Keeneland was bad

[ronsmac]

Has anyone seen a Keeneland meet that was worse than this one? Handle down 20 million, short fields and chalk galore. A lot of people called for dirt, me being one of them. I have to admit , they were better off with Polytrack.

[olddaddy]

The fields did seem shorter and it wasnt due to conditions of the track. I really cant figure out why the fields shortened up with dirt and most scheduled grass races were run on the grass. Maybe gulfstream running hurts Keenland?

[Some_One]

Increased drug testing?

[RXB]

Already a bazillion other dirt surfaces in operation. Now Keeneland is competing for the same shrinking pool of dirt horses (and the same pool of dirt bettors) as all of these other tracks.

[grimm7]

Has anyone seen a Keeneland meet that was worse than this one? Handle down 20 million, short fields and chalk galore. A lot of people called for dirt, me being one of them. I have to admit , they were better off with Polytrack.
Agree! I was very disappointed with meet. I too was calling for dirt but fields were larger when they ran on Poly. Short fields on dirt is a nationwide problem.

[Tall One]

They could not host the BC with the poly.

[Cholly]

Maybe if they get it down to one-horse fields I'll pick my first winner at Keeneland.

[Fager Fan]

Agree! I was very disappointed with meet. I too was calling for dirt but fields were larger when they ran on Poly. Short fields on dirt is a nationwide problem.

You're prefer larger groups of horses who lack talent on either of the conventional surfaces?

I think we'll have to dig deeper to find better reasons as to why there were short fields. Were not the barns filled by the usual trainers?

[Tall One]

Trainers point specifically for the meet, they ship in and win early, and they ship out...EARLY..

[RunDustyRun]

Completely agree...the average pick 4 and pick 5 payouts were anemic when compared to prior meets....chalk players, especially on dirt, must have done very well...dirt sprints especially were a merry go round with any horse more than two lengths back at first call having little if any chance...I prefer the poly

[tanner12oz]

Running half the card opening day severely hurts handle

[fmolf]

handle is down nationwide...the only solution is to have fewer tracks running....

[098poi]

Maybe if they get it down to one-horse fields I'll pick my first winner at Keeneland.

That's it! You've cracked the code.

[grimm7]

You're prefer larger groups of horses who lack talent on either of the conventional surfaces?

I think we'll have to dig deeper to find better reasons as to why there were short fields. Were not the barns filled by the usual trainers?
What other reason could you come up with other than a shortage of dirt horses for small fields? I prefer larger fields talented or untalented like most because they produce larger payouts. Like to watch talented 5 or 6 horse but not for wagering purposes. Again, every track in the country is having a problem filling dirt races with talented horses. Barns did have usual trainers minus some Canadian and Presque Isle horses who normally ran on the poly.

[pandy]

This has nothing to do with the surface. There just aren't enough horses, period. The reason why the turf races have bigger fields is because there aren't as many turf races.

[lamboguy]

looking at the 2 year old sale that went on at OBS this week, there were more buyers from the orient paying all types of prices for horses and taking them with them. and this is with an even lighter catalog than in previous sales. the shortage of horses in this country continues and in my opinion won't get any better here until the game attracts the smaller owners to the sport that it once had.

[sammy the sage]

looking at the 2 year old sale that went on at OBS this week, there were more buyers from the orient paying all types of prices for horses and taking them with them. and this is with an even lighter catalog than in previous sales. the shortage of horses in this country continues and in my opinion won't get any better here until the game attracts the smaller owners to the sport that it once had.

Correct...unfortunately...that AIN'T happening ANY time soon...would discuss....but that leads to politics...so not...let's just say...the crookedness of todays trainers...(not all mind you....but enough)... and destruction of middle class...

[acorn54]

if i represent the typical NON_ADDICTED horse gambler i will say the reason i had no bets at keenland was because i have the philosophy with turf speculation, to bet a little to win alot. personally with my betting i refuse to bet into what i perceive as a negative expectancy scenario.
i keep records and my records show betting into races with DOMINANT trainers,and/or small fields is a losing proposition.

[burnsy]

looking at the 2 year old sale that went on at OBS this week, there were more buyers from the orient paying all types of prices for horses and taking them with them. and this is with an even lighter catalog than in previous sales. the shortage of horses in this country continues and in my opinion won't get any better here until the game attracts the smaller owners to the sport that it once had.

So true, been going on for years. Last week I was ridiculed by stooges on here that said Japan doesn't have nice horses. Guess what? Just like you said many of them are bought HERE! The colt I was talking about was by Tapit. Yeah, their horses suck, funny they buy a ton of them right here.

There are several things going on that have finally reached a critical situation. The industry pretended for years that us "dumb horseplayers" would gamble on anything. Just put the product out there, there will be handle. Gamblers are compulsive, they bitch, but they will ALWAYS bet. Even though handle keeps slacking they have the guaranteed piggy bank of casinos at many tracks. Not necessarily Keenland but some of these other tracks probably would not make it without that money. That right there is a huge red flag. There is a shortage of owners, horses and gambling handle but somehow the industry repeatedly tries to saturate the market with races and tracks. Without making a profit on its own or gaining popularity. Simulcasts and account wagering kept this going for a while but the soul of the sport begins to chip away when no one shows up at a race track and only certain, few days are considered real sporting events. Most of the mainstream media coverage is when someone gets caught cheating.

There will always be some bettors, some of them big enough to keep a handle going but the sport desperately needs fans and interest which means an interesting product. The "subsidy system" that keeps some of these tracks going is actually making the situation worse for the overall product. Its one thing to have 5 and 6 horses in graded stakes races. When the cheaper races look like that, how are you going to captivate anyone? Even the biggest supporters will begin to pull back. That's the point we are at, even the loyal customer is hitting bricks or playing less. The handle is finally suffering. Their remedy.......try to open more tracks.......hold on racing fans, it could get worse before it gets better. Times are a changing, Baseball and Boxing are going through the same thing.

[RXB]

This has nothing to do with the surface. There just aren't enough horses, period. The reason why the turf races have bigger fields is because there aren't as many turf races.

In 2000, 68,775 horses started at least once on dirt in North America, compared to 17,707 on turf. (Ratio 3.9x)

In 2014, 53,167 horses started at least once on either dirt or synthetic combined, compared to 19,368 on turf. (Ratio 2.7x)

The drop in demand is all on dirt.

Keeneland averaged over 9 starters per race on Poly in 2013 and spring 2014; hasn't even managed an average of 8 so far back on dirt. They were the only synthetic surface in the eastern US during their April and October meets. Now, they're just one of many dirt surfaces. Competitive niche advantage gone.

[Fager Fan]

What other reason could you come up with other than a shortage of dirt horses for small fields? I prefer larger fields talented or untalented like most because they produce larger payouts. Like to watch talented 5 or 6 horse but not for wagering purposes. Again, every track in the country is having a problem filling dirt races with talented horses. Barns did have usual trainers minus some Canadian and Presque Isle horses who normally ran on the poly.

How about track attendance? They had deluges in rain, and attendance was down from the past 2 years. If you do the math, almost $2 million was lost due to attendance, leaving them down about $1 million. That appears to be due to a $5.60 or so drop in average betting.

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

For the meet, held April 3-24, attendance totaled 250,451, down from the 2014 spring meet total of 270,093 but a strong figure nevertheless. The record spring meet attendance, posted during the 16-day meet in 2013, is 278,415.

Average daily attendancewas 16,697 compared with last spring's record 18,006.

On-track wagering totaled $16,142,325 down 14.7% from $18,931,643 last spring. Average daily on-track handle was $1,076,155, also down 14.7% from $1,262,110 in 2014.

All-sources wagering was $117,617,108, down 14.8% compared with $138,033,442 last spring.


Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/91516/keeneland-spring-handle-figures-down#ixzz3YMQP3wZf

[DeanT]

In 2000, 68,775 horses started at least once on dirt in North America, compared to 17,707 on turf. (Ratio 3.9x)

In 2014, 53,167 horses started at least once on either dirt or synthetic combined, compared to 19,368 on turf. (Ratio 2.7x)

The drop in demand is all on dirt.

Keeneland averaged over 9 starters per race on Poly in 2013 and spring 2014; hasn't even managed an average of 8 so far back on dirt. They were the only synthetic surface in the eastern US during their April and October meets. Now, they're just one of many dirt surfaces. Competitive niche advantage gone.

Poly provided a field size edge to be sure.

Turfway has been getting these horses. Field size up and handle up 8% last meet. I'll give TP a look in the fall.

[parlay]

very disappointing meet. i found it difficult to keep interested. Oaklawn was far superior in betting opportunities.

[pandy]

These stats are meaningless and have nothing to do with poly or dirt. If every track was poly the fields wouldn't be larger. I have nothing against poly but it does not help field size.

[Donttellmeshowme]

This has nothing to do with the surface. There just aren't enough horses, period. The reason why the turf races have bigger fields is because there aren't as many turf races.






Bingo we have a winner

[raybo]

Field sizes may be down but it's still an excellent betting meet! And, don't forget that this was a very wet spring, lots of horses getting scratched due to off tracks.