Churchill to request four-day race week

[sandpit]

From the DRF: http://drf.com/news/article/103663.html

As bad as the entries have been since Derby, this was probably just a matter of time.

[toussaud]

i believe every track (with the exepction of maybe keeneland and saratoga ) should be a 4 day week. good deal.

[cj's dad]

i believe every track (with the exepction of maybe keeneland and saratoga ) should be a 4 day week. good deal.

Agree 100%

[The Hawk]

Agree 100%

Me, too. In fact, maybe three days a week.

[toussaud]

Me, too. In fact, maybe three days a week.


http://www.vinmag.com/online/media/gbu0/prodlg/RGC002-willis.jpg

[matthewsiv]

i believe every track (with the exepction of maybe keeneland and saratoga ) should be a 4 day week. good deal.

:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[point given]

i believe every track (with the exepction of maybe keeneland and saratoga ) should be a 4 day week. good deal.
Agree, However. Saratoga needs to go to a 5 day week and start their meet a couple of weeks earlier than now. The Belmont meet after July 4th weekend usually is the pits. A couple of more weeks of saratoga on a 5day week instead of 6 would be better for all concerned. One of these days the purists will see that it will not lessen the saratoga experience , IMHO.

[GlenninOhio]

Indiana Downs is killing them.

They've doubled their pots over the past year, to the point where they are very competitive with CD at the claiming level. While their allowance pots are only about half of Churchill's, their fields are a lot less tough so they attract the horses who would normally be marginal players in CD allowances.

To put in more perspective, the quality of the fields and the purse levels at Ind is in my opinion better than at the last Turfway meet.

Note also that Ind (like CD) is only about 90 minutes from Turfway (where a lot of horses are stabled that run at CD) and about 2 hours from Churchill.

Also note that Presque Isle opened a few days ago, and while they are a lot more of a geographical challenge for Kentucky horses their purse structure is even more competitive with CD's.

[Rapid Grey]

Keep in mind that at this time last year Churchill was right in the middle of the ADW fight with the horsemen. A lot of whom decided to race elsewhere and maybe never returned, even after they did reach an agreement.

While they will always point to the casino boats, and other forms of gaming, as part of their demise, a lot falls squarely on the corporate shoulders of CDI. They are a bottomline budget driven company, more likely to answer to the demands of their stockholders rather than their customers, their employees or the horsemen who put on the show.

They've reaped what they have sewn.

[slewis]

Sometimes people post without really disecting a problem and they try to solve a very complex issue with a simple solution.

More often then not, the suggested solution will only make the problem much worse then better.

Go to 4 day race weeks... and it will be the nail in the coffin for racing.

I short time ago I posted a thread "The thoroughbred born in 2010"...

We have a serious shortage of horses.... yet, those who run this industry refuse to do what it takes to rectify the problem...

Why??? It doesn't fit their Agenda....

[toussaud]

Sometimes people post without really disecting a problem and they try to solve a very complex issue with a simple solution.

More often then not, the suggested solution will only make the problem much worse then better.

Go to 4 day race weeks... and it will be the nail in the coffin for racing.

I short time ago I posted a thread "The thoroughbred born in 2010"...

We have a serious shortage of horses.... yet, those who run this industry refuse to do what it takes to rectify the problem...

Why??? It doesn't fit their Agenda....
I don't think oaklawn nor arlington got the end of racing memo



at the end of the day, this is too much dilution. I don't need 15 freaking track to wager from on a damn wednesday.

the guy at churchill said it best. players aren't going to support 5-6 horse races. I frankley in this case, dont' give a crap about the horseman. They need to cater to me and my needs. I am like the plant in the little shop of horrors. you must feed me with full plump fat fields of 10-12 horses day in and day out.

[slewis]

I don't think oaklawn nor arlington got the end of racing memo



at the end of the day, this is too much dilution. I don't need 15 freaking track to wager from on a damn wednesday.

the guy at churchill said it best. players aren't going to support 5-6 horse races. I frankley in this case, dont' give a crap about the horseman. They need to cater to me and my needs. I am like the plant in the little shop of horrors. you must feed me with full plump fat fields of 10-12 horses day in and day out.

So you feel Oaklawn is the template for running a successful racetrack?

The fact that it's a specialized SHORT meet serving a specific group makes it a very poor example.

If you dont have 5 days racing at larger tracks THERE IS NO OAKLAWN MEET.

[toussaud]

So you feel Oaklawn is the template for running a successful racetrack?

The fact that it's a specialized SHORT meet serving a specific group makes it a very poor example.

If you dont have 5 days racing at larger tracks THERE IS NO OAKLAWN MEET.


i'm not going to get in a frivlous debate with you over soemthing so ovbious just so you can try to prove a point that doesnt' exist.

[slewis]

i'm not going to get in a frivlous debate with you over soemthing so ovbious just so you can try to prove a point that doesnt' exist.


Well I hope you're racetrack management career goes better than the attempt at being a jockey agent.....

BTW, I did mention to EIBAR that you called him an idiot for choosing MM over General Q in the derby... he didn't have a comment per say.....

But his response can be recreated by taking a pair of dice and shaking them like you would prior to throwing them at a craps table....

Just leave out the dice...

[PaceAdvantage]

i'm not going to get in a frivlous debate with you over soemthing so ovbious just so you can try to prove a point that doesnt' exist.If this were a sanctioned debate, you'd lose serious points with this response.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I have been reading for awhile that the short fields are only a problem on fake sand/dirt(LOL)! Meanwhile, we have steady foal crop numbers, number of breeding mares; less registered foals, les starts per 2 yr old and for all starters, and 50% of the stallions as 20 years ago.
Field size has managed to stay steady over the last 15+ years because the overall number of races has dramatically declined. This is a good example of that in action. Perhaps with more equity in quality between the $million breds and the cheaper breds, smaller tracks are seeing more action.

[rrbauer]

It really doesn't matter what the reasons are. Racetracks have to do what they have to do. Finally they see that. Some of the venues that are benefitting because of their alternative-gaming subsidies will end up being only a memory when the next generation of pols comes along and realizes that there are better things for the general population to be subsidizing than horse racing. Not to mention the price tag for bailing out the financial system and Michigan Inc.

I saw a post critical of Belmont's post-July 4 cards as a reason to move up the Saratoga meet. Two thoughts with regard to that: Go look at the Belmont charts for the current meet and tally the number of races with SIX or fewer participants. Will post-July 4 be worse? Then explain how, in the face of what is happening around the country with the general state of the economy and the curtailment of racing days at major summer venues like Hollywood Park, Del Mar and Churchill, that this trend would be reversed to allow Saratoga to expand its racing days? There are only so many NY-breds out there and the turf courses at the Spa can't handle much more wear and tear than they currently get during the length of their meets now.

[miesque]

Just something to keep in mind when discussing changes in racing schedules. Anytime there is something that is "select" or "boutique" it requires a much broader base to draw from and if that base weakens or erodes, so does the strength and feasibility of the boutique product. Extending a boutique meet without the underlying supporting system growing will not result in a a better product but in all likelihood a more diluted "boutique" product. Another way to look at it is such meets require feeder streams from other circuits and hence cannot exist in its current form without them. This is also why you can't just have "nice racing," horses and connections need to be able to move up and down the ladder based on their level of competition.

[andicap]

I don't understand what Slewis is all bent out of shape about. This is not an "either/or" proposition.

We all know racing has not, is not, and probably will never address the crippling problems facing the industry today. That is, the industry will respond to them, but only in symptonatic, superficial ways.

I understand what Slewis is saying: Going to a four-day week is a typical head-in-the-sand industry response: Put a band-aid on it and maybe all the problems will magically go away.

But until the industry wakes up or someone intelligent, honest and forward-looking starts leading the agenda, we must at least deal with the issues at hand. And like it or not, the benefits of going to a four-day week far outweigh the negatives of abandoning the five-day week.

Of course a three-day week would be lunacy. I mean, why bother running a meet at all?

[toussaud]

Of course a three-day week would be lunacy. I mean, why bother running a meet at all?

If i am not mistaken the JRA runs on weekends only (friday-sunday). they also have a purse structure "(with no slots) that puts ours to shame.

[andymays]

Racing needs to downsize.

Unfortunately some of the most famous tracks in the country are the ones that will probably be left behind due to bad leadership and State Legislatures that are beholden to Indian Casino's.

The big advantage of downsizing for the Horseplayer is that handle could be concentrated on a handfull of successful tracks (Oaklawn for one). Once the handle is concentrated the Tracks will be able to lower the take. If the take is say 10% on every wager then the offshore (rebate) money comes back. Once this happens we will not only have quality racing, we will make betting on Horse Races a "good bet".

[Steve 'StatMan']

If i am not mistaken the JRA runs on weekends only (friday-sunday). they also have a purse structure "(with no slots) that puts ours to shame.

But I don't believe they have local slots competition.

[slewis]

I don't understand what Slewis is all bent out of shape about. This is not an "either/or" proposition.

We all know racing has not, is not, and probably will never address the crippling problems facing the industry today. That is, the industry will respond to them, but only in symptonatic, superficial ways.

I understand what Slewis is saying: Going to a four-day week is a typical head-in-the-sand industry response: Put a band-aid on it and maybe all the problems will magically go away.

But until the industry wakes up or someone intelligent, honest and forward-looking starts leading the agenda, we must at least deal with the issues at hand. And like it or not, the benefits of going to a four-day week far outweigh the negatives of abandoning the five-day week.

Of course a three-day week would be lunacy. I mean, why bother running a meet at all?


Well Slewis isn't bent out of shape on this issue.

What Slewis said is that the suggestion of 4 day a week racing at many venues is very shortsighted and will make the problem worse, much worse.
I wanted to encourage people to think about the problem and I was hopeful that they would post... but no one has so I will.

9 or 10 less races per day gives 9 or 10 less owners, trainers, assistants, etc etc, an opportunity to win a purse.
It takes away from 9 or 10 owners a chance to earn 2nd, 3rd, 4th money, (etc) all of which helps in paying bills that are roughly in the $2500-3000 range per month per horse.
With smaller operating stables, just 1 or 2 decent horses will pay the bills for the 10-15 others that dont earn their keep.

If a small trainer has 4 or 5 owners, those 4 or 5 extra races he could win a year, or hit the board and get 5%, are the difference between staying in the game or finding another career.

This is just ONE example... I haven't even explored the ramifications from the racetrack end regarding handle, jobs, condition books, horse population, (take the little owner out of the game and the big guys run against each other).

4 day a week racing means BIG BIG 12 horse competitive fields with great payoffs and large pools right???
Until owners and horsemen leave the game... and you're back to square 1..Then you'll be talking about "Weekend only Racing".

[sandpit]

Here is some rather ironic stuff that came out of the mouth of CDI's CEO Bob Evans last week at their quarterly reports press conference:

More of Churchill Downs Inc.'s revenues are coming from sources other than racing, but President and Chief Executive Officer Bob Evans defended the Louisville-based track operator's commitment to live racing today. "We aren't abandoning racing," Evans said. "We're rebuilding it."

"Every single dollar spent by Churchill Downs on slot operations and online operations produces more purses for horsemen at CDI tracks, expands the customer base to which we can market racing and makes CDI a stronger financial entity which enables us to make more investments," he said.

He failed to mention how the handle on Derby Day has declined for the third straight year, which coincides how long he has been in charge of the company. My question is, if TwinSpires.com is generating more purses for the horseman, why is CDI's flagship track having to slice days/purses as a result of horsemen not entering in their races?

Maybe he should pull an Obama and blame it all on Meeker :D.

[eclecticapper]

Racing in Kentucky is likely to be even worse when it shifts to Ellis Park in a couple months. Ron Geary told Kentucky officials earlier this year that without slots he won't request dates in 2010.

[toussaud]

no they don't have casino's in japan. but still, a graded stakes in japan starts at a cool 650k. I have to think that's a littie bit more than slots. you concentrate your pools into main days and start worring about the bettors and not the horseman, and everyone wins in the long run. run your races and concentrate on making things playable when people can actually play, as the avg guy you are marketing for is AT WORK at 1pm on a wednesday, and you can actually get his wagering dollar. who cares if there is a Free hat giveaway on thursday? i'm in a board meeting. yes, that damn free hat i always wanted. going to have to call in sick today.

I don't want to come off as brash, but horse racing is the only sport stupid enough to run it's product at a time when it's avg fan cannot possibly view it. The avg fan is a white 53 year old man according to the NTRA. The Avg 53 year old man is at work on a wednesday and a thursday.
you concentate putting 3 days a week of great racing instead of 5 days a week of avg racing with 1 or 2 decent races, and you will make alot more money. that's just my opinion. less is usually more.

[toussaud]

Well Slewis isn't bent out of shape on this issue.

What Slewis said is that the suggestion of 4 day a week racing at many venues is very shortsighted and will make the problem worse, much worse.
I wanted to encourage people to think about the problem and I was hopeful that they would post... but no one has so I will.

9 or 10 less races per day gives 9 or 10 less owners, trainers, assistants, etc etc, an opportunity to win a purse.
It takes away from 9 or 10 owners a chance to earn 2nd, 3rd, 4th money, (etc) all of which helps in paying bills that are roughly in the $2500-3000 range per month per horse.
With smaller operating stables, just 1 or 2 decent horses will pay the bills for the 10-15 others that dont earn their keep.

If a small trainer has 4 or 5 owners, those 4 or 5 extra races he could win a year, or hit the board and get 5%, are the difference between staying in the game or finding another career.

This is just ONE example... I haven't even explored the ramifications from the racetrack end regarding handle, jobs, condition books, horse population, (take the little owner out of the game and the big guys run against each other).

4 day a week racing means BIG BIG 12 horse competitive fields with great payoffs and large pools right???
Until owners and horsemen leave the game... and you're back to square 1..Then you'll be talking about "Weekend only Racing".


actually this view is very short sided for a couple of reasons and it doesn't take a couple of keey factors into place.

first of all, the industry doesn't revolve around making all the trainers on the backstretch happy. That's first and foremost. But that's not my main point.

With less races and more concerated wagering, you get full fields. full fields gets you better odds. better odds gets you more betters, as there is more value. more bettors get your more handle.

meaning that while yes, the trainer will get less opprotunities for checks, if you are running for 55k instead of 30k, you don't need as many opprotunities to get a check.

and then when you run the 5 day a week card, you have the issues that hollywood park are having, having to cancel full days. which would you rather have, a 4 day a week card with better purses and knowing fully well you are going to run, or a 5 day a week card where you are having to huslte just to put a card together, and work harder to get less money?

all the horseman won't like it, but again as andymays said, horse racing needs to downsize a little.

Racing on wednesdays for major tracks does nothing but benefit horseman and does nothing but bring worse value overall to the bettor.


the reason socal racing is the laughing stock of horse racing is becuase everyone listened to a select few horseman who wanted 5-6 horse fields instead of listening to the fans. ironically, the horseman have left as well as the fans.

[GlenninOhio]

Indiana Downs is killing them.

They've doubled their pots over the past year, to the point where they are very competitive with CD at the claiming level. While their allowance pots are only about half of Churchill's, their fields are a lot less tough so they attract the horses who would normally be marginal players in CD allowances.

To put in more perspective, the quality of the fields and the purse levels at Ind is in my opinion better than at the last Turfway meet.

Note also that Ind (like CD) is only about 90 minutes from Turfway (where a lot of horses are stabled that run at CD) and about 2 hours from Churchill.

Also note that Presque Isle opened a few days ago, and while they are a lot more of a geographical challenge for Kentucky horses their purse structure is even more competitive with CD's.

It feels kind of creepy to be quoting myself, but I need to make a point here.

There's nothing wrong with taking a big picture approach to the issues that racing is up against as is being done in this thread, but the FACTS as regard to the specific problem Churchill is now facing that generated this thread in the first place are contained in my original post. That, plus the "screw you" attitude of CD track management last year that caused many horsemen to turn away from them.

[DeanT]

That, plus the "screw you" attitude of CD track management last year that caused many horsemen to turn away from them.
Glenn, that is a fair bit of hyperbole, no? From my experience horse owners and trainers go where the cash is and they could care less if Lucifer himself was running the venue. Right now there is cash at PHA, IND, CT, MNR, PEN and a few others and KY is certainly feeling it, as you said.

But does this not cut right to the chase regarding the problems in racing? Belmont should have the highest purses, so should CD and KEE and a few others. But they do not, because of alternative gaming. The NFL realized 50 years ago that Green Bay could not compete with New York teams in terms of their major revenue - TV - so they did something about it and created a rev share slush fund for the good of the game. Insular racing, with take as much cash today and to hell with tomorrow as the mantra, had no such mechanism. Is that not the real problem?

Imo, three and four day race weeks are the product of everyone not doing things properly, and no matter who we want to blame, as with most problems in racing we best just all look in the mirror.

10% of all slots revenue should have long ago been placed in a central office for bettor rewards and purse top ups where needed on a national basis based on something really wild and wacky ........ handle.

[slewis]

actually this view is very short sided for a couple of reasons and it doesn't take a couple of keey factors into place.

first of all, the industry doesn't revolve around making all the trainers on the backstretch happy. That's first and foremost. But that's not my main point.

With less races and more concerated wagering, you get full fields. full fields gets you better odds. better odds gets you more betters, as there is more value. more bettors get your more handle.

meaning that while yes, the trainer will get less opprotunities for checks, if you are running for 55k instead of 30k, you don't need as many opprotunities to get a check.

and then when you run the 5 day a week card, you have the issues that hollywood park are having, having to cancel full days. which would you rather have, a 4 day a week card with better purses and knowing fully well you are going to run, or a 5 day a week card where you are having to huslte just to put a card together, and work harder to get less money?

all the horseman won't like it, but again as andymays said, horse racing needs to downsize a little.

Racing on wednesdays for major tracks does nothing but benefit horseman and does nothing but bring worse value overall to the bettor.


the reason socal racing is the laughing stock of horse racing is becuase everyone listened to a select few horseman who wanted 5-6 horse fields instead of listening to the fans. ironically, the horseman have left as well as the fans.

Im growing a bit tired of you're responses... not that I dont welcome debate because if I didn't I wouldn't post... but opening lines of my view being "very short sided" (Im sure you meant "shortsighted" but that's ok) are annoying.

So since you've failed at being a Jockey Agent, now you're leaping right into running a major racetrack.
What a joke.......
So let's start with this:
NYRA goes to a 4 day race week.....full time employees become part timers. (unless you're going to pay them to stay home, and if you do that, where does the money come from since you just lost a day of handle)
Employess will quit to find full time work......
It doesn't end there......
Many entities involved in running an entertaiment venue like the racetrack are sub-contracted out. Take food concessions..... These concessioners pay a fee and a percentage of their businesses gross. They will demand to renegotiate... you just took a day of business away from them... so the track loses MORE revenue.

Take the tote company... and video production... you've contracted with them on a per day basis.. they have a bottom line to keep their product working properly and staffed.... Are you going to compensate them for the missed handle/day???
Before you call me short "sided" maybe you should take into account the enormity in running an operation like a major racetrack.....
Maybe you should start with something a bit smaller, like a lemonade stand, where the most complex decision to be made is how much sugar to use in the mix.

You know I rarely take shots at people unless they take them at me first.
It's become very clear that if I say the sky is blue, you'll say green, and if I say green, you'll say red...

but then I come back with vengeance......
Andymays stated something to the extent that maybe less racing would be better....
That's not the underlying problem here....
The problem is horse population.... it's that simple..... If the powers that be would take the steps necessary to increase the number of foals born a year, everything else will fall into place.

[bdownes]

Slewis makes some great points.

[andicap]

so while we wait several years for the foal population to increase we have to witness the game dying because fans get tired of five/six horse fields and a parade of 3-2 horses a la Golden Gate?


Fewer days = larger fields = higher handle = more growth = higher purses = more incentive for people to breed and buy horses = higher foal population = larger fields.

That's the opposite of the vicious cycle we have now of shorter fields = fewer fans = lower handle = lower purses = less incentive for people to breed and buy horses = smaller foal populations = fewer fans ......etc.


I do agree with you that THREE-day weeks would push the proposition too far in the other direction and trainers,owners, and the others you mentioned would face a huge strain and push too many people out of work. We are seeking a happy medium here....

Having said that,

I don't see why everyone in horse raBcing is promised a living -- in a depressed sport some shake-out is inevitable, in fact desirable for a more efficient industry economy. This is a market-based economy, not a planned one after all.

When the chip industry goes into a slump, people lose their jobs. Why shouldn't trainers, grooms, tellers, tote companies, etc. face the same fate? When things get better many will return or new companies/people will appear.

I mean there are trainers and jockeys out there who SHOULD be doing something else. They're just not that good.

[DeanT]

The horse population thing was tried in Ontario with slots; foal production surged from 1996-2004. All we have is watered down fields with a mess of a system, so much so that one thoroughbred track is on its last legs, and about seven harness tracks are.

I do not think we have a supply problem in racing, we have a demand problem.

[Grits]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/10/AR2009051001314.html?hpid=news-col-blog

Looking in the rearview mirror seldom answers questions regarding the future. The elephant often remains in the livingroom on the sofa, obviously, though, quietly. One may not want, or be satisfied, with the suggestion, or the decision of shortened racing weeks or the closing of racetracks, etc, etc. But the current reality of racing IS what it IS. And statebred programs are not going to carry this sport. Tracks running, nationwide, and horses competing year round--racing mediocre fields propped up by state taxpayers or slot money (if legislated) isn't a viable answer for keeping fans and committed bettors.

It's our natural instinct to protect what is "ours". Our home, our backyard. If its doesn't affect me--it doesn't touch me and mine. I'm OK. This can be served up as our answer for NY, KY, MD, SoCal, Fla, or wherever, still cuts have to come. They have to begin at some level, and it may be better to have those cuts shared, than blasting one state or another into oblivion--leaving nothing for its fans, its owners, its employees at all levels.

There comes a time, when one realizes, what we're doing ain't workin'. Other industries are, and have been, downsizing for quite some time. Horseracing's arrived a little late, but late's better than not being able to show up at all.

[slewis]

so while we wait several years for the foal population to increase we have to witness the game dying because fans get tired of five/six horse fields and a parade of 3-2 horses a la Golden Gate?


Fewer days = larger fields = higher handle = more growth = higher purses = more incentive for people to breed and buy horses = higher foal population = larger fields.

That's the opposite of the vicious cycle we have now of shorter fields = fewer fans = lower handle = lower purses = less incentive for people to breed and buy horses = smaller foal populations = fewer fans ......etc.


I do agree with you that THREE-day weeks would push the proposition too far in the other direction and trainers,owners, and the others you mentioned would face a huge strain and push too many people out of work. We are seeking a happy medium here....

Having said that,

I don't see why everyone in horse raBcing is promised a living -- in a depressed sport some shake-out is inevitable, in fact desirable for a more efficient industry economy. This is a market-based economy, not a planned one after all.

When the chip industry goes into a slump, people lose their jobs. Why shouldn't trainers, grooms, tellers, tote companies, etc. face the same fate? When things get better many will return or new companies/people will appear.

I mean there are trainers and jockeys out there who SHOULD be doing something else. They're just not that good.

Well then you are walking a tightrope and I'll tell you why.

What many fail to realize (and I've stated this on this forum brfore) is that tbred racing as an industry, as we know does not exist without gambling.
States regulate gambling... it's a vice, not like other free enterprise businesses. The tracks MAIN RESPONSIBILITY is to provide tax relief to the citizens of their respective states.
Once you chip away at that flow, and chip away they have, and chipped and chipped and chipped, I, as a congreesmen or senator will score many points by pushing legislation to abolish this form of gambling in my state.
Legislators will (and have) opted for slots and VLTS, where the operating and licensing costs are a fraction of Tbred tracks, and the revenue stream is greater. No bad press for steroids, no letters from PETA...no cheating scandals..

Andi..If you keep opening the door to this scenario, eventually politicians will walk in.....

As someone who loves this game, thinks it's great and still has enourmous potential..... I would strongly suggest to racings elite to walk very carefully down the paths suggested.

[philcski]

So you feel Oaklawn is the template for running a successful racetrack?

The fact that it's a specialized SHORT meet serving a specific group makes it a very poor example.

If you dont have 5 days racing at larger tracks THERE IS NO OAKLAWN MEET.

Oaklawn: ~60 racing dates in 2009
Churchill Downs (5 days a week) spring meet: ~55 dates in 2009

Am I missing something here about them not being comparable?

[slewis]

Oaklawn: ~60 racing dates in 2009
Churchill Downs (5 days a week) spring meet: ~55 dates in 2009

Am I missing something here about them not being comparable?


Yes Phil,

Are you serious?

Oaklawn draws horses and owners from particular demographics of meets/locations (like Churchill) that are dark during that period.

You rarely see east coast trainers/owners race at Oaklawn, yet you see many race at churchill....

Look at where the horses historically come from at these meets.... when you start tinkering with the racing days, and purses, etc.... people say..bye bye.. and go to the FG... or to TP .....
It's not the number of days.... it's the timing of the meet.... Oaklawn fills that for midwest owners and trainers.

[philcski]

Yes Phil,

Are you serious?

Oaklawn draws horses and owners from particular demographics of meets/locations (like Churchill) that are dark during that period.

You rarely see east coast trainers/owners race at Oaklawn, yet you see many race at churchill....

Look at where the horses historically come from at these meets.... when you start tinkering with the racing days, and purses, etc.... people say..bye bye.. and go to the FG... or to TP .....
It's not the number of days.... it's the timing of the meet.... Oaklawn fills that for midwest owners and trainers.

Don't really get what you're saying, but my I guess is that Oaklawn (Fair Grounds, Turfway, Gulfstream, Hawthorne) has less competition for horseflesh than Churchill (Indiana Downs, Presque Isle, Arlington) which may or may not be true, but I'm leaning towards it's about equal in terms of apples to apples dirt racing.

Side note, I love Churchill Downs and would like nothing more than to see them succeed. Growing up in Upstate NY I never thought I'd find a place I like to go more than Saratoga, and Churchill is very close.

[rrbauer]

Racing needs to downsize.

Unfortunately some of the most famous tracks in the country are the ones that will probably be left behind due to bad leadership and State Legislatures that are beholden to Indian Casino's.

The big advantage of downsizing for the Horseplayer is that handle could be concentrated on a handfull of successful tracks (Oaklawn for one). Once the handle is concentrated the Tracks will be able to lower the take. If the take is say 10% on every wager then the offshore (rebate) money comes back. Once this happens we will not only have quality racing, we will make betting on Horse Races a "good bet".

I've "bolded" the operative terms in andy's post. Concentrating the handle at a handful of tracks could just as easily reintroduce the "only game in town" mentality which would leave the players in a "deja vu all over again" situation.

[point given]

.................................................. ....................

I saw a post critical of Belmont's post-July 4 cards as a reason to move up the Saratoga meet. Two thoughts with regard to that: Go look at the Belmont charts for the current meet and tally the number of races with SIX or fewer participants. Will post-July 4 be worse? Then explain how, in the face of what is happening around the country with the general state of the economy and the curtailment of racing days at major summer venues like Hollywood Park, Del Mar and Churchill, that this trend would be reversed to allow Saratoga to expand its racing days? There are only so many NY-breds out there and the turf courses at the Spa can't handle much more wear and tear than they currently get during the length of their meets now.

Saratoga runs 6 weeks with 6 race days per week. vs 8 weeks with 5 day weeks. 54 races per week x 6 = 324 races. vs 45 races per week x 8 = 360 races. This would equal 4 more days of live racing at Saratoga where the daily handle and attendance is much greater per day than during the same time period at Belmont. This is just a matter of shortening the Belmont meet by two weeks and adding those to the Saratoga meet which I would predict would have a positive effect on the NYRA bottom line. As far as the Saratoga turf courses go, the Belmont meet goes over 2 monthes as it is now with their two turf courses, so it would be the same . Again, this would hardly be an expansion of racing , but merely a reallocation of racing dates from one meet to another while people are away from the city for the summer. Delmar shortened their weeks racing due to the lack of horses. Saratoga rarely has that problem, but Belmont does at times. It's worth a shot :ThmbUp:

[rrbauer]

Saratoga runs 6 weeks with 6 race days per week. vs 8 weeks with 5 day weeks. 54 races per week x 6 = 324 races. vs 45 races per week x 8 = 360 races. This would equal 4 more days of live racing at Saratoga where the daily handle and attendance is much greater per day than during the same time period at Belmont. This is just a matter of shortening the Belmont meet by two weeks and adding those to the Saratoga meet which I would predict would have a positive effect on the NYRA bottom line. As far as the Saratoga turf courses go, the Belmont meet goes over 2 monthes as it is now with their two turf courses, so it would be the same . Again, this would hardly be an expansion of racing , but merely a reallocation of racing dates from one meet to another while people are away from the city for the summer. Delmar shortened their weeks racing due to the lack of horses. Saratoga rarely has that problem, but Belmont does at times. It's worth a shot :ThmbUp:

Your assumption is that all things remain the same so that a linear approach will work when days are transferred from Belmont to Saratoga. I really don't know that much about NY racing other than the week that I spend at the Spa. Make your pitch to NYRA and see what they have to say.

And, I don't know why you singled out Del Mar when Hollyood and Churchill and probably Ellis Park are/will all suffer from the same horse-shortage problem.

[alhattab]

Well then you are walking a tightrope and I'll tell you why.

What many fail to realize (and I've stated this on this forum brfore) is that tbred racing as an industry, as we know does not exist without gambling.
States regulate gambling... it's a vice, not like other free enterprise businesses. The tracks MAIN RESPONSIBILITY is to provide tax relief to the citizens of their respective states.
Once you chip away at that flow, and chip away they have, and chipped and chipped and chipped, I, as a congreesmen or senator will score many points by pushing legislation to abolish this form of gambling in my state.
Legislators will (and have) opted for slots and VLTS, where the operating and licensing costs are a fraction of Tbred tracks, and the revenue stream is greater. No bad press for steroids, no letters from PETA...no cheating scandals..

Andi..If you keep opening the door to this scenario, eventually politicians will walk in.....

As someone who loves this game, thinks it's great and still has enourmous potential..... I would strongly suggest to racings elite to walk very carefully down the paths suggested.

Slewis- I think your scenario is in a way what the "contractionists" (including me) would like to see. I would love to see racing eliminated or at least reduced in many jurisdictions. We further would like to see the racing meccas remain so, without infringement by the historical lesser lights that are plaguing business at CD and significantly diluting the quality at NYRA.

We would all like to believe that our legislators would be savvy enough to realize that "less is more". However, anyone watching NYRA over the winter knows that at least in NY this is clearly not the case, but it is true elsewhere. The Hong Kong Jockey Club still contributes something like 12% of the overall government budget through its take on the horse races- 2 days a week for half the year. What we cannot control, and what concerns me, is where such contraction will take place for the benefit of an overall product. We probably all have a protectionist streak in this regard. For example, I would be very upset if Mth closed forever. I'd much rather see Del go down the tubes and Pha significantly cut purses like the good ole days to Mth's benefit. I further believe that the game would benefit more by having a track like Mth healthy and a track like Del go away if there was a binary outcome. But I can't control where the shoes drop, and it scares me into trying to defend Mth despite that I know a reduction in dates there would help "the industry", such as it is.

Ultimately the game I believe can only succeed with significant contraction. Contraction will significantly improve the product. More consistent quality combined with more bettable races, among other improvements like in facilities, are our only hope to consistently return to the day of drawing casual players. If, for example, closing or curtailing dates at Mth is the outcome, so be it. At least I can play higher quality more bettable races elsewhere hopefully on the beam at the old Mth, at the expense of having to travel further to see live racing.

[The Hawk]

The problem is horse population.... it's that simple..... If the powers that be would take the steps necessary to increase the number of foals born a year, everything else will fall into place.

If you're going to fall on economics to promote a (flawed) argument, you need to explain who's going to buy and support all of these horses that we're breeding to run in these sub-par races.

The existing contracts that are in place for things like concessions and teller unions are not in perpetuity; they'd need to be negotiated when they came up, if not sooner. The "less chances for owners to make money" argument ignores the fact that the purses can be increased, thanks to fewer races, so the purse money would be the same as before.

If Delaware Park doesn't run on Tuesday and Wednesday, and instead runs on a Saturday through Monday schedule (dropping Sunday was mindless, but I digress), it means fuller fields, better purses, better races, and more horses to run at surrounding tracks. Horsemen may bitch (what else is new?) but they bitch more when the track is bulldozed (see Bay Meadows).

[toussaud]

breeders are being beheaded at sales. I don't think underpopulation is the problem.

but that's a whole new can of worms.

[slewis]

Saratoga runs 6 weeks with 6 race days per week. vs 8 weeks with 5 day weeks. 54 races per week x 6 = 324 races. vs 45 races per week x 8 = 360 races. This would equal 4 more days of live racing at Saratoga where the daily handle and attendance is much greater per day than during the same time period at Belmont. This is just a matter of shortening the Belmont meet by two weeks and adding those to the Saratoga meet which I would predict would have a positive effect on the NYRA bottom line. As far as the Saratoga turf courses go, the Belmont meet goes over 2 monthes as it is now with their two turf courses, so it would be the same . Again, this would hardly be an expansion of racing , but merely a reallocation of racing dates from one meet to another while people are away from the city for the summer. Delmar shortened their weeks racing due to the lack of horses. Saratoga rarely has that problem, but Belmont does at times. It's worth a shot :ThmbUp:

Again,

You guys dont look at the reality.... For example... Im up at the Spa every year.. My house cost me $8000 to rent for 6 weeks.. I historically lose money on this meet every year... Many trainers agents, workers, etc need to get housing and the rental prices are ridiculous... Now you want to up that 20%.... You know what?
Im not going... and there will be a line of trainers and workers behind me...
(Not to mention the increased per diem costs NYRA spends for their employees)

PLEASE THINK !

[toussaud]

and pumping out more horses in sales right now IS realalistic? NOt bagering or belitting, i'm dead serious.

It's like a blue light special at sales now. so much so alot of breeders aren't even bothering. My GF works at a horse farm and she tells me that business is down anywhere from 25-40% from last year.

[slewis]

If you're going to fall on economics to promote a (flawed) argument, you need to explain who's going to buy and support all of these horses that we're breeding to run in these sub-par races.

The existing contracts that are in place for things like concessions and teller unions are not in perpetuity; they'd need to be negotiated when they came up, if not sooner. The "less chances for owners to make money" argument ignores the fact that the purses can be increased, thanks to fewer races, so the purse money would be the same as before.

If Delaware Park doesn't run on Tuesday and Wednesday, and instead runs on a Saturday through Monday schedule (dropping Sunday was mindless, but I digress), it means fuller fields, better purses, better races, and more horses to run at surrounding tracks. Horsemen may bitch (what else is new?) but they bitch more when the track is bulldozed (see Bay Meadows).

You are suggesting that racing 4 days a week and taking purses scheduled for that cancelled day and increasing the purses accordingly for the other days will compensate the 9 or 10 lost races that owners, trainers jocks, etc lost with the shorter week. OMG....
What you will have is trainers shipping in to run in those higher pursed races and they will put the local small to midsized owners and trainers out of the game......

Lets say management at PHILLY Park put this theory to use.
Cancel thursdays.. and make all purses on SAT and SUN 20% higher.

(This is hypothetical)...

Guess what.... Guys from NY and NJ would ship in with better quality horses incl claimers, etc.. Again... you're local owners and trainers get bumped off.
This winter I've never seen so many TOP NY trainers ship into PHL. PK.
So now your the racing sec. and you need to fill some races.. let me see.. Let me call Kieran McLaughlin to ship a few 25k claimers in... and a 7500 NW2L.. Im sure he has a few of those....
The reality is, you've alienated your small trainers/owner and now you need him to fill weaker races... only problem is, he sold his stock and is out of the game.

[slewis]

Slewis- I think your scenario is in a way what the "contractionists" (including me) would like to see. I would love to see racing eliminated or at least reduced in many jurisdictions. We further would like to see the racing meccas remain so, without infringement by the historical lesser lights that are plaguing business at CD and significantly diluting the quality at NYRA.

We would all like to believe that our legislators would be savvy enough to realize that "less is more". However, anyone watching NYRA over the winter knows that at least in NY this is clearly not the case, but it is true elsewhere. The Hong Kong Jockey Club still contributes something like 12% of the overall government budget through its take on the horse races- 2 days a week for half the year. What we cannot control, and what concerns me, is where such contraction will take place for the benefit of an overall product. We probably all have a protectionist streak in this regard. For example, I would be very upset if Mth closed forever. I'd much rather see Del go down the tubes and Pha significantly cut purses like the good ole days to Mth's benefit. I further believe that the game would benefit more by having a track like Mth healthy and a track like Del go away if there was a binary outcome. But I can't control where the shoes drop, and it scares me into trying to defend Mth despite that I know a reduction in dates there would help "the industry", such as it is.

Ultimately the game I believe can only succeed with significant contraction. Contraction will significantly improve the product. More consistent quality combined with more bettable races, among other improvements like in facilities, are our only hope to consistently return to the day of drawing casual players. If, for example, closing or curtailing dates at Mth is the outcome, so be it. At least I can play higher quality more bettable races elsewhere hopefully on the beam at the old Mth, at the expense of having to travel further to see live racing.

Al,

The taxpayers of the state of DEL or NJ could care less about "the game".
Racings existance is primarily to ease tax burdens...
There is GAMBLING fueling and funding it.
Del isn't giving in to NJ or PA... they want their piece of the pie and the jobs racing creates...
I dont want to hear about the HK jockey club... that is another country with different dynamics.
If you want to debate... you MUST stick to this principle...
(Unless you're calling for an entire revamping of the sport on a nationwide basis... because if this is you're dream...well.. not in you're lifetime..it wont happen)

[slewis]

and pumping out more horses in sales right now IS realalistic? NOt bagering or belitting, i'm dead serious.

It's like a blue light special at sales now. so much so alot of breeders aren't even bothering. My GF works at a horse farm and she tells me that business is down anywhere from 25-40% from last year.


I have heard these reports as well (sales being down at farms) but I want to tell you a story and I swear it's true...

I have 4 BM's Im trying to breed...... I call farms and look to negotiate a break on the stallion fees... THEY DON"T WANT TO BUDGE on the decent stallions.
All they want to do is shove their weaker stallions at you....
(And Im not talking about breeding to $150k sires.. Im spending 50k at most and aiming closer to 15-30k).

Now it's the end of the season... If business is so bad, why wont they cut deals? It's bad enough Im going to have an Apr or May foal.
Like I said, I dont doubt what your GF is telling you.. I just think they are stubborn and taking it on the chin with the hopes that next yr.. things will improve.

[toussaud]

You are suggesting that racing 4 days a week and taking purses scheduled for that cancelled day and increasing the purses accordingly for the other days will compensate the 9 or 10 lost races that owners, trainers jocks, etc lost with the shorter week. OMG....
What you will have is trainers shipping in to run in those higher pursed races and they will put the local small to midsized owners and trainers out of the game......

Lets say management at PHILLY Park put this theory to use.
Cancel thursdays.. and make all purses on SAT and SUN 20% higher.

(This is hypothetical)...

Guess what.... Guys from NY and NJ would ship in with better quality horses incl claimers, etc.. Again... you're local owners and trainers get bumped off.
This winter I've never seen so many TOP NY trainers ship into PHL. PK.
So now your the racing sec. and you need to fill some races.. let me see.. Let me call Kieran McLaughlin to ship a few 25k claimers in... and a 7500 NW2L.. Im sure he has a few of those....
The reality is, you've alienated your small trainers/owner and now you need him to fill weaker races... only problem is, he sold his stock and is out of the game.


If I am not mistaken, preference is usually given to trainers who stall at the actual track.


so basically we should not make the tracks good becuase the local talent needs to be able to hack it.

what is more likely to happen is that the local talent who has a 30k claimer now has a 20k claimer, but becuase he is running for 25k instead of 18k, it about evens out. This happens at gulfstream every year when the norhtern envadors come to town.

but even with all that said, we are back at square one in the sense, that the game should and does best when it caters to the horse players needs, not the horseman's whims.

If we went out and did what every horseman wanted every track would be running 6 days a week, 5-6 horse cards.

[Bruddah]

The horse population thing was tried in Ontario with slots; foal production surged from 1996-2004. All we have is watered down fields with a mess of a system, so much so that one thoroughbred track is on its last legs, and about seven harness tracks are.

I do not think we have a supply problem in racing, we have a demand problem.

Dean your post is the most accurate and insightful of all those on this thread. Demand is more important than supply. The supply will increase proportionally to the demand. Horse racing has done nothing but run the paying customer off, while increasing purses and incomes to those on the supply side. Never, hardly ever do you hear anyone addressing the butts in the seat scenario.

If this Sport doesn't address building a new fan base, all of these posts won't mean squat. Field size, number days of racing, on line betting, all are important factors in the Health of Thoroughbred Racing. But, they don't mean anything if the Sport has died. The old fans (me and Cj's Daddy'O) won't be around forever. The Industry needs to learn an important fact. The Customer is alway correct. "Real Casinos" know this, believe this and enforce it with their employees. Racinos need to learn those slot machines won't make a dime without butts in the seats, and you won't put butts in those seats if you are too busy kicking them.

It's all about Supplying Customers and they will create the demand.

[slewis]

If I am not mistaken, preference is usually given to trainers who stall at the actual track.


so basically we should not make the tracks good becuase the local talent needs to be able to hack it.

what is more likely to happen is that the local talent who has a 30k claimer now has a 20k claimer, but becuase he is running for 25k instead of 18k, it about evens out. This happens at gulfstream every year when the norhtern envadors come to town.

but even with all that said, we are back at square one in the sense, that the game should and does best when it caters to the horse players needs, not the horseman's whims.

If we went out and did what every horseman wanted every track would be running 6 days a week, 5-6 horse cards.

I agree... especially the parts regarding what the horseman cry about and what the gamblers are looking for...

I just dont think the shorter race week with all it's complexities accomplishes it and it may make the problem much worse...

Thanks:ThmbUp:

[alhattab]

Al,

The taxpayers of the state of DEL or NJ could care less about "the game".
Racings existance is primarily to ease tax burdens...
There is GAMBLING fueling and funding it.
Del isn't giving in to NJ or PA... they want their piece of the pie and the jobs racing creates...
I dont want to hear about the HK jockey club... that is another country with different dynamics.
If you want to debate... you MUST stick to this principle...
(Unless you're calling for an entire revamping of the sport on a nationwide basis... because if this is you're dream...well.. not in you're lifetime..it wont happen)

Slewis- I agree with your overall premise, with one exception discussed below. My (long winded) response was that if the regulators governing the "sport" should realize that less may be worth more to them, i.e., cutting NY for example to an 8-9 month season may actually drive more revenue. I don't have any numbers to back this up it is merely a concept. And I agree that getting 30-some odd states together to drive change in the entire industry is a pipe dream. This is in part why it is nearly impossible for the sport to have a central governing body.

One aspect I will never understand though related to the premise that the game exists to drive tax revenue through gambling is why on earth states allow racing to actually DRAIN revenues through the casino subsidies? If the main objective was to drive revenue to state coffers through the take, why don't the racino states with marginal racing product/support just shut down the racing side? I haven't seen it happen yet. There is some talk about this (Iowa immediately comes to mind), but it hasn't happened. I would think if revenue maximization through gaming is the primary objective, regulators would have woken up and made this happen.

[DeanT]

Bruddah,

I think there can be some good happen if there is some sort of tiered racing based on stock. As slewis points out you do need a lower circuit to bring stock through that is sub par for the big tracks. The problem we all have is these tracks are dominating now. What does the 4 claimer go for at PEN? Is it not ridiculous? That simply can not be sustained. We can not have a healthy business with those kinds of tracks pulling horses in, while high handle tracks like CD suffer.

I see another release this morning that it is a reality. Handle down 20%, just like KEE and TP. At least this time we can not blame the surface, and that is a good thing because these issues have to be discussed without any noise whatsoever, imo, or they will never get fixed.

Ellis Park is next to feel the brunt. So close to IND it will be tough for them to have a meet of any significance, imo.

[slewis]

Slewis- I agree with your overall premise, with one exception discussed below. My (long winded) response was that if the regulators governing the "sport" should realize that less may be worth more to them, i.e., cutting NY for example to an 8-9 month season may actually drive more revenue. I don't have any numbers to back this up it is merely a concept. And I agree that getting 30-some odd states together to drive change in the entire industry is a pipe dream. This is in part why it is nearly impossible for the sport to have a central governing body.

One aspect I will never understand though related to the premise that the game exists to drive tax revenue through gambling is why on earth states allow racing to actually DRAIN revenues through the casino subsidies? If the main objective was to drive revenue to state coffers through the take, why don't the racino states with marginal racing product/support just shut down the racing side? I haven't seen it happen yet. There is some talk about this (Iowa immediately comes to mind), but it hasn't happened. I would think if revenue maximization through gaming is the primary objective, regulators would have woken up and made this happen.


Al,

I'll answer your question regarding the casino/racinos......

The reason why they allow racing a piece of the casino pie is because the racinos are placed on racetrack land that is privately owned.

The owners of the tracks are not going to allow their Govt to install VLT's or slots on their property without something in return... and a % of the VLT take is a good marriage for tracks like DEL, and Phl park.

Plus... the legislators dont want to see an end to racing in their respective states (some who hate it do...but for the most part racing wouldn't exist in these states if the general thinking were along those lines)... So this solution is the happy marriage.

Of course Govt's could hire contractors to set up a Casino on other land and cut the tracks out all together... but generally lobbying and political contributing by the tracks (plus in several juristictions I've heard there are laws stating that if a racino exists there must be a certain number of TBred racing dates or the casino cant operate) prevents this.

[miesque]

Bruddah,

What does the 4 claimer go for at PEN? Is it not ridiculous? That simply can not be sustained. We can not have a healthy business with those kinds of tracks pulling horses in, while high handle tracks like CD suffer.



I view this is that there has been a shifting between the haves and have nots with the underlying current being slot fueled purses. Pennsylvania slots coming online as successfully as they have is accelerating the shift on the East Coast. I sometimes see comments from some that they were be happy to see the Delawares, Penn Nationals and CTs of the world all disappear and just have New York, Gulfstream and a few other prominent tracks, but its become apparent that not only are those tracks not going anywhere they are getting stronger by siphoning off horses from "more established and prestigous" tracks and the reason is this is a brutal game from an economic perspective and there is a strong incentive to follow the money. In California, horses are being siphoned off from Hollywood Park and Santa Anita to places like Sunland. I do not see this trend reversing itself anytime within the near future. In theory, NYRA tracks could reverse the trend as far as they are concerned if slot subsidized purses ever become a reality, but I have a suspicion their subsidies will lack the punch of some other state slot programs such as PA because its become rather apparent that there will be too many fingers in the pie based on NY politics.

[DeanT]

M,

What if slots deals went something like this in a state:

All the cash for purses goes into a fund. The highest handle track is the "a" track, the lowest handle tracks are "c" tracks. The state commission decides which is which and tiers them. Say Philly is the A track, they would get more revenue, the C tracks like PEN would get less.

This would create a flagship track in each state which has full fields and the best talent, while the smaller tracks would have the mom and pops that we see so often there (eg the trainer/owner who bought a horse in a sale for $1000, and racing in 5k claimers).

The above would at least put some semblance of structure to a system that is simply unsustainable, and sometimes flat-out bizarre.

Coming from a harness racing background we see it in slots areas quite well, and have known it for years. We have a couple tracks giving away $100k in purses a day, with less than 100k in handle. I fail to see how that in anyway is good for the long term health of the sport.

[andymays]

Shortage of Horses! The risk (cost) of bringing Horses to the races outweighs the reward (potential winnings and breeding value)!

Shortage of handle! Dollars bet are spread too thin over too many tracks.

[sjk]

Shortage of handle! Dollars bet are spread too thin over too many tracks.

The people who want fewer tracks seem to make the assumption that if I have 2 tracks to bet instead of 8 I will bet 4 times as much on those 2.

For me that would not be the case at all. I would bet no more on the 2 tracks than I do now. Actually 2 tracks would not be worth hanging around the house to bet so I would most likely find something better to do with my time.

[miesque]

M,

What if slots deals went something like this in a state:

All the cash for purses goes into a fund. The highest handle track is the "a" track, the lowest handle tracks are "c" tracks. The state commission decides which is which and tiers them. Say Philly is the A track, they would get more revenue, the C tracks like PEN would get less.

This would create a flagship track in each state which has full fields and the best talent, while the smaller tracks would have the mom and pops that we see so often there (eg the trainer/owner who bought a horse in a sale for $1000, and racing in 5k claimers).

The above would at least put some semblance of structure to a system that is simply unsustainable, and sometimes flat-out bizarre.

Coming from a harness racing background we see it in slots areas quite well, and have known it for years. We have a couple tracks giving away $100k in purses a day, with less than 100k in handle. I fail to see how that in anyway is good for the long term health of the sport.

The problem with that is two fold. First the racetracks all have different ownership, in fact in Pennsylvania they made a rule to the effect at a company could only own one and a half tracks (or maybe it was just one track) in the state, which forced Penn National to sell Pocono Downs. If one company owned all the tracks or the state owned all the tracks, then maybe it would be feasible, but since there is different track ownerships and they are all competing against each other its highly unlikely you will see such a structure set up (even in a state with an absurd amount of rules and regulations like the State of Pennsylvania). Second, the success of the slots at a particular track dictates the level of purses at that track (and I really think that is the best way to handle if from a free market perspective, not from a governmental redistribution of wealth perspective). In Pennsylvania at least, this has given some support of the existing state wide pecking order since Philly Park has a richer target environment then Penn National (who by the way is ready to institute another level of purse increases in the new condition book) so it can boost purses more then Penn can. Lastly, the state just wants to see revenues to the state coffers increasing, it doesn't care what caliber of horse is running and if anything telling them they are siphoning off better horses from other states is deemed a measure of success.

[andymays]

The people who want fewer tracks seem to make the assumption that if I have 2 tracks to bet instead of 8 I will bet 4 times as much on those 2.

For me that would not be the case at all. I would bet no more on the 2 tracks than I do now. Actually 2 tracks would not be worth hanging around the house to bet so I would most likely find something better to do with my time.


Theoretically, if we had one Racetrack to bet on we would have too many horses and a massive handle. The take could probably be 3% and the Track would have big purses and still make a great profit!

I am not saying we should only have one track but the solution is somewhere in the middle. The internet changed the world and changed Horse Racing and we have to adjust.

[sjk]

The internet has made many of us accustomed to playing a dozen tracks at a time. One track at a time is like watching paint dry.

[andymays]

The internet has made many of us accustomed to playing a dozen tracks at a time. One track at a time is like watching paint dry.


I agree. Action every 10 minutes is about right! Although betting that many races and trying to come out winning is impossible in the long run.

[toussaud]

i wouldn't go that far. I do't play 40 - 50 races a day. like today at pararie meadows, mountineer, delaware, I picked what I thought where the best races and basically made a custom card.

yesterday I think I had down 11 races from 5 different tracks.

what the internet does is make me not have to settle for a tracks' BS of short prices and short fields.

[samyn on the green]

This is all about slots. The slots money is artificially propping up too many tracks. There are too many spots to run and the slot money is watering down the game across the board. This is what happens when government gets involved in business, unintended consequences that ruin everything.

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree. Action every 10 minutes is about right! Although betting that many races and trying to come out winning is impossible in the long run.For you maybe. For others, maybe not.

[Grits]

http://www.kentucky.com/302/v-print/story/793390.html

Wednesday racing was cut at Churchill by Ky Racing Commission

Of note too, Biancone veterinarian, Rodney Stewart's five year suspension was upheld. Its a shame, still, Biancone only got six months.

[philcski]

For you maybe. For others, maybe not.

Are you saying betting that many races handicapping them as they come up (say, one every 10 minutes for a full card = 5-6 hours, so 30-35 races) you could come out on top?

:liar:

[sjk]

Some people use computers to do the handicapping so the amount of time required is next to none.

For anyone who is winning the more races bet the higher the bankroll.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you saying betting that many races handicapping them as they come up (say, one every 10 minutes for a full card = 5-6 hours, so 30-35 races) you could come out on top?

:liar:I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to rule out anything in this world. Especially not something as simple as trying to churn your bankroll as much as possible if you have an advantage.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to rule out anything in this world. Especially not something as simple as trying to churn your bankroll as much as possible if you have an advantage.

Is that your approach (i.e., churning your bankroll)? Have you made money over the long term?

Like most, I have not.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is that your approach (i.e., churning your bankroll)? Have you made money over the long term?

Like most, I have not.No. I never claimed it was my approach.

My approach at the moment is to try and find races where there is a good chance the favorites run out and the longshots run in. Big fields help a lot in this regard.

When you are good at spotting races where there's a decent chance for a $20+ payoff on the front end, your handicapping skills don't have to nearly be as sharp as someone who relies on smaller prices and higher hit rates. You can easily afford to go two or even three deep in such races...

[alhattab]

Al,

I'll answer your question regarding the casino/racinos......

The reason why they allow racing a piece of the casino pie is because the racinos are placed on racetrack land that is privately owned.

The owners of the tracks are not going to allow their Govt to install VLT's or slots on their property without something in return... and a % of the VLT take is a good marriage for tracks like DEL, and Phl park.

Plus... the legislators dont want to see an end to racing in their respective states (some who hate it do...but for the most part racing wouldn't exist in these states if the general thinking were along those lines)... So this solution is the happy marriage.

Of course Govt's could hire contractors to set up a Casino on other land and cut the tracks out all together... but generally lobbying and political contributing by the tracks (plus in several juristictions I've heard there are laws stating that if a racino exists there must be a certain number of TBred racing dates or the casino cant operate) prevents this.

Slewis: looks like goverments are starting to wake up. Maryland already is looking to establish casinos outside of tracks, Florida obviously has casinos outside of tracks (although I couldn't understand impact of the recent legislation), now look at this in PA.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/50775/pennsylvania-horsemen-react-to-gaming-bill

[bdownes]

If your handicapping skills are that good then u should be playing contests where the format isn't concentrated on mandatory races.