A New Low (State Government Edition)

[Calzone Lord]

What a terrible law ... but what do you expect, it's horse racing? Even most of the industry leaders have no understanding of the betting aspect of the game.

If ADW's are forced to comply ... it's a whole other ballgame.

But, the law is primarily more of a nuisance than anything else.

With the low minimums of today, it's not hard keeping a net payout under $600 per winning ticket. Obvious exceptions being most Pick 4's, Pick 5's, and Pick 6's.

You can still hit a race for several thousand dollars, but just hit it on several tickets...and go sneaking around cashing them one at a time with different clerks.

It's a greater nuisance if you're an ADW account holder. Now, you'll need to open up several different ADW accounts ... seed them all with money, and play a little bit with each account to still be able to score out on a race and avoid the withholding.

It's an especially stupid rule because you're forcing bettors who already face mind-blowing high takeout rates ... to go sneak around like they're doing something shady and wrong ... in order to avoid suffering further penalties.

[XIIPointStables]

NH had a law on the books to tax 10% on $600 or more....thankfully was repealed. Hopefully MA follows ..

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS06/705119977

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by dino

Someone needs to pay for this welfare system so why not lowlife gamblers.

Before someone elects you the new head of the NTRA or some editor gives you a column at Bloodhorse -- two things:

#1: This doesn't have anything to do with national politics.

#2: The welfare system, as you call it, would generate much more revenue by taxing gamblers at a lower rate, which allows them to bet more money. This law not only badly hurts horse racing, but it also hurts what you call 'the welfare system'

[ironprospect]

WROTB in NYS still does have there ridiculous surcharge.

as an example the 12.80 Orb paid in the Derby was 12.00 even at WROTB

[GenuineRisk]

According to the article, it applies to all gambling winnings in excess of $600, including slots and table games, so the belief is that it's intended to limit the expansion of gambling in the state. So, if it reduces wagering, the people who pushed for the tax will see that as a feature, not a bug.

Ah, Massachusetts. It tries so hard, but somehow never quite seems to escape its Puritan roots.

[jjkchb]

This is Massachusetts people....look for the legislator with a hand in the software vendor's pocket (gotta track that tax liability somehow)...and a niece in the tax office that chases the tax (every family needs a state pension for the kids)...it'll be solved when his brother in law gets guaranteed a $100K security job (full free health benefits) at Caesar's Eastie Casino, Slot Parlor and Maybe Racetrack.

[dino]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Before someone elects you the new head of the NTRA or some editor gives you a column at Bloodhorse -- two things:

#1: This doesn't have anything to do with national politics.

#2: The welfare system, as you call it, would generate much more revenue by taxing gamblers at a lower rate, which allows them to bet more money. This law not only badly hurts horse racing, but it also hurts what you call 'the welfare system'

As usual my reply got removed because it disagreed with the Liberal censors. Funny how my reply somehow lost the "us" before the lowlife gamblers. Does make it sound more shocking.
This has everything to do with national politics because it's just step one of the government getting in gamblers pockets so they can fund more social programs.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

What a terrible law ... but what do you expect, it's horse racing? Even most of the industry leaders have no understanding of the betting aspect of the game.

If ADW's are forced to comply ... it's a whole other ballgame.

But, the law is primarily more of a nuisance than anything else.

With the low minimums of today, it's not hard keeping a net payout under $600 per winning ticket. Obvious exceptions being most Pick 4's, Pick 5's, and Pick 6's.

You can still hit a race for several thousand dollars, but just hit it on several tickets...and go sneaking around cashing them one at a time with different clerks.

It's a greater nuisance if you're an ADW account holder. Now, you'll need to open up several different ADW accounts ... seed them all with money, and play a little bit with each account to still be able to score out on a race and avoid the withholding.

It's an especially stupid rule because you're forcing bettors who already face mind-blowing high takeout rates ... to go sneak around like they're doing something shady and wrong ... in order to avoid suffering further penalties.

I usually play doubles and was hit on Oaks/Derby double cause it paid more than 5K on my ticket. I started looking at Probables and breaking my ticket up in situations where it will pay more than 5 K. Are you telling me that I am wasting my time because the ADW will aggregate my winnings on the race and not just look at the individual ticket?

[3kings]

Originally Posted by jms62

I usually play doubles and was hit on Oaks/Derby double cause it paid more than 5K on my ticket. I started looking at Probables and breaking my ticket up in situations where it will pay more than 5 K. Are you telling me that I am wasting my time because the ADW will aggregate my winnings on the race and not just look at the individual ticket?

That is correct. He is suggesting using multiple ADW's. Aren't NJ residents restricted though? Might not be an option for some.

[Travis Stone]

So if someone doubles up their $500 bet in a casino, they would have to fill-out a tax ticket? Oh yeah, that'll keep the pace of all table games moving along nicely. Awful.