http://www.tbracingleague.com/
The above has been launched by Rick Porter (Fox Hill Farm). It is an attempt to create a national governing organization from the ground up. We hope that you\'ll visit the site and support the effort.
33 Racing States will never agree to a higher authority, State Governors will tell the Feds to stay out of the States business.The incompetent Feds almost bankrupted the world in 2008, want them in charge of racing?.All these calls for a National Organization or Federal oversight a waste of time.Racing is too unimportant or sexy enough for Congress to get involved. A couple of stray senators/congressmen make an occasional grandstanding threat about racing but with little to no interest from the main body.
Only possible chance for immediate and meaningful change is an organization comprised of players backed by substantial handle power.Jockey Club, NTRA, HANA all toothless tigers pontificating to the deaf ears of the Clueless Clowns/politically appointed stooges that now run the game for the most part.
The power of handle is the only possible meaningful weapon to change the game. Change is mainly up to the player.With all the negative press this past week, handle was not affected a penny,I\'d guess!
Let someone speaking for the players stand before racing and say \"We are NOT betting a penny until the following reasonable changes are implemented\".......guaranteed things will happen rather quickly.
The lifeblood of racing is handle, the players own it but are not \"handle organized\" to effectively use it to promote meaningful changes.
All valid points. The amount of pressure that could be brought to bear
against racetrack owners, states, racing organizations, adw platforms, etc
through the use of \"buycotts\" is potentially very significant.
Effectively organize the thousands of minnows to swim with the whales and you
may be talking critical mass.
The danger to me would be a scenario such as this: The fictional track
Winorlose Downs has medication or horse safety issues; the School of
Concerned Whales and Minnows informs WD management of its intention to cease
and refrain from wagering on the WD product until changes are made. WD then
abruptly announces that for the weekend of the upcoming Winorlose Derby,
takeout on all wagers will be drastically reduced. Buycott likely broken,
issues not resolved (though the fact that Racing becomes aware that
Horseplayers know and are concerned about the issues is good in itself).
Getting all the fishes in the sea to agree on issues might prove challenging.
While all horseplayers agree that takeout should be lowered, other issues are
more polarizing. Barry Weisbrod and Trevor Denman and others are to some
extent anti-whip; it is a non issue to me. The opinion of most is that there
is nothing wrong with the widespread use of Lasix in America, I believe that
only horses who bleed past a reasonable threshold should be administered the
drug.
Let us hope that some good things come out of Blasigate, and my grassy knoll
perspective requires that I suggest that the PETA campaign was one whose
concept was hatched somewhere from within the industry. I do not know if
Blasmussen was targeted, or whether they are fatted calves or sacrificial
lambs.
I\'d like to hear what the Thoroughbred Racing League says about \"in training\"
sales for young 2YOs and the overbreeding of underqualified stallions.
Barry Meadow echoed these same sentiments in a piece the other day:
www.paulickreport.com (http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/meadow-horseplayers-face-even-more-ominous-issues-than-takeout/)
The issue of reduced takeout is complicated. If takeout is reduced substantially, it will break the rebate houses,chase the whale rebaters.No certainty that the reduced takeout will increase handle enough to compensate for the departed rebate whales.
Miff, I am just playing Devil\'s advocate with regards to takeout. Personally it
has never come into play in my determination of how or where I will wager.
Most of my reduced play this winter (Ms. Richiebee has sworn me to an oath of
poverty) has been on Santa Anita\'s late P4; I have no clue what the takeout on
that wager is.
But, you said that \"If takeout is reduced substantially...\" I
think the Horseplayers who are most vocal about takeout would initially be
pleased with even token reductions on certain wagers or on certain days.
My hypothetical about Winorlose Downs reflects my opinion is that most of the
Horseplayers who have become active in organizations and lobbying are doing so
to improve their own lot (ie, reduction of high takeout, surcharges, taxation of
winnings); their concern with issues such as the long term health of the
Racing industry, horse safety, jockey safety and the well being of racetrack
employees is secondary, if not tertiary or non-existent.
Explain how it will chase the whales.
Rebate whales,JB and probably computer software players jamming volume for rebates.
As you know,there is a substantial number of huge volume players enjoying 8-12% rebate rates, depending on volume and pool takeout.In many instances, the rebate whale is kept in high volume category b/c of the rebate.Without the rebate, it MAY make it economically unfeasible to continue to play at whale like volume or at all.
For those who do not know, takeout,minus signal cost, minus rebate,equals what the \"house\" holds.
In theory , if they can play with the same EFFECTIVE takeout, there would be no or little change in their habits.
Would that be possible? or is there some real SUBSIDY embedded in the current system that would vanish.
Right. Why would takeout coming down on others have any effect on the take big players deal with? If anything, it would keep others in the pools longer.
Meaningful Reduced takeout equals reduced rebates. Rebate houses only hold a couple of net points,trying to work off high volume players. If signal cost goes up or takeout reduced, they have no way to absorb it so they reduce rebate rates to players or work on a very thin house hold.
Fairly simple, the higher the takeout, the higher the possible rebate to the player, the lower the takeout, the lower the rebate.
The rebate would go down for big players but the effective takeout they play into will be the same.
Only if the rebate house makes an adjustment equal to the reduced takeout AND absorbs signal increases.I know of two houses wrestling with those issues right now regarding NY customers.Hear tell that KY, Cali,FL and MS looking at similar 5% tax/fee.
On reduced takeout, history shows a handle spike which reverts back to previous volume within months.
Racing has highest takeout of any form of permitted wagering and yet requires subsidies to stay afloat. How\'s that?
What really matters is whether a whale or anyone else can WIN money.
Everything else is just noise.
So if a lower real takeout = a lower rebate , so what?
If you can prove otherwise, then there\'s a discussion.
Without rebates not too many winning money and without sustaining present rebate rates,handle will suffer.
How\'s that noise?
You\'re not getting it.
What matters is the bottom line.
How that\'s achieved is irrelevant.
According to your theory, if they lower the takeout to zero, all the whales will go back to playing backgammon for big $.
Understand now?
What part of reduced net rebate will kill off some handle don\'t you get, I\'ll explain it.
Boscar Obarra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What really matters is whether a whale or anyone
> else can WIN money.
>
> Everything else is just noise.
>
> So if a lower real takeout = a lower rebate , so
> what?
>
> If you can prove otherwise, then there\'s a
> discussion.
The rebate\'s a constant on the bottom line of money wagered. The take-out only effects what you win. So, if the rebate and take-out reduction were the same, it would work to the player\'s advantage if he was showing a profit. Of course, if you\'re a consistent loser, you\'d only worry about the rebates, because the amount wagered is always the bigger number. Then, you have to ask yourself why you\'re playing.
Memo to self....
I understand the argument.
Again, if the takeout was zero, would the whales flee?
A Simple question, and deals clearly with the issue of a \'guaranteed\' return of handle represented by a rebate.
They are getting 10% back, but getting robbed on the other 90%.
Is this rocket science?
Hypothetical question without an answer and could never happen.Some whales rebaters feel their edge is they play for less than the players that pay full takeout price(no rebate)
Many whales have left the game. From it\'s highest point of app $15 billion, handle is down app $5 billion annually, staggering amount.
They have left the game because whales, like the rest of us, are still engaged in horseplay, not some guaranteed pool arbitrage.
My contention is, that a lower takeout would benefit everyone, unless you think that actual payoffs will somehow NOT increase under that scenario. In theory that could happen, but it\'s rather unlikely.
While it's true that takeout is only imposed on winning bets, a horseplayer's bottom line (ROI) is a function of his overall handle. The only thing that matters is whether the whale can beat the track takeout by enough to produce a profit with the rebate. If the track takeout is lowered, rebate shop handle should be unaffected (provided the track take remains marginally higher than the signal cost).
Example:
Scenario 1
Takeout = 16%
Whale rebate = 10%
Rebate shop signal cost = 5%
Rebate shop keeps 1% of whale's volume
Whale bets $100M/yr, his net ROI before rebate is -6% for a loss of -$6M.
He gets a rebate of 10% = $10M.
His profit = -$6M + $10M = $4M.
The rebate shop keeps 1% of whale's volume = $1M.
Scenario 2
Takeout is reduced by 6% to 10%
Rebate shop reduces rebate by 6% to 4%
Rebate shop signal cost remains 5%
Rebate shop continues to keep 1% of whale's volume
Whale bets same $100M/yr, and because of the lower takeout, his net ROI before rebates is now break-even (-6% +6% = 0%).
He gets a rebate of 4% = $4M.
His profit = $0M + $4M = $4M, the same as before.
The rebate shop takes 1% of whale's volume = $1M, the same as before.
So a reduced takeout shouldn't affect the rebate shop because the whale still makes the same net profit and therefore pushes through the same volume to the rebate shop.
It's the source market fees like the 10% fee imposed by Pennsylvania that will kill the rebate handle, because these costs have to be absorbed by either the whale or the rebate shop. If the rebate shop passes them along to the whale, the less profitable whales will be forced out of business. Ditto for the rebate shops if they try to absorb it themselves.
Richie,
Dana Parham donated $250,000 to the Permamently Disabled Jockey Foundation, the single largest contribution ever made at the time. RGS donated $25,000. Dana has consistently advocated for low takeout for all; not just whales.
Dick
Yes, I have RGS as a consulting client.
Help me out here Mike. You say \"On reduced takeout, history shows a handle spike reverts back to previous volume within months. Racing has highest takeout of any form of permitted wagering and yet requires subsidies to stay afloat. How\'s that?\"
Explain this difference: A whale\'s ROI is -6% and with a 10% rebate his \"ROI\" is a net 4%. Looks to me the whale requires subsidies to stay afloat, also.
Looks like a poor man\'s derivative or a farmer on price supports.
Dick:
I would love to be proven wrong, and that all Horseplayers, large and small,
care about racing issues beyond takeout, surcharges and taxation. I would
imagine that some see takeout reduction as a much more attainable goal than
fixing some of racing\'s more pervasive problems.
Mathcapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While it's true that takeout is only imposed on
> winning bets, a horseplayer's bottom line (ROI) is
> a function of his overall handle. The only thing
> that matters is whether the whale can beat the
> track takeout by enough to produce a profit with
> the rebate. If the track takeout is lowered,
> rebate shop handle should be unaffected (provided
> the track take remains marginally higher than the
> signal cost).
>
All true on the reasonable assumption that the rebate shop handles a balance between positive ROI players and negative. For the individual player, if the changes for both take-out and rebate are similar, as you suggest, a reduced takeout is more beneficial to the player who can sustain a positive pre-rebate ROI because that\'s going to be a bigger number than the amount wagered, which is the basis for the rebate. Conversely, the player with the negative ROI gets hurt more by the reduction in the rebate than the take-out. Regardless, the shops shouldn\'t get hurt as long as their changes stay proportional to the take-out.
Small,
Slot Subsidies have no real effect on players pool. That money is mandated to purses/breeding/capital and operating expenses.You would think that say NYRA,with massive slot subsidies, could reduce takeout but they say it\'s still not possible at this time.NYRA dragging it\'s feet on opening Off Track Restaurants simo centers in the 5 boroughs losing points on handle being bet with ADW\'s.
An interesting take by a whale friend. He believes that takeout is substantially mitigated by \"soft\" money in the pools.While the amount of soft money cannot be quantified, it\'s not a totally ridiculous argument.
Mike
Mike -
What is \"soft\" money? Money wagered by ill informed bettors?
Bit,
Soft is probably what we might call less informed players.During the OTB days in NY,you would see people blindly betting a certain number, jockey,gray horse etc etc.Still happens everywhere there is gambling on horses but have no idea how much those types of wagers make up of the betting pools on a regular basis.There are some sharp and disciplined players that only gamble into the huge pools we see on big race days solely because of their belief of extra soft money.
Judging from the fact that most horse players lose over the long term, I\'m not sure soft money helps a sophisticated player beat the game anyway.Beyond takeout, there is the ubiquitous X factor looming in every race.Racing still the greatest gambling game, imo.
Mike
Yes, well, if there was so much soft money in the pools then you wouldn\'t need rebates at all. It\'s minimal.
I\'d guess the really dumb money is less than 10% of the handle. Mediocre money is a higher %, and smart play 60-70%.
Though truth be told, I\'ve been seeing some really ridiculous betting for the last year in the exotics.
Box,
\"smart money\"....could argue that\'s an oxymoron when gambling on horse racing.
No idea on the %\'s you mention, would be interesting if soft money was quantifiable.Isnt every player some form of soft money, time to time?
Mike
Speaking of sharp and disciplined players who only bet into the big pools (not actually sure that is all he bets) it\'s almost the time of year for mjellish to show up. Looking forward to hearing his thoughts on the derby.
Come to think of it, I\'ve seen some very serious late plays in big pool/ big races. Hit rate better than average.
Must be a few guys like that around.
When I was with Excelsior Racing and we were bidding on the NYRA franchise, our business plan included takeout reductions from the gaming on a promotional basis. In other words, we wanted to be able to decide what takeout rates were, not the State, and have promotional days like a 10% wednesday.