PDA

View Full Version : Rule Change


hracingplyr
06-15-2008, 12:42 PM
Here is an idea that i would like to bounce off the group.

I would like to see a rule change in racing, that if a horse is eased or gets a DNF in his last race, in his or hers next race they should only be able to run for purse money only. Be intersting to get some thoughts on this. Friends of mine have already told me, well thats why they call it gambling.

Bob

njcurveball
06-15-2008, 12:50 PM
that if a horse is eased or gets a DNF in his last race, in his or hers next race they should only be able to run for purse money only.


I like your thinking here, but what do you do if the jock falls off, the saddle slips, or other weird things.

How do you tell a horse was eased, and would you classify Big Brown as eased when he galloped through the finish?

Any time you introduce a judgement call, you will get a percentage on either side. Check out the entry scratch rule in New York. Or the entry NON scratch rule in other places.

With simulcasting, races taken off the turf have more of an impact on the bettor than any other change. There are no refunds for those either.

Good thinking, it would protect the bettor! Just have to figure out a way to make it "black and white" and not a judgement call.

Jim

Pace Cap'n
06-15-2008, 01:27 PM
A DNF can be a great angle for a longshot bettor.

For one thing, you can be fairly sure the horse wasn't used up in his last race.

hracingplyr
06-15-2008, 01:50 PM
true pace, i saw that a few times this last meet at tampa bay downs (as i live in the area) Horse is eased and comes back at his next start and pays box cars. And NJ is rt to its a judgement call so it would be tough. God forbid we give these stewards more reponsibility.

Bob

Greyfox
06-15-2008, 02:12 PM
Here is an idea that i would like to bounce off the group.

I would like to see a rule change in racing, that if a horse is eased or gets a DNF in his last race, in his or hers next race they should only be able to run for purse money only.
Bob

Maybe I'm a little slow here, but I'm missing something.
You say that "they should be able to run for purse money only."
In most States that's what they are always running for -the purse money.
What other money are you talking about?

Are you saying that there would be no betting on the horse? The horse would run for purse money but the public couldn't bet a nickel on it? I don't agree with that.

hracingplyr
06-15-2008, 02:18 PM
Means if they win they get the purse money. But the bettors are not allowed to bet on them. They have no odds.
Thats fine greyfox like i said originally just trying to get a feel on how folks feel about the subject nothing more nothing less.

Bob

Greyfox
06-15-2008, 02:29 PM
Means if they win they get the purse money. But the bettors are not allowed to bet on them. They have no odds.
Thats fine greyfox like i said originally just trying to get a feel on how folks feel about the subject nothing more nothing less.

Bob

So now we have a race with 6 starters. But one was "eased, vanned off" last out and he's one of the 6 starters. He wins, gets the purse money.
Now first off that money came from bettors. Even though they couldn't bet on him, he's still getting 60 % of the purse for the win.
But the horse who came second, is paid to the public as "the winner" even though it didn't really win.
So we have a winner that we didn't bet on scooping 60 % of the purse money.
A horse who ran second, who we are calling the winner.
In the meanwhile, the bettors are being paid off on a field of 5 rather than 6, eventhough 6 horses are entered. Hence the payouts to the betting public will be lower as only 5 horses were bet on.
I just don't agree with that thinking at all.

Part of handicapping a race is being able to "read" between the lines of what trainers are up to. A horse can be given a snappy 4 furlong work and back off
appearing as though he hasn't got the stamina. Next time out he's sent. That is going to happen whether or not there is betting on it or not. But, your right at small tracks, there might be more money to be made betting than purse money by "darkening" a horses apparent form.

Overlay
06-15-2008, 02:40 PM
The proposal sounds somewhat like the system of non-betting qualifying races that trotters and pacers run in as an assurance of fitness (except that, in addition to being non-betting, qualifiers also don't offer any purse money). Of course, a more rigorous racing schedule like that is normal for standardbreds.

MONEY
06-15-2008, 02:50 PM
A horse running for purse money only can have an impact on the outcome of the race. So I don't agree with horses running for purse money only under any circumstances.

Money

Hosshead
06-16-2008, 09:30 AM
I think he (hracingplyr) meant no betting on the DNF horse next time out, so that the connections couldn't bet him either, and make a killing. (after setting the horse up, and the bettors for that matter) Interesting idea.

But if that were the case, the culprits (which might include the jockey) would probably just have the horse run bad, while still finishing the race. (No, not talking about BB !)
It wouldn't be a DNF, but would cloud the form almost as much. (before the kill)
If the connections are the type of people who are going to fake a DNF, then they will probably do anything else they can get away with.

Tom
06-16-2008, 11:08 AM
A DNF can be a great angle for a longshot bettor.

For one thing, you can be fairly sure the horse wasn't used up in his last race.

I once hit a NY bred coming off 2 DNF's in a row!
He looked the best on current form in that race! :lol:
(Seriously, I did!)

KingChas
06-16-2008, 11:23 AM
I think he (hracingplyr) meant no betting on the DNF horse next time out, so that the connections couldn't bet him either, and make a killing. (after setting the horse up, and the bettors for that matter) Interesting idea.

But if that were the case, the culprits (which might include the jockey)


Of course they could intentionally interfere with another horse in the race and make a killing wagering. :eek: