Quote:
Originally Posted by the little guy
Anyone that wants to laugh even harder should look up...
|
... Andy's posts stating his predictions for Canterbury's handle to shoot up by "40-50%" during that season when they experimented with lower takeout and decimated their racing revenue.
(he was cheering wildly after weekend #1, where after comparing a dry weekend that year to a wet track mess the year before, Cby's handle was up "48.1%" or some such thing... and then
the bottom fell out of the stupid idea)
He simply doesn't
get the economics of horse racing, and has no understanding as to why racing need not bother playing to its weaknesses while continuously overlooking its true strengths.
Racing is about the only wagering venture out there with the door truly wide-open for the house to actually
do something for the customers, and yet it sits idle today as it has for decades.
(of course
competition for the gambling dollar is the difference between now and 1975. When the other team exposes your
weak defensive secondary, you don't counter with a game plan that keeps your defense on the field for 40 minutes a game (which is effectively what racing does).
Instead you bank on your star quarterback and leading rusher, as would anyone... anyone
except the whole of horse racing...)
Asaro's roll in racing's big picture is that of head cheerleader for the defense. Instead of actually
winning the game, Asaro seems to have as his goal to tinker with the weak secondary while leaving them on the field for 45 or 50 minutes now, instead of the 40 that brought racing to this depth.
And racing's
coaches have wasted countless time
listening to Asaro and his ilk at the direct expense of
winning the game.
Maybe if we're all very fortunate, the states will one-by-one just outlaw horse racing as has been the case with dog racing. Then the career-long stupidity of various racetrack management teams need never be exposed.
