Where did all the horses go?

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...you've BEEN "successful enough as a horseplayer". But...how confident are you that you will win money in this game THIS YEAR...or well into the more distant FUTURE?

The "past" isn't the "gamble". The FUTURE is where the gamble resides.

Let's say that you've spent your entire bankroll while renovating your home...and the "highly profitable" spring and summer-racing months find you without the "ammunition" necessary for your usual style of betting. Would you consider borrowing serious money in order to bet in "full-force"? And..if not...WHY NOT?

I've never even considered this scenario. What a profound question to be put to a gambler.

I know my answer is an unequivical "NO, NO, NO". As relatively successful as I've been the past 8 years, and as much confidence as I have in my game, I know borrowing money to gamble would be the ruin of me. "Borrowing to gamble", for whatever reason, just seems so desperate, regardless of the reason for the shortage of bankroll.

[Track Phantom]

Having confidence and agility from the mental aspect allows for clearer decision making. Borrowing money might influence negative behavior in decision making.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

There is a lot of cost associated with owning a racehorse, but think of the advantages of Ralph's idea of having all horses owned by the track. You could essentially make purses zero. Oh, you'd still have to pay the trainers and make sure it was enough to cover all the people who care for the horse, including the vets, unless the track just put everyone on a payroll. Sort of like doctors who work for hospitals instead of going into private practice. You'd have to get rid of the claiming races so you didn't have some outside trainer come in and grab your horses and take them elsewhere. And you also might take some of the incentive away from jockeys and trainers trying as hard, unless maybe you offered bonuses based on wins.

Another question. Wouldn't the breeding operations keep the best horses for themselves, and only sell the crap? And who would pay the breeding fee? Do you pay up front and get the foal that comes from a contract, or do you wait and pay for the horses they are willing to sell you? And does the breeder always set the price? Lots of details to work out.

Finally, you'd probably need 1,600 or so horses for a meet. If you wanted to run 10 races a day, four days a week, you'd need 400 horses a week. They all aren't going to come from breeding operations. You'd probably have to buy a lot of horses from the pool of animals already running. Lot of cost there potentially.

You know why we have fewer foals from the high years don't you? It had a lot to do with the last time the feds got rid of a lot of tax deductions. It was profitable to own horses because of the tax advantages, and when those went away, investors went away. There is plenty of space for horses at the track if there were horses to run, but there is no incentive to breed more horses and the system has stabilized at about 20,000 foals a year.

Do you know what the relationship is for increasing the number of starters? For every 1% increase in starters you get a 1.58% increase in handle (although it isn't a straight line function). If you could move the average number of starters from 7 to 10, on average you'd get a 30% increase in handle. That would be a big deal.

I've also had this idea floating around in my head for a number of years, though I may never have stated it on this forum. The track could then sell sponsorships to individual horses, or group plans where a sponsor has a "stable" of horses. The horses are assigned to the trainers, and the trainers are employed by the track, and assessed just like any other employee in any other industry, with the health and welfare of the horse being the most major of all job assessment criteria. Purses would still be raced for, and distributed between sponsors, trainers and jockeys. The stakes programs would be open to private individuals, therefore still preserving the Bafferts and Pletchers and their ownership groups. Horses that Baffert has that don't cut it would be sold to the tracks and distributed to employed trainers, and horses that the track owns that start showing exceptional promise would be sold to private ownership groups to be run in the graded stakes programs.

Pie in the Sky, I'm well aware of that, but I believe it would be a workable model.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...you've BEEN "successful enough as a horseplayer". But...how confident are you that you will win money in this game THIS YEAR...or well into the more distant FUTURE?

The "past" isn't the "gamble". The FUTURE is where the gamble resides.

Let's say that you've spent your entire bankroll while renovating your home...and the "highly profitable" spring and summer-racing months find you without the "ammunition" necessary for your usual style of betting. Would you consider borrowing serious money in order to bet in "full-force"? And..if not...WHY NOT?

This is a great "state of mind" question, Thask. An example would be a player has a $20K bankroll and has to spend it all to renovate his home. But now he has nothing left for betting. Now the home renovation could have been financed, making payments, and the player would still have his $20K bankroll for his most profitable time of the year, betting wise.

Bottom-line, the question asked by Thask is an important one.....What difference does it make if you borrow $20K to bet OR you finance your home renovations for $20K? The answer is--->There is NO difference, but because a person's perception says, "It's OK to borrow $20K to renovate my house, but I would never borrow $20K to bet the horses, thus the deep seated problem is revealed. What is revealed is this: "You can't win if you put perceptual pressure on yourself needlessly by thinking that you borrowed to bet/gamble."........It's ALL in your state of mind, the result will be nothing but your own perception, which will fulfill its own destiny, win or lose.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I think the whole idea of grinding it out is idiotic, but it may be right for you. I think you can be successful either way.

It's not idiotic if you pick your spots.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

This is a great "state of mind" question, Thask. An example would be a player has a $20K bankroll and has to spend it all to renovate his home. But now he has nothing left for betting. Now the home renovation could have been financed, making payments, and the player would still have his $20K bankroll for his most profitable time of the year, betting wise.

Bottom-line, the question asked by Thask is an important one.....What difference does it make if you borrow $20K to bet OR you finance your home renovations for $20K? The answer is--->There is NO difference, but because a person's perception says, "It's OK to borrow $20K to renovate my house, but I would never borrow $20K to bet the horses, thus the deep seated problem is revealed. What is revealed is this: "You can't win if you put perceptual pressure on yourself needlessly by thinking that you borrowed to bet/gamble."........It's ALL in your state of mind, the result will be nothing but your own perception, which will fulfill its own destiny, win or lose.

Here's what I really mean...in a nutshell:

We sometimes see posters here who are averse to the words "gambler" and "gambling". "A gambler is someone who expects to lose...whereas the long-term winner is INVESTING!"...these posters say. I've asked these posters why they are not "gamblers"...and they reply that they play with a "positive expectation"...and they are confident that they will "win money long-term". There is no "gamble" in what they do...they tell me.

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If I am positive that I am a "long-term winning player"...and I am smart enough to calculate my ROI in the game...then I know what my long-term profitability will be. So...why SHOULDN'T I borrow some money from the bank at 5-6% interest...if I am "sure" that I will double this money in a year's time? Why should I play only with "money that I could safely afford to lose"...if my edge in this game is indeed REAL?

Mind you...I am NOT advocating that people should bet the horses with borrowed money. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hate the idea of calling themselves "gamblers"...even as they fully recognize the great financial risk in what they do.

We are ALL "gamblers"...whether we admit it, or not. YES...some of us might have proven to ourselves that we could win...but that was in the PAST. And the "gamble" lurks in the FUTURE.

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here's what I really mean...in a nutshell:

We sometimes see posters here who are averse to the words "gambler" and "gambling". "A gambler is someone who expects to lose...whereas the long-term winner is INVESTING!"...these posters say. I've asked these posters why they are not "gamblers"...and they reply that they play with a "positive expectation"...and they are confident that they will "win money long-term. There is no "gamble" in what they do...they tell me.

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If I am positive that I am a "long-term winning player"...and I am smart enough to calculate my ROI in the game...then I know what my long-term profitability will be. So...why SHOULDN"T I borrow some money from the bank at 5-6% interest...if I am "sure" that I will double this money in a year's time? Why should I play only with "money that I could safely afford to lose"...if my edge in this game is indeed REAL?

Mind you...I am NOT advocating that people should bet the horses with borrowed money. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hate the idea of calling themselves "gamblers"...even as they fully recognize the great financial risk in what they do.

We are ALL "gamblers"...while we admit it, or not. YES...some of us have proven that we could win...but that was in the PAST. And the "gamble" lurks in the FUTURE.

Michael Wrona suggests we are investors, I'll go with that.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

There is a lot of cost associated with owning a racehorse, but think of the advantages of Ralph's idea of having all horses owned by the track. You could essentially make purses zero. Oh, you'd still have to pay the trainers and make sure it was enough to cover all the people who care for the horse, including the vets, unless the track just put everyone on a payroll. Sort of like doctors who work for hospitals instead of going into private practice. You'd have to get rid of the claiming races so you didn't have some outside trainer come in and grab your horses and take them elsewhere. And you also might take some of the incentive away from jockeys and trainers trying as hard, unless maybe you offered bonuses based on wins.

Another question. Wouldn't the breeding operations keep the best horses for themselves, and only sell the crap? And who would pay the breeding fee? Do you pay up front and get the foal that comes from a contract, or do you wait and pay for the horses they are willing to sell you? And does the breeder always set the price? Lots of details to work out.

Finally, you'd probably need 1,600 or so horses for a meet. If you wanted to run 10 races a day, four days a week, you'd need 400 horses a week. They all aren't going to come from breeding operations. You'd probably have to buy a lot of horses from the pool of animals already running. Lot of cost there potentially.

You know why we have fewer foals from the high years don't you? It had a lot to do with the last time the feds got rid of a lot of tax deductions. It was profitable to own horses because of the tax advantages, and when those went away, investors went away. There is plenty of space for horses at the track if there were horses to run, but there is no incentive to breed more horses and the system has stabilized at about 20,000 foals a year.

Do you know what the relationship is for increasing the number of starters? For every 1% increase in starters you get a 1.58% increase in handle (although it isn't a straight line function). If you could move the average number of starters from 7 to 10, on average you'd get a 30% increase in handle. That would be a big deal.

This just made me think that we can probably estimate the number of tracks which would make racing viable long term given the foal count.

Of the 20k foals, how many make it to race some # of times say 5 times before disappearing?

Maybe 50% at 2 and 3?

Given an average racing career of say 5 years would give us a racing population of 50k +/-.

So, how many tracks would be needed to support 50k horses actively racing each year at say your numbers of 1600 (I think it probably s/b 2500) per meet and 400 p/wk ( 10 horse fields)?

, and would change and fluctuate within a small range.

So, it looks like 20 - 30 tracks should be running for full fields instead of the 50+/-.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

I think the phrase, I bet with money I am willing to lose, is a euphemism for, playing the horses is my entertainment, just like scuba diving, traveling, or golf is someone's entertainment. I mean, no matter how good a golfer you were, if you couldn't afford to play maybe you should just practice until you could afford it. I might pay for a Europe trip on the installment plan, but I probably wouldn't do it over and over.

I'd simply say I wouldn't be willing to go into very much debt to play the races, no matter how confident I was in my ability. But that's just me. I'd cut back on play, or cut back on the size of my bets, or wait until I had sufficiently built my bankroll. That is a function of my belief that one should never bet scared money because it affects your decision-making ability. We've all seen people who cheaped out on a bet because they were trying to save a buck or two. I just never want to put myself in the position of even thinking about playing that way.

Of course, it's a little like asking someone what they would do if a thief tried to rob them on the street. Even if you say you know what would happen, you may not know exactly what you would do until that exact moment arises. I hope I'm never too broke to play the horses and I hope nobody tries to rob me on the street.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Things can't remain the same. Some tracks have gotta go...no two ways about it.

It's cold, hard, business fact.

Exactly PA.

Lambo the idea contracution will make it worse is silly. No one is talking about just eliminating one type of track. The problem is you have multiple tracks competing for the same horses.

For example Laurel, Delaware, Parx, Monmouth, Laurel and even Penn Nat to a lesser degree want the same animals. So if 1-2 went away who does that harm?

Then you have Finger Lakes, Presque Isle, Mountaineer and the Ohio tracks all after the same horses. Same deal.

I'm floored someone could argue this is bad.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

So, it looks like 20 - 30 tracks should be running for full fields instead of the 50+/-.

In an interesting coincidence, in my 10 Ways to Improve Horseracing, I suggested 22 tracks. You need enough time zone distribution, distribution of which days of the week tracks race, and distribution of post times (like early afternoon, late afternoon, evening tracks).

[Andy Asaro]

"We expect to draw on schedule and as planned through the rest of the year," Morris said, reinforcing similar comments made by Santa Anita racing secretary Rick Hammerle April 23.

"There's a little bit of a sickness going around, which can happen on occasion when 2-year-olds come in from different places, so that's not helping the situation. ...

The rain earlier this year is part of it, too, but it's never one thing.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ards-will-fill

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Things can't remain the same. Some tracks have gotta go...no two ways about it.

It's cold, hard, business fact.

PA one of the things people aren't talking about is Keeneland. They're struggling to fill mid-week. Why?

The answer is the Oaklawn slots. A lot of guys who historically ran minimally at Oaklawn ran more because of the purses. Look at how few horses guys like Tom Amoss have run at Keeneland. The answer is he ran hard at Fair Grounds and Oaklawn and he's racing less as a result. Same with Ron Moquett.

So we're back to slots just moving the toothpaste around the tube versus solving big problems. Oaklawn slots helped them but they are hurting Keeneland and Hawthorne so where's the net gain?

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

"We expect to draw on schedule and as planned through the rest of the year," Morris said, reinforcing similar comments made by Santa Anita racing secretary Rick Hammerle April 23.

"There's a little bit of a sickness going around, which can happen on occasion when 2-year-olds come in from different places, so that's not helping the situation. ...

The rain earlier this year is part of it, too, but it's never one thing.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ards-will-fill

Also the dog ate his homework and he didn't know their was a test today.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

In an interesting coincidence, in my 10 Ways to Improve Horseracing, I suggested 22 tracks. You need enough time zone distribution, distribution of which days of the week tracks race, and distribution of post times (like early afternoon, late afternoon, evening tracks).

In an interesting coincidence, the thread I started over 2 years ago for Contraction in racing, called for 10 super-hub tracks. Here's the thread, it's worth the read:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=116948