Philadelphia Park

[speedking]

Originally Posted by Kelso

Surely it's not too late in any jusisdiction to set aside an additional 10% for the bettors. That's how much profit there is in those machines ... even after the political-class gets its cut.

Takeout at slots-subsidized tracks should not exceed 10% for any pool.

Thank you, Kelso...Doesn't this make sense to everybody?

speedking

[The Hawk]

This makes NO sense.

I've been posting this for some time, but I'll make my point as clear as I can when it comes to "racinos":

THEY DON'T NEED YOU to bet on the races. They don't care if you bet the races or not. They need to run races in order to keep the slot license. They don't need you to bet "X" number of dollars on the races. They just need to run "X" number of races. You are last on the food chain. This game goes on without you.

Your strength lies in supporting those tracks where you're NOT considered a nuisance to the slot players. Which is why the "Procotts" should be supported whenever possible.

[alydar]

Philly Park management operates in their own world, unnlkie the one we know of.

They are adamant about rebating. They don't like it and do what they can not to work with operations that do. I funny thing is that they see themselves as some sort of great regulator of the integrity of simulcast wagering. The reality is that they operate one of the shadier operations out there. Just look at how many law suits have been filed against these guys, it really is a joke.

[john del riccio]

Originally Posted by alydar

Philly Park management operates in their own world, unnlkie the one we know of.

They are adamant about rebating. They don't like it and do what they can not to work with operations that do. I funny thing is that they see themselves as some sort of great regulator of the integrity of simulcast wagering. The reality is that they operate one of the shadier operations out there. Just look at how many law suits have been filed against these guys, it really is a joke.

Two Words:

Jane Vaders

John

[Kelso]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

This makes NO sense.

I've been posting this for some time, but I'll make my point as clear as I can when it comes to "racinos":

THEY DON'T NEED YOU to bet on the races. They don't care if you bet the races or not.

It makes plenty good sense to those who bother to READ THE POSTS.

I didn't say it's up to the racinos to take care of the bettors. I said it's up to the damned politicians ... who missed the boat at first sailing ... to take care of their constituents who bet on horses.

This will have the added advantage of drawing more out-of-jurisdiction money into the pools ... and from there into their respective public treasuries.

[ldiatone]

comparing apples to oranges, i might like a "brand" that store offers and shop there. i have an example here in pittsburgh i will not get into dealing with food shopping.
if one is hitting p3's at pha, and complaining about the take out, then take the money ones betting on the p3's and bet the win and place pool. when i do bet p3's thats 30-60$. a 30$ win bet on a 7/2 shot ain't no chump change.
ldiatone

[turfnsport]

I find its just easier to bet other tracks. It's not like the racing in PA is very appealing anyway.

The fact they collect all those $$$ in slot money and charge those takeout rates makes me want to puke.

MikeD

[northerndancer]

As demonstrated by Laurel's attempt (which was a tremendous flop) to reduce the takeout you need to build a better mousetrap. I have not heard anyone in the industry or on this board attempt to explain why Laurel's experiment was such a disaster.

IMO until a majority of tracks agree to reduce their takeout singular efforts will continue to fail. The problem is the economic model of the industry. Due to the fact a majority of the revenue comes from simulcast wagering on other product and not from live wagering a reduction in a track's takeout is reducing the income derived by the simulcast outlet (only compounded when that particular outlet is not receiving revenue from slot or instant racing).

Let me give a hypothetical....... lets say that Philadelphia Park cuts the takeout. The reduction equates to a 12% reduction across all pools. This means that for every dollar wagered there will be 12% less revenue to be distributed among the entities. Now Suffolk Downs who does not have slot revenue but has a nice simulcast on Philadelphia Park what incentive will they have to keep taking the Philadelphia signal. The reduction in takeout will cause Suffolk to net less revenue from every dollar wagered by their patrons on Philadelphia Park. Suffolk would now be making 9% less on the Philadelphia Park product.

Therefore what Suffolk would do is bury the Philadelphia product inside their facility and instead put Delaware Park and Fort Erie up on the big screens. Philadelphia Park would be on the TV by the dumpster with the rats.

In order for a reduction to be successful we will need to have a majority of the tracks commit to it and that will never happen......

I would also ask that when you make your points about slot jurisdictions you have to also include the Priarie Meadows and Oaklawn in your list of tracks who have not done anything for the punters after receiving another form of revenue (instant racing).

[DeanT]

A 12% reduction across all pools does not mean a 12% drop in revenue. Never has and never will. The problem we have, imo, is tracks and horsemen groups actually think like that.

At Laurel the savings went into someones pocket, and that money might have been played on a Del Mar pick 6, or a Woodbine pick 4, or whatever other races were at the simulcast outlet.

[The Hawk]

This is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Kelso

Surely it's not too late in any jusisdiction to set aside an additional 10% for the bettors. That's how much profit there is in those machines ... even after the political-class gets its cut.

Takeout at slots-subsidized tracks should not exceed 10% for any pool.

Ok, you meant politicians. I thought by jurisdiction you meant racing state. But the point is the same: WHY would ANYONE do this for the bettor? We're not needed, not part of the equation anymore. What purpose would it serve the politicians, OR the racetracks? We missed our opportunity to unite and be heard years ago. Now, they cater to slot players, and run races merely to keep the slots in the buildings. If you bet their races, that's great. If not, that's fine too, as long as the races are run, the machines keep churning, whethere you bet or not. Why would they want to hand you money?

Originally Posted by Kelso

I didn't say it's up to the racinos to take care of the bettors. I said it's up to the damned politicians ... who missed the boat at first sailing ... to take care of their constituents who bet on horses.

This will have the added advantage of drawing more out-of-jurisdiction money into the pools ... and from there into their respective public treasuries.

I wish there were a particle of truth in this. The truth is, no one gives a shit about horseplayers. The horse racing industry, yes, in some cases. Horseplayers, no. We're looked at as degenerates and lowlife gamblers. Do you think there's a politician in the entire country -- from the President to senators to congressmen down to city councilmen -- who thinks about drawing more money into local simulcast pools? You need to face reality.

Originally Posted by northerndancer

As demonstrated by Laurel's attempt (which was a tremendous flop) to reduce the takeout you need to build a better mousetrap. I have not heard anyone in the industry or on this board attempt to explain why Laurel's experiment was such a disaster.

I can't speak for anyone else but I'll tell you why I didn't play Laurel, and maybe someone else will give their reasons: There were few bettable races during that 10 day stand. It's great what they tried to do, but just dropping takeout isn't going to do it, especially with races being run at Saratoga and Del Mar at the same time. If they dropped the takeout at Penn National to 3% I still wouldn't play it, because I find the form there to be indecipherable. Low takeout in an of itself is great, but if that was the only thing that drew us to gamble we'd all be playing blackjack.

[turfnsport]

Originally Posted by northerndancer

As demonstrated by Laurel's attempt (which was a tremendous flop) to reduce the takeout you need to build a better mousetrap. I have not heard anyone in the industry or on this board attempt to explain why Laurel's experiment was such a disaster.

Ten days is not long enough and they could not have picked a worse time of year with SAR and DMR running.

Terrible timing.

MikeD

[Kelso]

Originally Posted by northerndancer

Let me give a hypothetical....... lets say that Philadelphia Park cuts the takeout. The reduction equates to a 12% reduction across all pools. This means that for every dollar wagered there will be 12% less revenue to be distributed among the entities.

SUF would continue to get the same percentage OF EACH WAGER that it currently gets. The difference ... benefitting players ... would materialize at PHA when more money (90% of all wagers) would make it into the pools. The lowered take at PHA would be (has already been) made up by the slots revenue.

[Kelso]

Originally Posted by The Hawk

WHY would ANYONE do this for the bettor?

I answered this already. The more that is wagered ... the more there is to tax. The larger the pools, the larger the amount of out-of-state money coming in-state. The lower the take, the larger the (taxable) pools. Simple, really.

Where racinos are allowed, takeout is no longer a track issue. It's a political issue. And politicians REALLY like to have people from outside their jurisdictions paying taxes into them. Get it?

Originally Posted by The Hawk

You need to face reality.

And you need to stop swallowing all the hopeless horseshit the industry has been feeding you.

Get off your ass and start hounding YOUR politicians to expand the tax base (read, pools) so that they can take credit for spreading their constituents' burdon. The only time they'll listen is if people ... such as yourself ... YELL AT THEM! And then, they will listen.

Originally Posted by Kelso

I answered this already. The more that is wagered ... the more there is to tax. The larger the pools, the larger the amount of out-of-state money coming in-state. The lower the take, the larger the (taxable) pools. Simple, really.

Where racinos are allowed, takeout is no longer a track issue. It's a political issue. And politicians REALLY like to have people from outside their jurisdictions paying taxes into them. Get it?





And you need to stop swallowing all the hopeless horseshit the industry has been feeding you.

Get off your ass and start hounding YOUR politicians to expand the tax base (read, pools) so that they can take credit for spreading their constituents' burdon. The only time they'll listen is if people ... such as yourself ... YELL AT THEM! And then, they will listen.

Honestly though, do you REALLY think you're going to convince politicians to care about the takeout at racetracks? I think The Hawk was dead on here. Politicians understand money. You REALLY think it makes more sense that you're going to explain that if you cut takeout, you might eventually get an increase in handle, which would lead to more revenue even though takeout is lower? Show me an example of ONE TIME politicians understood that---they tried in NY for years to get takeout lower (read Steven Crist's book) when all the politicians wanted to do was raise it for a quick fix. You're NOT going to convince them that lowering their percentage of the take will equal more revenue. That's the BS part, that you'd have a 1% shot at that. The Hawk was right---racing is a tiny piece of the slot money, and once Philly or any other track has the slot money, forget the racing.

[njcurveball]

Originally Posted by jma

Honestly though, do you REALLY think you're going to convince politicians to care about the takeout at racetracks? .

Sure you will! Right after you convince them cashing for $600 isn't big money in 2007! I am sure when they made that law $600 was a lot of money. Now you would think they would do away with all of the unnecessary paper work that comes with the signers under $5,000.