Boycott Press Release Jan 12, 2011

[Stillriledup]

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

Here we go!

[David-LV]

"I will not bet one single dime at Santa Anita until they rescind the higher takeout rates."

________
David-LV

[jelly]

Great news :ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

Picked up by San Diego Union-Tribune, in a very detailed story.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jan/12/group-calls-betting-boycott-california-horse-racin/

Group calls for betting boycott of California horse racing

By Ed Zieralski (http://www.signonsandiego.com/staff/ed-zieralski/)

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.

A nationwide boycott of California (http://topics.signonsandiego.com/topics/California) thoroughbred racing (http://topics.signonsandiego.com/topics/Thoroughbred_horse_racing) became official today when the Horseplayers Association of North America (http://topics.signonsandiego.com/topics/United_States) called for gamblers (http://topics.signonsandiego.com/topics/Gambling) to quit betting due to increased takeout on multiple horse bets in the Golden State.

Saying that horseplayers are “fed up with rising takeouts in the face of plunging handles,” Players Boycott (playersboycott.org) organized the extreme action against California thoroughbred racing, effective immediately. Organizers say the boycott will go for as long as it’s effective and could stretch into the summer season at the Del Mar Racetrack (http://topics.signonsandiego.com/topics/Del_Mar_Racetrack) and beyond. The boycott proponents say they have large betting blocks – investor groups who bet on computers from around the country -- who are prepared to honor the boycott by refusing to bet on California racing.



Much more at link incl quotes from Roger, Jeff and SA President Haines.

[PhantomOnTour]

If this action proves effective in forcing Cali to lower takeout it will be a landmark stand by the bettors in this country. I throw all my support to those organizing the boycott and will not play Cali.

[DeanT]

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

It Begins: Major Media Starts to Report on Playersboycott.org (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/01/it-begins-major-media-starts-to-report.html)


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CG5TVR2hGjE/TS4h_7JljXI/AAAAAAAAAXw/VOcX3UaWeRY/s320/San_Diego_Union_Tribune-logo-3F44F2D30B-seeklogo.com.gif (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CG5TVR2hGjE/TS4h_7JljXI/AAAAAAAAAXw/VOcX3UaWeRY/s1600/San_Diego_Union_Tribune-logo-3F44F2D30B-seeklogo.com.gif)Today the San Diego Union-Tribune, California's second oldest newspaper with a reported Thursday to Sunday 300,000 person circulation, reported on the Players Boycott of California racing in a detailed story published online (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jan/12/group-calls-betting-boycott-california-horse-racin/).

In the article, "Group calls for betting boycott of California horse racing", by Ed Zieralski, HANA's California representative Roger Way and HANA President Jeff Platt share their vision for what they think California racing must do to finally grow.

"Horseplayers have been kicked around long enough," said Jeff Platt, president of the Horseplayers Association of North America (HANA), "The California Horse Racing Board approved the takeout increase figuring that players would just complain and go along like sheep. But, partly thanks to word of mouth and partly to players who are willing to stand up for what they believe in, handle has dropped precipitously at Santa Anita so far this meet, while handle at several other tracks has been up."

................ Read more at link on goals etc

[DJofSD]

OK, I'm all in -- or, is that all out?

In any event, I can pull double duty: go to the upcoming Torrey Pines tournament and boycott at the same time.

Nice job with the UT article. At least the full card simo issue got a mention.

[Stillriledup]

I know there are some players who say "who cares, if i have an edge, i'm going to exploit it" and they won't consider withholding their dollars to make a point.

To that i say, if you are EVER going to stand for something in this world, if you are ever going to make a difference, now is the time.

This is more than just betting or not betting Santa Anita because of a takeout raise, its a stand that says we're not going to take it anymore and its a message to all tracks that the players DO have a voice.

They think that we are just going to have our little fun and go away after our compulsive desires get the best of us. Guess what, we're not 'going away' anytime soon.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

When Santa Anita/TOC/CHRB has to lower purses and reduce races/days......their strategy is going to be to blame HANA and Playersboycott for the reductions.

They will do anything but ever admit they are/were wrong.

At the next CHRB meeting......if the subjects of takeout or handle drop comes up, HANA or PB will be the focus of why the takeout increase isn't working.

[Relwob Owner]

When Santa Anita/TOC/CHRB has to lower purses and reduce races/days......their strategy is going to be to blame HANA and Playersboycott for the reductions.They will do anything but ever admit they are/were wrong.

At the next CHRB meeting......if the subjects of takeout or handle drop comes up, HANA or PB will be the focus of why the takeout increase isn't working.


That is why I think it was smart to wait until now to do it because they cant blame it all on the boycott, given the horrendous start. Great job guys and good luck, though I dont think you will need it:)

[rubicon55]

Count me in. Hammer time!

[DJofSD]

I wonder if there are any so called reporters out there covering the racing scene with any b*lls. I'd like to have them get some responses about the boycott from people attending the Eclipse Awards dinner.

[toussaud]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/60745/hana-targets-takeout-hike-wants-panel-formed

I have a theory. I think that, this is the industry's way of telling CHRB to give it up. They are basically letting HANA speak for the rest of the industry without coming out and risking face by writing their own blog or anything like that. You start to see espn, bloodhorse,etc running the same thing, acknowledging something that they would not even look at 3 weeks ago I think the writing is on the wall.

[DeanT]

that's a good article by Tom.

Getting the message through about a gambling board to hopefully increase wagering and adding to the customer base, while working on getting the most cash for purses (for field size and more happy owners) is a big part of your message that you are sending as horseplayers.

[5k-claim]

In a world where so many people talk about standing up for something they believe in, but ultimately end up doing nothing, I very much respect the efforts here. Good luck!

The part of the press release that immediately caught my attention was something about a proposed board "to advise the CHRB on all gambling related matters such as new bets, takeout rates, scratch rules, etc. This board would include an economist, a track official, and a player representative."

I went to the home page at http://www.playersboycott.org/ and looked around, but am still wondering a couple of things:

(1) How much authority are you proposing giving this economist, track official and player rep?

(2) New bets and takeout rates I think I undertand, but what exactly is the deal with the scratch rules?

I guess if someone from HANA or Players Boycott can answer....

[DeanT]

In a world where so many people talk about standing up for something they believe in, but ultimately end up doing nothing, I very much respect the efforts here. Good luck!

The part of the press release that immediately caught my attention was something about a proposed board

I went to the home page at http://www.playersboycott.org/ and looked around, but am still wondering a couple of things:

(1) How much authority are you proposing giving this economist, track official and player rep?

(2) New bets and takeout rates I think I undertand, but what exactly is the deal with the scratch rules?

I guess if someone from HANA or Players Boycott can answer....

I pinged Jeff to come on and talk about it, because he is the guy in PB.org. Roger is also a big wheel.

However, a quick stab (dont hold me to this, but my best shot):

The board would be stocked with several people. Two names thrown out by PB are: Caroline Betts, who teaches at USC, runs a horse rescue and has ran small horse sales in CA, and Cal MacWilliam, a Ph.d who is employed by the World Bank, bets horses, owns horses, was a former trainer and has taught economics at Vanderbilt and Carelton Universities. Both of those economists have allowed the group to use their names.

Also: maybe a Barry Meadow type person.

That's offered out there as a framework, nothing more (as I understand it). They'd work on - new bets, pricing, and a lot of horseplayer issues.

Scratches example? Did you know in CA racing three horse fields are still tri races? Read about that here. (http://blog-beb.thoroughbredtimes.com/2010/12/one-dollar-trifecta-pays-210.html) The board will change that, for example.

Rebates for a take reduction? People in X state can get them, by CA residents cant. Make sense? Not to us. The Gambling board would study it.

The board would have teeth to make change. Right now in FL for example, the scratch rules there need a rewrite. HANA proposed a change, backed by GP. That was in March 2010. It is still in committee in the FL pari-mutuel/gaming commission.

Vision for CA: Gambling board makes scratch rule change, it is voted on the CHRB in a week (or whatever) and it is changed.

Anyhow, that's my best stab right now at it and it is my opinion. I hope I explained it ok. Jeff can come on and speak for PB.org/HANA later.

[5k-claim]

Thanks, Dean!

I looked at that link talking about the trifecta with the 3-horse field and higher takeout... that is pretty bad. Now I understand better- it is more about what types of wagers are accepted as the result of scratches, etc. I was wondering if it meant creating policies on the actual process of trainers scratching their horses.

A third question would be if this new board, with whatever authority they would have, would put things like drug policy on their radar. I know drugs are on the list of concerns at the HANA site.

In the press release statement about "advis(ing) the CHRB on all gambling related matters...", the breadth of the term "gambling related matters" is obviously going to mean different things to different people.

Starting out with a boycott to put takeout rates to a reasonable number seems fairly cut-and-dry to understand. I guess this new board- and what they would be working on- could be as well. But right now I am not as clear about it.

Thanks again- it will be interesting to see what happens.


I pinged Jeff to come on and talk about it, because he is the guy in PB.org. Roger is also a big wheel.

However, a quick stab (dont hold me to this, but my best shot):

The board would be stocked with several people. ....

[ShipShipandDip]

Why bet 3 horse cali fields when there is the beautiful $.50 pick 5 with a 15% takeout rate in the marshland :cool:

[The_Knight_Sky]

To that i say, if you are EVER going to stand for something in this world,
if you are ever going to make a difference, now is the time.



Better yet. Tell a friend. http://i56.tinypic.com/sfl0mr.gif
Perhaps one day we can put this behind us and laugh about it.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

When Santa Anita/TOC/CHRB has to lower purses and reduce races/days......their strategy is going to be to blame HANA and Playersboycott for the reductions.

They will do anything but ever admit they are/were wrong.

At the next CHRB meeting......if the subjects of takeout or handle drop comes up, HANA or PB will be the focus of why the takeout increase isn't working.

It took less than 48 hours for this to come true.

[The_Knight_Sky]

It took less than 48 hours for this to come true.



Still they'll never have the customer's wallets.
Nobody can force the public to wager once they've made up their mind.

25% purse increase simply cannot last by the time Hollywood Park's
Spring Meet arrives so truthfulness wouldn't hurt them at this point.

The sad thing is that even if the takeout is rescinded they'll
still have a lot of work to do to restore a product that has lost its luster.

[BlueShoe]

This has perhaps flown under the radar, but could also have a negative impact on horse racing handle. With California desperately seeking revenue, this could pass. While there is debate and disagreement as to whether or not horse players are poker players and vice versa, there is only so much discretionary funds available for gambling purposes. If potential horseplayers stay home and play online poker, down goes the handle.
Click on original article box after following the link.
www.wopular.com/can-online-poker-fix-state-budget (http://www.wopular.com/can-online-poker-fix-state-budget)

[DeanT]

Good find Blueshoe!

[OTM Al]

Question: What about Golden Gate? They have a stakes weekend coming up so one would expect one of their better days. This track was subject to exactly the same takeout increases as Santa Anita was it not, but no one seems to remember it exists (though understandable....). There has been no surface change up there so one would think that track would be much easier to analyze wrt a boycott.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Question: What about Golden Gate? They have a stakes weekend coming up so one would expect one of their better days. This track was subject to exactly the same takeout increases as Santa Anita was it not, but no one seems to remember it exists (though understandable....). There has been no surface change up there so one would think that track would be much easier to analyze wrt a boycott.
Interesting point. I wonder how many people are boycotting Santa Anita but still playing Golden Gate. Santa Anita has been the newsworthy story, and there is a possibility that it has slipped some people's minds that GG is in California too.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I just checked the last two days compared to last year according to Equibase.
A year last Thursday: 2,007,057 Last Thursday: 1,866,445
A year ago yesterday: 2,061,621 Yesterday: 1,573,877

Ouch!

[OTM Al]

I just checked the last two days compared to last year according to Equibase.
A year last Thursday: 2,007,057 Last Thursday: 1,866,445
A year ago yesterday: 2,061,621 Yesterday: 1,573,877

Ouch!

If that keeps up, that's the example you want to use.

[DeanT]

This has perhaps flown under the radar, but could also have a negative impact on horse racing handle. With California desperately seeking revenue, this could pass. While there is debate and disagreement as to whether or not horse players are poker players and vice versa, there is only so much discretionary funds available for gambling purposes. If potential horseplayers stay home and play online poker, down goes the handle.
Click on original article box after following the link.
www.wopular.com/can-online-poker-fix-state-budget (http://www.wopular.com/can-online-poker-fix-state-budget)

The writer of the story says thanks for the link.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/01/reason-51-and-52-to-get-moving.html

[BlueShoe]

The writer of the story says thanks for the link.
Not happy to be the messenger of what could be bad news for racing. Poker, both live and online, is popular with younger gamblers. If this group, the one that racing wishes so hard to attract, stays home and legally plays online poker, it adds still another obstacle to increasing racings popularity. Add to that the veteran fan that is becoming disenchanted with racing and decides to give online poker a try, and we could have still another push to the downward spiral of our sport.

[DJofSD]

I am not on online poker player. It does not appeal to me in the least. Not every one that tries it will like it or even win. Perhaps betting races will appeal to those that either don't win at poker, online or otherwise.

[5k-claim]

I pinged Jeff to come on and talk about it, because he is the guy in PB.org. Roger is also a big wheel.

....

Anyhow, that's my best stab right now at it and it is my opinion. I hope I explained it ok. Jeff can come on and speak for PB.org/HANA later.

Any idea when a response may be coming to my questions in Post 15 and Post 17?

I would think Jeff would jump at a chance to use this forum to expound on the plans for the new panel. I am sincerely interested in hearing more about it. As should the entire racing community.

[Jeff P]

In a world where so many people talk about standing up for something they believe in, but ultimately end up doing nothing, I very much respect the efforts here. Good luck!

The part of the press release that immediately caught my attention was something about a proposed board

I went to the home page at http://www.playersboycott.org/ and looked around, but am still wondering a couple of things:

(1) How much authority are you proposing giving this economist, track official and player rep?

(2) New bets and takeout rates I think I undertand, but what exactly is the deal with the scratch rules?

I guess if someone from HANA or Players Boycott can answer....

Currently, each racing jurisdiction has its own set of rules for handling scratches and changes.

For example, in New York, when one half of a coupled entry is scratched, the other half runs for purse money only. Florida has a different set of rules that has been posted about before. (If I'm not mistaken, there was a race run in FL last year where the winning horse was DQ'd based on a foul committed by the other half of the entry.) One of the agenda items at tomorrow's CHRB meeting is completely eliminating coupled entries in CA.

As a bettor, one thing I would like to see is for racing to have a uniform set of rules for dealing with scratches and changes... Imagine for a second how much sense it would make if we could come up with a fair set of rules for handling scratches and changes and have those rules be uniform everywhere.

I'm talking about the impact on serial bets when entry halves are scratched. I'm talking about the impact on serial bets when races are taken off the turf. I'm talking about offering the player the option of getting his or her own alternate selection rather than being arbitrarily handed the favorite, a refund, or a consolation depending on the racing jurisdiction where the host track happens to be. I'm talking about rules for sensible minimum field sizes for certain types of wagers. (If I'm not mistaken, a few weeks back, trifecta wagering was offered on a 3 horse race run in California.)

I'm talking about having qualified people study the economic impact to the game - weighing the benefits of being fair to the player against maximizing revenue for purses, tracks, and government coffers BEFORE rules for handling these types of situations are set.


I'll come back and post my thoughts on what is meant by a Gambling Board shortly.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

A third question would be if this new board, with whatever authority they would have, would put things like drug policy on their radar. I know drugs are on the list of concerns at the HANA site.

If a player is caught cheating in a Nevada casino there is very little doubt what happens. The player is arrested and prosecuted. If the house violates the rules, the gaming board can and will yank the house's license.

One of the things this type of tough enforcement has led to is the perception of the public that the games in other types of gambling are on the up and up.

Without question, that is one of the basic requirements for running a successful gambling game.

As a result of public perception, other types of gambling have grown significantly over the past 50 years.

Racing on the other hand has not enjoyed that type of growth over the same time period - nor does it have the public's confidence that the game is on the up and up.

If a trainer is caught cheating through the use of drugs, the status quo is a fine and a suspension for a few weeks. In most cases, the trainer's horses are entered under the name of the trainer's assistant and the trainer calls the shots from a cell phone while the suspension is in place.

Amazingly, at the July, 2010 CHRB meeting, I sat through an agenda item that dealt with suspension time frames for trainers caught cheating through the use of drugs. The commissioners voted in favor of the agenda item - which if later enacted would change CA drug policy by allowing trainers to shorten the time period of their suspensions. Long story short, the policy change would enable trainers serving out suspensions to enter horses into races so long as the race they are entering into takes place after the suspension is over. Under previous drug policy, trainers were not supposed to perform any training activity whatsoever while serving out suspensions.

The prevailing bias of the CHRB commssioners appears to be one of minimizng severity of punishment when trainers are caught cheating through the use of drugs.

This type of policy offers no real deterrant to cheating and does nothing to assure the public that the game is on the up and up. In my opinion this type of policy is detrimental to racing as a sport and as a viable gambling game.

Please understand that the drug issue is something that is very complicated. There are different levels of drug positives. A class one is the worst. Higher numbered class offenses represent lesser offenses.

As a bettor, one of the things I want to see is a uniform drug policy with teeth.

Hint: Race day medication rules in other parts of the world are much tougher than they are here in the US and Canada.

Hint: Breakdown rates in other parts of the world are significantly lower than they are here in the US and Canada.

Imagine how much sense it would make if drug rules and tolerance levels were the same everywhere. Imagine how much sense it would make if North American racing had qualified people study breakdown rates and tolerance leves for race day medications as they exist in other parts of the world - and then acted on that information and set drug policy here in North America accordingly.


I'll come back and post what is meant by a Gambling Board shortly.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

The impetus for a Gambling Board is simple. Pricing the game properly is critical when it comes to maximizing revenue for purses, tracks, and government coffers.

Racing has an industry wide problem. The cost of the game (takeout) is too high. It is too high to such an extent that we are driving business away. If you take all sources handle from 2003 and all sources handle from 2010, and then adjust for inflation and do a comparison: All sources handle from 2010 was approximately one half of what it was just seven years earlier in 2003. Yet during that same time period, total revenue from other forms of gambling have actually grown. That in itself should serve as a wake up call to every decision maker in racing.

Over the years racing has paid several hundred thousand dollars to consulting firms for economic studies. These studies have been prepared by highly intelligent very qualified people with impeccable backgrounds. Collectively, all of these studies basically say the same thing: Takeout has an optimal pricing point. If we make an effort to seek out that pricing point we can actually maximize revenue for purses, tracks, and government coffers.

However, we are not doing that. Instead of acting on the recommendations of its own paid for studies, time after time racing has purposely chosen to ignore them.

Let’s use California as an example.

When the CHRB voted the Los Al takeout increase in last year, they used revenue projections that said handle would be unaffected by the takeout increase.

HANA testified at the January, 2010 CHRB meeting and told the Commissioners of the CHRB that those revenue projections were flawed and that handle at Los Al would be adversely impacted by a takeout increase.

During the 6 month period immediately following the Los Al takeout increase, year over year on track handle at Los Al was down more than 27%. Concrete evidence to substantiate that fact was presented to the CHRB and was made part of the CHRB's July, 2010 meeting package. Yet the commissioners of the CHRB ignored that evidence and voted unanimously to EXTEND the Los Al takeout increase.

Shortly after that, California track operators, the TOC, and the head of the CHRB lobbied the California legislature for a thoroughbred takeout increase. Once again, they used flawed revenue projections that said handle would be unaffected by the takeout increase.

Here we are a few weeks into the takeout increase. Year over year all sources handle is down sharply at both Santa Anita and Golden Gate Fields. Yet at the same time, handle at other tracks is up.

To summarize, the reason HANA is asking for with a Gambling Board is really quite simple:

We can maximize revenue for purses, tracks, and government coffers by letting people who are qualified to make decisions about pricing the game set takeout levels.


Jeff Platt
President, HANA

PS. HANA recently interviewed one such person - Caroline Betts. Here's a link:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/01/interview-with-caroline-betts-phd-on.html

HANA Sign Up Link:
http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0

.

[lamboguy]

i have to agree with the above poster 601%. sad to have to post this, its pretty obvious, but they don't listen and don't care.

[DeanT]

I see the BH is getting to the heart of the message from horseplayers and that is great to see.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/at-large-tom-lamarra/archive/2011/01/19/things-that-make-you-go-hmmmm-7.aspx

Have to give the Horseplayers Association of North America some credit for pushing the pari-mutuel takeout issue, particularly in California. Believe HANA's overall point is being missed, however: Anything that takes more money away from beleaguered bettors is bad business. … What's really funny is the casino industry labors over the percentage of return to players from each slot machine to not only keep them coming back, but to maximize revenue over the long haul.

[5k-claim]

The impetus for a Gambling Board is simple. Pricing the game properly is critical when it comes to maximizing revenue for purses, tracks, and government coffers.

....

Over the years racing has paid several hundred thousand dollars to consulting firms for economic studies. These studies have been prepared by highly intelligent very qualified people with impeccable backgrounds. Collectively, all of these studies basically say the same thing: Takeout has an optimal pricing point. If we make an effort to seek out that pricing point we can actually maximize revenue for purses, tracks, and government coffers.

.

Thanks for the information, Jeff. I cannot see how anyone could possibly argue against finding optimal pricing points. And then using them.

And uniform drug policies is something we all want, I think. Trying to remember different policies for different states can be annoying- and I do agree that public perception of the game is very important, and would be improved with more uniform policies. They need to be sensible.

[Stillriledup]

Jeff,

I'm a proponent of late scratched getting assigned to the post time favorite and here's why.

As long as all horseplayers know the rule that you get assigned the favorite, i have no problem with it at all.

Here's the problem i have with giving money to late scratch people in a horiz bet. Lets say i specifically wager on the Pick 4 at Track X because there's a horse in one of the legs that i hate on video. I think the horse galloped out lame and i'm predicting the horse is going to race poorly and this is my 'edge' on the bet. I don't want the money coming out of the pool and given back to the people because that would mean the people who bet on the horse i thought was 'lame' are making a profit and that profit is coming at my expense. They're making a profit without actually having to pick the winner. If you bet a pick 4 and you pick 3 legs and in leg 4 your horse is scratched and you just get a conso, you're really benefitting from that scratch because you're getting money for picking 3 out of 4, while everyone else has to pick 4 out of 4.

Also, if there's a refund, the pool goes down and when the pool goes down, that means my own personal wager affects the odds MORE with the smaller pool. Maybe i'm missing something, but i dont think people who bet a horse who wasn't 'fit to race' should get rewarded at the expense of the people who bet against that horse and especially the people who specifically bet against that horse.