Indian Casinos, other type of gaming interestes,should they donate to Horse Racing?

[Igeteven]

Indian Casinos, other type of gaming or business interests should they donate?

Do you feel that a specific amount of their revenue should go to horse racing or Should horse racing stand on its own?

[thaskalos]

Indian Casinos, other type of gaming or business interests should they donate?

Do you feel that a specific amount of their revenue should go to horse racing or Should horse racing stand on its own?
Horse racing should either stand on its own...or perish.

Do we know of any other businesses which subsidize their competition?

Why should the casinos be the exception?

[Robert Goren]

Never ever

[toussaud]

that would be ke the Washington redskins "donating" to the nationals because the nationals can't put on a good enough product to get people to the stadium.

The problem is not casinos IMHO Per say, we just have too much product, much more than the actual demand for the product calls for at the present time.

[Igeteven]

Some States are forces them to donate to Horse Racing.

[Tom]

Good tracks to avoid.

[FenceBored]

Some States are forces them to donate to Horse Racing.

If I run the only restaurant in a small town and someone opens up a Cracker Barrel down by the interstate, should my new competition be "forced to donate" some of their gross receipts to me?

[davew]

maybe they should add a tax to tobacco for all parimutuals

and a tax on political donations

[FrankieFigs]

Some States are forces them to donate to Horse Racing.

Which states?

And no, I don't think Indian casinos should "donate" to horse racing.

[trying2win]

In my opinion, spineless, naive politicians should never have agreed to let casinos to operate outside of Nevada and New Jersey. Same thing in Canada, the same kind of politicians shouldn't have allowed casino gambling in Canada period!

Unfortunately, these stupid politicians believe the vested interests when they tell the politicians that casino gambling will create jobs and prosperity for many people, and will provide extra revenue for their government treasuries. Nonsense, I say! These dumbbell politicians conveniently forget all the misery, financially and emotionally, that casino gambling causes to gambling addicts and their families. Casinos, like tobacco companies derive a lot of their profits from addicts, quite often from the ones who can least afford to lose at these long run, negative expectation games . How many more broken families have to happen before these incompetent, politician dolts wake up! The only people gaining prosperity in the long run are the casino owners. If there would be a lot less casinos operating, people would start spending their money on more local businesses that sell more useful products and services, and create more jobs this way. Plus, more money would be circulated creating more prosperity.

In the old days before casino gambling got widespread and infiltrated racetracks, these same racetracks were the 'only game in town' as the saying goes. In those early days, many racetracks probably prospered because of that fact, plus the feature of higher churn in those days because most bets were of the lower-takeout win/place/show variety, and maybe the odd daily double. That's a lot different than today's horse racing scene, with 3 to 6 horse gimmicks with their 25 to 31 % takeouts. All that those high-takeout gimmick bets does, is create more losing bettors in the long run. The smart track managements like at Tampa Bay and Keeneland are at least trying to help create more winners or make bettors' bankrolls last longer, through lower takeouts.

T2W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
~"Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom."

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge

[Robert Goren]

Some States are forces them to donate to Horse Racing.That doesn't make it a good idea. The only people who think that is good idea is the horsemen. I rather they be force to donate to the Red Cross or somebody else that is worth while. On the list of things that need charity, horse racing is pretty far down the list.

[Stillriledup]

Horse racing should either stand on its own...or perish.

Do we know of any other businesses which subsidize their competition?

Why should the casinos be the exception?

Here's the problem. They're not standing on their own if the Indians are actively 'paying off' politicians so that tracks won't get their own slot machines.

Racing would be find standing on their own without any interference from Indian gaming.

[rwwupl]

no.

[thaskalos]

In my opinion, spineless, naive politicians should never have agreed to let casinos to operate outside of Nevada and New Jersey. Same thing in Canada, the same kind of politicians shouldn't have allowed casino gambling in Canada period!

Unfortunately, these stupid politicians believe the vested interests when they tell the politicians that casino gambling will create jobs and prosperity for many people, and will provide extra revenue for their government treasuries. Nonsense, I say! These dumbbell politicians conveniently forget all the misery, financially and emotionally, that casino gambling causes to gambling addicts and their families. Casinos, like tobacco companies derive a lot of their profits from addicts, quite often from the ones who can least afford to lose at these long run, negative expectation games . How many more broken families have to happen before these incompetent, politician dolts wake up! The only people gaining prosperity in the long run are the casino owners. If there would be a lot less casinos operating, people would start spending their money on more local businesses that sell more useful products and services, and create more jobs this way. Plus, more money would be circulated creating more prosperity.

In the old days before casino gambling got widespread and infiltrated racetracks, these same racetracks were the 'only game in town' as the saying goes. In those early days, many racetracks probably prospered because of that fact, plus the feature of higher churn in those days because most bets were of the lower-takeout win/place/show variety, and maybe the odd daily double. That's a lot different than today's horse racing scene, with 3 to 6 horse gimmicks with their 25 to 31 % takeouts. All that those high-takeout gimmick bets does, is create more losing bettors in the long run. The smart track managements like at Tampa Bay and Keeneland are at least trying to help create more winners or make bettors bankroll last longer, through lower takeouts.

T2W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
~"Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom."

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
IMO...WAY more families have broken up because of horse racing than because of casinos.

It's terribly hypocritical of us to attribute the misery and financial (and emotional) instability caused by addictive gambling to the casino industry...while ignoring the role that OUR game has played in that regard.

[toussaud]

IMO...WAY more families have broken up because of horse racing than because of casinos.

It's terribly hypocritical of us to attribute the misery and financial (and emotional) instability caused by addictive gambling to the casino industry...while ignoring the role that OUR game has played in that regard.
I would not say "way more" but I agree it is in fact hypocritical.

[trying2win]

IMO...WAY more families have broken up because of horse racing than because of casinos.



Thaskalos:

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree with you on that point. Nevertheless, I defend your right to express your views.

On an added note, I just love it when I read about a casino going bankrupt whether the cause is from a poor economy, or because more people are getting enlightened that casino games are unbeatable in the long run.

T2W
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
~"The safest way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket."

--Kin Hubbard

[GameTheory]

that would be ke the Washington redskins "donating" to the nationals because the nationals can't put on a good enough product to get people to the stadium.They do have revenue sharing in some sports leagues (something I am in favor of) -- it is not exactly a weird idea. Isn't that what they are fighting about in the NFL right now?

But I don't support this idea -- what exactly is the argument for it?

[Robert Goren]

They do have revenue sharing in some sports leagues (something I am in favor of) -- it is not exactly a weird idea. Isn't that what they are fighting about in the NFL right now?

But I don't support this idea -- what exactly is the argument for it?I have no problem with revenue sharing among race tracks as the revenue is from horse racing.

[Stillriledup]

IMO...WAY more families have broken up because of horse racing than because of casinos.

It's terribly hypocritical of us to attribute the misery and financial (and emotional) instability caused by addictive gambling to the casino industry...while ignoring the role that OUR game has played in that regard.

Casino gambling is luck, horse racing is skill, it should be the other way around (if, in fact, you're correct) because more people in horse racing are 'investing' and people in the casino's are just gambling.

[GameTheory]

Casino gambling is luck, horse racing is skill, it should be the other way around (if, in fact, you're correct) because more people in horse racing are 'investing' and people in the casino's are just gambling.Just on numbers alone (way more people casino gambling that betting horses) casinos would win out.

[Lasix67]

Here in Louisiana, Marksville to be exact, they have an Indian reservation casino called Paragon. It is a very nice casino in the middle of pretty much no where, but it does real good and attracts nice entertainment act, etc... I went a few weeks ago for the first time and played in their OTB. It was very clean and really setup nicely. I think casino's contributing to horse racing is a great idea, but I also think all sorts of gaming should be available at most any gambling establishment, including sports gaming. We as adults should have all these forms available to us to make our own decisions on how we want to spend our entertainment or gambling funds.

[jelly]

No handouts.

[thaskalos]

Casino gambling is luck, horse racing is skill, it should be the other way around (if, in fact, you're correct) because more people in horse racing are 'investing' and people in the casino's are just gambling.
Only about 2% of the horseplayers are "investing"; the rest are GAMBLING (and losing)...just like the casino gamblers are.

And if you are a losing player...your money will last much longer in a casino than it will at the racetrack.

In a relatively small amount of time, and with a little effort, the blackjack player can learn to play a "dead even" game with the house...something that the vast majority of the horseplayers can NEVER do -- ever after years and years of study and experience.

The losing player LOSES at the casino...but gets SLAUGHTERED at the racetrack.

[Hanover1]

Somebody somewhere though this was a good idea, so the agreements should be honored. They will find a way soon enough to break the deals they made to use the racetracks as a gambling facility for their own means. Then the downsizing can occur that everybody seems to want.

[thaskalos]

Somebody somewhere thought this was a good idea, so the agreements should be honored. They will find a way soon enough to break the deals they made to use the racetracks as a gambling facility for their own means. Then the downsizing can occur that everybody seems to want.
I wonder who that was...:)

[Steve 'StatMan']

I voted yes, but the cases I consider are in states where the casino interests have and pay the lawmakers to keep the law so that only the limited casinos can be the only ones with gaming, shutting the horse tracks out of the competitive gambling market. IL and NJ come to mind immediately. Hard to fullly compete when you are not premitted by law to offer other products, but the johnny-come-lately casinos were allowed to and totally change the battle for the gambling dollar.

I know there used to be many more race-tracks, esp in the 19th and early 20th century. I don't know what closed many of them down, I'm sure many, many reasons, some nasty, some natural, and some by disasters like fires. Some likely due to competition from other, stronger horse tracks (or their own goons and/or lawmakers back then.)

I'd rather the tracks not need the extra money, and I wish so much of horse racing wasn't subsidiesed by combination track/casino earnings. But I don't think there should be the major shutting out of other operators - esp when it seriously affects other industries that were intentionally shut out, for various reasons both of forethought and especially the lact of forethought by the legislators. Hard to keep a Sausage Only Pizza franchise running when the other parors in town offer Pizzas with customer selected toppings. They legallally ruined the horse racing business. Perhaps government has ruined many other legal industries over the course of time as well.

Frankly, I believe one can go broke very fast at a casino - it all depends on how much money one bets on each event (card hand, pull/button push, roll of dice or balls.) Yes, because of the set odds, one will accidently win occasionally, bringing them usually within a few standard deviations of the track take, but it will continually take everything the common player is willing to put in over time. Plus the hands, rounds, pulls happen much faster. Even a $5 playing $1 x 5 lines on a slot machine, one could easily handle 5 x 3 per mininute x 60 minutes = $900 in an hour. A 5% hold would be $45. Betting $5 in the straight pools on a live horse race at best 3 times in an hour would handle $15 and a 20% take would average $5 lost to the random selector. Yes, boxing 5 horses in a $1 Superfecta ($120) x 3 in an hour max is $360 handled, although at 25% takeout, that would be $90 lost on average.

It all depends on how one gambles and how much. I know many that go to casinos but don't go to race tracks, thinking they can only win $2.40 on their show bets. Morons probably bet $2 to show at the track on the live races, but bet $5 per pull/push x 3 or more per minute on the slot machine. They could be $20 to show if they wanted to. They don't realize they are really betting more than just $5 on each pull/push, but they are common gamblers - they have no concept of handle and return per wagered dollar. They're more attracted to the chance of winning $5,000 on the max payout per full pull/play every time they risk another $5, no matter how remote the chances of winning are.

* Forgot to add - The other big problem is when anyone increases their bet sizes to try to win their losses (and any desired profits) back. That can happen at casinos and racetracks - yup, in my past, I tried them both. Casinos have table limits, one can never win their money back. Horses betting, random betting losses cannot be overcome by higher bets - can dig hole are far as one is willing, but eventually the odds become seriously depressed, or one gets discouraged and finally gives up (so glad I gave that up 21 years ago and learned horse racing and handicapping!)

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos:

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree with you on that point. Nevertheless, I defend your right to express your views.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
~"The safest way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket."

--Kin Hubbard
I appreciate the sentiment T2W; I too am all for "civilized" debate...and I respect your views as well...

We should ALL be able to voice our opinions openly...without fear of attacks or ridicule.

[Igeteven]

Which states?

And no, I don't think Indian casinos should "donate" to horse racing.


http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/court-rules-on-illinois-battle-between-riverboats-and-racetracks/

[jelly]

It's kind of funny,it seems most horseplayers don't want handouts for horseracing but the people running horseracing are begging for handouts.

[Robert Goren]

Casinos should be casinos and race tracks should be race tracks. Race tracks can survive without casino money. But they just don't want to make hard choices needed to survive. It is easier to live off someone else or some thing else. No other business does that.

[Igeteven]

It's kind of funny,it seems most horseplayers don't want handouts for horseracing but the people running horseracing are begging for handouts.

Who is not , Tracks, horsemen, management, they all want more, and more and more, and more

I also forgot , how about the State with their hands out on everything.

[Robert Fischer]

donations should be welcomed and greatly appreciated

[Robert Fischer]

Unfortunately, these stupid politicians believe the vested interests when they tell the politicians that casino gambling will create jobs and prosperity for many people, and will provide extra revenue for their government treasuries.

"ignorance" is too much credit

[Igeteven]

donations should be welcomed and greatly appreciated

Hollywood Park did it today for some people.

[craigbraddick]

I think many people are looking at this entirely the wrong way.

Find the person who is at the root of the financial woes of American racing? You have to go back to the person who thought PMU wagering should be managed by a state government. You should NEVER have state involvement in gambling transactions to begin with. It is beyond my comprehension why in the USA, a country that claims to be freedom loving, independent and with a spirit of rugged individualism that horse players allowed themselves to be subjugated to betting solely on a PMU system whose only purpose is to offer as low odds as possible while making money for the Government.

But the modern day problem is simple. No one, but no one has the balls to stand up to the Government and say: "You have bullied and exploited us for long enough. If you do not grant us the right to accept wagers how and when we choose and on what events we choose, we will do it anyway. And do it fairly and we do not give a damn about your kangaroo state laws, primarily written by people with no wagering experience whatsoever."

If enough people stand up to the State Governments and do this, there will be nothing the state can do. Similarly, there is no need to kowtow to the states to ask for racing days. Pick your days, race them and if you thrive, great. If not you die.

In short Casinos should not have to give to horse racing, the Government should give racetracks the freedom (that we allowed them to take!) to accept whatever form of wagering they wish to offer.

No good can come out of mixing horse racing with politicians or the Government. It is time to liberate the racetracks of America and the only way that will be done is to remove the control the Government has over them so they can compete in a free market economy.

And as for Indian Casino's, the Indians just seem to be pawns in the hands of politicians. I have seen few reservations where it is evident the casino's have invested hugely into the infrastructure of the community and the lives of individual tribe members.

Craig.

[trying2win]

Frankly, I'm not surprised by all the social problems caused by addicted casino gamblers. When you read in the newspapers of some accountant or bookkeeper who got caught "cooking the books", quite often its an addicted gambler hooked on slot machines or sometimes other casino games, and less likely a horse race player.

I've read the sad newspaper stories of these addicted gamblers who got caught stealing from their employers. Some of them thought the next big jackpot was "just around the corner"...yeah, right! Who knows how many of these casino gamblers are stealing money from other family members as well, to feed their addiction?

Here's an interesting report entitled "Casino Gambling Causes Crime".

T2W

[trying2win]

Craig:

Excellent post! I thought you made some excellent points. :ThmbUp:

Here in Canada, we have a lot more freedom to bet the horses where we want. We don't have to worry about individual provincial laws on where one can place a bet. The Federal Government I believe, decides a lot of those things.

I have the freedom to use some American ADWS if I want. Which is nice, because i'm not a big fan of HPI, which is owned by Woodbine Entertainment. I'm currently investigating whether Woodbine Entertainment is breaking Canada's monopoly laws by their operation tactics of HPI. I believe, that in Canada it is only illegal to be operating a private monopoly, and not a public one.


T2W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
~"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

--Winston Churchill

[Igeteven]

I think many people are looking at this entirely the wrong way.

Find the person who is at the root of the financial woes of American racing? You have to go back to the person who thought PMU wagering should be managed by a state government. You should NEVER have state involvement in gambling transactions to begin with. It is beyond my comprehension why in the USA, a country that claims to be freedom loving, independent and with a spirit of rugged individualism that horse players allowed themselves to be subjugated to betting solely on a PMU system whose only purpose is to offer as low odds as possible while making money for the Government.

But the modern day problem is simple. No one, but no one has the balls to stand up to the Government and say: "You have bullied and exploited us for long enough. If you do not grant us the right to accept wagers how and when we choose and on what events we choose, we will do it anyway. And do it fairly and we do not give a damn about your kangaroo state laws, primarily written by people with no wagering experience whatsoever."

If enough people stand up to the State Governments and do this, there will be nothing the state can do. Similarly, there is no need to kowtow to the states to ask for racing days. Pick your days, race them and if you thrive, great. If not you die.

In short Casinos should not have to give to horse racing, the Government should give racetracks the freedom (that we allowed them to take!) to accept whatever form of wagering they wish to offer.

No good can come out of mixing horse racing with politicians or the Government. It is time to liberate the racetracks of America and the only way that will be done is to remove the control the Government has over them so they can compete in a free market economy.

And as for Indian Casino's, the Indians just seem to be pawns in the hands of politicians. I have seen few reservations where it is evident the casino's have invested hugely into the infrastructure of the community and the lives of individual tribe members.

Craig.

This should be on the front page of the DRF

Superior Post Sir.

[Robert Goren]

One of the reasons for the handicapper dislike for this idea is that whenever the tracks get money from non horse racing sources none of that money used directly for the benefit of the bettor. The money is used to compete for horses, but not to compete for bettors. It is the lack of gamblers that is the problem.

[statepierback]

I voted no. In California Santa Anita and San Manuel Indian Bingo and casino have a marketing agreement as business partners. In that way it can be a win-win situation for both parties. Via the agreement this is one way Indian casino's can support horse racing without it being a handout. While is situation may upset the traditional horse racing establishment the Tribe has the more popular game in town and thus the power. Political difference's aside this is at least a meeting ground for the two world's to co exist for the time being.

[Robert Goren]

I think many people are looking at this entirely the wrong way.

Find the person who is at the root of the financial woes of American racing? You have to go back to the person who thought PMU wagering should be managed by a state government. You should NEVER have state involvement in gambling transactions to begin with. It is beyond my comprehension why in the USA, a country that claims to be freedom loving, independent and with a spirit of rugged individualism that horse players allowed themselves to be subjugated to betting solely on a PMU system whose only purpose is to offer as low odds as possible while making money for the Government.

But the modern day problem is simple. No one, but no one has the balls to stand up to the Government and say: "You have bullied and exploited us for long enough. If you do not grant us the right to accept wagers how and when we choose and on what events we choose, we will do it anyway. And do it fairly and we do not give a damn about your kangaroo state laws, primarily written by people with no wagering experience whatsoever."

If enough people stand up to the State Governments and do this, there will be nothing the state can do. Similarly, there is no need to kowtow to the states to ask for racing days. Pick your days, race them and if you thrive, great. If not you die.

In short Casinos should not have to give to horse racing, the Government should give racetracks the freedom (that we allowed them to take!) to accept whatever form of wagering they wish to offer.

No good can come out of mixing horse racing with politicians or the Government. It is time to liberate the racetracks of America and the only way that will be done is to remove the control the Government has over them so they can compete in a free market economy.

And as for Indian Casino's, the Indians just seem to be pawns in the hands of politicians. I have seen few reservations where it is evident the casino's have invested hugely into the infrastructure of the community and the lives of individual tribe members.

Craig.With all due respect, that is bunch of race track and horseman hooey. The politicians have always rubber stamped whatever the race industry wanted. Only recently in a few places have they begin to tell them that they come to them one too many times. It is not over regulation or Indian casinos that are killing the sport, but the horse industry's greed that is doing it in.

[thaskalos]

I think many people are looking at this entirely the wrong way.

Find the person who is at the root of the financial woes of American racing? You have to go back to the person who thought PMU wagering should be managed by a state government. You should NEVER have state involvement in gambling transactions to begin with. It is beyond my comprehension why in the USA, a country that claims to be freedom loving, independent and with a spirit of rugged individualism that horse players allowed themselves to be subjugated to betting solely on a PMU system whose only purpose is to offer as low odds as possible while making money for the Government.

But the modern day problem is simple. No one, but no one has the balls to stand up to the Government and say: "You have bullied and exploited us for long enough. If you do not grant us the right to accept wagers how and when we choose and on what events we choose, we will do it anyway. And do it fairly and we do not give a damn about your kangaroo state laws, primarily written by people with no wagering experience whatsoever."

If enough people stand up to the State Governments and do this, there will be nothing the state can do. Similarly, there is no need to kowtow to the states to ask for racing days. Pick your days, race them and if you thrive, great. If not you die.

In short Casinos should not have to give to horse racing, the Government should give racetracks the freedom (that we allowed them to take!) to accept whatever form of wagering they wish to offer.

No good can come out of mixing horse racing with politicians or the Government. It is time to liberate the racetracks of America and the only way that will be done is to remove the control the Government has over them so they can compete in a free market economy.

And as for Indian Casino's, the Indians just seem to be pawns in the hands of politicians. I have seen few reservations where it is evident the casino's have invested hugely into the infrastructure of the community and the lives of individual tribe members.

Craig.
Craig...

Would you mind telling us what these great new ideas are that the racetracks are just dying to implement...but they are not ALLOWED to by the government?

What are these "new" wagering methods you speak of...and are you sure it is only the GOVERNMENT who is objecting to them?

[Fingal]

If I run the only restaurant in a small town and someone opens up a Cracker Barrel down by the interstate, should my new competition be "forced to donate" some of their gross receipts to me?

I was going to turn it around as to a gambling endeavor.

If racing was the more popular option & Indian Casinos were struggling, should racing be forced to help subsidize their competition ?

There's always 2 sides to every argument. Or 3 as Don Henley said-

" There's yours, mine & the cold hard truth."

[Igeteven]

I was going to turn it around as to a gambling endeavor.

If racing was the more popular option & Indian Casinos were struggling, should racing be forced to help subsidize their competition ?

There's always 2 sides to every argument. Or 3 as Don Henley said-

" There's yours, mine & the cold hard truth."

People love horse racing, they are against how it's being run. Here in California, it's one hell of a F............ Mess

[craigbraddick]

With all due respect, that is bunch of race track and horseman hooey. The politicians have always rubber stamped whatever the race industry wanted. Only recently in a few places have they begin to tell them that they come to them one too many times. It is not over regulation or Indian casinos that are killing the sport, but the horse industry's greed that is doing it in.

Hi Robert:

Well until very recently I have never been part of a racetrack management team and never had dealings with horsemen. Only briefly at the ill fated Yavapai was I in that position.

But this is my point. Politicians should not have to rubber stamp anything for the industry. Just who the hell do they think they are? We do not need them in our sport, they contribute nothing. They are leeching parasites only using racing to their own ends.

Your point about horse industry greed may be true in some quarters. But I do know from personal experience there are those in track management who are determined to change the game for the better. We introduced and got approval for an 11.75% daily Pick Five at Yavapai and that was to be our launchpad to lower the takes outs on other exotics. Sadly we never got the chance.

There are some horsemen who realize that just because they can get a dollar today it does not mean they there will be a dollar for them tomorrow.
When dealing with the horsemen situation in AZ, this I found was the biggest divide among that community. It also has to be said those who wanted it all now and let's not care about tomorrow until it gets here were the most vocal and in a couple of unpleasant cases the most physically threatening.

Good track management puts customers first by offering them attractive wagering options, good facilities, friendly staff and work continually to market themselves well even if it is with a small budget. Bad track management does none of these things.

It has nothing to do with Indian Casino's. It should have nothing to do with the Government. And if you do not think over regulation is a curse on the sport, just visit the interior of any racing operation and see how serving the state has become so time consuming.

Craig

[craigbraddick]

Craig...

Would you mind telling us what these great new ideas are that the racetracks are just dying to implement...but they are not ALLOWED to by the government?

What are these "new" wagering methods you speak of...and are you sure it is only the GOVERNMENT who is objecting to them?

Hi Thaskalos:

1. Offering wagering through their own bookmaking organization on other sports.
2. Offering alternative forms of gambling like slots, card games, roulette, etc. None of these need Government interference. Tracks should be free to offer the wagering services they want.
3. The freedom to race when they want, for how long they want without having to seek permission from professional bureaucrats.
4. Tracks should be able to decide if to allow bookmakers on the premises and charge them an amount they see fit.


All of that should be a good start.

It is not only the Government, it is people who are stuck in the mindset of: "Things have always been this way and although what we have now is not working, it is not our fault because we have always done it this way!"

Craig.

[Robert Goren]

Hi Thaskalos:

1. Offering wagering through their own bookmaking organization on other sports.
2. Offering alternative forms of gambling like slots, card games, roulette, etc. None of these need Government interference. Tracks should be free to offer the wagering services they want.
3. The freedom to race when they want, for how long they want without having to seek permission from professional bureaucrats.
4. Tracks should be able to decide if to allow bookmakers on the premises and charge them an amount they see fit.


All of that should be a good start.

It is not only the Government, it is people who are stuck in the mindset of: "Things have always been this way and although what we have now is not working, it is not our fault because we have always done it this way!"

Craig. I have no problem with that as long the gas station down the street can do it too without having to kick in for keeping the race track up and running. That I assure you that is the last thing they want.
I was part of a failed drive to legalize casino gambling in this state. The horse industry fought it tooth and nail because they only wanted it at race tracks. They spent a lot money to get it defeated at the ballot box. It would take a vote of the people to allow it here. Two years later they were there with their own ballot intuitive that would allow it, but only at the race tracks. It got even fewer votes.

[craigbraddick]

I have no problem with that as long the gas station down the street can do it too without having to kick in for keeping the race track up and running. That I assure you that is the last thing they want.
I was part of a failed drive to legalize casino gambling in this state. The horse industry fought it tooth and nail because they only wanted it at race tracks. They spent a lot money to get it defeated at the ballot box. It would take a vote of the people to allow it here. Two years later they were there with their own ballot intuitive that would allow it, but only at the race tracks. It got even fewer votes.

Of course the gas station down the street should have slot machine if they want too as should the pubs, clubs, etc. Very shortsighted by the horse industry.

Craig

[thaskalos]

Of course the gas station down the street should have slot machine if they want too as should the pubs, clubs, etc. Very shortsighted by the horse industry.

Craig
There is no horse racing "industry", Craig...don't you see that?

Just a bunch of horse owners, trainers, and track owners...fighting among themselves for their piece of the pie -- that's what this game is currently run by.

And these are the people you want to entrust the running of your vast gambling enterprise to?

[craigbraddick]

There is no horse racing "industry", Craig...don't you see that?

Just a bunch of horse owners, trainers, and track owners...fighting among themselves for their piece of the pie -- that's what this game is currently run by.

And these are the people you want to entrust the running of your vast gambling enterprise to?

No it is not. Track owners need a clearly defined business plan for this to work. Owners and trainers should not run racetracks. They do not in the UK, no reason for them to do so here.

Craig.

[thespaah]

Indian Casinos, other type of gaming or business interests should they donate?

Do you feel that a specific amount of their revenue should go to horse racing or Should horse racing stand on its own?Only if they do it on their own.
If government forces them to do so, it's a tax. In any event, this will never happen.
Why would a competing business give money to another.
One caveat...If Indian Casinos offer pari mutuel wagering, those casinos should pay a fee of some kind to the tracks.

[thespaah]

In my opinion, spineless, naive politicians should never have agreed to let casinos to operate outside of Nevada and New Jersey. Same thing in Canada, the same kind of politicians shouldn't have allowed casino gambling in Canada period!

Unfortunately, these stupid politicians believe the vested interests when they tell the politicians that casino gambling will create jobs and prosperity for many people, and will provide extra revenue for their government treasuries. Nonsense, I say! These dumbbell politicians conveniently forget all the misery, financially and emotionally, that casino gambling causes to gambling addicts and their families. Casinos, like tobacco companies derive a lot of their profits from addicts, quite often from the ones who can least afford to lose at these long run, negative expectation games . How many more broken families have to happen before these incompetent, politician dolts wake up! The only people gaining prosperity in the long run are the casino owners. If there would be a lot less casinos operating, people would start spending their money on more local businesses that sell more useful products and services, and create more jobs this way. Plus, more money would be circulated creating more prosperity.

In the old days before casino gambling got widespread and infiltrated racetracks, these same racetracks were the 'only game in town' as the saying goes. In those early days, many racetracks probably prospered because of that fact, plus the feature of higher churn in those days because most bets were of the lower-takeout win/place/show variety, and maybe the odd daily double. That's a lot different than today's horse racing scene, with 3 to 6 horse gimmicks with their 25 to 31 % takeouts. All that those high-takeout gimmick bets does, is create more losing bettors in the long run. The smart track managements like at Tampa Bay and Keeneland are at least trying to help create more winners or make bettors' bankrolls last longer, through lower takeouts.

T2W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
~"Common sense in an uncommon degree is what the world calls wisdom."

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
I take this from your post. You are anti-competition. Or you are bitter because horse racing is not the only wagering game in town.
Then you went on a completely different path by trashing gambling in general. What the hell is betting on horse racing? A sound investment with a guaranteed return?

[thespaah]

Here's the problem. They're not standing on their own if the Indians are actively 'paying off' politicians so that tracks won't get their own slot machines.

Racing would be find standing on their own without any interference from Indian gaming.
That is an interesting point of view.
I suppose if evidence of payoffs or influence from Indian Casino interests could be brought forth, you'd have a legitimate beef.
After reading all the stories about the situation in New Jersey with the Meadowlands and South Jersey politicians which support the AC Casinos, I have to believe that the entire Casino industry would not mind of horse racing went out of business.

[thespaah]

Thaskalos:

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree with you on that point. Nevertheless, I defend your right to express your views.

On an added note, I just love it when I read about a casino going bankrupt whether the cause is from a poor economy, or because more people are getting enlightened that casino games are unbeatable in the long run.

T2W
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
~"The safest way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket."

--Kin Hubbard
Casinos do not like to lose. They are in business to take their customers' money. They always get it. Their favorite game is the comp. If a casino sees a person who is wither winning or a large player, they offer comps for meals and rooms with the idea of keeping that person in the building. The longer they stay and play, the likelihood of that person going into negative dollars increases dramatically.
Ideally racetrack managements would not care whether their patrons win or lose. However over the last 15 to 20 years it seems racetrack managements just don't care.
Anything bad that happens to the racing game or the tracks is the fault of the people in charge. Racetrack managements and horsemen included.

[Robert Goren]

That is an interesting point of view.
I suppose if evidence of payoffs or influence from Indian Casino interests could be brought forth, you'd have a legitimate beef.
After reading all the stories about the situation in New Jersey with the Meadowlands and South Jersey politicians which support the AC Casinos, I have to believe that the entire Casino industry would not mind of horse racing went out of business. The feeling is mutual, I am sure.

[thespaah]

I think many people are looking at this entirely the wrong way.

Find the person who is at the root of the financial woes of American racing? You have to go back to the person who thought PMU wagering should be managed by a state government. You should NEVER have state involvement in gambling transactions to begin with. It is beyond my comprehension why in the USA, a country that claims to be freedom loving, independent and with a spirit of rugged individualism that horse players allowed themselves to be subjugated to betting solely on a PMU system whose only purpose is to offer as low odds as possible while making money for the Government.

But the modern day problem is simple. No one, but no one has the balls to stand up to the Government and say: "You have bullied and exploited us for long enough. If you do not grant us the right to accept wagers how and when we choose and on what events we choose, we will do it anyway. And do it fairly and we do not give a damn about your kangaroo state laws, primarily written by people with no wagering experience whatsoever."

If enough people stand up to the State Governments and do this, there will be nothing the state can do. Similarly, there is no need to kowtow to the states to ask for racing days. Pick your days, race them and if you thrive, great. If not you die.

In short Casinos should not have to give to horse racing, the Government should give racetracks the freedom (that we allowed them to take!) to accept whatever form of wagering they wish to offer.

No good can come out of mixing horse racing with politicians or the Government. It is time to liberate the racetracks of America and the only way that will be done is to remove the control the Government has over them so they can compete in a free market economy.

And as for Indian Casino's, the Indians just seem to be pawns in the hands of politicians. I have seen few reservations where it is evident the casino's have invested hugely into the infrastructure of the community and the lives of individual tribe members.

Craig.I think I know why this is....Like tobacco and alcohol, state governments view gambling as a vice. Because laws will not prevent people from getting their hands on tobacco and alcohol, the states decided to regulate sales of these items and of course tax them. Wagering on horses dogs and jai-lai, same thing.
Now we know that politicians are generally an untrustworthy sort. That means they do things in their own self interest.
We ca simply fast forward to to day, we see the damage done.
In my opinion, most state governments merely tolerate the Sport of Kings.
Hence the reason why states are averse to supporting the struggling industry.

[Robert Goren]

I think I know why this is....Like tobacco and alcohol, state governments view gambling as a vice. Because laws will not prevent people from getting their hands on tobacco and alcohol, the states decided to regulate sales of these items and of course tax them. Wagering on horses dogs and jai-lai, same thing.
Now we know that politicians are generally an untrustworthy sort. That means they do things in their own self interest.
We ca simply fast forward to to day, we see the damage done.
In my opinion, most state governments merely tolerate the Sport of Kings.
Hence the reason why states are averse to supporting the struggling industry.Many states don't even tolerate it all let alone support it. Those states get along just fine without it. I am all for it being legal although I know why it is not in some states. There is no reason for the government to support it. It is not something that we couldn't live without. We are not talking about the manufacturing of a cancer drug here.

[Robert Goren]

The poll stands at 33 to 10 against. That is among people who either bettors or tied to the races in some way. If you took the same poll among people who not bettors and/or with no ties to the industry, you know, the other 95% of the people, it would be 43 to 0. The only people who think this is a good idea are race track empoyees or horsemen. The rest of us think it stinks.

[toddbowker]

IMO...WAY more families have broken up because of horse racing than because of casinos.

It's terribly hypocritical of us to attribute the misery and financial (and emotional) instability caused by addictive gambling to the casino industry...while ignoring the role that OUR game has played in that regard.Actually, this statement couldn't be more false.

I had to do a presentation on problem gambling as part of AmericaTab's original license application in Oregon. During my research for that presentation, I found several studies on problem gambling that indicated the average rate for problem gamblers as a % of total gamblers was just over 1.9% for all sources of gambling. That figure was very consistent across several studies, although I did see one study as high as 4%.

One study I did find actually researched the games played by gamblers in an effort to try to correlate which forms of wagering were most likely to develop problem gamblers (I'm sure there have been more studies done since then).

It said that only 25% of the people in the study indicated that they had ever played pari-mutuel at any time in their lives, and only 5.6% had wagered on pari-mutuels in the last year. Casino gaming, especially slots and video poker, was a much higher 'threat' to developing problem gamblers. It wasn't even close. Even regular sports betting was higher than pari-mutuels, with far fewer legal avenues to do that. Pari-mutels were showing at about the same level as stock trading, which inexplicably is not considered gambling by most governments.

And that study was done in the late 90's when there were far fewer casinos in existence, and pari-mutuel handle was a lot higher than it is now. Just guessing on my part, but I'd bet the percentages of gamblers that have played pari-mutuel in the last year is probably much lower than 5.6%.

[thespaah]

Hi Thaskalos:

1. Offering wagering through their own bookmaking organization on other sports.
2. Offering alternative forms of gambling like slots, card games, roulette, etc. None of these need Government interference. Tracks should be free to offer the wagering services they want.
3. The freedom to race when they want, for how long they want without having to seek permission from professional bureaucrats.
4. Tracks should be able to decide if to allow bookmakers on the premises and charge them an amount they see fit.


All of that should be a good start.

It is not only the Government, it is people who are stuck in the mindset of: "Things have always been this way and although what we have now is not working, it is not our fault because we have always done it this way!"

Craig.
"because we have always done it this way" is the number one reason why there is/has been corruption in politics and just about everything else.

[thaskalos]

Actually, this statement couldn't be more false.

I had to do a presentation on problem gambling as part of AmericaTab's original license application in Oregon. During my research for that presentation, I found several studies on problem gambling that indicated the average rate for problem gamblers as a % of total gamblers was just over 1.9% for all sources of gambling. That figure was very consistent across several studies, although I did see one study as high as 4%.

One study I did find actually researched the games played by gamblers in an effort to try to correlate which forms of wagering were most likely to develop problem gamblers (I'm sure there have been more studies done since then).

It said that only 25% of the people in the study indicated that they had ever played pari-mutuel at any time in their lives, and only 5.6% had wagered on pari-mutuels in the last year. Casino gaming, especially slots and video poker, was a much higher 'threat' to developing problem gamblers. It wasn't even close. Even regular sports betting was higher than pari-mutuels, with far fewer legal avenues to do that. Pari-mutels were showing at about the same level as stock trading, which inexplicably is not considered gambling by most governments.

And that study was done in the late 90's when there were far fewer casinos in existence, and pari-mutuel handle was a lot higher than it is now. Just guessing on my part, but I'd bet the percentages of gamblers that have played pari-mutuel in the last year is probably much lower than 5.6%.
The subject of "problem gambling" is very close to my heart...and, since I happen to have a little time on my hands, I would like to discuss this a little further with you.

Since you have done research on this matter...would you mind telling me how you DEFINE "problem gambling"?

[thespaah]

Actually, this statement couldn't be more false.

I had to do a presentation on problem gambling as part of AmericaTab's original license application in Oregon. During my research for that presentation, I found several studies on problem gambling that indicated the average rate for problem gamblers as a % of total gamblers was just over 1.9% for all sources of gambling. That figure was very consistent across several studies, although I did see one study as high as 4%.

One study I did find actually researched the games played by gamblers in an effort to try to correlate which forms of wagering were most likely to develop problem gamblers (I'm sure there have been more studies done since then).

It said that only 25% of the people in the study indicated that they had ever played pari-mutuel at any time in their lives, and only 5.6% had wagered on pari-mutuels in the last year. Casino gaming, especially slots and video poker, was a much higher 'threat' to developing problem gamblers. It wasn't even close. Even regular sports betting was higher than pari-mutuels, with far fewer legal avenues to do that. Pari-mutels were showing at about the same level as stock trading, which inexplicably is not considered gambling by most governments.

And that study was done in the late 90's when there were far fewer casinos in existence, and pari-mutuel handle was a lot higher than it is now. Just guessing on my part, but I'd bet the percentages of gamblers that have played pari-mutuel in the last year is probably much lower than 5.6%.Trading in securities and futures markets is legalized gambling.
Why this type of "betting" is looked upon as an acceptable vehicle to enhance one's income while wagering on horse racing or sports is looked upon as a vice is a mystery to me.

[thespaah]

Many states don't even tolerate it all let alone support it. Those states get along just fine without it. I am all for it being legal although I know why it is not in some states. There is no reason for the government to support it. It is not something that we couldn't live without. We are not talking about the manufacturing of a cancer drug here.
I was referring to the states where PM wagering is legal.
Please stay on point.

[toddbowker]

The subject of "problem gambling" is very close to my heart...and, since I happen to have a little time on my hands, I would like to discuss this a little further with you.

Since you have done research on this matter...would you mind telling me how you DEFINE "problem gambling"?I don't really feel qualified to 'define' it myself. I'm sure there are many 'technical' ways to define it, and every study will lay out the specific criteria it used.

I have always personally felt that any behavior becomes a 'problem' (or an addiction if you prefer) when that behavior leads to negative consequences for the person, family/people they know, or the community as a whole. With regards to gambling in particular, those 'negative consequences' certainly involve (but are not limited to) money issues, the amount of time spent gambling getting in the way of the rest of their responsibilities, and the inability to stop despite wanting to.

[thaskalos]

I don't really feel qualified to 'define' it myself. I'm sure there are many 'technical' ways to define it, and every study will lay out the specific criteria it used.

I have always personally felt that any behavior becomes a 'problem' (or an addiction if you prefer) when that behavior leads to negative consequences for the person, family/people they know, or the community as a whole. With regards to gambling in particular, those 'negative consequences' certainly involve (but are not limited to) money issues, the amount of time spent gambling getting in the way of the rest of their responsibilities, and the inability to stop despite wanting to.
Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

My response to T2W - which you quoted in your prior post - had nothing to do with "problem gambling"...which, as you so accurately stated, is a term used to describe any and all negative consequences - major OR minor - which a gambler creates for himself due to his preoccupation with gambling activities.

We were talking about broken families, misery and great financial and emotional hardship.

It has been my misfortune to have spent 30 years at racetracks, OTBs, and casinos...and I have made many acquaintances with horseplayers AND casino players over that timespan.

In the majority of the cases I am familiar with, the casino players are in much better financial shape than the horseplayers...and they also seem to have better relationships with their wives and girlfriends -- who, in some cases, also accompany them for a "night out" at the riverboat/casino.

The horseplayers, on the other hand, always seem to lie to their significant others as to their whereabouts while gambling...and often dash for the parking lot - and away from the racetrack noise - when they have to talk to them on the phone.

And all the FOUR gambling-related divorces I'm aware of include only horseplayers.

Granted...my "research" is not exactly scientific...but it has led me to the conclusion that gamblers suffer more at the hands of the racetracks than they do at the hands of the casinos...

Remember, I never claimed to be stating a fact here...only an opinion.

[Igeteven]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

My response to T2W - which you quoted in your prior post - had nothing to do with "problem gambling"...which, as you so accurately stated, is a term used to describe any and all negative consequences - major OR minor - which a gambler creates for himself due to his preoccupation with gambling activities.

We were talking about broken families, misery and great financial and emotional hardship.

It has been my misfortune to have spent 30 years at racetracks, OTBs, and casinos...and I have made many acquaintances with horseplayers AND casino players over that timespan.

In the majority of the cases I am familiar with, the casino players are in much better financial shape than the horseplayers...and they also seem to have better relationships with their wives and girlfriends -- who, in some cases, also accompany them for a "night out" at the riverboat/casino.

The horseplayers, on the other hand, always seem to lie to their significant others as to their whereabouts while gambling...and often dash for the parking lot - and away from the racetrack noise - when they have to talk to them on the phone.

And all the FOUR gambling-related divorces I'm aware of include only horseplayers.

Granted...my "research" is not exactly scientific...but it has led me to the conclusion that gamblers suffer more at the hands of the racetracks than they do at the hands of the casinos...

Remember, I never claimed to be stating a fact here...only an opinion.

Good Post,

Horse players are a completely different breed of person then casino people

[Lasix67]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

My response to T2W - which you quoted in your prior post - had nothing to do with "problem gambling"...which, as you so accurately stated, is a term used to describe any and all negative consequences - major OR minor - which a gambler creates for himself due to his preoccupation with gambling activities.

We were talking about broken families, misery and great financial and emotional hardship.

It has been my misfortune to have spent 30 years at racetracks, OTBs, and casinos...and I have made many acquaintances with horseplayers AND casino players over that timespan.

In the majority of the cases I am familiar with, the casino players are in much better financial shape than the horseplayers...and they also seem to have better relationships with their wives and girlfriends -- who, in some cases, also accompany them for a "night out" at the riverboat/casino.

The horseplayers, on the other hand, always seem to lie to their significant others as to their whereabouts while gambling...and often dash for the parking lot - and away from the racetrack noise - when they have to talk to them on the phone.

And all the FOUR gambling-related divorces I'm aware of include only horseplayers.

Granted...my "research" is not exactly scientific...but it has led me to the conclusion that gamblers suffer more at the hands of the racetracks than they do at the hands of the casinos...

Remember, I never claimed to be stating a fact here...only an opinion.

Respectfully, I have the opposite opinion on this matter.

[thaskalos]

Respectfully, I have the opposite opinion on this matter.
And I respect your opinion as well.

It's hard to know what the "real" truth is in matters such as these...

The most we can do is relate our experiences...

[5k-claim]

The poll stands at 33 to 10 against. That is among people who either bettors or tied to the races in some way. If you took the same poll among people who not bettors and/or with no ties to the industry, you know, the other 95% of the people, it would be 43 to 0. The only people who think this is a good idea are race track empoyees or horsemen. The rest of us think it stinks.What did you click on to get all of this information? I don't think I am seeing that link.

.

[Steve 'StatMan']

What did you click on to get all of this information? I don't think I am seeing that link.

.

You have to have either voted in the poll, or click on something like 'see poll results' in order to see it - otherwise the poll with voting options appears at the top of each screen.

[Igeteven]

You have to have either voted in the poll, or click on something like 'see poll results' in order to see it - otherwise the poll with voting options appears at the top of each screen.

?

[Robert Goren]

You have to have either voted in the poll, or click on something like 'see poll results' in order to see it - otherwise the poll with voting options appears at the top of each screen. Thank you for explaining that. My patience with having to explain even the simplest things to this guy ran out a long time ago.

[Igeteven]

Thank you for explaining that. My patience with having to explain even the simplest things to this guy ran out a long time ago.

Bob there are a lot of people here one french fry short of a happy meal :bang:

[5k-claim]

Thank you for explaining that. My patience with having to explain even the simplest things to this guy ran out a long time ago.Actually, I was referring to the fact that the link to your demographics report in post #58 is as imaginary as its content.

.