Evans does it again

[ponypro]

Open mouth, Insert Hoof

That are all out to protect their 100 million dollar investment

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/44905.htm


PTC is a far superior business model and my guess ( and this is only a guess) was probably built for less than 100k. It happens over and over again every day some big blowheart CEO with substantial investors capital throws away tens of millions of dollars on their Internet "Vision" then a no nonsense very smart entrepenuer (Ian and co.) build a very economical Internet model that exploits all the corporate blunders of their clueless competitors. Their daily clockers report at Keeneland were bottom line more valuable to the player than the 80 million spent on brisnet. If the idea is treat the customers fairly and help them win, CDI can spend A BILLION more and not get it. Hopefully Evans will be fired before too much longer. He has alienated way too many good folks.

[ponypro]

Remember that 100 million dollar figure because thats why CDI cant negotiate. they are stuck because they bought a pig in a poke.
Only an idiot would publicly brag about an expenditure of this magnitude.
They arent kidding that they cannot give an inch.

But Thats not the Horsemans or the Players problem,

Write it down like every other Corporation that makes a horrendous financial decisions does , get an new CEO and board and let the best ADW win.

[Pace Cap'n]

Evans took a page from television talk show host David Letterman in outlining why ADW is so important to CDI. He offered a top-10 list:


3. The Internet allows racetracks to better understand their customers.

2. The Internet facilities new customer-geared features.

1. The Internet “nationalizes” the relationship between investment and financial return.

Say WHAT?

[NoCal Boy]

I have little use for EVans and his policies, but I believe the word "facilities" should be "facilitates" and "nationalize" should be "rationalize."

No matter what, the THG has his number now. The THG will not get 1/3 of the gross, but they will very likely get open access and more for purses than at present.

[rrbauer]

Evans:
“The only solution is to look for ways to share the upside,” Evans said. “The $15 billion (a year in wagering on Thoroughbred races) needs to be $45 billion for everyone to make an adequate return on capital. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs. There’s just not enough money to go around.”


Comment:
What upside? For the one-billionth-time: RACING IS NOT A GROWTH INDUSTRY! Soon these people will be fighting for the scraps under the table.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by rrbauer

Evans:
“The only solution is to look for ways to share the upside,” Evans said. “The $15 billion (a year in wagering on Thoroughbred races) needs to be $45 billion for everyone to make an adequate return on capital. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs. There’s just not enough money to go around.”


Comment:
What upside? For the one-billionth-time: RACING IS NOT A GROWTH INDUSTRY! Soon these people will be fighting for the scraps under the table.

Bob Evans knows it isn't a growth industry. He seems to be focused on strategies of getting every last dollar from the current "suckers" who bet on the game, in a way to make the most profit:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=46380

[DJofSD]

Evans:
“The only solution is to look for ways to share the upside,” Evans said. “The $15 billion (a year in wagering on Thoroughbred races) needs to be $45 billion for everyone to make an adequate return on capital. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs. There’s just not enough money to go around.”

Richard, my reaction to the above statement is the obvious one (or at least to me it seems obvious): remove all of the damn barriers and handle will increase.

Over the years I have become more selective with my plays. I just don't bet any race because it's there. I want some value for the risk I'm taking, so, I most generally do not even look at a race unless there's 8 betting interests. I rarely bet maiden races. I salivate over grass routes. And if there are too many runners that leave me with nagging little uncertainties, I pass the race.

I will admit, this leaves me with very little races. However, if the number of cards I could bet on were to increase, I'm sure I'd have more targets. Right now with all of the various restrictions, it's a target poor environment.

Would it triple my play, I can't say for certain. But I'd like to give it a try.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Richard, my reaction to the above statement is the obvious one (or at least to me it seems obvious): remove all of the damn barriers and handle will increase.

Over the years I have become more selective with my plays. I just don't bet any race because it's there. I want some value for the risk I'm taking, so, I most generally do not even look at a race unless there's 8 betting interests. I rarely bet maiden races. I salivate over grass routes. And if there are too many runners that leave me with nagging little uncertainties, I pass the race.

I will admit, this leaves me with very little races. However, if the number of cards I could bet on were to increase, I'm sure I'd have more targets. Right now with all of the various restrictions, it's a target poor environment.

Would it triple my play, I can't say for certain. But I'd like to give it a try.

If takeouts were reduced by 7% across every track, would your action double or triple? I know mine would.

[njcurveball]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

If takeouts were reduced by 7% across every track, would your action double or triple? I know mine would.

Would this be because you are betting more races or betting double or triple on the ones you are already playing?

Serious question, as 7% would certainly not double or triple the action of the normal bettor.

If you are betting $20 to win and you get back $54 instead of $50, does this make you bet $60 in the next race?

[ryesteve]

Originally Posted by njcurveball

Would this be because you are betting more races or betting double or triple on the ones you are already playing?

Serious question, as 7% would certainly not double or triple the action of the normal bettor.

If you are betting $20 to win and you get back $54 instead of $50, does this make you bet $60 in the next race?

I don't think so... but I think you'd be churning your money into more races. Lower takeouts allow people to be less selective, same as how rebate players can adjust their action accordingly vs. non-rebate situations.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by njcurveball

Would this be because you are betting more races or betting double or triple on the ones you are already playing?

Serious question, as 7% would certainly not double or triple the action of the normal bettor.

If you are betting $20 to win and you get back $54 instead of $50, does this make you bet $60 in the next race?

Maybe the average bettor would increase his or her bankroll alloted for horse racing more collectively because they feel they have a chance to win and they may go more often.
Personally, I would probably increase my betting per race as well, but the longevity factor would cause the triple more than the increased betting: I would bet more often on more tracks.

I know this for a fact btw.

[trying2win]

PONYPRO:

I agree with you when you declared that PTC has a far superior business model. Guys like Frank Stronach of MAGNA and Bob Evans of CDI are clueless when it comes to operating and trying to grow their horse racing businesses. When Frankie joined forces with CDI awhile ago (and I'm guessing) that he figured something along the line of..."that'll be a sure bet to bring back black ink to the bottom line for MAGNA tracks". In my opinion, that's like the old cliche 'going from the frying pan into the fire'!

And about some of Bob Evans comments in that article about "INTERNET AND ADW KEY TO GROWTH'...

“We’re involved in a pretty significant battle with horsemen,” Evans said. “I’m not going to try to explain it, but I do know it makes our business unprofitable.”
Evans called it “wasted time” trying to cut up the share of revenue from wagering that isn’t growing.

“The only solution is to look for ways to share the upside,” Evans said. “The $15 billion (a year in wagering on Thoroughbred races) needs to be $45 billion for everyone to make an adequate return on capital. Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs. There’s just not enough money to go around.”
Another typical character with a 'poverty consciousness'.

I get a kick out of some of these so-called 'enlightened racetrack executives who hire high-priced 'expert' consultants on how to make their businesses grow.
Ian Meyers of PTC has got it right. He knows that most of the best consultants, are his customers or potential customers. Why? Because they tell him what they want and what they would like to see happen as a customer. And generous cash rebates and superior customer service at PTC are of course, some of the rewards you receive at this stellar ADW. I'm guessing what Frankie S and Bobby E would say about the idea of rewarding cash rebates for bettors for their business...oh yeah...probably that same line that Bobby E said in the paragraph above this one "there's just not enough money to go around". These fellas should follow the advice of Peggy McColl below this line:

~""The Universe wants to give to you. The moment you begin to change your vibration to one of abundance, it will start sending you people, situations, and opportunities that reflect your inner state."

- Peggy McColl

[ezrabrooks]

Originally Posted by njcurveball

Would this be because you are betting more races or betting double or triple on the ones you are already playing?

Serious question, as 7% would certainly not double or triple the action of the normal bettor.

If you are betting $20 to win and you get back $54 instead of $50, does this make you bet $60 in the next race?

Interesting take on the lowering of take out. Personally, I wouldn't change my plan of attack at lower takes. A increase in my individual wagers might happen, but not double or triple. I would just take my increased ROI...and be happy. So, if I am a representative player (and well may not be), and the board experts are correct, the increase in handle is going to come from bringing old players back, and creating new ones? This argument just might go the way of ethanol.

[Rook]

Originally Posted by njcurveball

Would this be because you are betting more races or betting double or triple on the ones you are already playing?

Serious question, as 7% would certainly not double or triple the action of the normal bettor.

A 7% reduction might not change the action of a "normal" bettor but it would make the action of a close to break even bettor explode. Someone who is in the 92 cent to 99 cent ROI without a rebate is someone who walks away from the game for better opportunities. Give him an extra 7 cents and the .99 to $1.06 ROI is so compelling that he can bet millions a year and even turn professional.

This is not a theoretical argument. There are real world examples.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by trying2win

... Guys like Frank Stronach of MAGNA and Bob Evans of CDI are clueless when it comes to operating and trying to grow their horse racing businesses. ...

We should all be so clueless.

These men may not be friends of horseplayers, but to underestimate their power, intelligence, and ability to pursue their own agendas is what seems clueless to me.

I may poke fun at these two obstacles to my enjoyment of racing, but Evans never says anything he hasn't thought out carefully and hasn't hidden what he is trying to accomplish.

Stronach has amassed more money to be disposed of at his pleasure than anyone else involved in racing. His record as a breeder is "awesome." MEC is his sandbox and he usually gets to do what he wants in it, although it now appears he may allow another synthetic surface to be installed at SA.

It will take a lot of very smart, determined, well-organized, and well-supported players to force these two men to alter their paths. Bitching about them instead of coming up with intelligent suggestions as to how to effect changes to their courses is a waste of time, but I guess that's what we do best here.