Where did all the horses go?

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Also the dog ate his homework and he didn't know their was a test today.

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/Ante...rida/#comments

Excerpt:

Jicha: "“Daring Daschunds race for glory this weekend at Santa Anita"


Included was a picture of wiener dogs frolicking on the Santa Anita turf course…the same course where there would be no horses on Thursday and goodness knows how many more Thursdays.

Does anybody in the Santa Anita front office think before sending out a release so open to ridicule?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

In an interesting coincidence, the thread I started over 2 years ago for Contraction in racing, called for 10 super-hub tracks. Here's the thread, it's worth the read:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=116948

I took a look at it. Things haven't evolved so much since then.

The right number of tracks, at least in my opinion, has to be based first on answering one question: do we want to have year round racing in America? If the answer is yes, that will affect the total number.

My concept was to have racing seven days a week. All tracks would run either three or four days, and on any given day maybe five tracks would run, either nine or ten races. That would be up to 10 tracks in a week, between 90 and 100 total races. The boutique meets (Saratoga, Del Mar, Kentucky Downs, maybe Oaklawn) would continue to run their own schedules. The post times would be spaced so that there would be racing from around noon until about 10 p.m eastern time. This would allow people to play multiple tracks without a lot of overlapping race post times, and not been an overwhelming handicapping task.

I don't think you could do that with ten tracks. I think you would need closer to 20. But you don't need 50. But, there are multiple ways to skin that cat.

[Andy Asaro]

Del Mar Ship and Win Bonus Structure Pic attached.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I took a look at it. Things haven't evolved so much since then.

The right number of tracks, at least in my opinion, has to be based first on answering one question: do we want to have year round racing in America? If the answer is yes, that will affect the total number.

My concept was to have racing seven days a week. All tracks would run either three or four days, and on any given day maybe five tracks would run, either nine or ten races. That would be up to 10 tracks in a week, between 90 and 100 total races. The boutique meets (Saratoga, Del Mar, Kentucky Downs, maybe Oaklawn) would continue to run their own schedules. The post times would be spaced so that there would be racing from around noon until about 10 p.m eastern time. This would allow people to play multiple tracks without a lot of overlapping race post times, and not been an overwhelming handicapping task.

I don't think you could do that with ten tracks. I think you would need closer to 20. But you don't need 50. But, there are multiple ways to skin that cat.

Someone posted awhile back that California tracks and simulcast outlets are protectionist in nature...they apparently only allow 50 TB races per day to be wagered on....they will carry 6 horse fields at Golden Gate while only carry three or four races from other tracks, races that have full fields and are even in the local DRF...the simulcast operators apparently have no control over which races they get...very bad for bettors as I often will pass on Golden Gate and some SA as well...they lose handle when they do this....I guess they only can afford to carry so many signals....but they very often exclude great race cards elsewhere...bad policy IMO....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Someone posted awhile back that California tracks and simulcast outlets are protectionist in nature...they apparently only allow 50 TB races per day to be wagered on....they will carry 6 horse fields at Golden Gate while only carry three or four races from other tracks, races that have full fields and are even in the local DRF...the simulcast operators apparently have no control over which races they get...very bad for bettors as I often will pass on Golden Gate and some SA as well...they lose handle when they do this....I guess they only can afford to carry so many signals....but they very often exclude great race cards elsewhere...bad policy IMO....

Obviously fixing racing involves fixing state rules that prevent desired outcomes.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here's what I really mean...in a nutshell:

We sometimes see posters here who are averse to the words "gambler" and "gambling". "A gambler is someone who expects to lose...whereas the long-term winner is INVESTING!"...these posters say. I've asked these posters why they are not "gamblers"...and they reply that they play with a "positive expectation"...and they are confident that they will "win money long-term". There is no "gamble" in what they do...they tell me.

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If I am positive that I am a "long-term winning player"...and I am smart enough to calculate my ROI in the game...then I know what my long-term profitability will be. So...why SHOULDN'T I borrow some money from the bank at 5-6% interest...if I am "sure" that I will double this money in a year's time? Why should I play only with "money that I could safely afford to lose"...if my edge in this game is indeed REAL?

Mind you...I am NOT advocating that people should bet the horses with borrowed money. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hate the idea of calling themselves "gamblers"...even as they fully recognize the great financial risk in what they do.

We are ALL "gamblers"...whether we admit it, or not. YES...some of us might have proven to ourselves that we could win...but that was in the PAST. And the "gamble" lurks in the FUTURE.

I'm glad you're speaking for yourself!

I don’t believe that a gambler can be defined as someone “Expecting to Lose”. In the truest meaning of the term, I think of them as people simply looking for action – win or lose. Claiming that the horse player population is made-up of people “Expecting to Lose” is a very convenient explanation considering 95% of them are in fact long term losers. The problem the majority face is unadulterated speculation based on a subjective appraisal of the information they’re using.
I also believe that a true gambler will tend to risk more at times without regard to the existence of a limited bank roll. Money management is generally the furthest thing from their mind when taking a plunge.

On the other hand, those who carefully manage their bankrolls might be considered “Investors” . This is only because they’re creating situations where the bets they’re laying are based on their personal history of similar conditions where they've been the most successful. From a horse player’s perspective this could be any combination of preferable circumstances from the type of race played to the type of bet that’s made. A personal track record doesn’t happen overnight. This type of player generally bets within his means understanding that there will always be another race or betting situation that falls within the parameters of their previously successful outcomes. Going outside of those boundaries inevitably creates greater risk and represents a “gamble”.

There’s no need to borrow money to enhance the betting when there’s a growing bankroll. There’s also no need to borrow money when there’s a recognized and acceptable hit frequency. The combination of both can lead to betting in what I call the comfort zone. Because winning or losing at any given point is simply a static observation of that single event. An continual assessment of all events presents a dynamic and realistic picture which can create not only a “positive expectation”, but a reduction in the apprehension of losing. Anyone who continually plays under that type of anxiety will inevitably lose, because 9 times out of 10 they’re second guessing their decisions on both sides of the game: selecting and betting.

In contrast, a true gambler’s only anxiety could be the absence of any action regardless of selection quality or concern of bet size.

Sorry, but in all the years I've been playing, I’ve never considered my myself a gambler.

[Parkview_Pirate]

In many ways, horse racing is a microcosm of the decline of industrial society. The middle class (hourly wage earners) have been squeezed relentlessly for the last 40 years, and have less discretionary income to play the ponies. IMHO, that's the most influential factor to explain where we are today.

The trends are clear, and even if Glenda The Good Witch of the North waved her magic wand tomorrow and incorporated many of the changes suggested in this thread, it would only slow down the decline of the sport, but not change the destination.

Predictions:

There will not be a "national" horse racing authority to save it - at best the Feds eventually toss a few crumbs in, but they will be busy with bigger fish to fry. Some states, like Arkansas and Kentucky, will benefit near-term as they provide a friendlier venue for all parties, but overall contraction is unavoidable. Some states like Illinois will simply kill the patient without mercy, due to financial conditions.

The horseplayer will continue to ride at the back of the bus, behind the politicians, horsemen, track owners, and the affluent owners. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

The decline of the sport of horse racing will take hold in other countries, including Hong Kong, as the scramble for entertainment dollars (or pounds, or Euros, etc.) heats up to get a slice of a shrinking pie, on a global scale. We've already seen similar trends in other sports, with NASCAR, the NFL, the NBA and even ESPN now seeing the limits of "infinite growth", and now in the early stages of decline.

We are at "peak" handicapping tournaments today, with the NHC purse at $2.5M or so this year. Expect that to be half of that by 2022, and ten years from now we'll be back to a handful of local tournaments, assuming the sport is still around.

Ten years from now there will only be a handful of venues left, of which they'll look more like a sold "C" level track today, numbers wise. The rest of the country will have limited fair racing, and perhaps Louisiana will return to the days of "back road" quarter horse races....

I hope I'm wrong, but I that's how I see it....

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

It's not idiotic if you pick your spots.

Do you think that if someone is playing an exotic they aren't picking their spots? I would expect that any serious player picks their spots to make bets.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Do you think that if someone is playing an exotic they aren't picking their spots? I would expect that any serious player picks their spots to make bets.

I interpreted your grinding comment that the individuals are betting more races than they should be doing.

Sometimes from my vantage point a lot of exotics players throw in a "hail mary" bet which makes the wager expensive.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

In many ways, horse racing is a microcosm of the decline of industrial society. The middle class (hourly wage earners) have been squeezed relentlessly for the last 40 years, and have less discretionary income to play the ponies. IMHO, that's the most influential factor to explain where we are today.

The trends are clear, and even if Glenda The Good Witch of the North waved her magic wand tomorrow and incorporated many of the changes suggested in this thread, it would only slow down the decline of the sport, but not change the destination.

Predictions:

There will not be a "national" horse racing authority to save it - at best the Feds eventually toss a few crumbs in, but they will be busy with bigger fish to fry. Some states, like Arkansas and Kentucky, will benefit near-term as they provide a friendlier venue for all parties, but overall contraction is unavoidable. Some states like Illinois will simply kill the patient without mercy, due to financial conditions.

The horseplayer will continue to ride at the back of the bus, behind the politicians, horsemen, track owners, and the affluent owners. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

The decline of the sport of horse racing will take hold in other countries, including Hong Kong, as the scramble for entertainment dollars (or pounds, or Euros, etc.) heats up to get a slice of a shrinking pie, on a global scale. We've already seen similar trends in other sports, with NASCAR, the NFL, the NBA and even ESPN now seeing the limits of "infinite growth", and now in the early stages of decline.

We are at "peak" handicapping tournaments today, with the NHC purse at $2.5M or so this year. Expect that to be half of that by 2022, and ten years from now we'll be back to a handful of local tournaments, assuming the sport is still around.

Ten years from now there will only be a handful of venues left, of which they'll look more like a sold "C" level track today, numbers wise. The rest of the country will have limited fair racing, and perhaps Louisiana will return to the days of "back road" quarter horse races....

I hope I'm wrong, but I that's how I see it....

I disagree wholeheartedly about lack of discretionary income. I truly believe horseplayers, and most any gamblers, will always find a way to play and are impervious to normal societal financial conditions. We are a different breed. While the rest of the society drives 15 miles out of the way to save .12c per gallon of gas, we think nothing of tossing $60 into a field of $3,500 claimers at Turf Paradise, half of which are making their first start since 2015.

I agree about horse racing tournaments. Great idea but it always felt like a bit of a fad to me.

Horse racing, to me, is like a girl with a beautiful face but ugly warts on her forearms. There is so much to love about the game and a few things that are blood-curdling.

There is hope for this game but not in its current state. From the mid '80's until about two years ago, I think I saw maybe 10 races with 3 or less horses (not including turf races moved to the main track due to rain). I've seen about 15 such races in the last month.

Not sure what can be done but the sheer fact that organizations in the industry can't unite for a common goal is bad news for the long-term health of the sport. The only chance may be "rising from the ashes" once it is reduced to an unrecognizable state.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I think the whole idea of grinding it out is idiotic, but it may be right for you. I think you can be successful either way.

I don't think in terms of trying to either trying "grind it out" or "go for a score". IMO, it's 100% about overlays and it doesn't matter what odds range or which pool you find them in.

I had a season where I was getting 7% rebates on WPS at one site and was able to bet with a 5% take offshore at another as long as I didn't bet more than about $100. I was betting at both places and killing them betting selective odds-on horses to place.

For awhile an exchange I was playing on off shore was very inefficient. I was able to book bets on the exchange & bet the same horses offshore and net a guaranteed profit.

Right now I'm betting mostly win/pace and exactas, but on the rare occasions I think it's correct to play a triple or super I will. I would gladly play Pick 3s, 4s etc.. but it rarely makes sense to me in terms of value given my handicapping opinions.

My feeling is that in general people are so attracted to the adrenaline rush and bragging rights of making a score, they wind up going into higher take exotic pools that are actually making it more difficult for them to win long term because of the higher take. They just don't know it.

Obviously, there are terrific opportunities from time to time in those exotic pools, I just don't see many people playing them in a way that I personally consider correct. People spread way too much and get involved in horizontals that include races where they have no value oriented opinion.

Of course they will get hot from time to time and feel heroic.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here's what I really mean...in a nutshell:

We sometimes see posters here who are averse to the words "gambler" and "gambling". "A gambler is someone who expects to lose...whereas the long-term winner is INVESTING!"...these posters say. I've asked these posters why they are not "gamblers"...and they reply that they play with a "positive expectation"...and they are confident that they will "win money long-term". There is no "gamble" in what they do...they tell me.

But then I see these same "winners" saying things like "I never borrow money to gamble"...or..."I always bet only with money that I could safely afford to lose"...and this makes absolutely no sense to me.

If I am positive that I am a "long-term winning player"...and I am smart enough to calculate my ROI in the game...then I know what my long-term profitability will be. So...why SHOULDN'T I borrow some money from the bank at 5-6% interest...if I am "sure" that I will double this money in a year's time? Why should I play only with "money that I could safely afford to lose"...if my edge in this game is indeed REAL?

Mind you...I am NOT advocating that people should bet the horses with borrowed money. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who hate the idea of calling themselves "gamblers"...even as they fully recognize the great financial risk in what they do.

We are ALL "gamblers"...whether we admit it, or not. YES...some of us might have proven to ourselves that we could win...but that was in the PAST. And the "gamble" lurks in the FUTURE.

I agree with everything you are saying.

I think what people that refer to themselves as "investors" are actually saying is that they have the self control to only wager when they've calculated themselves to have an edge (as opposed to people that are attracted to the action and talk themselves into a bet practically race).

The problem of course, as you've been alluding to, is that their calculations could easily be wrong and they know it. So they are in fact gambling on some level. They are gambling on their skill level. Since they know that, they don't run around borrowing money and betting heavier.

My own approach includes a margin of safety.

For example, if I think the fair value on a horse is about 2-1, I don't bet him if he's 5/2. I know that at times my information is inaccurate/incomplete or I might be misunderstanding something. So I try to take some of the "gamble" out of it by increasing my margin of safety and insisting on 3-1 or 7/2 or higher.

[pandy]

In reality, there's no such thing as an investment. Maybe a high interest government backed security can be called an investment. Otherwise the word itself is a misnomer. Buying stocks, real estate, or betting on horses, that's gambling, no matter how you try to spin it.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by pandy

In reality, there's no such thing as an investment. Maybe a high interest government backed security can be called an investment. Otherwise the word itself is a misnomer. Buying stocks, real estate, or betting on horses, that's gambling, no matter how you try to spin it.

An investor is any person who commits capital with the expectation of financial returns. It doesn't mean guaranteed financial gains. Most horse bettors hope for but do not expect to win. Using the term "investor" by its widely used definition, many things fall into the investment category, albeit poor investments.

[lamboguy]

you can make money in just about anything in life if you put the effort and hard work into it.

i lose money in horse racing today because the game has overwhelmed me with the many tracks running at the same and the lack of effort i can put into a smaller number of horses. the best reason for this is that you can watch for a horse that has been training and running in New York, and all of a sudden the horse shows up in Lone Star, or Fair Grounds or where ever. the guys with the strong numbers and computer programs have figured out how to outperform people like me. they aren't going to get me in 2 year old races though and that is what i am going to focus most of my time with.