Purse bonus for bigger handle.

[kenwoodall2]

My newest idea (10 minutes old!) for tracks to give a purse bonus if the total handle for that race is over a certain amount, no change in takeout %. More handle helps everybody!

[therussmeister]

All the trainers will enter on weekend cards, none on Thursday.

[The_Knight_Sky]

.... no change in takeout %.




The new chickadees that have just hatched http://i35.tinypic.com/20fddn5.gif need to learn to fly.

They can't cross over into the black if they're up against takeout rates
that are challenging enough for the veteran handicappers. For every marketing approach to reach fruition a long term plan has to address the takeout.

A large handle alone doesn't really help "everybody".

[kenwoodall2]

I am not talking about shifting handle: I am talking about increase in average handle for that type race and that day. I am not talking about changing takeout %. What I expect the result to be is that tracks would require enough increase to turn a profit over the added bonus. Horse owners would see a small increase in purses for feature races, and Fri-Sunday mid-level races to non-graded stakes levels and handicap races. Horseplayers would see at least a small increase in field size as more runners would be entered in races that need filling, and more newbies to bet against.
Everyone in racing needs to help increase handle by bringing more bettors and potential owners into racing. If everyone just sits around waiting for money to fall into their hands even by slots racing or government gifts, handle will keep constricting and takeout increases will probsbly be attempted, as we are seeing. The result of continual less handle per capita and per population is already evident.
This is another idea to reward helping grow the sport.
As a matter of fact, reduction in handle can be more justified in the minds of horse owners and tracks if the handle grows, even if at first by horses moving to more innovative tracks.
We need ideas that owners and bettors can agree on.

[boogazie]

All the trainers will enter on weekend cards, none on Thursday.

Agreed, we'll see this happening and that can't be good.

[kenwoodall2]

The new chickadees that have just hatched http://i35.tinypic.com/20fddn5.gif need to learn to fly.

They can't cross over into the black if they're up against takeout rates
that are challenging enough for the veteran handicappers. For every marketing approach to reach fruition a long term plan has to address the takeout.

A large handle alone doesn't really help "everybody".
Newbies are not generally taught how to use some major factors that trump
the minmal individual effect of many factors. Many veteran handicappers do not test methods or use common horserace sense or use trump factors, like overworked favorites, track bias or conditions, probability factors, tote odds vs true odds. Many bettors are too heavily influenced by big connections, the M/L based on cookie cutter quick handicapping, and not giving "non-contenders" real due credit for being some sort of specialists of the upper right PP box.
There ways to teach easy good methods. I teach those things to myself but I am not believed by many others because I have not written a book or have my own website.
Many racehorse owners are 1-trick ponies who ONLY wnat increase in purse. Many bettors are 1-trick ponies who think they can only beat other cappers and the 14-31% takeout by a 2% reduction in takeout. But that does not make common sense. Only bettors whose ROI is down less than 2% is win-loss dependent only on takeout reduction personally.
My best ROI is during the Northern California Fairs where many bet only during their fair.

[Robert Goren]

I have got a better idea. If the handle in a race reaches a certain amount, then they reduce the takeout rate for the next race. If the handle in the next race goes up a bunch more then they reduce it even more in the following race. ;)

[kenwoodall2]

I have got a better idea. If the handle in a race reaches a certain amount, then they reduce the takeout rate for the next race. If the handle in the next race goes up a bunch more then they reduce it even more in the following race. ;)
I like this idea too!!!

[Indulto]

Gentlemen,

For some months now I've been advocating rewarding participants in individual parimutuel pools capable of attracting defined levels of handle with commensurately lower takeout. I've also advocated rewarding owners with purses proportional to field size.

While handle generally improves with larger fields, horsemen shold still be rewarded for keeping their part of the bargain even if the players do not, and vice versa.

The main problem I see with the "next race" scheme is that the same participants who collectively produced the qualifying handle aren't necessarily the beneficiaries of the lowered takeout.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Field size creates larger handle more than anything. Lately, I've thought the best way to use this is to have a base purse at each track for each condition/claiming price, but add 10% for each starter (entries not included) over 6 in the field.

For example, a track like Suffolk starts around 8 horse per race, and their bottoms run for around $7,000. I would make the base purse for this type of race around $6000. If seven horses start, the purse is $6600, eight $7200, nine $7800, ten $8400, eleven $9000, and twelve horses $9600.

This would definitely make those who look to enter in 6 horse fields rethink their game plan. It would probably work very well in California as well.

[onefast99]

Field size creates larger handle more than anything. Lately, I've thought the best way to use this is to have a base purse at each track for each condition/claiming price, but add 10% for each starter (entries not included) over 6 in the field.

For example, a track like Suffolk starts around 8 horse per race, and their bottoms run for around $7,000. I would make the base purse for this type of race around $6000. If seven horses start, the purse is $6600, eight $7200, nine $7800, ten $8400, eleven $9000, and twelve horses $9600.

This would definitely make those who look to enter in 6 horse fields rethink their game plan. It would probably work very well in California as well.

I believe Saratoga did this for many years and may still do it. Maybe TLG can chime in here.

[The_Knight_Sky]

The main problem I see with the "next race" scheme is that the same participants who collectively produced the qualifying handle aren't necessarily the beneficiaries of the lowered takeout.




Good point.

Also CanGamble's idea has merit. It is similar to the $1,500 participation disbursement that Monmouth Park is having success with. But not the same.

The Mth disbursements "guarantees" that the horsemen will be compensated.

CanGamble's idea, however would have a lesser effect at the entry box
because horsemen still must put a race-ready horse into the entry box to benefit. Nonetheless it is worth tinkering with.

If we learned anything this summer is that if a racetrack can afford participation disbursements of $500 to $1,000 for every starter than they should do it without second-guessing themselves.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Good point.

Also CanGamble's idea has merit. It is similar to the $1,500 participation disbursement that Monmouth Park is having success with. But not the same.

The Mth disbursements "guarantees" that the horsemen will be compensated.

CanGamble's idea, however would have a lesser effect at the entry box
because horsemen still must put a race-ready horse into the entry box to benefit. Nonetheless it is worth tinkering with.

If we learned anything this summer is that if a racetrack can afford participation disbursements of $500 to $1,000 for every starter than they should do it without second-guessing themselves.
Woodbine has been giving out $400 for years to all starters. I don't know that this enough to make a difference when you take into account how much it costs to train a horse each month.

Obviously $1500 would change thinking. But I do think you would see a lot of really weak horses from Fort Erie fill the fields at Woodbine if that would happen.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Obviously $1500 would change thinking.
But I do think you would see a lot of really weak horses from Fort Erie
fill the fields at Woodbine if that would happen.




I tend to agree with you. But I don't think that would be detrimental to the quality of racing at Woodbine. Fort Erie's entry box may be affected but a $1,000 stipend isn't exactly going to make anyone on the backside rich, but try to help them make ends meet.

Garnering the major shares of the purses should still be paramount.

As for the safety factor, putting horses into a race strictly for "exercise"
has not been a problem at Monmouth Park this summer. Surely a handful of claiming horses did not belong in some of their respective races but
"catastrophic events' have not happened on the racetrack.

[lamboguy]

i find it strange that there are lots of great suggestions out there and none of them have to do with getting the racing game back on track. even the greatest meet in the world saratoga in august has putrid numbers. live attendance and handle from all sources are way down. you can raise purses all you want, give away hats, and bring plenty of pretty girls to the track to lure people in, but you still can't convert those people in horse bettors.

i know there are guys that read this board that have something to do with making and changing policy's at the track. the time for change is now.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I tend to agree with you. But I don't think that would be detrimental to the quality of racing at Woodbine. Fort Erie's entry box may be affected but a $1,000 stipend isn't exactly going to make anyone on the backside rich, but try to help them make ends meet.

Garnering the major shares of the purses should still be paramount.

As for the safety factor, putting horses into a race strictly for "exercise"
has not been a problem at Monmouth Park this summer. Surely a handful of claiming horses did not belong in some of their respective races but
"catastrophic events' have not happened on the racetrack.
If a trainer thinks there is a shot for fourth or fifth, while looking at a $1000 guarantee, there is a really good chance they will enter at Woodbine over Fort Erie.
In most races at Fort Erie, you can't even earn $1000 for a good third place finish.

[Indulto]

Good point.

Also CanGamble's idea has merit. It is similar to the $1,500 participation disbursement that Monmouth Park is having success with. But not the same.

The Mth disbursements "guarantees" that the horsemen will be compensated.

CanGamble's idea, however would have a lesser effect at the entry box
because horsemen still must put a race-ready horse into the entry box to benefit. Nonetheless it is worth tinkering with.

If we learned anything this summer is that if a racetrack can afford participation disbursements of $500 to $1,000 for every starter than they should do it without second-guessing themselves.The problem with "appearance" fees is that thse are not SHOW horses, but RACE horses, who should only be rewarded for competive performances in races.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that indeed owners prefer small fields for their horses who ares ready to compete, how could they be incentivized to produce large fields?

Supose bonuses were offered in every race to each of the first four finishers that had run in a full field previously during the meeting?