Most of racing's issues reflected in one tweet

[cj]

Originally Posted by AndyC

We don't have a too many racetracks problem, we have a not enough horses problem. Why should anybody believe that we would have ample horses if there were just fewer tracks? If I were a breeder I would be scaling down business, not ramping up if more racetracks closed.

Too many tracks that don't care about racing or need handle.

[iamt]

Racing as it stands has far too much supply for the demand (either from owners or handicappers).

I doubt it will ever happen as there is too many parties with their own interests in mind, but racing is at a point now where tracks need to look across state boundaries and rationalise their race dates.

I'm sure it has been mentioned previously but Monmouth, Delaware and Parx running 11 programs a week in competition with each other is madness with the current horse population.

Allow horses to ship out to "partner" tracks, develop a race program that can allow the horse populations at each track to race each other, and maybe race one less day a week.

There simply has to be some reduction in race days or things will keep getting worse, but Horseman contracts being what they are I don't think it will happen.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by AndyC

We don't have a too many racetracks problem, we have a not enough horses problem. Why should anybody believe that we would have ample horses if there were just fewer tracks? If I were a breeder I would be scaling down business, not ramping up if more racetracks closed.

The "herd" has been scaled back for years. People are not buying horses. The game is desperate for owners. Even with these partnerships and groups there is not enough buyers. You are right about one thing, if more tracks close, more people may walk away. But the status quo is unacceptable and will not last forever. People like you and many owners don't want to hear this but at this point they may have to be forced to run their horses where there's a open track. How many years do you think this will last? What happens when they continually lose money or the Racino money spigot tightens? Do people really believe that horseplayers are just complaining and not playing less? There are high profile people "walking away". Lets build more tracks and have more 3 horse fields, that will fix it.......

The industry is already shrinking, has been for a long time now. They need to get leaner and meaner, not fatter and dumber. These horses running off to the breeding shed when they are 3 years old, just makes the problem worse. The game needs stars and some constant limelight. Instead, they count on a few weekends and 6 weeks a year...........yeah, the breeders are just dying to put more horses out there....

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

Too many tracks that don't care about racing or need handle.

That very well may be true.

I was addressing the theory that fields sizes would increase if there were fewer tracks. In the short run perhaps but in the long run there would be far fewer horses being bred. The reduction in breeding would lead to fewer good horses as well.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by burnsy

The "herd" has been scaled back for years. People are not buying horses. The game is desperate for owners. Even with these partnerships and groups there is not enough buyers. You are right about one thing, if more tracks close, more people may walk away. But the status quo is unacceptable and will not last forever. People like you and many owners don't want to hear this but at this point they may have to be forced to run their horses where there's a open track. How many years do you think this will last? What happens when they continually lose money or the Racino money spigot tightens? Do people really believe that horseplayers are just complaining and not playing less? There are high profile people "walking away". Lets build more tracks and have more 3 horse fields, that will fix it.......

The industry is already shrinking, has been for a long time now. They need to get leaner and meaner, not fatter and dumber. These horses running off to the breeding shed when they are 3 years old, just makes the problem worse. The game needs stars and some constant limelight. Instead, they count on a few weekends and 6 weeks a year...........yeah, the breeders are just dying to put more horses out there....

For the most part I don't disagree with you. My arguments were directed at you and others who believe that races will be filled with horses when there are fewer tracks.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

For the most part I don't disagree with you. My arguments were directed at you and others who believe that races will be filled with horses when there are fewer tracks.

When two, or even three, racetracks are allowed to operate in the same geographical region at the same time...is this a good thing, as far as "field size" is concerned?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When two, or even three, racetracks are allowed to operate in the same geographical region at the same time...is this a good thing, as far as "field size" is concerned?

It could be. A lot easier for an owner/trainer to operate from a central location. It is doubtful that all the tracks would be running the same level of horses.

[Cholly]

Originally Posted by Tom

Cut purses in half and only pay to third.

Tom, I think you’re going in the wrong direction here. Having the the purse monies concentrated in the win and place positions is a disincentive for larger fields--it encourages trainers to wait for that golden spot. Owners and trainers should be more inclined to enter a ten-horse race if finishing 4th maybe paid 15% instead of only 5%; and 5th place paid 10%. And if the winner only received 35% of the purse, they would need to run back again sooner.

How did it become enshrined in horse racing that the winner would get 60% of the purse and place another 20%? In a PGA tour event, the winner gets 18% of the prize money, and 2nd place gets 11%.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Cholly

......How did it become enshrined in horse racing that the winner would get 60% of the purse and place another 20%? In a PGA tour event, the winner gets 18% of the prize money, and 2nd place gets 11%.

If it were like golf you might see a less than full effort to win a race. Setting a horse up for a bet might be more lucrative.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Tom

Cut purses in half and only pay to third.
Make them HAVE to run to survive.

Pay purse money on a sliding scale.
100k race is for 10 or more horses.
9 show up, it is now a 9K race.
8 show up, it is now 80K

Check out AP 7/2/17

Race 1 - 4.5f MSW 2yo purse $28k. Seven horses entered but four scratched. The odds for the remaining three runners ran 1, 2 and 3 at odds of 0.80, 1.50 and 2.80 in 52.83.

The value of race $26,712 and the distribution of purse to the runners were Winner: $16,800; Second: $5,600 and Third: $4,312.

The mutuel pool was $20,416 and exacta $6,319 totals $26,735 which barely covered the purse distribution.

Only paid winner @ $3.60 and $1 exacta was $3.20.

Why do people bet on these races?