Quote:
Originally Posted by Redboard
I’m all in with this boycott, it’s a great thing. But I just can’t boycott Keenland forever. To try to extend it would be a mistake and dilute the power of future boycotts IMO. Keenland ‘s rake is comparable to the other major tracks; it doesn’t make sense to punish them just because they used to have a lower takeout. From here on out, we should use the HANA Track Ratings to decide where to spend our money.
We made our point and hopefully it will be a warning to other tracks. I applaud HANA for being proactive and leading this, and I just made a donation to them. I’ll follow other boycotts that they feel are necessary, even if they think just boycotting a certain bet at a track is appropriate, for a certain period of time.
I know I’m in risk of giving solace to the enemy, but I think we all knew we were “up against it.”
|
This is EXACTLY how racetracks project that the bettors (consumers) will respond to takeout increases. Short term reluctance and long term acceptance. If this is true and I am a competing track operator, I can live with this and increase takeout to the maximum levels within my jurisdiction as well.
Yes, you can argue that the Keeneland takeout is comparable to others and their product is superior to most but you have to use the most powerful voice that you can to shout out that takeout increases in this environment is unacceptable and that you demand to be heard!
Reading posts like this makes me feel like people like me are simply outnumbered and I fear that tracks are correct in their assumption that the betting public are suckers and will eat whatever they are fed.
