Paulick Report - Breaking News

[Jeff P]

Platt and Rebate Shops Not Friends of Racing?
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/

I have this routine each day... wake up, fire up the coffee maker, and read Paceadvantage.com and then the Paulick Report for any breaking news in racing.

Kind of an odd feeling when the lead story at Paulick Report is an attempted smear about oneself.

-jp

.

[FenceBored]

Platt and Rebate Shops Not Friends of Racing?
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/

I have this routine each day... wake up, fire up the coffee maker, and read Paceadvantage.com and then the Paulick Report for any breaking news in racing.

Kind of an odd feeling when the lead story at Paulick Report is an attempted smear about oneself.

-jp

.

Congratulations, you've made enough of an impact to be worth smearing.

Next up, Indian Charlie gives you a nickname. :)

[MNslappy]

Jeff, I went to the HANA website and looked for said "pimping" of rebaters going on and I didnt see anything of the sort after looking all over the place. After scratching my head for a moment, I went to your jcapper site. Ok, so there is some ADW advertising there....that must be what RP is referencing. A pretty ridiculous low blow. What you do on your personal website is completely separate from HANA, its pretty obnoxious of him to link the two in order to stretch and spin and make it sound like HANA is somehow "in the pocket" of ADWs.

[DJofSD]

Jeff,

You can't make an omlett without breaking some eggs.

Stick to your guns. Paulick can report whatever he wants. Let's see how much he helps the punters.

[Tom]

You now know for sure you are on the right track! :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Don't take it personally, I don't think the students get to choose the assignments anymore.

[DeanT]

I don't think the students get to choose the assignments anymore.

:D

[David-LV]

Jeff,

It looks like Paulick is the one that is not a friend of the racing public.

There are no secrets in his anti horse player articles.

We all know now that Paulick is just a shill using his pen to boost the greed of racetrack owners and the TOC.

Keep up the good work Jeff, we are behind you 1000%.

________
David-LV

[Greyfox]

Old Chinese Proverb say "If the Foo shits, wear it."

[prospector]

all i know is about myself...
no rebate on line...no play on line..i'm close enough to go to racebook everyday..betting at home is just easier..

[OTM Al]

Platt and Rebate Shops Not Friends of Racing?
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/

I have this routine each day... wake up, fire up the coffee maker, and read Paceadvantage.com and then the Paulick Report for any breaking news in racing.

Kind of an odd feeling when the lead story at Paulick Report is an attempted smear about oneself.

-jp

.

What is your response to these charges?

[jelly]

Ray Paulick has never seen a takeout increase he didn't like.

[DJofSD]

What is your response to these charges?
Charges? Charges? He ain't got to respond to no stinkin' charges! :D

First, there isn't any reason for Jeff to respond to anything said in the article, let alone post anything here beyond what he already has.

Second, it seems pretty clear to me there is a wolf in his fold.

[turfnsport]

Ray's sidekick Brad also Tweeted (then retracted after called on it by several people including myself) that Jeff took kickbacks.

Brad also sent me an email stating he meant to say "commissions"

The guy needs to think before he types.

I then followed up with a Tweet of my own, which, like Brad, I also did not think before I typed:

"The Paulick Report is the Anus of Horse Racing"

I'm thinking Ray is looking for increased traffic on his site with some of this garbage he writes.

[Cardus]

Is it true?

[DJofSD]

Is it true?
Is what true? Come on man, be a little more specific.

[Cardus]

Is what true? Come on man, be a little more specific.

"In emails he has sent out and in a sales pitch on his website, Platt has been soliciting horseplayers to sign up with rebaters that he said he is associated with. Platt said he has no “financial stake” in those rebate operations, though he admitted to the Paulick Report that he receives commissions whenever someone he recruits becomes a customer of a rebater. Platt, thus, has a financial interest in moving horseplayers from the racetrack to rebate operations. He is their pimp."

Is this true?

[highnote]

Is this true?

Who cares? He's a horseplayer and a businessman trying to make a living and also trying to help other horseplayers maximize their profits.

His job is NOT to maximize racetrack profits. That is the job of racetrack management.

[Cardus]

Who cares? He's a horseplayer and a businessman trying to make a living and also trying to help other horseplayers maximize their profits.

His job is NOT to maximize racetrack profits. That is the job of racetrack management.

I suppose that it is true, at least in some form, based upon your answer.

Sure it matters, if you are trying to work with racing entities.

Take this to a logical extreme: what if every player used rebate shops that sends little back to the tracks?

You're intelligent enough to know this answer.

[BMeadow]

My comments to the Paulick Report:

Rebates benefit both the producers (racetrack) and the consumers (horseplayers).

I'm the producer of the book Money Secrets At The Racetrack. I will make more money from a buyer if he purchases the book directly from me, and less if he buys it from Amazon. So why do I allow Amazon (a rebate shop) to distribute the book which will "undercut my revenue stream"? Because I'll sell many more books.

As a consumer, I don't care what Barry's expenses are. I just want the best price. With the extra savings, I might buy more books.

It's true that racetracks underpriced their signal price years ago, and some smart businessmen came up with the idea of rebating most of their profits back to horseplayers. These days, these rebate shops are charged much more, but putting them out of business isn't going to help horse racing. At many tracks, rebaters count for 10-15% of the handle or more. Eliminate the rebate shops and the rebate customers may disappear altogether.

Over the years, I've played with rebate shops, with offshore racebooks where the money doesn't go into the pools, with illegal bookmakers who offered me rebates, and with betting exchanges. I've also played on track and with ADW's such as Xpressbet and Youbet. I've played exponentially more when I've gotten strong rebates. In fact, a couple of years ago when I was between rebate shops, I took a vacation in the middle of the Santa Anita winter meeting (which i hadn't done in 20 years) and bet zero.

If I was told tomorrow that I could never get any more rebates, I'd stop playing.

In the gambling world, if I lose $1 million on a gambling trip to Las Vegas, management will kick back $100,000 or $150,000 to me. If I lose $100, I'll get nothing. In any business, the best customers get the best rates. Why should it be any different in horse racing?

Not everybody pays the same, for anything--not for airline seats, or basketball tickets, or pillows at a department store. Some people use coupons, some get store rewards, some are in buying clubs, etc. It's purely a racetrack fantasy that if rebate shops closed, these players would come back to the track.

One more thing. Many businesses pay referral fees to anyone bringing them good customers. Jeff Platt has been working tirelessly for all horseplayers, and part of what he does is to educate track executives and officials that reducing takeout for all players--not just rebaters--would benefit them. To believe he's a tool of some rebate shop is beyond ridiculous. He's pro-player--period.

[FenceBored]

"In emails he has sent out and in a sales pitch on his website, Platt has been soliciting horseplayers to sign up with rebaters that he said he is associated with. Platt said he has no “financial stake” in those rebate operations, though he admitted to the Paulick Report that he receives commissions whenever someone he recruits becomes a customer of a rebater. Platt, thus, has a financial interest in moving horseplayers from the racetrack to rebate operations. He is their pimp."

Is this true?

According to TwinSpires, any one of their members can be their pimp.
We will deposit a $50 cash bonus into your wagering account for each friend* who signs up for TwinSpires using your special referral code provided to them, makes a minimum initial deposit of $50 within 30 days of signing up, and wagers a minimum of $500 in the first 60 days.
-- http://www.twinspires.com/content/referafriend
I guess I need to get me one of them purple zoot suits. :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

Take this to a logical extreme: what if every player used rebate shops that sends little back to the tracks?



Exactly.:ThmbUp:
Testing something by asking the Question : "What if it was universal?" has always been a strong standard to determine "the good" of its contribution.

[DeanT]

Take this to a logical extreme: what if every player used rebate shops that sends little back to the tracks?



What do you define as little?

Some rebate shops pay 10% or more back to racing because their signal fee is jacked up (signal fees for rebate shops are by definition higher than other commercial ADW's who dont gove anything back). The increase in volume by giving a cut back to players through lower rake seems to do the job.

There are two ways to stop them

1) Cut them all off (if they do that, handle probably goes to $6B this year)

2) Lower takeout so they don't exist.

Mr. Platt's choice is #2. He's just waiting on racing to do it.

What say racing? Want to get moving on that?

[Stillriledup]

Paulick is starting to sound like one of these housewives from the 'real housewives' shows. Trying to drum up some drama for 'ratings'.

I think he needs to take a few more dollars from the California horse racing industry and pimp their takeout raises...maybe his Cali connection paid him some money to smear Platt, after all, he's been known to sell out his 'opinion' to the highest bidder.

[Robert Goren]

If race track didn't think rebates shops helped their bottom line, they wouldn't allow them to take their signal. The trick is to keep the "suckers" who would bet without them(like me) from using them while getting those who wouldn't bet without a rebate in the game.

[chickenhead]

I suppose that it is true, at least in some form, based upon your answer.

Sure it matters, if you are trying to work with racing entities.

Take this to a logical extreme: what if every player used rebate shops that sends little back to the tracks?

You're intelligent enough to know this answer.

The tracks created rebate shops via their policies, those same policies keep them in place today. If the tracks or horsemen want to blame someone for rebate shops existence or success, pointing a finger at the horseplayers is about the last place it belongs.

How can they work with horaeplayers who avail themselves of the very thing they created? How can they work with themselves, their creator?

The simplest, most direct route to eliminating rebates without catering handle is lowering takeout. Something Hana has been accused of droning on and on about. But the shot part about it...you know who pushes back the strongest when a track cuts take? Not the adws, the other tracks.

It's fubar, all the way around. All I know is horseplayers aren't the ones who set it up, and aren't the ones who keep it in place.

[Tom]

Take this to a logical extreme: what if every player used rebate shops that sends little back to the tracks?

That would be good.
Maybe half of them would close up shop and maybe the other half would wake up and pay attention to their CUSTOMERS.

[Cardus]

Is Jeff's role regarding the issue raised by Paulick advertised on the HANA website? I just browsed it and didn't see it. I could have missed it.

If this is such a good thing, then why isn't it advertised?

[Gallop58]

Private the Penguin: Skipper. Shouldn't we tell them that the boat is out of gas? Skipper the Penguin: Nah! Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave.
[all four penguins waving]
Madagascar, 2005

Just smile and wave Jeff. Just smile and wave. Stand above it and stick with the issues.

Goren wrote: "...The trick is to keep the "suckers" who would bet without them(like me) from using them while getting those who wouldn't bet without a rebate in the game...."

:ThmbUp:

Racing has painted its self into a pretty tough business model.

[highnote]

Take this to a logical extreme: what if every player used rebate shops that sends little back to the tracks?

You're intelligent enough to know this answer.

First, it's silly to argue in hypotheticals, but OK, I'll take the bait.

If every player used rebates shops that sends little back to the tracks then eventually the owners of the rebate shops would own the tracks -- at least, that's what I'd do if I owned an ADW cash cow -- assuming my ADW is the cash cow everyone thinks it is.

[5k-claim]

Kind of an odd feeling when the lead story at Paulick Report is an attempted smear about oneself.


Jeff,

Not that my impression is worth very much, but from what I have seen of your posts on this site, the HANA site, the boycott site and your business site, I just don't see very much there to call you a "pimp" or say that you are "not a friend of racing".

To the contrary. With all of the effort that you are putting in, I am pretty sure you want racing to be as healthy as possible. It just comes down to getting there.

My loyalty will always be with small-time trainers and owners, because that is how I experience the sport. Like all of us, I have to figure out the smartest way to support my group. On the issue of takeout, for example, I am solidly behind letting people who know what the heck they are talking about have major input into this area, especially after searching for optimal takeout levels. It only makes sense that the more total bet, the more we all benefit- and optimal takeout levels would play a big role in this. That is a fairly easy one.

The more complicated issue of rebaters is one that I am still trying to form a strong opinion on. I gather that Ray already has, and I am not one of the people to just dismiss his opinion entirely.

[mountainman]

Good for you, Jeff. This is America. You're entitled to profit from steering fellow horseplayers to a higher roi.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is Jeff's role regarding the issue raised by Paulick advertised on the HANA website? I just browsed it and didn't see it. I could have missed it.

If this is such a good thing, then why isn't it advertised?Jeff's role regarding the issue raised is entirely within his own personal business website - the JCapper software site...one that existed well before HANA.

[Bruddah]

Paulick is a track management suck up wannabee. That whole group has done nothing but cried crocodile tears to every legislator who would listen. They have sense of entitlement which goes beyond good common sense or business accuity.

To hell with these cry babies! :ThmbDown:

[JustRalph]

If I remember right, that email paulick is pushing went to jcapper users. Jeff's software customers. And jeff does let it be known that he gets a small renumeration for referring. It must be common knowledge, if I know it.

Btw, I got fifty bucks for referring someone to Twinspires once. I must be a pimp. I am gonna have to buy a fur hat ..........and a Caddy

[DeanT]

Is Jeff's role regarding the issue raised by Paulick advertised on the HANA website? I just browsed it and didn't see it. I could have missed it.

If this is such a good thing, then why isn't it advertised?

It's not as per HANA Mission Statement and integrity policy, and its bylaws incorporated as a non-profit.

When you sign up you are assured a few things-

1- Your name is held in confidence. If you want to publicly declare you are a member, that's fine, but we won't declare it for you.

2- You won't be sold anything via the email blasts.

3 -The email list will not be sold, offered, or profited from, ever.

4- Advertising on the website is not allowed by outside entities. If you have a good deal for horseplayers (like a 0% takeout pick 4 at youbet, or free admission as a racetrack) or are offering something out, we can/have link and mention it on the blog, as a service to players, but won't run advertising. As part of the "Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance" their standings page is displayed as a part of being of that group. We run ads for only one thing on the blog (these are for free): Horse retirement farms as non-profits looking for donations. Some of your donations to HANA as a non-profit have been donations to those farms (like NorCal Throughbred rescue for our harness racing contest last August).

I hope that clears up your questions.

[Greyfox]

Btw, I got fifty bucks for referring someone to Twinspires once.

As your legal counsel may I remind you that you've just confessed to
"Living off the Avails of Whorseplayers." :lol:

[Bruddah]

"In emails he has sent out and in a sales pitch on his website, Platt has been soliciting horseplayers to sign up with rebaters that he said he is associated with. Platt said he has no “financial stake” in those rebate operations, though he admitted to the Paulick Report that he receives commissions whenever someone he recruits becomes a customer of a rebater. Platt, thus, has a financial interest in moving horseplayers from the racetrack to rebate operations. He is their pimp."

Is this true?

I disagree totally with your analysis. If I send business (customers) to a Ford dealership and they pay me a comission, I do not have a "financial stake" in that dealership. If that arrangement is disclosed, I don't even have a conflict of interest or a question of ethics.

If one has a problem with my business arrangement, then don't become a customer of that Ford Dealership.

[GameTheory]

Take this to a logical extreme: what if every player used rebate shops that sends little back to the tracks?

You're intelligent enough to know this answer.Is the answer that it would be awesome? That the tracks would have no choice but to wake up and live in reality? The tracks and the states they reside in can stop rebating any time they choose by simply lowering takeout to the point where it is not feasible.

[Deepsix]

Here is a potential conflict--

Lets assume that Jeff P is receiving a 'commission' for such referrals. As long as 'takeout' levels remain high the ADWs have wiggle room in offering rebates, and commissions for referrals. It appears that Jeff P might have an incentive to leave 'takeout' rates just the way they are as he benefits from referrals. Until this present Californication debacle high takeout at tracks across the country has not been a front burner issue ASIDE from the normal belly aching.

Just doing the devils advocate thing.

[DeanT]

Here is a potential conflict--

Lets assume that Jeff P is receiving a 'commission' for such referrals. As long as 'takeout' levels remain high the ADWs have wiggle room in offering rebates, and commissions for referrals. It appears that Jeff P might have an incentive to leave 'takeout' rates just the way they are as he benefits from referrals. Until this present Californication debacle high takeout at tracks across the country has not been a front burner issue ASIDE from the normal belly aching.

Just doing the devils advocate thing.

Devil's advocate thing can be constructive at times, but it should always be steeped in facts in evidence.

I guess one could say as a devil's advocate that Obama wants an attack killing 5000 people because he might go up in approval ratings like GW Bush did. But it doesnt mean it is a proper opinion. Maybe on some bizarre website it does, but not with facts in evidence.

Jeff has worked tirelessly on lower takeout for horseplayers for years. For thousands of hours. That is why you see so much support for him on this thread and on the Paulick Report. People know and respect Jeff and they know what he's been about.

[Fat Syd]

Platt and Rebate Shops Not Friends of Racing?
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/

I have this routine each day... wake up, fire up the coffee maker, and read Paceadvantage.com and then the Paulick Report for any breaking news in racing.

Kind of an odd feeling when the lead story at Paulick Report is an attempted smear about oneself.

-jp

.

Well if you would have disclosed your relationship with these rebate shops then people could have made their own decision about HANA. You didn't. Since your affilliation with Hana helped you make money shouldn't you at least disclose how much you made from Hana customers?

[DJofSD]

Well if you would have disclosed your relationship with these rebate shops then people could have made their own decision about HANA. You didn't. Since your affilliation with Hana helped you make money shouldn't you at least disclose how much you made from Hana customers?
I guess you don't believe what DeanT posted in his reply earlier in this thread.

[johnhannibalsmith]

My burning question is whether or not any of the ADWs that Mr. Platt suggested are any good. Do they suck and rip you off like Wilford Brimley and that horrible Quaker Oats? Or is it more like Sally Struthers and that amazing Thigh Master I used to chisel burning thigh muscles into my alluring legs?

There's about 45 threads around here from people begging for help looking for an alternative ADW that suits their needs. If these "HANA cutomers" got some solid advice from someone that knows a thing or two about the subject, then any alleged "conflict" is a sidebar issue that is in fact meant to do little more than distract from actual issues.

[jelly]

Looks like the boycott is working.The CHRB and TOC had to send out their shill to attack HANA.


It's not working.

[Fat Syd]

Devil's advocate thing can be constructive at times, but it should always be steeped in facts in evidence.

I guess one could say as a devil's advocate that Obama wants an attack killing 5000 people because he might go up in approval ratings like GW Bush did. But it doesnt mean it is a proper opinion. Maybe on some bizarre website it does, but not with facts in evidence.

Jeff has worked tirelessly on lower takeout for horseplayers for years. For thousands of hours. That is why you see so much support for him on this thread and on the Paulick Report. People know and respect Jeff and they know what he's been about.

So because Charles Rangel worked as a beloved public servant for decades he gets a pass on not being forthright about his life? Just like Jeff P. worked hard for the people but when people aren't looking grab some coin. Have a heart, the guy should step down immediately, just like Charlie Rangel!

[5k-claim]

It's not as per HANA Mission Statement and integrity policy, and its bylaws incorporated as a non-profit.
....

4- Advertising on the website is not allowed by outside entities. If you have a good deal for horseplayers (like a 0% takeout pick 4 at youbet, or free admission as a racetrack) or are offering something out, we can/have link and mention it on the blog, as a service to players, but won't run advertising. As part of the "Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance" their standings page is displayed as a part of being of that group. We run ads for only one thing on the blog (these are for free): Horse retirement farms as non-profits looking for donations. Some of your donations to HANA as a non-profit have been donations to those farms (like NorCal Throughbred rescue for our harness racing contest last August).

I hope that clears up your questions.

Dean,

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, and I have nothing against HANA. But on the Player Resources (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/playerresources.html) page at HANA, under the "Handicapping Software" section, aren't those more or less advertisements? Can anyone with a software or for-profit product get a link there? (Under the concept of "Player Resources".) Are they free?

Again, I do not necessarily see anything wrong with it, but am just seeking clarification.

[GameTheory]

Here is a potential conflict--

Lets assume that Jeff P is receiving a 'commission' for such referrals. As long as 'takeout' levels remain high the ADWs have wiggle room in offering rebates, and commissions for referrals. It appears that Jeff P might have an incentive to leave 'takeout' rates just the way they are as he benefits from referrals. Until this present Californication debacle high takeout at tracks across the country has not been a front burner issue ASIDE from the normal belly aching.

Just doing the devils advocate thing.But the "conflict", put that way, would only be a problem for the ADWs that might want to keep takeout high so they can offer rebates. The article put it as if Jeff was trying to hurt the tracks to make money or something -- it doesn't make any sense. HANA works for lowered takeout. Rebates ARE lowered takeout. Pushing for more people to get rebates (even with a referral fee) is doing the work of pushing for lower takeout as it may eventually force the tracks to lower it directly. It is all completely consistent. (Plus, as has been repeated, those ads are on his personal site.)

As I said, the only people that could eventually have a problem with all this is the rebaters themselves if they find they have less options to compete with track-owned outfits like TwinSpires if the tracks eventually lower direct takeout. (Which makes this all the more stupid on the part of the tracks, because lowered takeout can only lead to increased market share for themselves.) Twisting all this to make Jeff a "pimp", especially coming from someone who is nothing but a mouthpiece living off the ad money of the people he is cheerleading for is totally outrageous. And knowing the amount of work Jeff has put in (what's your HANA salary again, Jeff?) and then acting like he is doing it for the money...well, he even has Indulto defending the stupidity of it all...

[Stillriledup]

Here is a potential conflict--

Lets assume that Jeff P is receiving a 'commission' for such referrals. As long as 'takeout' levels remain high the ADWs have wiggle room in offering rebates, and commissions for referrals. It appears that Jeff P might have an incentive to leave 'takeout' rates just the way they are as he benefits from referrals. Until this present Californication debacle high takeout at tracks across the country has not been a front burner issue ASIDE from the normal belly aching.

Just doing the devils advocate thing.

I'm not sure if you're sticking up for Jeff or not, but the rebate is on a sliding scale, so when takeout moves up or down, the rebate moves in concert with that move. If takeouts get lowered, the rebate gets lowered.

As far as Jeff's 'motives' go, i can't imagine there's anyone other than Paulick who thinks Jeff isn't busting his tail for the players.

Maybe Paulick and the Calif racing industry ought to get off their rear ends and actually do something to help the sport instead of bashing those who are out there trying to make this game better, like Jeff.

[riskman]

Paulick Report:

"Platt, thus, has a financial interest in moving horseplayers from the racetrack to rebate operations. He is their pimp."

If I were Jeff Platt, I would demand a retraction of this statement. I guess in the blogosphere libel does not mean anything. "Pimp" the word has a strong negative image which was circulated in writing to a large audience consisting of track and horse owners , breeders, trainers, jockeys, horseplayers and general businesses in the horse industry.

[DeanT]

Dean,

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, and I have nothing against HANA. But on the Player Resources (http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/playerresources.html) page at HANA, under the "Handicapping Software" section, aren't those more or less advertisements? Can anyone with a software or for-profit product get a link there? (Under the concept of "Player Resources".) Are they free?

Again, I do not necessarily see anything wrong with it, but am just seeking clarification.

Every website has a links page and we are no exception. If anyone wants to add to the links page, please ask. It's a storing ground for links so players who might be interested who visit can go and make a decision for themselves, just like any links page. All links are free.

We wont link to offshore books (that dont contribute to the pools) and have not linked to ADWs tho as a matter of policy.

We dont run ads unless it is for horse retirement, or if a jock or someone gets hurt and needs donations. We are happy to run those ads for free.

The only time you see something on the blog is the TBA standings page. To be on the TBA you have to display their standings page. I think there are 40 or 50 blogs in the TBA. The website has zero banners or anything.

Hope that explains the policy. We have dealt with it from day one. All revenue for HANA comes from donations. All money spent at HANA is for one of two things Marketing : Highlighters or our member pins; and two or three donations to horse retirement farms.

Dean

[Greyfox]

Every website has a links page and we are no exception.



No. Not every website has a links page.
However, if you have one, do you insist on links sharing?
In effect, if a site owner asks you, does he/she have to reciprocate in kind?

[Fat Syd]

Paulick Report:

"Platt, thus, has a financial interest in moving horseplayers from the racetrack to rebate operations. He is their pimp."

If I were Jeff Platt, I would demand a retraction of this statement. I guess in the blogosphere libel does not mean anything. "Pimp" the word has a strong negative image which was circulated in writing to a large audience consisting of track and horse owners , breeders, trainers, jockeys, horseplayers and general businesses in the horse industry.

Are you an officer of the law? Did you go to Law School? Perhaps you are outraged that the author was describing someone who makes money while having a flashy costume on. Jeff P. had his flashy HANA personna on and sold his wears to HANA members. To be libel doesn't something have to be inaccurate?

[DeanT]

In effect, if a site owner asks you, does he/she have to reciprocate in kind?

No.

[Dick Powell]

Why does everyone assume that we pay low rates and contribute to tracks and their horsemen? Anyone that knows anything about the commingling rebate shops knows that they pay the highest rates in the industry.
This is a classic case of the barn door behind open for a decade and people wondering where all the horses went. On-track business accounts for only about 10% of the total being bet.
Go this this link and see photos of 28 of our employees.
http://www.rgs.net/AboutUs/Employees.aspx
Think we don't have a big investment and payroll. I can't speak for any other rebate shops but we have a major bricks and mortar investment considering the number of customers we have.
If we paid the low rates that everyone thinks we are paying, we would give the difference to the customer to stimulate business. Imagine that; a business model that puts the customer first. Yet, the industry wins since we generate more money per customer than any other segment.
Dick Powell
Racing and Gaming Services

[johnhannibalsmith]

... the author was describing someone who makes money while having a flashy costume on...

You must be confusing the definition of the word "pimp" with that of "Ronald McDonald". Stick to being intentionally comical if this reflects the thinkin' Syd.

[Fat Syd]

You must be confusing the definition of the word "pimp" with that of "Ronald McDonald". Stick to being intentionally comical if this reflects the thinkin' Syd.

It's no joke when somebody in a position to influence makes money thru a side door!

[Robert Fischer]

the TRACKS should be the ones offering competitive rebates to high-churn players.

[Charlie D]

Thanks for the link Jeff.

Read PR and you are still the guy i'd have running my track if i owned one, because like Mr D Powell seems to know, you also seem know. you put the customers first.

All the best and enjoy your 15 minutes :) ;)

[Fat Syd]

the TRACKS should be the ones offering competitive rebates to high-churn players.

Isn't NY State responsible for making these decisions for NYRA and CHRB for California? If so the two largest handles in the country are ruled by non horseman or track employees. I suggest Jeff P stops worrying about how much money is coming by way or referral commission and start preaching to the two biggest racing States!

[johnhannibalsmith]

the TRACKS should be the ones offering competitive rebates to high-churn players.

No, no no - to hear the great minds tell it - only ideas, businesses, and entities that continue to support and promulgate a completely non-functioning business model are helping the sport. In other words, get on board with what doesn't work and fail with us.

It would be far too much to think that an idea that works would be adopted or rendered obsolete by a better idea in an industry full of bitchy reactionaries waiting for the world to turn on its own.

[Fat Syd]

No, no no - to hear the great minds tell it - only ideas, businesses, and entities that continue to support and promulgate a completely non-functioning business model are helping the sport. In other words, get on board with what doesn't work and fail with us.

It would be far too much to think that an idea that works would be adopted or rendered obsolete by a better idea in an industry full of bitchy reactionaries waiting for the world to turn on its own.

Please feel free to provide all the wonderful work HANA has done to convince NY State and California to rebate money to large customers. What would you have NYRA and the California tracks do? This is a matter that resides with politicians not tracks.

NYRA has their Rewards program. You think NYRA wouldn't want to promote additional rebates for whales? Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they do everything possible to promote growth among huge players? Your inept position pointlessly suggests that tracks want the status quo, why would they, they are failing and they know it.

[chickenhead]

Please feel free to provide all the wonderful work HANA has done to convince NY State and California to rebate money to large customers. What would you have NYRA and the California tracks do? This is a matter that resides with politicians not tracks.

NYRA has their Rewards program. You think NYRA wouldn't want to promote additional rebates for whales? Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they do everything possible to promote growth among huge players? Your inept position pointlessly suggests that tracks want the status quo, why would they, they are failing and they know it.

They've incessantly argued for one better than on track rebates for large bettors - lower takeout for all bettors, not just the large ones.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Please feel free to provide all the wonderful work HANA has done to convince NY State and California to rebate money to large customers. What would you have NYRA and the California tracks do? This is a matter that resides with politicians not tracks.

NYRA has their Rewards program. You think NYRA wouldn't want to promote additional rebates for whales? Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't they do everything possible to promote growth among huge players? Your inept position pointlessly suggests that tracks want the status quo, why would they, they are failing and they know it.

Much better! :)

I'm not a HANA member nor an apologist, but exploring simply the opening salvo there - let's look at what the conflicting positions on the most recent important industry decision in California were. HANA outwardly supports lower takeout and opposes higher takeout. It was not unilaterily the CA state legislature that enacted the higher takeout legislation. Or am I wrong?

So to answer question number one as it relates to California industry leaders, as well as tracks, I would suggest that charging more to an eroding customer base for a deteriorating product is absurd. The mere fact that HANA didn't support that move and that the tracks and leaders did support it pretty much spells out how much more one has done versus the other. One did nothing, one did somethign asinine. Point to the challenger.

As for the latter - my inept position clearly states my resigned belief that the majority of industry leaders not only want the status quo, but they are scurrying trying to devise schemes to recreate the lazy assurances that they had when they operated a pseudo-monopoly.

My state legislature decided to make me a felon if I used the computer to bet on horses. They didn't dream it up on their own; it was an industry supported LSD-trip-ish conceived Messiah syndrome bill that guaranteed that gamblers would go to racetracks and track owned OTBs for the full on-track share of the take.

Yeah, yeah - I know and now, as we sit here, it's a legislative issue and the track owner and various other leaders can't be counted on it to remedy it so we too might at least get that 1% of something in bulk as opposed to the 0% of nothing that we're left with with Pokerstars offering 24 hour tables you can sit at in your tightie whities.

You're right... what they want is innovation. They want to be the next big thing in sports... again... the next big thing in gambling... again... I see all of the signs around me; people from within speaking in a way that gives me hope; policies that are adopted proactively to address the issues that are resurrected month after month, year after year...

Pardon me, I'm on another plantet.

[Fat Syd]

Much better! :)

I'm not a HANA member nor an apologist, but exploring simply the opening salvo there - let's look at what the conflicting positions on the most recent important industry decision in California were. HANA outwardly supports lower takeout and opposes higher takeout. It was not unilaterily the CA state legislature that enacted the higher takeout legislation. Or am I wrong?

So to answer question number one as it relates to California industry leaders, as well as tracks, I would suggest that charging more to an eroding customer base for a deteriorating product is absurd. The mere fact that HANA didn't support that move and that the tracks and leaders did support it pretty much spells out how much more one has done versus the other. One did nothing, one did somethign asinine. Point to the challenger.

As for the latter - my inept position clearly states my resigned belief that the majority of industry leaders not only want the status quo, but they are scurrying trying to devise schemes to recreate the lazy assurances that they had when they operated a pseudo-monopoly.

My state legislature decided to make me a felon if I used the computer to bet on horses. They didn't dream it up on their own; it was an industry supported LSD-trip-ish conceived Messiah syndrome bill that guaranteed that gamblers would go to racetracks and track owned OTBs for the full on-track share of the take.

Yeah, yeah - I know and now, as we sit here, it's a legislative issue and the track owner and various other leaders can't be counted on it to remedy it so we too might at least get that 1% of something in bulk as opposed to the 0% of nothing that we're left with with Pokerstars offering 24 hour tables you can sit at in your tightie whities.

You're right... what they want is innovation. They want to be the next big thing in sports... again... the next big thing in gambling... again... I see all of the signs around me; people from within speaking in a way that gives me hope; policies that are adopted proactively to address the issues that are resurrected month after month, year after year...

Pardon me, I'm on another plantet.

By The Way feel free to answer my pointed questions. Do you think NYRA wouldn't want to increase rewards to whales?

[GameTheory]

Everybody wants a lower takeout.Except for the tracks, the owners, the horsemen, and the politicians. Everybody.

[DeanT]

At least after four pages of comments the PR finally said this in the comments section after letting it pee in the wind for nine hours.

"The Paulick Report has not said that HANA has anything to do with Mr. Platt's referral business."

[Charlie D]

Except for the tracks, the owners, the horsemen, and the politicians. Everybody.




Steady GT, i do believe there are places that are reducing Take and reaping the rewards of this action.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/01/tampa-bay-downs-handle-is-on-fire.html



Tioga Downs also saw support from players with thier Low pricing i believe.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Everybody wants a lower takeout....

I don't know - the subject author penned an awkwardly admiring piece regarding the aforementioned CA takeout and its "benefits".

I don't seem to sense this to be the case. At this point it seems almost like a topic used to draw lines in the sand with many stoically supporting higher takeouts almost as a symbolic gesture against those who insist the opposite.

I'm familiar with the realities of trying to scale back existing takeout rates to where vocal reduction supporters suggest they should be. I try not to scream real loudly about how it must be done now and like this or that because I think that may be fairly unrealistic.

My problem on this matter, and we've drifted from where I thought I was, is that there is a resignation towards doing the difficult job - encapsulated somewhat in my cynicism and your next post below where we shrug and say, "whaddamIsupposedtodoaboutit" - it ain't my problem or it's too big or it depends on this guy or that acronymic entity - so we sit around and decide it would be much easier to squash and vilify those that actually do effort to address the primary concern - the customer and the product - because their innovations threaten what does not work.

[toussaud]

Honestly, I would let it be. First of all he's just making himself look like an idiot. Secondly, everyone who knows what is going on know who is right and who is wrong. Last but not least, you know you are on the right track. He's doing nothing in a round about way of promoting your cause without knowing it.

[ArlJim78]

Am I the only person who has never checked out the Paulick Report before today? I read the link that Jeff put up, and I see that I haven't missed much. It looks like a misguided angry hitpiece on Jeff, and low class all the way around.

[thaskalos]

Why doesn't Ray Paulick "grow a set", and tell us what he really means to say?

If the rebate operators, and Jeff Platt, are not "friends of racing"...doesn't that imply that all of us bettors - who choose to receive these rebates - should also not be considered friends of racing as well? Why is he making Jeff the target of his inane argument...instead of coming after us?

Jeff Platt heads a HORSEPLAYER organization, Mr. Paulick...and he needn't apologize for having the player's best interests at heart.

If there is one party which should be embarrassed, it is the horseracing industry...for making it impossible to be BOTH, "a friend of racing", AND "a friend of the player" - at the same time.

[highnote]

Good for you, Jeff. This is America. You're entitled to profit from steering fellow horseplayers to a higher roi.


Too many managers of corporations think that in their version of Amerika losses are supposed to be socialized and gains are supposed to be privatized. Just ask AIG, Goldman-Sachs, et al.

Why should racetracks be any different? It seems that CA racetrack management wants bettors like Jeff to support their product but does not want bettors like him to make money off of the existence of their racetracks -- even if it means more customers for the racetracks.

Racetracks can not control their bottom line. Their businesses are spiraling out of control. So in order to get some kind of control, any control, they try to control people like Jeff.

If CA racetracks made the few dollars Jeff is making from commissions it would not keep CA racetracks from sliding into the great abyss.

CA racetracks should worry about running their business and not worry about stopping people from running theirs.

[chickenhead]

Yes, just so everyone is clear - if you do business with an officially licensed, official reseller of a tracks signal - a company a track has officially entered into a specific agreement with for the purpose of that entity taking wagers from customers on behalf of that track, for mutual benefit - if you do that, be prepared for that track to run a smear campaign against you as an enemy of racing.

[Jeff P]

For those of you who do not know me, I am a lifelong race fan. I have been betting horses on a regular basis since 1981.

I am the creator of JCapper, a handicapping software business launched in 2003. In addition to revenue from selling software, I receive monthly commission checks from Handicapper's Data Warehouse (a licensed Equibase reseller.) The monthly commission amount varies from one month to the next. It is based on the number of JCapper subscribers downloading from HDW each month.

Over the years I have made a number of industry contacts in the ADW market space. In the fall of 2009 I began helping interested players from the JCapper user community find rebates. Yes. I receive compensation for this in the form of referral fees. This should come as no surprise to anybody. Many others are out there doing the same thing.

The email posted by Brad Cummings in the comments beneath today's article did come from me. I sent it out last year to a list of my in house JCapper customers as well as to a list of about 300 adw players that I obtained privately. The email was sent out once only. There was an opt out/unsubscribe link embedded in the body of the email. Even though the response rate was close to 10% (which is pretty good for a cold email) I elected not to do a follow up email.

A few days ago, Ray sent me an email asking me to comment on the email posted by Brad beneath Ray's article. Ray asked me how much money I earned last year in the form of referral fees for helping my customers find rebates. I was (understandably) agitated at the question. (Imagine how any of you might feel if someone you did not know were asking for details about items going on your tax return.) But I was truthful and told Ray the dollar amount in question was less than 10k.

Ray asked me to name the private source of the 300 adw names mentioned above. I declined. However, I was truthful and did tell Ray the private name list was given to me as a direct result of computer programming I did to help out a fellow bettor.

Ray also asked if I was tapping the HANA member database to send offers for my services out to HANA members. I was (understandably) agitated at this question as well. But again, I was truthful and told him emphatically: NO.

JCapper was launched in 2003.

HANA was formed in 2008. For those of you who may not know, there are no paid positions at HANA. ALL of the people involved with HANA, myself included, are volunteers.

I have never (as in not even once) used the HANA member database as a source of names to market to. I have never shared HANA member contact info with outside third parties, nor will I or anyone associated with HANA ever willingly allow that to happen.

My response to Ray’s emails contained ALL of the information posted in my comments above. For whatever reason, Ray chose to cherry pick from among the above facts when he penned today’s article – which I can only conclude was meant as an attempt to smear both myself and HANA (although I think the "pimping aint easy" graphic to the right of the article's headline is a bit over the top.)

Jeff Platt
President, HANA



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


.

[5k-claim]

At least after four pages of comments the PR finally said this in the comments section after letting it pee in the wind for nine hours.

I am not exactly sure what was "peeing in the wind for nine hours."

Here is the offending sentence?

In emails he has sent out and in a sales pitch on his website, Platt has been soliciting horseplayers to sign up with rebaters that he said he is associated with.

Granted, the immediately preceding paragraph of the post was about Jeff's work with HANA, but this does not implicate HANA at all. Nor does it state that Jeff misused HANA mailing lists or whatever. It isn't even about HANA.

Although I can definitely see some confusion if a reader didn't realize that Jeff has more than one site going, and equated HANA with "his website".

So I suppose on the spectrum between "a little sloppy and unclear" on the one side, and "purposefully misleading" on the other, you are voting for "purposeful"? I would still like to give the benefit of the doubt and go with "sloppily unclear". (Although I do not know Ray from the man on the moon, so I am just guessing.)

[DJofSD]

Jeff,

Thanks for posting the information that you did. I do not think you were obligated to respond. But that you did and the manner in which you did I believe says alot about you and I mean that in a positive fashion.

Don't let the little people drag you down.

Keep on keepin' on and you will win the respect of all.

[Cardus]

I disagree totally with your analysis. If I send business (customers) to a Ford dealership and they pay me a comission, I do not have a "financial stake" in that dealership. If that arrangement is disclosed, I don't even have a conflict of interest or a question of ethics.

If one has a problem with my business arrangement, then don't become a customer of that Ford Dealership.

This wasn't my analysis, it was Paulick's. Did you read the piece?

I asked a very simple question.

[bigmack]

This wasn't my analysis, it was Paulick's. Did you read the piece?

I asked a very simple question.
Do YOU need further explanation or are you just slow?

[TurfRuler]

From Wikipedia: A pimp is an agent for prostitutes who lives off their earnings. Pimping is illegal in most countries. The majority of pimps are men. A woman who runs a brothel is known as a madam. The pimp–prostitute relationship can be abusive, with the pimp using techniques such as psychological intimidation, manipulation and physical force to control the prostitutes who work for him.[1] Pimps are known under the law as procurers. In the United States, pimps are arrested and charged with pandering.

Notable pimps

Fillmore Slim
Iceberg Slim
Don "Magic" Juan


I think I would sue for libel.

[Cardus]

Do YOU need further explanation or are you just slow?

The post of mine that Bruddah quoted was Paulick's analysis, not mine.

I wanted to know if it were true, which any mildly curious person might want to know.

Now, I know that you are moments away from embedding an obscene poster like you did a few days ago, but try to resist the temptation, lest you co-opt the theme of this thread.

[bigmack]

ow, I know that you are moments away from embedding an obscene poster like you did a few days ago, but try to resist the temptation, lest you co-opt the theme of this thread.
You mean when you typed gfy?

[Fat Syd]

From Wikipedia: A pimp is an agent for prostitutes who lives off their earnings. Pimping is illegal in most countries. The majority of pimps are men. A woman who runs a brothel is known as a madam. The pimp–prostitute relationship can be abusive, with the pimp using techniques such as psychological intimidation, manipulation and physical force to control the prostitutes who work for him.[1] Pimps are known under the law as procurers. In the United States, pimps are arrested and charged with pandering.

Notable pimps

Fillmore Slim
Iceberg Slim
Don "Magic" Juan


I think I would sue for libel.

A really good lawyer should be able to get millions from Paulick and after winning that case they should go after the TV show Pimp my Ride.. You really have no idea what "Libel" means do you?

[TurfRuler]

A really good lawyer should be able to get millions from Paulick and after winning that case they should go after the TV show Pimp my Ride.. You really have no idea what "Libel" means do you?

a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person

any other questions?

[highnote]

Syd, I respect your opinion, but I wonder if you know the history of HANA.

HANA was started right here on Paceadvantage by horseplayers who were tired of not having seat at the table. Horseplayers provide money for purses, yet have little or no say in the pricing of wagers. Horseplayers have tried to get a seat at the table, but have been turned away -- especially by CHRB.

HANA has done a lot of good. One notable example... HANA has worked with Equibase to come up with a real time system for updating scratches and other changes.

HANA board members have traveled to various track functions at their own expense to represent players -- Keeneland and Yavapai, for example.

Jeff has every right to make a living working with ADWs and help players get the best price on the cost of a bet.

HELPING HORSEPLAYERS is a HANA mandate.

That's why they're called Horseplayers Association of North America and not Race Track Association of North America.

[Fat Syd]

a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person

any other questions?

pimped was used as an adjective not as a noun

[Fat Syd]

Syd, I respect your opinion, but I wonder if you know the history of HANA.

HANA was started right here on Paceadvantage by horseplayers who were tired of not having seat at the table. Horseplayers provide money for purses, yet have little or no say in the pricing of wagers. Horseplayers have tried to get a seat at the table, but have been turned away -- especially by CHRB.

HANA has done a lot of good. One notable example... HANA has worked with Equibase to come up with a real time system for updating scratches and other changes.

HANA board members have traveled to various track functions at their own expense to represent players -- Keeneland and Yavapai, for example.

Jeff has every right to make a living working with ADWs and help players get the best price on the cost of a bet.

HELPING HORSEPLAYERS is a HANA mandate.

That's why they're called Horseplayers Association of North America and not Race Track Association of North America.

HANA couldn't call GP to complain about an illegal scratch that cost people money.. But you are famous for updating scratch information on EQuibase

[Fat Syd]

As far as I can tell, Jeff Platt is helping horseplayers by getting lower prices on their bets. How is that impartial? How is earning a living through earning commissions disgusting? This is what sales reps in every industry do every day.

If HANA's mandate is to advocate for Horseplayers, can you tell me how Platt, as president, is not honoring that mandate?

I don't get your argument.
If you don't see how this is repulsive then I am sorry I can't help you.

[garyscpa]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/?commentStart=100#Comments

Comment 105 hits the nail on the head.

"To begin with, Brad and Ray's weak protests aside, there was clear intent to smear HANA. There is zero chance that this story would have been written had Platt not been associated with HANA, and neither Ray nor Brad can credibly argue that they couldn't have expected readers to conflate the connection."

[highnote]

HANA couldn't call GP to complain about an illegal scratch that cost people money.. But you are famous for updating scratch information on EQuibase


I could be mistaken, but I think that scratch at GP has been discussed here on PA.

That said, how many battles can a 4 member board fight when they receive no compensation for their efforts?

HANA has compiled a long list of grievences. From what I can see there just are not enough resources to cover all of them.

[Bullet Plane]

Who reads Paulick anyway? The guy has lost what little credibility he had in my book. Does the guy ever have a coherent thought?

He apparently doesn't like people that bet on horseracing.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Let's just put this whole thing to bed and chip in and buy Jeff some advertising with Ray.

[Charlie D]

Think best thing to do is ignore the people who have created what looks to be a smear campaign and anything associated with them.

[highnote]

Speaking of smear...

interesting cartoon Paulick chose to go along with his story on Jeff Platt...

[Rutgers]

In the gambling world, if I lose $1 million on a gambling trip to Las Vegas, management will kick back $100,000 or $150,000 to me. If I lose $100, I'll get nothing. In any business, the best customers get the best rates. Why should it be any different in horse racing?


Because horse racing is pari-mutual wagering.

[GameTheory]

Because horse racing is pari-mutual wagering.Are you going to elaborate on why that matters?

[highnote]

Because horse racing is pari-mutual wagering.


Are you going to elaborate on why that matters?

I was thinking the same thing, GT. What does pari-mutual have to do with it? I compete in the biggest gambling market in the world -- Wall Street. I am certain the large players get better rates on trades than I do. Still, my portfolio is up 70% since January 1, 2007 and I had to deal with the biggest market crash since the Great Depression. So I am able to win despite having a higher cost of trading.

I'm not saying that to impress anyone. I say it to impress on everyone that if you are serious about your work you can overcome any disadvantage.

So to those who are anti-rebate, I say what Telly Savalas' character Kojak often said, "You're breaking my heart."

[Bruddah]

Will you be resigning as president of Hana?

More importantly, will you be resigning as a member of this forum?

Now you ask yourself, was he intentionally trying to be rude or was he serious? Those are the same questions I asked after reading your post.

I came to the conclusion that no one could have thier head that far up thier a&&.

What say you?...Syd

[turfnsport]

If you don't see how this is repulsive then I am sorry I can't help you.

Syd, you are a ****ing moron

[thaskalos]

pimped was used as an adjective not as a nounThe word "pimped" was never used in the article. It was written that Jell Platt "is their PIMP."

But you know all this...and you are just trying to have your "day in the sun"...at his expense. And now you want to tell us that you are an advocate for ethics and decency.

That will be the day...when someone like Jeff Platt will resign - FROM A VOLUNTEER POSITION - because of people like you...or Ray Paulick.

[GameTheory]

The word "pimped" was never used in the article. It was written that Jell Platt "is their PIMP."

But you know all this...and you are just trying to have your "day in the sun"...at his expense. And now you want to tell us that you are an advocate for ethics and decency.

That will be the day...when someone like Jeff Platt will resign - FROM A VOLUNTEER POSITION - because of people like you...or Ray Paulick.
I still don't get what the conflict is. Isn't a conflict of interest when you have opposing interests? Here we have aligned interests. If an owner/CEO of one these rebating ADWs was the president of HANA, I still wouldn't see a conflict (although it would certainly raise eyebrows about true motivations). And if those ADWs or their principals support HANA financially that would also make perfect sense and I don't see an ethical problems there. (And they likely do.) So if Jeff screams at the top of his lungs to go find a rebater (and gets paid in the process) that would be perfectly consistent as HANA is pro-rebate and always was. (Remember, we're talking about legal shops with track contracts.) That wouldn't be appropriate to do when acting as HANA president (I wouldn't even call it unethical, just inappropriate), but perfectly fine in his role of private businessman. And the fact that he did have links to ADWs with a referral deal was as far as I call tell never a secret despite what's been said here. (Where is the evidence for that?)

Now, if Jeff is giving ADW reviews (again, NOT acting on the behalf of HANA) and he has a referral deal with one ADW and not the other ADW, then you could say he has a conflict of interest regarding possible favoritism in his opinion, but that has nothing to do with HANA. (And that's just a made-up example.) I just don't see how anything he has done has compromised his role as HANA prez. He doesn't owe anything to the tracks, so whether they think he is in-the-pocket of whomever or backed by whomever is irrelevant. HANA was set-up (essentially) because they tracks are collectively idiots and are killing the industry. If a racetrack was giving him cash to make sure HANA didn't talk bad about them, that would be a "kickback" and a clear ethical breach and conflict of interest. But if we stick to reality and the actual facts, where is the conflict? Could one of the naysayers explain this to me?

[highnote]

I still don't get what the conflict is. Isn't a conflict of interest when you have opposing interests? Here we have aligned interests. If an owner/CEO of one these rebating ADWs was the president of HANA, I still wouldn't see a conflict (although it would certainly raise eyebrows about true motivations). And if those ADWs or their principals support HANA financially that would also make perfect sense and I don't see an ethical problems there. (And they likely do.) So if Jeff screams at the top of his lungs to go find a rebater (and gets paid in the process) that would be perfectly consistent as HANA is pro-rebate and always was. (Remember, we're talking about legal shops with track contracts.) That wouldn't be appropriate to do when acting as HANA president (I wouldn't even call it unethical, just inappropriate), but perfectly fine in his role of private businessman. And the fact that he did have links to ADWs with a referral deal was as far as I call tell never a secret despite what's been said here. (Where is the evidence for that?)

Now, if Jeff is giving ADW reviews (again, NOT acting on the behalf of HANA) and he has a referral deal with one ADW and not the other ADW, then you could say he has a conflict of interest regarding possible favoritism in his opinion, but that has nothing to do with HANA. (And that's just a made-up example.) I just don't see how anything he has done has compromised his role as HANA prez. He doesn't owe anything to the tracks, so whether they think he is in-the-pocket of whomever or backed by whomever is irrelevant. HANA was set-up (essentially) because they tracks are collectively idiots and are killing the industry. If a racetrack was giving him cash to make sure HANA didn't talk bad about them, that would be a "kickback" and a clear ethical breach and conflict of interest. But if we stick to reality and the actual facts, where is the conflict? Could one of the naysayers explain this to me?


I can not explain it. The fact that Paulick would write this boggles the mind. You might want to post this on the thread on Paulick's site. Not that it would do any good. The anti-rebaters there come off as shills. All they can do is talk about is how bad HANA is and Platt's supposed conflict of interest, but they can't back it up with good arguments. Slinging mud is what you'll find at Paulick. I get the feeling the anti-HANA people posting on Paulick are CA racetrack employees.

[thaskalos]

I still don't get what the conflict is. Isn't a conflict of interest when you have opposing interests? Here we have aligned interests. If an owner/CEO of one these rebating ADWs was the president of HANA, I still wouldn't see a conflict (although it would certainly raise eyebrows about true motivations). And if those ADWs or their principals support HANA financially that would also make perfect sense and I don't see an ethical problems there. (And they likely do.) So if Jeff screams at the top of his lungs to go find a rebater (and gets paid in the process) that would be perfectly consistent as HANA is pro-rebate and always was. (Remember, we're talking about legal shops with track contracts.) That wouldn't be appropriate to do when acting as HANA president (I wouldn't even call it unethical, just inappropriate), but perfectly fine in his role of private businessman. And the fact that he did have links to ADWs with a referral deal was as far as I call tell never a secret despite what's been said here. (Where is the evidence for that?)

Now, if Jeff is giving ADW reviews (again, NOT acting on the behalf of HANA) and he has a referral deal with one ADW and not the other ADW, then you could say he has a conflict of interest regarding possible favoritism in his opinion, but that has nothing to do with HANA. (And that's just a made-up example.) I just don't see how anything he has done has compromised his role as HANA prez. He doesn't owe anything to the tracks, so whether they think he is in-the-pocket of whomever or backed by whomever is irrelevant. HANA was set-up (essentially) because they tracks are collectively idiots and are killing the industry. If a racetrack was giving him cash to make sure HANA didn't talk bad about them, that would be a "kickback" and a clear ethical breach and conflict of interest. But if we stick to reality and the actual facts, where is the conflict? Could one of the naysayers explain this to me?It's obvious that Ray Paulick has trouble understanding that HANA is a HORSEPLAYER organization, and, as such, is more interested in the plight of the horseplayers...than in securing as big a piece of the pie as possible for the horsemen.

He writes:

"I don't know if the players Platt has recruited for the rebaters understand that he gets a commission, nor do I care.

But I do think that racetracks that deal with HANA should know that the organization is run by someone who is actively soliciting some of their best costumers to wager through a system that pays the tracks - and as a result, pays purses - less money."

I guess you are only considered "a friend of racing", if you try to secure the biggest purses for the horsemen...regardless of what happens to the horseplayers.

[highnote]

It's obvious that Ray Paulick has trouble understanding that HANA is a HORSEPLAYER organization, and, as such, is more interested in the plight of the horseplayers...than in securing as big a piece of the pie as possible for the horsemen.

He writes:

"I don't know if the players Platt has recruited for the rebaters understand that he gets a commission, nor do I care.

But I do think that racetracks that deal with HANA should know that the organization is run by someone who is actively soliciting some of their best costumers to wager through a system that pays the tracks - and as a result, pays purses - less money."

I guess you are only considered "a friend of racing", if you try to secure the biggest purses for the horsemen...regardless of what happens to the horseplayers.

If we follow his logic then racetrack management must be anti-horsemen also because racetrack management are the ones who negotiated contracts with ADWs.

[chickenhead]

It's obvious that Ray Paulick has trouble understanding that HANA is a HORSEPLAYER organization, and, as such, is more interested in the plight of the horseplayers...than in securing as big a piece of the pie as possible for the horsemen.

He writes:

"I don't know if the players Platt has recruited for the rebaters understand that he gets a commission, nor do I care.

But I do think that racetracks that deal with HANA should know that the organization is run by someone who is actively soliciting some of their best costumers to wager through a system that pays the tracks - and as a result, pays purses - less money."

I guess you are only considered "a friend of racing", if you try to secure the biggest purses for the horsemen...regardless of what happens to the horseplayers.


It also speaks to general schizophrenia. Adws aren't lawless pirates, the tracks purposely sign contracts with them, specifically so that they can solicit customers. So the race tracks that deal with Hana should also be aware that they, themselves, enable and encourage customers to bet with entities that pay them less. The tracks are the ones who designed the entire system, and they renew each and every part of it, each year. All arguments of merits of said system aside -- it is simply impossible, literally impossible, for the creator and managing director of a system to hold fallable a customer who operates entirely within the bounds of that system.

Forget horseplayers having a problem with it, it's on its face absurd for a track to have a problem with it.

"tracks should know Jeff, in his private matters, openly encourages horseplayers to operate completely within the system the tracks have designed and put into place."

[highnote]

It also speaks to general schizophrenia. Adws aren't lawless pirates, the tracks purposely sign contracts with them, specifically so that they can solicit customers. So the race tracks that deal with Hana should also be aware that they, themselves, enable and encourage customers to bet with entities that pay them less. The tracks are the ones who designed the entire system, and they renew each and every part of it, each year. All arguments of merits of said system aside -- it is simply impossible, literally impossible, for the creator and managing director of a system to hold fallable a customer who operates entirely within the bounds of that system.

Forget horseplayers having a problem with it, it's on its face absurd for a track to have a problem with it.

"tracks should know Jeff, in his private matters, openly encourages horseplayers to operate completely within the system the tracks have designed and put into place."


The anti-rebaters silence on this last important point is deafening.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well if you would have disclosed your relationship with these rebate shops then people could have made their own decision about HANA. You didn't. Since your affilliation with Hana helped you make money shouldn't you at least disclose how much you made from Hana customers?Hey, another troll who can't read...at least you outed yourself...

[PaceAdvantage]

Jeff P. had his flashy HANA personna on and sold his wears to HANA members.Ummm...no he didn't.

To be libel doesn't something have to be inaccurate?You mean like you just wrote above?

[DeanT]

It's obvious that Ray Paulick has trouble understanding that HANA is a HORSEPLAYER organization, and, as such, is more interested in the plight of the horseplayers...than in securing as big a piece of the pie as possible for the horsemen.



Serious question: Might he just be a traffic hog? He retweeted several people today calling him every name in the book (the comments, like here go 10 to 1 against him, and for Jeff). Even his poll question went to hell.

[JustRalph]

Let me say a couple of things here.......

Jeff Didn't not advertise/solicit to the HANA list.

Billw is a great guy who has put in countless hours working for HANA and they are lucky to have him.

Fat Syd is a troll. And possibly helping out Paulick with his smear and link bait for the Paulick Report.

I have heard stories of why Ray and Bloodhorse parted ways? Why doesn't somebody write about those ? Lots of blogs out there..........

[highnote]

Let me say a couple of things here.......

Jeff Didn't not advertise/solicit to the HANA list.

Billw is a great guy who has put in countless hours working for HANA and they are lucky to have him.

Fat Syd is a troll. And possibly helping out Paulick with his smear and link bait for the Paulick Report.

I have heard stories of why Ray and Bloodhorse parted ways? Why doesn't somebody write about those ? Lots of blogs out there..........


Interesting. BH always gave HANA good press. Maybe this is why PR is so anti HANA?

Just read an interesting line from this column:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-cutlersocialmedia012411

Social media can be cruel, especially when a pack of teenage girls gang up on a peer and spread insults based on speculation, assumption and gossip. Most of it, of course, is fueled by the need to build their reputations.

The writer must have also been reading Paulick's column.

Another great line from the article:

Winston Churchill’s line is “a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on.”

and one more:

They just drilled him – the seventh grade overtaking the National Football League.

The seventh grade taking over some horse racing blogs. :D

[beertapper]

haven't bothered visiting his site since the layout revision......

[JustRalph]

Jeff Didn't not advertise/solicit to the HANA list.

I made a typo........been a long day, 12 hour shift today. What I meant to say is:

Jeff Did not advertise/solicit to the HANA list.

[Kelso]

My comments to the Paulick Report:

Early candidate for 2011 post of the year!

[Kelso]

Although I can definitely see some confusion if a reader didn't realize that Jeff has more than one site going, and equated HANA with "his website".

<snip>

So I suppose on the spectrum between "a little sloppy and unclear" on the one side, and "purposefully misleading" on the other, you are voting for "purposeful"? I would still like to give the benefit of the doubt and go with "sloppily unclear".

Where on your scale does your shamefully misleading comment regarding Jeff's website(s) lie? If you meant to include HANA as among Jeff's "more than one site going," you could not be more wrong ... or misleading.

HANA members have the HANA website "going;" albeit with the bulk of the heavy lifting being done by a painfully small set of tireless volunteers. It is not Jeff Platt's website, as you quite sloppily/purposefully imply.

I think you owe Jeff a sincere apology.

[Kelso]

Let's just put this whole thing to bed and chip in and buy Jeff some advertising with Ray.

Then Jeff's praises will flow from Paulick's poisen pen.

The "pimp" debate obfuscates the pertinent reality ... Ray Paulick is the track executives' whore. Pay him enough and he's at your command.

[5k-claim]

Where on your scale does your shamefully misleading comment regarding Jeff's website(s) lie? If you meant to include HANA as among Jeff's "more than one site going," you could not be more wrong ... or misleading.

HANA members have the HANA website "going;" albeit with the bulk of the heavy lifting being done by a painfully small set of tireless volunteers. It is not Jeff Platt's website, as you quite sloppily/purposefully imply.

I think you owe Jeff a sincere apology.

I meant simply involved with, in whatever capacity. It should definitely be known that more than one volunteer contributes to HANA, and that Jeff is just one of them. How is this even a problem? Or misunderstood? (And no, I would not want to contribute to such a misunderstanding.)

My point was that in the original article's sentence about "his website", it should have been more clear that "his website" is www.jcapper.com, not HANA.

I do not consider HANA to be "his website", but in his role as one of its volunteer members providing logistical support, look at the URL to the official sign-up page for HANA:

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

Signing up new members is part of what keeps HANA going. No?

.

[stuball]

It was just a matter of time till track management and their shills launched
smear campaigns...Jeff.. We are behind you 100%..I always hated when people said they gave 120%..or 110%..This smear campaign will backfire big time on Paulick and his Suits.. The battle is being won but the war is not over...
Could this be likened to a Kamakazi attack.. (Suit says we are losing the
war activate the smear plan, maybe we can delay the inevitable loss)
Typical thinking for the powers that had no plan to help racing,only themselves.

We will not falter...we will not fail...together..stay together...

Stuball

[Tom]

OK, I am now joining the California boycott, since I believe they are partly behind the attacks on Jeff. But even if the take goes down, I'm not going back to them.

[andymays]

This is more Paulick and the TOC than anyone else.

This is an email sent to Paulick yesterday along with all the who's who of California Racing and several Journalists.
--------------------------------------------------

I’m sure Jeff will have an answer for you Ray. I’m not speaking for him in any way in this email.

In all the time I have been a member of HANA I never received a solicitation from Jeff Platt asking me if I wanted to get rebates through any rebater. Jeff has told me and other people that he does get a commission. This isn’t breaking news Ray. As far as I know Jeff and the HANA Board Members don’t get paid for what they do. It’s reasonable to assume that they have other ways of earning a living. Jeff has http://jcapper.com/ . I am not one of his customers.

Ray, don’t you think it’s a little over the top to refer to Jeff Platt as a “pimp”? What do we call you when you seem to take the side of the TOC and the CHRB time after time? Do you make money from California Racing? Are you sure that money isn’t influencing your opinions?

I’ve asked you several times to do some reporting on the Retention Cap sponsored by the TOC that prevents California Horseplayers from receiving significant rebates. Where is that article?

I’m not sure why you want to paint someone who shows Horseplayers how to get rebates or imply that someone who gets them is hurting Horse Racing.

The truth is that Horse Racing did this to itself.

Horseplayers didn’t create a climate where most players need rebates to survive.Andy

[johnhannibalsmith]

This is more Paulick and the TOC than anyone else.

...

Good luck there Andy. He's no different than anyone; there's always a little inconsistency to everyone - but I think I may have lost all faith in a man that thinks that Rebates are an 800 pound gorilla and yet supports takeout hikes.

I can't take seriously an article that begins by supporting his thesis on the evil of rebates using an argument that pins the entire existence of these entities on the signal pricing. NO mention of the pricing of the wager and the fact that rebating is most concisely a direct response to an overpriced product. No acknowledgement that this 800 pound gorilla is that bastard son of a Caligula-like orgy of 20,000 pound gorillas that left the customer as an afterthought for damn near a century as they methodically facilitated the pricing of racing as gambling proposition beyond levels that would prove uncompetitive when competition became a reality.

No, no, no...

What happened to this guy? I never considered him a genius by any stretch of the imagination even though I generally enjoy his work, but lately, he's been borderline incomprehensible a disproportionate amount of the time.

[andymays]

Good luck there Andy. He's no different than anyone; there's always a little inconsistency to everyone - but I think I may have lost all faith in a man that thinks that Rebates are an 800 pound gorilla and yet supports takeout hikes.

I can't take seriously an article that begins by supporting his thesis on the evil of rebates using an argument that pins the entire existence of these entities on the signal pricing. NO mention of the pricing of the wager and the fact that rebating is most concisely a direct response to an overpriced product. No acknowledgement that this 800 pound gorilla is that bastard son of a Caligula-like orgy of 20,000 pound gorillas that left the customer as an afterthought for damn near a century as they methodically facilitated the pricing of racing as gambling proposition beyond levels that would prove uncompetitive when competition became a reality.

No, no, no...

What happened to this guy? I never considered him a genius by any stretch of the imagination even though I generally enjoy his work, but lately, he's been borderline incomprehensible a disproportionate amount of the time.

His stock has gone way way down over the last couple of months.

He wasn't the only reporter to get the tip on Jeff. The other reporter did some due diligence and decided not to run the story. But then again the other reporter is fair and Ray has been heading in the other direction over the last couple of weeks for sure.

[Deepsix]

When Ray was posting articles/topics fed to him by HANA/AndyM then Ray Paulick was a great guy. Now that there is some push back he has fallen from grace. Funny how that works.

[andymays]

When Ray was posting articles/topics fed to him by HANA/AndyM then Ray Paulick was a great guy. Now that there is some push back he has fallen from grace. Funny how that works.

Not Quite Deepsix. There has always been a contentious relationship. It is true that there was a point a couple of months ago when we felt that he was beginning to offer up both sides of the stories but that changed when he posted a misleading headline and then later in the day compounded the misleading headline with a story about misleading headline. I asked him to retract the aricles several times but he refused. That is when the relationship with Horseplayers went off a cliff.

And that's the truth. ;)

[Greyfox]

OK, I am now joining the California boycott, since I believe they are partly behind the attacks on Jeff.

Good. That should drive the odds up on hard to find winners. :lol:

[chickenhead]

I've been betting into the straight takeout, no rebates, for well over a decade.

If not doing so gets you a hit piece, I want my ****ing Eclipse Award to go along with this increased takeout.

[johnhannibalsmith]

When Ray was posting articles/topics fed to him by HANA/AndyM then Ray Paulick was a great guy. Now that there is some push back he has fallen from grace. Funny how that works.

I don't care if he writes pieces critical of anyone in particular - Jeff, Hana, Doug O'Neill - that's sort of what makes him worth checking out before the other spoon fed diarrhea in the media.

I read his piece on rebate shops and Jeff Platt skeptically by admission from the outset, but eager to read the substance if this had made headlines on his site. I just can't find anything here. The analytical aspect of the article as it relates to rebating is as amateurishly unconvincing as the salute to increased takeout was.

The harsh reality of this "conflict of interest" that was to be exposed can best be described as "Trivial"'s hapless little sidekick "Stretch".

The man is reporting on thoroughbred horse racing, which, if the sport had its own industry facility, should probably be named "Conflict Of Interest Downs". And this is the example of conflict of interest within the industry that has his feathers in a ruffle?

Really?

I swear on Boxcar's stack of bibles that I'm trying to objective, but this is the least illuminating expose not to be televised from a vault. It's barely a story and what little story there is, he connects it so poorly with his monochromatic decree that rebates have ruined racing that there is literally only one conclusion that I can draw: for whatever reason, Jeff/HANA are a target. With nothing in the content of the article that means much of anything or prompts any critical thought, its hard not to question the motives of any author.

[Deepsix]

Here's what I have gleaned from this recent Paulick topic concerning Jeff P--

Since the beginning of time I have heard HANA members (maybe HANA Board Members and AndyM/RogerWay), question the integrity of the TOC/CHRB members, and their agenda. In my minds eye I suspect that Ray Paulick used the recent blog topic to illustrate that there are no clean hands and conflicts might be found throughout racing. Given the limited info I see the conflict of interest, or potential for a conflict of interest, OR the appearance of a conflict. It's interesting to see how Jeff conducted this aspect of his personal business.

Maybe a Chinese Wall is necessary.

[Greyfox]

In my minds eye I suspect that Ray Paulick used the recent blog topic to illustrate that there are no clean hands and conflicts might be found throughout racing. .

:ThmbUp: I think you've hit the bulls eye. (Unfortunately Paulick doesn't acknowledge that his hands may have stains of silver on them as well.)

[johnhannibalsmith]

... In my minds eye I suspect that Ray Paulick used the recent blog topic to illustrate that there are no clean hands and conflicts might be found throughout racing...

I just cannot agree with this position at all, but still find it a refreshingly astute interpretation.

*edited to note that I don't agree with your opinion of Paulick's intent specifically, and not the notion captured in the latter half of the sentence if it was ambiguous.

[chickenhead]

Hana is specifically biased, on purpose. They aren't an impartial state agency. They are an interest group. Being potentially biased in that context is not a conflict...its the entire point.

If the president of peta was paid to give a speech soliciting cat adoption, it is evidence of bias towards cat adoption, not evidence of conflict of interest. And that bias could have been gleaned simply from his position as peta president.

Considering that part of Hana's platform, predating Jeff, has been, in instances of high takeout to favor rebates, likewise, any bias is both evident, and quite intentional.

As essentially a lobbying group, Hana is now, always has been, and always will be biased.

[Deepsix]

Hmm, Here's a recurring thought that once again crept into my consciousness, just now--- Concerning the current SA boycott; is the objective to have the 6.5% Retention Cap lifted (which would allow larger rebates), or is it to have the takeout returned to previous levels?

I'm getting pretty sure that the objective is to lift the retention cap.. Right?

[chickenhead]

Hmm, Here's a recurring thought that once again crept into my consciousness, just now--- Concerning the current SA boycott; is the objective to have the 6.5% Retention Cap lifted (which would allow larger rebates), or is it to have the takeout returned to previous levels?

I'm getting pretty sure that the objective is to lift the retention cap.. Right?

Quite publicly and loudly, in plain sight, and argued to the point of annoyance - both. These are public planks, not private secrets.

[Rook]

Jeff has been working hard for the good of horse racing. Hooking up people with rebate shops keeps these horseplayers in the game and betting far more than they ever would getting bupkis from the tracks.

In contrast, Ray Paulick, as an advocate for higher takeout is either a fool or a paid stooge. Either way, he is not worthy of anyone's serious attention.

[FenceBored]

Hmm, Here's a recurring thought that once again crept into my consciousness, just now--- Concerning the current SA boycott; is the objective to have the 6.5% Retention Cap lifted (which would allow larger rebates), or is it to have the takeout returned to previous levels?

I'm getting pretty sure that the objective is to lift the retention cap.. Right?

:eek: Hmm, considering the Retention Cap is a parasitic abomination, why would anyone want it lifted? :rolleyes:

[highnote]

It is amazing that CA track managers are the ones who negotiate with ADWs knowing full well which ones give rebates; and yet individuals who are opposed to rebates come to their defense on the one hand and on the other throw stones at Jeff Platt for encouraging players to get rebates. Talk about incongruent. :rolleyes:

There appear to be a few reasons why people are attacking Jeff when he is working within the same system of which CA tracks approve.

One reason is because horseplayers have united to fight back against high takeout and a second reason is that horseplayers are trying to get a seat on the CHRB.

They may feel that if they can get some kind of dirt of Jeff then they can keep him or other horseplayer friendly individuals from getting a seat on the board.

I think they are scared to death they will have a horseplayer voting on racing issues that are favorable to players.

If these are the reasons then it is more important than ever to fight harder.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Is there anything more on the cause of this article on the PR to let you know it's more than pure BS?

I mean,unprovoked they come out of nowhere using words like "Pimp" as the foothole for this argument.Really?

Let's have a brawl at Keeneland in April.I'll have the "Platt" jersey on punks!!:cool:

[Bruddah]

California Racing, as a PARI MUTUAL entity, is now running scared. They can't understand why their betting pooles are losing ground daily. Actually, they know why, but won't/can't admit it publicly. The handicappers they have treated as sheep have bolted to other pastures. Yes, Calfornia racing thought the sheep could be sheered for ever, but the sheep have developed some cajuna's and have told the Lords of the Manor to go screw themselves. This has shaken the Lords of California racing to the bottom of their hard boots and now they are attacking Jeff Platt. In truth, we handicappers are pissed off and not going to take it anymore.

I love the French Revolution of the late 1700's. Does anyone know where we can get a Guillotine? It may be time to do some chopping.

VIVA LE REVOLUTION !!

[freddymo]

I don't post here hardily ever but I always read the forum and talk about much of what is discussed with fellow racing fans. I came out on the side of the HANA president but many people who I respect a lot felt that Jeff had indeed acted inappropiately. What's the harm in entertaining various opinions even if they are inflammatory?

[Cardus]

It is amazing that CA track managers are the ones who negotiate with ADWs knowing full well which ones give rebates; and yet individuals who are opposed to rebates come to their defense on the one hand and on the other throw stones at Jeff Platt for encouraging players to get rebates. Talk about incongruent. :rolleyes:

There appear to be a few reasons why people are attacking Jeff when he is working within the same system of which CA tracks approve.

One reason is because horseplayers have united to fight back against high takeout and a second reason is that horseplayers are trying to get a seat on the CHRB.

They may feel that if they can get some kind of dirt of Jeff then they can keep him or other horseplayer friendly individuals from getting a seat on the board.

I think they are scared to death they will have a horseplayer voting on racing issues that are favorable to players.

If these are the reasons then it is more important than ever to fight harder.

If someone from the CHRB were to read this thread, do you think it: A) increases, B) decreases, or C) has no effect on HANA getting a seat on that board?

[highnote]

If someone from the CHRB were to read this thread, do you think it: A) increases, B) decreases, or C) has no effect on HANA getting a seat on that board?


Let me just say this...

CHRB increased takeout. Horseplayers do not have a representative on the board.

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION caused a revolution in this country.

What do you think is happening now? Do you find it surprising?

Are the sheep just supposed to bend over while Lord of the Manor has his way with them?

VIVA LE REVOLUTION !!

[Stillriledup]

Is there anything more on the cause of this article on the PR to let you know it's more than pure BS?

I mean,unprovoked they come out of nowhere using words like "Pimp" as the foothole for this argument.Really?

Let's have a brawl at Keeneland in April.I'll have the "Platt" jersey on punks!!:cool:

Its pretty obvious right about now that Paulick is the mouthpiece for the California racing industry. He's flashing banners that takeout raises are no big deal and accepting money from Cali racing interests to trumpet the exciting new purse increases in California. Ray Paulick is not a friend of the bettors, after all, the bettors don't give him money like California did.

[Deepsix]

I just read Paulick's blog and I see where Swetyejohn also wants a seat for a horseplayer on the CHRB. So, in order to resolve the current SA boycott the CHRB must roll back the takeout increase, remove the 6.5% retention cap, and place at least one "Player" on the CHRB. Anything else?

[Cardus]

Let me just say this...

CHRB increased takeout. Horseplayers do not have a representative on the board.

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION caused a revolution in this country.

What do you think is happening now? Do you find it surprising?

Are the sheep just supposed to bend over while Lord of the Manor has his way with them?

VIVA LE REVOLUTION !!

B.

[johnhannibalsmith]

B.

J.

[Stillriledup]

I just read Paulick's blog and I see where Swetyejohn also wants a seat for a horseplayer on the CHRB. So, in order to resolve the current SA boycott the CHRB must roll back the takeout increase, remove the 6.5% retention cap, and place at least one "Player" on the CHRB. Anything else?

There's really no 'boycott' of California racing. People are just betting other signals, signals that offer a better deal. If Starbucks raises the price of a coffee and Coffee Bean keeps their prices the same, people will go to Coffee Bean for a better 'deal'. They're not going to stand in front of Starbucks with pickit signs boycotting, they're just going to quietly use another company for their caffeine needs. Same thing is happening in racing, there's really no boycott, its all in the heads of the California racing industry.

Its not rocket science, if they lower their prices, they'll get more customers. Its business 101.

[FenceBored]

If someone from the CHRB were to read this thread, do you think it: A) increases, B) decreases, or C) has no effect on HANA getting a seat on that board?

C.

Not A). Words alone won't improve the chances.

Not B). I would put last week's chances at 0%, so it can't be lower than that.

Therefore C): Doesn't make a bit of difference.

[Tom]

I just read Paulick's blog and I see where Swetyejohn also wants a seat for a horseplayer on the CHRB. So, in order to resolve the current SA boycott the CHRB must roll back the takeout increase, remove the 6.5% retention cap, and place at least one "Player" on the CHRB. Anything else?

Sounds pretty fair and logical to me.
Without the "players" there is no game.

As the boycott is pointing out, without the track, the horses, the jockeys, the trainers, the program sellers.....there are other games.

[Charlie D]

This is more Paulick and the TOC than anyone else.

This is an email sent to Paulick yesterday along with all the who's who of California Racing and several Journalists.
--------------------------------------------------

I’m sure Jeff will have an answer for you Ray. I’m not speaking for him in any way in this email.

In all the time I have been a member of HANA I never received a solicitation from Jeff Platt asking me if I wanted to get rebates through any rebater.Andy

Thank you Andy, been waiting for this kind of comment.


If i remember correctly i recieved an email from Jeff on the rebates


Maybe those slagging and smearing can work out that 2+2 actually equals 4 and that Jeff Platt told it how it was in post #75

[thaskalos]

I don't post here hardily ever but I always read the forum and talk about much of what is discussed with fellow racing fans. I came out on the side of the HANA president but many people who I respect a lot felt that Jeff had indeed acted inappropiately. What's the harm in entertaining various opinions even if they are inflammatory?Did those people mention where the impropriety was? What exactly did Jeff do wrong here? Is it his volunteered position with HANA which puts his actions in a different light, compared to what the rest of us do?

He is the head of a horseplayer organization; why shouldn't he suggest and recommend legal rebate shops to horseplayers? As the leader of a horseplayer organization, shouldn't his loyalty lie with the players? And if he got commissions for something that could only be considered a "win-win" situation, why all the fuss?

IMO, Jeff Platt would deserve to be accused of acting inappropriately, if he had encouraged the players to forgo betting with the rebate shops...and to return to the racetracks, and their oppressive takeouts.

That would be the "true" conflict of interest, in my book.

Yes, HANA does "deal with racetracks"...but those dealings are for the benefit of us horseplayers.

The rest of the groups in this industry have been strongly represented by powerful organizations for many years now. Is it a crime that the horseplayers have finally found a group of volunteers, who are willing to work for their best interests?

Anybody who has the horseplayer's best interests at heart is now considered to be an enemy of racing?

[CincyHorseplayer]

I just read Paulick's blog and I see where Swetyejohn also wants a seat for a horseplayer on the CHRB. So, in order to resolve the current SA boycott the CHRB must roll back the takeout increase, remove the 6.5% retention cap, and place at least one "Player" on the CHRB. Anything else?

Perhaps kissin a little tailbone,with some tailbone gravy might be in order.

[Charlie D]

I just read Paulick's blog and I see where Swetyejohn also wants a seat for a horseplayer on the CHRB. So, in order to resolve the current SA boycott the CHRB must roll back the takeout increase, remove the 6.5% retention cap, and place at least one "Player" on the CHRB. Anything else?



Not asking them for handouts like the horsemen seem to do, they are just asking for a fair crack and to have some input into the decision making process.


No matter what the proposal is or the opinion of one person is on that proposal, the majority view of the panel wins the vote anyway.

[rubicon55]

Did those people mention where the impropriety was? What exactly did Jeff do wrong here? Is it his volunteered position with HANA which puts his actions in a different light, compared to what the rest of us do?

He is the head of a horseplayer organization; why shouldn't he suggest and recommend legal rebate shops to horseplayers? As the leader of a horseplayer organization, shouldn't his loyalty lie with the players? And if he got commissions for something that could only be considered a "win-win" situation, why all the fuss?

IMO, Jeff Platt would deserve to be accused of acting inappropriately, if he had encouraged the players to forgo betting with the rebate shops...and to return to the racetracks, and their oppressive takeouts.

That would be the "true" conflict of interest, in my book.

Yes, HANA does "deal with racetracks"...but those dealings are for the benefit of us horseplayers.

The rest of the groups in this industry have been strongly represented by powerful organizations for many years now. Is it a crime that the horseplayers have finally found a group of volunteers, who are willing to work for their best interests?

Anybody who has the horseplayer's best interests at heart is now considered to be an enemy of racing?

IMO True Greek Logic at its best.

[5k-claim]

I just read Paulick's blog and I see where Swetyejohn also wants a seat for a horseplayer on the CHRB. So, in order to resolve the current SA boycott the CHRB must roll back the takeout increase, remove the 6.5% retention cap, and place at least one "Player" on the CHRB. Anything else?

As you already know, the official Press Release announcing the boycott didn't really mention a "Player" on the CHRB. (At least not the one that this lowly horseman actually took the time to read and think about.)

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.

Every bit of this could be a good idea. (In time.) But strategically I think focusing the message on one demand, rolling back takeout increases, and pounding that home could have been easier for officials, the public and media to digest and perhaps even sympathize with. (Not to mention easier to market.) A single, clear message is just easier to navigate than a multiple choice question. Just ask some of the boycotts staunchest supporters.

I guess I am asking kind of the same question- what exactly needs to happen for a new Press Release announcing an end to the boycott? And who exactly are officials negotiating with in order to obtain that release?

.

[Kelso]

I do not consider HANA to be "his website", but in his role as one of its volunteer members providing logistical support, look at the URL to the official sign-up page for HANA:

http://www.jcapper.com (http://<b>www.jcapper.com)/HANA/SignUp/HANASignUpForm.asp?source=0

Signing up new members is part of what keeps HANA going. No?

.

My criticism of your post has nothing, whatsoever, to do with signing up HANA members. Don't try to deflect it to that.

Your wrote that Jeff "has more than one website going" in the context of Crist's smarmy speculations of a conflict between Jeff's association with both JCapper and HANA, each of which entities maintains a website. That was materially misleading and unfair, at the very least, to Jeff.

I repeat that you owe him a sincere apology for your mis-statement.

[cj]

My criticism of your post has nothing, whatsoever, to do with signing up HANA members. Don't try to deflect it to that.

Your wrote that Jeff "has more than one website going" in the context of Crist's smarmy speculations of a conflict between Jeff's association with both JCapper and HANA, each of which entities maintains a website. That was materially misleading and unfair, at the very least, to Jeff.

I repeat that you owe him a sincere apology for your mis-statement.

Crist made no allegations, smarmy or otherwise. I don't think he has ever mentioned HANA.

[Kelso]

The man is reporting on thoroughbred horse racing, which, if the sport had its own industry facility, should probably be named "Conflict Of Interest Downs".


Would still like to learn who made all the loot off California's "everybody buys plastic" dictate.

It's clear that Ray Paulick is incapable, by both capacity and preference, of exposing the truth in that conflict. I wonder what the odds are that he would ask some competent, incorruptable writer to take on the job. :lol:

[highnote]

Crist made no allegations, smarmy or otherwise. I don't think he has ever mentioned HANA.


CJ -- Maybe he meant Paulick -- not Crist?

5k and Kelso --
As far as JCapper hosting signups for HANA -- HANA operates on a shoestring budget. If someone else would step forward and offer free hosting for HANA maybe they would take it. I think it is generous of Jeff to offer it.

That's the funny thing about the human brain -- it will find an answer to any question asked of it -- even if the answer is wrong.

If people would take the time to learn the facts -- by simply asking -- they would not come up with the wrong answers.

[Kelso]

Crist made no allegations, smarmy or otherwise. I don't think he has ever mentioned HANA.


My mistake. I meant to say Paulick. I apologize to Mr. Crist.

[5k-claim]

My criticism of your post has nothing, whatsoever, to do with signing up HANA members. Don't try to deflect it to that.

Your wrote that Jeff "has more than one website going" in the context of Crist's smarmy speculations of a conflict between Jeff's association with both JCapper and HANA, each of which entities maintains a website. That was materially misleading and unfair, at the very least, to Jeff.

I repeat that you owe him a sincere apology for your mis-statement.

Kelso, are you really this dense? And who is Crist?

Have you even been to the HANA site before? At the bottom of the sign-up page it pretty clearly recognizes volunteer members who are providing logistical support for the site. Maybe you have never bothered to read it, or more likely did not understand what you were reading, but it is not exactly a secret. It is stated right out in the open.

Keep in mind one thing.... who even cares? There is nothing wrong with HANA members volunteering programming or server space to keep the HANA website up and running. And there is nothing wrong Jeff being one of those people. It actually makes sense, considering one of the things he does is program.

Here is the text from the bottom of the sign-up page:

Why is the HANA New Member Sign Up Form on the JCapper server? HANA is currently operating on a shoestring. As one of HANA's founders Jeff was kind enough to donate free programming time to develop the HANA site. The HTML portion of the HANA site is currently hosted on a server belonging to Gametheory who posts at PaceAdvantage.com. Rather than spend addtional money each month to have the database portion of the HANA site hosted on its own server, Jeff has agreed to host it on his JCapper server. This arrangement allows HANA to maintain a proper site at the lowest possible monthly cost: none.

Maybe you are not aware of what keeps a website going, but here is a hint: the programming and databases are a big part of it. It isn't just done by "magic elves" out in "internet land".

I think Jeff actually deserves credit for the programming of the site. I know how much hard work is involved. It's a good website. (I notice that "Kelso" is not listed as having provided any technical expertise.) When I first looked at the HANA site many months ago I noticed that text (I am guessing it has been up there from the beginning), and have therefore always known that Jeff did the programming. Anyone else who read the bottom of the page would have known all along, as well.

Where is the big conflict?

.

[highnote]

Kelso,
Paulick wrote that -- not Crist.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/platt-and-rebate-shops-not-friends-of-racing/


B) Crist wrote:
"Jeff Platt is a smart guy. He’s a horseplayer who has developed a handicapping software system. He also is the high profile president of the vocal group known as Horseplayers Association of North America, or HANA, which is attempting to position itself as the “voice” of horseplayers.
"... In emails he has sent out and in a sales pitch on his website, Platt has been soliciting horseplayers to sign up with rebaters that he said he is associated with. Platt said he has no “financial stake” in those rebate operations, though he admitted to the Paulick Report that he receives commissions whenever someone he recruits becomes a customer of a rebater. Platt, thus, has a financial interest in moving horseplayers from the racetrack to rebate operations. He is their pimp.

I don’t know if the players Platt has recruited for the rebaters understand that he gets a commission, nor do I care. If he wants to camouflage what a financial stake is, that’s his business

[Kelso]

Kelso, are you really this dense? And who is Crist?.

How "dense" do you mean, precisely?

And the Crist reference was an error, as pointed out in my reply, above, to CJ. I apologized to Mr. Crist.



Where is the big conflict?

I have been to the HANA website often and I fully understand the organization's functioning. I also have a sufficient grasp of website operating imperatives. Once again, your feeble effort to deflect attention from the error in what you wrote has failed.

As well, you have now turned on your own original mis-statement. (Good for you.)

Paulick's smarmy speculations of a conflict on Jeff's part are specious. So, too, was your statement ... in the context of Paulick's character assault on Jeff ... that Jeff "has more than one website going." He does not, at least so far as HANA is concerned.

Now, be a good boy. Acknowledge your error/treachery and apologize to Jeff. You'll feel much better for it. (And don't forget to take those meds tonight.)

[GameTheory]

How "dense" do you mean, precisely?Pretty sure you two agree and don't realize it. Let it go...

[garyscpa]

Not an apology from Paulick, but from today's Paulick Report:

The Breeders' Cup Forum: Barry Meadow and the Horseplayer View



http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/the-breeders-cup-forum-barry-meadow-and-the-horseplayer-view/

[Deepsix]

"bump"

[PaceAdvantage]

I still don't get what the conflict is. Isn't a conflict of interest when you have opposing interests? Here we have aligned interests. If an owner/CEO of one these rebating ADWs was the president of HANA, I still wouldn't see a conflict (although it would certainly raise eyebrows about true motivations). And if those ADWs or their principals support HANA financially that would also make perfect sense and I don't see an ethical problems there. (And they likely do.) So if Jeff screams at the top of his lungs to go find a rebater (and gets paid in the process) that would be perfectly consistent as HANA is pro-rebate and always was. (Remember, we're talking about legal shops with track contracts.) That wouldn't be appropriate to do when acting as HANA president (I wouldn't even call it unethical, just inappropriate), but perfectly fine in his role of private businessman. And the fact that he did have links to ADWs with a referral deal was as far as I call tell never a secret despite what's been said here. (Where is the evidence for that?)

Now, if Jeff is giving ADW reviews (again, NOT acting on the behalf of HANA) and he has a referral deal with one ADW and not the other ADW, then you could say he has a conflict of interest regarding possible favoritism in his opinion, but that has nothing to do with HANA. (And that's just a made-up example.) I just don't see how anything he has done has compromised his role as HANA prez. He doesn't owe anything to the tracks, so whether they think he is in-the-pocket of whomever or backed by whomever is irrelevant. HANA was set-up (essentially) because they tracks are collectively idiots and are killing the industry. If a racetrack was giving him cash to make sure HANA didn't talk bad about them, that would be a "kickback" and a clear ethical breach and conflict of interest. But if we stick to reality and the actual facts, where is the conflict? Could one of the naysayers explain this to me?This reply makes sense to me. I'd like to hear from those who think Paulick raised a valid point to explain to me why the above post from GameTheory is off the mark.

Since Deepsix bumped this thread, maybe he/she would like to go first.

[Deepsix]

Hey, yeah I don't mind sharing thoughts. Bring it. <smile>

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey, yeah I don't mind sharing thoughts. Bring it. <smile>Do you agree with what GameTheory wrote or not? And if not, why? Not sure why I had to post another reply to ask you the same thing I just asked in reply #166

[Stillriledup]

Do you agree with what GameTheory wrote or not? And if not, why not? Not sure why I had to post another reply to ask you the same thing I just asked in reply #166

I agree with Gamer. I was surprised at the position of Paulick going after Jeff for something like this when it doesnt really affect Jeff's 'duties' as head of HANA. I guess if it DID affect his duties, we would want to know where the 'conflict' was, but from where i sit, it doesnt appear that Jeff is doing anything that would hurt HANA or its members.

[Deepsix]

:)

[PaceAdvantage]

:)Are you this useless as a contributor? Or are you that afraid of answering direct questions?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Are you this useless as a contributor? Or are you that afraid of answering direct questions?
By bumping this thread and then ducking and dodging, I can only assume some sort of (immature?) agenda.
Instead of bumping, maybe he should have been betting on Santa Anita's product. It seems they could have used some more action today.

[cj]

Are you this useless as a contributor? Or are you that afraid of answering direct questions?

Yes, he is. And now you quoted an emoticon only post so I can't delete it. Damn it!

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by GameTheory
I still don't get what the conflict is.


The insinuation is that Jeff "thrives" in a high-take market(because of the opportunistic negotiation of referral commissions), and therefore he supposedly would have a conflict being the public's advocate for lowering takeout.

Extremely weak insinuation from Paulick, and the poor move implies either poor insight, or it was simply a forced personal attack (ultimately)motivated by an agenda.

[highnote]

Robert, there probably is someone with an agenda and an axe to grind.

I have seen almost no mention of the airplane that circled Santa Anita racetrack, a week or so ago, towing a banner that read:

"FIGHT HIGH TAKEOUT !! PLAYERSBOYCOTT.ORG".

This probably ruffled a few feathers. Good for horseplayers if it did! It ruffled feathers when Richard Bauer did it a few years back during his "Boycott Magna" campaign.

Scroll down through the items at this link and you can see it. The 7th item seems to show it the most clearly.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/326105/thread/1295376801/last-1295385701/SANTA+ANITA-+Sights+%26amp%3B+Sounds



Originally Posted by GameTheory
I still don't get what the conflict is.


The insinuation is that Jeff "thrives" in a high-take market(because of the opportunistic negotiation of referral commissions), and therefore he supposedly would have a conflict being the public's advocate for lowering takeout.

Extremely weak insinuation from Paulick, and the poor move implies either poor insight, or it was simply a forced personal attack (ultimately)motivated by an agenda.

[JustRalph]

Paulick has gone Gawker. The article convinces me that it was "link Bait"

He was trying to drive traffic. As a side advantage he gets a little "in" with his owner and track friends.

I actually like the Paulick re-design and even posted a thread promoting it. I am sorry for that now.

Btw, if you don't know what "going Gawker" is...... it's doing anything for hits on your website. So you can quote the unique hits for advertising revenue.

There are many different strategies.......be it "content farming" or just plain sleazy links......... getting the page views is what it's all about. Jeff Platt was just a means to an end. I suggest boycotting Paulick Report

[Rutgers]

This reply makes sense to me. I'd like to hear from those who think Paulick raised a valid point to explain to me why the above post from GameTheory is off the mark.



At the risk of being crucified...

Ray Paulick did raise a valid point, but he made a weak argument in supporting that issue. Keep in mind, a conflict of interest can exist even if there was no wrong doings or improper actions. And I don’t think Jeff Platt knowingly did anything wrong to enrich himself at the expense of HANA or any of it’s members.

GameTheory’s post makes sense, if rebating didn’t hurt more players then it helps. But the vast majority of horseplayers are hurt by rebating or more specifically unequal rebating. Rebating is an advantage to players that receive them, but because horse racing is pari-mutual wagering, an advantage to one player comes at the expense of all the other players. And if Player A receives a 7% rebate while Player B a 3%, rebate, it has the same effect as if Player A had 4% rebate while Player B receive none.

So the point Ray Paulick raised was Jeff Platt is an officer in a organization that represents all horseplayers but has a vested interest in a system that favors a select few large players at the expense of the majority.

[DeanT]

that favors a select few large players

Select few?

It's a major part of the action for players crying for lower takeout. There are no fewer than six ADWs where everyday players can get them. The problem is there are some states (eg CA) that disallow them, keeping weekend warriors tied to the 1977 pricing and distribution system that they don't like any longer/arent playing any longer, but have no choice.

[OTM Al]

At the risk of being crucified...

I agree that it was presented in a poor and vindictive way (and to me it was no different than that silly cartoon video. Even if you are right about an issue, being a jerk about it gets you nowhere). Strangely, or maybe not so given the volatility of the argument, no one addressed the actual point of conflict raised by the article, that actively working with the rebaters, who Mr. Paulick sees as detrimental to racing long term, conflicts with the idea that working with HANA will benefit tracks. So the question raised is what really is being represented. To me, it will be interesting to see what happens to the ADWs that compete mainly with rebates if take actually does come down. If they try to continue such practices as margins grow thin, they could become bad financial risks for players. There's a reason banks can't compete on interest rates which is analogous.

To me as well I find it humorous how the attitude toward Mr. Paulick has changed because he took an unpopular stand. Of course this is exactly what people used to praise him for (full disclosure, I've never thought much of him). This is what happens when someone new tries to come play with the "big boys". HANA members really should be happy about this article because what it means is you are being noticed and the other players recognize a chance that you are becoming relevant.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I enjoy this new mindset where our parimutuel system is an unwavering beacon of integrity and justice, so long as everyone is getting raped together.

[DeanT]

To me as well I find it humorous how the attitude toward Mr. Paulick has changed because he took an unpopular stand.

From reading some of the articles and twitter etc, as well as chatboards, I don't think that is quite right. I think most people who have commented did not comment on the stand, but on the means to relay the stand. i.e. the hit piece designed as a story on rebating. Several people called it "trolling" etc, and some have even asked Paulick to apologize.

I don't think anyone minds articles on rebating being bad (it is a part of a terrible system; that everyone agrees) or purses versus handle, or how to grow the game etc, even if they disagree. If you use someone in an ad hominem way in your article, you are going to get pushback.

[GameTheory]

GameTheory’s post makes sense, if rebating didn’t hurt more players then it helps. But the vast majority of horseplayers are hurt by rebating or more specifically unequal rebating. Rebating is an advantage to players that receive them, but because horse racing is pari-mutual wagering, an advantage to one player comes at the expense of all the other players. And if Player A receives a 7% rebate while Player B a 3%, rebate, it has the same effect as if Player A had 4% rebate while Player B receive none.You'll have to work a little harder to convince me of that. It is not like the rebate is coming out of another player's end -- it is coming from the ADWs share of the takeout. It is essentially a subsidy for that player, so it makes his life easier, but it doesn't necessarily make a non-rebated player's life harder. (In fact, it keeps the pools bigger so that could be a help for all.) If the rebate were paid in TVs & other goods would you say the same? Rebates don't make you a better handicapper, and in fact allow you to bet "dumber".

Let's put it another way: player A & player B both are paddock handicappers and must go to the track to bet. Player A lives 60 miles away, and player B lives across the street from the track. Player A therefore has an expense for gas that player B does not have. So player B, with all else being equal, has a better chance to come out in the black with expenses accounted for because he has less of them. So player A is disadvantaged, but player B doesn't get any help out of that fact, and vice-versa. (Player B has an advantage, but it is not at Player A's expense.) The only kind of advantages that come at the expense of the other players are superior handicapping and betting. Rebates don't give you that, at least not in such a direct fashion. The total effect of rebates is a feedback loop and complex, so it hard to say exactly.

So the point Ray Paulick raised was Jeff Platt is an officer in a organization that represents all horseplayers but has a vested interest in a system that favors a select few large players at the expense of the majority.But your logic of the effect of rebates is not settled fact, at least I don't think so. And HANA and Jeff have been/are pushing for lower takeout for all. No one can deny that. And it seems rebates may be the best vehicle to make that happen as that can potentially force the hand of the tracks -- lowering takeout is the only way to get rid of them (without also losing all the players to other games or off-shore where they were persist no matter what as long as high takeout prevails). So if the rebating ADWs need a high-takeout environment, it would possibly be then a conflict for them to support Jeff who is trying to lower takeout any which way. And so now their interest is Jeff's interest? I mean I see where you're going but there are a whole bunch of assumptions that have to be true (like that the ADWs would all suddenly go out of business with direct low takeout), and it is still not much of a conflict, and only in appearance or potential, not in fact. (Because anyone can see Jeff is not trying to keep high takeout.)

In any case, if any one does have a problem with this, such a concern can only legitimately come from HANA members or potential members, and those players that are pissed off about anyone else getting rebates are already not on board with HANA. But Paulick's point seemed to be something on the order of "the tracks/owners shouldn't trust Jeff to have their best interests at heart". By which he really means their short-term interests. (Which apparently in Paulick's mind is synonymous with being a "friend of racing".) Well duh, Jeff doesn't represent them, and this "conflict" is irrelevant to that. But I still think the interests here are more aligned than conflicted. With friends like Paulick and his backers, racing doesn't need enemies.

[Rutgers]

Select few?

It's a major part of the action for players crying for lower takeout. There are no fewer than six ADWs where everyday players can get them. The problem is there are some states (eg CA) that disallow them, keeping weekend warriors tied to the 1977 pricing and distribution system that they don't like any longer/arent playing any longer, but have no choice.

Yes, a select few.

Because the vast majority of rebates are based on a player’s betting volume, the biggest players receive the largest rebates, while smaller players receive a smaller percentage. The vast majority of players who are receiving rebates are receiving rebates far smaller then the biggest bettors, which still puts them at a disadvantage

[DeanT]

Yes, a select few.

Because the vast majority of rebates are based on a player’s betting volume, the biggest players receive the largest rebates, while smaller players receive a smaller percentage. The vast majority of players who are receiving rebates are receiving rebates far smaller then the biggest bettors, which still puts them at a disadvantage

Thanks for the lesson :)

I was typing about this

but has a vested interest in a system that favors a select few large players

What Jeff and a lot of players (on the ADW section here) have been proponents of - is making sure they are more equitable to players who do not receive them, until the tracks and horsemen do the right thing.

What every horseplayer is doing now is being educated and it is happening from other horseplayers. Yes computer teams get the highest rebates, that is obvious and that is not overly fair - there is your "select few". But the mainstream player can too, at least to get a break on takeout. The problem: They don't know that.

Myself as a horseplayer have shouted it from the rooftops since 2005 - until they get off their ass and do something positive with pricing, get some lower takeout because you can, and you can bet more, and you can enjoy the game more.

[Track Collector]

Yes, a select few.

Because the vast majority of rebates are based on a player’s betting volume, the biggest players receive the largest rebates, while smaller players receive a smaller percentage. The vast majority of players who are receiving rebates are receiving rebates far smaller then the biggest bettors, which still puts them at a disadvantage

Their disadvantage (or lack of achieving the highest level of rebates) is self-imposed.

What are some of the reasons for not receiving the highest level of rebates?
(a) The inability to wager large sums of money.
(b) Living in a state where rebates are not allowed or limited.
(c) Having a success rate (ROI) that does not promote higher levels of wagering.

All of these are of course inter-connected, and in all the player has the OPPORTUNITY to make changes which will help them achieve the maximum rebates possible. I would venture to say that (a) is largely dependent upon (c), so (c) is where one controls his/her own destiny.

I am no different. To find the person who keeps me/us from receiving the highest rebates, all we have to do is look in the mirror. ;)

[Track Collector]

Oops. I forgot to stay on topic.

Keep up the good work Jeff. Many of us do believe that you are fighting for the benefit of ALL!

[PaceAdvantage]

At the risk of being crucified...Why would you be crucified? The point is to have constructive dialogue and share various viewpoints. I appreciated your comments as much as anyone else's thus far...

[highnote]

EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!

If I traded stocks at a higher frequency I would get lower commissions.

I kept nagging my discount broker to charge me lower commissions on my trades after I showed them the volume I was trading and how high their commissions were in relation to my profits.

The more money I make, the more I can trade and the more I trade the more money I can make.

It's no different in racing. The better a person's betting the more money the bettor will make. The more they make the more they will bet. The more they bet the lower their commissions and the more they will make. The more they make the more they will bet. etc etc etc -- it's a positive feedback loop.






Their disadvantage (or lack of achieving the highest level of rebates) is self-imposed.

What are some of the reasons for not receiving the highest level of rebates?
(a) The inability to wager large sums of money.
(b) Living in a state where rebates are not allowed or limited.
(c) Having a success rate (ROI) that does not promote higher levels of wagering.

All of these are of course inter-connected, and in all the player has the OPPORTUNITY to make changes which will help them achieve the maximum rebates possible. I would venture to say that (a) is largely dependent upon (c), so (c) is where one controls his/her own destiny.

I am no different. To find the person who keeps me/us from receiving the highest rebates, all we have to do is look in the mirror. ;)

[Stillriledup]

Yes, a select few.

Because the vast majority of rebates are based on a player’s betting volume, the biggest players receive the largest rebates, while smaller players receive a smaller percentage. The vast majority of players who are receiving rebates are receiving rebates far smaller then the biggest bettors, which still puts them at a disadvantage

But they can get rid of that disadvantage by betting more money. Bet a few grand per race and the 'disadvantage' goes away. Its not like you cant get a big rebate based on color or religion, its open to anyone who bets big. Its sort of like how real life works. If you are a big customer, you get carte blanche.

[johnhannibalsmith]

But they can get rid of that disadvantage by betting more money. Bet a few grand per race and the 'disadvantage' goes away. Its not like you cant get a big rebate based on color or religion...

Or if they weren't total morons they'd just spend more and get the whole racetrack. Maybe then a jet so they don't ever get shut out. An island with a expansive view is a must.

[Robert Fischer]

Or if they weren't total morons they'd just spend more and get the whole racetrack. Maybe then a jet so they don't ever get shut out. An island with a expansive view is a must.

lots of idiot jetsetters for whatever reason just don't buy into the Illuminati

it's a positive feedback loop

[DeanT]

The beat goes on: Stronach looks to add high level players to a new rebate shop.

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/01/29/xpressbet-to-spin-off-rebate-shop.aspx


I like the twitterverse sometimes.

jnchapel (http://twitter.com/#%21/jnchapel) Jessica Chapel



Looking forward to @raypaulick (http://twitter.com/raypaulick) calling Frank Stronach a pimp in response to this: http://goo.gl/ZFweE. (Or does PR only libel horseplayers?)

15 minutes ago (http://twitter.com/#%21/jnchapel/status/31464885791494144) Favorite (http://twitter.com/#) Retweet (http://twitter.com/#) Reply (http://twitter.com/#)

[Charlie D]

Is Frank saying take out is too high with this move

[Pace Cap'n]

The thing with the rebates is they allow the beneficiary to wager larger amounts, and when he and I land on the same winner my payout is reduced because he bet more than he would have without the rebate.

[thaskalos]

The thing with the rebates is they allow the beneficiary to wager larger amounts, and when he and I land on the same winner my payout is reduced because he bet more than he would have without the rebate.Yes, but isn't this disadvantage canceled out by the occasions in which you and the rebated player land on different horses?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The thing with the rebates is they allow the beneficiary to wager larger amounts, and when he and I land on the same winner my payout is reduced because he bet more than he would have without the rebate.
There is a difference between the whales and mini whales, and every day average players who get rebates.
The average player doesn't generally bet bigger but winds up betting more races or more combos.
Many play looser and make bets they normally wouldn't with a tighter bank roll.
The whales purposely look for value, and do affect every player in the long run.....but then again, any good player does this rebates or not.
Bottom line, it isn't cut and dry.
The only thing to add is that rebates allows players to last longer, and that is good for the growth of the game. Keep the player in there, and they won't want to play anything else but horse racing. And with visible winners, the hope is there that anyone can be one if good enough and lucky enough.

[Stillriledup]

The thing with the rebates is they allow the beneficiary to wager larger amounts, and when he and I land on the same winner my payout is reduced because he bet more than he would have without the rebate.

But your payout is actually enhanced because the pools are bigger. You knock your own price down less with more padding.

Also, if he's betting too much money on one horse, you could be another horse and reap the benefits, no?

[Rutgers]

. It is essentially a subsidy for that player, so it makes his life easier, but it doesn't necessarily make a non-rebated player's life harder.



Yes it does

For example: (This is a rather simple made-up example and the real world is not a cut and dry, but the idea is to show the theory of how players are effected by rebates.)

Assume an exacta pool of $120K with a 17% takeout. That leaves a post-takeout pool of $99,600. Assume fair value for the 1-2 exacta is $39. Player A likes the 1-2 exacta and bets $10 on it (along with 9 other combos for $10 each). He wins and the combo pays $40 for $2 and he collects $200. Lets say there were 2,490 winning $2 tickets. He got fair value, because fair value was $195 (or 5 x $39)

Now add Player B, a big bettor with a 7% rebate. Player B bets the same 10 combo but for $500 each, for a total of $5,000. He knows a bet that big will lower the mutual payoff to below fair value. The gross pool is now $125,000 with a net pool of $103,750. With 2,740 winning $2 tickets the payout is now $37.80. Player A now gets $189, or less then fair value. Player B fair value amount is $9,750 (250 x 39). He only gets $9,450 from the mutuals which is less then fair value. But when you factor in his $350 rebate, he gets $9,800 which is more then fair value. Even if you gave Player A a small token rebate of 3%, he still wouldn’t be getting fair value. ($189 + $3 rebate = $192)

Is it fair that the rebated players gets fair value while the non-rebated does not for making the same wagers in the same pools. That is debatable, but how long do you think non or low rebated players are going to keep playing? The game is tough to beat, but it is even tougher when betting against players getting bigger rebates then you. And while life is not fair, horse racing is a game. If you want people to play your game, that game needs to be fair to everybody.

One other thing you may want to think about. What happens if the track lowers the takeout to 15%? That’s good news for Play B, but it doesn’t help Player A.

The gross pool is still $125,000 but the net pool becomes $106,250. Dividing by 2,740 the $2 exacta would now pay $38.60. Without a rebate Player A still does not receive fair value, but with his 3% rebate Player A would receive fair value. ($193 + $3 equals $196). But of course if takeout was lowered, Player B is going to increase is wager to $750 per combo for a total of $7,500. Now the gross pool is $127,000 with a net pool of $108,375. Dividing by 2,865 winning tickets the payout is now $37.80. Player A once again gets $189 less then fair value of $195, even with is 3% rebate added he still does not gets fair value. While Player B receives $14,175 from the mutuals and $525 from rebates for a total of $14,700 which exceeds fair value of $14,625.

So as long as uneven rebates exists, does lowering the takeout really make that big of a difference to the vast majority of players?

[thaskalos]

Rutgers...you say that "while life is unfair, horse racing is a game". Do you think that your player "B" - who has invested $5,000 on your example race - views this as JUST a game?

If this person makes 5 such wagers during the course of the day, he has wagered a total of $25,000, and - at your stated takeout of 17% - he has contributed over $4,200 to the coffers of the racetrack. Isn't that a little steep for playing a game for only one day?

Hasn't this man EARNED the 7% discount he gets?

[DeanT]

Rutgers...you say that "while life is unfair, horse racing is a game". Do you think that your player "B" - who has invested $5,000 on your example race - views this as JUST a game?

If this person makes 5 such wagers during the course of the day, he has wagered a total of $25,000, and - at your stated takeout of 17% - he has contributed over $4,200 to the coffers of the racetrack. Isn't that a little steep for playing a game for only one day?

Hasn't this man EARNED the 7% discount he gets?

Don't bring marginal cost pricing into it. It kills every boardroom decison and Race Track Industry Program course for the last 20 years :)

[Stillriledup]

Yes it does

For example: (This is a rather simple made-up example and the real world is not a cut and dry, but the idea is to show the theory of how players are effected by rebates.)

Assume an exacta pool of $120K with a 17% takeout. That leaves a post-takeout pool of $99,600. Assume fair value for the 1-2 exacta is $39. Player A likes the 1-2 exacta and bets $10 on it (along with 9 other combos for $10 each). He wins and the combo pays $40 for $2 and he collects $200. Lets say there were 2,490 winning $2 tickets. He got fair value, because fair value was $195 (or 5 x $39)

Now add Player B, a big bettor with a 7% rebate. Player B bets the same 10 combo but for $500 each, for a total of $5,000. He knows a bet that big will lower the mutual payoff to below fair value. The gross pool is now $125,000 with a net pool of $103,750. With 2,740 winning $2 tickets the payout is now $37.80. Player A now gets $189, or less then fair value. Player B fair value amount is $9,750 (250 x 39). He only gets $9,450 from the mutuals which is less then fair value. But when you factor in his $350 rebate, he gets $9,800 which is more then fair value. Even if you gave Player A a small token rebate of 3%, he still wouldn’t be getting fair value. ($189 + $3 rebate = $192)

Is it fair that the rebated players gets fair value while the non-rebated does not for making the same wagers in the same pools. That is debatable, but how long do you think non or low rebated players are going to keep playing? The game is tough to beat, but it is even tougher when betting against players getting bigger rebates then you. And while life is not fair, horse racing is a game. If you want people to play your game, that game needs to be fair to everybody.

One other thing you may want to think about. What happens if the track lowers the takeout to 15%? That’s good news for Play B, but it doesn’t help Player A.

The gross pool is still $125,000 but the net pool becomes $106,250. Dividing by 2,740 the $2 exacta would now pay $38.60. Without a rebate Player A still does not receive fair value, but with his 3% rebate Player A would receive fair value. ($193 + $3 equals $196). But of course if takeout was lowered, Player B is going to increase is wager to $750 per combo for a total of $7,500. Now the gross pool is $127,000 with a net pool of $108,375. Dividing by 2,865 winning tickets the payout is now $37.80. Player A once again gets $189 less then fair value of $195, even with is 3% rebate added he still does not gets fair value. While Player B receives $14,175 from the mutuals and $525 from rebates for a total of $14,700 which exceeds fair value of $14,625.

So as long as uneven rebates exists, does lowering the takeout really make that big of a difference to the vast majority of players?


I think the problem with your example is that you're talking about a specific exacta and now a larger player is lowering that particular combo. But, if the whale is lowering your combo, that means that another combo is rising. When one combo goes down, another combo goes up.

Also, there isnt just one big rebate guy in each pool, there are plenty of them. So, if one rebate guy whacks an exacta from fair value 39 to bad bet 37.80 (in your example) Some other whale is hammering some OTHER combo and he's knocking THAT combo down, which means when he's knocking another combo down, your 37.80 is going back up.

[GameTheory]

Two things, one of which was just hit on above:

A) You're assuming a simple model where the payoffs go down on one thing, and that's that. But as noted, payoffs will go up on something else. In reality, the action of the feedback loop will tend to settle things at some new equilibrium point. In other words, not everyone will be making the same bets in the same amounts anymore. It is a complex system. It might be interesting to run a computer simulation on this and see what happens. (Which might not correspond to what really happens, but to what would happen if everyone was seeking value based on given individual handicapping.)

B) If direct takeout is lowered, we would have to assume that the rebate goes down as well for that pool, since that takeout margin is where they come from. So to make the argument that rebates help one at the expense of the other, and then to also argue that lowering that rebate doesn't mitigate that effect to some extent doesn't make any sense. We would both agree I think that the best scenario is one low rate for everybody. But since that ain't happening, I'd rather have some get rebates and some that don't rather than one high rate for all. (Especially since these rebates are available to anyone who is willing to put them in a position to get them.)

[Charlie D]

Rutgers...you say that "while life is unfair, horse racing is a game". Do you think that your player "B" - who has invested $5,000 on your example race - views this as JUST a game?

If this person makes 5 such wagers during the course of the day, he has wagered a total of $25,000, and - at your stated takeout of 17% - he has contributed over $4,200 to the coffers of the racetrack. Isn't that a little steep for playing a game for only one day?

Hasn't this man EARNED the 7% discount he gets?



This is quite interesting. Tell me thask, how much do you think the people not getting 7% are contributing to the racetrack coffers?? as i'm sure these people outnumber the man above by many and when these guys go bust due to high pricing, quit this Great Game or a noob sees the unfairness in the beginning and moves or chooses other betting mediums, your guy is probably up the creek without a paddle and so is the racing industry as a whole.

[Charlie D]

Rebates: Parham said it costs him about $6 million a year to operate his business, which has 30 employees. So, as a high-volume bettor, he should get a return.

“Something has to come back our way to compensate us, just like in any other business,” Parham said. “Take away our rebates, and we will bet less money.”

Johnson said if the industry agreed to lower the average pari-mutuel takeout rate from 20.5% to 10%, all bettors would benefit because it would put more money into the pools and perhaps grow handle, which is down several billion dollars from last year. Current margins for rebates would be eliminated



Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/58981/computer-bettors-survey-industry-landscape#ixzz1CWfTYW2E



Here you have one person saying he should get a return and another saying lower rates would benefit all and put more money in pools and eliminate current margins for rebates



I'm with Johnson, reduce take and tax all the bettors the same percentage. There are other ways to reward high rollers.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/58981/computer-bettors-survey-industry-landscape#ixzz1CWfTYW2E



Here you have one person saying he should get a return and another saying lower rates would benefit all and put more money in pools and eliminate current margins for rebates



I'm with Johnson, reduce take and tax all the bettors the same percentage. There are other ways to reward high rollers.

I'm sure that Parham would love to see a 10% takeout in the industry and no rebate.
There would be a lot more newbie money in the game, and if he is making it with a 10% takeout right now, he will be making even more as the game grows, or at least the same.

At a 10% takeout rate, no one can use the "I put a lot of volume through so I deserve a better rate" line. The industry will just say, "too bad, we'll have plenty of volume without you."

[Charlie D]

I'm sure that Parham would love to see a 10% takeout in the industry and no rebate.
There would be a lot more newbie money in the game, and if he is making it with a 10% takeout right now, he will be making even more as the game grows, or at least the same.

At a 10% takeout rate, no one can use the "I put a lot of volume through so I deserve a better rate" line. The industry will just say, "too bad, we'll have plenty of volume without you."


He does state" he should get a return", which i think implies he wants the tax break (rebates) to remain in place for his business.


Maybe you're right and i'm misunderstanding the comment.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have to just say that I really appreciate the exchange that has transpired after my initial request for comments, particularly between Rutgers and GameTheory.

[DeanT]

Two things, one of which was just hit on above:

A) You're assuming a simple model where the payoffs go down on one thing, and that's that. But as noted, payoffs will go up on something else. In reality, the action of the feedback loop will tend to settle things at some new equilibrium point. In other words, not everyone will be making the same bets in the same amounts anymore. It is a complex system. It might be interesting to run a computer simulation on this and see what happens. (Which might not correspond to what really happens, but to what would happen if everyone was seeking value based on given individual handicapping.)

B) If direct takeout is lowered, we would have to assume that the rebate goes down as well for that pool, since that takeout margin is where they come from. So to make the argument that rebates help one at the expense of the other, and then to also argue that lowering that rebate doesn't mitigate that effect to some extent doesn't make any sense. We would both agree I think that the best scenario is one low rate for everybody. But since that ain't happening, I'd rather have some get rebates and some that don't rather than one high rate for all. (Especially since these rebates are available to anyone who is willing to put them in a position to get them.)

I agree. It is a complex problem, especially when we add late odds changes and everything else.

I think evidence of what you talk about happens at Mountaineer. They are a huge open signal track now (not so in the late 1990's) and they are at a low signal fees, so computer teams can and do get huge rebates. In theory myself as a player should be at a huge disadvantage at MNR. But - over the last three years (since I have been looking at it) I am up money.

There is still some value and the pool size is big enough to play. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but on track handle is about $30,000. Handle in the late 1990's was poor and pretty much unplayable. There is no possible way you can get fair odds and feel good about playing a $3000 super pool, but add the open signal and that pool goes up huge. I feel ok playing supers there, even with whales with huge bankrolls are against me.

It is a complex issue and cookie-cutter statements do not tell the story. Sure I wish I was on a level playing field there, and sure I wish takeout was 10% across the board, but I am not the least bit scared battling whales at Mountaineer. Without them my handle would probably be zero at MNR because of pool size alone.

[Charlie D]

I agree. It is a complex problem, especially when we add late odds changes and everything else.

I think evidence of what you talk about happens at Mountaineer. They are a huge open signal track now (not so in the late 1990's) and they are at a low signal fees, so computer teams can and do get huge rebates. In theory myself as a player should be at a huge disadvantage at MNR. But - over the last three years (since I have been looking at it) I am up money.

There is still some value and the pool size is big enough to play. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but on track handle is about $30,000. Handle in the late 1990's was poor and pretty much unplayable. There is no possible way you can get fair odds and feel good about playing a $3000 super pool, but add the open signal and that pool goes up huge. I feel ok playing supers there, even with whales with huge bankrolls are against me.

It is a complex issue and cookie-cutter statements do not tell the story. Sure I wish I was on a level playing field there, and sure I wish takeout was 10% across the board, but I am not the least bit scared battling whales at Mountaineer. Without them my handle would probably be zero at MNR because of pool size alone.


No one should be afraid to go into battle with anyone, these people are using the same info thats made available to everyone.

Racing needs to attract new blood and one way is to make the product as attractive as possible, low take helps makes racing competitive with other betting mediums i believe, good intergrity means you have a good image and not a poor one


A dood image gives potential investors confidence to invest hard earned

Can you sell this attractive product to the public? You bet. The stock market does it, the poker rooms do it and so on.


People need to listen to Mr Maloney and people like him and not the lunatics who are thinking of only thier self interest.

[Rutgers]

Rutgers...you say that "while life is unfair, horse racing is a game". Do you think that your player "B" - who has invested $5,000 on your example race - views this as JUST a game?

If this person makes 5 such wagers during the course of the day, he has wagered a total of $25,000, and - at your stated takeout of 17% - he has contributed over $4,200 to the coffers of the racetrack. Isn't that a little steep for playing a game for only one day?

Hasn't this man EARNED the 7% discount he gets?

It’s does not matter whether Player B views it has a game or not, horse racing is a game.

And as for Player B contributing over $4,000 to the coffers of the racetrack (based on $25,000 in wagers), not if he bets at an rebate shop. He may only be contributing as little as $1,000.

It would be great if that $4,000 went to the track. It would help purses which would help field sizes. The tracks would have more money for better drug testing and monitoring of the horses. But it doesn’t, and that was one of the points of Ray Paulick’s article, rebate shops are not good for the racetracks and in a sense not good for the players since it hurts the product the racetracks can produce.

(Of course, the argument then becomes it is the racetracks fault for pricing their product too low to off-track sites. Which is true, but what happens when the racetrack tries to correct that problem and raise their fees to the off-track sites? Horseplayers complain. The Meadowlands did it and in the thread on PA about it the powers that be got called morons, stupid and brain dead.
But do not get wrapped up in who to blame, the point of my posts was to show how rebating effects every player and the need to fix the situation)

As for earning his rebate, the rebate comes at the expense of the other players and Player B didn’t do anything for the other players so why does he deserve a rebate?

[Rutgers]

GameTheory and StillRiledUp

It is true a wager on one combination causes the prices on all other go up, even though with breakage the payout may not change. But it is very important to note, the it causes all the other combination prices to go up, so while Player B’s wager cause the price to go from $40 down to $37.80, the effect of the price drop will be spread out over all the possible combinations, so no one combination is going to experience a sharp increase in price. Also keep in mind Player B also made other big bets on other losing combinations, those prices would have also be depressed well.

It’s also important to note, that just because a price goes up does not mean the wager now offers values. If Player C made a big wager on the 1-3 exacta combo, the 1-2 payoff may go up to $38, but Player A still is not receiving fair value.

And keep in mind, that because of the takeout and in some cases pool sizes, most combinations or possible outcomes do not offer anything near fair value, so even if the prices go up there they still do not offer fair value.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Rebates are available to all Horseplayers in 30-40 States. I've yet to hear from one person who gets rebates (even if they are on the small side) that the concept of rebates in general is bad, or even unfair.

[DeanT]

Of course, the argument then becomes it is the racetracks fault for pricing their product too low to off-track sites. Which is true

The problem is not the racing business pricing their price too low for anyone, it is because gross prices are too high.

Sheesh, Andy Beyer looks more and more correct when 12 years ago he said "racing is the only industry who thinks the laws of economics do not apply to them"

[Rutgers]

Rebates are available to all Horseplayers in 30-40 States. I've yet to hear from one person who gets rebates (even if they are on the small side) that the concept of rebates in general is bad, or even unfair.

Sure you have.

But have you ever heard a rebater (or an ADW) say rebates are bad, or say we need to improve racing product by returning more money to the track and horsemen, or let's make racing fair to all our customers and players and not just the most profitable ones to us.

[Rook]

Sure you have.

But have you ever heard a rebater (or an ADW) say rebates are bad, or say we need to improve racing product by returning more money to the track and horsemen, or let's make racing fair to all our customers and players and not just the most profitable ones to us.
Racing is fair to all its customers. Those with a brain seek out and obtain substantial rebates. Those without one, probably don't mind losing money hand over fist.

[Track Collector]

Sure you have.

But have you ever heard a rebater (or an ADW) say rebates are bad, or say we need to improve racing product by returning more money to the track and horsemen, or let's make racing fair to all our customers and players and not just the most profitable ones to us.

You seem to forget that it is the bettor who is the economic engine that fuels this game called horseracing. Tracks and horsemen benefit BECAUSE folks choose to wager on the horses.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Sure you have.

But have you ever heard a rebater (or an ADW) say rebates are bad, or say we need to improve racing product by returning more money to the track and horsemen, or let's make racing fair to all our customers and players and not just the most profitable ones to us.
FYI,I don't play favorites in my business. All players are treated equally.

For the record, I think that if equal rebates were available to all (California and Arizona,etc.), horsemen and tracks would be closer to making optimal dollars. And I am all for takeout rates being dropped to 12% (where rebates would be next to extinct) throughout the industry for all. Racing would be on fire, purses and tracks would be making optimal dollars too. I would still be in business, and business would be good, because it would come down to Horseplayers seeking the best customer service.

And no, I haven't heard anyone who receives rebates saying they are unfair or bad for the game. There could be one or two out there, I just haven't heard from them. :)

[thaskalos]

This is quite interesting. Tell me thask, how much do you think the people not getting 7% are contributing to the racetrack coffers?? as i'm sure these people outnumber the man above by many and when these guys go bust due to high pricing, quit this Great Game or a noob sees the unfairness in the beginning and moves or chooses other betting mediums, your guy is probably up the creek without a paddle and so is the racing industry as a whole.Here is the deal Charlie...and it can be substanciated by every businessman in every corner of the world.

The large volume customer always gets a price discount over the small customer...and it has always been thus. Why should the gambling business be any different? Unlike what Rutgers or others may think...horse racing is NOT just a game...it's BIG BUSINESS!

At the OTB which I frequent, there is ONE guy who bets more than all of the other players combined...but, because he is a soft-spoken foreigner, he goes completely unnoticed...and he didn't even get a free racing form until I intervened on his behalf...and alerted the management about the guy's action.

Is this fair? Does it take a genius to realize that this guy is a much more valuable customer than the other players in the place? If this guy decides to stay home...half of the OTB's business stays home as well.

Yes...it WOULD be better if the rebates were eliminated, and the takeouts were lowered to 10%-12% for all...but this is NEVER going to happen. The takeouts will only be going one way from now on...and it won't be down.

And you can be sure that the rebates will stay right where they are...because this game cannot exist without the handle of the rebated players.

Yes, the non-rebated players are important too...but the "masses" are usually casual, infrequent, small-time players, who cannot be bothered about things like takeouts and OTB surcharges, and - as such - they deserve what they get.

Here is an example of the mentality of the average horseplayer:

This BIG bettor at the OTB that I mentioned above...we are friends, and I have told him many times that a rebate shop would do wonders for his bottom line...but he still shows up at the OTB every day - paying a 5% surcharge on his bets, on top of the normal takeout...and this has been going on for years.

Amazing, but true!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Those OTB surcharges are not fair. We should all have to pay the same surcharge and that way the playing field is level.

[Charlie D]

Comment read thask,but i still believe a level playing field would be in best interest of racing as a whole and as stated rewards can be given to high rollers in other ways should people wish to.

[5k-claim]

Here is the deal Charlie...and it can be substanciated by every businessman in every corner of the world.

The large volume customer always gets a price discount over the small customer...and it has always been thus. Why should the gambling business be any different? Unlike what Rutgers or others may think...horse racing is NOT just a game...it's BIG BUSINESS!Is that the new promotion campaign?

I never thought I would say this, but I think I liked it better when people were calling the sport "just a gambling game". At least I can see how that could sound somewhat tempting to new gamblers- which of course the sport desperately needs.

Yes, the non-rebated players are important too...but the "masses" are usually casual, infrequent, small-time players, who cannot be bothered about things like takeouts and OTB surcharges, and - as such - they deserve what they get.Nice.

[thaskalos]

Is that the new promotion campaign?

I never thought I would say this, but I think I liked it better when people were calling the sport "just a gambling game". At least I can see how that could sound somewhat tempting to new gamblers- which of course the sport desperately needs.

Nice.Sorry...I should have made the politically correct comment...

[Red Knave]

Now add Player B, a big bettor with a 7% rebate. Player B bets the same 10 combos but for $500 each, for a total of $5,000. He knows a bet that big will lower the mutual payoff to below fair value. The gross pool is now $125,000 with a net pool of $103,750. With 2,740 winning $2 tickets the payout is now $37.80. Player A now gets $189, or less then fair value. Player B fair value amount is $9,750 (250 x 39). He only gets $9,450 from the mutuals which is less than fair value. But when you factor in his $350 rebate, he gets $9,800 which is more then fair value. Even if you gave Player A a small token rebate of 3%, he still wouldn’t be getting fair value. ($189 + $3 rebate = $192)

...

One other thing you may want to think about. What happens if the track lowers the takeout to 15%? That’s good news for Player B, but it doesn’t help Player A.

The gross pool is still $125,000 but the net pool becomes $106,250. Dividing by 2,740 the $2 exacta would now pay $38.60. Without a rebate Player A still does not receive fair value, but with his 3% rebate Player A would receive fair value. ($193 + $3 equals $196). But of course if takeout was lowered, Player B is going to increase is wager to $750 per combo for a total of $7,500. Now the gross pool is $127,500 with a net pool of $108,375. Dividing by 2,865 winning tickets the payout is now $37.80. Player A once again gets $189 less then fair value of $195, even with is 3% rebate added he still does not get fair value. While Player B receives $14,175 from the mutuals and $525 from rebates for a total of $14,700 which exceeds fair value of $14,625.
First, let me say that I have been following this thread with some interest. I have learned much and I have to say that I now understand and appreciate some points of view that I had not understood or appreciated before. That's the result of reasoned discourse and I like it. :)

Second, being as anal as I am, I have to pick some nits with this example. And, yes, I do understand that it is not a real world example but if we are going to use it to prove a point the logic should at least be accurate.
In the second example where takeout is now 15% you state that Bettor B would increase his wager by 50% to a total of $7500. Why 50% when the take was only reduced by 2% (i.e. a net takeout percentage reduction of 11.76%)? I would guess that Bettor B would, in fact, wager less because a smaller investment would return the same net dollar result and therefore a higher ROI.
But, let's say that you are correct and the wager increases. (Which brings up other debatable points such as the fact that wagering any additional amount on the winning combination reduces the fair value etc.). First of all, I'm pretty certain that this wager would no longer earn a 7% rebate and would more likely be reduced to no more than 5%. A small point to be sure, but using your example, the rebate would be $375, not $525, and would also result in a "less than fair value" return.

Now, let's look at it in another way. In order to get a total return of $9800 including rebate, which is just nicely over the $39 fair value per ticket, under a 15% takeout scenario, "B" could wager $4940, $60 less than in the 1st half of the example. In this scenario pool size becomes $124,940 and $106,199 after take. The extra 247 tickets (4940/10 combos/$2) on the winning combination makes a total of 2490+247=2737 tickets. $106,199/2737=$38.80 per $2 ticket. Total return for Player B is 247*$38.80 = $9,583.60. Add to that a rebate of $247 (5% of $4940) and you are at $9,830.60. More than he received in the previous scenario in which "B" required a larger rebate and a larger wager. Player B's return in the 17% example is $9,800/$5,000=1.96. In this 15% example it is $9,830.60/$4,940=2.006. Better all around and just by reducing the take.

So your statement "That’s good news for Player B, but it doesn’t help Player A." is false. It does help Player A. "A" gets $1.00 more per ticket; a 13% increase ($38.80/$37.80) in fact. And if "A" now gets a 1% rebate as a result of the take reduction rather than 3%, "A" gets an additional $1.00 so his total return is 5*$38.80 + 1.00 = $195, bang on fair value. His return goes from 1.92 to 1.95. This is just with the 2% reduction in take that you suggested. As take goes down the return for all winning bettors goes up.

As others in this thread have correctly stated, the entire system we have based both these examples on is much more complicated than this. However, I believe that any example that you can draw up, if properly reasoned and calculated, will show that all parties benefit from a lower takeout whether or not they receive rebates. As shown above, Bettor B can get a higher return with a smaller rebate and a smaller wagering bankroll.

[Rutgers]

In the second example where takeout is now 15% you state that Bettor B would increase his wager by 50% to a total of $7500. Why 50% when the take was only reduced by 2% (i.e. a net takeout percentage reduction of 11.76%)? I would guess that Bettor B would, in fact, wager less because a smaller investment would return the same net dollar result and therefore a higher ROI.


The purpose was to show that if takeout was lowered, winning big bettors would actually increase their bets. This is because the larger the pool, or more accurately the larger the pool post takeout, the less of an impact a wager has on the payout. (and conversely when tracks raise takeout, winning big bettors decrease their wagers.)

As for the 50% bet increase with 2% decrease in takeout, I made up the 2% decrease and 50% bet increase would keep Player B’s ROI the same. Of course, instead of getting 1.96 on $5,000 he is getting 1.96 on $7,500 and getting 1.96 on $7,500 (7,200) is a lot better then getting 2.06 on $4,940 ($4,969). The idea is to win the most money possible not to have the highest ROI.

As for the player’s rebate being decreased with the takeout reduction. In the real world, that may be entirely possible or the rebate could remain the same. It really depends on the bet taker. If the bet taker knows the player is going to increase his wager amount, they maybe being willing to keep a smaller percentage of a bigger handle, as it doesn’t really cost the bet taker anymore money to take a $7,500 wager vs., $5,000 wager. Even if the money to the bet taker did decrease a little, is it worth losing a big player or players to another company?

But the point of that part of the post, was to point out that maybe the reason horse racing is such a tough game to beat may not be because of the high takeout but because the biggest (who very often happen to be very good players) have an rebate advantage over most of the players, and that just lowering the takeout is necessarily going to make the game any easier to beat or any better to the majority of the horseplayers.

[Deepsix]

Rutgers, please check the last sentence of your post. It left my confused.

Thanks

[Rutgers]

Rutgers, please check the last sentence of your post. It left my confused.

Thanks

Thanks,

It should be.

and that just lowering the takeout is not necessarily going to make the game any easier to beat or any better to the majority of the horseplayers.

[DJofSD]

I'm not sure if any one has concluded that a lower take out will make the game easier to beat.

I believe the only thing that can be said with any certainty is losers will lose a little less quickly.

[GameTheory]

I'm not sure if any one has concluded that a lower take out will make the game easier to beat.

I believe the only thing that can be said with any certainty is losers will lose a little less quickly.Of course it makes it easier to beat. Everything pays more.

And if the takeout goes down, the rebate goes down. It is just as certain as the price of gas going up with the price of oil, and is the reason rebate rates are all over the place depending on the track and the pool.

[Greyfox]

I'm not sure if any one has concluded that a lower take out will make the game easier to beat.

I believe the only thing that can be said with any certainty is losers will lose a little less quickly.

Exactly. :ThmbUp:

[DeanT]

Of course it makes it easier to beat. Everything pays more.

And if the takeout goes down, the rebate goes down. It is just as certain as the price of gas going up with the price of oil, and is the reason rebate rates are all over the place depending on the track and the pool.

Sure thing. When take goes down in any gambling game of skill it makes it easier to beat. If you want to clear out a poker room tomorrow, announce to the players they are getting 15% skimmed out of each pot starting now. It won't matter a lick some Chris Moneymaker dude is on TV going after a bracelet - it will be evacuated quicker than a teenagers keg party when the parents arrive home early.

[Red Knave]

The idea is to win the most money possible not to have the highest ROI.Right, I get the bet sizing increase to achieve the same payoff, I hadn't considered that.
If I am in the business of betting am I willing to gamble a larger percentage of my bankroll just because I now have a larger pool to bet into? Probably yes because my rate of return will go up so I can accept more risk. At the same time my chance of winning this wager are no better now than when the take was 17%. Probably at that level of betting, though, my bankroll is not a deciding factor because it is large enough that I can make any bet that I want. So the deciding factor is the net dollar total of the pool I'm betting into.
Okay.

As for the player’s rebate being decreased with the takeout reduction. In the real world, that may be entirely possible or the rebate could remain the same. It really depends on the bet taker. If the bet taker knows the player is going to increase his wager amount, they maybe being willing to keep a smaller percentage of a bigger handle, as it doesn’t really cost the bet taker anymore money to take a $7,500 wager vs., $5,000 wager. Even if the money to the bet taker did decrease a little, is it worth losing a big player or players to another company? Of course, it's not worth losing a customer but remember that even though the cost of taking the wager is the same, the result of taking it is a huge percentage reduction in net revenue to the bet taker if the rebate stays the same. The result to the bet taker is not a "little" reduction in revenue. It's probably more like 50% perhaps even more. I would bet that the rebate goes down so that the rebater can stay in business. For that reason alone I would expect that the big bettor would need a mutuel closer to fair value than the one in our example and that he consequently does not increase his wager as much as you imagine. Perhaps we can get some feedback from the rebaters that I know are reading this thread

But the point of that part of the post, was to point out that maybe the reason horse racing is such a tough game to beat may not be because of the high takeout but because the biggest (who very often happen to be very good players) have a rebate advantage over most of the players, and that just lowering the takeout is not necessarily going to make the game any easier to beat or any better to the majority of the horseplayers.Maybe, but it is easy to see that lowering the take will increase payoffs across the board. In the case where a whale is able to control the pool size to his advantage and wins as in your example, the results may be the same (which I personally doubt). Where he tries to control the pool and loses, the result will be a very much increased payoff to those who did not lose.