa Anita handle probably won't be down compared to last year is the inclusion of the MidAtlantic states in the betting this year. Last year, we had that nasty signal dispute that went on until the 3rd week of January I believe. That included all tracks, otb's, and track owned ADW's that are part of the MidAtlantic Cooperative. That's a decent chunk of the betting dollar that wasn't available the 1st few weeks of the meet last year that will be available this year.
They did about 14 million in total handle last year on a Saturday opening day. The year before it was 15 million on a Friday.

This year it is on a Sunday. It is tough to guess what the handle will be.

[jelly]

Opening day at Santa Anita is a huge deal in Southern California. Getting one of their calendars is something everyone looks forward to. When you add in the return to dirt and the fact that everyone loves Santa Anita, they will see an increase in handle for the first week or two. They will have big fields for the first week or two as well.

He's saying that if you boycott opening day and the handle goes up significantly then the entire boycott will look like a failure to the public. It's better to wait two or three weeks for maximum effect.

I for one am feeling very positive about a successful action if done correctly. Today seems to be some sort of turning point where we're gaining momentum. We are also seeing a reluctance on the part of some ADW's to give back the 2% and 3% increase in takeout that was supposed to go to purses. It is possible that a war could develop over this and some ADW's might not be able to take bets. That would hurt handle tremendously.




Andy,your playing right into their hands It's a 10 to 15% increase.

[jelly]

They did about 14 million in total handle last year on a Saturday opening day. The year before it was 15 million on a Friday.

This year it is on a Sunday. It is tough to guess what the handle will be.




I'd bet handle will be lower.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Andy,your playing right into their hands It's a 10 to 15% increase.
If you bet $100,000 a year in exotics, instead of approx. $20,000 being taken out, $22,500 is being taken out.

[andymays]

Andy,your playing right into their hands It's a 10 to 15% increase.

I get it Jelly your way sounds a lot more serious.

You're needed back at the Paulick Report. Ray is going after Finley. ;)

[jelly]

If you bet $100,000 a year in exotics, instead of approx. $20,000 being taken out, $22,500 is being taken out.



20k to 22'5k is over 10% right?

[BillW]

20k to 22'5k is over 10% right?

To put it another way - if you are really good horseplayer and manage an ROI of $1.10 in the 3 and up horse pools, betting that $100,000 your gross would be $110,000. If there was no takeout, your gross would be $138,678.76. This means with the old takeout on a gross winnings of $38,678.76 you paid $28,678.76 in tax (Your profit was taxed at a rate of 74.14%). With the new rake that $28,678.76 increases to $32,839.13. That's 84.9% with the new takeout. Note that the above calculations don't take into account breakage. Don't get me started on breakage :mad: . It's a tough world out there :bang:

[toussaud]

it makes sense

bloodhorse probably already has the article pre written... "santa anita meet strong in return to dirt" with them just having to go in and put the actual figures in.

There is, NO way, that you can have a positive impact by boycotting, i won't go so far to say the first month, i will say the first two weeks and especially until at least gulfstream starts, but preferably when oaklawn kicks off as well. people want high quality dirt racing and that's what that is, people are going to wager, has not been racing in Arcadia since april, bettors go bet.


why, have some people boycott, only to get discouraged when they manipulate an article to make it look like nothing was really down and that it is having no effect. even if numbers are down from last year they will just compare it to the avg daily handle from last year, if they doesn't work they will compare it to hollywood park. they will win the war on the media front, because its' in their perceived best interest to do so.

you are much better off, waiting until they have already established a few weeks worth of reference points for this year, and also hit them when people will be betting on oaklawn and gulfstream. jmho. I'm against an entire boycott, i would rather you just hit the exotics, but if you are going to do it, do it right, and that's the right way to do it. don't give them a leg stand on when the numbers drop and then make sure like heck, that they actually drop.


what i would like for oaklawn to do really i to push back pt 1 hour and drop exotic takeout a little. at the very least, do it on "big" days at santa anita to give people a viable alternative. i don't like the takeout as much as the next guy, but it's not so mjuch about pissing in the wind, it's about what happens when you have guys who get discouraged when they read 1-5-10 articles about how the boycott is having no effect, and say "oh well might as well wager". because that's the article you are going to read on december 28th after the first two days, regardless if it has an effect or not.

[dylbert]

As dismal scientist (aka economist), the increase in takeout will have opposite effect WITHOUT boycott. Consumers/bettors vote with with their respective pocketbooks. Increased takeout will decrease player's bankroll at higher marginal rate and, thus, deplete one's bankroll sooner. My days of crunching numbers ended years ago, but simplified version is $1 in bankroll with 20% takeout will play 5 times (1 divided by .20 equals 5). New bankroll with 22.68% takeout will play 4.4 times. This equates to bankroll being diminished 12% faster. Calculated as (5.0 - 4.4) / 5.0 = 12%

Boycott is another possible quagmire. Boycotts are like cartels they require strick allegiance by all participants. So, if bettors who boycott are defined as "smart money", the remaining players are "dumb money". These less-informed, dumb money players will create higher mutuel payoffs (albeit lower with new takeout percentage). Smart money players will become tempted to break ranks and play in dumb money pools. With no smart money and all dumb money, overlays should abound in sea of overbet "bad" choices. Chaos anyone?

The root of horse racing's problem remains too much product. Contraction should (and will eventually) occur. No more New Jersey racing increases value of racing in its neighboring jurisdictions. Texas racing continues to decline as it attempts to compete with racino-fueled racing in Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

Most daring plan would be one of the racino states mandating lowering takeouts. Smart money would notice. Pools would climb, purses would climb, and horsemen, tracks and racing jurisdictions would see that smaller bite of much larger apple is preferable to upcoming California experiment that takes bigger bite of contracting, smaller apple.

I am curious to see how this California situation will play out. I will readily admit that I will still play "down the hill" races. New Santa Anita main track presents yet another unknown variable. Will it play as fast as old SA dirt?

[DeanT]

why, have some people boycott, only to get discouraged when they manipulate an article to make it look like nothing was really down and that it is having no effect. even if numbers are down from last year they will just compare it to the avg daily handle from last year, if they doesn't work they will compare it to hollywood park. they will win the war on the media front, because its' in their perceived best interest to do so.



Sure they would do that. They are going down to 4 days a week too, so per race handle should be up. It would be up if they raked 45% prolly.

But why try to do something if we know they are going to fudge (a la Los Al) and the media might not call them on it, and we might get discouraged?

Because there is strength in numbers, and we can call the press on it, and them on it if they fudge (if enough people climb aboard). Last year with Los Al it was tough, because people didnt seem to care two you know what's about Los Al. This year, Finley, Davidowitz, Pricci, Eng ,Seth at Equidaily, and maybe even Ray Paulick would write something if they try to screw around.

HANA has also added a wagering economist to the board, with a Phd or two. He will audit the numbers for horseplayers.

Add 100 or 200 players energized, commenting and sending out some mails, and it wont be like last time (imo)

[toussaud]

Sure they would do that. They are going down to 4 days a week too, so per race handle should be up. It would be up if they raked 45% prolly.

But why try to do something if we know they are going to fudge (a la Los Al) and the media might not call them on it, and we might get discouraged?

Because there is strength in numbers, and we can call the press on it, and them on it if they fudge (if enough people climb aboard). Last year with Los Al it was tough, because people didnt seem to care two you know what's about Los Al. This year, Finley, Davidowitz, Pricci, Eng ,Seth at Equidaily, and maybe even Ray Paulick would write something if they try to screw around.

HANA has also added a wagering economist to the board, with a Phd or two. He will audit the numbers for horseplayers.

Add 100 or 200 players energized, commenting and sending out some mails, and it wont be like last time (imo)


I see your point. But, you have to remember who we are dealing with and you have to think about what you want the end game to be. If the end game is to get takeout lowered, as quickly as possible, you have to show them the power of the bettor, as quickly as possible, with no other viable alternative to the decline in purses, and that is not done, wagering on races that will be run on dirt for the first time in 3 years, and ran in santa anita for the first time in april, with no other high class dirt racing really in the country.

The point, is not to break racing in California, it's to get the people in charge to get it through their heads, once and for all, you can't keep making horse players foot the bill.

Having 2 weeks where numbers are X and then have another 4 weeks, boycott time, where numbers are 15% lower than X, with no other viable reason than a banding together of horse players, would go MUCH further than number being generally down X. Your point is made, this is what normal handle is, this is what handle will be if you keep this takeout where it is, now let m see you keep advertising these 25% purses and as long as takeout is where it is, we aren't going to wager anymore.

Look, I don't wager on exotics anyway, so I am going to wager on win races where I find value, but they will keep takeout as high as they can, for as long as they can not find just cause to lower it. But, it effects me because if nothing is done, you know where they are going next, and at that point, i would be forced to do something. But, i can't not wager on win wagers, on the possibility that they might do something in the future.

dybert great post. didn't think of that. that defiantly will happen.

[BlueShoe]

No matter what happens regarding handle, look for some "creative accounting". By racing only 4 days in Jan. and Feb. and then 5 in Mar. and Apr., a bit of cooking the books could be forthcoming. Los Al did this after their increased takeout.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

No matter what happens regarding handle, look for some "creative accounting".

Maybe a sudden surge in estimated non-commingled foreign handle?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The root of horse racing's problem remains too much product. Contraction should (and will eventually) occur. No more New Jersey racing increases value of racing in its neighboring jurisdictions. Texas racing continues to decline as it attempts to compete with racino-fueled racing in Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.


There is too much product only because takeout is too high. Drop takeout to an optimal amount and I think we'll find that there will be enough demand to meet today's supply.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Maybe a sudden surge in estimated non-commingled foreign handle?
And maybe Bo Derek will make a couple of bets too.

[The_Knight_Sky]

No matter what happens regarding handle, look for some "creative accounting".
By racing only 4 days in Jan. and Feb. and then 5 in Mar. and Apr.,
a bit of cooking the books could be forthcoming. http://i52.tinypic.com/akwylf.gif

Los Al did this after their increased takeout.



They can cook the books any which way but how.

For how long can the California tracks keep taking loss of business
by 5-10-15% every meet?

At some point, the day of reckoning inevitably will occur.

[lamboguy]

i don't understand why anyone would bother to boycott so. cal racing. it is not going to prove a bloody thing. instead of boycotting them start promoting other racetracks like maybe tampa and oaklawn. the product that is coming from so. cal is inferior to start out with. if these jokers want to run it into the ground, let them. you should promote higher takeouts as well. instead of raising the takeout 2% maybe the should raise it 20% or 30% or more. why bother switching to real dirt, they should go to double rubber.

[Rapid Grey]

Andy,your playing right into their hands It's a 10 to 15% increase.

Really depends on how you look at it. The increase is 10 to 15% but the effect it will have on payoffs is a decrease of around 2.5% if my math is correct.

Exactas on Hollywoods last two races from December 5th would have been:

8th @ 20.68 takeout = $73.80 - @ 22.68 takeout = $72.00
9th @ 20.68 takeout = $28.60 - @ 22.68 takeout = $27.90

these are $1 payoffs

[Horseplayersbet.com]

If you bet $100,000 a year in exotics on California, and you were a break even bettor, you now will lose $2,500. In fact if you bet $100,000, you now will need to cash an extra $2,500 just to cover the takeout hike.
If it sounds easy, you don't know what you are talking about.

[JustRalph]

why bother switching to real dirt, they should go to double rubber.

Just like Julian Assange !!!