E-Horse on the Magna Dispute..( a mouse roars )?

[Suff]

In my e-mail box tonight.



December 30, 2003

Horseplayer,

I would like to thank you for your patronage in 2003 and are looking forward to an even bigger 2004. I would like to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about eHorse and make some comments about racing as a whole from my perspective. One of the biggest reasons that eHorse made the decision to “book” horse wagers rather than to go into the pari-mutuel pools is that we didn't want to be subject to the whimsy of racetrack ownership/ management and escalating simulcast fees. The following DRF article concerning Magna's decision to discontinue offering the 14 Magna racetracks to all other U.S. based wagering services (including America TAB, TVG, phonebet.com, oneclickbetting.com, and Youbet) is a good example of this. If you have a TVG account, you can no longer bet Santa Anita or any other Magna tracks. Amazing! The proliferation of gambling options has never been greater and the racetracks have simply fallen behind. How can this wounded industry continue to shoot itself in the foot? In a time when it behooves racetrack management to bond together, the track ownership seems hell bent on fracturing the industry to the point that unification and collaboration between tracks seem impossible for years to come. The tracks are so interested in maintaining their exorbitant takeout percentages, that they are blind to the erosion of their overall handle. Meanwhile, eHorse will continue to offer our players the best value in horseracing. And yes, you can continue to play Magna tracks with eHorse for the foreseeable future. I started this letter looking forward to a prosperous 2004, I am sure my U.S. based counterparts cannot say the same.

Sincerely,

Thom Greenwood
Racing Manager
www. eHorse.com

[Hosshead]

I wonder how big of a dent we could make if everyone on this board refused to bet any Magna tracks? How much would it add up to, say per month. Could it/would it matter? Or are we just another fly under the steamroller?

[JustRalph]

I got the same email. It made me wonder about why nobody has formed a "horseplayers union" I am not sure I appreciate E-horse taking advantage of the situation by reminding us that they can take our money without any problems. considering from what I read they give very little back to the industry.

If all the players (or a large majority of players) formed a union and worked together they could shut down certain tracks or at least influence them. think about Santa Anita running two days worth of races where the handle is less than 50k or so. It would get some serious attention. Better still.........no handle or very little action at all. The 3rd days card would be canceled and there would be some high level meetings. Then after a while whomever was in charge of the union would have to form a lobbying group and then of course they would become targets of the extra lead floating around in someones gun. You would have an assasination of the union leader in 3 months or less.

It's all a pipe dream anyway. You can't get 10 horse players to agree on anything, let alone a majority of them to decide what tracks to boycott.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm not betting Magna, although admittedly I never really have. As long as Xpressbet continues to offer non-Magna tracks, without changing their policy, it will mostly stay that way for me. (TDN is dark, and LRL/PIM is the only one that I have some interest in). My Xpressbet/CallABet(YouBet) account has a whole 5 cents in it. I can consider funding it again when things change for the better, and then find a race of theirs that I absolutely want to bet. Glad I'm not interested in SA, GG or GP, or live in MD. That would make the decision a lot tougher.

[Tom]

Even if 1,000 of us boycotted MEC and Xpressbet, one whale would make us invisible. Now, if most non-MEC tracks were to withhold their signal from Magna, it might make a difference.

[BillW]

Originally posted by Tom
Even if 1,000 of us boycotted MEC and Xpressbet, one whale would make us invisible. Now, if most non-MEC tracks were to withhold their signal from Magna, it might make a difference.

What is the status of the tracks? Is Frankie witholding signal from client tracks also?
A side note, I see that TVG is still carrying Laurel video??? I assume they are handling wagers also.


Bill

[rrbauer]

Coming soon:

www.boycottmagna.com


will be up and running middle of next week

[JimG]

Originally posted by Hosshead
I wonder how big of a dent we could make if everyone on this board refused to bet any Magna tracks? How much would it add up to, say per month. Could it/would it matter? Or are we just another fly under the steamroller?

A fly under the steamroller. Most big players are not on chat boards.

[Buddha]

I would like to be able to watch and bet some GP and SA, but am unable, unless I drive an hour to an OTB near Pittsburgh or go to Wheeling, which is close to another hour. I use WatchandWager, and without MEC allowing online sites to have their signal, I don't get to watch it. I will not open an xpressbet account, which is what Frank wants us to do, and right now can't go to Mountaineer to bet because of what is going on over there.

Right now I am just kinda stuck because of Stronach's greed and arrogance.

[Suff]

I went into my e-horse x account today... I had 6 bucks left in there and More importantly I wanted to see if the Inability of TVG and America TAb to carry MAGNA affected thier handle..

You can't tell what type of action they might of done in the Main pools... Because they only list the ONTRACK pools... If the e-horse bettors have bet a horse to 5/2 that is 7/2 on track.. You don't know... (does'nt matter because they pay ON track prices) But it is a Valid point of information.... Because they claim they don't commingle... e-horses actual handle is a lil bit tougher to get...maybe impossible..

But with that said I did not see any significant handle in the betting xchange that leads me to believe they had any spill over if in fact thier handle was up.. due to the dispute..

I would imagine Pinnacles handle is top secret as well..

But I am very curious where the money trail is going.. away or to..

[JimG]

I'm surprised Magna did not do this sooner. Most people that bet Gulfstream from home and can...will open an account with Xpressbet. If you cannot, I guess offshore is an option. If you refuse, then that's your choice.

Frankly (no pun intended), I could care less which American racing online service I use, as long as it is dependable. I am more concerned with the tracks I bet than who owns them or what online service carries them. If I am confident that I can win at Gulfstream, that is the bottom line with me.

[Pace Cap'n]

Just to keep things in perspective, the inability to bet on MEC tracks is not nearly so bad as not being able to bet on ANY tracks.

Living in a state that prohibits phone or internet wagering of any kind is so 20th-Century. Moving here six months back from a state that had an Indian casino with an OTB on every other milemarker, and allowed online wagering as long as it was out-of-state, has caused a forlorn feeling not experienced since losing a baseball in my formative years.

Sometimes I pull up my TSNbet account and gaze longingly at my $1.00 balance begging for replenisment. Probably not in this lifetime, in this state. Might take a dollar or two away from the Harrah's and Stations if they were to allow that. Hell, I'd be happy to wager on Assiniboia Downs.

I do sympathize with everyone on the Magna situation, however. Why a business would restrict the availability of its product is beyond me. Must be some sort of voodoo marketing strategy.

Pace Cap'n Steve
Who wants to make a bet, any bet, without getting off his butt.

[linrom1]

I am not a big fan of a Magna because of their seemingly confusing and contradictory positions on the future of racing at the properties that they’ve acquired. However, I do support their decision to withhold GP signal from whomever they chose. They have a right to sell it at a fair price, and 3% is not enough. Signal re-sellers must be willing to pay a fair price and assume responsibility for the current situation, which they’ve largely exploited to their advantage.

To put it another way, guys running outfits like E-Horse end up driving Rolls-Royces with homes in St. Barts, while GP can’t afford to have horse manure hauled away on a weekly basis.

[Larry Hamilton]

That's not exactly correctly stated. They (Magma) have a right to sell their signal at any of their tracks at ANY price. It is up to the customer, the signal buyers, to decide what is fair. Thus far, the customer says it is too much. When what is fair is lower than what Magma will accept, the horse manure will pile up.

The odd thing about all this is that the ultimate customer, the gamblers (us), have yet to be asked what we will accept as fair. Would you pay 4.99 a month to watch Santa Anita. Frankly, I wouldn't. It's a nice looking track--so what, I am there to risk money. Ok, what would I accept. Nothing, there are so many free gambling facilities, why should I. Do I have to pay the pit boss watching over the slots for the privildege of playing his slots? Paying for the service of gambling seems like adding insult to injury.

As to E-Horse and cadillacs. EHorse and other off shore facilities exists because the services we expect for risking our money don't exists in the US. It is the dynamic truth of economics. If you dont provide me with what I expect I will go elsewhere. It does little good to moan about that. This latest move by Magma only makes the situation better for off shore facilities. But, if blame must be assigned, blame the guy removing the service, not the guy providing it.

[Niko]

Is Magna paying more for their signals from other tracks or are they trying get the most out of both sides??
I understand their position but as a customer I don't like to be inconvenianced or stuck in the middle of a battle.
I try not to go to the off-shore accounts because I think the tracks need to be supported, but boy do they make it difficult to support them sometimes. What would happen with free PP's and a reduced take? If it wasn't for simulcasting I'd be betting 1/10th of what I do now and I think a lot of people on this board would say the same. Take your 20-28% of every dollar I bet...that's my admission!

[BillW]

Niko,

According to an article in TB Times:

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=41037&subsec=1

they are going at it from both ends. (See 4th paragraph). I'm sure they aren't the only ones, but like you said, not good business that customers get caught in the middle.

Bill

[trying2win]

Larry,

--I had to agree with your quote listed below:

"If you dont provide me with what I expect I will go elsewhere. It does little good to moan about that. This latest move by Magma only makes the situation better for off shore facilities. But, if blame must be assigned, blame the guy removing the service, not the guy providing it."

--The first sentence in your paragraph above mirrors the point the late, Earl Nightingale used to stress about customer service. According to a recent news release, allegedly Magna lost money on it's horse racing operations over a certain quarter of 2003. So, from that perspective I can understand Magna needing to change some things to get back to profitability. I just think they're going about it in the wrong way, as are many other racetracks in North America.

--Too many racetracks are short-sighted in trying to fix their financial problems. Many of them think the solution to increase their bottom line, is to increase things like the track takeout, concession, parking, admission , or live video fees. These unenlightened racetracks should heed another piece of wise advice from Earl Nightingale:

"IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE YOUR REWARDS, INCREASE YOUR CUSTOMER SERVICE."

(Del Mar is a good example of an enlightened racetrack, in my view. Does anyone know of any other ones in your opinion?)

--I can see one thing from a racetrack's point-of-view though. It's to do with offshore racebooks. I've read articles stating that these racebooks pay racetracks for some of the information provided by them. Then I've read other articles stating the racebooks are basically freeloaders and don't pay racetracks anything for their info. So, who's telling the truth? If racebooks aren't paying U.S. or Canadian racetracks for any info, they certainly could afford to do so. It would add to a racetrack's bottom line, plus give the racebook's customers more services like a greater selection of live video, for instance.

--Aren't the better agreements and decisions in the racetrack business, found in the WIN-WIN situations for provider and customer, and not the WIN-LOSE scenarios?

Trying2win

[rrbauer]

In the late 80's and early 90's, before there was any form of simulcast or offtrack betting in California, the Los Angeles Turf Club (aka Santa Anita) ruled. They decided what size the minimum wagers would be. They decided that if you wanted to get telephone results of that days races, that you had to pay for them via a 900-line. They prevented inter-track simulcasting for four years after the other tracks in the area wanted to move forward with that. They perceived themselves as a "class act". Everyday horseplayers perceived them as arrogant pricks.

There was a small group of about forty people, mostly $2 bettors, who formed a protest group, ran some ads in the DRF and picketed Santa Anita on a Sunday afternoon. This group (I was a member) wanted some very basic things: $1 exacta bets (then $5) and $1 P3 bets (then $3) and a free telephone results line.

The protest action yielded very little at Santa Anita because it was near the end of their meet. We did get an audience with Cliff Goodrich who was Gen'l Mgr at the time and he was friendly and receptive (Cliff was always friendly and receptive until he tried working for Frank Stronach).

But, Hollywood Park, which was under new ownership at the time, (R. D. Hubbard) contacted us and asked for a meeting. We made our pitch to Hollyood and they bought in to everything that we wanted. According to Hubbard, we were customers and we were making more noise than any other customers and he felt that he had an obligation to listen.

Later that year, following Hollywood's lead, Del Mar switched to the same betting format (they always had a free telephone results line). Subsequent to that, Santa Anita adjusted their betting format and actually went in with Hollywood on the scratch and results line.

The point is that you can never make a difference if you don't try. Horse betting over the internet is still an evolving activity. Not all of the rules have been written. Not all of the battle lines are drawn in the sand.

If you're only in this for yourself that's fine. Some of us have a slightly higher purpose and resent getting crapped on. Again, and again, and again.