Arnold signs bill to "help" horse-racing industry

[twindouble]

Originally Posted by rrbauer

Of course not. I never said that. But, I will say this: Half of the tracks HAVE to go out of business if this game is to continue. Those that are left will enjoy increased handle as a result and there will be better opportunities for them to run their businesses as businesses and not as welfare seekers.
Horseplayers could expedite this process if they would stand together and stop patronizing crap tracks with high takeouts and short fields.



First off, what's a whale? I never said Jack Squat about whales nor rebates. Stick with something I said and if I can sort through your sarcasm I'll try to "clear it up".

I mentioned you didn't say "Jack Squat" about the whales, who's being sarcastic here? Just clear it up for me. Are you for whales getting a much better takeout than the average players or not? How will they be effected by the increase in takeout, if at all. That's what I want to know. Whales are people that pump a lot money into the pools and get rewarded with much better rebates than others, as if you didn't know that.

[rrbauer]

Originally Posted by twindouble

I mentioned you didn't say "Jack Squat" about the whales, who's being sarcastic here? Just clear it up for me. Are you for whales getting a much better takeout than the average players or not? How will they be effected by the increase in takeout, if at all. That's what I want to know. Whales are people that pump a lot money into the pools and get rewarded with much better rebates than others, as if you didn't know that.

How would I know how whales will be affected by increases in takeout? The term whale has such a pejorative connotation in general that it's not clear to me where the line-in-the-sand is between "whales" and "non-whales". "People that pump a lot money into the pools" What is "a lot money"? I guess it's a volume-discount issue. Right? I do not pump a lot of money into the pools anymore (by most standards) so I guess that I'm a "non-whale". As a "non-whale" I know what rebates I can receive at the various ADW's that I do business with. And, I know that I can take it or leave it as a business proposition. What others receive, I don't know. What do whales get in rebates? Am I really being "screwed" that much?

The way new ADW laws are being written (Illinois' law restricts ADW commissions to 6%) and with the independent ADW's (not affiliated with racetracks) being squeezed every time there's contract negotiations, I believe that their days are numbered. When they go, big rebates will go because we'll be back in the monopoly saddle again.

To your question: I'm for free enterprise. If someone cuts a deal based upon criteria that is available to everyone who meets that criteria then I don't see where I'm being disadvantaged. I always have the ultimate choice when I don't like the terms: Take my business elsewhere. My mantra has always been about reducing takeout. It's never been about increasing rebates.

What's your mantra?

[CapperLou]

[QUOTE=rrbauer]Of course not. I never said that. But, I will say this: Half of the tracks HAVE to go out of business if this game is to continue. Those that are left will enjoy increased handle as a result and there will be better opportunities for them to run their businesses as businesses and not as welfare seekers.
Horseplayers could expedite this process if they would stand together and stop patronizing crap tracks with high takeouts and short fields.


Rich:

I agree with your opinion above; it seems that it will come to this eventually to save the industry. Too many malls today, too many tracks, to be profitable!!

We really need to stop everything with these "crap" tracks. You are on the right track, keep it up.

[twindouble]

Originally Posted by rrbauer

How would I know how whales will be affected by increases in takeout? The term whale has such a pejorative connotation in general that it's not clear to me where the line-in-the-sand is between "whales" and "non-whales". "People that pump a lot money into the pools" What is "a lot money"? I guess it's a volume-discount issue. Right? I do not pump a lot of money into the pools anymore (by most standards) so I guess that I'm a "non-whale". As a "non-whale" I know what rebates I can receive at the various ADW's that I do business with. And, I know that I can take it or leave it as a business proposition. What others receive, I don't know. What do whales get in rebates? Am I really being "screwed" that much?

The way new ADW laws are being written (Illinois' law restricts ADW commissions to 6%) and with the independent ADW's (not affiliated with racetracks) being squeezed every time there's contract negotiations, I believe that their days are numbered. When they go, big rebates will go because we'll be back in the monopoly saddle again.

To your question: I'm for free enterprise. If someone cuts a deal based upon criteria that is available to everyone who meets that criteria then I don't see where I'm being disadvantaged. I always have the ultimate choice when I don't like the terms: Take my business elsewhere. My mantra has always been about reducing takeout. It's never been about increasing rebates.



What's your mantra?

Free enterprise? This is gambling on the horses, it's called pari-MUTUAL wagering! That's my "mantra", level playing field for all players. If you think for one minute wall street types are going to hijack the whole racing industry just to cater to the rich and survive good luck with that one. I've had say.

[twindouble]

The way new ADW laws are being written (Illinois' law restricts ADW commissions to 6%) and with the independent ADW's (not affiliated with racetracks) being squeezed every time there's contract negotiations, I believe that their days are numbered. When they go, big rebates will go because we'll be back in the monopoly saddle again. quote rrbuaer


I'll believe it when I see it happen.

Your talking just one state on that 6%. Who gets the other 20% on average? ADW's from what I understand pay squat for the signal, from what I gather it's around 5% or less. I don't know if it's gone up of late or not.

[the_fat_man]

There's a kiss of death trip in POLY/TURF route races. It's the one where a horse, that doesn't have the speed to go to the front, nor is intended to do so, is put 6 to 8 or more paths wide by the jock going into the 1st turn. So, the jock is losing any number of lengths because he wants to make sure he gets position at the end of the pack. This pretty much sums up any attempt to make sense of it.

Forgetting about what happens after that, typically the horse continuing wide, without cover on the backstretch and equally wide on the 2nd turn, needless to say, when I get this type of trip, I basically know I have ZERO shot of winning. And, I get this trip quite often at WO, GG, AP, etc.

What's my point? Well, If you allowed me to be able to CANCEL any bet where I get this ride, which, essentially, I'd know 10 seconds or so into the race, then my ROI would go through the roof. Ditto for those cases where there figures to be a ton of speed in a race YET only a single horse shakes loose and I'm allowed to bet late.

THIS is the WHALE advantage. I realize the perception argument (late into the pool BS) will be used but I'm not buying it. So, not only do these MoFo's get MONEY BACK but they also get these other perks.

So, I'm basically here to say: SCREW REDUCED TAKEOUT. Keep giving the WHALES money back. I don't care. I can still win.

But STRIP THEM of THESE ADDITIONAL PRIVILEGES. Or let EVERY bettor have the option of canceling (or betting) 15 seconds after the break. I'm sure, for example, that some of the ADW's could probably explain this as the money just being slow to enter the track pool, right?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Hey Fat Man, do you have evidence that whales get to cancel tickets after the race begins?

Or did you get that one from an imaginary friend?

[the_fat_man]

I don't have evidence about anything. To have evidence I'd need data that I don't have access to. But that's the point, right?

And, maybe it's all a bad interpretation of 'evidence'. After all, a particular event can be trigger by any number of causes.

A good way to alter my perception is for the after the break odds changes to stop --- especially in those loose lead cases. And, for odds in general to stop changing after they break; in some cases significantly, both in terms of time and range.

I can explain away some of the shit the stewards do by considering them idiots. What do I do when I see the odds drop AND I read about how BIG BETTORS get SPECIAL treatment?

[Mike_412]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

So, I'm basically here to say: SCREW REDUCED TAKEOUT. Keep giving the WHALES money back. I don't care. I can still win.

This is a serious question. Were you LetItRide Mike in another life? Perhaps a cousin?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I don't have evidence about anything. To have evidence I'd need data that I don't have access to. But that's the point, right?

And, maybe it's all a bad interpretation of 'evidence'. After all, a particular event can be trigger by any number of causes.

A good way to alter my perception is for the after the break odds changes to stop --- especially in those loose lead cases. And, for odds in general to stop changing after they break; in some cases significantly, both in terms of time and range.

I can explain away some of the shit the stewards do by considering them idiots. What do I do when I see the odds drop AND I read about how BIG BETTORS get SPECIAL treatment?

The only thing I'm aware of is batch betting technology. Usually the case is that when a horse is say 7-2 with 2 MTP but big batch bettors may give the horse a 5-2 chance, their programs hammer the win odds on this horse. The thing is that other batch bettors may be doing the same thing, which can cause this horse to go off at around 9-5 by the time all data is collected for the race.

To stop this, I'm all for stopping betting when the first couple of horses load.
You'll still see dramatic odds changes sometimes, but they will happen before the horse breaks by 2 lengths on top.

And yes, sometimes all bettors get to bet while the race is running. I'd say it has happened more than the six or seven times Scherf has documented. I have no idea how many times.

Also, in California, all bettors can cancel tickets about 4 seconds into the race. To me, this is wrong, and needs to be done away with.

[rwwupl]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

I think it's obvious that the entities plan to raise takeout. The person (presumably the lobbyist), paid for by the supporters:

Del Mar Thoroughbred Club
Los Angeles County Fair (Fairplex)
Oak Tree Racing Association
Thoroughbred Owners of California

Wrote in the argument for:



http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bil...sen_floor.html

Unfortunately, as I don't think anyone knew about this...there was no argument "against" submitted to the Senate. Whether HANA says concerned or outraged here at PA doesn't really matter, getting HANA to a point where they are aware of these things as they are happening, and able to submit formal "Arguments against" when this stuff is in process is where we need to get to. I'd like, at least once, to get on the record before something happens, rather than always in the position of us hearing about it after the fact.

----------------------------------------------=---=--------------------

The complaint was noted that many people did not know about this bill. In discussing this with CHRB member David Israel and Executive Director Kirk Breed by Jeff Platt(President of HANA) and other members, it was established that the CHRB subscribes to a bill tracking service for horseracing in Ca. and all they have to do is post it to the CHRB website.

On behalf of HANA members it was requested that this service be extended to all so we can not be blindsided by bills that impact horseplayer activity in the future.

Mike Marten,Information Officer has agreed with the words "If the Executive Director wants it done, it is done"

One step at a time--rwwupl


From: Breed, Kirk (KEBreed@chrb.ca.gov)
Sent: Sun 10/25/09 3:12 PM
To: xxx(Many)


In the 30 years I have been involved with horseracing politics in Sacramento I don't recall anyone other then former Assemblyman Richard Floyd, who was an admitted gambler, caring or asking what the gamblers/bettors/horseplayers thought about a bill. Now days there is no excuse for anyone not knowing about legislation. Anyone can pay $50. Month and have access to the best bill tracking system in the world. The chrb subscribes to this service and could prepare a short summary/review on the website every month.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by rwwupl

[/B]
----------------------------------------------=---=--------------------

The complaint was noted that many people did not know about this bill. In discussing this with CHRB member David Israel and Executive Director Kirk Breed by Jeff Platt(President of HANA) and other members, it was established that the CHRB subscribes to a bill tracking service for horseracing in Ca. and all they have to do is post it to the CHRB website.

On behalf of HANA members it was requested that this service be extended to all so we can not be blindsided by bills that impact horseplayer activity in the future.

Mike Marten,Information Officer has agreed with the words "If the Executive Director wants it done, it is done"

One step at a time--rwwupl


From: Breed, Kirk (KEBreed@chrb.ca.gov)
Sent: Sun 10/25/09 3:12 PM
To: 'wayroger_@hotmail.com' (wayroger_@hotmail.com); 'Disrael17@aol.com' (Disrael17@aol.com); 'jeff@jcapper.com' (jeff@jcapper.com); 'onlyandy@cox.net' (onlyandy@cox.net)
Cc: 'art.wilson@sgvn.com' (art.wilson@sgvn.com); 'jammer999@aol.com' (jammer999@aol.com); 'jnahill@nctimes.com' (jnahill@nctimes.com); Marten, Mike (MikeM@chrb.ca.gov); 'horseplayersassociation@gmail.com' (horseplayersassociation@gmail.com); 'randyfen@gmail.com' (randyfen@gmail.com); 'dliebman@bloodhorse.com' (dliebman@bloodhorse.com); 'coronaadsp@hotmail.com' (coronaadsp@hotmail.com); 'wiseguyrog@aol.com' (wiseguyrog@aol.com); 'lshulman@bloodhorse.com' (lshulman@bloodhorse.com)

In the 30 years I have been involved with horseracing politics in Sacramento I don't recall anyone other then former Assemblyman Richard Floyd, who was an admitted gambler, caring or asking what the gamblers/bettors/horseplayers thought about a bill. Now days there is no excuse for anyone not knowing about legislation. Anyone can pay $50. Month and have access to the best bill tracking system in the world. The chrb subscribes to this service and could prepare a short summary/review on the website every month.

For those of you who don't know, Roger has been a champion of the Horseplayer for decades. keep it up rwwupl you are a true hero!

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

You'll still see dramatic odds changes sometimes, but they will happen before the horse breaks by 2 lengths on top.

Fire up the replay from AP 9/11/09 R3 and

note how long it takes for the speed, #4, to go from 20:1 to 16:1.

There are quite a few other examples similar to this from AP (not all of which won). Great track to bet but not when my prices get cut by 20% half way into the race.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Fire up the replay from AP 9/11/09 R3 and

note how long it takes for the speed, #4, to go from 20:1 to 16:1.

There are quite a few other examples similar to this from AP (not all of which won). Great track to bet but not when my prices get cut by 20% half way into the race.

My point is that batch bettors were most probably on the horse when it as 20-1 as a value play.

The odds always change for the final time some time around the far turn as bets made everywhere are merged into the final pool.

20% odds fluctuations happen a lot after the gate opens, but though it appears it has to do with people betting into the race, it rarely is the case.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ut-flexibility

A fiscal analysis states more than $4 billion is wagered in California each year on horse racing. Thus, a 5% hike in takeout rates would produce $200 million in revenue “that would be redirected toward the industry rather than provided to bettors as winnings," the analysis states.

The analysis didn’t discuss a scenario in which pari-mutuel handle could fall because of the increase in takeout.

The analysis indicates the measure had the support of Del Mar, Golden Gate Fields, Fairplex Park, Oak Tree Racing Association, Santa Anita Park, and the Thoroughbred Owners of California.