A Question for the Horsemen here.

[Robert Goren]

The posters here who are bettors and not horsemen are always complaining about short fields. Whenever one of them suggest an idea to increase field size, a horseman shoots it down. My question to you as a horseman, what would you do to increase the size the fields?

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

The posters here who are bettors and not horsemen are always complaining about short fields. Whenever one of them suggest an idea to increase field size, a horseman shoots it down. My question to you as a horseman, what would you do to increase the size the fields?

Horsemen don't want full fields. Of course, they will protest to the contrary and cite concern for the welfare of the game.. But behind the scenes, the same horsemen who profess concern about shrinking field-size will shamelessly make short fields a stipulation for their OWN entries.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Horsemen don't want full fields. Of course, they will protest to the contrary and cite concern for the welfare of the game.. But behind the scenes, the same horsemen who profess concern about shrinking field-size will shamelessly make short fields a stipulation for their OWN entries.

Would changing the purse payout structure help increase field size? What is the current payout structure for field sizes of 5, 7, 9 and 11? I was thinking along the lines of 6 or less only 1st and 2nd share etc.

I think it's within the track management's ability to increase field sizes if that's what they truly want.

Thanks for any responses.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Horsemen don't want full fields.

Why do many tracks consider horsemen to be their principle clientele? A horse race is a product. The bettor is the consumer. The horseman is part of the supply chain.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Horsemen don't want full fields.

Mountainman, please correct me if I am wrong here...because my memory isn't what it used to be:

Wasn't the main reason for the casino-assisted purses to alleviate this short-field malady that was plaguing the game to begin with? Weren't the bigger purses supposed to entice the trainers to run their horses MORE often than they used to...and didn't this strategy bring about the exact OPPOSITE effect?

The added casino profits were supposed to help improve the competitiveness of the game as a WHOLE...no? Or were they just meant as a no-questions-asked bonus for the horsemen?

[cj]

The only ways to increase field sizes are to either have more horses or run less races. Money won't do it.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Mountainman, please correct me if I am wrong here...because my memory isn't what it used to be:

Wasn't the main reason for the casino-assisted purses to alleviate this short-field malady that was plaguing the game to begin with? Weren't the bigger purses supposed to entice the trainers to run their horses MORE often than they used to...and didn't this strategy bring about the exact OPPOSITE effect?

The added casino profits were supposed to help improve the competitiveness of the game as a WHOLE...no? Or were they just meant as a no-questions-asked bonus for the horsemen?

That was stated more than few times here in the past.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by cj

The only ways to increase field sizes are to either have more horses or run less races. Money won't do it.

The "state of the game", currently, as I see it, is that there are simply not enough horses to go around to the too-many tracks that are trying to stay open simultaneously....

Years ago their was a really good supply of owners and horses, and many meets were seasonal, nowadays the owners and horses are entrenched at their "home tracks" and are unwilling to journey any further than their own backyards any longer...In this regard,something "must" give, in order for racing to survive in this day and age, imo ..

If it doesn't the game will simply stagnate and continue to die the slow death that it is currently morphing into ...

Will the necessary changes happen ? Maybe, but way too late, I envision....

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by cj

The only ways to increase field sizes are to either have more horses or run less races. Money won't do it.

In theory, more money could bring more horses. More purse money could make it profitable to race marginal horses that can't currently pay their keep at the track, and therefore aren't at the track. The tracks could also slant the purse money toward larger fields.

[Robert Goren]

Still no horsemen responses

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Still no horsemen responses

Mountaiman scared them off with his "horsemen don't want full fields" declaration.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by cj

The only ways to increase field sizes are to either have more horses or run less races. Money won't do it.

there are to many different conditions, super trainers won't run in the wrong spot or wrong distance for their horses. they could do a whole bunch of things to get race cards to fill. they could stop offering different distances like they do now, instead of 5 1/2, 6.0, 6.5 and 7 furlong races they could eliminate 2 of the distances. they could also get rid of filly and mare races and give big allowances for the filly's and mares that will have to run against the boys. they will get more full fields and the horses will run more often.

they are giving enough money away for a change to work.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Mountainman, please correct me if I am wrong here...because my memory isn't what it used to be:

Wasn't the main reason for the casino-assisted purses to alleviate this short-field malady that was plaguing the game to begin with? Weren't the bigger purses supposed to entice the trainers to run their horses MORE often than they used to...and didn't this strategy bring about the exact OPPOSITE effect?

The added casino profits were supposed to help improve the competitiveness of the game as a WHOLE...no? Or were they just meant as a no-questions-asked bonus for the horsemen?

If they took all the slots money and infused that into the betting pools as carryovers, the pools would have jumped up and they could have raised purses in a non artificial way. But instead, they didnt give the bettors one red cent. Not even a cookie.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by Clocker

In theory, more money could bring more horses. More purse money could make it profitable to race marginal horses that can't currently pay their keep at the track, and therefore aren't at the track. The tracks could also slant the purse money toward larger fields.

In theory more money would mean smaller fields. Owners don't have to win as many races to make money. They can pick their spots like stakes horses. At the end of the year at tracks like Parx I see horses that have never ran above 12,500 claiming level that have earned 50-70k.
I believe the tracks with the smallest purses in their region have horses that run most frequently, not that it helps tracks like Beulah much.

[Tom]

Smaller fields = more checks to horsemen.
What horsemen want and what bettors want is not the same thing.
I think they would like smaller fields.