Different Aspects to Programming

[arlington]

Interesting to hear HRV CEO David Martin's comments on the radio earlier this week. Whilst he stated he's still getting his head around race programming, which is fair enough, he did say he was interested in looking into some programming based on a horse's average times. The example given was for it's last ten starts. For a long time HARNESSWEB has listed averages for the last 10, 6, 5, 4, 3.

If someone wants to bring up the breeding mediocrity argument...good on them, but we're struggling for numbers to keep the sport going and we need to support the HERO programme to the hilt.
You can't guarantee going to Bettors gives you a champ, the broodmare gem is truly a gem.
Understandably, especially(?) considering the intended whip ban, there is a line of thought drivers won't drive their horses out to get a slower average time.
My thoughts:
The "not trying" rule is heavily policed by stewards,
Interesting David mention 10 starts not 6, 5...Without doing the maths you'd need to carry an anchor in 3 or more starts to seriously effect your average. And the liklihood would be those starts being the last 4 or 5 starts, so it would be fairly obvious(?). You need to take into account, even if you have a horse that is performing poorly it will likely be sucked along in a quick time or two so you might need to go in reverse to significantly slow your average down.
And query improved performance might be looked at more closely.

I posted in another thread, a while back, asking about Albury as an example of races programmed on times in the past. Anyone with experience there?

[aussiebreno]

Interesting to hear HRV CEO David Martin's comments on the radio earlier this week. Whilst he stated he's still getting his head around race programming, which is fair enough, he did say he was interested in looking into some programming based on a horse's average times. The example given was for it's last ten starts. For a long time HARNESSWEB has listed averages for the last 10, 6, 5, 4, 3.

If someone wants to bring up the breeding mediocrity argument...good on them, but we're struggling for numbers to keep the sport going and we need to support the HERO programme to the hilt.
You can't guarantee going to Bettors gives you a champ, the broodmare gem is truly a gem.
Understandably, especially(?) considering the intended whip ban, there is a line of thought drivers won't drive their horses out to get a slower average time.
My thoughts:
The "not trying" rule is heavily policed by stewards,
Interesting David mention 10 starts not 6, 5...Without doing the maths you'd need to carry an anchor in 3 or more starts to seriously effect your average. And the liklihood would be those starts being the last 4 or 5 starts, so it would be fairly obvious(?). You need to take into account, even if you have a horse that is performing poorly it will likely be sucked along in a quick time or two so you might need to go in reverse to significantly slow your average down.
And query improved performance might be looked at more closely.

I posted in another thread, a while back, asking about Albury as an example of races programmed on times in the past. Anyone with experience there?[/QUOTE]
Border hop from Riverina 800m tracks averaging 2.02 to take on those racing 1000m tracks averaging 2.00. Race at Penrith and Bankstown and then head to Menangle.

[arlington]

Border hop from Riverina 800m tracks averaging 2.02 to take on those racing 1000m tracks averaging 2.00. Race at Penrith and Bankstown and then head to Menangle.

I'm a bit slow on the uptake Breno. Are you talking about like for like, apples with apples? In the radio interview consideration was given to somehow factoring in 800 metre circuits averaging slower times. I might be looking at it too simply (no comment Kev lol)....if I've interpreted your post correctly, wouldn't people cotton on you could work the system...you'd end up with like for like slower horses at Menangle? Or are you looking at a possible PBD advantage?
Could average times, with a circuit size factor incorporated, be used in the PBD system?
What factor do you use Breno for the border hoppers? Around 3 seconds?

[arlington]

The Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) Board has announced all Group 2 and 3 Victorian country pacing cup races will be run as preferential barrier draw (PBD) events in season 2017-18.
http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=33330

Also includes this link to David Martin's interview referred to in post #89
https://audioboom.com/posts/5828560-gait-speed-trots-program If you have a spare half hour, some interesting listening on a range of topics.

In regards to programming on average times there's a bit about the Vic supplementary races (starts around the 20:20 mark of the interview). Pretty sure times aren't in the criteria for field selection and barrier draws, in supp races, but it could be a start using the supp races or are they being used?

[aussiebreno]

I'm a bit slow on the uptake Breno. Are you talking about like for like, apples with apples? In the radio interview consideration was given to somehow factoring in 800 metre circuits averaging slower times. I might be looking at it too simply (no comment Kev lol)....if I've interpreted your post correctly, wouldn't people cotton on you could work the system...you'd end up with like for like slower horses at Menangle? Or are you looking at a possible PBD advantage?
Could average times, with a circuit size factor incorporated, be used in the PBD system?
What factor do you use Breno for the border hoppers? Around 3 seconds?

I didn't hear the radio segment re factoring in circuits but it will never be equitable given same sized tracks play differently and the same track plays different on different days. Good idea in theory to even things up has flaws that will result in inequalities.

Around 3 seconds is pretty close to the mark for most tracks.

[arlington]

I didn't hear the radio segment re factoring in circuits but it will never be equitable given same sized tracks play differently and the same track plays different on different days. Good idea in theory to even things up has flaws that will result in inequalities.

Around 3 seconds is pretty close to the mark for most tracks.

And, of course, you'd have to rule out a slower time due to interference. Not sure how or if the gallopers take different tracks as well as track ratings on the day in their weight/ratings assessment.

I think it's worth exploring, thought about it reading Kev's Why Is It So, speed explosion, thread and reasons why hobbyists seemingly steered clear of the Autumn APG sale.
Has focussing on speed, that is, track records been detrimental to harness racing? In the case of the APG sale, fantastic times are still run in R races.
Does thoroughbred stallion marketing focus on speed? Has speed maintained the health of North American harness racing?

[Messenger]

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

[strong persuader]

And, of course, you'd have to rule out a slower time due to interference. Not sure how or if the gallopers take different tracks as well as track ratings on the day in their weight/ratings assessment.

I think it's worth exploring, thought about it reading Kev's Why Is It So, speed explosion, thread and reasons why hobbyists seemingly steered clear of the Autumn APG sale.
Has focussing on speed, that is, track records been detrimental to harness racing? In the case of the APG sale, fantastic times are still run in R races.
Does thoroughbred stallion marketing focus on speed? Has speed maintained the health of North American harness racing?

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.

[Showgrounds]

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.

That was Tom Crouch of Kentuckiana Farms, if my memory is still working. I reckon he was right, too, because we have horses running 1:50 at Menangle in restricted classes.

In my day, hoses would only do that standing in a float!

[Messenger]

That was Tom Crouch of Kentuckiana Farms, if my memory is still working. I reckon he was right, too, because we have horses running 1:50 at Menangle in restricted classes.

In my day, horses would only do that standing in a float!

Love it Trevor

[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 (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

[Tangles]

I see the best way is to increase claiming races for all ages of horses and classes.

If you set a value on your horse then if it is too cheap it gets claimed, if placed in a too higher priced claimer against better class horses you are uncompetitive.

70% of all races could be programmed as claimers with varying prices and barrier draws reflecting the price.

Accept with a $1.10 favourite and risk losing it with a claim :mad:. Handicapping becomes market driven.

It will stop the 1:54 3yr old appearing on a 5k - 8k claimer against a 2.02 3yr old.

[aussiebreno]

I see the best way is to increase claiming races for all ages of horses and classes.

If you set a value on your horse then if it is too cheap it gets claimed, if placed in a too higher priced claimer against better class horses you are uncompetitive.

70% of all races could be programmed as claimers with varying prices and barrier draws reflecting the price.

Accept with a $1.10 favourite and risk losing it with a claim :mad:. Handicapping becomes market driven.

It will stop the 1:54 3yr old appearing on a 5k - 8k claimer against a 2.02 3yr old.

Biggest hurdle: Who is going to be putting their horses in claiming races - especially as they are coming through the grades? Lot of people out there who won't sell which restricts this idea.

Also benefits past disqualified trainers. There is a wariness of buying horses from previously disqualified trainers and this allows these trainers to get a good bargain in claimers races.

[Tangles]

Programme claimers as well for the 60k-80k
30K-40K as well as 150- 200k etc

Play around with the programming, the yanks have been doing this for decades as well as programming stakes, futurity events, cups etc

[alphastud]

I met with a member of HRA recently and gained some insight into some thinking, submissions, ratings based schemes etc.
It seems that they are trying their best under difficult circumstances with multiple problems, ideas, agenda's etc. from the states, authorities, participants etc. . I think that they will produce an improved system in the short term.

However, I'd like to make the following points and highlight some pitfalls and why it may fall over:

1. it's the HANDICAPPERS job to determine the class, ability etc. of a horse.

2. HANDICAPPERS should have the authority, skill and capability to assess a horse and grade them accordingly to organise the best matched field. And so, they should already consider average mile rate, LTS, trainer etc. .

3. the HANDICAPPERS priority seems to be to produce "fuller fields" ahead of a "better matched field". i.e. they seem to include an “out of class horse” if it helps to make up a full field.

4. HANDICAPPERS are sometimes restricted or constrained by race programming.

5. HANDICAPPERS don’t seem to be required to handicap to an overall strategy.

6. HANDICAPPERS already have the flexibility to organise a field in races with CLASS and CONDITIONS such as:
C1 Or Better.
The HRNSW Handicapping Panel will frame race conditions and select race fields from the nominations received.

7. Preferential Barrier Draw should preference horses per the most successful barrier draw of that track and NOT in sequential order from 1 to 10 etc.
i.e. if the most successful barrier draws at Penrith are 3, 4, 2, 1, 8, 9, 5, 10, 7 and 6 then priority or preference should be given in this order.

8. Reduced number of racehorses. HANDICAPPERS have less horses to select to organise a “better matched field.” This makes their job even more difficult.

Some SUGGESTIONS beyond those previously highlighted:
1. Give HANDICAPPERS the freedom to organise and “better match fields” without the need to make “full fields”.
Does a “better matched field” incr betting turnover more than a “full field” when the “full field” includes a short priced fav?

2. Coach and Train HANDICAPPERS to develop their skills and capabilities.

3. Set secondary outcomes for HANDICAPPERS so that they are organising fields in alignment with the overall strategy of HRNSW.

4. Make HANDICAPPERS accountable and measure their success.

.* (note - this is from my knowledge of the HRNSW system only).

[arlington]

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?

Looks like Richard has addressed this in post #24. Great post Richard.
The example in my posts, the way supplementary races in Vic are framed, the handicappers are already doing this for the punter. Once again it doesn't have to be average times and, again, wouldn't be surprised if times are looked at when framing the field and barrier draws.
Maybe HRV handicappers have had a champagne breakfast in the car park at Epsom road with Greg Carpenter and his team.

[strong persuader]

I met with a member of HRA recently and gained some insight into some thinking, submissions, ratings based schemes etc.
It seems that they are trying their best under difficult circumstances with multiple problems, ideas, agenda's etc. from the states, authorities, participants etc. . I think that they will produce an improved system in the short term.

However, I'd like to make the following points and highlight some pitfalls and why it may fall over:
1. it's the HANDICAPPERS job to determine the class, ability etc. of a horse.

2. HANDICAPPERS should have the authority, skill and capability to assess a horse and grade them accordingly to organise the best matched field. And so, they should already consider average mile rate, LTS, trainer etc. .

3. the HANDICAPPERS priority seems to be to produce "fuller fields" ahead of a "better matched field". i.e. they seem to include an “out of class horse” if it helps to make up a full field.

4. HANDICAPPERS are sometimes restricted or constrained by race programming.

5. HANDICAPPERS don’t seem to be required to handicap to an overall strategy.

6. HANDICAPPERS already have the flexibility to organise a field in races with CLASS and CONDITIONS such as:
C1 Or Better.
The HRNSW Handicapping Panel will frame race conditions and select race fields from the nominations received.

7. Preferential Barrier Draw should preference horses per the most successful barrier draw of that track and NOT in sequential order from 1 to 10 etc.
i.e. if the most successful barrier draws at Penrith are 3, 4, 2, 1, 8, 9, 5, 10, 7 and 6 then priority or preference should be given in this order.

8. Reduced number of racehorses. HANDICAPPERS have less horses to select to organise a “better matched field.” This makes their job even more difficult.

Some SUGGESTIONS beyond those previously highlighted:
1. Give HANDICAPPERS the freedom to organise and “better match fields” without the need to make “full fields”.
Does a “better matched field” incr betting turnover more than a “full field” when the “full field” includes a short priced fav?

2. Coach and Train HANDICAPPERS to develop their skills and capabilities.

3. Set secondary outcomes for HANDICAPPERS so that they are organising fields in alignment with the overall strategy of HRNSW.

4. Make HANDICAPPERS accountable and measure their success.

.* (note - this is from my knowledge of the HRNSW system only).

I think that we are finally getting somewhere :) Whilst as a trainer, I loathe those races where the handicappers determine the conditions after noms close, I can see that it does allow for the production of better matched races. Who would have thought that it would be so simple, just shifting the emphasis from full fields to better matched fields makes a world of difference. Great job Richard, I sincerely hope that these thoughts become actions at a higher level.

[Messenger]

I think that we are finally getting somewhere :) Whilst as a trainer, I loathe those races where the handicappers determine the conditions after noms close, I can see that it does allow for the production of better matched races. Who would have thought that it would be so simple, just shifting the emphasis from full fields to better matched fields makes a world of difference. Great job Richard, I sincerely hope that these thoughts become actions at a higher level.
Maybe it is being selfish and not putting the industry first but I cannot think of anything worse for an owner/trainer - it makes horse placement pretty much impossible.
A numerical rating a la the gallops at least forewarns you as to what grade of horse you are going to have to face.
The only thing I would add to Richard's post is that we are going to have to pay the handicapper a serious wage for serious responsibility/accountability

[aussiebreno]

Is barrier 4 at Penrith better than barrier 1 at Penrith? Or is #1 just that outclassed it can't make use of the barrier?

Race fields are getting way to complicated. Leave it up the horses. Equal number of wins RBD. They will win their share of races and then be in their right class.

Scenario 1

Week 1. C1 PBD race. Horseymchorseface is #1 and $5. Horsesforcourses is # 10 and $1.90. Horseymchorseface gets sprint lane and wins, Horseforcourses 3wide last lap gets beat 1/2 length.

Week 2. C1 race Horseforcourses $1.60. C2-C3 Horseymchorseface $20

Scenario 2.

Week 1. C1 RBD race Horsemchorse face #5 is $10, Horsesforcourses #6 is $1.50. Horseforcourses wins.

Week 2. C1 Horsemchorseface is $5 (no longer has to compete with superior Horsesforcourses) while C2-C3 race Horsesforcourses is $8 (more suited to C2-C3 races than Horseymchorseface)


By evening it up you just make the better horses odds on more regularly, and the lucky PBD winners longer roughie odds when they're up in class. Week 1 might have been all good but week 2 is where it hurts and week 2 carries on longer than just that week because Horsesforcourses can continue getting beat because the PBD system screws him, whilst Horseymchorseface continues to be long odds because he can't compete in that grade.

10 start drop back rule is crap too. Fields are sizes of 10. You should win 1/10. That you didn't win in that 10 is just a basic statistic anomaly. Those horses are then going back to horses they are superior than.

If horses have made their way to a Rating 80 or an Ave MR 1.59 but have since dropped off in form shouldn't be given the opportunity to race in Rating 60 or an Ave MR 2.01 against horses who have never ever made it past Rating 60 or Ave MR 2.01

[strong persuader]

Is barrier 4 at Penrith better than barrier 1 at Penrith? Or is #1 just that outclassed it can't make use of the barrier?

Race fields are getting way to complicated. Leave it up the horses. Equal number of wins RBD. They will win their share of races and then be in their right class.

Scenario 1

Week 1. C1 PBD race. Horseymchorseface is #1 and $5. Horsesforcourses is # 10 and $1.90. Horseymchorseface gets sprint lane and wins, Horseforcourses 3wide last lap gets beat 1/2 length.

Week 2. C1 race Horseforcourses $1.60. C2-C3 Horseymchorseface $20

Scenario 2.

Week 1. C1 RBD race Horsemchorse face #5 is $10, Horsesforcourses #6 is $1.50. Horseforcourses wins.

Week 2. C1 Horsemchorseface is $5 (no longer has to compete with superior Horsesforcourses) while C2-C3 race Horsesforcourses is $8 (more suited to C2-C3 races than Horseymchorseface)


By evening it up you just make the better horses odds on more regularly, and the lucky PBD winners longer roughie odds when they're up in class. Week 1 might have been all good but week 2 is where it hurts and week 2 carries on longer than just that week because Horsesforcourses can continue getting beat because the PBD system screws him, whilst Horseymchorseface continues to be long odds because he can't compete in that grade.

10 start drop back rule is crap too. Fields are sizes of 10. You should win 1/10. That you didn't win in that 10 is just a basic statistic anomaly. Those horses are then going back to horses they are superior than.

If horses have made their way to a Rating 80 or an Ave MR 1.59 but have since dropped off in form shouldn't be given the opportunity to race in Rating 60 or an Ave MR 2.01 against horses who have never ever made it past Rating 60 or Ave MR 2.01

Maybe this is where a good handicapper comes into play. Why not a race for the Rating 80 horses with $ This Season less than x. May not be a full field of 12, but perhaps a race with 7-8 horse all being a live chance would be a better betting proposition than plonking them back in the Rating 60 category as $1.10 shot.

As much as they think they police it, trainers are not immune to winning a race then after 4 or 5 unsuccessful runs, going around another half dozen times quietly, or dead for the usual term, to get the drop back. Isn't any inconvenience when you have a few horses, you're already going, so why not take 1 dead one with you as well.

The stewards are probably aware of it, but proving it is another matter. I was informed early on in my career that there were many ways of getting beaten without causing alarm. :)

[trish]

If someone doesn't put Horseymchorseface in for a name I will. Love it.

[Messenger]

Maybe things are already heading in the right direction
Check out the winners' prices this week at Ballarat, Maryborough, Bendigo, Melton, Swan Hill, Yarra Glen

[alphastud]

Thanks for your feedback.
Kevin - agreed re the process of nominating a horse into a race without knowing the conditions. Let's call it a "blind nomination". As you're aware, this "blind nomination" process has been created to workaround the problem of racehorse numbers. Until racehorse numbers incr then I'm expecting this to be the process. Agree that many hate it.
Wayne - excellent post #12. agree - forget about influencing punters into getting excited about exotics.
Phil - sounds like you've felt the pain of being at the back of the field in a 12 horse race with no chance. Can someone show me the data that shows the betting turnover difference over a 12 month period of 12 horse fields vs 10 horse fields?

[alphastud]

Is barrier 4 at Penrith better than barrier 1 at Penrith? Or is #1 just that outclassed it can't make use of the barrier?

Race fields are getting way to complicated. Leave it up the horses. Equal number of wins RBD. They will win their share of races and then be in their right class.

Scenario 1

Week 1. C1 PBD race. Horseymchorseface is #1 and $5. Horsesforcourses is # 10 and $1.90. Horseymchorseface gets sprint lane and wins, Horseforcourses 3wide last lap gets beat 1/2 length.

Week 2. C1 race Horseforcourses $1.60. C2-C3 Horseymchorseface $20

Scenario 2.

Week 1. C1 RBD race Horsemchorse face #5 is $10, Horsesforcourses #6 is $1.50. Horseforcourses wins.

Week 2. C1 Horsemchorseface is $5 (no longer has to compete with superior Horsesforcourses) while C2-C3 race Horsesforcourses is $8 (more suited to C2-C3 races than Horseymchorseface)


By evening it up you just make the better horses odds on more regularly, and the lucky PBD winners longer roughie odds when they're up in class. Week 1 might have been all good but week 2 is where it hurts and week 2 carries on longer than just that week because Horsesforcourses can continue getting beat because the PBD system screws him, whilst Horseymchorseface continues to be long odds because he can't compete in that grade.

10 start drop back rule is crap too. Fields are sizes of 10. You should win 1/10. That you didn't win in that 10 is just a basic statistic anomaly. Those horses are then going back to horses they are superior than.

If horses have made their way to a Rating 80 or an Ave MR 1.59 but have since dropped off in form shouldn't be given the opportunity to race in Rating 60 or an Ave MR 2.01 against horses who have never ever made it past Rating 60 or Ave MR 2.01

Hi Brendan,
Thanks for your reply.

Re: Penrith - I’m unsure of the real data however, we could analyse results over a 12 month period from RBD races to know an accurate answer. Yes, there are variables such as multiple horses by the same trainer etc .. However, I’d use that information as a punter and would feel happier as a trainer to be selected into those barriers with better winning stats.

Re: Complicated fields – agree, if we had a field of horses with the same or similar number of wins then make it RBD. Unfortunately, the HANDICAPPERS are not orgainsing these types of fields.
Look at Newcastle this coming Sat night. There are 3 x C1 races and so the HANDICAPPERS had 39 C1 eligible horses to organise.

On a quick look, we could have organised:
1. one C1 race for horses that have won 1 – 2 races (there are 11 of these)
2. one C1 race for horses that have won 7+ races (there are 11 of these)
3. two C1 race for horses that have won 3 – 6 (there are 17 of these)

Instead, we have these issues:
1. Horses in the upper percentile of prizemoney and wins drawing top barriers. E.g. Christian Brother 13 wins (R1), My Late Best Mate 9 wins (R3) and Six Degrees 5 wins (R6) drawing #1.
2. Horses in the lower percentile of prizemoney and wins racing against much better and in form horses drawing wide. E.g. Is I Out 1 win from 98 starts (R1 #8), Alwaysintouch 1 win from 34 starts (R6 #6).

Dropback – agree. Per Phil’s comments it could also be encouraging / allowing wrong behavior.

I think that PDB can be used to better handicap a race and it can also be used to help achieve secondary outcomes. Are you a PUNTER, OWNER, BREEDER etc.
e.g. you could PBD by the # of TRAINERS wins.

Why not give Is I Out the best barrier draw every week. Its TRAINER / OWNER has invested so much into HR and should get a better chance to get a better result. What would they do with the money? I’m betting that they’d re-invest.

[strong persuader]

Phil - sounds like you've felt the pain of being at the back of the field in a 12 horse race with no chance.

I think everyone has felt that pain :) My objection to the 12 horse fields is that we used to race 10 horse fields with money for the first four placings, 6 horses race for no return. Now we have 12 horse fields, and still only money for the first four places, 8 horses race for no return. If 12 horse fields are improving the punting return, why hasn't it followed with a return to the owners and trainers with the implementation of a fifth place cheque?

My objection to these blind nominations is that in the worst case scenario you could have a C2 horse racing up against C7 horses or better. That is really painful.

Whilst I like the idea of mares concessions, I hate that even in the better races like the Country to Menangle series, a mare with a junior driver can drop back 2 classes. This is creating a reverse discrimination situation.

In NSW now, it feels a little like once you win a C0, you are entering into the free for all ranks, there are few opportunities to place a C1-C3 horse where they will not encounter horses graded way above them.

As to the dropback situation. For an example, Mister Haywood in his C1 win. In finishing order, the horses had 2,2,3,2,9,11,8,7,7 and 3 wins before the race, the last placed horse in the race, not surprisingly had 1 win to its name. How there can be such disparity in a race for C1-C2 horses is bewildering. Then after competing in some good races, we were able to drop into a competitive stakes for horses assessed no better than C2 with only one outlier that had 6 wins.

I think that ordinary people would be as confused as all get out in trying to figure these things out.

It isn't beyond most of us to realise that all horses have their mark. Some lower than others. If we are able to win a couple of races with those ordinary animals and continue on with the next horse we are usually happy. As I put it, most of us are happy to spend $15k a year so long as we can get 10 of it back, but when you have to go multiple years of spending with no return, that is when it gets tough to keep on going with just the passion.

[Messenger]

I recently received an interesting email from Ray Chaplin of Equine Excellence about this thread, from which I have extracted the following quotes:

I wonder if HRA have done the foundation work necessary to provide them with a factual framework on which to base their efforts and more importantly their expectations


Harness racing’s viable future in Australia is at present almost totally dependant upon wagering revenue.
Currently HRA and industry participant attention is focussed upon alternative handicapping/programming initiatives that will create larger and more evenly balanced fields in order to maximize wagering turnover and revenue
No modelling exists that establishes the levels of increased wagering turnover and resultant revenue gains that will be needed to maintain and grow the sport into the future


Given the continuing product related declines illustrated above [ 2015/16 numbers for Mares served, Named horses plus overseas imports, Number of Starters, Number of races run - all Lowest ever] is it realistic to believe that changes to race handicapping/programming will be able to fill the ever widening gap in product availability [racing stock] necessary to generate wagering revenues required to secure the sports future - or is this focus a tactical band aid initiative that will simply slow the inevitable demise of Harness Racing at the professional level?


It is likely that the gap will be so great as to indicate that it is not feasible to expect that tactical changes to handicapping/programming/field makeup will resolve the serious threat to the viability of the sport
If this assessment is correct it will then create an urgency to address the fundamental strategic issue the industry faces – a lack of public (customer) support

[arlington]

Here you go Kev

SITUATIONS VACANT

http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=33418

One of the perks of the job is you can claim that South Melbourne pad you have as a second residence. Just don't ferry the dogs.

[Messenger]

I am hoping they find someone whose shoelaces I would not deem to tie
Please, please settle for nothing less than best available

[p plater]

Now here is a bit of interesting handicapping at Newcastle next Saturday.
Race 6
OSBORN LAW PACE 7:34 PM Track: Circumference - 940m, Straight - 220m, Front line - 10
Track Record: 1:55.0 Captain Brook 13/01/2017
Pacers. Restricted to horses which have had a minimum of 6 starts in NSW. For horses assessed no better than C2 that have not run 1st, 2nd or 3rd in their last 5 starts. PBD/$L4.

[alphastud]

Hi Bailey, I think that the purpose of this race is to incentivise the lower tier of C0 - C2 horses and provide them with an opportunity to compete with horses of similar form.
I think that it has merit. There is a large population of C0 - C1 horses in Newcastle (and most places) and so tihs is one way to handicap some of those until the new system arrives.

[Tangles]

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=HM180517#1


Hamilton race 1 Who would want to put a country front 3 yr old up against Our Little general. Much better handicapping needed by the HRV if racing is to prosper.

[Yabbie]

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=HM180517#1


Hamilton race 1 Who would want to put a country front 3 yr old up against Our Little general. Much better handicapping needed by the HRV if racing is to prosper.


Our Little General was nominated for Cranbourne last Saturday and due to withdrawals, the race was deleted - obviously trainers were trying to avoid him.
He's exceptional but he is also entitled to race. It's a quandary for sure.

[Tangles]

If HRV programmes a race and your horse is eligible to compete then you have every right too nominate. The problem is not with the team nominating, it is all about the programming such a open 3yr old race at a second tier country track and not having restriction on horses that can enter. i.e it could be programme for 3 yr old with earnings of no more than 50k, or 3yr old with a claiming price of 50-60 k etc. The alternative is to continue with the status quo and see the "Red Hot" continue.

[Messenger]

The argument would be that by nominating for a $7k race as opposed to a $5k or $3½k race (they're all pretty pathetic sums I know) you have to expect better horses

[Njcstables]

The argument would be that by nominating for a $7k race as opposed to a $5k or $3½k race (they're all pretty pathetic sums I know) you have to expect better horses

Your absolutely right Kev they are pathetic sums. Under the current system they are entitled to run him there however, if we had 3yo metro age penalty races like we used too they probably wouldn't run at Hamilton and we wouldn't have 3yo who have won 2 country penalty races going around in CO 's all the time.

[Tangles]

Then all that is left to say, is that with this type of programming by the HRV all owners with average 3 yr olds need to sell up and get out of Harness racing. Oh silly me, I forgot that is what they have been doing.

[Messenger]

I am hearing you men

[Bonnie]

[QUOTE=Njcstables;51141]Your absolutely right Kev they are pathetic sums. Under the current system they are entitled to run him there however, if we had 3yo metro age penalty races like we used too they probably wouldn't run at Hamilton and we wouldn't have 3yo who have won 2 country penalty races going around in CO 's all the time

I totally agree with you Nathan. Back in the day when HRV ran Metro open 3 year old races there was a viable alternative for the better 3 year olds. We have been asking HRV for a better go for 3 year olds and have requested that they reinstate Metro 3 years olds but to no avail. Now there is nothing. The 3 year old race at Cranbourne was deleted and OLG needs a lead up race before the Sires heats. There are no other options for him .
Programming for young horses is non existent. After a 3 year old wins their first 2 races they have to nominate for a C0 to get a run and many of those are for 4 year old and older horses. If you find a suitable C0 then the 3 year old is forced to compete against horses in the 4-6 year old age group. We have recently sold a handy three year old interstate due to lack of racing opportunities.

[aussiebreno]

[QUOTE=Njcstables;51141]Your absolutely right Kev they are pathetic sums. Under the current system they are entitled to run him there however, if we had 3yo metro age penalty races like we used too they probably wouldn't run at Hamilton and we wouldn't have 3yo who have won 2 country penalty races going around in CO 's all the time

I totally agree with you Nathan. Back in the day when HRV ran Metro open 3 year old races there was a viable alternative for the better 3 year olds. We have been asking HRV for a better go for 3 year olds and have requested that they reinstate Metro 3 years olds but to no avail. Now there is nothing. The 3 year old race at Cranbourne was deleted and OLG needs a lead up race before the Sires heats. There are no other options for him .
Programming for young horses is non existent. After a 3 year old wins their first 2 races they have to nominate for a C0 to get a run and many of those are for 4 year old and older horses. If you find a suitable C0 then the 3 year old is forced to compete against horses in the 4-6 year old age group. We have recently sold a handy three year old interstate due to lack of racing opportunities.
Agree re lack of 3yo Metro racing. Even if they have to run them with 6-7 its better than nothing. I do wonder if they got sick of insufficient noms though?

I see no problem with 2 wins 3yos racing open age in C0s. In this scenario if Our Little General was in a C3-C4 race that would be fairer.

[Messenger]

Well OLG broke the Tk Record w/o any luck from the draw and w/o raising a sweat ( I don't think they even washed him down after)

[aussiebreno]

Agree re lack of 3yo Metro racing. Even if they have to run them with 6-7 its better than nothing. I do wonder if they got sick of insufficient noms though?

I see no problem with 2 wins 3yos racing open age in C0s. In this scenario if Our Little General was in a C3-C4 race that would be fairer.
$ 15,000 race at Ballarat. 6 entries. 3 x Emma Stewart, a first starter and a horse unplaced in 4 starts. This is why 3yo Metros are not scheduled.

[Messenger]

$ 15,000 race at Ballarat. 6 entries. 3 x Emma Stewart, a first starter and a horse unplaced in 4 starts. This is why 3yo Metros are not scheduled.

There is a 2yo Classic on that program too and it also has only 6 entries with 3 x Peter Manning

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=BA260517&fromstate=vic

[Big K]

So in W.A a new go it alone handicapping system will be implemented in September. C and M class will be scrubbed and races will be programmed on win dollars won for each horse. 2yo and 3yo racing as per normal but dollars won implemented as the season rolls along. Other issues like the drop back rule to be addressed as it rolls out. Interesting times ahead for W.A with most industry participants positive but cautious about it. I believe its something pretty close to the programming in the States as it currently stands. Might take a while to see how it pans out..could be the way forward but we have to wait and see and hope that its better than the current system.

[Fan of Jate]

Wont be in place by September Big K but they have a few good ideas and will be looking after mares and local horses.


I am not convinced about the win/dollars method. It can be manipulated. e.g horse finishes 3rd in a NZ classic race and wins $12000 then flown over here and entered in local race worth $7k against local horses who have finished 3rd or whatever in an RO and picked up $450. A different level of ability, not a level playing field and that is where it is wrong. I don't believe any Australian racing body will put in rules or methods to prevent this happening. They haven't got the guts.


The dollars won method will work in the drop back rule- where if you finish 2nd 9 times in a row , you will be handicapped in some way either bumped up to a more competitive class or back row draw over 1700m - I am sure they will come up with a way of doing that.


Those concerned can forget about a one system fits all across Australia /NZ-it wont happen for various political reasons. It is getting like the railway gauge, every state has a different size gauge and never the twain shall meet. I thought HRA was going to have a strategy that made a level playing field across Australia. I must be mistaken or have misread the whole issue

[Messenger]

Wont be in place by September Big K but they have a few good ideas and will be looking after mares and local horses.


I am not convinced about the win/dollars method. It can be manipulated. e.g horse finishes 3rd in a NZ classic race and wins $12000 then flown over here and entered in local race worth $7k against local horses who have finished 3rd or whatever in an RO and picked up $450. A different level of ability, not a level playing field and that is where it is wrong. I don't believe any Australian racing body will put in rules or methods to prevent this happening. They haven't got the guts.

Pat, I thought your NZ example is precisely what Big Kev's news would catch

[Fan of Jate]

Be interesting to see how it pans out Kev, be good if we could get some feedback from Richard C as well to see how the HRA strategy is developing thus far.

[alphastud]

Be interesting to see how it pans out Kev, be good if we could get some feedback from Richard C as well to see how the HRA strategy is developing thus far.

Hi Pat,
I'm not sure if you're psychic, tapping my phone or it's co-incidence however a representative of HRA had the courtesy to give me a call and update.
From their meetings with the states and around 6 other submissions, they've drafted a system that sounds like it has promise.
They'll soon put out some brief comms to update participants. It seems that the IT integration will probably be the bottleneck in its time to inception. Let's hope that the states or HRA don't stuff it up with their programming or with exceptions etc. to appease a few at the expense of our primary customers.

[Messenger]

$ 15,000 race at Ballarat. 6 entries. 3 x Emma Stewart, a first starter and a horse unplaced in 4 starts. This is why 3yo Metros are not scheduled.

Emma Stewart trained the winners of every race she had starters (all the pacing races) but could not make it 6 in a row despite having half the field in this one

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=BA260517&ms=vic

Small fields can create an upset

Is Chris Alford injured, on holiday, suspended? (Vic's Suspended drivers list has not been updated for a couple of weeks - must not be anybody's regular responsibility)

ps Peter Manning couldn't win the 2yo where he had 60% of the field but he didn't have the long odds on fav

[Messenger]

The field for the 30k 2yo Trot at Menangle on Saturday is now down to 4
The Gp1 Trotters Derby only has 6. Then again, NSW just doesn't have the emphasis on trotters like Vic

[aussiebreno]

Emma Stewart trained the winners of every race she had starters (all the pacing races) but could not make it 6 in a row despite having half the field in this one

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=BA260517&ms=vic

Small fields can create an upset

Is Chris Alford injured, on holiday, suspended? (Vic's Suspended drivers list has not been updated for a couple of weeks - must not be anybody's regular responsibility)

ps Peter Manning couldn't win the 2yo where he had 60% of the field but he didn't have the long odds on fav

Half to Yankee Rockstar won the 2yo

[Toohard]

Is Chris Alford injured, on holiday, suspended? (Vic's Suspended drivers list has not been updated for a couple of weeks - must not be anybody's regular responsibility)



In Sweden for Elitlop Kev

[Messenger]

Well, he deserves a 6000 reward

[Fan of Jate]

Cheers for that feedback Richard. You are right , as the framework is developed the IT system does take a lot of work as well. I believe the software for the draft WA system will take some time to develop hence the slowness of its implementation. So there may be lessons there for HRA.
One thing we don't want is any new handicapping system coming in halfway through a season.


But most important of all my psychic abilities don't seem to transfer into my punting exploits, a couple of small losing bets last night are testament to that.

[Messenger]

It seems strange finishing a meeting which has six $120k Gp1 races on the program, with a $7k C1 as the last (Melton on Saturday night)
On the positive side, I guess they know that it will pay its way

[Messenger]

41 minutes between race 4 and race 5 at Horsham today - you have to be joking

[Messenger]

Ray Chaplin has done more work on his report regarding the importance of Excitement and looked at HRV following the American business model again in its decision to go with more races but less meetings
Here is an excerpt:

"The USA model has failed to grow wagering
Latest 2017 Year to date wagering statistics

Race days – 3.21%

Purse money + 1.75%

Total wagered – 6.6%

These results follow a similar wagering decline trend in recent seasons

Problem – Inability to fill large race number programs with sufficient field sizes to maximize wagering

Fundamental Reason – Lack of racing product due to less foals being bred, due to declining participation rates and public interest in harness racing

USA industry remains reliant upon slots income to survive


Ramifications of reducing total Victorian Harness Racing Meetings by 30 in 2017 /18 season, but increasing total number of races and stake money

What will the TAB (Sky Racing 1) replace these meetings with – 30 more thoroughbred meetings, 60 more greyhound meetings or a combination of both?

How many of the additional harness races programmed will fall outside of prime waging hours?

What will be the impact of these changes on market share for harness racing market share over time – positive or negative?"

It really got me thinking - if our reduced meetings results in extra meets for the dogs and/or gallops, our market share would have to struggle to grow

[Fan of Jate]

You are spot on Kev. From R.Chaplins excerpt, the fundamental reasons stood out for me. This is where you go to fix the problem. We need a couple more home grown champions such as Lenny and Hector and draw the crowds the money then follows. For those who dont get it, if you dont help and then reward the local smallish breeders, trainers/owners and other plebs involved then you die on the vine and slowly. The facts speak for themselves, especially in the breeding side of it. I support the local stallions and overseas stallions 50% each but if you breed to sell from a local stallion then you are on a hiding to nothing.
Will people go to a race meeting that has 12 races on a Wednesday night in winter anywhere? I doubt it. So does that mean everything will be squeezed into a Friday night? I hear that figures are up at Menangle so there are some lessons there.

I cant work out why greyhound racing is/seems to be getting more of the Govt $,good exposure in the print and seems to get a good run on SKY 1 & 2 as well. Probably because the action is fast and there is plenty of it. Races last about 20 seconds (Think T20)

Having said that, states are going through handicapping/programming change as we speak and that needs time to settle in- probably 12 months.

[Messenger]

Ray Chaplin has done more work on his report regarding the importance of Excitement and looked at HRV following the American business model again in its decision to go with more races but less meetings
Here is an excerpt:

"The USA model has failed to grow wagering
Latest 2017 Year to date wagering statistics

Race days – 3.21%

Purse money + 1.75%

Total wagered – 6.6%

These results follow a similar wagering decline trend in recent seasons

Problem – Inability to fill large race number programs with sufficient field sizes to maximize wagering

Fundamental Reason – Lack of racing product due to less foals being bred, due to declining participation rates and public interest in harness racing

USA industry remains reliant upon slots income to survive


Ramifications of reducing total Victorian Harness Racing Meetings by 30 in 2017 /18 season, but increasing total number of races and stake money

What will the TAB (Sky Racing 1) replace these meetings with – 30 more thoroughbred meetings, 60 more greyhound meetings or a combination of both?

How many of the additional harness races programmed will fall outside of prime waging hours?

What will be the impact of these changes on market share for harness racing market share over time – positive or negative?"

It really got me thinking - if our reduced meetings results in extra meets for the dogs and/or gallops, our market share would have to struggle to grow

I received the following reply from David Martin:

"Thanks for the question. In isolation, any increase in race numbers by other codes would have the effect of reducing our market share. That’s what I talked about in the forum, whereby the Vic Greyhounds had run 480 more races this year than last year (till end of May), and by comparison Vic trots had run approx. 150 less races (due to decisions taken prior to my arrival).



In terms of reduced meetings, the timeslots become important. The majority of our 30 meeting reduction in 2017/18 will be on the Wednesday day timeslot, noting that we will still run a Wednesday night on those occasions. The gallops or dogs may elect to fill the Wednesday day timeslot, or irrespective of our decision they may choose other timeslots as the dogs have already been doing over the last 2-3 years. Wednesday day was one of our lower wagering timeslots, so by transferring those races to other meetings in more preferable timeslots, there is a net benefit to the industry by way of wagering and reduced cost. Also, bigger meetings have enabled meetings to start in the 5-6pm window which has the highest turnover/race for trots. In summary, it’s not the number of meetings that’s important, it’s the total number of races, and the wagering/race.



In reality, we have to take positive actions to grow wagering and market share. We can’t continue on the path we were on, which has reduced our turnover and market share for a number of years. The changes we have made in the last 3-4 months have already increased the number of horses participating, as well as turnover and market share. That is evident just by looking at race fields and turnover each week/month."

[Messenger]

Sad to see only 6 races at Horsham on Thursday - they extended noms for the Horsham Guineas (big title for only $7k now) and made a field but the Princess of the Wimmera (another big title for a $7k race now) didn't come up

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=HS030817&fromstate=vic

[Amlin]

When clubs raced for $5000 the extra 2k made it a race worth aiming for, now it becomes just another race like the rest of the 7k ones each week in my opinion.

Perhaps they should have been made 10k, though the argument would be that you might struggle to get a field at Horsham for 10k!

They still deserve a chance to run a good quality race though, like the other "smaller" clubs.

[arlington]

When clubs raced for $5000 the extra 2k made it a race worth aiming for, now it becomes just another race like the rest of the 7k ones each week in my opinion.

Perhaps they should have been made 10k, though the argument would be that you might struggle to get a field at Horsham for 10k!

They still deserve a chance to run a good quality race though, like the other "smaller" clubs.

Totally agree Kyle, $7000 would be a drop in prize money for this "smaller" club's signature races.

[Messenger]

Sad to see only 6 races at Horsham on Thursday - they extended noms for the Horsham Guineas (big title for only $7k now) and made a field but the Princess of the Wimmera (another big title for a $7k race now) didn't come up

https://www.harness.org.au/fields.cfm?mc=HS030817&fromstate=vic

Great story from Tony Logan again

http://www.harnesslink.com/Australia/News-from-Horsham-by-Tony-Logan

I forgot that both of these races (sadly only 1 today) carried free services

[alphastud]

Credit to HRNSW and Adam Fairley for listening and trying to provide more opportunities for lower graded of racehorses.

Email from HRNSW below. - I've added a link to the relevant race.


Dear Stakeholder,

Following feedback received from a range of Stakeholders at recent Industry Roadshows, from August 1 HRNSW has programmed a NO MORE THAN 2 WINS PACE at Country venues.

These races are designed to provide opportunities for horses that win Maiden Races before they enter the general horse population in either C1 or Divided Stakes events and for horses with limited Career Penalty wins to allow them to race against like horses with a small number of wins.

In the first week there have been limited nominations received and this may be because trainers do not understand the conditions.
See Race code BHC23081705 as an example.
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-programme.cfm?rm=BH230817&state=nsw&fromsearch=true&fromstate=nsw

The Other conditions mean no more than 2 “Career Penalty” wins.

Therefore a horse that has won multiple $2,000 Penalty Free Races or multiple $3,500 Graduation Penalty races are eligible for this race if they have not won more than two events valued at more than $3500 “Career Penalty races”.

Should you require any further clarification please contact either myself or the HRNSW Handicapping Panel.

Regards,

Adam Fairley | Manager – Industry Development | Harness Racing New South Wales |

[Messenger]

I realize they had 14 acceptances for the Trot at Stawell and thus they split it but in the end we have had 2 scratchings so we have ended up with two 6 horses races when we could have had one race. They would have had to have named 12 and 2 emergencies. I guess if the program is a bit light for noms then two small races may produce more turnover than one big one
It has really only caught my eye because we have ended up with the first four races at Stawell today all only 6 horse fields

[Messenger]

Looking at the Calendar - have we really got Ballarat on as well as the Crown Semi's at Bendigo on Saturday Aug 19?

[aussiebreno]

Looking at the Calendar - have we really got Ballarat on as well as the Crown Semi's at Bendigo on Saturday Aug 19?
What is the issue?

[Messenger]

You think that it will work - having that many races - it would have to be dependent on both being on Sky1

[aussiebreno]

You think that it will work - having that many races - it would have to be dependent on both being on Sky1

Run of the mill horses who are still being fed and trained need somewhere to race still when the Breeders Crown comes to town.

[Messenger]

Down in Vic we only run race meets when we think we can make a return to the industry Breno

[aussiebreno]

Down in Vic we only run race meets when we think we can make a return to the industry Breno
Maybe they are planning on making a profit but regardless occasionally veering from the one track mind short term goal of getting a profit on meetings to keep your long term battlers happy is smart business.

[Messenger]

Touché Breno :)

[Amlin]

Ballarat meet is perhaps moreso because there is an AFL match in town for the first time that afternoon.

Club will be hopeful people will wander across to the trots afterwards.

Luke and I are sharing calling again this night so that is an attraction on its own!

[Amlin]

Maybe they are planning on making a profit but regardless occasionally veering from the one track mind short term goal of getting a profit on meetings to keep your long term battlers happy is smart business.

Where is the "like" button for this post?!

[Messenger]

Ballarat meet is perhaps moreso because there is an AFL match in town for the first time that afternoon.

Club will be hopeful people will wander across to the trots afterwards.

Luke and I are sharing calling again this night so that is an attraction on its own!

So that's it!

See Breno - they are really only trying to make money :p

[Messenger]

At Echuca today they started late as they only had 6 races and they tried to place the bigger field races in the 5-6pm timeslot and what happens - 3 scratch from the last to drag it down to 7 starters!
You can see what a difference having at least 8 starters makes as Race 5's turnover easily beats Race 6's

https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2017-08-10/ECHUCA/ECH/H/6

[arlington]

Where is the "like" button for this post?!

+1
A win win win situation, well done to all involved at BallaratHRC and HRV.

And the main attraction, Kyle and Luke, all the best guys, no question, the Flying Horse will be overflowing.

[Messenger]

You mean they normally charge to get in?

[Dot]

He would have been eligible for the VICBRED Platinum Home Grown Classic last week. Would have even met the original must not have won more than $6,000 clause which was changed to $10,000 without explanation. The Home Grown, funded by the state government and introduced for horses unlikely to reach lofty heights.:rolleyes:
The Tatlow (open 2yo) was put back to July due to the original running of this series needing to be held before June 30 but no reason they can't be swapped now.
The mind boggles at who influences programming, is it a wonder some breeders aren't breeding?

Oh I think most of us know who was influencing programming to develop the homegrown classic as it is. The question is who is going to turn it into something that better meets the need to encourage more people to breed......

[arlington]

Oh I think most of us know who was influencing programming to develop the homegrown classic as it is. The question is who is going to turn it into something that better meets the need to encourage more people to breed......

You might have to enlighten me, are you talking about vested commercial interests of only some, a minority, the prize money won clause increased from $6000 to $10,000? Or?

With reference to the placement of the race/series on the calendar, the 2yo pacers, do you think if the Tatlows (which might be a better and more appropriate lead up race to the Vicbred Super) were brought back to May and the Home Grown run in July it might be something that better meets the need to encourage more people to breed at the grassroots level?
And for that matter, the 3yo series run later than the first month of the season?

The series was supposed to be one of the "grassroots" initiatives and the reason for the 2yo series being originally slotted into May was it had to be conducted before the end of that financial year.

[Dot]

Well as an off the cuff suggestion I don’t see how as 2yos it’s possible to determine who will or won’t reach lofty heights so perhaps rather then a race series redistribute the monies allocated for the series as a bonus on wins/placings in base level 2yo events in the lead up to the Vicbred series to encourage people with 2yos to have them ready to race during this period, and with a fixed number of eligible starts to discourage anyone from over racing their 2yos seeking the bonus. Not everyone will agree but there is a school of thought that increasing the first win bonus would be the most effective way to increase breeding in general and this would be one way to do it specifically for 2yos. The Tatlow could go back to being an open lead up race to Vicbred.

Obviously more bench marks available for assessing 3yos, 3yo could be as a race series, or maybe 2 race series, probably better latter in the season, for 3yos with low earnings and a minimum number of starts to show they have likely established their credentials as not likely to reach lofty heights and paid their dues to keeping field sizes up to be eligible. Hopefully there would be no trainers wanting to put 5 starts into their 3yos in a fortnight or the like to be eligible but could be prevented with a clause in the conditions if necessary

[arlington]

I agree Dot, hard to know how far a horse will go based on it's 2yo year but within the 2yo season it would be more appropriate if the series was run later in the season.

What about a bit each way Dot, increasing the first win bonus and how you might run the Home Grown.
I'll just speak about the pacers as I don't follow the trotters very closely at all but it might work as well, what if you made the finals worth $30000, later in the season, and allocate the $40000 (from the 2 x pacing finals) to the first win bonus for 2yo's early in the season. Off the cuff as I haven't done the maths or research but I imagine you might nearly be able to add $2000 to the first win for a couple of months and introduce it in January. Or try to get the first win bonus for that period for the 2yo's to a nice round figure like $10000.
During one of the rounds of 'meet the CEO' paying a bonus just to make it to the races was mooted so your idea of a bonus based on wins and placings has merit.
Something for the whiteboard.

[Dot]

There are any number of permutations that could be considered Wayne. I’ll stick by thinking the 2yo funds could be better spent encouraging more horses to the races by way of bonuses to prizemoney, though not necessarily as early as January as I think long term our juveniles and juvenile racing would be better of with a more condensed race season similar to NA. Could put some 2yo funds to having an early 3yo race series version that caters for later starting 2yos that race on as early 3yos and a later 3yo season series that caters more for those who started racing at 3.

Large first and second win bonuses is the route that Qld obviously consider best to stimulate breeding as that is the path they have taken. The Westbred bonus scheme pays a bonus on places as well as wins, and the bonus doubles if both sire and dam are resident in WA, so multiple options for Vic to “whiteboard” through.

[Messenger]

I need convincing that holding the $24k Popular Alm Sprint and $14k Vin Knight Memorial on a Thursday night in winter is the best idea.
If you do like the idea, I would have combined it with last week's Vicbred pacing heats rather than tonight's trotting heats as there are still plenty that don't follow the trotters

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=KI270619

ps I reckon the Bob Cain Memorial should be a $7k race

[Dot]

Kev, Saturday’s “metro” Melton meeting has been filled with Vicbred semis, displacing the horses that would ordinarily be racing there, they need somewhere to race, and those two races at Kilmore you mention, well I guess there it, they’re named after after Kilmore identities and I guess that’s why there at Kilmore. If they were last week they clash for the same horses going to Melton on the Saturday.

Of course it’s debatable if the Vicbred heats should be held on a Thursday night at Kilmore in the dead of winter at all, and I’m pretty sure those who would ordinarily race Melton “metro” on Saturday would probably have preferred a complete Melton programme switch to another track on the Friday night. Would have seemed an ideal opportunity to hold a “metro” meeting at a major regional centre close to harness current heartland.

I’m sure the racing office has been preoccupied with the introduction of the ratings system and writing programs for that, once that beds in hopefully they’ll have more time to devote to optimising other aspects of the programming.

[Yabbie]

[QUOTE=Messenger;59800]I need convincing that holding the $24k Popular Alm Sprint and $14k Vin Knight Memorial on a Thursday night in winter is the best idea.
If you do like the idea, I would have combined it with last week's Vicbred pacing heats rather than tonight's trotting heats as there are still plenty that don't follow the trotters

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=KI270619



I'm pretty sure one of those races (I think the Bob Cain Memorial) was re-scheduled from earlier in the year when the meeting was abandoned

[Messenger]

I think we were hoping for the Reg Withers to be rescheduled from the abandoned meet but finding a place for a 3yo feature was always going to be tricky once Vicbred was underway

[Messenger]

Why is Mildura getting these $12k races for the same 10 or so horses every week.
The only way I could justify it is if they are trying to encourage some new blood to head North

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=ML021220#MLC02122001

[Messenger]

It is just wrong that the winner of R4 at Melton on Saturday will have Gp2 Black Type

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX010521#MXM01052107

[Messenger]

Nowhere better to put this

New Jersey Sires Stakes for 3yo trotters today 2x $200k
Their sires stakes rules must be strictly for NJ based sires only as all the runners in the colts and the fillies are either by Muscle Hill or Trixton
I cannot imagine USofA import semen like we do

[Messenger]

I doubt Kilmore R4 being a 2yo Trot does anything for the Early Quaddie pool tonight
Not that they had too many choices, with the only non Quaddie races being a 2yo Maiden and a 4yo+ Trot - I think I might have gone with the latter (mind you that race has had an unusual 5 scratchings but still a field of 8)

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=KI100621#KIC10062107

[Messenger]

Another one of those $15k races at Mildura for horses that have never won a $15k race

What next a group race for horses that have never won a group race?

Ridiculous bloody nonsense that undermines horse performance records

http://www.harness.org.au/form.cfm?mc=ML090721&rc=MLC09072102

[Messenger]

Something about $4,500 races especially a night meet at Melton does not sit right with me (are they making HRV any less than a $7k race)
People will tell me it is a way for small trainers to avoid hot competition and make a buck (while saving HRV money)
Sir Roman ran 3rd for the Gath stable in a $20k race at Geelong on Saturday night
Tomorrow night he goes around (from the pole again) in a $4,500 race
Then again he did the same 3 starts ago and did nothing so maybe the $20k race was the ridiculous one :confused:

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX200721#MXB20072101

[Messenger]

Good to see Vic have 3 doubles day & night meets on Tu-Fri next week when the gallops have a little sleep

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/meeting-calendar/?state=vic

[Messenger]

In the last race tonight we have a NR 48 and a NR 120 both off the front
(NR 45 before scratching)

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX061121#MXM06112109

[Messenger]

If we are going to demean Melton with $4.5k races on a Friday night they should be the last two on the program not R4

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX070122

[Showgrounds]

They are to busy demeaning Melton with one lap dashes like the Mercury 80.

[Messenger]

They are to busy demeaning Melton with one lap dashes like the Mercury 80.

So true, I would be 100% in favour of redirecting the prizemoney for this series to increase the $4,500 races
IMO the Mercury 80 is not a harness race

[JanellePeter]

Hi all

I am hoping this doesn't break the forum rules as it is advertising what we do. It relates to Harness Racing Victoria. Since 2015 when we commenced individual sectional data for Harness Racing our goal has been to have this data available for every race in Australia.
We are pleased to announce that as of 17 January 2022 we can offer individual sectionals for all Victorian race meetings and therefore every race meeting in Australia. We have always maintained the importance of sectional data as key information to compete with other racing industries.
We have been completing this work since 25 October 2021. These sectionals are not been completed for Harness Racing Victoria and are therefore only available through PJ Data. All other states sectionals that we complete are available on the states web-pages. They are available for private use. More information about our data can be found at http://pjdata.com.au/sectional-data/

On the same date, Victoria will also be added to the options for PJ Harness Analyser. This is an exciting enhancement to this product so all interstate runners can be compared in ratings. More information on the Analyser can be found at http://pjdata.com.au/about/

[Messenger]

If HRV are going to persist with the Motor Boat races they need to update their information (I was surprised to see 8 off the front)

[Messenger]

Look at the horses that went around in R1 at Kilmore tonight for $4,500
They have all bar one been going around in much better/higher stakes races - they drop back and probably think they will meet weaker opposition but they don't AND of course only One can win.
Truth is they have agreed to work for HALF wages

http://www.harness.org.au/form.cfm?mc=KI230122&rc=KIB23012202

The winner was placed in $8k races at its last two starts
Havanna was in a $20k last week
Another was racing against Supreme Dominator and Platinum stride 4 starts ago
One of the scratchings was in a $20k Vicbred mares Semi v Maajida just 3 starts ago
Another was in $20k and $10k races last month
One ran 2nd in a $14k Silver Pace 3 starts ago
Another was in $9k races at its previous two starts

These horses, owners and trainers deserve better than $4,500 races where they are still just a one in ten chance of winning a mere $2,250

[Messenger]

Only 6 races at YV today and I know it is mostly 35 mins between races but between R2 and R3 it is 42 mins - that is way too long unless they are giving me a free lunch

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=YG070222

[Showgrounds]

The Outboard at Melton may have been a blink and you miss it affair but what a terrific drive from Scott Ewen and a sustained staying performance from Bulletproof Boy. Instead of giving the horse full throttle out of the barrier the horse was given time to settle (if that is an appropriate word for a 1200 metre novelty event) then sprinted and sustained his run from the 800 metre mark. Noticeably, the two leaders that flew the gate compacted and ran down the track.

[Messenger]

The difference in times between races for Menangle compared to Melton tonight is extraordinary

Melton has 41 minutes races 4 and 5. Only 30 mins between early races then mostly around 38 mins

Menangle's longest gap is between races 5 and 6 at 37 mins but then only 25 mins between races 6 and 7, they probably average around 30

[Messenger]

Why I wont be going to Horsham on Monday
R.1 is at 12.52 so if there was half an hour between each race, R.9 would be at 4.52
BUT it is Over an hour later at 5.58
The program starts off with the barely acceptable 35min between races but eventually the gaps extend all the way out to 44 mins before the Trotters Cup
The committee can try and convince me as to how they will keep me entertained for all that time (Yes, I know the gap is not their doing but it is their show)

[Messenger]

Why would there be 2 heats of 6 runners for the Vicbred 3yo fillies at Kilmore tonight?
The field size for Kilmore is 12

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=KI310322#KIC31032205

[Messenger]

Hamilton with the $25k Tontine Championships had me interested for Monday
But 40mins between Quaddie races!
The Meadowlands is only ever 25mins
Stawell Gift with 5mins between races is the go

[Messenger]

We have a non-metro meeting at Melton on Friday and yet we are wasting $28k (well wasting at least half of it, $14k would have been sufficient) on a 6 horse claiming race for the benefit of the A for asbestos stable. They really must have some friends in at programming

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX251122#MXC25112205

[Messenger]

On a mostly pathetic $4,500 meet at Melton today we have one $10k race - a mares trot that after scratchings has gone from 7 to 4 starters - now that is a waste of money. Maybe if a race cannot garner 8 acceptors then knowing that scratchings happen, it should not hold up

[Messenger]

Pretty unusual to see two VIC night meetings on the same date
I wonder how many races will end up on Sky2?

Shep (Vicbred hts) and Mildura

[Messenger]

The time between races is becoming absurd and IMO deterring people from attending

Take Stawell on Thursday.
R1 is 12.30 and the last R10 is 6.00

To illustrate how bad this is, consider this, if there was only 30mins between races (nothing outstanding about 30mins) the last would be at 5.00 - a whole hour saved

If it was 20mins between races the last would be at 3.30 - the whole program would be over in almost half the time - 3hrs not 5½hrs

[Bonnie]

For the reasons you have mentioned I no longer go to Harness Racing Meetings unless I have a horse racing at that meeting. . I get there in time to see my horses race and leave after they’ve raced. There is no reason to spend any extra time on course.

[Messenger]

Silly me forgot it is Stawell's Australia Day meeting so there will be some entertainment other than harness

[Messenger]

No wonder Maryborough day meet wont finish much before 7pm tomorrow
4 races have 40 minutes between them

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MH270223#MHC27022307

[Messenger]

The majority of the races at Stawell on Monday have 40mins between them. It is hardly action-packed entertainment. If they had 20mins between races you would be home 2hrs earlier!

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SW060323

[Messenger]

When is the Vic Racing Calendar going to come out - we have nothing past June!

July is only 4mths away

[Messenger]

Tomorrow we have the Geelong Rocket worth $24,000 followed by three $4,500 races

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=GE100323

[Messenger]

When is the Vic Racing Calendar going to come out - we have nothing past June!

July is only 4mths away

At least/last the Australian Feature Race Calendar is out

https://www.harness.org.au/media-room/news-article/?news_id=60331

[Messenger]

Two 1200m races at Melton tonight. If they become a regular, I might be rethinking my codes.
I don't find them as interesting as a gallops 1200m
We already have an increase in trots races which I don't always watch
I was thinking about why I don't always watch the trots
Early days when a young punter, I found them too unreliable.
Now that is not a factor but I think it is because there is less action in a trot
How often do you see a trotter go from last to first in a mid race move.
I quite like watching backmarkers trying to make up a handicap in stand starts

[Messenger]

Well Queen Elida ran a 3rd Q tonight that was every bit as good as a first to last move - when she is on song she is exciting

[Messenger]

I cannot understand why Hamilton is not starting until 1.33 today and thereby not finishing until 5.38+
It will just about be dark by then

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=HM010523#HMC01052302

[aussiebreno]

I cannot understand why Hamilton is not starting until 1.33 today and thereby not finishing until 5.38+
It will just about be dark by then

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=HM010523#HMC01052302

30mins between last at Hamilton and first at Swan Hill. Continuity in the raceday. Get a few dollars from the knock off and go the pub crowd, or others watching after work is finished for the day.

[Messenger]

I am serious about it being dark here before 6pm

[Showgrounds]

I cannot understand why Hamilton is not starting until 1.33 today and thereby not finishing until 5.38+
It will just about be dark by then

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=HM010523#HMC01052302

It's 5:25 at my place and twilight is setting in. A tough call for the racecaller at Hamilton.

[Messenger]

The pics we see are of course enhanced but he did mention when they were moving up that it was getting dark and the lights on the semaphore board are a good indicator. I am about an hour North and it was really quite dark very early today - before 5

[Messenger]

I knew it was Horsham trots on Monday so I just looked up the fields to see if I would postpone my shopping until then BUT once the better races begin, it is 40mins between races so the answer is NO

[Messenger]

Despite there being a gap of 39mins and 38mins, tonight's Melton card will be all over a little after 9.15 - it makes sense for attendees and participants driving home at this time of the year

[Messenger]

Two gaps of 42mins and another of 40 even have a local tossing up attending Stawell on Monday

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SW290523

Take out the race and the horses warming up and pulling up and you still have 30mins of NOTHING

[KTQ]

Two gaps of 42mins and another of 40 even have a local tossing up attending Stawell on Monday

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SW290523

Take out the race and the horses warming up and pulling up and you still have 30mins of NOTHING

which is the problem with harness racing. It's just so BORING for spectators. I always thought make the max time between races 20minutes and have the industry body hire a person or two who can go around and help trainers gear their horses/cart them/wash them etc if they have horses in consecutive races and if there's a stewards enquiry with a driver in the previous race, have a warm up driver on hand. Wouldn't cost much extra and gets things ticking along quicker

[Messenger]

Great points IMO Katie
They will tell us it is about fitting in with Sky
(and that spectators are not even a consideration nowadays)

[aussiebreno]

Great points IMO Katie
They will tell us it is about fitting in with Sky
(and that spectators are not even a consideration nowadays)

If a NSW meet has times 12:00 12:40 1:20 2:00 2:40 3:20 4:00 4:40 5:20
and Vic meet has times 12:20 1:00 1:40 2:20 3:00 3:40 4:20 5:00 5:40

Surely the NSW meet could do 12:00 12:20 1:00 1:20 1:40 2:00 2:20 2:40
And the Vic meet could do 3:00 3:20 3:40 4:00 4:20 4:40 5:00 5:20 5:40

With a bit of mixing and matching and profit redistribution to allow for some times are better to race at than others. At least a trial to see overall impact. Does get a bit harder with night meets telling one meeting they start at around 8:00 and would be pretty hard during summer when our 1st evening race isn;t until after 6pm (pushing 2nd meeting back to 9pm start which doesn't work).

[Messenger]

You are a clever cookie Brendan
Its value of course is all about attendance - are our administrators interested?
It would be an interesting experiment if the 2 states could agree to a trial run.
The thing is that it would have to be a day when there is the potential to attract a crowd
When would that be a chance? Friday twilight/evening, Saturday twilight/evening. Or are these times when people are not as fussed about time between races as they are winding down

[Messenger]

We have 43 minutes between races at Maryborough today - is that a record :confused:
The whole program is a dog's breakfast with the following gaps

27 31 36 39 34 43 34 41 29

Compared to 30 minutes between all races - today you are going home 44 minutes later!

The programmers and Sky are killing us :mad:

[KTQ]

We have 43 minutes between races at Maryborough today - is that a record :confused:
The whole program is a dog's breakfast with the following gaps

27 31 36 39 34 43 34 41 29

Compared to 30 minutes between all races - today you are going home 44 minutes later!

The programmers and Sky are killing us :mad:

not sure how far Emma Stewart is from Maryborough but she was in the first and last race. - edit: Had a look and it's about an hour so not so bad.
Those types of days really really take it out of the horses and staff. One night we were in the first and last race at Gloucester Park with nothing in between on an 11card program. Our little 2yo was having one of her first starts and it was a 3hr drive to Perth so she was away from home for something like 11 hours.
Surely by now, field selectors could set race times to group a trainer's starters together. It wouldn't happen every meet but you'd think they could make it a consideration.

[Messenger]

Tonight's Melton meet has bigger gaps than normal and the times are all over the place
We are being treat like beggars - take it or leave it
When are we going to make a stand
Saturday night harness should be on the half hour

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX100623

[Messenger]

11.12 am R1 Maryborough this morning seems a strange time to be running a 'metro quality' race. I know there are only 6 starters but 4 of them are city class horses

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MH300623#MHC30062301

[Messenger]

So the above race ended up holding $2,666 Win and $2,954 First Four

A comparable race from last Saturday was the 5 horse R3 which held $5,913 Win and $14,409 First Four

Yes, one is Saturday but the 11am Friday morning is the point I am making

The last race at Mary at 4.38 held $10,106 Win and $6,506 First Four. It was a bigger field than R1 but I think R1 could still have come close to that better placed

(The above figures are Vic TAB only)

[Messenger]

This has to be the worst ever.
40 mins between every race at Stawell on Sunday bar the last

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SW160723

There is no other harness on interstate to help kill the time - are they trying to drum up business for the pokies (but I do know the club wouldn't have any say in it)

[Messenger]

1200m racing - I am reserving my judgement on it as I have seen it produce more interesting racing but is anywhere else in the world racing over shorter than a mile?

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/articles/tab-fasttrack-1200-to-get-hearts-racing-this-august-at-melton/

[Beltane]

They might as well bring back Monte racing for all the good that 1200 metre sprints will do.

[Messenger]

Steve, I have seen some advocating bringing back Monte racing for the interest it creates (if my memory is correct, Chris Lang for one)

My first thoughts/posts (going back a couple of years) ridiculed the notion of 1200m racing - they were to appease the TAB/Sky and take less time. Of late, I have had to admit that some of the races have been more interesting than most 1720m races

This wasn't really intended IMO - just a fluke. A bit like the Blues having Silvagni and Motlop in the team last week :)

[Messenger]

On the 1200m racing

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/articles/innovation-at-the-heart-of-tab-fasttrack-1200-says-hrv-ceo/

It is good to hear from the CEO !

I hope it appeals to a new audience - we will have to see it reflected in turnover

I still think it is about making our races quicker (less of a footprint on Sky)

PP has pointed out that this is NOT why the greyhounds turnover is up But rather that they are running twice as many races!
Think of the big/time lengthy gallops races - Cox Plate, Melbourne Cup etc etc

[aussiebreno]

On the 1200m racing

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/articles/innovation-at-the-heart-of-tab-fasttrack-1200-says-hrv-ceo/

It is good to hear from the CEO !

I hope it appeals to a new audience - we will have to see it reflected in turnover

I still think it is about making our races quicker (less of a footprint on Sky)

PP has pointed out that this is NOT why the greyhounds turnover is up But rather that they are running twice as many races!
Think of the big/time lengthy gallops races - Cox Plate, Melbourne Cup etc etc
Shorter races will definitely help with getting an audience who don't like the boring 60-90 seconds in middle section of 2100-2200m trots when nothing happens. Still a fan of more racing though. 9 race cards are better than 7 race cards etc.

Melbourne Cup is once a year. Rest of the year the gallops barely have races over 2000m+. Typical card 90% of races 1600m or less. Also - have a look at the rise of 1200m Everest and decline of Melbourne Cup in recent years.

[Messenger]

I am often complaining about the time between races but a lot of the time it has to be a long day for trainers/drivers

I saw Aaron Dunne had 3 in at Mildura today.
For a start it is 3½ hrs from Horsham to Mildura
He had one in R1 before midday, so he would have had to get there at 11am
He did not have his next until R5 at 3pm so even with gearing up and gearing down, he would still have had 2hrs to kill - a long lunch maybe?
Then his third starter was in R10 at 5.25 so once again well over an hour to kill - I wonder what is on offer for afternoon tea at Mildura?
It could have been worse, his third starter could have been in R12 which would have added a further hour onto his day

At least it is a day meet but he would have been up at dawn, left for Mildura before 7.30am and won't be home till probably 9.30pm

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=ML210723

[Messenger]

Good to see that Aaron won R10 - that would have improved the drive home

[Messenger]

We are now accepting 4 horse races

Look at the trot - R3 Melton on Saturday night
Admittedly we have got 4 good trotters in it
But the only way the race has stood up is by Brent Lilley putting an NR58 and a NR64 in a NR80+ race
Because he has his champ Queen Elida as favourite

[Messenger]

Maestro went around at YV today in a NR52+ and could only manage 4th - he definitely does not belong in the above race

[aussiebreno]

He doesnt belong but how many NR80+ trotters currently in training in Victoria? Makes it hard for the NR100+ to get a race. Just another reason we should get rid of the trots!

Also how many people have whinged about lack of mares opportunities and we get 6 in a mares FFA for good prizemoney.

[Messenger]

Looking for an outing tomorrow, I got excited to see it is Horsham trots tomorrow but that quickly dissipated when I saw that the time between races is often as not 40mins - I have not got that much time to waste

[Messenger]

Can we afford to program races for inexperienced trotters at Melton on a Saturday night?
The start of R4 was a disgrace and would be a real turn off for those who had not seen it all before
Tickets torn up for 4 of the 9 after 100m

[Messenger]

Why start Maryborough at 1.17 today, resulting in the last not being until 6.27
No doubt to do with some betting theory

[Messenger]

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX270424#MXM27042401

The best race on Saturday night's Melton program is in slot 1
Many of the same horses were also placed in the R1 slot last week but due to the Nutrien Finals they may not have considered the best race of the night by many (although they were the best performed horses)

It is obviously all about the punt and with a 5.30 start time - trying to piggyback onto the gallops

I guess admin would know if it pays off. I wonder whether 5.30 still attracts the same amount of 'harness punters'.

Attendances no longer seem to be a consideration or else you are not going schedule it this way for although I always get there very early when I go (I have a long way to come, so it is not just a night out event when I do), I am thinking getting there at 5.15 is not what many 'rusted ons' are used to

[Yabbie]

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX270424#MXM27042401

The best race on Saturday night's Melton program is in slot 1
Many of the same horses were also placed in the R1 slot last week but due to the Nutrien Finals they may not have considered the best race of the night by many (although they were the best performed horses)

It is obviously all about the punt and with a 5.30 start time - trying to piggyback onto the gallops

I guess admin would know if it pays off. I wonder whether 5.30 still attracts the same amount of 'harness punters'.

Attendances no longer seem to be a consideration or else you are not going schedule it this way for although I always get there very early when I go (I have a long way to come, so it is not just a night out event when I do), I am thinking getting there at 5.15 is not what many 'rusted ons' are used to

It is definitely trying to get punters immediately following gallops
They are not interested in on track attendance. I am a timekeeper in local footy and have absolutely no chance of being at Melton for a 5.30 start. Often it’s at least an hours drive direct from the game.

[Messenger]

And so it continues - the main Saturday Melton race is R1 at 5.24 - we are totally beholding to the punt - we are making ourselves mere adjuncts and vassals to the gallops

[Messenger]

4.55 start at Melton on Saturday night.
Maybe we should go the whole hog and see if we can't race at Flemington straight after their last race - damn, they don't have any lights

[Messenger]

Yeah, the average time between races for Terang tomorrow night is <30mins
R1 is at 5.07 and R.8 is at 8.30 - in Summer it would be called a twilight meeting

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=TE210524

[Messenger]

I have just finished my lunch and it is only 2½ hours until Melton R1 (4.54) !

[gutwagon]

Yes they are trying to get the gallop punters to stay on the punt a bit longer. The figures show the the first 2 races have the biggest pools so they think that putting the best races in those positions will increase turnover.
My opinion is if the first 2 races are already getting the good pools why waste the good races in that position ? Try them at race 4 and 5 , maybe the punters will hang on a bit for them. The gallop punters don't know if they are good horses or not so save the good ones for the Harness punters.
If the Harness punters miss the first few races and tune in to see the best horses have already ran they may just tune out and skip the meeting.
Only time will tell. But how much of that do we have ?

[Messenger]

How things change. I have just realized it is 5.40 and had better check out tonight's Melton - I have missed 2 races already!

[Messenger]

Bring back Mondays! They were one of my favourites
Another consequence of pretending Monday does not exist is that you cannot click on Sunday and get any results

https://www.thetrots.com.au/

[Messenger]

I know the reasoning behind it BUT it just doesn't feel right

[Yabbie]

Get used to it not likely to change. Turnover is supporting the early starts
PS I don’t like it either

[Messenger]

But I wonder how different total turnover would be if it was not the absolute 'race of the night'.
Let's say we swapped R1 and R5 on Saturday's program
R1 may drop a little but it may be balanced out by R5 going up a little
And attendees would be happier

[Messenger]

I will post here as this is the race I was talking about
Yambukian and Mach Dan were responsible for the early burn but went again for the last 800m and still had lengths on the big names Catch A Wave and The Lost Storm

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX100824#MXM10082401

[Messenger]

Somebody has to explain to me "Why, in these days of reduced prizemoney, would we be running the $30,000 Gp3 Shep Trotters' Cup on a Tuesday?"

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP200824#SPC20082406

Last year it was on a Friday - I can only think it is because 'Tuesday' has become Shepparton's regular day
Programming nowadays is supposed to be about maximizing turnover - it is NOT going to happen on a Tuesday (unless it is declared a public holiday :cool:)
If Just Believe takes his place in the field it is going to curtail betting other than for exotics but HRV never knew that was going to happen

[Messenger]

Last year Chris Lang and Chris Svanosio both had 3 runner in it - neither has a single one this year

[Messenger]

I need a day at the trots.
Hmmm Charlton is on Monday, Hamilton is on Wednesday
Weather forecast sounds much better for Monday
Bugger - the old 40 minutes between races F*** Up (mostly)
Mostly mile races so you get a couple of minutes of entertainment followed by over half an hour of SFA
No thanks

Maybe the BOM will be wrong about Wednesday
Shep could have been good for a fairly quick program but its just too far from me and an overnight stay

[Messenger]

Somebody has to explain to me "Why, in these days of reduced prizemoney, would we be running the $30,000 Gp3 Shep Trotters' Cup on a Tuesday?"

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP200824#SPC20082406

Last year it was on a Friday - I can only think it is because 'Tuesday' has become Shepparton's regular day
Programming nowadays is supposed to be about maximizing turnover - it is NOT going to happen on a Tuesday (unless it is declared a public holiday :cool:)
If Just Believe takes his place in the field it is going to curtail betting other than for exotics but HRV never knew that was going to happen

It was a ridiculous race, even Harry Stamper content to race for the $4,500 second prize (compared to $17,100 plus bonuses for first). Harry Stamper was always going to be too good for the rest of the field so why didn't he at least make Just Believe earn it by not giving him the lead

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP200824#SPC20082406

[Messenger]

With HRV being broke, it is surprising to see only 1/8 races being $4,500 at YV today and Maryborough on Wednesday
however 5/9 are at Shep tomorrow night

[Messenger]

I know I am a traditionalist but what is that last race doing on a metro program at Melton on Saturday night

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX191024

I know they are racing for less than they do at Menangle on a Tuesday but that just makes it even more embarrassing

[gutwagon]

It could have been $4500 !
A mate had a galloper win at a non TAB meeting in QLD last week and first prize was $11,000. How does that make you feel ?

[Messenger]

But I wonder how different total turnover would be if it was not the absolute 'race of the night'.
Let's say we swapped R1 and R5 on Saturday's program
R1 may drop a little but it may be balanced out by R5 going up a little
And attendees would be happier

I still STRONGLY believe this - I feel like we are prostituting ourselves to gallops punters!
The $50k Gp3 4&5yo Championship as R1 at Melton on Saturday is a classic example

I think we are virtually ripping out our soul

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX021124#MXM02112406

[trish]

That looks like what is happening Kev.
Will be interesting to see the pool for the last at Flemington & the 1st at Melton.

[Messenger]

I still cannot believe that there is no harness meet at Yarra Valley on Cup Day. I have not lived there since Black Saturday but I can't believe it wasn't still pulling a crowd as an alternative to Flemington for picnickers
I wonder where they are all going to go - there does not seem to be much on. There is a picnic gallops at Mansfield and ZERO harness day meets
I guess the old Backyard BBQ will be King

[Messenger]

Not only is there no YV on Cup Day, there is no harness meeting at all on Monday - this too could have been a good YV day to maybe catch a few taking a sneaky long weekend

[Messenger]

When it comes to time between races, Monday's meeting at Charlton has to be the WORST ever
There are 40 or 41 minutes between every scheduled race time

All attendees deserve a medal

[Messenger]

Stawell Cup today

This cannot be right can it? There is 47 minutes between R1 and R2 :eek:

[Yabbie]

Stawell Cup today

This cannot be right can it? There is 47 minutes between R1 and R2 :eek:

I’m sure it is. It’s awful. Last night at Melton there were multiple long gaps between races (as it was last week). Only thing I could think of was coverage of WA gallops. But that’s not a possible reason for today at Stawell. Sky Channel at its best!! Not

[Messenger]

Yes, there are Fields. Yes, there is a Form Guide
But NO, there is no racing at Melton today - it is simply trials
What is going on here (other than confusing people)
This is not the first time either

[Messenger]

There was a good meeting at Melton on Friday but why was it a day meeting?
It could have been run in conjunction with the Mildura night meeting
The first 4 races were Homegrown Finals worth $25k each
The Win pools for these races (tote only) were $1k, $3k, $5k, $5k - sad
The first is because it was a 3 horse race (but a good one to watch)

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX271224

[Messenger]

I would like to see meetings with a greater mix of race classes
If you went to Maryborough today the highest class horse you are going to see is an NR58
and no, you're also not going to see and juveniles racing, ¾ of the races are bloody $4k races

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MH100125

[Messenger]

Only 6 races at Stawell tomorrow but don't worry it will feel like 8 !
with 40 minutes between races (5x40=200)
instead of an acceptable 30 minutes you will just about be there as long as a full meeting (7x30=210)

[Messenger]

Back on my pet hate
Charlton has a 43 minute and 42 minute gap between races today
= Absurd