Why Not 16-Horse Fields?

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by Cholly

There's a structural impediment involved here: 80% of the purse money is tied up in only two finishers. When running 4th doesn't pay shit, who in their right mind is going to enter a 10-horse race?

Until the early '70s, it was 85% tied up in only two finishers at most tracks (65% first, 20% second, 10% third, 5% fourth).

A couple of years ago, NYRA changed their purse-distribution format to 55% first, 20% second, 12% third, 6% fourth, 4% fifth, with the remaining 3% to be divided evenly among the remaining finishers (but DNFs receive nothing).

At this year's Saudi Cup, the purse distribution was 50% first, 17% second, 10% third, 7.5% fourth, 5% fifth, 3% sixth, 2.5% seventh, 2% eighth, 1.5% ninth, and 1% tenth (change 4th to 7% and 6th to 3.5% and it would be perfect).

Then add a "starter's bonus" equal to the "losing" jockey mount fee plus $10 (you can also pay the jockeys who finish 4th through 10th the losing jockey mount fee plus 2% of the purse earned by the owner) and you have a working format.

[Thomas Roulston]

Are 2018, and even 2011, "ancient history"?

And it is stupid and counterproductive to deny horses the opportunity to race when their owners and trainers want to do so - especially when large fields have become relatively rare.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

Are 2018, and even 2011, "ancient history"?

And it is stupid and counterproductive to deny horses the opportunity to race when their owners and trainers want to do so - especially when large fields have become relatively rare.

Two isolated events in the last 11 years are not history, they are outliers, exceptions to the norm.

What evidence do you have that trainers are being denied the opportunity to race? Are tracks purposely limiting races to 6 horses when they could just as easily get 10 entries? No one has questioned the fact that larger fields are more profitable for the track. Why wouldn't they do it if they could?

The answer is simple. The tracks don't do it because they can't, because they don't have the horses. Part of that is the simple supply and demand problem: not enough horses to go around. Part of that is not as obvious. In the good old days, trainers often raced their horses into condition, especially cheaper horses. Now more and more trainers are racing a horse less often than in days of yore, and training it into shape with workouts.

[Thomas Roulston]

How come the UAE routinely runs 16-horse fields? They even have 16-horse gates to accommodate them.

See also the UK and Ireland, where 20-or-more-horse fields are not at all uncommon.

What are they doing right that we're doing wrong?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

How come the UAE routinely runs 16-horse fields? They even have 16-horse gates to accommodate them.

See also the UK and Ireland, where 20-or-more-horse fields are not at all uncommon.

What are they doing right that we're doing wrong?

They are doing what is right for them. They have the owners and trainers and horses and public that can support that scale of racing.

What's wrong over here is that the industry is not keeping up with the reality of supply and demand for horse racing here. We don't have the horses or people so that every bush track in the country can run 8 or 9 races of 8-10 horses every day. We could do that maybe 30 years ago. Things have changed, and the racing industry hasn't kept up.

Belmont today had 11 races. Three of those races had 5 horses, 3 more had 6 or 7. And that's on Kentucky Derby day. That's pathetic.

Talking about 16 horse fields in this country is nuts for the foreseeable future. Any good horse player would be happy as a clam to see regular cards of 8 or 9 races with 8-10 horses in each.

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by Clocker

They are doing what is right for them. They have the owners and trainers and horses and public that can support that scale of racing.

What's wrong over here is that the industry is not keeping up with the reality of supply and demand for horse racing here. We don't have the horses or people so that every bush track in the country can run 8 or 9 races of 8-10 horses every day. We could do that maybe 30 years ago. Things have changed, and the racing industry hasn't kept up.

Belmont today had 11 races. Three of those races had 5 horses, 3 more had 6 or 7. And that's on Kentucky Derby day. That's pathetic.

Talking about 16 horse fields in this country is nuts for the foreseeable future. Any good horse player would be happy as a clam to see regular cards of 8 or 9 races with 8-10 horses in each.

It is actually the breeders' fault over here.

How many horses in today's Derby have no Solid or Professional chef-de-race influences in their Dosage Profiles?

Prior to 1950, most horses, in the Derby or otherwise, had Dosage Indexes of <1.00 - and a negative Center of Distribution.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

It is actually the breeders' fault over here.

How many horses in today's Derby have no Solid or Professional chef-de-race influences in their Dosage Profiles?

Prior to 1950, most horses, in the Derby or otherwise, had Dosage Indexes of <1.00 - and a negative Center of Distribution.

It's the breeders' fault that tracks are carding more races than they can reasonably fill?

I had a negative center of distribution last night and spilled my beer. So I said the hell with it and went to bed.

[horsefan2019]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

How come the UAE routinely runs 16-horse fields? They even have 16-horse gates to accommodate them.

See also the UK and Ireland, where 20-or-more-horse fields are not at all uncommon.

What are they doing right that we're doing wrong?

The UAE and those middle eastern countries have money.
Horse racing is probably healthier overseas than it is in the USA. We have low fields because outside of the big races like the Kentucky Derby and Breeders Cup, the general interest from the public has been slipping since the 70's.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

The UAE and those middle eastern countries have money.

Especially, the horse owners have money. Lots of oil money.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Forget the gate...where you gonna get the horses from?

Bingo. I checked stats on live foals.
In the 1990s there began a downward trend in live foals. Typically, the count was in the upper 30 thousands. Today, the number of live goals is closer to 20k
https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...-foal-reports/
Here is a news release reporting foal count and number of mares covered from the Jockey Club dated 2003.
https://www.jockeyclub.com/default.a...show&story=125
These two reports illustrate the significant drop in the number of live foals over the last 20 years.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

But how many were scratched?

May 7th( Today)
92 entered at Belmont. 11 races. Avg per race 8.36

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by thespaah

May 7th( Today)
92 entered at Belmont. 11 races. Avg per race 8.36

Final numbers at Belmont today: 11 races, 66 finishers. Average 6 horses per race. Bad track.

https://www.equibase.com/premium/cha...22&cy=USA&rn=1

[Thomas Roulston]

When the Breeders' Cup was held at Woodbine in 1996, the track officials requested permission to run 20-horse fields in the turf races - a request that was denied.