BOYCOTT

[Sericm]

Betting on U.S. races declines for third straight year in 2010


From the Daily Racing Form. Look's like your boycott is working other places instead of just California. If you guys are such influential bettors then why isn't those figures up?

Looks like you don't count as much as you think you do!!!

[Saratoga_Mike]

Betting on U.S. races declines for third straight year in 2010


From the Daily Racing Form. Look's like your boycott is working other places instead of just California. If you guys are such influential bettors then why isn't those figures up?

Looks like you don't count as much as you think you do!!!

US betting was down 7.3% in 2010 - hasn't SA done much worse meet-to-date? Personally I think the surface switch as well as the boycott are factors.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Matt Hegarty at DRF (http://www.drf.com/news/betting-us-races-declines-third-straight-year-2010):

Purses declined 6.07 percent, from $1,094,098,603 to $1,027,731,620.

Though wagering handle remains the principal source for purse money,
purses are heavily subsidized by revenues from slot machines in many states,
and the percentage of purse money that is generated by the subsidies
has been growing rapidly over the past decade.
____________________________

Horsemen and racetracks don't need horse racing customers. :(

If they did. Corrective action would have taken place by now.

[CBedo]

Betting on U.S. races declines for third straight year in 2010


From the Daily Racing Form. Look's like your boycott is working other places instead of just California. If you guys are such influential bettors then why isn't those figures up?

Looks like you don't count as much as you think you do!!!How's Tampa doing? UP!

[The_Knight_Sky]

How's Tampa doing? UP!




So were:

Hawthorne
Remington
Monmouth
Delaware Park
Charles Town

[Horseplayersbet.com]

So were:

Hawthorne
Remington
Monmouth
Delaware Park
Charles Town
Hawthorne, maybe not. They went from 5 to 4 days. But Woodbine was up.

[illinoisbred]

Hawthorne, maybe not. They went from 5 to 4 days. But Woodbine was up.
Hawthorne was up for the meet-approx. 7.8%.

[Stillriledup]

Betting on U.S. races declines for third straight year in 2010


From the Daily Racing Form. Look's like your boycott is working other places instead of just California. If you guys are such influential bettors then why isn't those figures up?

Looks like you don't count as much as you think you do!!!

When did they say/imply they are influential bettors?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Hawthorne was up for the meet-approx. 7.8%.
That was daily handle. They cut Sundays which was their worst handle day. Gross handle was down, but so were race dates:
http://www.drf.com/news/hawthorne-posts-gain-average-handle

I wouldn't consider them to be up. But I do like playing that track.

[Sericm]

When did they say/imply they are influential bettors?

Anybody that reads the Boycott threads that doesn't think the leaders are implying that they are influential bettors and if they boycott Santa Anita then it goes in the toilet, is brain dead.

[PhantomOnTour]

Betting on U.S. races declines for third straight year in 2010


From the Daily Racing Form. Look's like your boycott is working other places instead of just California. If you guys are such influential bettors then why isn't those figures up?

Looks like you don't count as much as you think you do!!!
Translator please! I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.

[FenceBored]

Anybody that reads the Boycott threads and thinks that the leaders are implying that they are influential bettors and if they, and they alone, boycott Santa Anita then it goes in the toilet, is brain dead.

FTFY.

[Stillriledup]

Anybody that reads the Boycott threads that doesn't think the leaders are implying that they are influential bettors and if they boycott Santa Anita then it goes in the toilet, is brain dead.

What Leaders? Who are you talking about specifically?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Anybody that reads the Boycott threads that doesn't think the leaders are implying that they are influential bettors and if they boycott Santa Anita then it goes in the toilet, is brain dead.

Perhaps the leaders are implying COLLECTIVELY bettors have influence. Would you argue that point?

[Spiderman]

Betting on U.S. races declines for third straight year in 2010


From the Daily Racing Form. Look's like your boycott is working other places instead of just California. If you guys are such influential bettors then why isn't those figures up?

Looks like you don't count as much as you think you do!!!


That's a snide comment. Got your head up your arse?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Perhaps the leaders are implying COLLECTIVELY bettors have influence. Would you argue that point?
It appears that Hollywood and Santa Anita are underperforming the national average. Would you agree?

[Saratoga_Mike]

It appears that Hollywood and Santa Anita are underperforming the national average. Would you agree?

Yes, please see my earlier post (#2) in this thread. I do believe collectively bettors have power - I'm surprised you would disagree?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Yes, please see my earlier post (#2) in this thread. I do believe collectively bettors have power - I'm surprised you would disagree?
I'm hardly disagreeing. BTW, I don't think the surface switch is the reason for the decline. Biases were apparent early, and that should have got anyone off the sidelines who weren't boycotting in a hurry.

[BluegrassProf]

I rarely comment on these threads, because unlike most here, my participation in the industry is not predominantly through wagering - I came to PA through my involvement in other facets of racing. That said, I think my position has afforded me an interesting view of how things are, perhaps rather than how I strongly hope them to be.

It took me very little time around a barn to recognize the simple fact that the distribution of wealth and power in horseplaying is fairly analogous to the American economy: the significant majority of money and power (read: influential political power) rests in the hands of a very small portion of the overall population.

The horseplaying industry is comparable, in that yes indeedie, thousands of people make $2 win bets over the course of the year. Far fewer make $200 bets, and further still, $2000 bets - these tend to be, of course, the wagers of regular and/or professional players, those that disproportionally put in to the industry through strong, consistent wagering. Like our capitalist economy, the minority tends to drive the funds of the majority. While the decisions and trends of that minority cannot in and of themselves up and create mass upheaval of the system, they can certainly affect the directions, speed, and overall health of that system. (If you don't quite sympathize with this notion, take a look around sometime. ;) )

As in the US economic model, it would appear that we have a minority in horseplaying that contributes a disproportionate percentage of the total input. It also happens that this set - those who control the wealth and therefore the power in the system - are also those who a.) have a stake in things like takeout policy, b.) take conscious, affirmative action based on those policies, and c.) are therefore most likely to participate in the Cal racing boycott. On the other side of the fence, you have a party (read: Cal racing) that at once caters to a section of the population that contributes sporadically and largely infrequently, and does so through minimal input. They simultaneously play to the crowd that serves the system the least and - and this is important - not only dismiss the concerns of the valuable minority, but outright and unabashedly criticize the concerns about the system in which these players have a considerable stake, and that they actively promote, support, and enjoy. They're like the Democrats of the racing world.

With the above in mind, it's almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which a boycott - one that attracts that powerful minority in any sort of collective sense - doesn't impact the system in a direct and substantive way. It's a classic common-sense life-rule: do your darndest not to alienate the people that matter most. Certainly, racing in California is firmly stuck in the ol' Crocodile Dundee death roll, but citing a national trend - particularly at this point in time - is doing little to show the insignificance of a well-supported boycott (if is it such - again, it's not my area, so I couldn't say).

[PaceAdvantage]

Anybody that reads the Boycott threads that doesn't think the leaders are implying that they are influential bettors and if they boycott Santa Anita then it goes in the toilet, is brain dead.Sounds like a troll to me...don't feed the trolls.