Field Size or Takeout?

[rwwupl]

Field Size or Takeout?




A lot has been made lately of what is more important, field size or takeout? The Horseplayers Association of North America (HANA ) has surveys of their membership that clearly show that “Takeout” is number one and" Field Size" is number two with the players.



The Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) believe field size is the number one issue, and have been prime movers in the passage of SB1072, increasing the takeout by 2-3 points on certain exotics with all new handle going for purses… which they have promised would grow field size and attract more fans.



That promise has not come true after 7 months of racing. There have been no benefits to anyone but horse owners,Purses Up, Handle Down. There has been a disaster with handle and field size has not increased.



The TOC has recently announced that the program will take 3-5 years. Hmmm...Where will we be in 3-5 years?

We believe there may be other ways to increase field size, such as lower the costs to maintain a racehorse in California. Veterinary costs are out of control


There is no question from the econometric studies that field size matters on a race by race and wager by wager basis.However at the aggregate ((national) level, it appears the simple correlation is negative. While field size is important to the data below, you can not deny there were more important factors involved causeing handle to go up and down. Who will deny that?

The attempt to "fix" one issue at the expense of the other seems to be spinning your wheels, in view of current facts and historical data .


The premise of building field size by increasing purses and takeout can not be proven effective or negative, in view of many efforts in the past to do so without the promised results. The most previous noteworthy effort was SB27 ($40 million) some years ago . There were several smaller efforts in between the current effort of SB1072 ($70 million). If any previousattempts were effective, we would not be doing this again.


Funding purses with higher takeout rates aggravates customers and makes the financial business model lopsided at the customers expense.


Thanks to the Jockey Club Fact Book data, here is the simple, unconditional correlation of average field size and handle in the aggregate for the U.S. and Canada since 1990 per the Jockey Club, Data


Year Avg Field Handle
1990 8.91 10208
1991 8.75 10197
1992 8.62 10409
1993 8.56 10331
1994 8.31 10578
1995 8.2 11224
1996 8.31 12269
1997 8.2 13069
1998 8.17 13613
1999 8.21 14163
2000 8.11 14796
2001 8.18 15139
2002 8.27 15629
2003 8.3 15716
2004 8.28 15600
2005 8.17 15129
2006 8.14 15313
2007 8.17 15232
2008 8.17 14151
2009 8.24 12805
2010 8.19 11913

Simple/unconditional correlation of handle and average field size (you can copy into an excel file and compute for yourselves)

-0.697768944

Same story for CA since available stats, 2002?, negative correlation.

We believe field size matters in a positive and conditional manner for handle on a per race basis.


Careful review will indicate that other factors for handle in the data must be more important than the average field size that drives these statistics in the aggregate.


If the TOC has data to support their long held conviction that raising the takeout will automatically lead to larger fields and more customers, I think they should share it with all of us. It would allow us some comfort every time we swallow the bad pill.


Thanks,

Roger

roger@hanaweb.org

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/

[thaskalos]

IMO...purses nationwide should be structured under the assumption that there will be at least 8 horses making it to the starting gate.

There should be a 15% per horse reduction to the purse for every race with less than 8 starters.

A 6-horse field should run for 70% of the original purse...and a 5-horse field for 55%.

This insanity - where the trainers are rewarded for supporting these short fields - must stop.

[Quesmark]

IMO...purses nationwide should be structured under the assumption that there will be at least 8 horses making it to the starting gate.

There should be a 15% per horse reduction to the purse for every race with less than 8 starters.

A 6-horse field should run for 70% of the original purse...and a 5-horse field for 55%.

This insanity - where the trainers are rewarded for supporting these short fields - must stop.

The stick=reduce,the carrot=boost.
If the original purse of a race is reduced let's say by 45% due to a 5 horse field running for it,then that potential prize money should be added [carried over in effect] to a similar race in the next condition book,and paid out if the race fills and goes with at least 8 entries.There would be more interest in competing for a magnified purse,and maybe a better quality betting race for the players would result.
Tracks could also pay out x amount of dollars [say $1000.,or $2000. on a major circuit] to all starters beyond 4 in a race as an incentive to run a horse,and this would allow all horses to earn some money towards their upkeep.

[iceknight]

Hi.
I am very new to horseracing and so I was reviewing the takeout chart (here (http://www.sportsbettingacumen.com/horse-racing-track-takeout-chart.asp) at sportsbettingacumen website) and the one thing I am trying to find out is a full list of abbreviations and track names.

The internet is not very helpful to me. http://horseracing.about.com/od/statisticsdata/Statistics_and_Data.htm The Abbreviations link there does not point to the right page.Here are my guesses: BEL is Belmont, SAR is Saratoga at ~14%

MNR is Mountaineer? High!
HOL is Hollywood --> High takeout!!
Can any regulars point me to the right place or maybe I can even email this takeout chart as an excel file to them in exchange for a file with names. Thanks!! :cool:

[DJofSD]

Hi.
I am very new to horseracing and so I was reviewing the takeout chart (here (http://www.sportsbettingacumen.com/horse-racing-track-takeout-chart.asp) at sportsbettingacumen website) and the one thing I am trying to find out is a full list of abbreviations and track names.

The internet is not very helpful to me. http://horseracing.about.com/od/statisticsdata/Statistics_and_Data.htm The Abbreviations link there does not point to the right page.Here are my guesses: BEL is Belmont, SAR is Saratoga at ~14%

MNR is Mountaineer? High!
HOL is Hollywood --> High takeout!!
Can any regulars point me to the right place or maybe I can even email this takeout chart as an excel file to them in exchange for a file with names. Thanks!! :cool:
Iceknight,

I understand there's a lot of noise when starting out in any new effort. Terminology is certainly one of those hurdles.

Your best bet to get some help from the board is to start a new thread instead of tailgaiting on an existing one that does not have anything to do with the questions you are asking.

[showbet]

the one thing I am trying to find out is a full list of abbreviations and track names.
Daily Racing Form (http://www1.drf.com/entries/trackAbbreviations.html)

Equibase (http://www.equibase.com/newfan/codelist.cfm)

Daily Racing Form .pdf (http://www1.drf.com/misc/pursevalueindex.pdf)

[cj]

IMO...purses nationwide should be structured under the assumption that there will be at least 8 horses making it to the starting gate.

There should be a 15% per horse reduction to the purse for every race with less than 8 starters.

A 6-horse field should run for 70% of the original purse...and a 5-horse field for 55%.

This insanity - where the trainers are rewarded for supporting these short fields - must stop.

The sport is in big trouble, and part of it is because way too much purse money is being given out for races few want to bet. You idea is a good one, but the horsemen will fight it to the death. The bad part is they actually have a say.

But to the original question, it is still takeout...by a lot.

[chickenhead]

go here for takeout rates, abbreviations, and track names (as well as whole lot more) for most all of the tracks

http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/hanatrackratingsbytrackname.html

[cj]

I'll throw another one out there. We don't need all the restrictions...sex, age, etc. below the allowance, or maybe even stakes, level. There are other ways to even out the playing field via weight and/or claiming price.

[rwwupl]

New track ratings will be out soon, You will like the new version.

rw

[iceknight]

Iceknight,

instead of tailgaiting on an existing one that does not have anything to do with the questions you are asking.

Thanks to all others who replied to my query directly.

DJ... I see your perspective, but the reason I posted that link here was I wanted to share the takeout chart first. Since the thread was about takeout vs field size, I felt it was somewhat relevant.

Later, after I have found out all the names of the tracks, my burning question would have been on the difference of takeout percentages between various US tracks. In today's internet age of betting how is it that some states (Califorina HOL) are able to keep a portion of a bettor's money while others (Belmont -BEL) keep almost 3 points less?

I am also not sure how field size affects this as I see races with 5 horses in BEL and I also see races with 12-13 horses, on the same day and several times in the season.

[iceknight]

Never mind. I think the HOL and BEL nos are not accurate based on HANA ratings... but the general question stands. Difference in takeout rates between different tracks.. is this like different brokerage commissions?

[DJofSD]

Thanks to all others who replied to my query directly.

DJ... I see your perspective, but the reason I posted that link here was I wanted to share the takeout chart first. Since the thread was about takeout vs field size, I felt it was somewhat relevant.

Later, after I have found out all the names of the tracks, my burning question would have been on the difference of takeout percentages between various US tracks. In today's internet age of betting how is it that some states (Califorina HOL) are able to keep a portion of a bettor's money while others (Belmont -BEL) keep almost 3 points less?

I am also not sure how field size affects this as I see races with 5 horses in BEL and I also see races with 12-13 horses, on the same day and several times in the season.

Not a problem. The good nature of the board members shone through.

[lamboguy]

the way poll question's are asked is usually to get a desired answer. first of all takeout is less today with rebates than it was 40 years ago. so how can that be the number 1 problem. field sizes in cheaper races are the same as they were 40 years ago when there was more bet on these races. the bottom races years ago brought plenty of people to the track to bet on them. there were 20 times more owners then than there are now, and they all brought plenty of friends to the track with them in case their horse needed a picture after the race. racing back then was a family and social event, today it is very cut throat with the same owners and trainers winning race after race in every race track thorughout america. there were no such things as 40% win percentage trainers back then like JUAN CARLOS GUREARO. when mr gurearo horses win they get bet, and its not aunt mary and uncle tom that is wagering on them. when he wins a race after he claims the horse and had kept him away from the public for a month, they all run better than the last guy that had the horse. the man never gets called into the office by some authority and asked how he improved the horse so much in one short months time.

in casino's the management watches the dealers and their slot machines because they want to make sure that they get a fair shake and that the public is not getting robbed either. the casino's are packed with people that stand in front of a mindless machine and they pour their money into it. horseracing one might argue is a better game, yet they are scaring people away from the game. look at how many people show up to play a skill game like poker in these casino's. they have waiting lists for a chair. that is because the public feels they are getting a fair shake for their money. in horseracing when you lose every race to the same guy almost half the time, do you think you are getting a fair shot?

[cj]

the way poll question's are asked is usually to get a desired answer. first of all takeout is less today with rebates than it was 40 years ago. so how can that be the number 1 problem.

You keep saying that, but it isn't true for the majority of bettors.

[lamboguy]

You keep saying that, but it isn't true for the majority of bettors.
the majority of bettors don't make up 10% of the handle either. most of the people on this board are big enough bettors to get top rebates. if a guy bets $10k a month i will lead them to a good rebate that will be less takeout than 40 years ago and they don't have to step into a race track if they don't want to.

[PhantomOnTour]

the majority of bettors don't make up 10% of the handle either. most of the people on this board are big enough bettors to get top rebates. if a guy bets $10k a month i will lead them to a good rebate that will be less takeout than 40 years ago and they don't have to step into a race track if they don't want to.
You sure about that?
I don't even begin to approach 10k a month and would venture to say most on this board don't as well...shall we start a poll?
Last year at the Bel summer meet and Sar combined i bet around 25k total (we will NOT discuss what i got back! :( ) which equals about 6.25k a month.
It's an interesting idea for a poll though imo.

[lamboguy]

there is nothing wrong with a smaller bettor. the game needs more of them. there are not enough of any type of bettor these days. i used the $10k number because it is a round number. but i am not saying that a small player is unimportant and should get something. in the last 40 years costs to run a race track have gone up, while the betting handle has gone down along with bottom line hold that a track gets. horseracing needs more business, and what i am saying is that if they just focus on takeout and field sizes the increase of handle will be minimal. the game needs a thorough overhaul. the player organizations seems to focus their efforts on takeout though.

[DJofSD]

The issues of take out and field size are important for those like me -- on the edge or marginal.

I used to live to handicap and bet. Now, I don't care to spend any time making an effort, primarily because I don't like small fields. If I am going to make the effort, spend the time and risk my money, I want it with a field with at least 8 betting interests.

Why 8? Because I believe I have a better chance at finding an overlay, and/or, if I decide to bet into the minor pools, I will receive a decent (not great but decent) return.

If the issue of field size is not corrected then they'll lose me as an active player.