Press Release: TRACK OWNERS JOIN FORCES TO DEFEAT ‘BOOKIE AMENDMENT’
 

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/tr...kie-amendment/

Excerpt:

A coalition of racetracks call for the defeat of a bill that has been amended to create a new class of online wagering in California.

AB 2414, authored by Assembly Speaker John Perez (D-Los Angeles), was significantly altered to allow bettors to wager on a horse to lose – a practice that is currently illegal in California and every other state in the union. AB 2414 also legalizes the practice of “exchange wagering” ......

The leadership in California tried to sneak this bill through in order to raise the takeout. Unfortunately for them it is all screwed up now.

The best part is that now they are asking for Horseplayers help to defeat a part of their own bill.

This really takes the cake. :rolleyes:

The only people who would want to oppose this bill are those that want the monopoly to remain intact.

Our brilliant leaders in California really opened pandoras box with this one. They thought they were slick sneaking the takeout raise through and now they're scared to death over the bill. These guys are a joke.

These guys have no idea how to generate interest in thier sport from a wider audience that is for sure.

first of all the statement that you have made is not true in nevada. in nevada race and sports books are licensed to book bets.

i am not sure about any other states, but in mass. there is a provision in their laws that if there is an emergency power failure where they are unable to transfer their bets into the wagering hub, they are now allowed to book those bets, i think it s mandatory that they are responsible for those bets. years ago in rhode island, lincoln and naragansett were allowed to do something very similar. i am not sure how they would have worked out the parimutual tax on those cituations because the bets were now non- parimutual.

i just learned in saratoga that all bets taken in wyoming that originate that that are minus pools, must pay $2.20 even if the host track only pays $2.10. i would guess that they have similar laws there as well.

i have no idea if they would take a large bet on rachel alexandra running in churchill if you tried to give it to them. if they do take $100k show bets and pay $2.20, i will imediately subscribe to cj's pace figures and move my place of residence. i am going to try to find out in depth what their program is in wyoming.

The only people who would support this bill are those who don't care about racing's survival in the U.S.

I'm starting to think that the blame for racing's problems don't all lie with those within racing but also with racing's customers, the bettors, who don't seem to give a damn about the sport of racing, only their own pockets.

I'm not necessarily in favor of exchange betting becuase I don't know enough about it. I do believe that it has the potential to drastically alter Horse Racing in the United States and maybe for the worse. If they just kept the takeout at reasonble levels this would go away.

My point is that the Leadeship in California tried to sneak a bill through to raise the takeout and they got screwed. Now they are asking the people they tried to screw (Horseplayers) to help them defeat the bill.

Isn't that ironic?

Fager Fan, they are not closing racetracks and trainers, jockeys, stable staff are not looking for new employment in UK, Ireland etc.

that is only because they run the sport better there without government intervention. in the united states the ultimate boss of a racetrack are the state that the racetrack is located in. the government is only in a racetrack to "protect their interests". there is becoming less and less to protect.
this year the state of new hampshire got rid of their whole racing commission and there is no longer any live racing in that state.

in the year 2010, there is no reason for government to run racing, racing should run racing.

Betfair is just another bookie in their system. They have a different system over there which, incidentally, has resulted in lacking purses and extremely high admission and other fees. A normal day at the track (not special days like Royal Ascot) starts at about $30 and goes up from there.

The problem lies with the customers? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

First off, exchange betting creates growth. Young players will start up who knew little about horse racing before. Many exchange players jitney into the mutuel pools and also play exotics.

Most regulars will lose more in the long term than they would lose at the track.

The most insidious part of the bill is the takeout increase. Where is the extra money going to come from to be lost by those who bet California racing?, when some will quit because of the takeout, and some will bet more elsewhere, and many will have longer breaks to replenish their bankrolls.

I'm not even sure if CA got screwed as I'm wondering if someone out in CA wants this. Note who's put their name out there in opposition - Santa Anita and Churchill Downs. Where is the CHRB? Where is Hollywood Park and Del Mar? How did this part of the bill get added? Who has the pull to make that happen?

Believe me it's the guys in California that started this. It was leaked to me (us) by one of their own who is against raising the takeout. It is another example of a "gang that can't shoot straight". Once again if they kept the takeout at reasonble levels a company like Betfair would never gain traction.

Betfair is not a bookie, the low purses are a result of the bookies being far smarter than those that run racing so instead of say 50% going back to racing, only 10% does.

US racing can negotiate a better deal with BF as it's starting from scratch.


It is expensive to go racing in UK, however, Towester is Free except for certain days showing a track can survive on no entrance fee.


How much is iit into CD for BC this year FF??

You continue to prove with every post that you care about nothing but your own pocket. I have no idea why you insist that another entity care about something rather than their own pocket when you do the same, only caring about yours.

I care about the sport. I want the tracks, the handicappers, and everyone in between to succeed. If you want handicappers to be a partner in the process, then you need to want the same and look at everything from all angles and perspectives than always coming down on the side of your own pocket.

You continue to show me with every post that you are a ditz.

I look at all angles. I want to see this game grow. It has nothing to do with my pockets. You just keep showing your lack of common sense and economics.

And I'm being nice.

What do you mean by "the guys in CA?" Are you just talking about the takeout hike or the Betfair part. I know the CHRB is behind the takeout hike, I'm interested in knowing if someone on that board is supporting Betfair's efforts.

Charlie, the price of the BC is equivocable to the prices for Royal Ascot. That's why I gave you a "normal" day at the track of $30 and up, not the Royal Ascot prices. And I see you agree that bookmaking (which is what Betfair is) doesn't actually help the European system but harms it.

Don't worry about being nice, "Horseplayersbet.com". Just conversing with you on this forum makes me feel the need for a hot shower.

Betfair found a way to get someone to put an amendment in the bill that the track owners didn't want. This was supposed to be a stealth bill but after Betfair found out about it they did their thing. I'm quite sure that Betfair buys off politicians the same as the track owners. That's the way I see it. If anyone thats been involved sees it differently please let me knonw.

Just as the only people who wouldn't support the bill are the head-in-the sand vested interests whose sole motivation is in protecting their own monopolies.

It's understandable in a way why these vested interest groups -- tracks and Tote etc -- are so dead set against exchanges; any jurisdictions where exchanges have been allowed have seen a very sizeable migration of value-conscious gamblers away from traditional bookmakers and from the Tote. No business wishes to see a viable alternative arise.

Unfortunately for them -- the vested interest groups -- they are blowing against the wind. They are future-denying Luddites. A couple of years ago Australian bookmakers and tracks fought tooth-and-nail against the legalization of exchanges. To no avail; eventually peer-to-peer exchange betting arrived.

Exchange betting is the future, imo, and will come to California ( and elsewhere ) sooner or later.

If this is true FF, then i am totally confused why you oppose this. Exhanges are good for handicappers and that being so, it has to be good for racing.

You really have zero clue. I want bigger purses. I want more to see more horseplayers. I want to see more owners. I want horse racing, a game I love to be mainstream.

I just know how to accomplish it. You obviously don't. So take your hot shower. You probably are bright enough to know which way to turn the faucet. I'll give you that much credit.

Calm down HPB. FF just needs some education i think.

Also FF, exchanges attracts traders, these people have no or little interest in racing.

In other words, Exchange betting creates revenue from a source the Tote can not.

And I have no idea why Fager F thinks that betting exchanges are automatically detrimental to the sport.
Betfair/ Betdaq provide a level of transparency ( every bet digitally recorded etc) that was previously unmatched. Many corrupt owners Laying their own horses to lose, and corrupt jockeys have been prosecuted directly as a result of Betfairs systemic security reportage.

He is a disingenuous horse owner who has no understanding when it comes to growing the game.

Heck, I part owned over 40 horses in my life. Anyone can be a horse owner. Like horseplayers, we are all gamblers who are part of a base that loses collectively.

Horseplayers have to lose collectively. So hoping for horseplayers to succeed is just a silly statement. What Horseplayers want is a chance to win in the long run, just like horse owners.

OK HPB. Just trying to stop this thread turing into a slanging match.


People like FF and those calling for people to oppose need education imho.

I apologize. You are right. But I'm frustrated because Pace Advantage is the best place in the universe for the type of education FF needs. And this isn't the first time I've tried to splain things to him.

He really should ask himself why an ADW owner with no intention of entering the exchange business be pro exchange betting?

He should HPB. :)


Racing has nothing to fear from exchange betting. All US racing has to do is ensure the pie is cut up fairly.

Hey guys, somewhere I got lost.

If you are on the internet and the store front (Betfair) is in the UK wouldn't you be bound by their laws?

Another example, if you bet out of Puerto Rico the pay outs are capped. No one does anything about that? It could be a $1m payout and you get $300.

Why is CA sticking their nose into this? Bet to win or Bet to lose, what the difference? Things are what they are.

thanks
:)

They are so wrong and have been so wrong abt the internet gambling from the beginning.


The gambling tide raises and lowers all ships.

The tracks help fund the internet gambling prohibition.

Are they better off or worse off for doing that?

Seems obvious to me the more people gambling online regardless of what they are betting on the better for all proprietors of online gambling-the tracks inluded and I think it is extremely obvious.

Their repeated prohibitive actions in this regard are as idiotic as the rest of their decisions regarding horse racing.


These guys are like the captain of the titanic telling the world the iceberg was unavoidable when the ship has been sailing directly at it for 20yrs.

They all need to go.

Husker


If i want to bet on OZ racing i have to transfer into Aus Wallet, i presume this is for OZ law/tax purposes and i would presume a US exchange would abide to US laws

GL getting an answer here.

While BF is buying TVG other online bookmakers are going to jail.
BF does book bets besides being an exchange. In fact their entire business plan after setting up the exchange was how to extract same money from losers that the winners are-whether it be via SP, multiples, exchange games, casino games et al. SP and multiples are examples of booking bets.

YEs BF do not take Americans and that is a difference but they did at one point and online gambling is still illegal in the US according to the federal government and here we have an online gambling company buying US assets.

Same place that matched $100mill in the last US presidential election now owns assets in the US and is even pushing further-sponsoring races, trying to get stealth legislation passed. Do I have to point out one could literally fund a political assination by merely selling the other side on BF?

It is absurd beyond belief-who's laws are they bound by exactly?
WHo the f knows?

This is not a unique situation to Betfair; it's common with all multinational companies. Betfair owns several corporations in several places, and what matters is where each company is incorporated.

The UK corporations are ruled by the UK laws, the US corporations are ruled by US laws, etc.

Hope that helps.

It was a rhetorical question.


Under US code any company operating in any state is legally bound by not only that state's laws but by federal laws as well.

I know it was rhetorical, I was just trying to be nice.

You're insinuating that they're breaking the law because their foreign companies are doing things that are illegal in the US. That's simply not the case.

I find some of the comments on Paulick interesting.


G Patricks is one.


Someone should ask him/her if the French object or allow Berfair to put markets up on most thier of Group races. Someone should also ask why betfair is allowed markets on SA, NYRA etc. Has a US Tote facility and shows live feed from the majority of tracks.

:ThmbUp:

Well done. Reality, in less than two sentences.

If horseplayersbet.com cared about his own pocket, he would line up to kill this bill with Twinspires and Expressbet, because it means less business for him.