Cali tracks get free hand to tinker with takeout..

[randallscott35]

Oh I agree Steve. I'm simply saying if they do raise takeout, it is a negative. I'll wait and see. But I don't play certain places based on the take.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Oh I agree Steve. I'm simply saying if they do raise takeout, it is a negative. I'll wait and see. But I don't play certain places based on the take.

My comments are directed to those that are eager to expect the worst.

But what if they were to drop WPS takeout to 14% from 15.43%; drop 2/3/4 horse exotics to 18% from 20.18%; BUT raise P3/P4/P6 to 24% from 20.18%? That would be felt less by players on the multi race side but still raise revenue and perhaps also raise churn on the reduced takeout wagers? Is that a viable approach to test the waters on reduced takeout?

New York and Illinois take 25% on P3-P4... I don't hear any screaming... I also don't hear a peep of praise for California having been kept at 20% all this time on those wagers...

The bill is designed to provide flexibility. The basics of the existing takeout system in CA isn't immediately affected. Is there potential for everyone involved to do the wrong thing? Yes.. Does it have to be assumed? No..

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Kasept

My comments are directed to those that are eager to expect the worst.

But what if they were to drop WPS takeout to 14% from 15.43%; drop 2/3/4 horse exotics to 18% from 20.18%; BUT raise P3/P4/P6 to 24% from 20.18%? That would be felt less by players on the multi race side but still raise revenue and perhaps also raise churn on the reduced takeout wagers? Is that a viable approach to test the waters on reduced takeout?

New York and Illinois take 25% on P3-P4... I don't hear any screaming... I also don't hear a peep of praise for California having been kept at 20% all this time on those wagers...

The bill is designed to provide flexibility. The basics of the existing takeout system in CA isn't immediately affected. Is there potential for everyone involved to do the wrong thing? Yes.. Does it have to be assumed? No..

1. Given racing's track record why should I expect anything but the worst?
2. I know your using a hypathetical, but do you honestly believe they would lower takeout and raise others to offset that?
3. You dont think serious players in NY are upset with the 25% take? I certainly have always heard loud protest when New York raises the take out, I am surprised you don't recall those discussions.
4. Yea it is more flexibility, someone that is not comnforting to me, frankly because the State of California, the track owners, and the CHRB in the majority of cases give me little reason to think it has a positive outcome.

I guess I would compare it to the current discussions about using the "nuclear option" in the US Senate to bypass normal procedure, until it happens no ne should be concerned the loopholes are in place that it could happen? Sorry, if there is a problem I think its best to voice your concerns before you have to take it in the shorts.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

1. Given racing's track record why should I expect anything but the worst?

2. I know your using a hypathetical, but do you honestly believe they would lower takeout and raise others to offset that?

3. You dont think serious players in NY are upset with the 25% take? I certainly have always heard loud protest when New York raises the take out, I am surprised you don't recall those discussions.

4. Yea it is more flexibility, someone that is not comnforting to me, frankly because the State of California, the track owners, and the CHRB in the majority of cases give me little reason to think it has a positive outcome.

I guess I would compare it to the current discussions about using the "nuclear option" in the US Senate to bypass normal procedure, until it happens no ne should be concerned the loopholes are in place that it could happen? Sorry, if there is a problem I think its best to voice your concerns before you have to take it in the shorts.

10,

1. While I don't know the players in CA as well as I know them in the East, I believe that there are many in track management that given the right opportunity will attempt to do the right thing.

2. I do think that a scenario exists (Hollywood Park) where a takeout reduction experiment can be attempted. And honestly, California rates are lower than almost anywhere in the country. Figure out where the revenue model is now first of all. Then, why not raise the take on P6 to 22-23% (from 20%) and drop it on P3-P4 to maybe 12% (from 20%) as a serious extended promotion to see what it does to handle. HANA and the takeout reduction crowd says it will drive handle up... Let's use this opportunity to prove it to the rest of the industry.

3. The NY thing was frustrating because Barry Schwartz was lowering takeout at NYRA tracks and the state screwed it up for everyone. I do not personally find the takeout onerous in NY.

4. Again, the bill was supposedly put together to benefit the fairs. I'll get Harper, Liebau and Charles on record as to DMR, HOL and SA's intentions, and let's see if we can motivate them to do something pro-active.

All the concerns are logical as the predictable outcome here certainly remains obvious, but as I am doing in concert with the Satish Sanan conversations weekly on ATR, I am eager to promote upbeat and positive influence on these kinds of scenarios by attempting to get players and fans to see the plus side of industry situations.

Because there is so much 'loss' and 'frustration' when playing the races, the overall mindset and approach of people around the game is negatively-tinged. We have to have a more positive outlook because not doing so only furthers the status quo and current malaise and ennui.

[gamblin4ever]

Originally Posted by Kasept

My comments are directed to those that are eager to expect the worst.

But what if they were to drop WPS takeout to 14% from 15.43%; drop 2/3/4 horse exotics to 18% from 20.18%; BUT raise P3/P4/P6 to 24% from 20.18%? That would be felt less by players on the multi race side but still raise revenue and perhaps also raise churn on the reduced takeout wagers? Is that a viable approach to test the waters on reduced takeout?

New York and Illinois take 25% on P3-P4... I don't hear any screaming... I also don't hear a peep of praise for California having been kept at 20% all this time on those wagers...

The bill is designed to provide flexibility. The basics of the existing takeout system in CA isn't immediately affected. Is there potential for everyone involved to do the wrong thing? Yes.. Does it have to be assumed? No..

Steve i'm primarily exotics/multi race bettor and i love playing CA tracks b/c the takeout is lower, what you suggest here would put CA tracks in line with everyone else. Is there anyway you can get somebody from CHRB on ATR to discuss this? I believe it would help to here their side.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by gamblin4ever

Steve i'm primarily exotics/multi race bettor and i love playing CA tracks b/c the takeout is lower, what you suggest here would put CA tracks in line with everyone else. Is there anyway you can get somebody from CHRB on ATR to discuss this? I believe it would help to here their side.

I will have Ron Charles (SA), Joe Harper (DMR) and Jack Liebau (HOL) on between now and the BC. Perfect chance to address this while I broadcast from Santa Anita next week.

CHRB less of a concern really. They rubber stamp whatever the track managements tell them too.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I will have Ron Charles (SA), Joe Harper (DMR) and Jack Liebau (HOL) on between now and the BC. Perfect chance to address this while I broadcast from Santa Anita next week.

CHRB less of a concern really. They rubber stamp whatever the track managements tell them too.

So who looks out for the players?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

So who looks out for the players?

Certainly not CHRB... We have to look out for ourselves, and hope that there are a few in track management that have the right thing at heart.

[dagolfer33]

If they don't get dirt back on the main tracks @ SA and DM, it won't matter what the takeout policy is.

[joeydb]

Like Crist said in his latest DVD, "When it comes to takeout, it's heading in one direction: up."

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

If they don't get dirt back on the main tracks @ SA and DM, it won't matter what the takeout policy is.

The sky is falling. Lower takeout doesn't help much when the fields are horrendous and the racing surface is garbage.

[Riot]

How many of you have stopped gambling on CA racing because of the surface switch?

Honest question, just asking.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Riot

How many of you have stopped gambling on CA racing because of the surface switch?

Honest question, just asking.

I wager a lot less, but its just one of several factors, not the key factor. The surface IMO is actually more predictable than dirt.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I wager a lot less, but its just one of several factors, not the key factor. The surface IMO is actually more predictable than dirt.

Not that it has a thing to do with the surface, but I've played California way more than I ever have, particularly Hollywood, the last 2-2.5 years.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Not that it has a thing to do with the surface, but I've played California way more than I ever have, particularly Hollywood, the last 2-2.5 years.

Someone with better numbers than I can support or refute this but.....

Is it not true that handle and field size are down in So Cal out of proportion to what would be explained by the impact of the recent economic realities.

If you had to predict how handle is going to compare at the 2009 BC to last year wouldn't it be less than the previous year?

I am curious as to why you have played California more than previously because I cannot find anyone in my circle who plays more on the west coast than previously.

It would be great if the takeout was sliced to reduce vertical takeouts but increased on horizontal plays (P3's etc) with larger payouts that would be a responsible way to generate more revenue for the state.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Riot

How many of you have stopped gambling on CA racing because of the surface switch?

Honest question, just asking.

Me.

I don't play Del Mar or SA at all. I did take cracks at large carryovers 4 times in the last year, but other than that, zero. I used to play both tracks heavily. I don't like to lose and after the surface switches, I was losing at an alarming rate at these two tracks. There are plenty of other places for me to play that give me a much greater chance of winning.

The only track I play in CA, is Hollywood.

[deltagulf]

like john lennon wrote years ago give peace a chance.
well give the cali tracks a chance and see if they lower takeout.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Riot

How many of you have stopped gambling on CA racing because of the surface switch?

Honest question, just asking.

I'll bet the BC cause I'll be there but that will be the first time I'll have bet CA racing since last BC. I don't even feel like handicapping the surface is that difficult, I simply don't like it as a dirt replacement and don't want my money going towards supporting it. If they make it a 3rd surface like it should be then I'll go back to wagering it.