Starter fees as a source of trouble

[Vengeance of Rain]

Does anyone have thoughts on this?

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...-horse-racing/

[bob60566]

I think Hastings Park is going that way 2012 my thoughts will help out the smaller stables with expenses and get the field size up.

Mac

[macguy]

$1000 sounds a little bit ridiculous. $150 or so to cover the cost of the jockey and pony sounds fair, though.

[Robert Goren]

As a bettor, I want every horse in the race trying for some prize money. I do not like the idea of a horse get paid for running last at every call.

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

As a bettor, I want every horse in the race trying for some prize money. I do not like the idea of a horse get paid for running last at every call.

Second that.

[thespaah]

Sticky subject. I fall on the side of starter fees for one reason only.
That is due to the increasing costs of training, feed and other incidentals need to be covered.
I can think of more good reasons to offer starter fees than bad ones.
However, I think a set of rules should be written for those stables that take advantage of the fees.
A little policing of a benefit is the way to go.

[therussmeister]

As a bettor I like dead money in the pool; as long as I know it's dead, which isn't much of a problem for me. If they want to pay horses to finish last, I'm fine with that. It adds dead money.

[Delta Cone]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

As a bettor I like dead money in the pool; as long as I know it's dead, which isn't much of a problem for me. If they want to pay horses to finish last, I'm fine with that. It adds dead money.

I agree 100% that dead money in the pool helps me (as long as I know it's dead ), but is there really enough dead money to make a difference?

The article points out:

"Only two of the starters (a coupled entry of Turn Red and Bears N the Creek in a July 23 maiden claiming event) went off at odds of less than 30-1. Odds for five of the runners were over 100-1."

Another thought: does the dead money advantage outweigh the possible negative effects that one of these sad cases may have on the real contenders in the race?...(i.e., interference with legit contenders, acting up in the gate, etc.)

Do we want a bunch of Rick's Natural Star -types running in races?

[startngate]

Have worked at places that pay all the way back, and those that don't. It can help fill races, however I have always believed that the stipend for starting shouldn't be more than the jock mount fee plus an allowance to cover legal meds. Basically, so it just doesn't cost an owner any 'extra' to run.

If the owners actually 'profit' from starting a horse that they know is not competitive, it can lead to abuse. Have seen it happen a few times.

[tbwinner]

Originally Posted by startngate

Have worked at places that pay all the way back, and those that don't. It can help fill races, however I have always believed that the stipend for starting shouldn't be more than the jock mount fee plus an allowance to cover legal meds. Basically, so it just doesn't cost an owner any 'extra' to run.

If the owners actually 'profit' from starting a horse that they know is not competitive, it can lead to abuse. Have seen it happen a few times.

This is usually the case with most tracks. The real reason is the bookkeeper does not want to deal with people depositing jock mount fees or having accounts go negative. That's why you'll see $100~ paid through last place.

Stakes races that pay a few thousand past fifth place is OK by me because it usually covers the entrance/nomination fees, etc... But in an allowance race paying $1000 to last place doesn't make much sense, especially if the horse has been running up the track each time doing so.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

As a bettor I like dead money in the pool; as long as I know it's dead, which isn't much of a problem for me. If they want to pay horses to finish last, I'm fine with that. It adds dead money.

How much dead money do these horses actually put into the pools? 1%? Unless the amount of money bet on favorite is right on the breakage line, it won't effect its payout at all. on higher priced horses you might an extra dime or 20 cents. unless you are get 4 or 5 or more of these long shots in a race, it not going do to much for the bettors bottom line.

[mountainman]

We addressed this topic on the show when Iacovacci returned from mth. As a longtime official who specializes in race-hustling, my priority has always been to hustle a horse that can win. This constitutes race-hustling that really makes a difference and creates goodwill with the connections of said runner. Failing that, I'll solicit a horse certain to boost handle. Having exhausted those options, I'll go after horses that at least fit the race-type and conditions. As a last resort, however distasteful, I'll look for any warm body to fill the overnight.

[5k-claim]

Originally Posted by mountainman

We addressed this topic on the show when Iacovacci returned from mth. As a longtime official who specializes in race-hustling, my priority has always been to hustle a horse that can win. This constitutes race-hustling that really makes a difference and creates goodwill with the connections of said runner. Failing that, I'll solicit a horse certain to boost handle. Having exhausted those options, I'll go after horses that at least fit the race-type and conditions. As a last resort, however distasteful, I'll look for any warm body to fill the overnight.

I actually agree with those who say the $1,000 might be too much. I liked the comment about making it high enough to cover race day expenses like the jockey, pony and perhaps even meds. That would be fine. Or just the jockey and pony is enough.

Also, if you guys had it you could run a shuttle between Lexington and Mountaineer Park. That would be cool. Help out the shippers if you could.

Other than that, as a competitor, I do think you need to finish in the top 4 or 5 to actually make any money on a horse in a race.

.

[therussmeister]

Part of my fondness for dead money is due to my preference for vertical exotics; particularly superfectas. A few no-chance horses can lead to hundreds of no-chance superfecta combos.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

Part of my fondness for dead money is due to my preference for vertical exotics; particularly superfectas. A few no-chance horses can lead to hundreds of no-chance superfecta combos.

For a win bettor and odd Exb the above says it all.

Mac