Most of racing's issues reflected in one tweet

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I do not follow harness at all so I do not know anything about it.

I am trying to understand why it is bad for the game for the favorites to win at a high rate but I think that this alone is not enough datum to form an opinion as other things like ROI for example should affect this "badness" and this is why I am asking for related arguments and ways of thought.

Because gambling events that return little money to gamblers aren't very popular?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

...

The thought occurred to me that one possible way this (eventually) plays out would be that the Pennsylvania Legislature pulls the plug and completely decouples horse racing from slots.

...

I always just assumed that is why suddenly someone cares.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

I agree with you Phil.

From what I've read of the reported witness testimony for the prosecution in the Rojas case - things look pretty damning for Pennsylvania horse racing.

The thought occurred to me that one possible way this (eventually) plays out would be that the Pennsylvania Legislature pulls the plug and completely decouples horse racing from slots.

Given that as a possible scenario -- why would anyone (The Stronach Group included) jump in right now and take over Parx?

Probably smarter to wait - and let things play out a bit.


-jp

.

the problem with the decoupling part is that when the voters approved casino licenses, horse racing was included.

the best solution would be to close up both the race tracks and the casino's at the same time. so far the casino's haven't had to many problems maintaining business. but the history of casino's are that they have their ups and downs, in the early 1980's there were 12 las vegas strip hotels that were either in recievership or bankruptcy. they wound up getting leveled to the ground with sticks of dynamite and resort style places with video machines stepped in and the town grew again. but there will come a point when people get sick of those machines and stop going to casino's. in horse racing people will always love horses. right now people are down on the gambling aspects of it and stay away from it. but those people can come back and new ones promoted with a game that has the customer in mind instead of just the trainer. its being done in other parts of the word now. it won't be that tough to copy.

[mountainman]

The sad abundance of winning favorites relates not only to field size, but to field "depth."

Another factor is the preponderance of late scratches. Lots of outfits coddle their inflated win percentages by simply refusing to lose. If their entrant isn't 4/5 on paper-if even ONE rival figures stronger-they take a vet scratch and don't compete. The relative ease in obtaining vet scratches is thus a sneaky underlying cause in this onslaught of winning chalk. And lacking a bonafide vet-scratch, lots of owners WILL pay a fine to avoid losing. NOBODY competes anymore, and sportsmanship is non-existent.

How unfortunate for players and bad for the game that handicappers must invest precious time in analyzing match-ups and pace scenarios never intended to transpire.

As a consequence of all this-and more-the system now circulates purse money in a manner that makes top trainers more (and more) dominant. It becomes a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle that only leads to the top guys procuring more horses to win more races against shorter and shorter fields of overmatched foes.

And, inevitably, when modest outfits say "uncle," highly-ranked horsemen can obtain less costly stock and STILL dominate.

[Poindexter]

No question that a high % of favorites, indicates that the fields aren't very competitive. The less competive a field the more onerous the takeout. As a handicapper you have to overcome a 16% to 25% takeout just to break even. If everybody looking at the drf comes up with the same opinion it is really hard to do so. Hard for the public to make that big of a mistake when virtually everybody sees the same thing.

I think a bigger problem this game faces is the races which appear to be open and the public just latches on to 1 or 2 of the horses and they dominate.

I will give one example from Louisiana downs on Monday-race 7-in my book there were 4 horses that were fairly close in ability-yet one was bet to 1-1 the other bet to 2-1 the others were 8-1 and 9-1-the 2-1 won the 1-1 came 2nd-1 other contender was 8 lengths back in 4th and the other contender was 14 lengths back in 6th. I don't care that the 2nd favorite won and the favorite ran 2nd, it it how the other 2 lost. It was as if they weren't in the race. Nobody with a brain is going to conclude anything other the worse. When this type of stuff happens with any regularity, this game loses it's appeal. The high % of winning favorite will include races similar to the one I just mentioned (favorite lost in my example is the difference) where they do not appear that obvious, but somehow the public just latches on to the winning horse often far more aggressively than anyone would/should suspect.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Because gambling events that return little money to gamblers aren't very popular?

So, why this logic applies to games like baccarat or blackjack which are very popular and attract tons of action?

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by Secondbest

Considering the short fields for dirt especially at Belmont not surprising that favorites winning more overall. If you broke it down would dirt only be higher and turf lower?

This is it...
smaller fields = higher % of winning faves

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

No question that a high % of favorites, indicates that the fields aren't very competitive. The less competive a field the more onerous the takeout. As a handicapper you have to overcome a 16% to 25% takeout just to break even. If everybody looking at the drf comes up with the same opinion it is really hard to do so. Hard for the public to make that big of a mistake when virtually everybody sees the same thing.

I think a bigger problem this game faces is the races which appear to be open and the public just latches on to 1 or 2 of the horses and they dominate.

I will give one example from Louisiana downs on Monday-race 7-in my book there were 4 horses that were fairly close in ability-yet one was bet to 1-1 the other bet to 2-1 the others were 8-1 and 9-1-the 2-1 won the 1-1 came 2nd-1 other contender was 8 lengths back in 4th and the other contender was 14 lengths back in 6th. I don't care that the 2nd favorite won and the favorite ran 2nd, it it how the other 2 lost. It was as if they weren't in the race. Nobody with a brain is going to conclude anything other the worse. When this type of stuff happens with any regularity, this game loses it's appeal. The high % of winning favorite will include races similar to the one I just mentioned (favorite lost in my example is the difference) where they do not appear that obvious, but somehow the public just latches on to the winning horse often far more aggressively than anyone would/should suspect.

Do you have any data to support your views or you are simply stating an opinion? You understand that individual examples like the one you are presenting here from LD have no value as you can always discover an example for any kind of a theory you can think about.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by cj

They are, in my opinion. Races are not being written with betting in mind. They are mostly written to appease trainers. Until that changes, it isn't going to get better.

I believe that this is the biggest issue.


There are only 2 perspectives when looking at these cards; Incompetence or corruption.

I know Hanlon's heuristic says:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"...

Hanlon wasn't a horseplayer.


Properly written races are strong enough of a model that they can make races with obvious no-hold-barred performance enhancing, bettable. At least you've got multiple offenders knocking-heads.



6 horses is not a field.

Half of the time, if you only have 6 horses, you will only have one of the select upper-class barns, or just one of the no-holds-barred performance enhancing barns.

Churning obvious favorites through the machine is OK for laundering money or gambling, but it limits you, in terms of finding value.

It's crazy to see a track like Belmont @ 40%. Their field-size is respectable. Somewhere around 7.5-8.

Makes you wonder how the card averages would look if you filtered out the full-field state-bred and the full-field turf claiming races.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I do not follow harness at all so I do not know anything about it.

I am trying to understand why it is bad for the game for the favorites to win at a high rate but I think that this alone is not enough datum to form an opinion as other things like ROI for example should affect this "badness" and this is why I am asking for related arguments and ways of thought.

Evidently favorites must be good for racing. There's a thread in the handicapping section that says Nyra is the best circuit to play. 40% favorites and all.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Do you have any data to support your views or you are simply stating an opinion? You understand that individual examples like the one you are presenting here from LD have no value as you can always discover an example for any kind of a theory you can think about.

The example was not to prove anything, it was to help convey the message. Not sure what data you are looking for (but since I have no database-I cant provide any data on any of the opinions I express), but I see many horses bet way out of proportion throughout the year that cruise home as if they can read the toteboard. Whether they are a money maker, is a whole other story(I have no idea and I certainly do not track them), but I certainly respect them. Now the key is deciphering what is "sharp money" which is really what I am talking about and what is the public just overbetting the obvious (which is a lot more vulnerable and I have no problem vigorously betting against).

[Secondbest]

[QUOTE=Robert Fischer;2189684]I believe that this is the biggest issue.


There are only 2 perspectives when looking at these cards; Incompetence or corruption.

I know Hanlon's heuristic says:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"...

Hanlon wasn't a horseplayer.


Properly written races are strong enough of a model that they can make races with obvious no-hold-barred performance enhancing, bettable. At least you've got multiple offenders knocking-heads.



6 horses is not a field.

Half of the time, if you only have 6 horses, you will only have one of the select upper-class barns, or just one of the no-holds-barred performance enhancing barns.

Churning obvious favorites through the machine is OK for laundering money or gambling, but it limits you, in terms of finding value.

It's crazy to see a track like Belmont @ 40%. Their field-size is respectable. Somewhere around 7.5-8.

Makes you wonder how the card averages would look if you filtered out the full-field state-bred and the full-field turf claiming races.[/QUOt

Thusday at Belmont before scratches
4 dirt races field size of 6,6,7,7
5 turf races field size of 9,8,12,6,9

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Secondbest

Churning obvious favorites through the machine is OK for laundering money.

Now we've got something interesting to talk about..

[Cholly]

Thusday at Belmont before scratches
4 dirt races field size of 6,6,7,7
5 turf races field size of 9,8,12,6,9[/QUOTE)

of the turf races you mentioned I only looked at one, the 8th ($77K purse for "world-beaters" who have previously manged to break maiden) which is one listed as having 9 starters...3 of those are MTO's, so R8 will either have 6 starters or 4.

To paraphrase Tim Ritvo, even though NYRA has all the money in the world to throw around, their field-sizes suck.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by Secondbest

Thusday at Belmont before scratches
4 dirt races field size of 6,6,7,7
5 turf races field size of 9,8,12,6,9

for some reason these tracks seem to think that 6 horses is a full field