And I edited it in my post.
My point is simply that I think getting an 8 percent rebate on an 18 percent takeout, is a better deal for the person receiving rebates than a universal takeout of 10 per cent.
It’s not the same thing. It’s a better deal.
And it’s not the same thing because, and this is only one of many reasons,reducing takeout by 8 percent would not automatically guarantee payoffs that were eight percent higher across the board. It’s just the nature of the game that there are many horses that are going to pay off at 9/2 whether the takeout is 10 percent or 25 percent. What lower takeouts would mean is that the people who can actually pick more winners than losers would bet more money on the 9/2 and make even more money. That is a good thing. And I support lower takeouts. What rebates mean is that guys don’t actually have to win more money than their fellow competitors to turn a profit at the track. That creates “distortions” And that is not a good thing.
Another way to look at it: Would you rather bet your last thousand dollars on an even money shot with a ten percent takeout or with an eighteen per cent takeout knowing you’ll get $80 back if you lose?
And my larger point is the advantages to people getting rebates are so large that people now receiving rebates are not willingly going to give them up. I mean, if the numbers that Steven Crist used in his “Rebates for all” column last week are true, that rebates account for ten percent of a 16 billion industry handle, then “rebates” are by themselves a 1.6 billion dollar (and growing) industry. Which I think might be interested in using politics and politicians for protecting what it perceives to be its own best interest.
And, in fact, where is the outcry?
Aqueduct hasn’t had a “live” million dollar handle all week. And I say “live” advisedly because I’m pretty sure those paltry numbers include the money called into the NYRA accounts.
The truth is that rebates only exist because tracks are willing partners in the process. The corruption of rebates has already taken hold. And in the absence of decisive action being taken to stem the tide, I’m thinking there is already enough money being passed around to make racing officials deaf, dumb and blind to what is obviously a cannibalization of their franchise.
And while I do give the scenario you propose some chance for success, I think supporting rebates to achieve lower takeouts is kind of like introducing rattlesnakes to your farm to keep out the rats. It should take care of the rat problem, but then what do you do about the rattlesnakes?
Listen, I don't think I'm being too melodramtic when I say the future of racing as we know it is at stake here. Either local tracks will figure out a way to get the big bettors back at the track betting through their windows, or the Industry will bend over for the soap and make like a lady for the Economics of Scale. Some desperate State out West will gladly provide the land and regulatory climate to build a complex of indoor and outdoor tracks designed to provide simulcast races on a 24 hour basis. With concentrated overheads, and all betting being run through one agency, lower takeouts will become quite achievable.
Well, if that's what you want from racing fine. But if you really would like your local track to be what it should be, the most sporting place in town, then I think we have to come up with more creative solutions than rebates offer.