Different Aspects to Programming

[aussiebreno]

The other thing I think needs exploring is the reasoning behind all these suggested changes.
Is it still about reducing the number of Odds On favourites because they hurt turnover?
I am not convinced that they do - which pools the money goes into are definitely affected (eg First Four instead of Win) but I am not convinced the total is.
We have to have a sound premise behind any change

Here here Kev.
Anything aimed at levelling the horses up just keeps horses capable of becoming C3-C6 horses racing in C0-C2 horses longer. These more capable horses will be shorter odds more often because tue evening up keeps them in the lower grade longer. Just let them win their races asap and we get in form horses in C3-C6 and then ln the C0-C2 are even because only the same capability horses are racing in them.

[arlington]

The other thing I think needs exploring is the reasoning behind all these suggested changes.
Is it still about reducing the number of Odds On favourites because they hurt turnover?
I am not convinced that they do - which pools the money goes into are definitely affected (eg First Four instead of Win) but I am not convinced the total is.
We have to have a sound premise behind any change

"We have to have a sound premise behind any change". From listening to David Martin thus far, I'm pretty sure he's aware of cause and effect.

What are all the other changes Kev? The link to David Martin's interview was in the announcement group 2 & 3 Cups to be changed to PBD. Your analysis differs from the listed 24.7% decrease in wagering for this seasons Shepparton Cup?

I don't think the thought of using average times was solely based on reducing odds on favourites. Just as much about participation rates hence maximising field sizes which has been proven to increase turnover. Somewhere in the interview David mentioned, from memory, something along the lines of $1.90 favourites not being too bad. Still odds on.

Reading over this I realise I'm sounding like a David Martin disciple purely by referring to an interview but might it take a Lazarus event to save harness racing??

Whilst there is a shift in the way people bet with odds on faves we need to increase turnover not just accept the redistributed total pools we have now. You don't believe the total pools in the Kilmore and Shepparton Cups would have been bigger if the two winners weren't so short?

As much as the hardened, existing, punter might look at exotic bets in these races I'm not sure if the punt is as glorious as backing a winner. And in the case of enticing new punters an easy bet type, a win, is the thing.
It's the showcase races like the Kilmore Cup, I draw on your wish harness racing owned a day like the Melbourne Cup. I realise the win pool consists of once a year, favourite names, just have to have a bet on the Cup bets but if there wasn't a win type bet, how would the pool be effected? Absurd I know but the point being a newbie backing a winner may lead to a new follower.
A personal example. If you're with mates who aren't experienced punters, you're betting, they're half interested. "I've got the first four going". "huh wha?" A more interested response if "I've backed 5 to win. And if it gets up they're not that interested in following you if it's paid $1.40. Another example, this years Shepp Cup. Friends outside harness racing are heading out to the cup and after a few tips. They're after winners, don't know anything about exotics...maybe a quinella, exacta nah. You know they're after value, a price but you give them Hector just to ensure you give them a winner. Catch up with them on the night, "how's it going"? They've cottoned on a bit, nah we didn't back that Hector thing you tipped". It was too short, so no bet on the cup, they've only had win bets all night, not even each way. Much more memorable if they've had a bet on the cup and if lucky enough, maybe doubled their outlay...even money woo hoo.

In the case of average times, I wouldn't think it would be across the board and not a coincidence David brought it up whilst taking about the supplementary races. I would think average times might be trialled in lower class, possibly restricted class which would not slow down the better type of horse progressing through it's classes. Other than the drop back rule, what keeps the C3/C6 horse earning if that horse has reached it's mark?
We're looking at a million dollar loss this year and the outlook for next year, I hate to think about it. The start of this season and the small field sizes, what could possibly be trialled to entice any horse to be nominated...let alone the C0's that need to go 56 at Bendigo to fill a field?

[arlington]

Can't remember his name, but he was the owner or part owner of Grinfromeartoear and when he was out in Aus promoting the stallion he did an interview on In The Gig.

The subject of times came up and he said that times were really irrelevant as even moderate horses in the US could run 1:50 at the time. He said that when discussing horses, the only criteria he used was how much it had won and who it had beaten.

So true.

Going further back before access to video replays/the internet you had to be mindful of imported stallions who got their time by being towed along behind the speed and poking through only that once.

In the case of the thoroughbreds, bearing in mind Hartnell would need to perform as he has if he was an entire, don't know how quick he's run but the ways he's tried to beat Winx, I'd send a mare to him.

[aussiebreno]

In the case of average times, I wouldn't think it would be across the board and not a coincidence David brought it up whilst taking about the supplementary races. I would think average times might be trialled in lower class, possibly restricted class which would not slow down the better type of horse progressing through it's classes. Other than the drop back rule, what keeps the C3/C6 horse earning if that horse has reached it's mark?
We're looking at a million dollar loss this year and the outlook for next year, I hate to think about it. The start of this season and the small field sizes, what could possibly be trialled to entice any horse to be nominated...let alone the C0's that need to go 56 at Bendigo to fill a field?[/QUOTE]









On my phone and just screwed up the quote function.
Just putting thoughts out there. If horses do reach their mark quicker doesn't this mean they've earned their prizemoney earning potential quicker...a better return for the owner. The owner is then able to buy a new horse in shorter timeframe and help the breeding industry along.

[Messenger]

"We have to have a sound premise behind any change".
............ in the case of enticing new punters an easy bet type, a win, is the thing.
It's the showcase races like the Kilmore Cup, I draw on your wish harness racing owned a day like the Melbourne Cup. I realise the win pool consists of once a year, favourite names, just have to have a bet on the Cup bets but if there wasn't a win type bet, how would the pool be effected? Absurd I know but the point being a newbie backing a winner may lead to a new follower.
A personal example. If you're with mates who aren't experienced punters, you're betting, they're half interested. "I've got the first four going". "huh wha?" A more interested response if "I've backed 5 to win. And if it gets up they're not that interested in following you if it's paid $1.40. Another example, this years Shepp Cup. Friends outside harness racing are heading out to the cup and after a few tips. They're after winners, don't know anything about exotics...maybe a quinella, exacta nah. You know they're after value, a price but you give them Hector just to ensure you give them a winner. Catch up with them on the night, "how's it going"? They've cottoned on a bit, nah we didn't back that Hector thing you tipped". It was too short, so no bet on the cup, they've only had win bets all night, not even each way. Much more memorable if they've had a bet on the cup and if lucky enough, maybe doubled their outlay...even money woo hoo.

Brilliant analysis Wayne - you have totally convinced me. You are so right - it has to be about attracting new punters. Thanks

[trish]

Brilliant analysis Wayne - you have totally convinced me. You are so right - it has to be about attracting new punters. Thanks

Mark went into the TAB a week or so ago & had to ask where the fields were for the harness meeting that day!!!!!! Answer ,oh I haven't put them up yet, the first was in 3mins.

[Fan of Jate]

I cant see the link between average times over last 10 starts meaning increasing size of fields, more competitive fields and then that may drag in new punters or increase the current punters bet on a race. This then may increase the racing life of c3/c6 horses or horses who have reached their mark.


1. Trainers will work out very quickly how get around the average times and it will be a complete rort, also I think it would be too confusing- and a short term solution at its very best. It’s called tinkering.


2. It may mean competitive fields for a while, but how long will that last?-see point 1. The dropback rule gets maneuvered quite a bit as well and not used as it was intended for. HRV have had the PBD in place for 10 years and an analysis has indicated this has reduced very short priced favourites and turnover has increased


3. The game is over for attracting lots of new punters with serious money to bet on harness racing - GAME OVER


4. Check out how many race programmes there are for c5/c9 and c10/c15 horses- a lot of horses sit in this class and still tick over money- just doing the circuit. Some of these horses have won 16-17 races…yeah rite….We all know this happens, if a horse has raced for 5 years, had 50- 60 starts or more and won $60k it has done its job hasn't it? It is up to you the owner if you want to keep it racing but I don't believe a special class should be created for this type of horse who is still an MO. An average horse can still get to MO if everything falls in its favour but then that is it. You are the owner and you need to be able to deal with a horse that is no longer competitive in its class. This leads us into the HERO program.


5. Not sure about the supplementary races either- a poster did ask if they are being used. The rules seem clear but they have left the ends open. It was supposed to be a one month trial so I guess it is over.

[Messenger]

I agree with your thoughts on average times Pat, because of all the anomalies there is no way that it will be clear cut enough (we want a sport easily explained)
I cannot think of any form of racing that uses it, Pro Athletics would come close but it is a sport run on uniform tracks and distances where draw has little bearing and everyone has the opportunity for a clear run

[arlington]

5. Not sure about the supplementary races either- a poster did ask if they are being used. The rules seem clear but they have left the ends open. It was supposed to be a one month trial so I guess it is over.

Can't see where the question was asked but if you listen to the interview central to this thread you'll find out Pat. https://audioboom.com/posts/5828560-...-trots-program
However, this question was posed Not sure how or if the gallopers take different tracks as well as track ratings on the day in their weight/ratings assessment. You have a foot in each camp Kev? Pretty sure times and margins are used, so, does a performance on the Sandown Hillside track rate the same as Flemington? What about Moonee Valley with short straight compared to Flemington?

Who are the "we(s)" you refer to in post #18 Kev? Do you take notice of every gear change? In the case of Supp races, I'm pretty sure once the race is framed no explanation is included on race day as to how the field was put together or if that race is identified as a supplementary race. Let's just assume not every punter is a pro, the betting has been good on those races...that's if you're looking at it from a punter or turnover perspective (one of the we people). As for the we participants, field sizes have been good.

HRA called for submissions, Ratings Based Handicapping System, what did everyone submit?
As Breno said, just putting thoughts out there. Doesn't have to be an average of last ten starts, doesn't have to be an average at all and, once again, doesn't have to be across the board i.e. every race.

[Messenger]

Yeah, time would have to come into the gallops ratings assessment but it would only be one of many factors so I guess that makes it complicated however to the punter it isn't as the authorities spit it out as simply Class 58, Class 70 etc.
Is this what harness would do for the average times?

The "we" would be you and me - we want it simple for the new punters