Thomas Amoss

[andicap]

Thaskalos is 100% correct.

When companies paid their employees 10 cents an hour with terrible working conditions, they formed unions and went out on strike. Eventually -- with help from the 1937 Wagner Act -- conditions improved. (Lets not get political here about unions. I'm talking 1910 here. Sweat shops).

My point is that workers SACRIFICED for their gains after being exploited for so many years. How many horseplayers are willing to make sacrifices to improve THEIR lot?

Cable TV subscribers are the same way. I used to write about cable and heard tons of complaints about their high cost. When I suggested to people that if they just unite and cancel service for one month in protest, they demurred -- but I'll miss my shows.

If u are not willing to take some short-term pain for long-term gain, you will never get anywhere. You will be forever condemned to act as Don Quixotes, tilting at windmills but never really accomplishing anything.

That is why I have no sympathy at all for people who whine about the decline of horse racing. "Oh, I';m a degenerate horse player." Like you have no free will. You deserve everything you get if you are unwilling to make a sacrifice for the long-haul betterment of your lot.

And you don't even have to quit playing altogether. Target a particular track or two, put out a press release that says, "In protest against supertrainers, we will not play these two tracks because 3 trainers are winning 60% of the races" or something like that

And the boycott would have to be much more effective than the one attempted in Calif after they raised the takeout. (Did they lower the takeout after that? I don't believe so but I could be wrong.)

My question is this: How much of the pools do the whales account for these days? Can us little guys even have an impact any more on the pools?

[lamboguy]

without the drugs or other substances that these great trainers are sticking in their young horses these days, you wouldn't have 20 horse fields in the Kentucky Derby. these big outfits have so many horses that are so far ahead of the other ones, when you run against them at those young ages they do nothing but beat you up.

however they can't keep their horses going after they complete their 3 year old career. if you have a good horse you can win with them when they turn 4, and they will run for a long time.

Animal Kingdom sure looks like a horse that is on schedule to do well at 4, they did everything right with him even though he got beat on the wire yesterday, he will be better the next time.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Valento

I mean this in all sincerity. The game will be theirs WITHOUT horseplayers eventually. They are falling like flies. Much of the money bet into the pools is inside money. You can tell since many horses who don't stand out in the form take action and run. That isn't public money.

How many serious horseplayers do you think there is in this country? 10,000? 5,000? Not sure but the handle tells you that they are leaving in droves and much of that is due to lack of integrity.

Guys like Amoss and Ness have never even heard of the word integrity.

It's just sad all the way around.

PARI-MUTUEL HANDLE:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=8

According to numbers published at the Jockey Club website all sources North American thoroughbred handle was $15.9 billion in 2003. It was $15.4 billion as recently as 2007. Since then: sharp drop off. This year's numbers currently on track to come in at $10 billion.

We at HANA have surveyed serious bettors extensively asking them to name the specific reasons why they don't bet as much as they used to and why they don't bet as much as they otherwise would.

In survey after survey serious bettors keep citing the same three reasons:

1. High Takeout relative to other forms of gaming.

2. Integrity: Odds that change after the bell.

3. Integrity: Racing has a drug problem.

These are the three elephants sitting in the room. Until or unless racing decides to address takeout, integrity, and integrity in a serious way: Total customer spend on racing will continue to plummet.

Jeff Platt
President, HANA

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/


.

[cj]

My handle has dwindled every year the last 5 for a variety of reasons. The biggest one, though, is there are too few races I consider worth betting due to super trainers. I have no interest in betting contests where the biggest factors are humans.

[lamboguy]

in case the right person reads Jeff P's prior post, i want to add "unknown substance's" and shock wave therapay, and over use of bute prior to races.

[Jeff P]

Add to that tapping of joints and treatment in Oxygen chambers. I have nothing against horses breathing O2. However, I do have a problem with some trainers treating them secretly and hiding that info from an unsuspecting wagering public. (Transparency is everything.)


Jeff Platt
President, HANA

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/



.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

1. High Takeout relative to other forms of gaming.

2. Integrity: Odds that change after the bell.

3. Integrity: Racing has a drug problem.

The problem is who in charge really cares about these things. Think about it. High takeout = money in tracks pocket. Integrity (odds) = more money bet into their pools despite the fact it may be after the race started. Integrity (drugs) = more horses that can fill their races.

Overall, race tracks have an INCENTIVE to keep the 3 issues listed above going. If any of those three would actually take money off their bottom line, they would be dealt with.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Why can't ALL the serious players in this country abstain from betting, TOTALLY, for a month or so...so we could show the industry that we mean business...and that we are a force to be reckoned with -- instead of the fools that they think we are?

I don't disagree with the sentiment here. Problem is, it would be virtually impossible to coordinate this and make an impact that mattered.

If I knew that enough of us could join together to abstain in betting races where Amoss and Ness were involved (or any other similar trainer), just to make an example of them, I would join this in a heartbeat.

Imagine that the handle was obscenely low when Ness had a runner. I think track's would take measures to remove these trainers from their grounds.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Unfortunately, a better approach to sending a broad message through leverage in 2013 would be to walk around and unplug all the cha-ching machines 24/7 until your bets actually meant anything in the first place.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Valento

I don't disagree with the sentiment here. Problem is, it would be virtually impossible to coordinate this and make an impact that mattered.

If I knew that enough of us could join together to abstain in betting races where Amoss and Ness were involved (or any other similar trainer), just to make an example of them, I would join this in a heartbeat.

Imagine that the handle was obscenely low when Ness had a runner. I think track's would take measures to remove these trainers from their grounds.

he's not doing anything wrong by the rules of racing, what do you want to through him out for WINNING?

all you have to do is have someone that is awake and change the rules to eliminate these guys that have huge edges. they have all made plenty of money now, if you change the rules they will leave without having to throw them out.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Valento

The problem is who in charge really cares about these things. Think about it. High takeout = money in tracks pocket. Integrity (odds) = more money bet into their pools despite the fact it may be after the race started. Integrity (drugs) = more horses that can fill their races.

Overall, race tracks have an INCENTIVE to keep the 3 issues listed above going. If any of those three would actually take money off their bottom line, they would be dealt with.

The industry THINKS the status quo is the correct path to take.

But the handle numbers suggest otherwise.

I am convinced that if faced with a similar revenue fall off the management team of just about any Fortune 500 company you can name would take an entirely different path to recovery than the one racing has.

A competent management team would identify their target market - and identify customer needs and wants within that target market - and make it their MISSION to address them.

Racing has taken a completely different approach. Instead of addressing customer needs and wants within their target market - racing's decision makers have purposely decided to ignore them. (Amazingly, I've seen them take to belittling the customer for expressing customer needs and wants in the first place.)

I submit to anyone reading the idea that if this strategy were indeed successful: Racing wouldn't have experienced a $5 Billion handle (1/3rd of total customer spend) fall off.


-jp

.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

The industry THINKS the status quo is the correct path to take.

But the handle numbers suggest otherwise.

I am convinced that if faced with a similar revenue fall off the management team of just about any Fortune 500 company you can name would take an entirely different path to recovery than the one racing has.

A competent management team would identify their target market - and identify customer needs and wants within that target market - and make it their MISSION to address them.

Racing has taken a completely different approach. Instead of addressing customer needs and wants within their target market - racing's decision makers have purposely decided to ignore them. (Amazingly, I've seen them take to belittling the customer for expressing customer needs and wants in the first place.)

I submit to anyone reading the idea that if this strategy were indeed successful: Racing wouldn't have experienced a $5 Billion handle (1/3rd of total customer spend) fall off.


-jp

.

One major flaw here. The "racing industry" isn't a corporation. It doesn't have a controlling figure (CEO) that can make universal decisions. It is a fragmented, segmented group of "corporations" acting on the behalf of self interest. Quite often, this self interest is in direct contrast with what is best for the overall market place of their product.

It is hard to blame the individual tracks doing what they can to produce short term survival. There isn't enough money involved to make decisions that adversly affect their current survival for the betterment of the overall product.

Quite simply, if racing continues to operate in this way, without a governing body and a structured, universal approach, it will continue to spiral in the wrong direction.

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

PARI-MUTUEL HANDLE:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=8

According to numbers published at the Jockey Club website all sources North American thoroughbred handle was $15.9 billion in 2003. It was $15.4 billion as recently as 2007. Since then: sharp drop off. This year's numbers currently on track to come in at $10 billion.

We at HANA have surveyed serious bettors extensively asking them to name the specific reasons why they don't bet as much as they used to and why they don't bet as much as they otherwise would.

In survey after survey serious bettors keep citing the same three reasons:

1. High Takeout relative to other forms of gaming.

2. Integrity: Odds that change after the bell.

3. Integrity: Racing has a drug problem.

These are the three elephants sitting in the room. Until or unless racing decides to address takeout, integrity, and integrity in a serious way: Total customer spend on racing will continue to plummet.

Jeff Platt
President, HANA

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/


.

Interesting you mention the handle peaked in 2007. Obviously, the economy has a lot to do with it, but I know my personal handle peaked in 2007. I haven't been unemployed since then; but I just don't spend as much time on racing. Less betting opportunities, synthetic racing, super trainers, small fields, crazy late odds swings/late windows and programmed betting are all reasons why I believe the game is more difficult than ever to beat.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Valento

One major flaw here. The "racing industry" isn't a corporation. It doesn't have a controlling figure (CEO) that can make universal decisions. It is a fragmented, segmented group of "corporations" acting on the behalf of self interest. Quite often, this self interest is in direct contrast with what is best for the overall market place of their product.

It is hard to blame the individual tracks doing what they can to produce short term survival. There isn't enough money involved to make decisions that adversly affect their current survival for the betterment of the overall product.

Quite simply, if racing continues to operate in this way, without a governing body and a structured, universal approach, it will continue to spiral in the wrong direction.

I've been preaching this forever! THANK YOU!

Racing isnt racing. Individual tracks arent looking out for the good of this hypothetical 'racing', they're all just running gambling corportations and horse racing just happens to be the animal of choice...they could care less about the gamblers and the horses, they just care about themselves.

And it shows.

[tzipi]

Originally Posted by cj

My handle has dwindled every year the last 5 for a variety of reasons. The biggest one, though, is there are too few races I consider worth betting due to super trainers. I have no interest in betting contests where the biggest factors are humans.

I totally agree, I have cut down big time on my betting and put my money into other investments. When I see certain guys in a race and I know I can NOT go on the past performances, I stay away now.

Recently I stayed out of a race at Aqueduct and a horse who ran in the 60's jumped 20 beyer pts after a extremely recent claim. I just can't handicap those races anymore. No one can unless you're on the inside and know what they are actually doing.