THE TRACK PUTS ON THE SHOW, AND THE SHOW IS GAMBLING

[andymays]

THE TRACK PUTS ON THE SHOW, AND THE SHOW IS GAMBLING

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/cangamble-the-track-puts-on-the-show-and-the-show-is-gambling/

Excerpt:

Pro-horseplayer blog CanGamble weighed in on the current argument between horseplayers and horse owners as to who is more important to the sport. He makes the argument that because horseplayers lose $2.1 billion a year (based on blended takeout of 18% with rebates) and owners only lose $360 million, the horseplayer is by definition the more important entity.

Who Contributes More To Horse Racing? The Horseplayer Or The Owner?

http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-contributes-more-to-horse-racing.html

Excerpt:

It is maddening when I read a comment by horse owners that reads something like this: "we invest a lot more than Horseplayers!" or "we should have the biggest say because we put on the show!" Both of these statements are untrue, and here is why:

Tackling the second statement. No, the track puts on the show, and the show is gambling. The proceeds from gambling losses by customers make the race track and the purses it gives out tick.

It is estimated that thoroughbred horse owners collectively lose 40% of what they put in ( for some jurisdictions that have slots, this amount may be lower, while owners in jurisdictions that don't have subsidized purse money added to purses may lose more).

[InsideThePylons-MW]

CG is wrong again!

"Yet, it is over-egging it to claim that punters are the most important ingredient in racing's food chain. The sport would struggle without their financial input, but if the evidence of other countries with betting systems less open to manipulation or corruption is considered, there's no reason to believe it would become extinct. Remove the owners, however, those willing to invest large sums of money on an expensive hobby, and racing dies on its feet. As sure as night follows day."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/horse-racing/jockeys-on-tightrope-between-owners-and-punters-2480876.html

[The_Knight_Sky]

Articulate posts like these is why I like CanGamble.


(most of the time) http://i54.tinypic.com/2rmr1i9.gif

[lamboguy]

i think that there is a symbiotic relationship between horse owners and horsegamblers. but really what racetracks should do is just put buckets conveniently located in front of their doors so the horse owners and gamblers can drive up and drop their money off and go home immediately

[DJofSD]

i think that there is a symbiotic relationship between horse owners and horsegamblers. but really what racetracks should do is just put buckets conveniently located in front of their doors so the horse owners and gamblers can drive up and drop their money off and go home immediately
Give me a tee shirt and you've got a deal. :)

[toussaud]

Owners are no more entited to turn a profit, than I am entited to hit the pick 6 tomorrow at gulfstream simply becuase of all the time I invested into the game.

Fans, bettors, and owners, all should go in understanding it's a risky business. There is no one better than the other, no one more deserving to make money at the others expense, or better stated, at the screwing of someone else, which is why flexible to an extent with stuff like takeout, like i have no problem with GP's 26% takeout on exotics, because they earned that right with their stupid full fields they have.

Like all gamblers, I lost enough money and learned from my mistakes utnil I was able to actually make a little money time to time. now I don't expect to lose money when I go to the track. i did not, demand that someone else cover my stupid wagers that I made.

What really gets me more than anything is that, no one ever asks why are you paying so much for yearlings, that's not my fault. paying 2 million dollars for any horse unran is just freaking stupid. I dont' care how much money you have. No one told you to ruin your race horse getting to the derby, or trying to. no one told you to send your horse to a juiced up horse butcher.

My whole being while I am applicative of the sporting owners, that does not justify them, having the ability to stick it to gamblers. heck I'm willing to bet I "contributed" more than a few owners with my gambling last year.

[cj]

Lets make this really simple.

If there isn't any gambling, owners lose a lot more. If there isn't any gambling, gamblers lose a lot less.

[andymays]

Lets make this really simple.

If there isn't any gambling, owners lose a lot more. If there isn't any gambling, gamblers lose a lot less.
Perfect! :ThmbUp:

Do you mind if I use that? I can attribute it to you if you'd like.

[cj]

Be my guest.

[andymays]

Be my guest.

You should have it in your inbox. :)

[turfnsport]

Lets make this really simple.

If there isn't any gambling, owners lose a lot more. If there isn't any gambling, gamblers lose a lot less.

Hall of Fame material. :ThmbUp:

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Lets make this really simple.

If there isn't any gambling, owners lose a lot more. If there isn't any gambling, gamblers lose a lot less.
Quote of the decade so far.

[JohnGalt1]

This is the first thread where I've agreed with everyone.

It is a symbiotic relationship.

[Stillriledup]

THE TRACK PUTS ON THE SHOW, AND THE SHOW IS GAMBLING

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/cangamble-the-track-puts-on-the-show-and-the-show-is-gambling/

Excerpt:

Pro-horseplayer blog CanGamble weighed in on the current argument between horseplayers and horse owners as to who is more important to the sport. He makes the argument that because horseplayers lose $2.1 billion a year (based on blended takeout of 18% with rebates) and owners only lose $360 million, the horseplayer is by definition the more important entity.

Who Contributes More To Horse Racing? The Horseplayer Or The Owner?

http://cangamble.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-contributes-more-to-horse-racing.html

Excerpt:

It is maddening when I read a comment by horse owners that reads something like this: "we invest a lot more than Horseplayers!" or "we should have the biggest say because we put on the show!" Both of these statements are untrue, and here is why:

Tackling the second statement. No, the track puts on the show, and the show is gambling. The proceeds from gambling losses by customers make the race track and the purses it gives out tick.

It is estimated that thoroughbred horse owners collectively lose 40% of what they put in ( for some jurisdictions that have slots, this amount may be lower, while owners in jurisdictions that don't have subsidized purse money added to purses may lose more).


If Bob Baffert or Todd Pletcher retired tomorrow, would horse owners take some kind of 'hit' financially? Of course not, they would just give the horses to another trainer. If Ramon Dominguez or Joel Rosario retired tomorrow, would horse race owners take a financial hit? No, they would just get another jockey to ride. If a large owner retired, would horse racing take a hit? No, his horses would get dispersed and go to another owner.

[highnote]

This is the first thread where I've agreed with everyone.

It is a symbiotic relationship.

mycorrhizal might be an apt term, too.

Horsemen don't need tracks or gamblers, but they won't have as good a place to race or much purse money. Maybe they would be able to find a wealthy land owner who would let them race their horses on his land.

Racetrack owners don't need horses or gamblers. They can take the land and redevelop it.

Gamblers don't need horsemen or racetracks. There is poker and lotto and blackjack, etc.

So in the big picture, it really doesn't matter if Santa Anita or other racetracks in California cease to exist. There are other racetracks. California horsemen can move their horses to greener pastures or find a new line of work.

Gamblers can bet other tracks or find other wagering games or maybe become stock market participants.

All three parties are replaceable.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

The thing is if punters/bettors are losing stacks of money and owners are losing stacks of money all that lost money must be flowing into someone's pockets. Obviously state governments are one group who profit. Other one is big breeding operations like Coolmore

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/83644bn-value-put-on-magniers-coolmore-stud-1332243.html

Now the story in the link above is a bit out of date as the prices of horses have dropped a bit in the last 2 years. But obviously Coolmore has made some good money over the years

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/coolmore-cuts-prices-as-slump-reins-in-stud-fees-1622968.html

This 2nd story details that the business is in a bit of a slump as all the rich people are not so rich anymore

This quote from the end of the story is interesting "The controversial tax-free status on stallion profits ended last August almost 40 years after it was introduced by Charles Haughey. Breeders now have to pay income tax and corporation tax on earnings. The abolition came after the European Commission deemed it to be an illegal form of state aid".

So while horse gamblers are expected to pay takeouts of around 20% an outfit like Coolmore who were making a fortune were not paying any tax on profits for decades.

The thing I don't like about Coolmore is they will buy a proven good horse then give it 2 or 3 more starts and then retire it from the racetrack. So they make their money by not racing horses and actually removing them from the racetrack