Long Time DerbyTrail.com member....

[chucklestheclown]

Great writing

[dalakhani]

Very nice Read.

[Gate Dancer]

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]

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

NT

[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.

[RockHardTen1985]

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]

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.

[the_fat_man]

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.