Keeneland tops HANA ratings again

[Grits]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...s-hana-racetra

[lamboguy]

low takeout and high signal fees

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

low takeout and high signal fees

What's the matter with high signal fees? If someone is going to make a sizable profit off my wager, I'd prefer it to be the track on which I'm wagering.

[cj]

This might help somebody betting $2, and that is fine, but this isn't for people betting a lot of money. Retama #11? Really? I would say a few categories are missing, and a few need to have the weighting reevaluated.

[PhantomOnTour]

Keeneland is like a dangerous beauty to me.
She is soooo lovely and alluring that i just can't quit her, no matter how many times she burns me.

I still love that track even though i lose my arse there.

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by cj

This might help somebody betting $2, and that is fine, but this isn't for people betting a lot of money. Retama #11? Really? I would say a few categories are missing, and a few need to have the weighting reevaluated.

CJ,

Your opinion would be very helpful(and appreciated) for future editions of the rating system. We always take suggestions, and the weighting is revisited every year. I'm sure there will be complaints because it's not perfect, but I'd ask that when anyone has a complaint, they offer their proposed solution. Especially when it comes to information that you would like to see included.

Since signal fees vary so much, it's impossible to accurately include them. We can't do it by using rebates because rebates vary by player, we can't do it by asking the tracks because they won't tell us, and we can't do it by asking the ADW's because they won't tell us, and if they did they all have different rates. That's why we use Signal Distribution which is a rougher estimation.

Here's the link to the weightings, and Signal Distribution score is explained towards the bottom of the page.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...ngmetrics.html

THanks for the feedback, and keep them coming.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Charli125

CJ,

Your opinion would be very helpful(and appreciated) for future editions of the rating system. We always take suggestions, and the weighting is revisited every year. I'm sure there will be complaints because it's not perfect, but I'd ask that when anyone has a complaint, they offer their proposed solution. Especially when it comes to information that you would like to see included.

Since signal fees vary so much, it's impossible to accurately include them. We can't do it by using rebates because rebates vary by player, we can't do it by asking the tracks because they won't tell us, and we can't do it by asking the ADW's because they won't tell us, and if they did they all have different rates. That's why we use Signal Distribution which is a rougher estimation.

Here's the link to the weightings, and Signal Distribution score is explained towards the bottom of the page.

http://www.horseplayersassociation.o...ngmetrics.html

THanks for the feedback, and keep them coming.

I'm not trying to knock hard work, and no system will be perfect. The HUGE one I see right away, my opinion of course, is pool size isn't given enough credit. There is no way takeout is five times more important than handle. I think both field size and handle are AT LEAST as important as takeout, yet in these ratings they are not nearly as significant.

I don't get the wager variety either. For one, too much variety dilutes the pools. Second, I understand most people want the smaller denomination bets, but if the pools are too small to make a score, should the track really get credit? A track that has $1 minimums but huge pools is going to be rated on par with a track with miniscule pools that lets you bet 50 cent tris and dime supers. That makes little sense to me.

Finally, even if people disagree with the above, how can this (wagering variety) possibly be rated on the same level as handle?

[cj]

Another I would add is quality of the horses racing. I would not use purses due to racinos, but even that might work. There are metrics out there available. Even something as generic as average speed figure by BRIS or Beyer would be good enough. Most people want to bet better horses.

Another would be timely release of things like entries, past performances, scratches, program numbers, etc. Some tracks put them out nearly a week ahead of time, while with others it can be 24 hours or less before PPs are finalized.

Website and ontrack video presentation is another factor I could see used. How readily is information available, how is it presented, and how useful are the broadcasters.

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm not trying to knock hard work, and no system will be perfect. The HUGE one I see right away, my opinion of course, is pool size isn't given enough credit. There is no way takeout is five times more important than handle. I think both field size and handle are AT LEAST as important as takeout, yet in these ratings they are not nearly as significant.

I don't get the wager variety either. For one, too much variety dilutes the pools. Second, I understand most people want the smaller denomination bets, but if the pools are too small to make a score, should the track really get credit? A track that has $1 minimums but huge pools is going to be rated on par with a track with miniscule pools that lets you bet 50 cent tris and dime supers. That makes little sense to me.

Finally, even if people disagree with the above, how can this (wagering variety) possibly be rated on the same level as handle?

I'm not taking it as a knock at all, and I seriously do appreciate the input. The reason I ask for solutions is because when we discuss this each year, we are never all in agreement. We each argue for what we think works best, and it's good to have other opinions to add to the discussion.

This is a rating system for players. It's for all players, and thus is intentionally not weighted in favor of big or small players. For the average big player, they care less about takeout and lower minimums, and more about signal fees and pool size. For the average small player, it's the exact opposite. I completely understand your position on the weighting, but I thing the weights accurately reflect a rating for ALL players as opposed to one group or the other.

[usedtolovetvg]

Keeneland is what racing used to be, short meeting, quality horses and large fields. I'm thinking that may be the way of the future too. Going to Keeneland makes the day at the races an Event and does draw a younger crowd.

[melman]

Charli--I agree with you viewpoints can be different based on how much a person bets. We had a poster here who knew a lot of huge players. He said with the current rebate system they really cared only about breaking even. I think this gives the bigger player even more of an advantage. That's why I think takeout rate should be at the top of any list. As to field size that's a tricky question. How many times I have heard this "I don't care how many horses are in the race you won't catch me betting on those dogs". Getting a lot of high quality fields with full fields outside of Saratoga or Keeneland is out of the question. Today's horsemen will not permit it. I also like the idea of the 10cent super or 50cent pic bet. It IMO gets more of the casual gambling public to bet. One thing for sure the 50c pic4/5 has been a big sucess at Balmoral this year. cj I also think the guys who think that wagering variety is not all that important is the guy who overlooks the casual gambling person that horse racing so badly needs. I'm a 98% harness guy and I have made so very nice scores over the years at lower handle tracks. What I would love to see is some major track talk the big shots in state government into having much lower take rates. No rebates. The big players would still win because they would collect more winnings on there bets and the smaller "numbers" guy would have more of a chance.

[DeanT]

Average fig is an excellent idea, IMO.

Would you be able to do that CJ, with your data?

[melman]

Would like to get the reaction of you guys to this article posted today on drf.harness. I know it deals mostly with harness but I think the points made can be used for t-breds as well. Just look at PARX racing, short fields, big purses and little interest.

http://www.drf.com/news/bergman-big-...harness-racing

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by melman

Would like to get the reaction of you guys to this article posted today on drf.harness. I know it deals mostly with harness but I think the points made can be used for t-breds as well. Just look at PARX racing, short fields, big purses and little interest.

http://www.drf.com/news/bergman-big-...harness-racing

Even without slot machines, imo.

California handle is off over 50% (all source thoroughbred) since 2001. For years, on this board and in grandstands everywhere, players complained about those short fields, with the race office writing races for horsemen, not customers. 5 horse field, after 5 horse field of boredom. The chickens come home to roost sooner or later - it may take years like it did in CA - and a track gets punished for not listening to customers.

[TravisVOX]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm not trying to knock hard work, and no system will be perfect. The HUGE one I see right away, my opinion of course, is pool size isn't given enough credit. There is no way takeout is five times more important than handle. I think both field size and handle are AT LEAST as important as takeout, yet in these ratings they are not nearly as significant.

I don't get the wager variety either. For one, too much variety dilutes the pools. Second, I understand most people want the smaller denomination bets, but if the pools are too small to make a score, should the track really get credit? A track that has $1 minimums but huge pools is going to be rated on par with a track with miniscule pools that lets you bet 50 cent tris and dime supers. That makes little sense to me.

Finally, even if people disagree with the above, how can this (wagering variety) possibly be rated on the same level as handle?

Originally Posted by cj

Another I would add is quality of the horses racing. I would not use purses due to racinos, but even that might work. There are metrics out there available. Even something as generic as average speed figure by BRIS or Beyer would be good enough. Most people want to bet better horses.

Another would be timely release of things like entries, past performances, scratches, program numbers, etc. Some tracks put them out nearly a week ahead of time, while with others it can be 24 hours or less before PPs are finalized.

Website and ontrack video presentation is another factor I could see used. How readily is information available, how is it presented, and how useful are the broadcasters.

I think these are all fantastic ideas, especially entries, scratches etc... very unique ways to add more beef to the data.

That said, I don't think quality should really play much of a role. Tampa Bay Downs (regardless of this year) is not grade one racing yet they've offered a really good wagering product over the last decade or so. Should they be penalized because, on average, their horses can't compete with other tracks with better races, but smaller fields? I understand this could shake-out in the ultimate figure, but I feel as though it's a flawed number going in.

Field trumps quality all day long, unless you're talking about marquee races. A full field of claimers will beat a four horse allowance field almost always.

Liquidity in the pools, field size and takeout should be the big three in my opinion. From there, I think you can introduce elements like scratch time, when the card is finalized etc., but on a much smaller scale.