Clean races or low takeout

[thespaah]

Clean racing....
I will throw in a wrinkle..
Why not both?..
Ok, so I'm a troublemaker.

[plainolebill]

I'd take lower takeout if I had a choice.

[TBD]

I would prefer clean racing. The image of this sport is in the crapper. I agree with most of what has been said here. The problem is everything that has been complained about won't change anything. It has all been said before.

If the punishments being handed out are not having an effect, then I believe the racing establishment needs to direct its efforts elsewhere. A simple approach that would effect all involved. Place the punishment on the horse. If a horse is found to be in violation of medical rules, then the horse is banned from racing for one year.

[pandy]

Low Takeout.

As far as a clean game, that would be relatively easy to accomplish, it's done in Japan. However, you can make a case that the juice trainers actually make it easier to handicap, so I don't think it would help that much from a betting perspective. But, cleaning up the sport would help the public perception, which would be good for business.

Bottom line, both of these would be good for business.

[castaway01]

We'd be better off with low takeout because even if racing was 100% clean, some people wouldn't believe it anyway. Look at how paranoid some (like the OP) are about every single thing somehow being a conspiracy? There would still be trainers who won a lot of races, and people would still say they were cheating even if they weren't. With low takeout, the number is the number, it would be beneficial, and there's no downside unless you're making your living off rebates and they get taken away from you because there's no longer anything to rebate. So, I guess low takeout.

I'll wish for world peace after that, since it's Thanksgiving.

[pandy]

You make a good point. There are always going to be people that think racing is fixed.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by pandy

There are always going to be people that think racing is fixed.

Can you blame them? The worst horse in the race runs away from the field, as nine supposedly faster horses are chasing it...and it pays $26 dollars to win...when it should have paid $106. What's an "unenlightened" horseplayer to think?

The horseplayers are right to think the way they do. With the checkered past that this game has had, it's hard to believe that the game does not employ knowledgeable people to do a detailed analysis of some of these betting patterns...to determine whether or not something nefarious has taken place. With computer wagering being what it is...EVERYTHING is forgiven these days. A daily double can pay $12 instead of the expected $212...and the industry just shrugs its shoulders, and says that some whale somewhere just pressed the "wrong button".

The whales are providing an excuse for everything.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by pandy

You make a good point. There are always going to be people that think racing is fixed.

I have found that many handicappers would rather believe that something nefarious happened to prevent them from winning a race than admit that they really don't have adequate handicapping skill.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by castaway01

We'd be better off with low takeout because even if racing was 100% clean, some people wouldn't believe it anyway. Look at how paranoid some (like the OP) are about every single thing somehow being a conspiracy? There would still be trainers who won a lot of races, and people would still say they were cheating even if they weren't. With low takeout, the number is the number, it would be beneficial, and there's no downside unless you're making your living off rebates and they get taken away from you because there's no longer anything to rebate. So, I guess low takeout.

I'll wish for world peace after that, since it's Thanksgiving.

I like your post, i don't know if i agree with the part about the OP, but the other point you make is interesting.

So, about the trainers who win a lot of races honestly. My position is that it doesn't bother me if the trainer who wins tons of races is cheating or not, what bothers me is the idea that a human being can insert him or herself into the handicapping equasion so firmly that when i handicap HORSES i have to factor in the human element too much. Sure, there is always going to be a human element, we handicap jocks and owners and trainers and such, but when a trainer is too dominant, i feel that it skews the handicapping process and essentially turns that particular horse race into a "trainer race".

Its like going to a major league baseball game and instead of having a scorecard with the players, you had a scorecard with the umps. Now, nothing against umps, but i want to not even notice them, i want to concentrate on the players.

Some will always think there's cheating, that's their mechanism to convince themselves that they aren't getting beaten fair and square by sharper players, but the reality of the situation is that if the races ARE really inherently honest, that would prevent "insiders" from capitalizing on knowing which horses are plugged in and which ones are not, which would make more money available to win for players who picked winners.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

...... My position is that it doesn't bother me if the trainer who wins tons of races is cheating or not, what bothers me is the idea that a human being can insert him or herself into the handicapping equation so firmly that when i handicap HORSES i have to factor in the human element too much.....

There is a vast difference in the abilities of trainers just as there is a difference in abilities in just about any profession. Handicapping the human element may just be one of the most important factors to be a winner.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by AndyC

There is a vast difference in the abilities of trainers just as there is a difference in abilities in just about any profession. Handicapping the human element may just be one of the most important factors to be a winner.

No doubt. I just don't want it to be so "in my face" that im making my overall decisions strictly based on humans. I'd like it to be a small factor, not the only factor that matters.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by TBD

If a horse is found to be in violation of medical rules, then the horse is banned from racing for one year.

That would certainly discourage a lot of potential horse ownership. It could be a death sentence for many horses currently in training.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

...and it pays $26 dollars to win...when it should have paid $106. What's an "unenlightened" horseplayer to think?

Move on to the next one? Catch the next $26 winner that seemed like it should have paid $10 or $12? Appreciate the mystery?

Originally Posted by AndyC

I have found that many handicappers would rather believe that something nefarious happened to prevent them from winning a race than admit that they really don't have adequate handicapping skill.

I'm with AndyC.

Race results are the products of hundreds, or thousands, of human interactions and decisions, in the moment and in the days, weeks, or months leading up to each individual event. A horse's natural ability accounts somewhat for its place in the large-scale hierarchy of horses in training, but human activity has much more impact on the results themselves. There are no absolute truths; on the contrary, it seems to me that a loyalty to absolutes is cover for sucking all the fun out it in a self-defeating way.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Can you blame them? The worst horse in the race runs away from the field, as nine supposedly faster horses are chasing it...and it pays $26 dollars to win...when it should have paid $106. What's an "unenlightened" horseplayer to think?

The horseplayers are right to think the way they do. With the checkered past that this game has had, it's hard to believe that the game does not employ knowledgeable people to do a detailed analysis of some of these betting patterns...to determine whether or not something nefarious has taken place. With computer wagering being what it is...EVERYTHING is forgiven these days. A daily double can pay $12 instead of the expected $212...and the industry just shrugs its shoulders, and says that some whale somewhere just pressed the "wrong button".

The whales are providing an excuse for everything.

This is a great point, let me take this further.

If there was such a think as forensic data analysis of the betting patterns, it wouldn't be hard to sniff out nefarious activity. You can go deep into the betting and probably find patterns of humans who are "betting against" in situations and tie them to owners, jocks or trainers who are engaging in less than honest behavior. No doubt this is possible, i think the biggest problem is that racing doesn't want to catch these people because if they do, they have to admit that either the tote systems are not secure, or the pools are being pilfered by crooks who are taking cash out of them by ways other than just good old fashioned honest handicapping/betting.