Fred Pope article-excellent suggestions

[joanied]

I think this article has a lot to say, and IMO, it all makes perfect sense...trouble is, no one in the industry that CAN make changes, seems to want to make those changes...and slowly but surely our great sport is going down hill.

Part of the article (it's along read, but worth the time)

"Today, the incentive in racing is to duck competition. With set purse amounts, you can make good money avoiding competition, even in graded stakes. That’s why we have Grade 1 races with 5 horse fields. The result is a noncompetitive race that few people come out to see and few people wager on it. Such a race might generate less wagering revenue than a $5,000 claiming race with a full field.
Racing’s customers and fans are turning their backs on what our sport says are the best races, because the incentive in racing is for owners/trainers to avoid competition. That needs to change.

We need the incentive in racing to where owners/trainers enter races with full fields of competitive horses because that is where they are going to win the highest purse money.

Think about that. Good racing products for horseplayers and fans would generate good purse money. Bad racing products would lose in the marketplace and stop being presented. That’s the way the real world works."

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/indus...er-purses.aspx

Something has to be done...especially, IMO, the fact that trainers/owners are ducking eacj other, all year long...the only time they can't duck is in the Tc and BC races...otherwise, when's the last time we saw a Grade I race with a field of several top horses!

I wonder what thoughts everyone else might have on the changes Mr. Pope is talking about...I give him a for the proposals, from the race structure to the wagering structure.
What say you?

[Robert Goren]

The problem is that we have 5 horse fields for those 5K claimers too.

[joanied]

Well, that may be true most of the time...but at the very least, Pope outlines a great way to get the graded races to fill with more than 4 or 5 horses...and IMO, his ideas on a central wagering 'hub' should certainly be appealing to the betting public.

For example...Uncle Mo will race just 2 times before the Derby, and you can bet he won't face more than 1 or 2 Derby trail horses... now wouldn't it be beneficial to see him race against say, 4 or 5 Derby trail horses so folks can see how he measures up to the real competition...and see how that plays out before you wager on the Derby?

[FenceBored]

It doesn't even work for the Breeders' Cup Classic. For example, take last November's race. If I read him correctly then the purse would be 5% of the total handle on the race (all WPS/Exacta/Tri/Super/Super-5 + proportional shares of the horizontal DDs/P3/P4/P6 & Jockey challenge). That works out to be a purse of about $1.5 million, as opposed to the $4.5m actually distributed to participants, or roughly one-third the cash. Not quite the bonanza for the participants he imagines.

[joanied]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

It doesn't even work for the Breeders' Cup Classic. For example, take last November's race. If I read him correctly then the purse would be 5% of the total handle on the race (all WPS/Exacta/Tri/Super/Super-5 + proportional shares of the horizontal DDs/P3/P4/P6 & Jockey challenge). That works out to be a purse of about $1.5 million, as opposed to the $4.5m actually distributed to participants, or roughly one-third the cash. Not quite the bonanza for the participants he imagines.

"Of that $40 million, about $10 million (5% of the $200 million wagered) will go to the host tracks where the races are held and be split between track operators and future purses. The remaining $30 million (15% of the total wagered) will go to those simply taking bets on Uncle Mo’s races. Why?

Why can’t the top finishers in Uncle Mo’s races receive the $20 million in purses due from wagering on their races? Our stars need to be compensated for the revenue they generate. That’s how the real world works."

Maybe I am not reading it right...but what I got out of it (as per above) is that he is suggesting a percentage of money would be taken from the total wagered on a race, not the actual purse offered...so that would be extra money that goes to the top finishers.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by joanied

"Of that $40 million, about $10 million (5% of the $200 million wagered) will go to the host tracks where the races are held and be split between track operators and future purses. The remaining $30 million (15% of the total wagered) will go to those simply taking bets on Uncle Mo’s races. Why?

Why can’t the top finishers in Uncle Mo’s races receive the $20 million in purses due from wagering on their races? Our stars need to be compensated for the revenue they generate. That’s how the real world works."

Maybe I am not reading it right...but what I got out of it (as per above) is that he is suggesting a percentage of money would be taken from the total wagered on a race, not the actual purse offered...so that would be extra money that goes to the top finishers.

He's saying that the purse should be derived from a percentage of the handle on the race itself. More handle means bigger purse. That's what I gave an example of: 5% of the roughly $29.25m wagered on the Classic is $1.462m. Now, for the Derby last year (according to the CDI) the handle on the Derby itself was $112,727,554 which would have been a $5.6m purse at the 5% level. Perhaps Mr. Pope is thinking 10% of the race's handle should be the purse, in which case the Classic is still just under $3m for a purse while the Derby outstrips the Dubai World Cup with an $11.2 m purse.

Does Mr. Pope think the tracks acting as simulcast receivers will be willing to give up a portion of their share to go to the host tracks' purse distribution? Given the dispute which caused the Mid-Atlantic's non-participation with TrackNet signals in late 2009-2010, I'd not hold my breath if I were him.

[Tom]

Cut number of graded races in half.

[joanied]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

He's saying that the purse should be derived from a percentage of the handle on the race itself. More handle means bigger purse. That's what I gave an example of: 5% of the roughly $29.25m wagered on the Classic is $1.462m. Now, for the Derby last year (according to the CDI) the handle on the Derby itself was $112,727,554 which would have been a $5.6m purse at the 5% level. Perhaps Mr. Pope is thinking 10% of the race's handle should be the purse, in which case the Classic is still just under $3m for a purse while the Derby outstrips the Dubai World Cup with an $11.2 m purse.

Does Mr. Pope think the tracks acting as simulcast receivers will be willing to give up a portion of their share to go to the host tracks' purse distribution? Given the dispute which caused the Mid-Atlantic's non-participation with TrackNet signals in late 2009-2010, I'd not hold my breath if I were him.

I guess then I am reading it wrong...of course, nothing is easy or simple when you start getting into purse structure, handle, take out ect., but I thought he had a pretty good idea going there...maybe not...

putting aside the part that gets the top finshers in a graded race some extra money, don't you, and maybe the other bettors, think one central hub for placed wagers is the right way to go...wouldn't it simplify placing wagers, keeping the odds honest and not changing the instant the horses leave the gate at any given race track in any given race?

[joanied]

Originally Posted by Tom

Cut number of graded races in half.

That might work Maybe they need to reduce the purse money for a lot of the graded races, this way trainers/owners would have to race a couple more times before the Derby and find it a little harder to duck the competiton!