Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
How are things ever to get "balanced", when all the owners are like you...always looking for the shortest fields...and hoping that their horses run "unopposed" in the races?
Face it, Classhandicapper...you have joined the "establishment"...and you are now part of the problem, instead of being part of the "solution". You keep talking about the need for "balance"...even as you seek the shortest fields for your own horses.
|
As far as I know, owners aren't controlling or even influencing field sizes. It's a matter of what you are rooting for depending on where your participation is.
If one of my horses is running I want a 4 horse field.
If I am gambling I want a 10-12 horse field.
I root for different things, but I have zero power over anything. At this stage I am a nobody as an owner. I am also not aware of major owners having that power either.
Those in charge of the game have to understand those competing interests and try to keep the field sizes in an area that compromises between horse players looking for value and owners trying to pay trainer and vet bills. I'm going to guess they are already fully aware of that.
I'm not saying this is the right idea. I may be missing something. But several have suggested this.
Maybe purse sizes need to be adjusted by field size. If the field is very small then maybe the purse should be smaller and maybe you only pay down to 3rd or 4th. If the field is larger maybe the purse should be larger and maybe pay down a decent percent to 6th or 7th instead of 5th.
At least that would align owner rooting interests with gambling interests better.