PDA

View Full Version : Boycott underway


rwwupl
01-13-2011, 02:22 AM
http://sn117w.snt117.mail.

Press Release
January 12, 2011
CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOYCOTT UNDERWAY
San Diego, CA January 12, 2011

The horseplayers' boycott has begun.

Fed up with rising takeout rates in the face of plunging handles, Players Boycott (playersboycott.org) has organized a boycott of California Thoroughbred Racing.

"Horseplayers have been kicked around long enough," said Jeff Platt, the President of the Horseplayers Association of North America. "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."

Exacta and daily double takeout at Santa Anita is now 22.68%, the highest in the nation among major tracks. The takeout for bets involving three or more horses is now 23.68% (a 14.51% increase.) Handle compared with similar dates last year is off by some 17%.

Players Boycott is asking players who haven't supported the boycott yet to stop wagering on California thoroughbred racing, effective immediately.

"The CHRB approved the takeout increase, and the CHRB can rescind it immediately if it chooses," said Platt. "By not betting, players everywhere can continue to send them a message: If you choose to make decisions that your customers oppose, you risk running off your customers." The CHRB has scheduled a meeting for Jan. 20.

In addition to demanding an end to the takeout increase, Players Boycott also proposes a new "Gambling 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. Players Boycott believes that experts should be the ones making gambling-related policy for thoroughbred racing in California.

Players Boycott also urges the CHRB and the TOC to work towards ending California’s ADW Retention Cap. This cap has prevented most California players from getting rebates that are available to players outside the state.

Further information about the Boycott, including reviews and recommendations on other issues that affect California players, ranging from a lack of full-card simulcasting to policies regarding drug violations, can be found at: http://www.playersboycott.org



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2010 PlayersBoycott.org http://www.playersboycott.org

rwwupl
01-13-2011, 02:31 AM
California and the Customers

Until we find a better way to finance purses and horse racing in California, we have to have more horse players to bet more money, creating larger handle numbers.

In order for the industry to return to success, the fan base must expand and not contract, and due to two main factors the regulators and managers of our game are punishing California residents and causing contraction of the fan base, rather than growth.


Most handle is coming from off track wagering, and ADW’s and out of state wagering on California races has become an important factor.


There is a rule, sponsored by the TOC that for practical purposes prevents Californians from receiving the same rebates that players outside of California are receiving.


Section 19604 of the Business and Professions Code states:

"(5) "Contractual compensation" means the amount paid to an ADW provider from advance deposit wagers originating in this state. Contractual compensation includes, but is not limited to, hub fee payments, and may include host fee payments, if any, for out-of-state and out-of-country races. Contractual compensation is subject to the following requirements:
(A) Excluding contractual compensation for host fee payments, contractual compensation shall not exceed 6.5 percent of the amount wagered."

Translated into plain English, the above paragraph means that ADWs do not have enough room margin-wise to rebate anything back to the California resident customer. Californians who pay more for a bet are subsidizing those out of state who pay less for the same bet through ADW rebates. The playing field is not level.

Instead of betting within the established system and paying full takeout, California's serious price sensitive players have moved their handle dollars out of state and offshore where they can and do get rebates. This amounts to a serious amount of money, denied to people who put on the show in California.


The Pari-Mutuel system is where the facilitator takes from the top of the pool and the players compete with each other for the remaining dollars. The players are not competing with the “house”.


The science of handicapping is designed to determine who gets the largest share over time. Rebates to some and not others have distorted the traditional way handicapping determines who wins. If you are competing with someone for a pool limited amount of dollars and your competition gets a 10% head start, you will be discouraged from competing with your money quickly or bet outside of the mainstream where California gets zero of those dollars.


Section 19604 needs to be changed to give California's large volume players a reason to return their handle dollars to the pari-mutuel pools. Until that happens, California players will continue wagering offshore and outside of California's pari-mutuel pools where their handle dollars bring no benefit whatsoever to California's tracks and horsemen.


Take outs for wagering have risen over time from 10% in California to 20% plus and heading for 30% territory. The TOC and the regulators have raised them again on certain bets another 2-3% starting January1, 2011, and that is the largest raise in our history (equal to 10-15% for the betting dollar), and all going for bigger purses to “save” our game.


This strategy has never been successful in the past with horsemen and the regulators singing the same tune about saving the game through higher purses.

California S/B 27 was $40 million to do the same thing a few years ago and there have been others. If any of this legislated increase for purses, taking money from horse player’s pockets to pockets of horsemen had been successful, why would we need to further distort the business model and do it again?


Any successful gaming (like Pari-Mutuel horse wagering) must allow some reasonable percentage of winners or there is no reason for anyone to participate. There are not enough winners now.


The regulators should be seeking through experimentation the optimum price point of the bet, which is where the people, who put on the show, make the most profit.


Industry paid for study by the Cummings Report indicates California is far above optimum level now for the price of a bet and going further will only cost the industry more money in terms of declining attendance and handle .


California race managers and regulators are out of step with the world, when in the face of declining sales they raise the price of the product and punish the local residents they have left.


Racing should be presented to attract customers, not discourage them. The customers have not caused any of these problems, they love horse racing.


The problem with California racing is the way it is being managed and regulated.


Hey, TOC and CHRB, are you listening? You can do better. You can correct this for California.

roger@hanaweb.org

Overlay
01-13-2011, 08:00 PM
Any successful gaming (like Pari-Mutuel horse wagering) must allow some reasonable percentage of winners or there is no reason for anyone to participate. There are not enough winners now.


I totally support HANA and its objectives, and I realize that those for whom horse racing is their game of first choice may largely be a different type of player than those who prefer games of pure chance. But if, by "winners", you mean consistent and long-term (as opposed to isolated jackpots), casinos stay in business by assuring that anyone who plays their games long enough will eventually go broke (or at least lose money), with no way to systematically change the situation through the exercise of any type of strategy, and yet they never seem to hurt for clientele. Too bad (for our game) that successful handicapping is so skill-intensive.

cj
01-14-2011, 08:37 PM
Should a member of the Advisory Board be sending out emails selling products that encourage betting on Santa Anita?

DeanT
01-14-2011, 09:51 PM
There are no litmus tests at HANA CJ and there never has been.

We said on the website several times that a boycott is an individual choice and it does not make you any less of a HANA member if you happen not to support it. And that goes for everyone, even the board members or anyone else.

There are dozens of issues in racing, and we are not going to agree on all of them, but we need everyone to help on the ones they think are important.

cj
01-14-2011, 09:58 PM
There are no litmus tests at HANA CJ and there never has been.

We said on the website several times that a boycott is an individual choice and it does not make you any less of a HANA member if you happen not to support it. And that goes for everyone, even the board members or anyone else.

There are dozens of issues in racing, and we are not going to agree on all of them, but we need everyone to help on the ones they think are important.

I ask because I've wondered myself. Do I make SA a Race of the Week, etc?

DeanT
01-14-2011, 10:04 PM
I ask because I've wondered myself. Do I make SA a Race of the Week, etc?

If you were a board member and Jeff and me and BillW told you that you had to never run SA numbers for your business to be a member, I would suggest you leave the board because you are on a board with a-holes :)

Nah, as usual and it goes for everyone..... Please do not think your support is not welcomed as a member if you play SA tomorrow, or whatever. We need all the help we can get on tons of things in racing.

highnote
01-15-2011, 01:48 AM
Should a member of the Advisory Board be sending out emails selling products that encourage betting on Santa Anita?

Absolutely an Advisory Board member should send out emails selling products that encourage betting on Santa Anita, if they so desire. Maybe the seller of the product is boycotting Santa Anita but the customers of the seller are not. The seller can not force customers of the product to boycott.

HANA can NOT force people or businesses to do something or not do something.

HANA can only present an opinion based on the facts.

HANA can take a position on an issue, but that does not mean everyone has to agree on the position. No one has to abide by an action HANA recommends.

I am no longer a HANA board member, but I would still encourage bettors to boycott because these increased takeouts are hurting the bottom line of bettors. The small bettors are going to wash out faster which means less money in the pools for the large bettors. Less money in the pools means large bettors will make smaller bets. Smaller bets by the large bettors means less churn which will result in decreased profits for the large bettors. Large or small, increased takeouts hurts the bottom line of bettors.

It is simply a good business practice for bettors to boycott. When rates fall handle will rise which will be good for everyone -- management, laborers, horsemen and bettors.

To summarize, do not do what HANA or I feel is in the best interest of the game.

Do what you feel is in the best interest of the game.

cj
01-15-2011, 02:57 AM
To summarize, do not do what HANA or I feel is in the best interest of the game.

I do. You won't find any Santa Anita races on my site any time soon. But, at the same time, I won't be coding my program to block cards from Santa Anita either.

highnote
01-15-2011, 04:27 AM
What do you do if a customer wants to buy your Santa Anita numbers?

I do. You won't find any Santa Anita races on my site any time soon. But, at the same time, I won't be coding my program to block cards from Santa Anita either.

By the way... I should have phrased the last line of the quote of mine you quoted differently, by connecting the last two sentences with a comma. Otherwise, the context is not exactly what I intented. Sorry about that.

"To summarize, do not do what HANA or I feel is in the best interest of the game, but do what you feel is in the best interest of the game."

cj
01-15-2011, 01:48 PM
What do you do if a customer wants to buy your Santa Anita numbers?



By the way... I should have phrased the last line of the quote of mine you quoted differently, by connecting the last two sentences with a comma. Otherwise, the context is not exactly what I intented. Sorry about that.

I don't sell numbers that way, so it isn't an issue. All I could do is stop Santa Anita files from working with the program, but I don't do that nor would I.

I wouldn't actively promote betting on Santa Anita races if I were an advisor. I don't do it now when I am not. However, that is my personal choice. Others can, and have, chosen differently. I don't think addressing it in public is a bad thing, but I'm getting the feeling others don't agree. I was asked about it in private a few times and wasn't qualified to answer, thus my post.

GameTheory
01-15-2011, 01:55 PM
Like chickenhead said, it is simply a choice and also giving the reason for that choice -- like a giant focus group. ("Your product sucks, and I don't want it, at least at that price.") That's the way I would explain it rather than a "strike" where you are some kind of traitor if you don't tow the line. These are the facts, make your choice, no hard feelings either way.

DeanT
01-15-2011, 02:13 PM
Like chickenhead said, it is simply a choice and also giving the reason for that choice -- like a giant focus group. ("Your product sucks, and I don't want it, at least at that price.") That's the way I would explain it rather than a "strike" where you are some kind of traitor if you don't tow the line. These are the facts, make your choice, no hard feelings either way.

Personally I would feel bad if it was some sort of dictation or an ultimatum and I don't think I would even be involved.

There are some posters here at PA playing SA. I have chatted with some of them and known some of them for years here and I like them. Am I supposed to get mad at them because they do not agree on the one issue? That is petty, and pretty ridiculous. I would not want to be part of an organization that does things like that.

DeanT
01-16-2011, 09:41 PM
Interview with Caroline Betts on the blog. One of the people HANA would like to see working on gambling decisions in CA.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/01/interview-with-caroline-betts-phd-on.html

chickenhead
01-16-2011, 09:54 PM
I ran into Bo Derek at the Turf Club and asked her the same questions, her answers were pretty much the same, almost verbatim in parts. Not sure having Caroline around would help too much with Bo already there.