PDA

View Full Version : Racing More like a Sporting event?


Flysofree
06-28-2015, 11:35 AM
Will we ever see one vs one racing at sometime in the future of racing. The big money owners of high caliber horses one on one would be fun to see and these people usually have big attitudes as well.
Even in the next 2 or 3 lower rungs of races one horse vs another would make the game more like a sporting event.
No more of this one horse got beat "because he had nowhere to go with traffic problems"...

I'm not saying end all 8 to 12 horse fields of racing, because people love exotic wagering etc... But I think a headline 2 horse matchup at tracks would create a lot of interest if done properly.

Tom
06-28-2015, 11:53 AM
The game is about betting.
Occasional "sporting races" are fun, but could never sustain racing.

elhelmete
06-28-2015, 11:58 AM
Is this a joke?

Seriously, hasn't the Ruffian story been told 100x before?

Stillriledup
06-28-2015, 01:31 PM
Is this a joke?

Seriously, hasn't the Ruffian story been told 100x before?

What does that have to do with anything? Ruffian didn't break down because there was only one other horse in the starting gate, why do we keep acting as if that's why she injured herself?

letswastemoney
06-28-2015, 01:34 PM
I'd argue match races are tougher and may result in more injuries (if they were common) because the horse is asked from the beginning with zero break.

A full field gives a bit more options than that, depending on what kind of horse it is. At the very least, every jockey isn't going to think "send hard" from the moment the gate opens.

Flysofree
06-28-2015, 01:44 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Ruffian didn't break down because there was only one other horse in the starting gate, why do we keep acting as if that's why she injured herself?


You are correct. Plus if they'll do the research on Ruffian, they will find out, she had a leg problem before the race that the trainer and owner knew about.


It would just be nice to have one race a day as a matchup... The interest would build over time, in my opinion.

elhelmete
06-28-2015, 02:20 PM
The relevant Ruffian story aside...still not a good idea.

Betting on them is a lose-lose-lose for all relevant parties.

It's a waste of a portion of the racing day which can already be too long.

Horses aren't always ready to run when we say they are. So the Ali-Frazier matchup is far from guaranteed at any given point of time.

Why would I want to see horses eligible for NW2X go head to head? Even if their owners were 'characters?'

castaway01
06-28-2015, 02:29 PM
You are correct. Plus if they'll do the research on Ruffian, they will find out, she had a leg problem before the race that the trainer and owner knew about.


It would just be nice to have one race a day as a matchup... The interest would build over time, in my opinion.

Match races are terrible for betting and boring to watch...other than that, they're great. There's a reason they were phased out of existence. No need to return to failed ideas.

ReplayRandall
06-28-2015, 02:33 PM
Hold on now people.....don't just dismiss this off-hand as an idea that has no real merit. Suppose there was a Nationalized Pick-4 with an add-on Match Race? After the first four races have been run, half of the pool goes to those that picked all four, the remaining half to be divided by those P-4 winners and their Match Race pick by proportion.......A tweak here, a tweak there, who knows?

Robert Fischer
06-28-2015, 02:47 PM
Match races require a special low takeout if in fact the money is to be made on the 'event' aspect of it all.

whodoyoulike
06-28-2015, 03:06 PM
Didn't match races require the owners to put up some large amount of money?

The owners would then compete for some % like 60% or some other % of the total including purse money.

Robert Goren
06-28-2015, 04:02 PM
I have seen a few match races over the years, perhaps a 10 or 12. They have one thing in common, they are lousy betting opportunities. They really highlight how much the high takeout is ruining the sport. Two equally bet horses in a match race would both be 3/5 with standard 17% takeout.

Stillriledup
06-28-2015, 04:52 PM
I have seen a few match races over the years, perhaps a 10 or 12. They have one thing in common, they are lousy betting opportunities. They really highlight how much the high takeout is ruining the sport. Two equally bet horses in a match race would both be 3/5 with standard 17% takeout.

They're always lousy bets because 'racing' doesn't have sliding takeout scales for smaller fields. If a 2, 3 or 4 horse field has the same takeout as a 10, 11 or 12 horse field, where's the incentive to bet the smaller field? They think people are stupid.

Valuist
06-28-2015, 07:56 PM
Will we ever see one vs one racing at sometime in the future of racing. The big money owners of high caliber horses one on one would be fun to see and these people usually have big attitudes as well.
Even in the next 2 or 3 lower rungs of races one horse vs another would make the game more like a sporting event.
No more of this one horse got beat "because he had nowhere to go with traffic problems"...

I'm not saying end all 8 to 12 horse fields of racing, because people love exotic wagering etc... But I think a headline 2 horse matchup at tracks would create a lot of interest if done properly.

Be careful what you wish for. Field sizes are getting smaller and smaller....

thaskalos
06-28-2015, 08:03 PM
There was a grass race at Parx not too long ago...where a field of ten was reduced to a match race because of the sloppy track condition. As I recall...one horse was 2/5, and the other was 4/5.

No thanks...

Robert Fischer
06-28-2015, 08:19 PM
I think I've bet on one match race in the last couple years.

Was a smaller track. The odds were terrible, but I believed that the longer shot was the better horse. Only made a 'token' bet and happened to win.

A lot more fun to 'pick' and watch than to bet. Game simply isn't built to have value in match races.

Stillriledup
06-28-2015, 09:00 PM
There was a grass race at Parx not too long ago...where a field of ten was reduced to a match race because of the sloppy track condition. As I recall...one horse was 2/5, and the other was 4/5.

No thanks...

Both 'horses' in an NFL wager (colts v broncos!) would be 11-10 each.

Redboard
06-29-2015, 01:29 PM
I've read that you could not scratch the day of the race, so if your horse had a fever, that was too bad. I wouldn't mind seeing a couple a year, just to break the monotony. The Seabiscuit's / War Admiral race certainly got a lot of people excited.


(from Wiki)
1878- four mile long race in Louisville between the Eastern U.S. colt Ten Broeck and California filly Mollie McCarty that inspired the song Molly and Tenbrooks;
1920 - the Canadian contest between Man o' War and Sir Barton in 1920, won by Man O'War;
1938 - Seabiscuit's 4 length victory over War Admiral
1942- Alsab won by a nose over Whirlaway at Narragansett Park;
1955 - Nashua easily won over Swaps.
1966 - Pace of the Century between standardbred champs Bret Hanover and Cardigan Bay

Flysofree
06-29-2015, 01:39 PM
Both 'horses' in an NFL wager (colts v broncos!) would be 11-10 each.

That's correct and you would have to cover a pointspread at 11- 10!

I don't forsee having to cover any lengths, but it doesn't look promising from the replies here.

Stillriledup
06-29-2015, 03:10 PM
That's correct and you would have to cover a pointspread at 11- 10!

I don't forsee having to cover any lengths, but it doesn't look promising from the replies here.

The point spread doesn't matter because no matter what the case you're still risking 11 to win 10. The pt spread and overcoming it is similar to overcoming a bias, or a bad rider, or a layoff, etc. it's just something your bet has to overcome to win.

cj
06-29-2015, 03:18 PM
Both 'horses' in an NFL wager (colts v broncos!) would be 11-10 each.

In horse racing terms, that isn't correct, right? You bet 110 to win 100 in sports betting. In horse racing, that would mean you bet $2 to win win $1.81, or just a hair above 9 to 10. Of course racing would take the breakage so it would be 9 to 10.

Stillriledup
06-29-2015, 03:33 PM
In horse racing terms, that isn't correct, right? You bet 110 to win 100 in sports betting. In horse racing, that would mean you bet $2 to win win $1.81, or just a hair above 9 to 10. Of course racing would take the breakage so it would be 9 to 10.

Next time I'm in vegas Ill go up to the window and wager 2 dollars to win "whatever" And see what happens. I think the 'profit' gets broken down to the penny unlike in horse racing.

Seems like your math is right, I guess technically there's no way in racing that you can make an 11 dollar wager and get back exactly 21 dollars (without breakage being a factor)

cj
06-29-2015, 03:49 PM
Next time I'm in vegas Ill go up to the window and wager 2 dollars to win "whatever" And see what happens. I think the 'profit' gets broken down to the penny unlike in horse racing.

Seems like your math is right, I guess technically there's no way in racing that you can make an 11 dollar wager and get back exactly 21 dollars (without breakage being a factor)

Well of course both horses in a match race (or teams in a sports bet) can't be 11-10, I'd be able to retire ASAP if that were the case...at least until the bet takers went out of business.

Appy
06-29-2015, 03:53 PM
I've seen dark day match racing. Lots of times. But if a lot of money changed hands it was between the owners up in the shade. The rest of us might bet burgers.

cj
06-29-2015, 03:57 PM
In horse racing terms, that isn't correct, right? You bet 110 to win 100 in sports betting. In horse racing, that would mean you bet $2 to win win $1.81, or just a hair above 9 to 10. Of course racing would take the breakage so it would be 9 to 10.

Question on this? Doesn't this make takeout on sports bets about 9%, not the 5% I've seen mentioned a few times? Or are there places that offer better odds than the standard casino?

Stillriledup
06-29-2015, 04:05 PM
Question on this? Doesn't this make takeout on sports bets about 9%, not the 5% I've seen mentioned a few times? Or are there places that offer better odds than the standard casino?

It's not technically 5 pct, but since you don't pay takeout on winning bets, you pay 9 or 10 pct on the losers and 0 on the winners, works out to about 5 pct (or 4.54 lol) if you win half your bets. The more bets you win, the lower your takeout rate is.

cj
06-29-2015, 04:11 PM
It's not technically 5 pct, but since you don't pay takeout on winning bets, you pay 9 or 10 pct on the losers and 0 on the winners, works out to about 5 pct (or 4.54 lol) if you win half your bets. The more bets you win, the lower your takeout rate is.

You could say the same about racing, losers don't pay takeout. But the takeout is the takeout. The goal is that for every $220 they take in, they return $200. Casinos return 90.9 percent of the money bet (theoretically, of course, no guarantee of balanced action on both sides.) That means they "take out" 9.1% for themselves.

chadk66
06-29-2015, 05:44 PM
the handles are already poor at most tracks due to all the five horse fields.

ReplayRandall
06-29-2015, 08:52 PM
You could say the same about racing, losers don't pay takeout. But the takeout is the takeout. The goal is that for every $220 they take in, they return $200. Casinos return 90.9 percent of the money bet (theoretically, of course, no guarantee of balanced action on both sides.) That means they "take out" 9.1% for themselves.

NFL pick'em game with both sides -110. Winner receives his 110 back, plus 100 for a total of $210. House holds $10 from $220 action, which is 4.5%......Did I miss something here, CJ?

pandy
06-29-2015, 10:40 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Ruffian didn't break down because there was only one other horse in the starting gate, why do we keep acting as if that's why she injured herself?


That was a rough day for me, I was a huge fan of Ruffian and I was worried about the match race even before it happened. I felt that it would be too much pressure on both horses, and several horses broke down that spring on the last turn at Belmont, which was normally a very safe track. In a normal full field at that distance you're not going to see two horses sprinting from the gate going insane fractions. In match races, the jockeys believe that the horse that gets the lead has an advantage, so the race is not a realistically paced race.

Nothing about match races makes any sense. You want 12 horse fields, not two horse fields.

cj
06-30-2015, 12:01 AM
NFL pick'em game with both sides -110. Winner receives his 110 back, plus 100 for a total of $210. House holds $10 from $220 action, which is 4.5%......Did I miss something here, CJ?


Nope, you have it right, figured I was screwing it up somewhere!

Redboard
07-06-2015, 10:25 AM
You are correct. Plus if they'll do the research on Ruffian, they will find out, she had a leg problem before the race that the trainer and owner knew about.



There was nothing physically wrong with the filly, besides maybe being a little tired. She was injured the year before, at the end of her 2-yr-old campaign, a hairline fracture on her hind leg, which sidelined her for six months but had a full recovery. The breakdown occurred when her right foreleg snapped, not the hind leg.

Today marks the 40-year anniversary of the infamous match race between Ruffian and Foolish Pleasure at Belmont Park, Sunday July 6, 1975. There have been no match races in North America since.

Ruffian’s trainer, Frank Whiteley had a reputation as an arrogant SOB and if there was anything at all wrong with the filly, he would have made it known because he didn’t want the race to happen anyway. She had just finished winning the 8F-Acorn (May 10), 9F-Mother Goose(May 30) and the 12F-Coaching Club American Oaks( June 21). His plan was to rest her until the Travers, where she would take on the boys for the first time. The owners couldn’t pass up the money,( $225k to winner, $125k second) Foolish Pleasure got $209k for winning the Kentucky Derby that year. This was before the big Breeders Cup purses.
You think the dumb ass partners said stupid things, here’s a quote from one of the owners of Foolish Pleasure after the race: “First time they threw speed at her, and the bitch unbuckled.”
Nobody really knows why she broke down. Some thought that there was something wrong with the track- there was a breakdown at that same spot a few days before. There was an issue with the "chute," I've read that it was three different surfaces, which doesn't make sense to me. Wiki mentions that ruffian was startled by a bird from infield and took misstep. Whiteley, thought that the injury occurred at the break. I think it was a combination of the filly being tired from running three times in six weeks, plus the bad start.
If you’ve ever heard old timers talk wistfully about Ruffian, all you had to do was look at her to understand why. She was a large, magnificent animal of stunning beauty.

http://home.comcast.net/~galacticomm/images/ruffian01.jpg


A very nice two-part reminisce:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLfTGrdF_vU (13 minutes , part 1)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3MxIu4mATY (7 minutes, part 2)


Oh yeah, some of the gambling degenerates here want to know, Ruffian: 2/5 ;Foolish Pleasure : 4/5.

Flysofree
07-06-2015, 10:35 AM
There was nothing physically wrong with the filly, besides maybe being a little tired. She was injured the year before, at the end of her 2-yr-old campaign, a hairline fracture on her hind leg, which sidelined her for six months but had a full recovery. The breakdown occurred when her right foreleg snapped, not the hind leg.

Today marks the 40-year anniversary of the infamous match race between Ruffian and Foolish Pleasure at Belmont Park, Sunday July 6, 1975. There have been no match races in North America since.

Ruffian’s trainer, Frank Whiteley had a reputation as an arrogant SOB and if there was anything at all wrong with the filly, he would have made it known because he didn’t want the race to happen anyway. She had just finished winning the 8F-Acorn (May 10), 9F-Mother Goose(May 30) and the 12F-Coaching Club American Oaks( June 21). His plan was to rest her until the Travers, where she would take on the boys for the first time. The owners couldn’t pass up the money,( $225k to winner, $125k second) Foolish Pleasure got $209k for winning the Kentucky Derby that year. This was before the big Breeders Cup purses.
You think the dumb ass partners said stupid things, here’s a quote from one of the owners of Foolish Pleasure after the race: “First time they threw speed at her, and the bitch unbuckled.”
Nobody really knows why she broke down. Some thought that there was something wrong with the track- there was a breakdown at that same spot a few days before. There was an issue with the "chute," I've read that it was three different surfaces, which doesn't make sense to me. Wiki mentions that ruffian was startled by a bird from infield and took misstep. Whiteley, thought that the injury occurred at the break. I think it was a combination of the filly being tired from running three times in six weeks, plus the bad start.
If you’ve ever heard old timers talk wistfully about Ruffian, all you had to do was look at her to understand why. She was a large, magnificent animal of stunning beauty.

http://home.comcast.net/~galacticomm/images/ruffian01.jpg


A very nice two-part reminisce:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLfTGrdF_vU (13 minutes , part 1)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3MxIu4mATY (7 minutes, part 2)


Oh yeah, some of the gambling degenerates here want to know, Ruffian: 2/5 ;Foolish Pleasure : 4/5.

I loved the horse Ruffian...Injuries can and do happen as in life. I had read the same theories that you have about the race. As you noted she had previously suffered an injury which doctors reported as healed. Only God knows if and when it would have happened.
Match races don't have to be female vs male.... I was not seeking that idea.
I simply would enjoy watching more of them... I accept that I am in the minority here.

pandy
07-06-2015, 10:46 AM
Thanks for posting the artwork, Red. There were actually a few breakdowns on the turn at Belmont that spring/summer, that's why I was worried about the match race. And of course there was the theory that Ruffian tried to avoid stepping on a bird and took a bad step, and a bird does fly up in front the horses in the race.

I saw her run twice in person and she was amazing. Ruffian had the air of a champion, she would bow her head when the crowd applauded to show her appreciation. Steve Davidowitz and I are in agreement, she was the fastest horse we ever saw up to a mile. Ran like the wind.

thespaah
07-06-2015, 08:46 PM
Well of course both horses in a match race (or teams in a sports bet) can't be 11-10, I'd be able to retire ASAP if that were the case...at least until the bet takers went out of business.
And it's 0.91-1.....Meaning a wining bet of $100 pay $100, but the payer pays the vig( commission) up front....Those odds are those used in point spread, goal lines( hockey) and run lines( baseball) and totals( Over/under).........
Now, one of the things that sports books are doing with baseball and hockey is instead of offering a true run line, they set it up so a bet on the underdog pays far less than even money less the vig...
For example inb tonight's Mets at Giants tilt...The run line is SFO -1.5....A winning bet on the Giants pays 1.57-1.....The Mets are +1.5 but a winning bet on that team pays just 1- 1.80 or 0.55 -1....(5/9)

Tall One
07-06-2015, 09:04 PM
I saw her run twice in person and she was amazing. Ruffian had the air of a champion, she would bow her head when the crowd applauded to show her appreciation. Steve Davidowitz and I are in agreement, she was the fastest horse we ever saw up to a mile. Ran like the wind.


Nice, pandy... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: