What metric is considered when determining track level?

[podonne]

Several sources list a "track level" in order to tell the "Top tier" tracks apart. Curious what you consider to be the best measure of track level? Avg Purse size? Size of the pools? Some kind of average speed rating? Something else?

I'm doing it currently by average purse size, the thinking being that better horses go to tracks with bigger purses because the owners (I assume) largely make thier money from the purses. More money to be made. Big money attracts big horses. You can pretty well split all the tracks into three equally sized categories by grouping them into Avg Purse > $25K, $15K - $25K and <$15K. (2008 dollars)

Curious of others have developed thier own way of "tiering" tracks.

Regards,
Podonne

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by podonne

Several sources list a "track level" in order to tell the "Top tier" tracks apart. Curious what you consider to be the best measure of track level? Avg Purse size? Size of the pools? Some kind of average speed rating? Something else?

I'm doing it currently by average purse size, the thinking being that better horses go to tracks with bigger purses because the owners (I assume) largely make thier money from the purses. More money to be made. Big money attracts big horses. You can pretty well split all the tracks into three equally sized categories by grouping them into Avg Purse > $25K, $15K - $25K and <$15K. (2008 dollars)

Curious of others have developed thier own way of "tiering" tracks.

Regards,
Podonne

You can no longer use purse size as a guide, IMO...because then you would be reaching erroneous conclusions -- like determining that Parx is a "classier" track than Arlington.

The casino money have greatly inflated the purses at some tracks...and these purses no longer reflect the quality of horses that they display.

Perhaps using the average Beyer of the MSW race winners?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by podonne

Several sources list a "track level" in order to tell the "Top tier" tracks apart. Curious what you consider to be the best measure of track level? Avg Purse size? Size of the pools? Some kind of average speed rating? Something else?

I'm doing it currently by average purse size, the thinking being that better horses go to tracks with bigger purses because the owners (I assume) largely make thier money from the purses. More money to be made. Big money attracts big horses. You can pretty well split all the tracks into three equally sized categories by grouping them into Avg Purse > $25K, $15K - $25K and <$15K. (2008 dollars)

Curious of others have developed thier own way of "tiering" tracks.

Regards,
Podonne

Average purse figures are also seriously tweaked by state-bred and similar added money races. You might consider using mutuel handle as a more representative figure of track class level.

[reckless]

The average purse values that many handicappers used as their determining metric of 'track class' no longer seems to apply in the racino world of horse racing.

Gus gave a good example of Phila. Park (Parx) as supposedly a higher class track than Arlington, for example. Parx is my home track and all the slots money in the world could never add an ounce of class to the joint and the Parx racing program.

But you asked a legit question and the one metric I have found useful over the years in establishing a racetrack class level is the quality of the maidens on the grounds.

The quality of the MSW maidens will say a lot about the overall class of the daily racing program.

[podonne]

Now I'm actually curious why tracks like Parx don't attract higher quality horses? Money's money, right?

Unless its more of a time delay thing. If the purses only rose recently, you might notice a delay while the infrastructure required for "good" horses gets into place.

Given enough time, though, shouldn't more money in the purse lead to higher quality horses?

[cj]

Actually, though not true of most slots tracks, I think Philly has improved. I would rate it above Arlington class wise these days.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Actually, though not true of most slots tracks, I think Philly has improved. I would rate it above Arlington class wise these days.

How are we supposed to know that you are kidding when you don't use the smily faces?

What led you to make a comment like this?

Have you been impressed by the success of all the Parx horses shipping out?

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How are we supposed to know that you are kidding when you don't use the smily faces?

What led you to make a comment like this?

Have you been impressed by the success of all the Parx horses shipping out?

They actually don't do bad, and they run pretty fast. The Chicago circuit stinks, don't you think? What is so great about the nags at AP?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

They actually don't do bad, and they run pretty fast. The Chicago circuit stinks, don't you think? What is so great about the nags at AP?

The Chicago circuit has seen better days, no doubt...but it hasn't yet sunk to the level of Parx...IMO.

From a bettor's standpoint, it sickens me to see the horses have to migrate from the poly to the dirt...when they move from Arlington to Hawthorne.

What a cruel joke to play on the horseplayers...

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The Chicago circuit has seen better days, no doubt...but it hasn't yet sunk to the level of Parx...IMO.

From a bettor's standpoint, it sickens me to see the horses have to migrate from the poly to the dirt...when they move from Arlington to Hawthorne.

What a cruel joke to play on the horseplayers...

I think people are underestimating PRX, but I haven't tested it, just my observation. I'll run some tests tomorrow.

[Dave Schwartz]

Personally, I do it based upon the theoretical speed level of NW1 allowance.

I say "theoretical" because many tracks no longer run NW1s, instead they run OC/NW1.

[JackS]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Personally, I do it based upon the theoretical speed level of NW1 allowance.

I say "theoretical" because many tracks no longer run NW1s, instead they run OC/NW1.

With the increasing advent of optional claiming, perhaps now track class levels can be measured by the highest purse values offered in these races. It does make sense that these races are now diluted with high priced claimers.
Personally, I preffered the old way and the straight allowance NW's.
Right or wrong (I may be old fashioned) but I still consider horses advancing through the NW ranks to be superior to races offered for OC. I'm grudgingly willing to change though but not yet.

[Capper Al]

American Turf Monthly's website has a descent track chart available for free.

[classhandicapper]

Over the long haul, larger purses should attract better horses, but it probably takes some time for the shifting to take place.

If a new racino opens and the purses rise sharply, the horse population isn't going to change over night with the new money. It will happen slowly as new trainers try to get stall space, the old horse population turns over etc... It might even take a couple of years.

Somehow you also have to get costs into the equation.

Imagine two tracks where at "A" the purses are 15% higher than at "B", but at "B" the costs of training, care, etc... are 25% lower.

Where would you rather have your horse?

[Tom]

I pretty much ignore the idea of track class - what does that mean?
All the horses are better than another track?

If NW1 horses at Track A are superior to NW1 horses at Track B, what does that get you if the bottom claimers at B are better than the bottom claimers at A? I think track class is pretty much not worth the bother anymore. If the bottom claiming price is $7500, say like Aqu, then do you have a filed of $7500 claimers or do you have a bunch of $3500 claimers who have to run for $7500. Just because the bottom level of races is X, doesnt' mean the bottom level of horse is not X-Y.