Field Size

[PrairieMeadows]

Stu-

RTIP has faculty research posted:

http://ag.arizona.edu/rtip/industry/..._research.html

If what you want is not available, let me know and I can get a hold of him.

[stu]

Originally Posted by PrairieMeadows

Stu-

RTIP has faculty research posted:

http://ag.arizona.edu/rtip/industry/..._research.html

If what you want is not available, let me know and I can get a hold of him.

Those are the white papers. The graph of the data that I remember isn't included. The data does support handle goes up with field sizes.

If others haven't read these papers, you can see the effect of a muddy track, 4th of July, early races, and filly-restrictions to name a few.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by stu

Those are the white papers. The graph of the data that I remember isn't included. The data does support handle goes up with field sizes.

If others haven't read these papers, you can see the effect of a muddy track, 4th of July, early races, and filly-restrictions to name a few.

I'm sure that handle goes up with field size, my issue is what happens after races with big fields.
Example, the Derby, 20 horses, the next day, plenty of people are tapped out.
If we had too many 12,13,14 horse races, masses would tap out faster, and churn would drop considerably.

[boomman]

Prairie/Stu: I remember the University of Louisville also did a study on field sizes correlation to handle several years ago, and simarly found that the larger the field (after 6-8 runners I believe) the more the handle, and even had it broken down to a percentage increase PER HORSE. I'm sure you could access it if you contact them...........

Boomer

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

I still say that too many 12-14 horse fields are bankroll busters. It does create more chaos because of traffic jams, so if anything, a lower takeout is required. These races also kill churn.
But on the positive side of things, if you do hit an exotic in a 12-14 horse field, you might get enough to keep your bankroll alive for a week or more.

I look back at my most successful cashes, and I think they mostly occurred in races that had 8-11 horses though.

I always look at the Derby as a crap shoot.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand the larger fields bring larger prices but bring lower strike rates. Smaller fields give smaller prices but also a higher win percentage. Now these would even things out except for the fact that the lower win % you get with larger fields is not something that can be compensated with better handicapping. They are more difficult because the larger fields also cause more traffic problems and are therefore less predictable out of proportion just to the increased number of horses you have to beat – they add an increased element of chance. That’s why I personally prefer small to medium-sized fields of 6 –8.
I also prefer smallish fields because I employ comprehensive handicapping and they give me more time to devote to each horse and make it less likely that I’ll miss an important factor.

Of course these are just general rules. I make exceptions in large fields where many of the horses can safely and quickly be eliminated.

Bob

[Cangamble]

Here is another thing. Larger fields do not attract new money. It just gets some of the money that might have been devoted to smaller field races.

They don't make a difference on the bottom line. If horse racing were to have an average field size of 11 tomorrow, the amount of money lost by patrons would be the same as if the average was 7.5 collectively in the industry.

They just might be more appealing to existing bettors, but that is it.

The only way to increase the bottom line is to attract new players, and it is broken record time: Takeout needs to be reduced and/or rebates need to be higher so that winners are created. Word of mouth that the game can be beat will created new players and/or bring back players who are betting offshore.

[PrairieMeadows]

Which would you prefer (play more)?

One 12 horse field or two 6 sixes, assuming that competitively split?


Someone mentioned something about variable takeout, as a concept it seems interesting, any thoughts? For starters lets say something on the order of 1 to 2% per betting interest?

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

Here is another thing. Larger fields do not attract new money. It just gets some of the money that might have been devoted to smaller field races.

I disagree with that part. If there were only 5 horse fields I would devote my time to Etrade, or perhaps UK racing. I downloaded a couple cards today, could barely bet a race, and I think I bet two races in total. It was boring.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by PrairieMeadows

Which would you prefer (play more)?

One 12 horse field or two 6 sixes, assuming that competitively split?


Someone mentioned something about variable takeout, as a concept it seems interesting, any thoughts? For starters lets say something on the order of 1 to 2% per betting interest?

Variable takeouts? That is something I'd have to really think about. Conventional wisdom tells me that the closer you have to a two horse race (eg. a football bet), the lower the takeout should be, but as stated with respect to large fields, the churn is clobbered and more players go broke faster.

Of course, players would rather see one twelve horse field. From a racing standpoint, when you take ADW betting into account, the tracks that have the bigger fields will get the higher percentage of what is bet on a particular day. But neither two 6 horse fields or one 12 horse field will create new money bet at race tracks collectively.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by DeanT

I disagree with that part. If there were only 5 horse fields I would devote my time to Etrade, or perhaps UK racing. I downloaded a couple cards today, could barely bet a race, and I think I bet two races in total. It was boring.

You, like me are an existing mental patient, err I mean horseplayer. The point I see you are making is that bigger fields will keep us from leaving. My point is about creating new players though.

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

You, like me are an existing mental patient, err I mean horseplayer. The point I see you are making is that bigger fields will keep us from leaving. My point is about creating new players though.

Adding more variety does create new players. Anytime variety is added it does. Which is why companies always add new products, or change packaging for a product. It is no different in wagering. Parlay cards grow football wagering, even tho they can be a bad deal. Bigger fields attract more handle, which attracts larger pools. Larger pools attract more players.

If you ask some of the top bettos on betfair what they like better, a large field with plenty of possibles versus a short field they will always want the latter. In addition, people do not even know they like it until you offer something out. If Etrade polled mom and pops in 1999 asking if they wanted MACD and Stochastics on their screen they would have been asked "what's a stochastic?" Now it is common knowledge and has attracted many new players through offering TA to them.

[sjk]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

But neither two 6 horse fields or one 12 horse field will create new money bet at race tracks collectively.

That is certainly not hopw I bet my money. Two 6 horse fields are far more likely to get a pass. A 12 horse race has a good chance of offering value somewhere down the line.

After an hour or two of passing races with short fields I am likely to find a better way to spend my afternoon.

[Robert Fischer]

Your instincts can be off if you aren't used to large fields and you have to allow for more margin for error and demand larger payouts. The same types of prices aren't going to cut it. Other than that, it is basically the same fundamentals as a smaller field but can be more rewarding.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by sjk

That is certainly not hopw I bet my money. Two 6 horse fields are far more likely to get a pass. A 12 horse race has a good chance of offering value somewhere down the line.

After an hour or two of passing races with short fields I am likely to find a better way to spend my afternoon.

My point is that you will bet your money, you will find the larger fields to bet on. But all this is internal with respect to the existing horse players.
You will still bet the same amount for the year or close to it, whether national field size average is 7.5 or 8.5.
When I say new money, I am talking about money that comes from someone who doesn't play horses, who all of a sudden plays because field size jumped up.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Adding more variety does create new players. Anytime variety is added it does. Which is why companies always add new products, or change packaging for a product. It is no different in wagering. Parlay cards grow football wagering, even tho they can be a bad deal. Bigger fields attract more handle, which attracts larger pools. Larger pools attract more players.

If you ask some of the top bettos on betfair what they like better, a large field with plenty of possibles versus a short field they will always want the latter. In addition, people do not even know they like it until you offer something out. If Etrade polled mom and pops in 1999 asking if they wanted MACD and Stochastics on their screen they would have been asked "what's a stochastic?" Now it is common knowledge and has attracted many new players through offering TA to them.

Do you think that adding more superfectas or triactors on 6 horse races actually add more players, or the new high five? I don't.
I think that if they were to make a lottery bet like there is in Sweden, it would bring in new players, not necessarily more long term handicappers though.