CD studying races
 

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/...706290402/1003

Lets hope that $7500 claimers dont turn out to be the most popular race.

I'm sure they'll figure it out since they put a guy with no racing experience in charge of the research, says it's like peeling off the layers of an onion.

I wish they would survey me on what races I like. my answer? races not at Churchill Downs.

Ouch.

More two year old maiden races so I can see the day when Assmussen has a gate to wire with 20.9 opening quarter and a 42.9 half.

$5,000 claimers FTW!!!!!!


ehhh...j/k :)

If you "peel back the onion" of this guys previous employment history, it leads straight to Anderson Consulting...last seen knee deep in Enron

LOL

Real smart by CDI. Take some guy who joined CDI in March to try and speak for the North American betting public. I could tell them in 2 sentences how they could increase their market share of the handle:

1. Lower the takeout
2. Increase field size

Number 2 at many tracks would likely mean racing one less day a week, an experiment that has worked well virtually every place its been tried. Now, pay me a $200K consulting fee, CDI.

All they need to do is look at what Ellis did with their pick-4. Decent size fields and 4% takeout. It ain't brain surgery.

Strictly from an owner perspective, I wish they would write more races on the grass for mid-level horses. You practically have to have a nice allowance horse to get the chance to run on the grass. I would love to see them write some 10/15/20/25 K claiming races on the grass. I bet you would have all full fields for those.

A couple of other thoughts:
1. A few more races on each end of the distance spectrum, maybe some 5 and 5 1/2f or some more 1 1/8 races.
2. Races for 5 yr old and up
3. Got to have many more 2yr old races in the fall meet
4. Bring back the 20K races. Currently we have only 16K and 25K claiming races. I dont know how we got on "odd" numbers at CD. What happened to 10/15/20/25/30 ??
5. How about some state-bred races? I know most of the horses are KY-bred but how come Ky is like the only state that doesnt have state-bred races?

Competitive, balanced, and large allowance/stakes fields draw the best handle. You don't have to be a quantitative statistical modeler to determine that.

I've got a suggestion for increasing field size... have a penalty assessed to the trainer for scratching with no physical reason (of course if the horse is hurt or sick, and vets out as such, no penalty would be assessed.) The Bobby Frankels of the world are killing the field size in New York and elsewhere. They draw 75 for a 9 race card and there's 15 scratches.

Chuck, since I know you don't pull this kind of mularkey, what would you think of this policy?

wonderful.
In my experience when the consultants are brought in it usually means things are really screwed up and its likely to get worse. After their visionary plans are implemented and fail horribly then someone can come in and pick up the pieces and turn things around in a positive way. Sorta like a forest fire, looks like a very bad thing but in the end necessary for healthy growth.

The opening comments from a future stockholders meeting "we have learned that we have to listen to those with experience in the industry..."

CD protects the turf course at all cost, they had the rail up with one week left in the meet.
no disrespect, but the idea about about ky bred races has got to be the dumbest idea ever. The idea is to increase field sizes not to exclude the couple of horses that aren't KY breds.

There are way too many vairables that go into what race attracts the most wagers. What other race was being runned at the same time at other tracks, was their a big carryover that day so people invested in that instead of the individual race, was there computer problems, was a big race coming up the following day, was there family reunions, etc etc. This is about impossible to figure out.

If they want to know what type of races us gamblers would wager on; then ask us. I think they will find commonalities and some great ideas. Here is what I think and I feel my thinking echos others thinking as well:

1) decrease takeout %
2) go to a 4 day race week with 8 or 9 races per day to increase field size
3) if you decrease the number of racing days and races then more horses would be nominated to a race. then you can split that race into two different races structuring the races for competitiveness. this way you may decrease the races where you get the 2/5 fav and add more value to the bettors.
4) offer rebates to the bettors instead of free programs, free admission or a free hot dog.

That is all I have for right now.

one thing
 

decreased takeout would be awesome

You should have more horsemen like Bobby. He doesn't run lame horse, or ones that are sick just to run. You guys crack me up with your arm chair training licences.
:rolleyes:

A trainer that makes at least 17 million a year seems to understand where his best chances are. He scratches like anyone else does, just that he is alot smarter than most. I measure success, not how many scatches one makes. I don't think he is thinking of the player when he scatches, but the players are always talking trash about him, he doesn't care what people say about him.

He will fit right in....

That is your opinion. I think he scatches as much as he needs to. It is part of the game. What is more, or allot?? 3, 4, 5 10, what number you trying to put on things with no meaning at all.

I admit to some mularkey on occasion.

But to answer your question it is very easy to obtain a vet scratch and you open up a whole can of worms if you start having state vets try to overrule calls made by the private vets.

In the case of a developing horse coming off a layoff, like First Defence, would you say most horses (If you can even generalize like this) are better off having one or two 'lighter' races up to the big one, and scratching if it comes up tough, or is the horse not getting as much benefit off the easy wins?

Really depends on the horse, type of race, distance, etc. Too many variables to come to any conclusions

Thanks. :)

Sorry to pester you with more questions, but in the case that too many horses are entered in a race, how does the Secretary determine who gets in and who doesn't?

Most tracks use a 'date' system meaning that the horse with the most recent race has the least preference.

Pletcher has great stock too, but neither one has a Derby under their belt. Great Stock can go down just as fast as any other horse if poorly trained. If you think short fields are caused by Bobby Frankel, we are in trouble. Frankel doesn't even race allot in NY to make a difference in the field size. Most races in NY are for State breds now. AQU has the shortest fields in the country, and Frankel doesn't run their. Believe me, I hear this about Bobby all the time, it's normally someone who wanted to bet his horse that was scratched. What is his win percentage, that's what counts.

I.....














































THUD

What ever dude

...which brings me to my point that there should be a state vet system overseeing ALL trainers.

Yeah, for very recent examples First Defence and Saint Anddan were really sick or lame on July 4th. Come on! :rolleyes: He's got a ton of stalls and hardly runs his horses.

Try again, he ran 13 horses at the AQU fall meet last year.

But took away stalls from someone who would have run twice as much.

First off, I don't believe for a minute that Frankel scratches the same percentage of horses that the rest of the trainers do. Not even close. And because who he is, he gets preferential treatment.

How about Dale Romans saying on HRTV last week that he scratched a horse because he drew the rail. I hope the rail was a concrete highway that day and I hope he cost himself a win.

DRF has them, but you'd have to go through stacks of old editions to collate the data

He has 4 entered this week, 1 Wednesday and 3 tomorrow.

He's 1 for 1 on the week scratching (Argentina as the 6/5 favorite. Nice.)

Gosh dernit it dont mater if boobie scraches er not. whut matturs is de winds ann de monay.

i never paid that much attention to it until I saw people talking about it on here, and yeah I'd have to agree, he seems to scratch a lot in places that you wouldn't expect a scratch. If this is all for the welfare of the horse, fine. However it seems odd that he would have that many high profile horses with issues that are discovered so late.

I know he is also pretty sensitive about weights in handicaps, and a few pounds can set him off.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!