In A Perfect World

[BMeadow]

My American Turf Monthly Column that appears in the January issue. Your comments and suggestions?

In A Perfect World

As we enter 2013, let us dream. Of horse racing as it could be, if only we horseplayers ran the game.

What do horseplayers need? Reasonable takeout rates. Ease of betting. A fair playing field.

In my dream, takeouts on all bets would be 10 to 12 per cent. As takeouts dropped, handle would zoom. Winning players could increase their bets into bigger pools, while losing players would last longer.

Even this number could be reduced by automatic rebates, posted directly into a player’s account on the first day of the following month, for everyone betting $1,000 a month or more. Rebate rates would start at 1%, then increase to 2% for betting $10,000 in one month, 3% for betting $50,000 in one month, and a cap of 4% for betting $100,000 or more in one month.

Players in every state where betting is legal could bet on any race anywhere, by phone, computer, or mobile device. And have access to free past performances and free replays at the touch of a computer button. No one would ever be charged to place a bet.

At the track, TVs in every area would display updated win, place, and show pools. Exactas would be displayed in a grid, so you could see every possible at a glance. On-track bettors would receive bonuses on payoffs.

Exchange wagering would be legal everywhere, and be available for every track, at least for win bets.

The number of tracks would be greatly reduced, with only a few supertracks remaining. Racing would take place in New York, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, and California most of the year, though each circuit would have a mandated break of one month per year. All the other states would have a maximum racing schedule of 30 days per year.

Because there would be many fewer tracks, field sizes would increase. Every race would be required to have at least 10 entrants, before late scratches are taken. Coupled entries would be eliminated for all races. Horsemen would get paid more as the size of the field increased, so that an owner and trainer would get more money for winning a race with 12 entrants than one with 10.

On all multi-race bets, consolation payoffs would be provided rather than have a player’s getting stuck with the favorite due to a late scratch.

Every bet location would offer free admission and parking. And on site at the host track, the president would be required to spend two hours a day walking around his facility and talking with customers.

Tracks, simulcast centers, ADW’s and websites would offer frequent contests, with the winners qualifying for the national championship.

Every track and training center would be open free to anyone who wanted to watch the workouts, or tape them.

Track websites would offer a full slate of information, ranging from
post position statistics to condition books for upcoming races.

On the track, every horse would compete without race-day medications. The tote would be updated every five seconds so that the days when a “they’re off” 5-2 shot turns into a 6-5 by the far turn would disappear.

A national commissioner would run the whole shebang; if a board were in charge, then at least one horseplayer would be on that board.

When miscreants are punished for rules violations, the punishments would be swift and enforced nationwide. No more slaps on the wrist. Repeat violators would face more severe penalties, including for some a lifetime expulsion from the sport.

All race charts would be available free electronically, so that handicappers could parse data for their own handicapping purposes.

The signing threshold, currently $600, would be raised to $25,000. Withholding on signers would be eliminated. If a player hit a big ticket, he would get the full amount of the win, though he’d still be responsible for taxes if he had a winning year.

As I said at the start of this article, this is a dream. Racing in 2013 is still run as if it had a monopoly on gambling. And with each racing state having its own commission and rules, nobody’s on the same page.

Who would be against our dreams? Oh, just about everybody in the industry. Horsemen would say the lower takeouts and rebates wouldn’t bring in enough revenue (though every time they raise the takeout, revenue drops). The contraction of the industry into a few big players would mean job losses for everyone from track executives to pari-mutuel clerks. Trainers would whine about being faced with real consequences for their ethically questionable activities. Veterinarians would swear that racing is safer when horses are drugged. The tote companies would complain about having to spend more money to get the boards to work faster. The folks who sell past performances would scream.

Some of these folks spend a lot of money on political contributions and lobbyists, as compared with the total amount spent by horseplayers’ groups—zero--on these bribe-the-politicians-legally activities. As a result, don’t expect much movement on these potential changes.

No, the game will clunk along as it has, slowly fading into oblivion as handle drops, tracks close, and players get priced out of the game. Changing this calls for bold thinking. Good luck finding it in this industry.

[thaskalos]

We seem to be having the same dreams, Barry...but sadly, we keep waking up.

I would like to add one more item to your wish list though...if you would allow me to:

It was 1993 when Andy Beyer revealed that the technology was already in place for taking the timing of these horse races out of the dark ages and into modern times.

Micro chips would be attached to the bridles of the horses, which would trigger sensors placed at the different points of call...and would finally provide the player with accurate fractional times for every horse in the race.

Being a pace handicapper myself...I got excited at the prospect of this idea. But it's been over 18 years now...and I am losing hope...

Best regards,

Gus.

[appistappis]

I'd settle for one more year at ft erie.

[Robert Fischer]

good article


not sure how i feel about exchange wagering


better use of the media is another area of focus that is needed as well

[Stillriledup]

I love the idea of the Prez walking around and interacting with the lunch pail crowd on the first floor...you know, the regulars. Most 'higher ups' are 'above' the degenerates so to get them to 'interact' is a huge challenge. Good luck with this one.

I like the concept of the Natl commish....only problem is how can racing find someone who would not be biased towards someone in the industry? Its possible that a commish could be hired from outside the game, someone who has no affiliation towards racing at all, but then this would require Stronach, Churchill and NYRA just 'giving up' control of their tracks and letting an 'outsider' tell them what they can and cannot do.

I do like this idea of a commish who rules with an iron fist, the only problem is WHO?

Agree with the outdated signer rules, too much money gets ripped out of circulation and that hurts betting handles across the board.

As far as updating of the tote, i'd hire an independent investigator and give him unfettered access to betting records, i'd have someone investigate all large payouts (sort of like the NFL reviewing every TD no matter what) to see if there are any 'weird' betting patterns in these pick 6 races...for all we know, the same person could be winning pick 6s hand over fist with a single, single, single, single, all, all ticket...this happened once, i'd love to know someone is reviewing all these pick 6 winners to see anything odd shows up.

When a 6-5 shot breaks slow and goes from 6-5 to 9-5 down the backstretch, i'd make sure to investigate that 'refund' and find where it came from and put a stop to it. A lot of the horses going down in price isnt necessarily people betting after the start, but its more of people refunding horses who break slow.

We're almost in 2013, there's absolutely no need for any tellers to have any cancel buttons....as a person who bets with an ADW, i dont have any 'need' to be betting into pools where someone on track has 8 seconds to cancel a ticket, that does me no good and can only hurt if someone has a teller in their pocket and is cancelling after the race starts.

Great ideas you pose here, i agree with almost all of them.

[Capper Al]

It would be nice to have the following:


a universal speed figure that work world wide.
the physical weight of the horse in the past performance lines.
time workouts like the Japaness do and be consistent about H and B notations.

[therussmeister]

I have a hypothesis that reduced takeout would not be quite the nirvana typical players anticipate.

What would happen over time is big winning players would increase their bets until the average payouts settle back to nearly where they are now. That rebates would be reduced would be the only thing that would prevent prices from settling exactly where they are now. This is precisely what I would do if I were a whale. If it were announced today that takeout is to be reduced on Jan 1, I would be calculating how much I could increase my bets to get the same ROI I am getting now, and if I wound up with larger than anticipated ROI, perhaps because other winners have chosen not to increase their bets, I would make further increases to take their "market share."

[Greyfox]

Excellent article Barry Meadow.

I've criticized your column before as being too skeptical.

This one offers some very positive ideas that perhaps some tracks will implement. :ThmbUp:

[rastajenk]

I'm disappointed to see Mr. Meadow buy into the notion that fewer tracks mean fuller fields. I just can't see how that would possibly happen. Fewer tracks only means fewer horse owners, and thus, fewer horses, and a quicker trip down the death spiral. Although the big-time stables that can utilize economies of scale, you know, the kind you all love to hate, will be able to survive. Is that part of the dream?

[Fingal]

My dream would include someone like B. Wayne Hughes that has more money than God buying Hollywood Park so this pending destruction concern would go away once & for all.

[olddaddy]

It would be nice to have the following:


a universal speed figure that work world wide.
the physical weight of the horse in the past performance lines.
time workouts like the Japaness do and be consistent about H and B notations.


Physical weight of previous races and current weight prior to race being run.

Workouts currently are a joke. With the technology out there there has to be a consistent and accurate way to get this info out to to public.

[horses4courses]

The horse racing industry would be so much better off if even some of these ideas were implemented.
Unfortunately, this is no more than a dream.

Those in charge are so set in their ways, it's a travesty.
Heck, Pennsylvania harness tracks are heading for 35% takeout.
The takeout trend is heading the wrong way in many states.
We all know those in charge would rather hike it up than reduce it.
Sure, they will dangle the occasional carrot (see 14% PK5), but the bets that matter stay where they are, or go up.

Horse players are looked upon as "degenerates" who will recycle the gambling dollar no matter what the takeout is. We, as players, don't do as much as we should to prove them wrong.
Maybe HANA could start an aggressive campaign that highlights those tracks which seek to gouge the player?
Establish acceptable guidelines for takeout on WPS, EX, TRI, SUP, and horizontal wagers, and draw attention to those who charge more than the norm. Those tracks should be boycotted by gamblers until they change their rates.

Probably another dream, but nothing will change unless we try something.

[mountainman]

My American Turf Monthly Column that appears in the January issue. Your comments and suggestions?

The number of tracks would be greatly reduced, with only a few supertracks remaining. Racing would take place in New York, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, and California most of the year, though each circuit would have a mandated break of one month per year. All the other states would have a maximum racing schedule of 30 days per year.

Because there would be many fewer tracks, field sizes would increase. Every race would be required to have at least 10 entrants, before late scratches are taken. Coupled entries would be eliminated for all races. Horsemen would get paid more as the size of the field increased, so that an owner and trainer would get more money for winning a race with 12 entrants than one with 10.

.

.




Many fewer tracks? Then what of deteriorated horses no longer competitive at elite levels? What's your proposal for those multitudes to live long and prosper? And for owners to recoup some of their investment on expensive buys that belly flop?? And have you considered, sir, that lots of handicappers PREFER cheap fields, of the sort sometimes characterized by time-tested, battle- hardened warriors both familiar to players and predictable from the standpoint of performance and running style?

Minimum field-size could be another ticklish issue. As a person who has served as both racing sec and ast racing sec, i can't envision both quantity and quality as perpetually attainable. Inevitably, given a drastic reduction in racetracks and races, the breeding industry will contract even more ,and those who construct the races WILL be forced, as always, to choose daily between big fields and better events.


Want 10-per race? So do i. But would you be willing, for instance, in the racing sec's shoes, to "kill" a 4x alw with 8 entries in favor of a non-life claimer with 12? If so, be prepared for an exodus as those 8 horses-and outfits-pop up on the overnite at other tracks. There are just no magic means to having your cake and eating it, too.

[Gold9er]

Refund all tickets for any horse thats breaks down before the finish or a jockey that falls off a horse before the finish. a horse that falls down or dosent have a jockey dosent have a chance to compete and the money should be refunded.
this will initially cost tracks money but in the long run will keep customers coming back and assure their integrity in the sport. its the right thing to do. no horse or jockey falls down intentionally.
with all the different ways a horse can lose, you would think at least they could refund the money if this happens

[cj]

Many fewer tracks? Then what of deteriorated horses no longer competitive at elite levels? What's your proposal for those multitudes to live long and prosper? And for owners to recoup some of their investment on expensive buys that belly flop?? And have you considered, sir, that lots of handicappers PREFER cheap fields, of the sort sometimes characterized by time-tested, battle- hardened warriors both familiar to players and predictable from the standpoint of performance and running style?



Why would they have to go anywhere? There would still be cheap races around at other tracks, and even at better tracks. There just wouldn't be as many.

Slots money has created a surplus of really bad horses being bred. There is no way that is a good thing. There are cards littered not with horses "no longer capable", but with horses that were never capable.

[mountainman]

Why would they have to go anywhere? There would still be cheap races around at other tracks, and even at better tracks. There just wouldn't be as many.



And just how many cheap races do you think are written at boutique meets?? The class of a racetrack isn't strictly a function of high purses or attractive features. Another thing that charaterizes an upper crust meet is the carding of VERY few btm races. Have you ever scanned the condition book for an elite meet? Or any big track, for that matter? Do you understand how and why the races are sequenced in a certain manner? Or the difference between a substitute race and an extra? How about an added distance? Do you understand what a racing secretary's priorities are? Believe me, in the brave new world proposed here, ALL these factors come into play as purse money and field size soar, but coveted opportunities to run become much more limited.

And focusing instead on higher class horses, do you think they come from thin air? No, most start out in msw races. And just how many of those do you intend to card?? In fact, how many mdn races per day can you stomach and still consider the card to be top-class?? Enough to form a sufficient farm system for future stars and features? Just remember, sir, that the game sorts through A WHOLE lot of stones just to find a few diamonds.

And as far as your inference that a drastically contracted system of racetracks will somehow preclude the breeding of inferior stock...you're kidding, right? Hope springs eternal, and plenty of talentless prospects will simply be moved to big tracks. And what about state-bred programs? Just wait until THOSE politics come into play, and the same small, powerful factions comprised of greedy owners and breeders move to reserve large chunks of alloted purse monies for their inferior stock.

In summary, fewer tracks and racing dates would not be the panacea some predict.

[DeltaLover]

I think that we have way too much racing something that does not serve well the industry (at least in long term view).

Having many 'small' tracks diminishes the betting dollar quicker as it creates lots of small pools streaming dollars to insiders without offering robust betting markets.

As a bettor what do you prefer: Having 20 races per day averaging in $500K exacta pools or having 100 races averaging $10K? The answer is obviously the former.

In the second case the pools are so anaemic that they barely cover the operational costs meanwhile discouraging big bettors since they offer very little potential.

What I need a horse player is few and big pools offering a viable promise for a big score that will not be diminished as I scale my bets.

Instead having lots of small tracks results to the betting dollar to be fragmented to very small fractions, quickly absorbed by the take out.

It is a myth that we need a huge horse population in order to have quality.. Hong Kong is a pretty good example of this....

Another strong argument against lots of racing it the resulted weakness of betting fields something that is easily observed in higher classes where everyone is dodging the other until the big day of BC or KD.... Exactly the same concept applies to lower classed albeit not that visibly.

[cj]

And just how many cheap races do you think are written at boutique meets?? The class of a racetrack isn't strictly a function of high purses or attractive features. Another thing that charaterizes an upper crust meet is the carding of VERY few btm races. Have you ever scanned the condition book for an elite meet? Or any big track, for that matter? Do you understand how and why the races are sequenced in a certain manner? Or the difference between a substitute race and an extra? How about an added distance? Do you understand what a racing secretary's priorities are? Believe me, in the brave new world proposed here, ALL these factors come into play as purse money and field size soar, but coveted opportunities to run become much more limited.

And focusing instead on higher class horses, do you think they come from thin air? No, most start out in msw races. And just how many of those do you intend to card?? In fact, how many mdn races per day can you stomach and still consider the card to be top-class?? Enough to form a sufficient farm system for future stars and features? Just remember, sir, that the game sorts through A WHOLE lot of stones just to find a few diamonds.

And as far as your inference that a drastically contracted system of racetracks will somehow preclude the breeding of inferior stock...you're kidding, right? Hope springs eternal, and plenty of talentless prospects will simply be moved to big tracks. And what about state-bred programs? Just wait until THOSE politics come into play, and the same small, powerful factions comprised of greedy owners and breeders move to reserve large chunks of alloted purse monies for their inferior stock.

In summary, fewer tracks and racing dates would not be the panacea some predict.

Boutique meets? There still wouldn't be that many. You'd still have Aqueduct and Calder and Hawthorne et al. They write plenty of cheap races every single day. They don't fill races for good horses very often.

As for the inferior stock being bred, I said cheap races, not horrible races. You really think those awful Indiana breds are going to ship to New York to run, or the sires move to New York?

There are always reasons NOT to do things, particularly from those that tend to be hurt the most by proposed changes. You think it would help me somehow by cutting way back on tracks? Hardly! But, it would be good for the overall health of the sport. This game is on life support, however those in it don't seem to understand that. The status quo is a death sentence.

[5k-claim]

Mr. Meadow, since you asked...

In a perfect world, horseplayers across the country would spend at least a little more of their time mentioning positive things about the sport that they actually do like and appreciate, as opposed to incessant streams of negativity, bitching and moaning. Even legitimate complaints can get lost when presented in a shrill din.

In a perfect world, several of the things you wrote in your article would come true as there were some good ideas. But not all of them.

In a perfect world, people reading this thread would take a minute to actually listen to rastajenk and mountainman since those two guys actually know what they are talking about here.

You are right, Mr. Meadow, this is not a perfect world.

.

[thespaah]

I have a few suggestions.
First...All bets are final. These bet big then cancel guys are skewing odds in their favor. This gives the average player the perception that "something just doesn't look right"..If one as a marketer for racing that is trying to attract new people to the sport, you want them to enjoy their experience and have the desire to come back.
Free parking and grandstand admission. There should always be a fee for clubhouse.
Reasonably priced refreshments. Six dollars for a beer is absurd.
Rebates are a sticky point. Ok for ADW or on line players. How do we rebate cash players on track?
Mandate that no more than 1/3 of the races on a card be sprints. The endless parade of 5.5 and 6f races is boring.
Get rid of coupled entries.
Allow patrons to view all workouts and all horses are to be easily identified by those present and all workouts are to be published with accurate times.
I don't think "free" PP's are practical. There are costs involved for production, paper and printing that must be covered. If one wishes to get their PP's on line, those should be free. Just print them out yourself.
My favorite pet peeve...It is much too easy to scratch a horse. Trainers should be barred from scratching "just because"....If a trainer scratches, he better have a valid reason. In harness, it's "lame" or "Sick"..The track Vet MUST verify the illness or lameness.
No more scratching of horses due to wet tracks, rainfall, or because the trainer had a premonition of his horse cutting a fart at the wrong time.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I love the idea of the Prez walking around and interacting with the lunch pail crowd on the first floor...you know, the regulars. Most 'higher ups' are 'above' the degenerates so to get them to 'interact' is a huge challenge. Good luck with this one.....

Ironically, this was the one that made me laugh the loudest. At least where I play, most people I know, myself included, would probably prefer to spend the afternoon shoving an icepick under a toenail or two*.





*lyrics courtesy of Al Yankovic

[Stillriledup]

Many fewer tracks? Then what of deteriorated horses no longer competitive at elite levels? What's your proposal for those multitudes to live long and prosper? And for owners to recoup some of their investment on expensive buys that belly flop?? And have you considered, sir, that lots of handicappers PREFER cheap fields, of the sort sometimes characterized by time-tested, battle- hardened warriors both familiar to players and predictable from the standpoint of performance and running style?



Want 10-per race? So do i. But would you be willing, for instance, in the racing sec's shoes, to "kill" a 4x alw with 8 entries in favor of a non-life claimer with 12? If so, be prepared for an exodus as those 8 horses-and outfits-pop up on the overnite at other tracks. There are just no magic means to having your cake and eating it, too.

Small tracks cannibalize betting pools at bigger tracks. If only 3 or 4 'supertracks' existed, the betting pools would be much bigger and any bettor at those places would be winning less of their own money when they made a score. I'm not sure how many tracks are in Hong Kong, but those pools are massive and there's not much competition at all and it doesnt seem to bother them or their bettors?

[proximity]

before we totally destroy the live racing product in pennsylvania, west virginia, louisiana, new jersey, delaware, ohio.......... i say we encourage the industry to adopt some of bmeadow's other excellent ideas and give the game a chance to grow on its merits in all of its markets. the pricing (takeout/rebates) is obviously critical here and i think barry's two pronged approach of both lower takeouts and rebates is the right way to go.

third choices winning and paying $6.60 don't attract players to your game and while many players may not know (or even want to know) how they've did for the month, they might feel a little better about themselves when they look in their account and see they've earned $400 comp dollars.

in the game of poker, what draws a compulsive gambler like me to a place like a.c.? beside the free rooms and free food and drinks, $2 a hand lower rake AND comp$. also, hardly a week passes where i don't receive offers in the mail with direct bet coupons, comp$ coupons, buffet coupons,..... at my home pen gaming racino i have a player's card with $3.07.... barely enough for one of their overpriced coffees. every 3 months i can stand in a long line to get a yankee candle that might have a small slots voucher in it. i may have to drive 3 hours and pay $11 of tolls to get to a.c., but atleast when i get there i'm SOMEBODY. at my home racino i can play greens all night at blackjack, but $3.07 on my card tells me i'm NOBODY.

sorry for the long post.

[Stillriledup]

Mr. Meadow, since you asked...

In a perfect world, horseplayers across the country would spend at least a little more of their time mentioning positive things about the sport that they actually do like and appreciate, as opposed to incessant streams of negativity, bitching and moaning. Even legitimate complaints can get lost when presented in a shrill din.

In a perfect world, several of the things you wrote in your article would come true as there were some good ideas. But not all of them.

In a perfect world, people reading this thread would take a minute to actually listen to rastajenk and mountainman since those two guys actually know what they are talking about here.

You are right, Mr. Meadow, this is not a perfect world.

.

"positive things about the sport"

While some of us have fond memories of the game as a 'sport' and we actually have favorite jocks, trainers and horses, its important that we recognize that this is a gambling game and many people are just interested in the price of wagers and the bang for their buck and could care less about the welfare of the participants.

You said Barry had some ideas that you didnt think were 'good'.

Which ones were those?

[thaskalos]

I would list the positives of this game...but I cannot think of any at the present time.

[Valuist]

We need takeout at a level where it is competitive with sports betting. Right now, its not.

I don't know what tracks to eliminate, but I know a few need to fold up shop. Maybe things work at Mountaineer, but that is the exception. I look at too many simulcast boards and see races for 5000 NW2 lifetime and there's 6 betting interests.

Agree with the earlier idea of listing horses's bodyweight in the past performances, along with the outside temperature.

Tracks have gotten better at staggering post times, but not all have mastered it.

Lock the tote when the first horse enters the starting gate. This HAS to be done to eliminate any suspicion of late windows or machines not locking when the horses break from the gate. This is a serious problem in the game; whether its real or not, it is perceived as a problem, so its a problem.

Lets get real dirt at any venue that is not racing during the winter (Turfway is excluded).

[eurocapper]

Removing the limitations on overseas pool bettors (such as higher costs on exotics) might get more casual players, and more casual players may be a key. Now the offshore bookmakers get their share of casual players.

[Stillriledup]

We need takeout at a level where it is competitive with sports betting. Right now, its not.

I don't know what tracks to eliminate, but I know a few need to fold up shop. Maybe things work at Mountaineer, but that is the exception. I look at too many simulcast boards and see races for 5000 NW2 lifetime and there's 6 betting interests.

Agree with the earlier idea of listing horses's bodyweight in the past performances, along with the outside temperature.

Tracks have gotten better at staggering post times, but not all have mastered it.

Lock the tote when the first horse enters the starting gate. This HAS to be done to eliminate any suspicion of late windows or machines not locking when the horses break from the gate. This is a serious problem in the game; whether its real or not, it is perceived as a problem, so its a problem.

Lets get real dirt at any venue that is not racing during the winter (Turfway is excluded).

Im not a fan of locking the tote as the first horse enters...that gives 'racing' the easy way out.....force them to invest the money to make sure the tote is secure. The more i read Wired magazine the more i get concerned that America's best hackers have no problem getting in and out of our betting pools. The biggest factor is that racetracks don't really have any vested interest in WHO wins the bets as long as people BET. If a hacker puts in a ticket after leg 1 starts, the tracks dont really care because they still get their 25% or whatever rake they are charging...no real incentive to spend money to 'tighten up' the tote.

[5k-claim]

"positive things about the sport"

While some of us have fond memories of the game as a 'sport' and we actually have favorite jocks, trainers and horses, its important that we recognize that this is a gambling game and many people are just interested in the price of wagers and the bang for their buck and could care less about the welfare of the participants.

You said Barry had some ideas that you didnt think were 'good'.

Which ones were those? Rastajenk and Mountainman already covered it quite well. Proximity had a good post, as well.

It really is a significant list of ways that racing's gambling experience could (and should) be improved. The subject of takeout seems to particularly be sticking in people's craw, so I don't get why some state (or whatever) doesn't take the lead and get gambling/math experts to crunch some numbers and figure out an "optimal" takeout rate, and then.... use it. Even if that was the one and only improvement made over the course of the entire year next year, I think it would be a good start. And better than nothing.

I would list the positives of this game...but I cannot think of any at the present time. Of course you can't.

Answer this: how big of a waste is it to spend so much of your time involved in something that you cannot even say anything positive about?

Unless you are a vampire or something that is going to live forever, I would think that sooner or later you would figure out that life is too short for that.

.

[mountainman]

Boutique meets? There still wouldn't be that many. You'd still have Aqueduct and Calder and Hawthorne et al. They write plenty of cheap races every single day. They don't fill races for good horses very often.

As for the inferior stock being bred, I said cheap races, not horrible races. You really think those awful Indiana breds are going to ship to New York to run, or the sires move to New York?

There are always reasons NOT to do things, particularly from those that tend to be hurt the most by proposed changes. You think it would help me somehow by cutting way back on tracks? Hardly! But, it would be good for the overall health of the sport. This game is on life support, however those in it don't seem to understand that. The status quo is a death sentence.

Meadow's said: "just a few supertracks would remain." And in his "perfect world," that would, perhaps, be workable, but racehorses are IMPERFECT creatures. Some are just slow (however well-bred), others develop infirmities and deteriorate, while yet others lose a step over time. In fact, MOST non-maidens are in some state of decline even as i type this.

The current system, while FAR from perfect, at least supplies a place and purpose for those horses, and ample opportunities for their connections to recoup a portion of expenditures.

Look, I realize it's not politically correct amongst serious players to oppose contraction and drastically reduced racing dates. But you aren't considering the big picture, other factions affected by, or impracticality of the somewhat extreme proposal at issue here.

[mountainman]

You really think those awful Indiana breds are going to ship to New York to run, or the sires move to New York?



And what about the hordes of awful new york breds being churned out? Do you think they simply disappear if finger lakes ceases to exist???????

[mountainman]

there are always reasons NOT to do things, particularly from those that tend to be hurt the most by proposed changes. You think it would help me somehow by cutting way back on tracks?

And do you think a mnr closing would stop MY train? I've had several offers from tracks-and networks-to do televised analysis. And my resume and reputation as an official would assure me gainful employment in almost any region that conducts races. Not being arrogant. Just stating fact.

[cj]

And what about the hordes of awful new york breds being churned out? Do you think they simply disappear if finger lakes ceases to exist???????

They'd stop being bred. Nobody ever said it would happen overnight. There has to be a plan.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing what can't be done. At least Barry had a proposal. I never said I agree with all of it, or have all the answers.

The game is in the toilet. If you don't see that, not much else I can say.

[cj]

And do you think a mnr closing would stop MY train? I've had several offers from tracks-and networks-to do televised analysis. And my resume and reputation as an official would assure me gainful employment in almost any region that conducts races. Not being arrogant. Just stating fact.

I have no idea if it would or not. It just doesn't matter to me. If you are talented enough, you'll find work. If you aren't, you'll find something else in another field. The same goes for all the horsemen. I don't care if a 2% trainer is out of a job. That is the way life works.

The game needs contraction in a big way for its future survival. I personally don't care how it is done.

[mountainman]

As a bettor what do you prefer: Having 20 races per day averaging in $500K exacta pools or having 100 races averaging $10K? The answer is obviously the former.



20 races per day? Yep. That'll sure bolster the fanbase. Your agenda sounds great for hardcore players, but without live races to attend, what, exactly, do we sell newbies on? The joy of betting big money in your boxer shorts????????????????????????????

[Valuist]

Im not a fan of locking the tote as the first horse enters...that gives 'racing' the easy way out.....force them to invest the money to make sure the tote is secure. The more i read Wired magazine the more i get concerned that America's best hackers have no problem getting in and out of our betting pools. The biggest factor is that racetracks don't really have any vested interest in WHO wins the bets as long as people BET. If a hacker puts in a ticket after leg 1 starts, the tracks dont really care because they still get their 25% or whatever rake they are charging...no real incentive to spend money to 'tighten up' the tote.

If you are concerned about hackers getting into the pools, they why would you oppose locking the tote when the first horse gets into the gate? Even if the tracks would supposedly invest in more secure technology, would you really have confidence that it would work 100% of the time, or even 90% of the time. Would locking the tote early inconvenience some bettors? Sure, but they'd learn to adapt. Nothing is worse for the game than seeing the 4-1 shot when the gates open go to the lead and become 5-2 on the far turn. The main objective isn't to penalize track owners; its to penalize those who benefit from a potentially flawed tote system.

[thaskalos]

20 races per day? Yep. That'll sure bolster the fanbase. Your agenda sounds great for hardcore players, but without live races to attend, what, exactly, do we sell newbies on? The joy of betting big money in your boxer shorts????????????????????????????

The joy of betting money in your boxer shorts did pretty well for online poker...

Just sayin...:)

[cj]

20 races per day? Yep. That'll sure bolster the fanbase. Your agenda sounds great for hardcore players, but without live races to attend, what, exactly, do we sell newbies on? The joy of betting big money in your boxer shorts????????????????????????????

How does the NFL do in places without a team?

[thespaah]

Im not a fan of locking the tote as the first horse enters...that gives 'racing' the easy way out.....force them to invest the money to make sure the tote is secure. The more i read Wired magazine the more i get concerned that America's best hackers have no problem getting in and out of our betting pools. The biggest factor is that racetracks don't really have any vested interest in WHO wins the bets as long as people BET. If a hacker puts in a ticket after leg 1 starts, the tracks dont really care because they still get their 25% or whatever rake they are charging...no real incentive to spend money to 'tighten up' the tote.
If hacking is indeed a problem with which tracks refuse to deal, the game is doomed. Period. Shut down the internet betting altogether then.
At this point who cares if tracks take the easy way out? There must be at least the perception of pool integrity.
If I am trackside and I am not aware of the tote lag time, I look up at the tote board as the horses are through the first 20 second to half minute into the race and I see the WPS pools practically DOUBLE in size, I have to be alarmed to see this. My first thought is there are people betting after the race has started. This CANNOT be permitted to continue.
Easy way out? With most tracks running on shoe string budgets, I would expect technology to remain the same. There simply is not enough money in the game to make the investment.

[DeltaLover]

20 races per day? Yep. That'll sure bolster the fanbase. Your agenda sounds great for hardcore players, but without live races to attend, what, exactly, do we sell newbies on? The joy of betting big money in your boxer shorts????????????????????????????


The actual number of races is not correlated with the popularity of the game.

Where I grew up we only had 27 races / week. Of course very low quality especially in compared to US racing but we did not know that!

I assure you that this rate was enough to grow horse junkies to a level that I have not still seen nowhere in US. I only have to say that back in middle 80's the on track handle was close to $1M where the average income was about 5K / year.

[thaskalos]

Of course you can't.

Answer this: how big of a waste is it to spend so much of your time involved in something that you cannot even say anything positive about?

Unless you are a vampire or something that is going to live forever, I would think that sooner or later you would figure out that life is too short for that.

.

You know...you are right. For all the time I spend in this game...I should easily be able to name a few things that I like about it.

Upon further reflection, there are several things that I find appealing about the game as it's played today:

I find that the combination of the short fields and the supertrainers have done wonders for my winning percentage. My horses don't pay much, but hey...anything is better than throwing your ticket on the floor...right?

I also like the fact that my home state (Illinois) has -- in its infinite wisdom -- decided to outlaw ADW at the beginning of next year. I have been dying to find a reason to get out of the house more...:ThmbUp:

If I spend a little more time reflecting...I should be able to come up with a few more positive things...

[lamboguy]

the after the bell betting does not take place with internet adw's, it takes place in simulcast outlets like dog-tracks and harness tracks over self betting machines and live tellers.

i thought it was going to be impossible to do because of the 7 second delay in place now. but i guess when there is a will there is a way! what you have now is a guy sitting at the live venue with a cell phone in his hand communicating the information to the guy sitting at the track ready to punch out a ticket. they have guys all over the country betting the break.

[johnhannibalsmith]

....

i thought it was going to be impossible to do because of the 7 second delay in place now. but i guess when there is a will there is a way! what you have now is a guy sitting at the live venue with a cell phone in his hand communicating the information to the guy....

Hard to imagine someone thought of it.

[thespaah]

Meadow's said: "just a few supertracks would remain." And in his "perfect world," that would, perhaps, be workable, but racehorses are IMPERFECT creatures. Some are just slow (however well-bred), others develop infirmities and deteriorate, while yet others lose a step over time. In fact, MOST non-maidens are in some state of decline even as i type this.

The current system, while FAR from perfect, at least supplies a place and purpose for those horses, and ample opportunities for their connections to recoup a portion of expenditures.

Look, I realize it's not politically correct amongst serious players to oppose contraction and drastically reduced racing dates. But you aren't considering the big picture, other factions affected by, or impracticality of the somewhat extreme proposal at issue here.
The bottom line is this. If things keep going down this road, the tracks in question may not have a choice as to whether to shut down.
I have maintained that the issue is not necessarily the number of tracks in general. The real problem is too many tracks in close geographic proximity to one another operating simultaneously while competing for the same racing stock.
For example, is it wise for Laurel, Delaware, Parx and Monmouth to be racing at the same time? IMO the answer is NO....This is suicide.
A problem developed back in the late 1980's when I think it was Greenwood Racing Inc bought the then Keystone Racetrack. Keystone never ran at the same time as Garden State Park. Greenwood decided that was exactly what they were going to do. This and of course other factors led to the demise of GSP....In fact GSP became the THIRD racing facility in the Philadelphia market to shut it's doors.
Liberty Bell was the first. Although that track was ina shaky neighborhood, it was rendered obsolete once Brandywine started racing up against LB...Once the Meadowlands started offering bigger purses, Brandywine's stock of horses dried up and that track became a shopping mall.
The point here is those running the tracks and the state officials pulling their strings are killing the game.
In my opinion there must be a contraction in the number of race meets or race meets must be reduced in number of racing dates, or this thing is going to implode.

[lamboguy]

Hard to imagine someone thought of it.they don't have enough time to call a number. they have to have the number in the machine ready and either press send, or pass. that's why you usually see short priced horses going down in price after the break, they must look for the horse that figures to get to the front.

[thespaah]

You know...you are right. For all the time I spend in this game...I should easily be able to name a few things that I like about it.

Upon further reflection, there are several things that I find appealing about the game as it's played today:

I find that the combination of the short fields and the supertrainers have done wonders for my winning percentage. My horses don't pay much, but hey...anything is better than throwing your ticket on the floor...right?

I also like the fact that my home state (Illinois) has -- in its infinite wisdom -- decided to outlaw ADW at the beginning of next year. I have been dying to find a reason to get out of the house more...:ThmbUp:

If I spend a little more time reflecting...I should be able to come up with a few more positive things...
Wait...Illinois is shutting down all Ill residents who can now bet on line into race pools?
Who's idea was THAT?...Oh wait, you guys have legal table casino gaming in your state, correct? Never mind...

Or am I missing something?

[mountainman]

I have no idea if it would or not. It just doesn't matter to me. If you are talented enough, you'll find work. If you aren't, you'll find something else in another field. The same goes for all the horsemen. I don't care if a 2% trainer is out of a job. That is the way life works.

The game needs contraction in a big way for its future survival. I personally don't care how it is done.

Nice try, but you clearly implied that i'd be among those "hurt the worst" should said proposal come to fruition.

And this isn't about personal empathy or compassion for the potentially unemployed. It's about how the industry works and a specific proposal to improve it.

[thespaah]

They'd stop being bred. Nobody ever said it would happen overnight. There has to be a plan.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing what can't be done. At least Barry had a proposal. I never said I agree with all of it, or have all the answers.

The game is in the toilet. If you don't see that, not much else I can say.
" I'm sick of hearing what can't be done."....
I cannot agree more! That is THE best statement anyone could make regarding this issue......# :1:

[thaskalos]

Wait...Illinois is shutting down all Ill residents who can now bet on line into race pools?
Who's idea was THAT?...Oh wait, you guys have legal table casino gaming in your state, correct? Never mind...

Or am I missing something?

Meaning...?

[mountainman]

They'd stop being bred. Nobody ever said it would happen overnight. There has to be a plan.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing what can't be done. At least Barry had a proposal. I never said I agree with all of it, or have all the answers.

The game is in the toilet. If you don't see that, not much else I can say.

No, they wouldn't stop being bred. Not at all. And I could again explain why, but that now seems pointless.

And, for the record, I liked most of the guy's proposals. And I NEVER said it couldn't be done, just not in the way, or on the scale suggested. And isn't spirited, informed debate a vital part of the change process? Do you think important ideas should get a rubber stamp walkover???

[thespaah]

If you are concerned about hackers getting into the pools, they why would you oppose locking the tote when the first horse gets into the gate? Even if the tracks would supposedly invest in more secure technology, would you really have confidence that it would work 100% of the time, or even 90% of the time. Would locking the tote early inconvenience some bettors? Sure, but they'd learn to adapt. Nothing is worse for the game than seeing the 4-1 shot when the gates open go to the lead and become 5-2 on the far turn. The main objective isn't to penalize track owners; its to penalize those who benefit from a potentially flawed tote system.
To answer your question, "then how can you oppose locking the tote when the first horse gets into the gate".....It's because they want it both ways.
Look, if the tracks had the money to spend on the technology to make the tote system nearly real time and the bettors pressured the tracks to make updates, the track managements would comply.

[mountainman]

How does the NFL do in places without a team?

Think THEY plan on contracting?

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, they wouldn't stop being bred. Not at all. And I could again explain why, but that now seems pointless.

And, for the record, I liked most of the guy's proposals. And I NEVER said it couldn't be done, just not in the way, or on the scale suggested. And isn't spirited, informed debate a vital part of the change process? Do you think important ideas should get a rubber stamp walkover???

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this - I don't see it as pointless.

[cj]

Think THEY plan on contracting?

They don't need to contacted, but I'm sure they will if necessary. I'm just saying a sport doesn't have to be live in an area to be successful.

[mountainman]

Headed out for some xmas shopping. Hope the mall hasn't contracted. Have a good evening, guys.

[cj]

No, they wouldn't stop being bred. Not at all. And I could again explain why, but that now seems pointless.

And, for the record, I liked most of the guy's proposals. And I NEVER said it couldn't be done, just not in the way, or on the scale suggested. And isn't spirited, informed debate a vital part of the change process? Do you think important ideas should get a rubber stamp walkover???

If people want to breed horses that can't compete, how long will that last? Nobody can afford a breeding operation with no results forever.

[cj]

Headed out for some xmas shopping. Hope the mall hasn't contracted. Have a good evening, guys.

Many already have, and more will follow. People don't need live shopping to shop any more.

[mountainman]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this - I don't see it as pointless.

Way cool, mike. And i'm curious about your take on these issues. But i MUST get in some shopping, or the joy in my domecile will be GREATLY "contracted" come xmas day.

[mountainman]

Many already have, and more will follow. People don't need live shopping to shop any more.

Was a joke, dude. And you're right. Shopping online has MURDERED the malls.

[cj]

Many tracks would already be closed without slots welfare. While this is great for horsemen in those areas short term, it is terrible for the health of the game long term in those places and nationally. Once the slots money goes away, and it will, the game WILL contract big time. Hopefully, it won't contract to nothing.

[thespaah]

Meaning...?
I am asking with a bit of bite here if the possibility exists that the Casinos in Illinois may have influenced the Illinois Legislature to outlaw ADW wagering..Perhaps to decrease competition for the gambling dollar?

[thespaah]

How does the NFL do in places without a team?
The number two TV market in the country ( Los Angeles) does not have NFL football. After losing TWO teams, the city has been without the NFL for what? 20 Years?
Apparently the people running the NFL believe LA is terrible market for the NFL.

[Valuist]

To answer your question, "then how can you oppose locking the tote when the first horse gets into the gate".....It's because they want it both ways.
Look, if the tracks had the money to spend on the technology to make the tote system nearly real time and the bettors pressured the tracks to make updates, the track managements would comply.

My point is we don't need expensive technology. Just have the tracks lock the tote after the gate has shut when the first horse has entered. That's all we need, and the bettors would adapt. They'd have to get off their lazy asses a minute or two earlier. Your earlier point about perception is 100% correct.

[lamboguy]

My point is we don't need expensive technology. Just have the tracks lock the tote after the gate has shut when the first horse has entered. That's all we need, and the bettors would adapt. They'd have to get off their lazy asses a minute or two earlier. Your earlier point about perception is 100% correct.what a great idea! its probably to easy to to do. throw in uniform drug rules, limit the amount of stalls to one trainer, and most important limit the amount of horses that one owner can own. follow these easy suggestions and they will be building more race tracks in North America

[maclr11]

If I'm a good trainer who brings in clients and want to have 100 horses between 50 clients your going to limit the number of stalls I have.
These guys enter more horses, help fill out cards and you need the horses.
One of the big barns in Edmonton the trainer was on the phone with the race secretary entering a horse in an obvious wrong spot to get that race to go so that a NW2X allowance race would go. Without big barns youd decrease fields again and that is totally the wrong way to go.

[lamboguy]

If I'm a good trainer who brings in clients and want to have 100 horses between 50 clients your going to limit the number of stalls I have.
These guys enter more horses, help fill out cards and you need the horses.
One of the big barns in Edmonton the trainer was on the phone with the race secretary entering a horse in an obvious wrong spot to get that race to go so that a NW2X allowance race would go. Without big barns youd decrease fields again and that is totally the wrong way to go.
excellent points. but lets look at this from a different perspective. compare horse racing to every other successful professional sports franchise. you will notice that every team plays the exact same uniform amount of games. they all have the same amount of players on every single team. and other than designated hitters in baseball, the teams all play by the very same years.

professional sports feature sold out events in most places with fan bases growing. horse racing seems to be going in the very opposite direction. there must be some type of probability that if you change the rules in horse racing, the game will grow instead of contract.

[usedtolovetvg]

Don't think you can compare horse racing to team sports. The Form is too hard to read and people think the game is crooked; both valid points. And, if you don't go for a meal, its boring. People still show up for the big days and boutique meets but don't get hooked anymore. There are too many easier ways to lose your money. Most of us got our start when it was the only game in town.

[lamboguy]

Don't think you can compare horse racing to team sports. The Form is too hard to read and people think the game is crooked; both valid points. And, if you don't go for a meal, its boring. People still show up for the big days and boutique meets but don't get hooked anymore. There are too many easier ways to lose your money. Most of us got our start when it was the only game in town.
ok you win, lets not compare it to team sports, lets compare it to individual sports like tennis and golf that have uniform rules. now lets compare tennis and golf to boxing. boxing does not have uniform rules and is not doing so great these days, yet it still does better than horse racing.

[castaway01]

The number two TV market in the country ( Los Angeles) does not have NFL football. After losing TWO teams, the city has been without the NFL for what? 20 Years?
Apparently the people running the NFL believe LA is terrible market for the NFL.

The NFL is making billions of dollars each year without LA, so why would they care? But that has nothing to do with racing because it's an entirely different business model.

The shopping mall thing that CJ and Mountainman were discussing actually does apply, in a way. One of the malls I used to hang out at many years ago was mainly known for how you had to watch out for the kids looking to fight on Saturday night. By 15 years ago, people were starting to stay away. Now it is totally made over---the outside was remodeled to look like all fancy boutique stores. Lots of high-end restaurants were added to make the place more of a destination. The movie theaters are all done over. They've changed and adapted to compete, and a place that was fading and becoming dangerous years ago now has big crowds again, even with the online competition. Did all the stores make it? No, there was turnover, and some closed permanently. However, at least they TRIED. Other malls are trying the same remodeling. Will it work for everyone? No, but I think for most of us, it would be nice to see horse racing try SOMETHING, rather than just slowly die a little more each year. Maybe just one track try a massive across-the-board takeout cut, for example. Perhaps someone really fight to get substantial rebates through the racetrack to the live and online customer. A real attempt to compete! To the horseplayer, times look desperate, and it would be nice to see track management somewhere make some bold moves to at least try to change the slow fade into oblivion.

[Valuist]

Don't think you can compare horse racing to team sports. The Form is too hard to read and people think the game is crooked; both valid points. And, if you don't go for a meal, its boring. People still show up for the big days and boutique meets but don't get hooked anymore. There are too many easier ways to lose your money. Most of us got our start when it was the only game in town.

The last sentence is the key. Riverboat gambling has been around for what, about 20 years? The fear with racing was the fan base was dying off, only to be replaced by a "new" batch of old people, retirees etc. But at some point, there won't be anybody. Those "new batches of old people" will go to the casinos or play poker online because that is what they know.

[usedtolovetvg]

Tastes change. It is a natural progression. Few sports survive for long. Golf and tennis aren't as popular as they were a couple of decades ago. Boxing might be on life support but Ultimate Fighting is now popular or was pretty recently. Horse racing is not a sport in my opinion, it is a form of gambling. One that's too difficult to comprehend in this day and age. The days that it is an Event, it is still quite popular. Other than that, for today's generation, there are easier and better forms of gambling.

[lamboguy]

Tastes change. It is a natural progression. Few sports survive for long. Golf and tennis aren't as popular as they were a couple of decades ago. Boxing might by on life support but Ultimate Fighting is now popular or was pretty recently. Horse racing is not a sport in my opinion, it is a form of gambling. One that's too difficult to comprehend in this day and age. The days that it is an Event, it is still quite popular. Other than that, for today's generation, there are easier and better forms of gambling.in our country there are jump races that have no gambling at all, and they get an attendance of 50,000 people or more that spend $25 in admission to watch the show for the afternoon. that sport does not know of trainers that win @ 30%, they don't have owners that own 300 horses or trainers that train 20 horses. jumper's are alive and well in this country with or without gambling.

there are still plenty of bush racing going on in places like Ocala, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas where there is no gambling and people show up for the afternoon of thoroughbred racing.

people want to be involved in horse racing, they just don't want any part of it the way it is structured today.

[johnhannibalsmith]

excellent points. but lets look at this from a different perspective. compare horse racing to every other successful professional sports franchise. you will notice that every team plays the exact same uniform amount of games. they all have the same amount of players on every single team. and other than designated hitters in baseball, the teams all play by the very same years.

professional sports feature sold out events in most places with fan bases growing. horse racing seems to be going in the very opposite direction. there must be some type of probability that if you change the rules in horse racing, the game will grow instead of contract.

What?

How did this possibly explain that it would be a good idea to run owners off? Or even solve the problem? Why wouldn't a guy just own 25 horses in his name if you made that some arbitrary "limit" and another 25 in his kid's name or his best friend's name if he wanted to avoid a possible coupled entry? You think some "limit" would solve some "problem" of who actually got the money? And as a very small owner, why would I care who owns the damn horse if its going to outrun me anyway, as though its more fair if I don't get run over by a guy with 32 wins instead of 4? Or are you suggesting that all the horses that they have would leave too? I was under the impression that you wanted the horses to stay, so I just assume you figure that they'll still be there, so naturally SOMEONE is going to own them and run them.

In case I'm not clear, I don't get the problem or the proposed "solution".

[lamboguy]

What?

How did this possibly explain that it would be a good idea to run owners off? Or even solve the problem? Why wouldn't a guy just own 25 horses in his name if you made that some arbitrary "limit" and another 25 in his kid's name or his best friend's name if he wanted to avoid a possible coupled entry? You think some "limit" would solve some "problem" of who actually got the money? And as a very small owner, why would I care who owns the damn horse if its going to outrun me anyway, as though its more fair if I don't get run over by a guy with 32 wins instead of 4? Or are you suggesting that all the horses that they have would leave too? I was under the impression that you wanted the horses to stay, so I just assume you figure that they'll still be there, so naturally SOMEONE is going to own them and run them.

In case I'm not clear, I don't get the problem or the proposed "solution".the strongest reasons i can give you is that racing has 2 very key components to it, the person that puts his money up to raise, train and run horses, and the person that puts his money up that runs to the betting windows to support the sport. those 2 components are interchangeable. often times a bettor becomes an owner and an owner becomes a bettor. what we have here are the key components of the game disintegrating into oblivion. we have fewer bettors and fewer owners.

i am just making suggestions how to improve the game. the points that i have made seem to work very well in other parts of the world such as Japan and Hong Kong where there are already those very same rules in place. maybe its an accident that interest in horse racing is booming in those area's and it is dwindling in our country which is bigger.

[johnhannibalsmith]

the strongest reasons i can give you is that racing has 2 very key components to it, the person that puts his money up to raise, train and run horses, and the person that puts his money up that runs to the betting windows to support the sport. those 2 components are interchangeable. often times a bettor becomes an owner and an owner becomes a bettor. what we have here are the key components of the game disintegrating into oblivion. we have fewer bettors and fewer owners.

...

Explain to me, if you want me to understand, how limiting the number of horses that can run in any given owner's name is going to increase the number of owners that actually own horses as well as increase bettors. I'm just very confused. You say it is the most important thing that we can do. What are you actually suggesting? That more people would buy horses if they were was no glory in buying your way to being leading owner? And why would bettors care who is on top of the owner's standings? Do people get more excited if they see a close fight in the standings amongs owners... even if a couple of them are just aliases of another?

I've got to be missing something here.

[lamboguy]

the way the game is structured gives the small owner no chance in hell to see daylight. if new owners keep banging their heads against the wall and fall to the canvas they will not come back to the sport to play the game. owner's that do well bring other people to the game, those new people become bettors and maybe owners. when the game is ruled by large owners and trainers, those are the only guys that will benefit by the structure.

90% of all the stake races throughout the land are won by 10% of the trainers. the game is an absolute bore. without knowing the horses in the big races i can predict which small pool of owners and trainers will be the winners.

i certainly see why you are questioning my opinion because this is something different than what has gone on for years. its very hard to predict if this type of a structural change will have a positive effect on this game. but its easy to predict what will happen if there are no changes made real soon.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
i certainly see why you are questioning my opinion because this is something different than what has gone on for years....

No, actually that's not it at all.

I question it because I feel to see any logic in recognizing the problem or addressing with a solution that wouldn't seem to change a single thing except for the names in the program and some unfamiliar names in the standings.

Why is a small owner with 2 horses unable to see daylight because another owner has 250 horses?

Does the small owner suddenly get those left over horses after the limit by osmosis?

What is getting the small owner ahead in this deal if he suddenly doesn't get free horses? He has the same horses, he's running against the same horses, but the program lists different owners for the competition... so he's going to make more money because the owners are different? Why not just get new horses or a new trainer if you aren't beating the horses that are stabled there? Claim a couple and drop the garbage. Get a better trainer. Those seem to be the solutions that you are looking for in this problem of small time owners not winning races with what they have. They aren't just going to automatically start winning if the only thing that changes is who owns the horses.

[lamboguy]

just an example how things have changed with large outfits the way i see it. in the old days when babies came to the track, trainers used to get together and arrange for their horse to go out in sets. tracks had limits on how many 2 year olds a trainer could have in their barn. today the large trainers have as many 2 year olds as they want. when they go to the track they take 5 or six horses out of their stalls together and they go out in sets. they don't need smaller guys because they already have the horses. when the big guys pick out the horse to make up a set, they arrange horses go together with similar abilities. when a little guy goes out he needs to arrange his sets with other little guys. he has very little options as to whom he is going to work with. he has to get together with someone in the same boat.

today a trainer like Graham Motion sends horses out in sets of 12, all his own in Fairhill training. that means that he has 12 exercise riders that he has to pay for. it also means that when his horses go out and work, its as close to a race as you can get before you have an official afternoon race. those horses are going to have a big advantage over others that don't have that type of preparation. other trainers are the same way, the larger ones.

[bob60566]

This was all discussed last year on this forum and nothing has changed for the good.
My opinion the governing bodies have no idea what the future if any will look like and are letting things go into freefall before reform will take place as it must.
My thoughts it will be a tiered system based on handle on both a/b tracks East and West, North and South as season dictates.
How many tracks?? lot less than today, Attendance is non factor but will be more than present day.
The new organization would support 5k clm to Grd 1 in the tier system.
Big problem state bred purses, The horses can still travel to race and still be bred in the state do not like dont breed.
Racing will have to fade into the sunset and be on life support before any action is taken and how long tiil sunset and new dawn and radical changes??? :(

[lamboguy]

This was all discussed last year on this forum and nothing has changed for the good.
My opinion the governing bodies have no idea what the future if any will look like and are letting things go into freefall before reform will take place as it must.
My thoughts it will be a tiered system based on handle on both a/b tracks East and West, North and South as season dictates.
How many tracks?? lot less than today, Attendance is non factor but will be more than present day.
The new organization would support 5k clm to Grd 1 in the tier system.
Big problem state bred purses, The horses can still travel to race and still be bred in the state do not like dont breed.
Racing will have to fade into the sunset and be on life support before any action is taken and how long tiil sunset and new dawn and radical changes??? :(
i think you are 100% right

[johnhannibalsmith]

...today a trainer like Graham Motion sends horses out in sets of 12, all his own in Fairhill training. that means that he has 12 exercise riders that he has to pay for. it also means that when his horses go out and work, its as close to a race as you can get before you have an official afternoon race. those horses are going to have a big advantage over others that don't have that type of preparation. other trainers are the same way, the larger ones.


Okay, just to try to piece this all together, I'm going to just start here. I'm just not able to form an opinion on your idea, so unable to get it, I just want to hash it out a bit so maybe I can be persuaded.

This is just a jurisdicitional thing right? Maybe at each track? Or a national policy?

I mean, you want the horses to stay in the state, right? A guy can't keep owning 250 horses and just run in 10 different states instead of auctioning the overflow off in-state with the requirement that they never again leave the state?

Or are we grandfathering this in?

Moreover, Graham Motion, those twelve horse sets, those are all for a single owner, I presume? No way he could possibly circumvent that restriction by sending out other horses, possibly owned by other people? And he's at a training center, does that mean then that you do mean nationwide by the limit or are we considering Fairhill the same thing as Pimlico and treating it as a jurisdictional matter that includes training centers?

For the record I do realize that if you have a dozen horses that gallop you pay for a dozen gallops. But, what I wanted to touch on is the point that follows it, in which Graham Motion has an advantage because he can train closer to the race at Fairhill. In what way does this not make Graham Motion train at Fairhill? Are you just in favor of taking away Graham Motion's horses? Closing down Fairhill? If you take away some of horses by limiting his exisiting owners, will those people that can't win because they aren't at Fairhill suddenly send their horses to Graham Motion and Fairhill? Or do we put a limit on Motion? Or do we just run against the rest of the acceptable Motion horses with our inherent disadvantage by not being at Fairhill and still lose?

Other than those few questions, we aren't far off.

[thespaah]

What?

How did this possibly explain that it would be a good idea to run owners off? Or even solve the problem? Why wouldn't a guy just own 25 horses in his name if you made that some arbitrary "limit" and another 25 in his kid's name or his best friend's name if he wanted to avoid a possible coupled entry? You think some "limit" would solve some "problem" of who actually got the money? And as a very small owner, why would I care who owns the damn horse if its going to outrun me anyway, as though its more fair if I don't get run over by a guy with 32 wins instead of 4? Or are you suggesting that all the horses that they have would leave too? I was under the impression that you wanted the horses to stay, so I just assume you figure that they'll still be there, so naturally SOMEONE is going to own them and run them.

In case I'm not clear, I don't get the problem or the proposed "solution".
I think the point is many tracks have one trainer that is dominant. Winning perhaps at twice the frequency of the next best trainer. Then there are these owners which swoop in with superior stock and win a grand share of the races in which they are entered.
A poster in another thread commented on a situation at Tampa Bay. He stated that many trainers he knew were staying away this year because of a 45% trainer on the grounds. I can empathize. Why bother entering against this guy when he stands a nearly one in two chance of winning and probably a 7 in ten chance of hitting the board.
If a trainer like that was limited to say 30 stalls, it might level the playing field a bit. Oh I suppose he can ship in as well.
The bottom line is SOMETHING has to be done. Or in ten to 15 years this whole thing could be over with.

[thespaah]

My point is we don't need expensive technology. Just have the tracks lock the tote after the gate has shut when the first horse has entered. That's all we need, and the bettors would adapt. They'd have to get off their lazy asses a minute or two earlier. Your earlier point about perception is 100% correct.
Oh I agree. I think the tote should be locked when the first horse loads. And can be reopened ONLY in the event of a delay of at least 60 seconds.
For example. The tote can be unlocked if: A vet must examine a horse at the gate. A horse runs off. A horse breaks through the gate.. Well that one ALWAYS requires a quick look from the vet anyway.
THing is if memory serves, NYRA used to lock the tote when the first horse loaded. I guess they figured they could squeeze another 5% or so into the pools by leaving the tote open until the break...

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think the point is many tracks have one trainer that is dominant. Winning perhaps at twice the frequency of the next best trainer. Then there are these owners which swoop in with superior stock and win a grand share of the races in which they are entered.
A poster in another thread commented on a situation at Tampa Bay. He stated that many trainers he knew were staying away this year because of a 45% trainer on the grounds. I can empathize. Why bother entering against this guy when he stands a nearly one in two chance of winning and probably a 7 in ten chance of hitting the board.
If a trainer like that was limited to say 30 stalls, it might level the playing field a bit. Oh I suppose he can ship in as well.
The bottom line is SOMETHING has to be done. Or in ten to 15 years this whole thing could be over with.

Well, I sure at least like your interpretaton a lot better, but still I think this owner limit concept fails to truly address the problem even much more coherently stated here.

How do you keep Jamie Ness and his giant owner from dominating the purse money at Tampa? Or a similar scenario elsewhere?

There are a lot easier ways to do what you would need to actually do to solve the problem presented here.

[Stillriledup]

Meadow's said: "just a few supertracks would remain." And in his "perfect world," that would, perhaps, be workable, but racehorses are IMPERFECT creatures. Some are just slow (however well-bred), others develop infirmities and deteriorate, while yet others lose a step over time. In fact, MOST non-maidens are in some state of decline even as i type this.

The current system, while FAR from perfect, at least supplies a place and purpose for those horses, and ample opportunities for their connections to recoup a portion of expenditures.

Look, I realize it's not politically correct amongst serious players to oppose contraction and drastically reduced racing dates. But you aren't considering the big picture, other factions affected by, or impracticality of the somewhat extreme proposal at issue here.

CJ makes a good point about the horses being 'phased out' if a lot of these tracks went away. If there was no place to race a slowpoke, the slowpoke's breeder would either stop breeding them or they would breed them and just keep them as pets.

Most bettors dont care about tracks being 'contracted' because fans just want to bet into big pools with 'meat' on the bone. As racing stands now, betting pools around the country are small for the most part and there is very little dumb money out there for sharp players to win. The only way to beat the races is to be able to beat other sharp players AND the high takeout. Its a momumental task.

BUT, if smaller tracks went away, that would force those horseplayers to pick another track to bet on, those pools would rise and there would be more of a chance for a good bettor to find some value once in a while.

[lamboguy]

you picked on one aspect of a problem that i brought out. there are many things that have to be dealt with like a uniform medication policy that is the same in all states.

the prior poster brought up Ness. he runs a great program form what i have seen. whatever he does to get those horses to run better is legal so far. but what he does have are big numbers. he can enter 2 horses in almost every single condition that exist's at a race track. if he doesn't like the way the race came up he can still scratch a horse and wait for a better spot to come up for his horse and still run the other one without being penalized most of the time. i don't know how you can beat that. i think his overall win percentage is over 30% for the last 6 years. in 40 years of following horse racing i don't know of many trainers that have gone over 20% 2 years in a row. today you have many trainers over 22% year in and year out. and guys that i considered real good trainers that didn't keep up with the changes of the game at less than 10%

the reason why i would like to see ownership limited is to try to even off the playing field. i think that an even playing field would only strengthen the sport.

[Stillriledup]

If you are concerned about hackers getting into the pools, they why would you oppose locking the tote when the first horse gets into the gate? Even if the tracks would supposedly invest in more secure technology, would you really have confidence that it would work 100% of the time, or even 90% of the time. Would locking the tote early inconvenience some bettors? Sure, but they'd learn to adapt. Nothing is worse for the game than seeing the 4-1 shot when the gates open go to the lead and become 5-2 on the far turn. The main objective isn't to penalize track owners; its to penalize those who benefit from a potentially flawed tote system.

Im not necessarily opposed to locking the tote when the first horse enters the gate, i'd just PREFER to see the tracks find a way to not have to resort to this.

[johnhannibalsmith]

......would force those horseplayers to ...

I swear I was reading the post and thinking I would just check out to evaluate some evaluations more without a reply...

...but come on with that. I've seen that approach to many aspects of the game and it never seems to have the effect that is intended.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
the reason why i would like to see ownership limited is to try to even off the playing field. i think that an even playing field would only strengthen the sport.

Okay, I get it. I see no evidence that you will somehow do that or raise the income of smaller trainers by doing that, but I'll mull it over a bit more and get back to you if my opinion changes.

[Stillriledup]

If hacking is indeed a problem with which tracks refuse to deal, the game is doomed. Period. Shut down the internet betting altogether then.
At this point who cares if tracks take the easy way out? There must be at least the perception of pool integrity.
If I am trackside and I am not aware of the tote lag time, I look up at the tote board as the horses are through the first 20 second to half minute into the race and I see the WPS pools practically DOUBLE in size, I have to be alarmed to see this. My first thought is there are people betting after the race has started. This CANNOT be permitted to continue.
Easy way out? With most tracks running on shoe string budgets, I would expect technology to remain the same. There simply is not enough money in the game to make the investment.

My theory is that as long as people arent betting after the start, or cancelling after watching 7 seconds of the race, im fine with any negative perception as long as its an unfounded perception.

Horseplayers by nature are a very skeptical bunch, they need to be in order to justify why they're losing part or all of their paycheck at the races....so, horseplayers will find a reason to complain about something no matter what.

The perception won't get any better until horseplayers come to the realization that 90 something percent of all horseplayers will end up in the red at the end of their betting careers.

[Stillriledup]

I swear I was reading the post and thinking I would just check out to evaluate some evaluations more without a reply...

...but come on with that. I've seen that approach to many aspects of the game and it never seems to have the effect that is intended.

To jump in on your debate with Lambo about the big barns eating up the little barns, how do you think (for example) the small barns at Tampa felt a year ago when Ness and Midwest T Breds basically won ALL the races and all the money?

Do you think they felt that Ness' presence didnt matter one bit to them or do you think they would all say, to a man, that Ness being there and going on that epic run cost them wins and places and shows and they would have done better had Ness not been there winning all the cash?

[cj]

in our country there are jump races that have no gambling at all, and they get an attendance of 50,000 people or more that spend $25 in admission to watch the show for the afternoon. that sport does not know of trainers that win @ 30%, they don't have owners that own 300 horses or trainers that train 20 horses. jumper's are alive and well in this country with or without gambling.

there are still plenty of bush racing going on in places like Ocala, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas where there is no gambling and people show up for the afternoon of thoroughbred racing.

people want to be involved in horse racing, they just don't want any part of it the way it is structured today.

50,000? Really? Where is that?

[lamboguy]

50,000? Really? Where is that?http://www.fairhillraces.org/tickets.html

there is a phone number for them. you can call them tomorrow and ask them how many people show up. there are other places that do big numbers in North Carolina and Virginia.

[cj]

http://www.fairhillraces.org/tickets.html

there is a phone number for them. you can call them tomorrow and ask them how many people show up. there are other places that do big numbers in North Carolina and Virginia.

I've been to Fair Hill, and it is a fun day. There were not 50,000 people there, or even close really. The only attendance figure I could find was for 2009 when there were 14,000.

I think the Camden Cup in South Carolina probably gets a much bigger crowd, but that is about it.

[maclr11]

So basically your argument is if you have to play the Yankees 18 times every season people wont spend money to try to beat them. Doesnt it feel better to beat the big guys then other little guys.
And so what if they are sending them out in sets, if thats a huge issue for little guys go get more horses problem solved.
Racing doesnt stand to benefit from what basically your describing as a salary cap. I can only spend 8 million on horses, that just diminshes racing. We want to encourage those with money to spend lots and invest in the game and move the game forward.
Who brings more to racing, one rich guy with 10 horses or two middle class guys with 2 horses each.

[rastajenk]

....so, horseplayers will find a reason to complain about something no matter what.
This is the most accurate assertion in this entire thread. If everything on Mr. Meadow's wish list came to be, this would still be true.

[eurocapper]

I found an article with an explanation for why anti-bleeding medication is being used in the US but not needed on dirt surfaces in Japan.
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/video-proof-of-why-thoroughbreds-bleed-in-the-us-and-not-in-japan/

If some medication is permitted, there may be a tendency to leniency on other medication (especially with state level jurisdiction).

[lamboguy]

I've been to Fair Hill, and it is a fun day. There were not 50,000 people there, or even close really. The only attendance figure I could find was for 2009 when there were 14,000.

I think the Camden Cup in South Carolina probably gets a much bigger crowd, but that is about it.
i have a good friend, she trains those things and her husband is a top steeplechase rider, she has told me countless times that she was at meets that had over 50,000 people there, her husband once went to Japan to ride and they had something close to 100,000 for that event. the people that go to those events don't even bet. they just simply enjoy the game and the make their day a fun event.

in thoroughbreds there was a day not to long ago where family's went to racetracks like Monmouth, Rockingham and Saratoga and never made a bet on a thoroughbred race and walked out of those places had the greatest time of their lives.

[johnhannibalsmith]

To jump in on your debate with Lambo about the big barns eating up the little barns, how do you think (for example) the small barns at Tampa felt a year ago when Ness and Midwest T Breds basically won ALL the races and all the money?

Do you think they felt that Ness' presence didnt matter one bit to them or do you think they would all say, to a man, that Ness being there and going on that epic run cost them wins and places and shows and they would have done better had Ness not been there winning all the cash?

Before I answer any specifics, particularly the rhetorical questions, I'm here to understand why limiting owners is a good thing, pros and cons. So far, I've seen, in about ten posts, one example, two if you include that somehow Graham Motion will be rendered powerless at Fair Hill somehow, of how it MAY be a good thing. I've seen an example of how it may help, and frankly, I think that we've misidentified the problem as owners with more than a set number of horses, and the problem is dealing with large owners that have giant egos and want to win titles by dominance.

I can see kicking this idea around. I don't think it would rate as the "most important" part of any proposal, but that's why I'm intrigued and would like convincing.

What you really want is to run off Midwest Thoroughbreds and anybody that tries too hard. I kind of thought so, that was basically the first line in my opening inquiries. You have a unique problem there, because if it were just that simple at fixing what the underlying complaint that small barns can't make money, you could just claim those fantastic horses and get way nicer horses from Midwest than those that they brought.

I mean, that's the point - you can't beat him. You can't even HAVE those horses and beat the horses that you have now that can't outrun the horse in his barn? They take them from you and they get faster. You claim the one that outruns you and can't get a check. Right? We're getting there... so getting new horses may not help. You could hire Ness, especially now that he'll have openings with Midwest possibly being limited, but I'm thinking that most people don't seem to think that this Ness is actually SO MUCH better than every other trainer in town.

It sounds like you think you might have a bigger problem to address. I think you want to fix a much more specific problem that would be vastly better addressed with that focus than with some admittedly very typical sounding stylization of policy to address a problem that simply sounds easy and gives the illusion of fixing a problem. And the problem that you address is somewhere in everybody's list in the most rudimentary way.

On to your rhetorical questions, since I promised. I run at the home of the original supertrainers. This is Mullins land. Been through him, Mills, Bennett, Chambers, Silva - all the 30 to 40% guys. I'm literally trying to imagine how this limit would have changed anything. Unless we want to just deal with moving a hypothetical, alleged "undesirable" from one jurisdiction to another, as near as I can tell this is just a matter of saying something that is easy to say - assuming you were willing to take massive leaps of faith in its enforcability and that the downside won't vastly outweigh the upside of essentially evicting someone you don't want there - without actually identifying what it is that you want to change and what is the best way to do it. Maybe this is that method, so convince me. You start with implementation and governning/regulatory bodies and actual accounting methods for determining ownership. Once I get the gist of all of the groundwork that will be laid out before actual enactment, I can then begin to decide if this is likely to be easier or more effecting at removing these hypothetical, alleged "undesirables". Assuming they are still the problem.

[therussmeister]

I mean, that's the point - you can't beat him. You can't even HAVE those horses and beat the horses that you have now that can't outrun the horse in his barn? They take them from you and they get faster. You claim the one that outruns you and can't get a check.

I can't help but notice that there is an owner that may be trying to do just that. Ridenjac Racing, trainer Dennis Ward, ran two horses at Tampa Wednesday that were claimed from Midwest last race. Except they got two checks - a win and a place.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I can't help but notice that there is an owner that may be trying to do just that. Ridenjac Racing, trainer Dennis Ward, ran two horses at Tampa Wednesday that were claimed from Midwest last race. Except they got two checks - a win and a place.

Good job. That's the best way to fix the problem of not being able to outrun someone with what you have. Getting better horses is always good. And Dennis Ward can make money with them even. So either we have another problem by Stillriledup's concerns, or we have a beneficial solution to how you make money that didn't involve this very vague ownership limit.

[mountainman]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this - I don't see it as pointless.

First off, sir, i'm as concerned as anyone abt the future of our declining sport and open to being sold on progressive ideas. But i exist and work in the real, FAR from "perfect" world, in which contraction on the scale proposed (or just wistfully envisioned?) by meadows would be nearly possible to implement and not the panacea some forsee.

State-bred programs, in particular, would be a drag on the brave new world of super-tracks and high class horses. Sure, better studs and mares might be reshuffled to certain jurisdictions, but does it honestly stand to reason that bigger purses would DISCOURAGE certain undesirable breeders?

Survival of the swiftest makes sense in THEORY, and it might SEEM that the assembly line of slow, state-bred runners would eventually shut down for lack of funding, but that's not how the industry works in the real world. I've dealt with hordes of breeders and horsemen vowed to target restricted purse money, and however bleak their records, they NEVER lose enthusiasm or seem to run out of money. The big horse is ALWAYS just around the corner, and they will somehow keep trying to breed him until they are 6 feet under.

And breeders have power, political savy, and a loud voice.They are tuff, selfish, well-organized and relentless about getting their way. I've known them to PLOT to fill races with inferior horses and PURPOSEFULLY dilute the product.

In summary, while it's not politically correct of me to poke holes in player-centric proposals, unlike most forum paticipants, i make my living in the industry and have seen how things actually work behind the scenes. And i've probably dealt with more horsemen than any other forum participant. I know how they think, i know how they roll, and the bad ones are not going away simply because the bar gets raised.

[mountainman]

Nobody can afford a breeding operation with no results forever.

Just hide and watch them. Those people are nothing if not resilient.

[mountainman]

I don't care if a 2% trainer is out of a job. That is the way life works.



2% trainers care even less about you. And they have more clout. That's how the industry works.

[Saratoga_Mike]

2% trainers care even less about you. And they have more clout. That's how the industry works.

What 2% trainers have clout?

[DeltaLover]

2% trainers care even less about you.

Really?

I am under the impression that they depend to me as as bettor more that I do to them as 2% figures.....

[cj]

2% trainers care even less about you. And they have more clout. That's how the industry works.

Typical "insider" bullshit. Most places, if you suck at your job, you have no clout. That is part of the reason racing sucks right now. Incompetent people actually have clout.

[mountainman]

What 2% trainers have clout?

In comparison to horseplayers?????????? Are you serious??????

[mountainman]

Typical "insider" bullshit. Most places, if you suck at your job, you have no clout. That is part of the reason racing sucks right now. Incompetent people actually have clout.

You're conceding my point , yet calling it bullshit? Your profanity is out of line and uncalled for, man. I enjoy debating, and you and i have exchanged cordial private messages several times. So i'm bowing out before this gets personal. Please have the last word, sir. There will be no retort.

[MightBeSosa]

2% trainers fill races, the track doesn't care if they are winning or not.

[cj]

You're conceding my point , yet calling it bullshit? Your profanity is out of line and uncalled for, man. I enjoy debating, and you and i have exchanged cordial private messages several times. So i'm bowing out before this gets personal. Please have the last word, sir. There will be no retort.

You are offended by bullshit? Really? It isn't against the TOS here and wasn't meant as anything personal.

[mountainman]

You are offended by bullshit? Really? It isn't against the TOS here and wasn't meant as anything personal.

It's all good. Just too easy online for things to become acrimonious. I avoid that at all costs. Didn't always. Learned the hard way. Have had my say here and said enuff on this thread. Not a fan of long, dragged out exchanges, anyway. Slogs down the forum. We've had a crisp debate. Going to move on while it was still enjoyable. merry xmas.

[Saratoga_Mike]

In comparison to horseplayers?????????? Are you serious??????

Most 2% trainers aren't worth having at the track. They have no idea where to place their horses. Therefore, their stock is never in a bettable spot. In my mind, they are of little value to track mgt or the bettor. You may like them b/c they're easier to hustle for an entry. But rounding out a 7-horse field with a 50-1 shot doesn't make the card anymore appealing for the customer (i.e., the bettor). I realize you would just be doing your job, but the track and the bettor would be better off without 2% trainers. Therefore, I have no idea why you or anyone would accord them any clout over an actual customer.

[Stillriledup]

Good job. That's the best way to fix the problem of not being able to outrun someone with what you have. Getting better horses is always good. And Dennis Ward can make money with them even. So either we have another problem by Stillriledup's concerns, or we have a beneficial solution to how you make money that didn't involve this very vague ownership limit.

The problem with 'getting better horses' is that the big barns have no problem claiming one for 20 and dropping the horse for 10....so, the little guy would have to spend 20 or 25 of money he doesnt have and run that horse for 10 to have a shot....if small barn claims one for 20 and runs it for 20, no doubt the supertrainer will have one he claimed for 40 in there at 3-5 odds.

Lets just add to the conditions (of some or most races) 5,000 claimer, (trainers who at time of entry have a 19% win percentage or less at the meet). This way, you can let the little barns actually have a shot to win a purse.

If a 45% supertrainer is winning races hand over fist at any particular meet, that turns the old fashioned handicapping process from horse handicapping to trainer handicapping. I dont know about you, but i would prefer to actually have to handicap the horses on a level playing field rather than have to determine if some supertrainer's 3-5 massive dropdown has a big hole in him or not. They know and you're guessing. Too much to overcome for both bettors and the smaller barns.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The problem with 'getting better horses' is that the big barns have no problem claiming one for 20 and dropping the horse for 10....so, the little guy would have to spend 20 or 25 of money he doesnt have and run that horse for 10 to have a shot.......

There's a lot in that last post to go over and I'm not sure we're even still talking about the same problem. I can't tell anymore.

A big barn drops a horse from $20 to $10k and there's a problem getting better horses? Where? I know people that flew to Jersey from Arizona a few years back just to sit there and claim horses dropping for purse money and van them all the way across the country. If you claim a $20k horse for $10k and can't win for $10k back with him, then you probably didn't claim a $20k horse.

And just as an aside, life isn't fair. The "little guy" on the NYRA circuit can't go buy a $3.425 million dollar yearling to run in a MSW next May either. But someone does, and if that "little guy" plans on running, his $32,000 buy is facing that one anyway.

Your new problem seems to be that "little barns" are at a disadvantage. Well, hey, no kidding. I never had more than a handful myself, so I have some idea of the inherent disadvantages. You sound more like the idea is to somehow make all the horses worse as to accomodate the "little barn" and make it more fair. Being a little barn isn't a bad thing, and there are very high percentage "little barns", but they are at those percentages because they are playing the same game, or whatever game is required to be successful. If the problem is that a "small barn" has an owner that can't claim horses for $40k and run back for $20k, well, I'm not really sure how you plan on fixing that.

That's just an inherent advantage of having money to piss away. If I believed that what we had was a guy that was claiming on the rise and running on the drop with a steady non-ending string of those moves and stealing all the purses without actually making money - instead of what I believe is the exact opposite according to your reference, a group that makes claims instantly worth three times their value - then I could see trying to approach fixing that problem directly. Again, you want something that isn't legislatable. You can't make "all things equal" with a rule just to try to bring some guys up. I'm not even sure what exactly you would advocate to solve the dilemma of guys with more money and bigger balls at the entry box? Ban claiming races?

[Cratos]

It's all good. Just too easy online for things to become acrimonious. I avoid that at all costs. Didn't always. Learned the hard way. Have had my say here and said enuff on this thread. Not a fan of long, dragged out exchanges, anyway. Slogs down the forum. We've had a crisp debate. Going to move on while it was still enjoyable. merry xmas.

Your non-spurious overview of the state of thoroughbred horseracing today was adroitly put. It was a fitting footnote to Barry Meadow’s well-stated “wish list” for racing.

Therefore I like to add my “two cents” by saying that horseracing both as a spectator sport and a gambling entity is in dire need of major technology upgrade (e.g. software for bettors) if it portends to be a major player on today’s sports entertainment landscape.

Today’s horseplayer do not live in the day of Seabiscuit or Secretariat; they live in the era of the virtual marketplace where computers, tablets, and smartphones are commonplace and for racing to survive, the racing product must become compatible with those “toys” if it is to be a viable product in the virtual marketplace.

At one time thoroughbred racing was the number one attendance sport in America and along with baseball and boxing were part of the top three sports in America many, many years ago.

It is clear today that that is no longer true and through changes and upgrading its product, baseball remains a key player in America sports arena today. But boxing the former third wheel of sports is no more than a sideshow spike on today’s sports radar screen and horseracing is on life support.

I am not going to chronicle any proposed fixes for today’s racing because the aforementioned Barry Meadow post within this thread did that very well.
However a case can be made that if 45 days are taken away from the annual racing calendar the burial crew would probably start to excavate the earth for racing’s burial. Those days are the 3 Triple Crown race days, the 40 day Saratoga meet and the 2 days of the Breeders’ Cup.

My intent is not to argue a preference or a solution, but to create a vociferous debate that will create a dialogue that will lead to creativity and implementation of real change that will again make thoroughbred horseracing a key player in today’s sports entertainment arena.

[bob60566]

Can someone tell me how many Contolling bodies are involved in horse raciing in the USA? and then has the authorization to make the major cuts and changes in this decade to refloat the industry.

[usedtolovetvg]

Horse racing is regulated by the State. Then there are the Commissions, owners, trainers, jockeys and maybe another Board or two. Of course, the only one who is not represented is the horse player.

[Jeff P]

If I'm not mistaken, Barry served on the NTRA Players Panel. Hard to imagine that was nearly 10 years ago. Even harder still (at least for me) is seeing the industry become very much aware about the issues addressed by the NTRA Players Panel and then watching track management and horsemen literally do everything in their power to resist these and other common sense changes.

If you haven't read them, take a few minutes to read the recommendations made by the NTRA Players Panel back in 2003.

NTRA Players Panel Recommendations:
http://www.horse-races.net/library/article-ntrapanel.htm

-jp

.

[mountainman]

Most 2% trainers aren't worth having at the track. They have no idea where to place their horses. Therefore, their stock is never in a bettable spot. In my mind, they are of little value to track mgt or the bettor. You may like them b/c they're easier to hustle for an entry. But rounding out a 7-horse field with a 50-1 shot doesn't make the card anymore appealing for the customer (i.e., the bettor). I realize you would just be doing your job, but the track and the bettor would be better off without 2% trainers. Therefore, I have no idea why you or anyone would accord them any clout over an actual customer.

I wanted to leave this thread, but you're misinterpreting my words. I didn't say 2% trainers SHOULD have more clout than players. I simply said they do. Much more, in fact. For lots of reasons, that i'm just not going to get into, much, much, much more.

Surely, even the most passionate of player advocates would concede that those who bet the money that makes the game go don't have sufficient say-the seat at the table they surely deserve- on industry matters. Get it??????????

[5k-claim]

If I'm not mistaken, Barry served on the NTRA Players Panel. Hard to imagine that was nearly 10 years ago. Even harder still (at least for me) is seeing the industry become very much aware about the issues addressed by the NTRA Players Panel and then watching track management and horsemen literally do everything in their power to resist these and other common sense changes.

If you haven't read them, take a few minutes to read the recommendations made by the NTRA Players Panel back in 2003.

NTRA Players Panel Recommendations:
http://www.horse-races.net/library/article-ntrapanel.htm
Looks like good work.

I am not sure I got some of that "Integrity of the Entries/Late Scratches" section, though. And what is the deal with this line: "Trainers should be directed to use white wraps on the front and back of horses, as preferred to dark or gray wraps that are hard to see on a television monitor." Seriously? I am guessing this is no longer necessary with High Def television these days? (Some owners really like picking that stuff out for their horses, you know.)

Also: The NTRA Players’ Panel discussed the medication and testing issues at some length. The panel has determined that it lacks the expertise to promote specific recommendations on this issue. However, the panel supports the call for uniform standards by the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. I guess this was back in the days before you guys were close with the Jockey Club?

I agree with you that a lot of this could have been done 9 years ago.

.

[mountainman]

Really?

I am under the impression that they depend to me as as bettor more that I do to them as 2% figures.....

Yes, they should see it that way, but believe me, they don't. And i'm uniquely qualified to make that assertion. Again, i've probably dealt and interacted with more trainers than any person who posts here.

[thespaah]

50,000? Really? Where is that?
The Charlotte Races at Brooklawnwood get 15 to 20k.
I don't know what they get at Camden, Charleston or at the Aiken Trials. In do know they pack em in.

[thespaah]

2% trainers care even less about you. And they have more clout. That's how the industry works.
2% trainers don't last long. They become assistants or they leave the business.
Would you hire a plumber that does his job correctly only HALF the time?
C'mon. Be realistic. Speaking metaphorically, I HAVE more clout than a 2% trainer.

[thespaah]

Really?

I am under the impression that they depend to me as as bettor more that I do to them as 2% figures.....
In the grand scheme, horsemen have a particular disdain for the betting public.

[thespaah]

Typical "insider" bullshit. Most places, if you suck at your job, you have no clout. That is part of the reason racing sucks right now. Incompetent people actually have clout.
Well said!

[mountainman]

2% trainers don't last long. They become assistants or they leave the business.


That might sound logical. But it's not a reality.

[thespaah]

In comparison to horseplayers?????????? Are you serious??????
That is NOT what you stated.
In fact you are incorrect. If there were no one to wager on the horses, how do purses get funded? Oh, the racino? Ok. How long do you think that is going to last until someone who has a say in the operations end of it, stands up and takes notice?
Have you seen what has happened in New Jersey and is about to happen in Ontario?
In NJ the state government legislated away the casino purse enhancement. Then the State sold the racetracks. Now the tracks are on their own. The Meadowlands USED to be the number one harness track in the Hemisphere.
Now the purse structure looks the same as it did 25 years ago. In fact it's lower.
As for Monmouth, It's a pretty similar situation. Purses are way down.
There simply is not the handle volume to pay higher purses.
The point is, that 2% trainer may look upon the guy going to the windows or making bets at home on his computer as though he were the scum of the earth, but at the end of the day, to the bettor that 2% trainer is a flyspeck.

[thespaah]

2% trainers fill races, the track doesn't care if they are winning or not.
Well, they HELP fill races. Lets face it, a guy that wins two of every 100 starts, probably has a very small stable. Maybe 2 to 5 head.

[mountainman]

That is NOT what you stated.
In fact you are incorrect. If there were no one to wager on the horses, how do purses get funded? Oh, the racino? Ok. How long do you think that is going to last until someone who has a say in the operations end of it, stands up and takes notice?
Have you seen what has happened in New Jersey and is about to happen in Ontario?
In NJ the state government legislated away the casino purse enhancement. Then the State sold the racetracks. Now the tracks are on their own. The Meadowlands USED to be the number one harness track in the Hemisphere.
Now the purse structure looks the same as it did 25 years ago. In fact it's lower.
As for Monmouth, It's a pretty similar situation. Purses are way down.
There simply is not the handle volume to pay higher purses.
The point is, that 2% trainer may look upon the guy going to the windows or making bets at home on his computer as though he were the scum of the earth, but at the end of the day, to the bettor that 2% trainer is a flyspeck.

What in the WORLD does any of this have to do with my simple assertion that 2% trainers have more clout in the industry than do horseplayers??? Again, i didn't say they SHOULD have more power or influence, i simply said they do. Which, for lots of reasons, is true. And i also said they have no empathy for gamblers, which is sad, but also true.

Where did i say that trainers are more vital than those who fund the game through their wagers????????

Please, i must ask you to not distort my words.

[mountainman]

Well, they HELP fill races. Lets face it, a guy that wins two of every 100 starts, probably has a very small stable. Maybe 2 to 5 head.

And gets the same vote on hbpa matters as does a peer with 50 stalls. Get it??????

[mountainman]

.
Would you hire a plumber that does his job correctly only HALF the time?


If he worked for half the money you might. Or at least many t-bred owners would.

[thespaah]

What in the WORLD does any of this have to do with my simple assertion that 2% trainers have more clout in the industry than do horseplayers??? Again, i didn't say they SHOULD have more power or influence, i simply said they do. Which, for lots of reasons, is true. And i also said they have no empathy for gamblers, which is sad, but also true.

Where did i say that trainers are more vital than those who fund the game through their wagers????????

Please, i must ask you to not distort my words.
We have a difference of opinion. I did not state nor imply that you believed these guys SHOULD have more clout.
My assertion is that a 2% trainer is either lacking knowledge in his trade or just can't get it done. Logically speaking, a guy in that position has little in the way of juice. Look, he barely has a license. Figuratively speaking.

[jdhanover]

Its too bad that this thread, like so many others on PA, has strayed from the original topic. Mr Meadow's suggestions are thought provoking even if you dont agree with all of them. It would be good to post ideas that you think will help. then it would be interesting to have separate threads on these ideas to debate their merits. But that may only be in the 'perfect world'.

my 2 cents (may only be worth a penny):
- Nothing wrong with many tracks but schedules and meets should be better coordinated. no reasons for races to go off simultaneously 9especially when very few tracks running). Fans of the game live all over the country (as do potential fans). Unlike the NFL, many people only get interested in it after attending the races live.
- I think the cheap vs good races is way overrated. I prefer fuller fields, but as long as they are competitive that is fine by me. If you have read some of the analysis some folks here had the other day at Turf Paradise analyzing $3,000 claiming races (very well done btw), the same handicapping principles apply to those as 'better' races. Aqueduct running a field of 5 Allowance horses is much less interesting to me than the $5,000 claimer at Delta Downs with a field of 10.
- Take out reductions will help the game in the long run if managed properly
- More novel ideas are needed. Gulfstream's 10 cent Rainbow Pick 6 for example. For a small investment you can feel you have a shot at a large payout.
- Tighter controls on late money bet and cancellations are needed as is more stringent auditing of odd betting patterns. But I think shenanigans happen much less frequently than has been discussed
- Large training outfits etc - I hear this in the business world all the time. It is economies of scale and preventing it actually hurts in the long run (absent monopolistic behavior in the market). Some could argue Ness in Tampa approached the monopolistic threshold but usually anything less than 70% is considered competitive.


Oh and the Illinois ADW thing appears to be (what a shock) a legislative screw up. This darn state can't seem to do much right. My guess is it will be reinstated by a few days into the new year on the outside if not earlier. Illinois needs the tax revenue...desperately!

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, they should see it that way, but believe me, they don't. And i'm uniquely qualified to make that assertion. Again, i've probably dealt and interacted with more trainers than any person who posts here.I'm not here to start another argument, but you've posted this twice now in this thread, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that you are not uniquely qualified. There are other industry types posting here...who work or who have worked in the racing offices of some of the biggest tracks in the nation, and who have interacted with plenty of trainers (including the biggest names in the country), jockeys, owners, etc...

[thaskalos]

We have talked about all this before -- and have made the exact same recommendations -- but nothing at all has been done to better the existing situation...mainly because no one in the industry cares about the horseplayer, and his plight in this game.

The horseplayer asks for fewer tracks and bigger fields...but instead, he gets even MORE tracks -- and even shorter fields.

He begs for less oppressive takeouts...and yet, the takeouts continue to creep up -- even where casino businesses are thriving.

It seems that, not only is the horseplayer ignored...he is downright RIDICULED.

And, to a large extent...we DESERVE to be ridiculed, IMO.

We lament the fact that there is no unity in the industry...without realizing that we, as players, are even more divided than the industry is.

We object when the game's leadership treats us like degenerate, addicted gamblers...and yet, we have done little to show that their determination of us is wrong.

The game is currently being run with the TRAINER in mind...and the horseplayer has become less than an afterthought. That's a fact!

Is there something that the horseplayers can do to remedy this situation?

Can we, in some way, prove that we are a force to be reckoned with...instead of the captive audience that "they" consider us to be?

If we can...then we had better think of a way to get together and do it.

If we can't...then the industry has had the right opinion of us all along -- and we deserve no better treatment than the one we are getting.

[Stillriledup]

We have talked about all this before -- and have made the exact same recommendations -- but nothing at all has been done to better the existing situation...mainly because no one in the industry cares about the horseplayer, and his plight in this game.

The horseplayer asks for fewer tracks and bigger fields...but instead, he gets even MORE tracks -- and even shorter fields.

He begs for less oppressive takeouts...and yet, the takeouts continue to creep up -- even where casino businesses are thriving.

It seems that, not only is the horseplayer ignored...he is downright RIDICULED.

And, to a large extent...we DESERVE to be ridiculed, IMO.

We lament the fact that there is no unity in the industry...without realizing that we, as players, are even more divided than the industry is.

We object when the game's leadership treats us like degenerate, addicted gamblers...and yet, we have done little to show that their determination of us is wrong.

The game is currently being run with the TRAINER in mind...and the horseplayer has become less than an afterthought. That's a fact!

Is there something that the horseplayers can do to remedy this situation?

Can we, in some way, prove that we are a force to be reckoned with...instead of the captive audience that "they" consider us to be?

If there is...then we had better think of a way to get together and do it.

If there isn't...then the industry has had the right opinion of us all along -- and we deserve no better treatment than the one we are getting.

Great post.

Couldnt agree more that the game is run for the horsemen and not the bettors.

100% Of all slots money has gone directly into the pockets of the trainers, owners and jocks and not one red cent has gone into the pockets of the bettors. BILLIONS of dollars of slots money from all tracks combined has gone into the pockets of the Mercedes driving trainers and nothing has gone to the bettors. NOT ONE PENNY. They couldnt even have a 5k carryover to 'seed' the 3rd race exacta pool one rainy Tuesday night in March. No, every cent went to the connections, the participants.

That players panel suggestions that Jeff P posted earlier in this thread had some incredible points and yet, almost 10 years later, the industry still hasnt taken advantage of suggestions from people who know more than they do. Why, its anyone's guess.

[Stillriledup]

There's a lot in that last post to go over and I'm not sure we're even still talking about the same problem. I can't tell anymore.

A big barn drops a horse from $20 to $10k and there's a problem getting better horses? Where? I know people that flew to Jersey from Arizona a few years back just to sit there and claim horses dropping for purse money and van them all the way across the country. If you claim a $20k horse for $10k and can't win for $10k back with him, then you probably didn't claim a $20k horse.

And just as an aside, life isn't fair. The "little guy" on the NYRA circuit can't go buy a $3.425 million dollar yearling to run in a MSW next May either. But someone does, and if that "little guy" plans on running, his $32,000 buy is facing that one anyway.

Your new problem seems to be that "little barns" are at a disadvantage. Well, hey, no kidding. I never had more than a handful myself, so I have some idea of the inherent disadvantages. You sound more like the idea is to somehow make all the horses worse as to accomodate the "little barn" and make it more fair. Being a little barn isn't a bad thing, and there are very high percentage "little barns", but they are at those percentages because they are playing the same game, or whatever game is required to be successful. If the problem is that a "small barn" has an owner that can't claim horses for $40k and run back for $20k, well, I'm not really sure how you plan on fixing that.

That's just an inherent advantage of having money to piss away. If I believed that what we had was a guy that was claiming on the rise and running on the drop with a steady non-ending string of those moves and stealing all the purses without actually making money - instead of what I believe is the exact opposite according to your reference, a group that makes claims instantly worth three times their value - then I could see trying to approach fixing that problem directly. Again, you want something that isn't legislatable. You can't make "all things equal" with a rule just to try to bring some guys up. I'm not even sure what exactly you would advocate to solve the dilemma of guys with more money and bigger balls at the entry box? Ban claiming races?

Would banning claiming races hurt the sport?

[rastajenk]

Not if you believe death isn't painful.

[Valuist]

Would banning claiming races hurt the sport?

It would only mean about 75% of the races. Of course they could, and do, find a way to dress up some claimers; state bred allowances and starter races. Plenty of claiming races even at the boutique meets.

[bob60566]

Can someone tell me how many Contolling bodies are involved in horse raciing in the USA? and then has the authorization to make the major cuts and changes in this decade to refloat the industry.

Ok
Is there anyone that has the clout to shut down racing and impliment massive changes in the USA?, and if it is the politicians then simple solution let it die sceaming for change in the industry. :(

[mountainman]

I'm not here to start another argument, but you've posted this twice now in this thread, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that you are not uniquely qualified. There are other industry types posting here...who work or who have worked in the racing offices of some of the biggest tracks in the nation, and who have interacted with plenty of trainers (including the biggest names in the country), jockeys, owners, etc...

As an official since 1989, my hunch is i've still dealt with more horsemen than anybody on this board. And since you brought size into it, i've dealt with and am on a first name basis with scores of prominent trainers. At a track of mnr's ilk, i've certainly interacted with hundreds and hundreds of very modest outfits, and as the person who has been sole recruiter for hundreds of stakes races, including a lucrative, graded event, i've become friendly with just abt everybody who is anybody in the industry.

In addition, i've participated in hearings, conferences, phone conferences , think tanks and brainstorming sessions with many of the more prominent racing secretaries in the nation-some concerning proposals not so different than those outlined in meadow's article.

Before i became an official, i worked for years with t-breds, hustled book -and was a liscensed owner, by the way, at 18. As an official, i've served as an identifier, paddock judge, placing judge, racing sec, ast racing sec, stakes coordinator, track handicapper, linesmaker, clocker, claims clerk, official timer, substitute steward-and i'm sure a few positions i've forgotten.

I also worked a short tenure as a drf chartcaller, ast trackman and drf handicapper.

And that's not to mention 12 years of on air analysis, which has brought me in contact with yet more-in fact tons- of trainers and prominent persons in the industry.

Not to start an argument, and it's not relevant here, but i'm curious, sir, what's your experience in t-racing? I think i know most of it-we have mutual friends-but perhaps not all.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I wanted to leave this thread, but you're misinterpreting my words. I didn't say 2% trainers SHOULD have more clout than players. I simply said they do. Much more, in fact. For lots of reasons, that i'm just not going to get into, much, much, much more.

Surely, even the most passionate of player advocates would concede that those who bet the money that makes the game go don't have sufficient say-the seat at the table they surely deserve- on industry matters. Get it??????????

Why the caustic tone with me? I don't remember a past dispute with you. But we can go down that path. You're simply wrong. A 2% trainer has very little clout. I can't even believe that assertion.

You have a myopic view of racing. And you seem to harbor animosity toward the customer (i.e., the bettor)? I never thought this about you before. In the past, you've always come across as a goodwill ambassador for racing. You had me fooled, but no more sir.

What are my qualifications? I've owned horses. I've helped raised horses. I've bet on plenty of horses. And I can assess a business model very well.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Would banning claiming races hurt the sport?

I always try to reply to one directed at me, but do you really want to debate this now?

It's not going to happen so its irrelevant and it seems you just want argue about anything... and no, I'm not shocked... :D

[mountainman]

Why the caustic tone with me? I don't remember a past dispute with you. But we can go down that path. You're simply wrong. A 2% trainer has very little clout. I can't even believe that assertion.

You have a myopic view of racing. And you seem to harbor animosity toward the customer (i.e., the bettor)? I never thought this about you before. In the past, you've always come across as a goodwill ambassador for racing. You had me fooled, but no more sir.

What are my qualifications? I've owned horses. I've helped raised horses. I've bet on plenty of horses. And I can assess a business model very well.

You twisted my words. I never said 2 % trainers should have more clout than players. Players are much more important to the game. But in the real world, horsemen have a say on industry matters, which players, sadly, for the most part, do not. How in the world does acknowledging, even lamenting that fact make me anti-player? ??????????

I can't believe you'd twist and mischaracterize my words to that extent and in that manner.

And i AM a customer, playing horses will always be my first love.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You twisted my words. I never said 2 % trainers should have more clout than players. Players are much more important to the game. But in the real world, horsemen have a say on industry matters, which players, sadly, for the most part, do not. How in the world does acknowledging, even lamenting that fact make me anti-player? ??????????

I can't believe you'd even be allowed to twist and mischaracterize my words to that extent and in that manner. It's malicious and it's unfair.

Malicious? Come on. If you were lamenting it, then I apologize. You seemed to be defending it. It being "2% trainers have more clout." Of course I don't believe that assertion. Do you cater to 2% trainers? If I were running a track, I'd kick them out. Anyway, as I said, in the past you've come across as a goodwill ambassador for racing, so perhaps this thread has just got you in a bad mood.

[mountainman]

Malicious? Come on. If you were lamenting it, then I apologize. You seemed to be defending it. It being "2% trainers have more clout." Of course I don't believe that assertion. Do you cater to 2% trainers? If I were running a track, I'd kick them out. Anyway, as I said, in the past you've come across as a goodwill ambassador for racing, so perhaps this thread has just got you in a bad mood.

Maybe i also misinterpreted your intent. IF so, my bad. I've read your posts and you seem like a good guy who knows racing. And, for the record, one of my pet peeves is the disproportionate power that low % trainers wield behind the scenes. believe me, i speak from bitter experience on that matter.

[Saratoga_Mike]

yeah, malicious was over the top. i've read your posts and you seem like a good guy who knows racing.

I guess I read something into your posts that wasn't there, so I understand your reaction. But I keep my malicious comments for the other side of the board!

[classhandicapper]

The best reason for reducing the number of tracks is that operating them is a huge unnecessary fixed cost to the industry. If you closed a bunch of tracks tomorrow, the revenue from them would not all vanish. Most of it would simply shift to the remaining tracks as people played at more cost effective simulcast centers and via the internet instead of at the closed track.

The result would be WAY higher profit margins for the remaining tracks that could then be reinvested in making the facilities and game more appealing (lower the take for example) to current players and owners and perhaps even attract new and younger fans.

[mountainman]

The best reason for reducing the number of tracks is that operating them is a huge unnecessary fixed cost to the industry. If you closed a bunch of tracks tomorrow, the revenue from them would not all vanish. Most of it would simply shift to the remaining tracks as people played at more cost effective simulcast centers and via the internet instead of at the closed track.

The result would be WAY higher profit margins for the remaining tracks that could then be reinvested in making the facilities and game more appealing (lower the take for example) to current players and owners and perhaps even attract new and younger fans.

You make some great points. But smaller tracks will never get the death sentence en masse. There is just no regulatory body or consensus in the industry to do that. More likely, some would die slowly, as diminishing foal crops result in shorter and shorter fields, and others could go belly up when slot revenues are (perhaps inevitably) rolled back by the states.

[bob60566]

[QUOTE=mountainman]You make some great points. But smaller tracks will never get the death sentence en masse. There is just no regulatory body or consensus in the industry to do that. More likely, some would die slowly, as diminishing foal crops result in shorter and shorter fields, and others could go belly up when slot revenues are (perhaps inevitably) rolled back by the states.[/QUOTE

Mark
I have to agree there is no regulatory body or consensus in both small and large tracks i think sixty seven in North America ??.
A slow death by attrition seems the only way change will come over time. :(

[5k-claim]

"Clout" (http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk)
.

[Stillriledup]

I always try to reply to one directed at me, but do you really want to debate this now?

It's not going to happen so its irrelevant and it seems you just want argue about anything... and no, I'm not shocked... :D

Without claiming races, it would force prospective owners to breed their own and raise them from babies, purchase at auction or purchase privately. All 3 new ways to enter the game would require the owner to have more 'skin' in the game and not just someone who's in here to play 'musical claiming' without really caring about the animal and its welfare.

[PaceAdvantage]

Not to start an argument, and it's not relevant here, but i'm curious, sir, what's your experience in t-racing? I think i know most of it-we have mutual friends-but perhaps not all.I certainly wasn't referring to myself when I wrote about others here with vast industry experience. Some of them are anonymous. Some are not.

In any event, I'll let it go at that...

[Cratos]

I find this "who have the most industry experience" utterly ridiculous. The problem here is a business model problem that need to be develop to solve and will meet the needs of all parties (fans, owners/trainers, track operators, and authorizing states).

The house is "burning" and the argument here is about who has the bigger water hose. Yes, it would be good to have someone with knowledge of the industry, but it would better to have someone who have the acumen and skill to bring all of the aforementioned parties together for a long term optimal solution.

Personally I believe if thoroughbred doesn't become a significant player in the virtual marketplace this industry will become just another sports industry slowly moving toward oblivion.

[PaceAdvantage]

I find this "who have the most industry experience" utterly ridiculous. The problem here is a business model problem that need to be develop to solve and will meet the needs of all parties (fans, owners/trainers, track operators, and authorizing states).

The house is "burning" and the argument here is about who has the bigger water hose. Yes, it would be good to have someone with knowledge of the industry, but it would better to have someone who have the acumen and skill to bring all of the aforementioned parties together for a long term optimal solution.

Personally I believe if thoroughbred doesn't become a significant player in the virtual marketplace this industry will become just another sports industry slowly moving toward oblivion.Please, spare us. My little tango with MM was a 2 second diversion. Don't make it like it was some huge thread breaker...

[thespaah]

You make some great points. But smaller tracks will never get the death sentence en masse. There is just no regulatory body or consensus in the industry to do that. More likely, some would die slowly, as diminishing foal crops result in shorter and shorter fields, and others could go belly up when slot revenues are (perhaps inevitably) rolled back by the states.
Tracks with weaker financial situations combined with falling live foal numbers each year and other economic factors will force a contraction in the business.
That is a given.

[Jeff P]

Looks like good work.

I am not sure I got some of that "Integrity of the Entries/Late Scratches" section, though. And what is the deal with this line: "Trainers should be directed to use white wraps on the front and back of horses, as preferred to dark or gray wraps that are hard to see on a television monitor." Seriously? I am guessing this is no longer necessary with High Def television these days? (Some owners really like picking that stuff out for their horses, you know.)

Also: I guess this was back in the days before you guys were close with the Jockey Club?

I agree with you that a lot of this could have been done 9 years ago.

.


About those wraps... Yes. Seriously. It goes to transparency and integrity of racing as a viable gambling game.

When wraps are easy to see, the likelihood that chart callers see them goes up. From there, the likelihood the correct info (the horse was wearing front wraps) makes it into future past performances goes up.

When past performances contain the correct info - public trust that racing is run on level goes up. Result? Racing's marketability as a viable form of gaming goes up. That translates into better retention of the new fans who do decide to give racing a try. I firmly believe that if you raise public perception about racing enough you WILL see the game grow.

Look, upping the chances that front wraps make it into past performances isn't the be all end all of racing's problems. It's just one little thing among lots of things (both little and big) that should have been addressed a long time ago. Imho, lots of little negatives not being tended to added to three or four big negatives not being tended to eventually takes its toll.

The objective behind each of the recommendations by the Players Panel was to shape racing into a better/more viable gambling game - a game that the public at large would have an easier time accepting - as opposed to what we have today... a game largely shunned by the gambling public at large.

Ten years have gone by since racing decided not to implement the Players Panel recommendations. We've seen both good economies and bad. In that time racing has gone from a $15 billion a year industry to (what?) a $10 billion a year industry.

Total customer spend on racing shrunk by a third. How much more evidence about takeout, odds that change after the bell, and drugs does one need?




-jp

.

[johnhannibalsmith]

.. It's just one little thing among lots of things (both little and big) that should have been addressed a long time ago...
.

We actually had (have) this rule. Believe it or not. :D

[johnhannibalsmith]

...would force prospective owners...

Well okay, you're on to another subject and I think it would be silly to drag down the thread with my just pecking at whatever wild scheme you devise. But, what's with all the "forcing" people - bettors the other day, now owners - I'm tellin' ya, rule of thumb, whenever you dream something up tha includes a principal like that, give it a real hard look once again for all the unintended consequences.

[Cratos]

Please, spare us. My little tango with MM was a 2 second diversion. Don't make it like it was some huge thread breaker...

It was not intended to be construed as a "deal breaker," but as being non- contributory.

If you fell offended, I apologize because I don't want this to alter what has been a good thread discussion; and yes, we all from time to time post tangents that are not consistent with the thesis of thread.

[thespaah]

Let's all agree that there area myriad of problems and issues which are causes of the current conditions surrounding the game.
Attitudes which result in responses such as "well, it's always been done that way", or "there's nothing that can be done" or "there's no way to reach a consensus", the game will disappear or at least become a mere shell of what it once was.

[mountainman]

I certainly wasn't referring to myself when I wrote about others here with vast industry experience. Some of them are anonymous. Some are not.

In any event, I'll let it go at that...

Point taken And i'm certainly aware of the knowledge possessed by your posters. I'm sure many here, yourself included, know more than i do abt certain aspects of horseracing, and some even surpass me in my specific areas of expertise. It's just that i've dealt with sooooooo many low percentage trainers, and they are resilient, cunning, good at getting there way, and cling to life like an 800 yr old vampire.

[mountainman]

About those wraps... Yes. Seriously. It goes to transparency and integrity of racing as a viable gambling game.

When wraps are easy to see, the likelihood that chart callers see them goes up. From there, the likelihood the correct info (the horse was wearing front wraps) makes it into future past performances goes up.

When past performances contain the correct info - public trust that racing is run on level goes up. Result? Racing's marketability as a viable form of gaming goes up. That translates into better retention of the new fans who do decide to give racing a try. I firmly believe that if you raise public perception about racing enough you WILL see the game grow.

Look, upping the chances that front wraps make it into past performances isn't the be all end all of racing's problems. It's just one little thing among lots of things (both little and big) that should have been addressed a long time ago. Imho, lots of little negatives not being tended to added to three or four big negatives not being tended to eventually takes its toll.

The objective behind each of the recommendations by the Players Panel was to shape racing into a better/more viable gambling game - a game that the public at large would have an easier time accepting - as opposed to what we have today... a game largely shunned by the gambling public at large.

Ten years have gone by since racing decided not to implement the Players Panel recommendations. We've seen both good economies and bad. In that time racing has gone from a $15 billion a year industry to (what?) a $10 billion a year industry.

Total customer spend on racing shrunk by a third. How much more evidence about takeout, odds that change after the bell, and drugs does one need?




-jp

.

Good post. Love the savvy to address front wraps. I try to alert viewers when a contender not showing that lower case "f" on past performances parades in them at mnr. Can be quite a negative-unless the barn uses them on everything.

[Stillriledup]

Another New Years's resolution, read more threads started by Barry.
:ThmbUp:

[cosmicway]

Why is there a tax on race course betting ?
When we bet there is always a take away percentage.
So we are taxed on losses.
If I go downtown with a pram and sell Chinese swiss knife-tin opener-laser light combo then I make some profit, then they ought to tax me.
But in the case of horse racing sometimes we return on feet or hitch hike a ride if it is out in the country. Where are the profits ? It's unconstitutional.

Racegoers should form a union against this and other injustices.
The unions' weapon is the strike weapon.
In this case strike, or abstention rather, is perhaps impossible but reducing one's bets to 1/3 is possible.

[showonly]

I have never met a horseplayer that could not solve the ills of the pari-mutel world. Most of your suggestions are indeed positive on face but in the end we would find ourselves facing the same issues. As participants in this world we must understand that very rarely if ever are our interests aligned. The reality is most horseplayers are so far away from receiving fair market compensation for the time they expend that no dream situation would help them. The enemies of the baby boomer generation of horseplayer are too much information and too little processing power. From the perspective of the player who attacks the races with only pp's and his mind the information age has destroyed any equity your years at the track built up.

[dilanesp]

I have a hypothesis that reduced takeout would not be quite the nirvana typical players anticipate.

What would happen over time is big winning players would increase their bets until the average payouts settle back to nearly where they are now. That rebates would be reduced would be the only thing that would prevent prices from settling exactly where they are now. This is precisely what I would do if I were a whale. If it were announced today that takeout is to be reduced on Jan 1, I would be calculating how much I could increase my bets to get the same ROI I am getting now, and if I wound up with larger than anticipated ROI, perhaps because other winners have chosen not to increase their bets, I would make further increases to take their "market share."

It is a really interesting mathematical question as to what players benefit when takeout is reduced. It has been studied in poker and it's definitely true that a rising tide DOES NOT lift all boats.

That said, I still think takeout should be much lower than it is.

[dilanesp]

Why is there a tax on race course betting ?
When we bet there is always a take away percentage.
So we are taxed on losses.
If I go downtown with a pram and sell Chinese swiss knife-tin opener-laser light combo then I make some profit, then they ought to tax me.
But in the case of horse racing sometimes we return on feet or hitch hike a ride if it is out in the country. Where are the profits ? It's unconstitutional.


How is it unconstitutional? The original Constitution authorizes taxing the pools, and the 16th Amendment authorizes taxing the income of players.

Just because you don't favor a particular action of government doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.

As for the fairness of taxation, I think there are creative solutions to this if the government was really interested in being fair to gamblers (which it is not). But bear in mind, the general principle is that at least some people are making money betting on horse racing as a source of income, and thus, it definitely is not fair to the working population if those people are not taxed on their incomes while workers are taxed on theirs.

[Stillriledup]

How is it unconstitutional? The original Constitution authorizes taxing the pools, and the 16th Amendment authorizes taxing the income of players.

Just because you don't favor a particular action of government doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.

As for the fairness of taxation, I think there are creative solutions to this if the government was really interested in being fair to gamblers (which it is not). But bear in mind, the general principle is that at least some people are making money betting on horse racing as a source of income, and thus, it definitely is not fair to the working population if those people are not taxed on their incomes while workers are taxed on theirs.

The problem with being taxed on "income" is that the math says that its only temporary income for most people. Since a high 90 percent of people are lifetime losers, the tax they paid on their profit is not returned to them when they lose (if they lose) the following year. A player who wins 20k one year and loses 20k the following year "breaks even" in that 2 year span, but is taxed as if he or she showed a 20k profit when in reality, they didnt show any profit.

[cosmicway]

How is it unconstitutional? The original Constitution authorizes taxing the pools, and the 16th Amendment authorizes taxing the income of players.

Just because you don't favor a particular action of government doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.

As for the fairness of taxation, I think there are creative solutions to this if the government was really interested in being fair to gamblers (which it is not). But bear in mind, the general principle is that at least some people are making money betting on horse racing as a source of income, and thus, it definitely is not fair to the working population if those people are not taxed on their incomes while workers are taxed on theirs.


Democratic constitution generally taxes people from what they actually do earn (... each according to his abilities ...).
Some departures from it are known even in democracies. In ancient Greece the Athenian democracy burdened its citizens with the "trireme tax" and that one was a huge state grab, as the historians describe it. The purpose, you may have guessed, was to build a fleet capable of defeating the Persians.

But bar such unusual circumstances the idea of taxing people for their losses is definitely unconstutional and undemocratic. I call it Warsaw ghetto economics.

In addition we are supposed to pay income tax for what we have earned throughout the fiscal year for whatever economic activity it is we are involved, so wins and losses are added together. Not heads I win, tails you lose.

[pondman]

And focusing instead on higher class horses, do you think they come from thin air? No, most start out in msw races. And just how many of those do you intend to card?? t.

The quality of a horse correlated to the State Bred purse. In States such as Oregon it's not possible to breed profitably. The industry relies on the dregs of other state. Yet, it doesn't mind charging a player an additional 5% at the window on every bet. Oregon racing is dreadful.

[dilanesp]

Democratic constitution generally taxes people from what they actually do earn (... each according to his abilities ...).
Some departures from it are known even in democracies. In ancient Greece the Athenian democracy burdened its citizens with the "trireme tax" and that one was a huge state grab, as the historians describe it. The purpose, you may have guessed, was to build a fleet capable of defeating the Persians.

But bar such unusual circumstances the idea of taxing people for their losses is definitely unconstutional and undemocratic. I call it Warsaw ghetto economics.

In addition we are supposed to pay income tax for what we have earned throughout the fiscal year for whatever economic activity it is we are involved, so wins and losses are added together. Not heads I win, tails you lose.

Again, lots of things that are undemocratic are nonetheless constitutional (the structure of the US Senate being a great example). We do not have an ideal democracy.

The Constitution specifically authorizes taxing anyone based on money collected (the Sixteenth Amendment) as well as taxing any activity (the Taxation power in Article I). So there's nothing unconstitutional about taxing either horse racing payouts or pools.

As for your other points, the reality is taxation is messy and often unfair. For instance, capital gains are treated very differently than other income. Mortgage interest is treated differently than car loan interest. There's just a million disparities. So the fact that gambling income is treated differently than other forms of making a living doesn't really prove anything. Perhaps the state wants to discourage people from gambling for a living?

And there's nothing inherent in the income tax that says that losses have to be deductible against winnings. In some instances they are (a stock market investor can deduct his or her losses against gains), and in other instances they are not (a venture capitalist who forms single purpose entities cannot deduct the losses of one entity from the gains of another). It's up to the government to set the rules.

Now, none of this is to say that we shouldn't tax gambling in a rational manner. Personally, I would calculate what the income tax would bring in if everyone reported honestly, eliminate the income tax, and just take it as a percentage of the betting pool. I attempted to run the numbers on this once and it would add less than 1 percent to takeout to do this, because there is so much turnover / churn in betting pools. So there are rational ways to do this.

But it's all a policy debate. The government is not required to impose taxes fairly; the Constitution grants an incredibly broad set of powers.

[mountainman]

The quality of a horse correlated to the State Bred purse. In States such as Oregon it's not possible to breed profitably. The industry relies on the dregs of other state. Yet, it doesn't mind charging a player an additional 5% at the window on every bet. Oregon racing is dreadful.

Definitely remember this thread. Made for good debate. But it's been so long that any attempt at logical response would probably amount to a non sequitur.