Where did all the horses go?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If I bet $100 win on a 7/2 shot and someone else bets a load of combinations for $100 and winds up getting 7/2, the volatility is the same, but why bother?

Such a simple concept, but incredible how few people I run into that get it.

I don't know if the TVG guys actually get it, but I can't tell you how many times they give out their Pick-4 with a 5/2 single, which is the same as betting the equivalent amount to win on the single. So if you have a $40 P4 with 50 cent tickets, the P4 would have to pay $560 for $2 to be the equivalent of the win bet.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you are spreading enough to reduce the volatility of exotic wagering so it's equal to win betting you are eliminating the attraction of exotics to those novice players - which is to make a score.

If I bet $100 win on a 7/2 shot and someone else bets a load of combinations for $100 and winds up getting 7/2, the volatility is the same, but why bother?

It's not as simple as you make it sound. The exotics bettor may get 7/2 with this particular outcome...but the possibility may have existed for him to collect ten TIMES that...with the same wager.

The win-bettor's win expectation is known...but the exotic player's isn't.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

If you need that constant action, I guess either you wait for a simulcast day with 20 tracks running, or start pulling the slot handles. Losing your money faster doesn't appeal to everyone, and if you read my millennial article, it especially doesn't appeal to them.

I personally don't need the constant action, but it sure seems like a major factor with many people who go to the track. They get bored very easily.

[VigorsTheGrey]

What would happen if the large breeding farms made a deal with the tracks to supply them with a sufficient amount of racehorses to make for full fields...?

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

What would happen if the large breeding farms made a deal with the tracks to supply them with a sufficient amount of racehorses to make for full fields...?

I often wondered why some tracks didn't own their own horses?

Hire trainers to train them, as employees. Not contractors etc. I would have thought that some track might have tried that model sometime.

I'm sure you would have to implement bonus structures for trainers etc......but some place like Los Al might have been able to pull this off back in the day.

Imagine a horse gets a positive, the trainer gets fired. No ?'s asked because he's an employee of the track etc.

Tracks could buy from the sales or breed their own, but I'm thinking tracks could keep the prices down on horses this way.

But we are long past that. No way they could afford to implement that model now

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

What would happen if the large breeding farms made a deal with the tracks to supply them with a sufficient amount of racehorses to make for full fields...?

You'll have to give us the details on how that would work. Somebody still has to own the horses, and the breeding operations make a lot of money selling yearlings. And it's not like there is no cost to producing a foal.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

In #4 need to add national licensing of vets. And, if they are in violation .... permanently ban them nationwide for a minimum 10 years from having any access to any race track or affiliated venue.

Btw, good start for a list to improve this game.

Thanks

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I often wondered why some tracks didn't own their own horses?

Well for one thing it would cost money, and potentially a lot of money if you are thinking about Vigor's idea of buying directly from a breeding farm, unless you're just going to pick up the horses that would go for cheap. For another, they'd have to pay the trainer, which I suppose they could do out of purses if they won enough races. Although I have a feeling horseplayers and other trainers would not react so well to the track winning too many races. You'd have to have someone on staff or hire someone to manage the stable, and it just sounds like there would be opportunities for conflicts. Like could you count on the stewards to be fair on an inquiry if the horse in question was "owned" by the track? And given the conspiracy theory nature of horseplayers, I can't imagine we wouldn't hear all kinds of speculation. We're probably better off just criticizing tracks for how bad they run racing now.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You'll have to give us the details on how that would work. Somebody still has to own the horses, and the breeding operations make a lot of money selling yearlings. And it's not like there is no cost to producing a foal.

Field size continues to shrink. Without full fields, bettors stay away. Small time owners with one or two horses can no longer function cost effectively. We must progress to a new model if American racing is to survive. Solve one problem at a time... Full fields will attract more wagering/ handle...things flow from that crucial nexus...the tracks can no longer rely on the current owner/ trainer relationship model to supply them with full fields....
There must be economies of scale built into the industry...it is too expensive to run under the current model...there is too much duplication of effort...we need to focus on increasing the number of starters across the nation....the only way this can be done is to call upon the breeders to accept this new paradigm....Individual owners will still be an integral part of racing but the crisis of these times demands that many more starters become available as soon as possible....

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Well for one thing it would cost money, and potentially a lot of money if you are thinking about Vigor's idea of buying directly from a breeding farm, unless you're just going to pick up the horses that would go for cheap. For another, they'd have to pay the trainer, which I suppose they could do out of purses if they won enough races. Although I have a feeling horseplayers and other trainers would not react so well to the track winning too many races. You'd have to have someone on staff or hire someone to manage the stable, and it just sounds like there would be opportunities for conflicts. Like could you count on the stewards to be fair on an inquiry if the horse in question was "owned" by the track? And given the conspiracy theory nature of horseplayers, I can't imagine we wouldn't hear all kinds of speculation. We're probably better off just criticizing tracks for how bad they run racing now.

No outside horses allowed. Every horse in every race is owned by the track. Could be interesting

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

No outside horses allowed. Every horse in every race is owned by the track. Could be interesting

All horses with common owners to be automatically coupled, no exceptions...no entry fees for non-track horses...offer purse bonus to defeat track horses...entry priority given to non-track horses...if no non- track horses are entered, then track horses can decouple....or a portion of the card can be for all track horses de-coupled...

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

All horses with common owners to be automatically coupled, no exceptions...no entry fees for non-track horses...offer purse bonus to defeat track horses...entry priority given to non-track horses...if no non- track horses are entered, then track horses can decouple....or a portion of the card can be for all track horses de-coupled...

Why are horses w common owners coupled? Why just owners? If A top trainer has 2 speed horses in the same race for different owners, are they going to be raced as separate interests or are they going to have their running styles manipulated by the jocks?

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

No outside horses allowed. Every horse in every race is owned by the track. Could be interesting

Why would anyone be interested in something like that? I honestly don't get the appeal. It's like trying to make the wagering opportunity as clinical and sterile as a roll of the dice or a flip of a card. Remember, racing was a sport first, and a gambling product for the masses later.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Why would anyone be interested in something like that? I honestly don't get the appeal. It's like trying to make the wagering opportunity as clinical and sterile as a roll of the dice or a flip of a card. Remember, racing was a sport first, and a gambling product for the masses later.

my friend actually did this 30 years ago at Lakes Region Greyhound Park. he needed to run a dog meet in order to get simulcasting, he couldn't get anyone to come up to his location to run for peanuts, so he bought the dogs and paid trainer's a weeks pay to run the dogs there, he ran for 60 days and had an average local product dog handle under $50,000 per card. he had telephone betting and was the very first to rebate and did over $10 million in handle per day for a long time. he was the pioneer of the adw business.

My friends name was Rick Heart. he ran the place with his family for about 10 years until he got in trouble in the Gregory Martin fiasco. he got aquitted but lost his license and sold the place, then Lakes Region went down in flames.

[Andy Asaro]

California is where it is because the people with authority over the years have made decisions in their own short term interest at the expense of the long term health of the sport/gambling game.