Track Closings won't neccessarily make for bigger fields

[Nmytwenties]

I have been reading posts on this board for quite a while now and found the discussion very interesting so here I am the newest addition to the board here. I am definatly not the typical horse player as I am a bit younger than most (28) and the allure of the sport for me is more the challenge of getting selections right than making money on what I see as an awesome hobby.

I have to say that commentary on this board that has left me a little dumbfounded more than anything is the belief that track closings, like that of Bay Meadows and possibly Beulah Park (reduced dates) and River Downs will be good for people who want bigger fields at tracks around the country.

While it might not be the case with Bay Meadows, Beulah and River Downs not running wil add to only one the thing, the number of horses going into the hands of the amoral people who run slaughterhouses. How many horses at Beulah are going to run anywhere else??? Don't see many of them running at NYRA tracks or Kentucky. The most they could do is add numbers to select races at Turfway and Mountaineer in the winter but does 99-1 shots bringing up the rear of the field really mean anything when it comes to bigger payoffs??

As someone who excels at tracks that are middle level to lower level (as I better as my usual track day is Monday) I think these lesser tracks have their role and honestly I don't see how it is seen as a plus when any of them close. Again the majority of horses who were running at Bay Meadows can be competitive in other regions but when people start seeing a bunch of horses with RD and Beu PP's running at Churchill and Belmont then I would have missed my guess.

I do believe that all tracks have much work to do as far as customer service is concerned and think that the situation in Ohio is that of total ignorance of the customer on both sides (track owners and horseman) but I would hope that an 11th hour deal can be made. I know the horses are really bad but Beulah has actually had large field sizes on most of their cards this winter and I really fear that a large number of equine athletes from this track/circuit will meet a horrible end if they dont open up after the first of the year.

I look forward to posting on the board in the future, most of you seem to have a lot on the ball.

[rastajenk]

I think your instincts are correct. Many of the people who race at places like Beulah are locals, and they are not in the position to ship all over to fill the fields at the remaining tracks. Rather, they will quit the game. And their friends will quit the game. And their friends' friends will never participate in the game, unless one considers stumbling upon an ESPN telecast while channel surfing participation. Why some on these boards consider that good for the game, I'll never figure out.

[rrbauer]

Track closings, regional circuit realignment, reduction in racing days, stopping the incessant push for year-round racing where there are months of inclement weather, reduction in breeding programs and the resultant number of new foals will all contribute to an improvement in the quality of racing including larger field sizes. There is no silver bullet here that will put the industry on a higher plane.

[proximity]

but does 99-1 shots bringing up the rear of the field really mean anything when it comes to bigger payoffs??.

this helps to lower what i call effective takeout. this is the average takeout per horse (or combination) or the average public error per horse that you need for your number to be an overlay.

very, very good post overall though and i will add that i think we need to come to some kind of consensus about what track(s) are lagging behind in the field size department.

[Nmytwenties]

Thanks for your feedback.

I know I will be seen as a kind of a horse racing anti christ by making this statement but I really don't mind short fields as much as most bettors. I see the sport as a hobby and not as a source of income and winning percentage is a bigger factor for me than payoff. Not to say that I am not just as eager as any to cash a big ticket, I am however proud to say that that is not all I look for by participating. Those who see it as a main source of income of course will not agree with me and that is fine, to each his own.

I will agree that it gets kinda ridiculous at Delaware with a relatively large number of 4 and 5 horse fields after scratches. But I actually do better at races with 6 to 8 horses than 11 and 12 horse fields. I don't know how many people have the system I have, which is based on a process of elimination, but I find it easier to pin down winning bets in shorter fields. For someone like me who really disects every race, it takes a long ass time to do a 12 horse field, even one that I decide to lay off. You may not get the payoffs in short fields that you get in bigger ones, but it is an easier job which consumes less time to make. I am one that never scoffs at easy money. Again maybe its because its just a hobby for me but I have cashed a ton of $30 and $40 tri bets that were obvious to me that I hear people in the crowd saying "you can't play that way". I say you can as long as you are very shrewd about races you stay away from you can hit a high enough percentage of winners to come out ahead, or at worst break even.

I am not a croney for the horseman or whatever but I think it is incredibly self centered for horse betters to say a track should shut down because their fields are smaller than others. I have read enough posts from one gentleman on here that would lead me to believe that he thinks any track that ever cards a race with less than 11 horses should be shuttered. If you don't like short fields then just dont bet them but you dont need to have ill will toward the track itself. And you know what, for creative bettors, many would be surprised at how much some exotics can pay even in 6 or 7 horse fields. Perhaps if some bettors would participate in races that they dont even look at because its not 12 horses then the pools would be bigger and payoffs would stand to be higher as well.

I don't think field sizes are the biggest problem the sport has. I think there are a decent number of tracks for those bettors that only bet races with 10 or more horses and a good number with a mix of small and large for people like me. If every track had 12 horse fields in every race, I probably wouldn't participate. It would take forever to look over the races. Dont nail me to a cross for saying that, its just my personal opinion.

[cj's dad]

When one considers the new tracks which have opened in say the last 15-20 years vs. those that have closed I would think that there are less t'bred tracks open today than before.

Maybe someone here has a list of openers vs. closers in the last 10-20 yrs. I believe I am correct in my assumption.

Having said that, it seems to me that simple free market economy will take over and that in the long run, tracks which cannot support themselves for whatever reason will close.

[samyn on the green]

The problem is that the free market is not in control here and government intervention is propping up almost all of the tracks in the Northeast. Instead of a few sick tracks failing the entire game is becoming sick with too much racing and not enough horses to fill the races. Individual races are stripped of competition (http://gregcalabrese.blogspot.com/2008/11/tale-of-two-races.html) and never ending meets have annexed the appeal of the game. The current state of the game is too much of a good thing and a government that will not allow the market to sort out the strong and the weak.

[proximity]

i don't have numbers to back this up, but in the mid-atlantic, the "weaker" tracks, pen and ct, seem to be outperforming the others in attracting entries?

also, i don't like to look at slots as some evil that is "propping the tracks up" but rather as an added attraction that can give the game the boost it needs to get it back on its feet... the boost that it needs to recover from the decades of inept and apathetic managements responsible for the sport's decline. and it should also be noted that these managements often operated not in a "competitive" environment, but in near monopoly conditions where the barriers to entry were often exceedingly high.... or non-existent.

[Nmytwenties]

I dont have a problem with the tracks using slots and casino money to supplement their bottom line. As a horse player and not a gambler,someone who is proud to say I have never stepped foot in a casino, I would prefer on not seeing them or hearing them at the track and most tracks do build separate places for the slots people.

I do think that the tracks who have got the slots must be condemned for basically ignoring the horse racing aspect of the business. 30 minutes Before the first post I watch a 20 minute infomercial for Mountaineer's gaming resort, with only a short mention of horse racing, and then see the races later on that have horses running a 5 path around the track because the rail is constantly "dead" which I feel comprimises the integrity of the race. Do they care enough about the problem to use some of the money they are making from the slots to fix the problem??

Penn National should be applauded for for fixing their track surface. Others may have said, "we're not going to spend any money on that horse racing stuff ,we have slots." Unforchantly I think that is what happens, the tracks profit from the slots and let the racing kinda be a backdrop.

The fact is this sport, I feel, is only going to appeal to a certain segment of the population. Intelligent horse bettors are, well, intelligent. Not to say that some of the people at the track that I observe are intelligent. But is a horse player someone who waits until 1 minute is left and then bets numbers, without no knowledge of the race whatever. I don't think so and I have no idea why these people don't just stick to the casinos.

The majority of the people who post on this board are in a minority. Most people in the public just don't want to put in the work necessary, its more of a culture thing than anything else, hard work is shunned all around. People go to the casino and participate in that sham because THEY DON'T HAVE TO THINK.

The number one thing I think the tracks should do to try to turn casino gamblers into horse betters is to highlight the PARI MUTUAL FACTOR. Casinos are very forward about how the odds are purposely set in their favor to profit,do you ever watch these casino shows on Travel Channel?? They f'n gloat about it. You would have to be an idiot to step into those places and think you can win consistently. And if you do, then they are open about how they will throw you out.

Casino patrons, especially those at the tracks themselves, should be informed that the great thing about horse racing is that you are betting not against "the house" but against other betters, other people. This is what I try to promote to friends of mine about the sport. But what are the tracks doing instead of this. Many giveaway trips to casinos!!!!! This is nuts. Of course some are owned by casino companies so this is not practical in those cases, but I really think the tracks should target this angle more.

Instant racing, I have never seen it in play, but it seems like a better proposition for a track looking to supplement horse betting interest. It is a game of chance, one that a real horse player wouldn't think about betting, but it could bring new people into the fold much more than a slot machine would.

Your just never going to convert the watchers of MTV and the reality TV generation to put the effort forth to participate in horse racing though. Believe me, I am from this generation, they are just too lazy....lol

[proximity]

also (in reading my post above), i did not mean to imply that the same old track owners (pen gaming, .... ) that allowed racing to get this way should have been rewarded for their incompetence. rather, the gaming parts of our mid-atlantic racinos should have been placed under complete government control. certainly in any real world operation i'd be against this, but racino gambling doesn't operate under real world conditions. instead we have people like ted arneault leaving mnr with millions of dollars and house just weeks before the racino cuts 90 people loose....

[Nmytwenties]

Ha ha, old Ted at MNR....LOL

Haven't met the guy but in that little infomercial at the head of MNR simulcasts,ha, he looks like he has a little bit of a used car salesman in him. Not to say I think he is a bad guy,just kind of a vibe. They really need to update that commercial too, they are promoting concerts that went on in June at the Resort. And the other commentators, actors, old Ted talks to???

Why do I laugh when I see their "acting" skills on display????

[proximity]

I do think that the tracks who have got the slots must be condemned for basically ignoring the horse racing aspect of the business. 30 minutes Before the first post I watch a 20 minute infomercial for Mountaineer's gaming resort, with only a short mention of horse racing

here you are kinda getting at the crux of what i'm trying to say.

pen gaming, mtr, (whoever) should never have been rewarded for their failures in the gambling business. at least not to the incredible extent that they have benefited anyhow. instead of these entities buying licenses and racking up big profits, the government should have allowed them to accept a subsidy to build a state operated casinos onto their racetracks. government share of takeout and breakage would be eliminated.... leaving all racing revenues to the track and all casino revenues to the state. then the track and casino operations would have to compete against each other. casino management jobs could be given to hungry, young mba grads who could be hired for a fraction of what ted arneault was making. was it really necessary for mr arneault to be making a zillion times more than the governor??

[Robert Fischer]

not only does this excess of racing hurt the field size, it also hurts the pool size.

There are 10 different tracks going off within the half-hour! :bang:

KILLS pool size