New York Post: Ed Fountaine

[cj]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/horse_racing/through_the_binocs_VvuwMezBR9qNFLVSCreJHP

SIXTH RACE: Question: With 16 2-year-olds entered in this maiden race at seven furlongs, why wasn't it split into two races of eight horses each? Answer: This is the "new, improved NYRA."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/horse_racing/through_the_binocs_VvuwMezBR9qNFLVSCreJHP#ixzz0yhA SIseT



Is this guy for real? He wants a full field split into two races of 8? Thank goodness he DOESN'T work for NYRA.

Now, if we could only get them to run more than one dirt route on big race days.

[bane]

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/horse_racing/through_the_binocs_VvuwMezBR9qNFLVSCreJHP



Is this guy for real? He wants a full field split into two races of 8? Thank goodness he DOESN'T work for NYRA.

Now, if we could only get them to run more than one dirt route on big race days.


he must have been born in Cali
:D

[Cardus]

How about his Woodward Stakes article?

Now, I am a huge believer in the difference between reporting (article) and opinion (column), but wasn't there a little room for him to ask a question about the strength of Quality Road's performance?

[MickJ26]

I love Ed's column.
The Post has a great horse racing section.
One of the few reasons to still read The Post anymore.

[cj]

I love Ed's column.
The Post has a great horse racing section.
One of the few reasons to still read The Post anymore.

I just don't see how anyone could favor two eight horse fields over a huge 14 horse field. It isn't like they need more races to fill the card.

[Grits]

The last three days of Saratoga, we've seen and will see tomorrow--

Friday: 5 of 9 races on turf

Saturday: 6 of 11 races on turf

Sunday: 6 of 11 on turf

Monday: 8 of 11 on turf

The turf for weeks has thrown up dust. Its dry and chewed up with little grass left a good ways out from the rail.

I understand one has to write races for what's on the grounds . . . but still. :faint:

Is there going to be a repeat of this when moving downstate next week?


Also noting Monmouth--not so much turf racing and this may have to do with more races per day. Lot of difference between the two.

Friday: 3 of 12 on turf

Saturday: 3 of 13 on turf

Sunday: 4 of 13 on turf

Monday: 3 of 13 on turf


Don't know, maybe there's something I'm missing.

[OTM Al]

Don't know, maybe there's something I'm missing.

That would be that Saratoga has 2 turf courses and Monmouth has 1 plus Saratoga is closing tomorrow, so they might as well use it up if they can fill the races.

[Grits]

I'm aware Saratoga has two turf courses Al, and that Monmouth only has one--given I'm in Saratoga between two to three weeks during the meet.:faint:

[NJ Stinks]

I love Ed's column.
The Post has a great horse racing section.
One of the few reasons to still read The Post anymore.

The racing section and Phil Muchnick get my dollar - especially when Phil is writing on Fridays, Sundays, and Mondays. Otherwise, it's the NY Daily News for me.

Ed is usually right in his criticisms of NYRA. Maybe he was really complimenting the racing office? I can't believe otherwise - Ed isn't that dense.

My only problem with Ed is his affinity for picking NY-based horses over horses that haven't run in NY. I swear he kept picking Saarland and I have no idea why other than Saarland's NY connection.

[Cardus]

I'm aware Saratoga has two turf courses Al, and that Monmouth only has one--given I'm in Saratoga between two to three weeks during the meet.:faint:

If you know that Saratoga has two turf courses -- and I know that you know this -- then configure another reason why there are the number of turf races at Saratoga that seem, to you, to be in excess of what is necessary.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If you know that Saratoga has two turf courses -- and I know that you know this -- then configure another reason why there are the number of turf races at Saratoga that seem, to you, to be in excess of what is necessary.

Don't most tracks card a ton of turf races toward the end of their meets, as they don't care at that point if the surface gets all torn up? At the end of GP meet this yr, I believe they had an entire card of turf racing.

It makes sense to me - as turf racing typically attracts large fields and most gamblers like betting on turf racing (because of the field size and the different racing dynamic than dirt), as long as they aren't all turf sprints. I guess Grits won't be taking in the Kentucky Downs meet!

[MickJ26]

I'm guessing if it was Belmont, they would've split them into two divisions.
Since Saratoga is wrapping up, they wanted to accommodate the Kentucky guys who wouldn't ordinarily ship to Belmont, who'd have to wait for Keeneland to open for this type of race.
However, I agree with Ed. My opinion is that any field larger than 12 is too big. Good horses are going to get bad trips and you increase the chances of horses stuck in traffic clipping heels.
Yes, the Post still has a great old-school sports section. Mr. Mushnick and the racing worth the price of admission. I know that wasn't the point of the thread, I just wanted to throw that in.

[Grits]

If you know that Saratoga has two turf courses -- and I know that you know this -- then configure another reason why there are the number of turf races at Saratoga that seem, to you, to be in excess of what is necessary.

Cardus, I'm too tired, tonight, to configure anything else; having handicapped for weeks and weeks, everyday except Tuesdays, to be honest, I really am drained.

If I'm tired, I know the folks with NYRA must be beat.

Rest well.

[Grits]

The Kentucky Down's meet is a short meet, but an enjoyable one, S.Mike!!!

[Saratoga_Mike]

The Kentucky Down's meet is a short meet, but an enjoyable one, S.Mike!!!

I used to go there every Saturday (for simul) when I lived in Nashville.

[wonatthewire1]

he must have been born in Cali
:D


If he was Cali, he would have advocated splitting it into 3 races

If northern Cali, 4 races

[melman]

CJ--When taking a rip at Ed you could have at least spelled his name correctly.

[slewis]

I just don't see how anyone could favor two eight horse fields over a huge 14 horse field. It isn't like they need more races to fill the card.


I'm surprised you feel this way CJ.

The reality is, I'd bet 99% of professional players and most serious players would disagree.

Dont tell me you can get a clear picture of how a race might be run with such a ridiculously large field. If you like a particular horse, EVERY horse that runner has to beat makes the task more difficult, regardless of the other horses abilities.

Of course your reward is a higher payoff, but that get's trumped by any traffic trip your key horse may get stymied into.

The way I play is I want to tip the scale as much in my favor as possible.
The more variables you throw at me, the less I want to play.

Ridiculously large fields are for Granny's to hit by playing their Grandkids birthdays and shite like that.

If I wanted to spin the roulette wheel or play lotto, I'd do just that.

Large fields are nice....but that race was WAY OVER THE TOP.

Split the race into two eights....every day of the meet.

[andymays]

he must have been born in Cali
:D


California resembles that remark. :D

[Tom]

16......Ed no like.
8.....Ed like


Ed.....10 fingers. Can't count to 16.

[toddbowker]

Obviously he's never worked in a racing office. For overnight races, typically they would only get split if you didn't have enough other races to use to fill the card.

At the end of a meet, having enough races is rarely a problem. Everyone is entering like crazy to try to pick up 'shipping money' ... :)

[Robert Fischer]

I just don't see how anyone could favor two eight horse fields over a huge 14 horse field. It isn't like they need more races to fill the card.

I agree with you Cj. I wish they all were full fields.
However I know some good players who prefer short fields. They would happily trade the larger payoff away for simplicity and ease of handicapping.

If I try to weigh the actual math involved, Full Fields will require a larger bankroll/smaller bet size for the average player. I know from 20 horse Derby fields that the percentages are workable, and really vary and depend on the individual race.

[cj]

I'm surprised you feel this way CJ.

The reality is, I'd bet 99% of professional players and most serious players would disagree.

Dont tell me you can get a clear picture of how a race might be run with such a ridiculously large field. If you like a particular horse, EVERY horse that runner has to beat makes the task more difficult, regardless of the other horses abilities.

Of course your reward is a higher payoff, but that get's trumped by any traffic trip your key horse may get stymied into.

The way I play is I want to tip the scale as much in my favor as possible.
The more variables you throw at me, the less I want to play.

Ridiculously large fields are for Granny's to hit by playing their Grandkids birthdays and shite like that.

If I wanted to spin the roulette wheel or play lotto, I'd do just that.

Large fields are nice....but that race was WAY OVER THE TOP.

Split the race into two eights....every day of the meet.

I'll take big fields every time, and it certainly doesn't involve playing lottery numbers. They card two 8 horse fields and get a few scratches, and now you have crap.

[cj]

CJ--When taking a rip at Ed you could have at least spelled his name correctly.

Sorry, I made a mistake. I'm usually very good about that stuff.

[Linny]

Fountaine has a point. In fact, several other trainers were also looking at that race but didn't enter when it became clear how big the field would be. They simply didn't want their 2yo's in a 14 horse scramble and I don't blame them. They could have come up with 2 divisions of about 8 or 9 which might have helped them fill an allowance or overnight stake at Belmont and removed a cursed $25kNW2L from the weekend's festivities..

[Charlie D]

Surely it's not the field size that matters, but the competitiveness of the race. Big fields can be chalky (2009 Classic as an example) on other hand, a competitive field of 8 or so can mean a 5-1, 10-1 horse wins and not the 5-2 fav.

[toddbowker]

Fountaine has a point. In fact, several other trainers were also looking at that race but didn't enter when it became clear how big the field would be. They simply didn't want their 2yo's in a 14 horse scramble and I don't blame them. They could have come up with 2 divisions of about 8 or 9 which might have helped them fill an allowance or overnight stake at Belmont and removed a cursed $25kNW2L from the weekend's festivities..Typical of horsemen and agents ... always coming out after the races were drawn to say 'I would have gone if ... ' :lol:

Having said that, from being in the trenches filling races I can tell you that many trainers and agents will tell the racing secretary that they have another entry to give them if they are going to split the race. Happens all the time. If they had needed to split it, it very likely would have been split with more than 16 total horses in the two divisions. Bottom line is they didn't need to split it.

They've taken down the condition books for Saratoga, but if the first Belmont book is any indication, there's really no need to split two year old races going short in NY. There's a MSW race in the book each week, plus another each week for NY breds, and one each for $75k, $50k and $25k claiming, plus a NY bred overnight stake and an open overnight stake. And that's just the dirt races.

So that's 10 open races and 4 NY bred races going short on the dirt in three weeks, not counting any extras the racing secretary might hang in addition to those. At this time of year, I can't imagine any of them not going. Plenty of places to run.