HANA, where you at?

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by Scav

The idea of HANA is a good one, but the issue is that they are now part of the problem because, like racetracks and to a lesser extent horseman, they think they are the most important thing. HANA portrays that takeout is bad, but without takeout, there would be no racing. Especially since everyone bets from home now, takeout is even more important and we are lucky are not paying 30% on WPS. California is still one of the lowest in WPS and exotic takeouts in the nation, why not attack other tracks? Wait, is it because the 4 volunteers liked betting Santa Anita, and now they won't because they aren't getting 2$ less on every $100

What I find hilarious is that HANA is secretly taking credit for this 18% drop in handle and it is absolute BS. Any serious handicapper/gambler is gonna be taking the cautious approach to a brand new surface in the first 3-4 weeks. OF COURSE they were gonna be down on handle. I would be willing to bet that come February once the surface has set in and people become comfortable handicapping it, they will improve their handle to be better then last year, barring weather or things out of their control.

Thanks for your opinion on CA, but what about the reason you started the thread: GP scratches?

What would you think is an equitable policy change for this, or does it happen too infrequently for it to be tackled?

We'll prolly write something up this week, so the more input/ideas the better.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Scav

Wait, is it because the 4 volunteers liked betting Santa Anita, and now they won't because they aren't getting 2$ less on every $100.

I think what you meant to say was "... because they ARE getting $2 less."

So let me give you an example of why getting $2 less per $100 matters:

If you include all the board members of HANA (there are more than 4), let's say they average $1,000 in bets between them per race. It may be more.

(btw... Professional handicappers probably bet $2,000 per race on races where the pools are big enough. And on KY Derby day, maybe $10,000 per race.)

So HANA board members are now getting $20 less per race (that's $40 per race for a professional). Let's say they collectively can bet 50 races per day since some of them probably have software that points out potential horses to bet. Now you're talking $1,000 less per day.

That means a professional is probably losing out even more per day -- maybe $2,000 per day. That's less money to pay their staff. Less money to churn back into the pools. Less money for everyone in the long term -- including tracks, trainers, jocks and grooms, etc.

All this because they are making $2 less per $100.

So yes. Takeout matters.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

I think what you meant to say was "... because they ARE getting $2 less."

So let me give you an example of why getting $2 less per $100 matters:

If you include all the board members of HANA (there are more than 4), let's say they average $1,000 in bets between them per race. It may be more.

(btw... Professional handicappers probably bet $2,000 per race on races where the pools are big enough. And on KY Derby day, maybe $10,000 per race.)

So HANA board members are now getting $20 less per race (that's $40 per race for a professional). Let's say they collectively can bet 50 races per day since some of them probably have software that points out potential horses to bet. Now you're talking $1,000 less per day.

That means a professional is probably losing out even more per day -- maybe $2,000 per day. That's less money to pay their staff. Less money to churn back into the pools. Less money for everyone in the long term -- including tracks, trainers, jocks and grooms, etc.

All this because they are making $2 less per $100.

So yes. Takeout matters.

I don't need a lecture on takeout comedy guy. I understand it completely. I am a california bettor, close to 75% of my action is in California and I welcomed this takeout increase with open arms because I am sick of 5 horse fields and daily doubles that are paying $3.40. 100% of this takeout increase goes into the purses. If they lowered takeout you think people would unload on 5 horse fields, very very unlikely.

I am also a fringe horseman, and I understand the need to make money to pay the bills on these nags. Speaking from a horseman perspective, the purse increase will give the people that sit on the sidelines and wait for the perfect spot to run. I manage horses that at Philly Park and when I run 3rd there, I pay the bills for the whole month.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Scav

I don't need a lecture on takeout comedy guy. I understand it completely. I am a california bettor, close to 75% of my action is in California and I welcomed this takeout increase with open arms because I am sick of 5 horse fields and daily doubles that are paying $3.40. 100% of this takeout increase goes into the purses. If they lowered takeout you think people would unload on 5 horse fields, very very unlikely.

I am also a fringe horseman, and I understand the need to make money to pay the bills on these nags. Speaking from a horseman perspective, the purse increase will give the people that sit on the sidelines and wait for the perfect spot to run. I manage horses that at Philly Park and when I run 3rd there, I pay the bills for the whole month.

Have field sizes increased? If not, when will that happen?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Scav

I don't need a lecture on takeout comedy guy. I understand it completely. I am a california bettor, close to 75% of my action is in California and I welcomed this takeout increase with open arms because I am sick of 5 horse fields and daily doubles that are paying $3.40. 100% of this takeout increase goes into the purses. If they lowered takeout you think people would unload on 5 horse fields, very very unlikely.

I am also a fringe horseman, and I understand the need to make money to pay the bills on these nags. Speaking from a horseman perspective, the purse increase will give the people that sit on the sidelines and wait for the perfect spot to run. I manage horses that at Philly Park and when I run 3rd there, I pay the bills for the whole month.

It's one thing to say that you believe the takeout increase to be justified...and it's something altogether different to declare that you have "welcomed this takeout increase with open arms".

Does this mean, that we should welcome the takeout increases that are sure to follow in other states, "with open arms" as well?

[Relwob Owner]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Have field sizes increased? If not, when will that happen?

I believe the average field size so far is just under 8, down slightly from last year so the goal of getting field sizes doesnt appear to have been reached yet. Looks like today, the average size will be pretty low. There is a stakes race today that will start 3 horses after two have scratched.....

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Relwob Owner

I believe the average field size so far is just under 8, down slightly from last year so the goal of getting field sizes doesnt appear to have been reached yet. Looks like today, the average size will be pretty low. There is a stakes race today that will start 3 horses after two have scratched.....

That's horrible.

[Relwob Owner]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

That's horrible.

It is....the owners and trainers of the remaining three horses welcomed the scratches and subsequent 3 horse field "with open arms".......

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Relwob Owner

It is....the owners and trainers of the remaining three horses welcomed the scratches and subsequent 3 horse field "with open arms".......

Yes indeed!

[DeanT]

If only it was so easy to give a few more bucks to purses and fix field size in CA; but it is not.

If it was, the purse increase in 06 with the same policy would have worked.

Anywhere there is an increase, there is a resulting increase in costs of horse ownership which eats the increase. This has happened in many jurisdictions. There is a fundamental problem in horse ownership costs there that needs to be addressed, imo.

Like a CA horse owner said here: "They could up the purses for MSW to 100k and all that will happen will be an increase in everything that goes into the horse, inflation will occur in bloodstock prices, and owners will be tapped out asking for more purses." We have heard that from others too that own in CA.

The worst part with this is that doing something they have already tried that did not work is one thing, but squeezing players to do the same thing over again makes little sense. It is not an opinion that handle will go down, and you will break more customers, it's simple mathematics. It's not like our customer base in racing is growing or anything. We've lost half our handles in the last ten years.

It's putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. It does not fix the problem, just like it did not fix the problem in 2006 when they tried it. The patient does not need more band-aids, he needs surgery.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Scav

I don't need a lecture on takeout comedy guy.

"comedy guy"? Why do you resort to namecalling?

I understand it completely.

Apparantly not. Otherwise, you would understand that bettors don't like losing money. $2 per $100 is not trivial -- it compounds rapidly.

100% of this takeout increase goes into the purses.

I don't think your statement is correct. I believe I read that the extra takeout increase is split with ADWs. If so, then only 1/2 of it goes to purses.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

"comedy guy"? Why do you resort to namecalling?




Apparantly not. Otherwise, you would understand that bettors don't like losing money. $2 per $100 is not trivial -- it compounds rapidly.



I don't think your statement is correct. I believe I read that the extra takeout increase is split with ADWs. If so, then only 1/2 of it goes to purses.

My statement is correct. And I use 'Comedy guy' alot, sometimes I forget this is the internet.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It's one thing to say that you believe the takeout increase to be justified...and it's something altogether different to declare that you have "welcomed this takeout increase with open arms".

Does this mean, that we should welcome the takeout increases that are sure to follow in other states, "with open arms" as well?

Not at all. I understand the your thought that "if california can do, others can" but other states have already gone down that path. I don't think they are going to because most other states are already at the breaking point, they have already done this.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/stati...out&header=off

The above is from 2008 so it is out of date, but on this list, Cali was the 2nd lowest to New York. I don't know what the updated numbers are.

I can accept 2nd on the list for them to try something to stimulate racing.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

California should have said that the takeout increase will not only lead to bigger field size but also end world hunger.
They would be dead wrong on both counts.

Is this Scarv guy for real? Seriously. I'm on his every word.
A gambler welcoming a takeout increase????
For the possibility of bigger field sizes?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by Scav

Not at all. I understand the your thought that "if california can do, others can" but other states have already gone down that path. I don't think they are going to because most other states are already at the breaking point, they have already done this.

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/stati...out&header=off

The above is from 2008 so it is out of date, but on this list, Cali was the 2nd lowest to New York. I don't know what the updated numbers are.

I can accept 2nd on the list for them to try something to stimulate racing.

It didn't stimulate racing last time they upped the takeout, and it won't stimulate racing now.
Oh, and here is an up to date takeout map:
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...3&source=embed