OPM:I'm pretty sure that not too long ago Haw or Sportsman had a reduced takeout(10%?) for those physically present at the track(it might have been limited to Tues), but I can't remember reading or hearing anything about whether it increased attendance or handle.

One of the things regulators suspect is that money bet with offshore bookmakers is being laid off through rebate shops. ehorse, for example, offers a 4% rebate to those who wager $5k per week. If ehorse signed up 200 such customers, & then placed their wagers through a rebate shop, they would be eligible for a 10% rebate, & could pocket the 6% difference at no risk. It gets progressively better for an operation like ehorse, & worse for horsemen, to the extent they are able to attract larger & larger numbers of smaller bettors, who are receive smaller ehorse rebates & who would otherwise bet through the pools.

SC:Rebate operations currently account for $1.5 billion(about 10%) of annual Tbred handle, up from just $450k in 1999. As I believe I mentioned once before, even without rebates bettors were receiving about 80 cents of every dollar they put in, while owners were only receiving about 50 cents. There are a lot of non-economic reasons for horse ownership, but I don't think it's good for the game or for bettors over the long term if the possibility of earning a profit as an owner gets even worse. Eventually, we'd end up like France, where you can go out to Lcp to watch & bet on 5 extraoridnarily expensive & well bred horses owned by 4 Sheiks & a greek shipping magnate compete for a $50k purse. One of the things that makes American racing the best in the world, imho, is that it's not limited to the mega-rich.