What Do You Think?

[Pacingguy]

This is my latest blog entry and I am curious to know what your thoughts are

So You Have Them Racing, But....

Monticello Raceway is one of the latest tracks to institute a 14 day rule. The 14 day rule provides if a horse draws post seven or eight and scratches without permission of the state vet, the horse is ineligible to drop in the box for 14 days. This is the same rule Yonkers Raceway has so each race secretary has agreed to reciprocate, meaning a trainer can't just ship to the nearest track and bypass this sanction.

The tracks love it as it means less trifecta and superfecta wagering being cancelled which is lucrative to the the tracks, but does this improve things for the horseplayer if the horse merely goes through the motions and follows the field around the track? Of course, not all trainers will have their horses go through an unofficial workout; some will make an effort, but take a look at your program of horses that race on a half mile track and see how many horses drawing post seven or eight making little more than a half-hearted effort if even that. Yes, a good handicapper will consider the post position in their handicapping, so you can argue there is no real harm to the gambler.

There may be no immediate harm to the gambler, but you for this very reason, you find people avoiding wagering on the half mile tracks and when the majority of our raceways are half mile ovals, this is not a good thing.. After all, when you can typically eliminate two horses safely without any thinking, you are now down to handicapping a six horse race. The next result is pathetically low payoffs; just the thing we don't need in an effort to attract new gamblers. After all, how many people are going to be excited about cashing that $3.40 win ticket?

With the majority of raceways being half mile ovals, this is a real problem for the industry; one it better try to solve seriously. The way I see it, half mile tracks have three options:


1. Score six across with post positions seven and eight starting behind the one and two horse.

2. Score six across with post positions seven and eight starting behind the one and two horse and lengthen the race to a 1 1/4 mile race to give the seven and eight horse a better chance to get involved in the race.
3. Score eight across and race at distances of 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 miles to give the outside horses a better chance of getting involved in the race.

I do know Yonkers tried option #1 once for a short time and dropped it, but I am not sure why the experiment stopped. Was it it made no difference or were the horsemen refusing to enter those races? If option #1 was given a fair chance and it didn't work out, then it is time to try options 2 or 3.

After all, what's the sense of ensuring eight horses start in a race if all eight aren't going to compete? The racing secretary is doing a disservice to the gambler as much as the trainer who has their horse from the seven or eight hole playing follow the field.

Any Thoughts?

[Vinman]

One of the things I like about Harness Racing is that virtually all the races are contested at a mile. For me it greatly simplifies the handicapping process. To have to get into predicting race outcomes that include horses that may be be shortening up or stretching out, whether they be shippers or not, is not something that appeals to me at all.

I agree that in many cases, a horse drawing the 7 or 8 hole on a half miler is not going to be given a full effort by their connections, but I've also seen them win as perfectly logical choices at generous odds.

Eight across at a mile works for me just fine.

Vinman

[The Bit]

I don't want to see too many wacky distances. I also like that everything is pretty standard. Now, every once in a while, a 3/4 or 1 3/4 race would be ok, but I like the standard mile.

You can cash bets from those outside two post, but you need connections that want to win. I singled Brennan and Pena from post 7 in race 2 tonight at Yonkers. Paid $6.20, which was generous in my opinion.

I do like the idea of the 7 and 8 starting from the 2nd tier, but the horseman and drivers would probably throw a fit and either not enter or the drivers wouldn't drive, ala the Meadows recently.

[wilderness]

What Do You Think?

You asked ;)

Personally, I think it's a load of shit!
To expect every horse in every field to be competitive and finish 8 or 10 across the wire is an absurd goal!

One of the primary steps in modern handicapping is to eliminate the non-contenders!
Should we desire fields so competitive that non-contenders are not predictable?
Attract newbies with closely-competitive-fields? Hardly!

The passing lane was added to most every 1/2- and 5/8-mile track in North America to achieve balanced fields and attract the attention of "so-called newbies" (which are virtually non-existent on the wagering end of horse racing).
Passing lanes with six-across would be/are absurd, and yet I believe a few exist.
Racetracks are not going to keep changing their methods of operation and/or their expenses, to to appease the wants of a limited portion of disappearing patrons.

IMO the bottom line in your idea is to improve the ROI for ADW Wagerers and/or Rebate-players by tenths of a point!
How can the implementation of such an intent be good for the longevity of the industry?

Short prices are the result of a disappearing wagering public and small crowds.
When there are large price, today's regular and small crowds are doing nothing except whining how the races are fixed!
Is there some disparity?

[Ray2000]

The problem with my thinking on this is "What is good for the gambler" ie enforce the rules (Rule 18 Section 5 b) and give heavy fines for the lack of effort, "is not good for the horse, stable and owners" who pay their way by getting a share of the purses. It just makes sense not to try hard from an outside post if you're over classed anyway, knowing you'll still need some racing luck to get a minor check whereas if you go for a jog from the 8 hole on the half miler, (particularly condition class race) you might be able to drop down next week and get a better draw with a fresh horse and 50% of $8,000 is better than 12% of $10,000. But this trainer angle is just part of 'capping.

I guess I don't understand the objection to 2nd tier starting, other than the small chance of trailing of a bad actor and in this case the outmost driver does have a choice of who to follow. Hell, vault starting would be fine with me, more driver skill.

[wilderness]

I guess I don't understand the objection to 2nd tier starting, other than the small chance of trailing of a bad actor and in this case the outmost driver does have a choice of who to follow.

Ray,
I can assure you that if you ever sat a bike in a race, while trying to get you horse to act in a manner you desire, while being dependent upon the same requirements of a horse your trailing?

You'd not have a bit of trouble in comprehension ;)

BTW, "small chance" is an exaggeration.
Most wagering fans are accustomed to seeing the "cream of the crop" at the larger pari-mutuel tracks.

Try going to a fair or smaller track, where, horses and drivers are mixed with varying experience and aliments (all of which effect control) and seeing how six-across-two-deep (12) looks more like a wild-stampede.
One only needs to view some of the Euro race videos to get a concept of this.

A friend sent this a few weeks ago:

Video below¦pace was steady and hot, first 600 meters at a mile rate of
1.51.98. The winner, Ready Cash, is a fast 6 year old that has been
inconsistent in the past. He was expertly driven today by the patient
veteran Pierre Vercruysse. Ready Cash is a true franco-american pedigree
being 51% FR and 49% standardbred with only a 4% inbreeding coefficient, far lower than most US standardbreds.

http://www.equidiavideo.fr/

[Pacingguy]

You asked ;)

Personally, I think it's a load of shit!
To expect every horse in every field to be competitive and finish 8 or 10 across the wire is an absurd goal!

One of the primary steps in modern handicapping is to eliminate the non-contenders!
Should we desire fields so competitive that non-contenders are not predictable?
Attract newbies with closely-competitive-fields? Hardly!

The passing lane was added to most every 1/2- and 5/8-mile track in North America to achieve balanced fields and attract the attention of "so-called newbies" (which are virtually non-existent on the wagering end of horse racing).
Passing lanes with six-across would be/are absurd, and yet I believe a few exist.
Racetracks are not going to keep changing their methods of operation and/or their expenses, to to appease the wants of a limited portion of disappearing patrons.

IMO the bottom line in your idea is to improve the ROI for ADW Wagerers and/or Rebate-players by tenths of a point!
How can the implementation of such an intent be good for the longevity of the industry?

Short prices are the result of a disappearing wagering public and small crowds.
When there are large price, today's regular and small crowds are doing nothing except whining how the races are fixed!
Is there some disparity?

I respect your opinion and know what you mean. Of course, there are horses that will be not competitive. I have a problem with horses not being competitive because they don't even try (read that integrity issue).

[Pacingguy]

The problem with my thinking on this is "What is good for the gambler" ie enforce the rules (Rule 18 Section 5 b) and give heavy fines for the lack of effort, "is not good for the horse, stable and owners" who pay their way by getting a share of the purses. It just makes sense not to try hard from an outside post if you're over classed anyway, knowing you'll still need some racing luck to get a minor check whereas if you go for a jog from the 8 hole on the half miler, (particularly condition class race) you might be able to drop down next week and get a better draw with a fresh horse and 50% of $8,000 is better than 12% of $10,000. But this trainer angle is just part of 'capping.

I guess I don't understand the objection to 2nd tier starting, other than the small chance of trailing of a bad actor and in this case the outmost driver does have a choice of who to follow. Hell, vault starting would be fine with me, more driver skill.

Ray, I too understand looking out for the owner's interest, but the question is who is in charge? The customer (gambler) or the owner? Yes, the owner pays the bills but if the gamblers aren't betting, there would be no racing. Yes, in some racino states the gamblers don't mean much, but in states where there is no racinos or in the case of Indiana where their slot take may be cut 43%, that customer is going to mean something. I have a great idea, let's align the gambler and the owners interest. Let's pay all horses a token amount for finishing the race and lets pay purse money to those horses that allow gamblers to cash in (meaning 1st-3rd, and possibly 4th in a superfecta race).

Maybe I am going off tangent, but "I don't want a second tier", allowing bogus eliminations where you have to throw a carrot of drawing your choice of post position in the final to keep the race semi-honest which makes the final somewhat stacked in favor of a heat winner, any resistance to make the racing more challenging to improve prices for the gambler because the owners and trainers don't like it gets me ticked off. In any other business the customer matters. In racing the producers don't give a crap what the customers think.

That being said, I appreciate everyone's opinion.

[pandy]

There are other simple solutions that can be tried. For instance, Maywood has a 200 foot un-timed run up so the outside posts have a better chance of leaving. Yonkers used to run a mile and 1/16 races which was a major improvement, then they made the stretch 220 feet longer and did away with the extra 1/16 but it was better with the longer start. Yonkers racing is basically a joke now, quite sad when you consider the fact that they have top drivers and horses, yet the racing sucks.

5/8 tracks like the Meadows went to a slanted starting gate, really helped the outside posts a lot but that wouldn't be good enough for a half mile track.

It's true that many harness fans are purists and don't want the races to be longer than a mile. Quite honestly, anything longer than 1 and 1/16 is too long and results in a boring slow-paced race. Mile and 1/16 is perfect, not only do the outside horses leave but the pace is fast and the front runners tire more often, much better racing.

The easiest thing to do without upsetting the purists is to start the race further back but don't time it, the way Maywood does. Throw in the slanted starting gate, too.

You guys can pretend that it doesn't matter if the outside posts don't try or hardly ever win because you factor that in to your handicapping, but the bottom line is, it has severely hurt the sport.

There are two major problems in harness racing, especially on half mile tracks. 1). The outside posts hardly ever win. 2). The outside flow is often terrible and the front runner gets loose on the lead and wins easily at a short price. These things are all the result of the speed favoring, faster races, which results in a high percentage of winning favorites. Look at any track that has a lot of chalk and you will see a track that's dying. Look at Laurel, all chalk, soon to go out of business.

The bottom line is, racing on half mile track is simply not as good or exciting, or entertaining, or worth gambling on than it used to be and this is severely damaging a dying sport. And no one is doing anything about it. I sincerely doubt anyone ever will.

[Pacingguy]

There are other simple solutions that can be tried. For instance, Maywood has a 200 foot un-timed run up so the outside posts have a better chance of leaving. Yonkers used to run a mile and 1/16 races which was a major improvement, then they made the stretch 220 feet longer and did away with the extra 1/16 but it was better with the longer start. Yonkers racing is basically a joke now, quite sad when you consider the fact that they have top drivers and horses, yet the racing sucks.



In a recent Harness Racing Update, they talk about the plans for Yonkers to return to the 1 1/16 distance starting February 1st if all goes to plan. That would be for every race (though I assume stakes races would remain at the mile distance).

[pandy]

In a recent Harness Racing Update, they talk about the plans for Yonkers to return to the 1 1/16 distance starting February 1st if all goes to plan. That would be for every race (though I assume stakes races would remain at the mile distance).

Thanks, this is good news. My email account was blocking the Harness Racing Updates, but they are archived on the website so I just read the report

. When they go to 1 and 1/16 racing I'll write up a chart comparing the final 5/16's to last quarters so people can see what a fast finish is and I'll put it on the USTA website and in Harness Eye. Hopefully they'll run all races at 8.5 furlongs. They used to run the stakes races at a mile, but there's no reason why they shouldn't be at the 8.5f distance. If you saw the Yonkers Trot this year, and the eliminations, it was just terrible. In the final there was a two horse favored entry and one was on the lead, the other horse first over through a slow pace. In one of the eliminations the first quarter was :31 and change!

The move to a mile and a sixteenth distance again will make Yonkers much more competitive with the Meadowlands and when the Big M is closed, Yonkers will clearly be the best option in the sport for the harness racing gambler.

[wilderness]

The move to a mile and a sixteenth distance again will make Yonkers much more competitive with the Meadowlands and when the Big M is closed, Yonkers will clearly be the best option in the sport for the harness racing gambler.

Bob,
Don't believe you'll see that much of a change.
Prior to VLT's coming to Yonkers there were many of these races for low-claimers and low condition events.

Some old results "may" be available by going to archive. org and entering ustrotting.com, which will provide you with a menu by year. (You'll need to be sure " Java is on" to stay active in the archived menu, rather than drifting back to the currently active USTA pages).

[wilderness]

Look at any track that has a lot of chalk and you will see a track that's dying. Look at Laurel, all chalk, soon to go out of business.


That's quite a mouthful Bob?

If anything and over decades, stats have proven (especially those accumulated by the tracks) that short prices result in more handle. The public simply likes to cash tickets and keep playing (at least till the take-out eats up their bankroll).

Course those monitoring ROI and Rebates are screaming like stuck-pigs.

[pandy]

Bob,
Don't believe you'll see that much of a change.
Prior to VLT's coming to Yonkers there were many of these races for low-claimers and low condition events.

Some old results "may" be available by going to archive. org and entering ustrotting.com, which will provide you with a menu by year. (You'll need to be sure " Java is on" to stay active in the archived menu, rather than drifting back to the currently active USTA pages).

Not sure I understand what you mean, Don. Do yo mean the distance change won't result in a change? As for the quality of racing, what does the quality of racing before VLTs matter? Right now Yonkers has top horses and drivers.

[wilderness]

Bob,
It may result in a slight improvement of the racing and/or increased prices, however overall, there's not any significant change.

The quality of racing stock (at least for sake of comparison) is insignificant.
What's logical is that Yonkers had the extended-distances in place long enough to make a comparison.

I do have to admit, that the folks at Yonkers must have ventured back and utilized comparison of the previous stats (at least I'd hope) and especially since the stats are available for those early years in the USTA's RTS System. (BTW, the USTA also sold for 4-5 years a CD that offered all the race results of North America, although the price was a bit hefty at more than $300 per year).

[pandy]

That's quite a mouthful Bob?

If anything and over decades, stats have proven (especially those accumulated by the tracks) that short prices result in more handle. The public simply likes to cash tickets and keep playing (at least till the take-out eats up their bankroll).

Course those monitoring ROI and Rebates are screaming like stuck-pigs.

This would be an interesting thing to research. I find it hard to believe that tracks with a high percentage of favorites have higher handle.

The Meadowlands has had the highest handle of any harness track in the country for over 30 years and it is not known for chalk, just the opposte, it is probably the most difficult track to handicap.

In thoroughbred racing, Saratoga and Del Mar have the highest handle, both offer highly competitive racing, not a high percentage of winning favorites. Next highest in avg. handle per race are Belmont, Keeneland, Churchill and Gulfstream, none of which are tracks that have a high % of winning favorites.

[wilderness]

"This would be an interesting thing to research. I find it hard to believe that tracks with a high percentage of favorites have higher handle. "

Course, and in all fairness, we cannot compare the Meadowlands to Buffalo Raceway, or Bluegrass Downs to Buffalo Raceway.

The key to comparison (as it's long been) is "per capita", which today and considering the lack of attendance may be a useless comparison.
However and given today's world of Simulcast/OTB, there must be some "gauge of similar comparison"?

[pandy]

I've long been an advocate of the mile and a sixteenth races at Yonkers, but now that the quality is so high due to the high slot-infused purses, it's just a shame to run the races the way they've been, with the races starting just in front of the first turn.

I believe that no track can survive long term if the races start right in front of a turn, it's just bad racing.

As for years ago, when they last ran races at a mile and a sixteenth at Yonkers the stretch was the old stretch which was 440 feet long, one of the shortest. Now the stretch is 660 feet long, the longest stretch of any half mile track. If they keep it like that when they switch to the longer distance, it will be even better than it was years ago. The longer distance makes it tougher for horses to go wire to wire, and the longer stretch will play into that. The percentage of winning favorites will drop, post 1, which is winning at 23% now, will probably win less than half that, and posts 6, 7, and 8 will win far more often than they do now. Handicappers will not be able to draw a line through the 6-7-8 horses anymore.

Bottom line is, the racing will be far more entertaining.

[pandy]

On their website, H.A.N.A. shows the tracks with the highest handle per race and from what I see the tracks that have the highest handle, such as the number one track, Saratoga (The Graveyard of Favorites) are not chalk tracks.

The vast majority of horseplayers are small bettors who cannot get a lot of excitement putting $2 to win on a 1-2 shot.

Research has also shown that the tracks with the fuller fields (thoroughbred) have the highest handle, and bigger fields always results in lower percentage of winning favorites.

[teddy]

I would like to see the passing lane start at the the the middle of the last turn to let the trapped horses have a shot on half mile tracks. Talk about some wild finishes.

[pandy]

I would like to see the passing lane start at the the the middle of the last turn to let the trapped horses have a shot on half mile tracks. Talk about some wild finishes.

Might be interesting. I've always felt ambiguous about the passing lane. It's good that it allows horses to get clear but it also has a bad side, it helps the speed horses because the driving sitting third/fourth on a passing lane track often sits in knowing that he has the passing lane, consequently the first over horse pulls from 5th or sometimes even 6th, which messes up the outside flow and allows the front runner to cruise along on an easy lead. This happens a lot at Yonkers, no enough action.

[Pacingguy]

I would like to see the passing lane start at the the the middle of the last turn to let the trapped horses have a shot on half mile tracks. Talk about some wild finishes.

I would like to see the passing lane go away. This is one of the reasons we have boring races, no need to get the lead; just sit on the rail and wait for the passing lane. If the passing lane went away, we would see less Indian file racing on the half and 5/8 mile ovals.

Yes, Gamblers want to win, but they also want excitement. If they don't want excitement, they can play the lottery. The industry needs to reach out to the younger gambler anyway they can.

[pandy]

Pacing Guy, I agree. Gambling is a form of entertainment and boring races with 2-5 shots going wire to wire unchallenged is not entertaining enough.

[DeanT]

On their website, H.A.N.A. shows the tracks with the highest handle per race and from what I see the tracks that have the highest handle, such as the number one track, Saratoga (The Graveyard of Favorites) are not chalk tracks.

The vast majority of horseplayers are small bettors who cannot get a lot of excitement putting $2 to win on a 1-2 shot.

Research has also shown that the tracks with the fuller fields (thoroughbred) have the highest handle, and bigger fields always results in lower percentage of winning favorites.

The Meadowlands is the perfect example Bob - like you have alluded to. It opened a brand new value based customer to racing. At 25% take, like a lot of small harness tracks are, $34 tri's and a bevy of $4 winners only grinds the player down. Bankrolls drive handle.

At the M of the 1990's, with all ten horse fields, with an ok takeout, or decent rake with a rebate, there were four or five solid opps a race. Of late this has been eliminated and there should be no surprise the handle is poor.

This meet so far, we have seen a little more of the deep field, action packed M. It's not a surprise handle has started to follow.

[Zman179]

The Yonkers product is of high quality, but the payoffs there are dreadful. I believe that's why they're getting killed handle-wise. This past Friday, Yonkers offered nearly $250,000 in purses yet the handle was only $503,000 for 12 races. Same thing on Saturday: $303,000 in purses, $610,000 in handle for 12 races. The dreadful payoffs, combined with the competitiveness of the racing, make it an unbettable product. Of course losing NYCOTB definitely didn't help the situation since they contributed so much to the handle, but it proves that there's no interest in their racing other than on Mondays and Tuesdays when the options are far fewer.

The Meadowlands gets it right in mixing high difficulty with high reward.

[pandy]

Yonkers payoffs will improve, favorites will win at a lower percentage once they switch to a mile and a sixteenth. The problem now is that posts 6, 7, and 8 are severely compromised by the fact that the race starts a few feet in front of the first turn. When they move the starting line back, you'll see the talented guys like Manzi, Brennan, Gingras, and Bartlett, take advantage of it and they will pop longshots from the outside posts.

[Pacingguy]

Yes, favorites increase handle as the winnings are more evenly distributed and more likely to be churned through. With longshots, the winnings are distributed to fewer people and less likely to be churned.

The fact is tracks like a mixture, some favorites, some longer odds winners, and some bombs; obviously less bombs. Let's face it, that's why the half mile oval is less liked, yeah you can win more often, but at 2-1 and under more often, not that many people want to play it because who wants to keep collecting such low prices?

Gamblers rather have only a few favorites, more mid-level payoffs (4-1 to 10-1) and the ocasional bomb. Then it is worth their efforts.

[wilderness]

I would like to see the passing lane go away. This is one of the reasons we have boring races, no need to get the lead;

PG,
Something we agree on ;)

I think that both the person whom dreamed up the passing lane and everybody that's in favor of same, should be gelded with a rusty knife!