The Bloodhorse had a summary story up on yesterday's CHRB meeting regarding advance deposit wagering. If you are a wagering and gambling aficionado, read it at your own risk. It's extremely difficult to get through.
"There are concerns—with respect to charities, with respect to the
board, with respect to other aspects of the industry—what are the ADWs
prepared to (do)?" CHRB chairman Chuck Winner said at the Wednesday
meeting. "Rather than us dictate what we think you ought to do within
your licenses, it would be better if you made some recommendations to
us, without telling us why you can't do those things."
It's essentially the same story from way back in 2010 when takeout was raised -- we need a bigger slice to survive, because we have costs. In a nutshell, in its simplest terms - this time they're after the ADW's for more money.
Many of the items that are being talked about today -- revenue for charity, etc -- are taken directly from takeout; that is, these things receive money directly from margin, and the revenue is solely based on how much is wagered (the handle). This is backwards from almost every business (revenue is maximized, profits are maximized and then the money is spent).
Many industry watchers in 2010 cautioned at that time, as wagering fell from a takeout hike, there would be less money for all these nooks and crannies from the margin. And that California would be back, cap in hand, looking for more money from somewhere to make up for it.
They are doing exactly that. And this time they are after the ADW's for more money.
The problem is, as accurately and eloquently stated by Twinspires and BetAmerica -- margins for them are already tight in California. So much so that taking a bet is almost revenue neutral for them.
"California puts (ADWs) at a disadvantage by strapping us with so many
costs and not enough money to really do what we're able to do. ... If we
were just operating in California, we could not justify that cost.
California benefits from the costs we're incurring and we're having to
make that up in other places," Blackwell said.
California racing has truly reached its zenith when it comes to grabbing what they can out of the shrinking pie. Bettors have now had more taken from them that they ever have (20.84% blended takeout); source market fees are high, TV fees and other fees have the resellers on razor thin margins.
There's no one left with any money in their pockets to shake down.
I realize they're desperate, but what they are doing (and have done, over and over) doesn't work. It can never work. The only thing that will work, in my view, is more handle. What they are doing doesn't promote that, it does the opposite.
That's why, in 2016, California handle - which just seven short years ago was the highest of any state in the nation - will fall to 3rd, behind New York and Florida.
I am not here to offer a solution, because I don't have one. But I am sure of one thing: Shaking down ADW's (your needed resellers in a connected world) will not help the situation. In fact, it will cause that blue line above to continue to fall. And as history has proven again and again, that doesn't do anyone any good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most Trafficked, Last 12 Months
-
There has been a lot of discussion of late via #simocon about racing, betting and signals and all the rest. The main theme is that racing ca...
-
Standardbred Canada has a poll up asking who is the greatest trotter who ever lived. These questions are fun, but really it is impossible t...
-
The news hit the wires today that TVG is in search of a new CEO. This news assures a shake-up in programming at the huge ADW, especially w...
-
How do we differentiate ourselves from thoroughbred bettors? What are the pros and cons of being a harness bettor? In a recent article at R2...
-
I saw this tweet by Nick yesterday. Nick is the morning line maker at Keeneland. I promise I’m not being a smart ass. I clearly made a horr...
-
Harness racing is a unique bird when it comes to driving styles and driving colonies. Whereas in Thoroughbred racing, a jock does not race a...
-
A lot of you have seen this Portnoy post about his beat in the Pick 6 at Del Mar yesterday: I made it to last leg of pick 6 at Del Mar. I h...
-
In 1996, most know that the pari-mutuel tax on wagering was reduced from 7.5% to 0.5% as part of the slots at racetracks program. The indust...
-
Sitting outside, or in the grandstand at Greenwood brings back many memories. Racing was super-popular and we usually had a packed house and...
Similar
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...
2 comments:
I am having trouble understanding your charts. In the pie chart, what makes up the pie (e.g., handle at California tracks, regardless of where the race is held; handle on California races, regardless of source market)?
In the state-by-state time series, is this betting on races in the state or bets placed in the state?
Thanks.
Hi Bit.
I think that's total handle split up from California handle at all tracks, all sources.
The time series is wagering on tracks in the state in question.
PTP
Post a Comment