NYRA to refund 8.6 million dollars to bettors

[toussaud]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/nyra-to-refund-millions-to-bettors-after-charging-too-much-takeout/

charged too much takeout on exotic wagers

[jelly]

The overcharges occurred not just on bets from NYRA tracks, but also on those handled by remote betting agencies involving NYRA races.


Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/State-NYRA-overcharged-bettors-by-millions-2417804.php#ixzz1hCty67c5

[FenceBored]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/nyra-to-refund-millions-to-bettors-after-charging-too-much-takeout/

charged too much takeout on exotic wagers

No sweat. NYRA needed the money at the time. Now that they're going to have the AQU slot revenue, they'll be able to repay the loan NYRA bettors gave them. It's all good.

[SansuiSC]

Let's see how long it takes them to pay up.

[chickenhead]

Oops. Everyone knew what they were charging, the players and the state.. It's very strange to hear this now and not 16 months ago. It should have been clarified and corrected by the state back then. I'd assume it was discussed at the time as it certainly was questioned by players.


That said, an 8 million over charge, oh my oh my.

[toussaud]

Oops. Everyone knew what they were charging, the players and the state.. It's very strange to hear this now and not 16 months ago. It should have been clarified and corrected by the state back then. I'd assume it was discussed at the time as it certainly was questioned by players.


That said, an 8 million over charge, oh my oh my.
you know what really pisses me off

a man defrauds his clients out of 8 million dollars, he does 10 years in a federal pen


NYRA does the same thing, basically uses the charges as a loan until they got their "deal", and gets to pay back the money on their terms. it's a crock of shit.

[cj]

you know what really pisses me off

a man defrauds his clients out of 8 million dollars, he does 10 years in a federal pen


NYRA does the same thing, basically uses the charges as a loan until they got their "deal", and gets to pay back the money on their terms. it's a crock of shit.

Not defending NYRA at all, they are wrong, but lets not act like they got the full 8.6 million. If there handle is 15% on track, which would be a lot, then they had about 1.3 million at NYRA. The rest is was paid out to other tracks, ADWs, OTBs, whatever. NYRA also isn't the only entity in New York that could have caught this disaster.

[cj]

you know what really pisses me off



Thinking that Golden Gate might go back to 4 day race weeks? Just took a shot in the dark. Am I close?

[Spiderman]

I want the extra 1% that was extracted from my wins, NOW. At least, for the ones that I can prove through my ADW record.

That is total BS about "oops, we took your money fraudulently, now you give us more to fondle and we will pay you, less our exorbitant takeout."

[jelly]

NYRA attributed the problem of overlooking the reduced rate "due to the complexity of the takeout provisions in the racing law."



How much of a problem and how complex would it have been if NYRA were undercharging the horseplayer?


When do you think they would have spotted the "problem"? :lol: :lol:

[toussaud]

Not defending NYRA at all, they are wrong, but lets not act like they got the full 8.6 million. If there handle is 15% on track, which would be a lot, then they had about 1.3 million at NYRA. The rest is was paid out to other tracks, ADWs, OTBs, whatever. NYRA also isn't the only entity in New York that could have caught this disaster.
that's a good point

[classhandicapper]

Not defending NYRA at all, they are wrong, but lets not act like they got the full 8.6 million. If there handle is 15% on track, which would be a lot, then they had about 1.3 million at NYRA. The rest is was paid out to other tracks, ADWs, OTBs, whatever. NYRA also isn't the only entity in New York that could have caught this disaster.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

If they have to pay back 8.6m dollars like the article states, then they had 8.6m dollars of horse player's money. I don't why it matters what the source of the betting was unless you think it's significant that only a portion of it was NY horse player money. Am I misunderstanding?

[foregoforever]

NYRA attributed the problem of overlooking the reduced rate "due to the complexity of the takeout provisions in the racing law."


Sounds like NYRA needs a court-appoiinted monitor to make sure they follow the law.

[andymays]

If California did something like this ..................................... :lol:

[Robert Goren]

They got a loan of $8.6 million from the betters. They now have to pay it back and pay the interest of $50k. The problem is that the people lending the money didn't know they they were lending it. Furthermore there is guarantee that the same people who "lent" will the same people getting it back. If any other company had done this, they would not get off so lucky. But it is only horse players, so the attitude is who cares.

[andymays]

They got a loan of $8.6 million from the betters. They now have to pay it back and pay the interest of $50k. The problem is that the people lending the money didn't know they they were lending it. Furthermore there is guarantee that the same people who "lent" will the same people getting it back. If any other company had done this, they would not get off so lucky. But it is only horse players, so the attitude is who cares.
OK Goren. You're god in this one. What's the penalty? Make sure you treat them the same as California. ;)

Or even treat them the same as Dutrow for cheating. :lol: Allegedly! :lol:

[thaskalos]

This is unbelievable!

They took money away from the players without our knowledge, and now, instead of being reprimanded severely...they get to pay the money back at their leisure -- out of future takeouts?

What a deal...and what a fine example this sets for other racing jurisdictions who might be thinking of also pulling a stunt like this.

[andymays]

This is unbelievable!

They took money away from the players without our knowledge, and now, instead of being reprimanded severely...they get to pay the money back at their leisure -- out of future takeouts?

What a deal...and what a fine example this sets for other racing jurisdictions who might be thinking of also pulling a stunt like this.
This is why I take the position I take on Trainers rightly or wrongly. The worst cheaters are the ones that run the game. And just about every jurisdiction is guilty of this crap in one form or another. Who do you want to investigate? The guy who's jaywalking or the guy robbing the bank?

[ukbro00]

"Because NYRA had been advertising and calculating the superexotic takeout rate at 26 percent, the payouts for the bets were not deceptive or mathematically incorrect."

People betting into these pools knew the takeout was 26%, so I can't see how this causes such an issue.

[foregoforever]

They took money away from the players without our knowledge, and now, instead of being reprimanded severely...they get to pay the money back at their leisure -- out of future takeouts?

It all depends on who got ripped off. The infamous teller scam cost the federal government a couple of million in taxes, and the state about a half million. This one involved a theft of over 3 times that amount ... but the losers weren't the same class of people.

[davew]

They got a loan of $8.6 million from the betters. They now have to pay it back and pay the interest of $50k. The problem is that the people lending the money didn't know they they were lending it. Furthermore there is guarantee that the same people who "lent" will the same people getting it back. If any other company had done this, they would not get off so lucky. But it is only horse players, so the attitude is who cares.

And what percentage of that $8.6 million will not be traceable? Most people betting at the track, or off-track books will throw away losing tickets - only ADW bets will be traceable - and the few who meticously keep all betting tickets.

[NJ Stinks]

What a deal...and what a fine example this sets for other racing jurisdictions who might be thinking of also pulling a stunt like this.

Just another reason why racing here needs a governing body to oversee the industry.

Not that I see the current commissioner of baseball, football, or basketball caring how much their customers were/are overcharged, of course. :ThmbDown:

[chickenhead]

I have a few thoughts.

There is a specific problem here in that a significant breaking of a regulation that impacted consumers to this large amount of money went on for such a long time. In a tightly regulated market this is not supposed to happen. That's the point of regulation and an regulator. Particularly in light of the difficulty in this instance of ever getting remedy back to the people specifically harmed.

So,

#1 thing I'd like to see is a NY attorney general investigation into the NY Wagering Board and NYRA to determine exactly the course of events that lead to not only this breakdown occuring, but of it persisting. I find it hard to believe "no one noticed" at the State Board, but the claim that "no one noticed" speaks to incredible incompetence on parts of both the regulator and the regulated. Whatever happened, this is precisely the sort of thing gov't should investigate so it can be remedied. The point of regulated industries is that regulations are followed, and consumers are protected.


#2 the remedy is not correct, and needs to change.

For example, NYRA will be required to attempt to identify bettors who may have been affected by the error by examining the payouts made to customers of its account-wagering system since Sept. 15, 2010. But while those bettors may receive additional money, the policy will neglect the customers of out-of-state wagering operations who might also deserve higher payouts, along with the legions of ontrack customers who do not have records of their transactions.

That means there are multi-millions that for all intents and purposes belong to specific horseplayers, by legal right, for which they will not be able to claim directly. I don't know if there will be class action lawsuits, there may be as thats a big pot and some (or several) lawyers will probably jump for it. And any class of out of state ADW players, or people with tickets, would win a class action suit in an instant, and rightly so. I'm not a fan of class action lawsuits in general, but I'm a fan of this "resolution" even less.

The idea that NYRA can lower takeout as some sort of remedy is incredible. While possibly logical at first blush -- those sorts of activities are promotional, they attract business. It would be unfair, on multiple levels, to allow a breach of law by a company to result in a cost free pool of promotional dollars for ones products, to be applied towards takeout, pool seeding, whatever going forward.

Not only does the remedy not attempt to return the monies to those harmed in any significant way -- it attempts to twist things around so that somehow someone in the future who wants their money back must give them a dollar and receive 76 cents back. That is not any kind of refund.

The money belows to horseplayers - to people. Regardless of where things end up -- those people must be involved, they have some right -- to say what happens to it. Even if they can't get it back personally, they have a say in where the rest of that money goes.

The party in the wrong doesn't get to use it for promotions.

[ukbro00]

And what percentage of that $8.6 million will not be traceable? Most people betting at the track, or off-track books will throw away losing tickets - only ADW bets will be traceable - and the few who meticously keep all betting tickets.

If you had a losing ticket, you don't get any money back.

[PaceAdvantage]

Not defending NYRA at all, they are wrong, but lets not act like they got the full 8.6 million. If there handle is 15% on track, which would be a lot, then they had about 1.3 million at NYRA. The rest is was paid out to other tracks, ADWs, OTBs, whatever. NYRA also isn't the only entity in New York that could have caught this disaster.This is an interesting point to consider. The articles make it seem as if NYRA was the beneficiary of over $8M, when that couldn't possibly be the case if you do the math, as you rightly pointed out.

Another case of inaccurate or misleading reporting...is everyone in racing just incredibly lax and lazy? From reporters to racing officials to state regulators?

It would appear so...

[foregoforever]

This is an interesting point to consider. The articles make it seem as if NYRA was the beneficiary of over $8M, when that couldn't possibly be the case if you do the math, as you rightly pointed out.

Another case of inaccurate or misleading reporting...is everyone in racing just incredibly lax and lazy? From reporters to racing officials to state regulators?

It would appear so...

The DRF article clearly states that much of the overcharge went to out-of-state ADWs. The original Times-Union article doesn't state that, but they don't make any reference as to where the money went. They simply state that NYRA overcharged the bettors.

I see nothing misleading in either article. Care to point out a specific sentence, or some other reports?

[Caroline]

Honestly I don't care so much about whether reporting of the incident was misleading, as much as I do about which parties benefited from the "error" at consumer cost and made no attempt to correct it. Surely all recipients of the revenue are culpable - either for gross incompetence, which I find improbable, or for some version of consumer fraud.

[classhandicapper]

Personally, I don't think it matters who wound up with the extra 8.6m.

The only thing that matters is that horse players wound up with 8.6m less than they were legally entitled to, some of them are never going to see any of it because there is no paper/computer trail, and others may get hit with a tax bill they didn't know they had and/or have to do an adjusted tax filing to account for the greater payoffs and greater gambling winnings than they thought they had.

It's a mess and it's probably going to cost a lot of money over and above the paybacks and penalties to process it all (including some for customers).

I doubt any of this was done on purpose. I also doubt NYRA knew about it and decided to use the money for operating purposes. But there are clearly internal control and audit issues at NYRA that have to be addressed. It also suggests that some of the critics of NYRA that have been calling for an audit may be correct about some of their concerns and criticisms. Let's face it, there is no way to spin this positively.

[Caroline]

Well it either represents gross incompetence by many parties, independently, or conspiracy to defraud by those same parties. And either way - horse players got screwed, no question. How the "universe" interprets and chooses to act upon it may, however, affect appropriate compensation to horse players - I would think.

[PaceAdvantage]

Personally, I don't think it matters who wound up with the extra 8.6m.
.
.
.
It also suggests that some of the critics of NYRA that have been calling for an audit may be correct about some of their concerns and criticisms. Let's face it, there is no way to spin this positively.Maybe if they would have audited NYCOTB more closely, this initial takeout increase to 26% (which was FORCED by NYCOTB's out of control losses) would have never been written into law to begin with. If you want to start auditing, start there...oooops...that's right...NYCOTB is no more...which is why the takeout was supposed to be lowered back to 25%

I guess all of this clearly points out the fact that the mysterious "Franchise Oversight Board" is a meaningless entity, as is the NYS Racing & Wagering Board. How do they both miss the fact that the takeout was never lowered when it was supposed to?

Dumb question, I know.

[DeanT]

How do they both miss the fact that the takeout was never lowered when it was supposed to?


Especially when all they had to do was read Paceadvantage.com :)

http://216.92.33.211/forum/showpost.php?p=543847&postcount=7

S.32 - This act shall take effect immediately; provided that sections two, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four of this act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall expire and be deemed repealed two years after such effective date.

[Caroline]

Especially when all they had to do was read Paceadvantage.com :)

http://216.92.33.211/forum/showpost.php?p=543847&postcount=7

How stupid are they? No? Yes? Not Stupid? Not Ignorant? Guessing... Well at least they can "afford" the lower take now, with all that casino income for local interests... Could they have done that anyway? Who cares?

[chickenhead]

just to highlight that a bit more, because there is something particularly unbelieveable if you look closely.

From NYRA and racing board as reported by DRF:

NYRA and racing board officials pinned the error on a provision of complex, wide-ranging amendment to the state's racing law passed in 2008 that affected only NYRA's three tracks -- Aqueduct, Belmont, and Saratoga. Both sides said on Wednesday that they had no knowledge of the provision until alerted to it by auditors over the last few days.

The next line should have been:

Miraculously, a poster on the internetz was able to find, decode, and understand these mind bogglingly complex and wide ranging amendments within 1 day of them being signed into law. He also, amazingly, in a feat of almost unimaginable mental fortitude and swami like foresight, managed to specifically quote the sunset amendment.

In fact its the only amendment he quoted. He quoted it because it also contains when the provision begins. The quote of the amendment, one sentence long, contains the start date and the end date. If anyone read what the start date of the hike was, they also read the end date. They are contained in the same friggin sentence of the law

We hereby declare him the smartest man in the Universe, or certainly NY.



S.32 - This act shall take effect immediately; provided that sections two, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four of this act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall expire and be deemed repealed two years after such effective date.

Figman, June 17th, 2008.

and again:

Both sides said on Wednesday that they had no knowledge of the provision until alerted to it by auditors over the last few days.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is anyone really surprised that something like this could happen given the completely messed up nature of how racing is legislated in New York State?

NYCOTB demanding a takeout hike, which they GET...and still DIE off...

And then someone falls asleep at the switch and doesn't lower the takeout when they should...comical...but then again, given all the bullshit that goes on with this "Franchise Oversight Committee," along with all the other nonsense government has shown itself prone to when it comes to racing here, I'm not surprised there was confusion, that "magical post" by Figman that chickenhead just cited not withstanding.

[classhandicapper]

Maybe if they would have audited NYCOTB more closely, this initial takeout increase to 26% (which was FORCED by NYCOTB's out of control losses) would have never been written into law to begin with. If you want to start auditing, start there...oooops...that's right...NYCOTB is no more...which is why the takeout was supposed to be lowered back to 25%

I guess all of this clearly points out the fact that the mysterious "Franchise Oversight Board" is a meaningless entity, as is the NYS Racing & Wagering Board. How do they both miss the fact that the takeout was never lowered when it was supposed to?

Dumb question, I know.

I don't recall NYCOTB having any auditing or accounting issues (at least not in recent years). It had a dumb deal with the harness tracks and a bad cost structure with the union that it couldn't get out of because the state refused to vote for a new deal and behave rationally about it's own piece of the pie (which is now smaller because the total handle is lower).

I don't know anyone at NYRA, but I'm sure there are a lot of bright, dedicated, hard working people there. I know plenty of people like that at the former NYCOTB. IMO, anything having anything to do with government in any capacity will eventually either become corrupt, inefficient, a dumping ground for patronage jobs, or screwed up in at least some way. It's a shame that everyone has to take the hit when something stupid like this happens.

[cj]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

If they have to pay back 8.6m dollars like the article states, then they had 8.6m dollars of horse player's money. I don't why it matters what the source of the betting was unless you think it's significant that only a portion of it was NY horse player money. Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, you are. The article is shoddy. The 8.6 million was taken from all bettors, not those on track. NYRA did not get the benefit of most of this, at most probably 10-15%. They get a set fee while the one that take the bet gets the difference.

[classhandicapper]

Yes, you are. The article is shoddy. The 8.6 million was taken from all bettors, not those on track. NYRA did not get the benefit of most of this, at most probably 10-15%. They get a set fee while the one that take the bet gets the difference.

I did see that eventually in the DRF article, but IMO it's somewhat irrelevant. I don't think anyone is accusing NYRA of purposefully doing this to benefit itself.

The only issues are the ones I elaborated on in a later post.

1. Bettors got screwed out of 8.6m they were legally entitled to and some may also have tax implications to take care of that will require additional costs. Some will never recover any of it.

2. NYRA and whoever was supposed to audit them screwed up badly

[cj]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a major problem here. There should be at least a few people looking for work by the end of the year.

[cj]

I did see that eventually in the DRF article, but IMO it's somewhat irrelevant. I don't think anyone is accusing NYRA of purposefully doing this to benefit itself.

The only issues are the ones I elaborated on in a later post.

1. Bettors got screwed out of 8.6m they were legally entitled to and some may also have tax implications to take care of that will require additional costs. Some will never recover any of it.

2. NYRA and whoever was supposed to audit them screwed up badly

I only posted what I did because some people here were doing exactly what you say nobody is doing...accusing NYRA of doing this for its own benefit.

[jelly]

As mentioned above.


S.32 - This act shall take effect immediately; provided that sections two, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four of this act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall expire and be deemed repealed two years after such effective date.



What the hell is so complex?

[Rutgers]

Just a few rambling thoughts.

On January 8, 2011 I e-mailed the NYSRWB about NYRA’s takeout on some wagers being outside of the parameters of the law. I never received a response. Maybe they do not respond to non-NYers. I waited until January, because the changes to takeout can only take place the first day of the calendar quarter. And technically, Jan 1 starts a new “meet” as well. As October 1st fell in the middle of the Fall Belmont meet, and I could understand why NYRA would not want a rate change mid-meet.

It should be noted, that while some of the takeout rates for NYRA where higher then prescribe by law, as poster ukbro00 stated everybody knew (or should have known) they were betting into a 26% takeout. Therefore, to imply that NYRA did anything fraudulent is absurd.

I also emailed NYRA in April, 2010 and July 2010 asking them about the takeout, but I did not receive a response. And in August 2010, I commented on Steven Crist’s blog about the “1% NYC OTB takeout increase sunseting” and NYRA takeout being outside the parameters of the NYS law. While he did not post my comment he did send me a e-mail acknowledging the sunset provision went in effect and that NYRA could ask for lower takeout if they wished. I do not know if he discussed it with anybody at NYRA but he does know Charles Hayward personally.

From my perspective, there may be some issues with the change in takeout.

In NY is the Racing Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law establishes the allowed takeout range. NYRA then makes a request to NYSRWB board which either allows it or does not allow it. Any takeout rate must be approved by NYSRWB, NYRA can not change takeout without the NYSRWB approval.

But there is no provision in the PML that requires NYRA to make a the request to change it. And the law clearly states that NYRA can’t change the rates without NYSRWB approval. So there may have been (or there is) a legal question of whether NYRA did or did not do anything wrong. Basically, NYRA was conforming with the law when the law changed, but there is nothing in the law that requires NYRA to change with it. In my opinion, it is a poorly written law.

And for what’s it worth, it are two other posts on the sunset provision:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=969237

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1036848

[chickenhead]

Yes, you are. The article is shoddy. The 8.6 million was taken from all bettors, not those on track. NYRA did not get the benefit of most of this, at most probably 10-15%. They get a set fee while the one that take the bet gets the difference.

Not that it matters, but it might -- when this was originally enacted into law -- did NYRA jack up their signal fees to ADWs and keep this 1%, did they jack up their signal fees to ADWs and pass along 1% OTB, or did they keep all signal fees, everywhere, the same -- passing that 1% along to every distributor (ADW and tracks alike).

I don't know the answer to that -- and when it comes down to reparations to bettors I don't think it matters, but that seems to be implicit here and I just was curious if anyone knew for sure.

[classhandicapper]

I only posted what I did because some people here were doing exactly what you say nobody is doing...accusing NYRA of doing this for its own benefit.

Nobody that counts. ;)

[classhandicapper]

But there is no provision in the PML that requires NYRA to make a the request to change it. And the law clearly states that NYRA can’t change the rates without NYSRWB approval. So there may have been (or there is) a legal question of whether NYRA did or did not do anything wrong. Basically, NYRA was conforming with the law when the law changed, but there is nothing in the law that requires NYRA to change with it. In my opinion, it is a poorly written law.

And for what’s it worth, it are two other posts on the sunset provision:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=969237

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1036848


I "think" I understand what you are saying, but I suspect if NYRA didn't think it screwed up it wouldn't be agreeing to pay back the money with penalties so easily.

If you are right, the best case scenario is that they knew they were theoretically supposed to ask to lower the take by 1% and would definitely get it, but decided to not ask because they wanted the extra revenue.

I'm not sure if I feel better about that or an honest screw up.

If they knew they had the opportunity to lower the take by 1% but didn't ask, then all the stories about how they would love to lower the take but can't are nonsense.

[andymays]

The point is that most jurisdictions including California have priorities and Customers are way down on the list.

[Robert Goren]

I am not sure how much of the money is traceable, but some of it is. The people who had losing bets lost none of it. The people who had winning bets are the losers. I am not sure how traceable the money bet through ADWs is since I don't know how long they keep records. The people who had signers at all sites is 100% traceable.
My problem with this is that NYRA is getting off pretty light. They have to cut their takeout rates which will bring in more than enough extra business to make up for any losses. They have to make a $50k contribution to some unknown charity. That is a pretty light fine. Top management is getting paid a lot of money to make sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen. I doubt if any of them will be looking for job anytime soon. If somebody gets canned, it will be some low level employee who doing what he was told to do.

[JustRalph]

That's it! I have had it with NYRA. I am going to become an Occupier!

On Dec 31st I am going to Occupy Aqueduct race course for the entire card!

Who's with me?

[OTM Al]

That's it! I have had it with NYRA. I am going to become an Occupier!

On Dec 31st I am going to Occupy Aqueduct race course for the entire card!

Who's with me?

Me for one (since I got us the table.....)

[cj's dad]

Me too.

[cj's dad]

I bet TVG was part of this takeout conspiracy.

[precocity]

I GOT 63 WINNING BETS IN THAT TIME LINE MOST OF THEM TRIFECTAS WERES MY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

[OTM Al]

I bet TVG was part of this takeout conspiracy.

Damn. You are on to something! I bet that Ken guy was behind it all.

[Tom]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a major problem here. There should be at least a few people looking for work by the end of the year.

Yes, the morons who represent NYS. If they want to micro-manage, NYRA, then I put all this squarely on them. But then, incompetence is a pre-requisite for holding office or appointment in this state. I have no doubt bonuses and promotions are in the works as we post here.

[Ocala Mike]

In 1991, the powers that be in NY State decided to disband the Pari-Mutuel Revenue unit of the Department of Taxation and Finance which was in place at race tracks and OTB venues to insure compliance with state law. This kind of situation is just one of many "unintended consequences" of that decision.


Ocala Mike (ex-Pari-Mutuel Auditor, NY State)

[iceknight]

No sweat. NYRA needed the money at the time. Now that they're going to have the AQU slot revenue, they'll be able to repay the loan NYRA bettors gave them. It's all good.

Except I did NOT agree to giving any loan..because I would have charged 26.99% APR interest on it if I had.

[iceknight]

Except I did NOT agree to giving any loan..because I would have charged 26.99% APR interest on it if I had.


Also, people who are attacking the messenger (ie saying reporting is misleading etc or saying that NYRA got to keep only 10-15% for over a year and being asked to return the money only AFTER an audit...)..... guess what??

I don't mind keeping 10-15% of 8.6 million dollars for several months at 0% interest. That is a cushy deal.

[chickenhead]

Yes, you are. The article is shoddy. The 8.6 million was taken from all bettors, not those on track. NYRA did not get the benefit of most of this, at most probably 10-15%. They get a set fee while the one that take the bet gets the difference.

I still don't have the answer -- but I'd like to know so I did the best I could, with some research.

NYRA did raise its host fees to other tracks in May 2008. Bill signed in June.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/45261/racetrack-group-has-deal-for-nyra-signal

Officials have said NYRA had increased its host fees.

Hayward was certainly planning on attempting to raise signal fees in order to compensate for this -- June 2008:

http://leftatthegate.blogspot.com/2008/06/tackling-takeout.html

Hayward wrote: "Unless we can increase our price of the NYRA signal, the biggest short term beneficiary of the takeout increase will be out of state competitors

Daruty, the Great Satan, on signal fees in regards to takeout change at NYRA:

http://www.ntra.com/content/display/news/MzMxMzQ=

Scott Daruty, president of a simulcast-marketing partnership owned by Churchill Downs Inc. and Magna Entertainment Corp., said takeout increases or decreases usually require new contracts.

"That's normally the case, just speaking off the top of my head, because I didn't know about this New York provision," Daruty said. "Typically, the increase gets allotted among the two parties."

In short -- I wouldn't be entirely confident about that 10-15% number, it could be quite a lot higher. Signal fees and host fees aren't static, the tracks understand wanting the money very well.

[chickenhead]

to put it in more staightforward math -- if NYRA was able to raise blended signal and host fees by around 0.3% over the period from 2008 to 2010 -- then they would have captured 100% of the $8.6 million at question here from Sept. '10 to now.

I don't know the history of signal and host fees of NYRA, but I know they are an expensive signal. And I know the trend in the industry has been "up". I certainly wouldn't be making any large wagers that NYRA rates hadn't gone up by that much, over that period.

[cj]

I still don't have the answer -- but I'd like to know so I did the best I could, with some research.

NYRA did raise its host fees to other tracks in May 2008. Bill signed in June.


I'm not sure it is really relevant. For one, pretty much everyone raised signal fees during that time I believe. I suspect signal fees were going up whether there was a 1% increase on takeout on some bets or not.

[toussaud]

I am not sure how much of the money is traceable, but some of it is. The people who had losing bets lost none of it. The people who had winning bets are the losers. I am not sure how traceable the money bet through ADWs is since I don't know how long they keep records. The people who had signers at all sites is 100% traceable.
My problem with this is that NYRA is getting off pretty light. They have to cut their takeout rates which will bring in more than enough extra business to make up for any losses. They have to make a $50k contribution to some unknown charity. That is a pretty light fine. Top management is getting paid a lot of money to make sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen. I doubt if any of them will be looking for job anytime soon. If somebody gets canned, it will be some low level employee who doing what he was told to do.

i would imagine if you have an ADW that automatically keeps track of it, and if warrants enough of your time to push it, i.e we are talking about thousands of dollars in lost wages, i would imagine you would have a pretty damn good case. it's not impossible. it would take a hell of alot of leg work but it's not impossible.

[chickenhead]

I'm not sure it is really relevant. For one, pretty much everyone raised signal fees during that time I believe. I suspect signal fees were going up whether there was a 1% increase on takeout on some bets or not.

Of course it's relevant -- the net is all that matters. It's an accounting fiction to say that $7 million stayed with the ADWs and other tracks due to the takeout increase, but that for "other reasons" NYRA raised their signal fees to result in say -$14 million the other way, resulting in a net $7 million positive to NYRA over the period in question.

But -- that $7 million that wasn't supposed to be taken from customers -- that all stayed with the ADWs -- go get it from them. (And also please forget that we, the NYRA, also said we were attempting to raise the rates specifically to capture the takeout increase. We were kidding about that.)

Fictional accounting buckets are just that -- fictional. Net is net.

I follow quite a few companies, and have seen my share of scandals. If you ever hear anything like the above from a company, or anyone talking about a company -- Run. Those are giant red flashing lights you see. The courts would be pretty clear about who benefited from the above scenario, and it provably wasn't the ADWs or other tracks.

[cj]

"Unless we can increase our price of the NYRA signal, the biggest short term beneficiary of the takeout increase will be out of state competitors (62+% of the handle)."

All I am saying is there is nothing to prove that signal fees weren't going up anyway. Of course any company is going to use anything it can as leverage to get more money.

Again, I'm not excusing NYRA and the NY state government. They clearly dropped the ball here. I already said some people should lose their jobs. I'm just saying I don't think there was any intent to deceive anyone. 26% is what was advertised, and that is what was taken. It was clearly an administrative error that was missed on a few levels.

It should also be noted that anyone betting NY through an ADW that offers rebates most likely didn't lose a cent. If the takeout had dropped back to 25%, their rebate would have been sliced by 1%.

[chickenhead]

All I am saying is there is nothing to prove that signal fees weren't going up anyway. Of course any company is going to use anything it can as leverage to get more money.

Again, I'm not excusing NYRA and the NY state government. They clearly dropped the ball here. I already said some people should lose their jobs. I'm just saying I don't think there was any intent to deceive anyone. 26% is what was advertised, and that is what was taken. It was clearly an administrative error that was missed on a few levels.

It should also be noted that anyone betting NY through an ADW that offers rebates most likely didn't lose a cent. If the takeout had dropped back to 25%, their rebate would have been sliced by 1%.

I have no idea if there was any intent to anything. I'm just pointing out that A.) Margins went up due to the takeout increase. B.) Margins probably went up at NYRA. B.) Margins probably went down at other sites.

The question was raised by others as to cui bono -- who benefits. I'm not saying that because of the above and the fact that NYRA most likely benefitted, that they also did it intentionally. Those two things are uncoupled, and the latter is pure speculation either way.

But I do believe cui bono "who benefitted" is probably NYRA, contrary to what has been posted here.

[cj]

But I do believe cui bono "who benefitted" is probably NYRA, contrary to what has been posted here.

Surely they benefited some, just not to the levels as originally reported. I would argue that the negative publicity generated now is going to cancel out any benefit that was gained, at the least.

Also, the "net" will be a loss for NYRA. People have to be paid back, and takeout is decreased for what will almost assuredly be larger handles over the next 15 months than they were for the 15 months they overcharged.

I realize you have no idea if there was intent, how could you? I don't either. But it makes zero sense to me to think there was. I just think it was incompetence at several levels. When trying to find an answer, I like to start with the most obvious answer and work from there.

[DeanT]

Oh my goodness, I am in tears on this line in the Thoroughbred Times today.

A poster on the paceadvantage.com fan site who goes my the moniker “chickenhead,”

To my knowledge, it's the first time in thoroughbred racing history the word "chickenhead" has ever been used in the trade press :D

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/12/22/nyra-takes-customer-relations-hit-on-incorrect-takeout.aspx

[chickenhead]

Surely they benefited some, just not to the levels as originally reported.

I don't believe there is any basis, whatsoever, to that opinion. In fact most reports reported that much of it stayed at the ADWs and other tracks, which to the contrary is quite possibly a complete falsehood.

I would argue that the negative publicity generated now is going to cancel out any benefit that was gained, at the least.

Also, the "net" will be a loss for NYRA. People have to be paid back,

By your estimate $1 mill plus or minus -- only paying back a small portion of customers.

and takeout is decreased for what will almost assuredly be larger handles over the next 15 months than they were for the 15 months they overcharged

Which in accordance with my own beliefs, and judging by Haywards statements he agrees with me -- a takeout increase at NYRA will ultimately pay for itself and be good for business. A net positive.

But it makes zero sense to me to thing there was. I just think it was incompetence at several levels. When trying to find an answer, I like to start with the most obvious answer and work from there.

I'm a big believer in Occams Razor. And incompetence is always good when it comes to humans. But in matters of money going into a pocket they aren't supposed to, Occams most obvious answer is very often greed. In the abstract, generic situation they'd both be odds-on.

It's not something I'd personally speculate strongly about, either way.

[chickenhead]

Oh my goodness, I am in tears on this line in the Thoroughbred Times today.



To my knowledge, it's the first time in thoroughbred racing history the word "chickenhead" has ever been used in the trade press :D

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/12/22/nyra-takes-customer-relations-hit-on-incorrect-takeout.aspx

Mind blown. Unbelievably classic.

[Ocala Mike]

My ex boss at Pari-Mutuel was actually in place for NY State up until 8/10 when he retired. They kept him on as a kind of liaison between the Tax Dept. and the industry. He had this to say about the situation:

"I was not aware of this until you informed me. It is interesting to note that the discrepancy began right after I retired and pari-mutuel examiners were no longer auditng NYRA's tax payments. Makes you wonder about Albany's contention we were not needed."

And so it goes.


Ocala Mike

[classhandicapper]

Oh my goodness, I am in tears on this line in the Thoroughbred Times today.



To my knowledge, it's the first time in thoroughbred racing history the word "chickenhead" has ever been used in the trade press :D

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/12/22/nyra-takes-customer-relations-hit-on-incorrect-takeout.aspx

OMG, that is hysterical. :lol:

[pktruckdriver]

This is NYRA at it's best, why am I not surprised, are you?? :confused: :confused: :lol:

Where's the upper Management when they are needed, or are they really needed, they did not see this happening, what do they do then, just cash their checks and go home happy ? How their job, is that too much to ask, guess so.

Now I do not think this is a criminal thing, nope , just very stupid management, someones must be held accountable for this, how can you not remember to drop the takeout 1%, how do you forget, honestly, where was the racing commission, the accountants, and even the janitors too, :( :( to see NYRA is such a world class racing outfit, guess not !!!


patrick

[OTM Al]

Not sure what went on here but have been aware of this situation for some time and often wondered why that 1% extra did not go away. Several matters have not been addressed here and there are many open questions before blame should be assessed. Here are a few points as I see them:

1) Wasn't the 1% added to all wagers, not just the super exotics? If so, why are W/P/S still 16%? This 1% was not supposed to go to NYRA however. It was supposed to go for the support of NYCOTB. Was the delay in getting rid of this a result of the ongoing legal and bankruptcy issues of that organization? Was this amount still being funneled away from NYRA? Even in the end if NYRA was keeping this money, they are still a net loser in the NYCOTB debacle. Further, NYRA1 account holders were rebated to offset the increase, so it seems to me they didn't benifit much if at all, so the real question is, who was benefitting?

2) It is clear by what happened who has the real control on the takeout rates. Why didn't NYRWB take action on it's own? Or if not them, the several layers of oversight boards that have been put in place? One thing that is true however is all contracts and legal issues must go through them and they have the ultimate say.

3) Those screaming that they were ripped off or defrauded have a right to be angry that they paid more than they should have, but they still paid it. Takeout rates were known. It's not like they said it was 15% but took 16% and cooked the books to cover it. You knew the deal at the time and accepted it. I have a little pity, but only a very little.

4) Someone will take the fall on this. Anyone want to bet if it ends up being who was actually behind this? If you think so, there's this bridge I see every day from the train I can sell you...cheap.

5) If you believe increases in take cause profits to fall, then they certainly could not benefit one bit from this. Can't have that argument both ways and say they increased profits with a raised take. Otherwise, they should raise take further as they are below optimal levels. Chew on that one a bit before claiming they made out here.

I've seen state agencies doing odd things around the track over the past couple years. I've got some suspicions, but will not write them as I have no proof. To paraphrase the Bard though, something is rotten in the state of New York, but it doesn't take a genius to see that.

For me, making accusations and trying to lay blame right now is a mistake. Something not right has happened, but this is a time to ask questions, not to allot blame. Not yet. I'm just worried whoever really is behind this is using this to cause what could be a very very bad situation.

[lamboguy]

i just got an email from an adw that i give a little business to. they have just informed me that starting dec. 28, all my grand slam wagers, along with pick 3, pick 4, trifecta, superfecta, will all be rebated at 2% less than i was getting. i still have no word how they are going to return my prior overcharges.

[thaskalos]

My ex boss at Pari-Mutuel was actually in place for NY State up until 8/10 when he retired. They kept him on as a kind of liaison between the Tax Dept. and the industry. He had this to say about the situation:

"I was not aware of this until you informed me. It is interesting to note that the discrepancy began right after I retired and pari-mutuel examiners were no longer auditng NYRA's tax payments. Makes you wonder about Albany's contention we were not needed."

And so it goes.


Ocala Mike
Very interesting Mike...thank you.

[lamboguy]

we are very fortunate to have the little guy as a member on this forum. he is the national spokesman for NYRA. maybe he can weigh in on what is going on with this takeout situation, if anyone would know what is going on, i am sure its him.

[chickenhead]

Otm they didn't benefit by increasing takeout, if they benefitted it is by increasing fees. That is pretty straightforward. And doesn't require having anything both ways.

But speaking of both ways... Lamboguy are you suggesting, by logical induction that NYRA is cutting takeout without decreasing signal fees. In other words, their margins are actually increasing as a result of this takeout decrease. Which would mean they have almost no risk of it costing them a dime even in the short term? Shocked, that this would be their solution.

[lamboguy]

Otm they didn't benefit by increasing takeout, if they benefitted it is by increasing fees. That is pretty straightforward. And doesn't require having anything both ways.

But speaking of both ways... Lamboguy are you suggesting, by logical induction that NYRA is cutting takeout without decreasing signal fees. In other words, their margins are actually increasing as a result of this takeout decrease. Which would mean they have almost no risk of it costing them a dime even in the short term? Shocked, that this would be their solution.i hate to admit this as long as i have been betting horses, i have never in my life heard of a grand slam wager, all i know is that my rebate has been cut back by 2%.

[classhandicapper]

1) Even in the end if NYRA was keeping this money, they are still a net loser in the NYCOTB debacle.



I'm going to have to disagree with this point.

NYRA got a large disbursement from NYCOTB when it finally closed and ultimately picked up a significant enough percentage of OTB's telephone, computer, and other handle to produce a net greater profit on that money because they keep a higher % of each dollar bet.

On a net basis, NYRA was the only winner in that debacle.

The losers were:

1. 1000 OTB employees that lost their jobs and benefits and all the OTB retirees that have no health care coverage anymore

2. NY State - The total handle is down. So the state's piece of the pie is lower, but the state got stuck with the unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other benefits being paid to the unemployed workers.

3. Out of state tracks that lost some handle

4. Horse players - Some of the dumbest money in the entire universe is no longer flowing into NYRA's pools because the less sophisticated less serious players are the ones that dropped out or betting with bookmakers.

5. Various other entities that used to get a piece of the handle that came through OTB.

I don't say any of this to attack NYRA. It's that the entire BK process was handled by the state like a bunch of baboons were in charge, but somehow NYRA came out smelling like a rose and OTB gets the blame when NYRA screws up.

[OTM Al]

Otm they didn't benefit by increasing takeout, if they benefitted it is by increasing fees. That is pretty straightforward. And doesn't require having anything both ways.



Then if that is true, my long time contention that ADWs are actually the biggest block to reducing take is true. And I'd also say good for them for getting more back for the product they supply. ADWs are arbitragers, as I'm sure you well know, which is a nice word for paracite. If NYRA benefitted, they benefitted more.

[OTM Al]

I'm going to have to disagree with this point.

NYRA got a large disbursement from NYCOTB when it finally closed and ultimately picked up a significant enough percentage of OTB's telephone, computer, and other handle to produce a net greater profit on that money because they keep a higher % of each dollar bet.



You can disagree, but I'd say you are still wrong here. Everyone lost. Yes they got a disbursement, but go back and read up on it. It was far less than they were owed. Yes, they were able after it all to gain a better position. Are you saying they should have done nothing? Do you think they just waived their hands and all that happened? Do you think it was better all around when NYCOTB was in business? A lot of players are gone for good after that. They did what they could to keep as many as possible. Is this a negative to you?

[chickenhead]

Then if that is true, my long time contention that ADWs are actually the biggest block to reducing take is true. And I'd also say good for them for getting more back for the product they supply. ADWs are arbitragers, as I'm sure you well know, which is a nice word for paracite. If NYRA benefitted, they benefitted more.

Given the lofty rake in NY, and the enormous leverage NYRA has as unquestioned must have circuit , I'd be shocked if ADWs do have anything remotely to do with rake in NYRA. At much lower levels they might begin to. You've always said the state is the largest impediment to lowering takeout at NYRA, never so far as I remember adws. Present embarrassing situation excepted I'd stick with that for NYRA. For a small minor track that actually already has low rates wanting to reduce them further, sure, quite possibly.

[classhandicapper]

You can disagree, but I'd say you are still wrong here. Everyone lost. Yes they got a disbursement, but go back and read up on it. It was far less than they were owed. Yes, they were able after it all to gain a better position. Are you saying they should have done nothing? Do you think they just waived their hands and all that happened? Do you think it was better all around when NYCOTB was in business? A lot of players are gone for good after that. They did what they could to keep as many as possible. Is this a negative to you?

Like I said, my comment was not an attack on NYRA even though IMO they were the only net winner when all was said and done.

My objection was to trying to defend a screw up by NYRA by pointing to the OTB fiasco. In the end, NYRA got exactly what it wanted for years (OTB's phone and computer customers and the eventual ability to reopen off track facilities under its own control). That's the way it should have been all along, but NYRA said no to the branch system at the start.

It was NYS that screwed it all up and created a fiasco.

There was a deal in place to hand OTB's entire phone and computer business 100% intact to NYRA and the other creditors along with the millions of leftover restricted cash. Those businesses were worth MORE than OTB owed and it could have been done with no customer loss.

OTB was going to shrink, but continue to function with a new union agreement that made it a viable branch business (basically keeping only the lucrative branch locations and restaurants that NYRA will eventually probably consider as viable possibilities in the future).

That would have given NYRA everything it really wanted, sustained the entire NYC handle, kept a lot of the jobs, kept the unsophisticated handle, and avoided having the state get stuck with all the costs for former employees. It even would have left open the possibility of eventually merging all the OTBs and handing control over to NYRA.

The state did not sign off on that deal even though NYRA, the rest of the creditors, NYCOTB management, and the union did = fiasco.

NYRA screwed up on this and OTB has nothing to do with it.

[OTM Al]

Given the lofty rake in NY, and the enormous leverage NYRA has as unquestioned must have circuit , I'd be shocked if ADWs do have anything remotely to do with rake in NYRA. At much lower levels they might begin to. You've always said the state is the largest impediment to lowering takeout at NYRA, never so far as I remember adws. Present embarrassing situation excepted I'd stick with that for NYRA. For a small minor track that actually already has low rates wanting to reduce them further, sure.

No. I've always said the State, and in particular the NYRWB controls the take level for NYRA. I say that because it happens to be true. That is an impediment for them, yes, in that unlike most people around here seem to think, NYRA can't just..... I've said ADWs in general are the impediment to reducing take in the industry as a whole, for every track. Any change requires changes in contracts. Enough of a change and ADWs can't sustain their margins as arbitrage opportunity vanishes. You think ADWs would still really want to take any track if they dumped take rates enough? ADWs are quite happy the higher the take is. They can drill the small guy and play with rebates for the big. Look at one of the posts above. Take goes down and he's disappointed his rebate goes down as well.

[OTM Al]

Like I said, my comment was not an attack on NYRA even though IMO they were the only net winner when all was said and done.



They got something out of bankruptcy, but net winner? Not close. By a lot. This wasn't a zero sum game. Everyone lost. Go back and look at the numbers. As I said above, I don't know who did what on this current thing or why and you don't either. Way too many facts missing here to make any real judgement, except the sort exhibited by lynch mobs.

[classhandicapper]

They got something out of bankruptcy, but net winner? Not close. By a lot. This wasn't a zero sum game. Everyone lost. Go back and look at the numbers. As I said above, I don't know who did what on this current thing or why and you don't either. Way too many facts missing here to make any real judgement, except the sort exhibited by lynch mobs.

They didn't get dollar for dollar cash on the amount owed, but the elimination of what they considered a competitor created future profits (currently already ongoing) that would not have existed without the demise of NYCOTB.

I'd take that deal any day.

Ask Geico if they'd pay a lot of money to eliminate State Farm as a competitor even though they would have to work for the market share. ;)

[chickenhead]

ADWs are quite happy the higher the take is. They can drill the small guy and play with rebates for the big. Look at one of the posts above. Take goes down and he's disappointed his rebate goes down as well.

Just for the record, NYRA runs an ADW and performs rebates in exactly the same manner. As does the Churchill complex. Don't pretend incentives, or increasingly the business models, if you've stated them correctly for the ADWs, are somehow misaligned with those of the tracks.

Drilling the small guy while rebating the whales is advertised proudly and prominently on the NYRA website. Take it up with them.

[Spiderman]

Class action lawsuits only benefit lawyers and settlements usually do not disclose the wrongdoers activity. Big waste of time and money.

In about six minutes, I extracted the winning total bets from a NYRA track, Sept 15 - December 31, 2010. It will take about 20 minutes to do same for period, Jan 1 - December 18.

The "settlement" set forth by NYRA is unfair to those who placed winning bets during the aforementioned periods. Unless payment is made direct to me from either NYRA or NJBets, I will not play NYRA tracks.

[PaceAdvantage]

we are very fortunate to have the little guy as a member on this forum. he is the national spokesman for NYRA. maybe he can weigh in on what is going on with this takeout situation, if anyone would know what is going on, i am sure its him.Nice try...love the baiting tactic...you guys are so predictable.

But when reality is examined, TLG is a public handicapper...do you really think he is privy to the inner workings of how and why the takeout drop was missed by those responsible for such a thing?

And even if he was privy to such info, do you think he would publicly talk about it here?

[lamboguy]

Nice try...love the baiting tactic...you guys are so predictable.

But when reality is examined, TLG is a public handicapper...do you really think he is privy to the inner workings of how and why the takeout drop was missed by those responsible for such a thing?

And even if he was privy to such info, do you think he would publicly talk about it here?
if he cared about the members on this forum he would, i have seen other public handicappers explain the inner workings of the organizations that they represent and work for in this business.

[Dahoss9698]

i have seen other public handicappers explain the inner workings of the organizations that they represent and work for in this business.

You have? Name one.

I would think most businesses would frown upon their employees discussing sensitive business related matters on a public forum.

[lamboguy]

mark paterson has discussed the problems with writing races at mountaineer park. he has also alerted the racing fans about the problems with cancelations of bets prior to races that influence odds.

[Dahoss9698]

mark paterson has discussed the problems with writing races at mountaineer park. he has also alerted the racing fans about the problems with cancelations of bets prior to races that influence odds.

You really think these things are in any way on the same level as what is being discussed here?

[lamboguy]

You really think these things are in any way on the same level as what is being discussed here?i actually think that cancelation of bets to influence odds is about 100 times worse. i don't want to argue, we are in holiday season.

if the little guy wants to explain what is going on, its his business. maybe what is happening are the hard cold facts of this game, the fans are not worthy of any response from anyone. and they should keep on supporting this game without any explanation as to what is going on.

i don't run NYRA, but if i did i would have an explanation to the fans from someone. to me the little guy is as good as anyone. i wouldn't be afraid of losing my job to perform this.

[PaceAdvantage]

mark paterson has discussed the problems with writing races at mountaineer park. he has also alerted the racing fans about the problems with cancelations of bets prior to races that influence odds.Mark has also mentioned at least once about stuff he CAN'T talk about for fear of losing his job. I guess you missed those posts.

[jelly]

I think it comes down to incompetents at the management level.

I don't play NY much because of it's excessive takeout in the pk 3 and 4.

But as I watch from the sideline I'm shocked that NYRA hasn't Implemented the pk5 yet.

This is a bet that the players want and a bet that will bring more profit to the track.:confused:

What are they waiting for?Did they see what happened at Hollywood the other day? :faint:

[chickenhead]

I'm sure NYRA employees have been asked not to discuss unless authorized. Pretty boilerplate.

[Dahoss9698]

i actually think that cancelation of bets to influence odds is about 100 times worse. i don't want to argue, we are in holiday season.

if the little guy wants to explain what is going on, its his business. maybe what is happening are the hard cold facts of this game, the fans are not worthy of any response from anyone. and they should keep on supporting this game without any explanation as to what is going on.

i don't run NYRA, but if i did i would have an explanation to the fans from someone. to me the little guy is as good as anyone. i wouldn't be afraid of losing my job to perform this.

Love the holiday season stuff. Basically gives you an out to say whatever you want, but still attempt to not come off as a trouble maker. Very clever.

I'm not really interested in arguing something so stupid either. What happened is wrong and NYRA is and should be taking a lot of the blame with the entire thing. The ball was dropped on many levels. That is what the issue is.

But I can't help but laugh that you feel as though setting the record straight on a message board is more important than someone's job. Always easier to make those decisions when you don't have to in real life.

[LAP_520]

Race Tracks put on the "show".

The bettor places wagers "on track" or through ADW or other off track sites ...each dollar in the bet has a percentage withheld from the particular pool to cover the track's operating expenses. The net amount goes into that pool and is divided among WINNING Combination tickets

What has happened is NYRA was granted a high 26% rake on exotic pools back in 2008 when they were awarded the operation of the three tracks.....however, the rake was to be lowered to 25% September 2010 .
That did not happen.

With ADWs and off shore betting sites in the picture because of the cyber world we live in..this is a big mess.

NYRA has offered to drop the rake down to 24%.....but for how long (?).

NYRA said they will reward their NYRA betting account holders that have won on wagers a rebate for the difference.

NYRA has said ADW's will have to submit proof of their clients winning wagers to get reimbursed.

"On track" bettor... if the winning ticket was not a w2g winner and they do not have written logs of winnings and their wagers...they are the BIG LOSER.

On top of all that ...NYRA got their hands caught in the "cookie jar" again.. :(

New meaning of NYRA .............NOT YOUR REVENUE ANYMORE.

[lamboguy]

Love the holiday season stuff. Basically gives you an out to say whatever you want, but still attempt to not come off as a trouble maker. Very clever.

I'm not really interested in arguing something so stupid either. What happened is wrong and NYRA is and should be taking a lot of the blame with the entire thing. The ball was dropped on many levels. That is what the issue is.

But I can't help but laugh that you feel as though setting the record straight on a message board is more important than someone's job. Always easier to make those decisions when you don't have to in real life.
there is nothing funny about people having their money stolen from them.

i only thought it would be wonderful for someone inside of the organization to explain what has happened. there might not be anything wrong. i would just like to know because i was a long time customer of NYRA and feel the need to know what happened, and if something is wrong how it got corrected so it won't happen again. its really that simple dahoss and mr. pace advantage.

i have very selfish reasons why i want to know, mainly because i want new york racing to flourish. i am training more new york breds this year than i have ever had in my life and have a deep financial interest in seeing new york racing on solid ground.

[PaceAdvantage]

i only thought it would be wonderful for someone inside of the organization to explain what has happened.There have been official statements released. You may not agree or like them, but they have been in the media.

[LAP_520]

Memory serves me correctly, a few years ago, NYRA was trying to take over all five regional Off Track Betting Corporations in New York State.

NYRA wanted control of them all or none.

Some regional Off Track Betting Corp voted the idea down.

One of the rumors going around was NYRA cannot even run their own organization in the black and they want to bail "us" out !

True, without the horse Racing industry, Off-Track Betting Parlors would not exist.

So now we have Casinos at these tracks that could not make a go of it because the bettor had other ways to wager on the horses at off track betting facilities and internet wagering.

Just how far can the public's dollar stretch ????:confused:

[PaceAdvantage]

What has happened is NYRA was granted a high 26% rake on exotic pools back in 2008 when they were awarded the operation of the three tracks.....Because I know we all want to remain factual, let's correct this doozy of an error...you say "NYRA WAS GRANTED" as if it were some gift they were clamoring for:

This 1% takeout increase was first imposed by the NYS Legislature as a way to raise money for the floundering NYCOTB.

I believe NYRA ALWAYS opposed this increase in takeout, and as time went on, incredibly, NYCOTB also came to OPPOSE the takeout increase, which went into effect anyway, as we all know:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/46608/takeout-increase-under-attack-in-ny

NYRA wants to just eliminate the impending increase. NYCOTB, according to legislative sources, wants the same, although it is eyeing a possible increase on the surcharge at NYCOTB parlors, though not on telephone account or tele-theater wagers.

[lamboguy]

There have been official statements released. You may not agree or like them, but they have been in the media.i am just going to hope and pray that this is all just a stupid mistake.

[PaceAdvantage]

i am just going to hope and pray that this is all just a stupid mistake.It obviously was a stupid mistake.

Considering they had the takeout rate listed at 26% every single day in the official track program, I doubt you or anyone else can claim they were ever intentionally trying to deceive the betting public.

[LAP_520]

Excuse me........on the wording.

But NYRA did use the 26 % once the law was passed. Just saying.

[lamboguy]

It obviously was a stupid mistake.

Considering they had the takeout rate listed at 26% every single day in the official track program, I doubt you or anyone else can claim they were ever intentionally trying to deceive the betting public.more than likely you are right on that.

[Dahoss9698]

there is nothing funny about people having their money stolen from them.

i only thought it would be wonderful for someone inside of the organization to explain what has happened. there might not be anything wrong. i would just like to know because i was a long time customer of NYRA and feel the need to know what happened, and if something is wrong how it got corrected so it won't happen again. its really that simple dahoss and mr. pace advantage.

i have very selfish reasons why i want to know, mainly because i want new york racing to flourish. i am training more new york breds this year than i have ever had in my life and have a deep financial interest in seeing new york racing on solid ground.

I guess I just assumed someone as connected as you portray yourself as could probably get the kind of answers you are looking for. Guess not.

[lamboguy]

I guess I just assumed someone as connected as you portray yourself as could probably get the kind of answers you are looking for. Guess not.i am connected to the light socket. personally i am not trying to insult you either.

[Dahoss9698]

i am connected to the light socket. personally i am not trying to insult you either.

I don't believe you, but it doesn't matter. No point in getting further off topic.

Hopefully this entire mess is taken care of the right way. That is what is really important.

[lamboguy]

I don't believe you, but it doesn't matter. No point in getting further off topic.

Hopefully this entire mess is taken care of the right way. That is what is really important.
bottom line, that is really all that matters.

[pktruckdriver]

It obviously was a stupid mistake.

Considering they had the takeout rate listed at 26% every single day in the official track program, I doubt you or anyone else can claim they were ever intentionally trying to deceive the betting public.


This is one time Bossman , you are totally right, I myself do not feel they were being criminal here, not in this situation, but how the hckl did this get to go on for so dang long, how :confused: :confused: :confused:

It has got to be at least 1 persons job , if not a dozen or so, to look and set the takeout rate, where the heck was these people, where was upper management, not doing there job obviously , this time we can agree, no.

By the way Happy Holiday all

Patrick

[betovernetcapper]

It obviously was a stupid mistake.

Considering they had the takeout rate listed at 26% every single day in the official track program, I doubt you or anyone else can claim they were ever intentionally trying to deceive the betting public.

I don't think most people think they were trying to pull anything but with all due respect PA, do you think the fact that the mistake has been in the program for 450 calendar days and no one at NYRa caught it is something that should be comforting? Is it better that they are extremely incompetent instead of crooked?

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think most people think they were trying to pull anything but with all due respect PA, do you think the fact that the mistake has been in the program for 450 calendar days and no one at NYRa caught it is something that should be comforting? Is it better that they are extremely incompetent instead of crooked?I am not defending this. Just trying to put to rest the silly notion that NYRA was somehow trying to get something over on us...

Any one of us could have looked in the program and saw 26% when it should be 25%, but nobody ever posted as much on this board except for Rutgers, and even then, nobody had much to say about it.

And here's something I don't fully understand, so maybe one of the resident experts on this matter can fill me in.

NYS institutes a 1% takeout raise that was supposed to expire on September 15, 2010.

However, just because this mandatory 1% increase expired, what does that actually mean? Since NYRA can NOT, all by themselves, CHANGE the takeout rate, did they actually have to make a formal request to change it back down to 25%?

Or was there some sort of exclusion of process in place where they did NOT have to go to a higher authority to actually lower the rate?

What exactly was supposed to be the process here? Maybe it isn't as simple as people are making it out to be here...

[OTM Al]

One last comment here. Reading State Law is boring as hell but sometimes enlightening. Article 2, Section 212 is quite interesting. It essentially says that the Franchise Oversight Board is required by law to have (as the name implies) oversight on compliance by the franchisee with all such matters involved with State Statutes and other rules as set forth by the NYRWB. They are also required by law to notify the franchisee if it has violated any of these statutes and rules. Guess who it was that went balistic on this one...the Chairman of the Franchise Oversight Board...things that make you go hmmm....The Comptroller finds the problem and asks the Chair of the Oversight Board what's happened. Not wanting any blame in this, he continues the flow of poo downhill. Things become clearer and clearer. Got to love politics.

I owe an apology to the NYRWB. This one ain't on them.

[Rico8812]

IMO Sabini and the SRWB are the ones to blame here. I'm sure its been said, but I found it laughable that he was quoted that the SRWB is going to make sure the racing customer is protected. Way to be on top of that.

Sad and pathetic.

[drib]

What exactly was supposed to be the process here? Maybe it isn't as simple as people are making it out to be here...[/QUOTE]

Context, gentlemen, context. Consider the timeline here. NYRA gets a 1% takeout increase effective Sep. 2008. Their business is awful (lose 17 million in 2010). NYRA must beg the legislature, and threaten no Saratoga, in order to finally get a 25 million loan. In Aug. 2010, the slot deal is finally cemented by legislature, leaving NYRA with more well publicized poor finances for another 12-18 months. In Sep. 2010, the "mistake" is made. For 2011. NYRA estimates $11.5 million in losses. Oct. 2011, the slots finally open, NYRA gets their huge cash flow and 2 months later the 8.6 million illegal collection is revealed.
Lots of interesting coincidences here. Think of NYRA like a man legally crossing a street and hit by a city bus. He suffers major injuries, and knows in the future he will collect a big settlement, but meantime, he is in short term financial trouble. Unlike our accident victim (think those commercials "I want my money now"), NYRA has exhausted any means to get the interim funds. How convenient, the "mistake", until discovered, puts big bucks in NYRA's coffers.
The published reports so far are misleading in discussing where the $8.6 million went. NYRA , of course, got the full extra 1% from on track and NYRA rewards betting. When the 2008 1% increase went into effect, they raised their rates to out of state customers. The exact raises are not known, but judging by the cut rebate shops gave their customers, my guess is that NYRA probably split that increase 50-50. We can now see that the "mistake" probably gave NYRA an extra 6 million., desperately needed to survive until the slots opened.

[Cardus]

This is an interesting point to consider. The articles make it seem as if NYRA was the beneficiary of over $8M, when that couldn't possibly be the case if you do the math, as you rightly pointed out.

Another case of inaccurate or misleading reporting...is everyone in and around racing just incredibly lax and lazy? From reporters to racing officials to state regulators to Internet Land posters?

It would appear so...

That's better.

[Cardus]

One last comment here. Reading State Law is boring as hell but sometimes enlightening. Article 2, Section 212 is quite interesting. It essentially says that the Franchise Oversight Board is required by law to have (as the name implies) oversight on compliance by the franchisee with all such matters involved with State Statutes and other rules as set forth by the NYRWB. They are also required by law to notify the franchisee if it has violated any of these statutes and rules. Guess who it was that went balistic on this one...the Chairman of the Franchise Oversight Board...things that make you go hmmm....The Comptroller finds the problem and asks the Chair of the Oversight Board what's happened. Not wanting any blame in this, he continues the flow of poo downhill. Things become clearer and clearer. Got to love politics.

I owe an apology to the NYRWB. This one ain't on them.

Well said.

[chickenhead]

One last comment here. Reading State Law is boring as hell but sometimes enlightening. Article 2, Section 212 is quite interesting. It essentially says that the Franchise Oversight Board is required by law to have (as the name implies) oversight on compliance by the franchisee with all such matters involved with State Statutes and other rules as set forth by the NYRWB. They are also required by law to notify the franchisee if it has violated any of these statutes and rules. Guess who it was that went balistic on this one...the Chairman of the Franchise Oversight Board...things that make you go hmmm....The Comptroller finds the problem and asks the Chair of the Oversight Board what's happened. Not wanting any blame in this, he continues the flow of poo downhill. Things become clearer and clearer. Got to love politics.

I owe an apology to the NYRWB. This one ain't on them.

I'm not sure I'd absolve the NYRWB based on a franchise board existing.

You can throw them in the mix as someone who should have caught it, but they look like a fairly weak org to me. They are meant to be a nuisance, for sure, but they aren't a chief regulator. The FOB has the power to do nothing but make recommendations, the R&W board has all the power. R&W board can shut you down, they can fine you -- unilaterally, if they find you at fault for anything. They would appear to be the primary regulator of NY Racing, as their name suggests.

FOB existence doesn't reduce or diminish the R&W role in enforcing state law (so says the statute creating the FOB).

But that is good -- there are now 3 incompetent organizations we've identified.

[PaceAdvantage]

We can now see that the "mistake" probably gave NYRA an extra 6 million., desperately needed to survive until the slots opened.Ya think?

The state’s Franchise Oversight Board, which monitors NYRA’s finances, said NYRA had made $1 million through the additional 1% takeout. Another $6 million went to others taking the NYRA simulcast signal, including other tracks, advance deposit wagering companies, and off-track betting corporations. I hope this now puts to bed one of the more outrageous claims being bandied about related to this error.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/66701/nyra-takeout-error-missed-by-other-agencies?source=rss

[lamboguy]

if indeed this mistake was $1million, and it took place in a span of 450 days, how come this problem did not come to light with simple bookeeping or accounting?

correct me if i am wrong, but shouldn't a balance sheet balance? and if indeed they did collect more revenue, why didn't that show up on the balance sheets?

or

do they do any type of accounting on a quarterly basis?

[Ocala Mike]

I like chickenhead's idea, gentlemen. The AG should step in and do a thorough investigation, going back 20 years or more if necessary, to trace the existence, or lack of same, of adequate regulatory personnel in place at the tracks and OTB's to monitor all facets of their operations.

Had these regulatory personnel been available in Sept., 2010, it would have taken exactly ONE RACE for the mistake to be discovered, because we used to manually calculate and balance every pool to the CORRECT legal takeout figure. As I stated earlier, the NY State Department of Taxation and Finance decided to relinquish its role as overseers of pari-mutuel law compliance as a budget-cutting device back in 1991. The NY State Racing and Wagering Board got the responsibility, but they never had people trained as pari-mutuel auditors, so everything fell through the cracks.

No telling how much revenue the people of the State of New York lost over the last 20 years due to a "penny-wise/pound foolish" decision made by some functionary hatchet man in the Tax Department.


Ocala Mike, ex NYS Pari-Mutuel Auditor, 1977-1991

[PaceAdvantage]

if indeed this mistake was $1million, and it took place in a span of 450 days, how come this problem did not come to light with simple bookeeping or accounting?If those doing the accounting are under the impression that 26% isn't an error, why would anything show up wrong?

Everyone was operating under the wrong assumption that 26% was the correct takeout...thus, everything balanced...

And even if they weren't operating under the assumption that 26% was the correct takeout, why would it show up in the accounting process anyway?

Accounting records what they're taking in and what they're paying out. What they take in is based on total handle and takeout rate + other miserable little gov't imposed taxes and fees. The takeout rate would not cause any red flags in the accounting process.

[chickenhead]

I like chickenhead's idea, gentlemen. The AG should step in and do a thorough investigation, going back 20 years or more if necessary, to trace the existence, or lack of same, of adequate regulatory personnel in place at the tracks and OTB's to monitor all facets of their operations.

Had these regulatory personnel been available in Sept., 2010, it would have taken exactly ONE RACE for the mistake to be discovered, because we used to manually calculate and balance every pool to the CORRECT legal takeout figure. As I stated earlier, the NY State Department of Taxation and Finance decided to relinquish its role as overseers of pari-mutuel law compliance as a budget-cutting device back in 1991. The NY State Racing and Wagering Board got the responsibility, but they never had people trained as pari-mutuel auditors, so everything fell through the cracks.

No telling how much revenue the people of the State of New York lost over the last 20 years due to a "penny-wise/pound foolish" decision made by some functionary hatchet man in the Tax Department.


Ocala Mike, ex NYS Pari-Mutuel Auditor, 1977-1991

Exactly. You go in and do a proper investigation, figure out what happened, and how to ensure it gets fixed properly. There are obviously significant problems. Lack of regulatory compliance for 16 months is not indicative of a slightly dysfunctional setup -- it is full on dysfunction.

[Ocala Mike]

PA is absolutely right. The only red flag for this would have gone up with the very first calculation of, say, a trifecta price. The system would have indicated, obviously, a shorter price at 26% than the auditor would have gotten using the correct 25% take.

Since no auditor was on the job, we have what we have now (a train wreck).


Ocala Mike

[OTM Al]

Ya think?

I hope this now puts to bed one of the more outrageous claims being bandied about related to this error.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/66701/nyra-takeout-error-missed-by-other-agencies?source=rss

I'm still trying to figure out how raising what is considered an already high takeout made profits increase.

[chickenhead]

EDIT: Actually forget it. Who cares which one it is.

[lamboguy]

i guess i really don't know the exact circumstances to these events in the last 2 years, i am not in the position of knowing them. it makes sense that if the wrong numbers are fed then the balance sheets would balance. but i wonder why the outlets that bought the signal would not have picked up on it.

[Ocala Mike]

How would anyone pick up on this unless they were reconciling the pool calculations? You would have to know that, for example, the 8-9-3 trifecta in the 1st race at Aqueduct on 12/18 should have paid $106.50 based on a 25% take rather than the $105.50 it paid based on a 26% take.

Do you mean someone should have noticed that the printed take of 26% was wrong? Yes, I agree with that; that's outrageous.


Ocala Mike

[classhandicapper]

PA is absolutely right. The only red flag for this would have gone up with the very first calculation of, say, a trifecta price. The system would have indicated, obviously, a shorter price at 26% than the auditor would have gotten using the correct 25% take.

Since no auditor was on the job, we have what we have now (a train wreck).


Ocala Mike

Assuming NYRA didn't know it was supposed to roll back the take, it's really a failing on two sides.

Even without an independent auditor of some kind, there should have been internal controls at NYRA (or at least a department or person) responsible for knowing that the take should have been rolled back to 25%. That no one at NYRA caught it was a fail.

When NYRA failed, there still should have been an independent auditor of some kind to catch it fairly quickly. That it took so long was a fail.

I think this conversation has been revealing about people's biases.

IMO

1. There's almost no chance NYRA was trying to deceive anyone given that they published the take at 26%.

2. How much NYRA actually kept is fairly irrelevant to horse players given that they got screwed by the same amount no matter who got the money.

3. There no way in hell anyone from NYRA is going to come here and comment without the authority to do so and NYRA has already said what it wants to say.

4. In the face of an obvious screw up by multiple parties, it's hard to defend anyone.

[DeanT]

Even without an independent auditor of some kind, there should have been internal controls at NYRA (or at least a department or person) responsible for knowing that the take should have been rolled back to 25%. That no one at NYRA caught it was a fail.



That really is the bottom line.

If a gvt regulation is changed where "Oil Company X" must stop putting sludge in a river on Jan 1st, someone at "Oil Company X" is responsible for shutting off the tap on December 31st.

[aaron]

Assuming NYRA didn't know it was supposed to roll back the take, it's really a failing on two sides.

Even without an independent auditor of some kind, there should have been internal controls at NYRA (or at least a department or person) responsible for knowing that the take should have been rolled back to 25%. That no one at NYRA caught it was a fail.

When NYRA failed, there still should have been an independent auditor of some kind to catch it fairly quickly. That it took so long was a fail.

I think this conversation has been revealing about people's biases.

IMO

1. There's almost no chance NYRA was trying to deceive anyone given that they published the take at 26%.

2. How much NYRA actually kept is fairly irrelevant to horse players given that they got screwed by the same amount no matter who got the money.

3. There no way in hell anyone from NYRA is going to come here and comment without the authority to do so and NYRA has already said what it wants to say.

4. In the face of an obvious screw up by multiple parties, it's hard to defend anyone.I agree with the above. This is probably the only Forum where this discussion is even mentioned. I don't see any "Public Outrage" mentioned anywhere else. The reason there is no outrage is because the only persons screwed were bettors. This is just another chapter of screw the bettors.We saw this happen when bettors were deprived of their money when the Pick 6 was incorrectly paid.
If a mistake was made and horsemen,trainers or jockeys were somehow paid incorrectly this would be a big story,but since it is bettors nobody in the press really cares. I haven't seen any articles expressing outrage. As a matter of fact,I really have seen any articles other than those simply stating an error was made.
The penalty is just another "slap on the wrist".When it comes to the bettor,no one cares.

[OTM Al]

EDIT: Actually forget it. Who cares which one it is.

It's always best never to not post something if you feel that way, even if you decide to change it later. There are other posibilities if you put your chickehead to it. I will cite this paragraph from the Bloodhorse article

"The state’s Franchise Oversight Board, which monitors NYRA’s finances, said NYRA had made $1 million through the additional percentage point of takeout. Another $6 million went to others taking the NYRA simulcast signal, including other tracks, advance deposit wagering companies, and off-track betting corporations."

Your explanation is that NYRA made money because of the change in ADW contracts. Ok, that could account for the $1 million. But if we are to believe that a raise in takeout causes profits to drop, then that means the only way NYRA would have made money is to take more of the ADWs already diminished profit, so the ADWs' profits had to go down. But according to this, they didn't, they went up. So by this argument, take was too low intitially and may have still been too low.

I can find objections that would be logically consistant and make this statement a complete falsehood. Can you?

[FenceBored]

It's always best never to not post something if you feel that way, even if you decide to change it later. There are other posibilities if you put your chickehead to it.


"Guys like you make me miss the Fatman.....almost"

[OTM Al]

"Guys like you make me miss the Fatman.....almost"

Hahahaha. Been waiting to use that for a while? Where's the problem with the argument presented then smart guy? Need a clue as I've been pretty sure for a while you may not have one. As much talk of takeout that goes on around here it is pretty much a "fail" that no one can figure at least that part out. Though it isn't surprising. Maybe you should stick to threads like the one talking about Jessica P's hair, though I think most are missing the boat on that one as well...

[FenceBored]

Hahahaha. Been waiting to use that for a while? Where's the problem with the argument presented then smart guy? Need a clue as I've been pretty sure for a while you may not have one. As much talk of takeout that goes on around here it is pretty much a "fail" that no one can figure at least that part out. Though it isn't surprising. Maybe you should stick to threads like the one talking about Jessica P's hair, though I think most are missing the boat on that one as well...

Ahh, there's nothing like the smell of Christmas condescension in the air.

Felice Navidad.

[Spiderman]

That really is the bottom line.

If a gvt regulation is changed where "Oil Company X" must stop putting sludge in a river on Jan 1st, someone at "Oil Company X" is responsible for shutting off the tap on December 31st.

Perfect analogy.

[thaskalos]

That really is the bottom line.

If a gvt regulation is changed where "Oil Company X" must stop putting sludge in a river on Jan 1st, someone at "Oil Company X" is responsible for shutting off the tap on December 31st.
Perhaps their thinking was..."does it really matter if we deduct 25% or 26? After all...the horseplayers figure to eventually lose that money anyway."

The point, as far as I am concerned, is this:

These things should NEVER happen, because our game already has major reputation issues...and has lost the betting public's trust.

Things have occurred in this game which show either corruption or utter incompetence -- or BOTH -- and that's totally unacceptable.

"Ringers" have been allowed to run instead of the scheduled horses...bets have been made well after the races have started...and now, more money have been withdrawn from the pools than the laws dictate.

These are very disturbing matters, which should NEVER occur...under ANY circumstances -- if this game is to be taken seriously by a bigger percentage of the betting public.

[jelly]

Richard Eng

It's unconscionable that so little has been made of the New York Racing Association overcharging horseplayers by 1 percent for the past 15 months in its superexotic (trifecta, superfecta, pick 3, pick 4, pick 6 and Grand Slam) bets.

Where is the public outrage?
http://www.lvrj.com/sports/nyra-s-overcharging-scandal-fails-to-stir-outrage-136131068.html



Don't worry Rich the DRF is on it :lol:

[chickenhead]

It's always best never to not post something if you feel that way, even if you decide to change it later. There are other posibilities if you put your chickehead to it. I will cite this paragraph from the Bloodhorse article

"The state’s Franchise Oversight Board, which monitors NYRA’s finances, said NYRA had made $1 million through the additional percentage point of takeout. Another $6 million went to others taking the NYRA simulcast signal, including other tracks, advance deposit wagering companies, and off-track betting corporations."

Your explanation is that NYRA made money because of the change in ADW contracts. Ok, that could account for the $1 million. But if we are to believe that a raise in takeout causes profits to drop, then that means the only way NYRA would have made money is to take more of the ADWs already diminished profit, so the ADWs' profits had to go down. But according to this, they didn't, they went up. So by this argument, take was too low intitially and may have still been too low.

I can find objections that would be logically consistant and make this statement a complete falsehood. Can you?

Let me make this as simple as I can -- if I had had crayons I'd use them.

I sell you something for $6. I require you to resell it for $25.

I make a change

I now sell it to you for $7. I require you to sell if for $26. Sales go down 3%.

Who got the extra dollar on each transaction? According to you and the FOB -- since you still keep most of the margin -- you kept most of that extra dollar.

However, even with the sales decline, I came out ahead. You came out behind. Do the math.

Any person actually engaged in such a business would know exactly who got the extra dollar -- it wasn't you, it was me.

If you want to make the argument that that is ok, because I deserve more -- that is fine. That is a separate argument. But let's not disagree on who got the dollar.

It's not hard to see how FOB or you or CJ come to the answer, to that breakdown -- it's simple enough. I just disagree that it necessarily captures reality. If rates didn't change over the period from 08 to 10, it is fine and correct and absolutely dandy. But if fees went up even by a small amount, that math changes, and exactly as in the above example, it doesn't take much for that dollar to end up back at home base.

[Dahoss9698]

Maybe you should stick to threads like the one talking about Jessica P's hair

That or songs with names changed so they are horse racing related.....you know, the real important stuff.

[FenceBored]

That or songs with names changed so they are horse racing related.....you know, the real important stuff.

Demonstrates more creativity than mindlessly brownnosing NYRA management, but whatever makes you happy.

[Dahoss9698]

Demonstrates more creativity than mindlessly brownnosing NYRA management, but whatever makes you happy.

Yeah, it was unbelievably creative. Move over Bob Dylan.

[FenceBored]

Yeah, it was unbelievably creative. Move over Bob Dylan.

Bob Dylan? Really?

gBDMXCChBvU

[Dahoss9698]

These things should NEVER happen, because our game already has major reputation issues...and has lost the betting public's trust.

Things have occurred in this game which show either corruption or utter incompetence -- or BOTH -- and that's totally unacceptable.

"Ringers" have been allowed to run instead of the scheduled horses...bets have been made well after the races have started...and now, more money have been withdrawn from the pools than the laws dictate.

These are very disturbing matters, which should NEVER occur...under ANY circumstances -- if this game is to be taken seriously by a bigger percentage of the betting public.


Totally agree with everything you have said here. My question is more for everyone, but I am interested in what you think about it.

Everyone who has played NYRA during this time knew what the takeout was. It wasn't hidden. I've even read people say they refuse to play NYRA because of the specific takeout that is being discussed here. Now, they always end up in the middle of anything NYRA related...but that is a whole other discussion.

So where were we as bettors this entire time? As far as I can tell one person noticed it. With all of the takeout talk on forums how did something like this go unnoticed for so long? I think until we find out more (if we do) trying to decide how much blame to go around is a waste of time. The issue is a mistake (a giant one, but a mistake nonetheless) was made and now it is up to the parties that made the mistake to do everything in their power to rectify it.

[aaron]

Totally agree with everything you have said here. My question is more for everyone, but I am interested in what you think about it.

Everyone who has played NYRA during this time knew what the takeout was. It wasn't hidden. I've even read people say they refuse to play NYRA because of the specific takeout that is being discussed here. Now, they always end up in the middle of anything NYRA related...but that is a whole other discussion.

So where were we as bettors this entire time? As far as I can tell one person noticed it. With all of the takeout talk on forums how did something like this go unnoticed for so long? I think until we find out more (if we do) trying to decide how much blame to go around is a waste of time. The issue is a mistake (a giant one, but a mistake nonetheless) was made and now it is up to the parties that made the mistake to do everything in their power to rectify it.
I don't think most bettors write down the day that the takeout is supposed to go from 26% to 25 %.
I also find it interesting that this news comes out at the deadest time of the year for racing.
I'm sure some of the people who post defending NYRA have a vested interest,either they or someone in their family has a connection to NYRA.This was another mistake that no one really wants to take responsibility for.
Racing has been like this for many years. We made a mistake,so what,back to business as usual.

[Dahoss9698]

Richard Eng



Has Eng ever worked for NYRA? Seems like a strange coincidence 2 of his last 3 articles have been about them. I'm not a big fan of my previous employers either.

[classhandicapper]

So where were we as bettors this entire time? As far as I can tell one person noticed it. With all of the takeout talk on forums how did something like this go unnoticed for so long?

I think you are making a great point here, but perhaps not the point you intended.

The vast majority of horse players are totally clueless about the track take. The only impact changes in the take have on them is the amount of money they lose and the rate of speed at which they lose it. A higher take probably take gets MORE of their money FASTER.

We represent the very small percentage of players that are sensitive to take changes. Yet only one person even noticed that the take was supposed to be 25% (and he may have continued betting right into the 26% anyway).

These ideas about the optimal take are not about 1% here or there that only a few horse players care about and that simply shift the same money from one track to another.

They are about deep reductions that change the entire perception of the game among those that ARE sensitive to the take. They are about getting serious poker players, sports bettors etc... to decide they may have a good chance to beat racing and take the game up and others not abandoning it for greener gambling pastures.

[Dahoss9698]

I don't think most bettors write down the day that the takeout is supposed to go from 26% to 25 %.
I also find it interesting that this news comes out at the deadest time of the year for racing.
I'm sure some of the people who post defending NYRA have a vested interest,either they or someone in their family has a connection to NYRA.This was another mistake that no one really wants to take responsibility for.
Racing has been like this for many years. We made a mistake,so what,back to business as usual.

I haven't seen anyone defend this. What people have done is try and bring a little truth to all of the gossip. Trying to deal in facts isn't defending.

In no way am I implying the bettors did anything wrong. It's just strange to me with all of the people watching and talking about takeout, that only ONE person noticed it. Most bettors probably don't write down takeout changes, but if you read this forum you'd think the opposite.

[Dahoss9698]

These ideas about the optimal take are not about 1% here or there that only a few horse players care about and that simply shift the same money from one track to another.

They are about deep reductions that change the entire perception of the game among those that ARE sensitive to the take. They are about getting serious poker players, sports bettors etc... to decide they may have a good chance to beat racing and take the game up and others not abandoning it for greener gambling pastures.

Without getting off topic too much, the only way this is going to happen IMO is for horse racing to embrace what it is. It's a betting game in which there is some negative (breakdowns, drug issues, cheating), but the positive far outweighs the negative.

It's no different than any other sport, only we seem to want to pretend the negative doesn't happen, instead of taking it head on.

[jelly]

I think you are making a great point here, but perhaps not the point you intended.

The vast majority of horse players are totally clueless about the track take. The only impact changes in the take have on them is the amount of money they lose and the rate of speed at which they lose it. A higher take probably take gets MORE of their money FASTER.

We represent the very small percentage of players that are sensitive to take changes. Yet only one person even noticed that the take was supposed to be 25% (and he may have continued betting right into the 26% anyway).

These ideas about the optimal take are not about 1% here or there that only a few horse players care about and that simply shift the same money from one track to another.

They are about deep reductions that change the entire perception of the game among those that ARE sensitive to the take. They are about getting serious poker players, sports bettors etc... to decide they may have a good chance to beat racing and take the game up and others not abandoning it for greener gambling pastures.




Well said :ThmbUp:

[Robert Goren]

Whether or not most horse players know what the take out rate is irrelevant. Their pocket books will eventually feel the effects of it and it will effect their wagers. That is what most of the people argue that take out rates don't matter fail to realise.

[DeanT]

Perhaps their thinking was..."does it really matter if we deduct 25% or 26? After all...the horseplayers figure to eventually lose that money anyway."

The point, as far as I am concerned, is this:

These things should NEVER happen, because our game already has major reputation issues...and has lost the betting public's trust.

Things have occurred in this game which show either corruption or utter incompetence -- or BOTH -- and that's totally unacceptable.

"Ringers" have been allowed to run instead of the scheduled horses...bets have been made well after the races have started...and now, more money have been withdrawn from the pools than the laws dictate.

These are very disturbing matters, which should NEVER occur...under ANY circumstances -- if this game is to be taken seriously by a bigger percentage of the betting public.

Systemic problems in the entire sport, IMO. When something was a monopoly it seems they have a tough time not being one and these things happen.

The stickiness for change is amazing. Remember the GP turf scratches thing? 12 months to do something different. Horse's have been running as geldings in CA with a $1000 fine for years that was a deterrent to no one. The list is long.

Sometimes things do get fixed, but it may take years, or something bad to happen like this.

It's just such a sticky industry for change.

Look at this situation. A bunch of people knew about it (anyone who read threads here did), but a lot of them (me included) thought they simply rolled over the takeout increase. Why? Because that's what they always do.

Even Bennett Liebman, who knows more about the machinations of racing in his little finger than 99.999% of the population, wrote back when this increase occurred:

“Increasing the takeout at a time when racing is in distress is not a good idea,” said Bennett Liebman, head of Albany Law School’s Racing and Wagering Law Program. “In New York, no one can ever tell when something is temporary or not.”

We have huge systemic difficulties in racing, IMO.

[Ocala Mike]

Bennett Liebman, who knows more about the machinations of racing in his little finger than 99.999% of the population




Haven't heard that name since I left Pari-Mutuel, but I believe you are right about his knowledge of the subject. Nothing became law without it going through him back in the day, and he used to work closely with our audit department. Is he still in the loop?


Ocala Mike

[Pace Cap'n]

FWIW, an increase in takeout from 25% to 26% means takeout went up 4%, not 1%.

[cj]

FWIW, an increase in takeout from 25% to 26% means takeout went up 4%, not 1%.

So the decrease to 24% means it is dropping 7.7%?

[thaskalos]

Totally agree with everything you have said here. My question is more for everyone, but I am interested in what you think about it.

Everyone who has played NYRA during this time knew what the takeout was. It wasn't hidden. I've even read people say they refuse to play NYRA because of the specific takeout that is being discussed here. Now, they always end up in the middle of anything NYRA related...but that is a whole other discussion.

So where were we as bettors this entire time? As far as I can tell one person noticed it. With all of the takeout talk on forums how did something like this go unnoticed for so long? I think until we find out more (if we do) trying to decide how much blame to go around is a waste of time. The issue is a mistake (a giant one, but a mistake nonetheless) was made and now it is up to the parties that made the mistake to do everything in their power to rectify it.
Speaking for myself...I never knew that the 26% takeouts were only temporary, and that they were supposed to be reduced more than a year ago.

And I agree, it looks like a mistake...since no effort was made to conceal what the current takeouts were.

But I also think that the horse racing industry, in general, needs to be "watched" more carefully in the future...because the "penalties" levied in cases such as this are nowhere near enough to deter anybody from doing something like this intentionally.

Call me paranoid if you must...but my trust in people's "good nature" tends to wane, during bad economic times.

[Mr_Ed]

Will amended W2-Geez be sent to the IRS?

Will 2010 tax returns need to be amended for those who hit late last year, and are seeking their 1%?

[Pace Cap'n]

So the decrease to 24% means it is dropping 7.7%?

Indeed.

[classhandicapper]

Will amended W2-Geez be sent to the IRS?

Will 2010 tax returns need to be amended for those who hit late last year, and are seeking their 1%?

That was one of the costs of this that I brought up near of the beginning of the thread. Some people "may" (don't know the details yet) have to file amended tax returns. If so, that's time and potentially accountant costs.

[cj]

That was one of the costs of this that I brought up near of the beginning of the thread. Some people "may" (don't know the details yet) have to file amended tax returns. If so, that's time and potentially accountant costs.

How often is this going to happen and change anything? I think some here are blowing this way out of proportion. So you cash for $10,000, you were entitled to what, $10,100 at the very most? I would think anything additional would apply to this year's income, not past years.

[Pace Cap'n]

I would think anything additional would apply to this year's income, not past years.

That is correct. Almost all individual taxpayers are on a cash basis, which means that income (and expenses) are recognized in the year received.

[classhandicapper]

How often is this going to happen and change anything? I think some here are blowing this way out of proportion. So you cash for $10,000, you were entitled to what, $10,100 at the very most? I would think anything additional would apply to this year's income, not past years.

Theoretically, every single person that cashed an IRS ticket during that period is going to have the corrected total reported to the IRS.

Over and above that, there's still all the people that filed gambling winnings that cashed non IRS tickets that are going to get money refunded that could require amended returns or another gambling return.

We have to wait to see how it's all going to be filed and reported, but it's a potential headache and accounting cost that should not be there if you have to file amended returns, another gambling return for a different year, or it creates income you don't want during a specific period.

[classhandicapper]

I should add, there is also the possibility of some tickets that paid just under $600 becoming tax tickets and requiring an unexpected tax fling and unexpected tax payment.

They have a lot to figure out.

[Ocala Mike]

They have a lot to figure out.




This is strictly my opinion, based on my past experience with tote errors and their ultimate resolution. The only thing that will be figured out will be on the "macro" level, that is, no INDIVIDUAL bettor will be made whole. NYRA, the State, the Breeders Award Program, and all satellite wagering venues will "settle" their accounts. Any underpay to the public will probably be handled by "augmenting" various exotic pools on a specific day or over a specific time period. This would be in addition to penalties already imposed.

This methodology has been used in the past when the public was underpaid. I admit, however, that I never heard of something this huge in scope. Would be interesting if any individual law suits are brought, and I wouldn't be surprised if this happens, though I don't know what the chances of success would be. Stay tuned.


Ocala Mike

[cj]

I should add, there is also the possibility of some tickets that paid just under $600 becoming tax tickets and requiring an unexpected tax fling and unexpected tax payment.

They have a lot to figure out.

I get all of this, but the chances it has an effect on anyone tax wise for past years is very, very small. It sucks if it does, I get that, and I'm sure there could be a ton of scenarios laid out. I'm just skeptical very many of these scenarios will come to fruition. I suspect any payouts will be regarded as separate from the original bet.

[cj]

This is strictly my opinion, based on my past experience with tote errors and their ultimate resolution. The only thing that will be figured out will be on the "macro" level, that is, no INDIVIDUAL bettor will be made whole. NYRA, the State, the Breeders Award Program, and all satellite wagering venues will "settle" their accounts. Any underpay to the public will probably be handled by "augmenting" various exotic pools on a specific day or over a specific time period. This would be in addition to penalties already imposed.

This methodology has been used in the past when the public was underpaid. I admit, however, that I never heard of something this huge in scope. Would be interesting if any individual law suits are brought, and I wouldn't be surprised if this happens, though I don't know what the chances of success would be. Stay tuned.


Ocala Mike

When bettors that were underpaid can be verified, I think they will receive what is owed.

[Mr_Ed]

"The New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) has announced that total purses for the 2012 winter/spring meet at Aqueduct Racetrack are expected to increase by approximately $8.6 million, or 36 percent, over this year’s meet.

The new purse structure, which will go into effect on January 1, 2012"




http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/stories/Sep242011.shtml

[Rutgers]

Just something to think about:

If you are using the argument that NYRA overcharged on exotics bets based on PML Article 2 Section 238, that is only a valid argument if you wagered on-track.

If you wagered thru an ADW, a track other than a NYRA track or other off-track bet taker, Article 2 Section 138 does not apply to you as the wording is

“…fifteen to twenty-five per centum of the total deposits in pools resulting from on-track exotic bets..”

As long as the off-track wagers were paid off in accordance with the agreements NYRA had with the bet-takers, NYRA did nothing wrong. So technically NYRA would only need to reimburse those who bet and won on track. And if someone wagered thru his NYRA account at the track that could (and probably would have to) be construed as being an off-track wager.

So if you bet thru an ADW or other off-track bet taker and you receive anything, consider it a gift. If you don’t receive anything do not feel bad, shorted or cheated as you were not entitled to anything anyway. NYRA made it clear the takeout rate was 26%, the NYSRWB approved the 26% takeout, and the agreements in place where for 26%, you do not have a valid legal argument against NYRA.

[davew]

Just something to think about:

If you are using the argument that NYRA overcharged on exotics bets based on PML Article 2 Section 238, that is only a valid argument if you wagered on-track.

If you wagered thru an ADW, a track other than a NYRA track or other off-track bet taker, Article 2 Section 138 does not apply to you as the wording is

“…fifteen to twenty-five per centum of the total deposits in pools resulting from on-track exotic bets..”

As long as the off-track wagers were paid off in accordance with the agreements NYRA had with the bet-takers, NYRA did nothing wrong. So technically NYRA would only need to reimburse those who bet and won on track. And if someone wagered thru his NYRA account at the track that could (and probably would have to) be construed as being an off-track wager.

So if you bet thru an ADW or other off-track bet taker and you receive anything, consider it a gift. If you don’t receive anything do not feel bad, shorted or cheated as you were not entitled to anything anyway. NYRA made it clear the takeout rate was 26%, the NYSRWB approved the 26% takeout, and the agreements in place where for 26%, you do not have a valid legal argument against NYRA.


even less ontrack people keep winning tickets, they won't be able to refund anyone except for signers? and not the multiway combos they bought, just the 1 that won?

[cj]

Just something to think about:

If you are using the argument that NYRA overcharged on exotics bets based on PML Article 2 Section 238, that is only a valid argument if you wagered on-track.

If you wagered thru an ADW, a track other than a NYRA track or other off-track bet taker, Article 2 Section 138 does not apply to you as the wording is

“…fifteen to twenty-five per centum of the total deposits in pools resulting from on-track exotic bets..”

As long as the off-track wagers were paid off in accordance with the agreements NYRA had with the bet-takers, NYRA did nothing wrong. So technically NYRA would only need to reimburse those who bet and won on track. And if someone wagered thru his NYRA account at the track that could (and probably would have to) be construed as being an off-track wager.

So if you bet thru an ADW or other off-track bet taker and you receive anything, consider it a gift. If you don’t receive anything do not feel bad, shorted or cheated as you were not entitled to anything anyway. NYRA made it clear the takeout rate was 26%, the NYSRWB approved the 26% takeout, and the agreements in place where for 26%, you do not have a valid legal argument against NYRA.

I think this will turn out to be incorrect. It doesn't matter what was made clear if it didn't follow the law.

[Rutgers]

even less ontrack people keep winning tickets, they won't be able to refund anyone except for signers? and not the multiway combos they bought, just the 1 that won?

I do not know who will get paid the extra 1% or how they are going to do it. But you are probably right in that the only on-track wagers they will be able to identify are the signers. My point was to point out that the statute only applies to on-track wagers. If NYRA reimburses anyone else it is because of a good will decision made by NYRA. (and even paying the on-track customers is more of a good will gesture then legal obligation)

[cj]

I do not know who will get paid the extra 1% or how they are going to do it. But you are probably right in that the only on-track wagers they will be able to identify are the signers. My point was to point out that the statute only applies to on-track wagers. If NYRA reimburses anyone else it is because of a good will decision made by NYRA. (and even paying the on-track customers is more of a good will gesture then legal obligation)

Given the state of wagering laws in New York I guess it shouldn't be too hard to believe, but it seems odd there wouldn't be any statute that addresses take out rates for off track operations.

[Rutgers]

Given the state of wagering laws in New York I guess it shouldn't be too hard to believe, but it seems odd there wouldn't be any statute that addresses take out rates for off track operations.


What traditionally happens is the New York legislature sets the on-track takeout rates range , then the NYSRWB approves the actual takeout rate and then NYRA makes agreements (with NYSRWB approval) with bet-takers based on those same takeout rates. (so usually if the law requires a takeout reduction on track, it will be lowered off track as well, but there is no legislative requirement in Article 2 section 238)

The New York legislature can not establish takeout rates for out-of-state bet takers (or anyone who wagers on a NYRA race from out of state) as that would be regulating interstate commerce, that power lies with the U.S. Congress (and for proof that the U.S. Congress views off-track wagering as interstate commerce, look no further then the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978)

Therefore assuming the argument is “made and won” that Article 2 Section 238 applies to off-track wagers as well, that would make the law unconstitutional with the end result being that Article 2 Section 238 wouldn’t apply at all.

[Ocala Mike]

Therefore assuming the argument is “made and won” that Article 2 Section 238 applies to off-track wagers as well, that would make the law unconstitutional with the end result being that Article 2 Section 238 wouldn’t apply at all.




I don't think that's how this will be seen. I agree with cj on this. "Intertrack" wagers and "Off-Track" wagers, WHEN INTERFACED WITH POOLS AT THE HOST TRACK, were always lumped together as "on-track wagering" in my day. The only exeception for "off-track" wagers was when, say, NYC OTB made their own pools and didn't interface with the host tracks (like Finger Lakes on Tuesdays).


Ocala Mike

[Mr_Ed]

Well......I gotta ask.

How does this 1% affect breakage.

And if it does, would you include a recalculation of all affected payouts in a class action suit?

Do I get 15 yards for piling on?:D

[Ocala Mike]

Mr. Ed, I can only speak to how a "missed pool" or other error of this sort would have been handled back in the day when NY State auditors were in place. Yes, a complete recalculation of every affected pool was done, and all accounts were adjusted based on that pool recalculation.

If, as was often the case (though not necessarily), the public was UNDERPAID, a llike pool was augmented by simply having the funds added into the tote (like a P/6 carryover) resulting in a "bonus" payout for that pool. If the public was OVERPAID, the association and/or the tote company "ate" the damages.

Now, the problem with the present scenario, obviously, is that the error went undetected for 15 months and probably several thousand pools would be affected. I doubt seriously if ALL these pools will be refigured, leading to my conclusion that the adjustment will be made in a "macro" or blanket form.


Ocala Mike

[jelly]

All that you need to know about NYRA and the kind of people your dealing with is to read their press release headline.




"NYRA Lowers Takeout on Exotics". :lol:











http://www.nyra.com/

[Mr_Ed]

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

---Rahm Emmanuel

[Dahoss9698]

All that you need to know about NYRA and the kind of people your dealing with is to read their press release headline.




"NYRA Lowers Takeout on Exotics". :lol:











http://www.nyra.com/

Again, for someone who insists he doesn't bet NYRA, you sure do have a habit of being front and center in a lot of their threads. Weird...

But, for the sake of discussion. If you actually read the piece it mentions why the takeout is being lowered in the first sentence.

The purpose of a headline is to draw in readers. Considering someone who refuses to bet NYRA :liar: is actually reading their website and this article, it would appear as though the headline did it's job, right?

[PaceAdvantage]

All that you need to know about NYRA and the kind of people your dealing with is to read their press release headline.I don't understand. What would you have liked the headline to read? They are lowering the takeout. Headlines are supposed to be short and to the point.

They've been charging a 26% take in certain exotics, a charge that has been accurately displayed in the official program all along...and now it is being lowered...

Incidentally, here is the first paragraph from the press release:

The New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) has announced that takeout on Trifecta, Superfecta, Grand Slam, Pick 3, Pick 4, and Pick 6 wagers will be lowered by two percentage points to correct an unintentional oversight by which NYRA’s takeout for exotic wagers was one point above the statutory limit.Maybe you think this entire paragraph should have been the headline? That would have looked a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

[FenceBored]

Again, for someone who insists he doesn't bet NYRA, you sure do have a habit of being front and center in a lot of their threads. Weird...

But, for the sake of discussion. If you actually read the piece it mentions why the takeout is being lowered in the first sentence.

The purpose of a headline is to draw in readers. Considering someone who refuses to bet NYRA :liar: is actually reading their website and this article, it would appear as though the headline did it's job, right?

So, those of us who've never had sex with a mare should leave all the breeding articles and threads to those of you who have? :confused:

[Dahoss9698]

So, those of us who've never had sex with a mare should leave all the breeding articles and threads to those of you who have? :confused:

Is this more of that creativity you were talking about? Stick to the songs.

[FenceBored]

Is this more of that creativity you were talking about? Stick to the songs.

It was a perfectly sensible conceptual question.

Are only African AIDs sufferers allowed to read and comment on articles about AIDS in Africa?

Are only Russians allowed to be informed and comment on the actions of Valdimir Putin?

Nobody would think of telling Tom to keep his nose out of talk about the Derby, based on his half dozen (or more) announced boycotts of CD. So why should any rational person say boo to anybody for commenting on NYRA, regardless of whether he bets on it or not?

[Dahoss9698]

It was a perfectly sensible conceptual question.

Are only African AIDs sufferers allowed to read and comment on articles about AIDS in Africa?

Are only Russians allowed to be informed and comment on the actions of Valdimir Putin?

Nobody would think of telling Tom to keep his nose out of talk about the Derby, based on his half dozen (or more) announced boycotts of CD. So why should any rational person say boo to anybody for commenting on NYRA, regardless of whether he bets on it or not?

Nah, you're still mad from a few days ago. This is your attempt to "get me back." Let's call it what it is at least.

I certainly wasn't saying Jelly couldn't post on the subject or shouldn't. The point was for someone who talks endlessly about not betting a certain circuit, he seems to land smack dab in the middle of most threads on said circuit. I think that is pretty odd. Why waste so much time on a circuit you aren't interested in? Not to mention his post made little sense. But hey, who cares what his post actually said....you have a song to defend.

[thaskalos]

Why waste so much time on a circuit you aren't interested in?
To point out, to some interested parties, the reasons why you became so disinterested in the first place.

I haven't placed even a token wager on a California race in a year and a half...and yet, I often find myself in the middle of some of Andymays' California threads.

Should "ire" be confused with "interest"?

[Dahoss9698]

To point out, to some interested parties, the reasons why you became so disinterested in the first place.

I haven't placed even a token wager on a California race in a year and a half...and yet, I often find myself in the middle of some of Andymays' California threads.

Should "ire" be confused with "interest"?

You're smarter than than this. I know you are.

[lamboguy]

thaskalos never assumes anything, he states fact, and never attacks another poster. he doesn't need any defending, i just appreciate the time he puts in on this board and i have learned plenty from him along with other members on the message board

[andymays]

To point out, to some interested parties, the reasons why you became so disinterested in the first place.

I haven't placed even a token wager on a California race in a year and a half...and yet, I often find myself in the middle of some of Andymays' California threads.

Should "ire" be confused with "interest"?

I tried to stay away from this thread :lol: because every jurisdiction has their problems and I'm familiar with what goes on out here and not what goes on in New York. Someone there knew there was a problem within the first week and either didn't communicate to the people up the chain or was told to let this go on.

[Dahoss9698]

I'm familiar with what goes on out here and not what goes on in New York.

So you're not familiar with what goes on in NY, but...

Someone there knew there was a problem within the first week and either didn't communicate to the people up the chain or was told to let this go on.

How do you know this to be true?

[andymays]

So you're not familiar with what goes on in NY, but...



How do you know this to be true?

CHRIMS is a California company and NYRA uses them for handle reports and other stuff. I know that out here they have an independent auditor to recheck the numbers.

http://www.chrims.com/Customers.aspx

[Dahoss9698]

CHRIMS is a California company and NYRA uses them for handle reports and other stuff. I know that out here they have an independent auditor to recheck the numbers.

http://www.chrims.com/Customers.aspx

Okay, I'll ask again how do you know what you are alleging to be true?

[FenceBored]

Nah, you're still mad from a few days ago. This is your attempt to "get me back." Let's call it what it is at least.

Someone asks you a civil question and that's evidence of them trying to get back at you? :confused: That's a touch paranoid, if'n you ask me.


I certainly wasn't saying Jelly couldn't post on the subject or shouldn't. The point was for someone who talks endlessly about not betting a certain circuit, he seems to land smack dab in the middle of most threads on said circuit. I think that is pretty odd. Why waste so much time on a circuit you aren't interested in? Not to mention his post made little sense. But hey, who cares what his post actually said....you have a song to defend.

I see. You are completely oblivious to the cognitive dissonance of saying that you're not telling someone what they should do while saying that they're doing something they shouldn't. Got it.

As for jelly's post. It made perfect sense. He's simply pointing out that the NYRA press release is spin. Highlighting that a PR department's press release presents a situation in the light most favorable to the organization is kind of obvious, but necessary in certain circumstances. Let's say a rich executive was involved in a crash where a family of four was in the other car. Both parents are killed and the children lose their legs. When he reaches a settlement with the survivors his PR agent will release a statement headlined "Mr. XXX donates to disabled orphans."

[Dahoss9698]

Implying I have sex with horses is a civil question? That's rich, even for message boards.

[PaceAdvantage]

When he reaches a settlement with the survivors his PR agent will release a statement headlined "Mr. XXX donates to disabled orphans."Seriously? That wouldn't happen in a million years...and you providing this as an analogy to the NYRA press release is equally as ridiculous.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nobody would think of telling Tom to keep his nose out of talk about the Derby, based on his half dozen (or more) announced boycotts of CD.This was definitely the wrong thing to say, especially to Dahoss, who has told Tom quite a bit over the years... :lol:

In any event, let's get this back on track...no more talk about animal breeding...just discuss the topic...

Thanks.

[classhandicapper]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone that posts here is on NYRA's payroll, wants to be on NYRA's payroll, or considers it politically expedient to remain on good terms with NYRA.

Sometimes I also wonder if some people have a personal reason to hate NYRA

It's hard to believe we have 13 pages on something that could be summed up in one sentence and perhaps a link or two to articles about the details.

NYRA and its external auditors screwed up.

[Ocala Mike]

NYRA and its external auditors screwed up.




I don't think anyone on here would disagree with that. I thought the thrust of the postings evolved into a discussion of how NYRA should proceed to rectify the situation and whether individual winning bettors could possibly be made whole again on a case by case basis (I think not).


Ocala Mike

[Dahoss9698]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone that posts here is on NYRA's payroll, wants to be on NYRA's payroll, or considers it politically expedient to remain on good terms with NYRA.

Sometimes I also wonder if some people have a personal reason to hate NYRA

It's hard to believe we have 13 pages on something that could be summed up in one sentence and perhaps a link or two to articles about the details.

NYRA and its external auditors screwed up.

It must be a wondering kind of day.

Sometimes I wonder why people type so much, yet say so little.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone that posts here is on NYRA's payroll, wants to be on NYRA's payroll, or considers it politically expedient to remain on good terms with NYRA.

Sometimes I also wonder if some people have a personal reason to hate NYRA

It's hard to believe we have 13 pages on something that could be summed up in one sentence and perhaps a link or two to articles about the details.

NYRA and its external auditors screwed up.It's not just NYRA. There's plenty of back and forth in the California topics at times as well...

Major circuits tend to generate a lot of interest.

Just because someone is interested or passionate about a subject (take your continued defense of NYCOTB as an example, both before and after its demise) doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that...

This isn't the first time you've posted your wonderment about the origin of such activity in these NYRA threads...I'm left also wondering...wondering what kind of reaction you're looking for that will satisfy your inquiry...

[andymays]

As much as I go after California they are the most transparent in the Country by far. I'll duck and cover now. :lol:

[Dahoss9698]

No need to duck and cover, but I'm still kind of curious how you know what you alleged earlier to be true. You seemed to kind of avoid (or duck and cover) when I asked.

If you're just guessing that's fine, but you said it as though it was a certainty, so I just figure an answer shouldn't be too difficult.

[lamboguy]

in the scope of things, $8 million is nothing, MF Global blew up $1.2 billion. how much more can you discuss about some type of screw up with NYRA. it doesn't matter who screwed up, who should have found the screw up, or anything else about this matter.

the bottom line is that Monmouth Park is basically dead meat, the summer time racing in NEW YORK will be unreal with more money being bet there than ever before. this mistake will we all behind us by then.

[classhandicapper]

It's not just NYRA. There's plenty of back and forth in the California topics at times as well...

Major circuits tend to generate a lot of interest.

Just because someone is interested or passionate about a subject (take your continued defense of NYCOTB as an example, both before and after its demise) doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that...

This isn't the first time you've posted your wonderment about the origin of such activity in these NYRA threads...I'm left also wondering...wondering what kind of reaction you're looking for that will satisfy your inquiry...

I'm not looking for any reaction.

It's just pretty easy for me to see the consistent biases when it comes to NYRA, OTB, and other NY racing issues since my own view is that the entire racing industry should be reorganized and almost all these entities should be replaced.

I am curious why the biases exist.

I agree with you on OTB. I have often defended NYCOTB because the reporting and discussion almost everywhere has been woefully biased and uninformed and I am in a position to know what really happened there and why. I have also said it was a dumping ground for political patronage jobs, had a horrible deal with the union, and should not have been created as an independent entity to begin with. So I haven't really been biased. I've just tried to correct all the misinformation that has been in the press and elsewhere.

I never talk about CA (other than synthetic tracks) because I am clueless about what's going on there.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've just tried to correct all the misinformation that has been in the press and elsewhere.Looking at it objectively, isn't that what has happened in this thread? I don't think anyone has posted in this thread that what happened should be excused in any way or is a positive in any way.

[Dahoss9698]

I've just tried to correct all the misinformation that has been in the press and elsewhere.


Isn't that what the people you said are either on NYRA's payroll or want to be, have done in this thread?

I'm not going to go back and read the entire thread, but I haven't seen anyone defend NYRA in this thread. Just the opposite in fact as seemingly everyone agrees they are to blame. How much blame is up for debate, but still everyone recognizes they made a mistake.

[Dahoss9698]

Looking at it objectively, isn't that what has happened in this thread? I don't think anyone has posted in this thread that what happened should be excused in any way or is a positive in any way.

Mediocre minds think alike?

[classhandicapper]

Looking at it objectively, isn't that what has happened in this thread? I don't think anyone has posted in this thread that what happened should be excused in any way or is a positive in any way.

I don't disagree.

It just seems that any discussion of NYRA always winds up the same people either playing offense or defense. If I could get rebates on who was going focus on the negatives and who was going to focus on the positives or rebuttals I wouldn't have to play horses. :lol:

[andymays]

No need to duck and cover, but I'm still kind of curious how you know what you alleged earlier to be true. You seemed to kind of avoid (or duck and cover) when I asked.

If you're just guessing that's fine, but you said it as though it was a certainty, so I just figure an answer shouldn't be too difficult.

What happened is indefensible. Whether you think my opinion is right or wrong is irrelevent. If you want to defend NYRA you have to have some semblance of objectivity for your opinion to be respected. I hammer California more than anyone when I think they screwed up so why can't you deal with this the same way?

[andymays]

Bottom line is that if you're a Horseplayer and claim to know what's going on in your jurisdiction then you should do something about it.

No excuses.

[PaceAdvantage]

What happened is indefensible. Whether you think my opinion is right or wrong is irrelevent. If you want to defend NYRA you have to have some semblance of objectivity for your opinion to be respected. I hammer California more than anyone when I think they screwed up so why can't you deal with this the same way?Where was he defending the fact that the takeout wasn't dropped like it was supposed to be?

And why won't you answer his question? I'd like to know the answer myself.

[affirmedny]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone that posts here is on NYRA's payroll, wants to be on NYRA's payroll, or considers it politically expedient to remain on good terms with NYRA.


I count one of each but the one who is on the payroll doesn't seem to post here anymore.

[affirmedny]

also there's probably only one person on this board that was affected significantly by this situation and he hasn't weighed in on it.

[Dahoss9698]

What happened is indefensible. Whether you think my opinion is right or wrong is irrelevent. If you want to defend NYRA you have to have some semblance of objectivity for your opinion to be respected. I hammer California more than anyone when I think they screwed up so why can't you deal with this the same way?

Who is defending it? I'm not. Here is what I have said about NYRA in this very thread.

What happened is wrong and NYRA is and should be taking a lot of the blame with the entire thing. The ball was dropped on many levels.

The issue is a mistake (a giant one, but a mistake nonetheless) was made and now it is up to the parties that made the mistake to do everything in their power to rectify it.

My issue is that YOU alleged someone at NYRA knew about it within a week of happening and either did nothing or was told to do nothing. Your words, not mine. All I have asked is how do you know this to be true. I'm not giving a critique of your opinion. I'm asking you to back up your allegation.

If you're just talking out of your ass, that's fine. Just say it and we can move on. But if you do in fact know what you say to be true, I think we'd all be interested in hearing about it.

Bottom line is when you make allegations you should back them up and not avoid it when you can't.

No excuses.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's amazing Dahoss, isn't it? Folks seem to have this preconceived notion about how everyone will respond, and even when you DON'T respond like they think you're going to, they STILL accuse you of responding like they thought you would. :lol:

Glad to have Dahoss back posting, because his last reply was excellent and to the point, and I eagerly await AM's retort.

[Dahoss9698]

Glad to have Dahoss back posting

At least there are two of us glad about it.

[Tom]

Bottom line is that if you're a Horseplayer and claim to know what's going on in your jurisdiction then you should do something about it.

No excuses.

Why? Why bother?
All you have to do is bet other jurisdictions.
In this day and age, NO ONE is obligated to support any venue. This is not the 80's when you had no choices.

[johnhannibalsmith]

At least there are two of us glad about it.

I gotta believe that Stillriledup is also excited enough about it to mount a comeback of his own.

:D

[riskman]

Lets see here. The bettors are to accept that NYRA mistakenly failed to change the takeout distribution formulas to produce a new set of information separating pari-mutuel revenue allocations.The mistaken information is then missed by other individuals at NYRA and others ADW's , inside /outside auditors and the entire betting public save a few. Now, how long is the "new" 2% reduction in takeout set for? Should i enter this in my daily diary and send a reminder to NYRA ?

Yeah, I missed the reduction, never thought about it, why should I ? Guess this was an error on MY part and now knowing this anxiously await how NYRA will settle this "mistake".

[andymays]

Where was he defending the fact that the takeout wasn't dropped like it was supposed to be?

And why won't you answer his question? I'd like to know the answer myself.
This is where the NY guys go off the rails on a consistent basis. His position is lame at best. Either he's a Horseplayer or he isn't. To take a position that nobody did anything wrong is absurd. The only excuse is that it's an screwed up bureaucracy and you then you have to leave it at that.

You either know what's going on over there or you don't. If you don't, and this goes on for that long of time then what does that say?

[thaskalos]

This is where the NY guys go off the rails on a consistent basis. His position is lame at best. Either he's a Horseplayer or he isn't. To take a position that nobody did anything wrong is absurd. The only excuse is that it's an screwed up bureaucracy and you then you have to leave it at that.

You either know what's going on over there or you don't. If you don't, and this goes on for that long of time then what does that say?

If you think that Dahoss is going to let you get away without directly answering his question to you...then you don't know anything about him.

Answer his question now...or be prepared to be tormented about it for months to come...

By the way...I too am glad to see him back.

All this time...I knew that something was missing from our discussions here, but I had forgotten what it was...:)

[Dahoss9698]

Answer his question now...or be prepared to be tormented about it for months to come...


Is it a lot to ask for people to back up what they say?

You're a reasonable guy and I know you can read. How many times can I say NYRA was wrong before Andy recognizes I'm not excusing what they did? I'm not. All I'm asking for is for some substance to his claim.

What is wrong with that? He's too proud to admit he just made it up, so now he'll turn it around on me. As if I'm not horseplayer enough for him. First time for everything I guess. Normally I get called a heartless horseplayer. Now I'm not enough of a horseplayer.

Which one is it?

[thaskalos]

You're smarter than than this. I know you are.

We are all smart.

And we all know what a "headline" should be.

It is used to capture attention, sure...but it should also have something to do with the "main" point of the article it is used for.

It should not be used to mislead.

Jelly is right, IMO; NYRA's press release should not have had the headline "NYRA lowers takeouts on exotics"...because it is very misleading and self-serving.

How about the headline..."NYRA regrets mistake; promises to make amends"?

[jelly]

Who is defending it? I'm not. Here is what I have said about NYRA in this very thread.





My issue is that YOU alleged someone at NYRA knew about it within a week of happening and either did nothing or was told to do nothing. Your words, not mine. All I have asked is how do you know this to be true. I'm not giving a critique of your opinion. I'm asking you to back up your allegation.

If you're just talking out of your ass, that's fine. Just say it and we can move on. But if you do in fact know what you say to be true, I think we'd all be interested in hearing about it.

Bottom line is when you make allegations you should back them up and not avoid it when you can't.

No excuses.




You mean like this post from #179

The purpose of a headline is to draw in readers. Considering someone who refuses to bet NYRA is actually :liar: reading their website and this article, it would appear as though the headline did it's job, right?




Look who's talking :liar:

[Dahoss9698]

How about the headline..."NYRA regrets mistake; promises to make amends"?

Isn't that what is essentially being said in the article?

You expect NYRA to overlook public relations practices that have been in place for decades now to appease the Jelly's of the world? Come on man. Be realistic.

[thaskalos]

Is it a lot to ask for people to back up what they say?

You're a reasonable guy and I know you can read. How many times can I say NYRA was wrong before Andy recognizes I'm not excusing what they did? I'm not. All I'm asking for is for some substance to his claim.

What is wrong with that? He's too proud to admit he just made it up, so now he'll turn it around on me. As if I'm not horseplayer enough for him. First time for everything I guess. Normally I get called a heartless horseplayer. Now I'm not enough of a horseplayer.

Which one is it?

I can't argue with you here...:ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

Isn't that what is essentially being said in the article?

You expect NYRA to overlook public relations practices that have been in place for decades now to appease the Jelly's of the world? Come on man. Be realistic.

:lol:

Did I forget to welcome you back?

[Dahoss9698]

[/COLOR]




You mean like this post from #179

The purpose of a headline is to draw in readers. Considering someone who refuses to bet NYRA is actually :liar: reading their website and this article, it would appear as though the headline did it's job, right?




Look who's talking :liar:

What am I alleging that isn't true? Take your time with the answer.

[andymays]

This was about as big a screwup as you can have. It tells me that the people running things aren't going over the numbers. Not only didn't they go over the numbers every day, week, month, or year, it took how many months to correct the error? That's the story not parsing the words/opinions of posters.

Once again why didn't any Horseplayer who plays NYRA on a regular basis catch this and do something about it? If we're going to take various jurisdictions to task for what they do wrong then why not apply the criticism evenly and consistently. No excuses!

The can look at detailed reports from www.chrims.com on a daily basis. No excuses.

[andymays]

If you think that Dahoss is going to let you get away without directly answering his question to you...then you don't know anything about him.

Answer his question now...or be prepared to be tormented about it for months to come...

By the way...I too am glad to see him back.

All this time...I knew that something was missing from our discussions here, but I had forgotten what it was...:)

I think I PM'd you about a year ago dealing with the subject of tactics. His whole game in this thread it to defend NYRA at all cost by intimidating other posters. If you can't defend what happened then change the subject to the posters words/opinions. ;)

[andymays]

I'm pretty sure that if this was any other big company besides NYRA everyone would be calling for people to resign, be fired, or arrested. Execs are supposed to read reports and review the numbers. That's the job of a lot of people in any company/organization.

A day or a week without noticing is excusable. For as long as this went on there is no excuse.

[Tom]

And now they are fixing it.
What else do want from all this? That dead horse will not run any faster if you whip him.

[takeout]

It's just pretty easy for me to see the consistent biases when it comes to NYRA, OTB, and other NY racing issues since my own view is that the entire racing industry should be reorganized and almost all these entities should be replaced.Now we're talkin'! :ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

I think I PM'd you about a year ago dealing with the subject of tactics. His whole game in this thread it to defend NYRA at all cost by intimidating other posters. If you can't defend what happened then change the subject to the posters words/opinions. ;)Except he never defended NYRA...throws your whole paranoid rant out of whack just a bit, don't you think?

[andymays]

Except he never defended NYRA...throws your whole paranoid rant out of whack just a bit, don't you think?

Nothing paranoid and there is no rant. Just the fact that he wants to distract attention from the subject and intimidate people from posting.

It's your house and if you want to let him play him play his games with other posters have at it.

[Dahoss9698]

Once again why didn't any Horseplayer who plays NYRA on a regular basis catch this and do something about it? If we're going to take various jurisdictions to task for what they do wrong then why not apply the criticism evenly and consistently. No excuses!

If you had actually read the thread you would have seen I posed the exact same question you did, only days ago. I too wondered how this went on for so long without anyone noticing it and by that I mean by us horseplayers also. I was told in this very thread that most bettors don't write down takeout numbers and/or when they change.

I think I PM'd you about a year ago dealing with the subject of tactics. His whole game in this thread it to defend NYRA at all cost by intimidating other posters. If you can't defend what happened then change the subject to the posters words/opinions. ;)

You keep deflecting because you got your hand caught in the cookie jar. No literate person could look at what I have said and continually say I have defended NYRA in this thread. It's just not possible, so you're just being disingenuous because someone dared to ask you to clarify one of your posts.

But the subject of tactics is an interesting one. All I did was ask you how you know what you are alleging to be true. That's it. Very simple question, I didn't attack you (still haven't) and I haven't tried to intimidate you or anyone else. That's what you have done here, not me.

However, instead of answering (probably because you can't) you have gone to deflecting everything to me. As if I'm responsible for this mess. I'm not trying to change the subject at all. I'm just looking for the truth in what happened here and I think most bettors are as well.

This became a way bigger deal then it should have because you feel as though you are beyond reproach now. If anyone else had made the allegation that you did which to remind all of your fans was
Someone there knew there was a problem within the first week and either didn't communicate to the people up the chain or was told to let this go on.
I would have asked the same question. I think it's a fair question. It's not trying to deflect anything away from NYRA who (for the 5th time) was wrong here. I'm just looking for you to clarify how you know this to be true. Because it's a serious allegation I think and goes against what NYRA has said about it.

If you don't feel as though you should have to substantiate your claims....just say it. If you can't substantiate your claims...say it. But to act like this because someone dared question you is pretty funny. If anyone is playing games it's you.

[FenceBored]

Implying I have sex with horses is a civil question? That's rich, even for message boards.

Get a grip, nobody implied that at all.

[FenceBored]

Seriously? That wouldn't happen in a million years...and you providing this as an analogy to the NYRA press release is equally as ridiculous.

:rolleyes: Yeah, right.

[Dahoss9698]

Get a grip, nobody implied that at all.

Really? Maybe you were so busy "creating" you forgot what you wrote. Here it is.
So, those of us who've never had sex with a mare should leave all the breeding articles and threads to those of you who have?

Is there another way to interpret your comment other than the way I did?

[FenceBored]

Really? Maybe you were so busy "creating" you forgot what you wrote. Here it is.


Is there another way to interpret your comment other than the way I did?

Certainly.

[Indulto]

... This became a way bigger deal then it should have because you feel as though you are beyond reproach now. If anyone else had made the allegation that you did which to remind all of your fans was ...So that's your problem -- you don't have a fan club?

[Dahoss9698]

So that's your problem -- you don't have a fan club?

Nah, I just prefer people substantiate their claims. I'm weird like that.

[andymays]

If you had actually read the thread you would have seen I posed the exact same question you did, only days ago. I too wondered how this went on for so long without anyone noticing it and by that I mean by us horseplayers also. I was told in this very thread that most bettors don't write down takeout numbers and/or when they change.



You keep deflecting because you got your hand caught in the cookie jar. No literate person could look at what I have said and continually say I have defended NYRA in this thread. It's just not possible, so you're just being disingenuous because someone dared to ask you to clarify one of your posts.

But the subject of tactics is an interesting one. All I did was ask you how you know what you are alleging to be true. That's it. Very simple question, I didn't attack you (still haven't) and I haven't tried to intimidate you or anyone else. That's what you have done here, not me.

However, instead of answering (probably because you can't) you have gone to deflecting everything to me. As if I'm responsible for this mess. I'm not trying to change the subject at all. I'm just looking for the truth in what happened here and I think most bettors are as well.

This became a way bigger deal then it should have because you feel as though you are beyond reproach now. If anyone else had made the allegation that you did which to remind all of your fans was

I would have asked the same question. I think it's a fair question. It's not trying to deflect anything away from NYRA who (for the 5th time) was wrong here. I'm just looking for you to clarify how you know this to be true. Because it's a serious allegation I think and goes against what NYRA has said about it.

If you don't feel as though you should have to substantiate your claims....just say it. If you can't substantiate your claims...say it. But to act like this because someone dared question you is pretty funny. If anyone is playing games it's you.

Not sure I understand. :confused:

I have fans? Prove it by substantiation your claim! :lol:

[cj]

I'm pretty sure that if this was any other big company besides NYRA everyone would be calling for people to resign, be fired, or arrested.

I believe I did exactly that right from the start, and I believe I'm supposed to be a NYRA apologist with an East Coast bias.

[andymays]

I believe I did exactly that right from the start.

Yes you did. The thing is that there's always a sideline that's not necessarily an excuse but something in between. This issue is pretty cut and dried. It's matter of identifying the guilty parties.

I guess we'll wait for the investigation and revisit the thread.

[cj]

Yes you did. The thing is that there's always a sideline that's not necessarily an excuse but something in between. This issue is pretty cut and dried. It's matter of identifying the guilty parties.

I guess we'll wait for the investigation and revisit the thread.

I agree, lets see what happens. The 8 million figure sounds huge, but in reality it isn't a big amount when put in the proper perspective. I'm not defending the mistake, but it is being blown way out of proportion because it is NYRA, as it would if it were Churchill or Del Mar. As I said earlier, if you cashed $100,000 worth of P4s over the year, you were out $1,000. This error didn't force anyone into a change of lifestyle.

[thaskalos]

Yes you did. The thing is that there's always a sideline that's not necessarily an excuse but something in between. This issue is pretty cut and dried. It's matter of identifying the guilty parties.

I guess we'll wait for the investigation and revisit the thread.
Andy...

I haven't agreed much with you lately...but I do in this case.

Yes...people have criticized this mistake...but the criticism has been rather subdued in most cases.

Instead of people wondering how something like this could happen, and why it was kept a secret for so long...they seem to be more concerned with how many people were really affected by it, and what the real amount was that was syphoned off.

This is completely irrelevent IMO.

When millions of dollars, rightfully belonging to the players, get taken away unlawfully, blame should be assigned and heavy fines should be levied...none of which have occurred in this case.

And a better method of restitution should have been thought of, than to let NYRA pay the money back off of future takeouts.

What did they do with the extra money that they syphoned off?

[cj]

Andy...

I haven't agreed much with you lately...but I do in this case.

Yes...people have criticized this mistake...but the criticism has been rather subdued in most cases.

Instead of people wondering how something like this could happen, and why it was kept a secret for so long...they seem to be more concerned with how many people were really affected by it, and what the real amount was that was syphoned off.

This is completely irrelevent IMO.

When millions of dollars, rightfully belonging to the players, get taken away unlawfully, blame should be assigned and heavy fines should be levied...none of which have occurred in this case.

And a better method of restitution should have been thought of, than to let NYRA pay the money back off of future takeouts.

What did they do with the extra money that they syphoned off?

I would say it is too early to assign blame. It has been a week. Rash decisions are rarely good ones.

I'm curious, what would you propose as punishment? Who would fines be paid to? How are heavy fines going to help the damaged party, bettors?

[thaskalos]

I'm curious, what would you propose as punishment? Who would fines be paid to? How are heavy fines going to help the damaged party, bettors?
CJ...

Fines NEVER help the "damaged party" in money matters such as these...but they are always levied nonetheless. Horseplayers should not be the ONLY ones who pay for their "mistakes" in this game.

But what REALLY irks me is the method of restitution that they came up with...

NYRA gets to pay the money back off of future takeouts?

WHY?

Don't they have the money NOW?

Why not put the money up as "seed money" in a series of Pick-4s...with no takeouts taken on these wagers?

A "win/win" scenario...NO?

[FenceBored]

Nah, I just prefer people substantiate their claims. I'm weird like that.

What are you asking for substatiantion of?

Did NYRA know after they should have recinded the takeout hike that they hadn't recinded the takeout hike? Yes.

Did NYRA know, or should have known, that the takeout hike was to be recinded at that particular time? Yes.

It all comes down to intent. Did they intend to continue collecting funds they shouldn't, or didn't they? You're getting all worked up because someone isn't buying the story that everyone at NYRA who should have known what the takeout should be didn't realize they were doing something they shouldn't? :confused:

Oh boy, get out the red hot irons and torture the bastard. That'll teach him to question the saintliness of NYRA employees. :rolleyes:

[cj]

CJ...

Fines NEVER help the "damaged party" in money matters such as these...but they are always levied nonetheless. Horseplayers should not be the ONLY ones who pay for their "mistakes" in this game.

But what REALLY irks me is the method of restitution that they came up with...

NYRA gets to pay the money back off of future takeouts?

WHY?

Don't they have the money NOW?

Why not put the money up as "seed money" in a series of Pick-4s...with no takeouts taken on these wagers?

A "win/win" scenario...NO?

I don't like the seed money thing since it would only benefit a few people that cash on that one day or couple of days, but that is just my opinion. I wouldn't gripe about it, but I don't think it is the best solution.

In the spirit of a punitive measure, I like dropping the takeout by more than the error. 23% would be better than 24. That might be better, I don't really know if it is possible. I believe the law is 15% minimum, so maybe it should be that for the same duration of time they underpaid customers.

I also think every person that was paid less than they should have been that can be identified should be paid back with interest.