Boycott Update - Q and A with Platt

[DeanT]

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2011/01/boycott-q-with-hana-president-jeff.html

[JustRalph]

"They invited us" says a ton........ :ThmbUp:

[andicap]

Two points:


1. Is it worth it to say -- maybe privately -- that if they rescind the boycott, HANA go out of its way to urge horseplayers to bet in California (even if issues like field size remain) as a) a sign of good faith and b) a reward for reversing a poor decision?

There are pros and cons for doing this which I won't discuss here.

2. Are tracks/TOC STILL denying the boycott has had any effect on its handle? I've seen stories where officials were blaming everything but the Da Vinci Code for the decrease. Bad weather back East, Freehold, New York City OTB. Blah, blah, blah.

[lamboguy]

i wonder how much of the decrease has to do with the cutbacks in rebates for california track?

the thing that puzzles me is that the vigorish for sports bets have remained constant throughout the years and they experience a growth in that industry. i am sure that different hotels give some type of rebate or comp for sports players. i am also told that while there has been increased business in football and basketball, baseball has declined since they did a way with the dime spread and increased it to a 15 and 20 cent spread. i suspect the hotels don't want baseball business.

when i decided not to participate in california wagering it was because it was an unsound propositon for my bancroll. i know nothing about california racing to begin with, not that i know much more about penn national either. but it cost me 14% to make california win bets, and only 8% for penn national after my rebate. basically it doesn't make sense for me to even look at california, boycott or no boycott. i wounder how many other people are in the same boat as myself.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

i wonder how much of the decrease has to do with the cutbacks in rebates for california track?

the thing that puzzles me is that the vigorish for sports bets have remained constant throughout the years and they experience a growth in that industry. i am sure that different hotels give some type of rebate or comp for sports players. i am also told that while there has been increased business in football and basketball, baseball has declined since they did a way with the dime spread and increased it to a 15 and 20 cent spread. i suspect the hotels don't want baseball business.

when i decided not to participate in california wagering it was because it was an unsound propositon for my bancroll. i know nothing about california racing to begin with, not that i know much more about penn national either. but it cost me 14% to make california win bets, and only 8% for penn national after my rebate. basically it doesn't make sense for me to even look at california, boycott or no boycott. i wounder how many other people are in the same boat as myself.
Without a doubt, tracks that increase signal fees hurt their handle by doing so. Less value for the biggest players in the game, as well as all the players who really seek value.
I think a lot of the big drop offs we saw this week were due to the fact that the Mid Atlantic Co Op was shut out from betting Santa Anita until around January 22nd last year. The addition of their handle to last years totals is now starting to prove that there are players actually boycotting California. It isn't smoke and mirrors.

[lamboguy]

you are probably right. i would love to see california racing survive, but it is one big mess out there. if there was no boycott california would be having the same problems, maybe the boycott has magnified it. but the core structural problems are at the heart of the matter out there and in all of racing period. raising or lowering takeouts or rebates won't straighten them out.

the thing that gets me the most is that you have so many people that want to bet and support racing and the game keeps slapping them in the face. lets see how resiliant the game is to be able to ignore the heart and soul of the game!

[Kelso]

1. Is it worth it to say -- maybe privately -- that if they rescind the boycott, HANA go out of its way to urge horseplayers to bet in California (even if issues like field size remain) as a) a sign of good faith and b) a reward for reversing a poor decision?

No. An organization representing the interests of horse players should encourage rewarding good racing under good terms ... not crap racing under mediocre, albeit restored, terms. (And "terms" covers a lot of ground - not just vig.)