Thanks to HANA and BillW......

[JustRalph]

Since nobody has mentioned it, I am going to recognize the HANA team and BillW for their work.

Thanks guys! And Gals from HANA!

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/77332/keeneland-again-tops-hana-racetrack-ratings

Remember , this group was born on this board.

[the little guy]

Since nobody has mentioned it, I am going to recognize the HANA team and BillW for their work.

Thanks guys! And Gals from HANA!

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/77332/keeneland-again-tops-hana-racetrack-ratings

Remember , this group was born on this board.


They rated Oaklawn over Saratoga?

I assume these came out on April 1st?

[Vinman]

Since nobody has mentioned it, I am going to recognize the HANA team and BillW for their work.

Thanks guys! And Gals from HANA!

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/77332/keeneland-again-tops-hana-racetrack-ratings

Remember , this group was born on this board.

Interesting that the 6 highest rated tracks, Keeneland, Churchill, Gulfstream, Tampa Bay Downs, Kentucky Downs and Sam Houston all offer a 50 cent Pick 5.

I found a Blood-Horse article from 8/10/12 on Kentucky Downs which talks about their reductions in takeout and the addition of two Pick 4's, a Super High Five and a Pick 5.

Vinman

[thaskalos]

They rated Oaklawn over Saratoga?

I assume these came out on April 1st?

:D Not bad...

[JustRalph]

They rated Oaklawn over Saratoga?

I assume these came out on April 1st?

considering the categories evaluated, I don't find much to quibble with in that comparison.

[the little guy]

considering the categories evaluated, I don't find much to quibble with in that comparison.


Whatever categories have tracks like Oaklawn and Sam Houston as better than Saratoga are not representing the best interests of horseplayers. I am not knocking those tracks, but I am sure even they understand they aren't Saratoga.

[the little guy]

I love Kentucky Downs. I think it is as cool a track as we have in this country, and I look forward to playing them every year. I also know I can only bet dollars, else I will seriously skew the multi-pool. Hell, I once took down 70% of an early double pool with a friend of mine and I don't believe we bet $40 between us ( shameless redboard ).

To tell people this is a better track to play than Saratoga is, to be kind, disingenuous.

[tzipi]

Nothing wrong with Oaklawn, etc as tracks but no one touches Saratoga. Just my opinion.

[ronsmac]

I love Kentucky Downs. I think it is as cool a track as we have in this country, and I look forward to playing them every year. I also know I can only bet dollars, else I will seriously skew the multi-pool. Hell, I once took down 70% of an early double pool with a friend of mine and I don't believe we bet $40 between us ( shameless redboard ).

To tell people this is a better track to play than Saratoga is, to be kind, disingenuous.
pick 3,4 tri,and super takeout and slightly smaller avg. field sizethan oaklawn i believe is why saratoga is probably rated lower.

[ronsmac]

Nothing wrong with Oaklawn, etc as tracks but no one touches Saratoga. Just my opinion.
I'd love Saratoga if they had a better tv view of the races. I understand they have a lot of trees and i think the turf course is raised higher than most, but it's very difficult to trip handicap by tape at saratoga. Big screen blocks some of the view and going into the far turn is a terrible view of tv.

[tzipi]

I'd love Saratoga if they had a better tv view of the races. I understand they have a lot of trees and i think the turf course is raised higher than most, but it's very difficult to trip handicap by tape at saratoga. Big screen blocks some of the view and going into the far turn is a terrible view of tv.


Yeah I can see where trees come into play and what have you for handicapping but I just mean in terms of the fields, the racing stock, the track, the surroundings, the value, the people, you can't get better than Saratoga.

[JustRalph]

Yeah I can see where trees come into play and what have you for handicapping but I just mean in terms of the fields, the racing stock, the track, the surroundings, the value, the people, you can't get better than Saratoga.

Half of those things aren't in the HANA rating if I remember right.

surely not the "track" " the people"

You have to remember what the rating is looking for. I get the argument and Andy makes a very cogent point. He's right. There are two places I have spent many many dollars to travel to. Keeneland and Saratoga. End of story. That tells the tale.

[tzipi]

Half of those things aren't in the HANA rating if I remember right.

surely not the "track" " the people"

You have to remember what the rating is looking for. I get the argument and Andy makes a very cogent point. He's right. There are two places I have spent many many dollars to travel to. Keeneland and Saratoga. End of story. That tells the tale.

I just mean't overall as a track in that post. Forget people, surroundings,etc, if we are talking about value, racing stock and field size, I want to spend my money at SARATOGA above all.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I love Kentucky Downs. I think it is as cool a track as we have in this country, and I look forward to playing them every year. I also know I can only bet dollars, else I will seriously skew the multi-pool. Hell, I once took down 70% of an early double pool with a friend of mine and I don't believe we bet $40 between us ( shameless redboard ).

To tell people this is a better track to play than Saratoga is, to be kind, disingenuous.

KD handled $1.51 mm/day for their 2012 meet. I know back in the late 90s (think it was still Dueling Grounds) the handle was much lower, though.

[Hosshead]

KD handled $1.51 mm/day for their 2012 meet. I know back in the late 90s (think it was still Dueling Grounds) the handle was much lower, though.
Where do you get the current handle info?

I found this on the HANA website:

"Important Note: The sortable rankings sheet, with takeout data, pool size and track information, as well as the new sortable payouts sheet, will be uploaded on the HANA website next week."

I'll be looking forward to this sortable data ! :ThmbUp:

_______________________________________________

[ronsmac]

I just mean't overall as a track in that post. Forget people, surroundings,etc, if we are talking about value, racing stock and field size, I want to spend my money at SARATOGA above all.
The field sizes are good as long as it doesn't rain, they can have some brutal thunderstorms that can wreak havoc, I was up there in 2011 and a tornado came out of nowhere and they cancelled the last race, if you look at the hana numbers they're a little above average in field size, they'd be way above average if not for the scratches and off the turf races. I do believe in 2012 they didn't have as much rain, but i didn't follow it as closely last yr.

[racingfan378]

We all have to remember, they (HANA) are only basing their report on the facts i.e. handle, field size, takeout etc hence the reason why Saratoga isnt at the top compared to the other tracks mentioned. Hell even Retama got a shout out :D

Saratoga is great, but us handicappers know it is tough as hell to have a winning year at the Spaaaaaaaaaaaa;)

[raybo]

We all have to remember, they (HANA) are only basing their report on the facts i.e. handle, field size, takeout etc hence the reason why Saratoga isnt at the top compared to the other tracks mentioned. Hell even Retama got a shout out :D

Saratoga is great, but us handicappers know it is tough as hell to have a winning year at the Spaaaaaaaaaaaa;)

My opinion of Saratoga (and of course Keenland) is that their meets are too short. By the time everybody (and the horses) get settled in, it's over. A month or a month and a half is just too short to get a feel for how the track, and the horses/trainers/jockeys are playing. I would love to get some of the high payouts at those 2 tracks, but pass them both due to the length of their meets. Just can't get enough data, soon enough, to take advantage of it.

[the little guy]

We all have to remember, they (HANA) are only basing their report on the facts i.e. handle, field size, takeout etc hence the reason why Saratoga isnt at the top compared to the other tracks mentioned. Hell even Retama got a shout out :D

Saratoga is great, but us handicappers know it is tough as hell to have a winning year at the Spaaaaaaaaaaaa;)


If they were basing them on the facts of handle, as well as field size, Saratoga would be where it belongs, as would Belmont. Even Aqueduct, which draws over 20% of the daily national handle, would be high.

Facts can be skewed towards the biases of people making any list.

[Robert Goren]

While I love betting on the AQU inner, I am not near as fond of the Spa. I am sure its is a very nice if you are there, but if I bet online and all the turf races drive me up a wall. I do not do well on turf races and try not to bet them. I like to bet just one track at a time and sitting through two or three turf races in a row makes the game boring. A couple of turf race, I can handle, but 4 or 5 in a day is a bit much for me.

Oaklawn is a great second level track and the management makes you feel welcome, at least they did the last time I was there a number of years ago. It was probably the most live customer friendly track I have been to.

[Charli125]

If they were basing them on the facts of handle, as well as field size, Saratoga would be where it belongs, as would Belmont. Even Aqueduct, which draws over 20% of the daily national handle, would be high.

Facts can be skewed towards the biases of people making any list.

The way the ratings are configured is laid out here: http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

We're still trying to get the sortable ratings up on the website. You can disagree all you want, but nothing is being skewed here.

The main point of these ratings is to have the information in one place where all players can see what kind of field size, handle, and takeout they should expect at each track. I hope we can all agree that is valuable information, even if our favorite track isn't at the top of the list.

[ronsmac]

[QUOTE=the little guy]If they were basing them on the facts of handle, as well as field size, Saratoga would be where it belongs, as would Belmont. Even Aqueduct, which draws over 20% of the daily national handle, would be high.

Facts can be skewed towards the biases of people making any list.[/QUOT I must be missing something, Aqueduct has some of the smallest fields in the country, not much more than 7 per race avg.

[Tom]

The only thing I like about Saratoga is the PA crowd there.
Some people love the place, but it the most uncomfortable, over-priced, impossible to watch the races track of any I have been to. Other than the Toga crowd, I would rank it "not interested."

I've been going since 1977 - I think I won't be making the trip anymore.
Last year, I lasted three races, than I just left and went home. I have not regreted the decision.

[the little guy]

The way the ratings are configured is laid out here: http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

We're still trying to get the sortable ratings up on the website. You can disagree all you want, but nothing is being skewed here.

The main point of these ratings is to have the information in one place where all players can see what kind of field size, handle, and takeout they should expect at each track. I hope we can all agree that is valuable information, even if our favorite track isn't at the top of the list.


Horseplayers vote every day, with their dollars, and being that the NYRA tracks account for roughly 25% of the money wagered on US races annually, HORSEPLAYERS have made it clear what tracks they like. Now, I have no problem with any one person that says they prefer such and such tracks, and conversely don't like other tracks, as long as it is understood that they speak for themselves. My problem comes when somebody claims to speak for horseplayers when that is CLEARLY not the case.

[Charli125]

Horseplayers vote every day, with their dollars, and being that the NYRA tracks account for roughly 25% of the money wagered on US races annually, HORSEPLAYERS have made it clear what tracks they like. Now, I have no problem with any one person that says they prefer such and such tracks, and conversely don't like other tracks, as long as it is understood that they speak for themselves. My problem comes when somebody claims to speak for horseplayers when that is CLEARLY not the case.
That's interesting, because horseplayers voted in our surveys, and pool size was NOT their number one focus. It was definitely a focus, but not the biggest. So it was CLEARLY the case that other things mattered more.

If you choose to look at pool size as your number 1 factor in choosing a track, then you're certainly correct that Saratoga would be your #1. If field size or say, P4 takeout, was your number 1 factor in choosing a track, then it wouldn't be. Thus the whole point of having the ratings sort-able by factor.

[the little guy]

That's interesting, because horseplayers voted in our surveys, and pool size was NOT their number one focus. It was definitely a focus, but not the biggest. So it was CLEARLY the case that other things mattered more.

If you choose to look at pool size as your number 1 factor in choosing a track, then you're certainly correct that Saratoga would be your #1. If field size or say, P4 takeout, was your number 1 factor in choosing a track, then it wouldn't be. Thus the whole point of having the ratings sort-able by factor.


You are missing the point. The votes are cast by dollars every day. The results are in.

[thaskalos]

Horseplayers vote every day, with their dollars, and being that the NYRA tracks account for roughly 25% of the money wagered on US races annually, HORSEPLAYERS have made it clear what tracks they like. Now, I have no problem with any one person that says they prefer such and such tracks, and conversely don't like other tracks, as long as it is understood that they speak for themselves. My problem comes when somebody claims to speak for horseplayers when that is CLEARLY not the case.

Mutuel pool size at a race track indicates popularity...but not superiority. The two are not related...and nowhere was this more apparent than the recently concluded Aqueduct winter meet.

Couple the short fields with excessive exotics takeouts, and you have a product not worthy of complimenting...regardless of what the mutuel pools say.

[ronsmac]

Lots of money is bet at Socal tracks and they have high takeout, lots of small fields, high signal fees, not as rebate friendly as some tracks, yet people still bet alot of money there. Does that make them higher rated tracks because of the big pools? I personally don't think so, but if all you care about is handle, then they are amongst the top tracks.

[tzipi]

Mutuel pool size at a race track indicates popularity...but not superiority. The two are not related...and nowhere was this more apparent than the recently concluded Aqueduct winter meet.

Couple the short fields with excessive exotics takeouts, and you have a product not worthy of complimenting...regardless of what the mutuel pools say.


But don't the mutuel pools tell where people are putting there money and what tracks they really want. That's the best judging meter.

[Charli125]

You are missing the point. The votes are cast by dollars every day. The results are in.

A $20 bettor doesn't care if the track is going to handle 200K, 500K or 2 million. Some people find great value at harness tracks that handle peanuts on a Tuesday night. Some people would rather play a 12% P4 at Sam Houston, or a 14% P4 at Canterbury than to play into a P4 at Saratoga with a giant pool.

Just sort by pool size and you'll be very happy.

[thaskalos]

But don't the mutuel pools tell where people are putting there money and what tracks they really want. That's the best judging meter.

I'll let you answer your own question, tzipi.

I assume you played Aqueduct during their winter meet; was that what you really wanted?

Did their mutuel pools reflect the quality of their product?

IMO...the HANA ratings are not accurate overall -- but there indeed is a need for ratings which reflect the product being offered to the horseplayers.

Pool size does not tell us very much...

[cj]

Pool size does not tell us very much...

If you are a $20 bettor, that is correct, though at some tracks even that amount could be a factor. If you are a serious bettor, it couldn't be further from the truth.

[Gallop58]

How much does the KD skew the average handle per race number for Churchill?
Is Breeders Cup handle removed or included?

[thaskalos]

If you are a $20 bettor, that is correct, though at some tracks even that amount could be a factor. If you are a serious bettor, it couldn't be further from the truth.

I know where you are going with this, Cj...and I agree.

But even serious players have more considerations than just the size of the mutuel pools when they assess the product being offered at a race track.

Yes...a track with a small mutuel pool is unpleasant for the serious player.

But so is a track with the "evil twins"...tiny fields and excessive exotics takeouts.

And that's what Aqueduct was this winter.

[the little guy]

A $20 bettor doesn't care if the track is going to handle 200K, 500K or 2 million. Some people find great value at harness tracks that handle peanuts on a Tuesday night. Some people would rather play a 12% P4 at Sam Houston, or a 14% P4 at Canterbury than to play into a P4 at Saratoga with a giant pool.

Just sort by pool size and you'll be very happy.

And all people should do what works best for them, as I have clearly already stated. And most of them have spoken that they completely disagree with the assertions of HANA, which makes the HANA assertion that they speak for horseplayers extremely suspect.

[tzipi]

I'll let you answer your own question, tzipi.

I assume you played Aqueduct during their winter meet; was that what you really wanted?

Did their mutuel pools reflect the quality of their product?

IMO...the HANA ratings are not accurate overall -- but there indeed is a need for ratings which reflect the product being offered to the horseplayers.

Pool size does not tell us very much...

No, I played a couple of tracks this winter. Yes I did play Aqueduct too when I saw value. I put my money where I think is best.

[Charli125]

And all people should do what works best for them, as I have clearly already stated. And most of them have spoken that they completely disagree with the assertions of HANA, which makes the HANA assertion that they speak for horseplayers extremely suspect.

Not sure who the "most of them" you're talking about are, but we're going to keep doing our ratings based on feedback we get from players, of which you're 1 of many.

And you actually said this: Whatever categories have tracks like Oaklawn and Sam Houston as better than Saratoga are not representing the best interests of horseplayers. So the categories that you think are important(handle), are in the best interests of horseplayers, while the categories you don't think are important(takeout), are NOT in the best interests of horseplayers. Also, you do know that both of the tracks you mentioned have bigger fields than Saratoga right?

That's your personal preference, but everyone else doesn't necessarily agree with it. Don't know why you take this as a knock on Saratoga. They do some things great and they do some poorly, just like every other track.

[Jay Trotter]

Hats off to HANA! Really appreciate the work. :ThmbUp:

[cj]

Sam Houston on any list as a recommended track is a joke. They can't even time their races properly, and refuse to even give a response when questioned on it. They have little handle too. So, they can't time races, have little handle, but because they have better field size they are a top 10 track? Come on...

14% takeouts are great if people actually put money in the pools. But if they don't, it doesn't matter. Bettors know minor league tracks when they seem them, and they bet accordingly regardless of field size, takeouts, etc.

[JustRalph]

Sam Houston on any list as a recommended track is a joke. They can't even time their races properly, and refuse to even give a response when questioned on it. They have little handle too. So, they can't time races, have little handle, but because they have better field size they are a top 10 track? Come on...

14% takeouts are great if people actually put money in the pools. But if they don't, it doesn't matter. Bettors know minor league tracks when they seem them, and they bet accordingly regardless of field size, takeouts, etc.

Therein lies a problem in my opine. Maybe all tracks shouldn't be in the running. The original thrust of this thread was to recognize these guys who give their time freely, and work hard on this stuff. Kudo's to them. they are doing more than anybody else behind the scenes.

They don't have a public forum, besides the web, they toil, and I believe there is value. Whether they represent the majority ? Who cares, nobody else is doing similar work. And they make very very valid points on lots of subjects of interest to all players.

Lots of good points in this thread. I am sure Jeff and the crew will take into account some of this stuff next year.

[GameTheory]

Aren't the ratings better viewed as more like reviews, i.e. places you SHOULD consider betting because of x, y, & z? So maybe some of those smaller tracks OUGHT to get more handle, and here's why. And sure Saratoga is very popular, but maybe there are good opportunities to be had at Oaklawn? Everybody knows which tracks do the most handle -- no point in making a list if that is all you are going to cite. The point is to examine the other factors you may not have considered (or didn't want to put the work into doing as has been done for you here), and now you have this nice reference and can make more intelligent choices where to put your wagering dollar. Just like if you were looking at movie reviews to find something good to watch, you'd want them to tell you something other than the box office numbers...

[banacek]

Thank you HANA for the work you do.

Any ratings are inherently subjective. What one person thinks is most important is different than what another does - we understand this because we all handicap races- based on speed #3, based on class #2, based on pace #7.

Most of the comments are of that sort. How can Bugaboo Downs be better than Hollyrock Park? It is because of the weights different factors have in the analysis. HANA had to take things into account and select some weights and go with them.

I don't totally agree with the rankings, but I am glad someone is taking the time and effort to do it. Others would weight things different. Doesn't make anyone wrong, or take anything away from the work that is being done.

Secretariat or Man O War..I pick Secretariat based on what I feel are the important factors, others don't. Doesn't make them wrong.

Citizan Kane or Casablanca? Hey Jude or Stairway to Heaven?

Saratoga or Oaklawn?

Well if I had to choose which I would watch live - it would be Saratoga. If I had to choose which one I would bet - could be either - for me which one gives me the best wagering opportunity, because that's what is personally important to me.

[acorn54]

i for one feel that hana is my advocate in getting improvement in the activity of gambling on horses. i think it is hard to judge the better tracks. for me i can tell from my betting records which tracks are better than others. it varies season to season. i am a small bettor only betting about 10 thousand or so a year, but takeout is my biggest concern as it affects the bottom line. of course if you are looking at horseracing as recreation and for the history and romance of the sport your priorities are different.

[Tom]

Mutuel pool size at a race track indicates popularity...but not superiority. The two are not related...and nowhere was this more apparent than the recently concluded Aqueduct winter meet.

Couple the short fields with excessive exotics takeouts, and you have a product not worthy of complimenting...regardless of what the mutuel pools say.

When you have fuller fields at Aqueduct, like today, you just end up with more horses trailing the filed, totally outrun, like the 6th, just completed. :rolleyes:
Same with SA 2nd, just completed.
Lot of really bad horses in both. To celebrate the big races, they add races and 20-30 more horses for the card that have barely enough juice to make it through the post parade.

Can racing put together competitive races on a daily basis anymore? Seems like the conditions of most races fail to put together horses of like ability.

Give me a 4 horse race if it is competitive.

[cj]

Therein lies a problem in my opine. Maybe all tracks shouldn't be in the running. The original thrust of this thread was to recognize these guys who give their time freely, and work hard on this stuff. Kudo's to them. they are doing more than anybody else behind the scenes.

They don't have a public forum, besides the web, they toil, and I believe there is value. Whether they represent the majority ? Who cares, nobody else is doing similar work. And they make very very valid points on lots of subjects of interest to all players.

Lots of good points in this thread. I am sure Jeff and the crew will take into account some of this stuff next year.

I'm not knocking the work done. I don't think it was done with an agenda to pick tracks in a certain order. I'm just pointing out some of the flaws. It seems to me to be skewed towards small bettors. That is fine, but worth mentioning.

I also don't agree that offering tons of different exotics is a good thing. What good does it do if it dilutes the pools of those in existence, particularly at small tracks. But again, that is just my opinion. Lots of people apparently like the option to bet into small, diluted pools. I'm just not one of them.

[GameTheory]

I'm not knocking the work done. I don't think it was done with an agenda to pick tracks in a certain order. Most of the criticism seems to be that it *wasn't* done that way, i.e. Saratoga didn't end up on top, so it is wrong...

[cj]

Most of the criticism seems to be that it *wasn't* done that way, i.e. Saratoga didn't end up on top, so it is wrong...

I don't see that. Did anyone gripe about Keeneland being on top? People are complaining about the metrics used, and I think some of the same exact things came up last year when Retama Park was listed pretty high.

[mountainman]

I repect Hanna and some of their reps. They've tried to step up and fill a shameful vacuum. But noble purpose should not absolve them of critique. And as an admitted "homer," i'm going to offer some: Mountaineer outhandles pid nearly 3-1, has at LEAST 3x pid's following, runs more race dates while STILL offering bigger fields, and also cards grass racing. Yet pid is rated HIGHER? C'mon guys, there is something seriously wrong with your grading system.

[Stillriledup]

I repect Hanna and some of their reps. They've tried to step up and fill a shameful vacuum. But noble purpose should not absolve them of critique. And as an admitted "homer," i'm going to offer some: Mountaineer outhandles pid nearly 3-1, has at LEAST 3x pid's following, runs more race dates while STILL offering bigger fields, and also cards grass racing. Yet pid is rated HIGHER? C'mon guys, there is something seriously wrong with your grading system.

Maybe there's no mad bomber at PID manipulating pools? :D

[mountainman]

Maybe there's no mad bomber at PID manipulating pools? :D

Or anybody else placing wagers.

[cj]

Or anybody else placing wagers.

It is tough to bet ANY of the pools at PID. Even the big days they run (Masters, for example) the handle is putrid.

[mountainman]

It is tough to bet ANY of the pools at PID. Even the big days they run (Masters, for example) the handle is putrid.

Any opinion why? It's always puzzled me a bit. They do put out decent cards.

[Maximillion]

Any opinion why? It's always puzzled me a bit. They do put out decent cards.

I was wondering the same thing.....Never made a bet there but have looked at it, and it didnt seem like the dreadful product the handle would suggest.Maybe switching to Mondays will help.

[cj]

Any opinion why? It's always puzzled me a bit. They do put out decent cards.

I don't know, other than they run at weird times and on weird days. Still, that could only be a small part of it.

[Rook]

I've got my spreadsheet in front of me that has the effective takeout (actual takeout - rebates) of 71 tracks. The NYRA tracks are the absolute worst on the list.

There are a whole bunch of tracks where a handicapper can get an extra 4 or 5 cents on the dollar and those sort of numbers add up in a big way.

For a fan, Saratoga may be a fine place, but as far as bettors are concerned, it deserves to be much closer to the bottom than the top.

Horseplayers need to be educated to spend their time on tracks that give them a much better chance of coming out ahead.

[cj]

I've got my spreadsheet in front of me that has the effective takeout (actual takeout - rebates) of 71 tracks. The NYRA tracks are the absolute worst on the list.

There are a whole bunch of tracks where a handicapper can get an extra 4 or 5 cents on the dollar and those sort of numbers add up in a big way.

For a fan, Saratoga may be a fine place, but as far as bettors are concerned, it deserves to be much closer to the bottom than the top.

Horseplayers need to be educated to spend their time on tracks that give them a much better chance of coming out ahead.

I guess that depends on which pools one plays, right?

[Rook]

I guess that depends on which pools one plays, right?

No, when rebates are included, NYRA takeouts are the worst across the board. Horseplayers shouldn't put up with double digit takeout. It's the number one reason this game has been in a long decline compared to other forms of gambling.

[cj]

No, when rebates are included, NYRA takeouts are the worst across the board. Horseplayers shouldn't put up with double digit takeout. It's the number one reason this game has been in a long decline compared to other forms of gambling.

Rebates are part of these rankings? I don't think that is correct.

[Rook]

Rebates are part of these rankings? I don't think that is correct.

Well, they should be and it's an absolute disgrace that they are not, since they are the key to making serious money betting on horses.

[cj]

Well, they should be and it's an absolute disgrace that they are not, since they are the key to making serious money betting on horses.

How do you include those in the ratings? Do you assume everyone has equal access to the same rates?

The key to making serious money betting horses is still, and always has been, picking horses with qualities others don't see.

[Rook]

How do you include those in the ratings? Do you assume everyone has equal access to the same rates?


Quite simply, by reporting the percentage that they charge a sample of ADWs for their signal. NYRA has tiny rebates compared to the other tracks because they gouge the ADWs so that they have so little to pass on to the customer.

[cj]

Quite simply, by reporting the percentage that they charge a sample of ADWs for their signal. NYRA has tiny rebates compared to the other tracks because they gouge the ADWs so that they have so little to pass on to the customer.

I'm guessing they do that because they can, as would any other track.

[Rook]

I'm guessing they do that because they can, as would any other track.

Sure they can because there are a lot of people who out of tradition or habit foolishly think its a great circuit to play when in fact it's one of the worst.

If you want to make money, you'd be better off playing virtually anywhere else.

[cj]

Sure they can because there are a lot of people who out of tradition or habit foolishly think its a great circuit to play when in fact it's one of the worst.

If you want to make money, you'd be better off playing virtually anywhere else.

Really? I bet the winners of the 12th and the 4th today, and the bets didn't have much affect on the odds. That matters a lot to me.

[Rook]

Really? I bet the winners of the 12th and the 4th today, and the bets didn't have much affect on the odds. That matters a lot to me.

Sure, bets not affecting your odds is sweet but not as sweet as an extra 5% added to every dollar wagered. The bottom line is that at the end of virtually every card, there is higher percentage of rebate players that come out ahead at other tracks compared to NYRA.

A group enduring 12% takeout day after day is going to do a lot worse than one paying 7%.

[cj]

Sure, bets not affecting your odds is sweet but not as sweet as an extra 5% added to every dollar wagered. The bottom line is that at the end of virtually every card, there is higher percentage of rebate players that come out ahead at other tracks compared to NYRA.

A group enduring 12% takeout day after day is going to do a lot worse than one paying 7%.

Maybe, maybe not. If you are betting in small pools, it can easily change your price for the worse by more than 5%. There is a balance there that the bettor needs to strike. You simple can't make as much if you have an edge betting Turf Paradise or Delta Downs as you can betting NYRA. Better ROI with rebate, sure. But more cash, no, and OU won't accept ROI for tuition.

[Rook]

Maybe, maybe not....

There is no maybes about it. The group paying 12% is going to suffer compared to the 7% group.

Horseplayers shouldn't be defending circuits that gouge them. NYRA is on the top of that list. They deserve to have the worst handle instead of the best.

[Maximillion]

Maybe, maybe not. If you are betting in small pools, it can easily change your price for the worse by more than 5%. There is a balance there that the bettor needs to strike. You simple can't make as much if you have an edge betting Turf Paradise or Delta Downs as you can betting NYRA. Better ROI with rebate, sure. But more cash, no, and OU won't accept ROI for tuition.

Dont mean to nitpick but the handle at Delta was pretty healthy.....obviously no New York/California/Florida but far ahead of nearly all of the "minor" tracks and even ahead of Oaklawn on some days.

[cj]

Dont mean to nitpick but the handle at Delta was pretty healthy.....obviously no New York/California/Florida but far ahead of nearly all of the "minor" tracks and even ahead of Oaklawn on some days.

Some pools are ok, and I like betting Delta. Some pools are a waste of money.

[cj]

There is no maybes about it. The group paying 12% is going to suffer compared to the 7% group.

Horseplayers shouldn't be defending circuits that gouge them. NYRA is on the top of that list. They deserve to have the worst handle instead of the best.

The group paying 7% can't bet nearly as much money. If you have an edge, that matters a lot.

[Rook]

The group paying 7% can't bet nearly as much money. If you have an edge, that matters a lot.

Sure, everybody would rather have a 20% edge at NYRA than TUP or DED but guess what? The reality is that the overwhelming majority of players are going to be fighting tooth and nail to overcome NYRAs double digit effective takeout wheras the single digits at other tracks are considerably easier to overcome.

To suggest otherwise is to be of great disservice to horseplayers.

[cj]

Sure, everybody would rather have a 20% edge at NYRA than TUP or DED but guess what? The reality is that the overwhelming majority of players are going to be fighting tooth and nail to overcome NYRAs double digit effective takeout wheras the single digits at other tracks are considerably easier to overcome.

To suggest otherwise is to be of great disservice to horseplayers.

Like I said, there is a balance. You keep saying I'm doing horseplayers a disservice. I don't think so at all. I'm stating facts. Keep betting $200 on longshots at Sunland Park and see how much that rebate helps.

[Rook]

Like I said, there is a balance. You keep saying I'm doing horseplayers a disservice. I don't think so at all...

You are doing them a disservice because you keep defending a circuit that charges the serious horseplayers the highest price to play. We would be far better off if all of us put our money into places that give us the lowest effective takeout.

Just because NYRA has big handles doesn't mean they deserve them. It is quite the opposite. They deserve us switching our handle to places like SUN, DED, TUP etc.

[cj]

You are doing them a disservice because you keep defending a circuit that charges the serious horseplayers the highest price to play. We would be far better off if all of us put our money into places that give us the lowest effective takeout.

Just because NYRA has big handles doesn't mean they deserve them. It is quite the opposite. They deserve us switching our handle to places like SUN, DED, TUP etc.

There is so much more to it than that. It isn't just tradition as to why people play there. The racing is better quality, and so is the regulation. The drug testing is better, the horsemen are better, the riders are better.

But still, pool size matters, a lot. It will take a lot of extra rebate points to make up for hitting a super or tri that should have paid $10,000 for $2 (and does in New York or SoCal), but pays $1,800 in the minor leagues because that is all there is to pay.

[Rook]

There is so much more to it than that. It isn't just tradition as to why people play there. The racing is better quality, and so is the regulation. The drug testing is better, the horsemen are better, the riders are better. ..


I come at it from a perspective of a guy who primarily wants to make money from betting and because of that the quality of the horses and jockeys is a relatively trivial concern. I'll leave that concern to the fan.

As far as the drug testing and the integrity of the races at various tracks, this would be worthy of a long and fascinating thread but I sure wouldn't be nominating NYRA as my shining example there either.

Louisiana and Pennsylvania are two states that don't have a great reputation on Pace Advantage, but they have been my most profitable states over the years.

When a bettor plays a broad range of tracks, the evidence becomes overwhelming that the circuits that have the lowest effective takeout are the ones where it is easiest to make money. NYRA is the worst place (followed by California) for the vast majority of players to come out ahead over the long run.

[ronsmac]

You are doing them a disservice because you keep defending a circuit that charges the serious horseplayers the highest price to play. We would be far better off if all of us put our money into places that give us the lowest effective takeout.

Just because NYRA has big handles doesn't mean they deserve them. It is quite the opposite. They deserve us switching our handle to places like SUN, DED, TUP etc.
you make great points, one problem is if everyone started betting those other tracks I bet they'd raise their rates the way tampa has over the last few yrs.

[Rook]

you make great points, one problem is if everyone started betting those other tracks I bet they'd raise their rates the way tampa has over the last few yrs.

You make a good point about Tampa. They have a way better reputation than they deserve. Their effective takeout rate is only a half point better than NYRA's, so that puts them right near the bottom of the list too.

[cj]

You make a good point about Tampa. They have a way better reputation than they deserve. Their effective takeout rate is only a half point better than NYRA's, so that puts them right near the bottom of the list too.

...and the same thing will happen to the other tracks as they get more handle. That is the way it works. Pool size is just as important as takeout for me. Handle drives price, and there is a reason for that. People think pool size is more important than takeout for the most part. I think they are both important and need to be analyzed together. I bet nearly ALL tracks to varying degrees.

[thaskalos]

...and the same thing will happen to the other tracks as they get more handle. That is the way it works. Pool size is just as important as takeout for me. Handle drives price, and there is a reason for that. People think pool size is more important than takeout for the most part. I think they are both important and need to be analyzed together. I bet nearly ALL tracks to varying degrees.
Are you currently betting NY as much as you did in the past?

[Rook]

...and the same thing will happen to the other tracks as they get more handle. That is the way it works.
That's the way it works as long as people keep putting up with crap like NYRA. It doesn't have to be that way. A track like Delta worked hard at increasing handle by beating NYRA's rates by more than 5 points this past meet. Their daily handle was up 13.8 percent this year.

That is the sort of track that should be supported with our wagers.


Pool size is just as important as takeout for me.

If you are among the tiny percent of bettors that can clearly overcome double digit effective takeout, that makes sense on a personal level. Otherwise, it is dumb over the long run.

As far as the interests of bettors as a whole, it isn't a close contest. High takeout is a killer, both to the bankroll and the future of the sport .

[Maximillion]

That's the way it works as long as people keep putting up with crap like NYRA. It doesn't have to be that way. A track like Delta worked hard at increasing handle by beating NYRA's rates by more than 5 points this past meet. Their daily handle was up 13.8 percent this year.

That is the sort of track that should be supported with our wagers.


If you are among the tiny percent of bettors that can clearly overcome double digit effective takeout, that makes sense on a personal level. Otherwise, it is dumb over the long run.

As far as the interests of bettors as a whole, it isn't a close contest. High takeout is a killer, both to the bankroll and the future of the sport .

You make some good points.....but taking the rebate out of the equation,if there were 10 tracks like Delta Downs I would be extremely confident in my long term success in this game.Give me a track with a boatload of horses who have respectable ability..(not populated with one-trick ponys who can only race well on the lead)...tons of different dirt races at slight changes of distances and Im a happy camper.

Are there any tracks you would not touch regardless of rebate?

[Rook]

Are there any tracks you would not touch regardless of rebate?

Sure, there are a handful of tracks I have not enjoyed playing over the years even though I get a great effective takeout. Those tracks include ELP, FMT, SRP, ALB and ARP.

I can't blame those tracks though. They give me a good deal but my numbers just haven't worked there.

This is in contrast to the NYRA tracks which have really stacked the deck against the horseplayer.

[cj]

Are you currently betting NY as much as you did in the past?

Not over the winter I didn't.

[Maximillion]

Sure, there are a handful of tracks I have not enjoyed playing over the years even though I get a great effective takeout. Those tracks include ELP, FMT, SRP, ALB and ARP.

I can't blame those tracks though. They give me a good deal but my numbers just haven't worked there.

This is in contrast to the NYRA tracks which have really stacked the deck against the horseplayer.

Thanks Rook,
Of those only payed Ellis and it has not been kind to me either.

[acorn54]

I come at it from a perspective of a guy who primarily wants to make money from betting and because of that the quality of the horses and jockeys is a relatively trivial concern. I'll leave that concern to the fan.

As far as the drug testing and the integrity of the races at various tracks, this would be worthy of a long and fascinating thread but I sure wouldn't be nominating NYRA as my shining example there either.

Louisiana and Pennsylvania are two states that don't have a great reputation on Pace Advantage, but they have been my most profitable states over the years.

When a bettor plays a broad range of tracks, the evidence becomes overwhelming that the circuits that have the lowest effective takeout are the ones where it is easiest to make money. NYRA is the worst place (followed by California) for the vast majority of players to come out ahead over the long run.


my betting records show that penn national and the louisiana circuit are some of the most profitable for me also. and yes the california circuit is at the low end of profitability for me, and new york is a mixed bag.
i will say with the evolution in racing to smaller fields as a whole and because of lower rebate since pinnacle quit taking horse bets in the u.s. i have less churn. i am also finding less opportunity for value bets and don't bet as much as i use to. i can't see how anyone can say the evolution of horsebetting over the past couple of years has been an encouraging trend for young blood to get invovled in horsebetting.

[KingChas]

Saratoga is great, but us handicappers know it is tough as hell to have a winning year at the Spaaaaaaaaaaaa;)

Are you speaking for yourself or HANA survey members :confused:

[Robert Fischer]

...
...
...
...
...
...

Why not break down some wager types?
Show what you mean by effective takeout, and be explicit about how people would access these rebates.

Then CJ or someone can counter by doing the same with any wager types that were left out (superfecta for example).

Doesn't seem like you guys are making much progress for either side of the debate over the last several pages.

[Rook]

Why not break down some wager types?
Show what you mean by effective takeout, and be explicit about how people would access these rebates.

Then CJ or someone can counter by doing the same with any wager types that were left out (superfecta for example). ..

It doesn't matter about the wager type because it is the same result. NYRA charges far more for their host fee than most other tracks.

When I talk about effective takeout, this is an example of what I am referring to: NYRA has a WPS takeout of 16%. Fort Erie has a takeout of 16.95%. For the casual fan that goes to the track a few times a year, NYRA is the better deal.

However, for the more serious player who has sought out rebates, Fort Erie has the much better pricing. This is because NYRA charges the ADW around 10% for their signal and smaller tracks like Fort Erie charge as low as 3%.

Since the ADW has only 6% to work with (NYRA 16% takeout -10% fee), the ADW can only afford to give the customer a 5% rebate, and retain 1% to cover costs. For the customer, the effective takeout is 11%.

With Fort Erie, since the ADW is charged 3%, the ADW has 13.95% to work with and can give the customer 11% rebate and the customer's effective takeout is 5.95%.

[cj]

Why not break down some wager types?
Show what you mean by effective takeout, and be explicit about how people would access these rebates.

Then CJ or someone can counter by doing the same with any wager types that were left out (superfecta for example).

Doesn't seem like you guys are making much progress for either side of the debate over the last several pages.

I've never said a better takeout isn't a good thing, I've just said it is not the only thing. Pool size and takeout are both important factors.

Like I said earlier, it will take a lot of rebate points to make up for getting paid $1,000 for a superfecta that would have paid $5,000 at a track with a big pool. I don't really care about what tracks rook says people should bet, I care about the ones they do bet.

[Rook]

I don't really care about what tracks rook says people should bet, I care about the ones they do bet.
Too bad NYRA has been gouging you all winter. You could have been able to afford to bet a lot more there.

[tzipi]

CJ has made a very good point that maybe he's comfortable with. If he bets a good amount of money at Aqu, Bel, Sar, the odds won't plummet and kill his value and price because of the decent size pools. I agree with him.

[Rook]

CJ has made a very good point that maybe he's comfortable with. If he bets a good amount of money at Aqu, Bel, Sar, the odds won't plummet and kill his value and price because of the decent size pools. I agree with him.
Too bad it's hardest to find good value at NYRA compared to the better priced tracks. If everyone on PA submitted their wagering histories, basic math would reveal which tracks we should stay away from.

[cj]

Too bad NYRA has been gouging you all winter. You could have been able to afford to bet a lot more there.

I don't mind paying more for a good steak as compared to going to Sizzler. I pay more to go see the Rangers than I do the RedHawks, and more for the Thunder than to see the 66ers. Is that gouging too? You have yet to address the issues with small pools. I prefer to get paid what a bet should pay, not the "pool limit".

Like I said, I bet plenty of other tracks. I just educate myself so I know how much to bet at each place most efficiently. If I have to pay a little more to bet in the biggest pools, I'm ok with that. It works out in the end because my bets have less effect on my payouts.

Nobody wishes more than I do that we had HUGE pools and LOW takeout. But since we don't, and I can't control either, I deal with it.

[cj]

I've yet to hear a good defense of Sam Houston being high up in the rankings. The place was a joke this past meet.

[JustRalph]

I've yet to hear a good defense of Sam Houston being high up in the rankings. The place was a joke this past meet.

Contraction comes to mind, again.........

[Rook]

I don't mind paying more for a good steak as compared to going to Sizzler. I pay more to go see the Rangers than I do the RedHawks, and more for the Thunder than to see the 66ers. Is that gouging too?

If you get more entertainment out of NYRA than the other tracks then you and I are very different horseplayers. I get entertainment only out of the tracks where I win.


You have yet to address the issues with small pools. I prefer to get paid what a bet should pay, not the "pool limit".

What would you like me to address? The fact that I wish that the high rebate tracks had bigger pools? Of course I do. That is why I am promoting them in this thread. They deserve bettors attention. The circuit that charges the highest host fees sure doesn't.

If I have to pay a little more to bet in the biggest pools, I'm ok with that. It works out in the end....

No it doesn't. In any race it can work out but at the end of each year, horseplayers in aggregate are farther behind with NYRA tracks then they are with the others.


Nobody wishes more than I do that we had HUGE pools and LOW takeout. But since we don't, and I can't control either, I deal with it.
Yes, earlier in this thread you acknowledged you dealt with it by betting less at NYRA this past winter. I don't blame you. It's hard to be fully in the game at high takeout levels.

[cj]

If you get more entertainment out of NYRA than the other tracks then you and I are very different horseplayers. I get entertainment only out of the tracks where I win.


What would you like me to address? The fact that I wish that the high rebate tracks had bigger pools? Of course I do. That is why I am promoting them in this thread. They deserve bettors attention. The circuit that charges the highest host fees sure doesn't.


No it doesn't. In any race it can work out but at the end of each year, horseplayers in aggregate are farther behind with NYRA tracks then they are with the others.


Yes, earlier in this thread you acknowledged you dealt with it by betting less at NYRA this past winter. I don't blame you. It's hard to be fully in the game at high takeout levels.

If I didn't do well at NYRA tracks I'd stop betting them, just like any other track.

You say it doesn't work out in the end, but that isn't true for me. I can't speak for others. I bet less this winter because there were too many small fields and maiden races with bad horses, but that is pretty much everywhere, not just NYRA.

Like I've said (and you've ignored), it takes a whole lot of rebate to make up for thousands you don't get because pools are too small. Like I also said, you can't spend ROI, just money.

[Robert Fischer]

It looks like everybody is making solid points. There can be multiple truths, as long as each strategy is beneficial.

It seems to me that the rebate side of the equation plays a major role in these ratings.

What resources do you guys offer regarding educating players about maximizing their rebate opportunity?

[cj]

It looks like everybody is making solid points. There can be multiple truths, as long as each strategy is beneficial.

It seems to me that the rebate side of the equation plays a major role in these ratings.

What resources do you guys offer regarding educating players about maximizing their rebate opportunity?

I don't think rebates have anything to do with the ratings.

[Jens]

Unfortunately, rebates are not an option for a large segment of racing fans.

[Rook]

You say it doesn't work out in the end, but that isn't true for me.

Due to the sky high effective takeout, it is a mathematical fact that it doesn't work for horseplayers as a whole. I'll have to take your word for it that you have bet the many millions of dollars across multiple tracks to prove that NYRA works for you. I'd bet with some more diverse experience you would come to a different conclusion.


Like I've said (and you've ignored), it takes a whole lot of rebate to make up for thousands you don't get because pools are too small. Like I also said, you can't spend ROI, just money.
I charitably ignored the comment because it lacks merit. A whole lot of rebate is exactly what these tracks offer and that's what makes them so superior to NYRA.

A large player can run up rebates into the hundreds of thousands and beyond each year by playing these smaller tracks day after day. Betting one percent of the total handle at a place like CT or Pen will get you around $10k per card worth of action and well over $1k in rebate. This is not a trivial amount to the vast majority of the people on this board.

[cj]

A large player can run up rebates into the hundreds of thousands and beyond each year by playing these smaller tracks day after day. Betting one percent of the total handle at place like CT or Pen will get you around $10k per card worth of action and well over $1k in rebate. This is not a trivial amount to the vast majority of the people on this board.

The vast majority of people on this board are not large players and do not bet enough to get them anywhere near the kinds of rebates you are talking about. The truth is the actual takeout is more important to almost all of them than effective takeout.

The person betting $1 trifectas that pay $1,500 at a small track that would have paid much more at a big track are going to have a hard time catching up.

[Rook]

The vast majority of people on this board are not large players ....

If they are not large players, then they don't have to stress about the size of their bets killing their prices. There are times they will get short changed but then again due to the smaller size of the pools, the payoffs are inefficient and just as often the price comes in way better than expected. Instead of a $1500 payoff at NYRA, a whole pool of $6k could be swept.

The reason I entered this thread is that I can speak from experience. In front of me is a spreadsheet that shows my all time profit and loss over 78 different tracks.

AQU is ranked #47, Bel is #73 and Sar is #75. Southern Cailfornia, the other circuit that charges outrageous host fees has Hol at #30, SA at #70 and DMR rock bottom at #78.

The two things these circuits have in common is tough competition attracted by the big pools and horrible effective takeout. A bettor's paradise it is not!

For those that think NYRA is so great, I would love to know the extent of their experience with lessor tracks.

[cj]

If they are not large players, then they don't have to stress about the size of their bets killing their prices. There are times they will get short changed but then again due to the smaller size of the pools, the payoffs are inefficient and just as often the price comes in way better than expected. Instead of a $1500 payoff at NYRA, a whole pool of $6k could be swept.

The reason I entered this thread is that I can speak from experience. In front of me is a spreadsheet that shows my all time profit and loss over 78 different tracks.

AQU is ranked #47, Bel is #73 and Sar is #75. Southern Cailfornia, the other circuit that charges outrageous host fees has Hol at #30, SA at #70 and DMR rock bottom at #78.

The two things these circuits have in common is tough competition attracted by the big pools and horrible effective takeout. A bettor's paradise it is not!

For those that think NYRA is so great, I would love to know the extent of their experience with lessor tracks.

I have no doubt those are your results. But, I suspect you have built your play around getting rebates. Therefore, it really isn't a surprise that you get the worst results where you get the worst rebate.

I have a lot of experience too, and the times of benefiting from inefficient P3/P4/Tri/Super pools is FAR outweighed by the times you get short changed. There is no chance your "just as often" argument is true in my experience.

I think we've pretty much run this into the ground, so I will move on so this thread can get back to the HANA ratings. Rebates aren't part of them. You've made your point you think they should be. Time to move on.

[Rook]

I have no doubt those are your results. But, I suspect you have built your play around getting rebates. Therefore, it really isn't a surprise that you get the worst results where you get the worst rebate.

Yes, I have absolutely built my play around low effective takeout tracks. Rebates are the only way to get low takeout so those are the best places to play. NYRA is the worst example of this so I have to take issue with those that think NYRA is a horseplayer's friend.


I have a lot of experience too, and the times of benefiting from inefficient P3/P4/Tri/Super pools is FAR outweighed by the times you get short changed. There is no chance your "just as often" argument is true in my experience.

Then frankly you don't have the requisite experience with enough tracks and a wide range of pools. I'm sorry you did not share with us how many minor league tracks have provided you with a worse P&L than NYRA tracks.

If small tracks were that bad then there is no way that a guy with absolutely zero connections could have places like CT, DED and PID in his top 10 P&L list.

One problem with small tracks is that you do have to be aware of the typical pool size. It's kind of crazy that the last race run at WRD had an exacta pool of $33.9k but a Pick 3 pool of only $1.6k but those are the kind of things you have to know if you are betting more than a few bucks or extreme longshots.

[riskman]

Aren't the ratings better viewed as more like reviews, i.e. places you SHOULD consider betting because of x, y, & z? So maybe some of those smaller tracks OUGHT to get more handle, and here's why. And sure Saratoga is very popular, but maybe there are good opportunities to be had at Oaklawn? Everybody knows which tracks do the most handle -- no point in making a list if that is all you are going to cite. The point is to examine the other factors you may not have considered (or didn't want to put the work into doing as has been done for you here), and now you have this nice reference and can make more intelligent choices where to put your wagering dollar. Just like if you were looking at movie reviews to find something good to watch, you'd want them to tell you something other than the box office numbers...

This is exactly how I view the HANA report, which by the way is an excellent source of track info. Personally, I do not see any agenda here other than providing horse players with specific information not available in a single source that I am aware of in the industry. In terms of the rankings, it has already been explained how HANA came up with the list. The information in the report is more important to me than the overall rankings.
Yes, I live in the Big Apple bet the NYRA tracks and try to make it to Saratoga during the summer. Spend more time at Belmont than the other NYRA tracks, simply because it is convenient to me.

[cj]

Then frankly you don't have the requisite experience with enough tracks and a wide range of pools. I'm sorry you did not share with us how many minor league tracks have provided you with a worse P&L than NYRA tracks.


Well, that is easy, nearly all of them. I win the most where I can bet the most. I don't find the competition tougher in the big pools, I find it easier. Maybe I'm just lucky.

We're done, get back on topic or move on.

[Robert Goren]

How did a simple thank you to the people at Hana for printing numbers that are hard to find in one place turn into this dog fight? I don't always agree with their track rankings, but they do some amazing work.

[Rook]

How did a simple thank you to the people at Hana for printing numbers that are hard to find in one place turn into this dog fight? I don't always agree with their track rankings, but they do some amazing work.
I'll give a little background on why I am so intense on this issue:
I am the one of the original guys who was there when HANA was being formed in the War Room. My contribution was the the HANA tracks ratings. I didn't just come up with the idea..I put together a spreadsheet with a whole bunch of categories for each track.

For reasons, I still don't know after all these years, they went with another set of ratings that dropped rebates as a criteria. I didn't bitch about it at the time because although I thought it was a disgrace to leave them out, I really wanted HANA to succeed.

The fact that my own idea is being used to rank a very player unfriendly place over much more deserving tracks..leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and gets me hot under the collar.

[Robert Fischer]

I don't think rebates have anything to do with the ratings.

I thought that was the whole point of Rook's response to me about "effective takeout" and "$ charging for host fee signal". [post#88]

:confused:

[Robert Fischer]

For reasons, I still don't know after all these years, they went with another set of ratings that dropped rebates as a criteria. I didn't bitch about it at the time because although I thought it was a disgrace to leave them out, I really wanted HANA to succeed.


Ok , this answers my question.


cc Now I see from going through the thread thead that this was all an offshoot from post #55.
By not reading every post I had a misunderstanding that a)Rook was involved in the current rankings, and b)Host signal plays a big role in current rankings.

:threadout

[ronsmac]

I'll give a little background on why I am so intense on this issue:
I am the one of the original guys who was there when HANA was being formed in the War Room. My contribution was the the HANA tracks ratings. I didn't just come up with the idea..I put together a spreadsheet with a whole bunch of categories for each track.

For reasons, I still don't know after all these years, they went with another set of ratings that dropped rebates as a criteria. I didn't bitch about it at the time because although I thought it was a disgrace to leave them out, I really wanted HANA to succeed.

The fact that my own idea is being used to rank a very player unfriendly place over much more deserving tracks..leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and gets me hot under the collar.
Sounds like you have a pretty legitimate reason to be pissed. I definitely agree with your stance on rebates and takeout over pool size in general. I honestly don't know why people bet nyra or socal other than the chance at a huge score i guess.

[GameTheory]

...that dropped rebates as a criteria.Isn't the reason simply that the rebate level you can get varies from player to player depending on your locale and how big of a bettor you are? You could include *potential* for rebates based on the signal fee, but that information would be hard to acquire for all tracks (probably), and again doesn't really apply to an individual if they can't actually get the rebate.

[Rook]

Isn't the reason simply that the rebate level you can get varies from player to player depending on your locale and how big of a bettor you are? You could include *potential* for rebates based on the signal fee, but that information would be hard to acquire for all tracks (probably), and again doesn't really apply to an individual if they can't actually get the rebate.

As I stated earlier, rebates vary from player to player but the one constant is host fees. People playing with a certain ADW might get different rebates but the one thing that is sure is that NYRA is charging more for the signal than the smaller tracks. That would not be a hard thing to include at all. The tracks that charge 3 or 4% should be promoted and ranked highly..the tracks like NYRA that charge 9-11%, should be at the bottom of a horseplayers' list.

As far as individuals not being able to get a rebate, that is a topic for many other threads. For the majority of the players, they are available if you make a bit of effort.

[JustRalph]

Ok, now we get it. Somebody close the thread..........please

[the little guy]

As I stated earlier, rebates vary from player to player but the one constant is host fees. People playing with a certain ADW might get different rebates but the one thing that is sure is that NYRA is charging more for the signal than the smaller tracks. That would not be a hard thing to include at all. The tracks that charge 3 or 4% should be promoted and ranked highly..the tracks like NYRA that charge 9-11%, should be at the bottom of a horseplayers' list.

As far as individuals not being able to get a rebate, that is a topic for many other threads. For the majority of the players, they are available if you make a bit of effort.


At least now you made it obvious....as opposed to how disingenuous you were previously in this thread.

Tracks charge what the market will pay.

[Rook]

At least now you made it obvious....as opposed to how disingenuous you were previously in this thread.

Tracks charge what the market will pay.
Sure, and luckily for NYRA, the vast majority of horseplayers have no idea what a host fee is, never mind the fact that NYRA charges far more than other tracks. I am happy to give them a bit of an education in this area.

[the little guy]

Sure, and luckily for NYRA, the vast majority of horseplayers have no idea what a host fee is, never mind the fact that NYRA charges far more than other tracks. I am happy to give them a bit of an education in this area.


This is shockingly misguided. You might want to brush up on some basic economic principles.

It's clear you have an agenda against NYRA. I get it.

[Rook]

This is shockingly misguided. You might want to brush up on some basic economic principles.

It's clear you have an agenda against NYRA. I get it.
My quotes on the host fees are not misguided. They are a fact. I am informing people on this board instead of trying to mislead them.

Yeah, my agenda is crystal clear. I am a horseplayer and I know which tracks are a rip off. Your employer tops the list.

[Robert Goren]

This is shockingly misguided. You might want to brush up on some basic economic principles.

It's clear you have an agenda against NYRA. I get it.And you work for them, so you are hardly unbias either.

[the little guy]

My quotes on the host fees are not misguided. They are a fact. I am informing people on this board instead of trying to mislead them.

Yeah, my agenda is crystal clear. I am a horseplayer and I know which tracks are a rip off. Your employer tops the list.


Host fees are determined by laws of economics. ADWs and other simulcast venues pay more for the more desired signals. The fact that they pay the most for NYRA is a simple reflection of the demand for the NYRA signal. This isn't exactly advanced stuff. This does not affect a player unless he or she gets a rebate. Also not exactly a complicated concept.

NYRA is not ripping anybody off. For you to insinuate that, due to an obvious agenda, is ( and I'm being nice ) misguided. Hopefully this helps clear things up for you.

[the little guy]

And you work for them, so you are hardly unbias either.

I think everyone knows I work for them. Please, feel free to intelligently explain what I have been wrong about.

[Rook]

This does not affect a player unless he or she gets a rebate. Also not exactly a complicated concept.

It's not complicated and it's not widely known either. The concept of host fees needs to be discussed much more widely because it has a profound impact on a player's bottom line.

NYRA is not ripping anybody off.

My opinion is that they are. A horseplayer can get a much better deal at dozens of tracks. It saddens me that HANA hasn't done a better job of teaching the public this fact.

For you to insinuate that, due to an obvious agenda, is ( and I'm being nice ) misguided. Hopefully this helps clear things up for you.
What is clear is that you are a mouthpiece for your employer. That's perfectly understandable and admirable. I am not beholden to anybody but the truth.

[Robert Fischer]

right now, AFAIK, I get the same miniscule rebates regardless of which tracks I play at.

I use one of the more popular ADWs.

I inquired and found out more about rebates that increase with a higher volume of wagering, and within that higher volume that also increase with use of exotic wagering.

I assume some ADW's will offer different rebates based upon the track wagered upon, although my widely used ADW does not.

It seems that host signals would primarily be a concern of ADWs themselves, and of players who seek rebates by specializing with certain ADWs who offer greater rebates w/ low host rate tracks.



when i asked questions like:
Why not break down some wager types?
Show what you mean by effective takeout, and be explicit about how people would access these rebates.

What resources do you guys offer regarding educating players about maximizing their rebate opportunity?

Although with my personal situation, I might not be interested, I was under the impression that Rook was either an ADW person or a person who specializes in such small-track rebate play, and would then step in with a pitch for his ADW, or with constructive advice. Instead it does now look more like a personal issue with NYRA tracks.

Anyway that was the source of my confusion.

[Jeff P]

Rook, I really wish you and CJ and a few others had decided to stay on. Just so you know, I fully agree with what you are saying about rebates.

My personal belief is that our track ratings algorithm - absolutely and without question - should be changed to accurately report the following:

• Track Signal Fee and impact on rebates.

• Willingness by tracks and their horsemen to distribute track signals.

• Severe penalty in the ratings for tracks (and their horsemen) in states where tracks and horsemen have written state law to ban ADW wagering outright.

• Severe penalty in the ratings for tracks (and their horsemen) in states where tracks and horsemen have written state law to impose source market fee (and its impact on rebates.)

That said - Are you familiar with the following phrase?

"A camel is a horse that was put together by committee."

There are 8 members on the HANA Board. Every time we as a board have discussed our track ratings - I have actively campaigned to change the algorithm to make it reflect the above bullet points.

However, I am in the minority. Our current track ratings reflect the majority opinion of the HANA Board.

The reasoning behind the majority opinion (of not addressing rebates in our track ratings algorithm) goes something like this:

The majority of our members don't get rebates. Therefore, our track ratings are tailored to the majority of our members.

Even though I personally disagree with this line of thinking - I do understand where it is coming from.

Jeff Platt
President, HANA

.

[Rook]

...I was under the impression that Rook was either an ADW person or a person who specializes in such small-track rebate play, and would then step in with a pitch for his ADW, or with constructive advice. Instead it does now look more like a personal issue with NYRA tracks.

Nope I am not an ADW person. I have never made a dime referral off of anybody. I can however give lots of advice to those who want to know since I have been getting rebates for 9 years.

My "personal issue" with NYRA is that I think they are bad for horse racing. Double digit takeouts have been bleeding this sport to death compared to sports wagering. Racing needs winners and NYRA puts up too high a hurdle to overcome for the vast majority of people.

[Rook]

The majority of our members don't get rebates. Therefore, our track ratings are tailored to the majority of our members.

Jeff, I think it should be one of HANA's major crusades to help players get their highest possible rebate. It would help so many stay in the game and in some cases would be truly life changing.

[cj]

Jeff, I think it should be one of HANA's major crusades to help players get their highest possible rebate. It would help so many stay in the game and in some cases would be truly life changing.

Why rebate? Why not just takeout reductions?

[Rook]

Why rebate? Why not just takeout reductions?
I would prefer takeout reductions as well but a rebate can be acquired today. A takeout reduction can take years multiplied by dozens of states.

[the little guy]

It's not complicated and it's not widely known either. The concept of host fees needs to be discussed much more widely because it has a profound impact on a player's bottom line.

My opinion is that they are. A horseplayer can get a much better deal at dozens of tracks. It saddens me that HANA hasn't done a better job of teaching the public this fact.

What is clear is that you are a mouthpiece for your employer. That's perfectly understandable and admirable. I am not beholden to anybody but the truth.


Nothing new here. Host fees don't affect players unless they get a rebate. In which case, your issue is with the rebate site, as they are your business partner. This is true regardless of who I work for.

[ronsmac]

Art grace for the Miami news i believe in the late 1970s and one of the writers for the n.y. post in the early 80's complained that takeout was too high, and more than 30 yrs later takeout rates still haven't changed, with a few small acceptions. I seriously doubt there will ever be any real meaningful reductions in takeouts in my lifetime.

[the little guy]

Why rebate? Why not just takeout reductions?

He does recruit customers for a rebate shop....right?

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

• Severe penalty in the ratings for tracks (and their horsemen) in states where tracks and horsemen have written state law to ban ADW wagering outright.

...

Jeff Platt
President, HANA

.

Any penalty short of an automatic F- and banishment to the bottom of the list in its own section of those not worth supporting at all would be too generous... in my humble opinion of course.

[Rook]

Host fees don't affect players unless they get a rebate. In which case, your issue is with the rebate site, as they are your business partner. This is true regardless of who I work for.

I deal with three ADWs and I am very happy with all of them. They give me the best rate that they can. Unfortunately do to high NYRA host fees, the rebate that they can afford to offer for NYRA tracks is paltry. Everybody who gets rebates is in the same boat.

Yes, NYRA is fine for the casual player who doesn't get rebates but this does not describe me and it doesn't describe a whole pile of people on this board.

[Rook]

He does recruit customers for a rebate shop....right?
Wrong. Unlike yourself I am not an employee or an agent. I am a free man.

[the little guy]

Wrong. Unlike yourself I am not an employee or an agent. I am a free man.


I apologize for the misunderstanding, and can see why, but I was referring to Jeff.

[Jeff P]

Nothing new here. Host fees don't affect players unless they get a rebate. In which case, your issue is with the rebate site, as they are your business partner. This is true regardless of who I work for.

I disagree.

Host fees for all of the "A" tracks have been hiked so high that it has now become impossible for thoroughbred racing as an industry to implement any kind of meaningful reduction in takeout.

Attempting to blame ADWs for this is beyond ridiculous.



-jp

.

[mountainman]

Somewhat overlooked in this discussion has been the comparative efficiency of pools at tracks of all sizes-right across the spectrum of handle and purse distribution.

My (unverified) observation is that players who determine the odds and payoffs at certain tracks are sharper and better informed than their counterparts at other places. No comprehensive formula has yet been devised to rate respective tracks on this basis, but I suspect it could be done, and serve to point players toward less-sophisticated pools.

In addition, I'd like to see hanna's ratings look WITHIN field size and rate field DEPTH-and parity. Larger fields aren't fertile ground for value if 1or 2 runners stick out and the rest have been entered-perhaps out of line- because more suitable races aren't filling or available in the condition book.

And, expanding somewhat on cj's point ,the quality of a track's horse population should factor in at some point. You can't possibly slog through the pp's on a cheap state-bred mdn race without longing for bigger beyers to sink your chops into. And regardless of what passes for current form, if the field is slow enough, you just can't bet with confidence.

And what about incorporating relevant issues such as supertrainers and drugging? Who wants to play tracks dominated by unbeatable outfits? Surely, some formula can be devised to determine at which tracks it's ENTIRELY a trainer's game-and at which places conventional handicapping still counts. I might further suggest that a track's rating take at least a nominal hit for every winner that tests dirty and forfeits purse. Because isn't that, after all, a gross injustice to those who bet the place horse???

The effect of such factors on player confidence might be intangible, but they are worth exploring and pointing out to players.

[the little guy]

I disagree.

Host fees for all of the "A" tracks have been hiked so high that it has now become impossible for thoroughbred racing as an industry to implement any kind of meaningful reduction in takeout.

Attempting to blame ADWs for this is beyond ridiculous.



-jp

.


Jeff, it is my understanding that you recruit players for a rebate shop. Am I mistaken?

[Jeff P]

You are not mistaken. (I am one of many posting on this message board who does that and I have never tried to hide that fact from anyone.)



-jp

.

[the little guy]

You are not mistaken. (I am one of many posting on this message board who does that and I have never tried to hide that fact from anyone.)



-jp

.

This clearly displays a conflict of interest for you in ranking tracks. Whether or not others here have that relationship is irrelevent, unless of course they are also on the HANA board.

I have no problem with people representing their own self-interests. I have a problem with people that do that while suggesting otherwise.

[DeanT]

Somewhat overlooked in this discussion has been the comparative efficiency of pools at tracks of all sizes-right across the spectrum of handle and purse distribution.

My (unverified) observation is that players who determine the odds and payoffs at certain tracks are sharper and better informed than their counterparts at other places. No comprehensive formula has yet been devised to rate respective tracks on this basis, but I suspect it could be done, and serve to point players toward less-sophisticated pools.

In addition, i'd like to see hanna's ratings look WITHIN field size and rate field DEPTH-and parity. Larger fields aren't fertile ground for value if 1or 2 runners stick out and the rest have been entered-perhaps out of line- because more suitable races aren't filling or available in the condition book.

And, expanding somewhat on cj's point,the quality of a track's horse population should factor in at some point. You can't possibly slog through the pp's on a cheap state-bred mdn race without longing for bigger beyers to sink your chops into. And regardless of what passes for current form, if the field is slow enough, you just can't bet with confidence.

And what about incorporating relevant issues such as supertrainers and drugging? Who wants to play tracks dominated by unbeatable outfits? Surely, some formula can be devised to determine at which tracks it's ENTIRELY a trainer's game-and at which places conventional handicapping still counts. I might further suggest that a track's rating take at least a nominal hit for every winner that tests dirty and forfeits purse. Because isn't that, after all, a gross injustice to those who bet the place horse???

The effect of such factors on player confidence might be intangible, but they are worth exploring and pointing out to players.

Hey Mark,

You make excellent points that I agree with, but as you can see, most of them would be done with subjective means.

It's weird, because I hate tracks with supertrainers, yet time and time again I hear from players who say "off the claim the guy is gold. I make tons of money off him". I cant bet a race with Jamie Ness at Tampa, but last year he had a flat bet 1.20 ROI or so. Whomever bet him every day might be a genius, because I don't have too many 1.20 ROI angles, lol.

Quality is a big concern, so those ratings were tweaked in year two, to add handle quartiles. The thinking (again not using the subjective, but objective): If a track is a high handle track that players like, chances are it has decent field quality (ie bettors vote with wallets). I think Bill made that 25% of the score, after some complaints. It makes sense.

As for field depth, that can probably be done, but field size does do a pretty good job, imo. If you look at 7 horse fields versus ten horse fields, the fractions are quicker with a larger field (en masse), which indicates competitiveness or contentiousness. I agree tho. Some tracks with 9 horse fields with a layover, are nine horse fields with a layover, which are worse than a six horse field with three good horses.

That's my 2 cents.

I enjoyed reading the thread. It shows horseplayers have a lot of passion (and argument) about what they like and don't like :)

Dean

PS: PID and MNR are about even, but PID dropped rake last year, and now has a better overall takeout rate than MNR. Field size about the same, signal availability/host fee about the same. MNR beats it on handle.
PPS: I dont play PID over MNR either :)
PPPS: Here is the ratings methodology, that relies on published factors (long read but it tells the whole story). http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

[Jeff P]

This clearly displays a conflict of interest for you in ranking tracks. Whether or not others here have that relationship is irrelevent, unless of course they are also on the HANA board.

I have no problem with people representing their own self-interests. I have a problem with people that do that while suggesting otherwise.

I have never suggested otherwise. In fact I have always been open about it.

For those who may not be aware...

I am the author of JCapper - a database enabled handicapping software business launched in late 2003. At last count there were 250-260 members (give or take) in the JCapper user community.

Given a user community of that size, one of the things I was frequently being asked was "Can you point me towards a decent rebate shop?"

In the beginning I had no idea what rebates even were - let alone contacts in that area. So I began making inquiries and doing some networking - and eventually got in touch with people who I can trust. (This took place back in 2006.)

HANA was formed two years later in the fall of 2008.

For some reason, the other founding HANA Board Members named me as the organization's President.

Since then, I have never once wavered when it comes to advocating for horseplayers.

I refuse to waver now - and I stand by my previous statement:

Host fees for all of the "A" tracks have been hiked so high that it has now become impossible for thoroughbred racing as an industry to implement any kind of meaningful reduction in takeout.

Attempting to blame ADWs for this is beyond ridiculous.



-jp

.

[acorn54]

This clearly displays a conflict of interest for you in ranking tracks. Whether or not others here have that relationship is irrelevent, unless of course they are also on the HANA board.

I have no problem with people representing their own self-interests. I have a problem with people that do that while suggesting otherwise.

jeff referred me to a rebate shop,(i hope you don't mind me mentioning it jeff)-and i am grateful to jeff for doing so. it has made me thousands of dollars each year that i otherwise would not have. it certainly is heck of alot better than such pathetic promotions like the "nyra rewards".

[lamboguy]

in defense for the New York bettors, you do get paid on the dime instead of the .20 everywhere else except for canada.

my number 1 track is Finger Lakes. i get a fair shake there with the takeout and they also pay the dime. its the best value in North America.

help is clearly on its way, opening day at the Lakes is April 20. good luck to all.

[ronsmac]

I have never suggested otherwise. In fact I have always been open about it.

For those who may not be aware...

I am the author of JCapper - a database enabled handicapping software business launched in late 2003. At last count there were 250-260 members (give or take) in the JCapper user community.

Given a user community of that size, one of the things I was frequently being asked was "Can you point me towards a decent rebate shop?"

In the beginning I had no idea what rebates even were - let alone contacts in that area. So I began making inquiries and doing some networking - and eventually got in touch with people who I can trust. (This took place back in 2006.)

HANA was formed two years later in the fall of 2008.

For some reason, the other founding HANA Board Members named me as the organization's President.

Since then, I have never once wavered when it comes to advocating for horseplayers.

I refuse to waver now - and I stand by my previous statement:




-jp

.
Kudos to you.

[the little guy]

I have never suggested otherwise. In fact I have always been open about it.

For those who may not be aware...

I am the author of JCapper - a database enabled handicapping software business launched in late 2003. At last count there were 250-260 members (give or take) in the JCapper user community.

Given a user community of that size, one of the things I was frequently being asked was "Can you point me towards a decent rebate shop?"

In the beginning I had no idea what rebates even were - let alone contacts in that area. So I began making inquiries and doing some networking - and eventually got in touch with people who I can trust. (This took place back in 2006.)

HANA was formed two years later in the fall of 2008.

For some reason, the other founding HANA Board Members named me as the organization's President.

Since then, I have never once wavered when it comes to advocating for horseplayers.

I refuse to waver now - and I stand by my previous statement:




-jp

.

Jeff, I am glad for you that you are proud of what you have done. However, that doesn't change that you have a conflict of interest in being involved in these racetrack rankings, and it is more than reasonable to suggest they are stilted towards your own self-interests.

Your previous statement is, at best, a convolution of logic. Suggesting the producer of a product should not try to get a fair market price from a retailer, is surely an interesting economic opinion. You are entitled to it. That doesn't mean it holds up to logical scrutiny. You create opinions that cater to your own self-interests. This does not make you unique.

[Stillriledup]

Rook, I really wish you and CJ and a few others had decided to stay on. Just so you know, I fully agree with what you are saying about rebates.

My personal belief is that our track ratings algorithm - absolutely and without question - should be changed to accurately report the following:

• Track Signal Fee and impact on rebates.

• Willingness by tracks and their horsemen to distribute track signals.

• Severe penalty in the ratings for tracks (and their horsemen) in states where tracks and horsemen have written state law to ban ADW wagering outright.

• Severe penalty in the ratings for tracks (and their horsemen) in states where tracks and horsemen have written state law to impose source market fee (and its impact on rebates.)

That said - Are you familiar with the following phrase?

"A camel is a horse that was put together by committee."

There are 8 members on the HANA Board. Every time we as a board have discussed our track ratings - I have actively campaigned to change the algorithm to make it reflect the above bullet points.

However, I am in the minority. Our current track ratings reflect the majority opinion of the HANA Board.

The reasoning behind the majority opinion (of not addressing rebates in our track ratings algorithm) goes something like this:

The majority of our members don't get rebates. Therefore, our track ratings are tailored to the majority of our members.

Even though I personally disagree with this line of thinking - I do understand where it is coming from.

Jeff Platt
President, HANA

.

Its my understanding that Tampa and Oaklawn refuse to send their signal to 'certain places' due to the idea that those 'certain places' have sharp bettors who consistently win money that would otherwise be won by Tampa and Oaklawn's on track patrons. Should this hurt Tampa and Oaklawn's ratings?

[Jeff P]

You create opinions that cater to your own self-interests. This does not make you unique.

As do you.


-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

I deal with three ADWs and I am very happy with all of them. They give me the best rate that they can. Unfortunately do to high NYRA host fees, the rebate that they can afford to offer for NYRA tracks is paltry. Everybody who gets rebates is in the same boat.

Yes, NYRA is fine for the casual player who doesn't get rebates but this does not describe me and it doesn't describe a whole pile of people on this board.

If you're a small(ish) bettor who gets a rebate, its better to bet on the Delta Downses and Charlestowns of the world as 'hurting your own price' is not much of a factor. If You routinely bet a few grand per race, than NYRA and So Cal are better places to bet because the 'premium' that you pay in a lower rebate is due to the advantages you get by betting into much larger pools.

If a person has the bankroll to punch 500 dollar exa boxes and make 2 grand win bets, NYRA is the place to wager as 'not hurting your own price' is more of a factor than a few points lower in rebate.

In your discussion with Andy about whether or not NYRA is 'ripping' you off, technically Andy is right that they're not ripping anyone off as they are pricing their product and you have the option to either bet or not bet, nobody is forcing you to wager on their product. They can charge as much as they want in theory.

Since there are only a few 'elite' signals with top notch racing, top jocks, top trainers and big pools, those elite signals can really charge whatever the market will bear, whether its the 'right thing to do' or not.

[thaskalos]

Hold on a second, TLG...

Must we always assume that a person has his financial best interest in mind whenever he renders an opinion?

And if so...does that apply to you as well?

[Stillriledup]

Somewhat overlooked in this discussion has been the comparative efficiency of pools at tracks of all sizes-right across the spectrum of handle and purse distribution.

My (unverified) observation is that players who determine the odds and payoffs at certain tracks are sharper and better informed than their counterparts at other places. No comprehensive formula has yet been devised to rate respective tracks on this basis, but I suspect it could be done, and serve to point players toward less-sophisticated pools.

In addition, I'd like to see hanna's ratings look WITHIN field size and rate field DEPTH-and parity. Larger fields aren't fertile ground for value if 1or 2 runners stick out and the rest have been entered-perhaps out of line- because more suitable races aren't filling or available in the condition book.

And, expanding somewhat on cj's point ,the quality of a track's horse population should factor in at some point. You can't possibly slog through the pp's on a cheap state-bred mdn race without longing for bigger beyers to sink your chops into. And regardless of what passes for current form, if the field is slow enough, you just can't bet with confidence.

And what about incorporating relevant issues such as supertrainers and drugging? Who wants to play tracks dominated by unbeatable outfits? Surely, some formula can be devised to determine at which tracks it's ENTIRELY a trainer's game-and at which places conventional handicapping still counts. I might further suggest that a track's rating take at least a nominal hit for every winner that tests dirty and forfeits purse. Because isn't that, after all, a gross injustice to those who bet the place horse???

The effect of such factors on player confidence might be intangible, but they are worth exploring and pointing out to players.

It seems obvious that the Jamie Ness at Tampa phenomenon is not really factored into the 'track rating' for Tampa.

[Rook]

If You routinely bet a few grand per race, than NYRA and So Cal are better places ...

If I have to bet a few grand per race, I would still vastly prefer places like CT and DED. Obviously, you have to be careful not to bet those few grand on a longshot. The key is to spread the bets around to all of the pools and to a broad range of horses.


In your discussion with Andy about whether or not NYRA is 'ripping' you off, technically Andy is right that they're not ripping anyone off ..

Technically, I am correct because everyone is entitled to their own opinions on the pricing of products. Just like some who think $1000 speaker wire is a ripoff, I think that people who play NYRA exclusively are being chumps because other tracks are priced much lower. If you don't view it as a rip off, bet to your hearts content.

those elite signals can really charge whatever the market will bear, whether its the 'right thing to do' or not.
Yep, and this thread is my little way to make some people aware of their other options. I don't want the market to "bear" high takeout. I want handicappers to demand something better.

[Robert Goren]

It seems obvious that the Jamie Ness at Tampa phenomenon is not really factored into the 'track rating' for Tampa.neither is the "Rudy" factor into NYRA tracks.

[Jeff P]

Its my understanding that Tampa and Oaklawn refuse to send their signal to 'certain places' due to the idea that those 'certain places' have sharp bettors who consistently win money that would otherwise be won by Tampa and Oaklawn's on track patrons. Should this hurt Tampa and Oaklawn's ratings?In my opinion, yes. Tracks that do this should be penalized in the ratings. However, our ratings algorithm doesn't do this. (Majority vote of the HANA Board.)

------------------------

I'll try a purely hypothetical example to illustrate why I think our ratings should penalize tracks for doing this:

Suppose for the sake of argument I am a whale betting $1 million a month on races at ABC Downs through rebate house XYZ Turf Club. Let's further say I consistently win $80k a month on ABC races. Along comes ABC track management who decides to deny XYZ Turf Club the ABC signal - and issues a press release about how they are "potecting" the guy in the grandstand.

Does anyone think for a second the whale winning serious $$ at ABC Downs really stops betting ABC races?

As fate would have it there is a firm named Monolith that negotiates all of the signal contracts for ABC Downs. As fate would also have it, Monolith's parent company happens to own an adw named ZBet who offers a rebate program of their own and who is a competitor of XYZ Turf Club.

Somehow ZBet magically "knows" XYZ Turf Club just lost the ABC signal and they ask me for a shot at my business.

Not knowing what really went down I open an account at ZBet, post up money, and continue betting and winning at ABC downs without missing a beat.

What really just happened here?

The guy in the grandstand isn't being "protected" at all. The whale player - me - is still winning $80k a month at ABC Downs.

The only difference is now I am doing it under the "right" corporate umbrella.

Sound far fetched?

(I love a good conspiracy theory.)

When ABC Downs eliminates the track signal, but only for XYZ Turf Club, the marketplace is negatively impacted and takes a hit. The number of choices available to customers in the marketplace goes down.

The fewer the number of choices available to customers in a market - any market - the closer that market moves towards becoming a monopoly.



-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

In my opinion, yes. Tracks that do this should be penalized in the ratings. However, our ratings algorithm doesn't do this. (Majority vote of the HANA Board.)

------------------------

I'll try a purely hypothetical example to illustrate why I think our ratings should penalize tracks for doing this:

Suppose for the sake of argument I am a whale betting $1 million a month on races at ABC Downs through rebate house XYZ Turf Club. Let's further say I consistently win $80k a month on ABC races. Along comes ABC track management who decides to deny XYZ Turf Club the ABC signal - and issues a press release about how they are "potecting" the guy in the grandstand.

Does anyone think for a second the whale winning serious $$ at ABC Downs really stops betting ABC races?

As fate would have it there is a firm named Monolith that negotiates all of the signal contracts for ABC Downs. As fate would also have it, Monolith's parent company happens to own an adw named ZBet who offers a rebate program of their own and who is a competitor of XYZ Turf Club.

Somehow ZBet magically "knows" XYZ Turf Club just lost the ABC signal and they ask me for a shot at my business.

Not knowing what really went down I open an account at ZBet, post up money, and continue betting and winning at ABC downs without missing a beat.

What really just happened here?

The guy in the grandstand isn't being "protected" at all. The whale player - me - is still winning $80k a month at ABC Downs.

The only difference is now I am doing it under the "right" corporate umbrella.

Sound far fetched?

(I love a good conspiracy theory.)

When ABC Downs eliminates the track signal, but only for XYZ Turf Club, the marketplace is negatively impacted and takes a hit. The number of choices available to customers in the marketplace goes down.

The fewer the number of choices available to customers in a market - any market - the closer that market moves towards becoming a monopoly.



-jp

.


Great points.

Another factor is that the little guy (not andy lol) in the grandstand doesnt know much about how he's being 'protected' but he does see (or, doesnt see and just feels) a reduction in his mutuel prices because his 20's and 40s are knocking his own price down more than it would normally get knocked down if the pools sizes were bigger.

I think its more about the track execs having certain bettors 'in their heads' sort of speak.

[PaceAdvantage]

Unfortunately, rebates are not an option for a large segment of racing fans.Really? There are plenty of US-based rebate shops that are just begging you to sign up (unless you live in a state that they don't accept...)

I guess it depends on what you define as "large segment"

[Jeff P]

Partial list of bad states...

California - population 38 million - 6.5% ADW source market fee (per state law) imposed on California residents - leaves zero room margin-wise for ADWs to rebate back anything to California residents - yet California tracks happily import out of state rebated handle into their pools. (In all fairness to the CHRB and TOC, rebates became available to CA residents last year provided a min handle threshold of $1 mil annually is met. However rebates offered to CA residents are capped at approx 1/2 the percentage rate of those offered to residents who reside in other states.)

Texas - population 26 million - ADW wagering for Texas residents banned per state law - yet Texas tracks happily import out of state rebated handle into their pools.

Illinois - population 12.8 million - state law authorizing ADW wagering allowed to sunset 12/31/2012 - ADWs are no longer able to accept wagers from Illinois residents - Arlington Park recently reported in their online newsletter that the Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemen's Assaciation have lobbied to successfully kill a new bill that would have reinstated ADW wagering for IL residents - Yet Illinois tracks happily import out of state rebated handle into their pools.

New Jersey- population 8.8 million - ADW wagering for NJ residents allowed through NJBets only - to the best of my knowledge NO REBATES whatsoever are offered to NJ residents - yet NJ tracks happily import out of state rebated handle into their pools.

Virginia - population 8 million - 10% ADW source market fee (per state law) imposed on VA residents - leaves zero room margin-wise for ADWs to rebate back anything to VA residents - yet Colonial Downs happily imports out of state rebated handle into their pools.

Washington - population 6.9 million - 7% ADW source market fee (per state law) imposed on WA residents - leaves zero room margin-wise for ADWs to rebate back anything to WA residents - yet Emerald Downs happily imports out of state rebated handle into their pools.

Arizona - population 6.5 million - ADW wagering for AZ residents is a FELONY per state law - yet Turf Paradise happily imports out of state rebated handle into their pools.


100+ million in those states alone - out of (what?) 315 million in the US?



-jp

.

[Vinman]

Partial list of bad states...

California - population 38 million - 6.5% ADW source market fee (per state law) imposed on California residents - leaves zero room margin-wise for ADWs to rebate back anything to California residents - yet California tracks happily import out of state rebated handle into their pools. (In all fairness to the CHRB and TOC, rebates became available to CA residents last year provided a min handle threshold of $1 mil annually is met. However rebates offered to CA residents are capped at approx 1/2 the percentage rate of those offered to residents who reside in other states.)

Texas - population 26 million - ADW wagering for Texas residents banned per state law - yet Texas tracks happily import out of state rebated handle into their pools.

Illinois - population 12.8 million - state law authorizing ADW wagering allowed to sunset 12/31/2012 - ADWs are no longer able to accept wagers from Illinois residents - Arlington Park recently reported in their online newsletter that the Illinois Thoroughbred Horsemen's Assaciation have lobbied to successfully kill a new bill that would have reinstated ADW wagering for IL residents - Yet Illinois tracks happily import out of state rebated handle into their pools.

New Jersey- population 8.8 million - ADW wagering for NJ residents allowed through NJBets only - to the best of my knowledge NO REBATES whatsoever are offered to NJ residents - yet NJ tracks happily import out of state rebated handle into their pools.

Virginia - population 8 million - 10% ADW source market fee (per state law) imposed on VA residents - leaves zero room margin-wise for ADWs to rebate back anything to VA residents - yet Colonial Downs happily imports out of state rebated handle into their pools.

Washington - population 6.9 million - 7% ADW source market fee (per state law) imposed on WA residents - leaves zero room margin-wise for ADWs to rebate back anything to WA residents - yet Emerald Downs happily imports out of state rebated handle into their pools.

Arizona - population 6.5 million - ADW wagering for AZ residents is a FELONY per state law - yet Turf Paradise happily imports out of state rebated handle into their pools.


100+ million in those states alone - out of (what?) 315 million in the US?



-jp

.

Jeff, I'm not sure what the exact definition of a "rebate" is for purposes of this discussion, but in New Jersey players can earn a minimum of 1% back on their bets by swiping their Big M Club card when they make their bets at the track or at OTW's. Players can earn a considerably higher percentage as they ascend the tiered Big M Club scale.

I've also noticed in the brief time I've been using my TVG/NJBETS account since the recent TVG takeover that I'm accruing credits on my TVG account as well, to the tune of $20 per $10,000 of wagering credits according to the TVG website. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of this.

Vinman

[acorn54]

Jeff, I'm not sure what the exact definition of a "rebate" is for purposes of this discussion, but in New Jersey players can earn a minimum of 1% back on their bets by swiping their Big M Club card when they make their bets at the track or at OTW's. Players can earn a considerably higher percentage as they ascend the tiered Big M Club scale.

I've also noticed in the brief time I've been using my TVG/NJBETS account since the recent TVG takeover that I'm accruing credits on my TVG account as well, to the tune of $20 per $10,000 of wagering credits according to the TVG website. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of this.

Vinman


well i'll give you a real life example of the rebate shop jeff referred me to
i referred my brother who is a bigger bettor than me. he bet 50 thousand dollars last year. his rebates were roughly half on exacta bets and half on triple bets
his rebates were 5% for exacta and 10% for triples. so he got 3700 dollars in rebates.

[kingfin66]

Is there a link available for the new spreadsheet?

[raybo]

Haven't kept up with HANA for a while, even though I, also, was among the very small group in the War Room, who got this thing off the ground.

So, if the following has already been asked or implemented, my apologies.

I would very much like the tracks' average (or better yet the median) win payouts to become part of the information in the spreadsheet, not that it should be used as a ranking factor, but just for player information purposes. For some it would give them an idea of how tough, or easy it might be to be profitable at each track. Especially when compared to the takeouts at those tracks.

Just an idea!

[Jeff P]

Is there a link available for the new spreadsheet?

Still working on it. Hope to have it up on our site sometime tomorrow.


-jp

.

[Stillriledup]

Haven't kept up with HANA for a while, even though I, also, was among the very small group in the War Room, who got this thing off the ground.

So, if the following has already been asked or implemented, my apologies.

I would very much like the tracks' average (or better yet the median) win payouts to become part of the information in the spreadsheet, not that it should be used as a ranking factor, but just for player information purposes. For some it would give them an idea of how tough, or easy it might be to be profitable at each track. Especially when compared to the takeouts at those tracks.

Just an idea!

Another factor would be the fairness of the track. Can closers win, or do you need to be in the top flight of horses to have a realistic chance. Tracks where you can just handicap horses should get props in the ratings. Tracks where you don't have to bet on horses you don't really like just because of some kind of inside speed bias that exists.

[mountainman]

Hey Mark,

You make excellent points that I agree with, but as you can see, most of them would be done with subjective means.

It's weird, because I hate tracks with supertrainers, yet time and time again I hear from players who say "off the claim the guy is gold. I make tons of money off him". I cant bet a race with Jamie Ness at Tampa, but last year he had a flat bet 1.20 ROI or so. Whomever bet him every day might be a genius, because I don't have too many 1.20 ROI angles, lol.

Quality is a big concern, so those ratings were tweaked in year two, to add handle quartiles. The thinking (again not using the subjective, but objective): If a track is a high handle track that players like, chances are it has decent field quality (ie bettors vote with wallets). I think Bill made that 25% of the score, after some complaints. It makes sense.

As for field depth, that can probably be done, but field size does do a pretty good job, imo. If you look at 7 horse fields versus ten horse fields, the fractions are quicker with a larger field (en masse), which indicates competitiveness or contentiousness. I agree tho. Some tracks with 9 horse fields with a layover, are nine horse fields with a layover, which are worse than a six horse field with three good horses.

That's my 2 cents.

I enjoyed reading the thread. It shows horseplayers have a lot of passion (and argument) about what they like and don't like :)

Dean

PS: PID and MNR are about even, but PID dropped rake last year, and now has a better overall takeout rate than MNR. Field size about the same, signal availability/host fee about the same. MNR beats it on handle.
PPS: I dont play PID over MNR either :)
PPPS: Here is the ratings methodology, that relies on published factors (long read but it tells the whole story). http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

Tx for the cogent response, sir.

[DeanT]

I would very much like the tracks' average (or better yet the median) win payouts to become part of the information in the spreadsheet, not that it should be used as a ranking factor, but just for player information purposes. For some it would give them an idea of how tough, or easy it might be to be profitable at each track. Especially when compared to the takeouts at those tracks.

Just an idea!

Good idea.

This year Bill W has created a neat (I think it's neat anyway) spreadsheet that shows what a, for example, $70 exacta pays at each track. He did it for all bets.

It's kind of interesting, although not quite what you are suggesting.

Hey Mark,

Thanks. As always I continue to enjoy your show. Along with the NYRA pre game, it (in my opinion) is the most informative show at any track. Keep up the good work!

Dean

[DeanT]

This year's sortable sheet with t/o, handle trends, pool size, bet type and field size is now up if anyone is interested.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2013/04/2013-hana-track-ratings-sortable.html

[Hosshead]

Thanks HANA, very handy to have.
Does HANA subtract the Ky Derby and BC days from the avg. pool size ?
It would be nice if they would.

[appistappis]

this thread probably separates us handicappers for why we play the game. If saratoga, keeneland and santa anita had 28% takeout and beulah and fonner park had 12% takeout, I would only play the latter two.

[OTM Al]

A couple comments now that the data is available:

1) I'm not seeing a link to a page explaining methodology. In particular I'd like to know how the takeout score is being calculated. It seems odd to me that GP scores so much better than NYRA tracks when NYRA has lower takeout on the majority of bets they have in common. Regardless, methodology explanation is a must for integrity of any study.

2) The notation for the NYRA tracks on P6 carry is confusing and perhaps backward. It is 15% on non-carry days but the chart makes it look like that is the case on carryover days.

I'm quoting with these tracks as they are the ones I know the best

[acorn54]

A couple comments now that the data is available:

1) I'm not seeing a link to a page explaining methodology. In particular I'd like to know how the takeout score is being calculated. It seems odd to me that GP scores so much better than NYRA tracks when NYRA has lower takeout on the majority of bets they have in common. Regardless, methodology explanation is a must for integrity of any study.

2) The notation for the NYRA tracks on P6 carry is confusing and perhaps backward. It is 15% on non-carry days but the chart makes it look like that is the case on carryover days.

I'm quoting with these tracks as they are the ones I know the best


probably the best route to seeking the best venue would be to shop around to the various rebate shops. for instance the rebate shop that jeff referred me to has a table broken out by the track and the %rebate for each type of bet they take.

[Charli125]

A couple comments now that the data is available:

1) I'm not seeing a link to a page explaining methodology. In particular I'd like to know how the takeout score is being calculated. It seems odd to me that GP scores so much better than NYRA tracks when NYRA has lower takeout on the majority of bets they have in common. Regardless, methodology explanation is a must for integrity of any study.

2) The notation for the NYRA tracks on P6 carry is confusing and perhaps backward. It is 15% on non-carry days but the chart makes it look like that is the case on carryover days.

I'm quoting with these tracks as they are the ones I know the best

Al,

Item 1)The algorithms are detailed on this page: http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

Item 2) Good point, We'll try to get that updated ASAP.

[OTM Al]

probably the best route to seeking the best venue would be to shop around to the various rebate shops. for instance the rebate shop that jeff referred me to has a table broken out by the track and the %rebate for each type of bet they take.

I'm not shopping for a best venue. I'm interested in the technique here.

[OTM Al]

Al,

Item 1)The algorithms are detailed on this page: http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics.html

Item 2) Good point, We'll try to get that updated ASAP.

Thanks Charlie. These look the same as i remember, but just wanted to see if I was remembering correctly.

My academic critique for the year comes due to an argument I had with John Pricci when he claimed GP clearly cared more about their customer than NYRA tracks becaus they had lower take on their P3, P4 and had a P5. I countered with the fact they had a higher take on EVERY OTHER bet so how could this statement be true. The critique though is that a place like GP is getting a lot more credit in their score compared to NYRA tracks for something like the P5 than perhaps they should and being penalized far less for their higher Exacta, Tri and Super takes. I say this for 2 reasons:

1) Giving credit for the P5 is in effect double counting in the total score when many tracks still don't have this. Having the P5 gets you credit in the wager variety column (more about that in a bit) but can also here.

2) Credit in this column appears to be given equally by bet type without regard to frequency or popularity of the bet. This cuts both ways in my example. It seems crazy that NYRA's P6, which may pull in $50,000 on a good non carry day weights equally with the exacta, which is offered as many times on the card as there are races and will rake in upwards of $1,000,000 pretty easily.

Point I'm making is that these glitzy super exotics with some flashy rate are biasing the metric. My suggestion would be the following: Today's standard bets are the WPS, Ex, Tri, Super, DD, P3 and P4. You'll find these on the vast majority of any wager menu and in fact these are the ones you are using as baseline for variety (it still mentions quinella but I recall that being dropped a few years ago). Any other type of bet should be grouped together and graded with a blended take (god I hate that concept, but its the only first pass I can come up with). Further, these grades should not be averaged, but weighted according to popularity. Popularity could be proxied by yearly national (not track) pool total so there would be the same weight for everyone on each particular bet type. Track specific weighting could potentially bring in bias problems because the could be affected by the track's own relative takes, but a national averaging would eliminate this issue in the weights. It just seems reasonable that if you have many times the exacta wagers being offered than P4s, they ought not count equally. Weighting will adjust for wager popularity and frequency.

Second issue, and this is just another suggestion, but your wager variety appears to be serving two masters. Is it variety or is it fractional wagering availability. It seems to be serving both. Perhaps these two things should be disentangled.

Anyway, I know hard work goes into this and Bill takes it very seriously, but as someone in higher ed, I'm a firm believe in the peer review process and those are the comments I would make on a first pass reading.

[Tom]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/77471/woodbine-lowers-
takeout-rate-on-win-bets?source=rss

Looking to improve their rating?

[Charli125]

Thanks Charlie. These look the same as i remember, but just wanted to see if I was remembering correctly.

My academic critique for the year comes due to an argument I had with John Pricci when he claimed GP clearly cared more about their customer than NYRA tracks becaus they had lower take on their P3, P4 and had a P5. I countered with the fact they had a higher take on EVERY OTHER bet so how could this statement be true. The critique though is that a place like GP is getting a lot more credit in their score compared to NYRA tracks for something like the P5 than perhaps they should and being penalized far less for their higher Exacta, Tri and Super takes. I say this for 2 reasons:

1) Giving credit for the P5 is in effect double counting in the total score when many tracks still don't have this. Having the P5 gets you credit in the wager variety column (more about that in a bit) but can also here.

2) Credit in this column appears to be given equally by bet type without regard to frequency or popularity of the bet. This cuts both ways in my example. It seems crazy that NYRA's P6, which may pull in $50,000 on a good non carry day weights equally with the exacta, which is offered as many times on the card as there are races and will rake in upwards of $1,000,000 pretty easily.

Point I'm making is that these glitzy super exotics with some flashy rate are biasing the metric. My suggestion would be the following: Today's standard bets are the WPS, Ex, Tri, Super, DD, P3 and P4. You'll find these on the vast majority of any wager menu and in fact these are the ones you are using as baseline for variety (it still mentions quinella but I recall that being dropped a few years ago). Any other type of bet should be grouped together and graded with a blended take (god I hate that concept, but its the only first pass I can come up with). Further, these grades should not be averaged, but weighted according to popularity. Popularity could be proxied by yearly national (not track) pool total so there would be the same weight for everyone on each particular bet type. Track specific weighting could potentially bring in bias problems because the could be affected by the track's own relative takes, but a national averaging would eliminate this issue in the weights. It just seems reasonable that if you have many times the exacta wagers being offered than P4s, they ought not count equally. Weighting will adjust for wager popularity and frequency.

Second issue, and this is just another suggestion, but your wager variety appears to be serving two masters. Is it variety or is it fractional wagering availability. It seems to be serving both. Perhaps these two things should be disentangled.

Anyway, I know hard work goes into this and Bill takes it very seriously, but as someone in higher ed, I'm a firm believe in the peer review process and those are the comments I would make on a first pass reading.

Thanks Al, appreciate the feedback. Both are good issues, and we'll discuss how to deal with each.

I really like the idea of weighting the pool value in the algorithm based on popularity, and that won't be very difficult. Dealing with the other wagers is a bit more difficult as you mentioned.

Thanks again, and please keep the feedback coming.

[highnote]

Not sure it is a good idea to weight the pool value in the algorithm based on popularity. For example, Saratoga is more popular than Sam Houston, but that doesn't mean it is a better track for serious horseplayers whose most important metric is their personal bottom line.

The columns are already sortable, so the interested horseplayer can do her own analysis to determine which tracks are the best according to what she deems most important.



Thanks Al, appreciate the feedback. Both are good issues, and we'll discuss how to deal with each.

I really like the idea of weighting the pool value in the algorithm based on popularity, and that won't be very difficult. Dealing with the other wagers is a bit more difficult as you mentioned.

Thanks again, and please keep the feedback coming.

[OTM Al]

Not sure it is a good idea to weight the pool value in the algorithm based on popularity. For example, Saratoga is more popular than Sam Houston, but that doesn't mean it is a better track for serious horseplayers whose most important metric is their personal bottom line.

The columns are already sortable, so the interested horseplayer can do her own analysis to determine which tracks are the best according to what she deems most important.

You misunderstand what I'm talking about. The weights would account for the popularity and frequency of the wager type, not the track. If exactas are pulling in five times more nationally than pick 4 s, then their grade should count 5 times as much, for example.

[highnote]

You misunderstand what I'm talking about. The weights would account for the popularity and frequency of the wager type, not the track. If exactas are pulling in five times more nationally than pick 4 s, then their grade should count 5 times as much, for example.


This is clearer. It would be interesting to see how weightings would affect the ratings.

Would a weighting system give enough weight to innovative, but not widely offered wagers, (e.g., the Rainbow 6)?

The Rainbow 6 did a lot to generate publicity for the sport, but there are not many occurances, if any, of the bet outside of GP.

[cj]

Would a weighting system give enough weight to innovative, but not widely offered wagers, (e.g., the Rainbow 6)?



It would, and for a very good reason. Tracks are not very interested in lowering the takeout on the most popular bets.

[highnote]

I read through this entire thread and a lot of thoughts occurred to me as I read each post. So I wrote a blog piece about the thread. You can find it here: http://swetye.blog.com/

I am sure there is something here to offend many. Some things that I think are facts are probably incorrect. It may even be a useless and irrelevant blog piece. The main reason I wrote it is because I have been away from the day-to-day grind of racing for awhile and it has given me a fresh perspective and maybe this perspective has allowed me to write something that will help grow the sport of racing, if even only on a tiny, microscopic level.

[cj]

I read through this entire thread and a lot of thoughts occurred to me as I read each post. So I wrote a blog piece about the thread. You can find it here: http://swetye.blog.com/

I am sure there is something here to offend many. Some things that I think are facts are probably incorrect. It may even be a useless and irrelevant blog piece. The main reason I wrote it is because I have been away from the day-to-day grind of racing for awhile and it has given me a fresh perspective and maybe this perspective has allowed me to write something that will help grow the sport of racing, if even only on a tiny, microscopic level.

Your comment about Saratoga and the gate crew placing the gate wrong has no basis in fact in 2013. In 1973 maybe it did. What is fact is that the timing of races at Sam Houston was a joke this meet, and even worse, THEY DIDN'T CARE!

[highnote]

Your comment about Saratoga and the gate crew placing the gate wrong has no basis in fact in 2013. In 1973 maybe it did. What is fact is that the timing of races at Sam Houston was a joke this meet, and even worse, THEY DIDN'T CARE!

You're probably right, but how do you know for sure?

Do you take note of the distance from the gate to the beam for every race at Saratoga?

[cj]

You're probably right, but how do you know for sure?

Do you take note of the distance from the gate to the beam for every race at Saratoga?

Yes, along with any other major track. Equibase also reports run up distance in the charts now, though I double check.

[highnote]

Yes, along with any other major track. Equibase also reports run up distance in the charts now, though I double check.

Sorry to be a pest, but do you actually look at video of the gate placement to see if it is actually where it is supposed to be? And if so, how could you know from video if it is off by say, 10 or 12 feet? For that matter, how do you know it is actually the same distance from the beam as it says in the charts unless you actually measured it yourself? Maybe they also report 40 feet, for example, but it is actually always 35 feet? Maybe that wouldn't make a difference as long as it is consistent.

I ask because that sounds like a lot of work!

[cj]

Sorry to be a pest, but do you actually look at video of the gate placement to see if it is actually where it is supposed to be? And if so, how could you know from video if it is off by say, 10 or 12 feet? For that matter, how do you know it is actually the same distance from the beam as it says in the charts unless you actually measured it yourself? Maybe they also report 40 feet, for example, but it is actually always 35 feet? Maybe that wouldn't make a difference as long as it is consistent.

I ask because that sounds like a lot of work!

Honestly, I'm sure I'm not exact to the foot, but within a few feet is fine. I don't check every single race, but I watch lots of replays and when I do, I check. There isn't a whole lot of difference in the effect of run up once you get past about 20 feet, until you get to very long run ups of 100+ feet.

[highnote]

Honestly, I'm sure I'm not exact to the foot, but within a few feet is fine. I don't check every single race, but I watch lots of replays and when I do, I check. There isn't a whole lot of difference in the effect of run up once you get past about 20 feet, until you get to very long run ups of 100+ feet.


It's interesting. I tend to forget about gate placement until someone mentions. I know it has given Nick Mordin a lot of headaches over the years. He says the Irish meetings are very difficult to make figures for because the gate placement can be off by an extremely large distance -- and it isn't always reported.

[cj]

It's interesting. I tend to forget about gate placement until someone mentions. I know it has given Nick Mordin a lot of headaches over the years. He says the Irish meetings are very difficult to make figures for because the gate placement can be off by an extremely large distance -- and it isn't always reported.

It is a much bigger deal overseas than it is here.

[thespaah]

Not sure who the "most of them" you're talking about are, but we're going to keep doing our ratings based on feedback we get from players, of which you're 1 of many.

And you actually said this: So the categories that you think are important(handle), are in the best interests of horseplayers, while the categories you don't think are important(takeout), are NOT in the best interests of horseplayers. Also, you do know that both of the tracks you mentioned have bigger fields than Saratoga right?

That's your personal preference, but everyone else doesn't necessarily agree with it. Don't know why you take this as a knock on Saratoga. They do some things great and they do some poorly, just like every other track.
Delta Downs and Evangeline consistently have large fields. Does that make them better than Saratoga?
Look, statistics can be used however those who commission the study wish the statistics to represent. That does not mean the stats are invalid. However if one or a group is going to use hard stats to make a subjective observation (use of the term 'better') then the stats must be representative of a broad scope of criteria.

[thespaah]

Host fees are determined by laws of economics. ADWs and other simulcast venues pay more for the more desired signals. The fact that they pay the most for NYRA is a simple reflection of the demand for the NYRA signal. This isn't exactly advanced stuff. This does not affect a player unless he or she gets a rebate. Also not exactly a complicated concept.

NYRA is not ripping anybody off. For you to insinuate that, due to an obvious agenda, is ( and I'm being nice ) misguided. Hopefully this helps clear things up for you.
Bingo!!! It's simple economics. The better products charge more because they ARE better products.
The HANA ratings appear to presuppose the notion that all tracks are equal from the start.

[raybo]

Bingo!!! It's simple economics. The better products charge more because they ARE better products.
The HANA ratings appear to presuppose the notion that all tracks are equal from the start.

I guess that depends on one's own definition of "better products". What may be better for you might not be better for me, or anyone else. Yes, there is a big demand for the tracks you are talking about, but that doesn't necessarily mean their product is better, for the majority of players, and if you think handle determines that distinction, I think you need to do some more thinking.

But then, we don't have to play those "better products" do we? So really, what you seem to want, is HANA's ratings to reflect what you think, and what the high rollers think, not what the majority of players think, the part time, weekend, small betting player.

Now, if you want HANA's ratings to reflect what the really serious player wants, maybe high handle means something, however, really serious players are hardly in the majority.

[highnote]

I agree Ray. However, in many respects he TLG is correct. NYRA has the highest quality of horses running on a consistent basis. It's hard to top the quality of horses racing at the Saratoga meeting, for example.

From a betting perspective, the HANA ratings are a good gauge for which track offers bettors the best value.

If there was a way to factor in host fees or average available rebate then the HANA ratings would be very interesting!

[JustRalph]

I agree Ray. However, in many respects he TLG is correct. NYRA has the highest quality of horses running on a consistent basis. It's hard to top the quality of horses racing at the Saratoga meeting, for example

I would say that Keeneland has just as good.

[highnote]

I would say that Keeneland has just as good.

That's true, but I was thinking about the fact that NYRA races year round.

[Stillriledup]

Does quality racing factor into the equasion? Personally, i just want winners, good bets and value, the quality racing doesnt do me any good, i dont get part of the winning purse, a 3-1 in a grade 1 race pays 8 dollars just like it pays 8 dollars in a rock bottom claiming race.

How much of a factor is 'quality racing' in these ratings?

[raybo]

I agree Ray. However, in many respects he TLG is correct. NYRA has the highest quality of horses running on a consistent basis. It's hard to top the quality of horses racing at the Saratoga meeting, for example.

From a betting perspective, the HANA ratings are a good gauge for which track offers bettors the best value.

If there was a way to factor in host fees or average available rebate then the HANA ratings would be very interesting!

Well, naturally the best horses are going to go where the money is. Quality horses does not necessarily mean a "better product". Again, it depends on what your own definition of "better product" is.

The average Joe player either doesn't care about the quality of the horses, or doesn't know the difference between quality horses and cheap claimers. And the average Joe is the majority of players.

[raybo]

I would say that Keeneland has just as good.

Well, if you're going to single out Keeneland and Saratoga, why not mention the length of their meets, and the difficulty of handicapping those 2 tracks. Horses come in for 1 or 2 races and they're gone, they don't even have time to get used to the track hardly. And, I imagine, not having visited either track, they are probably quite expensive to visit. Those two tracks, IMO, are boutique meets, for the clique that plans their year around taking that trip. Almost like the Derby, now how high on the list should CD be?

[raybo]

Does quality racing factor into the equasion? Personally, i just want winners, good bets and value, the quality racing doesnt do me any good, i dont get part of the winning purse, a 3-1 in a grade 1 race pays 8 dollars just like it pays 8 dollars in a rock bottom claiming race.

How much of a factor is 'quality racing' in these ratings?

That's my feeling too, I don't make much money playing high quality races. Like you, I'm looking for value, and don't care where I find it, or whether there are lots of big dollar horses running there or not.

IMO, "quality racing" means decent fields, and longer meets that offer the opportunity to find lots of value bets, and actually hitting some.

[Stillriledup]

That's my feeling too, I don't make much money playing high quality races. Like you, I'm looking for value, and don't care where I find it, or whether there are lots of big dollar horses running there or not.

IMO, "quality racing" means decent fields, and longer meets that offer the opportunity to find lots of value bets, and actually hitting some.

Its funny how people get SO excited about "Derby Fever" and yet, its just another race with a 16%/19% takeout. Unless you own a horse who is racing in the Derby, i'm not sure why people actually care about this stuff, i'm just looking to win my next bet and i could care less how 'important' the race happens to be....its only important if you are the trainer, owner or jockey.

Now, if your betting records indicate that you make much more money betting grade 1 races than you do betting any other kind of race, than i can see wanting quality racing....but, other than that, a race is a race, they all pay off the same at the end.

[cj]

Its funny how people get SO excited about "Derby Fever" and yet, its just another race with a 16%/19% takeout. Unless you own a horse who is racing in the Derby, i'm not sure why people actually care about this stuff, i'm just looking to win my next bet and i could care less how 'important' the race happens to be....its only important if you are the trainer, owner or jockey.

Now, if your betting records indicate that you make much more money betting grade 1 races than you do betting any other kind of race, than i can see wanting quality racing....but, other than that, a race is a race, they all pay off the same at the end.

Full field, HUGE pool, dumb money.

[Rook]

If there was a way to factor in host fees or average available rebate then the HANA ratings would be very interesting!

Yes, they would finally being doing the job they were designed to do: revealing which tracks were the most horseplayer friendly and which ones were easiest for a bettor to come out ahead at the end of the year.

It wouldn't be hard to include them at all. One simple phone call to someone high up at an ADW will answer that question.

[thespaah]

I would say that Keeneland has just as good.
Boutique meets tend to accomplish this( high quality racing stock/best riders and trainers) on a regular basis.

[Charli125]

It wouldn't be hard to include them at all. One simple phone call to someone high up at an ADW will answer that question.

That would be the easiest, except for the fact that every ADW signs a non-disclosure as part of each signal contract. Also the fact that each ADW pays a different signal fee depending on who they are, how big they are, and how much power they have.

Should we show the signal fee that Twinspires or PTC pays? Should we use the rebates at Twinspires(if you can call those rebates) or PTC, or any other ADW? Should we use my rebates or yours?

It's not as easy as it sounds.

[raybo]

I agree, the Derby is a huge wagering opportunity.

[NTamm1215]

How much effort was put into making sure the wagers that are available at each track were updated?

It's a pretty glaring omission that Churchill is not credited for having a Pick 5. They've had it for over two years. Del Mar is listed as not having a $0.50 Pick 4 or Pick 5. Monmouth practically introduced the $0.50 Pick 5 to the country and they don't have the box checked. Those omissions just scrape the surface. There are TONS more.

It's also pretty funny that OP is given such high marks for having $0.50 Pick 3s and $0.10 supers when their average card has 3 Pick 3s and 3 superfectas.

[OTM Al]

It's also pretty funny that OP is given such high marks for having $0.50 Pick 3s and $0.10 supers when their average card has 3 Pick 3s and 3 superfectas.

This is why I argued that weights are necessary as a single low take super exotic offered once on a card counts the same as an exacta offered 10 times that's raking in 7x as the super exotic. Biases the results badly.

[Stillriledup]

How much effort was put into making sure the wagers that are available at each track were updated?

It's a pretty glaring omission that Churchill is not credited for having a Pick 5. They've had it for over two years. Del Mar is listed as not having a $0.50 Pick 4 or Pick 5. Monmouth practically introduced the $0.50 Pick 5 to the country and they don't have the box checked. Those omissions just scrape the surface. There are TONS more.

It's also pretty funny that OP is given such high marks for having $0.50 Pick 3s and $0.10 supers when their average card has 3 Pick 3s and 3 superfectas.

There are still some tracks that list pick anything probables and don't list if its a 50 cent payout, a 1 dollar payout, 2 dollar payout, they are so out of touch its incredible. Im not sure which tracks are responsible for NOT listing this info, but some tracks still do this.

[NTamm1215]

There are still some tracks that list pick anything probables and don't list if its a 50 cent payout, a 1 dollar payout, 2 dollar payout, they are so out of touch its incredible. Im not sure which tracks are responsible for NOT listing this info, but some tracks still do this.

Given how many racetracks are undoubtedly very concerned with their HANA rating, they're sure to begin to make this information more accessible.

[thespaah]

I agree, the Derby is a huge wagering opportunity.
Ya know, with 20 horses, there is obviously traffic which brings in luck. The horse could be the greatest thing on 4 hooves and finish out of the money.
To me, that is a crap shoot.
It's still a fun race on which to bet though. I just keep my investment dialed down.

[raybo]

Ya know, with 20 horses, there is obviously traffic which brings in luck. The horse could be the greatest thing on 4 hooves and finish out of the money.
To me, that is a crap shoot.
It's still a fun race on which to bet though. I just keep my investment dialed down.

Well, unless you're just betting to win, good coverage can even out the "crap shoot" and with the horses who have been winning and the exotic payouts, there can be very good profit there.

[thespaah]

Well, unless you're just betting to win, good coverage can even out the "crap shoot" and with the horses who have been winning and the exotic payouts, there can be very good profit there.
Oh yeah...The payouts can be stratospheric. Even for horses that figure to get into the exotics. That's the beauty of it. But the crap shot part is trying to figure out which ones will finish top 4...
If one has a large enough bankroll and a set of balls as big as church bells, they can plunk down a whole bunch of P3's and P4's. Maybe take a crack at a few dozen supers and trifectas...

[JustRalph]

Given how many racetracks are undoubtedly very concerned with their HANA rating, they're sure to begin to make this information more accessible.

Not sure if this was sarcasm or not, but I don't think half the tracks care at all. Another 25% probably don't know it exists

[Robert Goren]

Not sure if this was sarcasm or not, but I don't think half the tracks care at all. Another 25% probably don't know it existsI think you have the numbers reversed.

[thaskalos]

I think you have the numbers reversed.

I think you are right. :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

I think that when the president of Keeneland issues a press release about the HANA ratings, a large group of them pay attention. He has done this every year so far as I know.

[DeanT]

Re: Tracks

Some call, and email. Some complain they're too low. Others have looked at the list and asked "what can we do to do better" and we tell them the things bettors have said they want - better racing carded, lower take, bigger fields etc. If someone wants to go to the "lowest win takeout in NA" like Woodbine did this meet, they can consult the spreadsheet. If Kentucky Downs wants to move up and get some promo for that, they can lower takeouts etc.

It's not the be all and end all, and it isn't going to change the world, but at least some contacts are made. When pick 4 rules, or scratches off the turf, or teletimers, or bad timed races, or 100 other things we see on this board, or on twitter talked about/complained about at least there's an email to send those questions to; and it won't (most times) get thrown in the trash.

Dean

[NTamm1215]

Re: Tracks

Some call, and email. Some complain they're too low. Others have looked at the list and asked "what can we do to do better" and we tell them the things bettors have said they want - better racing carded, lower take, bigger fields etc. If someone wants to go to the "lowest win takeout in NA" like Woodbine did this meet, they can consult the spreadsheet. If Kentucky Downs wants to move up and get some promo for that, they can lower takeouts etc.

It's not the be all and end all, and it isn't going to change the world, but at least some contacts are made. When pick 4 rules, or scratches off the turf, or teletimers, or bad timed races, or 100 other things we see on this board, or on twitter talked about/complained about at least there's an email to send those questions to; and it won't (most times) get thrown in the trash.

Dean

Can you answer my questions from a prior post that got buried with musings on whether tracks care about these ratings?

How much effort was put into making sure the wagers that are available at each track were updated?

It's a pretty glaring omission that Churchill is not credited for having a Pick 5. They've had it for over two years. Del Mar is listed as not having a $0.50 Pick 4 or Pick 5. Monmouth practically introduced the $0.50 Pick 5 to the country and they don't have the box checked. Those omissions just scrape the surface. There are TONS more.

It's also pretty funny that OP is given such high marks for having $0.50 Pick 3s and $0.10 supers when their average card has 3 Pick 3s and 3 superfectas.

[DeanT]

Can you answer my questions from a prior post that got buried with musings on whether tracks care about these ratings?

How much effort was put into making sure the wagers that are available at each track were updated?

It's a pretty glaring omission that Churchill is not credited for having a Pick 5. They've had it for over two years. Del Mar is listed as not having a $0.50 Pick 4 or Pick 5. Monmouth practically introduced the $0.50 Pick 5 to the country and they don't have the box checked. Those omissions just scrape the surface. There are TONS more.

It's also pretty funny that OP is given such high marks for having $0.50 Pick 3s and $0.10 supers when their average card has 3 Pick 3s and 3 superfectas.

Fair point on OP. I am not sure how Bill would do the programming to account for that.

The list of methodology items are here and it explains about everything.

As for Wager Variety, it is by far the most difficult to come up with, and Bill tries to update the sheet when mistakes are pointed out. It's mentioned in the release notes.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/trackratingmetrics2013.html

The WV rating will start with a baseline of 9 minus the number of baseline wagers available (highest possible baseline points will be zero). A point will be awarded for each of: $0.50 trifecta, $0.10 superfecta, $0.50 pick-3, and a $0.50 pick-4. This data is the most difficult to gather. Any updates from the membership will be greatly appreciated.

Ideally this information on the HANA sheet would be supplied by the industry for customers, but alas, we're left to Bill W to scour the interwebs and look at simo sheets to glean a lot of it.

The CD pick 5 is listed on the wager side of the sheet with its takeout rate, but it appears Bill forgot to put an "x" beside it in another column. those X's are all done manually so sometimes they're missed. It's done in a couple of other instances you mention. We'll make sure we fix that, so thanks for pointing it out.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Ideally this information on the HANA sheet would be supplied by the industry for customers, but alas, we're left to Bill W to scour the interwebs and look at simo sheets to glean a lot of it.

The CD pick 5 is listed on the wager side of the sheet with its takeout rate, but it appears Bill forgot to put an "x" beside it in another column. those X's are all done manually so sometimes they're missed. It's done in a couple of other instances you mention. We'll make sure we fix that, so thanks for pointing it out.

Lots of complaints - perhaps those who object to the omissions will join Bill next year in the process. I assumed he'd appreciate the help.

[thaskalos]

If we are criticizing HANA's work while we ourselves are also making an effort to bring about some sort of positive change in the game for the benefit of the player...then our criticism is understandable.

But if we are criticizing HANA while we ourselves are just lying on our sofas...then we are committing an injustice.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If we are criticizing HANA's work while we ourselves are also making an effort to bring about some sort of positive change in the game for the benefit of the player...then our criticism is understandable.

But if we are criticizing HANA while we ourselves are just lying on our sofas...then we are committing an injustice.

From what Dean described, it would probably be helpful if Bill had multiple sets of eyes to double check the data. That's all I meant.

[thaskalos]

From what Dean described, it would probably be helpful if Bill had multiple sets of eyes to double check the data. That's all I meant.

I agree...and I wasn't referring to your post...

Sorry for the confusion.

[DeanT]

It would probably be helpful if Bill had multiple sets of eyes to double check the data. That's all I meant.

Bill (a mod here "BillW" for people who don't know him) does this all himself. It's all done by one person.

Early on, getting this data was like unlocking a cure to an infectious disease. Taking data from the DRF, Equibase, websites of tracks etc, his first run through was probably 70% wrong in 2008. You would not have believed the bad data that was published as gospel. About eight drafts later, and a ton of work, it was only about 20% wrong. Year after year it gets better; maybe one day it will be perfecto.

We tried early on to partner with the big guys, that have some employees and money, to try and make this list 100% accurate and neat and sortable etc, for the player to rely on, but we never really got anywhere. We thought maybe someone would want to, so they can publish it in the programs, or on websites. No luck.

From 2008 onwards it's been all Bill. If he wasn't in HANA, it would never get done. But one thing for sure: His work has not gone unnoticed. This is the most accurate and reliable list of data for field size, rakes and wager variety there is on the internet, or published anywhere. The hits the website gets from players looking for this data are quite large, and we hear from email etc how much players appreciate Bill's hard work.