A Question for the Horsemen here.

[davew]

You should ask the horse owners which may or may not be the trainers.


As long as the purse structure is 60% - 25% - 15% - 10% -5% or whatever, there is not an incentive to run in 12 horse fields, when they could fill a small race a guarantee a cash just by finishing.

The way to get more entries is have a smaller top end payout and pay more finishers. Surely you have seen many horses coast to finish or giveup when it became obvious they had no chance to win.

I would suggest something like 35-20-15-10-8-6-4-2, with a proportional bump if less than 8 starters. But we all know how often owners would agree to a change of any type.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by davew

You should ask the horse owners which may or may not be the trainers.


As long as the purse structure is 60% - 25% - 15% - 10% -5% or whatever, there is not an incentive to run in 12 horse fields, when they could fill a small race a guarantee a cash just by finishing.

The way to get more entries is have a smaller top end payout and pay more finishers. Surely you have seen many horses coast to finish or giveup when it became obvious they had no chance to win.

I would suggest something like 35-20-15-10-8-6-4-2, with a proportional bump if less than 8 starters. But we all know how often owners would agree to a change of any type.

I think we're thinking alike (see post #3). Also, in low level (or even higher level) purses why don't more maidens run? I don't believe there is any rule restricting races to non-maidens. Or is there a rule?

[davew]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

I think we're thinking alike (see post #3). Also, in low level (or even higher level) purses why don't more maidens run? I don't believe there is any rule restricting races to non-maidens. Or is there a rule?

No rule that I know of but many horsepeople feel if a lightly raced horse gets beat to bad, they lose heart and racing career could be over. We probably all have seen the exceptional maiden run in a graded stake.

[Dave Schwartz]

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.

Gotta go with CJ here.

MTH did this a few years ago. They paid every entry for showing up. Yes, the fields were full, but full of horses that were just there for a workout and a paycheck.

Form cycle just goes out the window. Why work a horse every 8 days when you can trot him around the track and show a profit for it?

[traynor]

I must hang out with a different group of people. Anyone up to date with the IRS regs on tax shelters? Most of the owners I knew when there were more horses entered in more races were only so because it was a writeoff to offset other income. It was not for "love of the game" they owned horses and paid trainers to train them. It was strictly business.

Take away the writeoffs and what is left is short fields.

[proximity]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

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...

i think something like this. we're not using the #12 saddle cloth too much at pen, but the racino model seems to work better at places like evd and rp.

i also don't think this is entirely on the horsemen as from time to time you will hear stories of the track putting pressure on smaller barns trying to ship out when there's a good spot for their horse at another area track.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by traynor

I must hang out with a different group of people. Anyone up to date with the IRS regs on tax shelters? Most of the owners I knew when there were more horses entered in more races were only so because it was a writeoff to offset other income. It was not for "love of the game" they owned horses and paid trainers to train them. It was strictly business.

Take away the writeoffs and what is left is short fields.

I don't understand. Aren't owners still allowed a write-off? And, why would a write-off enter a decision to enter your horse in races?

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Still no horsemen responses

As a horseman I love the small field for my owner but I do understand why a bettor doesnt..One of the biggest problems here is the RS's are writing too many extras,Here for example,We will have 14 races in the condition book and another 21 extra race all shapes and sizes..The other problem,Are all of the different conditions they write.When a RS writes his second book for the meet,He should have a good idea on just what horses he has on the grounds.Elimating lots of these nw2 would give you more horses,Looking for that 2nd win and several looking for the 3rd.Years ago,We never had this many conditions,Most horseman are looking for that perfect race for his horse and is waiting for the condition..There are also a ton of maiden races,At least 4 a day here..After them maidens win,They can go straight into a nw3..There will be a ton of them also looking for a 2nd win.Another is not have any nw2 or nw3...Let them run open at the different prices and different distances..Doing away with lots of these conditions will make for bigger fields JMO

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by davew

No rule that I know of but many horsepeople feel if a lightly raced horse gets beat to bad, they lose heart and racing career could be over. We probably all have seen the exceptional maiden run in a graded stake.

I agree for the most part but a lot of low claiming (nw1) races are really maidens who just got lucky in a previous race (JMO).

[whodoyoulike]

So, why do you think the RS's don't do what you are suggesting?

As I wrote previously, if track management wanted larger fields they would card the races appropriately.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

So, why do you think the RS's don't do what you are suggesting?

As I wrote previously, if track management wanted larger fields they would card the races appropriately.

Racing secretaries should be carding races for the bettors, catering to the horsemen doesnt create higher betting handles.

[Delawaretrainer]

A few things....

-the purse for not finishing 1,2,3, isn't enough to feed your horse. So it is less likely I will experiment with a horse or allow myself to get hustled into the wrong race. A previous poster cited what Monmouth did, of course some guys will run horses just to get it. Somewhere in the middle would be nice, like at least 500/start.

-some racetracks try to write a book to cut out cheaper races in an attempt to offer a more elite meet with less days and better horses. But what are we going to do with those horses, kill them? Then the cheap races end up as extras anyway but you can't train a horse that way. When do you breeze? They need to write a well rounded book, not top heavy. Not that all tracks want to be like Ctown but at the beginning of the winter the ae's were many. You had to have papers on file to get in.

-focus on ridiculous win percentages. The super trainers out there put a lot of pressure on horseman as if you are under 25-30% you suck. I'm going to be more precise to avoid looking bad.

-there seems to always be a lull around when meets begin and end. Horses are traveling, being sold to the right track, resting, etc. maybe they should weight the purses at the time of year things slow down. Might keep horseman at meets a little longer

[greengorilla]

Well regardless of the money. The racing secretary at most tracks can get full fields in every race if they want to. They just have to write a condition book to fit the horses stabled on the grounds and add multiple conditions to fill the field, and a dead last payout of at least $200 to do so. It also helps if you maintain the track at a high level. Most tracks that have consistently short fields, is because there surface is poor to run on and the horses on the grounds come back so sore that cannot enter with any consistency. Zia Park is the perfect example 4 to 6 horse fields running for 14k bottom purses and 36k allowances. It's a clay based track that is unlevel and as hard as concrete. Not to mention Golden Gates crippling synthetic surface. But sometimes it's the racing secretary's themselves that don't want bigger fields to apease top notch trainers with quality horses. A perfect example was this january before Todd pletcher ran HARTFORD at gulfstream. I was in the office waiting for entries to close when the clerk shouts out to the asst secretary stating Nick wont enter Borseggiatore if Pletchers moster is in the race because he said he cant beat him and wants to make sure his owner gets a check. Response from assistant was tell him I'll close entries with 8 head and let Mo's the Man Out so tell him there will be only 7 total including him if thats ok. Well on january 16th Hartford missed the break and still won by 6Ls and Borseggiatore ran 3rd.
So many factors lead to short fields, not just money.

[Delawaretrainer]

Originally Posted by greengorilla

Well regardless of the money. The racing secretary at most tracks can get full fields in every race if they want to. They just have to write a condition book to fit the horses stabled on the grounds and add multiple conditions to fill the field, and a dead last payout of at least $200 to do so. It also helps if you maintain the track at a high level. Most tracks that have consistently short fields, is because there surface is poor to run on and the horses on the grounds come back so sore that cannot enter with any consistency. Zia Park is the perfect example 4 to 6 horse fields running for 14k bottom purses and 36k allowances. It's a clay based track that is unlevel and as hard as concrete. Not to mention Golden Gates crippling synthetic surface. But sometimes it's the racing secretary's themselves that don't want bigger fields to apease top notch trainers with quality horses. A perfect example was this january before Todd pletcher ran HARTFORD at gulfstream. I was in the office waiting for entries to close when the clerk shouts out to the asst secretary stating Nick wont enter Borseggiatore if Pletchers moster is in the race because he said he cant beat him and wants to make sure his owner gets a check. Response from assistant was tell him I'll close entries with 8 head and let Mo's the Man Out so tell him there will be only 7 total including him if thats ok. Well on january 16th Hartford missed the break and still won by 6Ls and Borseggiatore ran 3rd.
So many factors lead to short fields, not just money.

True, they need to write a book based on the horses available, they write what they want and end up writing extras.

However, writing multiple conditions to fill a race actually backfires. Also too large of a claiming price range kills it. Nobody wants to run their 5 k horse against a 10k for a few pounds off. Who wants to run their nw3 against nw2 since a date when someones older horse who won 10 races is coming off a win?

People want to run their horses in the easiest race they are eligible for against like horses. If the purses are good enough getting your horse claimed is less important.

Also, the whole outcry against decent purses for cheap horses really screwed things up. Tracks were happy to comply. Who says the claiming price has to be a certain ratio of the purse that is uniform up the levels? They all cost the same to feed but now the low level purses are reduced where at an average track a win gets you 6k. That's not enough, hence the entry level claimers to get owners into the game no longer make sense. The numbers have to make sense in these entry level races to act as a stepping stone to new owners.

[greengorilla]

Originally Posted by Delawaretrainer

True, they need to write a book based on the horses available, they write what they want and end up writing extras.

However, writing multiple conditions to fill a race actually backfires. Also too large of a claiming price range kills it. Nobody wants to run their 5 k horse against a 10k for a few pounds off. Who wants to run their nw3 against nw2 since a date when someones older horse who won 10 races is coming off a win?

People want to run their horses in the easiest race they are eligible for against like horses. If the purses are good enough getting your horse claimed is less important.

Also, the whole outcry against decent purses for cheap horses really screwed things up. Tracks were happy to comply. Who says the claiming price has to be a certain ratio of the purse that is uniform up the levels? They all cost the same to feed but now the low level purses are reduced where at an average track a win gets you 6k. That's not enough, hence the entry level claimers to get owners into the game no longer make sense. The numbers have to make sense in these entry level races to act as a stepping stone to new owners.

I agree with your comment, I owned Elratijo last year ran him at Presque where the purses where pretty good for state breds ran 3 2nds and after I paid the Bills me and my partner were up 3k and we never won a race and I was ok with that. Then I sent him to mountaineer where the purses stink and got another 2 2nds and a 4th and lost a little money. So I wont run there anymore cause it's losing venture for the owner unless the horse is a world beater. Anyhow I agree.