Some of you may have noticed the letter Sunday that some chucklehead wrote to the editor of DRF, responding to mine of a week earlier. Since it didn't mention me by name I decided not to respond there, but Brant and you-know-who have decided to steer me some business from the Ragozin site, and I hate to leave money on the table, so...

For any who did not see it, an edited copy of my letter can be found by hitting the link to Serious Players from the homepage. It was edited to keep only the parts that were relevent to those interested in rebates, but I took out the sections dealing with the DRF's (Hegarty's) actions, so I'll explain.

1-- The "incendiary" aspects of Hagerty's article I referred to in the original letter included raising the question of whether the enterprise was legal (which was presumably what the writer of this week's letter meant when he said I got my hand "caught in the rebate cookie jar"). It WAS legal, and NO ONE else involved, other than Hegarty, ever suggested otherwise. He never brought the subject up again in his columns, meaning, he never quoted anyone as saying yes, it was legal. Nice journalism. Magna pulled out for political reasons having nothing to do with us, Serious Players has continued at another legal, on shore, parimutuel site.

2-- In the same article Hegarty referred to me as recruiting for "betting syndicates", a term he used several times. After I had it out with his editor for over an hour, during which time he pulled out a dictionary and read the definitions of "syndicate" out loud, he agreed with me that the term was wrong, and in the current climate, perjorative and incendiary-- we are all concerned about the real betting syndicates, some of which are causing the odds drops (past posting?). My clients are individual big bettors, who are actually playing AGAINST each other in the pools-- there is no collaborative effort, no syndicate. One of my partners in the venture does have his own betting group which has had a lot of success with pick sixes, but that has nothing to do with me.

In any event, the DRF editor pulled all uses of the term "syndicate" when referring to me in future articles.

3-- The airhead asks in the letter why getting my players rebates would increase product sales. Because players who win play more often, and play more tracks, that's why. And who cares? Yes, we are making money from the venture, for providing a service that is extremely valuable-- there aren't too many things a player can do to increase his bottom line by 5-10 per cent of HANDLE (not net).

4-- I addressed in the original letter Hegarty's ridiculous contention that discounts for big customers hurts smaller ones, and that therefore big players should not be encouraged to bet more. But I also added that takeouts need to be cut ACROSS THE BOARD, which I have been saying publicly since I did Post Time over a decade ago, before there was any public discussion of rebates. The first step in that process is pressure being applied to the industry by the big bettors, and it is happening.

5-- As for the whale/shark analogy, the whales in question seem to be pretty happy with the money they are making and the service they are getting. And the confused quote about odds drops makes my point about the term "syndicate".



TGJB