If Santa Anita closes...

[JeremyJet]

Originally Posted by cj

The pools are kind of phony robust though, playing against a lot of heavily rebated money there.

I don't understand. Can you go a little more in-depth? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[cj]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

I don't understand. Can you go a little more in-depth? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Gulfstream is cutting some very sweet deals with CRW teams from what I understand. So while the pools may look big, you are playing against extraordinarily savvy money when you play there.

[Tom]

Do those deals include access to correct race times for the CRWs?

[deelo]

Personally, I think the day they close SA is the day they ban racing nationwide. I don't think it's a hypothetical even worth pondering over.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by cj

Gulfstream is cutting some very sweet deals with CRW teams from what I understand. So while the pools may look big, you are playing against extraordinarily savvy money when you play there.

Curtis Linell is the most brilliant operational mind in pari-mutuel racing today. . A corollary to his remarks is that when CRW teams win they do not churn back their winnings as regular players do. Instead they remain disciplined by betting only to the "value" perceived by their programs and to pool totals established by all other players. Because CRW winning bets tend to lower payoffs , regular players who win on the same bets have less money to churn. Ergo less money to bet translates to smaller pools and declining pari-mutuel handle overall. A reasonable conclusion is that computer teams are and always have been a long term negative for racing's pari-mutuel business. Pricing the simulcast product so that rebates can be given to this destructive form of wagering is just short of insane. Where will this lead to in another 5-10 years?. No where good I suspect
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...acting-payouts

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Curtis Linell is the most brilliant operational mind in pari-mutuel racing today. . A corollary to his remarks is that when CRW teams win they do not churn back their winnings as regular players do. Instead they remain disciplined by betting only to the "value" perceived by their programs and to pool totals established by all other players. Because CRW winning bets tend to lower payoffs , regular players who win on the same bets have less money to churn. Ergo less money to bet translates to smaller pools and declining pari-mutuel handle overall. A reasonable conclusion is that computer teams are and always have been a long term negative for racing's pari-mutuel business. Pricing the simulcast product so that rebates can be given to this destructive form of wagering is just short of insane. Where will this lead to in another 5-10 years?. No where good I suspect
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...acting-payouts

Barry Meadow suggests not banning CRW bettors but lowering takeout, in the Bloodhorse link comments section immediately below the commenter you cite.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Curtis Linell is the most brilliant operational mind in pari-mutuel racing today. . A corollary to his remarks is that when CRW teams win they do not churn back their winnings as regular players do. Instead they remain disciplined by betting only to the "value" perceived by their programs and to pool totals established by all other players. Because CRW winning bets tend to lower payoffs , regular players who win on the same bets have less money to churn. Ergo less money to bet translates to smaller pools and declining pari-mutuel handle overall. A reasonable conclusion is that computer teams are and always have been a long term negative for racing's pari-mutuel business. Pricing the simulcast product so that rebates can be given to this destructive form of wagering is just short of insane. Where will this lead to in another 5-10 years?. No where good I suspect
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...acting-payouts

I know the name, sure he is a smart guy, but this isn't anything new I haven't heard from others here or said here myself many times in the past. The current model can't last IMO.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Barry Meadow suggests not banning CRW bettors but lowering takeout, in the Bloodhorse link comments section immediately below the commenter you cite.

Lowering takeout would help, but I think that's a pipe dream. The tracks, horsemen and states that receive portions of the takeout are pretty much all hanging on by a thread or starved for cash. There's no portion of the pie they can give up and survive. In fact, I predict takeout will rise as the death spiral of the sport continues, and the North American tracks will be like the South American tracks sooner, rather than later.

As for rebates, the negative aspect of that has been beaten to death on this forum, and rightly so. The CRW and other whales that receive the higher rebates are parasites that are contributing to the long-term decline of the sport.

[JeremyJet]

If only our elected officials cared about us humans as much as they seem to care about the animals. After all, 99% of us are getting ripped off here. You can't have one set of rules for one group of people and another set of rules for the rest.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by cj

Gulfstream is cutting some very sweet deals with CRW teams from what I understand.

CJ, is there a list somewhere of tracks that either outright disallows CRWs or effectively discourages them by not offering good discounts?

Seems like something HANA would have or somebody?

[Tom]

Would be a great marketing tool, IMHO. Better than free hats or 50 cent hot dogs - Racing for the PEOPLE, not computers~! Bet where you have a chance.

[AlsoEligible]

Oaklawn is the only track I know of that explicitly disallows CRW. Of course those guys still get in through other channels (like retail ADW accounts), but without the tools to flood 10,000 bets at the last second, the impact on pools/odds is much smaller.

Tampa used to take the same stance, but I’m pretty sure they caved in a couple years ago. Agreed with Linnell that these teams are ultimately bad for the game...but racing is nothing if not short-sighted, and it’s hard for most tracks to pass up that handle.

Do those deals include access to correct race times for the CRWs?

What if I told you that the reason for Gulfstream’s ridiculous post times is because they’re waiting for every last drop of CRW money to come in. I’ve actually seen mutuels telling the judge to hold off on closing a race because the Rainbow 6 pool wasn’t big enough yet, so they were “still missing a team or two.”

[highnote]

Originally Posted by showonly

How does the Stronach group fare if racing no longer exists in Arcadia.

If Santa Anita is forced to close by the courts or by the government and the Stronachs are forced to sell the property then they might NOT have to pay any taxes on the sale of the property. It is called an “involuntary conversion".

The tax savings could be worth millions if not hundreds of millions to the family.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Redboard

It's a win-win situation for Stronach. If they let things go as is, fine, if the ban racing in CA fine, they can just sell the property and make a fortune.

1000 acres with two units of real estate per acre each paying about $5000 a year in real estate taxes.

Stronach, the government, the developers all make out. The only ones who get screwed are us.

320 acres.

A track closing doesn’t “screw” the customer. May not make you happy, but you didn’t lose anything to get “screwed.”

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Curtis Linell is the most brilliant operational mind in pari-mutuel racing today. . A corollary to his remarks is that when CRW teams win they do not churn back their winnings as regular players do. Instead they remain disciplined by betting only to the "value" perceived by their programs and to pool totals established by all other players. Because CRW winning bets tend to lower payoffs , regular players who win on the same bets have less money to churn. Ergo less money to bet translates to smaller pools and declining pari-mutuel handle overall. A reasonable conclusion is that computer teams are and always have been a long term negative for racing's pari-mutuel business. Pricing the simulcast product so that rebates can be given to this destructive form of wagering is just short of insane. Where will this lead to in another 5-10 years?. No where good I suspect
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...acting-payouts

does anyone know if this is still true:

Linnell said Oaklawn Park is the largest track to not allow them. Arkansas State Racing Commissioner Mark Lamberth said that decision has worked very well for Oaklawn, disputing a contention by Powell that on-track wagering has suffered at the track since it banned CRW players a dozen years ago.

We know now OP handle is/has not been going down. I wonder if KY downs allows CRWs?