George Krikorian Drops Bombshell at CHRB Meeting

[airford1]

The love of the game and the need of a tax write off back in the 80's is what brought me into the game as an owner. We would split the expenses 5 ways in a partnership and focus on horses that other owners had given up on or gone broke with too many on the sideline. What drove us out was the write off were made harder and harder to survive the audits. We were lucky to have couple of geldings that were able to Dance every 2 weeks and run in the money to help pay the bills. That being said there are not many that can go into the game and just throw vast amounts of cash in a losing effort. We were realistic about running them where they belonged and giving them away if they couldn't compete. Never had a winner at Santa Anita, but did manage a maiden allowance winner Pomona and Golden Gate, because we liked to be there when they ran we spent a lot of time at Caliente when they couldn't compete at Santa Anita. I would love to do it again, but the training expenses are out of control. Hell you have to have a horse that can run 12 to 16 times a year and have to win 4 races to come close to breaking even and the purses haven't gone up. The idea of starting out with 10 million to end up with 1 million doesn't work anymore.

[airford1]

Yes cheering for your horse and going to the winners circle with your partners was FABULOUS. The IRS calls it a Hobbie.

[oughtoh]

Originally Posted by airford1

The love of the game and the need of a tax write off back in the 80's is what brought me into the game as an owner. We would split the expenses 5 ways in a partnership and focus on horses that other owners had given up on or gone broke with too many on the sideline. What drove us out was the write off were made harder and harder to survive the audits. We were lucky to have couple of geldings that were able to Dance every 2 weeks and run in the money to help pay the bills. That being said there are not many that can go into the game and just throw vast amounts of cash in a losing effort. We were realistic about running them where they belonged and giving them away if they couldn't compete. Never had a winner at Santa Anita, but did manage a maiden allowance winner Pomona and Golden Gate, because we liked to be there when they ran we spent a lot of time at Caliente when they couldn't compete at Santa Anita. I would love to do it again, but the training expenses are out of control. Hell you have to have a horse that can run 12 to 16 times a year and have to win 4 races to come close to breaking even and the purses haven't gone up. The idea of starting out with 10 million to end up with 1 million doesn't work anymore.

I also had horses in the 80's. Raced mainly at Caliente and at Pomona. All of the horses I owned by myself except one of them. Like Airford said, it was getting to hard to write things off and when Caliente closed I could not afford the day rates at SA or other California tracks. So I got out of the business. I did it for the fun and the writeoffs, but just got to expensive.

[whodoyoulike]

Sounds like from the owners POV, the day rates and the horses running infrequently are two reasons it's difficult owning horses today.

Losses can still be written off for businesses (I know not for hobbies).

Is it that difficult to prove that owning and racing horses are a business and not a hobby?

Is part of the ownership problem because these owners expect their horses when purchased are stakes caliber or at least classy claimers and above when we know that the numbers of classy horses are declining because they are retired early, injuries etc.?

Why aren't horses running more frequently e.g., every two weeks etc.?

So, how does one control day rates?

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by AlsoEligible

Hardcore players always list takeout as a top problem because it is to them. But there are so many other reasons why a new player wouldn't want to spend their money and time on this sport, takeout is practically irrelevant in that discussion.

Nice couple of posts, AlsoEligible. Personally, I think your comments should be printed out and given to people in charge. You're 30, interested in data, gambling and not afraid to put work into your hobby. Your lack of interest in horse racing carries weight.

Your comment about takeout being irrelevant seems exactly right. Millions of people put their money into far worse endeavors. Takeout is important but only to those inside the fence (playing daily). It is up to those with daily/weekly interest to keep the game honest. To those not following the game, what happens with takeout rarely moves the needle.

I think there is a way to increase the overall appeal of the sport and attract 30-somethings, 20-somethings, but feel it is highly, highly unlikely in its current state.

I don't have the answers but can isolate the landmines that have to be addressed. To be honest, I'm rather shocked the game has been able to meander in the forest, without serious direction, for so long. I would think smart people could identify corrective actions to keep the game relevant. In the end, I think there are just too many people trying to take a bit of the apple and don't want to jeopardize their personal interests and profits.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Nice couple of posts, AlsoEligible. Personally, I think your comments should be printed out and given to people in charge. You're 30, interested in data, gambling and not afraid to put work into your hobby. Your lack of interest in horse racing carries weight.

Your comment about takeout being irrelevant seems exactly right. Millions of people put their money into far worse endeavors. Takeout is important but only to those inside the fence (playing daily). It is up to those with daily/weekly interest to keep the game honest. To those not following the game, what happens with takeout rarely moves the needle.

I think there is a way to increase the overall appeal of the sport and attract 30-somethings, 20-somethings, but feel it is highly, highly unlikely in its current state.

I don't have the answers but can isolate the landmines that have to be addressed. To be honest, I'm rather shocked the game has been able to meander in the forest, without serious direction, for so long. I would think smart people could identify corrective actions to keep the game relevant. In the end, I think there are just too many people trying to take a bit of the apple and don't want to jeopardize their personal interests and profits.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation....ch?q=roulette+

Excerpt:

Q. How many 'zeroes' do you have to add to a roulette wheel to turn roulette into the equivalent of what a newbie horse bettor faces? (Where random WPS selections produce long term net losses bordering on minus 25 percent?)

A. Believe it or not you have to add TEN ADDITIONAL ZEROES - until the layout itself has TWELVE ZEROES ON IT! – in order to turn roulette into the equivalent gamble (net losses of minus 25 percent) faced by a horse bettor making random WPS selections at 16 percent takeout!

TWELVE zeroes! (Mull that over for a few minutes until it sinks in.)

No one in their right mind is going to spend any serious amount of time immersed in study trying to develop a system to beat a roulette wheel with TWELVE freaking zeroes on it. (Can we at least agree on that much?)

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

http://blog.horseplayersassociation....ch?q=roulette+

Excerpt:

Q. How many 'zeroes' do you have to add to a roulette wheel to turn roulette into the equivalent of what a newbie horse bettor faces? (Where random WPS selections produce long term net losses bordering on minus 25 percent?)

A. Believe it or not you have to add TEN ADDITIONAL ZEROES - until the layout itself has TWELVE ZEROES ON IT! – in order to turn roulette into the equivalent gamble (net losses of minus 25 percent) faced by a horse bettor making random WPS selections at 16 percent takeout!

TWELVE zeroes! (Mull that over for a few minutes until it sinks in.)

No one in their right mind is going to spend any serious amount of time immersed in study trying to develop a system to beat a roulette wheel with TWELVE freaking zeroes on it. (Can we at least agree on that much?)

This suffers from a pretty basic math error.

Imagine the following two games:

Game 1 involves incredibly hard to hit big payoffs with a negative takeout-- i.e., you actually make money on the game in the long term if you are an average player. However, you only hit those payoffs once in 250 times or more that you play it.

Game 2 involves a positive takeout, i.e., the average player loses. However, there are lots of moderate payoffs and a ton of variance, so something like 35 percent of people who play it on a given day come out as winners.

Which game is going to deliver a better experience to the AVERAGE fan?

(By the way, it's worth noting that the vast majority of successful slot machines nowadays follow the paradigm of game 2.)

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This suffers from a pretty basic math error.

Imagine the following two games:

Game 1 involves incredibly hard to hit big payoffs with a negative takeout-- i.e., you actually make money on the game in the long term if you are an average player. However, you only hit those payoffs once in 250 times or more that you play it.

Game 2 involves a positive takeout, i.e., the average player loses. However, there are lots of moderate payoffs and a ton of variance, so something like 35 percent of people who play it on a given day come out as winners.

Which game is going to deliver a better experience to the AVERAGE fan?

(By the way, it's worth noting that the vast majority of successful slot machines nowadays follow the paradigm of game 2.)

Good example but it is missing a main ingredient. Do the players know the win ratio in advance? Most gamblers think they're better than the average win rate, so if the average person only collected once in 250 attempts, many gamblers think they can exploit this for a greater win ratio and would play game 1 for bigger payoffs.

Having said that, I do agree that game 2 would be much more attractive to gain a longer term following.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by airford1

Yes cheering for your horse and going to the winners circle with your partners was FABULOUS. The IRS calls it a Hobbie.

And it is a hobby! Should my playing golf be a write-off? Should owning a boat be a write-off? The timing of write-offs does not determine the success or failure of a business.

[iamt]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

http://blog.horseplayersassociation....ch?q=roulette+

Excerpt:

Q. How many 'zeroes' do you have to add to a roulette wheel to turn roulette into the equivalent of what a newbie horse bettor faces? (Where random WPS selections produce long term net losses bordering on minus 25 percent?)

A. Believe it or not you have to add TEN ADDITIONAL ZEROES - until the layout itself has TWELVE ZEROES ON IT! – in order to turn roulette into the equivalent gamble (net losses of minus 25 percent) faced by a horse bettor making random WPS selections at 16 percent takeout!

This is plainly incorrect. A random sample by definition would lose 16% (plus breakage) if making selections into a 16% takeout.


The article used a sample across all tracks and 16% as the headline figure. The average WPS takeout is higher than 16%.

It doesn't make the game any easier to beat but cherry picking numbers helps no one

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by iamt

This is plainly incorrect. A random sample by definition would lose 16% (plus breakage) if making selections into a 16% takeout.

Might want to let them know.

info@hanaweb.org

Sorry if it's off.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by AndyC

And it is a hobby! Should my playing golf be a write-off? Should owning a boat be a write-off? The timing of write-offs does not determine the success or failure of a business.

In your golf game, are you trying to make money to cover your costs?

If you respond yes thru gambling then I hope you're in a state where gambling on golf is legal.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

In your golf game, are you trying to make money to cover your costs?

If you respond yes thru gambling then I hope you're in a state where gambling on golf is legal.

I don't gamble on golf, but isn't it a little invasion of choice and privacy that the State CARES that golfers make bets between themselves...? How is it that Canada doesn't tax horse race winnings but the US does big time....I mean WHO gave the STATE the right to tax gambling.....did we all vote on that one...?

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

I don't gamble on golf, but isn't it a little invasion of choice and privacy that the State CARES that golfers make bets between themselves...? How is it that Canada doesn't tax horse race winnings but the US does big time....I mean WHO gave the STATE the right to tax gambling.....did we all vote on that one...?

It's been illegal in Cali for as long as I can remember. I don't remember voting on it. But, it probably was proposed in the early 1900's and voted on by our elected officials. I think we had a vote to allow the lottery and Indian casinos.

I don't know why Canada doesn't tax horse race winnings. Hopefully, someone knows the reason.

[cj]

Originally Posted by iamt

This is plainly incorrect. A random sample by definition would lose 16% (plus breakage) if making selections into a 16% takeout.


The article used a sample across all tracks and 16% as the headline figure. The average WPS takeout is higher than 16%.

It doesn't make the game any easier to beat but cherry picking numbers helps no one

I think he is thinking of betting every horse. That loses around 25%. If you randomly bet one horse you'd get closer to the actual takeout but always higher. There is still a favorite / longshot bias at play that doesn't exist on a roulette wheel.