Left at the Gate

NYRA Beats Back Latest Attack

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0000

- NYRA quickly reacted to flick away the latest broadside from a state government official; this time, and once again, the Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, who issued a report, in the form of a letter to Charles Hayward, on the probe he promised over the summer, a followup to his critical audit report of June, 2010. At this point, NYRA's Director of Communications and Media Relations Dan Silver may very well have a response file ready to fend off the expected attacks. The file for DiNapoli Disses would be located somewhere amongst and between the ones marked for the occasions of Franchise Oversight Fantasies, Ignorant Newspaper Editorials, and Dumbass Politicians.

NYRA's response was curt and firm, in particular when pointing out that the Comptroller's summary statement issued to the press took a far dimmer view than what was actually expressed in the report. While DiNapoli, in his press release, would concede only that NYRA "has launched some cost containment initiatives," NYRA pointed out that the report (in PDF format here) was actually far more explicit in detailing what it has done to comply with his audit's recommendations.

However, as the actual audit report notes , NYRA has made strides in implementing the 2010 recommendations, including plans to enhance revenues, staffing analysis and cuts in overall staffing, the termination of our former integrity counsel and the awarding of a more cost-effective integrity counsel, cost savings on the transportation of horses between NYRA tracks, and several other cost-cutting initiatives.

In fact, the recommendations in the report that are marked 'Partially Implemented' seem instead to actually be rather substantively implemented. And the ones marked 'Not Implemented' hardly seem that significant or material at all in the larger scheme of things. For example, there's this one:

Recommendation 5
Identify the extent to which other NYRA operations and services deviate from standard industry practices and evaluate whether such departures are necessary and cost-effective.

Status - Not Implemented

Agency Action - NYRA officials asserted that they do not pay for any practices that deviate from industry practice. However, they have not supported their assertion with any documented analysis.

Another is regarding surprise mutuel clerk cash counts not being a surprise; and the other two concern concessions, which is now out of NYRA's hands for half of the year, as Genting has taken over at the Big A.

Not only did the Comptroller paint a dark picture in his press release, he stated, in a fit of mere speculation, that “NYRA stands to squander significant revenue from the recently opened VLT franchise at Aqueduct." NYRA responded, helpfully: "As a reminder, the use of VLT proceeds is regulated by statute and primarily allocated to purse money and capital expenditures."

And in the most bizarre aspect of the exchange, the Comptroller contended that NYRA "expects a $19.7 million loss from racing operations in 2012." This assertion was mentioned only in the press release; it was not part of DiNapoli's report at all. When asked where DiNapoli got that number, a spokesperson for the Comptroller told Matt Hegarty that it was "provided by NYRA during a closing conference." [DRF] But that notion is flatly disputed by NYRA, which stands by its expectation to turn a slight profit, $1.4 million, from racing operations this year. I have no reason to doubt that; it jibes with financial projections I've been shown in the past.

So, where did DiNapoli really get that number? Perhaps, as Hegarty wrote, it "may reflect a difference of opinion on what costs should be included in the association's racing operations." Given his consistent record of exaggerated and/or misleadingly negative criticisms of NYRA, it's certainly fair to speculate that the Comptroller went out of his way to portray NYRA's outlook in the least favorable light possible.

And the release around the same time of the lobbying expenses and campaign contributions of other industry players (with, not surprisingly, the seemingly unlimited cash-resourced Genting leading the pack) raises another question: Is the continued hostility towards the association a result of the fact that NYRA seems to stand alone amongst those who do not "pay to play?" After all, if NYRA's name came up on the list of those who have generously contributed to politicians throughout the system, they'd certainly be hearing from DiNapoli or Robert Megna. And then Dan Silver would have to go back to his response file.

Bye Bye ESPN, Hello NBC

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:53:00 +0000

- ESPN's contract to televise the Breeders' Cup runs through 2013. But, given the opportunity to escape, they were outta there faster than Mitt Romney bolted from South Carolina. (Based on early polls, the Mittster may match that speed figure getting out of Florida too.)

“In the last few years, ESPN has reduced its coverage of horse racing and this event no longer fits with our overall content strategy,” an ESPN statement said. [Courier-Journal]

The "event" hasn't fit into their overall content strategy for some time now; almost from the start in fact. The sigh of relief you hear is the sound of ESPN execs who no longer have to pretend to care about it.

Well, I was kinda kidding when I first suggested a number of years ago that the Breeders' Cup be on Versus. Then, when the network picked up the Saratoga Saturdays and some other races, it seemed possible at some point, though not until the contract expired next year. As it turned out, that was nothing two parties couldn't work out if one was desperate enough. And now, Versus is the NBC Sports Network. It and its parent network is the home of the NHL, and now the home of the Triple Crown, the Breeders' Cup, and coverage from two of the premier race meetings, Saratoga and Keeneland. Not a bad place to be in my view. As opposed to being an afterthought if not a nuisance at ESPN, it's now a network priority that you'll see it proudly display, as it always did before the change. I think that should mean a lot to the sport, even if it costs it some households, assuming ESPN reaches more than NBCSN at this point.

The move does mean less broadcast network time for the Breeders' Cup, with only the Classic making it to parent NBC; that opposed to the early races which were shown on ABC the last couple of years. I think that's actually perfect; it's totally appropriate for the big race to get the showcase time to itself. It's always been the case - even before the Breeders' Cup diluted their own "World Championship" event with a plethora of non-World Championship-worthy races - that the event is far too much in one day for mainstream media and casual and/or prospective fans to digest. It's an industry affair. Those of us who are interested will find the races on NBCSN....or at a simulcast facility or ADW if need be. The Classic will be showcased on national TV. Perfect.

Well, almost perfect. I'm not so sold on 8 to 9PM Eastern time on a Saturday night being the ideal time. If we concede that the rest of the races are more suited for insiders, the Classic can still take its place with the Triple Crown races as one to be marketed to the masses. But there's a big difference between 4:30 until 6PM on a Saturday evening, when said masses may very well have nothing better to do, and two hours later, when they're priming and primping themselves for a night on the town. The West Coast venue makes the late start a natural in this particular year, and 'prime time' sounds nice. But I think Saturday night is less prime than other nights. Sunday late afternoon/evening would be perfect at other times of the year, but unfortunately, the network is kinda boxed in by football that time of the year. football season.

And this year, as is the case every four years, the event takes place in the shadow of a horse race of another kind, to be conducted the Tuesday immediately following. Though, based on the steadily deteriorating discourse that we've been seeing in the GOP debates and TV ads, that race may (hopefully) be decided by the quarter pole. It's pretty sad in my view when the "biggest question," as posed by the NY Times yesterday, is:

..whether Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner who bankrolled the “super PAC” Winning Our Future that ran negative ads against Mr. Romney in South Carolina, will write another multimillion-dollar check to finance similar attacks in Florida, where airtime is expensive.

(He is.) That's what politics comes down to in this country these days folks: money, and which side can best utilize it to attack the other side. And that goes for both sides of the political spectrum. Sad.

Republcans Are Casinos' Biggest Supporters

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:21:00 +0000

The latest Siena College poll - released a few days ago as I continue to lag unacceptably behind in posting - shows that New Yorkers still support expanded casino gaming, though not by all that much, especially compared to support for other of Governor Cuomo's initiatives.

The poll found that the governor’s plans to create a commission for teacher evaluation and improvement holds the broadest support – about 82 percentage points.

Similarly, Cuomo’s call for an overhaul of campaign-finance laws is favored by a margin of 74 percent to 20 percent.

Private investment in return for the rebuilding of infrastructure also polls well, with 73 percent support the notion.

Expanding casino gambling in New York is more lukewarm, but still has a majority of support, by with 53 percent to 42 percent backing a constitutional amendment. [Capital Tonight]

Not overwhelming, but at least it fared better than the ridiculous convention center at Aqueduct, which the poll respondents correctly read through. (Or did they? The governor is probably correct in his contention that respondents presumed that the government was going to pay for it.)

The New York Gaming Association responded with a statement reaffirming that "once again that a majority of New Yorkers support of enhanced casino gaming."

The New York Gaming Association continues to advocate on behalf of the state’s nine racetrack casinos for enhanced gaming in a socially responsible and economically sensible manner.

And there's that now familiar "socially responsible" theme that we'll be hearing ad nauseum from this group. And everytime I hear it, I'll call it out for the BS that it is. If slots offered from 8AM until 4AM seven days a week is somehow 'socially responsible,' that what exactly constitutes irresponsibility? Casino games offered online? Well, that's another matter for another time.

What I found really surprising about the poll results, at least initially, was the breakdown by political party affiliation. Democrats narrowly favored expanded gaming by 49% to 46%. However, Republicans support the idea by a margin of 58-36! Huh? How can that be? The party of family values, marriage between a man and a woman (or women?), and in general imposing their ideas of morality upon all of us, in favor of casino gambling, and overwhelmingly?

However, after thinking about it a bit more, it all makes perfect sense. For one thing, it's an easy answer for a party that looks to cut budget deficits while slashing taxes for high income earners. Whatsmore, the notion of big corporations enriching their wealthy owners and shareholders via an activity as similar to a highly regressive tax as unfettered gambling is surely quite appealing to the GOP. Y'know, we see those scenes in casino ads of affluent-looking types whooping it up all the time, but the reality that I've seen in my limited time spent walking through them (on the way to gamble at the track) is quite different. Sure looks like strictly a working class activity to me. I dunno, maybe the rich folks come out on Saturday nights.

Speaking of rich folks, boy, was I wrong a few weeks ago when I virtually counted Mitt Romney out. Sure, he's in trouble in South Carolina, badgered by negative ads and by the fallout of his own unwise words and actions (or inaction, as in the refusal to release his taxes. Man, I can't wait to see what's in there if he ever gets around to it). But the lunatic fringe vote is split between Newt and Rick Santorum, and his organization and money bodes extremely well for primaries and caucuses ahead. In any case, we'll sure be seeing a lot of this clip in which he casually dismisses with a laugh his income from speaking engagements - said to be some $374,327.62 - as "not very much." Watch:

As I've said before, the Occupy movements have brought the issue of income inequality squarely into the forefront, and this guy, with his millions and his 15% tax rate and his "you wanna bet $10,000" and his dismissive attitude towards a sum of money that would make most all of us extremely happy, is just out of step. What's more, he's shown on more than one occasion that he can't take the heat. The other GOP candidates may be nuts, but this guy is a clown who is sure to make big mistakes once he gets on the big stage with an incumbent who may have a flawed record, but who is unlikely to beat himself.

Yeah yeah, I'll write about some horse racing soon.

NYRA Responds

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:58:00 +0000

I'm going to post NYRA's response to Robert Megna's letter discussed in the last post in its entirety. That's a post I'd like to have back. It's based on a story that is basically completely bogus, written by a reporter who has shown an eagerness to bash NYRA in the past. The issue was not at all, as James Odato wrote, whether NYRA "has been improperly letting people bet on credit." In fact, there is no issue, as NYRA's procedures regarding express funding of its ADW accounts are completely within the law...a point which some readers were able to ascertain before I did. So I apologize to NYRA and to you readers for jumping the gun without performing due diligence. Though my point that NYRA needs to be extremely careful remains.....and this little imbroglio shows exactly why. NYRA's statement follow. I'm sure you'll soon be seeing it on Capitol Confidential as well.

The following is a response to the letter sent by Robert L. Megna, Chairman of the New York State Franchise Oversight Board, to New York State Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB) Chairman John Sabini, dated January 11, 2012, in regards to The New York Racing Association, Inc’s (NYRA) policies on its advanced deposit wagering account funding practices:

The funding policies for NYRA’s advanced deposit wagering program (NYRA Rewards) are in compliance with the law and pursuant to the procedures approved by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board. We refute any allegations that suggest otherwise, and stand by our advanced deposit wagering account funding practices. NYRA welcomes a review of our advanced deposit wagering account funding practices by the NYSRWB.

NYRA Rewards allows customers to make immediate deposits into their accounts of up to $1,000 per week via an electronic funds transfer, referred to as Express Funding. In order to be eligible for Express Funding, a customer must pass a negative check screening process conducted in accordance with financial industry standards using the latest technology available in the marketplace. NYRA screens all of its existing customers and all new customers for eligibility on each request transaction. This process was approved by the NYSRWB on February 26, 2008, and has been in place and followed by NYRA since.

Mr. Megna’s letter asks the NYSRWB to determine whether NYRA has extended credit for any wagering by customers in violation of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering, and Breeding law. If a customer makes an Express Funding deposit to NYRA with insufficient funds to cover the deposit, NYRA has not extended credit. Rather, the person making the deposit has committed a crime and NYRA has been the victim of fraud. If this occurs, NYRA rigorously pursues recompense from the customer and bank.

Furthermore, NYRA Rewards Express Funding is consistent with industry practices for advanced deposit wagering funding policies. Virtually all industry advanced deposit wagering programs, both within the State of New York , and outside of the State, allow customers to make immediate deposits with similar policies in place to those of NYRA. Some, like Catskill OTB and Nassau OTB, allow customers to make immediate deposits up to $10,000. NYRA Rewards Express Funding is limited to $1,000 per week.

Third Time Would Not Be the Charm for NYRA (Updated)

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:15:00 +0000

James Odato reports on the Times Union's Capitol Confidential site that the State Racing and Wagering Board is investigating whether NYRA has been improperly letting people bet on credit.

The examination was triggered by a Times Union inquiry to the Racing and Wagering board last month that [Franchise Oversight Chairman Robert] Megna found out about, according to Lee Park, a spokesman for the racing board.

NYRA spokesman Dan Silver and President Charles Hayward have declined to take calls from the Times Union during the past month. After a reporter forwarded Megna’s letter to him, Silver wrote in an e-mail on Thursday that NYRA’s account wagering operation complies with the law and follows procedures approved by the racing board. [Capitol Confidential]

Oh man. This probe comes of course on the heels of the takeout overcharge and the accidental Lasix shot(s).

If NYRA is essentially letting betters wager on credit by accepting bets against underfunded accounts, Megna said, “this would represent significant mismanagement.”

That's pretty strong language coming from Cuomo's budget director, and the chairman of an oversight board that has the power to recommend to the Racing and Wagering Board that NYRA's franchise be revoked. Here's the language from that particular clause from the franchise agreement:

The franchise oversight board shall notify the franchised corporation authorized by this chapter in writing of any material breach of the performance standards or repeated non-material breaches which the franchise oversight board may determine collectively constitute a
material breach of the performance standards.

Now it goes on to say that NYRA has "reasonable opportunity to cure" any such breaches and there would then be a hearing by the Board and besides, we don't want to jump to any conclusions about what NYRA has or has not done here, which is not really clear from Odato's post. But it's surely interesting to note that materiality is not even a threshold that has to be met if indiscretions and errors are "repeated," and this (if proven to be so) would be the third one to be exposed in a short period of time.

As I've made clear here in the past, I'm not objective when it comes to NYRA - that's borne out of 40 well-satisfied years of going to their tracks (my constant complaining about the condition of Aqueduct notwithstanding). I like the people there; think that they are nice, smart, and truly passionate about the sport. I don't see any good whatsoever that would come out of some other entity - God knows who it would be - taking over the franchise here. But while it's surely true that people and companies make mistakes all the time, these guys are really under the microscope. NYRA apparently has no friends in Albany, least of all it would seem the powerful and sometimes cranky governor, whose very infrequent references to the association have been aloof, at best, with a not-so-vague tinge of hostility. So I think they better stop fucking up.

[UPDATE: NYRA responds....forcefully.]

Radio Wars Begin

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:47:00 +0000

The New York Gaming Association (NYGA) - you know, the nine New York racino owners who want casino gambling all to themselves - have released their first radio ad. It will be run in the Central, Western and Southern Tier areas of New York State....a not-so-subtle dig at the Senaca Nation, which claims the Western Tier as its exclusive territory. And no doubt in response to the ad campaign planned by the tribe. You can hear the NYGA ad on their home page (though not with whatever version of Firefox I have). This is just the beginning of two years of such ads, both on radio on TV, leading up to a possible referendum in November 2013 to be sure. (And I suppose that the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which has already helped to bring the political discourse in this country down to even new lows, allows super PAC advertising on referendums as well.) I got a press release from NYGA with a handy summary of the ad. You can probably guess what's coming.

The spot begins with the sound of a vacuum cleaner. A voiceover immediately follows saying that this is the sound of money and jobs that are being “sucked right out of the state” as New Yorkers travel elsewhere for casino gaming.

Then the sound of the vacuuming ceases. [And cue the cheesy music.] The voiceover attributes this to the efforts of the Governor and the legislative leaders who have expressed their support for legalizing gaming in New York State. The voiceover continues to highlight the keys areas of the New York Gaming Association’s position and approach to legalize gaming here in New York State.

The NYGA and its voiceover will no doubt stick to its central message: that they are the "responsible operators we know and trust." The benevolent, kind patriarchs of benign gambling that responsibly has their facilities open only 20 hours a day. They get another dig in at the Seneca Nation with the assertion that they have "always honored their commitment to New York," no doubt a reference to the fact that the tribe has withheld $350 million in payments in protest of the racinos in their claimed zone.

"We can change this" - there's that vacuum again - "to this" - the sound of k-ching and some people whooping and cheering. From my experience, that must have been recorded at a racetrack. I surely haven't spent that much time in racinos, and I know that people do win there at some point (don't they?) - but I've seriously never ever heard any cheering there, and have never seen anything other than that glassy-eyed, stony slightly-bored trance of an expression on anyone's face.

"Enhanced casino gaming only at racetracks - it's a jackpot for all New Yorkers." Except for those amongst us who are all too susceptible for this kind of mindless gambling.

And except perhaps for the racetracks themselves....as, opposed to VLT's for which a split for the tracks was written into the law, the industry currently has absolutely no guarantees that it will benefit from expanded gaming. NYGA will tell us that the tracks will profit from increased traffic that the new table games will attract. But they don't quite explain how they would compensate for, say, the virtual roulette games with virtual women with their virtual breasts hanging out that will be replaced by real roulette wheels with real women (who will no doubt be hired partly on the basis of their breast size). Unless the legislature makes it so at some point, the tracks would get no revenue from those; nor from any table games that just happen to usurp space now reserved for slots. The harness horsemen have already started to make that case. As usually seems to be the case, we haven't heard from the thoroughbred guys. They're probably too busy trying to figure out the best way to navigate the new landscape in which they can win $18,000 worth of purse money in a single restricted $10,000 claiming race.

And Genting, the same company that not long ago pledged to be such a good neighbor to its racing friends next door at the Big A, has already floated the idea of shutting it down.

Looking forward, the firm has also pitched to state officials a plan to shut down horse racing at Aqueduct and redevelop the racetrack at Belmont to allow it to be used in the winter, according to people familiar with discussions. In turn, the land at Aqueduct could be freed up, which would likely need to be bid out by the state.

"It makes a lot of sense," Genting's Mr. Goode said. "At this point, it's just conceptual." [Wall St Journal]

Look, Aqueduct is going to close. It might be two years, five years, ten....but it going to happen at some point. It makes too much economic and logistical sense. I've heard top NYRA officials concede so. As I've explained before, I think it would totally suck from a horseplayer's point of view. The difference in the track configuration amongst the three tracks provides much of the juice and angles for handicapping. Year round racing (except for Saratoga) at the massive Belmont track with its one turn distance races would be dreary and monotonous over the course of 10 1/2 months. We've all known all along that, at some point down the road, horse racing would outlive its usefulness for the track/racino owners, going from the reason for their very existence, to a space and money-wasting burden. But surprised to hear Genting come out and actually say it so soon. Or...maybe not so surprised.

1-5?

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:42:00 +0000

- There was some incredulity expressed on Twitter over the fact that Raconteur ($2.40) was 1-5 in the third race at the Big A on Friday. 1:5 on Raconteur? Who bets horses like that? asked @andyserling. Seriously, I ask that about just about any horse who goes off at that price. Make that any horse. I know 20% ain't a bad return for a minute or two, but the whole concept of betting a lot to make a little is just foreign to me when it comes to horse racing, a venture in which scores of opportunities to do the opposite present themselves every day. (At least as far as betting on horses to win, as opposed to lose, but that's a different story for another time.)

And especially with a horse like Raconteur, who hadn't come particularly close to winning in five career starts at odds ranging from 6-5 to 7-2. Based on the form and speed figures, maybe 1-5 was really an accurate reflection of the horse's chances to win this particular race. But in cases like this, in a theoretical perfectly logical world, maybe the race simply becomes unplayable as far as win bets, and the players withdraw any money bet and there's no pool!

Those who did, for whatever unfathomable reason, wager on Raconteur to win, had to sweat it out more than they would like. Looked like he might draw away once he took command turning for home, but he head to hold off a resurgent Five Sixteen. Our friend the verbose chart caller described his victory in the most tepid terms you're likely to see in a results chart: held on well enough to reach the finish line first. prompting @DRFGrening to tweet: Don't let anybody see you cashing ticket on this horse. Personally, I'd sooner be seen in the casino.

Speaking of which, after a particularly slow Xmas week, the first full one with the full compliment of 5,000 VLT's, the win per machine figure at Resorts World rebounded to $353. That's still below the $380 figure that NYRA is using for their 2012 budget (a figure which would presumably be needed to attain and maintain in order to keep the current purse structure). However, looking at past years' results at Yonkers, it seems as if business there generally takes off from this time of year and peaks in February and March. Whatsmore, this is still I believe a 'soft opening,' at least in terms of marketing and advertising, of which I haven't seen any.

You probably by now have read of Governor Cuomo's proposal to build...or, rather....to have Genting build an enormous convention center at the Aqueduct site; where one presumes would also be in line for a full-fledged casino should that come to fruition.

The proposed $4 billion, nearly 4 million-square-foot convention center in Queens between New York City's major airports would replace the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in Manhattan. The Javits Center was considered too small almost from the outset and poorly suited for the kind of bold, glitzy convention center that would be appropriate for Manhattan as a world destination.. [Wall St Journal]

Well, I dunno, maybe I'm just dumb and naive. But I've been saying all along that Ozone Park hardly seems the place for any sort of 'destination resort' type of place. The Javits Center is "poorly suited," but this is a good location? Seriously, I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to plan a convention there, improved subway service from Manhattan notwithstanding. I mean, don't convention-goers want to have proximity to a wide range of restaurant and entertainment options? I don't think that Bar 360 and whatever cheesy music they eventually schedule at Resorts World quite qualifies.

And listen to this guy:

Heywood Sanders, professor of public administration at the University of Texas and an expert on convention center economics, said he doubted that the Queens plan would succeed.

“The convention business is a disaster everywhere,” Professor Sanders said. “Simply building more space gets you nothing more than a big empty building. And to put it in a place where there aren’t any hotels, restaurants or amenities next door is to doom it to serving only a local or metropolitan market.” [NY Times]

Just one man's opinion, however expert he may be on the topic, to be sure. (And in typical blogger fashion, I left out the retorting quote from an advocate.) But sure makes sense to me.

- Sorry once again for the sparse posting....been working on a project outside of my already full-time job. Will be back asap....in the meantime, best of luck at the races this weekend, and have a great day.

Cuomo on Casinos

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:42:00 +0000

This is the text from the portion of governor's State of the State address dealing with expanded casino gambling. Nothing new....and no details on where the casinos should be.

Comprehensive Approach to Casino Gaming

We have long flirted and dallied with another potential economic engine — casino gaming — and when it comes to gaming, we have been in a state of denial.

It’s time we confronted reality.

It’s not a question of whether we should have gaming in New York — the fact is we already do. Native Americans have five casinos in New York and we have nine racinos at our racetracks. We don’t fully realize it, regulate it, or capitalize on it, but we have gaming. In fact, New York State now has 29,000 electronic gaming machines — more than Atlantic City, and more than any state in the Northeast or Midwest.

Our state is also surrounded by gaming. States and Canadian provinces just across our borders have legalized casino gaming. They get the tourism, the revenue, and the good jobs that belong here.It’s estimated that over $1 billion of economic activity from gaming can be generated in our state. Therefore, let’s amend the Constitution so that we can do gaming right. And let’s take the first step this year.

State of the State And Other Stuff

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 04:00:00 +0000

Governor Cuomo will make his already official support for expanded gaming really officially official when he touts it in his State of the State address on Wednesday. Joseph Spector writes in this report:

Cuomo is considering whether to let the racetracks add table games -- which would make them full-fledged casinos -- or set up destination areas where casinos would be located. [DemocratandChronicle.com]

As far as I know, Cuomo is not expected to announce that determination in Wednesday's speech. And jeez, let's hope not! I mean, what fun would that be? We might be deprived of many months of BS like this:

"I think the governor correctly understands that what we need in the state is jobs," said Jeff Gural, a Manhattan developer who owns Vernon Downs in central New York and Tioga Downs in the Southern Tier. "And one good thing about table games is that it's really a jobs bill as opposed to a revenue bill."

Well....no, Jeff. It's a revenue bill, make no mistake about that. Both for the state, and for prospective casino owners such as Gural (though not at all necessarily for the horsemen), who is part of the New York Gaming Association lobbying for the casinos to be limited to the nine existing racinos. Sure, it is a revenue bill that will indeed create some jobs. But truth be told, it would likely create more jobs if Cuomo opts for new destination areas without an existing infrastructure in place. (Watch the NYGA pivot smoothly into anti-casino advocacy should that become the case.)

The Seneca Nation tribe is gearing up to weigh in with an ad campaign in an attempt to maintain what they claim is their "exclusivity zone."

The Senecas contend they have exclusive gaming rights in western New York—west of Route 14, which runs from Wayne County to the Southern Tier. The tribe has withheld $350 million from the state in protest to the racinos at three western New York racetracks—Buffalo Raceway, Batavia Downs and Finger Lakes. Last month, the Senecas filed for arbitration over their claims. [Politics on the Hudson] (Again, the omnipresent Joseph Spector)

The Senecas are not opposed to casinos in other parts of the state; but, employing some hyperbole of their own, are arguing that the introduction of live person table games at those abovenamed existing racinos would imperil the economy of Western New York by threatening thousands of local jobs.

By opening the door for foreign and Las Vegas-style gaming operators to build casinos within the Seneca exclusivity zone, the State will be inviting these operators to take their revenues out of New York State to shareholders in Asia, Las Vegas and elsewhere. [Senacas Mean Business] (good job with the slogan there)

As opposed to, say, Genting? The state doesn't care that much what these companies do with their profits as long as they're generating and paying their share of the revenue. (And yeah, creating some jobs too.)

- The tight three-way race underway in Iowa as I write this (before Ron Paul weakened to third in deep stretch) had me thinking about the three-way dead heat in the 1944 Carter Handicap. (And no....I wasn't there, or anywhere!) There's no video of the race, but there is video of the 1974 edition. And man, that Forego was pretty damn good, doncha think? Wow.

(Dave Johnson was pretty good himself.)

- The Rangers won the Winter Classic and lead the Eastern Conference of the NHL. It was an exciting game with a thrilling finish, but one played on an ice surface which was clearly not ideal. (Great photo gallery from the game here.) A lot of talk about the officiating down the stretch. Some people who normally would never be associated with wild conspiracy theories about officiating are really scratching their heads about this one. Rangers coach John Tortorella said: "I’m not sure if NBC got together with the refs or what to turn this into an overtime game." [Ranger Rants] (Best Rangers beat writer blog by a mile) While Tortorella has been fined in the past for comments on officiating, this is like Ron Paul-type stuff. He can expect a hefty fine for questioning the integrity of the officials and the league.

But man, with the Broadway Blueshirts (outfitted in an unbecoming white Winter Classic jersey that I suspect we'll be seeing more of until they sell out of them at the Team Store) leading 3-2 as the game wound down, there was some really strange stuff. Marian Gaborik clearly hooked on a partial break-in with no call. Ryan McDonough, the monster second year D-man acquired from the Canadians for Scott Gomez in a trade that could turn out to be the Ken Hodge-Rick Middleton deal of its time, was slammed into the goal post by a Flyer, thus dislodging it; yet the Rangers were the team that was penalized. Ryan Callahan was hooked up high while racing towards the puck with the Flyers' net empty, but was also whistled off on an incongruous diving penalty, later changed to holding the stick.

The one call I thought was actually OK was the penalty shot awarded to the Orange Crud with 19 seconds left when McDonough covered up the puck in the crease. My question there though is - who exactly called that penalty? I never saw either of the refs pointing at center ice to signal a penalty shot. And neither did any of the NBC guys, including sharp-eyed Pierre McGuire right down on the ice. Was it the result of some intervention from Toronto? Or from HBO, which didn't get a shootout to cap off their 24/7 series, but got something pretty darn close to it?

We usually hear grumbling from the losing coach. However, as former NHL referee Kerry Fraser told the Times' Jeff Z. Klein: “In normal circumstances, when the winning coach had something negative to say, I always placed more value on his comments than those made by a loser.” Indeed, Tortorella may set a record for the biggest fine for complaints about the referees by a winning coach!

Thursday News and Notes

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:09:00 +0000

A Daily News headline the other day read: Democrats may say no dice to New York casinos, Sheldon Silver warns. However, I think that's a case of a paper making up news in order to attract some readers/traffic. All the Speaker really said is that he can't guarantee how his conference will vote. The fact is that Silver supports it, as does the Governor and the Senate Majority Leader....and I for one don't sense any real organized opposition to the idea in the legislature. . And Silver acknowledged that the climate is far different from the last time it came up in the late 90's.

Not only is the deficit-plagued state desperately in need of new revenue and job creation, but casinos have sprouted up in surrounding states and even on Indian reservations within New York.

“There may be an attitude of ‘Let’s take some of the revenue and keep it home,’” Silver said.

A familiar argument to be sure. Even Mayor Mike, a one-time gambling opponent, trotted that one out to explain his recent reversal. The mayor may have once opposed expanded gambling on the basis of its being regressive, the inevitable saturation, and the fact that casinos are not the panacea for the surrounding neighborhoods that advocates make them out to be. But not anymore. There's sufficient cover at this point for politicians of most stripes to take this easy way out of having to make difficult fiscal decisions.

What the Speaker may really be getting at is buried in the last sentence of the article.

Silver said it is possible that his members will want the constitutional amendment to be more specifically defined than the one Cuomo has talked about.

Because the big question now regarding casinos is not 'if,' but 'where.' (At least in terms of getting the question posed to the voters in a referendum which could take place in Nov 2013.) So, this could set off a frenzy of activity by the New York Gaming Association (NYGA) representing the nine existing racinos, as well as the tribes and private investors such as Louis Cappelli who are looking for a piece of the pie. (Though their lobbyists would probably be happy to see the matter drag on for a couple of years.)

- With 5,000 machines now on line, the win per machine figure for the week ending 12/24 at Resorts World dropped to a relatively anemic $261. While the weeks leading up to Christmas are generally slow ones for the racinos, that's significantly below the $380 figure NYRA is using for their 2012 budget. Of course, I haven't seen an iota of marketing on the part of Genting to this point, have you?

- The purse increases, said to be in the order of 36%, took effect at the Big A on Wednesday. When Stud Muffin ($15) won the 5th race, owner Bruce Golden Racing collected a winner's share of $35,400 (60% of the $59,000 purse)....more than $10,000 more than his $25,000 optional claiming price. No wonder activity has been brisk at the claim box! When Stud Muffin last ran, in the same state-bred optional claiming level, the purse was $43,000. Seven-year old has now earned $44,000 with a win and a second since being claimed by David Jacobson for $20,000, nice.

In the 7th, Coosada ($7.10) shipped in from Churchill off the claim for trainer John Good. He last ran in a 16K claimer there which carried a purse of $21,000. Here, he dropped to 14K, but competed for a purse of $34,000. Owner Maggi Moss collected a winner's share of $20,400 - nearly as much as the Churchill race offered overall - plus the proceeds from a Linda Rice claim, for a total of $34,400. Not a bad return.

So They Messed Up

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:55:00 +0000

The way I see it, the NYRA takeout fiasco is far more breathtaking in the sheer incompetence and ineptitude on display, by both the association and the bodies that regulate it, than its actual practical effect. "$8.6 million taken out of horseplayers' pockets" may sound draconian. However, over 15 months and thousands of affected wagers, it's really for the most part just relative dribs and drabs withheld from bettors who were probably overjoyed to have won and collected in the first place. Half of them will probably never even realize that anything untoward occurred.

And let's face it. This was not money that was going to go towards stimulating the economy or creating jobs. One could argue that the vast majority would have been churned right back into the pools. So NYRA was probably hurting mostly itself and its horsemen.

I mention this not in an attempt to diminish what happened. It's inexcusable. But with the fight over casinos starting to simmer, and just in the course of everyday politics and business with the rivalries and conflicts that accompany them, we're certain to hear that number used as a cudgel by those to whom NYRA is an obstacle to their business interests, or just the convenient foil they have been for quite some time. So I think it's important to keep things in perspective.

In any event, this whole affair is just so bizarre; there's no rational explanation for what occurred. I wrote in the last post about how the sunset provision was common knowledge when the law was passed, and how everyone seemed to have mysteriously forgotten about it (including myself). But, as it turns out, not everyone had. Pull the Pocket wrote of a poster on the Paceadvantage site who says that he actually contacted the Racing and Wagering Board in January of 2011 about the takeout being too high, and never received a response! How can that be? What were they thinking of?

The immediate reactions of the two main parties involved, NYRA and the Board, also left something to be desired as far as I'm concerned, as they tried to slip it by as if nothing major had happened. This is the audio of the meeting of the NY State Racing and Wagering Board at which the takeout overcharge was discussed and disclosed. The subject is brought up rather casually, second on the agenda after some routine matter involving Capitol OTB, and framed initially in the context of NYRA's request to lower the rate to a point under the maximum allowed. If you go to the 18 minute mark, you'll hear Chairman John Sabini praise his auditors for discovering the discrepancy. That doesn't jibe however with the subsequent reports that the error was found by Comptroller Tom DiNapoli. And Tom Precious reported in Bloodhorse that the Board and its Chairman may be on thin ice.

[Franchise Oversigh Board chairman Robert] Megna also said, interestingly, that he would be “remiss” if he did not also express his “deep disappointment in the failure of the racing and wagering board to adequately discharge its regulatory responsibilities” to catch the accounting error by NYRA.

The matter poses problems, state sources said, for NYRA and the racing board’s leadership, which was not appointed by the current Cuomo administration since it took office nearly a year ago. Given Megna’s unusual public rebuke, it remains uncertain whether NYSRWB chairman John Sabini can hold onto his post under the weight of the new NYRA controversy. [Bloodhorse]

As for NYRA, they tried to totally gloss the matter over with a press release entitled NYRA LOWERS TAKEOUT ON EXOTICS. And I think they may come to regret blaming the error on "the complexity of the takeout provisions in the Racing Law." The fact is that the sunset provision stands out in its clarity from the rest of the gobbledygook in the law. Sometimes contrition is the best course. Oops, we messed up, we're sorry. There's a great song on the Lemonheads' first album, the somewhat overlooked punk classic Hate Your Friends. I won't print the profane title here in deference to the blessed holiday that is now upon us. But the lyrics go:

So I f**ked up
I'm only human
So I f**ked up
I did the best I could do
And then I f**ked up
What do you want
I said I was sorry would it help if I said it again, and again, and again, and again?

Well, in this case....probably not. Have a great holiday everyone.

- And for a chill Xmas soundtrack, check out the awesome Christmas Lounge on SOMA FM.

Takeout Decrease is Leftout

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 05:45:00 +0000

§ 32. This act shall take effect immediately; provided that sections two, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four of this act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall expire and be deemed repealed 2 years after such effective date.

That's the clause in SENATE BILL #S8549 SAME AS ASSEMBLY BILL #A11635, passed on June 17, 2008, that required that the 1% increase in the takeout rate for super exotics at NYRA tracks expire on Sept 15, 2010. NYRA's failure to revert to the lower rate has it in the hot seat again.

NYRA...will be required to pay back bettors about $8.6 million...if it can track them down through racing accounts. It will also have to help clear up IRS issues with those who won exotic bets during the period. Further, NYRA will be required to pay a $50,000 contribution to a racing-related charity. [Albany Times Union]

In a press release, NYRA cited "the complexity of the takeout provisions in the Racing Law" in explaining the oversight. Section 32 above actually isn't all that complex. In fact, it's relatively straightforward. [..deemed repealed 2 years after such effective date]. It's Section 2, which lays out the actual takeout rates, that's complex. I'm not going into it in detail because, to be quite honest, I don't understand at all how it translates into a 1% increase in the takeout rate on superexotics. NYRA did though.

Maybe obscure, though not entirely appropriate, is a better way to describe Section 32 in that the clause is tucked away at the very end of 17 pages that only a sadist would actually read through. Whatever the reason, NYRA was certainly not the only party who missed the boat, as Matt Hegarty reports in the Form.

And not even the racing board was aware of the error, since it signed off on documents throughout the past 15 months that described the superexotic rate at 26 percent. Under New York's laws, the board is required to review and approve NYRA's business plan every year, and the plan that was approved for 2012 listed the superexotic takeout rate at 26 percent rate. The board also approves NYRA's simulcast contracts, which list the takeout rates applied to all wagers. [DRF]

However, it was reported quite definitively at the time the bill was passed that the increase was indeed temporary. Hegarty wrote on June 17, 2008 that the provisions sunset after two years. Here's Paul Post's piece in Thoroughbred Times from June 18, 2008:

Scheduled to last two years, the takeout increase has the negative effect of reducing bettor winnings.

“Increasing the takeout at a time when racing is in distress is not a good idea,” said Bennett Liebman, head of Albany Law School’s Racing and Wagering Law Program. “In New York, no one can ever tell when something is temporary or not.”

That surely turned out to be a prescient comment. (I missed the clause myself, and needed Mr. Liebman to point it out to me.) And, in the same article, Charlie Hayward is quoted as saying (with respect to the state takeover of NYCOTB that the increase was related to): "The short-term pain will result in a much bigger reward, long term.” Don't know if, by 'short-term pain,' he was referring specifically to the increase being temporary and I won't put words in his mouth here. But I think one could fairly surmise that he was.

If he was however, he apparently forgot about it. As did Paul Post. And Matt Hegarty. And Bennett Liebman (who now works on racing and gaming matters for the governor). Those are all really sharp guys! The always takeout-vigilant HANA didn't seem to realize anything was amiss. It all smacks of a mass Vulcan Mind Meld.

Even no less of an authority on both the Pick Six and takeout as Steven Crist, who referred to the sunset provision (if rather skeptically) in his column of June 17, 2008, didn't seem to notice. If he missed it, then I suppose anyone could have. Still, the whole thing is really kinda weird.

[UPDATE: Pull the Pocket posts about one horseplayer who emailed the Racing and Wagering Board about the sunset provision in early 2011, several months after it should have taken effect.]

Help Is On the wAy

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:31:00 +0000

Got some information from NYRA in response to my incessant whining about the lack of improvements thus far on the racing side at the Big A....and the good news is that help is on the way. Construction of the new simulcast center, a joint Genting-NYRA project that we've heard mentioned in the past, is slated to begin in late January. "We are aiming to have it open for the Saratoga meet at the latest," Dan Silver, NYRA's Director of Communications and Media Relations, told me. "It is a $5 million project that Genting is helping us fund. It will reside on the 2nd floor, all the way from where the Man O’ War deli and bar currently sits down to the Kelso room, including the area that used to house the Genting employees."

The Kelso room is the one I referred to the other day, wondering why it was still sitting idle, and there you go. That room will be reserved for NYRA Rewards players, divided into "Elite Players" (which I am certainly not, in any sense of the word) and "Regular Players" sections. "What is currently the Man O’ War room will have a brand new sports bar and a large seating area." That section will be open to all, and the total seating capacity will be around 600. Should be really cool.

Silver also told me that Genting has applied for a liquor license for the Manhattan Terrace on the third floor. "We are hoping to have it open in two weeks and will be making general improvements to the area."

Nowhere to Go

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:03:00 +0000

Given my proximity to the place, I go to Aqueduct almost reflexively on any weekend day on which I have an opportunity to spend at least a couple of hours. But nowadays, I get there, look around at the options, and wonder why I bothered. All of my favorite haunting places from over the years are either gone or negatively altered. The first floor clubhouse is overcrowded and brimming with that old OTB parlor vibe. The room on the second floor in the back off the Man O'War room is now an office for Genting. Seriously, still? What's the deal with that? They can't find any room on their side? Couldn't NYRA extract some improvements in the surrounding areas in exchange? And the Manhattan Terrace on the third floor has been taken over by the dingy and depressing desk cubby things as pictured in this post.

I haven't found a comfortable place to settle, at least without paying $13.99 for a table in the Equestris restaurant, buffet meal included; not a terrible deal I suppose. But best I can find for free thus far is front side of the third floor outside the restaurant. That represents full circle, because it's where we used to hang out in the old days when it was just the third floor clubhouse, before Equestris was built (though with frequent trips to the staircases in the back).

The most frequent question I'm asked on the subject of the Big A these days is why couldn't somebody have done something, even a bare minimum, to try and make the racing side more inviting. And I can't really answer. NYRA has other priorities as we know, and presumably is still waiting for the cash spigot to open (don't know what the timetable of the required payments from slots money is). And Genting? Guess they don't really care despite professing to do so. The only improvements they've contributed thus far on the track side are the ones related to the concession stands that they now run. We're told that they'll be a lavish simulcast facility, but no sign of that yet. Might be better to just play from home until that time.

The second floor of the casino is now open, and there's a passageway open from the track. But you can't actually go in unless you've signed up for some kind of rewards program related to the slots, so not sure why they bothered.....except for the concession stand accessible before you get to the friendly security folks who tell you that you can't come in. It was pretty damn empty up there on the slots floor. So, as I mentioned recently, expect those win per machine numbers to adjust downward rather precipitously.

The local racing sucked again - virtually unplayable - so bet strictly out of town races on Saturday. Two more winners for the Toddster at Gulfstream, giving him four in a row and nine of 18 at the meet going into Sunday (with some solid contenders entered for that day). In the 5th, Unbridled's Ocean ($4) got up with a desperate late rally as Johnny V finally found room after an eventful trip on the inside. Three-year old son of Unbridled's Song is a half to the turf sprint stakes winner West Ocean, and is out of a Belong To Me mare who's a half-sister to Sun King, who's been virtually invisible as a freshman sire this year.

And in the 8th, Pletcher's first-timer Dan and Sheila ($8.40) took money and got the job done for owner Ahmed Zayat after a wide trip. Two-year old is by More Than Ready out of the stakes winning Sheila's Prospect (Not For Love). Thought I was gonna nail a nice exacta with Twin, but he hung after a similarly wide trip, so no luck there. That's the third first-time two-year old winner at the meet for the Toddster, from five starters.

Hunch Bets for Thursday, Dec 15

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:20:00 +0000

Money In Motion 2nd at Aqueduct
Upandgone 1st at Charles Town
American Excess 5th at Golden Gate
Matter Of Money 5th Laurel
Justleavemealone 1st at Aqueduct
Web Surfer 8th at Penn National
Implosion 3rd at Aqueduct
Tree Hugger 5th at Hawthorne
Best Laid Plans 5th at Golden Gate

Wanna Bet?

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:31:00 +0000

Yeah I know, been awhile since the last post. But hey, it's a slow time in the racing calendar. And besides, it's the holidays, and we're all supposed to be depressed, right? I mean, that's what everyone tells me, especially for some reason my yoga instructors. Guess that must be their selling point this time of year. Anyway, guess I'm overdue for a post, so here goes.

The purses go up at the Big A on December 28, when NYRA comes back from its ~~Christmas~~ holiday break that begins after racing concludes this Sunday. Will the purses merely attract more bad horses, as this reader postulated? Or will quantity also mean quality? I spoke to someone with intimate knowledge of the NYRA circuit who said he has absolutely no idea what to expect...and if he doesn't, I don't know that anyone does.

It does seem likely that horsemen are holding back at this point, awaiting the more generous prize money. The racing here usually holds up fairly well in December, but that's surely not the case this year. I was there on Saturday, and the card was just dismal. The Xmas break can't come soon enough, and we can only hope for some light on the other side.

Resorts World of course will not be taking a break; their casino is open every day of the year. It should be quite the holly jolly scene there around 2AM on Christmas morning. In fact, the second and third floors of the casino is slated to open on Friday, adding another 2,514 VLT's to the gambling menu there; as well as two 250-seat restaurants. The third floor is billed as the largest event and catering space in the borough.

The new additions are opening four months ahead of schedule, Resorts World said.

“We have been truly humbled by the response of New Yorkers and tourists alike and we thank them for their ongoing support and patronage,” said Resorts World New York President Michael Speller. “Due to the hard work of our 1,500-person staff, we’re confident that we will be able to continue providing the highest level of service to our customers as we unveil the second stage of our facility.” [TimesLedger.com]

Of course, it's highly unlikely that a doubling of the machines is going to mean a doubling of the patrons. Haven't seen any promotional efforts tied to the expansion...seems almost like a soft opening. And the Special Events tab of the website still reads Visit often for upcoming promotions at Resorts World Casino NYC. In any event, we should start to get an idea of how the win per machine figures are going to compare to NYRA's budgeted figure of $380. Considering that the figure dropped off to $478 for the week ending 12/10, that doesn't seem like such a lock now with all those machines set to come on line. Perhaps some people are discovering that VLT's are simply not all that much fun!

While NYRA may, or may not, be sweating this out, Genting itself has bigger fish to fry at the moment as the battle heats up in Florida over its bid to build a huge full-fledged casino and entertainment/convention center in downtown Miami. The company has hired a former congressman as a lobbyist, and he wrote an opinion piece in the Miami Herald this past weekend. That drew at least one heated response. As you might expect, Genting is using Aqueduct to herald their record of creating local jobs. It's always interesting to read views from afar, and this is what the casino opponent had to say about the 1,500 jobs created here:

Yet Diaz-Balart doesn't explain [that] the Queens racino is located in a depressed neighborhood, miles away from Manhattan, or that Genting agreed to pay the Empire State a $380 million upfront fee and a 66 percent tax rate to build a gambling facility that is significant smaller than the company's proposed Miami resort. [Miami New Times]

Though I find the casino itself to be quite depressing, I would hardly classify the working class neighborhood as 'depressed.' Besides, I don't understand the relevance of that argument anyway with employment scarce just about everywhere. And Queens can seem a lot further away from Manhattan than it really is when you're far away, But hey, that's their fight down there, and we'll just watch and see how it turns out.

- The New York Times continues its campaign against fighting in the National Hockey League with a barrage of articles on head injuries even after the three-part-series on the late Derek Boogard which even prompted the paper of record to break out a separate sports section last Tuesday. Funny how, as with horse racing, the Times is so eager to proselytize about the problems of a sport about which it's provided little positive coverage over the last few years. But just as Joe Drape's articles on illicit medication in racing has contributed to the sport's self-inspection, the Boogard articles are no doubt already having an effect.

It used to be you'd read that a player was out with a concussion, he'd be out for a few games perhaps, and then be back. So it's surely interesting to note the way the injury has become so magnified, not only in terms of the coverage of them but, more curiously, the seriousness, the amount of time missed, and the incidences of recurrence. Is it because players are bigger and stronger and thus more capable of causing profound damage? Or more due to a greater awareness of the issue of head injuries resulting in a far more cautious approach by player and team alike? In horse racing, we often blame an increase in physical problems on a deterioration of the breed. But since we're a superior race, it would surely be simply facetious of me to suggest that the human race is suffering from bad breeding as well, right?

And on that note, we turn, strictly by sheer coincidence of course, to the race for the Republican presidential nomination! Surely you've heard by now of the $10,000 bet proposed by Mitt Romney in last Saturday's debate in reaction to the continuing badgering he's taking, in this case specifically from Rick Perry, over his past support for health insurance mandates in Massachusetts. This was, to me, the most cringeworthy moment of the GOP debate season, and by a large margin, and including Perry's brain freeze over the three departments he wants to eliminate. It was a total breakdown of poise under pressure, borne of sheer frustration in reaction to criticism that he seems to be simply unable to handle, and which will surely become more relentless should he become the nominee. "Oh yeah, you wanna bet?" is the basest of schoolyard argument responses when a kid has run out of credible arguments to make.

To make matters worse for the beleaguered ex-governor, trailing badly in the polls to Newt Gingrich in several crucial early primary states, a series of embarrassing videos have emerged. One shows him badgering John Kerry for five agonizing minutes in 2004 for being a flip-flopper. Jon Huntsman rolled out an ad containing several clips in which he unequivocally expresses his support for mandates, not only for his state, but for the nation. And in another video that has surfaced from 2002, he says "my views are progressive."

I posted on Twitter recently that "$10,000 says that Romney is toast." Someone replied that he'd take me up on that. Unlike Romney, who I'm sure was totally serious, I wasn't. About the bet, anyway.

No Limit On Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:59:00 +0000

Gaming Agreement: The Leaders expressed support to work with the Governor and request support from their respective majorities to put a constitutional amendment up for a vote.

And so, in a mere paragraph contained within the announcement that the Three Men in a Room had agreed on the change in the tax brackets discussed in the prior post (and explained in more detail here), the road to expanded casino gambling in New York State officially begins. They also agreed on $50 million in grants to businesses affected by the summer flooding; and to provide relief to small companies and independent contractors from the MTA tax.

And the casino thing. Of course, as Tom Precious points out, the statement is light on detail, if not downright trite.

But the agreement is tentative, at best, since no one has yet agreed on where such casinos could operate, how many could open, who would operate them, or how much of their proceeds would go to the state. [Bloodhorse]

The announcement prompted statements from two entities with a direct interest in the development....even though each group also issued similar statements just on Monday, in reaction to Governor Cuomo's weekend comments which portended the agreement. Seneca Nation President Robert Odawi Porter spoke on Monday about the tribe's three existing casinos, which have "created thousands of jobs that have a significant economic multiplier effect.” (Of course, he didn't mention that the tribe has been withholding payments for over a year to protest the racinos in their "exclusivity zone.") He did threaten to protect what he sees as the tribe's rights.

“New Yorkers have every right to discuss expanded gaming outside our exclusivity zone. As a business partner with the state, we disagree over racino in our zone. But the issue of the state breaching Seneca exclusivity will be arbitrated and resolved. [Capitol Confidential]

And we heard from the New York Gaming Association (NYGA), which represents the existing racinos, with similar statements on both days. Got an email in my inbox on Tuesday afternoon from a Christina Levin (presumably no relation to Christine Lavin, who has been active with the Occupy movement), with a statement attributed to NYGA President James D. Featherstonhaugh.

“The New York Gaming Association and its members are pleased that Governor Cuomo and the Legislative leaders have announced an agreement to support enhanced gaming in New York State, which will create tens of thousands of much-needed jobs, generate hundreds of millions in additional state revenues and stimulate massive private economic investment in our state. We look forward to working with the Governor and Legislature to ensure that legalization of gaming is done in a limited and socially responsible manner.”

Huh, what's that? "...done in a limited and socially responsible manner." Limited? Personally, I don't see much "limited" about expanding nine slots parlors into full-fledged casinos. Perhaps Ms. Not-Christina-Lavin is specifically referring to the notion that NYGA is trying to propagate that a decision to deny them exclusive rights to new casinos would necessarily open the floodgates and "lift all restrictions on casino gaming and allow casinos anywhere in the state," as it was put to the public in their sanctioned push-poll on the topic. In either case, perhaps she'd like to rephrase that.

And please, don't give me this "socially responsible" crap. These guys are already operating substantial gambling halls for no less than 20 hours a day, seven days a week. Don't want to sound like one of those religious nuts, and I don't think one has to be in order to believe that there's no social responsibility, just profitability, involved in opening your doors to slots parlors at 8 AM every day. Y'know, sugar-coated statements like this one just drives me nuts; it's the kind of hypocrisy that can only be generated with the notion that those who will read it are a bunch of fucking idiots. We all know that "enhanced gaming" is a pleasant (and cynical) way of saying "expanded gambling." We're well aware that this is all far less about creating jobs and generating revenues than it is about politicians getting a free pass from making painful budget decisions that could threaten their political careers and all the perks that come with it (both legal and otherwise); and about a handful of corporations and their executives making tons of money. And nobody really seems to ever acknowledge the people of more common means who may get hurt in the process. Sound familiar? Maybe we should get Christina Lavin to perform for Occupy Aqueduct.

- One conservative who was not willing to go along with the governor's plan to make the tax code fairer was Conservative Party chairman Mike Long. He apparently couldn't stomach any increase in the tax rates for the wealthiest taxpayers, even if it's less than the expiring "millionaires" surcharge and accompanied by cuts for incomes up to $300,000. "Dean holds the key," he said of his hopes that the plan would not be adopted, and referring to Senate Majority Leader Skelos. [Capital Confidential]

Of course, "the key" ended up quickly going along with the governor, extracting only an easing in the MTA tax for some in return. Because Dean isn't really that interested in anything but retaining control for his Republican majority next November. He'll do anything for that as we've seen, even if it brings the government to a halt, involves alliances with unsavory characters, or makes him a liar. So, Skelos wouldn't dare cross Cuomo on a priority issue such as this (see same sex marriage), lest this extraordinarily popular Democratic governor pull out all the campaign stops to help oust the Republicans next fall. He could do it in a second, and Skelos knows that surely will should his caucus no longer suit the governor's needs.

Monday Musings

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:00:00 +0000

We've been down at my mom's house down in Longboat Key; in Florida, but a long ways from Gulfstream (though not from Tampa Bay Downs, where we haven't been either). Gulfstream is open a month earlier this year. Don't know why exactly, but I don't think it was to get a one month head start on the coming purse increases at the Big A. Just a smattering of NY trainers appearing in the entries for the first two days, and just one jockey (Castellano) that I noticed. (Is Alex Solis considered a NY jockey these days?) The Toddster is there, but not with NY-bssed horses and, besides, he's everywhere. (Had a winner on Saturday with an overbet first-timer; look for that trend to continue, as betting against them eventually proved to be a potentially profitable angle at Saratoga this past summer.) John Kimmel has some horses, but he hasn't one a race in two months so maybe he just wants a change in scenery. McLaughlin nnd Shug had winners on Sunday; Frank Alexander, Mott, and Jimmy Jerkens had horses tool

I imagine we'll see more as the winter moves along, but it sure will be interesting to see to what extent with the bigger prizes that will be offered in Queens; especially with the rank and file horses as opposed to the ones with larger ambitions. Purses these days aren't bad at Gulfstream, which of course has slots - though no backyard, nor none of its former charm (he says without having been there since the destruction of the old building). For example, a maiden special route there on Sunday went for $51,500. One of those at the Big A however will be offering $65,000 come January 1. Happy New Year.

Pletcher's winner on Saturday did so by ten lengths and set a new track record for the 5 1/2 furlong distance. Discreet Dancer (Discreet Cat) is a half-brother to the graded-stakes winner Travelin Man. He earned a Beyer figure of.....100??

- Back to NY and off-topic if you don't mind, talk in Albany of a deal to address the worsening budget deficit by changing the state income tax rates in a way which would raise taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers. This plan would allow the so-called millionaires surcharge tax to expire at the end of the year, and thus keep the governor's promise to do so. Yet it would raise the basic tax rate on the wealthiest earners, while providing some relief for those at the lower spectrum. Some Republican senators have expressed support for the plan - and, in fact, had previously seemed open to the possibility of extending the surcharge, though specifically on true million-dollar earners (it currently starts at $250,000).

Even in Washington, at least one Republican Senator - albeit the moderate Susan Collins (Maine) - has actually now said she would support higher taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers (she was the lone GOP vote in favor of a Democratic proposal to do so last week). And here's another one reconsidering, saying he senses a "change of mood" in his party.

You might have thought that the Occupy Wall Street movement was unfocused, unable to articulate any specific proposals or agendas beyond its beating drums and vague cries of unfairness. But if you think that it hasn't had a very real and profound effect on the political debate in this country, guess again. The debate has shifted, suddenly and momentously, to the Tea Party's 'too much government' mantra,' to one of 'income inequality.' And tha is, at least in my view, an argument with far more resonance and relevancy, both as to the current economic situation, and to the principles of freedom and fairness on which this country was built.

It has also handed the bumbling national Democratic party, which, despite controlling two-thirds of the federal government, had completely lost control of the debate, the strong upper hand. And it has left the House Republicans who rode to office on the Tea Party coattails, gyrating uncomfortably and rather pathetically to explain why they would now oppose an effective increase in the payroll tax for working Americans and make it seem as if it's not simply to simply oppose the president who they loathe. Of course, whether the Democrats will be able to ride this wave through next year's presidential election remains to be seen.

A Steady Stream

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:05:00 +0000

I didn't realize that it was an issue, but the NYS Racing and Wagering Board approved the continuation of online video streaming of thoroughbred and harness races in New York through 2012. Authorization for streaming would have expired on December 22. Of course, it took the closure of NYCOTB to finally bring it about. The law had stated that NYRA could stream only if all the OTB's could as well, and it took a look into the abyss to finally bring it about. Soon afterwards, NYRA obtained agreement with out-of-state tracks to stream their races, and in-state harness tracks followed shortly thereafter.

This story reminds me that the one year anniversary of the closing of NYCOTB passed without much fanfare or notice [updated - actually jumping the gun here, it closed last Dec 8]. I'd guess that streaming has a fair amount to do with how little it seems to be missed; even, as far as NYRA was concerned, before Resorts World opened.

NYRA alone saw a major boost in its account wagering program, known as NYRA Rewards. Its year-to-date figures show that the Internet handle is $79.6 million. That’s up 195% from the $26.9 million that was wagered via the internet during the same period in 2010. The total NYRA Rewards handle — which includes telephone-account wagering and at-track betting via accounts — is $206 million this year, as opposed to the $107 million for the same period last year. [Metropolis]

The purse increases that will result from the slots money will impact racing far beyond New York, as Jennie Rees noted the other day in the Louisville Courier Journal:

Stalls might not be as hard to get next year with no Breeders’ Cup here and a likely stream of horses heading to New York for slots-fattened purses that will dwarf Churchill’s.
.....
..let’s see what purse Aqueduct provides in 2012 for its Remsen and Demoiselle for 2-year-olds; both were $200,000. It’s going to be increasingly tough for Churchill to compete for the best horses.

Interesting dueling op-ed pieces the other day in the Atlanta Journal Constitution for and against horse racing in Georgia. One, titled Horse racing a good bet for Ga., is by State Rep. Harry Geisinger, a Republican who introduced the bill. And he rather oversimplifies things, and twists the facts as well.

Let’s get the “gambling” issue out of the way. This amendment does not allow for casinos, dog racing, slot machines or Elvis wedding chapels. All of that can stay in Vegas. So what makes pari-mutuel wagering different from gambling?

In simple terms, when you gamble, you are betting against the “house,” and the odds are stacked against you. With pari-mutuel, you are betting against the other bettors in each race. If you bet $1 on a horse, the “track” will take 18 cents to operate the track, pay taxes, purses to the horses and other overhead, while you share 82 cents with each of the other bettors.

For one thing, a lot of horseplayers would be happy with an 18% takeout if it applied to all wagers. But, as you may know, the takeout by the casino "house" is actually far lower than those at the tracks.

The opposing opinion piece, Gambling Leads to Dire Results, was authored by the second vice president of the Georgia Baptist Convention. So you might guess what's coming next.

Gambling creates a climate with a concept that one can strike it rich based on luck, rather than work and personal responsibility. The providence of God and personal accountability are overlooked with an aggressive campaign to entice people to depend upon luck for their success.

I thought that luckiness was close to Godliness, or something like that? Guess not.

Odds and Ends

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:55:00 +0000

Bigger purses, more stakes for three-year olds this winter and spring, as reported by David Grening in the Form. The Withers, once a backdoor route to the Preakness and eliminated last year, is back as what they want me to call a 'Derby prep,' but really as an early-February prep for the Gotham and the Wood. Not sure really why a race would retain its graded status after taking a hiatus, but it's a Grade 3 and therefore a means to an end for Derby hopefuls.

The Withers will be a stepping-stone to the March 3 Gotham Stakes, which will have its purse increased to $400,000 from $250,000, according to Campo.

Those races lead to the Grade 1 Wood Memorial, which will be run April 7 at 1 1/8 miles over the main track. The Wood will retain its $1 million purse. Genting, the company that operates Aqueduct’s casino, supplemented the purse with $250,000 in 2011 and will do so again in 2012, according to Campo. [DRF]

I'm guessing that the supplement for the Wood is over and above whatever Genting will be turning over to NYRA for its share of the slots and virtual table games revenue.

That money continues to pour in, as anyone who was out at the Big A this past holiday weekend might surmise. I was there on Friday, and the outdoor parking lots that are designated for the casino were entirely full at around 1:30. So I shelled out the two bucks for the track lot, which is as ragged and unkempt as compared to the pristine casino lot as the track side of the building is to Resorts World. Faded parking lines lead to a free-for-all; beware of the potential to get boxed in by a third row. The whole logic for NYRA charging for parking was that Genting would be doing so for their patrons. So far, that hasn't happened, so the only people paying to park there are us.

Paul Moran wrote in his column on ESPN.com that, on Saturday, the seats at the table games were filled to capacity at 11 a.m. and people await vacancies.

Standard video-lottery terminals are being claimed by determined players who enter the building in a steady stream, pass beneath a three-story crystal chandelier and ride wide escalators into a glittering expanse that unlike other such enterprises has thoughtfully integrated electronic gaming and racing.

Eh, I think the jury is still out on the integration thing...maybe when I see just a single TV around the bar tuned in to the simulcast feed, we can discuss that.

The numbers surely reflect the anecdotal evidence of a busy weekend. After the win per machine figure dipped to $516 from the gaudy figures of the opening weeks, it jumped back up to $570 for the week ending Nov 26. Meanwhile however, there was little such bounce at Yonkers, where the numbers continue to sag. After sinking further to $259 for the week ending 11/19 (see this post again for background), the holiday week produced only a slight bounce to $261. That as opposed to $303 for the same week last year. Seems to be little doubt that Resorts World has hurt business at Yonkers....I'd say, back of the napkin calculation, to the tune of close to 20%. A crack in the veneer of what to this point has been a recession-and-justaboutanything-proof business. What happens if and when full fledged casinos open in the Catskills, or closer to home?

- Nice win by To Honor And Serve in the Cigar Mile, and quite a nice late summer and fall campaign over all after quite a disappointing spring. But an Eclipse for best three-year old for winning the PA Derby, and beating this mediocre field after running 7th in the Classic? I don't think so....still Caleb's Posse for me.

Pedestrian numbers in the Demoiselle and Remsen, with the winners earning Beyers of 71 and 80 respectively. Both winners did endure eventful trips however, with Remsen winner O'Prado Again caught wide both turns, and Disposablepleasure stumbling badly at the start and causing trouble for others during the race (and surviving a claim of foul). O'Prado Again, winning in his first try on a fast dirt track, is by El Prado out of a winless Pulpit mare who's a half-sister to the dams of stakes winners First Samurai and Audacious Chloe. Disposablepleasure is the first US graded stakes winner for Giacomo, standing now for a humbling $5,000 at Adena Springs; she's out of a winless With Approval mare who's a half-sister to the multiple graded-stakes placed Riley Tucker.

Churchill Friday [Updated - + Aqueduct]

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:26:00 +0000

I read someone write somewhere that a win by Ruler On Ice (4-1) in the Clark on Friday would put him in the running for 3 yo championship honors, and are you kidding me? That would be his third win of the year, and one of them was the Belmont, which shouldn't even count. Yeah, I know, the "Test of Champions" and yada yada; but a mile and a half is an abnormal distance that most thoroughbreds can't handle, and the result of the race, as we've seen increasingly in recent years, often has little or nothing to do with the relative abilities of the horses involved at the distances at which championships are (or at least should be) determined. (Didn't hurt him that the track was sloppy that day either.) I think Caleb's Posse is a pretty clear winner of the 3yo Eclipse.

The other thing is that this year's Clark is a pretty weak edition, so much so that Ruler on Ice could actually win (though I'll lose if he does). Not much to say about his form; he's not a bad horse, but he doesn't have what it takes to beat top competition at normal distances. Flat Out (5-2) is back after being the beaten favorite in the Classic, and I do not like him one bit as the favorite in the Clark. Never was a huge fan even when he was running well, and feel that his campaign is getting long in the tooth at this point. He's never won a graded stake around two turns on a fast track, and he hasn't been better than 5th in three tries at Churchill. He is, in my opinion, about as easy a throwout of a favorite as you'll see. Hope I don't regret saying that.

Unfortunately, it's slim pickens as far as finding an alternative. Wise Dan (4-1) would be a contender in the slop, over which he's two-for-two at Churchill. But he's 0 for three on fast tracks and the forecast is good. Prayer for Relief (5-1) is probably the logical choice by default with his string of Minor Derby wins followed by his defeat behind repeat winner Redeemed in the Ohio Derby; but hard to get too excited at that price given his poor post position.

The horse who interests me at a price is Mister Mardi Gras (12-1). Four-year old gelded son of Belong to Me has been handled more patiently this year after some ambitious placings last year in which he hardly disgraced himself. That strategy paid off with a win in the G3 Wash Park on the Poly at Arlington. Switched to the dirt after that, he closed stoutly after having to back up and circle the field from last while extremely wide, finishing 4th in the Hawthorne Gold Cup (behind Headache (12-1)). And he had what seems like a perfect prep over this (albeit muddy) surface in the Ack Ack. Saved ground until swinging wide entering the stretch and rallied to win rather handily in a not-too-taxing effort in a race which didn't have much pace, which may be the case in the Clark as well. Jumps in class and will probably have to put in a career-best effort; but seems poised to do so, and the price will be right.

In the 10th, Future Prospect (4-1) returns to this track after a poor effort on the Poly at Keeneland that I think we can excuse, as he doesn't seem to care for that surface. Prior was a G2 stakes win at Turfway. Seven-year old son of Freud failed on this track at this mile route against 50K claimers in May, but got good after that. A four race winning streak started with a win here at 6 1/2 furlongs in which he rallied from off the pace as opposed to his usual front-running style. His jockey that day was Manoel Cruz who, interestingly, returns to the saddle for the first time since then. If the rider can utilize his natural speed wisely from his outside post, he could control the proceedings and roll to a win in this spot. Agastache (8-1) comes off a win over the track at six furlongs. Been sprinting of late but has won here at this distance in the past. Dubious Miss (5-2) is a dubious favorite in this spot in my opinion.

Continuing to work backwards for no particular reason, in the 9th, Revelstoke (4-1) comes off a solid effort off a layoff and over this course in this class and should be ready to get the job done here. Had a pretty easy trip that day but couldn't quite pass the even money favorite Exclusive Love, earning a career high Beyer of 86. Do you downgrade the effort because of the ground saving trip and clear shot at the leader? Or figure that she's eligible to improve here since the race probably didn't take too much out of her? (Similar question regarding Mister Mardi Gras in the Clark.) Considering that trainer Jim Corrigan is hitting at 38% second off the layoff, I'm figuring that we'll see a solid effort on this day. Heavenly Landing (3-1) moves up in class after a handy win in her first try on turf.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, best of luck and have a great day and holiday weekend. (Hope you don't have to go in to work on Friday like me.)

[UPDATE: In the 9th at the Big A, the G2 Go For Wand (sandwiched between two awful maiden claimers at the end of the card), I'm all in on the Magical Dutrow Tour. C C's Pal (6-1) was a different animal in her first start for the barn, gliding along under a confident Johnny V while perched three wide for the entirety of the sweeping turn for home at Belmont, and besting the promising Alseera. Dutrow had another winner on Thursday, and is now 14 for 27 at the meet. If you can't beat em, join em. From her outside post, this modestly-bred daughter of Alex's Pal can use her tactical speed to ride the old Ussery's Alley to the winner's circle. All Due Respect (3-1) comes off a layoff for Dutrow, has run well in that circumstance before, and could complete an all Hey Babe exacta. Arena Elvira (5-2) has won four in a row (albeit all around two turns) and is clearly the one to beat.]

Ten Years, Too Long

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:15:00 +0000

Two more starters and two more winners for one Richard E. Dutrow, Jr. on Sunday. That's five in a row, and an overall record at the Big A of 13 winners from 25 starters, an ungodly winning percentage of 52%. No start in 261 days for Groomedforvictory ($5.40) since he was claimed for $62,500 at Gulfstream? No problem. What's that you say, Head Heart Hoof ($7.30) weakened in this class his last two starts? Nothing a little Ramon magic couldn't cure.

Dutrow is surely making a mockery out of....well, something or somebody, I guess. Or maybe the mockery is the system itself, which has allowed trainers like he and a host of other multi-violators to escape with relative impunity over the years. But it's not like Dutrow is making any special effort to show anyone up, or to prove anything at this time as some have suggested, facetiously or otherwise: none of those five in a row were dropping in class, and only three of his 13 winners at the meet have done so (and all three were perfectly legitimate cases of overmatched horses seeking their levels).

I posted about Dutrow's suspension a few weeks ago, at which time I said that the suspension was so out of proportion that I couldn't even form an opinion about its ten-year length. But I'm coming around to the point of view that it's indeed so out of proportion that's it's just plain wrong.

I also wrote then that it seems fairly obvious to me that the New York board was under pressure by elements of the national industry to do its bidding for them. There seems to be this idea that dishonest trainers cause lack of confidence amongst bettors, which is contributing to the decline in handle. Personally, I think that's a very small factor in what ails the industry, if one at all. For whatever it's worth, maybe nothing in this case, horseplayers don't seem to be too bothered by Dutrow still being in the game. 5-2 has been the highest price on any of his winners during this streak, with two of them well under even money; $5.30 is the median payoff overall for the meet. So the betting public...yes, those very poor fools who have been so terribly wronged by the trainer over the years....has had no problem backing him.

Look, I've never really been one to consider the "betting public" as being so sacrosanct. Dutrow is a cheater, there's little doubt about that. Then again, so was Gaylord Perry, and he's in the Hall of Fame. But there's this idea that the "betting public" needs to be so coddled and protected, and - just my point of view as a recreational horseplayer - I've never felt that way. The game comes with all of the imperfections that go with an enterprise in which I am willfully gambling my hard-earned money on dumb animals owned and trained by human beings with methods and secrets of their own that, in the pursuit of a profit, they are not willing to disclose. To me, part of the handicapping equation is to discern the motives of the humans who send the horses out to race. I mean, anyone who is under any illusion that they should, could, or ever will be entitled to know everything that the connections do should probably be putting their money in a safe place, like.....er........um.......well......ahem...something else.

That's just my take, you may disagree vociferously, and that's fine, let me have it. I don't take this nearly as seriously as many of you; certainly not those trying to make a living from it, that's for sure. Of course, if Dutrow has been indeed abusing his animals, then that's a whole other story. If you have evidence that that's the case, please let me know. However, I've never heard that as part of this discussion. Besides, the notion of "abuse" in this context, far short of a Paragallo situation (at least as far as I can see), is, in my opinion, an abstract one in a sport where, every single day, you can see low-level animals get beaten mercilessly by whips as they struggle, exhausted by their early efforts, just to make it to the wire. (That's your celebrated dirt racing, folks.)

And what exactly constitutes cheating the public in this game, anyway? We scream if a horse has a minute amount of some drug or other in its system, and blame the trainer even if he/she was 1,000 miles away. But it's OK for a trainer to go on national television before the Dirt Mile and be like "oh yeah, we knew he wouldn't win that two-turn race, we were just setting him up for this, so sorry about those bettors who made him 2-1 that day"?

So, yes, I think that the ten-year suspension for Dutrow was too harsh, at least considering the precedent, as well as the free-wheeling and, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the sometimes inhumane sport in which he plies his trade. Yes, he in large part brought it upon himself with his brash and dismissive attitude towards the attempts to punish him. But I disagree that he deserves to be made an example of in this way, for the sake of making certain points that I don't necessarily agree are valid ones. And besides, just maybe, considering the build-up to the Board's decision, had it not overreached and ruled a suspension more in line - a year, maybe two? - perhaps Dutrow would have breathed a sigh of relief, given us a wave and a final 'Hey babe,' taken off for a vacation, and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Slots Fervor Never Ceases to Amaze

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 16:41:00 +0000

I was at the Big A on Saturday, entering through the grand entrance to the casino this time, standing there wild-eyed while sending a couple of twitters about how astounded I still am about the transformation of the grandstand to Resorts World. And then another one one later on expressing amazement at just how the crowd had grown at that point, around 4:30. It was absolutely packed, from end to end (and that covers a lot of ground, think approximately the entire length of the Big A stretch). There's a sign posted saying that the capacity on the first floor is around 9,000, and I wonder how close they were to that number, even at that point in the afternoon.

Got a response to that last tweet saying: people like slots. Are you seriously surprised by this? To which I replied that I'm not surprised, but still taken aback seeing it so close to home in a place (formerly) as familiar as Aqueduct. Thinking about that further however, I guess there is indeed a certain amount of incredulity - not specifically that Resorts World was crowded then, or at any specific point in time; but - still - just about the whole idea that people do indeed like slots! I don't know if I'll ever fully understand or accept that. Guess that's what the phrase never ceases to amaze is for.

Did spend a little quality time in there, enjoying an afternoon cocktail at the Bar 360. There's actually a very pleasant lounge area behind the bar and facing out onto the racetrack which would be perfect for a few betting windows if Genting wasn't so focused on keeping their customers focused on their tedious task at hand. Also must say that the food and drink prices are extremely reasonable....if not downright cheap in this day and age. Where else can one get a Stella draft for $6.50? Forget other sports venues - $11.75 at Met Life Stadium, $9.50 at the Garden (just for a can) - I don't know if you can find many bars anywhere in the city that would match that price. Even though Teresa insisted on a premium liquor brand, still got change back from a 20 after leaving a tip.

And then, there's the racing side.

This is the Manhattan Terrace room, where they've now taken out the round tables and chairs and replaced them with these desk cubby things. When I wrote recently that I'd hoped that NYRA would at least have, as part of some cursory improvements, replaced and updated some of the seating, these were specifically what I was talking about. I dunno, maybe patrons have expressed fondness for them, because they are prevalent throughout the track. I think they're absolutely hideous though. Besides being extremely space inefficient, the aesthetic is just awful, at least to me. And, as the day goes on, empty cups, discarded food wrappers and abandoned programs and papers accumulate, and it's just downright ugly and depressing. A long ways from the pristine facilities of the casino that's just next door, but seemingly a mile away.

- Dutrow is on fire these days. Three winners from three starters on the day, including Redeemed ($4.90), who took the Discovery, earning a Beyer of 96. That gives him 11 winners from 23 starters at the meeting, for a winning percentage of 48%. The kind that makes people suspicious. Of course, considering that he's fighting a ten-year suspension, from which he received an indefinite stay while he challenges the ban in the court system, one might think that, as one reader noted, he has some proving to do to the nyra by not using the needle anymore. Though how do we know, as the reader continues, that he's not using that "spiked up vaseline?" For all we know, maybe he's really trying to prove that he can still get away with whatever it is he gets away with!

Winners and Liu-sers

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 05:08:00 +0000

Matt Hegarty, no doubt having seen my post on the booming business at the Big A, reports on the subject in his usual comprehensive way, in the Form:

Genting is estimating that the casino will generate $1 billion in net revenue, which would nearly double the initial estimates for the annual amount of subsidies that will go to racing.

As you may recall, NYRA has already raised purses for the winter meet (starting Jan 1) by 36%, and numbers like these would surely bode well to support an increase of that magnitude...at least.

Of course, the per machine numbers will presumably decline once the additional 2,000 machines are added. NYRA is staying with their forecast of $380 per machine and $75 million in slots revenue for 2012, but, given these initial results, Charlie Hayward classifies those estimates as "conservative." If that indeed turns out to be the case - and even if the estimates prove to be merely prescient - all that dire talk we heard from Comptroller DiNapoli and his audits, and from Franchise Oversight Board chairman Robert Megna regarding $11 million deficits, executive raises, and reckless spending on van rides between Belmont and Aqueduct will be forgotten. And New York politicians will have lost their easiest whipping boy with which to score easy political points.

Hayward is also quoted as saying: “The casino has probably made it more interesting to come out to watch the races." Interesting is one way of putting it. It's been crowded but, as Hegarty opines, that's likely due to the OTB closure. The renovated grandstand and the new patio are nice places to watch the races. But there are no wagering facilities there; so unless you're wagering through your NYRA Rewards mobile app, it's not a place where you can pitch and tent and Occupy all day. Besides, it's getting cold, so soon we'll be stuck indoors, where it's not going to be anymore interesting than in the past, at least on the racing side . Hopefully, that will change soon, especially if business continues to boom.

- Let's go off topic here. Andrew Weiner's sexting scandal was such a sensational story that it even attracted commenters to this site to give me the business like I was the head of the Democratic National Committee or something. Weiner was a major mayoral hopeful for 2013, assuming Bloomberg agrees to abdicate the throne this time.

Another rising Democratic star with mayoral ambitions is the city Comptroller John Liu. But he too is now ensnared in a scandal, and though it's not nearly as sexy as Weiner's...er... weiner (not sexy to me of course)(not that there'd be anything wrong with that), and you therefore won't read many snarky jokes about it on Twitter, in many ways, it's even worse. It started October 11, when the NY Times published an article about apparent irregularities in the records of Liu's campaign contributions. Supposed donors who said they never gave, donation forms for multiple donors all in the same handwriting, donations purporting to be from employees of companies who didn't actually work there, businesses with non-existent addresses. (These tactics would allow single donors to exceed the NYC maximum of $4.950 by using "straw donors;" and are particularly heinous in NYC due to a generous matching program.) The sloppiness and brazen nature of the violations exhibited here should be shocking, but it's all too commonplace in politics these days.

Things have really started to fall apart for Liu in the few short weeks since that article appeared. Just this past week, it was revealed that the feds were investigating; one of his top fund-raisers was arrested after arranging a straw donor fund-raiser for an FBI informant posting as an eager contributor; a respected former attorney general hired by Liu to investigate resigned angrily after being told to suspend his probe; and Liu has reneged on a promise to release the names of his campaign bundlers (which he's required by law to do anyway).

And, this guy says he's still running for mayor? The Comptroller, who is supposed to oversee the finances of the whole complex bureaucracy of the city of New York, wants us to believe that he was completely unaware of major improprieties in the most important funding engine of his own career aspirations? I don't know what's worse, if he did or didn't know! One makes him a crook, and the other incompetent. Either or both of those might make him eligible for some elected offices, but not that one. I'm thinking that he's not gonna keep his present job for too long either.

Business Brisk At Big A, Less So at Yonkers

noreply@blogger.com (alan) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:12:00 +0000

You can always, if you have nothing better to do, see exactly how business is at Resorts World, or at any of the state's racinos, by checking the New York Lottery's Video Gaming Reports, located here.

Resorts World has been doing huge numbers in terms of the 'win VGM per day' figures, which show the average take of each of the 2,486 machines. They did $618 the first two days, which leveled off a bit to $585 and $576 the next two weeks. Yonkers, heretofore the most successful of the state's racinos, does generally in the low $300's. At least before Resorts World opened. Throw out that first weekend, when the surprise snowstorm shut down the Empire City casino. The last two weeks has seen the win per day at Yonkers down to $286 and $271, and the overall net win figures down accordingly. (Prior five weeks before the snowstorm weekend were $310, $339, $321, $343, and $315.) (Of course, Yonkers has more than twice as many machines, so the overall gross numbers between the two facilities are comparable.) Still early, and I'm sure that Resorts World is attracting the curious at this time. And I'm not familiar with casino economics, so I can't vouch for what will happen when the Big A gets its full complement of machines; surely they'll be some dropoff in the per machine numbers. But definitely worth keeping an eye on this; I for one would be surprised and impressed if Genting can do big numbers without affecting Empire City at Yonkers.