Beyer: Tampa in freefall

[cj]

Long regarded as a minor-league operation, Tampa averaged a stunning $4.57 million per day in wagers.
General manager Peter Berube said that wagering has dropped by about $500,000 a day – an abrupt reversal after years of growth.
Two crucial issues are involved. One is a factor that every handicapper confronts virtually every day. Another is a more corrosive problem that is going to affect most of the U.S. racing industry.
Even the weakest of Ness’s runners go off at low odds, and handicappers ought to relish the prospect of playing against horses who are overbet, but we have all learned this lesson: Don’t. Ness wins regularly when logic suggests he shouldn’t – with horses like Escort.
The real crisis, however, is yet to come: In 2011 the size of the U.S. foal crop plummeted to an estimated 24,900.

http://www.drf.com/news/beyer-tampa-bay-downs-decline-sudden-its-ascension

[thaskalos]

Fewer horses, fewer players, and more "super-trainers".

The unholy trinity that has brought the great game to its knees...

And no capable leadership in sight to effectively deal with these growing concerns.

Pity...

[maddog42]

Shorter fields are coming. Less product. Less betting. Fewer racing days. Probably fewer tracks. This is depressing, but inevitable.

[JBmadera]

With GP in full swing I almost never even look at TAM. Wonder how much the dispute with TVG cost them.

[cj]

Shorter fields are coming. Less product. Less betting. Fewer racing days. Probably fewer tracks. This is depressing, but inevitable.

Inevitable, but probably for the better (bettor, too). 10 or 15 tracks of great fields has to better than 50 tracks that suck.

[Robert Goren]

As long as the tracks can stay afloat by taking slot money for purses, racing will stay alive in some way. It won't be pretty though. This may be a bit of an extreme view, but this is what I see. 4 horse fields of 5k claimers running for purses of 40k with a total pool bet on the race of 35k. That is certainly the direction we are headed.

[carnivalday]

I see it a little differently. I race in Florida, infrequently at Tampa and GP, mostly at Calder. I live in Ocala. Theres TONS of horses here. The issue is not a shortage of horses. Even with a foal crop of 24,000 in 2011, thats still a lot of 2 year olds for 2013. The issue is a shortage of owners.

Ive been offered so many broke 2 year olds its scary. Offered as in, take them, get them to the races, I can't afford it. I did take one, but I can't afford any more, I have 6 horses at Calder and just can't do anymore.

I dont believe its a shortage of horses, I really dont.

[maddog42]

Inevitable, but probably for the better (bettor, too). 10 or 15 tracks of great fields has to better than 50 tracks that suck.
We need to form an elite paramilitary organization to steal equine resources from Europe.
EPOSTER for short. I nominate CJ to head up this noble effort since he has military experience. I will interview Female cadets.

[Robert Goren]

I see it a little differently. I race in Florida, infrequently at Tampa and GP, mostly at Calder. I live in Ocala. Theres TONS of horses here. The issue is not a shortage of horses. Even with a foal crop of 24,000 in 2011, thats still a lot of 2 year olds for 2013. The issue is a shortage of owners.

Ive been offered so many broke 2 year olds its scary. Offered as in, take them, get them to the races, I can't afford it. I did take one, but I can't afford any more, I have 6 horses at Calder and just can't do anymore.

I dont believe its a shortage of horses, I really dont.One thing is for sure, there is shortage of horses being run. Slot-aided purses not have really help that despite all the promises to the contrary.

[David-LV]

Shorter fields are coming. Less product. Less betting. Fewer racing days. Probably fewer tracks. This is depressing, but inevitable.

Inevitable and Irreversible because of the people that run this industry.

_________
David-LV

[Jeff P]

Not mentioned: Higher signal fees this year vs. last.

-jp

.

[cj]

I see it a little differently. I race in Florida, infrequently at Tampa and GP, mostly at Calder. I live in Ocala. Theres TONS of horses here. The issue is not a shortage of horses. Even with a foal crop of 24,000 in 2011, thats still a lot of 2 year olds for 2013. The issue is a shortage of owners.

Ive been offered so many broke 2 year olds its scary. Offered as in, take them, get them to the races, I can't afford it. I did take one, but I can't afford any more, I have 6 horses at Calder and just can't do anymore.

I dont believe its a shortage of horses, I really dont.

I'm sure cost has something to do with it, but the foal crop numbers don't lie.

[Robert Fischer]

With GP in full swing I almost never even look at TAM. Wonder how much the dispute with TVG cost them.

Are they off the TVG menu this meet ?

[cj]

Not mentioned: Higher signal fees this year vs. last.

-jp

.

The effect? Lower rebates I'm guessing? I don't think it lost any of the ADWs, just not on television as often.

[JBmadera]

Are they off the TVG menu this meet ?

No, you can bet via TVG, but they aren't televising/pimping the meet.

[dnlgfnk]

I thought Andy would blame Richard Grunder.

[Robert Fischer]

No, you can bet via TVG, but they aren't televising/pimping the meet.

This is significant.
Add it to the list of problems mentioned in the article.

[classhandicapper]

Inevitable, but probably for the better (bettor, too). 10 or 15 tracks of great fields has to better than 50 tracks that suck.

+1

[cj]

+1

The amazing thing to me is these tracks don't realize they could make so much more money just running a few boutique meets, even one, and just simulcast a much better product from the bigger curcuits the rest of the year.

Yes, the horsemen will suffer, but that is how life works. People in failing businesses lose their jobs every single day. Hell, people in successful businesses do too. The best trainers, jockeys, owners, grooms, vets, they will survive. The game would thrive. Just as the NFL and NBA don't try to have a franchise in 100 cities, why do we need 100 tracks? It just doesn't make sense. With crop sizes going down, contraction is a must.

[Valuist]

The effect? Lower rebates I'm guessing? I don't think it lost any of the ADWs, just not on television as often.

Don't underestimate that. I have hardly touched Tampa this year; lets face it:a computer feed is nowhere as good as watching a race on hi-def TV.

Beyer may be right about Ness, but Ness has been dominant there for a number of years. The biggest new variable is lack of TV exposure.

[lamboguy]

Not mentioned: Higher signal fees this year vs. last.

-jp

.yes, that along with no TVG will put them under the either.

[Marlin]

The amazing thing to me is these tracks don't realize they could make so much more money just running a few boutique meets, even one, and just simulcast a much better product from the bigger curcuits the rest of the year.

Yes, the horsemen will suffer, but that is how life works. People in failing businesses lose their jobs every single day. Hell, people in successful businesses do too. The best trainers, jockeys, owners, grooms, vets, they will survive. The game would thrive. Just as the NFL and NBA don't try to have a franchise in 100 cities, why do we need 100 tracks? It just doesn't make sense. With crop sizes going down, contraction is a must.The tracks absolutely realize it. They have contracts with horsemen to negotiate. They have state laws that require "live" racing in order to simulcast. It's a difficult negotiation.

[turninforhome10]

I agree with the guy that races in FLA. Less owners and less horses to me equals more super trainers with super owners. Getting more owners to come into a game being wrecked by bad publicity and higher and higher cost is the problem here IMHO. Let's give more money to NTRA for marketing, Go Baby Go. (sarcasm).

[cj]

The tracks absolutely realize it. They have contracts with horsemen to negotiate. They have state laws that require "live" racing in order to simulcast. It's a difficult negotiation.

Right, but if someone could actually produce real numbers, show the state they could make MORE money, it would be a lot easier negotiation. Of course the horsemen will fight it, and who wouldn't, but in the end they don't have a leg to stand on. The industry is failing big time with the status quo, time for change.

[Robert Fischer]

The amazing thing to me is these tracks don't realize they could make so much more money just running a few boutique meets, even one, and just simulcast a much better product from the bigger curcuits the rest of the year.

Yes, the horsemen will suffer, but that is how life works. People in failing businesses lose their jobs every single day. Hell, people in successful businesses do too. The best trainers, jockeys, owners, grooms, vets, they will survive. The game would thrive. Just as the NFL and NBA don't try to have a franchise in 100 cities, why do we need 100 tracks? It just doesn't make sense. With crop sizes going down, contraction is a must.

we can avoid THE INEVITABLE! longer than every recognizable major sports betting event if we want to -

but eventually we need to come together with the "major leagues" (the larger corporate franchises aka the "major" tracks) and executive representatives of the majors need to sit at the table with television media broadcast guys.


When an efficient coordinated broadcast effort is the centerpiece.
And when the majors go ALL IN to put out the highest quality "entertainment" product for that media broadcast -


- the MAJORS will thrive in every applicable metric.

Increased churn will not only come from new sources, but also from the "MINORS". Especially during the initial growing period. Some minors will fail.

There are enough quality horses, certainly enough venues, and gloom/doom - or not we have a society that loves to gamble and who gambles on anything put in front of them (from slots to lotto to poker to football / we can't play golf or watch our sons play hs basketball without a friendly wager!!!) - so a television broadcast of our major product in concentrated doses WILL SELL if we put it in front of society and do it in an intelligent, efficient manner.

[/rant]

[Marlin]

Right, but if someone could actually produce real numbers, show the state they could make MORE money, it would be a lot easier negotiation. Of course the horsemen will fight it, and who wouldn't, but in the end they don't have a leg to stand on. The industry is failing big time with the status quo, time for change.I would love to see real numbers. Our perspective from the gambling side is really only part of the equation. There is no question what we would like to see happen. However, I'm not sure the State would so obviously make MORE money. What is the economic impact of live racing for the state's agriculture business? There are many variables. The problem with numbers is the humans that produce them. They always have a dog in the fight.

[ArlJim78]

In my opinion Ness is the big factor. It's just not appealing to jump into a race or sequence of races where he has horses entered.

[cj]

I would love to see real numbers. Our perspective from the gambling side is really only part of the equation. There is no question what we would like to see happen. However, I'm not sure the State would so obviously make MORE money. What is the economic impact of live racing for the state's agriculture business? There are many variables. The problem with numbers is the humans that produce them. They always have a dog in the fight.

Of course, but it really isn't that hard here. The game is bleeding money. It is being supported in many places because of slots. If it weren't for them, it would be gone already. It isn't hard to prove the state can make more money without racing, or with substantially less, than it can with it.

It really is simple. If handle can't support the game on its own, it is a bad deal for everyone. The economic impact on the state is greatly exaggerated in my opinion, but I am no expert there.

[jelly]

Are they off the TVG menu this meet ?



HRTV carrys Tampa bay.

[Cardus]

Regarding the foal crop size: what percentage of foals make it to the races (meaning even one race)?

Has there been an increasing percentage of foals who do not make it to the races, or has the percentage been steady for the last (five, 10, 20) years?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Wasn't tjhere an average of 50,000 foals in the 70's that got down to 35,000 in the late 90's and now gulp,24,000?

That inspires immediate anxiety and depression in me about the game we love so much.Tracks are going to have to close and stock consolidated.

[cj]

Regarding the foal crop size: what percentage of foals make it to the races (meaning even one race)?

Has there been an increasing percentage of foals who do not make it to the races, or has the percentage been steady for the last (five, 10, 20) years?

I can't imagine it has gotten any better. If anything, we have more cheap horses being bred due to slots in at least a few states.

[Valuist]

In my opinion Ness is the big factor. It's just not appealing to jump into a race or sequence of races where he has horses entered.

Ness has been dominating at Tampa for several years now. The handle had been growing, up until this year.

[cj]

Ness has been dominating at Tampa for several years now. The handle had been growing, up until this year.

He has, but this year is a new level.

[Robert Fischer]

HRTV carrys Tampa bay.

thx. My cable package has HRTV w/o TVG.

[Robert Fischer]

He has, but this year is a new level.

right, and also any negative factors will generally have a cumulative effect.
The loss of handle is acutely affected by a supertrainer "ruining" some races in a horseplayer's analysis. Then you have many others who play and dissatisfied with their odds and results, look elsewhere. Can't forget the chalk eaters who now are betting a lot to win a very little - which is a general "pool type", where the dynamics of the pool "behave" in a pattern(somewhat common with supertrainers) that is different than a more balanced race.
With these "walkovers" more people find another track to play. Momentum.

[Cardus]

I can't imagine it has gotten any better. If anything, we have more cheap horses being bred due to slots in at least a few states.

I doubt it, too, but I do not have the numbers.

And I agree with your second sentence.

[FenceBored]

Regarding the foal crop size: what percentage of foals make it to the races (meaning even one race)?

Has there been an increasing percentage of foals who do not make it to the races, or has the percentage been steady for the last (five, 10, 20) years?

According to the Bloodhorse, the percentage of foals who do make it to the track has been increasing (at least up until the early 2000s).
Also, the percentage of starters from foals has tracked upward since the '70s. Overall, the starters from named foals increased to 78.6% for the 2000-03 foals, up from 70.3% in the '70s.
-- Losing the Iron Horse (http://i.bloodhorse.com/downloads/special-reports/pdfs/IronHorseSummary.pdf), p 2 of the pdf.

[Tom]

He has, but this year is a new level.

46% winners, 65% exacta finishes.
16% profit on win bets.

[ArlJim78]

Ness has been dominating at Tampa for several years now. The handle had been growing, up until this year.
it seems to be worse now, or maybe more people are just tired of it by now.
What is your theory as to why their handle has plunged then?

[toussaud]

the three factors killing TAM are no TVG which is huge IMHO.. they don't have ANY network covering their races, ness is doing his best Calbrese impression at tampa bay, making races toxic to touch, and you can schedule around gulfstream all you want but people want to play gulfstream when gulfstream is running. i am one of the few that plays TAM over gulfstream but you can't expect everyone to do that. it's not even about watching the races, if you are going to handicap races you aren't going to do so for 2 tracks you are going to pick 1 track and guess which is going to win.

the BIGGEST issue IMHO though is ness. a cheating trainer liek that will kill a track faster than anything. when you handicap a card and now half the races just aren't playable at all because you can't trust the horse but you can't bet him at 3/5, i can just find another track.

[cj]

they don't have ANY network covering their races,

HRTV covers Tampa sometimes.

[Valuist]

it seems to be worse now, or maybe more people are just tired of it by now.
What is your theory as to why their handle has plunged then?

The biggest reason is lack of TV coverage. I know you can get their feed via computer but I admit my Tampa handle is way down from last year. Out of sight, out of mind, and out of the mutual windows.

I guess in other years, Ness's horses would be 3-2 to 2-1 where now they are probably 1-2.

It also seems their field sizes are down. Gulfstream, Fair Grounds, Oaklawn and Santa Anita just seem to present better opportunities.

[OTM Al]

the three factors killing TAM are no TVG which is huge IMHO.. they don't have ANY network covering their races, ness is doing his best Calbrese impression at tampa bay, making races toxic to touch, and you can schedule around gulfstream all you want but people want to play gulfstream when gulfstream is running. i am one of the few that plays TAM over gulfstream but you can't expect everyone to do that. it's not even about watching the races, if you are going to handicap races you aren't going to do so for 2 tracks you are going to pick 1 track and guess which is going to win.

the BIGGEST issue IMHO though is ness. a cheating trainer liek that will kill a track faster than anything. when you handicap a card and now half the races just aren't playable at all because you can't trust the horse but you can't bet him at 3/5, i can just find another track.

Going to be a bit of a contrarian here admittedly, but weren't they supposed to be making gains again this year because once again they dropped their take? I can see the fields size problem but if we are to accept that, then CA thinking they could get bigger fields at the cost of raising the take suddenly doesn't sound so stupid (abstracting from the fact that there weren't bigger fields to attract for the moment). The method may have been misguided, but if this is the case, then they were at least trying to do the right thing. Just something to think about when looking at these arguments. Personally I'm going to chalk a percentage of it up to the GP early open as well.

[toussaud]

Going to be a bit of a contrarian here admittedly, but weren't they supposed to be making gains again this year because once again they dropped their take? I can see the fields size problem but if we are to accept that, then CA thinking they could get bigger fields at the cost of raising the take suddenly doesn't sound so stupid (abstracting from the fact that there weren't bigger fields to attract for the moment). The method may have been misguided, but if this is the case, then they were at least trying to do the right thing. Just something to think about when looking at these arguments. Personally I'm going to chalk a percentage of it up to the GP early open as well.

kinda along that same train of thought, what really scares me as a bettor is that the suits will take a gotcha politic view point of this and say 'see, takeout doesn't matter, raise away!"


The normal bettor does not... what they like are full fields with spayouts in somewhat handicapable fields. That's like the handicappers mission statement.

Most, don't' care how you achieve this. If you are able to make more money on your end while still giving me my good payouts, full fields and somewhat handicapped races, then a tip of the hat. Gulfstream can tax the shit out of their fan base because they have 15 horses damn near in eveyr other race and it's the best of hte best so no trainer can come down there and just dominate. they can do that.

I personally play socal tracks about 80% of my wagers. I know the circuit better than any other and what i miss in pay offs I make up by my strike rate. It's not even a comparison how well I do in socal versus other tracks, maybe outside of fair grounds, I do quite well there too. So it some what makes up for the short fields, if i have a very good idea of what is going to happen and i know the trainers and the jockeys all very well.\

right now, tampa doesn't have AS full fields,l though still better than avg, the races aren't very handicappable and the amounts that are being won aren't close to what they were last year. last year I had a few double digit winners on the turf course there. This year i won't touch a race that has a ness horse in it so I generally end up just not playing.



Here is another peeve of mine about Tampa Bay.. they don't card enough turf races. I only play turf races down there. they only usually card 2 or 3 a day in a 10 or 11 card day. They need to take monre advantage of that turf course

[Cardus]

the three factors killing TAM are no TVG which is huge IMHO.. they don't have ANY network covering their races, ness is doing his best Calbrese impression at tampa bay, making races toxic to touch, and you can schedule around gulfstream all you want but people want to play gulfstream when gulfstream is running. i am one of the few that plays TAM over gulfstream but you can't expect everyone to do that. it's not even about watching the races, if you are going to handicap races you aren't going to do so for 2 tracks you are going to pick 1 track and guess which is going to win.

the BIGGEST issue IMHO though is ness. a cheating trainer liek that will kill a track faster than anything. when you handicap a card and now half the races just aren't playable at all because you can't trust the horse but you can't bet him at 3/5, i can just find another track.

Agreed: it would be a bit much to expect everyone to adopt your behavior.

[lamboguy]

Going to be a bit of a contrarian here admittedly, but weren't they supposed to be making gains again this year because once again they dropped their take? I can see the fields size problem but if we are to accept that, then CA thinking they could get bigger fields at the cost of raising the take suddenly doesn't sound so stupid (abstracting from the fact that there weren't bigger fields to attract for the moment). The method may have been misguided, but if this is the case, then they were at least trying to do the right thing. Just something to think about when looking at these arguments. Personally I'm going to chalk a percentage of it up to the GP early open as well.
as things go today, takeout means hardly anything. for people that bet big money ITS LOWER THAN ITS EVER BEEN. but as far as TAMPA goes, they have as high a takeout after rebate as NEW YORK does. TAMPA is not in the same league as NEW YORK.

[RXB]

Here is another peeve of mine about Tampa Bay.. they don't card enough turf races. I only play turf races down there. they only usually card 2 or 3 a day in a 10 or 11 card day. They need to take monre advantage of that turf course

They run on it for five full months. What would you like them to do: shred it to pieces?

They have an excellent grass course, they maintain it well and they use it appropriately.

[NJ Stinks]

Lots of TB is on HRTV and I don't mind watching the race on the computer if it's not.

Anyway, I look to Gulfstream and TB first this time of year. Only the Ness factor keeps me from playing TB races during the day.

[phattty]

tampa resident here.....2.7 miles from the track......daily customer om track for along time....but not this year, went 1st 6 weeks daily, but no magic for me this year

field size was always a draw for me, but its just not there this year

who wants to wade into a DD pool where there are 2 0r 3 single digits payouts showing on the board

Ness another problem as your always between the scat and the sweat when debating your plays in his races...i'm not a spread type player so i've been eliminated from most of their races
\
i guess if there are enough modest $200-$300daily players like me, it adds up quickly

[appistappis]

They should run monday and tuesday.

[TravisVOX]

The tracks absolutely realize it. They have contracts with horsemen to negotiate. They have state laws that require "live" racing in order to simulcast. It's a difficult negotiation.

Yup. And among those, who doesn't mind it when there are five horses in a race?

[TravisVOX]

I posted this on the DRF article as a comment, but I wish Tampa would allow more than ten horses / race on the grass for all races, not just the big ones. Ten horses at Tampa often includes one or two auto-tosses, at which point you're effectively looking at an eight horse field in the bulk of the pools.

The harsh reality though is that Tampa is a microcosm of the challenges most racetracks are starting to face around the country.

[affirmedny]

There would be enough horses if they ran every week or two like they used to. They don't. This is as big a factor as any of the ones mentioned here.

[BIG49010]

In my opinion the purses at Tampa suck, and always have, from an owners / trainers point of view. So many horses run at a higher claiming tag then they should. A trainer like Ness, runs them where they can win, and so it is even easier this year to win.

The other difference I think Ness is having on trainers this year is 2nd money won't cover the bills anymore, and winning is next to impossible in some spots, so get them fit over the good surface and ship to Hawthorne, Laurel, Big - A or GP .

[olddaddy]

I dont understand why they dont run them at night. Not much competition at night. The could run monday and tues during the day and the rest night cards. The should stay away from competing with the big daddy's.

[toussaud]

I dont understand why they dont run them at night. Not much competition at night. The could run monday and tues during the day and the rest night cards. The should stay away from competing with the big daddy's.
it's illegal in the state of florida to run a horse race after 6pm


i do agree they need to race on monday and tuesday.

[Shankapotamus]

Long time viewer of this forum (I've learned tons about the sport from the varied opinions I've read here). First time posting an opinion so please be kind!

The "super-trainer" has posed an enormous problem for me in recent years. Ever since my introduction into handicapping, my focus has always been on finding a bad favorite. Find a bad favorite and every other horse is a potential overlay, right? This method of handicapping worked for me for years. Being a modest better ($20 win/place typically), I needed to look for value.

In recent years, as more and more super-trainers dominate the landscape, I find so many situations cropping up that used to be profitable for me that are no longer viable. I used to drool over horses moving up in class after a win that was below par for the class, with sub-par pace figures etc. When a horse like that was overbet I would find and cash a value bet. Now, that move-up with average at best figures gets collared on the turn, the jock is losing ground while pumping like mad, and I'm walking to the window with my win ticket on the horse cruising to the lead in hand. Sure enough, the "bad favorite" (trainer by a 35% guy) finds another gear, re-breaks and I get beat.

I guess its my fault for not adapting, but its so frustrating. And I'm betting less now than ever.

One other point that I think is having a negative effect is the purse structure at some tracks (mostly slot-fueled) relative to claiming prices. When $5000 or $7500 horses are running for $20,000 purses or more, the larger outfits can claim and drop immediately (especially in states without the "jail" rule) and still make a hefty profit on the transaction. These races are also unbettable to the small guy like me.

I wish I had the answer; I love this game and I'm scared to death about its prospects.

[maddog42]

Long time viewer of this forum (I've learned tons about the sport from the varied opinions I've read here). First time posting an opinion so please be kind!

The "super-trainer" has posed an enormous problem for me in recent years. Ever since my introduction into handicapping, my focus has always been on finding a bad favorite. Find a bad favorite and every other horse is a potential overlay, right? This method of handicapping worked for me for years. Being a modest better ($20 win/place typically), I needed to look for value.

In recent years, as more and more super-trainers dominate the landscape, I find so many situations cropping up that used to be profitable for me that are no longer viable. I used to drool over horses moving up in class after a win that was below par for the class, with sub-par pace figures etc. When a horse like that was overbet I would find and cash a value bet. Now, that move-up with average at best figures gets collared on the turn, the jock is losing ground while pumping like mad, and I'm walking to the window with my win ticket on the horse cruising to the lead in hand. Sure enough, the "bad favorite" (trainer by a 35% guy) finds another gear, re-breaks and I get beat.

I guess its my fault for not adapting, but its so frustrating. And I'm betting less now than ever.

One other point that I think is having a negative effect is the purse structure at some tracks (mostly slot-fueled) relative to claiming prices. When $5000 or $7500 horses are running for $20,000 purses or more, the larger outfits can claim and drop immediately (especially in states without the "jail" rule) and still make a hefty profit on the transaction. These races are also unbettable to the small guy like me.

I wish I had the answer; I love this game and I'm scared to death about its prospects.

Good post Shank. There will be at least 10 people reading this, in the same
boat.

[lamboguy]

from a handicapping perspective your concern's are very warranted. from a perspective of owning race tracks and people that make a living working in the horse business, the outlook is very grim.

when you look at the super-trainer's or more realistic super- owner's, they are buying wins with money. i cannot assume that illegal substances are being used until someone shows me the proof. what i do see are large owners that are controlling the game now. its the same as CVS and WALLMART. at first those stores knocked out their competition with lower prices. now walk into those places and its an out and out stick up. its really the same in any form of business these days all over the world. its great for the people that own the shops, but bad for the people that shop in them. its the same in the racing game, and i haven't really got a clue how to change this.

[cj]

The biggest problem with these super trainers is that people would much prefer to actually base bets on horses, not people.

[Valuist]

Maybe the quick ascension the past few years, as mentioned by Beyer, was never really warranted. The quality really has never been better than average. Like their turf course but why the limit of 10 starters? If one likes betting M12500 races and open 5000 races, Tampa is a great track. They've always been light years behind Gulfstream in terms of quality, but have they ever been better than Oaklawn or Fair Grounds? IMO they never have.

[AndyC]

I see it a little differently. I race in Florida, infrequently at Tampa and GP, mostly at Calder. I live in Ocala. Theres TONS of horses here. The issue is not a shortage of horses. Even with a foal crop of 24,000 in 2011, thats still a lot of 2 year olds for 2013. The issue is a shortage of owners.

Ive been offered so many broke 2 year olds its scary. Offered as in, take them, get them to the races, I can't afford it. I did take one, but I can't afford any more, I have 6 horses at Calder and just can't do anymore.

I dont believe its a shortage of horses, I really dont.

There is a shortage of owners for a big reason, the economics of ownership simply doesn't work. Also many of the owners from the past who would buy horses for the ego boost aren't buying either because it's not much of an ego trip running your horse in front of 500 fans. So that leaves one group left to own horses, those who love the game who also have excess cash flow. That subset is dwindling fast.

[JustRalph]

The biggest problem with these super trainers is that people would much prefer to actually base bets on horses, not people.

Exactly right. Many times in the last few years I found myself capping a race and then going back just to then cap the personalities involved

That's a whole different game

[5k-claim]

Quote "A"Yes, the horsemen will suffer, but that is how life works. People in failing businesses lose their jobs every single day. Hell, people in successful businesses do too. The best trainers, jockeys, owners, grooms, vets, they will survive. The game would thrive. Just as the NFL and NBA don't try to have a franchise in 100 cities, why do we need 100 tracks? It just doesn't make sense. With crop sizes going down, contraction is a must.

Quote "B"The biggest problem with these super trainers is that people would much prefer to actually base bets on horses, not people.

Question: Quote A + Quote B = ?? (Crystal Ball)


What exactly do you mean by "best" trainers in the first quote? The ones (even from small stables) who bring well intended, non-drugged up horses to the races contributing to competitive fields and good betting opportunities? Isn't that what all of the handicappers/bettors really want at the end of the day?

Or does "best" maybe just describe those financially and logistically positioned to stay afloat and continue grabbing from a smaller and smaller pool of owners into the shrinking future?

I know you guys do not believe me, but I am just saying... be careful what you wish for. If you think a handicapping world offering a better wagering product is patiently sitting there, waiting just the other side of glorious contraction and less variety... well, be careful. The fewer the number of trainers and owners, the larger the percentage of 'super trainers'. And the more powerful they will be. (If you think penalties are lenient now...)

You want more trainers and owners to exist. Not less.

.

[PurplePower]

Oh yeah - we don't care if the horsemen suffer! But, we damn sure better not stop paying rebates and letting professional horseplayers suffer! I say stop all rebates. Let those that can only make a profit if they get a rebate suffer!

(Not a good business plan either way IMHO! I agree that we have too much racing. Some tracks should close and most of the "year round" tracks would be better off if they cut their dates significantly, even though some horsemen would cry and "suffer".

But, the sad epitaphs of our sport will be, "They screwed the ___________". Just pick a group to put in the blank: Track operators, horsemen, professional horseplayers, casual horseplayers. )

[cj]

Oh yeah - we don't care if the horsemen suffer! But, we damn sure better not stop paying rebates and letting professional horseplayers suffer! I say stop all rebates. Let those that can only make a profit if they get a rebate suffer!

(Not a good business plan either way IMHO! I agree that we have too much racing. Some tracks should close and most of the "year round" tracks would be better off if they cut their dates significantly, even though some horsemen would cry and "suffer".

But, the sad epitaphs of our sport will be, "They screwed the ___________". Just pick a group to put in the blank: Track operators, horsemen, professional horseplayers, casual horseplayers. )

I'm not sure what your point is if you agree there is too much racing. How is this remotely related to rebates?

[thaskalos]

I know you guys do not believe me, but I am just saying... be careful what you wish for. If you think a handicapping world offering a better wagering product is patiently sitting there, waiting just the other side of glorious contraction and less variety... well, be careful. The fewer the number of trainers and owners, the larger the percentage of 'super trainers'. And the more powerful they will be. (If you think penalties are lenient now...)

You want more trainers and owners to exist. Not less.

.

No, my friend...we do NOT necessarily want "more trainers and owners to exist". We want larger fields and bigger wagering pools to exist! That's what the "handicapping world" hinges on.

What we have right now are tiny fields at the major tracks, where the pools are decent...while the bigger fields are at the MINOR tracks...where the pools are so small, a bettor can't place a decent wager without wrecking his own odds.

It's a business plan that only a fool would seek to implement...

[OTM Al]

No, my friend...we do NOT necessarily want "more trainers and owners to exist". We want larger fields and bigger wagering pools to exist! That's what the "handicapping world" hinges on.

What we have right now are tiny fields at the major tracks, where the pools are decent...while the bigger fields are at the MINOR tracks...where the pools are so small, a bettor can't place a decent wager without wrecking his own odds.

It's a business plan that only a fool would seek to implement...

Did you read what you wrote? You say we want bigger fields and bigger pools and then say where there are big fields the pools are small as well as the reverse. Could almost buy your logic if both things were set at the same time, but clearly the fields are set well before the pools are opened, players are the ones that determine the size of the pools, and they are choosing to play more heavily, according to you, where the fields are smaller, thus contradicting yourself.

I'll go with more owners anyway. That means a larger demand for horses and thus more horses around to run everywhere.

[cj]

Did you read what you wrote? You say we want bigger fields and bigger pools and then say where there are big fields the pools are small as well as the reverse. Could almost buy your logic if both things were set at the same time, but clearly the fields are set well before the pools are opened, players are the ones that determine the size of the pools, and they are choosing to play more heavily, according to you, where the fields are smaller, thus contradicting yourself.

I'll go with more owners anyway. That means a larger demand for horses and thus more horses around to run everywhere.
Big fields of quality horses. Many of those horses would not be around any longer if not for the plethora of silly conditions these days.

[OTM Al]

Big fields of quality horses. Many of those horses would not be around any longer if not for the plethora of silly conditions these days.

Then you are going to need even more breeding and more owners if you want to cut off that much of the lower tail and still have any sort of product.

[thaskalos]

Did you read what you wrote? You say we want bigger fields and bigger pools and then say where there are big fields the pools are small as well as the reverse. Could almost buy your logic if both things were set at the same time, but clearly the fields are set well before the pools are opened, players are the ones that determine the size of the pools, and they are choosing to play more heavily, according to you, where the fields are smaller, thus contradicting yourself.

I'll go with more owners anyway. That means a larger demand for horses and thus more horses around to run everywhere.
Yes Al...I read what I wrote.

Most people wouldn't bet a penny on the night tracks, where the fields are full...and I don't blame them. I can only assume that you don't have the betting experience that you pretend you do...otherwise you would know that already.

What good are the full fields at Delta Downs, Evangeline, or Penn National...where the racing is as crooked as a dog's hind legs?

Thanks for responding to my post though...

[RXB]

Big fields of quality horses. Many of those horses would not be around any longer if not for the plethora of silly conditions these days.

Silly conditions, and state-bred subsidies. Horse farms are available at firesale prices all over Kentucky; meanwhile Indiana-breds, Iowa-breds, NM-breds, etc. run in closed company for purses that have no basis in reality as far as their actual quality is concerned. State-bred plugs are sucking so much money out of the game, it's ridiculous.

[cj]

Then you are going to need even more breeding and more owners if you want to cut off that much of the lower tail and still have any sort of product.
Not really if there is contraction. There is a lot of bad breeding going on these days because of subsidies. It wasn't that long ago that places like Laurel, Monmouth, and the Fair Grounds NEVER ran a conditioned claimer, let alone the top tracks.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I know that the status quo isn't one of them.

[Robert Fischer]

the good tracks need to go on tv

and only show the good horses
double or in some cases almost triple the field size and quadruple the purse with added incentives for large pools. The owners and trainers will make MORE money.

the cheaper stock can run off-tv at cheaper tracks. Else breed for quality, cull the herd, and RUN horses more/longer.

[OTM Al]

Not really if there is contraction. There is a lot of bad breeding going on these days because of subsidies. It wasn't that long ago that places like Laurel, Monmouth, and the Fair Grounds NEVER ran a conditioned claimer, let alone the top tracks.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I know that the status quo isn't one of them.

I also know the so called good old days weren't as good as people make them out to be. There never were full fields of great horses. Want an example? I happen to have the program for August 16th, 1941, as published by the Saratoga Association. Now surely in such a golden age in such a golden place, if it ever existed, it would have been then. It was Travers Day as well and Triple Crown winner Whirlaway was running in the Travers, scheduled as the 6th race on an 8 race card

Race 1 NW$Y Allowance Steeplechase. 6 horses
Race 2 NW1X 2yo. 8 horses
Race 3 Maiden 3up. 6 horses
Race 4 NW1X 2yo. 7 horses (this did actually draw well as 2 and 4 were split of same condition)
Race 5 Stakes, the Spinaway. 7 betting intrests after scratches (1 coupled entry)
Race 6 Stakes, the Travers. 3 horses (Whirlaway gave 18 lbs to two overmatched opponents)
Race 7 Handicap (Class C, whatever that is but it doesn't sound great) 9 horses, biggest field of the day
Race 8 Claimer, NW1M essentially, 7 horses

Saratoga's biggest day back in the golden age of racing and that's it. This looks no better than it does now, matter of fact it looks worse.

So are things really that much worse? Well written conditions are good things and make for a more competitive product.

[OTM Al]

Yes Al...I read what I wrote.

Most people wouldn't bet a penny on the night tracks, where the fields are full...and I don't blame them. I can only assume that you don't have the betting experience that you pretend you do...otherwise you would know that already.

What good are the full fields at Delta Downs, Evangeline, or Penn National...where the racing is as crooked as a dog's hind legs?

Thanks for responding to my post though...

I don't play night tracks but know people who do and do quite well with them. I don't do well with the condidtions they generally run there, so that is why I avoid them. If I understood how to play claimers better, then I would be playing them from time to time. But you said nothing about tracks with full fields being "crooked", so your original argument still contradicts itself.

[cj]

Nobody was really talking about big days. If you think the quality and field sizes today are comparable to even 20 years ago, you are mistaken.

[OTM Al]

Nobody was really talking about big days. If you think the quality and field sizes today are comparable to even 20 years ago, you are mistaken.

Quality I'll argue as horses had less conditions to run in and thus were forced to run above the level they do today and would have then if the choice was available. If no maiden claimers were run on the turf, for a well known example, then you could only run in MSWs regardless of what the quality was. And what's the big hang up on quality anyway? Is it a better betting race if they hit the 6f in 1:10 rather than 1:14?

And of course fields sizes were in general bigger. The crop was bigger and they ran more frequently. It was bigger because they had more owners. My point was that it wasn't like every day had 12 races with 14 starters which, while an exaggeration, is what so many seem to imply. And shouldn't a big day have been even bigger back when by its very nature? Can you imagine what would be posted here if the Travers was a 3 horse field this year?

[cj]

Quality I'll argue as horses had less conditions to run in and thus were forced to run above the level they do today and would have then if the choice was available. If no maiden claimers were run on the turf, for a well known example, then you could only run in MSWs regardless of what the quality was. And what's the big hang up on quality anyway? Is it a better betting race if they hit the 6f in 1:10 rather than 1:14?



I would disagree again. I've been following the game for over 30 years now. There was a very clear pattern. The bad horses of the past wound up running at Charles Town, or Erie Downs, or Penn, or Finger Lakes.

For example, horses in Maryland that couldn't win shipped to Charles Town. If they broke their maiden in Maryland, but couldn't win again after competing in open claiming races, they went to conditioned claimers...at Charles Town.

Horse that couldn't win at CharlesTown would end up at Waterford (now Mountaineer), or be done. There is no longer a clear cut hierarchy because of slots fueled purses. The best claiming horses are no longer at the best circuits. Sure, the best stakes horses are still there, but if they can't compete at the top levels, they leave.

Those claiming horses are now siphoned off to places where nobody cares or bets. Places like Delta Downs and CharlesTown and Finger Lakes have very bad reputations from shenanigans of the past. Maybe they don't deserve that reputation any longer, maybe they do, but perception is reality. What this leaves us with is few claiming horses and bad statebreds. If it weren't for the statebreds entering open claimers in New York there might not be any claiming races left.

It would be the equivalent of Major League baseball having all the all stars, and then a bunch of single A players filling out the rosters. All the 270 avg, 15 HR hitters were in Double and Triple A. Overall, the quality of the product has dropped at the big tracks. I don't even think it is a debate.

[OTM Al]

I would disagree again. I've been following the game for over 30 years now. There was a very clear pattern. The bad horses of the past wound up running at Charles Town, or Erie Downs, or Penn, or Finger Lakes.

For example, horses in Maryland that couldn't win shipped to Charles Town. If they broke their maiden in Maryland, but couldn't win again after competing in open claiming races, they went to conditioned claimers...at Charles Town.

Horse that couldn't win at CharlesTown would end up at Waterford (now Mountaineer), or be done. There is no longer a clear cut hierarchy because of slots fueled purses. The best claiming horses are no longer at the best circuits. Sure, the best stakes horses are still there, but if they can't compete at the top levels, they leave.

Those claiming horses are now siphoned off to places where nobody cares or bets. Places like Delta Downs and CharlesTown and Finger Lakes have very bad reputations from shenanigans of the past. Maybe they don't deserve that reputation any longer, maybe they do, but perception is reality. What this leaves us with is few claiming horses and bad statebreds. If it weren't for the statebreds entering open claimers in New York there might not be any claiming races left.

It would be the equivalent of Major League baseball having all the all stars, and then a bunch of single A players filling out the rosters. All the 270 avg, 15 HR hitters were in Double and Triple A. Overall, the quality of the product has dropped at the big tracks. I don't even think it is a debate.

Ok, this is not what I was saying. I thought you were speaking of overall quality. Of course the big tracks have suffered when the small ones got slots. People are going to go where they can get the paycheck. My point was that on a big circuit, horses were still apt to be taking shots in conditions that today they wouldn't touch because the lower conditions weren't around for them there. Of course they would move on eventually in most cases, but it doesn't mean that 20,000 claimers (or inflation adjusted equivalents) were better 20 years ago if there was nowhere lower to drop. Probably had many races half filled with junk like Monmouth 2 summers ago, but not quite for the same reason.

[cj]

Ok, this is not what I was saying. I thought you were speaking of overall quality. Of course the big tracks have suffered when the small ones got slots. People are going to go where they can get the paycheck. My point was that on a big circuit, horses were still apt to be taking shots in conditions that today they wouldn't touch because the lower conditions weren't around for them there. Of course they would move on eventually in most cases, but it doesn't mean that 20,000 claimers (or inflation adjusted equivalents) were better 20 years ago if there was nowhere lower to drop. Probably had many races half filled with junk like Monmouth 2 summers ago, but not quite for the same reason.

It was different. Horses were weeded out. Sure, there were some junk horses, but they didn't stick around because they couldn't earn any money. A very good 10,000 horse in Maryland would rarely have any shot at all in a 14,000 race in New York. Come to think of it, neither would a very good 14k horse in Maryland.

[Linny]

In my opinion Ness is the big factor. It's just not appealing to jump into a race or sequence of races where he has horses entered.

Ness is a factor on many levels. New owners see his record and send horses to him, multplying his impact. He can essentially run the racing office and "write" the condition book.

Last year I did Delaware for a while. I'd done well there in the past. Between Ness and McMahon and Dutrow I found few decent betting races.

[Robert Goren]

It was different. Horses were weeded out. Sure, there were some junk horses, but they didn't stick around because they couldn't earn any money. A very good 10,000 horse in Maryland would rarely have any shot at all in a 14,000 race in New York. Come to think of it, neither would a very good 14k horse in Maryland. neither would a very good 20,000 horse in Maryland.

[cj]

neither would a very good 20,000 horse in Maryland.

I'm talking about how things were. Horses could move up the ladder in Maryland when the racing was better. New York was just better at all levels.

[PurplePower]

I'm not sure what your point is if you agree there is too much racing. How is this remotely related to rebates?
CJ, I almost deleted this entire post because it was discombobulated, but I argued myself into pressing submit.

Here is how I related too much racing and rebates. It is easy for horseplayers to say, "so what if horsemen suffer", the good will survive.

However, on this forum and others there is an argument that horseplayers need rebates to survive (usually referring to Megaptera novaeangliae). I cross fired this discussion with the other one I read regarding the "whale" in Australia that "took down" one of the tote companies.

My point was that if we can argue that the good horsemen will survive if we cut back on racing, can't we argue that the "good" horseplayers will survive if we cut back on rebates?

Regardless, rebates are not germane to this thread. Apologies to the chair.

[cj]

CJ, I almost deleted this entire post because it was discombobulated, but I argued myself into pressing submit.

Here is how I related too much racing and rebates. It is easy for horseplayers to say, "so what if horsemen suffer", the good will survive.

However, on this forum and others there is an argument that horseplayers need rebates to survive (usually referring to Megaptera novaeangliae). I cross fired this discussion with the other one I read regarding the "whale" in Australia that "took down" one of the tote companies.

My point was that if we can argue that the good horsemen will survive if we cut back on racing, can't we argue that the "good" horseplayers will survive if we cut back on rebates?

Regardless, rebates are not germane to this thread. Apologies to the chair.

All good, you just lost me. I'm not a big proponent of rebates, never have been.

[CincyHorseplayer]

That's it.I just got done looking at Tampa's card for Sunday.I can't take it anymore.Why is there all of the sudden a rash of 5.5 furlong races when they have that nice long chute?I hate those races,it screams of cheap and minor league.And as I said on another thread I'm just catching up to some of your hatred of Jamie Ness.If you don't hate him I do.This is getting ridiculous.Not only do they improve 10 or more speed points within 2 starts,their pace figures go waay,waaay up.I saw 2 turf horses today who had 4f and 6f pace figures of 100+ and 90+ and never did that.And what's even worse is that even if they were semi versatile at times,all of the sudden they can do anything,no matter what age.They can close from 7 lengths back.Lay 2-3 back and run by.Or even closers can all of the sudden go wire to wire.Plus I saw 2 separate entries between Sat and Sun and when the two horses were acquired,within 10 starts combined they had at least 6 wins.the one race where I think I can beat a Ness horse,said horse has top fig at 6f going route,I bet they can do that in their sleep too.That's BS.

[Track Phantom]

it's illegal in the state of florida to run a horse race after 6pm

Why is that? If that is true...it is absurd.

[JustRalph]

Why is that? If that is true...it is absurd.

I think it's illegal to run a Thoroughbred race after 6p

Same in Ohio I believe.

[OTM Al]

I think it's illegal to run a Thoroughbred race after 6p

Same in Ohio I believe.

No night racing in NY either.

Protectionism for harness racing here would be my guess but could be wrong.

[JustRalph]

No night racing in NY either.

Protectionism for harness racing here would be my guess but could be wrong.

That's the reason in Ohio too......... :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Politics, not common sense.
Politics is always the stupid decision.

If harness can't compete, we do not need harness.

[Canarsie]

Perhaps the most important is that if Florida changes a law that prohibits night-time Thoroughbred racing, the Florida HPBA will allow Gulfstream to hold races up until 9 p.m. on two weekdays each week. Under the contract, racing after 7 p.m. would not be permitted on weekends at Gulfstream.


http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/61392/gulfstream-signs-agreement-with-fhbpa


I really don't think it was for protecting the harness side as there is only one track. But when it was probably signed Jai Lai and dog racing were peaking at popularity. When I was a teenager you actually had to reserve a seat at Danai Jai Lai if you wanted to get in on the weekend.

Plenty of people even went to the Dog Tracks including the now defunct one in South Beach. They mainly ran at night with maybe three matinees during the week.

Also Hialeah was the premier winter track and Tropical Park was still around. Calder was probably an afterthought when the bill was written but I can't state that with 100% accuracy.

[highnote]

It is ironic that "super trainers" are allowed to run at a track even though they are seen as a cause to the decline in handle because they chase away betting dollars, but a large rebate shop that can add to the handle is not allowed to receive the signal!

Earth to Management -- can you hear me? Is there anyone there? Management -- can you hear me? Management... come in, Management.

[depalma113]

Tampa should start racing at 10am on Saturdays. They would have 2 - 2 1/2 hours of exclusivity. By the time the other tracks were opening, they would be on to their stakes races. Their handle would increase dramatically, super trainers or not.

[lamboguy]

Tampa should start racing at 10am on Saturdays. They would have 2 - 2 1/2 hours of exclusivity. By the time the other tracks were opening, they would be on to their stakes races. Their handle would increase dramatically, super trainers or not.
*
does this mean that you would like the horses to take a back seat in the name of doing a bigger handle? you probably want to skip all training of horses on saturdays during the tampa meet. you must want the horses to sit in their stalls and tie up so they can't run in the afternoon.

i don't think you understand that it takes track maintenance at least 2 hours to get the track ready after the horses train in the morning. you would have to stop training around 7:30 in the morning in order to get the track open by 10. there aren't enough exercise riders to get all the horses out in the 2 hours that they would have to train them. there aren't enough grooms to bath rub and bandage up all these horses at one.

[Striker]

Tampa should start racing at 10am on Saturdays. They would have 2 - 2 1/2 hours of exclusivity. By the time the other tracks were opening, they would be on to their stakes races. Their handle would increase dramatically, super trainers or not.
What would that do to the handle coming in from anywhere from the Midwest to the Pacific time zones though? 9am start time in the Midwest and 7am start on the West coast.

[affirmedny]

It is ironic that "super trainers" are allowed to run at a track even though they are seen as a cause to the decline in handle because they chase away betting dollars, but a large rebate shop that can add to the handle is not allowed to receive the signal!

Earth to Management -- can you hear me? Is there anyone there? Management -- can you hear me? Management... come in, Management.

This is a track that banned a bunch of jockeys for something that was never proven (at least for some of them).

[toussaud]

What would that do to the handle coming in from anywhere from the Midwest to the Pacific time zones though? 9am start time in the Midwest and 7am start on the West coast.
lol they aren't wagering on tampa bay downs anyway.

humm... allowance and stakes fields at gulfstream or 10k claimers at tampa bay. tough choice.

[rastajenk]

New owners see his record and send horses to him, multplying his impact.Who are these new owners? I just looked at several days' worth of Tampa charts, and all I see is Midwest TB's.

And I saw a bunch of races, most of them in fact, that Ness did not win.

Horseplayers are notable for their ability to whine, but blaming Ness for a significant handle drop is reaching a new top.

[Robert Goren]

Tampa maybe down some this year, but still to get the kind of handle they get on the kind of races is pretty amazing. Take a good where their horses run in the summer sometime and the kind of handle those tracks have.

[rrpic6]

Maybe the quick ascension the past few years, as mentioned by Beyer, was never really warranted. The quality really has never been better than average. Like their turf course but why the limit of 10 starters? If one likes betting M12500 races and open 5000 races, Tampa is a great track. They've always been light years behind Gulfstream in terms of quality, but have they ever been better than Oaklawn or Fair Grounds? IMO they never have.

I just got back home after my first visit to Tampa Bay Downs. I was blown away by how neat and clean every inch of the facilities are. This seemed to reflect on the customers also. I saw that 99% of the people seemed to have bathed and washed their clothes recently. I'm big on cleanliness, so Tampa Bay goes right near the top of the racetracks that I have had a good experience visiting.

To get to the turf track and its 10 horse limit. I assume this is due to safety concerns. They did run 12 in the Gr. 3 Tampa Bay Stakes. This was a crazy race. Try to watch a replay of it. Even the ship in jockeys, ones of greater talent, seemed to be riding scared. The reason is there is little width to the turf course. Watch next time as the horses walk up to the chute. They go single file. If you recall, the turf course might be ten years old at most. On Saturday, they were showing past runnings of the Tampa Bay Derby on the monitors between live races. The ones in the 80's and 90's, you can see that no turf course existed.

The turf races that I saw on Wednesday and Saturday were some of the most exciting I've ever witnessed. So many photo finishes! Ness horses got beat at the wire twice! In fact Ness had few runners in any races last week, which did make it feel that any horse could win most of the races.

RR