Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 09-14-2018, 11:28 PM   #16
turfnsport
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 983
Zippy's namesake actually ran better than he posts.
turfnsport is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-15-2018, 04:18 AM   #17
jay68802
Registered User
 
jay68802's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 15,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.
jay68802 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-15-2018, 08:51 AM   #18
Thomas Roulston
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lakehurst, NJ
Posts: 1,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.


How's this for an awesome, creative solution - the only kind of solutions I ever come up with -

Make the purse distribution for every race 55% to 1st (NYRA opened the door for this), 20% to 2nd, 10%, 5% to 4th, 1.8% to 5th, 1.4% to 6th, 1.2% to 7th, 1.1% to 8th, 1% to 9th, .9% to 10th, .8% to 11th, .7% to 12th, .6% to 13th, and .5% to 14th - and if there are less than 14 starters, the unearned shares "revert to the Association" as they say, which means that if there is a four-horse field due to scratches only 90% of the total purse is given out.
Thomas Roulston is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-15-2018, 09:45 AM   #19
castaway01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.
So the idea is to punish the trainers that DON'T scratch by cutting the purse for them? Gee, that should keep the fields full...
castaway01 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-15-2018, 09:46 AM   #20
castaway01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay68802 View Post
The purse money is coming out of your bank account? And why would you cut the purse for the trainers who actually run? You want full fields and you punish those who don't scratch?

Common sense ain't very common anymore....
castaway01 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-15-2018, 09:51 AM   #21
Thomas Roulston
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lakehurst, NJ
Posts: 1,035
Many tracks already have "reverts to the Association" policies for very short fields, including the NYRA tracks. And these policies do not reduce the shares of the purse awarded to the horses that do run.

The scheme I came up three posts up is "reverts to the Association" on steroids.
Thomas Roulston is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-15-2018, 09:14 PM   #22
toddbowker
Todd Bowker
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyChippy423 View Post
When they write these races they can see weather patters a week in advance. Dont write so many turf races for that day.
Most condition books are written for at least a two week period. They also need a few days for printing, and most tracks take entries 72 hours out. That means Condition books are actually written between 2-3 weeks in advance of the first day of the book, and therefore will be over a month before the last day of the book.

If Racing Secretaries could predict the weather that well, they'd make a lot more money as meteorologists.

For a short meet like KY Downs or Keeneland condition books can be written even further ahead than that. Even for long meets, the first book is always out well in advance, often times being released when stall apps go out so owners/trainers can know whether they want to ship (or which horses to send) there before applying for stalls.

Back in the "old days" it wasn't unusual for stewards to "stick" a horse that wanted to scratch (even when races came off the turf). They rarely do that now. At every track I ever worked at, any horse that stayed in when a race came off the turf got preference when running back (either a star or a preferred date).
toddbowker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-15-2018, 10:43 PM   #23
westny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by 098poi View Post
Zippy are you related to SRU?
I think he is"related" to EMDME...same nonsense, and a long time troll.
westny is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-15-2018, 11:06 PM   #24
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway01 View Post
So the idea is to punish the trainers that DON'T scratch by cutting the purse for them? Gee, that should keep the fields full...
You make this same argument, along with the same head-banging emoji, every time I submit such a post. Does it seem logical to you that the race should carry the same purse when a full field is decimated to such an extent? I've seen grass races at Parx moved off the turf where only 2 horses have entered the starting gate instead of the scheduled 10. Should the winner of a match race be entitled to the same winner's share as that of a race scheduled for ten horses?

How would such a policy "punish the trainers that DON'T scratch"? When a trainer enters a horse...he should be entitled to said purse only when the race goes off according to the pre-race conditions. If the late scratches decimate the field...then the race-purse should get accordingly decimated as well. THAT'S how you keep the fields full, friend...not the other way around. The other way has already been tested...and it has failed MISERABLY.
__________________
Live to play another day.

Last edited by thaskalos; 09-15-2018 at 11:07 PM.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-16-2018, 12:54 AM   #25
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway01 View Post
The purse money is coming out of your bank account? And why would you cut the purse for the trainers who actually run? You want full fields and you punish those who don't scratch?

Common sense ain't very common anymore....
The "common sense" approach was argued by the horsemen during the racino legalization process. "The racino profits would be used to augment the purses", the horsemen said..."and the end result would be that the fields would subsequently get larger and more competitive". This assertion by the horsemen was the epitome of "common sense"...except for one minor technicality: It brought about the exact OPPOSITE aftereffect than what this "common sense" had predicted. It seems that, the higher the purses rise...the less frequently the horses run.

So...please spare me the "common sense" conversation. "Common sense", and horse racing...don't seem to go together.
__________________
Live to play another day.

Last edited by thaskalos; 09-16-2018 at 12:56 AM.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-16-2018, 02:02 AM   #26
TonyK@HSH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 498
Why would a trainer/owner choose not to run a horse as often as possible, especially for higher purses? This is how both make money in this business.

Are we to believe that they choose to run less frequently because purses are higher? Assume there is a horse that starts 10 times this year and makes $100k, are we to believe the trainer/owner chooses not to run 20 times and earn $200k? What kind of business decision is that?

From my experience, horses are entered to run when they are ready to run regardless of purse size. The exception may be those competing at the highest levels. In this case, trainers/owners plan out a set of races and point to having the horse at peak condition for these elite races.

Tony K
TonyK@HSH is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-16-2018, 02:04 AM   #27
Nitro
Registered User
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 18,945
I’m trying to figure out why there are those (as players I assume) who have any concerns about a topic like this. I mean no matter what goes on in any particular race there a dozens of reasons why a race should simply be passed.

Are these types of races so prevalent that we’re left with nothing else to play? I doubt it.
As a player why should we concern ourselves with how the purse sizes are determined or distributed? That has absolutely nothing to do with our involvement in this game.
Do sports bettors let their wagers be impacted based on how much the individual team players are earning?

As far as I’m concerned if the majority of horse players would just avoid wagering on races like this there’s only one thing that’s impacted: The size of the betting pools. Eventually this form of boycott just might be recognized by those paying out those purses as losing propositions no matter what the take-out % might be. It shouldn’t take an MBA much to figure out what the take is when the pools are dramatically reduced. I say let those involved in that part of the game come to obvious conclusions based on the support (or lack there of ) demonstrated by their wagering patrons.

The reason why many things about the game that are continuously complained about never change for the better (or bettor) is because there’s no real unity among the betting population. Has there ever been a suggestion for a set of wagering rules that ALL bettors should follow so that together their voices would be heard based on the support they provide in form of the volume of betting dollars. Sure sounds like a pipe dream. Right!?
Nitro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-16-2018, 04:04 AM   #28
thaskalos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyK@HSH View Post
Why would a trainer/owner choose not to run a horse as often as possible, especially for higher purses? This is how both make money in this business.

Are we to believe that they choose to run less frequently because purses are higher? Assume there is a horse that starts 10 times this year and makes $100k, are we to believe the trainer/owner chooses not to run 20 times and earn $200k? What kind of business decision is that?

From my experience, horses are entered to run when they are ready to run regardless of purse size. The exception may be those competing at the highest levels. In this case, trainers/owners plan out a set of races and point to having the horse at peak condition for these elite races.

Tony K
If that's really the case, then...why were the horsemen so adamant in their conviction that the casino-assisted purses would lead to larger and more competitive fields? Were they just being INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING in order to make a more convincing argument, so they could get what they wanted all along, regardless of how this would ultimately affect the "quality" and 'competitiveness' of the sport? And...why did the ultra-short fields start proliferating right at the arrival of the augmented purses? Coincidence?
__________________
Live to play another day.
thaskalos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-16-2018, 06:24 AM   #29
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.
The problem with that is that it only punishes the ones that don't scratch. The very ones you want to encourage to keep the field size intact.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-16-2018, 10:44 AM   #30
TonyK@HSH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos View Post
If that's really the case, then...why were the horsemen so adamant in their conviction that the casino-assisted purses would lead to larger and more competitive fields? Were they just being INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING in order to make a more convincing argument, so they could get what they wanted all along, regardless of how this would ultimately affect the "quality" and 'competitiveness' of the sport? And...why did the ultra-short fields start proliferating right at the arrival of the augmented purses? Coincidence?
The sad fact is that trainers/owners relish short fields as they provide an easier path to purse money. While it might be short sighted, they would rather compete in a small field vs a highly competitive 12 horse field. At the same time horseman realize that betting is proportionately higher as field size increases.

But IMO, the real culprit in short fields is due to a shortage of horses. Fewer horses are being bred. According to Jockey club stats, slightly more than 35,000 foals were registered in 2008. In 2018 about 22,000 foals were registered. Fewer horses available. The timing of this trend does coincide with the proliferation of racinos.

While many other factors come into play here, fewer available horses pose a big problem for this industry.

TonyK
TonyK@HSH is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.