Long Time DerbyTrail.com member....

RockHardTen1985 · #1 08-14-2009, 01:10 AM

Hockey2315 wrote this artcle.... It is now on NTRA.com. He is a really talented writer and I just thought I should share it with everyone. Great job Brian.

http://www.ntra.com/content.aspx?type=feature&id=41067

Cannon Shell · #2 08-14-2009, 09:09 AM

Nice job

chucklestheclown · #3 08-14-2009, 09:45 AM

Great writing

dalakhani · #4 08-14-2009, 09:52 AM

Very nice Read.

Gate Dancer · #5 08-14-2009, 11:16 AM

Excellent points...............while I appreciate the 'dominate' animal (of either sex) in horse-racing, the bottom line is still the wagering aspect of it. Give me bigger fields and more competitive races to play. Good article.

NTamm1215 · #6 08-14-2009, 11:21 AM

Good read and great to see we have another Italian in the crowd.

NT

the_fat_man · #7 08-14-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gate Dancer

Give me bigger fields and more competitive races to play.

I'm perfectly fine with SMALL fields and LESS competitive races with clear stickouts (that don't necessarily need to be chalk). And, I have no problem looking around a bit to find these gems.

The 3 run homer wins a lot of games during the regular season but rarely succeeds in the playoffs.

King Glorious · #8 08-14-2009, 11:33 AM

I think it's interesting that this article and discussion comes right on the heels of us discussing the importance of having a top horse like Rachel Alexandra participate in the BC. Some really feel that having the top horses at the biggest events is good for the sport because it draws in new fans. Others feel like the big horses keep the fields and the handles down. I remember when the Bulls were dominating the NBA. People tuned in to watch. People loved to watch the Yankees when they were dominating. People tuned in to watch Mike Tyson destroy people. The ratings show that when Tiger Woods is in the running, more people watch than when he's out of it and it's wide open. My preference is to see dominant horses. The reason I watch grade one races and don't care as much for $25k claimers is because I want to see the best. It's why I'll watch the Yankees and not the Columbus Clippers. If I want to wager on a full field of equally matched horses, there are hundreds of races everyday to do that. The money is the same. Brilliance excites me. Equally matched mediocrity doesn't.

RockHardTen1985 · #9 08-14-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I think it's interesting that this article and discussion comes right on the heels of us discussing the importance of having a top horse like Rachel Alexandra participate in the BC. Some really feel that having the top horses at the biggest events is good for the sport because it draws in new fans. Others feel like the big horses keep the fields and the handles down. I remember when the Bulls were dominating the NBA. People tuned in to watch. People loved to watch the Yankees when they were dominating. People tuned in to watch Mike Tyson destroy people. The ratings show that when Tiger Woods is in the running, more people watch than when he's out of it and it's wide open. My preference is to see dominant horses. The reason I watch grade one races and don't care as much for $25k claimers is because I want to see the best. It's why I'll watch the Yankees and not the Columbus Clippers. If I want to wager on a full field of equally matched horses, there are hundreds of races everyday to do that. The money is the same. Brilliance excites me. Equally matched mediocrity doesn't.

I would rather watch horses like Bernardini and I know what your saying, but the serious gambler loves how it is now.

King Glorious · #10 08-14-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

I would rather watch horses like Bernardini and I know what your saying, but the serious gambler loves how it is now.

I don't know what the threshold is that determines who is a serious gambler and who isn't but I play a pretty good amount. I don't care for how it is now. As I said earlier, if I go to the track to play the races at Saratoga, there are usually 8-10 other races besides the stakes race. Plenty of opportunities to find value and make money. There are countless other races available to play via simulcasting. Making the stakes race a competitive event full of mediocre horses is just adding one more race for them. I actually think it's better having a dominant horse in those races as it offers an opportunity for multi-race ticket players to go light in a race and spread more in others.

RockHardTen1985 · #11 08-14-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't know what the threshold is that determines who is a serious gambler and who isn't but I play a pretty good amount. I don't care for how it is now. As I said earlier, if I go to the track to play the races at Saratoga, there are usually 8-10 other races besides the stakes race. Plenty of opportunities to find value and make money. There are countless other races available to play via simulcasting. Making the stakes race a competitive event full of mediocre horses is just adding one more race for them. I actually think it's better having a dominant horse in those races as it offers an opportunity for multi-race ticket players to go light in a race and spread more in others.

Good points, I guess it can go both ways.

Travis Stone · #12 08-14-2009, 03:53 PM

Field size trumps quality unless you're talking about the cream of the crop. Big races handle big money regardless of the field.

Bobby Fischer · #13 08-14-2009, 04:36 PM

fan-favorites trump all.

Commentator running with other average horses is about as good as it gets betting wise.

And from an entertainment perspective yea it is boring as hell to watch a Rachel or Bernardini beat up on overmatched rivals, at least after their initial break out race in situations where you know they are easily best going in. Hopefully you have three equally matched grade 3 or better caliber horses that each get to make their run, but that is rare for most graded stakes.

hockey2315 · #14 08-14-2009, 05:01 PM

Thanks for the compliments everyone. For some reason the fractions came out as "_" when they put it online.

declansharbor · #15 08-14-2009, 05:12 PM

Great read. You definitely have a future in the business. Will add you to my list to track. keep up the good work!!

SOREHOOF · #16 08-14-2009, 05:53 PM

Good article, agree with all. Bullsbay had a better shot than 18-1 in that race.

pweizer · #17 08-14-2009, 06:50 PM

This was a great article but I think this thread has gone astray. Why does it have to be an either/or proposition. There have been plenty of years where you had good horses and competitive betting races. Isn't that what we should be after?

Paul

SOREHOOF · #18 08-14-2009, 06:54 PM

Every decent horse retires at 3 anymore, so we get a crappy Handicap Div. At least there are some pretty good 3yos still running this year. Maybe next year will be better!

Sightseek · #19 08-14-2009, 06:56 PM

I'm going to play devil's advocate, and while the article is good...we are almost accepting the fact that bad horses are winning races like the Suburban and Whitney because the good horses are being retired after their 3year old year.

I've only been following this sport since 2004 and Peace Rules would be a National Hero right now, when back then long time fans were saying he wasn't all that good....

SOREHOOF · #20 08-14-2009, 07:14 PM

Everyone seems to love high prices at auction, but that is a pretty huge contributor to early retirement. Get them out of there quick before they lose at 4 or get hurt. Breeding is where the $$ money is and if they're not gelded or fillies they lose value even attempting a campaign at 4 or beyond. Seems Makthoum spent all the $$ at Sar. so I wouldn't call it a big resurgence just yet. We totally understand the dynamics of this. Purses can't rise enough to offset this, we need buyers who will only pay top $$ for offspring of a horse proven at age 4+, even with a few losses. If Curlin babies bring HUGE $$ we might see the beginnings of a new trend. Lets hope.