Is the TOC preparing to stick it to horseplayers again?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by takeout

I thought it was a fair question. They're not the CHRB and they're not the track owner, so why should they have any say in takeout rates?

Something I didn't understand about the first boycott (which I'm still on and will be for life, it looks like) is how switching pools and dumping money into a Pick 5 was going to get the point across. Obviously it didn't. I have much respect for all involved in the boycott but can't help thinking that had none of the Pick 5 money ever been bet, hence a more real boycott, then maybe some of the head cheeses might have “smelled the coffee”. As it happened, by being too nice and continuing to bet in the state, we didn't nip it in the bud and now they're giving us more of the same. To make matters worse, CD picked up on how easy we are and pulled the same crap. They need a real boycott, too.

There probably aren't enough of us serious about this to make an impact (casual players don't know what takeout is and whales probably just get fancier rebates) but how about a real boycott this time? NOT ONE PENNY AT ANY TRACK IN CALIFORNIA UNTIL THEY GET A CLUE! If they never do, then so be it. I've been boycotting so long I'm way past withdrawal pains.

There's just too many people who are making wagers for "Action" and they're just paying for their action and won't stop betting, they could care less if the takeout is 22 percent of 222 percent, its all the same to them, they place the bet, they get action, winning and losing is an afterthought, so those people are just going to hurt the people who care deeply about the price of the bet.

Maybe it has to get worse before it gets better.

[DeanT]

Fascinates me that handle charts can display this behavior the last ten years, yet the same people who presided over it are still making all the decisions.

[DeanT]

Old Andy gets in the San Diego paper about this. On twitter he is telling everyone he does not speak for HANA, FYI. I don't know if he's a member or not, but he's a bulldog for the horseplayer.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...?#article-copy

The track is on the horseplayer's side in this. They seem to realize what's going on.

Craig Dado, Del Mar’s executive vice president and chief marketing officer, met with Thoroughbred Owners of California board members Friday to try and hammer out a consistent policy on takeout.

“Right now, there isn’t an apples to apples comparison,” Dado said. “What we want is for the whole industry to do something together. We’re trying to come up with numbers that will work for everyone.

[RXB]

The funny thing is, they make these decisions on takeout without ever bothering to actually consult their customers! Trainers & owners have a big say but bettors-- the ones actually affected by takeout and the ones whom you could consult on the matter-- are ignored. Honestly, you just have to scratch your head at how this industry is operated. It's no wonder at all that racing is declining.

[whodoyoulike]

I think we're (bettors) being slowly hustled out of our money. And, I don't like being hustled especially by such bad hustlers. Hustlers take your money and you normally don't realize it until later.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Fascinates me that handle charts can display this behavior the last ten years, yet the same people who presided over it are still making all the decisions.

Alarming for them and the players who keep betting. The bettors who have stopped betting are laying on the beach sipping pina coladas caring less.

[DeanT]

HANA Blog has something up about this

http://blog.horseplayersassociation....how-dinny.html

[RXB]

Originally Posted by RXB

The funny thing is, they make these decisions on takeout without ever bothering to actually consult their customers! Trainers & owners have a big say but bettors-- the ones actually affected by takeout and the ones whom you could consult on the matter-- are ignored. Honestly, you just have to scratch your head at how this industry is operated. It's no wonder at all that racing is declining.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation....medium=twitter

"Takeout rates should be set in a professional way, with professional people who know gambling economics. How horse racing lets a horsemen group set rates in a capricious fashion should've never happened in the first place."

Amen, brothers.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Fascinates me that handle charts can display this behavior the last ten years, yet the same people who presided over it are still making all the decisions.

They will look at it and conclude that the recession that hit during 2008 was the major reason for revenue fall-off...and they would be correct to a large extent...how else to you explain the tick-up in revenue in 2013 as the economy started picking back up in earnest (despite takeouts remaining at their high levels?)

[Al Gobbi]

20% double takeouts at Del Mar

http://www.dmtc.com/media/press-rele...reductions-132

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by RXB

The funny thing is, they make these decisions on takeout without ever bothering to actually consult their customers! Trainers & owners have a big say but bettors-- the ones actually affected by takeout and the ones whom you could consult on the matter-- are ignored. Honestly, you just have to scratch your head at how this industry is operated. It's no wonder at all that racing is declining.

Are there really a lot of businesses that consult their customers when raising prices? What customer would actually respond and say " ya know, raising prices on me sounds like a good idea"?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Are there really a lot of businesses that consult their customers when raising prices? What customer would actually respond and say " ya know, raising prices on me sounds like a good idea"?

They don't need to consult customers, but they do need to "do the math" as there is plenty of evidence that lower takeout begets higher handle.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

They will look at it and conclude that the recession that hit during 2008 was the major reason for revenue fall-off...and they would be correct to a large extent

You mean the same people that say gambling is recession proof?

Slots revenue at racetracks in North America went up from 2008-2012.

Hong Kong, in a recession, had horse racing handles go from $7.8B US in 2008 to this year's record $13.3B

Australia had, over the same period, handle set record after record, to $13B last year.

The economy has always been a convenient, yet inaccurate excuse.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

They will look at it and conclude that the recession that hit during 2008 was the major reason for revenue fall-off...and they would be correct to a large extent...how else to you explain the tick-up in revenue in 2013 as the economy started picking back up in earnest (despite takeouts remaining at their high levels?)

Oddly enough, on p4 of the CHRB Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2011, CHRB Chairman Keith Brackpool blamed THE ECONOMY as the reason handle fell off a cliff:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_report...ual_report.pdf

Handle continued to suffer as the economy continued to struggle. This is a national phenomenon and one that won’t change substantially for the better without a real bounce in the economy.

Brackpool went on to cite SB1072, the bill that brought 22.68% exacta takeout to California's major thoroughbred tracks, as a good thing.

I see just one fly in the ointment with all of this... FACTS.

SB1072 didn't deliver as promised. Not only did the bill fail to cause an increase in field size, the bill's takeout increase provision brought lower handle, fewer race dates, smaller total purse dollars paid out, not more as touted, cuts in hours for union workers, and eventually layoffs. (If you'd rather not take my word about the lost hours and layoffs I suggest you listen to the audio of the June 2014 CHRB Meeting where you can hear union members and officers pleading with the Commissioners of the CHRB not to do anything to cause them further losses of hours and jobs.)

The bill also undid the historical 50/50 split between tracks and horsesmen. For those who may not know the bill mandated the revenue split be made 52% horsemen and 48% tracks.

The only player friendly provision in the bill - exchange wagering? Well THAT appears to have been put on perma-hold by the horsemen.

By now most of you reading are probably familiar with SB1072. I say that because the pros and cons of SB1072 have been argued about endlessly both here at Paceadvantage and elsewhere.

However, I'm guessing most of you are not aware there was another gambling bill in California passed in 2010: AB142.

For those of you who may not know, AB142 gave the California Lottery the authority to use LOWER TAKEOUT - or higher prize payout percentages - for scratchers tickets.

Unlike horse racing (which took the opposite approach and raised racing takeout with SB1072) the CA Lottery was able to leverage LOWER TAKEOUT to drive brand recognition and generate significant increases in both sales and total revenue for Education.

Here's a quote from Linh Nguyen, Acting Director, California Lottery:

"Increasing the prize payout percentage improves the product's value to the consumer, provides us with a powerful message that gets consumer attention, and gives us a tool to drive sales and profits.

A relatively small increase in prize payout percentage can be leveraged into a much more significant increase in top-line sales.

Although the increase in prize payout percentage leaves a smaller percentage to be transferred to education, the total dollars going to our beneficiary goes up. And at the end of the day, you can spend a dollar, but you can't spend a percentage. So these changes have resulted in increased funding to education and that's what our constituents care most about and the reason the Lottery was created in 1984."

Read more at the link:
http://www.publicgaming.com/index.ph...0:public-gamin


So I have to ask the obvious:

If, as cited by the CHRB Chairman in the CHRB 2011 Annual Report, the economy was responsible for California racing's fall-off in handle, how in the world did the California Lottery generate an uptick in sales and total revenue flowing to education during the same fiscal time period?



-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Oddly enough, on p4 of the CHRB Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2011, CHRB Chairman Keith Brackpool blamed THE ECONOMY as the reason handle fell off a cliff:
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_report...ual_report.pdf

Brackpool went on to cite SB1072, the bill that brought 22.68% exacta takeout to California's major thoroughbred tracks, as a good thing.

I see just one fly in the ointment with all of this... FACTS.

SB1072 didn't deliver as promised. Not only did the bill fail to cause an increase in field size, the bill's takeout increase provision brought lower handle, fewer race dates, smaller total purse dollars paid out, not more as touted, cuts in hours for union workers, and eventually layoffs. (If you'd rather not take my word about the lost hours and layoffs I suggest you listen to the audio of the June 2014 CHRB Meeting where you can hear union members and officers pleading with the Commissioners of the CHRB not to do anything to cause them further losses of hours and jobs.)

The bill also undid the historical 50/50 split between tracks and horsesmen. For those who may not know the bill mandated the revenue split be made 52% horsemen and 48% tracks.

The only player friendly provision in the bill - exchange wagering? Well THAT appears to have been put on perma-hold by the horsemen.

By now most of you reading are probably familiar with SB1072. I say that because the pros and cons of SB1072 have been argued about endlessly both here at Paceadvantage and elsewhere.

However, I'm guessing most of you are not aware there was another gambling bill in California passed in 2010: AB142.

For those of you who may not know, AB142 gave the California Lottery the authority to use LOWER TAKEOUT - or higher prize payout percentages - for scratchers tickets.

Unlike horse racing (which took the opposite approach and raised racing takeout with SB1072) the CA Lottery was able to leverage LOWER TAKEOUT to drive brand recognition and generate significant increases in both sales and total revenue for Education.

Here's a quote from Linh Nguyen, Acting Director, California Lottery:

Read more at the link:
http://www.publicgaming.com/index.ph...0:public-gamin


So I have to ask the obvious:

If, as cited by the CHRB Chairman in the CHRB 2011 Annual Report, the economy was responsible for California racing's fall-off in handle, how in the world did the California Lottery generate an uptick in sales and total revenue flowing to education during the same fiscal time period?



-jp

.

Saying its the economy is a shot at the players intelligence, why can't these people ever just say "we raised the prices, so people made less purchases". Just call a spade a spade, they act is if horseplayers were born yesterday.