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 Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 05-25-2006, 11:23 AM   #1
speculus
Zapoorzaa!!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: India
Posts: 547
So You Want Fair Racing?

At first glance this may look a crazy idea. But on closer scrutiny, I hope you will agree this might be a novel first step to that Utopian ideal—fair and clean racing, especially in countries where jockeys are at the receiving end of the public ire for real or imagined reasons.

Horse racing, as a sport, has a unique distinction—it is the only sport that is subsidized by the gambling money. It is another matter that despite this well-known fact, punters all over the world are almost always dissatisfied with the running of the races. It is not uncommon to hear cries of “fixed”, “cheats”, etc. after a race, and in most cases, the accusing finger points to the jockey.


Racing, like any other sport that involves millions of dollars, will have its share of crooks, and they will, at least in countries where unscrupulous bookmakers operate books, always attempt to make a fast buck at the cost of the serious student of form. Only a constant vigil by people who understand racing in all its intricacies—and who also have a steely resolve to guard the interest of the punting community—can improve the image of the game. The fact that racing has, among its followers, an extremely high percentage of losers as compared to winners only makes the matter worse. Human psychology is such that people simply love to believe that they lost their money because someone played unfair, or resorted to malpractice.



Punishments have lost their sting

At a recent dinner with horse racing buffs, the conversation wandered to the topic of malpractice in racing—real as well as perceived.

Everyone who joined the discussion unanimously agreed about one thing: The value of punishment as a deterrent has eroded considerably over the years, and it is no longer an effective tool to curb malpractice.

The observation is very interesting—and sadly, very true.

It is perhaps time to infuse racing with innovative and creative ideas that will, despite this handicap, keep alive hopes of fair and clean racing.

I have done my share of lateral thinking (literally!), and come out with this solution.


Redistribute the purse/stakes


In the absence of fear of punishment, the only way to encourage fairness is to reward it handsomely—in monetary terms!


Let us introduce meritocracy in racing.

Better the performance, bigger the share of the prize money—that should me the mantra.

If fairness in racing has to be summed up in just one sentence, it has got to be this:


Every horse must try to finish as close as possible to the one in front, and as far ahead as possible from the one behind.

Then why not reward horses only on these two parameters? Why give a predetermined, fixed sum to the winner, the runner-up and others down the line?

Let every horse be rewarded proportionately, depending upon how it has scored on the above-mentioned two parameters only.

Yes, redistribution of purse money may prove to be the key to fair and clean racing.




Money makes the mare go

If a horse displays its superiority by winning the race by a huge margin, say 10 lengths, it is only fair he gets a lion’s share of the purse money.

But if he wins narrowly in photo finish, let the runner-up eat up a sizeable chunk from his share, no complaints!

After all, a meritocracy must reward in accordance with the merit displayed, shouldn’t it?




The concept of a ‘Reference Horse’

Interestingly, the ideal can be achieved without inviting protests from horse owners and professionals, who may actually stand to benefit as much (if not more) from re-distribution of purse in a fair manner than the ordinary punter will benefit from fair racing.


An innovative purse money re-distribution formula can inject an element of genuine competitiveness among horses. More than the formula, it is the logic behind it that is important. This formula is not written in stone, some reader can come out with a better formula than the one I am proposing—the debate will only be better for the sport.


In each race, there will be what we will call a ‘reference horse’ which DOES NOT GET A PENNY from the purse.

Only those horses finishing ahead of the reference horse will be eligible to share the purse—and only according to a formula that will give proportionate weightage to the lengths (verdict) by which each horse has beaten this reference horse.

In a way, the entire purse for the race will be distributed based only on how each horse has fared vis-à-vis this ‘reference horse’.


Surely, this calls for an accurate definition of the ‘reference horse’.

Here it goes: The Reference Horse is the horse finishing last (if there are four or less runners), or the horse finishing fifth (if there are five or more runners).


Note: I race in a country where only the first four finishers stand to gain purse money, but I am told in some countries, as many as six horses are sometimes entitled for the share of the prize money, in such cases, needless to add, the reference horse will be the one who finishes seventh.



Anomalies eliminated

At the outset, this interesting definition eliminates some nonsensical anomalies that make a mockery of the concept of competitive racing, especially in smaller fields.

When there are four or less horses in a race, even the horse finishing last takes home some money. Now, why should it be allowed a share of the purse?



For beating none?

This malady stands corrected under the proposed system, as in such cases the horse finishing last now becomes the reference horse, and does not earn any prize.

Another interesting consequence of this novel rule is that it transforms a two-horse race into a WINNER-TAKES-ALL contest, introducing a greater incentive for an all-out effort to win from both the participants.




A simplistic example

Consider this simplistic example as a demo.


If the verdict of a race between the first five horses reads thus: Won by 3L, 5L, 1L, 4L; then the first four horses have beaten the Reference Horse (fifth horse) in this manner—winner (by 3+5+1+4 = 13L), second horse (by 5+1+4 = 10L), third horse (by 1+4 = 5L) and fourth horse (by 4L).

Thus, the Reference Horse has received a cumulative beating by (13+10+5+4) = 32 Lengths.

In other words, the winner’s share of the cumulative beating is (13/32) or 40.63%,


the runner-up’s is (10/32) or 31.25%,

third horse’s is (5/32) or 15.62%,

fourth horse’s is (4/32) or 12.50%.

Then wouldn’t it be logical that they share the purse money in the same way?

We must never lose sight of the fact that the basic theme is to make each horse and rider run to the best of their ability.

We are dangling a carrot, in the form of real, hard cash, in front of each horse and rider that will make a sizeable difference to their share of the booty, if they can gain a length or two over their rivals before passing the winning post.

If $100,000 is on offer as total purse for the race, the above formula distributes the money as follows:
The winner: $40,630;

runner-up: $31,250;
third: $15,620;
fourth: $12,500.


Distributing the purse as per the percentages based on performance looks like a good idea. But it can be made better by linking even greater incentive for an all-out performance.



Can we make them run faster?

You bet we can.

So we propose another rule that should now really make them fire on all cylinders. Isn’t it only fair that even among those who earn a share in the purse money, the horse which gets beaten should lose a part of its purse to those who finish ahead of it?

How about introducing a “4 percent (of earnings) per beaten length” PENALTY to be deducted from a horse’s share and credited to horses finishing ahead of it?

The logic is: Any horse which takes a cumulative beating of 25 lengths DOES NOT deserve to take home any money.

At “4 percent per beaten length” penalty, such horse loses all of its earnings (25 x 4% = 100%), and obviously cannot take home anything.


To make things clearer, lets us stick to the above-cited example.


The fourth horse was eligible to get $12,500.

Under this new scenario, it now shells out 4 percent (for 1L) or $.500 to the third horse, 24 percent (for 6L) or $3,000 to the runner-up, and 36 percent (for 9L) or $4,500 to the winner, Thus it is deprived of $8,000 from its earnings of $12,500 and ends up winning only $4,500.

Similarly, the third horse whose earnings of $15,620 are enhanced to $16,120 (thanks to $500 received from the fourth horse), now loses 52 percent (20 percent to the runner-up and 32 percent to the winner) and is left with only $7,738.

Applying the same formula, the runner-up’s earnings of $31,250 shoot up to $37,424, of which it loses $4,491 (12 percent) to the winner for a three-length beating at his hands.


The final distribution will look like this:

Winner: $54,829; runner-up: $32,933; third: $7,738; fourth: $4,500.



Isn’t the formula complicated?


Is it, really? With computers slaving for us, it is just a matter of writing appropriate software, and the earnings can be computed and flashed on screens within microseconds after the judge declares his verdict.

The greatest advantage of the system lies in the fact that jockeys, most of whom get not a very great amount as riding fee (and who are generally accused and abused for less-than-optimum performance) finally get a chance to boost their earnings substantially if they go all-out, as even a length gained or lost can make a sizeable difference to the commissions earned by them.


I think if a rider has reason to believe that he is going to earn even a couple of thousand dollars extra every racing day by simply being honest and working hard, there is a good chance he will not fall prey to the shady designs of the crooks who try to lure him with lucre.

If the stick has lost its effectiveness, it’s time we try the carrot.
__________________
The ONLY WAY the racing industry can survive is by reducing the takeout on WIN, PLACE & SHOW to ONLY 5%.

www.DynamicHandicapping.com/

Last edited by speculus; 05-25-2006 at 11:32 AM.
speculus is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 12:29 PM   #2
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,293
Quote:
The final distribution will look like this:

Winner: $54,829; runner-up: $32,933; third: $7,738; fourth: $4,500.
Doesn't this end up being pretty close to the purse distribution structure already in place? Don't get me wrong. Every day I see lots of horses whose riders are obviously not even trying to compete. I agree; it can be frustrating. IMHO, finding a way of having them compete is better than letting some enter where there is no intention to compete at all. I'm just not convinced that going through all these gyrations when it comes to purse distribution would result in riders making more of an effort to compete when in the end the purse distribution you're suggesting ends up being pretty close to the purse distribution structure already in place.

-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 12:45 PM   #3
alysheba88
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,529
Personally think all riders should be salaried employees with paid health, di and life insurance. Would definitely want to have significant bonuses in place to maintain incentives. Could do something like the Wall Street approach. A portion of fixed salary as well as variable
alysheba88 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 01:35 PM   #4
toetoe
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,435
It's That Time Of Year

I thought he meant the California Fairs, to which I would reply with a resounding "YES!"
toetoe is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 01:38 PM   #5
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,921
I am in total agreement with Jeff.


Quote:
Everyone who joined the discussion unanimously agreed about one thing: The value of punishment as a deterrent has eroded considerably over the years, and it is no longer an effective tool to curb malpractice.
Personally, I doubt that it ever was much of a deterrent. There was a time when a jockey could be suspended in one juristiction and simply move his tack to another. For trainers it was more difficult but still, only the most ehinous scams resulted in serious disbarment.



IMHO, more 10-year and lifetime suspensions should be applied. Yes, I know... horsemen will say, "You can't take away a man's livlihood."

I say that you can, if they aren't willing to follow the rules of honesty and integrity.

Look at the trouble baseball is in because they have looked the other way on the steroid issue for so long, pretending it wasn't there.


Dave
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 01:51 PM   #6
toetoe
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,435
Dave,

Is baseball really in trouble? Maybe as a jaded ex-fan I'm out of touch, but I think baseball, football, basketball, etc. are still the best scams going. The gambling aspect makes racing a dicier issue, and the other sports can't cop to the fact that it's their biggest attraction also, albeit sub rosa.
toetoe is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 02:24 PM   #7
speculus
Zapoorzaa!!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: India
Posts: 547
Not really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
Doesn't this end up being pretty close to the purse distribution structure already in place?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
I am in total agreement with Jeff.


I cannot claim to know the purse distribution in your country; but in principle, all I can tell you is that if you changed the example to the one with a different verdict, like the first five horses separated by, say, 1/2 L, 6 L, 2 L & 1/2 L; then the final distribution of $100,000 would look quite different:

Here is the calculation:
The winner beats the Reference Horse by (0.5 + 6 + 2 + 0.5) = 9 L
The runner-up beats the Reference Horse by (6 + 2 + 0.5) = 8.5 L
The third horse beats the Reference Horse by (2 + 0.5) = 2.5 L
The fourth horse beats the Reference Horse by 0.5 L
The Reference Horse receives a cumulative beating of (9+8.5+2.5+0.5 = 20.5 L)


Purely based in the % of cumulative beating,
the winner's share is 9/20.5 = 43.90% = $43,900
the runner-up’s share is 8.5/20.5 = 41.46% = $41,460
the third horse’s share is 2.5/20.5 = 12.20% = $12,200
the fourth horse’s share is 0.5/20.5 = 2.44% = $2,440

Now, at 4% per length penalty, the distribution changes to
The winner’s share becomes $48,857
The runner-up’s share becomes $44,311
The third horse’s share becomes $6,198
The fourth horse’s share becomes only $640.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff P
I'm just not convinced that going through all these gyrations…….


As I mentioned, write a simple software, and the computer will do the “gyrations” and slave for us. So what’s the harm?
__________________
The ONLY WAY the racing industry can survive is by reducing the takeout on WIN, PLACE & SHOW to ONLY 5%.

www.DynamicHandicapping.com/

Last edited by speculus; 05-25-2006 at 02:26 PM.
speculus is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 02:28 PM   #8
Dave Schwartz
 
Dave Schwartz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,921
By "in trouble" I meant the very thing you said: The fans' disgust with the game.


I am not an ill-will person. That is, I do not waste my time hoping that someone suffers a career-ending injury simply because I don't like them.

That said, I would still be pleased if Barry Bonds never breaks Aaron's record. I believe he used steroids and I do not think he deserves to be known as the all-time greatest homerun hitter.


Horse racing is different because, except at the highest level, all about the money. In racing, the phrase "crime doesn't pay" simply does not apply. It does pay for some people because the punishments for real cheating are not career-threatening enough.

Dave
Dave Schwartz is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 02:33 PM   #9
RXB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
I would be more worried about a system where beaten lengths determines purse payouts than I am about a little race-fixing here and there.
RXB is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 03:14 PM   #10
alysheba88
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by RXB
I would be more worried about a system where beaten lengths determines purse payouts than I am about a little race-fixing here and there.
Same here. Can you imagine the animal abuse that would take place? The frantic whipping of hopelessly beaten animals?
alysheba88 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 03:43 PM   #11
Jeff P
Registered User
 
Jeff P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: JCapper Platinum: Kind of like Deep Blue... but for horses.
Posts: 5,293
Incentive to do well is already built into purse distributions in North America. The payout is based on percentages that exist on a descending scale. X pct of the total purse to the winner, Y pct to the runner up, Z pct to the third place finisher, etc. The percentages themselves do vary slightly from state to state. As a general rule, in most juridictions, roughly 60 pct of the purse goes to the winner, 20 pct to the runner up, 10 pct to third, and the balance to fourth and beyond, depending on how many places down the rules of each particular jurisdiction say get a share. The lower the placing the lower the share.

Personally, I'd be strongly against a system where purse distribution is based on beaten lengths. When a horse clearly gets the best of its field today, quite often the rider stops asking during the final 1/16th of a mile or so and just lets the horse gallup to the wire. Under such circumstances the horse has already toyed with and destroyed its foes - I can't see any reason to ask the horse for more run. And there's also the other end of the spectrum - horses that are hopelessly beaten today. I see no reason whatsoever to whip a horse so that it gets a seventh place finish instead of tenth.

Now what I do have a problem with are riders who "wrap up" as soon as they realize their mount isn't going to win the race today. Quite often they let their horses finish up the track when they could have easily gotten a second or third place finish if they had simply ridden all the way to the wire.

-jp

.
__________________
Team JCapper: 2011 PAIHL Regular Season ROI Leader after 15 weeks
www.JCapper.com

Last edited by Jeff P; 05-25-2006 at 03:46 PM.
Jeff P is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 03:59 PM   #12
toetoe
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,435
The only thing I might tweak is the prize for second place. It's not much more than the prize for third. Maybe 25%?
toetoe is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 04:57 PM   #13
kenwoodallpromos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,569
Percieved fairness

Beating then hell out of a tired horse will not change human nature about percieved unfairness- that is insecurity with one's pick.
If you want closer finishes that is another goal altogether.
IMO as long as you have horses quialifying into races on the bases of race conditions that do not separate out horses by finish time or speed rating you will have the same problem.
IMO anytime 2 horses race that are NW1Y with Md, Cl, Starters excepted without regard to time ITM finishes or winning higher level claimers or maidens you will have disparity.
If you want closer finishes qualify the horses by time or rating.
Good luck in Il- Ijust read the rule there that timing any horse other than the leader/winner is ILLEGAL!
All other equine racers have times and ratings generated in every race. II think in increases competition and finishes.
kenwoodallpromos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 10:28 PM   #14
speculus
Zapoorzaa!!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: India
Posts: 547
Well..

Incentive to do well is already built into purse distributions in North America. The payout is based on percentages that exist on a descending scale. X pct of the total purse to the winner, Y pct to the runner up, Z pct to the third place finisher, etc. The percentages themselves do vary slightly from state to state. As a general rule, in most juridictions, roughly 60 pct of the purse goes to the winner, 20 pct to the runner up, 10 pct to third, and the balance to fourth and beyond, depending on how many places down the rules of each particular jurisdiction say get a share. The lower the placing the lower the share. --Jeff P

That's the scene in almost every country, I believe. Now imagine there is a blanket finish involving the first four horses, they are separated by a nose each, making it plain clear that whosoever won did so by a lucky bob-of-a-head, would you still want to say the pre-determined, fixed percentage system in existence would do justice to their performance? Why not reward them for proportionately for their effort when the technology can now allow it?

Personally, I'd be strongly against a system where purse distribution is based on beaten lengths. When a horse clearly gets the best of its field today, quite often the rider stops asking during the final 1/16th of a mile or so and just lets the horse gallup to the wire. Under such circumstances the horse has already toyed with and destroyed its foes... Jeff P

What's wrong to ask for the proof of that "destruction" in the form of a wide winning margin?

And there's also the other end of the spectrum - horses that are hopelessly beaten today. I see no reason whatsoever to whip a horse so that it gets a seventh place finish instead of tenth. --Jeff P

Surely you don't believe flogging a horse with a whip is the sole way to get it moving. Inappropriate use of the whip can always continue to be punished as they are doing now. The idea is asking for equitable and just distribution of the purse money linked solely to performance and merit, we aren't asking to abolish other rules and forms of vigilance.

Now what I do have a problem with are riders who "wrap up" as soon as they realize their mount isn't going to win the race today. Quite often they let their horses finish up the track when they could have easily gotten a second or third place finish if they had simply ridden all the way to the wire. --Jeff P

You said it!
__________________
The ONLY WAY the racing industry can survive is by reducing the takeout on WIN, PLACE & SHOW to ONLY 5%.

www.DynamicHandicapping.com/

Last edited by speculus; 05-25-2006 at 10:32 PM.
speculus is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-25-2006, 10:37 PM   #15
RXB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,787
So, what do you do about different distances, surfaces, classes, etc?

Much larger beaten lengths differentials on dirt than on grass. Beaten margins increase as distance increases. Maidens romp more often than stakes horses.

Your theory is unworkable in the real world, which is (supposedly) the one in which we exist.
RXB is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply





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
» Current Polls
Which horse do you like most
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 AM.


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.