Clean races or low takeout

[Stillriledup]

If you could choose one of these two, which would it be: (keep in mind these are hypotheticals, so pick 1 of the two as opposed to trying to debate why either one could never happen. for the record, neither one could ever happen lol)

1) Spectacularly clean races, like Hong Kong only cleaner. Massive suspension and financial fines for cheating as well as prosecuting trainers in court and sending cheaters to jail and revoking their licenses permanently. Whatever has been discussed is implemented, cameras in stalls, on site lab, super testing with no expenses spared, horses must be stabled on grounds at least 72 hourse before their race and so on and so forth. Takeout levels remain the same.

2) WPS takeouts at all tracks slashed to 10%, exas and DDs 12.5% and anything 3 or more (tris, pick 4s etc) 15%. but nothing changes as far as #1 goes.

[cj]

Low takeout for me, I can handicap the other stuff.

[thaskalos]

A clean game, for me. The more apathy and leniency there is concerning drugs and cheating trainers...the more incentive there is for even more trainers to cheat. And then...no takeout reduction can save us. IMO...you either have a clean game...or you got nothing.

[Robert Goren]

Low takeout for me, I can handicap the other stuff.Bingo, we have a winner.

[Overlay]

Low takeout. Despite all the irregularities/illegalities in the present game, there are still enough recurring performance patterns to allow profitable handicapping, particularly if you're considering the winning chances of each horse or combination in a race field in relation to its odds or payoff, rather than focusing solely on narrowing the field down to the one most likely winner, to the exclusion of every other horse. That possibility for profit would be enhanced even further by lower takeouts for all types of wagers.

[AndyC]

A clean game, for me. The more apathy and leniency there is concerning drugs and cheating trainers...the more incentive there is for even more trainers to cheat. And then...no takeout reduction can save us. IMO...you either have a clean game...or you got nothing.

Cheating to try to get an edge in a race has been going on forever. It is merely a factor in the handicapping process. Give me lower takeout any day.

[Dave Schwartz]

I'll vote for integrity.

Good question, BTW.

Should have been a poll.

[Cholly]

Clean...easily worth 5% of my bet to take vets out of the equation.

[thaskalos]

Cheating to try to get an edge in a race has been going on forever. It is merely a factor in the handicapping process. Give me lower takeout any day.
If cheating is "merely a factor in the handicapping process"...then why is the game in the shape that it currently finds itself? Why have the mutuel pools tumbled nationwide? Have you noticed a great increase in the takeouts in recent years...is that why so many of our brethren have lost interest in this game? Or do you suppose that the horseplayers have fled our game for the greener pastures that the casinos have to offer them...which is what the tracks would have us believe?

I'll tell you what I think:

Cheating has NEVER been as widespread as it is right now...but there is a great cover-up in place, to protect the "integrity" of the game. Ask your friend Andy Beyer, if you don't believe me. And the proliferation of these legal and illegal drugs is the main reason for the tiny fields that we are witnessing today. If a sustained effort isn't made soon to deal with the cheating element in this game...then the six-horse field will be considered to be a "full field" in a few years' time.

And that's a game that no one would touch...even with a 12% takeout.

[LottaKash]

Cheating has NEVER been as widespread as it is right now...but there is a great cover-up in place, to protect the "integrity" of the game.
.

I sincerely believe that if you polled the general non fan/player public, you would get a similar response to the above...

It is saddening to most of us, I think, what has happened to this once great sport/game of ours....I have watched this sport slowly eroding for some fifty odd years...

I miss the roar of the once crowded grandstands...

As a result, I have slowly made the transition from a large churner to a moderate "guerilla style player"....Picking my spots, and just grinding away, when formerly, a "reach for the pie in the sky player"....

The only thing that I have going for me is that I still do ok, but I gave up on getting rich, due to unexplained reasons for losses....Not that I know everything, but I do know when I got screwed versus, when I lose, due to just silly racing luck, lazy, sloppy and/or lack of focus handicapping, or lack of knowledge ....

I can beat the take, but not the crooks...

I am losing interest in this game, more and more, these days... I still love it tho, just not in the same way and with the same enthusiasm as I used to...

Maybe just being 70 has something to do with it all too... :cool:

[appistappis]

totally agree with c.j.

[Stillriledup]

I'll vote for integrity.

Good question, BTW.

Should have been a poll.

Good call, maybe CJ or PA can add a poll to this?

[Ruffian1]

Clean game for me.

It was # 1 on a short list of reasons why I left the game I loved.

In hindsight though, the best move I ever made .

[stuball]

This really should be a 2 part question...second part being:
Which of the 2 are we most likely to see improvement in the next 10 years?
answers (A) Cheating (B) Takeout (C) Neither (D) Both
I would have to vote for C which is why I decided to quit.

Stuball :confused:

[MJC922]

Clean racing for me.

[olddaddy]

I have gotten so used to the chicanery in the game that I dont know if I could even play a clean game. The way I handicap relies around angles of a dirty game. I dont know if I would have the time or resources to handicap a clean game. All that being said, Ill vote for a clean game, I want this game that I have played for 50 years to be around for future generations.

[ALostTexan]

Clean racing for me.

[EMD4ME]

Is option A, a clean game meant to be no drugs? Or no drugs and everyone tries all the time (not talking about horses prepping, talking about complete stiff jobs). If it's both, then I vote clean game.

However, like CJ and many others , I've learned to know who's not trying very early in my horse years. So just a takeout reduction would be nice.

Example: race 1 at AQU Today. Cannizzo's horse was a complete no go at PRX last time. Cannizzo has 7 wins in the last 90 days, 4 with a switch to Rosario. Plus, this horse worked in company with last Friday's 85 Beyer dominant winner who paid 27 bucks with a switch to Rosario. If you watch the replay of this horse at Prx, he was choked and wanted to no part early. He chased in a fast second quarter (behind a loose wire to winner) and chased outside the rail moving chalk (who ended up 2nd). Knowing Cannizzo's recent M.O. I would've never bet this horse in his last start as it was an obvious prep.

That horse will be live today. As long as the rail isn't dead, he should win. So, in situations like this, just give me the lower takeout.

[AndyC]

If cheating is "merely a factor in the handicapping process"...then why is the game in the shape that it currently finds itself? Why have the mutuel pools tumbled nationwide? Have you noticed a great increase in the takeouts in recent years...is that why so many of our brethren have lost interest in this game? Or do you suppose that the horseplayers have fled our game for the greener pastures that the casinos have to offer them...which is what the tracks would have us believe?

I'll tell you what I think:

Cheating has NEVER been as widespread as it is right now...but there is a great cover-up in place, to protect the "integrity" of the game. Ask your friend Andy Beyer, if you don't believe me. And the proliferation of these legal and illegal drugs is the main reason for the tiny fields that we are witnessing today. If a sustained effort isn't made soon to deal with the cheating element in this game...then the six-horse field will be considered to be a "full field" in a few years' time.

And that's a game that no one would touch...even with a 12% takeout.


Cheating has nothing to do with the state of the game. When racing was in its prime cheating was rampant. People would like to pin the blame for the decline of racing to cheating but they are just flat wrong.

Racing's decline can be directly attributed to the ever increasing availability of other forms of gambling. To people new to gambling, racing is like driving a VW Bug while other available gambling is like driving a Ferrari. Attempts to make racing more competitive has been fruitless due to a broken business model along with entrenched factions who steadfastly cling to the past.

I am all for integrity and a clean game but if racing was squeaky clean it would still not be competitive.

[Track Phantom]

Very good question. For me, a clean game is far, far above low takeout. I believe good players can make up the takeout difference playing into a clean game.

In addition, I'd just enjoy following the game more if I truly believed in the training accomplishments.

Finally, I'd love to see what Jamie Ness would do next if the game were clean. I think we know what he wouldn't be doing.

[thaskalos]

Cheating has nothing to do with the state of the game. When racing was in its prime cheating was rampant. People would like to pin the blame for the decline of racing to cheating but they are just flat wrong.

Racing's decline can be directly attributed to the ever increasing availability of other forms of gambling. To people new to gambling, racing is like driving a VW Bug while other available gambling is like driving a Ferrari. Attempts to make racing more competitive has been fruitless due to a broken business model along with entrenched factions who steadfastly cling to the past.

I am all for integrity and a clean game but if racing was squeaky clean it would still not be competitive.
You lose me when you say that "horse racing is like driving a VW Bug, while other available gambling is like driving a Ferrari". What other form of gambling do you see out there that you would compare to a "Ferrari"? Poker is the only beatable game legally offered in this country...and the "Turbo" version of it is currently illegal. The live version of poker was DEAD in this country...and the internet was what gave poker the resurrection that it needed. Without the online version, poker is so freaking boring that it would more accurately be compared to a horse-wagon than a Ferrari. Sports betting is illegal nationwide...and people are scared to death to bet it on the internet -- for fear of not getting paid. Where is the "Ferrari" of gambling...the slot machines? Mindlessly pulling a handle waiting to get paid? You must be kidding me. Is it the lottery...with its 50% takeout? The casinos are more hostile to card counters than the racetracks are to handicappers...so we know that the horseplayers are not counting cards...so, what are they doing now that they are not playing horses? Are they shooting craps?

Our game is suffering not because it cannot attract new players; it's suffering because it can't even hold on to the players that it currently has. Confirmed, life-long horseplayers are fleeing this game in droves...and it isn't because they hate driving the VW Bug. Nor are these players leaving because of the riches promised to them by the casinos. They are leaving because they are disgusted with the current state of the game...and who could blame them? What clear-thinking gambler could possibly be attracted to the version of this game which is being put on display from Monday to Thursday at racetracks throughout the country? Is this the game that we all fell in love with? What does staying competitive with other gambling venues have to do with the total degradation of our own game? The game's "uncompetitiveness" with other gambling games is what is responsible for the disgraceful product that we see on display from Monday to Thursday at every track in the land? Where are all the horses...and why aren't they racing?

I'll tell you what the problem is...IMO:

These unscrupulous trainers insist on keeping the horses running in spite of their injuries...and they can only accomplish this through pain-killing drugs. I myself have heard trainers talking about giving a horse illegal drugs in order to squeeze another good race or two from the poor animal, after which -- in trainer vernacular -- the horse is "shot". He is damaged goods, never to be heard from again. You say that the cheating was rampant during the game's most popular stage...and that's true. But the horses were still relatively sound...and they were running on a regular basis. Today's drugs are so detrimental to the horse's well-being...that a 30-day layoff isn't even considered a layoff anymore. "Training tactics have changed"...people say. "Bullshit"...I say. It's the DRUGS that have changed. Yes...the number of foals have declined...but this doesn't explain all our problems. It doesn't tell us why the available horses cannot make their expected number of starts each year.

When run right, this is the best gambling game in existence...and I say this having had considerable experience playing every gambling game there is. Nothing compares with horse racing...in generating excitement, intellectual stimulation, and ROI. The horseplayers who have left it didn't do so because the game wasn't "competitive" with other gambling games; they fled because they got disgusted with the game that they loved...and I can't blame them.

Because when this game is run wrong, as it is now...it becomes a gambler's worst nightmare.

[cj]

People will always try to cheat when money is involved, which is why I said takeout. A takeout reduction is concrete, it can be measured. "Clean racing" is nothing but a concept with little chance of actually becoming real...ever.

[thaskalos]

People will always try to cheat when money is involved, which is why I said takeout. A takeout reduction is concrete, it can be measured. "Clean racing" is nothing but a concept with little chance of actually becoming real...ever.
A reduced takeout is an impossibility as well. The takeouts have only one way to go...and that's UP. How else is the purse structure to be maintained...when the mutual pools are in constant decline? And what do you think will happen when the casino money dries up? Do you seriously think that the TRAINERS will take the pay-cut?

Both of SRU's suggestions were impossibilities...and I picked the one which I felt was the biggest problem.

[ReplayRandall]

People will always try to cheat when money is involved, which is why I said takeout. A takeout reduction is concrete, it can be measured. "Clean racing" is nothing but a concept with little chance of actually becoming real...ever.


CJ, what about Hong Kong? Don't you believe it's clean? If not, explain how you know Sha Tin is not up to your standard of "clean racing".

[cj]

CJ, what about Hong Kong? Don't you believe it's clean? If not, explain how you know Sha Tin is not up to your standard of "clean racing".

I don't bet Hong Kong or know enough about it to comment.

[cj]

A reduced takeout is an impossibility as well. The takeouts have only one way to go...and that's UP. How else is the purse structure to be maintained...when the mutual pools are in constant decline? And what do you think will happen when the casino money dries up? Do you seriously think that the TRAINERS will take the pay-cut?

Both of SRU's suggestions were impossibilities...and I picked the one which I felt was the biggest problem.

Takeout has been reduced, so it is possible. I'm assuming the above is sarcasm.

[magwell]

People will always try to cheat when money is involved, which is why I said takeout. A takeout reduction is concrete, it can be measured. "Clean racing" is nothing but a concept with little chance of actually becoming real...ever.Exactly right, make the takeout 12% on all bets (no rebates) and the players might have a chance to win, that would bring new blood to the game and bring back the ones that have become disenchanted........

[thaskalos]

Takeout has been reduced, so it is possible. I'm assuming the above is sarcasm.
Look at SRU's two options in this thread...and THEN tell me which is more impossible. A 10% takeout is not only impossible; it's UNTHINKABLE.

[jahura2]

Lower takeout. been dealing with the "unclean" aspect for years and have learned to live with it.
Lower takeout would be a "gift horse".....pardon the pun.

[Robert Fischer]

2) WPS takeouts at all tracks slashed to 10%, exas and DDs 12.5% and anything 3 or more (tris, pick 4s etc) 15%. but nothing changes as far as #1 goes.

Side question - Why are Trifectas and other exotics typically 5-7% higher takeout, even @ SRU Hypothetical Downs?

Is there some increased cost to all that heavy number crunching?

Maybe there is some reason, and I'll have an ah-ha moment, but it seems anti-player, at least on the surface.

[cj]

Side question - Why are Trifectas and other exotics typically 5-7% higher takeout, even @ SRU Hypothetical Downs?

Is there some increased cost to all that heavy number crunching?

Maybe there is some reason, and I'll have an ah-ha moment, but it seems anti-player, at least on the surface.


Since the advent of exotics, it has "always been that way". It think it goes back to thinking people won't notice as much.

[Robert Fischer]

Since the advent of exotics, it has "always been that way". It think it goes back to thinking people won't notice as much.

yikes, that is kind of what I had suspected...

[AndyC]

To Thaskalos Re: #21

You are taking a very narrow view of the racing game. A viewpoint of a serious gambler who plays to win and not for pure recreation. Of course you are going to view the alternatives as not Ferrari-like. You are not attracted to the glitz of the casinos that seem to be built on every Indian reservation available. You are not attracted to the availability of sports betting on the internet that many are despite its illegal status. That may not represent competition to you but from a business standpoint it is certainly competition to the tracks.

The fact is most gamblers aren't looking to make a living they just want the action. With casino games, poker, and sports betting the learning curve is short and just about anybody can obtain enough knowledge to feel comfortable playing the games. The same cannot be said for racing.

[AndyC]

Look at SRU's two options in this thread...and THEN tell me which is more impossible. A 10% takeout is not only impossible; it's UNTHINKABLE.


Of course it is unthinkable in a pari-mutuel environment. Is there a dumber system of betting whereby a bettor gets penalized for betting more?

[thaskalos]

To Thaskalos Re: #21

You are taking a very narrow view of the racing game. A viewpoint of a serious gambler who plays to win and not for pure recreation. Of course you are going to view the alternatives as not Ferrari-like. You are not attracted to the glitz of the casinos that seem to be built on every Indian reservation available. You are not attracted to the availability of sports betting on the internet that many are despite its illegal status. That may not represent competition to you but from a business standpoint it is certainly competition to the tracks.

The fact is most gamblers aren't looking to make a living they just want the action. With casino games, poker, and sports betting the learning curve is short and just about anybody can obtain enough knowledge to feel comfortable playing the games. The same cannot be said for racing.
I understand what you are saying, Andy...but the game isn't losing just the "hobbyists"; it's losing players like ME, as well. And when guys like ME get disgusted with this game...then there is a real problem.

An industry should FIGHT for customers like me.

[cj]

Of course it is unthinkable in a pari-mutuel environment. Is there a dumber system of betting whereby a bettor gets penalized for betting more?

Don't bookmakers do the same thing? They will allow you to bet so much at one line, then change it, allow more, and so on? I'm not saying it is the same as parimutuel, but you can't just bet what you want and keep the same price.

[Stillriledup]

Side question - Why are Trifectas and other exotics typically 5-7% higher takeout, even @ SRU Hypothetical Downs?

Is there some increased cost to all that heavy number crunching?

Maybe there is some reason, and I'll have an ah-ha moment, but it seems anti-player, at least on the surface.

I just scaled the takeouts down to somewhat align with what the industry currently charges. Why exotics takeouts are larger? Not sure, that's a good question.

[Stillriledup]

I have to say i almost didn't pose this question because i thought "who in their right mind is going to say clean racing over takeout" but i'm glad i did, sheds new light on what we're all thinking is the most important.

Question for the people who said clean racing.

Is there a point where you would change your mind? What if all takeouts were 1% across the board at all tracks, would you still vote clean racing? What about 3%? 5%? Where's the cutoff where you would switch.

Same question for those who said takeout....at what point would you vote clean racing? What if all takeouts were only lowered 1% or 1/2%? Would you still vote takeout? Where's YOUR cutoff. In my example i lowered takeouts pretty substantially, but if they only got lowered a point or two, would that change your mind?

[AndyC]

Don't bookmakers do the same thing? They will allow you to bet so much at one line, then change it, allow more, and so on? I'm not saying it is the same as parimutuel, but you can't just bet what you want and keep the same price.


Bookmakers will at times reduce your price after so much is bet, but they only reduce your price for the new bet and not the initial bet. On an exchange you can take as much as what is offered. But in either event you KNOW what your price is and you make decisions accordingly.

[AndyC]

I have to say i almost didn't pose this question because i thought "who in their right mind is going to say clean racing over takeout" but i'm glad i did, sheds new light on what we're all thinking is the most important.

Question for the people who said clean racing.

Is there a point where you would change your mind? What if all takeouts were 1% across the board at all tracks, would you still vote clean racing? What about 3%? 5%? Where's the cutoff where you would switch.

Same question for those who said takeout....at what point would you vote clean racing? What if all takeouts were only lowered 1% or 1/2%? Would you still vote takeout? Where's YOUR cutoff. In my example i lowered takeouts pretty substantially, but if they only got lowered a point or two, would that change your mind?

Maybe 25 years ago before internet betting I would have answered clean racing. Today with the sharks fighting the whales in the mutuel pools the current take-out is a far tougher barrier to get over.

[Ruffian1]

I just scaled the takeouts down to somewhat align with what the industry currently charges. Why exotics takeouts are larger? Not sure, that's a good question.

I asked this question many years ago to management. The answer I got was that because of the higher payoffs, they felt it was justified.

That's code for because we want too. There is no cost variable to my knowledge that would drive the production cost of a triple or super race vs. an exacta race.

[AndyC]

Side question - Why are Trifectas and other exotics typically 5-7% higher takeout, even @ SRU Hypothetical Downs?

Is there some increased cost to all that heavy number crunching?

Maybe there is some reason, and I'll have an ah-ha moment, but it seems anti-player, at least on the surface.

I think to properly analyze takeouts you have to figure the effective takeout. To me effective takeout is the stated rate divided by the percentage of losing tickets. Easy example: Win takeout is 20%, winning horse had 40% of the pool bet on it leaving 60% bet on the losers. Effective rate 20/60 = 33%

In the example the winning horse would have paid $4.00 to win with the 20% takeout and $5.00 with no takeout. So with no takeout the bettor would have won $3 and with takeout he would win $2. The bettor took a 33% haircut on his winnings and not just a 20% bite.

Looking at the exotics the numerator of the equation is higher but the denominator is usually much higher resulting in an effective takeout difference not nearly as high as just comparing the stated rates.

[Stillriledup]

I asked this question many years ago to management. The answer I got was that because of the higher payoffs, they felt it was justified.

That's code for because we want too. There is no cost variable to my knowledge that would drive the production cost of a triple or super race vs. an exacta race.

This is a good point, there's no "Added cost' from a labor or technology standpoint that can justify the price increase. "Because we want to" or "because we can" isn't good enough in a world where people have options. You didnt have nearly as many options in 1970 and 1980, there were no cell phones or internet so tracks were able to get away with "take it or leave it".

Not true today and yet, they haven't changed their model at all.

[BlueShoe]

Lowered takeout, hands down for this old player. In the real world of the races we wager on, how often is there cheating, and how often does it involve us, 10-20% of the time?? Increased takeout hits us 100% when we bet.

[rastajenk]

I'd say "cheating" occurs in less than 1% of the races, and that includes overages of legal meds.

Question for the integritists: At what point would you be convinced that the game is finally clean enough for your tastebuds?

[Stillriledup]

I'd say "cheating" occurs in less than 1% of the races, and that includes overages of legal meds.

Question for the integritists: At what point would you be convinced that the game is finally clean enough for your tastebuds?

Here's the thing though? The punishments don't fit the crimes. You have a many-time offender who's currently winning Breeders Cup races with his "paper trainer" while laying on Manhattan Beach sipping Pina coladas. Why be honest when the punishments are getting a sun tan? These trainers lose no clients or money and get to spend time with the family, its a paid vacation for the most part.

[AndyC]

I'd say "cheating" occurs in less than 1% of the races, and that includes overages of legal meds.

Question for the integritists: At what point would you be convinced that the game is finally clean enough for your tastebuds?

So we shouldn't view a schooling ride by a jockey as cheating?

[thaskalos]

So we shouldn't view a schooling ride by a jockey as cheating?
Of course not. It's merely a part of the handicapping process. :)

[Stillriledup]

Of course not. It's merely a part of the handicapping process. :)

Exactly. If you really pay attention to the inner workings of the game, certain jocks just run firsters around there on occasion while making no attempt to actually win and the racing commission turns a blind eye to the "lack of effort". From a handicapping standpoint, we at least can guess this might happen going in, we know the 'usual suspects" in the jockey colony who are more likely to give one a race, so it IS part of handicapping.

[whodoyoulike]

This is a good point, there's no "Added cost' from a labor or technology standpoint that can justify the price increase. "Because we want to" or "because we can" isn't good enough in a world where people have options. You didnt have nearly as many options in 1970 and 1980, there were no cell phones or internet so tracks were able to get away with "take it or leave it".

Not true today and yet, they haven't changed their model at all.

I suspect it's because track management and horse owners still think it's the 1950's and, if it ain't broke why fix it.

[whodoyoulike]

I'd say "cheating" occurs in less than 1% of the races, and that includes overages of legal meds.

Question for the integritists: At what point would you be convinced that the game is finally clean enough for your tastebuds?

I agree but I don't feel it's as low as 1%. IMO, cheating isn't as high as others are implying which is one of the reasons I continue to wager. I don't believe in patronizing any business which I feel is consistently trying to rip me off. And, race tracks are getting to that point with me.

[Stillriledup]

I suspect it's because track management and horse owners still think it's the 1950's and, if it ain't broke why fix it.

No doubt, they're running the place like technology hasn't advanced in the last few decades as well as running it like their customers are crack addicts who can't say no to the " rush".

[iceknight]

So... drugging horses without need to get better performance or training out of them is ok with all of you saying "I can handicap that"? Animal health/suffering should be something important in this sport, isnt it? This isnt about "integrity" alone.

Or is your response strictly only to SRU's hypertheatrical question?

[Appy]

I want what's best for the horse. Tolerating cheaters who use them for pin cushions and lab rats is not it.

[cj]

So... drugging horses without need to get better performance or training out of them is ok with all of you saying "I can handicap that"? Animal health/suffering should be something important in this sport, isnt it? This isnt about "integrity" alone.

Or is your response strictly only to SRU's hypertheatrical question?

It isn't the job of bettors to worry about horse safety in my opinion. There are people paid to do that. Most of us are in it for the gambling. I certainly never want horses to be treated poorly or used as pin cushions for drugs. But, this question was posed from a gambling perspective.

[Stillriledup]

So... drugging horses without need to get better performance or training out of them is ok with all of you saying "I can handicap that"? Animal health/suffering should be something important in this sport, isnt it? This isnt about "integrity" alone.

Or is your response strictly only to SRU's hypertheatrical question?

CJ is right, the health of the animal is not in the gambler's crosshairs, sure we would prefer to see healthy horses and riders, but we can't control anything that happens on the track and we, the bettors, are not in any kind of position, financial or otherwise, to help horses or jocks remain healthy. This is where the tracks and trainers come in, trainers get paid HUGE dollars to make sure the health of the animal is taken care of, that's their responsibility, bettors can only HOPE things work out well for the animal in the end.

[AndyC]

Of course not. It's merely a part of the handicapping process. :)

I know it and you know it. And it's not going to change. Cheating to hide form or enhance performance will always be a part of the game. Doesn't mean that efforts to prevent it shouldn't happen. I just accept that it does happen and whether I like it or not it becomes a handicapping factor.

[Stillriledup]

I know it and you know it. And it's not going to change. Cheating to hide form or enhance performance will always be a part of the game. Doesn't mean that efforts to prevent it shouldn't happen. I just accept that it does happen and whether I like it or not it becomes a handicapping factor.

People thought i was crazy when i suggested a while back that i would prefer MORE "Stiffing" from jocks. The stiffing from trainers is a lot harder to sniff out, i can't know if a trainer gave a horse "slow down drugs" or just didn't feed him for a few days to darken the form, but with a jock, i can sniff out jocks who aren't trying in the back of the pack and when i sniff one out, i can make a score. Some of my best lifetime scores were on horses, with struggling jocks mostly, hiding in the back trying to darken form (the score came the next time the horse ran).

[thaskalos]

I know it and you know it. And it's not going to change. Cheating to hide form or enhance performance will always be a part of the game. Doesn't mean that efforts to prevent it shouldn't happen. I just accept that it does happen and whether I like it or not it becomes a handicapping factor.
If I was the racing czar...then every jockey would be going all out in every race. But the game ain't ready for me yet. :)

[AndyC]

If I was the racing czar...then every jockey would be going all out in every race. But the game ain't ready for me yet. :)

There are many ways to stiff a horse and look like you are going all out.

[thespaah]

Clean racing....
I will throw in a wrinkle..
Why not both?..
Ok, so I'm a troublemaker.

[plainolebill]

I'd take lower takeout if I had a choice.

[TBD]

I would prefer clean racing. The image of this sport is in the crapper. I agree with most of what has been said here. The problem is everything that has been complained about won't change anything. It has all been said before.

If the punishments being handed out are not having an effect, then I believe the racing establishment needs to direct its efforts elsewhere. A simple approach that would effect all involved. Place the punishment on the horse. If a horse is found to be in violation of medical rules, then the horse is banned from racing for one year.

[pandy]

Low Takeout.

As far as a clean game, that would be relatively easy to accomplish, it's done in Japan. However, you can make a case that the juice trainers actually make it easier to handicap, so I don't think it would help that much from a betting perspective. But, cleaning up the sport would help the public perception, which would be good for business.

Bottom line, both of these would be good for business.

[castaway01]

We'd be better off with low takeout because even if racing was 100% clean, some people wouldn't believe it anyway. Look at how paranoid some (like the OP) are about every single thing somehow being a conspiracy? There would still be trainers who won a lot of races, and people would still say they were cheating even if they weren't. With low takeout, the number is the number, it would be beneficial, and there's no downside unless you're making your living off rebates and they get taken away from you because there's no longer anything to rebate. So, I guess low takeout.

I'll wish for world peace after that, since it's Thanksgiving.

[pandy]

You make a good point. There are always going to be people that think racing is fixed.

[thaskalos]

There are always going to be people that think racing is fixed.
Can you blame them? The worst horse in the race runs away from the field, as nine supposedly faster horses are chasing it...and it pays $26 dollars to win...when it should have paid $106. What's an "unenlightened" horseplayer to think?

The horseplayers are right to think the way they do. With the checkered past that this game has had, it's hard to believe that the game does not employ knowledgeable people to do a detailed analysis of some of these betting patterns...to determine whether or not something nefarious has taken place. With computer wagering being what it is...EVERYTHING is forgiven these days. A daily double can pay $12 instead of the expected $212...and the industry just shrugs its shoulders, and says that some whale somewhere just pressed the "wrong button".

The whales are providing an excuse for everything.

[AndyC]

You make a good point. There are always going to be people that think racing is fixed.

I have found that many handicappers would rather believe that something nefarious happened to prevent them from winning a race than admit that they really don't have adequate handicapping skill.

[Stillriledup]

We'd be better off with low takeout because even if racing was 100% clean, some people wouldn't believe it anyway. Look at how paranoid some (like the OP) are about every single thing somehow being a conspiracy? There would still be trainers who won a lot of races, and people would still say they were cheating even if they weren't. With low takeout, the number is the number, it would be beneficial, and there's no downside unless you're making your living off rebates and they get taken away from you because there's no longer anything to rebate. So, I guess low takeout.

I'll wish for world peace after that, since it's Thanksgiving.

I like your post, i don't know if i agree with the part about the OP, but the other point you make is interesting.

So, about the trainers who win a lot of races honestly. My position is that it doesn't bother me if the trainer who wins tons of races is cheating or not, what bothers me is the idea that a human being can insert him or herself into the handicapping equasion so firmly that when i handicap HORSES i have to factor in the human element too much. Sure, there is always going to be a human element, we handicap jocks and owners and trainers and such, but when a trainer is too dominant, i feel that it skews the handicapping process and essentially turns that particular horse race into a "trainer race".

Its like going to a major league baseball game and instead of having a scorecard with the players, you had a scorecard with the umps. Now, nothing against umps, but i want to not even notice them, i want to concentrate on the players.

Some will always think there's cheating, that's their mechanism to convince themselves that they aren't getting beaten fair and square by sharper players, but the reality of the situation is that if the races ARE really inherently honest, that would prevent "insiders" from capitalizing on knowing which horses are plugged in and which ones are not, which would make more money available to win for players who picked winners.

[AndyC]

...... My position is that it doesn't bother me if the trainer who wins tons of races is cheating or not, what bothers me is the idea that a human being can insert him or herself into the handicapping equation so firmly that when i handicap HORSES i have to factor in the human element too much.....

There is a vast difference in the abilities of trainers just as there is a difference in abilities in just about any profession. Handicapping the human element may just be one of the most important factors to be a winner.

[Stillriledup]

There is a vast difference in the abilities of trainers just as there is a difference in abilities in just about any profession. Handicapping the human element may just be one of the most important factors to be a winner.

No doubt. I just don't want it to be so "in my face" that im making my overall decisions strictly based on humans. I'd like it to be a small factor, not the only factor that matters.

[rastajenk]

If a horse is found to be in violation of medical rules, then the horse is banned from racing for one year.
That would certainly discourage a lot of potential horse ownership. It could be a death sentence for many horses currently in training.

[rastajenk]

...and it pays $26 dollars to win...when it should have paid $106. What's an "unenlightened" horseplayer to think? Move on to the next one? Catch the next $26 winner that seemed like it should have paid $10 or $12? Appreciate the mystery?
I have found that many handicappers would rather believe that something nefarious happened to prevent them from winning a race than admit that they really don't have adequate handicapping skill.
I'm with AndyC.

Race results are the products of hundreds, or thousands, of human interactions and decisions, in the moment and in the days, weeks, or months leading up to each individual event. A horse's natural ability accounts somewhat for its place in the large-scale hierarchy of horses in training, but human activity has much more impact on the results themselves. There are no absolute truths; on the contrary, it seems to me that a loyalty to absolutes is cover for sucking all the fun out it in a self-defeating way.

[Stillriledup]

Can you blame them? The worst horse in the race runs away from the field, as nine supposedly faster horses are chasing it...and it pays $26 dollars to win...when it should have paid $106. What's an "unenlightened" horseplayer to think?

The horseplayers are right to think the way they do. With the checkered past that this game has had, it's hard to believe that the game does not employ knowledgeable people to do a detailed analysis of some of these betting patterns...to determine whether or not something nefarious has taken place. With computer wagering being what it is...EVERYTHING is forgiven these days. A daily double can pay $12 instead of the expected $212...and the industry just shrugs its shoulders, and says that some whale somewhere just pressed the "wrong button".

The whales are providing an excuse for everything.

This is a great point, let me take this further.

If there was such a think as forensic data analysis of the betting patterns, it wouldn't be hard to sniff out nefarious activity. You can go deep into the betting and probably find patterns of humans who are "betting against" in situations and tie them to owners, jocks or trainers who are engaging in less than honest behavior. No doubt this is possible, i think the biggest problem is that racing doesn't want to catch these people because if they do, they have to admit that either the tote systems are not secure, or the pools are being pilfered by crooks who are taking cash out of them by ways other than just good old fashioned honest handicapping/betting.