This is great news for those of us who want to see horseracing grow.

wow just think if they actually suspended O’Neill and he decided not to run his horses under another name-ah anyway when Cal Racing cannot afford to advertise I might send Mr. Paulick a money order so his numbers don’t drop! How about Lost Al and Garbage Gate? I agree, wipe the slate clean and start over California, if possible.

Oops sorry see the two lines abt it now.

Mark it down-Zenyatta the last great California racehorse ever.

Hey Ray –

Your (bewildering) bias is showing.

“Happy talk”? “Negative buzz”? Apparently the fact that serious bettors express their preferences with their wagering dollars didn’t warrant a mention. And it’s too bad that the rubes were encouraged to boycott SA, otherwise everything would be peachy.

That’s not to say that there aren’t other contributing factors, but one has to read all the way down to your final paragraph to find any mention of what is likely to be the primary explanation for the disparity in handle. Why would that be?

Even the title of your piece reveals your apparent lack of appreciation of the importance of pricing. Is it really “negative” for those who run CA racing and Santa Anita to receive a clear message from their customers? In fact, it can and should be a positive development, providing, of course, that they make the obvious and appropriate changes.

Symptoms of a disease are not intrinsically negative. Ignore them, however, at your peril.

I think the message is clear. California regulators and racing managers are on a suicide track… the only question is …when will they start listening to the customers and please them rather than treating them like they are their victims?

Roger Way

Tinky and friends -

You willing to make the same clarion call to the folks at NYRA whose takeout is larger than California’s after the increase?

I’d be interested in helping the sport in its most important jurisdictions, and would ignore any call to boycott particularly based on petty irrational personal squabbles evidenced by an owner who now wants to damage the sport in its home state. CA has embarked on the fools gold of higher purses, and caved to the purse whining trainers and owners. It will be a good experiment, bound, imho, to fail as it did in Monmouth. The answer for our struggling tracks is to get purses in line with costs, and wish those trainer/owner whiners a swift goodbye to be replaced in an instant by a much stronger, well intentioned breed of horse person. With realistic, sustainable purses, we’d hope the tracks could find a way to survive.

Tinky,

Could I just make one small suggestion?

http://www.tinkyreport.com You can write whatever you want to.

As for me, I like to present the facts that are available, and I think today’s comparison between Santa Anita and Tampa Bay is a comprehensive presentation of facts that shows two tracks heading in different directions.

Andrew no comment on the obvious? 7 days, 6 vanned off, 1 broke down, 1 eased. None in the categories last year.

Your getting what you wished for? We can now compare the synthetic numbers with the new ‘natural’, ‘traditional’, ‘new base’ dirt surface.

Phar Lap, I was wondering the same thing when I read that alarming stat about injuries on this brand new track. The problem with so many gamblers and I am not saying Andrew is one of these, but a lot of them don’t care about the horses. Its obvious they only care about the action, the takeout and how they can reduce there own losses. Some of them would bet on cockroach races if they thought they could win.

Spent Saturday afternoon at Tampa. Large fields, competitive racing, great family atmosphere and friendly staff. What’s not to like? The little racetrack that could is now outrunning the so-called big boys. No surprise there.

I see, Ray. Your response to specific criticism is to tell the critic to shove off, and start his/her own site.

The fact is that your article is conflated to begin with. The break-down issue, while important, has nothing whatsoever to do with the early betting trend-lines at the two tracks in question, and should have been posted separately.

The issue of pricing has never been as prominent as it is today, nor as important to tracks struggling to retain or grow their piece of the diminishing pie. And yet it was barely worth a mention in your piece.

An analysis of handle and discussion of the role that price-sensitive gamblers play would have been much more to the point.

I would hesitate to generalize on that, California Breeder and Phar Lap. On a different but related point, at least one organization representing horse players – HANA – seems intent on educating its members about medication overages and violations, seeking advice from DVMs on optimal medication policies, and also publishes information about the transparency of veterinary records in international jurisdictions. Maybe rather than characterizing division, opportunities for coordination of interests are possible. Ensuring a level playing field and transparency for gamblers in the form of uniform, well enforced medication rules and transparency of vet records is absolutely consistent with welfare improvements for horses and the possibility of lower breakdown rates.

Knight Sky,

Look, you are trying to have it both ways and I’m calling your BS. The synthetic critics said the number of breakdowns/fatalities DECREASED because pre-race inspections got tighter. Now, that dirt tracks have returns and all that comes with them (sealing them when it rains, etc.)you are insinuating the INCREASE IN racing injuries is due not to the track but because of a non-existent change in policy by veterinarians to suddenly let lame horses run.

Entry boxes in California have been held open for days, even overnight, during the last couple of years. There is a serious shortage of owners (not horses). That shortage is not going away overnight, and probably not going away in a fortnight–purse increases or not.

I hope the weather stabilizes so the track can be made as safe as possible.

ITP. Would say NYRA’s 26% takeout gives you a fair chance to prosper?

Mr. Paulick…

I’m simply questioning the “possibility” that the pre-race examinations aren’t as stringent.
It’s only fair that not dismiss that possibility readily.

Secondly, little mention has been made that the class levels (specifically claiming tags at the bottom rungs) have been lowered for this meet. This invites racing from more infirm horses – if not from the local barns, then those who are stabled elsewhere in the state.

When I first started following Cal-racing the bottom rung were $14,000 -$12,000 for older claimers. Today they’ve opened the condition book to $8,000 to $7,000 claimers which have long been part of the NorCal program.

Today Golden Gate Fields has a plethora of $4,000 non-winners of 1 races in the last month (or similar). Occasionally we’ll even see a $3,200 claiming race when it used to be $5,000 “bottom of the barrel”.

If anyone is still optimistic that there will be a growth in ownership after a “fortnight”, a better long-term plan should have been implemented than to bite the hands that feed thee. An equitable plan that works for the customers and for the owners.

California Breeder you may be good at breeding and raising horses, but you are completely clueless when is comes to how bettors think. Most(not all) bettors know that they are paying for entertainment and only want to pay a fair price for said entertainment. With the economy being what it is, everyone in all walks of life is seeking value whether it be at the grocery store, when buying a new car, or when doling out their entertainment dollars. The California racing product quality is in decline and the cost is going up–tell me what business can sustain that model for very long? Oh, yeah I guess the old General Motors would be a good example! I bet horses and nothing else. However, when someone makes a bet on a football game with a bookmaker the take out on winning bets is ZERO and the take out on losing bets is 10%. Near as I can tell that has been their business model since day one and I have yet to meet a poor bookmaker. Owners, breeders, trainers, and track management are all represented at the bargaining tables when decisions that affect the sport are made. The only other group that contributes to the success of the sport, the bettors, has no representation. No wonder that they always end up on the short end of the stick.

Do you really need any more evidence NOT to wager on California racetracks? Smart people are boycotting. The wagering public is sick and tired of the abuse and, is not going to take it any more. There are lots of other venues and options besides California. Join the wave, and send the right message.

I still can’t bet SA with my Parx ADW acct. I’d be glad to help the cause if they only let me !

“But I’m afraid it’s of no use, some people will refuse to even listen no matter how many studies, statistics or reports get shown to them. They live in their own world of anecdotal evidence and hearsay which passes as the truth for them. ”

I agree. California just removed one of the safest track in America that has two breakdowns last meet and put in a dirt track that had seven van offs the first week.

Sadler was on the Steve Byk show this morning speaking about how great the track performed and he heard only one horse pulled up bad all week. Another industry leader in the industry making decisions without looking at all the data. Perhaps John will look at all the data next time before going on the radio show. And here we are….

Why is this thread about the surfaces?

It should be about failed leadership at the CHRB. It should be about why there is a significant drop in daily average handle at Santa Anita.

Rick Hulce wrote:

>> Many huge California bettors have tapped out.
____________________

Perhaps they’re on a “self-imposed” boycott. At this time there has been no formal period of boycott of California races announced.

The takeout rate increases have only plundered but two race cards. When “the churn” takes effect expect precipitous drops in handle by mid-April – which will surely happen if the takeout increases are not recinded.

Smart business people would wave a white flag. Stubbornness won’t cut the losses.

Phar Lap said..
ITP. Would say NYRA’s 26% takeout gives you a fair chance to prosper?

I don’t bet NYRA because of the HIGH takeout.Be a smart consumer it pays off.

Don’t play the high takeouts.It will do you and the Industry well.

This entire discussion, including the handle data, is way premature due to one obvious factor, namely the ridiculous weather we’ve had in Socal this year. Let’s give this another month and hopefully we can all draw some MEANINGFUL conclusions.

Average Daily Wagering Improves at Hawthorne | BloodHorse.com

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/60569/average-daily-wagering-improves-at-hawthorne

Excerpt:

Hawthorne reported average daily handle increased 7.8% to $2,768,612 during the 49-day meet, compared with $2,567,856 during the 61-day stand in 2009. Onsite handle declined, with a daily average of $107,114 compared with $110,612 in 2009.

Hawthorne averaged 9.8 starters per race compared with 8.6 starters/race in 2009 when the meet was negatively impacted by inclement weather. Unlike 2009, when many turf races were moved to the main track due to rain, no grass races were moved this year.

I’m not ignoring science, i’m just saying that Santa Anita is calling their track ‘dirt’ when its more closely resembles cement. My point was to not lump these injuries as ‘dirt’ injuries, this isn’t the same dirt that you see at Mountaineer, Fair Grounds, etc.

And thanks for the real man of genius award, i appreciate it.

…. what will you say if it turns out the previous synthetic track was indeed safer?
______________________________

A: All signs point to the fragile California thoroughbred as the culprit.

For now we should be thankful that real main track racing is being offered in California. The kind of racing Spectacular Bid, Alysheba, Judge Angelucci excelled at.

Do we really need another surface that puts on a pedestal thoroughbreds who run hard only the last 3/8th of a mile?

If you put the typical California racer on the track at a safe Saratoga or Oaklawn Park their physical woes do not suddenly become less of a liability.

Phar Lap I’m all for letting the truth be known however it shakes out. The Pro Ride didn’t start off too well but finished basically safe but the problems with the drainage system were too bad. When a there is heavy traffic over the surface each day and heavy machinery working the surface many times a day the drainage system can be crushed or wrecked in spots and that’s what happended at both Santa Anita and Hollywood Park (one of their last days had to be cancelled)

We’ll have the data in a few years. Once we do then everyone can evaluate it.

Andrew, no surface is weather proof. The same day Hollywood canceled, Santa Anita canceled training as well. The major fault of the synthetics is that they said they were all-weather when in reality the only thing they should have promised is reduced breakdowns compared to dirt.

Do we really need a surface where more than one horse a day gets hauled off in the cart on average?

Do we really need a surface where if your horse breaks slow, rip up your tickets because the dirt is so speed favoring showing the “brillance” of a horse. It another 30 days training bill for that owner before he gets a chance to make his training bill back since the race was lost at the gate.

Do we really need the track on Saturday and Sunday where the winning post positions dirt where 4-2-1-1-2-5-2-2-1-3-1-5-5. Over 60% of the races were won from post 1 and 2. No wonder betting is down, why bet? The race was won in the post position draw.

Santa Anita opens with record 14 inches of rain first week. If they have last years track they can’t open. Weather back East killed Santa Anita plus TVG not showing Santa Anita hurts.

Not surprised Tampa Bay doing so good. It’s a good track to handicap. Kudos to track management which has developed an improving product over the last several years.

“Off-shore accounts with big rebates that cater strictly to whales and high-rollers along with tapped-out So. Cal regulars are a huge reason for the decline.”

That would only make sense if off-shore books were a new phenomena, and if all tracks were showing steep declines like SA is. Neither is true.

The Ca handle needs to go to zero and CHRB need to be fired.

Let the horsemen worry about the surface.

Yes, I would bet on a cockroach race – if it was a handicap.

SA was one of my favorite tracks, but, we are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

BOYCOTT all high takeouts, NYRA 26% trifecta = BOYCOTT.

I’ve said it before…Tampa Bay has full(er) fields, a safe track and GREAT people running the show.

From my seat Cali is a mess. First this surface, then the next, then the next. They are all different! Small fields.
I want full fields and Cali hasn’t had those in awhile. I don’y play NYRA either, I think those crooks are just as bad as Cali.

We can poke holes in almost every track. As a group bettors could NEVER come to an agreement! That is why we play!

I seek value! I don’t see any in Cali racing at this time. Should that change I would go back.

All the garbage about takeout is inflated at best…If you had the winner you wouldn’t care!

I am not even close to a whale and can’t use any other ADW device other that the State run 4NJBETS. No rebates or any bs give back, but if I go off-shore even I can get 5% back.

You bet Santa Anita, assuming you know what you’re doing, as opposed to Tampa, and any other east coast track because there is a semblance of consistent training at Santa Anita that makes handicapping there significantly more predictable than east of there. i.e. you make more $$$ gambling at Santa Anita regardless of takeout, if u know what you’re doing.

So far 60% of the races were won from post 1 and 2 and 6 have been vanned off, 1 broke down, 1 eased.

Why would anyone bet this?

Gotta love that new ‘natural’, ‘organic’, ‘traditional’, ‘new base’, ‘what secretariat, spectacular bid and seabiscuit ran on’ dirt surface!

Ratherrapid wrote:

…semblance of consistent training at Santa Anita that makes handicapping there significantly more predictable than east of there.
__________________________

The game of horse racing isn’t about “predictability” as much as it is about the handicapper’s ability to forecast “change”.

The ability to spot and bet a Blame – coming off a defeat in the Jockey Club Gold Cup – has more wager value than continuity (Zenyatta).

In American horse racing we’ve failed miserably to teach the fans the basics of money management, handicapping skill, discipline at the betting windows.

Those who have learned it have done it the hard way through their own individual efforts. They’re the backbone of the industry – and they’re under attack with every percentage point of a takeout increase.

Conversely, every decrease in takeout invites the fledgling bettors to cross over to profitability. The horse racing industry is not cultivating these newer bettors as fast as they should be.

Knight Sky, failing in understanding the relation of predictability to forecasting is fairly damming to you points. need it be spelled out further? the more predictable a race, the easier it is to handicap. predictability comes from understanding the training and conditioning of the field. if you’re betting at a track where training is inconsistent or non-existent (most of them) race outcome is less predictable and less forecastable. thus, you’re betting Santa Anita, if you have a brain. end of story.

Rather Rapid, you’ve described a situation that is worse than horrible if you want to make a profit.
A coin toss with a fair coin is a predictable situation. If you are getting even money on it, over time you will most likely break even, with little chance of making money. But if you add a takeout to it, you are guaranteed to lose money. That is what you are describing with Santa Anita, an equal playing field, with a 21% blended takeout.
If that is the case over time, handle will dry up very quickly. It will make last week look like the glory days.

Sidney wrote:

>>Santa Anita opens with record 14 inches of rain first week. If they have last years track they can’t open. Weather back East killed Santa Anita plus TVG not showing Santa Anita hurts.>>

Absolutely the weather also hampered Santa Anita a lot, especially on track, and you’re right that Santa Anita would have canceled if they had last year’s track (for whatever reason, the drainage at Santa Anita would not handle a synthetic surface). I suspect the lack of SA on TVG (where Tampa Bay Downs was shown) also was a likely factor, especially since Tampa, like Santa Anita had to have seen its wagering dollars from east coast bettors cut considerably due to the fact the snowstorm paralyzed much of the east coast to the point where some could not even get out of their own homes for days just to get essentials. Even without that, the lack of NYC Off-Track Betting would have been hurting Santa Anita anyway because many who used to go there are likely not the kind to have internet access or would want to open up a phone/internet account.

I will say that I have been doing well at Tampa, and if some of those tris paid more because of lower takeout, great. But racing in Tampa is a much lower overhead deal for those who put on the show, and so in the same way that a NY Strip costs me more in a restaurant in La Jolla than Clearwater, I think tracks have differing needs as far as takeout, lower isnt always better. Further, if I wasnt winning at Tampa, I wouldnt play it, regardless of take. But they give me great views of the horses, and I dont use a form and play based on what I see alone there, so there TV team deserves credit for my play.

To RonS:

#75 about 10 hours ago by Ron S Andrew A,
In Dec 25th, issue of Blood Horse there is a statistical anaylsis compiled by the Equine Injury Database. It claims there were 2.14 catastrophic breakdowns per 1000 starts on dirt, compared to 1.55 catastrophic breakdowns per 1000 starts on synthetics. These numbers were taken from 11-1-2008 to 10-31-2010.
——————————————

Ron, please tell me how many of the dirt surfaces that were used in the study had completely new surfaces with new bases? All of the synthetic surfaces had new bases with fairly new synthetic material on them.

How many of the original claims made by the synthetic advocates in the synthetic infomercial turned out to be true?

No Biases? LOL

No/Less Mainentance? Double LOL

I could go on and on.
———————————————-

http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/02132010-as-dirt-track-looms-santa-anita-synthetics-issue-rages-on/

Excerpt:

“Thanks for your comments. Horsemen have been unable to reconcile their experiences on the synthetic surfaces with Dr. Arthur’s conclusions. As you know Dr. Arthur has refused to provide the raw data underlying his conclusionary reports. As evidence of Dr. Arthur’s incompetence or misfeasance, I direct your attention to his summary found on page 36 of the CHRB Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2007-2008 (http://chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2008_annual_reports.pdf).

In Table I, Fatalities by Track & Surface, Dr. Arthur adds fatality figures from Los Alamitos (including Quarter Horse Racing) to establish his conclusion that synthetics are safer than dirt. Please note that 50 of the 77 fatalities reported on dirt are from Los Alamitos. Absent the inclusion of the Los Alamitos fatalities, the report would show 27 fatalities on dirt vs. 43 fatalities on synthetics.
——————————————–

I really don’t know what it is about some of you guys. California is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the nation and you want them to take out the new dirt surface and put the Pro Ride back in. That’ll help. LOL

The thread is about Wrong Way Corrigan (California Racing) and Tampa Bay. It’s not about synthetic surfaces.

Only one percent of all bettors care about takeout.

This above sentence was uttered, i believe, by a ‘suit’ in California.

Lets see if this turns out to be true.