Most of racing's issues reflected in one tweet

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

We dont say anything different Thask!

Typical Greeks, always arguing even when they're agreeing....

[zerosky]

In the UK the fav win percentage seems to have been pretty constant
See stats here...

http://adrianmassey.no-ip.org/web1/fav/fav0.php

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Typical Greeks, always arguing even when they're agreeing....

Correct

[Gander36]

I call it the "Karl Broberg" factor.

You have short fields, and a handful of trainers nationally that are claiming MOST the horses that are about to move into a favorable condition. For instance, a horse that will be eligible for CLM$4000nw1y in 3 weeks. So they end up with the winners, and owners either get out, or move their horses to those trainers barns. Either way, these trainers end up with horses in almost every race, they go off as favorites (usually odds on) and because they fill races, the Racing Secretaries cater to their needs (and a particular horse's conditions in their barn) when writing extra races and making them go.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I only care about oppressive favorites. Bet Turf

Turf

sub 2-1=13% wins

Dirt

sub 2-1 wins=27%

This is the races I've tracked over 2 years and toss many heavy favorite races to even acknowledge and work with. Dirt is a secondary proposition.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

I only care about oppressive favorites. Bet Turf

Turf

sub 2-1=13% wins

Dirt

sub 2-1 wins=27%

This is the races I've tracked over 2 years and toss many heavy favorite races to even acknowledge and work with. Dirt is a secondary proposition.

Hey Cincy,

I think your data are a little off based on the conditions you are specifying.

The following are the results I am getting from a quick query from a db consisting of a sample covering well over 100K races:

ODDS LESS THAN 2-1				
				
Surface	Count	ROI	Winners	Win%
A	9,920	0.85	3,766	37.96%
D	107,711	0.83	41,657	38.67%
T	17,623	0.83	6,476	36.75%

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

This is not that far off of what is occurring.

It may not be intentional, active deception, but it is a 'gut punch' to have a wager or a sequence of wagers affected, because one of the usual suspects decided the race came up tough.

Not much the track can do, other than get tough on late scratches, or start listing frequent offenders as AE alternate entries

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

jeff, we are not only seeing shrinking field sizes, but we have shrinking horse owner's, less trainers that win and less people that pay any attention to racing. the increases in the game that we are seeing are rising takeouts, higher training day rates and vet bills and higher racing form and program costs.

i know of 50 guys personally that have owned horses that supported the sport that no longer own or wager on horse racing. these guys have been priced out of the game in North America. in the past these people were the backbone of the sport and the reason why so many race tracks could flourish at once. no we are in the contraction era. it sounds good but it won't bring or keep new people in this game.

Stronach wanted to take over Parx, they probably see the problems that are ahead in the not to distant future and decided to back off before they walk into a headache.

So I would assume Stronarch passed at Parx simply because of his age. I think their lack of taking on new projects is more driven by their Chairman being 85 then anything else. Tough to take on multi-year projects when your keyman may not have multiple years.

In terms of people getting out of the business you bring up a point your average PA member doesn't know about. Basically on the commercial breeding side you have the top of the market which is uber strong. The world of Tapits and War Fronts is booming. The problem is that core market of 10-20k studs is REALLY struggling. That market is pivotal to things like field size.

Basically the blue collar horses that have filled entry boxes mid-week at tracks are not being produced at the volume they need to be. This is not being talked about enough.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

So I would assume Stronarch passed at Parx simply because of his age. I think their lack of taking on new projects is more driven by their Chairman being 85 then anything else. Tough to take on multi-year projects when your keyman may not have multiple years.

In terms of people getting out of the business you bring up a point your average PA member doesn't know about. Basically on the commercial breeding side you have the top of the market which is uber strong. The world of Tapits and War Fronts is booming. The problem is that core market of 10-20k studs is REALLY struggling. That market is pivotal to things like field size.

Basically the blue collar horses that have filled entry boxes mid-week at tracks are not being produced at the volume they need to be. This is not being talked about enough.

first of all when i mentioned Stronach, i should have said Stronach Family. the daughter Belinda runs the show and she is actively trying to buy up race tracks to run. the decision not to get involved with Parx has nothing at all to do with her father's age.

on your second point about breeding. the well bred horses that have good looks do bring the money at the sales. but everyone that breeds a horse is trying to breed the next Kentucky Derby winner. the problem is there are only 20 horses that make it to the starting gate in Louisville every year now.

personally i stopped racing horses, but i do have a few mares that i breed that i feel produce good enough offspring to compete in different state bred programs. i try to sell the horses at a break ever or small loss and get the breeders award should the horse earn them.

i was going to claim a blue collar mare that ran in the very first race at Delaware this year. the problem was that you had to have run a horse at the meet to claim the horse and i didn't qualify and didn't know anyone else that did either. i am waiting for her to show up down the road again. she was my favorite horse when i had her as a baby and wanted to breed her.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Yes, the old bait and switch.

But an important point to be cognizant of, sir, is that it isn't the players being intentionally deceived or baited. Horsemen making bad-faith entries ear-marked for scratching intend to trick the racing office into using condition-book races that would otherwise not fill.

An experienced official well-familiar with resident stock can smell these deceptions 10-miles away. And kills said races --when he has the luxury. Sadly, however, the warm bodies are sometimes needed to even put out an overnight. A good secretary will quietly "pencil whip" frequent offenders by killing their races later on-when entries are full and he has that luxury.

As far as formal punishment goes, it's rare for perps to leave an incriminating paper trail. And stewards insist on absolute proof. I did supply our judges with said proof in one recent instance and was gratified to see them take action against two offending trainers.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

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

I agree with this.

Maybe you can comment further because you have experience.

It appears that some of the time the racing secretary can't fill a race with horses that legitimately belong at the designated class so we wind up with fillers just so the race can go.

[classhandicapper]

Any thought to the possibility that with so many people now using databases, advanced math, and sharing good information and stats on forums, Twitter, TV, and books that the players themselves are doing a much better job of selecting the most likely winner?

Here's another thought.

When NYC OTB closed a lot of people in the industry celebrated.

I thought it was a blow to my chances of winning, especially in NY.

The casual bettors at OTB were terrible and they put a LOT of bad money through the windows, often outside NY also. Sure, lots of the die hard players switched to other ways of wagering, but many simply quit. That was another of an endless drain of "bad horseplayers" leaving the game and creating a situation where the odds get more efficient and we are all swimming in shark infested waters.

Here's a true story from Queens OTB.

I knew a guy that used to bet $1000 - $2000 per race (a few races a day when he was there). He used to bet right into very small pools at minor tracks. One day I asked him how he was doing. He told me he was losing because the players were getting really smart and betting down all his horses. The guy had no clue he was creating the favorites. I had to explain it to him. It got to the point where I'd ask him who he was betting just so I could bet someone else (usually the second choice) for fun to see if I could win that way. That's the money that left the game.

[DeltaLover]

The game is still very good for those who can adjust to it. The most important skill of the horse bettor lies in his ability to quickly realize the (inevitable) changes and reshape his strategies accordingly.

It is very common to listen to old timers how the game has changed but what is interesting about it is that they stubbornly refuse to rethink their approach becoming easy prey to the very few that understand the game better.

My feeling is that even this board, is full of these type of betting dinosaurs who still believe that they can beat the game applying Ainslie's theories or some other kind of antiquated methodology (Ragozin, Sartin or Brown very well fit this category); as long as this type of players exist the game will remain the best form of gambling!

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Any thought to the possibility that with so many people now using databases, advanced math, and sharing good information and stats on forums, Twitter, TV, and books that the players themselves are doing a much better job of selecting the most likely winner?....

In a win pool with a 15% take out a 2-1 horse would have 28.3333% of the money bet on it. Historically the public has done a pretty good job of determining value meaning a 2-1 horse would win in the neighborhood of 28.333% of the time. How much tighter has data bases, advanced math, etc. made actual betting line up with actual results?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The game is still very good for those who can adjust to it. The most important skill of the horse bettor lies in his ability to quickly realize the (inevitable) changes and reshape his strategies accordingly.

It is very common to listen to old timers how the game has changed but what is interesting about it is that they stubbornly refuse to rethink their approach becoming easy prey to the very few that understand the game better.

My feeling is that even this board, is full of these type of betting dinosaurs who still believe that they can beat the game applying Ainslie's theories or some other kind of antiquated methodology (Ragozin, Sartin or Brown very well fit this category); as long as this type of players exist the game will remain the best form of gambling!

When we use terms like "betting dinosaurs"...are we being deliberately obtuse? Do we really know what those "old timers" really do...or, how much of the betting pool they really represent?

My feeling is that our real competition at the track isn't the old timer who is clutching to the handicapping theories of Tom Ainslie. It may be comforting to read that this game is still the "best gambling game around"...but it isn't very convincing. Yes, the "old timers" may indeed be struggling in today's game, but, IMO...the assertion that the "hi-tech" player is thriving is as much an unsubstantiated rumor as those exaggerated tales about the wild success of those enigmatic Whales.

No one knows who is really winning in today's game...or how "hi-tech" those winners are. "Winning" isn't just a function of "electronic progress", IMO.