Quote:
Originally Posted by tector
You are comparing eras when demand was fundamentally different, and it is the demand side you seem to have no clue about.
In 1989, outside of NV, AC and some low-limit card rooms in SoCal, what exactly was racing's competition for the gambling dollar? Dogs--a vastly inferior form of racing? Jai Alai in FL and CT? We didn't even have a lottery until 1988!
Dude, the gaming market changed COMPLETELY in that period. We have way, WAY too much racing for this market. If the government went "hands off"--taxed all gambling equally, did NOT require racinos to maintain racing, did NOT require purses supplemented by other forms of gambling--horse racing would be slaughtered in a free market today.
Wake up, man.
|
There are 25000 less races than in 1989. Dont you think THAT is a response to the market?
Do you seriously think reducing the scope of the industry is going to influence govt in a positive manner?
We all know that we are basically held hostage by racinos and effect govt. But what you are saying is that the hostage committing suicide is a better option than being held hostage.
The problem is that the price of this form of gambling is not competitive in the market place. Reducing the number of tracks or races doesn't change this.