Bill Finley: Realistic Fixes

[Horseplayersbet.com]

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=finley_bill&id=6155453
The only idea I have a bit of a problem is 10 cent minimums. I think certain bets need to have dollar minimums to keep interest and pool size up.

He forgot about universal drug rules...or maybe that isn't realistic :)

[The_Knight_Sky]

I agree with many of the suggestions. But none more than this:

Get rid of all (coupled) entries in any race worth $50,000 or more. Bettors are crying out for good betting races and fleeing from those events with five horses and a 3-5 favorite. To think someone would play around in a stakes race or anything with a big purse to cash a bet is ridiculous. To get rid of entries would make a lot of races more attractive to the player.

__________________________

There is no need for coupled entries in modern thoroughbred racing.
There are camera angles, stewards empowered with high-powered binoculars
to view the action on the racetrack.

The coupled entries rules vary in differing jurisdictions.
Sometimes horses owned by the same owners and/or part-owners will be coupled. In some races horses trained by the same trainer will be coupled.
Sometimes same trainer but different part-owners may/may not be coupled.

I am convinced that individual racing states couple horses "just for the heck of it" and not to protect the wagering public.
It is time to dump http://i55.tinypic.com/5xvgcj.gif the coupled entries altogether. The racetracks that do will bolster their handle as a result as well as avoiding confusion of scratches horses after the wager has been made. There is much positive to be gained by this.

[Jasonm921]

I agree with Bill, which is rare these days. I think they are all solid suggestions and can easily be implemented.

[therussmeister]

I don't know why he wants all wagering outlets to give rebates to all players instead of just lowering takeout.

[Bruddah]

Until racing understands that they must develop new (younger) customers, they will continue to become an irrelevant sport. The best way to do that is not to limit the distribution of your signal for betting purposes only. Any person should be able to view a race. The more newbies viewing a races, the more who will be introduced to the sport and develop an interest in betting. Showing races to only those that know the game will not develop new players.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I don't know why he wants all wagering outlets to give rebates to all players instead of just lowering takeout.
Check the title of the piece. It deals with realistic solutions. What would be easier, to get all tracks in all jurisdictions to drop takeout rates significantly, or get the few states that make it difficult to give rebates to play ball?

[highnote]

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=finley_bill&id=6155453
The only idea I have a bit of a problem is 10 cent minimums. I think certain bets need to have dollar minimums to keep interest and pool size up.

He forgot about universal drug rules...or maybe that isn't realistic :)


I think I might disagree here. The first time I bet, I was 18, the minimum wage was $2.65 per hour and I was making only $2.00 per hour because I got tips since I worked in a restaurant busing tables.

I had never been to a racetrack. My friends liked to go. I went three Saturdays in a row. I lost $10 each week and I was only betting show. I didn't know a thing about the horses.

I swore I would never go back unless I learned how to win. I didn't go back until 14 years later when I found the Dr. Z system and programmed it into a Radio Shack handheld computer.

Now, as my aunt used to say, it sure took a lot of shit, mess and bother to get to the point. LOL But my point is, had they had 10 cent minimums I may have taken the time to learn to bet. But since one bet cost me an hour's wages and I lost 5 hours worth of wages I vowed not to return.

How many new bettors are turned off by losing their hard earned money? We hear a lot of stories about bettors who hit a longshot their first time at the track and were hooked for life. But there are a lot more who never return because they lost a few dollars.

I remember losing $10 playing slots my first time in Atlantic City. I was in my late 20's. I hated losing and have never played slots again.

So I would argue that 10 cent minimums on all bets is a great idea for attracting new customers.

[Watcher]

The product is weighting heavily towards the internet. XpressBet, TwinSpires, etc. need to spend money recruiting senior level executives from the top online poker rooms and sportsbooks.

These industries, especially poker, have found the key to fostering growth by attracting and teaching the youth. These individuals' insights and strategic plans will be invaluable, especially when you start considering the beast of rebates, or 'rakeback' as poker terms it, and fostering new, uneducated markets.

Once you have the liquidity from online handle, the trickle down effect of funds will help bolster the live operations. You can then utilize your online player base to cross-promote your tracks, pushing the crowds back to live racing.

[Stillriledup]

I agree with many of the suggestions. But none more than this:

Get rid of all (coupled) entries in any race worth $50,000 or more. Bettors are crying out for good betting races and fleeing from those events with five horses and a 3-5 favorite. To think someone would play around in a stakes race or anything with a big purse to cash a bet is ridiculous. To get rid of entries would make a lot of races more attractive to the player.

__________________________

There is no need for coupled entries in modern thoroughbred racing.
There are camera angles, stewards empowered with high-powered binoculars
to view the action on the racetrack.

The coupled entries rules vary in differing jurisdictions.
Sometimes horses owned by the same owners and/or part-owners will be coupled. In some races horses trained by the same trainer will be coupled.
Sometimes same trainer but different part-owners may/may not be coupled.

I am convinced that individual racing states couple horses "just for the heck of it" and not to protect the wagering public.
It is time to dump http://i55.tinypic.com/5xvgcj.gif the coupled entries altogether. The racetracks that do will bolster their handle as a result as well as avoiding confusion of scratches horses after the wager has been made. There is much positive to be gained by this.

Its funny how people yell and scream 'fix' when the longer price of the uncoupled entry wins...ironically enough, they ought to be screaming fix if the shorter price wins. After all, if its a 'fix' than the longer price would BECOME the shorter price after all the 'fixers' got done betting. Right?

But, all kidding aside, i agree with your premise, no reason to couple anything.

I think that their theory is that if an owner has two seperate betting interests, he can 'manipulate' the runners for one to benefit the other. The powers that be feel thats unfair to the bettors if one of the horses is used as a sacrificial lamb.

Personally, i like the challenge of trying to figure out the owner/trainer mindset with uncoupleds, esp if they are common owner.

Like you said, they have plenty of camera angles to sniff out any 'illegal' shenanigans, why put the burden on the bettor? By coupling, they're really saying, "even with umpteen cameras, we don't want to punish jocks for riding in a fashion that might suggest they're helping out an uncoupled betting interest"

Really? You would rather just turn a blind eye to this and put the burden on the fans?

[The_Knight_Sky]

Personally, i like the challenge of trying to figure out the owner/trainer mindset with uncoupleds, esp if they are common owner.




Exactly. Finding uncoupled horses in the same race in SoCal
is part of the handicapping process. Uncouplings add to the intrigue,
makes it more challenging and makes it lucrative for the winning bettors.

When family members such as Richard and Gary Mandella wind up in the winners circle after competing in the same race it's fair game and
shenanigans are not at work. The same concept happens
with friendly trainers on the backside. Paranoia is unwarranted.
In the end it all comes down to wager value.

A competent handicapper does not need to find headlines that Shake The Bank will be entered as a rabbit for stablemate Better Talk Now.

As it stands racetracks by coupling horses 1, 1a, 2, 2b
are instantly depressing the odds on two horses through the morning line and which ultimately leads to less action at the windows.

When December 31st arrives it all amounts to a serious loss of handle
which could be easily be avoided.

The game must trash the rules implemented in the 1950's.

[Kelso]

my point is, had they had 10 cent minimums I may have taken the time to learn to bet. But since one bet cost me an hour's wages and I lost 5 hours worth of wages I vowed not to return.

How many new bettors are turned off by losing their hard earned money? We hear a lot of stories about bettors who hit a longshot their first time at the track and were hooked for life. But there are a lot more who never return because they lost a few dollars.

I think you have revealed a significant insight that could have a profitable impact on the industry if track managers gave it some serious thought. It's they, after all, who are quick to seize on the "no new fans" excuse every time they want to raise takeout.

It's probably worth a wide and lengthy tryout ... maybe starting at several of the cheaper tracks. Would be very interesting to note year-over-year changes in the volume of $1 or $2 wagers in year #2 or #3.

As to pool size ... certainly a valid concern ... are there any reliable stats available as to what portion of tracks' WPS handles are generally attributable to $1/$2 wagers? My guess ... but only a WAG ... is generally less than 10%.

[Kelso]

I think that their theory is that if an owner has two seperate betting interests, he can 'manipulate' the runners for one to benefit the other. The powers that be feel thats unfair to the bettors if one of the horses is used as a sacrificial lamb.

I think, absent coupling, the manipulations would definately occur with sufficient frequency as to be a significant problem for bettors. But even if it never happened, appearance is everything in a necessarily trust-based gambling activity.

And if coupling is a big problem, then perhaps the surest solution is to disallow trainers and owners from multiple entries in the same race.

[Stillriledup]

I think, absent coupling, the manipulations would definately occur with sufficient frequency as to be a significant problem for bettors. But even if it never happened, appearance is everything in a necessarily trust-based gambling activity.

And if coupling is a big problem, then perhaps the surest solution is to disallow trainers and owners from multiple entries in the same race.

You know what though? I would only be a problem if you couldnt figure out who does what on the manipulation front.

To me, this is all part of handicapping. I say bring it on, the harder, the better.

[Stillriledup]

Exactly. Finding uncoupled horses in the same race in SoCal
is part of the handicapping process. Uncouplings add to the intrigue,
makes it more challenging and makes it lucrative for the winning bettors.

When family members such as Richard and Gary Mandella wind up in the winners circle after competing in the same race it's fair game and
shenanigans are not at work. The same concept happens
with friendly trainers on the backside. Paranoia is unwarranted.
In the end it all comes down to wager value.

A competent handicapper does not need to find headlines that Shake The Bank will be entered as a rabbit for stablemate Better Talk Now.

As it stands racetracks by coupling horses 1, 1a, 2, 2b
are instantly depressing the odds on two horses through the morning line and which ultimately leads to less action at the windows.

When December 31st arrives it all amounts to a serious loss of handle
which could be easily be avoided.

The game must trash the rules implemented in the 1950's.

I just LOVE when people yell and scream after the longer priced horse of an uncoupled wins. They'll say, "and THATS why they should be coupled!"
:D

[tzipi]

And here's the problem with racing. Some of them just want to abuse its customers no matter what. A steward making a remark that it's better to keep its customers in the dark. To let us bet our money on garbage.

Finley:
"After all this time(Life at Ten fiasco) we still have no explanation as to what went on and we had a steward saying that the best way to handle things is to no longer allow jockeys and/or trainers to talk to the television reporters before a race. Great, let's give the betting public less information, not more."

[5k-claim]

Every track in the country should change the conditions of their graded stakes races to ban the offspring of prematurely retired horses. Any horse whose sire was four or younger at the time the horse was conceived would not be eligible. Do that and never again would a star horse be rushed off to the breeding shed after their 3-year-old year.This is not "constructive" because it will not solve the problem it targets, and would end in disaster when an outstanding runner or two out of a sire's first crop are banned (for life) from competing in the sport's top races.

It is not "realistic" because thankfully anyone in charge of anything will recognize that it is not constructive.

The wagering suggestions seem reasonable, though.

.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

This is not "constructive" because it will not solve the problem it targets, and would end in disaster when an outstanding runner or two out of a sire's first crop are banned (for life) from competing in the sport's top races.

It is not "realistic" because thankfully anyone in charge of anything will recognize that it is not constructive.

The wagering suggestions seem reasonable, though.

.
I like the idea of not allowing a horse to stand as a stud until they hit the age of 6, 5 for mares.

[5k-claim]

I like the idea of not allowing a horse to stand as a stud until they hit the age of 6, 5 for mares.Well, I definitely like your general rule a lot better than the idea of banning potentially talented horses from running in top races.

But what exactly would you be looking to accomplish?

.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Well, I definitely like your general rule a lot better than the idea of banning potentially talented horses from running in top races.

But what exactly would you be looking to accomplish?

.
Stars would be forced to stay in the game longer. That is good for the public who like to follow stars.
Horses will be bred for longevity instead of becoming shooting stars (a horse who goes drastically downhill after peaking as a 2 yo or 3 yo will lose breeding value and these horses will be less sought after). Horses that do well at 4 and 5 will become the new expensive stallions and mares. And the fact they did so well later on, the breed will improve that way as well over a few generations.

[The_Knight_Sky]

I just LOVE when people yell and scream after the longer priced horse
of an uncoupled wins. They'll say, "and THATS why they should be coupled!"

:D




Imagine if Bob Baffert starts four horses in The Big Cap
and all four of them were coupled, um quadrupled to "protect the public".

Baffert has four possible starters for Santa Anita Handicap (Baffert has four possible starters for Santa Anita Handicap)
by Steve Andersen

[5k-claim]

Stars would be forced to stay in the game longer. That is good for the public who like to follow stars.
Horses will be bred for longevity instead of becoming shooting stars (a horse who goes drastically downhill after peaking as a 2 yo or 3 yo will lose breeding value and these horses will be less sought after). Horses that do well at 4 and 5 will become the new expensive stallions and mares. And the fact they did so
well later on, the breed will improve that way as well over a few generations.Stars would be forced to stay in the game longer. That is good for the public who like to follow stars. No they wouldn't. If the logic for retiring a brilliant 3YO colt with success in classic 3YO races is that he has added enough racing success to his pedigree to be worth millions in syndication and earn many millions over a 10-15 year stud career, that logic is unchanged whether he will be starting his stud career in 7 months or 19. People will still send their mares to him. The type of colts you would "force" into staying at risk on the track might be those who will be standing for $2,000 or less. Not the big "stars".

Horses will be bred for longevity instead of becoming shooting stars (a horse who goes drastically downhill after peaking as a 2 yo or 3 yo will lose breeding value and these horses will be less sought after).The reason there is a demand for sires who throw "shooting stars" is because there is purse money for 2YOs. As long as there is purse money for 2YOs there will be a demand for them. Also, as long as our most famous race is run early in the 3YO year. You wouldn't have breeding for longevity unless that is where the money is. Sires will remain sought after as long as they sire offspring who make money- and the sooner the better.

Horses that do well at 4 and 5 will become the new expensive stallions and mares. Again, I do not understand what you are trying to say. The sought after sires are those who sire offspring that make money.


And the fact they did so well later on, the breed will improve that way as well over a few generations. A "few generations"?

I like your goals very much. I think most all of us share them. But what you are suggesting, which is a huge improvement over what the original author proposed, would not work the way we might hope it would.

.

[Kelso]

Horses will be bred for longevity instead of becoming shooting stars (a horse who goes drastically downhill after peaking as a 2 yo or 3 yo will lose breeding value and these horses will be less sought after). Horses that do well at 4 and 5 will become the new expensive stallions and mares. And the fact they did so well later on, the breed will improve that way as well over a few generations.

A very important idea, backed with solid reasoning. Well done.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

5k Claim, if what I propose happens, the nature of top races will change. 2 year old races will not be as rich for the most part, same with most 3 year old races. The large purses will shift to older horses. There would be an evolution so to speak in breeder's mentality, as well as the buyer's mentality.
Breeders for the most part won't like this to begin with because shooting stars will not be sought after so there will be a lot less Green Monkey money paid for yearlings (but we are seeing that now because the way things are, the game is slowly dying, and the breeding game is one of the factors in its demise for reasons I mentioned earlier).

Coincidentally Beyer wrote a piece today on Chilean racing. Sure it is far from perfect (from a 27% takeout to the fact that Horsemen receive a pittance of the takeout money by the sounds of the article), however this is what he said about the breed in Chile:

..."their durability derived in large part from their genes.

South America has a tradition of producing sound and durable thoroughbreds.
ad_icon

The breeders on this continent are not obsessed by fashioning glamorous pedigrees; they want horses who are tough. The best of these runners are not only tough but they possess world-class talent. Cougar II, Chile's all-time great horse, raced 50 times and in 1972 became a U.S. champion at the age of 6."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022804046.html

[5k-claim]

5k Claim, if what I propose happens, the nature of top races will change. 2 year old races will not be as rich for the most part, same with most 3 year old races. The large purses will shift to older horses. There would be an evolution so to speak in breeder's mentality, as well as the buyer's mentality.

Breeders for the most part won't like this to begin with because shooting stars will not be sought after so there will be a lot less Green Monkey money paid for yearlings (but we are seeing that now because the way things are, the game is slowly dying, and the breeding game is one of the factors in its demise for reasons I mentioned earlier).
[/url]This is quite a scenario. A pleasant thought, really. Like I said before, your goals are great. I too wish the breed was sturdier, and stars stayed in the game as long as possible. But your proposal of forcing owners to put their new sires on the shelf until at least age 5 is not an answer to anything. It won't necessarily keep the biggest male stars at risk on the track any longer, and will not cause a revolution, or evolution, of the entire breeding industry.

Concerning the top races for colts, our racing is centered on the 3YO Triple Crown. Which means horses have to be ready to run longer and harder just 1/3 of the way into their 3YO year. This is necessarily preceded by a 'Triple Crown Trail' of races, which are in turn necessarily preceded by 2YO racing. This is built into the very fabric of the sport. And it is where the demand is for new young stars, and more importantly to this exchange, the stallions who sire them. In other words, "shooting stars" will always be sought after. They even have the word "star" built right into the name you are calling them.

This artificial restriction that you are proposing to require new stallions to be 5 before being allowed to breed is not going to change any of that. You remember that many (if not most) of the top new stallions in a given year are already 5 years old, even without your proposed rule, right?

And it doesn't even matter how old the sire was when he retired (often for reasonable reasons) once a stallion gets progeny on record. What matters is how well his offspring are meeting the demand of the marketplace. That's it. It comes down to business.

Find a more direct ($$$) way to make older horses more attractive across the entire industry, at all levels, and you are on to something. But I will wish you the best of luck in filling all of those cards- especially as a portion of the handicappers on this board are eager for some variation of "no drugs" policies in the sport.

.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

My proposal is not have studs stand until 6, females 5. I doubt very many owners will sit on a horse for two years, especially if purses become more top weighted towards 4 or 5 year olds.

There wasn't always a need to breed for speed and shooting stars. That didn't happen until the 70's when horses started getting pulled off the track early as stud fees and horse sales started to be a better game than running for purses.

I think the 3 triple crown winners in the 70's put the game on a downward spiral when it came to breeding for quick turnarounds.

[5k-claim]

My proposal is not have studs stand until 6, females 5. I doubt very many owners will sit on a horse for two years, especially if purses become more top weighted towards 4 or 5 year olds. Sorry about that! The original article by Finley set the 'age limit' at 5, so that got stuck in my head. I do see where you bumped the minimum age up to 6....

Either way, if I have a brilliant young star that has a stellar pedigree and successful race record- and there is anything physical that makes me want to ease him off the track to protect the many millions of a stud career, then it isn't going to matter whether I am being forced to shelve him for one year (until age 5) or two years (until age 6). If there is a viable enough reason to end the risks of training and racing, then it is what it is. He is coming off track and not going back in training. Period. The only thing left to do would be waiting out the mandatory wait period of your minimum age rule.

He is still going to get mares. (Hell, the waiting period could actually add some good mystery to his stud potential- while his peers are out possibly slowing down and losing a few more races. The same thing that happens now, only stretched out over a longer number of months.)

But this is just the very top tier, anyways. You would definitely coax some more starts out of the second or third tier with a 6YO age limit. But I am still thinking you (and Finley) are wanting the very top tier, the stars, to race longer. I don't see you forcing that very easily without a serious case of mo' money.

There wasn't always a need to breed for speed and shooting stars. That didn't happen until the 70's when horses started getting pulled off the track early as stud fees and horse sales started to be a better game than running for purses.

I think the 3 triple crown winners in the 70's put the game on a downward spiral when it came to breeding for quick turnarounds.It could be worse. It could be tennis. Or even college basketball for those of us who are Kentucky fans- four freshman took off after the season last year for the NBA. But they all made good decisions, as it came down to what made the most sense financially.

.

[On Spec]

What if the Kentucky Derby were made a race for four year olds?

During the transition year, any horse who ran the previous year would be ineligible.

Or the Jockey Club or Graded Stakes committee could place a restriction making any horse that raced in the first half of their three year old year ineligible for any graded stakes race. Tracks that allowed such horses to run would have their stakes grades taken away from them.

[On Spec]

What if the Kentucky Derby were made a race for four year olds?

During the transition year, any horse who ran the previous year would be ineligible.

Or the Jockey Club or Graded Stakes committee could place a restriction making any horse that raced in the first half of their three year old year ineligible for any graded stakes race. Tracks that allowed such horses to run would have their stakes grades taken away from them.

The Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association could take this action and make it happen, much as they did to combat the use of steroids.