Probe of NYRA execs may be launched - NYRA may lose slots subsidies

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by MadWorld

So if you lower takeout and it actually brings in more money due to increased handle, you actually raised takeout?

Rebates are a way of lowering takeout for larger bettors that are in theory much more price sensitive. Rebates are a percentage back of money wagered, therefore it is like a lowered takeout.

Ah, now we get to it. Preferential pricing for the few while collecting higher prices from a larger percentage of the clientele. Yep, that was the plan. Now explain how that equates to lower takeout for everyone again?


[QUOTE=MadWorld]
Did they not put Hayward's response here? Why not when they included his (edited) response to Crist?

No, I quoted the text as published from page 7 of the Interim Report. Let's pretend the entirety of the body of his reply was "I'm forwarding your question to our General Counsel for his opinion." Does that really require another block quote section, or is the paraphrase given sufficient?

Originally Posted by MadWorld

I would assume an email to General Counsel would be so they could check with the Racing and Wagering Board (since the racing and wagering board sets takeout). If he wanted to know the current takeout rate it would be to the Mutuels Department.

I would hope that all communication between NYRA and the NYSRWB does not go through the Counsel's office. That would be tedious and counterproductive. Anyway, the racing and wagering board does not set takeout. The RWB approves or denies takeout rates proposed by the racetracks, which are to be within the statutory limits set by the legislature. I took his saying he forwarded the question to Kehoe as a holdover from his days in the book publishing business; an author sends a question regarding royalty payments and you reply that you've forwarded his question to the legal department (snicker snicker).

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by aaron

All the talk about lowering the takeout seems a little disingenious to me.In 2001 the takeout on straight bets was 14%,it is now 16%. The takeout on 2 horse bets was 17.5 %,now it is 18 %. The takeout on all other exotic wagers was 25 %,now it is 24% because of the error in takeout. The Pick 6 on non carryover days is the only bet that was really reduced. It was 20% and is now 16%. NYRA,very well may have been in favor of a lower takeout,but it was never accomplished.The only reduction only helps a select few bettors.
In 11 years there have really been no improvements in takeout.

IMO...you fail to notice the real reason why takeouts have to be reduced in the current era.

Did you see as many 6-horse fields in 2001 as you do now?

The takeout has a much worse effect on the horseplayer when the field is short...because the small field is the anathema to finding a bet with a decent payoff.

So, not only are the takeouts rising...but they are doing so while the product is getting worse...from the bettor's perspective.

In a poker room, the players ask for a rake reduction when the game gets shorthanded...and they usually get it.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...you fail to notice the real reason why takeouts have to be reduced in the current era.

Did you see as many 6-horse fields in 2001 as you do now?

The takeout has a much worse effect on the horseplayer when the field is short...because the small field is the anathema to finding a bet with a decent payoff.

So, not only are the takeouts rising...but they are doing so while the product is getting worse...from the bettor's perspective.

In a poker room, the players ask for a rake reduction when the game gets shorthanded...and they usually get it.

I can't argue with anything you said.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

I think it is a valid question to ask where all the money is from that $8.5 million that was overcharged. Some has been returned by a few ADWs in the form of rebates, but there must be quite a bit of it still outstanding.

Did you get your rebate/refund?

[Tom]

Rebates are a way of lowering takeout for larger bettors that are in theory much more price sensitive. Rebates are a percentage back of money wagered, therefore it is like a lowered takeout.

Good point.
I am sitting here with a whopping $5 and I am ready to lay it all down on the 5th today.

You are sitting there with $15,000 in your pocket and you are willing to but a few grand of it on the 5th as well.

Who the HELL should the track be sucking up to, you or me?

Actually, NYRA would better off if they could cater to high rollers in way they are not allowed to now. Comps, flying in high rollers, put them up in the Ritz.....send women over....well, you get the idea.

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by Tom

Did you get your rebate/refund?

no i bet at a simulcast outlet.

[Tom]

Then why do you care where it went?
Why does everyone care - it went where all the rest of the money goes, just 1% more of it, less what they gave back. It is not like they split it up among the board.

They were FORCED to increase it for a while for a reason, so all that happened here is that it stayed high longer than planned.

[cj]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

Do you really think Shwartz's efforts weren't opposed? Takeout went down not up during Shwartz's tenure and up not down under Hayward. Whether Shwartz made the best use of political capital is certainly debatable, but he used it. Hayward, as that letter to Crist you want to treat as gospel makes clear, was reluctant to really push the issue. That's the fact, Jack.

I'll try again: You really think the financial situations were remotely close during the two eras?

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...you fail to notice the real reason why takeouts have to be reduced in the current era.

Did you see as many 6-horse fields in 2001 as you do now?

The takeout has a much worse effect on the horseplayer when the field is short...because the small field is the anathema to finding a bet with a decent payoff.

So, not only are the takeouts rising...but they are doing so while the product is getting worse...from the bettor's perspective.

In a poker room, the players ask for a rake reduction when the game gets shorthanded...and they usually get it.

in poker, very few people want to play shorthanded. with short fields in horse racing you have less interest also.

going forward i hope the first thing they do is work on having the races go with bigger fields. you are going to see a major problem next year in Tampa, the trainers that have been there for years are threatening not to come back next year because they don't think they can win against MIDWEST THOROUGHBRED CORPORATION.

the number 1 priority for anyone that happens to run new york racing should be to ban the use of clen beuterol

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by Tom

Then why do you care where it went?
Why does everyone care - it went where all the rest of the money goes, just 1% more of it, less what they gave back. It is not like they split it up among the board.

They were FORCED to increase it for a while for a reason, so all that happened here is that it stayed high longer than planned.

The fact is, we still don't know exactly where it went and who got what and we should. I am no lawyer but there has to be some kind of accountability as to who got what. In the litigious society, that is the stuff that class action lawsuits are built upon. You can not just slough it of as, oh well. That said because there has been no accountability, you can not say, for certain, that the Board did not just 'split it up'.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by cj

I'll try again: You really think the financial situations were remotely close during the two eras?

Was NYRA profitable during Schwartz's tenure ?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

The fact is, we still don't know exactly where it went and who got what and we should. I am no lawyer but there has to be some kind of accountability as to who got what. In the litigious society, that is the stuff that class action lawsuits are built upon. You can not just slough it of as, oh well. That said because there has been no accountability, you can not say, for certain, that the Board did not just 'split it up'.

Oh for God's sake
It went where ALL the first 24% went. It was just 1% more money taken out - nothing more.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by aaron

Was NYRA profitable during Schwartz's tenure ?

A lot of places were then and not now.

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by Tom

Oh for God's sake
It went where ALL the first 24% went. It was just 1% more money taken out - nothing more.

That totaled more than $8.5 million. If that means to you, you can send me a check. Some people got screwed out of a lot of money and some got to keep an awful lot that was not rightfully their's.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

That totaled more than $8.5 million. If that means to you, you can send me a check. Some people got screwed out of a lot of money and some got to keep an awful lot that was not rightfully their's.

I still love this argument. Higher take led to higher profits for NYRA. Good thing they didn't lower them then. Would have been bad business.