I was going to write a post this morning about charging more money for a big event (in economics it does have a place, of course), but by doing it with imagination, as to not hurt the event, or the brand. It was also going to incorporate some thoughts on field size, etc.

Then I read this.

No post on reason or economics fits. So I won't.

I had to head to the place where we all get sleep last night, but I saw the tweets giving play by play of a radio show in Vegas on the Derby. Since the show was a betting show there was little talk about a favorite getting off a plane, it was bettor focused.

The tweet stream, relaying the thoughts of a New York gambler:

Systemic. Have a nice Wednesday everyone.


Anonymous said...

The "tax" is on NY residents betting with out-of-state ADWs, and has nothing to do with playing "New York tracks". Methinks "Mattie" has some credibility issues.

Pull the Pocket said...

I highly doubt that. He's extremely credible.

Probably just a communication issue about a rather complex ADW law.


Bob Diablo said...

The problem is that most if not all in state ADWs in NY now are racetrack ADWs and there isn't a lot of room to rebate, so rebates are smaller on average than they were before the law for NY residents, even the biggest bettors.

Anonymous said...

The law that applies to NY residents really isn't complex at all; if you play with an out-of-state ADW there is a 5% "tax" on ALL of your wagers. It's irrelevant whether you bet NY tracks or any other - the 5% charge is the same.


Carryovers Provide Big Reach and an Immediate Return

Sinking marketing money directly into the horseplayer by seeding pools is effective, in both theory and practice In Ontario and elsewher...