Higher Purses- This is not the answer-Starter Fees Are. Ca Racing Only

[Igeteven]

Higher purses, for who?

Just remember, every member on the CHRB are millionaires and members of the TOC (They all own horses that run at a track in California.)

Everyone is screaming about shortage of horses. Can you understand why, the rich cover the rich, think about it, Sport of Kings here in California, they are not kidding. Can you see a conflict here, I can.

As the old saying goes, the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer.

With the new take out for higher purses, who is going to win? Not the small owner, Not the player, Not the small trainer, only the big shots who have the money to buy faster horses.

With this deal, the cost of maintenance on a horse will be going to be through the roof. Let me explain, day rates will go up, shoeing a horse will go up, training a horse will go up, Vet will cash in like they do all the time. This will cause inflation again on a horse, Again, we will see short fields.

As they do now, the Trainers are controlling the races on when their horse will run. Welcome to S Cal Racing.

As a player, I don't go to see big races, a race is a race, as to the purses, I don't bet purses.

Only the rich again, can afford this, not the upper middle class, Now it will almost impossible for even the upper middle class to own a horse and keep him at a California Track.

This will stop the dreamer or the upper middle class person ever to own a horse and see him run in S Cal.

Purse money is not the answer, Starter fees for running is. As I said, $1500 per start, and horses will be coming out of the wood work to run at a S Cal Track

So, before you comment, think about it,

[johnhannibalsmith]

...As the old saying goes, the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer.
...

Well, like they say, you gotta know when to hold them, gotta know when not to.

[DJofSD]

What in the world are you talking about? You have a link to something that might make more clear what the issue is all about?

[thespaah]

What in the world are you talking about? You have a link to something that might make more clear what the issue is all about?I think he is saying higher share of the purse for horses finishing 6th or worse....
I think....

[The_Knight_Sky]

Purse money is not the answer, Starter fees for running is.

As I said, $1500 per start, and horses will be coming out of the wood work to run at a S Cal Track



Precisely.
That worked this summer at Monmouth Park with a field size of 9 horses +.
At least in the claiming and allowance fare it did.

While I am not sure if the Southland horse colony is up to the task,
they sure seem bent on working out - and working out - and working out.

At some point these horses must be offered the incentive to race once
intead of working 3 or 4 times a month. But good ideas and the CHRB are like oil and water. The news of the takeout increase leaves a sour taste in many horse bettors mouths.

I am beginning to think that California is going to need more than $1,500 starter fees, return to dirt racing, and a revocation of the proposed takeout increase. The problems are enormous and not much is happening other than people looking out for their own.

[garyscpa]

So does the jockey get a percentage of the starter fee for coming in last, or just the normal jockey fee?

[Igeteven]

Precisely.
That worked this summer at Monmouth Park with a field size of 9 horses +.
At least in the claiming and allowance fare it did.

While I am not sure if the Southland horse colony is up to the task,
they sure seem bent on working out - and working out - and working out.

At some point these horses must be offered the incentive to race once
intead of working 3 or 4 times a month. But good ideas and the CHRB are like oil and water. The news of the takeout increase leaves a sour taste in many horse bettors mouths.

I am beginning to think that California is going to need more than $1,500 starter fees, return to dirt racing, and a revocation of the proposed takeout increase. The problems are enormous and not much is happening other than people looking out for their own.


It is a start to fix the problem out here :)

[Stillriledup]

I just saw a big banner flashing in my eyes on calracing website of a 25% purse increase. It said the best place in all of racing to race is, yup, you guessed it, California.

Did this purse increase start yet? Does anyone know?

Thanks.

[Dave Schwartz]

California racing is definitely in a downward spiral. I do not think anyone - including the CA horsemen - can deny this. This creates a huge problem.

Here is a book I highly recommend, Information Rules, Guide to the New Network Economy, (http://www.inforules.com/), the authors point out how every business belongs to one or more "networks." Businesses spiral up slowly, gaining speed, until they increase almost exponentially. Examples of such businesses are everywhere - Apple, Google, Yahoo.

Unfortunately, when a business' begins to decline the spiral works the same way. At first it spirals slowly downward. During the early down trend changes can be made to reverse the trend, but the farther you get into the spiral the faster it goes. The faster it goes, the more drastic the changes necessary to pull it out of the spiral.

I, personally, have seen it locally. The best example ever was a "Port of Subs" sandwich shop near where I used to live about 25 years ago. The franchise opened with these wonderful sandwiches. Like 1" of meat and great garnishments. The shop had all the business it could handle and the line was out the door at lunch every day.

About month three reality seemed to set in: they weren't making any money! The sandwiches now had about half the meat. They still had pretty good handle, but the lines were no longer out the door.

By month six the sandwiches had gotten so thin that you needed to order "triple meat" to get a reasonable sandwich. By month nine they closed.

I watched this cycle repeat itself at this same location for about 10 years. New franchisee, great sandwiches for a couple of months, thinning to almost nothing, then closing, only to reopen with a new franchisee after about a month.


Think back to when you have seen a business of any kind begin a downward spiral. Once they begin to cut the quality of the product it is just a matter of time before the customer no longer has any interest. At that point, you couldn't get them back in the door without huge promises. (Most people will give "new management" a chance if they really want a business to succeed.)


Okay, my point is this... Santa Anita is spiraling downward. The product is being thinned - just like the sandwiches. The worst part is that management is (essentially) trying to tell its customers that a sandwich with less meat is somehow a better sandwich, even at a higher price! The customer will never buy it.

See, the problem with that sub shop's business model is that the only guys making consistent money was the franchise seller. (In horse racing that would be the horsemen, more specifically trainers.) On the one hand, the 1" of meat sandwich will not allow them to make money but the answer is not two ounces per sandwich either.

Too much meat and you don't make any money. Too little meat and you have no customers. The business model MUST be made to work with reasonable meat.


Here's the kicker - The customers are on their side! We want them to succeed! But you've got to have a good enough product for us to CONTINUE WANTING to be customers.

You might as well stand back and wait for the crash because it is coming. There is probably no stopping it now. Our best hope is for new management to come in and say, "We've got a better plan; one that includes more meat for the customer!"



Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

Here's the kicker - The customers are on their side! We want them to succeed! But you've got to have a good enough product for us to CONTINUE WANTING to be customers.

If California can't figure out how to run race tracks, let them all close - the more tracks that close the better. More for the few that remain. No real need for more than 10-2 tracks total. Better fields, better racing, better for the bettors. Internet betting has made the race track itself obsolete.

[ronsmac]

I'm not sure why everyone is so concerned , unless you're an owner , trainer or in track mgmt or maybe an adw . As a player , just bet elsewhere or not at all.

[Robert Goren]

You can always tell a horse person. I have never seen a gambler who wasn't a horse person who thought getting paid for finishing beyond 4th place was a good idea.

[Stillriledup]

I think that any monies Calif makes with this added takeout raise that's earmarked for purses, should go into a kitty and should only be used when horsemen start ENTERING horses. Make up a number and tell the horesmen that if they hit that quota of amount of entries on one card, the purses go up. None of this 50 horses entered in one day nonsense, you enter or you don't get the raise.

[HuggingTheRail]

I think that any monies Calif makes with this added takeout raise that's earmarked for purses, should go into a kitty and should only be used when horsemen start ENTERING horses. Make up a number and tell the horesmen that if they hit that quota of amount of entries on one card, the purses go up. None of this 50 horses entered in one day nonsense, you enter or you don't get the raise.

Our local little hokey harness track did something sort of like this for this season. The premise....field size average of 8.5 or more (max field size is 9) and at least 2% increase in handle, and they will run 3 days/week in fall 2011, as opposed to 2 days/week in fall 2010.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You can always tell a horse person. I have never seen a gambler who wasn't a horse person who thought getting paid for finishing beyond 4th place was a good idea.


Why would the average non-horseperson gambler even consider the purse structure?

I can't ever remember hearing a group of Joe Gamblers sitting at the rail discussing the pros and cons of the economics on the backside and whether or not tweaking purse allocations might work or, apparently throughout the land, why it will not work.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Why would the average non-horseperson gambler even consider the purse structure?

I can't ever remember hearing a group of Joe Gamblers sitting at the rail discussing the pros and cons of the economics on the backside and whether or not tweaking purse allocations might work or, apparently throughout the land, why it will not work.

EDITED (well, I tried anyway): Re-reading this - I'm not really saying what I mean the right way here, but I can't focus quickly enough to make more sense... laf... What I mean Detective, sort of, is that while I understand your point about horsmen never seeing the bigger picture beyond what's in front of them... in some of these cases, I'm not sure that sometimes in these cases, the outsider view is simply too broad and not narrow enough to see some of the sense.

Obviously, in this case of California and Lester's idea of paying large sums a la Jersey in the summer just to drum up starters - well - that's an extreme example beyond the idea "...of paying past fourth..." and in that case it obviously transcends involvement in the industry on a specific level.

I sure made that clearer, eh?

[Robert Goren]

Why would the average non-horseperson gambler even consider the purse structure?

I can't ever remember hearing a group of Joe Gamblers sitting at the rail discussing the pros and cons of the economics on the backside and whether or not tweaking purse allocations might work or, apparently throughout the land, why it will not work.Because we have to figure out if the horse is trying to win or out for the the 1500. Sometimes we can make a pretty good guess, but none of us can read the mind of a trainer all the time. I want all the horses putting an effort all the time. I don't think that is too much to ask. I and the rest of the betting public after all are the ones paying the purse. There were plenty of posts last summer bitching about the purse payouts at Monmouth. Only a few of them were from me. This is just something else the horse people don't get.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Because we have to figure out if the horse is trying to win or out for the the 1500. Sometimes we can make a pretty good guess, but none of us can read the mind of a trainer all the time. I want all the horses putting an effort all the time. I don't think that is too much to ask. I and the rest of the betting public after all are the ones paying the purse. There were plenty of posts last summer bitching about the purse payouts at Monmouth. Only a few of them were from me. This is just something else the horse people don't get.

Yeah, I erroneously thought that first post wasn't so vague that it wouldn't exclude the monster starter fees that we saw at Monmouth. Obviously it has to weigh in your mind with some horses what the true justification for the entry is when they drop a couple of thou in the account just for not getting scratched.

Your line about "...past fourth..." in that Goren phraseology had me thinking that it was common a little east of me for people to be hung up on whether or not the winner gets 60% or 55% and if it's 9% for third and why does fifth get 3%? :)

[Kelso]

That worked this summer at Monmouth Park with a field size of 9 horses +.


Those vaunted "large fields" at MTH were a con job. 67% of the summer winners paid less than 5-1 ... the result of lots paid workouts.

The $1500/entry element of the NJ horsemen's welfare package "worked" for only the horsemen. It didn't do a damned thing for competitiveness.


The over-all problem with the horse racing industry is that it's controlled by, and operated exclusively for the benefit of, the selfish horsemen. They don't know their asses from their horses about successfully running a gambling operation.