Belmont Purses get 13% hike courtesy of 'Toga

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

NYRA was able to increase overnight purses for the Belmont Meet due to higher than projected wagering activity at the 2010 Saratoga Race Course meeting and a purse underpayment by $500,000 at the Saratoga meet instead of the projected $2.5 million overpayment.

A lot of people were using similar figures in bashing Monmouth Park's inability to pay $1 million per day in purses. Doesn't this statistic really mean that, like Monmouth, NYRA was forced to run far many more cheap races at Saratoga than they had anticipated?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

A lot of people were using similar figures in bashing Monmouth Park's inability to pay $1 million per day in purses. Doesn't this statistic really mean that, like Monmouth, NYRA was forced to run far many more cheap races at Saratoga than they had anticipated?

Actually not.

I get what you are saying, and in theory it makes sense, but it also happens not to be the case.

For what it's worth, nobody was bashing Monmouth for running the cheaper races. In fact, it helped prove the lack of quality horses to fill the mythical quality races that the delusional claimed should be occuring with regularity. The problem was in claiming they were doing something they weren't. This was never close to a big deal....it was just funny watching it be ignored by the same people who would have been the first to point it out had it happened elsewhere.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I get what you are saying, and in theory it makes sense, but it also happens not to be the case.

What am I missing? My understanding was that NYRA was projecting a 5% decline in handle for the meet. To its credit, it beat that figure. However, that marginal "increase" is not the reason given for the purse increase at Belmont; it's that purses actually paid out at Saratoga were $3 million below the projected purse levels (assuming the accuracy of the reason stated in the article). The only explanations that I can see are either that the races that filled were of a cheaper variety (when you run a $25K maiden claimer versus a MSW race, you "save" the purse account about $25K) or NYRA ran substantially less races than they anticipated (and that wouldn't seem to be a likely explanation, with 395 races contested over the 40 day meet).

A few years ago at Saratoga, maidens were running for in excess of $60K. The primary reason was that, as the winter meet got a little cheaper, there was money in the purse account that had not been expended, and NYRA used that money to great benefit at Saratoga. This feels like a similar situation.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

What am I missing? My understanding was that NYRA was projecting a 5% decline in handle for the meet. To its credit, it beat that figure. However, that marginal "increase" is not the reason given for the purse increase at Belmont; it's that purses actually paid out at Saratoga were $3 million below the projected purse levels (assuming the accuracy of the reason stated in the article). The only explanations that I can see are either that the races that filled were of a cheaper variety (when you run a $25K maiden claimer versus a MSW race, you "save" the purse account about $25K) or NYRA ran substantially less races than they anticipated (and that wouldn't seem to be a likely explanation, with 395 races contested over the 40 day meet).

A few years ago at Saratoga, maidens were running for in excess of $60K. The primary reason was that, as the winter meet got a little cheaper, there was money in the purse account that had not been expended, and NYRA used that money to great benefit at Saratoga. This feels like a similar situation.

I was assuming you understood things better than this. Sorry.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I was assuming you understood things better than this. Sorry.

I was assuming that you could provide the explanation that wasn't provided in your earlier response. Sorry.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I was assuming that you could provide the explanation that wasn't provided in your earlier response. Sorry.

I honestly think you know the answer.

[freddymo]

Why did NYRA bring back the overnight stakes for 70k when past experience suggested that they rarely filled and were typically not attractive races to bet?
5 to 7 horse fields before scratches seemed catered to only the horseman and owners while the bettors and NYRA got little back for the money.. Wouldnt we all like to see these races morph into 50 claimers with 85k purses were claiming activity is spurred and 100k(valued) stock drop in for 50k tag?

Seems to me MP ran at least 3 times as many Allowance type races in 2010 as they carded in 2009 with less dates. Isn't that the point, not that 70 allowance types didnt find there way onto the track on a single race card? Isn't the point of the MP experiment to see how to make the product better for the three players in the game(horseman/owners,the track, and BETTOR)?