I posted this on The Texas Horsemen's Association website. It is from a really interesting e-mail I received. If Woolly is from this forum, I would like to thank you again. Sent a reply and hope to hear from you again soon. The proposed purse structure you sent me comes out so similar to what my ideas were, it's uncanny. I saw by the date, you all came up with this before I came up with mine. It seems that there are a lot of people across the nation considering the same solutions to similar problems in racing. GMTA! It's all based on Nash Equilibrium and Game Theory too. So cool!
Possible NTRA proposal
Woolly from New York submitted this proposal by e-mail. He says that they are hoping to propose this to the NTRA in the spring and hope to push for this, or a similar structure nationwide, to encourage more owners to get into racing horses and keep present owners from bailing out. They think if New York and Kentucky accept this structure, other states will immediately follow suit and they expect that it will change the face of racing in the U.S.
I think the percentages look good. I went ahead and worked the formula for a 12 horse gate and used a $14,500 maiden special weight purse for the example figures.
1st 46% $6,670.00
2nd 17% $2,465.00
3rd 10% $1,450.00
4th 7% $1,015.00
5th 6% $870.00
6th 3.5% $507.50
7th 3% $435.00
8th 2.5% $362.50
9th 2% $290.00
10th 1.5% $217.50
11th 1% $145.00
12th .5% $72.50
Horses that are eased or do not finish the race will not be paid and the funds are either distributed to the top 3 places by .0025 percentages, or are retained by the race track, depending on track policy, in this proposal.
I think it's interesting that other purse restructuring proposals have come up all over the country and this one is similar to the example numbers I had used, although it leaves more in the winner's place and takes a bit from second, which I had not dared to do.
I've looked at a couple of horses' race records and I have seen that under this structure, even a good horse that's been a winner several times will earn more money, because the majority of horses run a race or two a month and they don't win every race. Most horses under the current purse structure earn $0 far more often than they hit the board, or even draw a small 4th or 5th place check. The reality of racing is that even champions don't win them all. Cigar, arguably the greatest horse in the last 30 years lost 19 races.
Anyone who would like to know what their horse would have earned with his current race record under the proposed purse structure, please feel free to send his past performances attached in e-mail, and I will do the math and show what he would have been earning under this system.
I really hope this idea gains traction with the NTRA, but I hope even more that Texas will take the lead in this.
I'd be happy to volunteer in any way to help with the NTRA proposals too.
Texas horseracing industry issue, interesting.
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
I'm kind of surprised that no one has any opinions on this. It's something that has been discussed for years, because it is believed that horseracing has lost it's fan base, since it's treated more as a hobby than a sport. I think it has more to do with the drugs and breakdowns, breaking the confidence of bettors, but it's probably a combination, as most situations are.
A couple of people have suggested that paying through all the places would mean that sore horses or slow horses would be racing, but with the costs associated with training, it would more likely decrease that than increase it. Horses that get hurt now are burned up trying in a few more races, then dumped, because they are not expected to earn a profit for their owners anyway, and so resting them just costs more and bringing them back takes time and usually a few races, so owners would rather start with something fresh.
Rules in Louisiana prevent slow horses from being eligable to race there and the conditions of the race are supposed to be written so that it's a competetive contest. Down there, they pay starter bonuses. It's treated like a professional sport, and a friend of mine just took a racetrack retirement! After 20 years of racing, he gets a pension and can take it easy.
Maybe folks don't want horseracing to be like pro football or baseball. I understand that thinking. On the other hand, as it is, we have all the same problems of pro ball without the popularity or the incentive to play the game. I would like to see horseracing come back in popularity and have our champions recognized and known again. I would like to see racing be more profitable by trainers not paying so much for prohibited meds, risking the checks they could get, instead of looking at it like they have to drug the horses or they will likely get no check at all.
I don't know. Maybe it's too late for Texas, but hopefully the rest of the country will back these guys up in their efforts to put horseracing back on the popular sports map.
A couple of people have suggested that paying through all the places would mean that sore horses or slow horses would be racing, but with the costs associated with training, it would more likely decrease that than increase it. Horses that get hurt now are burned up trying in a few more races, then dumped, because they are not expected to earn a profit for their owners anyway, and so resting them just costs more and bringing them back takes time and usually a few races, so owners would rather start with something fresh.
Rules in Louisiana prevent slow horses from being eligable to race there and the conditions of the race are supposed to be written so that it's a competetive contest. Down there, they pay starter bonuses. It's treated like a professional sport, and a friend of mine just took a racetrack retirement! After 20 years of racing, he gets a pension and can take it easy.
Maybe folks don't want horseracing to be like pro football or baseball. I understand that thinking. On the other hand, as it is, we have all the same problems of pro ball without the popularity or the incentive to play the game. I would like to see horseracing come back in popularity and have our champions recognized and known again. I would like to see racing be more profitable by trainers not paying so much for prohibited meds, risking the checks they could get, instead of looking at it like they have to drug the horses or they will likely get no check at all.
I don't know. Maybe it's too late for Texas, but hopefully the rest of the country will back these guys up in their efforts to put horseracing back on the popular sports map.
-
JimbleBrimble
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 3:15 pm
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
Jimble wrote:
Save this idea for quarter horse stakes and leave the real world as is.
Jimble,
Thanks for responding. At least you don't mind saying how you feel. I have more respect for people who will say, "Hey, I don't agree with you," than for folks who never commit to anything.
As far as purse restructuring, if you do the math on some live horses, you'll see, the average racehorse actually earns more money under this proposed structure, because most horses don't win them all. Most horses don't even win most of them.
If we leave it the way it is, then we're talking about fiddling while Rome burns.
Horsemen are fleeing the state with breeders and stallions hot on their heels.
Both live wagering and simulcast wagering are dropping as a result of the small fields.
Tracks have cut race dates every year for the past several years and in 2007, Retama has no live race dates, with only QH dates for 2008.
This is the real world as it is. In the real world, if a business can't make money, it dies. Horse racing in Texas isn't making money. It's been operating at a loss since it came in.
September 1, 2009, the sun sets on paramutuel wagering in Texas and with the ten year losing track record, I don't think the legislature will vote to reinstitute it. Did you know that?
I know you are probably hoping for VLTs, but I think hell will freeze over ten miles thick before we get them. Even if I'm wrong about that, once we get them, the track owners (who are the proposed casino owners) will not need live racing. Other jurisdictions have cut race dates when they got VLTs and in Texas, no one is negotiating to protect the interests of horsemen. We should be careful what we wish for.
Louisiana pays $250 starter bonuses to horses that run 6th through 9th with a 10 horse gate. That's how Louisiana has outcompeted us, not just with higher purses, but because trainers can feed their horses if they're racing, even if they don't win them all. Texas tracks can't afford to do that, so in order to be competetive, they probably should restructure the purses.
Instead, we could just let things continue on the same rapid decline and industry hemorrhage, so we can all see what happens when glaring industry problems are ignored by the stakeholders.
I already know what it looks like. I used to drive past the old Epsom Downs in Houston for many years. Some of the best horses and best jockeys of the day performed there for 5 years, while we had legal paramutuel wagering in Texas. It was popular then and more difficult to get rid of, but they did it. It used to be a nice horserace track in it's day, more than 50 years ago. It remained empty and closed, and was used for a car race track for a while. Then they sold the land and tore it down.
It looked very sad. That's what happens when we don't want things to change. They change anyway, just not in our favor.
Jimble, thanks again for the response. I really like an exchange of ideas and I'm not trying to insult you at all.
Save this idea for quarter horse stakes and leave the real world as is.
Jimble,
Thanks for responding. At least you don't mind saying how you feel. I have more respect for people who will say, "Hey, I don't agree with you," than for folks who never commit to anything.
As far as purse restructuring, if you do the math on some live horses, you'll see, the average racehorse actually earns more money under this proposed structure, because most horses don't win them all. Most horses don't even win most of them.
If we leave it the way it is, then we're talking about fiddling while Rome burns.
Horsemen are fleeing the state with breeders and stallions hot on their heels.
Both live wagering and simulcast wagering are dropping as a result of the small fields.
Tracks have cut race dates every year for the past several years and in 2007, Retama has no live race dates, with only QH dates for 2008.
This is the real world as it is. In the real world, if a business can't make money, it dies. Horse racing in Texas isn't making money. It's been operating at a loss since it came in.
September 1, 2009, the sun sets on paramutuel wagering in Texas and with the ten year losing track record, I don't think the legislature will vote to reinstitute it. Did you know that?
I know you are probably hoping for VLTs, but I think hell will freeze over ten miles thick before we get them. Even if I'm wrong about that, once we get them, the track owners (who are the proposed casino owners) will not need live racing. Other jurisdictions have cut race dates when they got VLTs and in Texas, no one is negotiating to protect the interests of horsemen. We should be careful what we wish for.
Louisiana pays $250 starter bonuses to horses that run 6th through 9th with a 10 horse gate. That's how Louisiana has outcompeted us, not just with higher purses, but because trainers can feed their horses if they're racing, even if they don't win them all. Texas tracks can't afford to do that, so in order to be competetive, they probably should restructure the purses.
Instead, we could just let things continue on the same rapid decline and industry hemorrhage, so we can all see what happens when glaring industry problems are ignored by the stakeholders.
I already know what it looks like. I used to drive past the old Epsom Downs in Houston for many years. Some of the best horses and best jockeys of the day performed there for 5 years, while we had legal paramutuel wagering in Texas. It was popular then and more difficult to get rid of, but they did it. It used to be a nice horserace track in it's day, more than 50 years ago. It remained empty and closed, and was used for a car race track for a while. Then they sold the land and tore it down.
It looked very sad. That's what happens when we don't want things to change. They change anyway, just not in our favor.
Jimble, thanks again for the response. I really like an exchange of ideas and I'm not trying to insult you at all.
Hi. I, as the owner of a mare that tries hard but often ends up earning a small check, love the idea.
I wonder how the current purse structure came into being? No doubt the early races were "winner take all" and the current structure was developed to make things fairer. I wonder if the current percentages were picked arbitrarily or as a result of a long study.
We all resist change, but I think this one would help the game for the reasons angelsprite suggested.
Respectfully,
Rick
I wonder how the current purse structure came into being? No doubt the early races were "winner take all" and the current structure was developed to make things fairer. I wonder if the current percentages were picked arbitrarily or as a result of a long study.
We all resist change, but I think this one would help the game for the reasons angelsprite suggested.
Respectfully,
Rick
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
Rick,
Thank you for weighing in. We need our owners in this industry and the situation as it stands is contributing to driving owners out. We can't keep asking our owners to pay so much for training services without showing them how their horses can actually earn money for them. Trainers look at their win statistics, owners look at the bottom line. Many owners have horses just like yours, hard working horses that run for their owners and try every time, but it's a horse race. They are going to win some and lose some. But the owners have to pay for EVERY race, plus day rate in between. With the IRS trying to declare horseracing a hobby business, the passive-loss and hobby-loss clauses are the biggest problems. Purse restructuring would give many owners the ability to continue racing, and without it, those owners will have no choice but to leave the sport, because they cannot take deductions on other income based on their participation in racing. Owners have to prove profit motivation now, but that's tough to do. In a sport where even Funny Cide's owners couldn't show more than $40K in net each, with a horse that had earned over $2 million, how is a regular owner going to show a profit?
You are right about the purse structure. Originally, it was winner take all, when kings and nobility were the only ones racing. Back then, a four horse feild was an average field for a race. Racing enthusiasts thought they should have more horses and more races, to encourage more wagering by increasing odds. At that point, winner take all turned into paying through 3rd and racing grew. Later, the industry wanted more people to be able to participate, but paying through 3rd couldn't spread the money through the industry well enough to make it worth anyone's while to race a horse. So, with the battle cry of "let the money circulate through the industry better," people demanded that tracks pay through 5th place. Most of the tracks were paying that purse structure by the early part of the 20th Century and some much earlier. Racing existed for 200 years before the current purse structure was instituted. It changed in response to the need for larger fields and more owners. If racing can't come into the new Century with the resolve to address current issues and adapt as needed for the good of the sport, then it will go the way of all industries that fail to meet new challenges with innovative ideas.
Did I mention that the NYRA filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on November 2, 2006? I hope they get the bail-out they are looking for.
Hemp,
Best of luck with your racehorses. Owners really should run this industry, since they are the ones paying for it.
Thank you for weighing in. We need our owners in this industry and the situation as it stands is contributing to driving owners out. We can't keep asking our owners to pay so much for training services without showing them how their horses can actually earn money for them. Trainers look at their win statistics, owners look at the bottom line. Many owners have horses just like yours, hard working horses that run for their owners and try every time, but it's a horse race. They are going to win some and lose some. But the owners have to pay for EVERY race, plus day rate in between. With the IRS trying to declare horseracing a hobby business, the passive-loss and hobby-loss clauses are the biggest problems. Purse restructuring would give many owners the ability to continue racing, and without it, those owners will have no choice but to leave the sport, because they cannot take deductions on other income based on their participation in racing. Owners have to prove profit motivation now, but that's tough to do. In a sport where even Funny Cide's owners couldn't show more than $40K in net each, with a horse that had earned over $2 million, how is a regular owner going to show a profit?
You are right about the purse structure. Originally, it was winner take all, when kings and nobility were the only ones racing. Back then, a four horse feild was an average field for a race. Racing enthusiasts thought they should have more horses and more races, to encourage more wagering by increasing odds. At that point, winner take all turned into paying through 3rd and racing grew. Later, the industry wanted more people to be able to participate, but paying through 3rd couldn't spread the money through the industry well enough to make it worth anyone's while to race a horse. So, with the battle cry of "let the money circulate through the industry better," people demanded that tracks pay through 5th place. Most of the tracks were paying that purse structure by the early part of the 20th Century and some much earlier. Racing existed for 200 years before the current purse structure was instituted. It changed in response to the need for larger fields and more owners. If racing can't come into the new Century with the resolve to address current issues and adapt as needed for the good of the sport, then it will go the way of all industries that fail to meet new challenges with innovative ideas.
Did I mention that the NYRA filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on November 2, 2006? I hope they get the bail-out they are looking for.
Hemp,
Best of luck with your racehorses. Owners really should run this industry, since they are the ones paying for it.
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
The following is an excerpt from the TTA Executive Director's Update. I thought, for those who are waiting for the saving grace of VLT's, this might be a bit of an eye opener.
The suggestion of purse restructuring is the only other workable, doable solution that has been proposed, but I think it's safe to say that slots, as a solution, is now considered "out" by the majority of Texas horsemen. Purse restructuring seems to be "in" (thought the TTA has not commented on it) since only a couple of people have voiced opposition and most of the people I've heard from are wondering why it wasn't done years ago, before diesel went over $2 per gallon and hay topped $8.00+ per square bale.
We can't ignore the examples of states that have embraced slots as a solution, only to discover that it creates larger problems for horsemen.
TTA excerpt:
"PHILLY PARK HORSEPLAYER SAYS SLOTS IMPACT IS ‘BAD EPISODE OF SIMPSONS’
My comments in the January 5 Executive Director’s Update under the heading “Caution! Philly Park Cuts Number of Weekend Races Due to Slots Traffic” came to the attention of a Philadelphia Park horseplayer, George Byles, of Croydon, PA, who elaborated in greater detail about the second fiddle status of racing and its fans now that slots have become the prime game at the track. Byles’ email follows:
“David, Second fiddle indeed for the racing fans, small town owners, and bettors, at Philadelphia Park. I'm surprised to see that Texas has picked up on this news and local papers or TV stations in our area haven't. It's like we’re in a bad episode of the Simpsons. As for the fans, well, here are a couple of stories; the outside speakers only work in the paddock and the picnic area. The outside picnic area is closed for the season. All the speakers on the outside bench areas (along the finish line) are not working meaning you can't hear the call and have to depend on the scoreboard for who are in the top four positions. It's like watching a live silent movie. When I e-mailed Hal Handel (CEO) about this his response was ‘trying to see what capital I can get freed up to do some additional renovation work but in state of flux until gaming decisions made.’ Keep in mind these speakers have been out for months.
“Another comment you made that I found interesting was the "small portion" on the first floor. Small indeed. What was once a wide open space now houses horsemen, trainers, owners, and fans all trying to view the race(s) on the small flat screens. For those who like to bet there are approx. six wagering windows open and very long lines. Of course, the other option is to wait in line for the elevator and head to the fifth floor. By the time you get up there and back the race is over.
“I could go on, however, judging by your "Director's Update" you probably already know.
“I'm happy to see someone, even as far as Texas knows what the local Philly Park fans are going through and I thank you for bringing this out in the open.--George Byles, Croydon, PA”
The present Philadelphia Park scenario is one that needs no repeating in the great State of Texas."
The suggestion of purse restructuring is the only other workable, doable solution that has been proposed, but I think it's safe to say that slots, as a solution, is now considered "out" by the majority of Texas horsemen. Purse restructuring seems to be "in" (thought the TTA has not commented on it) since only a couple of people have voiced opposition and most of the people I've heard from are wondering why it wasn't done years ago, before diesel went over $2 per gallon and hay topped $8.00+ per square bale.
We can't ignore the examples of states that have embraced slots as a solution, only to discover that it creates larger problems for horsemen.
TTA excerpt:
"PHILLY PARK HORSEPLAYER SAYS SLOTS IMPACT IS ‘BAD EPISODE OF SIMPSONS’
My comments in the January 5 Executive Director’s Update under the heading “Caution! Philly Park Cuts Number of Weekend Races Due to Slots Traffic” came to the attention of a Philadelphia Park horseplayer, George Byles, of Croydon, PA, who elaborated in greater detail about the second fiddle status of racing and its fans now that slots have become the prime game at the track. Byles’ email follows:
“David, Second fiddle indeed for the racing fans, small town owners, and bettors, at Philadelphia Park. I'm surprised to see that Texas has picked up on this news and local papers or TV stations in our area haven't. It's like we’re in a bad episode of the Simpsons. As for the fans, well, here are a couple of stories; the outside speakers only work in the paddock and the picnic area. The outside picnic area is closed for the season. All the speakers on the outside bench areas (along the finish line) are not working meaning you can't hear the call and have to depend on the scoreboard for who are in the top four positions. It's like watching a live silent movie. When I e-mailed Hal Handel (CEO) about this his response was ‘trying to see what capital I can get freed up to do some additional renovation work but in state of flux until gaming decisions made.’ Keep in mind these speakers have been out for months.
“Another comment you made that I found interesting was the "small portion" on the first floor. Small indeed. What was once a wide open space now houses horsemen, trainers, owners, and fans all trying to view the race(s) on the small flat screens. For those who like to bet there are approx. six wagering windows open and very long lines. Of course, the other option is to wait in line for the elevator and head to the fifth floor. By the time you get up there and back the race is over.
“I could go on, however, judging by your "Director's Update" you probably already know.
“I'm happy to see someone, even as far as Texas knows what the local Philly Park fans are going through and I thank you for bringing this out in the open.--George Byles, Croydon, PA”
The present Philadelphia Park scenario is one that needs no repeating in the great State of Texas."
-
geowarrior
- Leading Sire
- Posts: 3593
- Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:45 pm
- Location: Spokane, WA
Your purse restructuring idea is an interesting one, Angel, and I would go for it, although my horses are currently paying their way, I'd be all in favor of incentives to keep some hard knocking but slightly less talented horses racing. I feel that not only would it help many out financially, it might save a few horses that are marginal now from the feedlot.
I'm curious as to how you think the claim game fits here. I've said on a couple of other threads that I'd like to see some races of lower class than allowance that were not claimers. I believe that there are owners out there that just like to see their horse run, but if it's a relatively ordinary horse, there is no venue to do that without running the risk of losing the horse.
I'm curious as to how you think the claim game fits here. I've said on a couple of other threads that I'd like to see some races of lower class than allowance that were not claimers. I believe that there are owners out there that just like to see their horse run, but if it's a relatively ordinary horse, there is no venue to do that without running the risk of losing the horse.
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
Geo,
You are brilliant!!!! I really like your thoughts on that. I don't think racing has kept up with many owner's feelings for their horses. In today's world, many owners love their animals and feel as close to them as if they were family. The Lord knows, I love mine, and though they may not be the tip top, graded stakes prospects, etc. I wouldn't want to lose them to a claim. I run them where they belong, or I don't run, but I worry everytime I have something that is up for a tag. I am breeding for the track and future breeding stock these days, so each one is part of a plan. I think many others may do the same.
Anyway, we have allowance optional claim. How about, claim optional races with a regular claim tag, but an option to run for no tag, with maybe a couple pounds off if they choose to risk a claim.
I think the purse restructuring could give many owners of less talented horses the ability to upgrade, because they aren't going broke trying to stay in the game, then bailing completely out.
And I'm with you on saving some hard working horses that are running and trying, but maybe don't have many checks, and many are done away with before they are mature enough to know what they would do when coming into their real racing years at 4, 5, and 6. At those ages, some horses suddenly blossom, if they aren't hurt, and turn into a whole new race horse. But the game as it is being played right now just doesn't allow a horse to mature before judgement is passed, because it costs so much to keep a horse in training. We crank out 36 thousand TBs every year. Many of them don't even get seasoned before they are cast off.
Also, if you check out the Houston Chronicle article about Wrenice, you will see that she was entered in a $25,000 stakes. Only one other horse entered the race. It was cancelled for want of horses willing to risk the money to race when they know if they lose, with a full 80% at the top 2 spots of that race, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th place horse wouldn't even cover what they spent to get in the race. So, even the top horses (our Texas Champion 2 Year Old Filly in the first race she entered for her 3 year old campaign) would have benefitted from purse restructuring. If you can't race your horse, you can't make money with that horse, no matter how good it is.
You have to have competition to have champions. You have to have something to run against.
Any other thoughts you have on this would be nice to hear.
You are brilliant!!!! I really like your thoughts on that. I don't think racing has kept up with many owner's feelings for their horses. In today's world, many owners love their animals and feel as close to them as if they were family. The Lord knows, I love mine, and though they may not be the tip top, graded stakes prospects, etc. I wouldn't want to lose them to a claim. I run them where they belong, or I don't run, but I worry everytime I have something that is up for a tag. I am breeding for the track and future breeding stock these days, so each one is part of a plan. I think many others may do the same.
Anyway, we have allowance optional claim. How about, claim optional races with a regular claim tag, but an option to run for no tag, with maybe a couple pounds off if they choose to risk a claim.
I think the purse restructuring could give many owners of less talented horses the ability to upgrade, because they aren't going broke trying to stay in the game, then bailing completely out.
And I'm with you on saving some hard working horses that are running and trying, but maybe don't have many checks, and many are done away with before they are mature enough to know what they would do when coming into their real racing years at 4, 5, and 6. At those ages, some horses suddenly blossom, if they aren't hurt, and turn into a whole new race horse. But the game as it is being played right now just doesn't allow a horse to mature before judgement is passed, because it costs so much to keep a horse in training. We crank out 36 thousand TBs every year. Many of them don't even get seasoned before they are cast off.
Also, if you check out the Houston Chronicle article about Wrenice, you will see that she was entered in a $25,000 stakes. Only one other horse entered the race. It was cancelled for want of horses willing to risk the money to race when they know if they lose, with a full 80% at the top 2 spots of that race, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th place horse wouldn't even cover what they spent to get in the race. So, even the top horses (our Texas Champion 2 Year Old Filly in the first race she entered for her 3 year old campaign) would have benefitted from purse restructuring. If you can't race your horse, you can't make money with that horse, no matter how good it is.
You have to have competition to have champions. You have to have something to run against.
Any other thoughts you have on this would be nice to hear.
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
John Campo used to say that the claim game is like high stakes poker - sometimes, you drop a horse in class looking for an easy victory, and sometimes you drop a horse looking to unload it. I think that's the beauty of the claim game, and IMO, it should remain that way.
Think about a claiming race where 5 horses are entered to be claimed and 5 aren't. As a claiming owner, I'd wonder why those 5 were entered to be claimed. It does raise skepticism, doesn't it?
You can think of your TBs as pets and if their talent level keeps them in claiming ranks, maybe you'd consider retiring them if you're afraid of having them claimed. Racing is a business, first and foremost. You, as an owner, have the right to claim someone else's horse...why can't another owner have the right to claim your horse?
As far as purse distribution, I think it's a good idea to reward all the horses entered - it helps to fill fields and it helps everyone to pay bills - the jockey fee, is nothing else. 3% of a $10,000 purse isn't a lot of money to some, but small owners with mouths to feed and legs to train can certainly use it.
Think about a claiming race where 5 horses are entered to be claimed and 5 aren't. As a claiming owner, I'd wonder why those 5 were entered to be claimed. It does raise skepticism, doesn't it?
You can think of your TBs as pets and if their talent level keeps them in claiming ranks, maybe you'd consider retiring them if you're afraid of having them claimed. Racing is a business, first and foremost. You, as an owner, have the right to claim someone else's horse...why can't another owner have the right to claim your horse?
As far as purse distribution, I think it's a good idea to reward all the horses entered - it helps to fill fields and it helps everyone to pay bills - the jockey fee, is nothing else. 3% of a $10,000 purse isn't a lot of money to some, but small owners with mouths to feed and legs to train can certainly use it.
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
Rockeby,
Thanks for giving your opinion. I can tell you know this business. When an owner, or owner/trainer starts racing, and they've paid all the money to get the horse to the races, and it takes the horse a few races to start running like a racehorse, sometimes, those owners can't stay in and pay the cost to keep going, even if it is a nice horse. Bringing in new owners is really tough when everyone else is telling them that owning a racehorse is a sucker's game.
On the claim thing, I think purse restructuring alone would have a big impact. If an owner can't put a horse in because they feel that it can't run higher competetively, and it can't run at it's level because it's winning too much and would be picked up, then that's one less horse to fill an entry. We don't have a problem with too many horses entering in Texas. We have problems filling races. If they retire the horse, and some people do, then that's one less horse to fill races.
With purse restructuring, I think owners would be less hesitant to try the horse higher, if they knew he could cover his race, and then the horse has an opportunity to suprise them. Even without optional claim races, the purse restructuring would make more races go here in Texas. Also, I think the game would be cleaner almost immediately. Why risk the money you know you will get by paying way TOO MUCH for prohibited meds. The biggest reason for all the prohibited meds in racing is because owners and trainers feel they have to win to get any real money at all. They feel like playing it clean means they will likely get next to nothing for the effort and for being honest. The sport literally penalizes people who are unwilling to cheat. But, if the horse would earn enough to cover his race for the performance, the owner might think, hey, even if we don't run good, we still cover the race, but if we spend a hundred dollars filling him with dope, we can't cover the race. So, let's see what this horse can do without the dope. Then, it might be a horse race, not a chemical contest. Just my thoughts.
But, I still would like to be able to designate my personal horses not for claim. It costs a good $12,000 to get a horse ready and then someone picks them up for $10k in their first race? The claiming prices haven't kept up with the costs of training either.
But I'm not arguing with you, Rockeby. A good trainer can usually figure out how to keep their horses from getting picked up.
Thanks for giving your opinion. I can tell you know this business. When an owner, or owner/trainer starts racing, and they've paid all the money to get the horse to the races, and it takes the horse a few races to start running like a racehorse, sometimes, those owners can't stay in and pay the cost to keep going, even if it is a nice horse. Bringing in new owners is really tough when everyone else is telling them that owning a racehorse is a sucker's game.
On the claim thing, I think purse restructuring alone would have a big impact. If an owner can't put a horse in because they feel that it can't run higher competetively, and it can't run at it's level because it's winning too much and would be picked up, then that's one less horse to fill an entry. We don't have a problem with too many horses entering in Texas. We have problems filling races. If they retire the horse, and some people do, then that's one less horse to fill races.
With purse restructuring, I think owners would be less hesitant to try the horse higher, if they knew he could cover his race, and then the horse has an opportunity to suprise them. Even without optional claim races, the purse restructuring would make more races go here in Texas. Also, I think the game would be cleaner almost immediately. Why risk the money you know you will get by paying way TOO MUCH for prohibited meds. The biggest reason for all the prohibited meds in racing is because owners and trainers feel they have to win to get any real money at all. They feel like playing it clean means they will likely get next to nothing for the effort and for being honest. The sport literally penalizes people who are unwilling to cheat. But, if the horse would earn enough to cover his race for the performance, the owner might think, hey, even if we don't run good, we still cover the race, but if we spend a hundred dollars filling him with dope, we can't cover the race. So, let's see what this horse can do without the dope. Then, it might be a horse race, not a chemical contest. Just my thoughts.
But, I still would like to be able to designate my personal horses not for claim. It costs a good $12,000 to get a horse ready and then someone picks them up for $10k in their first race? The claiming prices haven't kept up with the costs of training either.
But I'm not arguing with you, Rockeby. A good trainer can usually figure out how to keep their horses from getting picked up.
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
Hiya Angelsprite,
You give quite a few good arguments of a few different subjects. I was simply addressing my thought on claiming races and more purse distribution.
Yes, there are designer drugs and the such that allows for "cheating" and it's awfully difficult to stay in business when a breeder pays a stud fee + 2 years of expenses to lose a horse for only $10,000. I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I don't advocate races written where an owner can stipulate "I don't want to lose my horse" vs "I don't mind losing my horse."
A good friend once had a $17,500 claimer. The horse won at that level, and was entered right back for the price - and won again. It was then entered right back at the same level and ran 2nd - and was run back at the same level and won again....long story short, people were afraid to claim this horse because they couldn't understand why it was never raised in class. All my friend was doing was "shoving the horse down their throats," spotting it where it could win. The horse wound up making around $90,000 that year before it low bowed. Not bad for a $17,500 claimer, huh?
If you lose a horse for $10,000, you have the right to claim a replacement one for the same amount - and maybe get "lucky" and maybe not. If you do that, I don't see how losing a horse hurts you - you're exchanging a horse worth $10,000 for another.
I won't repeat what I wrote about field purse distribution, but anything that helps out all the horsemen is a change for the better.
Respectfully,
Rokeby (forever!)
You give quite a few good arguments of a few different subjects. I was simply addressing my thought on claiming races and more purse distribution.
Yes, there are designer drugs and the such that allows for "cheating" and it's awfully difficult to stay in business when a breeder pays a stud fee + 2 years of expenses to lose a horse for only $10,000. I'm not quite sure what the answer is, but I don't advocate races written where an owner can stipulate "I don't want to lose my horse" vs "I don't mind losing my horse."
A good friend once had a $17,500 claimer. The horse won at that level, and was entered right back for the price - and won again. It was then entered right back at the same level and ran 2nd - and was run back at the same level and won again....long story short, people were afraid to claim this horse because they couldn't understand why it was never raised in class. All my friend was doing was "shoving the horse down their throats," spotting it where it could win. The horse wound up making around $90,000 that year before it low bowed. Not bad for a $17,500 claimer, huh?
If you lose a horse for $10,000, you have the right to claim a replacement one for the same amount - and maybe get "lucky" and maybe not. If you do that, I don't see how losing a horse hurts you - you're exchanging a horse worth $10,000 for another.
I won't repeat what I wrote about field purse distribution, but anything that helps out all the horsemen is a change for the better.
Respectfully,
Rokeby (forever!)
Makes for poor racing as horses are to often entered for a "check". Kentucky had it right when they only paid the top 4 finishers. That way if you run you're going "all out" in hopes of earning a check.
I always liked the breakage of 60% win / 22% place / 12% show / 6% for 4th money.
Only time I'd argue for 5th or 6th place payouts involve races with purses of $250,000 or more.
I always liked the breakage of 60% win / 22% place / 12% show / 6% for 4th money.
Only time I'd argue for 5th or 6th place payouts involve races with purses of $250,000 or more.
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
Rokeby Forever wrote:So Horsenuts...you'd rather someone get a $10,000 check for entering a $250,000 race and maybe losing by 50 lengths to earn it rather than a small owner being compensated for the rider fee, if nothing more? Um...ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I don't believe "socialism"(where everybody gets some money) has any place in sports save for perhaps kids 10 and under where "everyone gets to play".
Horseracing like all professional sports is all about competition and the goal is to win, not run for 5th or 6th place money.
As for getting beat "50 lengths"... anyone can enter their horse in such a race... they simply have to be good enough to run at least 4th or they get nothing for their efforts.