Couple of things i saw ....

[superfecta]

Was reading the form and Dick Jeraldi went on in his Friday article about how the stewards should never disqualify a horse for a riding infraction,better to take action after the race is made official.Is he really serious?I know the stewards make some bad calls but to say don't ever take a horse down is dumb.Anyone else have a different take?

And speaking of take,the DRF poll on their website asked if you would not bet the track you usually play if another track lowered their take,albeit lesser quality of horses.Last time I checked,it was neck and neck,with Yes ,I will bet the lower take with a short lead.Am I missing something?Why bet a track I don't follow just for the take?Now if I followed that track,sure I can see playing more races there.But other factors come first,such as ,can I pick the winner here .Quality of horses don't matter,the fact is ,some places are not conducive to my style of play.The heretofore mentioned Ded and Evangeline come to mind.I can't seem to get anywhere with them,which is strange cause three years ago I did alright at Evangeline.But not now.If they lowered their take to nothing I still wouldn't be making money.

[tdthomas]

superfecta,

The term the drf used was "racing of lesser quality". To me, that is a bit different than "lesser quality of horses". I am not really sure what they meant by the term.

I think that a track can have high quality horses and low quality racing. I love to see the best horses, but I would rather see medium quality horses with full fields than high quality horses with very short fields. I like to see a full field with lots of competition. What difference does the takeout mean if every winner pays $2.60 or $2.80? I voted "NO" in the survey. I would take higher quality racing over a lower takeout. I think the higher prices paid in high quality racing more than makes up for the lower takeout.

[GameTheory]

I could be wrong, but I always take the phrase "lower quality of racing" in racing publications to mean cheaper horses/lower purses and not having much to do with field size, "interesting" races, and so forth.

[tdthomas]

Game Theory,

You are probably right. I thought the term was vague and voted by what the term meant to me.

[GR1@HTR]

Question from DRF as follows:
==============
If another track were to cut its takeout rate across the board to half the rate of the track you normally play, but its racing was of lesser quality, would you abandon your regular track's racing for the track with the lower takeout?
Yes
No
==============

I'm shocked that this only 51% would go to the track with a take out 1/2 of the normal take. If this is the attitude of consumers then I can see why there is little incentive for tracks to reduce the take out. This shows that as bettors we are held hostage by what tracks want to do. This is the reason why Magna will rule the horse racing world...We as a horse racing society, are doomed...GAME OVER...

[GameTheory]

The thing with takeout is that it will be better for the tracks with lower takeout regardless of what the bettors think. That's because the bettors will automatically do better whether they like it or not because more money is being returned to them, and thus are going to end up making more bets.


Back to the original topic, I would vote yes in the poll, assuming that "all else is equal". Lower quality of racing does not neccessarily mean the LOWEST, like Delta. I wouldn't make a decision to drop one track and play another solely by the takeout, but "racing quality" per se wouldn't be a factor at all.

[Dave Schwartz]

I think that this poll neglects the obvious issue of the amount contributed by the yes's versus the no's.

It is probably safe to say that the $2 player who simply bets for fun is not going to take this as seriously as the $20 or $50 bettor who understands the true relationship between take and losing.

IMHO.

Dave Schwartz

[takeout]

Asking that as a "yes or no" is not giving the question near the weight it deserves. There are many things to be considered besides takeout. Only the most casual of players could give that question a quick answer as it is posed. Heck, if it was that easy for tracks to steal other tracks' customers by lowering takeout, then MD's Pick-4 pool should be in the millions instead of being the "puddle" that it is. Having said that, lowering takeout everywhere, on ALL wagers, should be a no brainer. Every track in the country should be striving to do it. OTOH, if Secretariat never got his official record for the Preakness, then I can only guess how far down the ladder we as players must be in the eye's of management everywhere.

[Tom]

Give a chance to get 3-1 on a 9-5 shot???? (or whatever it works out to).
Bye-bye home track.
They all look alike on the 'puter screen-small and fuzzy.
Besides, a race is a race. Find out what wins at Delta and you'll never miss DelMar. And with half the take, you can be wrong a lot more that you can now.
I you just can't leave your favorite track, then I have the sure way to beat the take and break.....lose! Only winners have to worry about breaks and takes. A liitle bonus for the losers, eh?
<G>

[Derek2U]

I read the Dick Jerardi article & I do agree with him: Relegate
the stewards to post race results. There are so many things
wrong with this sport, but then again fans from all sports are
taken for granted & in some sports, notably baseball, are not
even considered necessary. If no one showed up at Yankee
Stadium to SEE the Yanks it wouldn't matter. Racing should
accept its fate, no matter how enduring that fate seems: Fans
want to stay home, wager, and see the races at home. If
many show up for the live thrill of it, great; but Stop all this
heart pounding about how few show up for major events. It will
be much easier to plan your direction when you accept the reality
that dominates your sport.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Derek2U
I read the Dick Jerardi article & I do agree with him: Relegate
the stewards to post race results. There are so many things
wrong with this sport, but then again fans from all sports are
taken for granted & in some sports, notably baseball, are not
even considered necessary. If no one showed up at Yankee
Stadium to SEE the Yanks it wouldn't matter. Racing should
accept its fate, no matter how enduring that fate seems: Fans
want to stay home, wager, and see the races at home. If
many show up for the live thrill of it, great; but Stop all this
heart pounding about how few show up for major events. It will
be much easier to plan your direction when you accept the reality
that dominates your sport. Don't understand where you were going here Derek....But my point was if there were no rules in racing,no punishment for careless riding or impededing another horse during the actual event,what would happen?Iwould'nt be too thrilled about betting a race,and I bet not many jockeys would like riding in them either.Roller derby on hooves.....fun to watch no fun to bet or participate.

[superfecta]

Originally posted by Tom
Give a chance to get 3-1 on a 9-5 shot???? (or whatever it works out to).
Bye-bye home track.
They all look alike on the 'puter screen-small and fuzzy.
Besides, a race is a race. Find out what wins at Delta and you'll never miss DelMar. And with half the take, you can be wrong a lot more that you can now.
I you just can't leave your favorite track, then I have the sure way to beat the take and break.....lose! Only winners have to worry about breaks and takes. A liitle bonus for the losers, eh?
<G> In your example,the 9-5 will pay 6.00instead of 5.60,now in reality,the odds will change from the moment you place your bet more than that after the pools close dontcha think?We have to remember the # of tickets sold doesn't change the take.I have a hard time seeing how this amount will help me,because I don't wager large amounts of money and I don't turn over my money several times a day.Those of you who do,more power to you.:cool:

[takeout]

I'd be curious to know how many of the big bettors that left NY, when they raised the take from 17 to 20% on exactas, ever came back when they put the take back down to 17.5% - after much fanfare, of course.