Thanks to HANA and BillW......

[raybo]

Originally Posted by highnote

I agree Ray. However, in many respects he TLG is correct. NYRA has the highest quality of horses running on a consistent basis. It's hard to top the quality of horses racing at the Saratoga meeting, for example.

From a betting perspective, the HANA ratings are a good gauge for which track offers bettors the best value.

If there was a way to factor in host fees or average available rebate then the HANA ratings would be very interesting!

Well, naturally the best horses are going to go where the money is. Quality horses does not necessarily mean a "better product". Again, it depends on what your own definition of "better product" is.

The average Joe player either doesn't care about the quality of the horses, or doesn't know the difference between quality horses and cheap claimers. And the average Joe is the majority of players.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I would say that Keeneland has just as good.

Well, if you're going to single out Keeneland and Saratoga, why not mention the length of their meets, and the difficulty of handicapping those 2 tracks. Horses come in for 1 or 2 races and they're gone, they don't even have time to get used to the track hardly. And, I imagine, not having visited either track, they are probably quite expensive to visit. Those two tracks, IMO, are boutique meets, for the clique that plans their year around taking that trip. Almost like the Derby, now how high on the list should CD be?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Does quality racing factor into the equasion? Personally, i just want winners, good bets and value, the quality racing doesnt do me any good, i dont get part of the winning purse, a 3-1 in a grade 1 race pays 8 dollars just like it pays 8 dollars in a rock bottom claiming race.

How much of a factor is 'quality racing' in these ratings?

That's my feeling too, I don't make much money playing high quality races. Like you, I'm looking for value, and don't care where I find it, or whether there are lots of big dollar horses running there or not.

IMO, "quality racing" means decent fields, and longer meets that offer the opportunity to find lots of value bets, and actually hitting some.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by raybo

That's my feeling too, I don't make much money playing high quality races. Like you, I'm looking for value, and don't care where I find it, or whether there are lots of big dollar horses running there or not.

IMO, "quality racing" means decent fields, and longer meets that offer the opportunity to find lots of value bets, and actually hitting some.

Its funny how people get SO excited about "Derby Fever" and yet, its just another race with a 16%/19% takeout. Unless you own a horse who is racing in the Derby, i'm not sure why people actually care about this stuff, i'm just looking to win my next bet and i could care less how 'important' the race happens to be....its only important if you are the trainer, owner or jockey.

Now, if your betting records indicate that you make much more money betting grade 1 races than you do betting any other kind of race, than i can see wanting quality racing....but, other than that, a race is a race, they all pay off the same at the end.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Its funny how people get SO excited about "Derby Fever" and yet, its just another race with a 16%/19% takeout. Unless you own a horse who is racing in the Derby, i'm not sure why people actually care about this stuff, i'm just looking to win my next bet and i could care less how 'important' the race happens to be....its only important if you are the trainer, owner or jockey.

Now, if your betting records indicate that you make much more money betting grade 1 races than you do betting any other kind of race, than i can see wanting quality racing....but, other than that, a race is a race, they all pay off the same at the end.

Full field, HUGE pool, dumb money.

[Rook]

Originally Posted by highnote

If there was a way to factor in host fees or average available rebate then the HANA ratings would be very interesting!

Yes, they would finally being doing the job they were designed to do: revealing which tracks were the most horseplayer friendly and which ones were easiest for a bettor to come out ahead at the end of the year.

It wouldn't be hard to include them at all. One simple phone call to someone high up at an ADW will answer that question.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I would say that Keeneland has just as good.

Boutique meets tend to accomplish this( high quality racing stock/best riders and trainers) on a regular basis.

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by Rook

It wouldn't be hard to include them at all. One simple phone call to someone high up at an ADW will answer that question.

That would be the easiest, except for the fact that every ADW signs a non-disclosure as part of each signal contract. Also the fact that each ADW pays a different signal fee depending on who they are, how big they are, and how much power they have.

Should we show the signal fee that Twinspires or PTC pays? Should we use the rebates at Twinspires(if you can call those rebates) or PTC, or any other ADW? Should we use my rebates or yours?

It's not as easy as it sounds.

[raybo]

I agree, the Derby is a huge wagering opportunity.

[NTamm1215]

How much effort was put into making sure the wagers that are available at each track were updated?

It's a pretty glaring omission that Churchill is not credited for having a Pick 5. They've had it for over two years. Del Mar is listed as not having a $0.50 Pick 4 or Pick 5. Monmouth practically introduced the $0.50 Pick 5 to the country and they don't have the box checked. Those omissions just scrape the surface. There are TONS more.

It's also pretty funny that OP is given such high marks for having $0.50 Pick 3s and $0.10 supers when their average card has 3 Pick 3s and 3 superfectas.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

It's also pretty funny that OP is given such high marks for having $0.50 Pick 3s and $0.10 supers when their average card has 3 Pick 3s and 3 superfectas.

This is why I argued that weights are necessary as a single low take super exotic offered once on a card counts the same as an exacta offered 10 times that's raking in 7x as the super exotic. Biases the results badly.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

How much effort was put into making sure the wagers that are available at each track were updated?

It's a pretty glaring omission that Churchill is not credited for having a Pick 5. They've had it for over two years. Del Mar is listed as not having a $0.50 Pick 4 or Pick 5. Monmouth practically introduced the $0.50 Pick 5 to the country and they don't have the box checked. Those omissions just scrape the surface. There are TONS more.

It's also pretty funny that OP is given such high marks for having $0.50 Pick 3s and $0.10 supers when their average card has 3 Pick 3s and 3 superfectas.

There are still some tracks that list pick anything probables and don't list if its a 50 cent payout, a 1 dollar payout, 2 dollar payout, they are so out of touch its incredible. Im not sure which tracks are responsible for NOT listing this info, but some tracks still do this.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

There are still some tracks that list pick anything probables and don't list if its a 50 cent payout, a 1 dollar payout, 2 dollar payout, they are so out of touch its incredible. Im not sure which tracks are responsible for NOT listing this info, but some tracks still do this.

Given how many racetracks are undoubtedly very concerned with their HANA rating, they're sure to begin to make this information more accessible.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by raybo

I agree, the Derby is a huge wagering opportunity.

Ya know, with 20 horses, there is obviously traffic which brings in luck. The horse could be the greatest thing on 4 hooves and finish out of the money.
To me, that is a crap shoot.
It's still a fun race on which to bet though. I just keep my investment dialed down.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Ya know, with 20 horses, there is obviously traffic which brings in luck. The horse could be the greatest thing on 4 hooves and finish out of the money.
To me, that is a crap shoot.
It's still a fun race on which to bet though. I just keep my investment dialed down.

Well, unless you're just betting to win, good coverage can even out the "crap shoot" and with the horses who have been winning and the exotic payouts, there can be very good profit there.