Horseplayer mag rates best tracks in USA

[trigger]

http://newsok.com/article/3129888/1190264353

[cj]

You have to admit, this line is funny:

No other track in Louisiana, including Sportsman Park in Shreveport, is mentioned.

Top 6:

Keeneland
Evangaline
Delmar
Gulfstream
Remington
Saratoga

How hilarious is GP being ahead of Saratoga, let alone Remington?

[joeyreb]

any list without Santa Anita at the top or near the top is a joke

[ryesteve]

This is a good reminder as to why I stopped reading this magazine...

[JimG]

Did anybody read what criteria was used in making the determination? I doubt the beauty of the racetrack or the number of graded stakes were the only criteria. From what I read, they used 17 different factors including two important to many horse players: Pct. of non-favorites winning and avg. number of horses per race. I do enjoy the magazine and Tom Quigley, the Publisher, is as nice a guy as you would want to meet at the races.

Jim

[GaryG]

Tampa Bay Downs...don't tell anyone though. Best for me anyway.

[Fred]

Actually I thought this was the most useful issue HP magazine has delivered. The rankings do not consider venue or quality of racing. The criteria is based on what tracks are the best bang for the buck considering these types of things:


Ave field size
Lowest takeout %
Ave payouts for wager
% of favotites


Freddy

[kenwoodallpromos]

3 of 6 are 1-month per year meets?

[ceejay]

Hehehe. This was just hilarious. :lol: :lol:

[alysheba88]

The title of this thread is not correct.

The article was not about "best" racetracks

[alysheba88]

You have to admit, this line is funny:



Top 6:

Keeneland
Evangaline
Delmar
Gulfstream
Remington
Saratoga

How hilarious is GP being ahead of Saratoga, let alone Remington?

Again completely out of context. Would suggest reading the article. Confusion comes from the inaccurate title of this thread

[ryesteve]

Why would avg payouts and % of winning favorites be part of this criteria? Depending on one's betting style, a track at either end of this spectrum could be disastrous.

[alysheba88]

Why would avg payouts and % of winning favorites be part of this criteria? Depending on one's betting style, a track at either end of this spectrum could be disastrous.

Not crazy about the criteria either. But rightly or wrongly it seems to be things players look at.

I hear all the time how no one can win at certain tracks because favs win "too much" or because fields are "too small" or track is "too speed biased". Or combination of the three. Dont buy it at all.

Personally I do not like 14 horse wide open inscrutable fields. Evidently someone does (or feels its the right thing to say at least).

[PaceAdvantage]

The title of this thread is not correct.

The article was not about "best" racetracksYou must admit that the source article referenced by the original poster also has a misleading headline.

The article is pointing out the best tracks in terms of "bang for your buck"

[cj]

The source article linked is what I found most amusing. The writer clearly knows very little about the sport.

[ryesteve]

Not crazy about the criteria either. But rightly or wrongly it seems to be things players look at.
I don't disagree that it's something players do or should look at. My confusion is that who's to say which extreme is better? It all depends on one's style. Judging from the posts around here, Bill Olmsted would love a track where the favorites won at 55% and the average winning mutuel was $4.60. Pell Mell would prefer a track where favorites win at 20% and the average mutuel is $18.20. And they would each probably avoid the track that the other considered "heaven". I don't see how there's an objective standard to say that one is better than the other.

[Sailwolf]

You must admit that the source article referenced by the original poster also has a misleading headline.

The article is pointing out the best tracks in terms of "bang for your
buck"

How can Delmar be one of the biggest bang for the buck. It takes a person 1 and 1/2 to get out of the ordinary common person parking lot

[PaceAdvantage]

How can Delmar be one of the biggest bang for the buck. It takes a person 1 and 1/2 to get out of the ordinary common person parking lotNot sure. I'm just the messenger here...I didn't write the message. Good point though.....an hour and half, eh?

[Tom]

1-1/2 huh?
Suggestion - less beer! :lol:


btw, I don't think that kind of thing was in the calulations.

[alysheba88]

I don't disagree that it's something players do or should look at. My confusion is that who's to say which extreme is better? It all depends on one's style. Judging from the posts around here, Bill Olmsted would love a track where the favorites won at 55% and the average winning mutuel was $4.60. Pell Mell would prefer a track where favorites win at 20% and the average mutuel is $18.20. And they would each probably avoid the track that the other considered "heaven". I don't see how there's an objective standard to say that one is better than the other.

I dont see anyone in the article saying any one track is "better"

[alysheba88]

You must admit that the source article referenced by the original poster also has a misleading headline.

The article is pointing out the best tracks in terms of "bang for your buck"

We can debate the merits of "bang for your buck" and what that means or if its relevant. But its a far cry from saying one track is "better". Thats all I was pointing out.

[joeyreb]

Remington Park is a chalkfest most days, How can you the most bang for your buck there??

[ryesteve]

I dont see anyone in the article saying any one track is "better"I don't have the article, but it's been related here that "average winning mutuel" and "% of winning favorites" were among the criteria that were used to compile this list of "best" tracks. So someone must've made a decision as to which extreme was better.

[TimesTheyRAChangin]

Has anybody read the actual article?
The link in the first post is to The Oklahoman,which only discusses parts of it.
The complete Horseplayer article itself is not there.

[alysheba88]

I don't have the article, but it's been related here that "average winning mutuel" and "% of winning favorites" were among the criteria that were used to compile this list of "best" tracks. So someone must've made a decision as to which extreme was better.

I have the hard copy of the article and it was never about an overall "best". It was specifically looking at certain categories. There was no theme that these are the best racetracks in America.

[JeremyPlonk]

The 10-plus page coverstory in HorsePlayer that I personally researched and wrote was 99% exercise in providing horseplayers with the data that influences their wagering and 1% about which tracks "scored" the best. The 12-track list of top-scoring "More Bang For Your Buck" was merely a way to showcase the tracks that provide the best return on investment. That portion of the story was less than 3/4 of a page of the 10 pages of the story.

We sent out a press release to tracks named on the list and this is where the newspaper stories came from and the publicity skew. It's a headline world, and it's not surprising that some will come away with just the headline and not the meat of the story.

As for the discussion regarding what is better between favorites and non-favorites winning: That also is discussed as a portion of the article. I personally e-mailed 50 well-known handicappers/analysts, some of whom post and read here and surely you've read their books, articles, seen them on the biggest telecasts in the country or bought their well-known respected products, and through their suggestions, we came to the conclusion that 80 percent of players in our 50-expert survey thought that a lower percentage of winning favorites was most attractive, but they also highly cautioned against crapshoot racing. So what we did was rank tracks lowest to highest in winning favorites, and then highest to lowest in percentage of favorites to finish in the money. That way, tracks where the favorites were so inscrutible that they didn't even hit the board would be negatively effected.

The story includes a grid that shows the average payoff in every single exotic, every takeout percentage by wager, avg. winning payoffs, favorites in the $ and win %, average field size per track, etc. And each piece of this information is included for 48 major tracks around the country, not just a handful. I personally guarantee you will not find a more comprehensive, but easy-to-apply amount of information anywhere.

If this is "why I no longer read the magazine," as someone as posted, I'm glad I'm betting against you in the wagering pools.

And as for the writers the magazine uses to analyze its big races, I read a diatribe on here a few weeks ago that should be addressed not in a critical manner, but rather a forward-thinking, what can we as a magazine do to make ourselves better manner.

I welcome you to read our Breeders' Cup preview, which will include the insights of 3 former DRF/NTRA National Handicapping Championship winners (Stan Bavlish, Ron Rippey and Steve Wolfson, Jr.), not to mention all 11 BC divisions covered by proven tournament play winners who have tallied combined earnings of more than $2 million in tourney play (also including Wolfson Sr, Gallo, Labriola, Nilsen, Stiles, Isaacson, Holland and Eng). Randy Moss also provides his insights, and few argue that he's among the sharpest minds this game has showcased in decades.

If you ever have any questions whatsoever about HorsePlayer, I welcome you to email me personally (plonk@horseplayerdaily.com). I check the forums often to keep pace with what's going on -- and this is my favorite, btw -- but sometimes e-mail is a much faster way to get a response. I pride myself in being very accessible to horseplayers and don't hide anything.

If you still want to consider what we're doing worthless junk, that's fine by me. That's why this is a pari-mutuel game and to the victors go the spoils. See you at the track!

Jeremy Plonk
editor of HorsePlayer

[alysheba88]

The 10-plus page coverstory in HorsePlayer that I personally researched and wrote was 99% exercise in providing horseplayers with the data that influences their wagering and 1% about which tracks "scored" the best. The 12-track list of top-scoring "More Bang For Your Buck" was merely a way to showcase the tracks that provide the best return on investment. That portion of the story was less than 3/4 of a page of the 10 pages of the story.

We sent out a press release to tracks named on the list and this is where the newspaper stories came from and the publicity skew. It's a headline world, and it's not surprising that some will come away with just the headline and not the meat of the story.

As for the discussion regarding what is better between favorites and non-favorites winning: That also is discussed as a portion of the article. I personally e-mailed 50 well-known handicappers/analysts, some of whom post and read here and surely you've read their books, articles, seen them on the biggest telecasts in the country or bought their well-known respected products, and through their suggestions, we came to the conclusion that 80 percent of players in our 50-expert survey thought that a lower percentage of winning favorites was most attractive, but they also highly cautioned against crapshoot racing. So what we did was rank tracks lowest to highest in winning favorites, and then highest to lowest in percentage of favorites to finish in the money. That way, tracks where the favorites were so inscrutible that they didn't even hit the board would be negatively effected.

The story includes a grid that shows the average payoff in every single exotic, every takeout percentage by wager, avg. winning payoffs, favorites in the $ and win %, average field size per track, etc. And each piece of this information is included for 48 major tracks around the country, not just a handful. I personally guarantee you will not find a more comprehensive, but easy-to-apply amount of information anywhere.

If this is "why I no longer read the magazine," as someone as posted, I'm glad I'm betting against you in the wagering pools.

And as for the writers the magazine uses to analyze its big races, I read a diatribe on here a few weeks ago that should be addressed not in a critical manner, but rather a forward-thinking, what can we as a magazine do to make ourselves better manner.

I welcome you to read our Breeders' Cup preview, which will include the insights of 3 former DRF/NTRA National Handicapping Championship winners (Stan Bavlish, Ron Rippey and Steve Wolfson, Jr.), not to mention all 11 BC divisions covered by proven tournament play winners who have tallied combined earnings of more than $2 million in tourney play (also including Wolfson Sr, Gallo, Labriola, Nilsen, Stiles, Isaacson, Holland and Eng). Randy Moss also provides his insights, and few argue that he's among the sharpest minds this game has showcased in decades.

If you ever have any questions whatsoever about HorsePlayer, I welcome you to email me personally (plonk@horseplayerdaily.com). I check the forums often to keep pace with what's going on -- and this is my favorite, btw -- but sometimes e-mail is a much faster way to get a response. I pride myself in being very accessible to horseplayers and don't hide anything.

If you still want to consider what we're doing worthless junk, that's fine by me. That's why this is a pari-mutuel game and to the victors go the spoils. See you at the track!

Jeremy Plonk
editor of HorsePlayer

Jeremy, thanks for posting. I have been a subscriber for several years, and frankly around a year ago was ready to let it lapse. However, I have seen significant improvement over the last 6-8 months. Its much more player friendly now, with a nice emphasis on contests and stuff like the bang for your buck piece. The detailed look at how different people handicap a specific race is also a nice added feature.

[Ron]

I love it when we talk about someone or something and then to our surpise the person or person responsible throws in their two cents. Great board, PA!

[Tom]

Thanks for the reply, Jeremy. I have been openly critical of the content of HP - the word player seeming to have been lost on many issues. But your article was right on, and why I subscribed in the first place. :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

Make this suggestion to you bosses there for me - at each wall clock, post a sign saying PLAYER

[DeanT]

I got mine today. I thought it was well done.

The pull out has the Woodbine pick 4 as 14.75% tho. Those sneaky Woodbine guys upped it, so value there no longer.

[Rico8812]

You sure this isn't the ranking of advertising money paid to HorsePlayer?

[PaceAdvantage]

You sure this isn't the ranking of advertising money paid to HorsePlayer?Do you have any info that might lend credence to this theory?

[alysheba88]

You sure this isn't the ranking of advertising money paid to HorsePlayer?

Total cheap shot (and wrong). If you read the magazine cover to cover you would know why

[JeremyPlonk]

The tracks ranked #2, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 do not advertise in the magazine. Those that do advertise, and were ranked, were Keeneland, Del Mar, Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Hollywood and Colonial.

It's a fair skepticism on your part, but unfounded.

[citygoat]

which track has the most tip sheet purchases?

[DeanT]

The tracks ranked #2, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 do not advertise in the magazine. Those that do advertise, and were ranked, were Keeneland, Del Mar, Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Hollywood and Colonial.

It's a fair skepticism on your part, but unfounded.

Hey Jeremy,

I say this not to be a goofball, but to point out the Pick 4 change at Woodbine and how they quietly did it. You highlight a couple times in the article that the place is "player friendly" for pick 4's.

This is from here, on 7/10/2006
http://www.nationalhbpa.com/NewsDisplay.asp?section=2&type=l&Affid=26

Those who play the Win Four, Woodbine's version of the pick four, have had to tolerate a substantial increase in the takeout on the popular bet. Several years ago, Woodbine lowered the takeout for Win Four bets on live racing from 25 percent to 14.75 percent, but then raised it back to 25 percent at the beginning of this meeting.

I would love to see a story on why they did this by you guys. I called and asked last year. I wondered why, in this day and age of trying to lower prices to get more players, they would do the exact opposite. I was unsatisifed with the answer. I think it would be great to hear what they say to the media. I believe we have to hold tracks feet to the fire on these issues or we will continue to get trampled.

JMO.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's a fair skepticism on your part, but unfounded.Actually, it's not really fair at all. The right approach would have been to dismantle your findings using sound methods (which the poster clearly did not, or can't do), and THEN call to other motives.

[lilmegahertz]

Wait a tic...Remington Park??? I may be a newbie to OK and Remington is ok but I would not put it toward the top. I would put Colonial Downs in front of it. But my first love is [sigh] Emerald Downs. Lots of excitement, long season, great races, great crowds.....

[lilmegahertz]

BTW.....at the Preakness with Barbaro....Remington had a race before but the horses were not cooperating at the gate and they kept focusing on that fact until someone alerted them to the fact that The Preakness was about to start. Sheesh!!!! And they only have these tiny, tiny little tv's in which to watch other tracks and they remind you of the first tiny black and white you got as a present from your grandmother back in the 60's......