denisdman wrote:
Rozner says slots are the answer. I disagree. Why would an operator subsidize horse racing with slot profits? If folks don't like the ponies anymore, then it should go away.
The operator isn't "subsidizing" horse racing. This is crony capitalism at its worst. There is a venerable and longstanding industry that has all kinds of ancillary jobs, e.g. vets, farmers, etc. If the philosophy was to let it stand on its own and live or die, I'd have no problem with that. But that isn't how it works. A casino operator comes into a market and uses the existing racetrack to get a casino license with all kinds of promises of saving the existing business. But as soon as it has that license, the casino operator does everything possible to eliminate the horse racing.
That's why slot machines are a devil's bargain. The horsemen latch onto them like a life preserver but the casino operator and the state soon begin to wonder why they need a "partner" that isn't pulling his weight. If the horsemen were smart, they would insist on a real ownership interest in the casino.
Take Pompano Park for example. The only reason the casino is allowed to exist is because it offers horse racing. But the casino operator conducts the racing almost behind a curtain while making huge money off slots and the dumb ass horsemen get shit.
Balmoral and Maywood handle far more than Hoosier and Harrah's but they don't have a casino to add money to the purses. So you have cheap horses. Small purses and relatively large handle are a recipe for all kinds of chicanery. And it gives the sport a bad name. Purses must be tied to handle. Otherwise the bettor is not your customer. That's a real problem. Slots are a temporary solution at best. Illinois racing is in its death throes.
If you want free markets, let them be really free. Forget all this licensing bullshit. Let whoever offer whatever gambling he can and allow the market to sort it out.