Press Release: TRACK OWNERS JOIN FORCES TO DEFEAT ‘BOOKIE AMENDMENT’

[andymays]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Follow the money Andy.

Like most of racing: It is not about growing the sport, it is all about protecting each persons slice of a shrinking pie.

Horseplayers and industry watchers have been saying this for years - but this time we get to watch it unfold right before our very eyes in a massive (and very public) cat fight.

Agree Dean.

This will be interesting. As this plays out the true villains will emerge.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Incredible stuff.

There is a paid ad that pops up on Paulick Report that says VOTE NO ON AB 2414 along with some quotes and when you click on it it links to all CA Assemblymen contact info.

They label it "the bookie admendment".......hilarious

Amazing.

just refresh until ad comes up if you can't see it first time

[nearco]

Originally Posted by Horseplayersbet.com

He is a disingenuous horse owner who has no understanding when it comes to growing the game.

Err.....

[Charlie D]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

Incredible stuff.

There is a paid ad that pops up on Paulick Report that says VOTE NO ON AB 2414 along with some quotes and when you click on it it links to all CA Assemblymen contact info.

They label it "the bookie admendment".......hilarious

Amazing.

just refresh until ad comes up if you can't see it first time

You should know by now, money makes people do strange things Insidethepylons

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by andymays

Agree Dean.

This will be interesting. As this plays out the true villains will emerge.

As horseplayers we have been called every name in the book - greedy, selfish, whiners, protecting our own slice.

That's fine. We are big boys and girls and we can take it.

Some of us who simply want the game to grow often tried to counter with arguments offering a way to make things better, and saying "look in the mirror".

We now get to see the true state of the game, playing out.

This is not a bad thing, in my opinion. At least we will know who stands for growth, new mediums to grow our sport and lower takeout to attack markets who have killed us the last 30 years, and who stands against change. There will be no doubt who stands where after this plays out.

[kenwoodall2]

Rush to take effect immediately is called an "urgency bill" which 2414 is labeled. This is the CA legal definition of such a bill:
"(d) Urgency statutes are those necessary for immediate
preservation of the ****public peace, health, or safety****. A statement of
facts constituting the necessity shall be set forth in one section of
the bill. In each house the section and the bill shall be passed
separately, each by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two thirds
of the membership concurring. An urgency statute ****may not create or
abolish any**** office or change the salary, term, or duties of any
office, or grant any franchise or ****special privilege****, or create any
vested right or interest."
California voters would be up in arms if they knew about this illegal use of "urgency" to give special; priviledge to owners, sports participants, to line their pockets without a valid peace health safety reason, besides being a progressive tax of a lower income class of people. I know, I was for many years a petitioner.

[startngate]

Originally Posted by DeanT

They also are FOR the exchange because betfair will give them money for purses.

Actually I would argue that they are probably still against having the betting exchange and given the provision that there must be agreement between the exchange and horsemen/tracks, both will block it when the time comes. Ultimately they will actually get less money for purses because the exchange will siphon money out of the WPS pools, which have higher takeout.

No question they want the takeout hike, no matter how ill informed that decision actually is. Actually the legislation is somewhat brilliant in it's execution, as it pits all sides against each other ... bettors want the exchange but hate takeout increases; the tracks, horsemen and CHRB want the takeout increase and either hate the exchange or will tolerate it to get the takeout increase. Will be interesting to see who 'wins' the battle.

My guess? The exchange provision gets dropped and the takeout increase happens ... that way everyone wins (he says rhetorically as no one out there actually cares about the horse player).

[andymays]

Originally Posted by startngate

Actually I would argue that they are probably still against having the betting exchange and given the provision that there must be agreement between the exchange and horsemen/tracks, both will block it when the time comes.

No question they want the takeout hike, no matter how ill informed that decision actually is. Actually the legislation is somewhat brilliant in it's execution, as it pits all sides against each other ... bettors want the exchange but hate takeout increases; the tracks, horsemen and CHRB want the takeout increase and either hate the exchange or will tolerate it to get the takeout increase. Will be interesting to see who 'wins' the battle.

My guess? The exchange provision gets dropped and the takeout increase happens ... that way everyone wins (he says rhetorically as no one out there actually cares about the horse player).

Unfortunately the people who write about this stuff rarely get to the heart of the issue. Ray Paulick has done the best job. What he needs to find out is why Del Mar (Their Executives) likes it and Santa Anita and others don't like it. Someone needs to get Fravel on the record and ask him why. Someone needs to get Mills on the record and ask why. Someone needs to ask these guys on the record if any side deals have been cut or not cut. Who stands to benefit the most if the deal goes through as is? Who stands to lose the most if the deal goes through as is. And I mean which Racing Executives in California. The Horseplayers always gets the big banana.

[rwwupl]

Originally Posted by DeanT

As horseplayers we have been called every name in the book - greedy, selfish, whiners, protecting our own slice.

That's fine. We are big boys and girls and we can take it.

Some of us who simply want the game to grow often tried to counter with arguments offering a way to make things better, and saying "look in the mirror".

We now get to see the true state of the game, playing out.

This is not a bad thing, in my opinion. At least we will know who stands for growth, new mediums to grow our sport and lower takeout to attack markets who have killed us the last 30 years, and who stands against change. There will be no doubt who stands where after this plays out.

HANA has been very active on this issue,much behind the scene. I think it is time to take a breath and let the principals fight it out. There is much scheduled for this week in California. Then, when the dust settles,and analyze, we will see what will be and act accordingly. Nothing will happen right away...whatever passes, it will still have to go through the CHRB. There may be additional surprises to come.

[Charlie D]

Ultimately they will actually get less money for purses because the exchange will siphon money out of the WPS pools, which have higher takeout.

500 thousand pounds (exchange pool) - 300 thousand dollars (Tote pool)


Which pool do you want 10% of????

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by startngate

Ultimately they will actually get less money for purses because the exchange will siphon money out of the WPS pools, which have higher takeout.

Can you point to where this happened?

You have to watch repeating what racing tells you.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

There are studies like the Cummings Report which show that horse racing's takeout is too high when it comes to optimizing the money the industry gets bottom line.

Are there any reports that state that if you increase takeout, the end result will be higher purses?

[Charlie D]

Slicing off 18, 20% 25% from very little does not the problem fix.

You need to get Dean T to up the amount bet per race, you need to get Andy, Cj etc doing same.

In other words, you need to raise the amount bet per person in US, then slice off a % for purses.. An exchange model will imho do this.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Slicing off 18, 20% 25% from very little does not the problem fix.

You need to get Dean T to up the amount bet per race, you need to get Andy, Cj etc doing same.

In other words, raise the amount bet per person then slice off a %. An exchange model will imho do this.

Racing has never understood volume and price, and it is so sad.

Every person here does - virtually every one of us because we do it all day.

At MTH today there will be a horse at 2-1 that we are teetering on at that price. Me, you CJ and Andy decide it is probably not worth the risk at that price so we bet $0 on the race. We flip on the exchange and the horse is almost 3-1 because of lower takeout and there is $800 there. We bet $200 at that price.

Racing gets a small percentage of our $800 instead of 15% of $0.

They just have a really hard time understanding this simple concept, that is second nature to all bettors.

In the year 2001, Betfair understood this, because they were bettors. They signed up 100 people, then some more, and some more. Now they have 3,000,000 customers.

It is not that hard to understand is it?

[Charlie D]

Remember guys. We have bookies in every high street, they have online shops too. They take liquidity from the other markets.


Imagine the numbers on an exchange market in UK if bookies were not doing this.