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

[usedtolovetvg]

So the payouts can be different depending on where you are betting? I thought they were uniform across the country.

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

So the payouts can be different depending on where you are betting? I thought they were uniform across the country.

The payouts were uniform across the country. They were not uniformly illegal. Only NY had a law about NY track payouts on NY track racing.

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

The payouts were uniform across the country. They were not uniformly illegal. Only NY had a law about NY track payouts on NY track racing.

Thank you. I do not think that had been explained to me. If it had, certainly not that succinctly. So, the bettors just got screwed and not robbed. Only the bettors at simulcast outlets in NY could have a beef. But, someone still ended up with more dough than they should have. And to my way of thinking that was NYRA?

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by aaron

Why is this so hard to figure out. This is the Governor trying to take over.

Exactly....which would be the worst possible thing that could happen.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

Thank you. I do not think that had been explained to me. If it had, certainly not that succinctly. So, the bettors just got screwed and not robbed. Only the bettors at simulcast outlets in NY could have a beef. But, someone still ended up with more dough than they should have. And to my way of thinking that was NYRA?

No. If you believe increasing takeout above optimal levels reduces both playoffs to players and profits to tracks and that 25% is above optimal level, then everybody lost. The "extra money" never existed. This was the point of my comment above.

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

No. If you believe increasing takeout above optimal levels reduces both playoffs to players and profits to tracks and that 25% is above optimal level, then everybody lost. The "extra money" never existed. This was the point of my comment above.

One of my flaws is that when I don't understand something I say so. I really don't follow you. There was $8.5 million more withheld than should have been. 26% was withheld rather than 25% over the time period. The money that was, not ultimately, returned to the winning bettors was kept by someone and I believe NYRA got the unclaimed winnings. Chickenhead clearly explained that no law was broken outside of NY. I'm sorry but I don't follow you.

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

One of my flaws is that when I don't understand something I say so. I really don't follow you. There was $8.5 million more withheld than should have been. 26% was withheld rather than 25% over the time period. The money that was, not ultimately, returned to the winning bettors was kept by someone and I believe NYRA got the unclaimed winnings. Chickenhead clearly explained that no law was broken outside of NY. I'm sorry but I don't follow you.

Al is talking about something slightly different, or not, depends on how you look at it.

NYRA withheld $1.something million that went afoul of the law. That is the real number, not $8.5 million. The lions share of the $8.5 million is really just money that out of state bettors bet into a really high takeout with out of state bet takers. Had takeout been lower, someone would have collected $7 million less *from those particular wagers*, but takeout was higher, so they collected $7 million more *from those particular wagers*.

Al is saying that $1.something million isn't necessarily *more* in total revenue than NYRA would have gotten otherwise, had rates been lower.

They would have certainly made $1.something million less *from the wagers that actually occured*...but maybe they'd have made more overall due to having more wagers, these are hypothetical wagers at this point, they didn't occur, but maybe they would have.

Regardless, it is only that it was illegal that made it an issue. There is no statutory limit on total revenue, just per wager revenue. They didn't make too much money, but they did take more money from each wager than was legal.

That is why *more* comes up as an issue. To be exact, it's really *more* on *the wagers that actually occured*.

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

Al is talking about something slightly different, or not, depends on how you look at it.

NYRA withheld $1.something million that went afoul of the law. That is the real number, not $8.5 million. The lions share of the $8.5 million is really just money that out of state bettors bet into a really high takeout with out of state bet takers. Had takeout been lower, someone would have collected $7 million less *from those particular wagers*, but takeout was higher, so they collected $7 million more *from those particular wagers*.

Al is saying that $1.something million isn't necessarily *more* in total revenue than NYRA would have gotten otherwise, had rates been lower.

They would have certainly made $1.something million less *from the wagers that actually occured*...but maybe they'd have made more overall due to having more wagers, these are hypothetical wagers at this point, they didn't occur, but maybe they would have.

Regardless, it is only that it was illegal that made it an issue. There is no statutory limit on total revenue, just per wager revenue. They didn't make too much money, but they did take more money from each wager than was legal.

That is why *more* comes up as an issue. To be exact, it's really *more* on *the wagers that actually occured*.

Thanks. My personal feeling is that the takeout should be between 10 & 15%. I think both players and tracks would be the big winners. But let's not talk about hypotheticals. I thought that the track takeout only accounted for the 8.5 million. Let's say $100 is bet. at 25% takeout the track keeps $25, at 26% takeout the track keeps $26 or $1 more at the higher rate. Multiply that times the hundreds of millions of $$$ that was bet during that time period = $8.5 million more to the track. Now, you have explained why it's not illegal but I'm really sorry but I don't see how that 8.5 million extra didn't go back to NYRA. All the monies paid are coming out of one pool and that pool is controlled, virtually, by NYRA, is it not? Sorry for my dumbness but I'll get it. I really appreciate your patience.

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

Now, you have explained why it's not illegal but I'm really sorry but I don't see how that 8.5 million extra didn't go back to NYRA. All the monies paid are coming out of one pool and that pool is controlled, virtually, by NYRA, is it not? Sorry for my dumbness but I'll get it. I really appreciate your patience.

As to the actual money flow, the money doesn't actually go back to the home track on a race by race basis. They settle up with each other once a week or something, and net everything out, is my understanding.

At the end of the day, let's say takeout is 26% in NY and you bet it from Cali.

You bet at simulcast, they are going to net out and effectively send something like 3% back to NYRA. The rest goes to the state, purses, and track revenues. Large amount of NYRAs handle comes from simulcast.

You bet with an ADW, they are going to net out and effectively send something like 8% back to NYRA. The rest of it, some goes to source market fees (other tracks), some goes to the state, some goes to rebates or whatever, the rest to ADW revenues. Large amount of NYRAs handle comes from ADW.

$8.5 million is how much extra NYRA's screw up cost their bettors, for those bets they made, but that money didn't all go back to NYRA.

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

As to the actual money flow, the money doesn't actually go back to the home track on a race by race basis. They settle up with each other once a week or something, and net everything out, is my understanding.

At the end of the day, let's say takeout is 26% in NY and you bet it from Cali.

You bet at simulcast, they are going to net out and effectively send something like 3% back to NYRA. The rest goes to the state, purses, and track revenues. Large amount of NYRAs handle comes from simulcast.

You bet with an ADW, they are going to net out and effectively send something like 8% back to NYRA. The rest of it, some goes to source market fees (other tracks), some goes to the state, some goes to rebates or whatever, the rest to ADW revenues. Large amount of NYRAs handle comes from ADW.

$8.5 million is how much extra NYRA's screw up cost their bettors, for those bets they made, but that money didn't all go back to NYRA.

Thanks. That is clearing my confusion. I thought the host track got a greater % of the simulcasting revenue. I would like to see the agreements that NYRA has with both ADWs and simulcasting outlets. I am very interested in seeing how that 25/26% breaks down. Even by your reckoning though, it seems that NYRA would be getting a nice chunk of what was bet out of State. So they would have made much more than just the $1 million that they hosed from New Yorkers.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

Thanks. That is clearing my confusion. I thought the host track got a greater % of the simulcasting revenue. I would like to see the agreements that NYRA has with both ADWs and simulcasting outlets. I am very interested in seeing how that 25/26% breaks down. Even by your reckoning though, it seems that NYRA would be getting a nice chunk of what was bet out of State. So they would have made much more than just the $1 million that they hosed from New Yorkers.

I'd think you'd already know the simulcast host vs. main track breakdown on bets made from outside the NYRA system (or any other system, though percentages vary slightly if we're talking Keeneland or Turf Paradise). NYRA might have done the "wrong" or "mistake" or whatever but they did not make most of the profits from it. That was my only point. I could say "ADWs get 15 percent of the revenue from a bet and NYRA got 3 percent" but it would depend on the bet, the takeout, and an informed bettor understanding the issue, which even though you've posted hundreds of times on the topic, it doesn't seem you are.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Canarsie

Weren't you the person who didn't agree with me and started a childish poll? It was so predictable that you were on the wrong end and the results proved it.

Maybe you should try a different area of expertise your flailing here.

Asking people what they think instead of just telling them what they ought to think. What was I thinking? You better call Gallup and tell them to stop being childish.

And how did the poll results prove I was wrong, again?
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=89489

Take a look and try to explain that. Or even better, just call it childish and claim to have won. That's much more mature.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Tom

....and yet no one here is whining about that.
NYRA did, but they are the villains here.

Which ones "did not obey the law" (to quote Mr. Hayward) in doing what they did?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by usedtolovetvg

One of my flaws is that when I don't understand something I say so. I really don't follow you. There was $8.5 million more withheld than should have been. 26% was withheld rather than 25% over the time period. The money that was, not ultimately, returned to the winning bettors was kept by someone and I believe NYRA got the unclaimed winnings. Chickenhead clearly explained that no law was broken outside of NY. I'm sorry but I don't follow you.

The only way this "extra money" existed is if betting behavior was unchanged by the change in takeout rate. This means that players would have had to bet the same amount at 26% as they did at 25%. When the refund was calculated, it made this assumption. However, this assumption is wholly incorrect if we are to believe the common stance put forth by HANA among many others that take is too high and both tracks and players would benefit by lowering take. I assume you believe this stance to be true.

Takeout is simply the price of a wager. There is a level of takeout that will optimize the profits of the track, ie max profits. If you raise take above that level, then profits fall. If you lower it below that level, profits fall. Therefore, if we believe that take was already too high at 25%, raising it to 26% causes profits to fall. This is because players react to the higher price and decrease the amount wagered by a greater percentage than the increase in price. But if profits fell, there was no "extra money" kept by anyone. That money never existed because it was never wagered due to the higher price of wagering.

The point is, we can't at the same time believe take is too high for both player and industry and claim NYRA made all this extra money. These two statements are contradictory.

[usedtolovetvg]

Originally Posted by castaway01

I'd think you'd already know the simulcast host vs. main track breakdown on bets made from outside the NYRA system (or any other system, though percentages vary slightly if we're talking Keeneland or Turf Paradise). NYRA might have done the "wrong" or "mistake" or whatever but they did not make most of the profits from it. That was my only point. I could say "ADWs get 15 percent of the revenue from a bet and NYRA got 3 percent" but it would depend on the bet, the takeout, and an informed bettor understanding the issue, which even though you've posted hundreds of times on the topic, it doesn't seem you are.

Thanks, please post the link with the breakdown of NYRA simulcast rates, so I can be better informed.