PDA

View Full Version : Huge problem with racing


cj
09-05-2008, 06:12 PM
You rarely hear this one mentioned, but isn't the constant parade of chalk and short fields a total turn off to possible new players in this game?

Here is one example. The last two days at Woodbine produced the following win payouts:

6.70, 8.60, 3.00, 5.00, 6.10, 4.90, 6.80, 3.60, 3.80, 3.10, 3.10, 5.50, 8.10, 8.40, 10.10, 5.80, 4.20

How is that going to get anyone excited about the game? 17 races over two days, and an average winner paying $5.69. That is little more than getting a blackjack in the casino!

This isn't to pick on Woodbine. It happens around the country. Of course it doesn't happen every day. It does happen often enough to think these racing secretaries need to put on some more competitive races.

Greyfox
09-05-2008, 06:20 PM
Maybe the guys who make good Pace/Speed figs are making scoring too easy.;)

saratoga guy
09-05-2008, 06:30 PM
I think I'd acutally come at it from the opposite direction -- a parade of short prices might be a turnoff to longtime bettors, whereas novices are probably jumping in and playing many of those those favorites as they learn the game.

boomman
09-05-2008, 06:34 PM
You rarely hear this one mentioned, but isn't the constant parade of chalk and short fields a total turn off to possible new players in this game?

Here is one example. The last two days at Woodbine produced the following win payouts:

6.70, 8.60, 3.00, 5.00, 6.10, 4.90, 6.80, 3.60, 3.80, 3.10, 3.10, 5.50, 8.10, 8.40, 10.10, 5.80, 4.20



How is that going to get anyone excited about the game? 17 races over two days, and an average winner paying $5.69. That is little more than getting a blackjack in the casino!

This isn't to pick on Woodbine. It happens around the country. Of course it doesn't happen every day. It does happen often enough to think these racing secretaries need to put on some more competitive races.

CJ: I think short fields is and has been a major threat to our sport for quite a while now, and am hoping that racing jurisdictions will race fewer days, get the drug mess straightened out (which will certainly add stablity and longevity to the breed) and set-up a scale for horsemen that reward them for running in full fields, as right now they have very little motivation to do so.........

Boomer

classhandicapper
09-05-2008, 06:44 PM
Short fields are a very big problem. Whenever a field is large, there is also a very good chance that there will be a few horses in the race that literally have a low single digit chance of winning. Yet they are sometimes only 10-1 or 15-1 and used heavily in the exotics because people hit the "ALL" button. That eats up a lot of the take. Remove them, and it gets really difficult to find value among the remainder.

bigmack
09-05-2008, 06:48 PM
I hardly think 2 days of heavy chalk is going to jeopardize the excitement for the game. It happens. With a fickle joint like WO, chalk is a breath of fresh air and certainly an anomaly.

cj
09-05-2008, 06:54 PM
I hardly think 2 days of heavy chalk is going to jeopardize the excitement for the game. It happens. With a fickle joint like WO, chalk is a breath of fresh air and certainly an anomaly.

As I said, it was just one example. Average field size and mutuel price has been shrinking for years. There are too many tracks and too much "free square" slots money around.

bigmack
09-05-2008, 07:02 PM
As I said, it was just one example. Average field size and mutuel price has been shrinking for years. There are too many tracks and too much "free square" slots money around.
Granted. While I don't play WO, I suspect a snapshot of the overall mutual PO's might paint a differing picture. Not to split hairs, as you raise a valid point, but smaller fields have been part of the game for a spell. End of meetings, beginning of meet; a variety of reasons for short lived, small fields. NorCal racing is the worst for such.

As greed can be good, so too is chalk and can lull the inexperienced into thinking it's "an easy game". The more the merrier for some.

Tom Barrister
09-05-2008, 07:04 PM
Short fields are partly to blame.

Better handicappers (through software and the amount of information avaialable nowadays) is another.

Fewer lottery players is a third. Instead of playing their house number at the track, they play it in the state Lotto game.

The slots themselves are also partly to blame. People who don't do the work would rather stick the money in the machines than on a trifecta.

What we're left with are people who DO the work (or have the computer do it for them) and come up with mostly logical contenders. Since more money is bet logically than randomly, prices go down.

Then there are the horsemen who fix races, play the pharmaceutical game, and/or darken a horse's form to make a score, and they've gotten as greedy as all getout.

Larger fields would help.

Stronger enforcement for cheaters (i.e. lifetime bans) would help.

Not much can be done about the lottery or slot players.

InsideThePylons-MW
09-05-2008, 07:45 PM
5 and 6 horse fields + short prices + 25% takeout on tris = massacre for anybody betting

misscashalot
09-05-2008, 07:53 PM
I have never seen a sport or betting activity where the fans/bettors complain as much as the horse player. It seems that 1/2 the posts here are negative.

bigmack
09-05-2008, 08:14 PM
I have never seen a sport or betting activity where the fans/bettors complain as much as the horse player. It seems that 1/2 the posts here are negative.
You just upped the % to 51. Nice work. :confused:

It's logical people would respond to things that irk them rather than those they're content with, no?

jonnielu
09-05-2008, 08:32 PM
You rarely hear this one mentioned, but isn't the constant parade of chalk and short fields a total turn off to possible new players in this game?

Here is one example. The last two days at Woodbine produced the following win payouts:

6.70, 8.60, 3.00, 5.00, 6.10, 4.90, 6.80, 3.60, 3.80, 3.10, 3.10, 5.50, 8.10, 8.40, 10.10, 5.80, 4.20

How is that going to get anyone excited about the game? 17 races over two days, and an average winner paying $5.69. That is little more than getting a blackjack in the casino!

This isn't to pick on Woodbine. It happens around the country. Of course it doesn't happen every day. It does happen often enough to think these racing secretaries need to put on some more competitive races.

A few more spot-on observations like this one, and I'll have to stop making fun of your avatar.

Your right, the short field gives the favorite just a bit more advantage, chalk players love it, and the die-hard handicapper is going to show up and play anyway. Even while he complains about the short prices, he'll be bragging about the 5 or 6 scores.

The newcomer usually comes in from the craps table because of $100,000 supers hanging on the board. Whether he'll admit it or not, Joe Average dreams of hitting big, he might not even venture $1.00 unless the lotto is at least $40 million. Not worth his trouble, says he.

The CDI/horseman dispute made for a lousy short-field meeting for CD this summer, Calder and DelMar suffered from short-fields. It is full-fields and competitive racing that puts the excitement in the air at Saratoga, Keeneland, and GP. I found AP summer meeting very attractive because of the full fields, with my methods, full fields create a situation where good prices can just fall on you.

Being conservative is really the best answer to short fields because you can't afford to play loose, as you may be able to with full fields knowing that you get your 10-1's. You allow that slop for a week, and then you notice that the 10-1's are going at 5-1, and only getting there half the time.

It has to affect handle, anybody will likely loosen up a bit with full competitive fields of 10 - 12. And when four of those are apparently very competitive, more money is going to be bet in more ways by everyone old, or new.

This is where even the staunch 40 year win bettor, is likely to get a couple of exacta combos, and maybe even play a couple across. Even if he won't admit it.

jdl

kenwoodallpromos
09-05-2008, 09:06 PM
Conclusions reached by assessing average over 2 days' fake dirt races- figures!
So now we are getting complaints about Poly being TOO to form?

Charlie D
09-05-2008, 09:18 PM
You rarely hear this one mentioned, but isn't the constant parade of chalk and short fields a total turn off to possible new players in this game?


The whole shebang is probably a total turn off CJ

In no particular order


Drug use, PMU, too much racing, restricted viewing, paying for race info


Not very attractive is it???

rrbauer
09-05-2008, 09:24 PM
Look at opening day at Fairplex (today, Friday 9/5). Horses going from a year on mostly poly to a 5/8 mile dirt track, good field sizes and you had two maiden $13 horses, a 4-1, and everything else (10 races) was 5/2 or lower including three odds-on winners. No wonder that they keep dreaming up new bets.

bettheoverlay
09-05-2008, 09:36 PM
Does anyone have any real data on avg field size and avg payoff comparing now to yesteryear? I download 6-8 tracks a day and I'm getting 8.25 avg field size $12.60 avg payoff for the last 12 months with the winter months having the largest avg and summer months the smallest avg.

I started going to the races in 1972 and I seem to recall small fields being prevalent then as well. Obviously no simulcasting, so my experience was live racing at Delaware, Philly, Garden State, Monmouth and Atlantic City. I actually still have a slew of programs from those years and the fields look pretty small in a random sampling outside of turf and maiden claimers. I must have missed the halcyon days of 10 - 12 horses in every race. I would think avg payoff to field size in the 70s is probably about the same as today as well.

misscashalot
09-05-2008, 11:01 PM
Does anyone have any real data on avg field size and avg payoff comparing now to yesteryear? I download 6-8 tracks a day and I'm getting 8.25 avg field size $12.60 avg payoff for the last 12 months with the winter months having the largest avg and summer months the smallest avg.

I started going to the races in 1972 and I seem to recall small fields being prevalent then as well. Obviously no simulcasting, so my experience was live racing at Delaware, Philly, Garden State, Monmouth and Atlantic City. I actually still have a slew of programs from those years and the fields look pretty small in a random sampling outside of turf and maiden claimers. I must have missed the halcyon days of 10 - 12 horses in every race. I would think avg payoff to field size in the 70s is probably about the same as today as well.


On the NYRA circuit

1991
Races 2757
Average Bet Entires Per Race 8.4
Average Winning Odds $5.40

2007
2232
7.89
$5.28

boomman
09-05-2008, 11:04 PM
I have never seen a sport or betting activity where the fans/bettors complain as much as the horse player. It seems that 1/2 the posts here are negative.

mcal:I think most of us on this board (and I can personally attest to this): LOVE Horse racing. I am not here to complain about it as such, but to do anything I can to make it better! Discussions like this and the formation of HANA are a way of talking about the problems that exist (so as not to bury our head in the sand) but I seriously doubt any of us would take the time if we didn't want to do everything in our power to improve the game we love. I can assure you I wouldn't!;)

Boomer
'

thespaah
09-05-2008, 11:10 PM
You rarely hear this one mentioned, but isn't the constant parade of chalk and short fields a total turn off to possible new players in this game?

Here is one example. The last two days at Woodbine produced the following win payouts:

6.70, 8.60, 3.00, 5.00, 6.10, 4.90, 6.80, 3.60, 3.80, 3.10, 3.10, 5.50, 8.10, 8.40, 10.10, 5.80, 4.20

How is that going to get anyone excited about the game? 17 races over two days, and an average winner paying $5.69. That is little more than getting a blackjack in the casino!

This isn't to pick on Woodbine. It happens around the country. Of course it doesn't happen every day. It does happen often enough to think these racing secretaries need to put on some more competitive races.
Perhgaps the pencils are little sharper and the racing a bit more formful at Woodbine than in other places. I will however concur with your obs that short fields make it tough to draw in newbs.

thoroughbred
09-05-2008, 11:38 PM
It's all a matter of perspective.

We all want to hit it big.

But look at even the $3.10 payout, the lowest payout on your list. That's a 55% profit.

Yes, I know, it may not be enough to cover possible future losses.

But a novice might think this is pretty good. Maybe in some sense it is.

lamboguy
09-06-2008, 12:51 AM
on thursday i was betting penn national. the win pool on the third race had $28,000 in it. i watched bet fair, that place got $58,000 matched on the win side.
i am told that if you are a canadien resident, you can have an account with BET FAIR. maybe there are people in the united states that have friends that live north of our border, or maybe even south of our border, or maybe even across the pond.

when you make bets on BET FAIR, changing odds in front of your eyes don't mean anything, because you have locked in you price. it doesn't matter that someone else might have an edge on you , because hypothetically you are happy with your price before the race starts.

the company makes it money when the winner pays a 2% commision.

race tracks in this country pay the purses and maintain the tracks, BET FAIR makes money and pays no expenses.

that is a great business model. my message to the folks at the tracknet, nyra, churchill, and private owners of race tracks, you better sit down with alot of coffee and figure this thing out. if you want you can hire me to do your thinking. i will get it right , i promise you.

Steve 'StatMan'
09-06-2008, 01:17 AM
Chalk definitely might get the novice interested, it did for me when I was new to racing, didn't know about handicapping and was interested in just gambling. It took a while before I learned that the game and handicapping could actually be learned, and sent me on my long handicapping journey. So who knows, maybe some newbe chalk-eaters will learn the game and cash a few tickets and get interest in the game, and then (when that doesn't work!) learn to become chalk-beaters someday.

Robert Fischer
09-06-2008, 01:56 AM
on thursday i was betting penn national. the win pool on the third race had $28,000 in it. i watched bet fair, that place got $58,000 matched on the win side.
i am told that if you are a canadien resident, you can have an account with BET FAIR. maybe there are people in the united states that have friends that live north of our border, or maybe even south of our border, or maybe even across the pond.

when you make bets on BET FAIR, changing odds in front of your eyes don't mean anything, because you have locked in you price. it doesn't matter that someone else might have an edge on you , because hypothetically you are happy with your price before the race starts.

the company makes it money when the winner pays a 2% commision.

race tracks in this country pay the purses and maintain the tracks, BET FAIR makes money and pays no expenses.

that is a great business model. my message to the folks at the tracknet, nyra, churchill, and private owners of race tracks, you better sit down with alot of coffee and figure this thing out. if you want you can hire me to do your thinking. i will get it right , i promise you.

this is a good post.

They have given ignorance and short-sightedness a really fair opportunity and it just hasn't panned out.

It starts with the business model.

If a group of bright students at one of the nation's top business schools did a project with something like horseracing (lets not call it horseracing, and just treat it as a hypothetical) - they would design a totally different business model.

You would see viral marketing , internet marketing , guerrilla marketing, and most of all a systematic exploitation of American's and the world's "response" to TELEVISION and mass media...

Things like takeout and wager types would be calculated and designed by actuaries and maybe even have "A" Customers like high-rolling professional gamblers in mind...

The owners would be "running this 'league'"...

ok , my midnight snack is ready:cool:

cj's dad
09-06-2008, 02:09 AM
I have never seen a sport or betting activity where the fans/bettors complain as much as the horse player. It seems that 1/2 the posts here are negative.

In 2 words - MOVE ON !!

dav4463
09-06-2008, 05:08 AM
I had a $51.40 winner last week. Just one of these makes up for a lot of chalk.

barn32
09-06-2008, 06:17 AM
You rarely hear this one mentioned, but isn't the constant parade of chalk and short fields a total turn off to possible new players in this game?

Here is one example. The last two days at Woodbine produced the following win payouts:

6.70, 8.60, 3.00, 5.00, 6.10, 4.90, 6.80, 3.60, 3.80, 3.10, 3.10, 5.50, 8.10, 8.40, 10.10, 5.80, 4.20
Try Evangeline Downs. Full fields and nice prices.

JustRalph
09-06-2008, 07:59 AM
You rarely hear this one mentioned, but isn't the constant parade of chalk and short fields a total turn off to possible new players in this game?

Here is one example. The last two days at Woodbine produced the following win payouts:



This is the one reason why I have hardly played since the spring..... spot plays only............. I am not going to spend 40 hours a week at the computer for 10 plays a week.............

bettheoverlay
09-06-2008, 11:59 AM
Here is one example. The last two days at Woodbine produced the following win payouts:

6.70, 8.60, 3.00, 5.00, 6.10, 4.90, 6.80, 3.60, 3.80, 3.10, 3.10, 5.50, 8.10, 8.40, 10.10, 5.80, 4.20


Yesterday's P4 at Woodbine included the $5.50, $810, $8.40 $10.10. I apoligize if my math is off. P4 returned ($1) $903 - Parlay $235. First P3 returned $167 - Parlay $47. Second P3 returned $295 - Parlay $85. That might impress newbies.

cj
09-06-2008, 01:14 PM
Yesterday's P4 at Woodbine included the $5.50, $810, $8.40 $10.10. I apoligize if my math is off. P4 returned ($1) $903 - Parlay $235. First P3 returned $167 - Parlay $47. Second P3 returned $295 - Parlay $85. That might impress newbies.

It is possible, but a lot of newbies aren't playing P3s and P4s. Maybe they should be. Maybe part of the problem is we have WAY TOO MANY pools on every race.

Overlay
09-06-2008, 02:11 PM
Maybe part of the problem is we have WAY TOO MANY pools on every race.

I'm not sure that that's necessarily a bad thing. As I believe bettheoverlay was implying with his post, it offers additional opportunities to find value (at least on those exotics where advance probable payoffs are available), when individual horses are underlaid to win.

LottaKash
09-06-2008, 02:28 PM
It's all a matter of perspective.

We all want to hit it big.

But look at even the $3.10 payout, the lowest payout on your list. That's a 55% profit.

Yes, I know, it may not be enough to cover possible future losses.

But a novice might think this is pretty good. Maybe in some sense it is.

HaHa, back in the day, I would think that a 3 or 4 dollar score was okay....Hey, back then ANY WINNER was a score, and I needed those little scores for maintaining the emotional end of my game....A win was a win............C'mon all, admit it, were'nt we all there at one time or another......?...:D

Perhaps some of us have advanced so far, that we may often fail to recall those 3 & 4 dollar days, and that , the newer or entertainment players, often are not seeing things quite the same as we do these days....

I often remember a lot of chalk coming in on a lot of days

best,

Overlay
09-06-2008, 02:48 PM
HaHa, back in the day, I would think that a 3 or 4 dollar score was okay....Hey, back then ANY WINNER was a score, and I needed those little scores for maintaining the emotional end of my game....A win was a win............C'mon all, admit it, were'nt we all there at one time or another......?...:D

Perhaps some of us have advanced so far, that we may often fail to recall those 3 & 4 dollar days, and that , the newer or entertainment players, often are not seeing things quite the same as we do these days....

I often remember a lot of chalk coming in on a lot of days

best,

You're certainly right about where I think most of our handicapping roots were established when we first encountered racing. It was all about picking winners. Any score was emotionally gratifying, but you needed an unsustainably high percentage of them at those short prices to come out ahead.

I think the difference is the performance data now available that makes assessment of fair odds and value much more accessible than it was in those days, when it depended on either educated subjective opinion or voluminous stubby-pencil record-keeping.

barn32
09-06-2008, 03:30 PM
It is possible, but a lot of newbies aren't playing P3s and P4s. Maybe they should be. Maybe part of the problem is we have WAY TOO MANY pools on every race.I agree. This is one part of the problem. When I was a kid playing the horses you had win, place and show--the daily double--two quinella and one exacta race per card. That's it.

We also had full fields (10-horse max) almost 100% of the time.

But let me ask you. Northern California is notorious for short fields. Why do you think that is? It's difficult for me to say, "well, it's because of all the different betting pools." I could be wrong though.

RXB
09-06-2008, 05:25 PM
For major tracks with good mutuel handles, multiple pools isn't a problem. But some of these minor tracks-- quinellas, exactors, tri's, super's, rolling pick 3's almost every race-- I just don't understand their thinking. The pools are so diluted, they chase away not only big bettors but also medium bettors, too.

Also, while big payouts sound wonderful and get attention, the worst thing that can happen for a racetrack is when too many people bust their bankroll in short order. They need to win with reasonable frequency in order to keep their money in play. Chasing big-money payoffs is about the easiest way to go bust quickly.

cj
09-06-2008, 05:40 PM
Again today, after 9 races, no win payoffs over $10 at woodbine. The last race has only two horse at 4 to 1 or less of 12....

cj
09-06-2008, 05:45 PM
It is finally over!!!

Zman179
09-06-2008, 06:13 PM
Short fields have a good side and a bad side.

The bad side is that it prevents big scores from occurring with more frequency.

The good side, for newbies, is that it makes it easier to cash a bet. Someone going to the racetrack for the first time isn't going to be dallying with the pick fours nor the trifectas. They're going to be playing WPS and an occasional exacta. I've seen many a rookie scream out their lungs because their show bet came in. By having full fields, it'll make it harder for the newbie to win...and that person might not come back. After all, reading the program or DRF to them is like figuring out chinese arithmetic. Add that to bowling a donut for 9 races and that person is lost for good.

But for the daily fare, bigger fields are obviously better. Personally, I think that you need a mix of both on every card. Just ask a heavy pick six player desperately looking for a potential single.

samyn on the green
09-06-2008, 06:35 PM
There are too many tracks and not enough horses. The talent is spread so thin. Part of the problem is the slot money which as artifically pumped up purses beyond what the horse population can support at the entry box. As long as all of these slot tracks continue to run the racing will be overextended and too common to be interesting.

Just in the Northeast region we have Bel/WO/MTH/SUF/FL/DEL/PHA/CT/MNR/PEN/PID/LRL all running this month within 500 miles of each other. That is 12 tracks running on a Saturday with 10 races each. That requires 1200 horses to fill all those cards. It is not going to happen. Racing will be cheap, common and mundane.

jonnielu
09-06-2008, 07:01 PM
It is possible, but a lot of newbies aren't playing P3s and P4s. Maybe they should be. Maybe part of the problem is we have WAY TOO MANY pools on every race.

They should be, modern racing revolves around the exotic wager. The exotics have more general appeal. They are played most when the average player sees that any horse could win, that is a live concept when fields are full.

jdl

dav4463
09-30-2008, 03:10 AM
Sep. 29-- I believe the highest payoff of any winner at these three tracks today was $9.60. Plenty paid $4.00 or less.


Oops! $15.80 in the final race at Mountaineer. Only had to wait through 27 or so races for a double-digit winner!