Tabcorp Park Menangle prizemoney increase

[Triple V]

http://media.live.harnesslink.com/images/is1339571983.jpg (http://www.harnesslink.com/www/MediaViewer.cgi?ID=57847)- (http://www.harnesslink.com/www/MediaViewer.cgi?ID=57847)
The New South Wales Harness Racing Club has announced a prizemoney increase from $5,500 to $7,000 for the Tuesday races run by the Club at Tabcorp Park Menangle effective from July 1.

This is a significant 27% elevation in the prizemoney offered and is a result of the recent victory in the Racefields litigation.
The announcement however also carried the decision by the Club to withdraw the distribution of petrol cards for each starter which had been in operation for the past year.
“The Directors looked at options available to the Club with the win in the High Court with Racefields and felt that the owners of the lower grade horses would be best served with an increase in prizemoney,” NSWHRC Chief Executive John Dumesny stated.
“Metropolitan races received a massive boost in prizemoney from the proceeds of investments from the Harold Park sale.”
“As the entire industry is now aware we were living beyond our funds over the past few years waiting on a win in the Courts.
“Now that we have that win we can edge our prizemoney forward.”
The Menangle licence meetings held on a Tuesday (160 races) are funded at Tier 2 level by HRNSW but the Club will put additional funding ($2,000 per race) towards these races so that the same level of prizemoney is offered for all Tuesday meetings. Tabcorp Park Menangle now offers the highest levels of prizemoney for all grades of horses nationally.
The metropolitan minimum level is $22,000 per race and the career minimum level is $7,000.
The total prizemoney budget for FY 2012/13 is $16.2 million. This is an increase of $3.5 million or 28% above the current financial year prizemoney distribution.
“The Directors will be considering initiatives at their next Board Meeting which will focus on the Country Series,” Dumesny said.
“With the constantly-changing wagering landscape, the Directors also need to be satisfied that any prizemoney increases can be sustained into the coming years.
“Hopefully in the next financial year our wagering income will be not be influenced by any matter outside of our control.
“We have had the telecast imbroglio, equine influenza and our legal battles with Racefields over the past few years.
“The Club elected to withdraw the distribution of the petrol cards as on the whole it wasn’t considered effective.
“There were representations from owners and trainers considered as well as the fact many participants believed there was an inequality around which stables received the bulk of the cards and the distances they travelled.

“All factors were weighed up before it was declared to call and end to the incentive.” Dumesny concluded.
Prizemoney Split $7,000
1st$4,690
2nd$945
3rd$630
4th$280
5th to last $70

by Sean VELLA

[Greg Hando]

Absolutely great news.

[Triple V]

Sure is. Bloody terrific.

[dizzy]

Whilst extra prizemoney is welcome is the best use of it to further reward success? or would subsidising unplaced runners to encourage participation rates and increase field size which inturn increase turnover be a better option?

[Triple V]

Nah. Socialism never works Dot. Eventually it runs out of other people's money.

[dizzy]

I actually very liberal in a family of socialists but given the current state of play in both the industry and the economy perhaps some socialism is in order. Jeff Gural at the Meadowlands has introduced 2% of stakesmoney to unplaced runners in an attempt to increase field sizes and as they say over there increase the "handle". I also recall Peter V'landy's intended to increase the prizemoney for 5-10th from the race fields revenue to increase field sizes, and the gallopers already get floating, shoeing and stablehand subsidies to go the the races. I don't think I need to say which administrators I'd have more faith in.

[aussiebreno]

One question, living under a rock etc...with Menangle going to $7000 are places like Bathurst, Newcastle, Wagga also going to $7000?

[dizzy]

I don't think so Brenno, Menangle is using their share of the racefields legislation money to fund the increase, whilst the other clubs also benefit from the racefields legislation funds I don't think individually any of them will be able to match the increases as the money will need to be shared around more clubs. I would be happy to be wrong though.

[mightymo]

One question, living under a rock etc...with Menangle going to $7000 are places like Bathurst, Newcastle, Wagga also going to $7000?

No Brenno.

That increase was announced by the NSW HRC(ie menangle) not HRNSW

[aussiebreno]

Thanks guys. I am aware of the difference between NSWHRC and HRNSW but was just making sure I hadn't missed a possible seperate announcement by HRNSW.

I have a post waiting to go but will sit on it for another 24 hours deciding its the right thing to post or not!

[Triple V]

I actually very liberal in a family of socialists but given the current state of play in both the industry and the economy perhaps some socialism is in order. Jeff Gural at the Meadowlands has introduced 2% of stakesmoney to unplaced runners in an attempt to increase field sizes and as they say over there increase the "handle". I also recall Peter V'landy's intended to increase the prizemoney for 5-10th from the race fields revenue to increase field sizes, and the gallopers already get floating, shoeing and stablehand subsidies to go the the races. I don't think I need to say which administrators I'd have more faith in.

[VVV] Geeze Dot. @ Menangle the basic $ are 22k M0's and 7k C0's on a world class track with the promise of so much more and for the life of me I still can't fathom why you or anyone else would be talking things down. There's no pleasing some people. If it were raining Gold bars I fear some would still seek to complain about the weather.
The NSWHRC are kicking the tin THEMSELVES here. It is not from $ snapped up by them that was due but never delivered to other NSW based Clubs. Other Clubs will get their piece and they can choose to follow the leader or otherwise use it to fund whatever it is they want to fund at their own tracks.
You guys at Bankstown might want to get a bloke with a pressure cleaner in and blast all the Pigeon crap off the steps of the grandstand & surrounds.
http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/resources/images/1260255/?type=articleLandscape
There are rumours that stunning Roman era Mosaics may well lie beneath the countless layers of Guano.

[Mitch]

Menangle doesn't have any issues with field sizes, so taking a socialist approach wouldn't really increase competition in my opinion.

This increase is another positive step forward and should be welcomed by all.

[David Summers]

Menangle doesn't have any issues with field sizes, so taking a socialist approach wouldn't really increase competition in my opinion. This increase is another positive step forward and should be welcomed by all.

Alas for Dot , the glass continues to be "half empty" , no matter what the topic , in all her posts in the forum.

Dot , how about surprising us all with at least one positive post in this harness forum ? However I am not really holding my breath waiting for that to ever happen :-(

[aussiebreno]

Brendan, you may have missed this one:

http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=18341

Thanks Adam and congrats on Baby Blings win tonight.

[dizzy]

Mitch with respect I suggest you take another look at Menangle Tuesday meetings with regard to field sizes, you may then wish to revise your claim that Menangle doesn't have any issues with field sizes. And before someone jumps down my throat Menangle is not the only place where there aren't full fields.

As there is a direct correlation between field size and turnover, our major income stream, then due diligence needs to be done at both club and state administration level to use extra money from the racefields legislation to further maximise the return to the industry from turnover. I have an opinion on how that should be done but my opinion is not what counts, what counts is a properly done business study on whether increasing returns to already successfull ie winning and placing, starters, or subsidising unsuccessfull or unplaced starters is more effective for maximising field size and therefore turnover.

Gee David do you read all my posts? I'm sure I said in Brennos post about betting $$$$ it would be nice if we had $25 billion in turnover, cant be more positive then that can I? Rest assured David for the most part my glass is half full at worst regardless of the content, it's just that my feet always remain firmly planted on the ground.

Jamie not so long ago you were gripping about getting nothing for your fillies at the sales yet the planned prizemoney increases for Menangle had been well advertised at the time. I guess the higher prizemoney didn't translate to extra income for sellers at the sales. Likewise only those that are winning anywhere are getting better incomes, the rest continue to get nothing yet costs continue to rise. Just how much was that bag of the wonder stuff Livamol these days Jamie? Can you really afford it from the return that you got at the sales? Menangle is a world class track in your opinion why? Because they run the fastest times? How does running markedly faster times at one particular track generate more income directly for the industry? Do punters bet more on races that are run faster or do they bet more on well handicapped races with maximum field size regardless of time? In my opinion in the modern era a world class track, indeed a world class facility, is what Kevin Seymour has planned for the Albion Park site in Brisbane, not what we have out at Menangle.

Do you intend to grace us at Bankstown with your presence Jamie, if so I'll show you to the lounge and you won't need to worry about the pigeon crap using that entrance to the grandstand, the Chubb boys keep it pretty clean.

[David Summers]

Congrats to all the owners Adam. Good to see her back to her best again. Do you have anything special in mind for her after next weeks final ?

[Mitch]

Mitch with respect I suggest you take another look at Menangle Tuesday meetings with regard to field sizes, you may then wish to revise your claim that Menangle doesn't have any issues with field sizes. And before someone jumps down my throat Menangle is not the only place where there aren't full fields.


Dot,

I just had a quick look at the field sizes for Tuesday meetings dating back to mid April. Apart from trotters races and some 2yo/3yo races the majority of races had 8-10 runners at acceptance time. I'm sure if I had the time to research this even more thoroughly it would further confirm that in general field size is not an issue at Menangle.

I believe the biggest opportunity to increase field sizes would come from centralized programming and some more effective handicapping procedures.

Mitch.

[dizzy]

Dot,

I just had a quick look at the field sizes for Tuesday meetings dating back to mid April. Apart from trotters races and some 2yo/3yo races the majority of races had 8-10 runners at acceptance time. I'm sure if I had the time to research this even more thoroughly it would further confirm that in general field size is not an issue at Menangle.

I believe the biggest opportunity to increase field sizes would come from centralized programming and some more effective handicapping procedures.

Mitch.

Theres your problem Mitch, you had to say the majority of races had 8-10 runners at acceptance time, not 10 runners at acceptance time, and obviously less again in some instances at post time. Eight runners is not a full field and full fields count for turnover. Melton frequently have 12 horse fields and on some occasions more. Some of us will recall that the field size was increased at Harold Park from 10 to 11 runners except for 2yo to improve turnover. Some even older will recall 12 horse fields as the norm at Harold Park.

Improved programming and handicapping certainly is of benefit to field size and turnover and should constantly be reviewed for improvement but perhaps in this economic climate that isn't enough

[Mitch]

Dot,

I just completed a piece of deeper analysis. From Tues March 6 - Tues June 12 there were 15 Tuesday meetings held at Menangle. The following is fact:
- 39% of races had full fields after acceptances and prior to scratchings
- 75% of races had >8 starters
- There were 127 races run across the 15 meetings
- There were an average of 4.8 scratchings per meeting
- Total average field size was 8.26 (actual starters) or 8.83 (including scratchings)

I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, but unless you can show me current data that suggests otherwise once you have a field of 8 I would be surprised if the turnover increase to 9 or 10 horse fields is in any way significant. I still do not believe distributing prize money further down the placings is the right solution at this point. The above numbers are heavily impacted by small trotting and 2yo (in some instances) fields. I still believe NSWHRC have made the right decision.

What will generate greater revenue is competitive fields with evenly handicapped horses, I still strongly hold the view that centralized programming and improved handicapping measures will have a far greater impact on betting turnover.

I support your comments re some type of study or review, on the condition that it is done in a timely manner and that progress still occurs in the meantime. I'd rather them try things that don't work than not try at all!

[Triple V]

theres your problem mitch, you had to say the majority of races had 8-10 runners at acceptance time, not 10 runners at acceptance time, and obviously less again in some instances at post time. Eight runners is not a full field and full fields count for turnover.
[vvv] anything to try and drag down menangle huh dot? Mitch has already done the figures here so there's nothing to add.

melton frequently have 12 horse fields and on some occasions more.
[vvv] melton start 6 across the front with up to 6 trailers, there is no room for more than 12 to score up so the... 'and on some occasions more' thing is just totally incorrect.
menangle starts 10 across the front. No trailers. All silent all done.
it has also escaped you that vic has centralised programming in place...the very thing many including myself have repeatedly stated that we need here in nsw and paradoxically the very thing that you have repeatedly railed against???????
centralised programming is the very thing which produces that which you are lauding here, full fields at melton...because the programing is done in such a way that cetrain grades of horse have no option but to go there...or otherwise, stay at home and not race. Time and time again you've stated on this Forum that you are against such a system but here you are, unknowingly wrapping one of the major benefits of it? Perplexing to say the least. Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

some of us will recall that the field size was increased at harold park from 10 to 11 runners except for 2yo to improve turnover. Some even older will recall 12 horse fields as the norm at harold park.
[vvv] geeze. There's a fair old slice of fish can swim, a duck can swim, therefore a fish is a duck about that dot.
what happened or didn't happen at hp is totally irrelevant to the way in which racing is now conducted at menangle.
completely different beasts.

improved programming and handicapping certainly is of benefit to field size and turnover and should constantly be reviewed for improvement
[vvv] couldn't agree more.

but perhaps in this economic climate that isn't enough.
[vvv] there's that old socialist thing creeping in again.
call me a cynic but i immediately read that as 'bankstown will more than likely not have any $ coming to it because the money that would otherwise have been our due from race fields legislation will go towards repaying hrnsw all the money they have outlayed over the last 2 years so to prop the place up...so in view of that, we want another hand out'....but hey, that's just me, dreadful cynic that i am.

vvv

[Triple V]

[QUOTE=Mitch;21391] What will generate greater revenue is competitive fields with evenly handicapped horses, I still strongly hold the view that centralized programming and improved handicapping measures will have a far greater impact on betting turnover. QUOTE]

[VVV] CAN I GET A WITNESS? TESTIFY BROTHER MITCH! AMEN!

[dizzy]

Jamie just because you shout the loudest here does not make you right. The barrier configuration at Melton is 7 across the front, check the field/form guide if you doubt me. As to 14 starters nowhere did I say that was a mobile start so best you check that too. It may surprise you but I am familar with the barrier configuration at Menangle what I am unsure of is if this was the wisest choice with regards to maximising income to the industry from turnover. Perhaps you can enlighten me Jamie? But most likely you'll just duck the question as you have done previously when I have directly asked one of you?

As to centralised programming Jamie you are attributing statements to me that I have not made. I have not as you say "railed against" centralised programing here. What I did do was raise a concern that your demands for and application of centralised programing was solely dependant upon the superior skills of Mark Read, a situation that could leave us up the proverbial creek without a paddle if Mark were to become indisposed. What I suggested was that perhaps regionalised programing using the most skilled of the local administrators with support from HRNSW (ie Mark) might be better. If you actually look at the Melton fields you will see that there is also room for improvement in numbers so if they do have centralised programming as you say it clearly is not the answer on its own to field size.

Couldn't agree more Jamie racing at Menangle is conducted differently at Menangle then at Harold Park, the question is is it better at Menangle?

Lastly Jamie you seem intend on attributing my opinions to the fact I train at Bankstown. Rest assured you could not be further from the truth, I do train at Bankstown as a matter of convienence however my opinions are not formulated as the result of any petty inter club politics but rather from a much deeper concern for the future of the industry.

[Greg Hando]

How does the centralised programming work ?

[dizzy]

Mitch nice work on the figures for Menangle, I confess I just scan then, putting then in a configuration such as you have would outlast my patience. You have every right to ask for data to support my views with regard to horse 9 and 10 and turnover and I regret that I can't provide it. My views have been formulated not from the actual data itself, which I am unsure as to if it is even in the public domain, but rather the written and verbal comments of racing administrators, who do have access to figures, amassed over the last decade or so. As HRNSW's racing manager commercial Adam Fairley is a contributor to this forum perhaps he could enlighten us definatively at least in a general sense to the effect of field size on turnover.

Ironically with a decline in the pool of horses available to race I do feel that your comments about the contribution of horses "9" and "10" to the turnover pool may come to fruition in the future, in the sense that if the handicapping spread becomes too great in order to fill a field then the weakest horses will be at odds that will do little to enhance turnover.

Mitch you are entitled to your view that distributing money further down the line is not part of the solution but I do not share your view. Before becoming involved in harness racing some 15 years ago, and for sometime after that, I participated heavily in equestrian sports, something were "turnover" was what you did when your horse hung a leg at a cross country jump, and near on 99% of competitors had no realistic prospects of winning a cent never mind a dollar yet turned up in their hundreds if the cost to compete wasn't too high. Whilst harness racing can afford to well reward it's most successful participants I do think in the current economic climate and mindset of Australians that we need at this point to ensure the affordability of the sport to all participants, breeders included, in an attempt to ensure that our participant level and horse pool does not continue to contract.

[NormanS]

To go back to the Menangle is increasing prize money - compare this to Ontario http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kqLDOei7qM&feature and http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=98500 where they are talking about a 30% drop in prize money and the devastation that this is going to cause to families, owners, trainers, farriers, stock feed agents, breeders etc.
Would it great to get an "appearance fee"? Yes and no. This is a balancing act indeed. The emphasis on prize money has to be Winning or trying to (it is a race after all); however you also have to have a race which punters want to punt on. My opinion: This means bigger fields which an appearance fee might help produce. BUT you don't want people / horses going around just for the appearance money. You need competitive racing.

I may ramble a bit from here.

With increased prize money you are going to attract better horses / trainers / drivers from interstate or even overseas. The local owner must therefore buy a better horse to compete. This should produce more competitive racing. We then get into a grey area. More competitive racing hopefully produces less predictable racing, hopefully creates longer priced favourites. I know which I prefer – longer priced less predictable. BUT if I was punting in the $1000’s I don’t know what my answer would be. It would put the emphasis back on to being able to do the form and then the stewards asking the questions when form doesn’t stack up.

With respect to centralised programming I'm a fence sitter. I respect both arguments. There is a need to program races so that you get the best chance to maximise fields. However as an owner or trainer I want my horse nominated where I think it has the best chance of winning. I’ll use a personal example here. Harold Park on a Friday night in a C2-C4 ($8000) PBD Class or Newcastle on a Saturday Night in a C2-C3 ($5000) RBD may be combined with C4-C5. When I was able to see the nominations and HP were running short on nominations, I chose HP with a C2 Gelding – I knew I was going to get a good barrier. I chose this twice in a month and ran a 3rd and a 4th. BUT I was able to place my horse where as a Handicapper may have sent me around in a C2 or better for horses that have won less than $8000 in their last 6 start (which might have included Special Albert or similar horse ridiculously out of class).

With Melton – 7 across and 5 trailers. If the races are PBD by class or $’s then the better or inform horses should draw the second line. Would this mean that a horse that would have been favourite if it had drawn the front starts at a better (higher) price due to the risk of “getting caught in traffic”? Would this increase betting turnover or does it turn the bigger punters off due to less predictable racing?

[aussiebreno]

Does anybody else see a resemblence to the two-speed economy we hear so much about, and in comparing this to what Menangle could become compared to the rest of NSW. In 20 years time is this Menangle focus (beyond HRNSW control, NSWHRC) and great strength going to kill country racing. With mid week meetings offering more money, any decent country horse is going to try and win a $7000 race. This will decimate mostly the quality but also the quantity of country racing and feirce repurcussions could occur to the industry.

[Mitch]

Dot,

We don't have to agree, it's just good to see that we are all passionate about the sport. One way or another if enough passionate people are willing to put actions behind their passion things will change for the better. Even though you and Jamie don't see eye to eye I enjoy your debates...you're both passionate and care about the industry.

At the end of the day I just encourage racing administrators to not get stuck in the past and to try new things in order to evolve the sport.

[Mitch]

Breno,

You are spot on and this is clearly one of the downsides of having a club that is financially secure in a market that is extremely volatile.

If I were John Dumensey I would be redeploying 10-12 Tuesday Menangle meetings to the key regional centres with a number of races restricted to horses trained in that region and keep the increased prize money in place. There is no direct benefit to the NSWHRC but this is of significant benefit to the broader harness industry in NSW. In return Menangle could take a few extra Sunday meetings with reduced prize money but possibly run the Sunday's on consecutive weeks and run a series of races with finals for different class horses.

For example:

Menangle re-deploy the following
3 x Tues Meetings to Wagga
3 x Tues Meetings to Bathurst
2 x Tues Meetings to Tamworth
2 x Tues Meetings to Goulburn
1 x Tues meeting to Maitland
1 x Tues meeting to Young

All races of $7k prize money and 50% of races on program restricted to country trained horses. This gives country trainers, owners etc the chance to share in some of the extra prize money. NSWHRC to fund a $500 bonus to any country trainer, owner or driver who can get 2 winners in the same program.

Meetings re-deployed to Menangle:
1 each from wagga, Bathurst, Tamworth & Goulburn.

Run a series over 4 consecutive Sunday's at Menagle with the first 3 weeks being heats of the following:
2co fillies
3co fillies
3yo+ co colts & geldings
3yo+ co fillies & mares
C2-c5 mares

Week 4 are finals with consolations for all races. Family day bumper 10 race program.

All races of $4.5k with finals of $7k + 5 consolation finals of $5k. NSWHRC to fund a starters subsidy of $150 for horses trained outside metro area that finish outside of prize money earning positions across all 4 weeks. Call it the East meets West series or something like that.

I firmly believe the NSWHRC must invest some of their money into events outside of Menangle if the Industry is to grow and evolve. With a model like the above there really isn't much to be lost but a hell of a lotto be gained if it works.

Thoughts?

[dizzy]

There you go Mitch we do agree on one thing, that ultimately it is not about agreement but about achievement! I think we are actually repeating the patterns of the past here Mitch, HP always had the superior prizemoney on a Tuesday afternoon yet struggled for the most part to attract participants to HP, even after racing on a Monday afternoon ceased at Fairfield. Now we are going down the path of again having superior prizemoney at Menangle to draw more participants to Menangle, but what gets forgotten is the mindset of trainers. Trainers ultimately want to participate in the races that they think they are most likely to win, not neccessarily the race where they win the most money, accordingly many will steer away from the races with more prizemoney as they believe that that is where the "good ones" will go and look to place their horse in what they see as an easier race even though it has less prizemoney so richer races can end up with smaller fields whilst "cheaper races" can end up with full fields. The ultimate example of this is group one weight for age races at the gallops which almost invariably have smallish fields despite huge purses on offer, as compared to group 1 handicaps which are usually full fields and often with emergencies. Getting the balance right isn't easy.

Yes Brenno I see what you see, and not just with regard to country clubs in NSW, I think you'll find that many interstate/Nz administrators feel that NSW/Menangle have been trying to poach their participants and not because Menangle had the good of the entire industry in mind. A little birdie told me that more then a few meetings between the states administrators have been more then a little icy.

[Mitch]

Adam,

Pardon my ignorance but out of interest when is it and what are the details? I was not aware this was the case.

Re programming: If only it were that simple Adam.......

[broncobrad]

For those of you interested in the debate of increasing field sizes to increase turnover...The Racing Queensland Limited Board has approved an increase in field sizes at the two 1,000m tracks AP and the GC effective from 1/7/12, acting on service providers Tatts Bet & Sky Racing advice that larger fields attract larger turnover. (This information was sourced from http://www.justracing.com.au/ ).

Isn't it great to see something positive happening up in the Sunshine State as far as trying to grow the interests of harness racing up there instead of it being allowed to die a slow, lingering death. Hopefully the previous regime of administration is dead and and buried.

[dizzy]

Absolutely Brad, whilst not out of the shallow water yet the ship in QLD appears to be heading back to safer territory!

Mitch initiatives with regard to programming should always be under consideration but as I'm sure you can appreciate it is a complex beast. A simpler option which just requires the will of the Menangle board is a decision to transfer funds to racing at other venues. Some such as Jamie would say that it is Menangle's money but I know many in the industry believe the windfall from the sale HP belongs not to one club but to the entire industry as it was obtained from the efforts and support of clubs and participants across the state over many years, and of course the foresight of some wise men who made the decision many many years ago to purchase the land. Some even consider the windfall for the industry could have been even greater had the HP board taken the decision to sell HP sooner.

Adam thank you for providing a greater insight for us all. I don't doubt that the task you have is akin to standing on a see saw whilst balancing a glass of water on ones head juggling not one but many balls whilst being proded by a stick and at times a dog comes along, and well does what dogs do-you don't have an easy job!
For your next "tea and bickies" meeting how about throwing in the following for consideration whilst there is a spirit of cooperation about!

Menangle becomes the greater Sydney Racing Club operating two tracks after they fund a 1000m track in Sydney. This 1000m track, and any others we build, are configured the same as Victoria and Queensland, 12 horse field 7/5 configuration sprint lanes and emergencies at all tracks, so even though there are actually multiple venues it is actually like we are all racing on the same track as far as form goes. Then the major meeting in each state is held on a conforming track on Saturday night, with "centralised" programing ensuring each week that a combination of the best races from each track can be packaged into a pick 6/ V75 type package with an "intelligent" mystery bet option, plus a "wild card" longshots lotto type option in an approximate 1.45 to 2 hr package at intevals of around 15 minutes (we're using more then one venue) for lead in time. This package is then distributed/sold via internet/smart phone app subscription not just in Australia but through out the world and especially Asia where Japan would be 1 to 2 hours real time behind us through Hong Kong/Singapore at 2/3 hours behind and India at 4/5 hours behind and all these people can bet into our pools for these races. Anyone else notice 3 South Africans won $3million dollars each from the Swedish Elitlopp meeting? Of course I'm dreaming but if it could happen then maybe Brenno could really post one day about $25 billion in turnover for harness racing!

[2minuteman]

with an "intelligent" mystery bet option, plus a "wild card" longshots lotto type option in an approximate 1.45 to 2 hr package at intevals of around 15 minutes (we're using more then one venue)
Love the "outside of the square" thinking here but would like more info on these,please.

[dizzy]

Ron in my dream the "IMB" is modelled on Swedens "Harry Boy" whereby the computer selects your options based on the form and gives you a better chance of winning but most likely a smaller prize, whereas WC lotto is pretty much like buying a quick pick lotto ticket at the newsagent, computer selects from the outsiders so you have a smaller probability of winning but greater chance of winning a bigger prize! Of course you can do the form and make all your own selections as well, or do some form or lucky numbers or whatever and have the computer select the rest on either an intelligent or wild card option. cost of these options are going to vary of course

[2minuteman]

Thanks Dot,mystery bets using different algorithm's then?

[Mitch]

Mitch,

Reference race 3 and 5 below:

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=PK200612&ms=nsw


Reference race 8 and 11 below:

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=WW220612&ms=nsw

More $7000 heats at other tracks, 2 x $25,000 finals most months.

Thanks Adam.

[dizzy]

Thanks Dot,mystery bets using different algorithm's then?

Ron I'm far from an expert on punting or computers but if thats how the TAB and Lotto computers come up with mystery bets and quick picks then yes thats how it would be done. I presume there actually could be several variations with differing risk/reward profiles?

The change in names is because whilst punters will buy "bets" many lotto players don't consider themselves punters and wouldn't buy a "bet" . I'm one of them- I wouldn't go into a TAB to buy a Harness Racing Mystery Bet, but I would buy a quick pick/wild card entry from the newsagent in "trotslotto" !

[dizzy]

For those of you interested in the debate of increasing field sizes to increase turnover...The Racing Queensland Limited Board has approved an increase in field sizes at the two 1,000m tracks AP and the GC effective from 1/7/12, acting on service providers Tatts Bet & Sky Racing advice that larger fields attract larger turnover. (This information was sourced from http://www.justracing.com.au/ ).

Isn't it great to see something positive happening up in the Sunshine State as far as trying to grow the interests of harness racing up there instead of it being allowed to die a slow, lingering death. Hopefully the previous regime of administration is dead and and buried.

Racing Queensland has just introduced a float rebate for unplaced runners as well, applauded by Albion Park chairman Kevin Seymour, for those interested in the whole article I'm sure you know where to find it

[teecee]

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=98561
...for those who dont...

[Triple V]

Racing Queensland has just introduced a float rebate for unplaced runners as well, applauded by Albion Park chairman Kevin Seymour, for those interested in the whole article I'm sure you know where to find it

[VVV] Kevin kicked the tin for an increase to that too didn't he?
Nice one, whatever the case and whomever is responsible. It does me no end of good to see the formerly much & widely despised Racing Queensland slip from Bob mode into something that's clearly much more constructive. Well done one and all.

[dizzy]

[VVV] Kevin kicked the tin for an increase to that too didn't he?
Nice one, whatever the case and whomever is responsible. It does me no end of good to see the formerly much & widely despised Racing Queensland slip from Bob mode into something that's clearly much more constructive. Well done one and all.

Jamie I believe the RQ rebate is for all unplaced runers at TAB meetings and that Kevin has personally doubled it for the Albion Park monday "trial" meetings for the month of July. I'm not a punter as such but will happily throw a little on each week up north in support, afterall I'll have just as much an idea of the form at Albion Park as I would at Menangle on Mondays for July.

[aussiebreno]

I didn't deem this worthy of a topic so am lumping it in here.
http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-programme.cfm?rm=ME210712&state=nsw $25,000 July Stakes. For non placed horses from earlier meetings at July.
Does this strike anybody else as rather odd?

[dizzy]

Yes it seems a bit different Brenno but apart from being a bit strangely worded I think it is a good idea, to be eligible you have to have participated unsuccessfully in 2 metro meetings at Menangle in July beforehand, there are only 2 metro meetings at Menangle in July before this one. I'm not sure if this is an attempt to reward a different set of participants or if there is a concern about numbers nominating for this meeting. Still I think it is a good idea to give those who missed out previously a chance at the cash. Perhaps it could be expanded to monthly with runners having to have participated at 2 out of 3 previous meetings in the month, this might expand the horse pool so that M0's (generally more plentifull) could be accomadated seperately to M1/2's

[Triple V]

There used to be something similar run in Tassie whereby they'd have a 'horses balloted from...' condition attached to certain races. Sometimes it would be for the full $ and sometimes it would be for 'R' grade $. I think this a very good idea. That's someone thinking about how best to support the Industry & those within...rather than how best to line the pockets of TAB shareholders, often at the expense of all and sundry.