Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > Horseplayers Association of North America (H.A.N.A.)


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 07-14-2009, 06:41 PM   #16
Indulto
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
400 pages. That's the size of a report that was created for the BC members, and I tend to agree 120% with
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
Bill Christine and his Consultants by the Carload, the last thing the industry needs is more consultants. I should know I guess I've been a quasi one for about a year now. I've been lucky enough to go to the NTRA annual meeting, the TPA's meeting, and am part of a group of fans talking about the BC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine

... What holds back this industry is the inability and the reluctance to admit that past contracts and dealings do not make sense in 1989 let alone 2009. Everyone is so scared to try and word a new contract because it might cause the whole house of cards to come tumbling down. The industry doesn't need a new era of marketing it needs a new era of trust and cooperation at the most basic level. The Contract.

... The time has come to be more specific. Change is always be coming to this sport, but all we get areplatitudes and affirmations. If you want change, if you want recognition, you must be specific. A lot more specific than below:

"We want open access to all track signals for all ADWs, takeouts that are competitive with other forms of gambling, the abolishment of breakage, severe penalties for trainers who cheat, and odds updates in real time. But most of all we want those who run racing to recognize us. The player matters. The player is a stakeholder too. Without money bet by us players the game would cease to exist."

Taking the idea that the current contracts in place between tracks on all levels are poorly acclimated to today's world and combining that with your focus on take out, breakage, and signal I ask you come up with a new contract. Most signal agreements between tracks are cumbersome, unwieldy, inefficient, take your pick. What the industry needs is a new starting point.

So what would a signal agreement look like? What should tracks strive to get to? I want to see real numbers, real contractual language, no more change, I want a finished product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
… i think it's important for any grass roots movement to have a specific platform. This contract idea is just one plank, but I think it might be the most important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine

I disagree it would be a waste of your time. Every thing you guys do here is about those contracts held between tracks. Rebates, for example, are more possible for some tracks than others because of the contracts they've signed. If a track is only making 5% on a WPS and it's customers want 3% rebates why should that track even offer the bet? Just one example of how contracts hold the things you want back.

The purpose of having a ready made contract (or at least as close to the real thing as possible) is so you can put it in someone's face. You can say, here's what you should be doing. It's easy to say track A's takeout is too high, but what's the right level? It's easy to say there should be rebates, but like the above example, where should they come from. …
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
Soooo...... this is the part where you guys rally your troops and put pencil to paper. Start forming a coalition on these boards, have someone write up a draft, contact people off the record for some input, or a starting point, start polling people on what they want to see, start fact checking w/ people outside the group to make sure you don't pull a PETA (and say killing flies is the worst human offense possible) and look crazy. If you put out a contract that is competent, fair, well meaning, and SPECIFIC.... HANA holds the world in its hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine

HANA implores all tracks to move towards a contract that is fair and in accordance with today's business world. This base contract is fair, detailed, and will enable track management to get back to focusing on what's truly important, handle makers. No contract is plug and chug, but we hope this base contract acts as a guide to creating a new era in racing.
machine,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts publicly. They are far too important to have fallen unheard outside the forest of pseudo grass roots. My concern is when that model contract is constructed, that it also reflects the concerns of the majority of racing’s customers -- those who bet for entertainment -- and not just horsemen, whales, and track/ADW executives.

What you're proposing is major reform throughout the industry, not just pecking away at various aspects. Like the BC committee just disbanded, a working group that does not represent ALL racing’s customers is not the way to go. I understand that a small group can make progress at a speed a large group cannot, but a true grass-roots movement reports progress and obtains feedback at frequent intervals to avoid going off in an unsanctioned direction, and to make certain that ideas are presented to all interested parties to trigger further enhancement of those ideas or even better ones, if possible.

Your reaction to Christine’s column triggered your starting this thread. In turn this thread has triggered some fine-tuning of my own thoughts. So should the development of your contract proceed. Perhaps this is the time to consider whether such a contract should be primarily based on racing as a sport or as a market. Consider the following as a starting point:

FUN<==ENTERTAINMENT<==SPORT<==COMPETITION<==ROOTING INTERESTS

PROFIT<==INVESTMENT<==MARKET<==MANIPULATION<==INANIMATE OBJECTS

I’ve been accused on this board of pitting horseplayers against one another, because I rebel at the concept that it is good business practice to give discounts to one’s largest customers to the DETRIMENT of one’s smaller customers, and that’s the effect that selective rebating (takeout discounting) based on wager volume has. These are not occasional purchases like airline tickets, they are a repetitive series of bets on independent outcomes, the takeout on which has risen to the point where it eventually grinds even skilled players into inactivity.

This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that this advantage -- provided primarily to those who make a living wagering on horse races, but not their non-professional competition in the pari-mutuel pools -- is endorsed by the horsemen, tracks, and ADWs. In my opinion, the contract must specify either an equally lower direct takeout levels on all wagers by any player or else an equal rebate rate on all wagers to all customers regardless of wagered amount.

So I applaud your idea of a contract, but until racing gets back to giving all its customers the same opportunity to win that their level of skill and/or luck warrants the way it used to – and the way casinos still do – a lot of effort could be expended without the desired result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
... Irons in the fire is great, not being able to report on them not so great, how can you gauge your success if you don't have a bar to gauge it against. If someone's take out is 25% and they lower it to 23% is that success.... if you put a platform together asking for 15% you realize people are just giving you lip service, saying that you had an affect when in actuality they are appeasing you so you go away happy.

I'll leave it at this. I signed up for HANA today, because it took nothing on my part but an email address. These, you say, add weight and significance when talking to people. I say it just makes you feel better. HANA stands for nothing, because there's nothing in that sign up sheet for me to sign on to and say I believe in. Something like a platform you do ASAP when people start recognizing that you have some "pull", and you start putting it in front of people that this is what you expect and anything less won't be a situation where you go away happy. If weeks turn to months turn to years and you don't have something concrete to show people and to gauge success and failure against you have a community of either pushovers happy to accept any small change as proof they "did" something or maybe even worse whiners who don't like the current situation but offer no specifics as to what they want and what would be economically feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
I commend HANA on fighting battles, but you're not fighting the war. There is no plan of attack, there is no flag to follow.

I'd say if you had a platform or something to rally around you'd find your members ready to pitch in and help out cause they could see where they fit in or could help.
If ever what somebody had to say was more important than who they are, this was it.

Once again, machine, thanks for taking the time to contribute your thoughts..
Indulto is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 07:01 PM   #17
rrbauer
Both-hands Bettor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NASCAR Country
Posts: 4,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanT
The AARP was founded in 1948 and it took them ten years to put out a magazine. It was 35 years to get going on insurance, which did not go over well, then about another ten years to find several issues like taxation where they became a lobbying force. I sure as hell hope that it does not take HANA that long to get going and force change, but one thing we do want is to be around in 50 years and have a pile of members. It has been the goal since day one - horseplayer groups, or factions, or whatever have come over the years and are gone as quickly as they have started. We are trying to not be another one of them.
It's disappointing to me for one of the movers and shakers within HANA to use the AARP as an example when AARP and HANA have very little in common other than a preponderence of their membership have gray hair. I really don't know what is being served by this reference, Dean. HANA needs agendas' that are designed to influence change. HANA is not selling insurance. The only way that HANA can influence change is to gain a seat at the industry table. Specifically, what is HANA's plan to gain that seat? It's a pretty simple question. What is HANA's plan? HANA's communication to its membership SUCKS; but, maybe that's because there is no communication other than the weekly pool party bulletins.

Does anyone at HANA know anything about running an organization? If so, I wish that they would step up and start running it; and, letting the membership in on the secret.
__________________
Richard Bauer
rrbauer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 07:33 PM   #18
DeanT
Registered User
 
DeanT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,962
Thanks Machine for starting this, (eventhough we always tend to get slammed for being idiots sooner or later in these threads), because it was a good thing to address on the blog, which I just did.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Calling all Players

We had an interesting discussion at Paceadvantage recently about how HANA should tackle issues, and what they should be tackling. This is a worthwhile discussion, so as we do often times when members ask questions or offer suggestions, we blog about it.

Generally, we get a lot of ideas thrown our way. Each board member probably has 200 things that they want to get done, members give their thoughts and that list grows and grows. I am happy to say we do not have a dearth of ideas, but we do have a dearth of help. An idea without help to achieve it, will be stuck in the idea vault, because we are a volunteer organization, and everyone who works daily at HANA has a job and a family.

We truly need to have people championing ideas, because we do not have enough hours in the day, nor the workforce to champion all of them ourselves. But when one champions an idea they become part of making it happen. The NTRA player panel can have ideas thrown their way and they can put their paid staff onto it. We have no paid staff. We have four or five people doing this in their spare time.

As an example, the HANA Pool Party was not Jeff or Theresia's idea, it was Ross Gallo and Mike Mayo's who were HANA members that none of us even knew personally. What they did was emailed us with a blog piece about trying to build a moveable amount of money per week to effect change. They offered to work at it, and wanted to see if it would be something worth pursuing. Ross and Mike, in effect, offered an idea, but most importantly offered to champion that idea. Ross now runs the Handletalks group over at Yahoo and runs the pool parties (with over 100 members, way to go Ross). Without Ross and Mike taking the ball and running with it, this idea never sees the light of day. We are lucky to have members like Ross and Mike at HANA.

This was not unlike another idea that was thrown our way in March, however the end result was completely the opposite. Rich Bauer, god bless him, as he is about as passionate a horseplayer there is, offered out an idea about a handicapping contest. He wanted it to be done at Tampa Bay Downs (a track very player friendly) and he would supply the prize money. It was a fantastic idea that we all loved. We would help promote HANA, and Rich can support us with the prize money. We went to it as it was an awesome idea.

Unfortunately the task needed several things: Software to run the contest, and/or some programming. A contest master. And numerous promotions on the web (we wanted to try and get mentioned everywhere, as at Paceadvantage.com we were already well known). Jeff worked on this for a bit, then life and other issues got in the way. Jeff was programming the website for the track ratings among other items for the site, and working on HANA Day at Keeneland, (he also had a big project for his own job at that time). How about Bill, another board member? He was finishing the track ratings and working on Version 2.0 to be published. This was a huge job. Me? I was working on the HANA Ratings with bloodhorse. We had to edit and re-edit ten pieces of over 12,000 words, not to mention write them. In addition I was tasked with marketing it over the web, and issuing the releases to various entities, answering questions and blogging about it (not to mention hitting all the chat boards to promote it). I had to present at a conference for HANA at the end of the month as well, so that was going to take time. Theresia? She was in charge of HANA Day. It was also tax time at work, so she was working 14 hour days already. She was working on getting quotes from all the HANA tracks as well. John? He works for a TV station and they had a month long project on and he could not help. John was already in charge of another project for HANA anyway, and even if he had the time he could not get this going. Rich was retired and clearly could not champion the idea, and frankly with the amount he offered us for the contest, he in no way should have been expected to run it. It would have been nothing more than a slap in the face to someone who wanted to help, to ask him to find people to run it.

We asked around for some web help for the contest, found none, so we had to put that fantastic idea on the backburner. It was an absolute shame. We had someone wanting to help like Rich, with a great idea and we could not execute it. We were happy Rich gave us a donation anyway. We hope to use that money on polling, database software, webhosting and a few other items.

So I guess that is it in a nutshell: We love ideas, we love the passion, we love members giving us those ideas. But we really need people to champion them - to take the ball and run with it.

If anyone reads anything on the Mission Statement, has an idea, or might even want to add to the mission statement to force change in our sport, here is the best way to go about it:

* Offer out your idea and email it to us at info@HANAweb.com
* Detail what needs to be done to force the change
* Come to a meeting and present it to members
* Offer out ways in which you can help, or if you know a group who will help achieve that goal, by championing that idea.

We have had a couple of you do exactly that, like Ross and Mike, and we can not thank you enough. Right now each board member is flush on each issue that we are working on presently. If something new is added we need the help to get it done. We are calling on players for that help and if you want to offer some, our door is open and we can not thank you enough.

Thanks for reading and thanks to everyone who has helped HANA in the past, and their continued support in the future.
DeanT is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 07:39 PM   #19
Cangamble
Agitator
 
Cangamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario
Posts: 2,240
I had to do my usual sniping on the Paulick Report:
"Whatever, if you drop the ADW to 30%, there will be no to little room for rebates. I know that personally, I wind up betting 3-4 times as much when getting around a 7% rebate.

You want to destroy horse racing completely? Follow Mr. Pope. He is absolutely out of touch with reality with his proposal. But I’m sure he is a nice guy just the same."
__________________
http://cangamble.blogspot.com/
"Make a bet every day; otherwise you might walk around lucky and never know it."
Cangamble is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 08:28 PM   #20
InsideThePylons-MW
Registered User
 
InsideThePylons-MW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,572
It is just shocking that these industry dolts like the KTA will even listen to Pope.

What is even more amazing is that they listen to him and then spend time, resources and money "vetting his proposal" with the thought of maybe implementing it.

Just incredible.
InsideThePylons-MW is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 08:39 PM   #21
rrbauer
Both-hands Bettor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NASCAR Country
Posts: 4,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanT
Thanks Machine for starting this, (eventhough we always tend to get slammed for being idiots sooner or later in these threads), because it was a good thing to address on the blog, which I just did.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Calling all Players




This was not unlike another idea that was thrown our way in March, however the end result was completely the opposite. Rich Bauer, god bless him, as he is about as passionate a horseplayer there is, offered out an idea about a handicapping contest. He wanted it to be done at Tampa Bay Downs (a track very player friendly) and he would supply the prize money. It was a fantastic idea that we all loved. We would help promote HANA, and Rich can support us with the prize money. We went to it as it was an awesome idea.

Unfortunately the task needed several things: Software to run the contest, and/or some programming. A contest master. And numerous promotions on the web (we wanted to try and get mentioned everywhere, as at Paceadvantage.com we were already well known). Jeff worked on this for a bit, then life and other issues got in the way. Jeff was programming the website for the track ratings among other items for the site, and working on HANA Day at Keeneland, (he also had a big project for his own job at that time). How about Bill, another board member? He was finishing the track ratings and working on Version 2.0 to be published. This was a huge job. Me? I was working on the HANA Ratings with bloodhorse. We had to edit and re-edit ten pieces of over 12,000 words, not to mention write them. In addition I was tasked with marketing it over the web, and issuing the releases to various entities, answering questions and blogging about it (not to mention hitting all the chat boards to promote it). I had to present at a conference for HANA at the end of the month as well, so that was going to take time. Theresia? She was in charge of HANA Day. It was also tax time at work, so she was working 14 hour days already. She was working on getting quotes from all the HANA tracks as well. John? He works for a TV station and they had a month long project on and he could not help. John was already in charge of another project for HANA anyway, and even if he had the time he could not get this going. Rich was retired and clearly could not champion the idea, and frankly with the amount he offered us for the contest, he in no way should have been expected to run it. It would have been nothing more than a slap in the face to someone who wanted to help, to ask him to find people to run it.

We asked around for some web help for the contest, found none, so we had to put that fantastic idea on the backburner. It was an absolute shame. We had someone wanting to help like Rich, with a great idea and we could not execute it. We were happy Rich gave us a donation anyway. We hope to use that money on polling, database software, webhosting and a few other items.
This is not the entire story, and Jeff Platt knows it. The idea was either Tampa Bay in March or Keeneland in April. I even put Jeff in touch with a person who had software that was being used for a contest at another site. I did not push on that arrangement because I know volunteer work for what it is. But, I offered to pay this third party to refine the software to fit HANA's requirements, whatever they were. I find it absolutely uncomprehensible that there was ZERO feedback to me from Jeff about the contest grading software or what was being discussed among the HANA power brokers regarding the contests. What Jeff relayed to me was that he was seeking a solution with Mike at the PA board for grading the contest. That was all. Why couldn't the contest be graded manually? Was that ever offered out as a possibility with member participation being requested? When/where was help requested for grading the contest?

I understand that this is dirty laundry. But, it goes towards explaining the unimaginative approaches being pursued by HANA leadership. HANA's opportunity to make an impact on the game is very limited. HANA will not succeed at squat by being the nice guys. HANA has NO STANDING in the industry power structure. NONE. That should be their first and foremost obstacle to overcome.

I really don't think that HANA benefits from a bunch of PR strokes about its volunteers, yada, yada. Either you sign on and get on; or, you get out.
__________________
Richard Bauer
rrbauer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 08:40 PM   #22
machine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 29
That is pretty much my thesis right there.

He has a proposal. You all (and I guess me now that I'm a member) do not.

He is invited to go places and talk, we post on this bulletin board.

As for

"Perhaps this is the time to consider whether such a contract should be primarily based on racing as a sport or as a mark"

This is not an issue. A signal contract doesn't involve the horseplayers it affects them, whether they treat horse racing as a sport or as a mark doesn't mean they should pay different amount of money.

Track A and Track B hereby enter into an agreement to purchase each others signal. Of the takeout generated ___% will go to the host track ____% will go to bet taker ____% will go to horseman ___% will go to the small fees that always cause rounding problems, i don't know you get my drift. The take out on WPS should be ___%, on intrarace exotics ___% and multiple race exotics ___%
machine is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 08:42 PM   #23
machine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 29
Is anyone watching whale wars? Richard Bauer is to HANA what Sea Shepherd is to Greenpeace? I gotta say I'm a Sea Shepherd kinda guy.
machine is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 08:48 PM   #24
InsideThePylons-MW
Registered User
 
InsideThePylons-MW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
Is anyone watching whale wars? Richard Bauer is to HANA what Sea Shepherd is to Greenpeace? I gotta say I'm a Sea Shepherd kinda guy.
I like to make Sea Shepherds look like they are pacifists.
InsideThePylons-MW is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 09:26 PM   #25
Charli125
Registered User
 
Charli125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 1,028
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE MAJORITY OF POSTERS ON THIS BOARD
HANA sucks, it's been 9 months, they should have solved everything by now. We should all have quit our jobs and be sitting around smoking cubans while getting rich off of our rebates at this point. I can't believe this FREE organization that I signed up for, with a few volunteers doing all of the work hasn't had more of an effect on this tiny, well organized industry...
I understand why this industry is so f**ked. If the players on this board can't even get together on something and quit bitching, how in the hell do we expect the players, owners, tracks, adw's, etc. to come to an agreement?

Ever single post on the HANA section devolves into how much HANA sucks and how the board doesn't know what they're doing. I understand the frustration, especially in Rich's case as he has done more than just post on the message board, and appreciate a bit of spirited back and forth(such as Machine's original post), but a little positivity wouldn't hurt you guys. This is going to be frustrating at first. As Dean said earlier, it took racing a long time to get this broken, it's gonna take some time to fix it.

Wow, I think I just used my first emoticon since I've been on the internet.
Charli125 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 10:05 PM   #26
highnote
Registered User
 
highnote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
The reason for this is because the Inter-State Horse Racing Act is so poorly worded that at any time Congress could pretty much say, "This doesn't mean what you think it means" and poof there goes the industry.
If Congress wanted to end internet betting on horseracing wouldn't they have done so by now? What have they been waiting for?


Quote:
If you want change, if you want recognition, you must be specific. A lot more specific than below:

"We want open access to all track signals for all ADWs, takeouts that are competitive with other forms of gambling, the abolishment of breakage, severe penalties for trainers who cheat, and odds updates in real time. But most of all we want those who run racing to recognize us. The player matters. The player is a stakeholder too. Without money bet by us players the game would cease to exist."
I'm interested in knowing why you think any racetrack or adw is going to look at a contract written by HANA and make it binding?

Quote:
Taking the idea that the current contracts in place between tracks on all levels are poorly acclimated to today's world and combining that with your focus on take out, breakage, and signal I ask you come up with a new contract. Most signal agreements between tracks are cumbersome, unwieldy, inefficient, take your pick. What the industry needs is a new starting point.
How do you know the current contracts are poorly acclimated? Personally, I've never seen one. It sounds like you have. Can you share one with us? That would be enlightening.

Would you be willing to write up a copy of a contract and share it with HANA or everyone here on PA to get the ball rolling? Many people would be interested in having a look.





Quote:
So what would a signal agreement look like? What should tracks strive to get to? I want to see real numbers, real contractual language, no more change, I want a finished product.

I agree. Can you help us out here?
highnote is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-14-2009, 11:16 PM   #27
chickenhead
Lacrimae rerum
 
chickenhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: at my house
Posts: 7,308
might as well roll out my old horse for another go round. A starting point for discussions I guess:

A while back I did some thinking about what a universal model could look like, and that I thought made sense from a revenue sharing point of view, but also made explicit the sort of investments that needed to be made for this business to exist.

I do think the industry can afford to pay more than 3% on a 20% signal to the host track and horsemen. Part of that is the elimination of the subsidies in the form of source market fees. So in the following, we are assuming all fees paid for the signal are going where they belong, to the host track (making that actually happen, good luck). And of course, the total fees already paid are well above 3%, so that is a moot issue.

The agreement should be written as a percentage of the takeout, not a percentage of handle. This allows for takeouts to fall without adjusting agreements. Suggested starting point:

Track: 27.5%
Purses: 27.5%
ADW: 45%

Expressed as a percentage of handle using todays takeout (after tote/taxes) of 20%:

Track: 5.5%
Purses: 5.5%
ADW: 9%

This represents an increase in revenues for tracks and purses over current agreements. This is however only payable by an ADW that has one severe limitation, a significant reduction in takeout in the form of rebates, a key driver for a large percentage of our business, is not possible under this fee structure.

But what we need is some flexibility, we want a wide variety of ADW’s out there, experimenting with various incentive programs. So I would suggest the following:

1.) Rebates can be made solely at the discretion of the ADW.
2.) The design of their rebate program is likewise solely up to them.
3.) They can rebate any amount they want by way of a reduction in each of the three parties share, up to a certain limit.

The ADW can rebate up to a total of 6% of handle, with the reduction preserving the original % of takeout. Expressed as a percentage of handle using todays takeout (after tote/taxes) of 20%:

Track: 3.15%
Purses: 3.15%
ADW: 6.3%

For each party reducing its share, they are rewarded with a higher handle. Everyone shares the costs, everyone shares the benefits. The ADW can, at their own discretion, rebate beyond this 6% of handle level, and some would, but the remainder of that rebate would come from their share alone. So for instance an 8% rebate regime would see tracks and purses stay constant at 3.15%, and the ADW operating funds would drop to 4.3% of handle. This would be on the most price aggressive side of the spectrum.

The host track and the ADW could, if they come to agreement, offer any sort of innovative features they could come up with, with an equal investment from all parties to cover the costs -- not just cash rebates.

The only key distinction is that rebates, if the ADW chose to make them, are solely at their discretion up to a certain level.

The idea is a single payment model and structure that will work for every ADW and track. There is no need for a multitude of different models, one dynamic one will do. I believe the tracks should want competition amongst the ADW, should want them to do the sort of experimenting that will ultimately find the best product mix for the customers (price and services). Give wide signal availability, under a single unified model that has specific protections for the entire spectrum of business models to exist -- and let the market tell us which one is best.

Based on discussions with ADW operators and some horsemen, I believe these numbers work.

Last edited by chickenhead; 07-14-2009 at 11:18 PM.
chickenhead is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-15-2009, 12:35 AM   #28
Warren Henry
Once/Always
 
Warren Henry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kansas City Missouri
Posts: 738
Makes too much sense

Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenhead
might as well roll out my old horse for another go round. A starting point for discussions I guess:

A while back I did some thinking about what a universal model could look like, and that I thought made sense from a revenue sharing point of view, but also made explicit the sort of investments that needed to be made for this business to exist.

I do think the industry can afford to pay more than 3% on a 20% signal to the host track and horsemen. Part of that is the elimination of the subsidies in the form of source market fees. So in the following, we are assuming all fees paid for the signal are going where they belong, to the host track (making that actually happen, good luck). And of course, the total fees already paid are well above 3%, so that is a moot issue.

The agreement should be written as a percentage of the takeout, not a percentage of handle. This allows for takeouts to fall without adjusting agreements. Suggested starting point:

Track: 27.5%
Purses: 27.5%
ADW: 45%

Expressed as a percentage of handle using todays takeout (after tote/taxes) of 20%:

Track: 5.5%
Purses: 5.5%
ADW: 9%

This represents an increase in revenues for tracks and purses over current agreements. This is however only payable by an ADW that has one severe limitation, a significant reduction in takeout in the form of rebates, a key driver for a large percentage of our business, is not possible under this fee structure.

But what we need is some flexibility, we want a wide variety of ADW’s out there, experimenting with various incentive programs. So I would suggest the following:

1.) Rebates can be made solely at the discretion of the ADW.
2.) The design of their rebate program is likewise solely up to them.
3.) They can rebate any amount they want by way of a reduction in each of the three parties share, up to a certain limit.

The ADW can rebate up to a total of 6% of handle, with the reduction preserving the original % of takeout. Expressed as a percentage of handle using todays takeout (after tote/taxes) of 20%:

Track: 3.15%
Purses: 3.15%
ADW: 6.3%

For each party reducing its share, they are rewarded with a higher handle. Everyone shares the costs, everyone shares the benefits. The ADW can, at their own discretion, rebate beyond this 6% of handle level, and some would, but the remainder of that rebate would come from their share alone. So for instance an 8% rebate regime would see tracks and purses stay constant at 3.15%, and the ADW operating funds would drop to 4.3% of handle. This would be on the most price aggressive side of the spectrum.

The host track and the ADW could, if they come to agreement, offer any sort of innovative features they could come up with, with an equal investment from all parties to cover the costs -- not just cash rebates.

The only key distinction is that rebates, if the ADW chose to make them, are solely at their discretion up to a certain level.

The idea is a single payment model and structure that will work for every ADW and track. There is no need for a multitude of different models, one dynamic one will do. I believe the tracks should want competition amongst the ADW, should want them to do the sort of experimenting that will ultimately find the best product mix for the customers (price and services). Give wide signal availability, under a single unified model that has specific protections for the entire spectrum of business models to exist -- and let the market tell us which one is best.

Based on discussions with ADW operators and some horsemen, I believe these numbers work.
Sounds like a fair levelheaded arrangement. So, it has no chance to be implemented
__________________
Warren
________________________________

The most important software is between your ears
Warren Henry is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-15-2009, 01:08 AM   #29
Indulto
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by machine
… As for

"Perhaps this is the time to consider whether such a contract should be primarily based on racing as a sport or as a mark[et]"

This is not an issue. A signal contract doesn't involve the horseplayers it affects them, whether they treat horse racing as a sport or as a mark[et] doesn't mean they should pay different amount of money.

Track A and Track B hereby enter into an agreement to purchase each others signal. Of the takeout generated ___% will go to the host track ____% will go to bet taker ____% will go to horseman ___% will go to the small fees that always cause rounding problems, i don't know you get my drift. The take out on WPS should be ___%, on intrarace exotics ___% and multiple race exotics ___%
I'm glad you responded. You’re not the first to reject the Sport vs. Market comparison when deployed to gain traction for the concept of equally lower takeout for all, but I’d be interested in your
expanding upon what you think does or "doesn't mean they should pay different amount of money” and to whom.
Indulto is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-15-2009, 03:43 AM   #30
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,205
Dirty Laundry?

Richard - Here is the email about the contest software that I received from your friend:
Quote:
From: Terry XXXX <tXXXX@ais.net>
Subject: contest software
Date: 02/18/2009 01:52 PM
To: jeff @ jcapper . com


Jeff,

Rich Bauer contacted me about using the Derby Contest software for a HANA contest. It is doable, but would take quite a few mods up front to make it more "turnkey" for a user besides me.

That's really no big deal, as these are all things I always meant to get around to doing anyhow. The only issue is timing, as I'm kind of busy with regular work right now. I might have trouble with a March contest, but April would be doable.

I'll create you a phony userid for you to look around, and maybe you can "pretend" wager on the TupDerby this weekend to see what it all looks like.

Your site would have to have PHP and MySQL, as well as some sort of sendmail interface (preferably from PHP), and the scoring is done in Excel.

Terry
I saw several immediate problems with this and decided that implementing Terry's software in time to do a contest at Tampa (whether you paid him or not) wasn't realistic.

First, in Terry's own words:
Quote:
It is doable, but would take quite a few mods up front to make it more "turnkey" for a user besides me.
Second, in Terry's own words:
Quote:
I'm kind of busy with regular work right now. I might have trouble with a March contest, but April would be doable.
Richard, having experience as a programmer I know first hand what that means in terms of handing over source code to someone else. Translated into layman's terms it usually means take the time period between now and the "might be doable by then" target date and double it or even triple it.

The last day of live racing at Tampa that I have in my database took place on 4/05/2009. If I were going to have HANA promote a Tampa contest to 600 plus HANA members, the words "I might have trouble with a March contest" wasn't in my opinion as an experienced software developer going to cut it. I wasn't about to take a chance on promoting a contest without proven contest software. That decision was mine. I take full responsibility for it.

I should probably point out that I'm an extremely busy man where every hour in every day counts - and that I DO have a life outside of racing.

But sticking to racing...

At the time I was very deeply involved in a number of program upgrades for JCapper. Still am. (Ask my customers what THEY think of those program upgrades - or at least the ones they've seen so far.) I toyed with the idea of asking Terry for his contest source code and finishing it myself - but decided against in favor of keeping promises already made to my customers.

At the time I was also very much involved in planning for and setting up meetings with top management at Keeneland, Equibase, and HDW Data to take place in April.

Richard, you remember those meetings right? You sat in on some of them did you not? I certainly thought they were both eye opening and extremely productive. I also came away with the impression that everyone in the room - at least from the HANA side of things - had a similar experience. Was your impression/experience otherwise?

While the offer to use Terry's contest software was greatly appreciated (it really was) it just wasn't workable for a contest at Tampa.

I didn't give up on doing a Tampa contest though.

I contacted Mike here at PA about the possibility of using his PA Downs interface for running such a contest. He got back to me quickly but said he was currently making some changes to the PA Downs software as well.

Another no go.

I actually considered doing a contest where the players post their selections in a thread. However, when I visualized 600 plus HANA members all posting multiple selections in a thread it occurred to me what an absolute bitch such a beast might be to score... and it was at that point that I decided to scrap the idea of doing a Tampa contest.

I decided instead to focus on making the best use of my time in other areas.

Quote:
HANA's communication to its membership SUCKS;
I get it Richard. I dropped the ball in telling you that HANA wasn't going to be able to make your very good suggestion of a contest at Tampa work.

For that I apologize.

But that's it. To those who think HANA should be a bunch of militants running around blowing up race tracks... I'll not apologize for aking a different approach to things. I'm not about to apologize for quietly growing membership and working behind the scenes to: gain a true understanding of problems that plague the industry and effect change from there.

If you want to blow up race tracks go start your own organization.



-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
How do you primarily find bettable horses?
Make a formal odds line - 21.70%
23 Votes
Rank the horses in order of preference & compare it to the odds - 21.70%
23 Votes
Feel - 12.26%
13 Votes
Only play against short priced horses I dislike - 5.66%
6 Votes
Look for value oriented trips, angles, situations - 33.02%
35 Votes
Other (describe) - 5.66%
6 Votes
Total Votes: 106
This poll is closed.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.