Plainridge Racetrack has announced that they will be cutting their takeout to 15% on all wagers for the upcoming season. For those on track and those betting through a live racetrack, this is a great opportunity to consider wagering on Plainridge. The bad news is for those who wager at racetracks which no longer offer live racing or ADWs, it may be hard to get Plainridge's signal to wager on.
Plainridge is attempting to reward those that produce racing product by offering them a nominal 1% to carry their signal. But in attempt to get more from tracks which have ceased live racing or ADWs; doing nothing to contribute live product and raking in big profits because they don't have to produce live racing, they are charging them 8%. Being Plainridge is not a high demand signal, expect many ADWs to say 'no thanks'.
As harnessracing.com is reporting, Plainridge President, Garry Pionkowski is repprted as saying, "We are tired of 8x10 offices equipped with just a phone line and computer pillaging horsemen and racetrack revenues. It is time someone stood up to these fly by night operators who are making millions on the backs of horsemen's and racetrack operations."
My suspicion is Plainridge will be left with making a statement but little handle. Unless a lot more; and I mean a lot more tracks adopt such a philosophy, Plainridge's signal will be offered limited distribution. Unfortunately for Plainridge, a lot of tracks will not go along with Plainridge's philosophy; for fear of getting shut out.
I wish Plainridge luck in their efforts, they will need it. In the meanwhile, if you like harness racing and can get access to Plainridge when their season begins in May, enjoy the discount.
7 comments:
Does Plainridge have alternative gaming on the premises?
If not, their stand is even more impressive.
This is not good news for the rebate player, which means the only part of racing which is growing, is going to take a hit.
Upping their net rebate will make many of their former customers shop for other tracks instead.
I wonder they will consider Twinspires and Xpressbet (ADWs that aren't known to give much in the way of rebates) to be track owners, even though I don't think the tracks/horsemen benefit from those ADWs very much, if at all.
If they don't consider Twinspires and Xpressbet to be track owners and charge them 8%, good luck selling the content to them.
This could be a disaster for Plainridge.
Nothing wrong with the takeout drop, but the misunderstanding of the so called "fly by night" ADWs (ones that give a good % of their profits back to the customer) is going to bite this GM in the butt pretty hard.
No, they have been trying for slots but right now, they just have their racing product.
Anon wrote: This is not good news for the rebate player,
________________________
That means it's great news for the 95% of us. We get to compete on a level playing field with all bettors.
That's how horse racing will grow.
Not through rebates for a few.
The Knight Sky, those getting rebates are not a few anymore.
Rebates are now available to around 70% of all bettors.
Certain States make it hard for residents to get rebates. And those States seem to have the most problems right now staying alive.
But for those able to get rebates, they can now last longer, and that is good for the game. Most rebate players these days don't win, and many have ROI's around .80 (which is the average for all players).
Take them out of the pools, and you have smaller pools.
Personally, I have no problem having rebate money in the pools. Does it matter where a player with a .85 ROI or less gets their money (rebates that an ADW chooses to pay out instead of keep, or if the player gets their disposable money from writing jingles, like Charlie Harper, for example)?
If you have a better ROI than they do, their presence in the pool benefits you.
Of course, the really good players with positive ROI's are going to hurt anyone with an ROI less than theirs whether they get rebates or not, but those players are few and far between, though admittedly those with the highest ROI's tend to wager the most.
Am I wrong in assuming if takeouts were low enough rebates could be eliminated?
Pacingguy, you are not wrong.
If takeout went down to 10-12% for ALL tracks, there would be no need for them, and very little demand for them. And the game will be flourishing enough so that those demanding them still wouldn't be missed if they left the pools.
Offshore bookies wouldn't try to lure anyone either with cash back at those takeout rates (too much risk to them).
Post a Comment