Letter to the Editor | Horse Racing Free Tips

Letter to the Editor: Paul Berube

Bill Finley's report (Week In Review) in the Feb. 9 edition of TDN on NYRA's action to restrict wagering on its Pick 5 and Pick 6 wagers by computer-assisted wagering (CAW) players caught my attention, as does any article written on this form of wagering, which I call computer robotic wagering or bots for short.

My experience with the bots and their very smart and well- capitalized owner managers goes back 20 years or so. Then, as now, my opinion on wagering by the bots is that over the long haul, it is destructive to the pari-mutuel business. Bill makes the good points that the bots are pumping millions upon millions into race track pools and that this handle is coveted by tracks. Left unsaid, however, is the very real fact that wagering done via bots is totally reactive to pool money wagered by all other players, whether you call them normal, regulars, casual fans, squares or dumb money.

When the mathematical formulas used by the bots see an imbalance or value in the pools made by other players, this is when the bots craft and place bets to capture the perceived value. Naturally, the most effective time for these types of wagers to be made is as late as possible before pools close and this is why, on a daily basis, straight wagering odds and probable payoffs frequently drop sharply in the last wagering cycle. It cannot be overstated that the daily action of the bots is totally dependent on the other money coming from all other players. If these players wager less for whatever reason, the bots will also reduce proportionately . The life blood of the bots is other peoples' money and the only growth in bots wagering comes from this money.

Earlier I labeled bots wagering as destructive to pari-mutuel wagering. When the bots win their wagers, the normal or regular players experience reduced payoffs which over time means less money in their pockets and less money to churn. When bots win, that normal churn factor is lost, because again, the bots only wager in proportion to the “other” money in the pools. When they hit in the big Pick 5/6 pools, their winnings or profits likely go into lifestyle purchases or other investments and thus lost for good insofar as pari-mutuel betting.

In the short term, the liquidity provided by bots wagering is enticing to race tracks, but in the long term–and racing today is squarely in the long term–the smaller payouts to other bettors, the tremendous money shift or negative settlements from host tracks and off-track wagering venues to the locations that host the bots means that an untold amount of churn has been and continues to be lost. I would offer that this is a major reason why annual pari-mutuel handle totals in the U.S. have not seen any real growth over these many years.

Finley also referred to the payment of rebates to the computer teams or players. The de facto increase in takeout to all other bettors and inherent unfairness to them is a whole other story that is worthy of further analysis.

So where does racing as a whole go from here? For sure it was easier to accept bots wagering into our pools than it will ever be to effectively control or eliminate it. But at some point in the future, racing operators will be forced to confront this reality. For racing to expend effort to create new fans and bettors is indeed a worthy venture especially for the bots who always need fresh money in their business model.

Paul W. Berube, Retired President , Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau

The post Letter to the Editor: Paul Berube appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Bentley Combs

Over the last few days an idea has been floated to replace the current American claiming system with that of a rating system. With a list of concerns and questions in my head, two things jump out immediately as being stifled by a rating system: Ease of access to horses and the possibility of growth for both potential new owners and smaller trainers. In my opinion these are two things American racing does better than anywhere in the world. Why do we want to change this to be more like other countries?

Love it or hate it, the claiming game is the closest thing to instant gratification we as an industry can offer in the arena of ownership. There are rules to this game just like any other. There are jail rules, void rules, waiver rules all of which are in place to protect the buyer, the seller, and the horse.

For those only familiar with the stakes and allowance portions of your condition books, let’s break down how a claim is made. Person calls a trainer, puts money in a horsemen’s account, picks out a horse, drops a slip, and now that person owns a new horse. It is a very egalitarian system. The seller knew the deal when they entered the horse for the tag and the buyer knew the deal when they dropped the slip. Both have agreed upon the value of the horse.

A horse breaks its maiden in a maiden special weight. Now the horse enters allowance company only to find that the horse can only consistently beat the water truck across the line. Doing this repeatedly so the horse won’t be “devalued” by entering the claiming ranks is an example of a sunk cost fallacy.

What was paid for the horse or what the horse cost in stud fees, board bills and training does not equal the horse’s skill or worth. If this were true, The Green Monkey would have won the Triple Crown and a horse that was bought for $40,000 should’ve never won the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Fillies last year. Sales price and cost does not denote talent. The claiming system allows owners to sell a horse quickly and possibly reinvest that money almost immediately. In contrast, a rating system would seem to slow down sales or possibly prevent them, along with additional costs to the owner if they go through the auction process.

This notion of “devaluing” also does not consider the possibility of the horse getting claimed and going on to win stakes; some trainers have made a name for themselves doing just that.

Let’s look at the trainer angle. Smaller trainers must have access to horses to grow and get noticed by other owners. The claiming system is the quickest way for these smaller trainers to grow and showcase their horsemanship abilities. Auctions have been mentioned as a way within this rating system idea to disperse stock to smaller barns. Take a poll and see how many of the 81 horses sold in July at Fasig went to a barn with 15 horses or less, my guess would be not many, if any.

A total of 9,885 trainers made a start in 2000; that number declined to 4,959 in 2019. This roughly 49% drop can be attributed to a number of things, including the rise of “mega trainers” and a focus of owners on the almighty win percentage. Limiting the growth of smaller trainers or new trainers who do not have huge backing in the first place, as a rating system would do, would only further this drop over the next 20 years.

There are other concerns. Such as does anyone think state legislatures are going to look favorably on racing after racing eliminates their tax revenue from claimed horses? Ask Oaklawn Park, the state of Arkansas and the city of Hot Springs how much money was made from taxes during the meet strictly through the claim box. Also, who would be doing the rating and how would it translate from track to track? In a claiming system the owner and trainer do the rating as to whether their horse who won for $10,000 at one track could win for $10,000 at a different track. Handcuffing owners and trainers in a subjective rating system, plus limiting the ease of access to horses for potential new owners, plus the further shrinking of an already rapidly shrinking trainer pool, is the start to a bad algebraic equation for American horse racing.

Kentucky-based Bentley Combs began training horses in late 2017 after serving as assistant trainer to Dallas Stewart. The Lexington native graduated from the University of Louisville’s Equine Industry Program in the College of Business and received an MBA from the University of Mississippi.

The post Letter to the Editor: Bentley Combs appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Ellen Parker

In “Art Collector Puts Sire Back in the Frame” (TDN 7/16/2020) Chris McGrath comments that “Whatever the reason, I am convinced that compounded, proven distaff influences represent a far better foundation for a pedigree than the supposed alchemies flimsily peddled between given sire-lines.”

I couldn’t agree more, which is why I created the Reine de Course (Queens of the Turf) series of influential mares and have been updating it for the past 40 years.

As Bull Hancock famously said, “the family is stronger than the individual.”

At the end of the day a good broodmare sire is, simply, a stallion bred to mares of good family. Trying to make it more complicated is a waste of time.

Ellen Parker, Paris Kentucky

The post Letter to the Editor: Ellen Parker appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post