Magna Passions?

[rrbauer]

Express them at

www.boycottmagna.com

[GameTheory]

Make the top frame bigger -- the words don't fit in there.

Also be aware that DRF stories don't stay around for long -- the other links will be broken in a day or two...

[JustRalph]

coming up with a better design than the one finger salute......

it kind of takes away from the site, in my opine. make it a little more serious, it might then get some attention

[so.cal.fan]

I really don't think Magna gives a s**t what any of us think, or the public in general.
They have hidden agendas, imo. I just wish I understood what they were.:confused:

[BillW]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
I really don't think Magna gives a s**t what any of us think, or the public in general.
They have hidden agendas, imo. I just wish I understood what they were.:confused:
So Cal,

Casinos :D

Bill

[trying2win]

--Maybe "Kellyfornya" governor, "Ahnuld" should have a talk with Frank. After all, they speak the same language....i.e. I believe they both originally come from Austria. "Ahnuld" should be concerned that a boycott of Magna races in "Kellyfornya", could cost the state a lot of revenues.

--Let's hope that Frank sees the error of his ways, and relents on his latest Neanderthal decisions for "Kellyfornya" horse racing. If he does, then we could say he became MAG-NAnimous.

Trying2win

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
I really don't think Magna gives a s**t what any of us think, or the public in general.
They have hidden agendas, imo. I just wish I understood what they were.:confused:

I think the agenda is for HRTV & Epress Bet to be KING! They only get 3+ months to do this. After Santa Anita and Gulfstream are over they have nothing. TVG has been kicking there A$$ because they have far more tracks. Who in the hell will be using Epress Bet when KEE, CD, BEL, HOL, SAR, DMR, AP, CRC, OAK TREE, all start running.

This boycott means nothing because horse player's want to play those tracks and will!

[The Hawk]

but I've always felt that we as horseplayers needed to unite to make our voices felt. When the NTRA was first formed, I, for some reason, thought that this organization would be it. Boy was I wrong. Turns out, the NTRA apparently exists to make the parties at the Triple Crown races and the Breeders' Cup as excessive as possible for those priviledged enough to attend.

This particular issue, with Magna, has me thinking along these lines again. On this board are dozens, possibly hundreds, of serious players who put a fair share of money through the windows. Is it impossible to think that there could be an informal organization formed, which would attempt to develop some clout in the industry? What if we all joined together and agreed NOT to play any Magna track at all, and put together some type of letter stating our intentions? Say 50 of us signed up for this endeavor and sent a letter to all the Magna tracks, and the DRF and Bloodhorse and the Thoroughbred Times, maybe even Beyer. We'd state "Our group generates $XXX in handle a year and will not be suporting your racetracks because we can't see your track's signals." Would someone wrote about it? Would it matter if they did? I think it could. The publicity would matter some, sure, not to mention that the annual handle generated by this group is not chump change.

I don't say this flippantly -- I have two months of Calder charts in my possession, and have seen every race there since October 27th in an effort to ready myself for Gulfstream (I also have a week-long trip planned for Gulfstream next month), but feel like a nitwit giving money to a man who seems to be trying to extort money from me -- on top of the already usurious takeout.

[Fastracehorse]

The OJC kicked Stronach out as a board member.

At first I sympathized with him - now I'm glad they did it. He still runs alot of stock there however.

fffastt :D

[nomadpat]

Just curious, how does the first weekend handle at Gulfstream and Santa Anita compare to last year? Wondering if there is much difference already.

[Figman]

I don't have SA figures.

At Gulfstream, this is the comparison of all source handle showing up on the GP toteboard. It is the 1st Sat-Sun of 2004 VS the first Sat-Sun of 2003 Vs 2002 VS 2001:

2004 - $17,848,351
2003 - $20,968,695
2002 - $19,452,115
2001 - $16,994,638

[nomadpat]

Thanks Figman!

That was down more than I expected, it looks like there is some effect. Maybe there is enough dissent to really impact their business after all...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by JustRalph
coming up with a better design than the one finger salute......

it kind of takes away from the site, in my opine. make it a little more serious, it might then get some attention


Speaking of attention Ralph, you'd be surprised who and how quickly someone contacted me about getting in touch with rrbauer about his new site!!

[rrbauer]

GameTheory wrote:Make the top frame bigger -- the words don't fit in there.

Thanks for the suggestions. I did just throw together the home page using a frame layout from another site. I'll work on jazzing it up and coming up with a replacement for the finger, but it's the other content that's more important to me. And, hopefully more important to the "cause".

As far as the DRF links, they point to their archives, so I don't expect them to be broken soon.

PS to everybody....you should've heard my wife when I handed her the camera and said, "Here. Take a picture of this." She thinks I'm crazy anyway, so it's just another day at the zoo!

:) :)

[so.cal.fan]

Good luck to you, Rick, you're fighting for something you believe in.

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by Figman
I don't have SA figures.

At Gulfstream, this is the comparison of all source handle showing up on the GP toteboard. It is the 1st Sat-Sun of 2004 VS the first Sat-Sun of 2003 Vs 2002 VS 2001:

2004 - $17,848,351
2003 - $20,968,695
2002 - $19,452,115
2001 - $16,994,638

This is the 1st 4 days of the 2002/2003 & 2003/2004 meet for Santa Anita.

2002 1st day $16,470,969 Thur
2002 2nd day $10,671,982 Fri
2002 3rd day $12,464,937 Sat
2002 4th day $12,072,873 Sun
Total =$54,873,927

2003 1st day $15,266,039 Fri
2003 2nd day $12,141,208 Sat
2003 3rd day $10,394,103 Sun
2003 4th day $06,594,665 Mon
Total =$44,669,015

[rrbauer]

I borrowed this from a Terry Bjork post over at the Derby List:

The first number given is last year's number, the second
is this year's number.

Attendance:
114985
110587
-4398, -3.8% (to be fair, last Fri. looked pretty crummy on the tv)

On-Track mutuel:
$24,101,770
$23,862,158
-$239,612, -1% (same excuse here)

Intra-state wagering
$38,295,413
$29,989,997
-$8,305,416, -21.7%

Inter-State wagering
$47,607,295
$40,178,187
-$7,429,108, -15.6%

Total drop in handle: $15,974,136. In just two weeks.

[VetScratch]

All racetrack operators want into the casino business, but casinos do not want to operate racetracks. The agenda is clear, racino to casino is where they are headed because that's where the profits will be. As time goes by, state legislatures will come under increasing pressure to break the revenue sharing covenants that were enacted to create racinos.

Eventually casino taxes will be directed to whatever garners the most votes, and allows politicians to duck increases to taxes on income and real estate.

Magna's gamble is that they can get racino legislation passed while horseracing is still a blip on the political radar screen... the same applies to other track operators.

In Maryland, legislative leaders have already asserted that racing no longer has enough political traction to justify consideration if slot legislation is passed in the future. I think the sentiment expressed was, "Racing? Who cares? The average age of players who bet horses is deceased."

Contraction, with respect to racing dates and tracks, appears to be economically inevitable. Racing has failed to compete with other emerging forms of gambling and entertainment.

During contraction, I favor separation of tracks and casinos. When all tracks are racinos, all tracks are threatened. In many cases, tracks are poor locations for casinos. Pimlico, Aqueduct, and Hawthorne are not ideal locations where casino operators would prefer to open shop.

With waning political clout, I think racing should ask for a smaller sliver of casino revenues... a sliver that can be more readily protected by the agribusiness lobby in each state... while backing legislation that would truly maximize casino revenues. Put the casinos where they will attract the most revenues and leverage opportunities to attract out-of-state and tourist dollars. This is why casinos in many states are located on rivers and other boundaries. New security procedures should make airports an ideal location for slots compared to old racetracks in run-down neighborhoods or small-town locations. A new super-casino in Central Park or on the lakefront in Chicago would generate huge revenues compared to racetrack locations.

At some inevitable point, whatever racetracks survive would remain focused on horseracing, and a smaller sliver of the casino taxes may all the agribusiness lobby can expect to protect. But a small slice of the largest possible pie is considerable.

In some respects, a drop in national handle may actually help track operators influence hasty decisions to save racing with an innoculation that spells ultimate doom.

[Figman]

VET states:
Contraction, with respect to racing dates and tracks, appears to be economically inevitable. Racing has failed to compete with other emerging forms of gambling and entertainment.

During contraction, I favor separation of tracks and casinos. When all tracks are racinos, all tracks are threatened. In many cases, tracks are poor locations for casinos. Pimlico, Aqueduct, and Hawthorne are not ideal locations where casino operators would prefer to open shop.

Reality in New York State:
VLTs are about to begin with Saratoga Raceway on January 28th and Finger Lakes on February 11th. Vernon Downs is finished construction and awaiting licensing. Buffalo Raceway is looking at an early Spring start. Batavia Downs is looking at early Summer while Monticello Raceway is looking at mid-Summer. All six tracks have applied for more 2004 racing dates than in 2003. Saratoga Raceway has over 1,000 horses on the grounds. Last year at this time they had about 260. Some of these tracks have asked their State regulator for up to 14 races per program!

Yonkers Raceway and NYRA, both of whom do not have VLTs in the near future because of delays of one type or another, are the only two NY tracks to have applied for less racing dates in 2004 than 2003....and NYRA is less by just two because of the way that Christmas falls in 2004! Where's the contraction, VET?

[VetScratch]

When the VLT revenues slated for the horse industry are lobbied away by other special interests. You read it here first! :) :)

[lousycapperII]

There are only 9 or so race tracks in Japan and they do just fine. True many of the tracks in America are doomed but that is what happens when an industry fails to keep up with the times. Fewer tracks mean larger pools to bet into. The breeding industry went through tough times but has recovered somewhat. I believe the tracks will do likewise, albeit there will be fewer of them.

-LCII

[PaceAdvantage]

What Doom? Slots have saved many a racetrack's ass, if I do say so myself.

What contraction? People have been saying for 10-15 years that the small track is destined for extinction. People have been saying there are only going to be a handful of live racetracks operating nationally in the future....

Well, the future is now, and the only handful I know about are the number of racetracks that have actually CLOSED in the last 10-15 years....

[VetScratch]

PA,

Slots can be legalized to subsidize education, racing, or any number of special interests in lieu of tax subsidies generated by income or real estate taxes. In New York, education and racing are slated to be the primary beneficiaries.

Why do you think that it is advantageous to put slots at racetracks rather than at the very best demographic locations to generate slot revenues?

Your logic would suggest slots also belong in New York schools because education is the primary beneficiary.

I simply say, put the slots where they will generate the most revenue for education and racing. Very few racetracks would qualify as ideal locations to attract maximum slot handle.

Other states will be equally foolish if they give Magna, Churchill, and other track operators a monopoly on slots. This will only invite track operators to eventually part ways with the horsemen and agribusiness lobby so they can get out of the racing business.

Done my way, the tracks will always have a reason to remain in a political coalition that supports subsidizing racing from slots.

When you look at racetrack operators, you apparently sense altruism and instinctive dedication to the horse industry that others doubt, including many working horsemen.

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
coming up with a better design than the one finger salute......

it kind of takes away from the site, in my opine. make it a little more serious, it might then get some attention

Actually, I think you should paint that finger bright RED

:D


And super-impose Franky's head on top of it. Or Steve Crists'


A tip 'o the hat to R Bauer. This site is right up there with FxxxMicrosft.com. I just love it when the people speak back.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
What Doom? Slots have saved many a racetrack's ass, if I do say so myself.

What contraction? People have been saying for 10-15 years that the small track is destined for extinction. People have been saying there are only going to be a handful of live racetracks operating nationally in the future....

Well, the future is now, and the only handful I know about are the number of racetracks that have actually CLOSED in the last 10-15 years.... PA, this is good news, but I still fear that before long, the casino side will realize that the racing side is siphoning off money and look for ways to exist without them. I am afraid the VLTs are being used as vehicles to put in place an infratructure that has location, money, and political support to become independent...then the track sides will expendable.
Man, I hope to hell I am wrong here, but the idea of slots lining up to bail out failing racetracks just doesn't soud right to me.
FL was on the road to exticntion before the slots showed up.
Now, I am three weeks away from heaven on earth 7 miles down the road.
But I still remember that Twilight Zone, where the spacemen come to earth to serve us.....come to find out their book, titled How to Serve Man was.......a COOKBOOK!
Yikes!
:eek:

[PaceAdvantage]

Vet, why did you respond to my post? My comments had nothing to do with where to place slots, it had to do with the misconception that racing should/will be "downsized" because the industry can't handle all these tracks, which is a sentiment that's been expressed even BEFORE racinos were a glimmer in Frank Stronach's eye....

I can't understand how in my few sentences, you saw the jumping off point to post what you posted. Did you even read what I wrote?

Your reponse makes little sense when read as a reply to my last post.

[VetScratch]

PA,

You said slots have saved many racetracks... but where slots do subsidize racing they are mainly at racetracks... the worst place to put them in the long run, because it switches the business focus of track operators from racing to slots.

The balance sheets don't support the thesis that racetracks are supporting themselves from racing... many tracks have been bought out by Magna and Churchill, or closed like SPT and HIA.

Without the prospect of making a transition from racing to the casino business, many acquisitions by Magna and Churchill make no sense unless all horse wagering activities (Internet & Off-Track) can also be truly monopolized by track operators. This, to me, would be a better way to save tracks than putting them in a business that has no incentive to save racing.

Nothing would prevent a political coalition or tracks, horsemen, and agribusiness from lobbying to subsidize horse racing from slots. In most horse states, the majority of legislative seats come from the strongholds of agribusiness anyway.

[PaceAdvantage]

The main reason slots and racetracks go nicely together is because it eases the acceptance factor by the local communities, thereby making it easier for state legislatures to pass the necessary laws to bring forth the bounty that is slot revenue for the states.

The state simply says it is putting slots at the racetrack where legalized gambling is ALREADY taking place. The anti-gambling folks have less of a leg to stand on when confronted with this type of situation, IMO.

Ideally, the best places to place slots are the LEAST likely to be accepted by the public at large (like your local MALL).

[so.cal.fan]

Why can't they just have all racetracks like Las Vegas sports books?

[VetScratch]

PA,
I don't think "go nicely together" will be your description after you see the low-lifes that slots appeal to... one notch above bag ladies and street mumblers. Some racinos give out slot points that allow slot players to earn meals in clubhouse dining areas, and others let them wander as they please among horseplayers.

I understand NYRA will be wise enough to avoid the homeless shelter syndrome by closing down for several hours each day... that's a good idea.

Get your flu shot! :)

I have always liked So-Cal's sportsbook suggestion.

[so.cal.fan]

http://www.sironas.com/About%20Us/About%20Us%20Main.htm

Looks like a sports book?

[andicap]

Originally posted by VetScratch
PA,


Without the prospect of making a transition from racing to the casino business, many acquisitions by Magna and Churchill make no sense unless all horse wagering activities (Internet & Off-Track) can also be truly monopolized by track operators. This, to me, would be a better way to save tracks than putting them in a business that has no incentive to save racing.

Nothing would prevent a political coalition or tracks, horsemen, and agribusiness from lobbying to subsidize horse racing from slots. In most horse states, the majority of legislative seats come from the strongholds of agribusiness anyway.

Why is it so critical that we save all the tracks? If there isn't enough interest in the sport to support all the tracks we have now, then we should have fewer tracks. I know this will throw people out of work, but why should racing be different than other American industries which up contracted in the last 30 years.
I believe the government should support the tracks because of all the money they put back into the budget and keep taxes down. It is a sin tax which I support because you don't have to pay the taxes if you dont want to. (Don't want to pay exorbitant cigarette or alcohol taxes, dont smoke or drink as much. Life is full of making decisions on where to spend your making. Where I object is the gov't telling me I can't spend my money on gambling. )

We didn't save all the steel mills or the car plants and hundreds of thousands lost their jobs. Why should the tracks be the objection to the whims of the
economic winds. Moving car plants off-shore made sense because unions priced themselves out ob jobs to the extent car companies couldn't make enough profits for shareholders under the expensive and inflexible work rule contracts they had with unions.

Similarly, tracks might close because they can't compete with off-shore betting books or other forms of gambling that people prefer--- namely slots. You can't put your head in the sand and tell the people WHAT they must gamble on.

To counter this, racing needs more aggressive promotion, rebates, better marketing and a unified stand. You don't see the casinos squabbling do you. They have one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. (Big contributors to Clinton in the 90s.) Racing also desperately needs to demystify the game of picking winners so it appears to amateur punters as easy as blackjack or roulette. (not to win, but to at least have a shot of winning money without too much mental effort.) People want to gamble, but they don't necessarily want to think TOO much when doing so.

We love handicapping but to most gamblers, handicapping equals work. Who wants to work when you are playing?

[GameTheory]

They need to open their pools to the world and lower takeout. U.S. racing would flourish. Barring that, I'd like to see the rest of the world's racing be open to us, so that at least *I* could flourish.

[VetScratch]

Game,

Fair globalization that balanced the interests of players, horsemen, and racetracks would truly be Nirvana. I think U.S. racing would flourish internationally because the mental challenge of handicapping and the broad spectrum of published information would have great appeal in countries with fewer omnipresent diversions in everyday life.

[VetScratch]

Andicap,

You know I have a partisan interest in the welfare of horsemen.

However, your analysis is objectively correct... I would just like to see survival of the fittest be contested by tooth and claw rather than in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors. Many of the remedies are obvious until lobbying at cross-purposes results in compromises that artificially imbalance the distribution of benefits to players, horsemen, and racetracks. Who really gets what has become so complex that it defies fixing without sweeping reforms.

I also agree with your concept of demystifying racing to attract casual money... however, the notion that racing is an insider's game has become so pervasive that casual money flocks to hopeless propositions, like slots, where all get fleeced democratically. Racing needs a great deal of image scrubbing in order to attract new generations of players.

[rrbauer]

VetScratch wrote:

but where slots do subsidize racing they are mainly at racetracks... the worst place to put them in the long run, because it switches the business focus of track operators from racing to slots.

Comment:

It depends on your perspective as to whether putting slots at the tracks is the worst place. It is the worst place from a horseplayer's perspective because of the switch in business focus that VS mentions. Ultimately, I believe it will be the worst place from a horseman's perspective, too; because as the slot-machine revenue replaces pari-mutuel revenue as the basic foundation of race purses, a track operator is going to figure out that if he could get the horses off of his property, he could, in turn, get rid of the manure-hauling contracts, etc., and stop sharing the slot profits with horsemen. Then the real estate that contained barns and tack rooms could be sold off; or, developed to house more profitable ventures.

From a track operator's perspective, putting slots at the track is a great idea.

[trying2win]

Just read an article about how America Tab is doing financially so far this year, without taking bets on Magna tracks. Here's the link if you care to read it:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=19910


Trying2win

[VetScratch]

Unfortunately, it doesn't indicate how they have done financially.

I wish they would try to operate a financially sound business with some kind of blanket rebate that would put pressure on the other wagering services. By selecting individual tracks to highlight, this kind of rebating just invites handicappers to play circuits they may not be familiar with, but I guess finding maybe one play a day with a 5%-10% rebate is the best domestic deal for right now.

[VetScratch]

Trying2win,

What was really interesting about your great link was the $102-million handle revealed for 2003. Since this represents several of the popular wagering brands, it helps us put Internet wagering in perspective. It would be interesting to know what the handle was at eHorse, YouBet, and others for 2003.

$102-million makes the news accounts about the North Dakota Whale (Peter Wagner) all the more impressive since he was reportedly betting as much as $170-million per year. In 2002, Racing Services (ND) handled $220. It has now been accused of secretly hiding an entire $99-million betting operation during the six-month period ending in April 2003.

I think we should definitely boycott GreenPeace and their "Save the Whales" campaign. :)

[PaceAdvantage]

Since YouBet is a publicly traded company, I'm sure its 2003 handle won't be difficult to discover.

[Whirlaway]

It appears You Bet handled upwards of $250 million last year. Here's (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814055/000114420403006689/form10qsb.txt) their latest 10-Q. Interesting reading. They pay a 5.5% fee to TVG on all the handle for TVG's "exclusive" tracks (including NYRA).

Their total take is about 19.4% of handle, which suggests online players put a larger percentage of their money into the win pool than offline players.

In their most recent quarter they handled 72 million, of which 6 million was returned to tracks. That's more than 8%, so I guess the 3-4% figure we keep hearing doesn't apply to online wagering. I think TVG pays either 12% or 16% (I forget which) to tracks.

[BillW]

Originally posted by Whirlaway
It appears You Bet handled upwards of $250 million last year. Here's (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/814055/000114420403006689/form10qsb.txt) their latest 10-Q. Interesting reading. They pay a 5.5% fee to TVG on all the handle for TVG's "exclusive" tracks (including NYRA).

Their total take is about 19.4% of handle, which suggests online players put a larger percentage of their money into the win pool than offline players.

In their most recent quarter they handled 72 million, of which 6 million was returned to tracks. That's more than 8%, so I guess the 3-4% figure we keep hearing doesn't apply to online wagering. I think TVG pays either 12% or 16% (I forget which) to tracks.

Whirlaway,

Don't they have to return the states' take to the tracks also? In other words, the track is not keeping everything returned by the on line wagering outfits.

Bill

[VetScratch]

Here is how I think you have to look at the YouBet 10-QSB from a horseplayer's perspective.
Results are for 9 months ending 9/30/2003.Nine-Months Ending September 30, 2003

$206,837,561 Gross Wagering Handle

$38,429,172 Commissions (18.58% average gross takeout).
This reflects a bias towards straight action,
probably because expensive wagering tactics
used by exotic syndicates and big players
are not easy to execute and transparent W2-G
payoffs are unavoidable (are hard to cheat on).
============
$168,408,389 Portion Of Handle Returned To All Players
After Co-mingling Into Pools.

Fees for simulcast signals and video plus operating expenses
must be paid from gross takeout:

$18,116,710 Direct Track Fees (8.76% of gross handle)
$7,650,562 TVG Group Fees (3.70% of gross handle)
============
$25,767,272 Total Paid To Tracks+TVG (12.46% of handle).

[The Hawk]

From the Bloodhorse:

Though it is early, with just four racing days in the books, Gulfstream Park's 2004 meet has thus far sent mixed signals. Although on-track performance has shown increases in attendance and wagering, the all-sources handle has shown a drop of nearly 19%.

[Gulfstream president Scott] Savin, who before the meet had predicted a record-breaking meet in both attendance and handle, had no explanation for the decline in handle. He suggested only that a reduction in rebate shops and telephone account wagering may have contributed to it.

Down 19%, and no explanation? Telephone account wagering may have contributed to it? Are they in denial, or are they just incompetent?

[BillW]

Originally posted by The Hawk
From the Bloodhorse:

Though it is early, with just four racing days in the books, Gulfstream Park's 2004 meet has thus far sent mixed signals. Although on-track performance has shown increases in attendance and wagering, the all-sources handle has shown a drop of nearly 19%.

[Gulfstream president Scott] Savin, who before the meet had predicted a record-breaking meet in both attendance and handle, had no explanation for the decline in handle. He suggested only that a reduction in rebate shops and telephone account wagering may have contributed to it.

Down 19%, and no explanation? Telephone account wagering may have contributed to it? Are they in denial, or are they just incompetent?

I'm kind of surprised they didn't blame it on needing slot machines. See 2nd paragraph below:

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=41237&subsec=1

Bill

[VetScratch]

Hawk,
Gulfstream president Scott Savin may not be inclined to reveal how much the closure of RSI's covert wagering site ($99-million secretly bet in 6 months through the end of April 2003) may be hurting Gulfstream's handle (along with other signal squabbles already discussed).

GP was the original big radar blip for the North Dakota Whale, identified as one Peter Wagner, so the RSI whales may have been a big part of last year's GP handle when Susan Bala was still in charge of RSI.

See: http://www.drf.com/news/article/52203.html

It sounds like some Oklahoma indians may have found nice presents under their Christmas Trees. But I doubt Wagner is back in full swing since RSI (if their web site is still up) was clearly capable of redirecting bets through their off-shore operations and may have been quite tolerant of past-posting from their private betting hideaway.

[Shacopate]

So Cal Fan,

I think I would take to Sironas like George Clooney did to the "Titty Twister" in the movie FROM DUSK TIL DAWN.

Looks like a fun place, have you been? Any vampires?

[VetScratch]

Below is info about RSI (North Dakota) that makes think they had all the pieces to allow whales to past-post through various hubs into racetrack pools, which accept money for up to 45 (and sometimes 90) seconds after the gate opens:

Racing Services is currently a licensed Service Provider in seven jurisdictions in the United States with a significant international presence linking thirty locations and seventy- two racetracks internationally. More than four hundred persons are employed through its network of locations.

In 1998, Racing Services established a Mexican subsidiary corporation, Racing Services de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“RSI-MEX”) for the purpose of establishing an international hub and providing equipment and services in Mexico and Latin America. Racing Services and its subsidiary RSI-MEX maintain an international network, two technical hubs, distribute satellite signals from across the United States with sports events programming. It offers a complete turnkey package of equipment and services to each location including a feasibility study, technical design, site planning, training, equipment, and marketing.

As we know, the stop-wagering signal is a broadcast announcement without corresponding confirmations from wagering sites. Thus, simple human honesty is the only deterrent to past-posting from off-track wagering sites.

I wonder if Oklahoma indians taking bets from whales that used to bet in North Dakota are/were RSI technology customers?

[GameTheory]

As we know, the stop-wagering signal is a broadcast announcement without corresponding confirmations from wagering sites. Thus, simple human honesty is the only deterrent to past-posting from off-track wagering sites.


I've seen that claimed but never verified. Is there a source on that? (That explains that off-track sites are on indeed on the honor system and that the computers don't halt wagering automatically when the stop signal is activated.) Seems too stupid to be true, even for the racing industry, but it wouldn't surprise me, I guess. But when problems come up and people write about these things, I've never seen an article that says that, or even implies it.

[VetScratch]

Game,

Between the Guiliani Report and comments from track officials (e.g., DMR), it is clear that stop-wagering is a broadcast, and at least one news story attributed technical failures in New England as the reason betting didn't stop. The host track has no way of knowing that all wagering sites received (understood, and acted on) the stop-wagering signal. Technical security measures in packaged pari-mutuel hardware/software products have been compromised before, and outfits like RSI don't seem inclined to obey the rules.

There is no polling protocol to ensure betting has actually been stopped before the gates open.

[VetScratch]

I think the smoke is fairly indicative of fire when an outfit like RSI cannot keep up with a puny 1.5% (later reduced to 1%) state tax on handle while expanding into an international network of 400 employees and hiding $99-million in wagers from North Dakota.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by VetScratch
Game,

Between the Guiliani Report and comments from track officials (e.g., DMR), it is clear that stop-wagering is a broadcast, and at least one news story attributed technical failures in New England as the reason betting didn't stop. The host track has no way of knowing that all wagering sites received (understood, and acted on) the stop-wagering signal. Technical security measures in packaged pari-mutuel hardware/software products have been compromised before, and outfits like RSI don't seem inclined to obey the rules.

There is no polling protocol to ensure betting has actually been stopped before the gates open.

I have no doubt that security is not what it should be, computers can be hacked, and technical failures can cause problems. But it sounds like what you're saying is that the system is designed so that when the stop signal is received, an actual human at the off-track site must "manually" stop the wagering, or alternatively can just flip a switch so that the stop signal doesn't stop anything. What I'm asking is: if everything is working as it is supposed to -- no technical failures, power outages, computer hacking, etc. -- are they on the honor system? Does the stop signal actually do anything or is it simply an indication, "Could you please stop accepting wagers now? We trust you."

In other words, is past-posting as easy as the guy in charge of the off-track site wanting to allow it? Or does he (or someone) have to foil at least some security -- hacking the system or whatever?

[VetScratch]

Game,

The DMR Executive Vice President claimed that only legitimate wager cancellations "should" be possible at locations that receive the stop-wagering signal and function properly. So tampering or malfunction would be necessary to permit past-post wagers. How difficult this would be depends on many variables, primarily the approach. Since the Guiliani Report explicitly claimed the systems still use 9,600bps to 19,200bps bandwidths exclusively, that suggests the controller/concentrator computers associated with that era of technology would be the weak link. In most old-style LAN systems for applications similar to pari-mutuel wagering or airport passenger services, it was often easy for a service technician to alter/save/reload LAN controller/concentrator software from the service console.

Moreover, RSI claimed to be a provider of hub technology, so I presume they really had to be trusted, but they have apparently failed to serve the public trust in more ways than one.

[rrbauer]

Associated with the "stop wagering" signal is a time-stamp.

No wagers with a time-stamp subsequent to the stop-wagering time-stamp are accepted by the host track.

Indeed, such wagers will never get past the network hub that is servicing the bet location(s) that submitted the late wagers.

So, unless someone has access to the wagering data files and can manipulate the time-stamp, past-posting is not possible.

With regard to "machines being open" and bets being placed after a race starts: I believe those incidents occurred at live racing sites and not at satellite, network-connected sites. Having said that, it's not clear to me what is different about the way the host-site machines are hooked into the network, but something must be different in order for that to have happened.

[VetScratch]

Originally posted by rrbauer
Associated with the "stop wagering" signal is a time-stamp.

No wagers with a time-stamp subsequent to the stop-wagering time-stamp are accepted by the host track.

Indeed, such wagers will never get past the network hub that is servicing the bet location(s) that submitted the late wagers.

So, unless someone has access to the wagering data files and can manipulate the time-stamp, past-posting is not possible.

With regard to "machines being open" and bets being placed after a race starts: I believe those incidents occurred at live racing sites and not at satellite, network-connected sites. Having said that, it's not clear to me what is different about the way the host-site machines are hooked into the network, but something must be different in order for that to have happened. The host track never processes the individual wagers, just aggregated wagers from the hubs. Sending wagers to host tracks is one of the reform suggestions for the new system that was discussed in another thread.

Any outfit that controls both hubs and wagering locations, as RSI claims on their web site, would have no problem fooling host tracks. Wagering data or internal clocks could both be tampered with by crooks. Wagering providers that are not expensive licensed racetracks themselves have no incentive other than ethics to vigorously monitor abuses like past-posting. In fact, the settlement procedure between host tracks, hubs, and wagering locations ensures that none of these parties suffer financially so long as past-posted money actually gets co-mingled into the various pools. The tracks, hubs, and wagering locations don't have a financial reason to care who wins in a pari-mutuel system, except insofar as publicized abuses may cause total handle to drop.

[VetScratch]

Every time past-posting comes up, it fizzles out in the press after tracks persist in not chasing down or revealing low-level details, as happened in Chicago, or an interviewer like Stein in California finally gets a racing official to admit that unless a special audit is conducted after the fact, host tracks don't know what happened and never will (until wagering becomes a real-time transaction).

[breakage]

All this stuff really ticks me off as I watch my 23-1 longshot lead into the stretch at the Fairgrounds today before settling for second and then noticing that it had dropped to 12-1 during or after the race. Just once I'd like to see my horse that got left at the gate by five lengths get it's odds cut in half during a race.

[so.cal.fan]

Yep!
That is what Roger Stein complains of nearly every week.
That is what we have all been complaining about for the past two years.
Nothing is ever done, officials "spin" the facts. No one in a position of authority really cares because:
IT ISN'T COSTING THEM ANY MONEY! However, I might add to that, AT THIS TIME!!!!!!!! That's what they don't care to acknowlege.

[rrbauer]

VetScratch:The host track never processes the individual wagers, just aggregated wagers from the hubs. Sending wagers to host tracks is one of the reform suggestions for the new system that was discussed in another thread.

Comment:

In many cases the host track IS a hub, depending on the network architecture, and as such it would see individual wagers.

Generally speaking, hubs serve remote locations that do not have sufficient processing power and storage capacity to process bets on a "store and forward" basis. Hubs were established to offload or distribute some of the host track's processing effort and also to reduce network traffic to the host track. The Hub processing architecture is outmoded given the amount of available network bandwidth and server-side processing power that exists today.

A major problem is that just about every piece of electronic gear at a racetrack that is involved with wagering is using technology that is several generations out of date. For example, the SAM terminals (Autotote) at the simulcast facility closest to me, use Intel 486 processors! I'm surprised that there aren't more equipment-related problems.

[VetScratch]

This is as per the Guliani Report. For off-track systems, since bandwidth is limited to 9,600bps connections, aggregating IS used. See a previous thread based on the Guliani Report. At tracks and large locations, 19,200bps (the old Gandolph short-haul speed) may be used as a crude LAN connection.

In an interview with Roger Stein, a DMR Vice President confirmed that they do not see individual off-track wagers unless a special after-the-fact audit is called for. By off-track, I presume further away than the short-haul modems work (about 1-mile, as I recall).

Since the Guliani Report, maybe some improvements have been made.