Betfair: Notice of Change to US Racetrack Offerings

[gm10]

"We regret to notify you that as of now we will no longer be offering exchange markets on racing from the all Churchill Downs-controlled US tracks due to contractual limitations placed on our US affiliate, TVG, by Churchill Downs.

The impacted US tracks are: Arlington Park, Calder Race Course, Churchill Downs, Fair Grounds, Hoosier Park, Oaklawn Park and The Meadows. The 2012 KY Derby Ante Post market will be carried to its fruition, but no day of race market will be offered."

[lamboguy]

i have to give CHURCHILL DOWNS some major credit on this one for figuring out that exchange wagering does them no good at all, i hope the rest of the racetracks in NORTH AMERICA figure it out a well.

[Al Gobbi]

Glad to see CD get the light, wonder if the Stronach tracks are next?

[duncan04]

i have to give CHURCHILL DOWNS some major credit on this one for figuring out that exchange wagering does them no good at all, i hope the rest of the racetracks in NORTH AMERICA figure it out a well.

:ThmbUp: Couldn't agree more lambo.

And that leads to the following question:

So what happens when exchange wagering comes to the U.S.? Will only a few tracks be able to be wagered on?

[redshift1]

"We regret to notify you that as of now we will no longer be offering exchange markets on racing from the all Churchill Downs-controlled US tracks due to contractual limitations placed on our US affiliate, TVG, by Churchill Downs.

The impacted US tracks are: Arlington Park, Calder Race Course, Churchill Downs, Fair Grounds, Hoosier Park, Oaklawn Park and The Meadows. The 2012 KY Derby Ante Post market will be carried to its fruition, but no day of race market will be offered."

I haven't followed this much, is this a major setback for Betfair?


.

[usedtolovetvg]

:ThmbUp: Couldn't agree more lambo.

And that leads to the following question:

So what happens when exchange wagering comes to the U.S.? Will only a few tracks be able to be wagered on?

Not to worry you'll be able to do it on HP, Los Al and Del Mar.

[horses4courses]

Not to worry you'll be able to do it on HP, Los Al and Del Mar.


All exchange wagering on US tracks, up to now, takes place outside this country. That may not change any time soon.......

[usedtolovetvg]

All exchange wagering on US tracks, up to now, takes place outside this country. That may not change any time soon.......

Agreed, but at least the U.S. tracks have some leverage because Betfair is now doing business in the United States.

[gm10]

I haven't followed this much, is this a major setback for Betfair?


.

Not at all. Nobody plays those tracks here any more. They were taken away from the UK racing channels a while ago. It's a petty move. Nothing to do with 'protecting' US racing from exchange betting (heaven forbid customers should only pay 5% commission).

[Al Gobbi]

It still isn't gonna happen anytime soon, there wasn't much support for it at last months CHRB meeting.

[usedtolovetvg]

Not at all. Nobody plays those tracks here any more. They were taken away from the UK racing channels a while ago. It's a petty move. Nothing to do with 'protecting' US racing from exchange betting (heaven forbid customers should only pay 5% commission).

The Derby is a big deal from a PR point of view. TVG hosts would compare odds on the Exchange in the UK and Tote over here.

[Al Gobbi]

The Derby is a big deal from a PR point of view. TVG hosts would compare odds on the Exchange in the UK and Tote over here.

So will this affect TVG's planned on site coverage of Derby week?

[gm10]

The Derby is a big deal from a PR point of view. TVG hosts would compare odds on the Exchange in the UK and Tote over here.

Is that really a big deal? A reference to the odds on the exchange in front of an audience that is being denied access to the service anyway?

From my point of view, it's just another selfish decision by the powers that be in American racing. Who is actually going to benefit from this apart from CHDN shareholders? Certainly not the fans.

[usedtolovetvg]

So will this affect TVG's planned on site coverage of Derby week?

TVG has been given a spot on site in the past. I haven't heard anything about this year.

[usedtolovetvg]

Is that really a big deal? A reference to the odds on the exchange in front of an audience that is being denied access to the service anyway?

From my point of view, it's just another selfish decision by the powers that be in American racing. Who is actually going to benefit from this apart from CHDN shareholders? Certainly not the fans.

There are opposing views on the overall benefits of EB. That is probably best served on another thread. Mine are well-known.

[Milkshaker]

i have to give CHURCHILL DOWNS some major credit on this one for figuring out that exchange wagering does them no good at all, i hope the rest of the racetracks in NORTH AMERICA figure it out a well.

This sounds similar to the persistent "all change is bad" mentality that I recall hearing when simulcasting was the big "threat" looming on the sport's horizon.

It is also probably not too far off what entranched naysayers were spouting circa 1933 when pari-mutuel betting was poised to replace on-track bookmaking.

[gm10]

There are opposing views on the overall benefits of EB. That is probably best served on another thread. Mine are well-known.

I think I'm aware of most con-arguments (emphasis on first syllable). The one with the most credibility is the one that says that BF doesn't contribute to racing. That isn't true. They don't contribute enough. Further nuance, they don't contribute enough because of a tax loophole, not because of their business model.

[usedtolovetvg]

I think I'm aware of most alleged con-arguments (emphasis on first syllable). The one with the most credibility is the one that says that BF doesn't contribute to racing. That isn't true. They don't contribute enough. Further nuance, they don't contribute enough because of a tax loophole, not because of their business model.

Agreed. The track takeout is too high and EB contributions are too low. Given that continuing scenario, the racing business is unsustainable. There are other issues which are specific to U.S. racing that makes it more problematic.

[DeanT]

This is Tracknet doing what Tracknet does best.

You can take the boy out of Churchill, but you can't take Churchill out of the boy.

[edmond1]

Betfair: Sell TVG so that you can offer betting on the tracks you please just like you did before. Can't you see it's not going to happen here .....

[MightBeSosa]

Whenever I eyeball the odds available at Betfair, I regret not being able to trade there.

Of course the tracks don't like them , they prefer to confiscate your money.

[usedtolovetvg]

Whenever I eyeball the odds available at Betfair, I regret not being able to trade there.

Of course the tracks don't like them , they prefer to confiscate your money.

And Betfair prefers not to pay a fair price for taking bets on the track's product.

[davew]

This sounds similar to the persistent "all change is bad" mentality that I recall hearing when simulcasting was the big "threat" looming on the sport's horizon.

It is also probably not too far off what entranched naysayers were spouting circa 1933 when pari-mutuel betting was poised to replace on-track bookmaking.

geez, and I thought I have been betting a long time - you remember bookmakers from the depression era?

[gm10]

And Betfair prefers not to pay a fair price for taking bets on the track's product.

That is the spin that some of their competitors put on it. In reality, they are all making use of the same tax loophole to some extent.

Fear not however, the British government have recently announced that off-shore online gambling operators will have to pay into the Levy from 2014. Everyone will have to pay their fair share from then on.

[Canarsie]

Betfair: Sell TVG so that you can offer betting on the tracks you please just like you did before. Can't you see it's not going to happen here .....

Please tell me who is going to buy a money losing operation like TVG as it's known now? Why don't you research how many bidders there were the last time it was up for sale. Youbet was worth more money years ago when it was purchased by CDI isn't that telling you something?

[Canarsie]

I'm a novice in this area but what is the EW figure for an average NYRA card? I wonder what their position is on this if they have one.

[davew]

Whenever I eyeball the odds available at Betfair, I regret not being able to trade there.

Of course the tracks don't like them , they prefer to confiscate your money.

Those are not odds, they are return for $1 on back side
and pay for $1 on lay side

and entries run separate
and deadheats split returns/pays
so if you back a big favorite and deadheats, you can lose money

race fee on winnings not shown in pays

[Al Gobbi]

I'm a novice in this area but what is the EW figure for an average NYRA card? I wonder what their position is on this if they have one.

Around $25k US was bet on the exchanges for the 3rd at AQU that just ran.

With regards I have been told that viewership for our racing networks are very close to nothing.

[Some_One]

Most of these tracks were not available on a regular basis, only for special days (i.e Derby Day) or on days when there was nothing else available. Usually this was because CD tracks weren't been shown on ATR/RUK (which BF correctly believed would lead to a lack of interest/liquidity).

[edmond1]

Does TVG make a profit ? If not, give it away. They can then go back and do like before - offer whatever they want - no ?

[usedtolovetvg]

Does TVG make a profit ? If not, give it away. They can then go back and do like before - offer whatever they want - no ?

It has little to do with Betfair. TVG in the early days was the only Horse Racing TV Station so, if the tracks wanted television exposure, they had to be on TVG. The tracks saw that TVG was becoming a powerful brand and a lot of people were betting through TVG. As internet wagering started to expand, the tracks found that people were still betting through TVG because they were the biggest and most recognized. HRTV was created and television broadcasts of certain tracks were restricted. HRTV has nowhere near the market penetration of TVG but by limiting the tracks on TVG, both Twinspires and Xpressbet were hoping to swing the wagering $$$ to their platforms. Remember, it is all about what is good for business and who cares about the fans. This is a perfect Marketing 101 Lesson. The strength of the brand and the superior market penetration put TVG way ahead of its competitors. Regardless of who owns TVG, CDI and Uncle Frank will never let TVG distribute their signal again through the tube, unless they got an enormous piece of TVG's action.

[MightBeSosa]

Around $25k US was bet on the exchanges for the 3rd at AQU that just ran.

With regards I have been told that viewership for our racing networks are very close to nothing.

How much do we bet on Aintree?

If US Citizens could bet there, I warranty a lot more than 25k would change hands. Guess 3/2 on what goes off at 4/5 here isn't really of interest. Or 30-1 instead of 13-1.

[Fager Fan]

That is the spin that some of their competitors put on it. In reality, they are all making use of the same tax loophole to some extent.

Fear not however, the British government have recently announced that off-shore online gambling operators will have to pay into the Levy from 2014. Everyone will have to pay their fair share from then on.

When they pay for a track and track maintenance and staffing, THEN they'll be paying their fair share. They have none of the overhead and racing (in some places) foolishly sold them their product for pennies.

[Milkshaker]

When they pay for a track and track maintenance and staffing, THEN they'll be paying their fair share. They have none of the overhead and racing (in some places) foolishly sold them their product for pennies.

It would be prudent to also consider that Betfair is capable of getting the racing product into a zillion (or whatever the number is) homes and mobile digital devices.

That is something those paying "fair share" via the traditional structure have been unwilling/unable to do since the dawn of the Internet.

This high-scale exposure for the product might be something something betting exchanges bring to the table in lieu of paying higher rates.

[Some_One]

How much do we bet on Aintree?

If US Citizens could bet there, I warranty a lot more than 25k would change hands. Guess 3/2 on what goes off at 4/5 here isn't really of interest. Or 30-1 instead of 13-1.

Think having a 20 horse mutual field in this Saturday's National is going to be a draw for players?

[gm10]

When they pay for a track and track maintenance and staffing, THEN they'll be paying their fair share. They have none of the overhead and racing (in some places) foolishly sold them their product for pennies.

They will from 2014 onwards.

In the UK, the money that goes into racing is kind of like a tax on bookmakers, and is called the Levy.

The crux of the matter is that online gambling operators are not required to pay into the Levy when they are off-shore. Betfair have chosen to do this, but most of the other traditional bookmakers have an offshore operation as well. (Note that Betfair does actually make some kind of annual voluntary contribution to the Levy).

From 2014 the offshore argument will become moot, as the Levy tax will be on the place of consumption ... not the place where the computers are based.

I don't see any problems with this in California. Betfair is going to have pay take-out in some shape or form, just like anyone else.

[Fager Fan]

It would be prudent to also consider that Betfair is capable of getting the racing product into a zillion (or whatever the number is) homes and mobile digital devices.

That is something those paying "fair share" via the traditional structure have been unwilling/unable to do since the dawn of the Internet.

This high-scale exposure for the product might be something something betting exchanges bring to the table in lieu of paying higher rates.

Racing could set up its own Betfair and then be in a zillion homes and mobile devices -- while putting back all the profits into racing.

Betfair has made a fortune off the racing industry in Europe. That's money that could've and should've gone back into racing, money that didn't fund purses and go back to the owners and then everyone else who works in racing.

Now Betfair wants to increase its fortune off the U.S. racing industry. If we let them in the door, they'll be the final nail in the coffin.

[Fager Fan]

They will from 2014 onwards.

In the UK, the money that goes into racing is kind of like a tax on bookmakers, and is called the Levy.

The crux of the matter is that online gambling operators are not required to pay into the Levy when they are off-shore. Betfair have chosen to do this, but most of the other traditional bookmakers have an offshore operation as well. (Note that Betfair does actually make some kind of annual voluntary contribution to the Levy).

From 2014 the offshore argument will become moot, as the Levy tax will be on the place of consumption ... not the place where the computers are based.

I don't see any problems with this in California. Betfair is going to have pay take-out in some shape or form, just like anyone else.

The UK system works so well. You taken a look at their purses lately?

[gm10]

The UK system works so well. You taken a look at their purses lately?

No it doesn't work so well. Read again.

[usedtolovetvg]

It would probably be best to look at Betfair corporately, as well. The company has been in turmoil for quite some time; at least since they went public. The reality is it is unlikely exchange wagering will be implemented anytime soon, Uncle Frank has said he will not allow EB on Santa Anita. Look for Stephen Burn to get canned for his inability to get the job done and major restructuring of Betfair USA.

[gm10]

It would probably be best to look at Betfair corporately, as well. The company has been in turmoil for quite some time; at least since they went public. The reality is it is unlikely exchange wagering will be implemented anytime soon, Uncle Frank has said he will not allow EB on Santa Anita. Look for Stephen Burn to get canned for his inability to get the job done and major restructuring of Betfair USA.

Saying that Betfair is in "turmoil" is excessive. Shares have been a disappointment, and the company faces some challenges, but they also reported record profits last time.

[usedtolovetvg]

The CEO, Chairman & Australia CEO all announced they were leaving within a few months of each other. They have lost many of their top technical people. There was that Leopardstown fiasco. Look for Stephen Burn to be canned when Breon Corcoran takes over as CEO in August. I would say turmoil was being kind.

[classhandicapper]

Exchange wagering is the greatest thing that ever happened to racing.

Working out the details of a model that's fair to the tracks and where the exchange can remain profitable enough to justify the investment will remove one of the impediments to a resurgence in racing. The game will be perceived as MUCH MORE beatable (and it will be) and attract tons of money from other forms of gambling.

[gm10]

The CEO, Chairman & Australia CEO all announced they were leaving within a few months of each other. They have lost many of their top technical people. There was that Leopardstown fiasco. Look for Stephen Burn to be canned when Breon Corcoran takes over as CEO in August. I would say turmoil was being kind.
Would it be fair to say that you are not a fan of Stephen Burn?

[usedtolovetvg]

Would it be fair to say that you are not a fan of Stephen Burn?

Message boards are too often used by people to vent personal frustrations. I choose to examine what has been accomplished by the individual in charge. Under Burn's tenure, if you take a look at what he has done, you will see, so far, it has been an abject failure. Betfair has alienated the major players in the industry in the U.S. They have lost market share at an alarming rate. The much ballyhooed roll out of Exchange Wagering has not happened as promised. The television side is still hemorrhaging $$$. They have gone from showing all the top tracks to featuring Turfway, Woodbine & Los Al. The major player relationships that they have maintained, Keeneland and Del Mar are not enough to sustain them throughout the entire year. Show me the improvement. I can be convinced. Of course, if they get EB up and going, all of that changes. Until then, I see no value under his guidance. I am ambivalent to him and Betfair.

[Rutgers]

Exchange wagering is the greatest thing that ever happened to racing.

Working out the details of a model that's fair to the tracks and where the exchange can remain profitable enough to justify the investment will remove one of the impediments to a resurgence in racing. The game will be perceived as MUCH MORE beatable (and it will be) and attract tons of money from other forms of gambling.

Pari-mutual wagering and the Great Depression are the greatest things that ever happened to horse racing.

Exchange wagering is just fixed odds wagering where the bookmaker is guaranteed a balance book. It is hardly revolutionary. Pari-mutual wagering replaced fixed odds wagering because it is actually a better system of wagering for all…government, horsemen, tracks and players.

The best thing horse racing can do wagering-wise is to ban rebates, and make pari-mutual wagering actually pari-mutual wagering.

If exchange wagering is to come to fruition in the US, in order to actually benefit horse racing, the commission rates would need to be in line with the takeout rates on straight wagers. And the tracks would have to run the exchanges themselves, and not a third party as too much money will be loss to the “middle-man”.

The game will not be more beatable with exchange wagering. I do not want to offend anybody but, non-winning players are non-winning players because they are not very good horseplayers. Changing the wagering system or lowering the takeout does not make them better players. Lowering the takeout (or commission) just means the winning horseplayers will win more.

[David-LV]

Think having a 20 horse mutual field in this Saturday's National is going to be a draw for players?

Not really???????

To many big races in the US this Saturday to worry about a race that you only get inferior PP's to try to handicap with.

_______
David-LV

[DeanT]

Exchange wagering is just fixed odds wagering where the bookmaker is guaranteed a balance book. It is hardly revolutionary.

"just fixed odds wagering"?

Huh?

How does a dude who never bet a horse race before go from a computer salesman to a full time racing bettor if it's "just fixed odds wagering"? Fixed odds wagering has been around since 1750 and no one has ever traded a quarter billion doing it before exchanges came about.

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/channel_man_turns_over_quarter_billion_on_betfair/

[davew]

they have mostly different bets and different pools

they should be able to figure out how both could thrive

[DeanT]

they have mostly different bets and different pools

they should be able to figure out how both could thrive

Exactly! That's why this is old time racing at its best: It protects the shrinking pie.

Unfortunately, even when it works the old time forces try and stop it. In Australia there were dire predictions by old time racing in 2008 when it came in - job losses, lost handle, pirates, etc.

What happened? In 2010, record pools in the tote (the thing everyone said would be "decimated"). As well, they had record purses.

Good news?!

No. The old time racing will to protect slices and squeeze long suffering customers for as much as possible ruled. They took the bookies to court and won more of a share. So takeout goes up starting this year, choice for customers goes back down..... and of course handle will go down, and purses will go down. They'll be back in five years wondering what went wrong.

Horse racing is messed up. It's run by some people who don't even know a good thing when it hits them in the forehead. They all want to act like it's 1930, the internet hasnt been invented and we're going to the racetrack to gamble because there's nowhere else to.

[thaskalos]

Horse racing is messed up. It's run by some people who don't even know a good thing when it hits them in the forehead. They all want to act like it's 1930, the internet hasnt been invented and we're going to the racetrack to gamble because there's nowhere else to.
The only way to resurrect a failing business is through capable leadership...with penetrating vision and innovative ideas.

Our sport is run by idiots.

They were told that the game has to become more "affordable" to the betting public, in order to better compete with the other forms of gambling out there...so what did our "leaders" do?

They installed $1 exactas, and 50-cent trifectas...which is analogous to a grocery store -- when told that their apples are too high -- reducing their prices from 98 cents a pound, to 49 cents a half-pound.

[Canarsie]

The CEO, Chairman & Australia CEO all announced they were leaving within a few months of each other. They have lost many of their top technical people. There was that Leopardstown fiasco. Look for Stephen Burn to be canned when Breon Corcoran takes over as CEO in August. I would say turmoil was being kind.

That's a pretty bold statement that I can't comment on because of the lack of the inner workings of Betfair.

Let me ask this since you know the company far better than me. If they are going to replace him who would be able to pick up where he left off in the connection stage of TVG? Someone can't possibly come in and be trusted there will have to be a fairly long period of being felt out before any deals are struck.


My two cents.

[Canarsie]

The only way to resurrect a failing business is through capable leadership...with penetrating vision and innovative ideas.

Our sport is run by idiots.

They were told that the game has to become more "affordable" to the betting public, in order to better compete with the other forms of gambling out there...so what did our "leaders" do?

They installed $1 exactas, and 50-cent trifectas...which is analogous to a grocery store -- when told that their apples are too high -- reducing their prices from 98 cents a pound, to 49 cents a half-pound.

Going to disagree here a little bit. The smaller wagering options even gives large players to fly under the radar with under $600 payouts. I think it was a year ago that an executive in Keeneland stated that was the major reason they instituted it because of player demand due to that issue.

Surely if you were at the track and had bombers in two spots in a tri or super one would have to be insane not to punch a fifty cent ticket as many times to equal their original wager. Same holds true for the dime just keep hitting repeat.

[thaskalos]

Going to disagree here a little bit. The smaller wagering options even gives large players to fly under the radar with under $600 payouts. I think it was a year ago that an executive in Keeneland stated that was the major reason they instituted it because of player demand due to that issue.

Surely if you were at the track and had bombers in two spots in a tri or super one would have to be insane not to punch a fifty cent ticket as many times to equal their original wager. Same holds true for the dime just keep hitting repeat.
My turn to disagree...

The taxation argument holds water when applied to the longer exotics -- like the superfecta and the pick-4 -- but falls on its face when we turn our attention to the $1 exactas and daily doubles.

IMO...its a blatant attempt to distort the reality of the sport.

Like the insidious practice of announcing that the superfecta payoff is $130,000 for $2...when there is only $15,000 in the entire superfecta pool.

[Al Gobbi]

Under Burn's tenure, if you take a look at what he has done, you will see, so far, it has been an abject failure. Betfair has alienated the major players in the industry in the U.S. They have lost market share at an alarming rate. The much ballyhooed roll out of Exchange Wagering has not happened as promised. The television side is still hemorrhaging $$$. They have gone from showing all the top tracks to featuring Turfway, Woodbine & Los Al. The major player relationships that they have maintained, Keeneland and Del Mar are not enough to sustain them throughout the entire year.

There hasn't been any improvement at all. The quality (talent wise) of the broadcasts have gotten worse and they don't even have the top tracks around anymore. Even HRTV has a better selection of tracks in spring summer (CD, AP, CRC) than TVG does (MTH, WO, HOL). And they show very little harness racing now, in fact they refuse to broadcast it (along with Mountaineer) on Sundays when Los Al is running.

[Some_One]

Not really???????

To many big races in the US this Saturday to worry about a race that you only get inferior PP's to try to handicap with.

_______
David-LV

Yet over 150 US$ Million will be wagered on the National alone in GB on Saturday, how much do you think will be wagered on all North American tracks Saturday?

[usedtolovetvg]

That's a pretty bold statement that I can't comment on because of the lack of the inner workings of Betfair.

Let me ask this since you know the company far better than me. If they are going to replace him who would be able to pick up where he left off in the connection stage of TVG? Someone can't possibly come in and be trusted there will have to be a fairly long period of being felt out before any deals are struck.


My two cents.

First of all, I agree with you in regards to making the bets more affordable to the general public. I will go into my theories on why it is still a difficult proposition if you like. But, I don't believe the cost of the bet is one of them.

As to your other point, to see my way of thinking you have to understand the psyche of the Board of a publicly traded company as opposed to that of a private one. The only thing that is important to a public company is the stock price. Boards of public companies are much less patient and forgiving of lack of action. Burn has also been with Betfair for a long time and his affiliation with the previous CEO and Chairman is undeniable. His mandate, as I understand it, was to successfully launch Exchange Wagering in the U.S. That has not happened. Further, if you read the transcripts of the recent CHRB meeting, there appears to be some animosity between Betfair (Burn) and others present. Santa Anita stated they will not allow EB at their track. Given the fact that Burn has to be inexorably tied to the old regime and he has not accomplished in over 2 years what he was specifically sent here to do, I don't belief the company or new executives will be either patient or forgiving. I believe if things don't change and rapidly, he will be replaced with someone who can create a more harmonious relationship with all parties involved. Just who that would be, I have no idea. Just my .023 cents (adjusted for inflation).

Btw, Betfair stock was down another 31 points today and is sitting at about 5/8's of its IPO price.

[gm10]

Not really???????

To many big races in the US this Saturday to worry about a race that you only get inferior PP's to try to handicap with.

_______
David-LV

I don't know anybody who seriously studies the Grand National PP's. There's really no point imo. There are 40 runners and there is a lot of luck involved.

[davew]

Yet over 150 US$ Million will be wagered on the National alone in GB on Saturday, how much do you think will be wagered on all North American tracks Saturday?

Betfair matched bets does not equate to what americans consider 'wagered' when there are 'scalpers' in the market who may have a million matched on both sides of the same horse a few ticks apart.

[Some_One]

Betfair matched bets does not equate to what americans consider 'wagered' when there are 'scalpers' in the market who may have a million matched on both sides of the same horse a few ticks apart.

My figure wasn't just about BF, it was all of GB, including traditional bookies.

[Greybase]

The best thing horse racing can do wagering-wise is to ban rebates, and make pari-mutual wagering actually pari-mutual wagering...

The game will not be more beatable with exchange wagering. I do not want to offend anybody but, non-winning players are non-winning players because they are not very good horseplayers. Changing the wagering system or lowering the takeout does not make them better players. Lowering the takeout (or commission) just means the winning horseplayers will win more.Wow. Fundamental misunderstanding of racing in 2012... For starters the "Rebate Debate" is over; that horse is out of the barn. Despite a few owners who still don't want to share their game with players, Tracks realize that "banning" rebates (IF that was even do-able or feasible?) would only result in plunging handles and a huge bonus for offshore Books.

Players are not simply winners and losers. Lots of guys are right "there" and struggle around the break-even mark even WITH rewards. Offering more wagering options, and more overlays, benefits who? The player. How can you state that winning players will win MORE, with lower takeout - but a losing player won't lose LESS? By the same token a borderline player goes from red to black. A basic math class at Rutgers... :p

Horse racing is messed up. It's run by some people who don't even know a good thing when it hits them in the forehead. They all want to act like it's 1930, the internet hasnt been invented and we're going to the racetrack to gamble because there's nowhere else to.Right. What's the old saying: Can't learn from the past = Condemned to repeat it? The epic failure when racing missed Cable TV's boat in the early 80s, was followed by frenzied attempts to catch up by forming NTRA and cutting TV deals. Now 20 years after Indian Casinos got rolling in the 90s and then the Internet, racetrack execs still can't understand they've lost their exclusive franchise. Agree with what Dean and Thaskalos said...

In fact most new positive developments in racing, from the players standpoint have been initiated from outside the industry. From Beyer figures in DRF, to the ADW wagering interface at PTC... crazy thing is, USA tracks hired paid consultants who told them 20 years ago "Lower Takeout". They ignored their own advice until forced by competition and the Internet! :cool:

[Canarsie]

My turn to disagree...

The taxation argument holds water when applied to the longer exotics -- like the superfecta and the pick-4 -- but falls on its face when we turn our attention to the $1 exactas and daily doubles.

IMO...its a blatant attempt to distort the reality of the sport.

Like the insidious practice of announcing that the superfecta payoff is $130,000 for $2...when there is only $15,000 in the entire superfecta pool.


I think we can split my argument down the middle. We will agree on exactas and doubles but have differing points of view on the trifecta. One would have to be insane not to use the smallest wager available if they have a 15/1 shot or higher on the top end of a ticket. Was kind of shocked when the Keeneland guy stated that wish I remembered his name.

I'm pretty sure you stated that one year when the IRS called you in about taxed winning wagers someone said you need detailed records and even comments to use them as deductions. If I'm wrong my apologies but is it worth the aggravation if it can be avoided at all costs?

Agree 100% of the super and even P4 payouts shown. My friend took down the entire P4 at Laurel a while back and cashed for 14k. The board said 28k and he had the only winning ticket. Tracks even can't get together and agree how to post payouts in a specific denomination. I think it should be posted first in the smallest amount you can wager first.

[classhandicapper]

Pari-mutual wagering and the Great Depression are the greatest things that ever happened to horse racing.

Exchange wagering is just fixed odds wagering where the bookmaker is guaranteed a balance book. It is hardly revolutionary. Pari-mutual wagering replaced fixed odds wagering because it is actually a better system of wagering for all…government, horsemen, tracks and players.

The best thing horse racing can do wagering-wise is to ban rebates, and make pari-mutual wagering actually pari-mutual wagering.


I rarely disagree with almost everything someone says, but I do here.

1. There are no bookmakers available in the US that will allow you to lock in your price before post time. That's a huge advantage over pari-mutual wagering, especially at smaller tracks where odds are more volatile.

2. Exchange wagering allows YOU to become the bookmaker when you have a negative opinion about a horse but no positive opinion on anyone else in the race. That's HUGE because it opens more betting opportunities. It also increases the stability of you bankroll if you limit your potential loss on any race to the amount you typically bet to win anyway. You win more bets booking than you lose which kind of offsets the losing streaks on lower probability win bets.

3. For several years I played almost exclusively on an exchange. My results were much better than they would have been with a 7% rebate on win bets (I had that option at the time), let alone into the regular pools. I recently even devised a method that IMO will allow me to beat the game without any handicapping at all as long as I have access to an exchange. I tested it with $2 bets for awhile and was winning when I stopped due to crackdowns by the DOJ on offshore money. It's WAY easier to win on exchanges because the prices are sometimes higher.

4. If you are good at predicting the final odds, you can sometimes get on both sides of the same horse as the odds change. That allows you to lock in a profit no matter what the outcome. There is no way to do something like that with bookmakers or pari-mutal wagering. I was able to do that successfully from time to time.

If you want to argue it will be tough to build a business model using exchanges that is beneficial to the tracks, I can buy that because I understand the potential problems. But there's no way anyone can say exchanges aren't better for horse players. That's a preposterous assertion. I have the profits to prove it and experienced the joy of greater flexibility.

[Canarsie]

First of all, I agree with you in regards to making the bets more affordable to the general public. I will go into my theories on why it is still a difficult proposition if you like. But, I don't believe the cost of the bet is one of them.

As to your other point, to see my way of thinking you have to understand the psyche of the Board of a publicly traded company as opposed to that of a private one. The only thing that is important to a public company is the stock price. Boards of public companies are much less patient and forgiving of lack of action. Burn has also been with Betfair for a long time and his affiliation with the previous CEO and Chairman is undeniable. His mandate, as I understand it, was to successfully launch Exchange Wagering in the U.S. That has not happened. Further, if you read the transcripts of the recent CHRB meeting, there appears to be some animosity between Betfair (Burn) and others present. Santa Anita stated they will not allow EB at their track. Given the fact that Burn has to be inexorably tied to the old regime and he has not accomplished in over 2 years what he was specifically sent here to do, I don't belief the company or new executives will be either patient or forgiving. I believe if things don't change and rapidly, he will be replaced with someone who can create a more harmonious relationship with all parties involved. Just who that would be, I have no idea. Just my .023 cents (adjusted for inflation).

Btw, Betfair stock was down another 31 points today and is sitting at about 5/8's of its IPO price.

I have no idea how the corporate side of Betfair works your knowledge would be far superior to mine. But it would seem to me when a new executive team takes over they do studies and evaluations which take some time. Then the heads start rolling or people start resigning.

My bigger question is how in the world does the Executive Vice President survive all forms of different ownership. To my knowlege TVG has never shown a profit wouldn't the ax fall on him first and try to bring new blood to that position? While just my opinion wouldn't they take a long hard look at the model they are using and paying all those salaries? Maybe I'm naive but the money saved just using house feeds with their hosts would contribute more to the bottom line. As an example they could just put on the selection part with reasoning from each track. Then again I'm an "idiot" what do I know.

Its no secret that Stronach and CDI have corporate disdain towards Betfair for quite some time. One would have to be insane to think they would allow EW.

[usedtolovetvg]

My bigger question is how in the world does the Executive Vice President survive all forms of different ownership. To my knowlege TVG has never shown a profit wouldn't the ax fall on him first and try to bring new blood to that position?

Honestly, that is the Million $ ? It absolutely baffles the mind. The stories I could tell would not be believed.

[Al Gobbi]

Does anyone here know why Charles Town and Penn National were dropped from the TVG lineup on Wednesday and Thursday?

[Al Gobbi]

Just saw on twitter that TVG bailed on Woodbine coverage today after the 5th race, and are only showing partial cards from Woodbine and Aqueduct Saturday and Sunday, respectfully.

Is this something that is going to get worse when Hollywood opens up?

One thing that is good about HRTV is that you know 2-3 weeks in advance what will be shown for live racing barring last minute changes, TVG doesn't until 24 hours to date.

[DeanT]

In fact most new positive developments in racing, from the players standpoint have been initiated from outside the industry. From Beyer figures in DRF, to the ADW wagering interface at PTC... crazy thing is, USA tracks hired paid consultants who told them 20 years ago "Lower Takeout". They ignored their own advice until forced by competition and the Internet! :cool:

Very, very true. Others innovate, racing tries to block it, then when it makes sense they try and do it themselves. It's what rudderless ships do.

[edmond1]

It has little to do with Betfair. TVG in the early days was the only Horse Racing TV Station so, if the tracks wanted television exposure, they had to be on TVG. The tracks saw that TVG was becoming a powerful brand and a lot of people were betting through TVG. As internet wagering started to expand, the tracks found that people were still betting through TVG because they were the biggest and most recognized. HRTV was created and television broadcasts of certain tracks were restricted. HRTV has nowhere near the market penetration of TVG but by limiting the tracks on TVG, both Twinspires and Xpressbet were hoping to swing the wagering $$$ to their platforms. Remember, it is all about what is good for business and who cares about the fans. This is a perfect Marketing 101 Lesson. The strength of the brand and the superior market penetration put TVG way ahead of its competitors. Regardless of who owns TVG, CDI and Uncle Frank will never let TVG distribute their signal again through the tube, unless they got an enormous piece of TVG's action.

You misunderstand what I am saying ..... I mean that Betfair can go back and offer whatever tracks they want on their exchange if they no longer had any connections with TVG. Before they bought TVG I don't think they had any restrictions ???

[usedtolovetvg]

You misunderstand what I am saying ..... I mean that Betfair can go back and offer whatever tracks they want on their exchange if they no longer had any connections with TVG. Before they bought TVG I don't think they had any restrictions ???

I suppose so. They would then just be another offshore operation pirating the U.S. racing signal. As has already been stated, it ain't worth much in terms of the European Exchange.

[Canarsie]

This is a way off base comment but what the heck. I get tweets from @tvsportsratings and whatever is being shown now on NBCSC averages around 15k viewers at best except for live sports. They are trying to get away from all the fishing and hunting stuff. One would think they could run a series about horse racing and handicapping with real talent that most people on here would watch. Heck the night school chats get 8k and over that beats some of the shows televised now. Even MLB Network averaged 26k in January-February that's really poor.

Think about have Andy Serling and others on for a whole hour dedicated to how they handicap and things they look for. The cost would be minimal and just might bring a new base into the game. They would probably get much better advertisers even in the racing industry. Its a high def channel that would be a plus in getting new people to watch.

Food for thought even though its not going to happen.

[usedtolovetvg]

Recently, saw a report on CNBC that ratings are down all across the board both broadcast networks and cable. The much coveted demographic, the 18 - 34 year-olds are spending more time online than watching conventional TV. Much like the movie industry when radio started in the 30s and then radio when TV started in the 50s, now TV chooses to hope the next media fad, in this case, the Internet will just go away. The next big development will be the roll out of Apple TV which probably will incorporate both conventional TV and the web. As for shows, it's pay for play. I'm sure they would air a horse racing show if someone came up with the dough.

I am interested in knowing what the hockey ratings on NBCSP if you had those?

[Al Gobbi]

I am interested in knowing what the hockey ratings on NBCSP if you had those?

Average 300k for exclusive games, 125k for non-exclusive (B/O)

[Canarsie]

I am interested in knowing what the hockey ratings on NBCSP if you had those?

The most watched NHL game yesterday (PHI/PIT) had 844k viewers on NBCS. Ranked 242nd on ad-supported cable.

[Al Gobbi]

I agree with usedtolovetvg that I will be surprised if they are not heads rolling at Betfair USA by the end of the summer, especially if EW does not pass by then. The new guys that would take over are probably going to look at the current structure to see if they can trim any losses, and if so would not be shocked to see a sale of TVG - the network.

If they do keep the network, they could also trim either employees, production or broadcast time.

[usedtolovetvg]

What has been amazing to me is how far and how fast TVG has fallen from grace. A concept that started out with such promise has fizzled and alienated an industry that was solidly behind them. How in the world no one in the media has taken a long hard look at the Rise and Fall of TVG is beyond me; maybe all those ads and appearances on The Round Table have something to do with it. As for selling the station, who would want to buy a channel that has been losing money for more than a decade. The only value, perhaps, was the ADW, but I guess even that would have to be questioned as tracks and market share fall by the wayside. Canarsie you nailed it.

[Canarsie]

Thanks but only time will tell if I'm right or wrong. Just like to break things down and take a deeper look.

When I spoke to Stephen Burn he was really shocked when told that Rich Perloff was the most respected employee on his network. It was actually one of the reasons I liked him because his actual comment was "really I didn't know that". He could have just left it as dead air and I would have taken the cue to move on to the next question. The only reason I'm saying this is they don't have a clue who their most valuable assets are within the wagering (mainly here) community. As CJ said after bringing something up that he said "he's one of us". He actually commented on it having read it here. While not 100% positive I think that he admitted he was wrong.

I thought it was funny yesterday that TVG was advertising on CNBC considering they were showing both races live. Their commercial was really lame compared to Expressbet. Kudos to their ad agency that was targeted for a younger crowd and just might bring in a few new fans. It was comparable to an Ipod and 8 track such a profound difference.

Having said all of this I'm as confused as ever recently reading this. If they were closing up shop or reducing broadcast hours wouldn't they have someone in house take over? Do you have any idea what the approximate salary might be for this position?

Director, Broadcast Operations
TVG Network - Greater Los Angeles Area

http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=2834371&trk=jobs_vj_bmap&goback=.vjn_2825828_false


One more question from me if you have an answer. Who pays the freight when TVG employees head east to Keeneland, Woodbine, and wherever.

[usedtolovetvg]

First of all, I was never impressed when speaking with Stephen Burn. He reminded me of a Rick Perry type, looked good but lacking in... To demonstrate my point, wouldn't you think that he would be, at least, a bit familiar with those who were on air and general public perception about them. The commentators are the face and voice of his company. I was surprised how little he knew or seemed to care about those working for him, if what he said was true.
The Director of Broadcast Operations would be the technical equivalent of the Vice President you are so found of. It is a really important job. He controls all technical aspects of the TV side. Employment law states that all jobs must be advertised. So even though a company may want to hire and promote within, they still have to post the job, sometimes as obscurely as possible. I would guess and it would only be a guess that the range would be low to mid 100k.
Knowing people like our beloved Mr. Burn, I do not believe he would ever think the ax is about to fall, so it will be business as usual; very apropos on this the 100th anniversary of the Sinking of the Titanic.
The deals TVG has with all their exclusive tracks are layered quite deep. Just who pays the freight depends on the deal. It could be the track, TVG, a sponsor or a combination.
Just my .023 cents

[Canarsie]

First of all, I was never impressed when speaking with Stephen Burn. He reminded me of a Rick Perry type, looked good but lacking in... To demonstrate my point, wouldn't you think that he would be, at least, a bit familiar with those who were on air and general public perception about them. The commentators are the face and voice of his company. I was surprised how little he knew or seemed to care about those working for him, if what he said was true.
The Director of Broadcast Operations would be the technical equivalent of the Vice President you are so found of. It is a really important job. He controls all technical aspects of the TV side. Employment law states that all jobs must be advertised. So even though a company may want to hire and promote within, they still have to post the job, sometimes as obscurely as possible. I would guess and it would only be a guess that the range would be low to mid 100k.
Knowing people like our beloved Mr. Burn, I do not believe he would ever think the ax is about to fall, so it will be business as usual; very apropos on this the 100th anniversary of the Sinking of the Titanic.
The deals TVG has with all their exclusive tracks are layered quite deep. Just who pays the freight depends on the deal. It could be the track, TVG, a sponsor or a combination.
Just my .023 cents


I wasn't commenting on his business acumen just that he was a good guy to talk to. My litmus test is can I sit at a bar or a track with a person for at least 4 hours and have a good time. At least to me he received a high grade only a fool would believe that makes him a good businessman.

My litmus test has been proven time and time again just on this site with all the people meeting who didn't know each other. On the other hand you can bet most trolls will never want to meet someone from the net they might be exposed.

[usedtolovetvg]

There is no denying he seems like a good guy. I have met very few I have not had a great time at the track with.

[Al Gobbi]

TVG is only showing Yonkers tomorrow from 7:45-10:30pm and Evangeline Wednesday from 8:00-11:00pm, guess they don't want to pick up anything else.