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

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 12-17-2014, 12:59 PM   #61
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
This is a idealistically delusional idea because it won't happen, but the state should not being getting a flat percentage of the handle. Tracks should be taxed on their profits (if they earn any) like other businesses.

With states taking a huge chunk of "take" right off the top, there is very little wiggle room to reduce the track take for players even if a track is well run because some of the costs are clearly fixed and racing is a low margin business.

The way things are organized is ridiculous.
I actually believe the precise opposite-- that there should be no income tax on players, at the state or federal level, and instead pools should be taxed.

Taxing pools is more reliable from a collection standpoint, lifts onerous record keeping requirements off of players, and makes $2 bettors who hit a windfall very happy because they get the whole jackpot.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 12:59 PM   #62
Cholly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 946
Cholly’s p-o-v:

There’s a great deal more market-place equilibrium in place than most admit. If lowering the take could increase net revenues, some tracks would be finding a way to do it, in a big way. Net revenues are on the scarce side. As is the case in most industries, a hand full of top performers (jockeys and trainers) are getting rich, but otherwise the workers are modestly compensated*. As a group, owners of horses are losing huge amounts. And if the tracks were making good money, they’d be knocking down shopping centers to build more of them, instead of the other was around.

If one feels the take-out is that important, lower rates are available--wager large amounts and take advantage of them. Personally, I’m not up to that kind of stomach-roiling...I’ll accept the higher rates and move on.

Enjoy what you got while you got it. That applies to life in general, but especially to horse-racing. Currently, the industry has all the wind at its back. It’s only a matter of time before the racino subsidies go away, and the public is enabled to bets sports and play poker, blackjack, and craps on their computers at home. Those changes will be accompanied by the giant sucking sound of the racing industry, as we know it, going down the toi-let-o’. So for now, eat, drink, and be merry...

(*p.s. For brevity’s sake, I’ve left the breeders out of the equation--those are the ones hosing the industry, but don’t get me started…)
Cholly is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 01:02 PM   #63
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
I actually believe the precise opposite-- that there should be no income tax on players, at the state or federal level, and instead pools should be taxed.

Taxing pools is more reliable from a collection standpoint, lifts onerous record keeping requirements off of players, and makes $2 bettors who hit a windfall very happy because they get the whole jackpot.
You are absolutely right. Those pools are not being taxed enough.
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 02:50 PM   #64
JohnGalt1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,230
I dug out a 1963 book by Bob McKnight where he quotes the usual take out as 10%, though some tracks are as high as 15% on wps bets.

Then he complained about the caterers at the track who sold fifteen sent Cokes that cost the tracks a nickel and fifteen cents for mediocre coffee and in Florida they even added a one cent tax!

That's why it was tough making a profit in 1963 I guess.
JohnGalt1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 03:09 PM   #65
whodoyoulike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray2000
Who's going to surrender their cut first.??..

Typical take-out distribution for most tracks.

taken from
http://www.toconline.com/wp/wp-conte...The-Bet-Go.pdf
I'd wish the report would've included the $$ amounts along with the % distribution for perspective, there's a lot of $$ involved. Thanks for the info.
whodoyoulike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 03:17 PM   #66
whodoyoulike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocusWiz
... My guess is that a 2% decrease in takeout would not be noticed by the general public and would not attract new business. It might increase the wagers of the 80% of the "non-rebaters" but I question whether that increase in handle would be sufficient to offset the reduction in wagering by the "rebaters."

My other guess is that many of the "rebaters" who are able to achieve a 10% rebate are using the rebate as a cushion to either offset small losses or ensure a significant return. If they are somewhat sophisticated in how they handle their money, losing the rebate will more likely encourage them to invest elsewhere.

If there is any decrease in takeout % wouldn't the odds in general be higher?
whodoyoulike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 03:21 PM   #67
whodoyoulike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
I will walk you around Santa Anita sometime. You can tell me what you would cut, and I will patiently explain why you can't.

Santa Anita was managed by a bankruptcy court for a time. Trust me, all cuts that could be made were.

Finally, I see a ton of horseplayers assert the price elasticity of takeout. It reminds me of supply side economics.

Nobody doubts that cutting takeout could increase handle. The question is how much, and will the track still be able to meet its purse and tax commitments and make more money doing it.

That's a much more complex question than people would like it to be.
The purses would have to be adjusted and aren't the tax commitments a % of handle or something similar (it was mentioned in the takeout PDF in the earlier post)?
whodoyoulike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 03:30 PM   #68
whodoyoulike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goren
... Do things for the computer bettors like multiple web pages for each race. One always on the horses. One on exactas and another on pools. I would rather have that than an extra thousand in purse money in failed attempt to turn a six horse field into a seven horse field.

This is an excellent idea. I hope the tracks see this.
whodoyoulike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 05:09 PM   #69
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
In practice, I suspect the thing that prevents that is the owners' perception that a good jockey increases their chances of winning the race or finishing well.
Owners are dopes for the most part. Other than the elite one half of 1% of jocks, everyone else is replaceable. With a horse like California Chrome in the 3rd leg of the Triple Crown, i bet the "bidding" to ride him would have almost gotten down to free. All jocks would have been negotiating a smaller percentage to get a crack at a triple crown, as an example.
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 05:11 PM   #70
Stillriledup
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 25,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
Basically correct. Rebates are a frequent flyer program. They reward a customer who is sensitive to their benefits while slightly increasing the price the rest of us pay.

They are also regulatory arbitrage, which only can work if most people don't use it.
how does a rebate from someone else increase YOUR price? If a win takeout at Santa Anita is 15.43 percent (or whatever it is these days) that stays at 15.43 no matter who's betting into the pools.
Stillriledup is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 05:55 PM   #71
Some_One
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
This is a idealistically delusional idea because it won't happen, but the state should not being getting a flat percentage of the handle. Tracks should be taxed on their profits (if they earn any) like other businesses.

With states taking a huge chunk of "take" right off the top, there is very little wiggle room to reduce the track take for players even if a track is well run because some of the costs are clearly fixed and racing is a low margin business.

The way things are organized is ridiculous.
This is the model the HKJC now uses, and ever since the change, their handles have climbed every year (partially as it now allows them to offer rebates)
Some_One is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 06:05 PM   #72
whodoyoulike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
Most of the costs involve land, labor, and animals.

They HAVE cut costs. They closed racetracks and made a lot of people bet major tracks. That spreads the cost over additional bettors.

What people here don't seem to get is that this makes the takeout more important, not less, because it is now the only relevant revenue stream.
I don't understand.

Since all of the tracks I'm familiar with are decades old, what are the additional land costs?

What are the animal costs? Are you talking about the accompanying ponies in the post parade?
whodoyoulike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 06:14 PM   #73
thespaah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaLover
I could not care less about who pays for the show.

How the professional soccer, baseball and football teams manage to pay for it anyway? Do they charge a cut for each dollar bet on them?
TV revenue is the number one provider of funding for professional sports.
Number two is sales of merchandise.
Third is ticket sales
thespaah is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 06:15 PM   #74
thespaah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaLover
Why racing has to rely on take out in order to make a profit?

What really makes it so different from other sporting events that can survive on their own?

How other countries manage to have bookmakers and betting exchanges in top of on track betting?
See my post on page 5
thespaah is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-17-2014, 06:15 PM   #75
whodoyoulike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some_One
This is the model the HKJC now uses, and ever since the change, their handles have climbed every year (partially as it now allows them to offer rebates)
I noticed in another post or thread that the HKJC returned approx. 75% of the handle. The other 25% included a tax amount to the government(s).

Is the bettor's winnings also taxed by the government (HK state, China or both)?

Which is what Dilanesp in another post alluded that there should only be a one time tax at the gross pool point (I'm not agreeing with him because I haven't really looked at it).

Last edited by whodoyoulike; 12-17-2014 at 06:22 PM.
whodoyoulike 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
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:29 PM.


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.