If Tracks Had Access …

Monday, June 29, 2009

1. wmcorrow says:
   29 Jun 2009  at  10:47 pm | #

   About four years ago I was absolutely stunned; standing in line to cash a rare winning ticket a regular behind me commented that Aqueduct was taking a big hit today I turned and asked him what he meant.  He said that the last three races all were won by long shots, and the exactas were huge.  I didn’t say a word, but his comment lodged in my mind.  Subsequently, I casually asked many regulars at the local OTB what they knew about the pari-mutuel system and what the takeout rates were on various wagers.  It was no surprise to me that the majority had no idea, no clue whatsoever; thus, I have concluded that the vast majority of bettors, including regular patrons at the track, racebook, and OTB, are absolutely ignorant of takeout rates and how the pari-mutuel system works.

   I haven’t joined HANA and probably never will.  I am aware of ‘buycott’/’pool party’, but I do not think that such an activity will accomplish the intended result.

   One would think that racetrack management, coast-to-coast, would be most receptive to lowering takeout; however, 90% of handle is off-track, and any lowering of takeout will have no bearing on what the racetrack receives - they will still get 3-5 cents on every dollar wagered off-track no matter if an exotic wager’s takeout rate is reduced from 25% to 15%.  A reduction of takeout will reduce the profits of all off-track facilities, which they obviously do not want to happen.  Racetracks really see no need to take a stand on takeout rates, as they are only screwing the on-track patrons who are providing only 10% of total handle.

   Besides, with just about all racetracks now, or soon to be, dependent on slot revenue for survival, the ‘fan’ has actually become irrelevant - “why concern ourselves with takeout rates, when we got slots” is racetrack management’s thinking; and can you blame them? 

   I have urged turf writers via this website to get organized and urge their readers to boycott a racetrack every Saturday; perhaps this approach would have an impact, I do not know; perhaps doing such would be in violation of some law.

   A quagmire exists:  there is no incentive for racetrack management to reduce takeout; off-track wagering sites don’t want their revenue cut; and most bettors simply don’t understand period!

2. bill knauf says:
   30 Jun 2009  at  08:01 pm | #

   cary, as someone who works at monmouth, we try to keep a keen eye on wagering patterns...but I would like to point out that in the race referenced above (9th on wed), the 7-horse went into the gate at 8-5 (before going to full gate shot) and the first flash during the race - before the 1/4 pole- was 4-5, which was the final price. Agreeed that late $ affected his price, but not during the course of the race. You can see a free replay of this race by going to monmouthpark.com and signing up free to “My Racetrack”. You will then have free access to all our race replays, in a large, clear video format.

3. don auld says:
   30 Jun 2009  at  09:05 pm | #

   Cary: Appreciate your effort and best of luck with. Takeouts go up, field size goes down and quality goes down. Since you used Monmouth I will also, it is not uncommon to see three horses at 2-1 or less, in effect making the other horses pure takeout. I understand the breakage etc., but try to explain this to a newcomer.

   The only track that could really do it is Keeneland and then the other venues would not take the signal like last time.

   I know my handle is down and my close friends have taken the same path. Maybe some large venue could get permission to lower the takeout on the DD or p-3s for a year and see the positive results. I have seen the DDs increase at NYRA as many players fall away from the absurd 26% takeout. Stay well

4. Indulto says:
   30 Jun 2009  at  09:32 pm | #

   Mr. Fotias,
   I assume that at your level of play, you currently receive rebates on your wagers at a rate determined by (and proportional to) your wagering volume over some specified time period. To be able and willing to continue making wagers qualifying you for a large rebate, I further assume that you must be showing a profit. Do your records indicate that you would still show a profit if you weren’t being rebated?

   I ask this because there has been some contention in recent debates over takeout/rebate issues that whales would leave the game if direct takeout were lowered—and rebates eliminated—in order to increase overall handle by making the game more attractive to both new players and returning players who left because higher direct takeout rendered then uncompetitive.

   Do you agree that all whale handle would disappear in such a scenario? Isn’t likely that pools expanded by more participants and fewer venues would bring back any disaffected whales?

   In any event, the higher return on the rebated player’s wager (including losing ones) gives him an advantage over his non-rebated competition. Whether or not one views rebating as effectively lowering takeout for a tiny minority of big bankroll bettors or as an industry subsidy to players that need it least, the practice has tilted the playing field in favor of the rebated players over unrebated players; even those of equal if not greater skill. In exotic pools this advantage translates into either a lower cost per combination, regardless of minimum, or additional combinations for the same amount wagered.

   Many among the vast majority of those who bet for entertainment regard this advantage as unfair, undemocratic, and unwarranted. In your entertaining HANA blog piece, “Declaration of Horseplayer Independence,” you wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all horseplayers are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are market-driven takeout rates, …”

   So when you advocate that takeout rates should be “significantly reduced,” how do you suggest that be accomplished? Should direct takeout be lowered at all major venues (which would benefit all players equally) or should rebating be extended to all players and, if the latter, should all players be rebated equally?

   As an Advisory Board member for HANA which seeks to represent horseplayers of all bankroll sizes, how have you advised the HANA leadership team on this issue? HANA team members individually and independently post comments on both the HANA blog and the PaceAdvantage.com forum. So far, only two team members have personally endorsed what I refer to as ETFADE (Equal Takeout For All; Directly or Effectively).

   I personally believe that rebating has to end, and that ROI return to being a function of skill rather than bankroll size as it was in racing’s glory days. I have read some alleged whales post that 10% direct takeout would keep them in the game without rebates. I’m sure it would, but I doubt that figure would attract the necessary support form horsemen, tracks, and ADWs; at least initially.

   My understanding is that some venues outside North America are succeeding with 16% takeout overall. That should be a starting point from which all parties sharing the pari-mutuel pie can live with. Until unrebated handle is self-sustaining, however, horsemen must do their part in attracting higher pool totals by starting larger fields. IMO full purses should not be distributed to fields with fewer than 8 starters and a bonus should be added whenever fields are full.

   There should also be an agreement that once pools have stabilized at an acceptable level that the industry will experiment with incrementally lower takeout to seek an optimal combination of handle, takeout, and purse levels.

   The past 12 months have taught all racing reform advocates that the message stressing the importance of lowering takeout has not reached its intended audience –- industry leaders who should want to revitalize racing and casual players who should be joining a movement like HANA in droves; assuming it is to their benefit to do so.

   HANA’s collective endorsement of ETFADE might go a long way toward convincing interested parties that the Sport of Kings has not become the Business of Whales.

5. Cary Fotias says:
   30 Jun 2009  at  11:19 pm | #

   Hi Bill --

   It looks like you have misconstured my remarks re lare odds drops.  As I said in my story, it is the PERCEPTION that bets are being made after the race starts that causes problems.  The odds cycling needs to be reduced or, better yet, betting needs to stop a minute or so before the race starts. The latter solution would elimiate any concern about past-posting.

   Some “body language” handicappers might be upset but, after a while everyone would get used to the new cutoff times.  I had no problem adjusting when Churchill Downs did it after the Breeders Cup P-6 scandal.

   In addition, tracks could post the final WPS pools and double, quinella and excata payouts on the internet BEFORE the race goes off. How’s that for customer service!  Maybe you could mention it to your management team at Monmouth.

   Of course, if you do, you will probaly get laughed at as the industry REFUSES to make the technological investments and regulatory changes necessary to bring the game into the 21st century.

   As I mentioned in the story, the real culprit is liquidity.  Until players of all stripes have confidence that the prices at which they bet have some semblance to the final odds, the skeptics have every right to complain.

   Good Luck

   CARY..

6. Cary Fotias says:
   30 Jun 2009  at  11:30 pm | #

   Hi Don --

   This game will never prosper until takeouts are significantly reduced.

   Copy and paste the link below into your browser and you will see one of my presentations at the 2004 Handicapping Expo in las Vegas as a member ofthe NTRA Players Panel.

   http://www.drf.com/expo/powerpoint/cary_fotias_players_panel.ppt#256,1,Slide 1

   Racing nedds a complete overhaul, strating with a central office that can standardize all the rules and regulations that are stifling the industry. 

   The only way we players can have our voices heard is to hit ‘em in the pocketbook. I’ve got lots of ideas on how to do it, and you’ll be hearing about some in the future.

   CARY..

7. Cary Fotias says:
   01 Jul 2009  at  02:38 pm | #

   Hey WM --

   I have read many of your posts over the last year or so and, first let me say, that I agree with most of what you opine. 

   As per this post, you are correct that most track patrons know little or nothing re takeout rates, liquidity, pari-mutuel nuances or political activism, for that matter..

   That being said, I would like to know how much money you bet per day on the Eliis Park 4% Pick-4 I persuaded track owner Ron Geary to offer for the 2007 Ellis Park meet. I bet $400-$600 per day.  And did you boycott the Magna tracks a few years back as suggested by Richard Bauer of http://www.trackthieves.com? I did.  And how many letters and e/mails have you sent to your congressmen/women protesting the current state of affairs?

   You said you will probably never join HANA.  I guess you expect the rest of us to ACT on your WORDS, but it appears you feel it is beneath you to get down in the trenches and FIGHT this uphill battle with US.

   The smallest of actions can lead to big results down the road. As a professional player, I do most of my betting from home, but do occasionally drop in at my local NYC OTB in Astoria.  When there, it never ceases to amaze me how many people still bet at the “windows” and subject themselves to the 5% surcharge when they win.  I usually try and convince a few people (of which 95% are Greek, like me)to set up a phone account and avoid this egregious confiscation of their funds. I admit, my reasons for doing so are not totally altruistic.  If these desperdos have a few extra drachmas in their pockets now and then, their churn will increase and create marginal value for me.

   You are correct that the simulast paradigm is broken and needs dramtaic restructuring.  We need a Racing Czar, and we need one badly.  Not until there is some centralization and standardization will real progress be made. Last year, I met with Bob Jackson, general manager of Ellis Park at the track.  Bob’s done it all in this business from jockey to GM. Of all the images that day, one that really lingers is Bob filling out and signing hundreds of simulcast agreements for the venues that offer the Ellis Park signal. What a joke!

   The current simulcast agreements are topsy-turvy, a result of legislation passed many moons ago when the Internet, Blackberries, personal computers and Indian casinos were all figments our collective imagination.  Back then, simulcast money was found money for the major tracks.  Now,as you note, 90% of the money bet is bet off track, and rewards the off-track purveyor much more than the host facility.

   There is a way to change all of this nonsense

   Make me Czar of racing, with broad powers and political backing, and I will do the following:

   1) Draft a set of straightforward rules governing
   owners, trainers, jockeys. stewards, drugs,
   withholding taxes, simulcasing etc.
   
   2) Lower WPS take to 10% and all exotics to 12%
   3) Use modern (I’ll settle for even not so
   modern) technology to revamp the processing
   of bets into a real-time environment, thus
   ensuring the integrity of the wagering pools.

   4) Invest heavily in centralizing, upgrading and
   redesigning the distribution network so that
   anyone can bet any track they want at any
   time through any medium.

   5) Whether an entity presents live racing,
   simulcasting only, a combination of the two,
   is an offshore rebate shop, an OTB, a
   television network (TVG or HRTV) that offers
   a wagering platform, a You Bet, a Twin Spires
   or anybody else (excluding bookmakers), it
   will be rewarded solely on the metric of
   handle, which will be a function of the
   quality of the racing product, CUSTOMER
   SERVICE, disriubution channels and marketing.
   If the tracks have trouble selling their
   product, let someone else do it.

   6) The major tracks, which account for the bulk
   of simulcast revenue to other outlets, are
   being short-changed under the current set-up.
   I would institute a clean 50-50 split of all
   revenues between host track and any other
   betting venue (whether live, voice or
   digital).  This would give all parties
   concerned the incentive to seek larger market
   share.

   7) Have an Internet contest every month, for
   starters, with prize money of $1,000,000. 
   All prize money (less administrative costs
   which shall not exceed 2%, or $20,000) to be
   returned to the contestants.  You can “buy in”
   for any amount you want, from $10 to$1000,
   with payouts determined by your final position
   AMD investment. This way, everybody gets to
   copmpete against everybody rather than have to
   be “flighted” by entry fee.

   I could go on and on. And later I will..

   On a final note, WM, I also agree with you that turf writers should to more to address the myriasd of issues that affect players today. 

   However, it is also incumbent upon track managements, politicians, wagering boards, the NTRA, local HPBA’s, bureaucrats, lobbyists, task forces, think-tanks, and PLAYERS, like you to take ACTION.

   Industry wagering has been in decline for some time now.  If my czarist regime were put in power, I can gurantee you handle would grow both quickly and steadily for years to come.

   Your Brother in Arms

   CARY..

8. wmcorrow says:
   01 Jul 2009  at  09:42 pm | #

   Mr. Fotias:  You have ignored the most intelligent post to your commentary ‘If tracks had access’ written by Indulto.  I await your response to his questions.

   BTW, I think I would be a more effective Czar of racing.

9. Cary Fotias says:
   01 Jul 2009  at  11:20 pm | #

   WM - Maybe we could run as en entry?

   Or like Brutus, Cassius and Caesar form a
   triumvirate with a third party to be
   approved by us.

   I note you did not answer the questions I
   asked you..

   I spend 6-8 hours a day making pace and
   final numbers for tracks all over the coun-
   try.  Then, I gamble on them.  Then, I eat
   dinner and fall asleep on rthe couch
   watching old movies.  When, I have the
   energy, I respond to posts such as yours.

   I will get around to Indulto in due course
   and I promise to post my reply to him more
   quickly if you answer my questions..

   CF

10. wmcorrow says:
    02 Jul 2009  at  05:35 am | #

    Mr. Fotias:  You are indeed a busy man in the arena of Thoroughbred racing.  Your taking the time to respond to me and to post your thoughts on improving racing is appreciated by me and I am sure others.

    As to your questions to me:  I have never placed a bet on a race at Ellis Park, as I am not familiar with the horses or trainers.  I did not boycott Magna racetracks a few years ago as I was unaware of a planned boycott; I can assure you that if I had known I would have.  I live in the state of Connecticut, which has no live racing; thus writing to the legislature would be pointless.  HANA is not beneath me; I applaud efforts made by HANA members to date; I simply do not wish to join at this time.

    I have done more than my share in the past ten years first by letters to the Editor at Daily Racing Form, New York Times, Washington Post, et cetera, then by email; until most recently there have been few websites to email.

    I am a small bettor, wagering on average $150 daily at the local OTB or Mohegan Sun’s racebook.

    I abhor wagering at home as I believe that what makes gambling on the ponies the absolute best is the ambience; with the roar of the crowd and the smell of the grease paint, and holding a possible winning ticket in your sweaty paw as they turn for home, win or lose the moment is simply unsurpassed; gambling at home lacks atmosphere.

11. Todd says:
    02 Jul 2009  at  12:46 pm | #

    cary,

    10%-12% tops huh?  Basically you are cutting the takeout in half.  Good for you, good for the HANA boys but what about the horsemen?  Lets take the leap and say this happened.  Can you say that handle will be 30 billion with this cut?  Unless the industry sees some proof of this kind of double in handle to offset the cut in takeout you are pushing a rope.  Racing Czar huh?  The alphabet soups will never appoint a tout in this position.  Sorry.  Go get a job mucking some stalls for a few years, a resume builder.

12. Cary Fotias says:
    02 Jul 2009  at  02:09 pm | #

    Hi Todd-

    Obviously, you got poor grades in Economics 101.

    If the takeout levels I propose were adopted (and my other recommendations re techlogical improvements in the wagering infrastructure and seamless distribution), handle would EXPLODE.  If it ONLY increased to $30 billion, I, like Captain Renault, would be “shocked, that so liitle gambling was going on”. It probably would go to $70-80 billion within 7-10 years.  Think the horsemen (which you sound like) can live with that? 

    In short, all parties benefit greatly from such an exponential increase in handle.

    This industry has NEVER been operated like a real business due to political infighting, bureaucratic
    squabbling, misguided moralists, and pure ignorance when it comes to the laws of supply and demand.

    I am not a tout, sir.  I make a good living betting on horses and, find me one other “tout” who shows over 100% ROI (that’s return on investment, if you were wondering) on his public selections as I have on this site as a favor to executive editor, John Pricci and HRI readers such as yourself.

    I am doing my best to improve our great game of thoroughbred racing.  I don’t have time to muck stalls, right now.  If my plan were to be enacted and failed to deliver, I’d agree to muck a few.
    
    But for now, Todd, go muck youself.

13. Cangamble says:
    02 Jul 2009  at  02:12 pm | #

    Todd, if you understood what would happen if takeouts were reduced in half, I mean really understood, you would see that everyone would benefit.

    First players would last longer.  They would bet more than double what they bet today.  So many people go broke quickly, and then hum and haw when it comes time to go back or reload into their account.

    Now they would be cashing more, lasting longer, and probably would wind up spending so much more time betting and handicapping horses that they would bring their families and friends into their horse racing universe.  This creates new money for the horsemen, and the tracks.

    People don’t have to understand takeout to get caught up in betting more.  The more that is in one’s account, the more they will bet, the more interest they will show.

    In the long run, the good majority of these folks will lose at least as much as they would have lost at today’s takeout rates, but they are likely to actually lose more, as they may cut out other forms of gambling that give them more bang for the buck as it is today.

    Also, the more winners that will be created is the carrot horse racing needs to attract younger players.  This carrot has worked well when it comes to online poker (we know that one day you can live in your parents basement, and the next day, you can win a huge jackpot if you are good enough and lucky enough).  There are also those who make a living playing poker or betting sports.
    Betfair with their low takeout attitude has took the gambling world by storm. 

    Winners create a buzz, and at today’s takeout levels(without rebates), it is more probable that you will get hit by lightning than win at the races in the long run.

14. Indulto says:
    02 Jul 2009  at  05:37 pm | #

    wmc,
    Thank you for your kind words regarding my original comment, and for answering Mr. Fotias’s questions which has hopefully hastened rather than hindered his “getting around” to me.

    Just to show that no good deed goes unpunished, I decided while I was waiting for Godot, to sample your prolific letter-to-the-editor writing in the DRF archives going all the way back to 1999. Sadly, they didn’t confirm your qualifications for czarhood, but I did enjoy “Top trainers are students of Dr. Doolittle” from 2000.

15. wmcorrow says:
    02 Jul 2009  at  09:14 pm | #

    Indulto:  From about 1995 to 2006 I inundated DRF with daily emails, and I am serious.  However, DRF has a policy of only printing a dumbbell like me’s correspondence once every three months.  Go figure!  Ask Steve Crist about my correspondence. Yet, if you are an executive at a racetrack, a politician, or a wealthy owner, trainer, jockey, et cetera, their letter to the editor will be printed in the next Sunday edition of the DRF.

    An example of how influencial I was with Mr. Crist (think memory), I qualified for the inaugural DRF/NTRA Handicapping Championship at the MGM in Las Vegas; he appeared late in the afternoon of the day prior to the start of the tournament, and I went up to him and introduced myself; he had no clue to who I was; after I mentioned that I had written numerous times to the DRF his comment was “good luck”.

    Thank goodness that this website exists for me, you, and others to vent our frustration with the dumbbells that are at this moment in charge at various racetracks and certain turf writers who still think it is 1976 and that racing is a sport.

16. Indulto says:
    03 Jul 2009  at  09:02 am | #

    wmc,
    It’s true that ranting racegoers have it better now. When the DRF was the only sanity-saving forum in town for a frustrated horseplayer, he was limited not only in how frequently he could express an opinion, but also how much he could say, and about whom he could say it. And, after all was said and done, there was seldom any feedback.

    Even today, HRI is unique in that several of these distinguished columnists are willing to interact with their readership; even when their patience is tested in the process. The tenacity of your convictions, already legendary within these pages, is a force for influence begging to be harnessed. Surely HANA would benefit from your access to off-track bettors they haven’t been able to reach through the internet.

    The dialogue you’ve established with Mr. Fotias is an exceptional opportunity for you to resolve any differences between your goals and HANA’s.  They have no dog in your fights to market racing as something other than a sport, and for turf writers to shift their focus away from stakes races and racing’s elite. You seem comfortable with their primary objectives of lowering takeout, raising handle, and gaining access to all tracks through all ADWs. Joining them may also expose you to others who share your special concerns and/or have additional ideas for addressing them.

17. Cary Fotias says:
    03 Jul 2009  at  11:19 am | #

    Hi Indulto -

    I will try and address the issues you brought up as best I can.

    Yes, I receive substantial rebates and yes, I show a healthy profit on my wagering. If I weren’t getting rebates, I would still show a nice profit and, somehwat paradoxicaly, my ROI would be much higher without rebates.  However, the sizable extra volume I am able to churn with rebates, makes me more “absolute dollars”. 

    This goes right to the crux of how lowering takeouts would increase the “absolute dollars” for the tracks.
    The tracks, horsemen and legislators are inexplicably more concerned about ROI (takeout rate) than in maximizing returns.  What a fractured business model.  A kid with a lemonade stand knows more about pricing than most “experts” in our industry.

    I would certainly not leave the game if I didn’t get rebates, but my play would be adjusted dramatically. I would bet on much fewer races and demand a bigger “edge” on my odds line before jumping into the pools.  Some whales would leave the game as they work on such a small margin/big volume paradigm that they might not be able to succeed w/o rebates.

    TAKEOUT REDUCTION IS A UNIVERAL REBATE and should be pursued at all costs.  The smaller bettor is at a competitive disadvantage with his larger-volume counterpart and the gap needs to be closed NOW.

    From one angle, as a rebate player, one might think I would be somewhat indifferent about takeout rates since the lower rebates I would get as a result of lower takeout rates would be offset by an almost identical decrease in takeout, for a net effect of zero.  But, the reason I am such a vocal proponet of lower rates is that they would keep less skilled players of all bankroll sizes in the game longer.  This means more profit for the really top players and much better “entertainment value” for the weaker players. 

    I am not faniliar with ETFADE.  Can you tell me more and how to access information concerning it? I am familiar with the paceadvantage board and think it is the best forum for horseplayers on the Internet.  I have never joined as I didn’t want to make it look like I was pushing my products, but I think I will so I can post there also..

    Rebating will probably never end, but its effect would be severely dampened by significant takeout reduction.  Very good customers should get special tretment, but not at the expense of other players. Dramatic reductions in takeout rates would benefit everyone.  If wagering centers want to reward their top customers, let them use the casino method of non-cash “comps”.  How about a trip to Portofino where the top hotels run $1200 euro a night? Or seasom tickets to the Mets? ( I take that back, they are too torturous to watch).  An all expense paid trp to the Derby with seats on Millionaire’s Row? A brand spankin’ new Ferrari?  You get my drift.  For even the ssmallest players, a free beer or Racing Form now and then would be nice.

    Indulto - if we can put a man on the moon and elect a black man president, we can fix this great game! But, it will take a concerted effort by all constituencies involved to make it happen.  And the constituency that has the best opportunity to make it happen is the PLAYERS themselves. SPEAK (and, vociferously) NOW or forever hold your peace.

    I am also very much in favor of putting smaller players on equal “technological footing”. We often hear of computer syndicates searching the pools for pricing anomalies and having the ability to place 1000 bets in a nanosecond.  Well, it wouldn’t be too difficult for the industry at large to make such a template avialable to ALL PLAYERS. How much could it cost? I’d wager there are people at HANA or paceadvantage.com who could program such an interface for the benefit of all. I notice some places are offering “conditional” wagering now, and that is a first step along these lines.

    Well, I’ve run of racetrack.

    I’m off for a much needed vaction on the Olympic Peninsula.  I’ll still be making numbers everday and will continue this excellent discussion when I have time.

    All the Best and Keep The Faith

    CARY..

    PS Feel free to post on HANA or paceadvantage

18. Cary Fotias says:
    03 Jul 2009  at  12:44 pm | #

    Cheers, WM

    You may be a $150/day bettor, but you’ve got tons of class. 

    I agree there is nothing like going to the track. I always feel at home there no matter if it’s Belmond Stakes Day or February at Aqueduct.
    Unfortunaely, outside of “destination” meets like Oaklwan, Keeneland, Del Mar and Saratoga, the game is never going to attract the crowds it used to.  There are so many other convenient
    wagering alternatives (including betting the horses at home), that most race-tracks function like the house in on online poker game.  The tracks are big studios that put on the show for us to GAMBLE on. 

    That being said, I will go on the record and say that there is nothing in the whole of sport/gaming to match the sustained roar of the crowd when a horse is coming down the stretch at Belmont Park with the Triple Crown on the line.

    Thank God for memories..

    CARY..

19. Indulto says:
    03 Jul 2009  at  06:13 pm | #

    Hi CF.
    Thank you for taking the time to respond. You’ve eloquently addressed the issues of primary concern to me with unprecedented clarity, and a sense of urgency that hopefully others at HANA will adopt in support of your position. I wholeheartedly agree with your following statements:

    “TAKEOUT REDUCTION IS A UNIVERSAL REBATE and should be pursued at all costs. The smaller bettor is at a competitive disadvantage with his larger-volume counterpart and the gap needs to be closed NOW.”

    “But, the reason I am such a vocal proponent of lower rates is that they would keep less skilled players of all bankroll sizes in the game longer.  This means more profit for the really top players and much better “entertainment value” for the weaker players.”

    “Rebating will probably never end, but its effect would be severely dampened by significant takeout reduction.  Very good customers should get special treatment, but not at the expense of other players. Dramatic reductions in takeout rates would benefit everyone.”

    “But, it will take a concerted effort by all constituencies involved to make it happen.  And the constituency that has the best opportunity to make it happen is the PLAYERS themselves. SPEAK (and, vociferously) NOW or forever hold your peace.”

    It occurred to me that Cangamble should be credited for having at various times voiced portions of a subset of the points you made above.

    In my opinion, HANA needs to articulate the essence of the above message in order to convert some existing holdouts and to convince the unconcerned to be less cavalier about their own circumstances and those of racing.

    I’ll take you up on your offer to continue this discussion when you return. Meanwhile, enjoy your vacation and I’ll post at least a link to this column at PA. I’m sure Dean will reference it on the HANA blog.

Name:


Email:


Location:


Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?