The Impact of Horse players
 

This article and idea is well worth a read.

Paul

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...ill&id=4028701

This guy has the same problem as the industry, this 'without us' attitude, it is WRONG and whiney. And each entity involved can say it

Without the racetracks, there is no where to run the horses or bet
Without the horseman, there is no one to train the horses or pay for their upkeep
Without the bettors, there is no purses

Does Mike Mayo realize that much of what the track does is dictated by the state racing commission? A quick scan of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 128A really breaks down how much money goes to the state and when they expect it. The take out seems to largely depend on what the state dictates. While they dictate a maximum and not a minimum, the daily payback to the state is a perentage based on the maximum takeout allowed. I am not an attorney, nor do I work in the racing industry but my guess is that the state has it stacked against the tracks.

Now, as far as better reporting on equipment changes it seems the track would be able to do that. As far as medication - I am not sure that a track can dictate that, I assume that the state, again, would have a say in that - I am sure that there are many others that actually know how that is done.

All this being said, it would be nice if everyone would get together behind Thoroughbred Racing to insure that 40 years from now, when I am in my dotage, I can look forward to watching the races while I eat through a straw and drool.

Regardless , the state and track is running a business. If horseplayers were to "vote with their betting dollars". You would eventually see some positive adjustments.

This is something that I've tried to be a part of, and that I am hopeful that it can have some positive influence. I have also been writing an occasional piece for the HANA blog (derby list, Fla. derby...).

the race is today Tuesday March 31

Race 6 Will Rogers Downs

free PPs

my handicapping from video replays:

#10 Perfect Soldier (5-1) ran a good race last time, where he went wider than the winner (who isn't in this race). This is 3rd off the layoff and he has a strong work between races, he should be in great shape compared to some of these horses.

#11 Cowger (6-1) shows some ability as a closer, and he steps up from Maiden claimer hopefully at a decent price.

I think this is a decent idea, but I also think that a statement needs to made to the Feds and the state legislatures regarding the availability of ADW accounts throughout all of the states and the effect that has on the tracks. While not a huge player, I probably wager well into 5 figures on an annual basis and probably 95% of that money is sent off-shore because that's the only game in town for me as a resident of the great state of Missouri. I fully realize that hurts the horsemen and the tracks, which is the last thing that I really want to do, since they are the ones who make this game possible...

I see it as 3-10. It appears the outside is a real hinderance at this distance. Of course I didn't even know there was a Will Rogers Downs before this idea came up so what do I know.

Paul

The 3 could win. He has good speed if he doesn't quit.

Wanted to throw my 10 in but NJ Bets doesn't carry the track... Oh well. Was going to bet the 10-Perfect Soldier

Right now everyone is probably suggesting we move to a different state. Wil Rogers Downs probably would be dark if it were not for the Cherokee Nation and their casino under the grandstand.

Good post.

Over the years, I have found that the Andy Serling "good post" seal of approval tends to be more capricious and arbitrary than an actual indicator of solid posting.

I find it odd that I have never received a similar slap on the back from Andy. Recently, I feel I have been on top of my posting game.

This stuff is pointless.

#10 Perfect Soldier wins

Great...:(

In this case that poster explained, very clearly, the problem that most people seem to either be unaware of or ignore.

I should have said it was a great post.

Why was Will Rogers Downs selected for this buycott idea?

Why not a New York, Kentucky, Florida or California buycott? And how would this work with those facilities running racinos?

Got to be another way.

The buycott reminds me of the don't buy gasoline on a particular day idea. The oil companies don't give a fat rats......you'll need gas sooner or later.

Yes, bettors have a vote. Don't bet. But, why chase even more away from the game.

I believe the regulatory agencies have those operating race tracks (and OTBs) have those in the business handcuffed. It seems that a legislative route is the best way at this stage of the game with a collective agenda from operators, fans, bettors and all other stake holders.

My understanding is that a small gtrack was chosen so that the large extra influx of handle would be noticed.

Also, as the article makes clear, this is very different than a boycott. You are right that a boycott wouldn't work as players want to bet. This is not chasing money away from the game. It is adding money to a specific race. However, this could work if after a few of these track management sees that they could get large increases in handle by having player friendly policies.

Paul

So, what was the total handle for the race, does anyone know? How did it compare to other races that day? Did the "buycott" actually have a visible impact?