NYRA Cuts Winner's Share Of Purse
 

And just think: For the longest time, NYRA stuck to a 65% winner's share (65-20-10-5) before cutting it to 60% (60-22-12-6) in the 1960s.

The change will take effect with the opening of the Saratoga meet.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...saratoga-meet/

Increased Purses & New Purse Distribution for 2018 Saratoga Meet

All maiden and allowance races, as well as some claiming races, at the 2018 Saratoga meet will get a $2,000 across-the-board purse increase. Maiden special weights will now have a purse of $85,000 and first-level allowance optional claimers will carry a $95,000 purse.

The 2018 meet will also have a new purse distribution allocation. With the exception of any stakes with awards specifically stated in the condition book, all races going forward will pay out as follows: 55% of the total purse to the winner, 20% to second place, 12% to third, 6% to fourth, 4% to fifth, with the remaining 3% divided among the remaining runners.

The new purse distribution will be adjusted from the current breakdown of 60-20-10-5-3% to the top five finishers, respectively, with the remaining 2% divided among the remainder of the field.

If tracks want larger fields, they need to pay more deeper.

If this doesn't result in bigger fields, something is very wrong.

Great plan - reward failure.
Off the board can now be a career path.

Do the bettors get a percentage back when their horse finishes out?


This may add to the fields, but do you really think it will add horses ready to fire and meant to win?

That's the other side of the coin. But I don't think it will be a problem. The cost of owning and racing thoroughbreds is so high, and especially now that, on average, horse's don't race as often as they used to. Consequently, any idea of not trying to win is nuts and doesn't make sense. Trainers who don't win end up in another profession. And owners don't buy racehorses and then tell the trainers and jockeys, "Please don't try to win the race, I prefer to lose as much money as I possibly can, as fast as I can, and I don't like watching my horses win."

55% is the way it should be. Ca. should do the same.

Exactly right.

It makes sense when you consider that owners and trainers often try to cash BETS, as well as collect purses.

This % shift is a response to the concentration of wins among very few barns.


The rest starve . Now they can eat gruel.

In 15 years I Have never bet on one of my horses. You also don't "collect" the purse you win it, ITM means you get a share and if NYRA wants to cut the win to 55% not only do I get less for the win but the jockey and trainer do as well!

That is the fatal flaw of the game.
No trainer, owner, rider or steward should ever be allowed to bet on ANY horses anywhere.

You cannot be a part of the game and play it as well.
It is a major conflict of interest.

So let me ask you this.
Does this action not tend to invite trainers,owners, and jocks of "lesser character" to get more "creative" in exploring alternative income streams?

Tom has this 100% correct. paying more for running 4th and 5th ain't gonna bring new blood to the game. at this point, i don't think there is to much that will bring new faces in, so this is just a life line because NYRA is going to have plenty of trouble getting big fields this year. Monmouth pays a trainer $300 just to enter a horse. Navaro runs about 15 horses a week at Monmouth, plus he wins most of his races.

Totally disagree - you want their money in the pool. I guarantee you are a radically better handicapper than 99.5% of the "insiders."

Write races that exclude trainers with X number of horses in their care.
Panza can write can't he?
Isn't getting ALL the horses on the grounds into races his job?