Are There Too Many Tracks Running Simultaneously?

[Nosed]

Seems like there's just not enough horses to go around, so we're getting a lot of races with 6 and 7 horse fields. At least in the last couple years.
Any opinions?

[Longshot6977]

I see this is your 1st post. This has been discussed many times before. I'm pretty sure we all agree, but would do you want us to say about it?

[nearco]

Now there's a subject that's never been broached before on this forum.

[Nosed]

Okay,yes it's my 1st post, so I guess it might be redundant, but still haven't noticed it as much in last couple years, and I've been playing horses a long time.
I think tracks ought to do like Beulah and River Downs were doing a few years back and alternate their races through the simulcast, thereby each track running fewer races. Might work as long as it was same racing commission.

[letswastemoney]

I don't see the problem with 6 or 7 horse fields...if you know the winner. As for too many tracks running simultaneously, don't play them all. Don't even think about them.

Pick one or two cards to focus on, and don't even consider what else is going on.

[tanner12oz]

Waaaaaay to many tracks

[thaskalos]

I don't see the problem with 6 or 7 horse fields...if you know the winner.
Is this a joke?

If we follow this way of thinking...then we should be begging for 2-horse fields...where we can REALLY "know the winner".

[garyoz]

Too many tracks and too few horses as we all know, but you need to keep owners in the game and support more than the top tier of trainers. The rich can't keep getting richer. It is expensive to own and run a horse and it is not going to get cheaper. Purse distributions are always an issue. I really find stake races with few entries not the best use of purse money.

It is difficult to get races to fill--particularly allowance and open races. So if a 5 horse field gets a smaller outfit close to whole, I don't have a problem with it. I may or may not play (probably not), that is my choice.

[letswastemoney]

Is this a joke?

If we follow this way of thinking...then we should be begging for 2-horse fields...where we can REALLY "know the winner".
No. And I said nothing about 2 horse fields.

Shorter fields take out a lot of variables and you don't have to worry as much about poor trips.

I would be more likely to play a 6 horse dirt race where the winner is easy to spot, than a 12 horse turf race where 5 horses have the same shot. When the turf race gets rained off and and onto the dirt, it's even better.

Obviously there's a limit to the thinking, as I wouldn't play a match race.

[therussmeister]

I too feel I get a better return from six hose fields than I do with twelve horse fields, but it's hard to tell because I don't run onto enough twelve horse fields to compile solid statistics. Also I consider myself to be a short field specialist.

[Hambletonian]

a diluted equine talent pool.

pre-slots, trainers at the mid level tracks would take their better horses to the big tracks before they ran through their conditions. Once you go through them, you can never go back, so why not race for 35k as opposed to 20k.

today, there is less incentive to do, with many mid level tracks boosted by slots, and everywhere is now like SoCal, where there have always been very limited places to ship, and few horses shipping in.

most tracks end up with a horse population of the resident trainers, whatever that may be. so if you have 20% maiden claimers in the horse population, then that is what the racing secretary has to card.

the number of tracks will be reduced, probably due to redevelopment more than anything else, but i am not sure that will address this issue. if you are an illinois based owner and racing ceases in that state, do you get involved out of state or just close shop?

the number of tracks racing has already been reduced, and it would be hard to argue that the quality of racing has improved.

as far as field size, large fields probably hurt churn,as it is better to have 1000 folks win collect 80 bucks as opposed to one person collecting 80K. large payouts may be interesting PR, but i have to believe it does little to enhance handle long term.

I personally like 8 horse fields, but that is just a personal preference.

[Stillriledup]

a diluted equine talent pool.

pre-slots, trainers at the mid level tracks would take their better horses to the big tracks before they ran through their conditions. Once you go through them, you can never go back, so why not race for 35k as opposed to 20k.

today, there is less incentive to do, with many mid level tracks boosted by slots, and everywhere is now like SoCal, where there have always been very limited places to ship, and few horses shipping in.

most tracks end up with a horse population of the resident trainers, whatever that may be. so if you have 20% maiden claimers in the horse population, then that is what the racing secretary has to card.

the number of tracks will be reduced, probably due to redevelopment more than anything else, but i am not sure that will address this issue. if you are an illinois based owner and racing ceases in that state, do you get involved out of state or just close shop?

the number of tracks racing has already been reduced, and it would be hard to argue that the quality of racing has improved.

as far as field size, large fields probably hurt churn,as it is better to have 1000 folks win collect 80 bucks as opposed to one person collecting 80K. large payouts may be interesting PR, but i have to believe it does little to enhance handle long term.

I personally like 8 horse fields, but that is just a personal preference.

I agree with the 8 horse fields comments, you can make a really nice score in an 8 horse field and have a much better shot to win than 10 horse fields or more.

I've quite often skipped fields of 10 or more just because there are too many horses. If i want a big payout, i'll hit a tri for more than 1 dollar in an 8 horse field rather than have to rely on a 1 dollar tri in a 12 horse field actually paying something worthwhile.

[proximity]

again, in a six horse field you need approximately a 3% error per horse to even erase the take to break even, let alone have any kind of edge on the race. while such mistakes do happen, in general the modern horseplayers simply aren't that stupid so if you want to be a winning player ( and we are on pace advantage) you're going to be wasting a lot of time passing these short fields.

I nearly equate such cavalier talk about short fields to the habitual straddlers at poker who (of course) can beat the game from under the gun playing every hand from that position. :rolleyes:

[Robert Goren]

The number of TB births is decreasing every year. Some tracks are going to have go or else we will get even shorter fields. Week day dirt fields are pretty short now everywhere. There does seem to be more turf horses these days so we get larger fields in turf races. I don't like that. Some of the problem seems to be that small trainers have trouble getting stall space for their claiming stock. The larger tracks would rather have a bunch of maidens who can't run a lick and take months off between starts trained by some big time trainer than a hard hitting bottom level dirt claimer who runs every three weeks or so trained by a small trainer. The big horsemen run the show these days and the bettor is an afterthought. It is no wonder that handles are way down from 10 years ago.

[Robert Goren]

For the record, I would rather have a twenty horse field than a six one. These I am happy to take six because there so many four and five horse ones.

[Some_One]

I would be more likely to play a 6 horse dirt race where the winner is easy to spot, than a 12 horse turf race where 5 horses have the same shot. When the turf race gets rained off and and onto the dirt, it's even better.


You'll take your 2-5 horse instead of trying to find a 5-1 shot eh?

[Redbullsnation]

Yea, but that might change sooner than later it seems. Some tracks are closing shop :(

[dilanesp]

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: the sport is in a necessary period of contraction, which has been going on for quite awhile and has quite a bit longer to go. The basic economics were changed by (1) the diversification of public tastes (i.e., fewer casual fans) and (2) simulcasting.

The result is that the old model-- build a racetrack, have an effective gambling monopoly, and draw people to the track who buy tickets, parking, programs, souvenirs, food, and drinks, and who bet, only works anymore for a narrow set of facilities (basically tracks with short meetings in resort areas (Del Mar, Saratoga, Oaklawn) and "big event" races such as the Kentucky Derby and Oaks).

Simulcasting created a new model, where a track can make money without much live attendance by attracting a ton of betting from the now nationwide and international consolidated betting pools. But to do that, you have to offer a really attractive wagering product, and the bettors in those pools have limited amounts of attention and cannot play more than a few tracks. Thus, that model tends to consolidate racing into a handful of super-tracks, such as Churchill, the NYRA tracks, the Florida tracks, and Santa Anita, which can potentially generate the gigantic handles and simulcast fees necessary to sustain the model.

Everyone else in the industry is on borrowed time.

[JohnGalt1]

This is question that doesn't have an easy answer for me.

Some tracks like Canterbury and Prairie Meadows are the only tracks in the state. So why should they shut down or reduce racing dates? Their fans and horsemen should be able to race.

But some states like Florida and Pennsylvania with 3 tracks running at the same time have only themselves to blame for short fields.

At least Florida may have solved their issues.

One suggestion for California would be two week gaps between meetings, the more horses would be anticipating the upcoming meets.

[dilanesp]

Some tracks like Canterbury and Prairie Meadows are the only tracks in the state. So why should they shut down or reduce racing dates? Their fans and horsemen should be able to race.

Bear in mind that the market is about is and not ought. (And given your screenname, I assume you know this.)

The economics of the industry really crush local tracks that can't make themselves into vacation destinations. It's the same principle as globalism in the economy writ large-- how does a shoe manufacturer in upstate New York compete with a cheaper, better product made in Vietnam? It doesn't-- it closes. That's horrible for the workers. But it's inevitable.

Well, the bettors in Shakopee, Minnesota now have the opportunity to bet on really good races in New York and Kentucky, which they didn't have when the track opened in the 1980's and they had to bet on their local racing product. What are they going to want to bet on?

The economics of consolidation in the industry are an inevitable consequence of simulcasting. It's fine if you are a big-time successful horseman in Kentucky and can compete for bigger purses; it's terrible if you have a 7 horse stable at a minor track that nobody wants to bet on.

[Track Phantom]

Well, the bettors in Shakopee, Minnesota now have the opportunity to bet on really good races in New York and Kentucky, which they didn't have when the track opened in the 1980's and they had to bet on their local racing product. What are they going to want to bet on?

I think the gap might be closing some at CBY vs Ny racing. With the influx of Indian money, CBY is carding some decent, competitive racing.

[DeltaLover]

Too much racing is one of the biggest problems of American Racing and most if not all of the small tracks should eventually go, if we want to improve the game.

Local tracks can very well be converted to simulcasting centers, a move that not only will improve horse racing as a sport and a betting event but also it will create profitable businesses, given the cost of operation of any race track.

We do not need a lot of race tracks, what we really need is many horse bettors.

Horse betting should not be confused with slot machines or casino table games where the gambler needs constant action to maintain his interest...

Less racing will push less capable horses and horsemen out of the game, making it easier to regulate and follow, something that will create more public interest leading to larger pools for the gamblers and even paychecks for the pros who will continue operating it.

Another good solution, is to encourage the creation of small OTB's following the example of UK, where you can find a place to bet in every neighborhood... It does not even need to be a dedicated location, any place where lotto can be played today, can be converted to a mini-OTB with minimal cost creating new horseplays and multiplying public attention.

Also having less racing, will favor free distribution of related data which might attract younger people who would like to use electronic methods for their handicapping...

We can talk for ever about the topic but unfortunately there is absolutely no move towards the right direction as the industry is driven by very conservative forces who fail to see the large picture and plan for the long run...

[therussmeister]

I think the gap might be closing some at CBY vs Ny racing. With the influx of Indian money, CBY is carding some decent, competitive racing.
But so far this year they haven't had much handle on their races.

[therussmeister]

Local tracks can very well be converted to simulcasting centers, a move that not only will improve horse racing as a sport and a betting event but also it will create profitable businesses, given the cost of operation of any race track.

We do not need a lot of race tracks, what we really need is many horse bettors.

There is no guarantee that if all the tracks close in a given state that parimutuel wagering will remain legal in that state.

[davew]

You are selfish and only thinking about yourself as a bettor.


If you were a owner or a trainer, would you rather run in 5 horse fields or 12 horse fields? (assuming they are paying the typical top 5 finishers...)

[phattty]

So we have too many tracks running over all in the states


Solutions.....

Crickets is all I hear

Who among us wants to be the area that loses it's local live racing?

I've already been through the loss of local tracks...Atlantic city...garden state

Liberty bell....brandywine

It's not fun when it happens.. To your favorite tracks...

I have since left Delaware Valley and relocated in tampa , where I get live racing

92 dates a year , while grossly mismanaged I welcome the live meet every year


So which local tracks are each of you willing to just close up for the betterment

Of the sport..?

[rastajenk]

Too much racing is one of the biggest problems of American Racing and most if not all of the small tracks should eventually go, if we want to improve the game.

Local tracks can very well be converted to simulcasting centers, a move that not only will improve horse racing as a sport and a betting event but also it will create profitable businesses, given the cost of operation of any race track.

We do not need a lot of race tracks, what we really need is many horse bettors.

Horse betting should not be confused with slot machines or casino table games where the gambler needs constant action to maintain his interest...

Less racing will push less capable horses and horsemen out of the game, making it easier to regulate and follow, something that will create more public interest leading to larger pools for the gamblers and even paychecks for the pros who will continue operating it.

Another good solution, is to encourage the creation of small OTB's following the example of UK, where you can find a place to bet in every neighborhood... It does not even need to be a dedicated location, any place where lotto can be played today, can be converted to a mini-OTB with minimal cost creating new horseplays and multiplying public attention.

Also having less racing, will favor free distribution of related data which might attract younger people who would like to use electronic methods for their handicapping...

We can talk for ever about the topic but unfortunately there is absolutely no move towards the right direction as the industry is driven by very conservative forces who fail to see the large picture and plan for the long run...
Every thing about this is wrong, and will hasten the sport's demise. Growth will not come about as a result of contraction.

[dilanesp]

You are selfish and only thinking about yourself as a bettor.


If you were a owner or a trainer, would you rather run in 5 horse fields or 12 horse fields? (assuming they are paying the typical top 5 finishers...)

The thing is, horse racing isn't a welfare program for owners or trainers.

[dilanesp]

So we have too many tracks running over all in the states


Solutions.....

Crickets is all I hear

Who among us wants to be the area that loses it's local live racing?

I've already been through the loss of local tracks...Atlantic city...garden state

Liberty bell....brandywine

It's not fun when it happens.. To your favorite tracks...

I have since left Delaware Valley and relocated in tampa , where I get live racing

92 dates a year , while grossly mismanaged I welcome the live meet every year


So which local tracks are each of you willing to just close up for the betterment

Of the sport..?

I don't think I have to make that decision. The free market will (and already has).

[mishka]

Simulcasting created a new model, where a track can make money without much live attendance by attracting a ton of betting from the now nationwide and international consolidated betting pools. But to do that, you have to offer a really attractive wagering product, and the bettors in those pools have limited amounts of attention and cannot play more than a few tracks. Thus, that model tends to consolidate racing into a handful of super-tracks, such as Churchill, the NYRA tracks, the Florida tracks, and Santa Anita, which can potentially generate the gigantic handles and simulcast fees necessary to sustain the model.


Interesting point. But also in way, doesn't simulcasting in a way do away partially with the idea of separate tracks? For me, on Saturday it is all one big track and I can search and choose what races I want to play based on my particular handicapping skills and betting focus. Saratoga or Hooterville Downs, makes no difference if they got the races I am looking for.

Addressing the original post. Don't we as consumers in the abstract want more choices? Not talking from an "industry" point of view, but someone who wants to place a bet. Why is talk of reducing choices in number of tracks and pushing fields toward the upper-end supposed to be good for me?

Beyers had written, if memory serves, that WPS betting won't make you money because the near universal use of a tool called "speed figures" leveled the playing field for all bettors. He didn't seem to imply it was field size. Which is why he recommended that if you want bigger payoffs, then exotics is the path.

[dilanesp]

Interesting point. But also in way, doesn't simulcasting in a way do away partially with the idea of separate tracks? For me, on Saturday it is all one big track and I can search and choose what races I want to play based on my particular handicapping skills and betting focus. Saratoga or Hooterville Downs, makes no difference if they got the races I am looking for.

Addressing the original post. Don't we as consumers in the abstract want more choices? Not talking from an "industry" point of view, but someone who wants to place a bet. Why is talk of reducing choices in number of tracks and pushing fields toward the upper-end supposed to be good for me?

Beyers had written, if memory serves, that WPS betting won't make you money because the near universal use of a tool called "speed figures" leveled the playing field for all bettors. He didn't seem to imply it was field size. Which is why he recommended that if you want bigger payoffs, then exotics is the path.

Well, first of all, larger fields are good for you for a couple of reasons. First of all, high takeout affects the people who bet shorter priced horses more than it does the people who bet longer priced ones, because mathematically, a takeout is a tax on a winning ticket, which you pay every time you cash. You cash more tickets when you bet shorter priced horses. (For the same reason, takeouts hit WPS bets more than they hit exotics.)

(And before someone starts screaming about percentages, remember the takeout includes breakage.)

So shorter fields mean shorter prices, which means you cash more tickets and pay more takeout.

Larger fields are also good for a second reason, also related to takeout. What you are looking for as a bettor is value. Overlays. Wagers with a positive expected value. The greater number of horses in a field, the more likely that someone is a significant overlay. If the racetrack carded a series of 3 horse races, it would be unlikely that there would be any significant overlays. It's the larger number of horses in the field that causes the public to overlook someone.

Having said that, I do think you misinterpret something about exotic wagers. I don't think there's actually any evidence that the advent of speed figures stripped the WPS pools of all +EV wagers while leaving them in the exotic pools. I think breakage makes it very hard to make money in place and show pools absent very specific circumstances, but win pools can still offer overlays sometimes. And exotic wagers are actually sucker bets for a lot of players who don't think about them seriously and don't consider what combinations are likely to be overbet and underbet. (The typical trifecta or superfecta player's ticket is going to contain numerous combinations of horses that are underlays / -EV wagers, for instance, because the player is thinking in terms of covering combinations that will possibly hit the board instead of thinking in terms of odds and value.) And one reason for underlays in exotic pools is likely to be the same speed figures that produce underlays in the win pools.

It's actually very, very hard to think of horse race betting in terms of strict value. And that, along with information asymmetry, are the two biggest factors that make it so hard for horseplayers to beat the game.

[Dark Horse]

I don't mind 6 or 7 horse fields, and prefer them over 12 horse fields. First, because I don't have to handicap as many horses, and secondly because of the decreased risk of a horse getting boxed in, or otherwise affected by the increased traffic. Do I find value more often in larger fields? In exotic bets, yes. Otherwise, not really. Besides, how can we argue in favor of greater popularity for horse racing, and at the same time hold that there are too many tracks? The more races, the more chance to cherry pick the ones with the most value. The question at how many entrees the intrinsic value in a race drops off sharply is more interesting to me. It's not six or seven.

[JohnGalt1]

If the "sharpies" bet the major tracks almost exclusively, that means they don't bet much if anything at the small or mid size tracks.

Which is why I bet at tracks where I believe I have more of an advantage. I live in Minnesota and as of now don't have to compete with the computer informed whales, at least as of now.

This year handle has probably been hurt by small fields, even though the 1600 stalls have been filled to capacity, and admission has been raised a dollar and $3 on "premium" days.

So far this year weather has been perfect.

Even though Minnesota has about 21 Tribal casinos, most probably sit at penny and nickel slots, and our show betting pools are a larger percentage of WPS than any track I know---Minnesotans don't bet as much per person as most tracks get from on track patrons.

[Stillriledup]

If the "sharpies" bet the major tracks almost exclusively, that means they don't bet much if anything at the small or mid size tracks.

Which is why I bet at tracks where I believe I have more of an advantage. I live in Minnesota and as of now don't have to compete with the computer informed whales, at least as of now.

This year handle has probably been hurt by small fields, even though the 1600 stalls have been filled to capacity, and admission has been raised a dollar and $3 on "premium" days.

So far this year weather has been perfect.

Even though Minnesota has about 21 Tribal casinos, most probably sit at penny and nickel slots, and our show betting pools are a larger percentage of WPS than any track I know---Minnesotans don't bet as much per person as most tracks get from on track patrons.

Some computer guys bet every track, if its a small track, they bet small, they won't overbet the pools, but whatever their computer decides is a proper amount, they're in there too.

The whales are betting your track, but they're not betting 'whale' kind of money.

[letswastemoney]

You'll take your 2-5 horse instead of trying to find a 5-1 shot eh?
Not every winner in a 6 horse field is going to be 2/5. It takes patience, but the value is there sometimes.