Public will decide Monmouth's fate

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Here's what's escaping most of the racing GURUS:

MTH is operating, essentially, thurs, friday, saturday, and sunday

which is basically when MOST other tracks are also running

MOREVER

they're running at the same time that a whole bunch of tracks are

Now, I don't know where these GURUS are residing but if they think that HIGHER QUALITY HORSES and LARGER FIELDS will make a significant difference, they're mistaken. Nobody from NY is going to make the drive to MTH and MTH will be just ONE MORE track that anyone playing multiple tracks will have to deal with. When it comes to betting, better horses and larger fields (or better purses) doesn't NECESSARILY translate to MISMATCHES (especially on SPEED FAVORING bullring like tracks). I could give a **** how good the horses are; what I'm concerned with is finding races where I have an advantage. And, I suspect, anyone playing the game seriously is looking for the same thing. Moreover, anyone who is not computer generating plays will be forced to either ADD MTH to the HIGH NUMBER of tracks they already play or just IGNORE THEM. I'm going with the latter. Frankly, there are much better betting options at CHEAPER but FAIR tracks elsewhere.

You'd think that tracks would get a ****in clue and spread out their days/time of operation. I'm overloaded with 10 or so tracks on weekends, during the day, and basically play with myself the rest of the week because there are no tracks operating.

MTH must be counting on ON TRACK handle. Which means they're still in 1970's/1980's mode.

Larger fields and higher quality horses have a direct correlation to increased handle. It's been proven time and again. There's a good reason for that... if you think hard you might be able to figure out why.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by philcski

Larger fields and higher quality horses have a direct correlation to increased handle. It's been proven time and again. There's a good reason for that... if you think hard you might be able to figure out why.

The question is whether or not it's significant enough, but then you have to say that every little bit helps.

When you take-out the data movers, such as stakes races and marquee events, and look at the day-in and day-out races, field size trumps everything.

Here is a screenshot from Excel of average handle data at Keeneland. These figures do not include multi-race wagers; only the WPS, Exacta, Trifecta and Superfecta data are repsented as they are the best indicators of a race's strength in the pools. No races with purses > $75k are included. The figures are based on the pool size of all the wagers.



I was perplexed by the 11 horse field size, so I drilled down to that data a bit more. The graph shows that purse (quality) was not a significant mover in this case and the disparity can attributed to a lot of things, possibly including:

* Race placement relative to other big events/races happening at or around the same time (post times)
* Heavy, heavy favorite, which deters exotic wagerers
* Race placement on the card (later in the card typically handles better)
* Randomness (ultimately, this is a small sample)



In my experience being a nerd when it comes to racing handle and following data, field size is the big mover. Major signals, particularly Belmont, are more immune to field size fluctuations due to the strength of their overall brand and product (a 5 horse field at Bel will always out handle a typical 5 horse field at say Louisiana Downs, Arlington or Prairie Meadows etc). When Belmont is able to put 14 horses on the track, however, look out - big handle coming-up.

Secondly, horseplayers will bet anything they have an edge on, regardless of quality. If any random horseplayer spotted a running line he liked, it doesn't matter if the horse is 10-1 in a $5k claimer at Presque Isle or 10-1 in a $5k claimer at Churchill - it's game on.

Third, the whole argument about quality is tough because naturally there is going to be a separation of ability in a sport like horse racing, and there needs to be a place for horses on the bottom. Every track would love to have 10 races everyday with nothing but N1X's, N2X's and stakes... unfortunately, it's not feasible.

Ultimately it comes down to a premise such as this: If you're a player who puts decent money through the windows (you aren't a $2 across the board, or $2 boxer... nor are we talking about big win bettors, as they're rare), and in 10 minutes there is a 7 horse allowance coming up, and right at the same time, a 12 horse claimer... where are you inclined to play? The majority of people go the 12 horse claimer, as that's where the money is.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The question is whether or not it's significant enough, but then you have to say that every little bit helps.

When you take-out the data movers, such as stakes races and marquee events, and look at the day-in and day-out races, field size trumps everything.

Here is a screenshot from Excel of average handle data at Keeneland. These figures do not include multi-race wagers; only the WPS, Exacta, Trifecta and Superfecta data are repsented as they are the best indicators of a race's strength in the pools. No races with purses > $75k are included. The figures are based on the pool size of all the wagers.



I was perplexed by the 11 horse field size, so I drilled down to that data a bit more. The graph shows that purse (quality) was not a significant mover in this case and the disparity can attributed to a lot of things, possibly including:

* Race placement relative to other big events/races happening at or around the same time (post times)
* Heavy, heavy favorite, which deters exotic wagerers
* Race placement on the card (later in the card typically handles better)
* Randomness (ultimately, this is a small sample)



In my experience being a nerd when it comes to racing handle and following data, field size is the big mover. Major signals, particularly Belmont, are more immune to field size fluctuations due to the strength of their overall brand and product (a 5 horse field at Bel will always out handle a typical 5 horse field at say Louisiana Downs, Arlington or Prairie Meadows etc). When Belmont is able to put 14 horses on the track, however, look out - big handle coming-up.

Secondly, horseplayers will bet anything they have an edge on, regardless of quality. If any random horseplayer spotted a running line he liked, it doesn't matter if the horse is 10-1 in a $5k claimer at Presque Isle or 10-1 in a $5k claimer at Churchill - it's game on.

Third, the whole argument about quality is tough because naturally there is going to be a separation of ability in a sport like horse racing, and there needs to be a place for horses on the bottom. Every track would love to have 10 races everyday with nothing but N1X's, N2X's and stakes... unfortunately, it's not feasible.

Ultimately it comes down to a premise such as this: If you're a player who puts decent money through the windows (you aren't a $2 across the board, or $2 boxer... nor are we talking about big win bettors, as they're rare), and in 10 minutes there is a 7 horse allowance coming up, and right at the same time, a 12 horse claimer... where are you inclined to play? The majority of people go the 12 horse claimer, as that's where the money is.

Great work Travis.

As for your question about the 11 horse fields' data point falling off a bit when you'd expect a number around $900k, sample size probably has the most to do with it. What was your sample size for the other points?

[randallscott35]

On the other hand, the rising financial tide could lift many ships. You don't have to win a lot of races when low-end $5,000 claimers run for $30,000 and maiden special weights are worth $75,000.

"I think it's going to help me," said Tim Kelly, who has been training at Monmouth for 24 years. "It's going to bring me the better quality stock that we'll have to get, or we won't be able to survive. It's either going to be feast or famine. It's going to help me or kill me.

"It's going to make racing more difficult, but the big guys can't win them all."

Kelly takes a realistic approach. At these purse levels, just hitting the board can be lucrative.

"If you can get a piece of these big pots, it's not a bad thing," Kelly said.

Monmouth further cushioned the blow by paying every starter in every race at least $1,500. Even when they lose, nobody goes home empty-handed.

[randallscott35]

Once again great show by Steve. Getting a car full of trainers who are excited about the prospects here in Jersey warms my cold cold heart. Come one come all. Full fields for real money. And as Anderson said, this is the future.

[Patrick333]

The $50 million question

Monmouth Park is a bulwark against time. The stately 65-year-old racetrack peddles charm and tradition, and those wares have never faded here. Fresh coats of green and white paint are usually the only things required to spruce up the place every summer. And although the 2007 Breeders' Cup necessitated renovations and a few additions to the facility, the postcard-pretty racetrack has always offered satisfying continuity. Until now, of course.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/113140.html

[XIIPointStables]

What would be the handle number for Opening Day/Opening Weekend that would be "great?"

Don't they have to do some boffo #s every race day to make this worth it?

[chucklestheclown]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The majority of people go the 12 horse claimer, as that's where the money is.

I believe this is the ultimate fallacy.