Thanks to HANA and BillW......

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by tzipi

But don't the mutuel pools tell where people are putting there money and what tracks they really want. That's the best judging meter.

I'll let you answer your own question, tzipi.

I assume you played Aqueduct during their winter meet; was that what you really wanted?

Did their mutuel pools reflect the quality of their product?

IMO...the HANA ratings are not accurate overall -- but there indeed is a need for ratings which reflect the product being offered to the horseplayers.

Pool size does not tell us very much...

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Pool size does not tell us very much...

If you are a $20 bettor, that is correct, though at some tracks even that amount could be a factor. If you are a serious bettor, it couldn't be further from the truth.

[Gallop58]

How much does the KD skew the average handle per race number for Churchill?
Is Breeders Cup handle removed or included?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

If you are a $20 bettor, that is correct, though at some tracks even that amount could be a factor. If you are a serious bettor, it couldn't be further from the truth.

I know where you are going with this, Cj...and I agree.

But even serious players have more considerations than just the size of the mutuel pools when they assess the product being offered at a race track.

Yes...a track with a small mutuel pool is unpleasant for the serious player.

But so is a track with the "evil twins"...tiny fields and excessive exotics takeouts.

And that's what Aqueduct was this winter.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Charli125

A $20 bettor doesn't care if the track is going to handle 200K, 500K or 2 million. Some people find great value at harness tracks that handle peanuts on a Tuesday night. Some people would rather play a 12% P4 at Sam Houston, or a 14% P4 at Canterbury than to play into a P4 at Saratoga with a giant pool.

Just sort by pool size and you'll be very happy.

And all people should do what works best for them, as I have clearly already stated. And most of them have spoken that they completely disagree with the assertions of HANA, which makes the HANA assertion that they speak for horseplayers extremely suspect.

[tzipi]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I'll let you answer your own question, tzipi.

I assume you played Aqueduct during their winter meet; was that what you really wanted?

Did their mutuel pools reflect the quality of their product?

IMO...the HANA ratings are not accurate overall -- but there indeed is a need for ratings which reflect the product being offered to the horseplayers.

Pool size does not tell us very much...

No, I played a couple of tracks this winter. Yes I did play Aqueduct too when I saw value. I put my money where I think is best.

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by the little guy

And all people should do what works best for them, as I have clearly already stated. And most of them have spoken that they completely disagree with the assertions of HANA, which makes the HANA assertion that they speak for horseplayers extremely suspect.

Not sure who the "most of them" you're talking about are, but we're going to keep doing our ratings based on feedback we get from players, of which you're 1 of many.

And you actually said this:

Originally Posted by the little guy

Whatever categories have tracks like Oaklawn and Sam Houston as better than Saratoga are not representing the best interests of horseplayers.

So the categories that you think are important(handle), are in the best interests of horseplayers, while the categories you don't think are important(takeout), are NOT in the best interests of horseplayers. Also, you do know that both of the tracks you mentioned have bigger fields than Saratoga right?

That's your personal preference, but everyone else doesn't necessarily agree with it. Don't know why you take this as a knock on Saratoga. They do some things great and they do some poorly, just like every other track.

[Jay Trotter]

Hats off to HANA! Really appreciate the work.

[cj]

Sam Houston on any list as a recommended track is a joke. They can't even time their races properly, and refuse to even give a response when questioned on it. They have little handle too. So, they can't time races, have little handle, but because they have better field size they are a top 10 track? Come on...

14% takeouts are great if people actually put money in the pools. But if they don't, it doesn't matter. Bettors know minor league tracks when they seem them, and they bet accordingly regardless of field size, takeouts, etc.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by cj

Sam Houston on any list as a recommended track is a joke. They can't even time their races properly, and refuse to even give a response when questioned on it. They have little handle too. So, they can't time races, have little handle, but because they have better field size they are a top 10 track? Come on...

14% takeouts are great if people actually put money in the pools. But if they don't, it doesn't matter. Bettors know minor league tracks when they seem them, and they bet accordingly regardless of field size, takeouts, etc.

Therein lies a problem in my opine. Maybe all tracks shouldn't be in the running. The original thrust of this thread was to recognize these guys who give their time freely, and work hard on this stuff. Kudo's to them. they are doing more than anybody else behind the scenes.

They don't have a public forum, besides the web, they toil, and I believe there is value. Whether they represent the majority ? Who cares, nobody else is doing similar work. And they make very very valid points on lots of subjects of interest to all players.

Lots of good points in this thread. I am sure Jeff and the crew will take into account some of this stuff next year.

[GameTheory]

Aren't the ratings better viewed as more like reviews, i.e. places you SHOULD consider betting because of x, y, & z? So maybe some of those smaller tracks OUGHT to get more handle, and here's why. And sure Saratoga is very popular, but maybe there are good opportunities to be had at Oaklawn? Everybody knows which tracks do the most handle -- no point in making a list if that is all you are going to cite. The point is to examine the other factors you may not have considered (or didn't want to put the work into doing as has been done for you here), and now you have this nice reference and can make more intelligent choices where to put your wagering dollar. Just like if you were looking at movie reviews to find something good to watch, you'd want them to tell you something other than the box office numbers...

[banacek]

Thank you HANA for the work you do.

Any ratings are inherently subjective. What one person thinks is most important is different than what another does - we understand this because we all handicap races- based on speed #3, based on class #2, based on pace #7.

Most of the comments are of that sort. How can Bugaboo Downs be better than Hollyrock Park? It is because of the weights different factors have in the analysis. HANA had to take things into account and select some weights and go with them.

I don't totally agree with the rankings, but I am glad someone is taking the time and effort to do it. Others would weight things different. Doesn't make anyone wrong, or take anything away from the work that is being done.

Secretariat or Man O War..I pick Secretariat based on what I feel are the important factors, others don't. Doesn't make them wrong.

Citizan Kane or Casablanca? Hey Jude or Stairway to Heaven?

Saratoga or Oaklawn?

Well if I had to choose which I would watch live - it would be Saratoga. If I had to choose which one I would bet - could be either - for me which one gives me the best wagering opportunity, because that's what is personally important to me.

[acorn54]

i for one feel that hana is my advocate in getting improvement in the activity of gambling on horses. i think it is hard to judge the better tracks. for me i can tell from my betting records which tracks are better than others. it varies season to season. i am a small bettor only betting about 10 thousand or so a year, but takeout is my biggest concern as it affects the bottom line. of course if you are looking at horseracing as recreation and for the history and romance of the sport your priorities are different.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Mutuel pool size at a race track indicates popularity...but not superiority. The two are not related...and nowhere was this more apparent than the recently concluded Aqueduct winter meet.

Couple the short fields with excessive exotics takeouts, and you have a product not worthy of complimenting...regardless of what the mutuel pools say.

When you have fuller fields at Aqueduct, like today, you just end up with more horses trailing the filed, totally outrun, like the 6th, just completed.
Same with SA 2nd, just completed.
Lot of really bad horses in both. To celebrate the big races, they add races and 20-30 more horses for the card that have barely enough juice to make it through the post parade.

Can racing put together competitive races on a daily basis anymore? Seems like the conditions of most races fail to put together horses of like ability.

Give me a 4 horse race if it is competitive.

[cj]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Therein lies a problem in my opine. Maybe all tracks shouldn't be in the running. The original thrust of this thread was to recognize these guys who give their time freely, and work hard on this stuff. Kudo's to them. they are doing more than anybody else behind the scenes.

They don't have a public forum, besides the web, they toil, and I believe there is value. Whether they represent the majority ? Who cares, nobody else is doing similar work. And they make very very valid points on lots of subjects of interest to all players.

Lots of good points in this thread. I am sure Jeff and the crew will take into account some of this stuff next year.

I'm not knocking the work done. I don't think it was done with an agenda to pick tracks in a certain order. I'm just pointing out some of the flaws. It seems to me to be skewed towards small bettors. That is fine, but worth mentioning.

I also don't agree that offering tons of different exotics is a good thing. What good does it do if it dilutes the pools of those in existence, particularly at small tracks. But again, that is just my opinion. Lots of people apparently like the option to bet into small, diluted pools. I'm just not one of them.