Odds On Favourites under the VIC tiered system 2016-17

[Messenger]

The tiered system is supposed to reduce the number of odds on favs and therefore I have started a db of how many we have this season and I will update it regularly here.
In the db I am including at what track, who trained them, the type and value of the race and whether they were winners. I will report any patterns that emerge

I would like to see whether turnover is really hurt by odds on favs but I am not keen enough to keep 2 dbs going (maybe next yr;))

[Messenger]

So far we have had 46 races this season with 20 Odds On favs and 14 successful
That is 43% of races with an Odds On fav
70% of Odds On favs winning (better than the last time I kept tabs on them)
Early Days!

[Mark Croatto]

Hi Kevin

Look forward to seeing the results

Regards

Mark

[Messenger]

Only 1 Odds On at Mildura last night and that was $1.90.
So far this season Mildura have had 14 races for only 3 odds on favs

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=ML080916&ms=vic

[Messenger]

8 out of 11 races at Bendigo tonight had Odds On favs. Admittedly there were six 3yo races that could not be considered Tiered racing - they contributed 4 of the Odds On pops but 4 came from the 5 C class races

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=BN090916&ms=vic#BNC09091610

[Messenger]

First 100 races down and let's hope the figures improve as so far we have had 46 Odds On favs (63% successful)

[Amlin]

From today's Herald Sun

[Messenger]

WHAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did we used to have more than 46% of races with Odds On Favs ????????

[Toohard]

Haven't been following much but have seen couple horses go around odds on in 5k races that probably shouldn't have been (and get beat). Take a while for it all to 'settle down'.

Looking at the 5k races last night.

$2 fav won by an $8 chance
$2 fav won by a $9.10 chance
$2.90 fav won by a $49.70 chance
$2.70 fav won by a $16.30 chance
$2.90 fav won ($2.90 fav in field of 6)

Horsham day before

$1.50 fav won by $20.80 chance
$2.30 fav won by $14.90 chance

Certainly value there that probably wouldn't have been before.

[Messenger]

I have it on good authority that last season we had 44% of favourites Odds On so that is our point of reference

[Messenger]

At tonight's 7 Kilmore meet there was not a single Odds On fav

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=KI140916&ms=vic

[Toohard]

Race 2 at Ballarat last night one of the new $5 races. Horse went out odds on favourite at $1.90. Had 43 starts for 1 win (in 2014). Race won by $3.90 chance. With 2 outsiders running 2nd and 3rd.
Easy in retrospect but the winner (although 'numerically' worse) would have appeared to have better form.

The 2 other 5k races had a $2.60 fav won by a $7.80 chance and a $2.20 fav that won.

Kilmore night before had 3 $5k races. $5.60 winner (fav started $3.00) $5.00 winner (fav started $2.40) $2.60 winner (fav started $2.50)

Its only a small sample but these races throwing up some good price winners at moment and very few really short odds on runners.

[Messenger]

Yours is a selective sample Paul. Until the Kilmore no Odds On favs night we were seeing MORE odds on favs than last yr - see post 6.
As far as value goes Odds On favs were never a problem as they presented the punter with value opportunities as whenever I did a survey of them, I found that half the time they were losing

[Messenger]

I do not know that Metro racing is really any different under tiered racing but I will post here.
Not going to keep a db on NSW but noticed for the 24 races at Menangle so far this season they have only had 2 Odds On favs
While for the 27 races run at Melton so far there have been 10 Odds On favs. Small sample of course but that is 8% compared to 37%

[Amlin]

Noms look to be on the improve. Good size fields at Echuca and strong entries for Cranboune Sat

[Messenger]

Good to see 9 races at Echuca Kyle, after programs of 7, 6 & 7 for the first 3 meets of the week

[Messenger]

250 races down after Cranbourne tonight

112 Odds On favs = 44.8%
66½ have won which is about 60% (40% have LOST!)

Brent Lilley has had the most with 10 and 80% success
Andy Gath is next with 9

then All on 7
Matty Craven (all but one successful)
Emma Stewart
David Aiken

[Amlin]

That still leaves over 45% of races without an odds on pop. Successful punters don't bet on every race. Some even let a meeting go by without placing a bet.

[Messenger]

You mean 55% of races without an Odds On pop Kyle.
The point is that at this early stage the tiered racing is making Zilch difference
Successful punters do as you said but I don't think the aim of the scheme is to have punters bet less :confused:

[Messenger]

Tonight we had another $1.10 fav at Bendigo, like the last one (in the very first race of the season) it was beaten
Interesting that there was $16k in the Win Pool which was more than for the races either side of it (both of whom had $3 favs)
The 3 shortest favourites of the season so far have been $1.04 (winner) and two $1.10 favs both at Bendigo and BOTH losers
This may be one of those times that our lack of media coverage is a good thing because I can imagine the stories if that was to happen in the gallops

[Toohard]

There are 3 meetings down here Melbourne Cup day. Yarra Glen (their biggest meeting for year people wise) has $5k and $7k races programmed...44 total nominations for meet. Swan Hill that night has $5K and $7K races programmed...43 total nominations for meet. Cobram has a NON TAB meeting programmed that day... all $3.5K races... 61 nominations. Would have thought Yarra Glen closer to most than Cobram and prize money higher. Something not quite working?

[Messenger]

Melbourne Cup day has been a big one for YV trots and I thought YV were being very clever scheduling their own Harness cup 2 days later on Oaks Day this year so that they could just leave everything set up. Maybe this has impacted noms or maybe it is just consistent with the trend of late

[Toohard]

Maybe if we get more punters and more turnover the horses will just magically appear?

[Messenger]

Maybe if we get more punters and more turnover the horses will just magically appear?
:D

[Messenger]

We had another $1.10 fav tonight at Mildura and thankfully this one won
It could only happen in our code however
The horse sent out $1.10 fav had had 16 starts and never won
Sure it had finished second or third 6 times but that does not scream $1.10 certainty
It was down in class and the $3,500 C0 tier worked for him
(It was also the first run for a new stable)

[Messenger]

2 months down (I don't know whether I can be bothered continuing my db)

212 of 470 races or 45.1% have had an Odds On fav

123 or 58% of them have been <$1.70

60% have won - $40% have lost

78 or 37% of them have been $7k races
They have been spread fairly evenly across the classes

Melton has produced 33 of them but Shep is only one behind on 32

Brent Lilley has had an incredible 18 or 8.5% of them followed by
David Aiken 14
Emma Stewart 13
Andy Gath 13
Geoff Webster 10

So these 5 trainers have produced nearly a third (32%) of them

[Messenger]

How wrong is it (contrary to the aims of the tiered system) for Eljaykay Phoenix, the winner of 14 races and $241,957 to be plundering the TR1-2 for $1750 at Melton tonight

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=MX211116&ms=vic#MXC21111605

[gutwagon]

As I thought all along, the new system is just a way of covering up a huge stake money cut. Every meeting has less overall prize money than under the old system. The small country clubs have been hit the hardest. Even Melton seems to be down. What are they doing with the money ? Paying for Melton ? Where has it gone ?

[Bonnie]

As I thought all along, the new system is just a way of covering up a huge stake money cut. Every meeting has less overall prize money than under the old system. The small country clubs have been hit the hardest. Even Melton seems to be down. What are they doing with the money ? Paying for Melton ? Where has it gone ?

I totally agree with you Rick. I have not posted on this topic before at the risk of sounding negative or critical. As owners and breeders there is a noticeable reduction in prizemoney offered. Under the new tiered racing system horses now lose a Country penalty for a win in a $5000 race. The minimum C0 penalty race was previously $6500. The winning owner in a $5000 race receives 87.5% of $2700 ( approx $2350) . This barely covers monthly training fees , vets and extras. There are a multitude of restrictions on nominations and once you have a win it is extremely difficult to place your horse. HRV should be encouraging nice horses to progress through their classes not restricting / hindering them. Prizemoney payments back to last are also factored into the prizemoney disribution for a full field. What happens to this money in the frequent smaller fields? It would appear that the full prizemoney for a race is often not being paid out.
There is a flow on effect to breeders bonuses as well.
Monte races have prizemoney of $5000 yet the winner does not and has never received a penalty. ??? The Monte at the recent Tricodes meeting at Cranbourne was a disgrace and would have been viewed with ridicule by the thoroughbred participants looking on.
HRV have announced a $25,000 bonus for the Country Cups King . Last season the King was Yankee Rockstar . His owners received 87.5% of his cups winnings if $127,000. As part owners we were rapt to receive this recognition and an award for the Rockstar's efforts. I do not believe an extra $25,000 in addition to prizemoney is warranted. This money could be used to fund an increase for 12 Country penalty races from $5000 to $7000.
I very rarely bet. HRV 's priority appears to be the punter. Punters have a multitude of choices when investing their money and I would presume very little loyalty. I acknowledge an owners and breeders bias and a love for the animal that I breed and own. However, if owners and breeders cannot at least break even there is no future in the industry.
It would be interesting to view the prizemoney stats for the first 3 months of this season compared to last year. HRV??

[Amlin]

Hi Anne - everyone is entitled to an opinion. From personal experience often if it is critical people don't like to hear it (and will probably let you know about it). But we all can't agree with the decisions "they" make in the industry all the time!


As owners/breeders of juveniles would you agree that it is difficult to "sell" the ownership experience to newcomers via the sales when their first win at 2/3 might be for $5000?


Should all 2YO/3YO events over the first six months of season be for 7000 - then once the "good" ones come to the top they can go onto to feature events, while those that don't make the cut can gain some consolation money among like horses in 5000 events. And the Homegrown series could be staged at end of season with restrictions so that horses that earned say less than $25,000 for the season get an exclusive go at these dollars, so connections might push on with them.


Priority has been the punter over an extended period - in some ways correct as the punt $$ do fund the stakes, like a wheel though in which one aspect spins into another.


But all aspects need to be healthy to assist one another. People won't punt without the horses etc etc.


While the concept of tiered racing definitely has merit - is it the levels of money (and returns) and the conditions that need the work? Would two tiers say of $4500 (restricted penalty) and $9000 (country penalty) be better?


That way you effectively have two "tiers" of like horses - and with one meeting a week entirely of $4500 races you could effectively create a circuit of just those, that might be able to compete year round at that level competitively, with the occasional step up to the higher grade for those that are in form. These races could be handicapped purely on R assessment once horses have enough R form behind them, not on overall lifetime assessment.


But if you race competitively in the 9000 level you are not allowed to drop down to 4k for an easy kill unless you have so many "outs" in a row.


So many ideas out there - not a job I would like to have trying to get it right!

[Messenger]

Something still feels very wrong about days like today with an 11 race program at Headquarters Melton where each race is for only $3500
It certainly seems like we are putting on a show on the cheap by paying the performers less
As far as tiered racing goes it certainly is not working
If favourite odds is an indicator it certainly did not seem to be evening out the fields with more than half the races having a fav < $1.60
$1.10 $1.10 $1.20 $1.40 $1.40 $1.50

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=MX290517&ms=vic

[Fan of Jate]

That is getting close to Globe Derby money. And in the biggest or 2nd biggest racing market in the country. Those "performers" are racing more frequently as well. The bills have to be paid.


There was a meeting at Cranbourne on Sunday where there were 6 favourites (9 races) under even money and four won

[Messenger]

Champion 3yo filly Petacular, winner of $300k already, naturally won her C1-2 race at Maryborough today.
She started $1.04 having finished 2nd in the Vic Oaks at her previous start

[Amlin]

And where have all the $10,000 races in the country gone?





Something still feels very wrong about days like today with an 11 race program at Headquarters Melton where each race is for only $3500
It certainly seems like we are putting on a show on the cheap by paying the performers less
As far as tiered racing goes it certainly is not working
If favourite odds is an indicator it certainly did not seem to be evening out the fields with more than half the races having a fav < $1.60
$1.10 $1.10 $1.20 $1.40 $1.40 $1.50

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=MX290517&ms=vic

[gutwagon]

Lets be honest, the whole idea of the tiered prize money was just a sneaky way for HRV to reduce stakes by around 1/3. As far as they are concerned it is a huge success. For owners, trainers and punters it has been a disaster. It has resulted in some of the most uneven fields I have ever seen. Horses are blowing a C front in a $5000 race. Horses with 100k earnings are racing against 2k earners. Battlers just cant cover their costs. Trainers have not and many could not cut their fees.
Weren't they going to review this system after a certain time ? I bet they just tweak it a bit, no chance of going back to the old better system !

[Messenger]

I have not been keeping stats but I would be pretty confident that we have had far fewer longs odds on favs in the last couple of months
Not so at Charlton today however as 6/9 favs were:
$1.04 $1.60 $1.20 $1.40 $1.10 $1.70

The $1.40 and $1.10 WERE BEATEN
The $1.10 led and didn't cop any pressure the first half of the race but was blitzed by a $48 pop who came from last
The $1.10 clearly did not deserve to be that short but somehow it happens at the trots - Crazy
How the $1.40 pop got beaten in the trot is worth watching

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-results.cfm?mc=CH240717&ms=vic

[Messenger]

Not that tonight's Metro meet was too bad for Odds On pops (and we had some excellent markets) but they kicked in in the second half of the program and it made me wonder whether Emma Stewart is the main source of our Longs Odds On pops - it would be worth researching

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX280917&ms=vic

[Messenger]

Are the long odds on pops back?

Tonight at Terang 6 favourites $1.70 or less

Last night at Melton 7 favourites $1.80 or less

Ballarat on Friday 6 favourites $1.80 or less

Yarra Valley on Friday 5 favourites $1.80 or less

Bendigo on Thursday 5 Odds On favourites (longest fav of night was $2.30)

[Messenger]

Melton tonight 5 favourites $1.70 or less

Only 2 successful - some people must be losing serious money when $1.40 pops are being beaten

[Fan of Jate]

yes, they would be probably dropping a couple of grand a bet. Fixed odds can drop from $1.70 to $1.60 if a couple of $1000 bets are placed and punters usually chase the money so maybe a lot of smaller bets put on as well.

[David Martin]

Hi Paul,
One of the long term downward trends I spoke about in the public forums is the reduced number of foals born each year. There was a 23% decline for the 5 years to 2016. We can't fix that in 5 minutes, but what we could do was program races so that more of the current horses could compete. For the 6 months from May to October 2017, there was an average 6% more horses competing - they didn't magically appear. In order to maximise the benefit of that, we scheduled extra races. On some occasions that has meant small fields, but that in itself has given more people a chance to win prizemoney, i.e. instead of balloting out horses, we've been splitting races. The importance of punters and turnover is that they generate our revenue that we can use to re-invest back in the industry to promote an increase in breeding, but as I said we can't fix that in 5 minutes!
Cheers, David

[David Martin]

Hi Rick and Anne,


I wasn't at HRV at the time, so don't know all the reasons for introducing tiered racing, but what I can say is that prizemoney that we have paid out for the first four months of this financial year (July to Oct) is $700k more than the same months of 2016. We have committed to programming races so that we can pay out $40m in prizemoney this year. That's never occurred in HRVs history. We have also committed to programming the same or more of the $10k races as last year. By the end of October, some of those $10k races haven't stood up because of Noms/Acceptances, so instead of just saying 'oh well, we programmed them', we are going to re-program more $10k races in the first half of 2018 in order to try and hit the target. If however owners/trainers don't nominate for those races, then we may well fall short of our desired and publicly stated target.


To clarify, if a field is small, the prizemoney saved by not paying to a full field size remains in the total $40m pool, i.e. we will just utilise to run another race. Our overall goal remains the same, i.e. to exceed $40m in prizemoney.

The broader issue of a desire to increase stakemoney levels is hindered by the decline in HRV market share of the Tabcorp JV. In 2009/10, HRV had an actual market share greater than 15%, and in all but one year from then, market share declined to the extent that by 2016 HRV's share had fallen to below 12%. That's over $5m in revenue every year that HRV is not receiving as it once did. That puts pressure on the whole industry, owners, breeders, trainers, drivers, HRV itself, country clubs, etc., etc. It's the prime reason why HRV lost money in 2016/17. And it's the main reason why we can't increase stakemoney levels. That's the bad news.


The good news is that the current strategy is working to improve HRV's financial position and therefore our ability to support and grow the industry. And we've done so in a way that has sought to minimise the impact on the industry, i.e. we haven't reduced prizemoney levels, and we have instead increased the total prizemoney bucket of money to exceed $40m. Given the complexity of the problems faced, I can't see any other approach that would work, but I'm welcome to hear from anyone with an idea that will work within these constraints.

Cheers, David

[arlington]

Hi David,

Another reason behind a change in system was some sections, participants/owners felt the higher assessed, perhaps classier, horse should race for more money. From memory, previously, in C class there was only around $400 difference in total stakes e.g. C0 raced for approx. $6300 and C5 for $6700.
I'm not sure how that's panned out or is working under four tiers.

During one of your roadshows it came up just two tiers, $5000 and $10,000 could possibly fit. Wondering if that was given any real consideration? More so the cons for not introducing those two tiers?
I imagine it wouldn't just be the faster class horses racing for the higher stakes but the spread over the season would see them race for a higher gross.
Was it brought up at a few roadshow meets? I attended the Shepparton greet, you know, the region and track that's ideal for one of the I D 18 heats. 'smiles'

[David Martin]

Hi Wayne,


Thanks for your input to this. The possibility for different stakemoney tiers, e.g. $4k and $8k came up at different public forums. There are a number of possibilities and we're happy to explore them to see if there's an approach that a majority of participants can agree with. An important aspect of any analysis on this will be the link to wagering/race and from that the revenue/race that HRV receives. As evident by the 2016/17 financial results, HRVs revenue streams have progressively fallen to the extent that an increase in the average stakemoney per race was not possible in 2017/18. So any model of 3500/5000/7/10 or 4/8 or 5/10 would need to factor that in. From my interactions with many people, there is a strong desire to retain the no penalty 3500 races. Most attention focuses on the $5000 races where a penalty is incurred, so as we prepare plans for 2018/19, that will be an area to review.


One final curve ball is the modelling that HRA have undertaken on a National Handicapping system, which might present an alternative approach to evening out fields, etc.


Cheers, David


P.S. Yes, Shepparton is a good track, with a density of participants whcih are important factors when considering location of ID heats. Let's see what the club and local community put forward in their submission on 12 January.

[arlington]

Hi David,

Thanks for your reply.

Quoting - From my interactions with many people, there is a strong desire to retain the no penalty 3500 races. And considering revenue/race with these, would make it an easier decision to remain.

Of course, not forgetting the HRA National Handicapping initiative.

Will have to start a countdown clock, 12 January.

Cheers, Wayne

[Bonnie]

The issue of losing a country penalty for a race worth $5000 is a contentious issue with many owners ( me included ) as many horses are not eligible for the $3,500 races and yet a country penalty is lost for a paltry $1500. Also many hobby trainers are happy to race in the $3500 no penalty class and it provides more even racing for them. However if training fees are payable to professional trainers a win in a $5000 race plus a loss of penalty does not go very far.
It is heartening to note that this issue is on your agenda David.
Foal numbers are in decline and new owners need to be encouraged to invest .
I have recently returned to Melbourne more often and now buy the Herald Sun most days. In today's Form Guide there are 4 Greyhound meetings in Victoria today ;Healesville, Bendigo, Geelong and Traralgon. ( 2 day and 2night) . All have 12 races and I would expect that there will be full fields of 8 as each has 2 emerg. That's 384 dogs ! and it's not a once a week occurrence either. Where do their owners come from?
Furthermore all are on Sky 1 and 3 are also on Sky 2.
How do we compete? Are we ever going to make inroads and have an impact on market share of the punting dollar ?

[David Martin]

Hi Anne,


Feedback in regards to the $5000 penalty races is fairly consistent, which is part of the reason we provided a $750 bonus for all $5000 races in Sept/Oct this year. This was well received as evident by the 5-6% increase in individual starters in these two months. As reported in the Harness Racer, with that initiative and many others, we have reversed the multi-year decline in wagering on our product. That's particularly evident with Corporate Bookmakers and some Interstate TABs. Unfortunately, amongst other factors, the 3-code funding model agreed in 2012 means that when the other codes (e.g. Greyhounds) run a lot more races, it does impact our market share. That said, it's not all about the number of races, as apart from additional races, there has also been an increase in wagering per race on our product this year. The key outcome is that HRV needs to be more profitable than last year's loss of $1.695m - and on current progress, we will be! That will enable HRV to better support the industry to grow and attract new owners. Events like the Inter-Dominion In Victoria in 2018 will also have a positive effect in terms of raising awareness in the general public, which should flow on to increased participation.


Cheers, David

[arlington]

Hi Anne and David,

With the country Cups circuit upon us we lose the ability to run $3500 non penalty programs of a weekend. Whist there are R races slotted into C programs the bulk of the R races are programmed for Melton. I realise with Melton being our headquarters it can attract higher turnover.

A couple of things;
- one of the reason hobby trainers might like R programs is because of not needing to take a day of work midweek...for $3500 races. And yep, we're all in this together regarding $5000 penalties as hobby trainers also have horses ineligible for R races.
- it would seem professional trainers love the $3500 non penalty as they flock to the Melton R programs, with their owners. But I do hope HRV continue to consider the bulk of hobbyists are located too far from Melton to warrant the expense of travelling there for a part of $3500.

But we're all in this together, no matter whether we spend hundreds of thousands or just tens of thousands on the lottery of racing we expect equal and equitable consideration from HRV. The pro trainers along with the hobbyists contribute to the revenue per race of the $3500 non penalties.


Cheers, Wayne

[David Martin]

Hi Wayne,

Great to have your input on this. In recent times, I and HRV have been criticised for having a focus on running too many $3500 races, so interesting to hear your viewpoint. It matches feedback I heard at Elmore yesterday, with people pleased that the meeting was all $3500 races resulting in larger stables focusing on Ballarat and other meetings, leaving hobbyists to have a chance to win at Elmore. One participant was particularly pleased to win a rug for the first time in 30 years!

As you say, HRVs role is to strive to achieve an equitable approach for everyone in the industry. In regards to hobbyists, we have increased the number of $3500 races, introduced supplementary races, created the 2.02 mile rate (and in Jan 2018 the 2.01 mile rate) races, programmed races for trainers with 2 or less wins in the prior season, and provided a $750 bonus for any winner of a $3500 or $5000 race in Sept/Oct (which is typically when some of the larger stables take a break). I'll have a look at the location and timing of upcoming $3500 races and see if there's more we can do, as they need to be spread across the state. Whilst they're not the perfect solution, hobbyists can nominate for Supplementary races. If we get 7 or 8 (or more) nominations of a similar standard (at any of R, C or M class), then we will run those supplementary races. Since the 6th of March, we've run 98 Supplementary races, one of which occurred as a R class race at Elmore yesterday. Total prizemoney for those 98 races is $433k. These are races that otherwise were not programmed and horses that wouldn't have run that day.

You are absolutely right that we're all in this together. We need hobbyists AND pro-trainers. We know everyone is doing it tough, which is why we have implemented the initiatives listed above and others that are intended to do as much for everyone as we can afford at this time. The input of yourself, Anne and others is important as we continue to turn around the performance of our industry.

Cheers, David

[Amlin]

Will be interested to see how the stand alone Monday meets in Vic fare when the gallops start taking a few of these days off.

I do note that Melton has been slotted in for a night meet on Feb 12 when Warragul races that afternoon, I think Warragul will really struggle to get "non local" entries on that day.

[Messenger]

It is over 6 weeks until that meet Kyle - maybe HRV can think of some incentive to encourage trainers. $1k to the leading trainer of the day?

[gutwagon]

Hi David and all contributors ,
I agree with Waynes point about 3.5K races at Melton. If they are meant to help the smaller struggling stables they need to be held in country areas, this would also keep the big stables away. And I don't mean changing all the country meetings to 3.5k races, I mean adding extra country meetings with just 3.5k races. With many big stables located close to Melton I think the cheap races should be kept away from Melton to let the smaller fish get more of the pie.
On another point you mentioned the decrease in the number of foals being bred each year. I currently don't see anything being done to encourage people to breed more horses. Do you have anything planned in this area ? I personally don't think the tiered prize money or slight increase as much of a reason for breeders to breed more foals.

[David Martin]

Thanks for your input Rick. As most people know from the public forums earlier this year, the industry benefits from almost every single $3500 race regardless of where they are run. Hence, without taking money away from the other prizemoney tiers, I'm an advocate for more $3500 races. I don't see that it's an argument as to if they should be at Melton or in the country. It should be (and needs to be) both. There are lower grade horses across the state, so if there are enough of them, we'll run more races. That's been our approach for splitting of $3500 races with strong nominations (wherever they are), and addition of supplementary races, etc. We continue to listen and adapt where opportunities arise, and one of those relates to the date previously occupied by the APTS sale (8 April). We have spoken with Bendigo with the intention that a meeting will be added, with predominantly (or totally) $3500 races. Hopefully that will help with the issue you have raised.


In regards to the decreasing number of foals, I agree that the increase to $40m in prizemoney on it's own is unlikely to stimulate an increase in breeding. There are some who have expressed the view that until recent changes, the future looked pretty bleak so they had held off breeding, but with an improvement in the Vic industry performance they are feeling more optimistic. We did talk to HBV about initiatives that we could afford, and made the decision to waive the $89 DNA fee. We also announced an increase in the quantum of VicBred races to better support this vital program. There's definitely more we would like to do (e.g. consider reducing foal registration costs, etc.), but unfortunately that wasn't possible in the current financial year. We are on track to achieve a significantly more profitable outcome in FY2017/18 and hopefully that enables us to do more in FY2018/19. I would welcome your views (and that of others) on any particular initiatives that we should be considering.


Cheers, David

[Messenger]

The last at Melton tonight is an example of what I had hoped the tiered system might reduce
A 4yo who won about $150k as a 2 & 3yo going around in a $3,500 race - they are figuring "why not win $1,750 instead of going around in a trial"

You don't see this as much in the gallops - is it because they figure a horse has only so many runs in its legs or is it that the weights/eligibility system does not create many 'gimmes'

http://www.harness.org.au/form.cfm?mc=MX311217&rc=MXC31121703

[Fan of Jate]

Good points there Kev. Won by a Half head. I believe that the horse did trial at Maryborough. The standardbred is definitely tougher than the galloper and can race a lot more, that is one reason. The gallopers dont have many gimme's and that is a fact. Harness racing has so many of these types of races where those running racing allow this "gimme" type of race to happen in just about every state and then come up with feeble excuses as to why it does happen. Good luck racing a horse in Victoria and picking up $490 for 2nd and then paying the bills with that.
I think it is common sense that if the horse is coming back after a spell and ready to race then race it for money instead of trialing it although it does not happen too often.

The bigger problem in my opinion is fast class horses being able to drop back into lower grade races mainly interstate and take home much bigger prizemoney than $3,500, same thing I suppose but on a much bigger scale. I have tackled authorities on this in 2 states and not one of then can give a valid reason why they allow this to happen. They fumble around quoting TAB odds, increased online betting, improved attendances & better racing. Most of these excuses dont stack up but senior figures in racing still keep praising their own work on a very consistent basis these days.

[David Martin]

Hi Pat,


I'd like to look into the issue you have raised (i.e. fast class horses being able to drop back into lower grade races mainly interstate). Can you please give me some more details, or even an example of a horse that has recently done this?


Thanks, David

[gutwagon]

Re the issue that Kevin has raised about a horse that has won $150k being in a $3.5k race. How about some restrictions in the 3.5k races, say no horses with $50k+ winnings allowed to enter. And the $5k races no horses with $100k+ allowed to enter. I thought the whole idea was to give horses that have not won much a chance to earn some money. Even keeping the 3yo's out of the R0 races would help. Once people see a $150k+ winner in the nominations they don't nominate their horse and you end up with a small field !

[David Martin]

Thanks Rick, in terms of the total prizemoney won, we have to be careful not to restrict older horses that we want to keep in the pool. There's a balance the Racing guys are always walking between conditioning races to avoid short priced favourites, whilst ensuring horses still have options for somewhere to race, particularly the older horses coming back down in grades. We don't want horses to 'meet their mark' and exit the State or racing altogether. That said, we'll definitely review that Race 9 at Melton. Cheers, David

[Messenger]

I was partly 'blaming' the durability of the standardbred too Pat - the horse that ran 2nd has already raced 19 times in the 4 months of this season so far

[djgood]

Re the issue that Kevin has raised about a horse that has won $150k being in a $3.5k race. How about some restrictions in the 3.5k races, say no horses with $50k+ winnings allowed to enter. And the $5k races no horses with $100k+ allowed to enter. I thought the whole idea was to give horses that have not won much a chance to earn some money. Even keeping the 3yo's out of the R0 races would help. Once people see a $150k+ winner in the nominations they don't nominate their horse and you end up with a small field !

restricted races should all be reverse handicapped lowest points to highest Preferential draw to lowest points , inform horses have plenty of races to chose from and to put them for a easy kill and stifles the betting,

[arlington]

The last at Melton tonight is an example of what I had hoped the tiered system might reduce
A 4yo who won about $150k as a 2 & 3yo going around in a $3,500 race - they are figuring "why not win $1,750 instead of going around in a trial"...


Probably not a bad result considering the title of the thread, $1.30 and only won by half a head.
At least we've reduced the number of well performed NZ 3yo purchases resuming in Vic in a "trial" at $1.04 against R0's.
Was she a late nom, I couldn't imagine others would have scratched just because she was in the original noms...would there have been more noms when extended if she wasn't there..but why weren't there more noms in the first place?
I have a bit of a soft spot for fillies returning from age/same sex racing but with R racing what criteria would you use? PBD points wouldn't work across the board as some horses have only earned good points in R races without winning and would find it hard to get a good draw.

[Fan of Jate]

Hi David,


I'd like to look into the issue you have raised (i.e. fast class horses being able to drop back into lower grade races mainly interstate).

Try Major Secret 3rd and 22nd December in a couple of cups in Hobart and Launceston for starters, anyone who tries to tell me that the the horses major secret raced against are FFA horses has rocks in their head. I have other examples but I should not have to go into each and every specific race where this type of farce occurs. Just a couple of examples should suffice to know there is a problem there even though administrators disagree with me. Once again these mismatches are glossed over with promotion about increased betting , yeah right...one big punter puts $20k on the favourite to win and ...hey presto...our wagering is up for the month of December...Everyone gets a pat on the back. If you need to know more, check out a couple of the posts, post #61 is a good example of the input of people on the forum who know more about racing than me, there are 3 good points in that post which have relevance to the point I raised.


regards Pat

[gutwagon]

restricted races should all be reverse handicapped lowest points to highest Preferential draw to lowest points , inform horses have plenty of races to chose from and to put them for a easy kill and stifles the betting,
The trouble with the lowest points first option is that it only works if there are more noms than the field size limit. If only 8 enter all will get a run and the top horse could have 20 more points than the rest of the field.
Maybe it could be based on prize money won in the past 12 months. The tiered system is not reducing the amount of short priced favorites or producing more even fields.

[Amlin]

It is over 6 weeks until that meet Kyle - maybe HRV can think of some incentive to encourage trainers. $1k to the leading trainer of the day?

56 acceptors at Warragul today with 29 of those local. Almost indentical program in four weeks against Melton. But also what about drivers who may not be able to cross town in traffic from one meet to another?

[Fan of Jate]

Drifting a bit here but I know the stands have been eliminated in Victoria but that style of racing made sure that horses were handicapped correctly most of the time. Stand racing is still used widely in Tasmania especially at Devonport and Burnie. If you want to race there you better be prepared to make sure your horse can stand start, handle a small track and be prepared to be off at least 30 metres if you have a good racing record or expecting to get an easy win against lower graded horses.

Prizemoney has been lifted to $8100 per race as of Jan 1 this year at most meetings although there are only 2 meetings a week. Just dont tell the kiwis or any of the good trainers in Vic or NSW although Stewart/ Alford and co have already conducted a few raids much to my disgust.

As per Ricks comments, I feel there are too many loopholes in the newer systems such as points etc, some bright spark thought all that crap up so that no one can follow it. Glad I am not a trainer so that I dont have to go through all that to get a horse a start especially if you have to race against horses that are miles better than yours but you have to accept it just so that your horse can get a race.

[Messenger]

It certainly does not appear to be good programming. Ideally it should be moved but very unlikely now. As big a gap between Warragul's last and Melton's first may help gain a runner maybe :(

[Messenger]

The Melton Quaddie paid $2.60 tonight

$1.40, $1.10, $1.30, $1.04

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX190118&fromstate=vic

[teecee]

Perhaps you should start a record low multi leg divvie Kev.
Perhaps not... That could be difficult to beat.

[Messenger]

Still too many $1.10, $1.30, $1.40 pops going around

We even had a $1.30 favourite (beaten) in VIC's first 2yo race tonight

Is it because our pools are small or do we have more than our share of mug punters?

[Exhilarator]

Please don't refer to a tiered system in Victoria because it doesn't exist.Instead we have a bastardised system that does not work.Im convinced if a proper tier system was introduced all would work much better

[Messenger]

At Wang tonight, favourites:

$1.40 $2.10 $1.50 $2.30 $1.50 $2.00 $1.20 $1.90 $1.50

Only 2/9 successful

[Messenger]

Terrible at Ballarat tonight:

$1.90 $1.40 $1.40 $1.10 $1.20 $1.70 $1.10

Three lost

The first and last races were OK

[Messenger]

John Caldow drove three $1.40 pops at Shep today and they all lost

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP150218&ms=vic

[Messenger]

The 3 shortest favourites at Shep today all beaten

$1.30 $1.20 $1.20

Mind-boggling

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP220218&fromstate=vic

[Messenger]

I had an interesting email from one of our posters about the long odds on favourites problem

I think he correctly identified that often it is the star juveniles moving up to open company
He suggested making the grading from 3yo to open company based on $ earnt. So the really good 3yos become C3 class when they turn 4 (or start racing in open company)

If you are concerned about penalizing their owners too much let them stay as a C3 for 3 wins
Instead of a meeting having a C0, C1 and C2 with $1.04 favs they’d all be pushed into C3 class and more likely be racing each other

???

[Bonnie]

Wonderful to see 31 nominations for the Oaks Heats on Saturday night. Simple conditions : ' 3 year old fillies RBD ' . No discrimination against last start winners, no extra conditions , just 3 year old fillies racing each other ! We won't have to nominate 4 times before our filly gets a run this week due to lack of nominations ( and that includes C0 and C1 mixed sex races ) Maybe something that HRV could try more of .

[arlington]

They are encouraging numbers Anne.
Is it as simple as that Anne or am I missing something? Are you suggesting if an open 3yo fillies race/s were programmed leading up to the Oaks they'd get full fields? I'll apologise for any ignorance as I don't have a 3yo filly. Might it turn out that a condition may still have to apply, in that, to contest an Oaks heat you have to run in one of these races? Hadn't looked at the Oaks noms but imagine there being quite a few 3C0/1's. I could see that even though 3C0's will nominate for the Oaks they mightn't nominate for an open 3yo?
Not that I'm up in arms about it but, as an example, some were anti with Shez All Rock in a C1 recently. The open 3yo's would avoid that as long as the fields stood up with 3C0's nominating. PBD at least?

[Messenger]

Anne, I gather it has been hard for a 3yo filly to get a start of late and you would think that in the lead up to the Oaks programming should have made this simpler but I am not surprised the Oaks heats are popular as we all know that any owner with breeding aspirations can even spruik 'dam 5th in a Vic Oaks heat' on a future pedigree sheet

Very strong Oaks heats this year Wayne - only 1 3C0 & 6 3C1's

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX210418&fromstate=vic

[Messenger]

Just looked at the form to see where they all had their last start

10 - Interstate
1 - 3C0
8 - 3C0-1
6 - C0
3 - C1
1 - C1-2
1 - C2-3
1 - not started for over 2mths

[arlington]

Just looked at the form to see where they all had their last start

10 - Interstate
1 - 3C0
8 - 3C0-1
6 - C0
3 - C1
1 - C1-2
1 - C2-3
1 - not started for over 2mths


Am wondering how hard it was for interstaters to find prep races for the Oaks.
The Ballarat Oaks trial didn't get up because of lack of noms? Albeit PBD/3C, $15000 not enough inducement? Seems strange. Being manual selection HRV didn't accept 3C0's...?

[Showgrounds]

Am wondering how hard it was for interstaters to find prep races for the Oaks.
The Ballarat Oaks trial didn't get up because of lack of noms? Albeit PBD/3C, $15000 not enough inducement? Seems strange. Being manual selection HRV didn't accept 3C0's...?

Over the ditch, connections had considered bringing NZ's best filly, Elle Mac, over for the Vic Oaks - simply because of lack of suitable races. Her last start, winning at Addington, was on 16 March yet her next race against her own age and sex is the Nevele R Fillies final on 11 May.

Either wait 8 weeks between starts or run her in a Free for All! No other options for her.

Race programming is somewhat of a black art, but any administrator who claims that "we are on top of it" has never owned a top filly and lacks any concept of the difficulty of keeping them racing.

[Messenger]

Am wondering how hard it was for interstaters to find prep races for the Oaks.
The Ballarat Oaks trial didn't get up because of lack of noms? Albeit PBD/3C, $15000 not enough inducement? Seems strange. Being manual selection HRV didn't accept 3C0's...?

Passion Delight arrives via the SA Oaks and Port Pirie Derby (a month ago)

My Sweetchilliphilly, Major Occasion and Soho Burning Love via the Bathurst Gold Tiara (it will be 3wks between runs)

Ideal Pleasure via a Menangle C0 (a fortnight)

Arts Treasure via a Menangle C0-1 (a week)

Fame Assured, Imprincessgemma, and Aqua Miss via the NSW Oaks (nearly 2mths ago)

Delilaah via a Newcastle C0 (a fortnight)

[Messenger]

R10 Kilmore tonight a $7k C0 only a field of 6 !!!!
Did the 3yo's scare them off ????
The small field were ALL 3yo's

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=KI170418&fromstate=vic#KIC17041804

[Bonnie]

Wonderful to see 31 nominations for the Oaks Heats on Saturday night. Simple conditions : ' 3 year old fillies RBD ' . No discrimination against last start winners, no extra conditions , just 3 year old fillies racing each other ! We won't have to nominate 4 times before our filly gets a run this week due to lack of nominations ( and that includes C0 and C1 mixed sex races ) Maybe something that HRV could try more of .

I must have been dreaming to think that we might get a reduction in discrimination against last start winners / extra conditions. HRV have advised there will be a trial of preferential barrier draws ( PBD ' s) for all races during the month of July 2018 , with the exception of races conducted as part of a futurities series or programmed feature races which have been previously advertised as Radom barrier draw. A range of PBD mechanisms will be utilised ,including dollars won last 4 and dollars won last two starts in a bid to reduce the number of short priced favourites . Owners spending $2000-$2500 on training fees per month receive very little consideration in the decision making process . I have also noticed recently that some of the $7000 races have extended nominations and are not standing up which is a grave concern.

[Bonnie]

After a three year old has won 2 races they automatically assessed as a 3C2 CO.and there are very limited races programmed for them. They have nowhere to go except into C0 races and C1 etc if they win further races. Many owners have complained about racing 3 year olds coming through but where do they go ? As a consequence 3 year olds are barred from many C0/ C1 races with the restriction ; 4 year old and older ; further adding to the angst and frustration of owners attempting to race their young horses. There was a comment earlier about Sheez All Rock racing in a C1 . She would have needed a hit out before the Oaks heats , again I ask where else would she go
http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=KI170418&fromstate=vic#KIC17041804[/QUOTE]

[Danno]

I must have been dreaming to think that we might get a reduction in discrimination against last start winners / extra conditions. HRV have advised there will be a trial of preferential barrier draws ( PBD ' s) for all races during the month of July 2018 , with the exception of races conducted as part of a futurities series or programmed feature races which have been previously advertised as Radom barrier draw. A range of PBD mechanisms will be utilised ,including dollars won last 4 and dollars won last two starts in a bid to reduce the number of short priced favourites . Owners spending $2000-$2500 on training fees per month receive very little consideration in the decision making process . I have also noticed recently that some of the $7000 races have extended nominations and are not standing up which is a grave concern.

Unfortunately Anne, many of our handicapping problems are stemming from a smaller pool of available horses combined with the unenviable task of our handicappers to continue to provide evenly balanced fields that will encourage punters to invest on as many as possible chances in each race.

This problem has been growing for quite a while and is certainly not restricted to 3yo's good, poor or ordinary, one the one hand the drop back clause has assisted in holding more horses in the pool, but to the detrimental effect that too many horses are finding it impossible to be viable at a C1 front because they are meeting horses that were once C4,5 & 6 that have lost a bit of form....big ask for a horse that was maiden 2 starts ago to meet a horse that was once a potential city performer.

Our Game is shrinking due to many factors, one of which is out pricing itself, the returns to owners Vs their costs have gotten completely out of kilter over the last 35 years compared to our competitors, the gallopers and dogs.

Personally I think it is unfathomable that some Stallion owners believe the fees they are asking are anywhere near sustainable in the current market, they will obviously get support from the bigger end of town, but only from those that expect a return at the yearling sales, so they are restricting their own marketplace right there and of course whinging about sale prices. At what stage do you think the commercial breeders will come to grips with the damage their short term, self serving lobbying and influencing of State and National bodies has done to the overall health of Harness Racing in Australia?

Placing horses of all classes to their best advantage is getting more and more difficult for EVERYONE with all classes of horses in every area/region. What the game desperately needs is a realistic vision back to growth for the whole game, in particular the grass roots regional racing because that is where new involvement more often starts than anywhere else. The "event" and "carnival" advertising for any event is great to see, but it rarely leads to more than a one night stand.

Time for everyone to think and act more wholistically, rather than for their personal interests, the cannibalisation is getting to the bare bones and there is nowhere else to turn.


cheers,


dan

[Amlin]

Unfortunately Anne, many of our handicapping problems are stemming from a smaller pool of available horses combined with the unenviable task of our handicappers to continue to provide evenly balanced fields that will encourage punters to invest on as many as possible chances in each race.

This problem has been growing for quite a while and is certainly not restricted to 3yo's good, poor or ordinary, one the one hand the drop back clause has assisted in holding more horses in the pool, but to the detrimental effect that too many horses are finding it impossible to be viable at a C1 front because they are meeting horses that were once C4,5 & 6 that have lost a bit of form....big ask for a horse that was maiden 2 starts ago to meet a horse that was once a potential city performer.

Our Game is shrinking due to many factors, one of which is out pricing itself, the returns to owners Vs their costs have gotten completely out of kilter over the last 35 years compared to our competitors, the gallopers and dogs.

Personally I think it is unfathomable that some Stallion owners believe the fees they are asking are anywhere near sustainable in the current market, they will obviously get support from the bigger end of town, but only from those that expect a return at the yearling sales, so they are restricting their own marketplace right there and of course whinging about sale prices. At what stage do you think the commercial breeders will come to grips with the damage their short term, self serving lobbying and influencing of State and National bodies has done to the overall health of Harness Racing in Australia?

Placing horses of all classes to their best advantage is getting more and more difficult for EVERYONE with all classes of horses in every area/region. What the game desperately needs is a realistic vision back to growth for the whole game, in particular the grass roots regional racing because that is where new involvement more often starts than anywhere else. The "event" and "carnival" advertising for any event is great to see, but it rarely leads to more than a one night stand.

Time for everyone to think and act more wholistically, rather than for their personal interests, the cannibalisation is getting to the bare bones and there is nowhere else to turn.


cheers,


dan

There were a lot more in it when they were running 2:08!

[alphastud]

Hi Dan, I was typing a reply to Anne and saw your post. Good points however I disagree re Studs. We have some overlap however here's my thoughts anyway. Thanks,

-------------

Hi Anne,

I see your point and it seems that any of us would feel the same frustration if we had a similarly talented 3yo.

Why is the handicapping this way and what strategy does it support?

I think that handicapping has become such a challenge because:
1. there is a disproportionate focus on the punter vs owners, breeders and trainers as customers.
2. of our current beliefs around how we can generate betting and other revenue.
3. of the racehorse population

It seems that current handicapping is supporting average horses with greater opportunities over elite horses such as yours.

Some of HRV’s key strategic initiatives for 2017/18 are to :
“Encourage smaller training operations to remain and others to re-join”
“Encourage retention of horses with less capability”
https://www.thetrots.com.au/about-hrv/strategic-plan/

I have a competitive 3yo that hasn’t won a race. He’s placed 2nd twice and 3rd thrice and rated 1:56 as a 2yo and 3yo and so he’s not hopeless. However, he has little to no chance of winning 1 race if he competes with an elite 3yo such as yours. The flow on effect is that I would miss out on around $6,000 in NSW Breeders and Owners bonuses. (Money that I re-invest into breeding etc. )

So then, is it better to support the minority or the majority of customers to take more prizemoney for the longer term growth and sustainability of harness racing?

I don’t know what’s right Anne and I hope that there are more opportunities for your horse soon. (Preferably after I’ve won the 1st race with my 3yo)

I’d like to know the following if anyone can help?
1. how are we measuring the success of the current strategy (for any state)
2. how are we performing against our key performance indicators?
3. what percentage of 2 and 3yo have won (i) 0 races, (ii) 1 race and (iii) 1+ races

Thanks,

[Messenger]

Good questions Richard, I know of others who have been asking 1 & 2

[David Martin]

Great discussion tonight everyone. Richard, I'll respond to your points if I may.


You are correct that the HRV strategy is about ensuring we give everyone and every horse a chance to be a part of our industry. We have implemented a number of initiatives that demonstrate our desire to retain existing trainers, drivers, owners and horses, in what are clearly challenging times for our industry. As explained at the public forums in 2017, we need all levels of our industry for it to be successful.


Some of our measures of success relate to the level of horse participation (up 3% over the last 12 months), the number of races (up 4% over the last 12 months - which equates to 109 more winners of a race than the prior 12 months), turnover generated (up approx 10% over the last 12 months) and ultimately profitability of our industry that will enable us to better support participants and clubs into the future. Beyond that, we have flagged our desire to start work on the infrastructure needed to retain and attract the next generation of participants. There's some big challenges within all of that, not the least being the multi-year decline in foal numbers that is being discussed on another social media platform.


I understand Anne's frustration, but in comparison to both gallops and dogs, harness racing has too many short priced favourites. If a PBD approach can help to reduce that and level the playing field, then we must explore that.


Cheers, David

[Danno]

There were a lot more in it when they were running 2:08!

ha ha, my first winner ran a standing mile in 2.14 ( on a 500 metre track) and won by twenty metres,in 1975, my slowest winner (in 1978) won what would be a C6 race in todays classifications over a 2400 metres on an 800 metre track in 2.25!!!. My fastest was at Menangle a couple of tears ago in 1.54.7.

The horses are going faster and faster as the breed develops, and while the two are completely unrelated, it would be good if participation was still growing in the same manner as the Standardbred's advancement.

[aussiebreno]

Great discussion tonight everyone. Richard, I'll respond to your points if I may.


You are correct that the HRV strategy is about ensuring we give everyone and every horse a chance to be a part of our industry. We have implemented a number of initiatives that demonstrate our desire to retain existing trainers, drivers, owners and horses, in what are clearly challenging times for our industry. As explained at the public forums in 2017, we need all levels of our industry for it to be successful.


Some of our measures of success relate to the level of horse participation (up 3% over the last 12 months), the number of races (up 4% over the last 12 months - which equates to 109 more winners of a race than the prior 12 months), turnover generated (up approx 10% over the last 12 months) and ultimately profitability of our industry that will enable us to better support participants and clubs into the future. Beyond that, we have flagged our desire to start work on the infrastructure needed to retain and attract the next generation of participants. There's some big challenges within all of that, not the least being the multi-year decline in foal numbers that is being discussed on another social media platform.


I understand Anne's frustration, but in comparison to both gallops and dogs, harness racing has too many short priced favourites. If a PBD approach can help to reduce that and level the playing field, then we must explore that.


Cheers, David
PBD to level the playing field is a fallacy. If something is head and shoulders above them it will still be odds on. Stop trying to artificially even fields up. PBD just keeps shorter priced faves down in grade a bit longer creating more races with shorter priced faves. Let the better horses have RBD and they can race through the grades quicker and stop being at such short prices quicker. It will also open up the lower class races because the good ones wont spend as much starts in them.

[Bonnie]

PBD to level the playing field is a fallacy. If something is head and shoulders above them it will still be odds on. Stop trying to artificially even fields up. PBD just keeps shorter priced faves down in grade a bit longer creating more races with shorter priced faves. Let the better horses have RBD and they can race through the grades quicker and stop being at such short prices quicker. It will also open up the lower class races because the good ones wont spend as much starts in them.
The most common sense approach I have heard in a long time , you have said everything I was trying to say in a few short sentences . Well said Breno!

[gutwagon]

David, you said "We have implemented a number of initiatives that demonstrate our desire to retain existing trainers, drivers, owners and horses."
I noticed you left out breeders and breeders have been ignored for many years in our industry. As a result foal numbers have dropped every year for the last 20 or so.
I lost my mare and foal this season, I was planing on breeding one foal per season. Breeding involves many risks including, mares not getting in foal, foals dying, both mare and foal dying. I should be looking for a replacement broodmare but I really don't see any incentives for people to breed horses. Besides the $7000 Vicbred bonus there really isn't much on offer to encourage people to breed horses.
Do you have any incentives in the pipeline ? Can you convince me to get back into the breeding industry ?

Service fees, agistment, vet bills, training fees, feed, transport costs all increasing . The 3 tiered prizemoney means a big cut in prizemoney unless you get a very good horse. Integrity issues are at an all time high with many participants not believing there is a level playing field. These are just some of the issues people thinking of entering the breeding game must face.

Some things I would like to see would be the $7k vicbred bonus going to the breeder not the owner.
A bonus going to the breeder every time one of their horses wins a race. Not just Vicbred races.
More races offering a free service to a decent stallion as a trophy.
Mares getting breeding credits for each race they win to be used towards service fee discounts as some other states have.
Taking Vicbed eligibility back to both mare and stallion being Victorian based.
.

[David Martin]

PBD to level the playing field is a fallacy. If something is head and shoulders above them it will still be odds on. Stop trying to artificially even fields up. PBD just keeps shorter priced faves down in grade a bit longer creating more races with shorter priced faves. Let the better horses have RBD and they can race through the grades quicker and stop being at such short prices quicker. It will also open up the lower class races because the good ones wont spend as much starts in them.

Hi Brendan, thanks for your input.

The basis for the decision to trial PBD for a month is as follows: In November 2015 HRV conducted a one-month trial of preferential barrier draws for all races in a bid to reduce the number of short-priced favourites and create a more attractive wagering product. The results indicated there was a substantial reduction in the number of odds-on favourites in races, and favourites winning. Further analysis of average turnover per race by barrier draw type across the entire 2016/2017 season reveals PBDs, on average, generate higher turnover than random barrier draws. Likewise, the starting price of favourites across 2016/2017 were shorter for random draws than PBDs. hence, the trial will run for one month (July), however feature events which have already been advertised will remain random draws.

Cheers, David

[aussiebreno]

Hi Brendan, thanks for your input.

The basis for the decision to trial PBD for a month is as follows: In November 2015 HRV conducted a one-month trial of preferential barrier draws for all races in a bid to reduce the number of short-priced favourites and create a more attractive wagering product. The results indicated there was a substantial reduction in the number of odds-on favourites in races, and favourites winning. Further analysis of average turnover per race by barrier draw type across the entire 2016/2017 season reveals PBDs, on average, generate higher turnover than random barrier draws. Likewise, the starting price of favourites across 2016/2017 were shorter for random draws than PBDs. hence, the trial will run for one month (July), however feature events which have already been advertised will remain random draws.

Cheers, David
No doubt PBD enhances that sole races turnover. Its what it does to future races turnover is the problem.

What is the mean odds of a horse the next two starts following a C0 or C1 win when it was odds on?
What is the mean odds of a horse the next two starts following a C0 or C1 loss when it was odds on?

If the odds are higher in Answer 1 than Answer 2 we should be doing what we can to make odds on horses win their C0 or C1, which means quit making it harder for them by PBD!

What are the mean odds of a horse the next two starts following beating an odds on pop in a C0 or C1?
What are the mean odds of a horse the next two starts after being beaten by an odds on pop in a C0 or C1?

When an outsider gets gifted a good draw and wins in PBD they can find themselves outclassed ahead of their time up in grade. Not a good betting proposition and leads to less competitive racing in the higher class, producing more odds on favourites.

[David Martin]

No doubt PBD enhances that sole races turnover. Its what it does to future races turnover is the problem.

What is the mean odds of a horse the next two starts following a C0 or C1 win when it was odds on?
What is the mean odds of a horse the next two starts following a C0 or C1 loss when it was odds on?

If the odds are higher in Answer 1 than Answer 2 we should be doing what we can to make odds on horses win their C0 or C1, which means quit making it harder for them by PBD!

What are the mean odds of a horse the next two starts following beating an odds on pop in a C0 or C1?
What are the mean odds of a horse the next two starts after being beaten by an odds on pop in a C0 or C1?

When an outsider gets gifted a good draw and wins in PBD they can find themselves outclassed ahead of their time up in grade. Not a good betting proposition and leads to less competitive racing in the higher class, producing more odds on favourites.


Hi Brendan,


The data I provided was for Nov 2015 which would have included multiple runs for odds on horses, and similarly for the PBD data over twelve months for 2016-17. In short, there are less odds on favourites and those that are, get beaten more often. Most people on this forum and others, would be very happy with that outcome. Your suggestions that we should just let short-priced favourites win and not allow outsiders to win in order to retain them in a lower grade, is the opposite of what the industry wants and needs. Most people want an even playing field and a chance for their horse to win a race. We can't keep giving gifted horses a free kick.


Cheers, David

[David Martin]

David, you said "We have implemented a number of initiatives that demonstrate our desire to retain existing trainers, drivers, owners and horses."
I noticed you left out breeders and breeders have been ignored for many years in our industry. As a result foal numbers have dropped every year for the last 20 or so.
I lost my mare and foal this season, I was planing on breeding one foal per season. Breeding involves many risks including, mares not getting in foal, foals dying, both mare and foal dying. I should be looking for a replacement broodmare but I really don't see any incentives for people to breed horses. Besides the $7000 Vicbred bonus there really isn't much on offer to encourage people to breed horses.
Do you have any incentives in the pipeline ? Can you convince me to get back into the breeding industry ?

Service fees, agistment, vet bills, training fees, feed, transport costs all increasing . The 3 tiered prizemoney means a big cut in prizemoney unless you get a very good horse. Integrity issues are at an all time high with many participants not believing there is a level playing field. These are just some of the issues people thinking of entering the breeding game must face.

Some things I would like to see would be the $7k vicbred bonus going to the breeder not the owner.
A bonus going to the breeder every time one of their horses wins a race. Not just Vicbred races.
More races offering a free service to a decent stallion as a trophy.
Mares getting breeding credits for each race they win to be used towards service fee discounts as some other states have.
Taking Vicbed eligibility back to both mare and stallion being Victorian based.
.



Hi Rick,


I am truly sorry to hear about the loss of your mare and foal this season. Terrible news. As you say, it's a costly industry and there needs to be an incentive for you and others to participate. I acknowledge that due to our poor financial position, we haven't been able to do a lot for breeders in the last 14 months. We did waive the $89 DNA fee, we absorbed the cost of microchipping and following a submission from HBV we increased the number of VicBred conditioned races. But there's so much more we wanted to do, but simply couldn't afford. e.g. we would have liked to reduce foal registration costs and/or expand sires stakes programs, etc., but our financial situation was poor and these things weren't possible.


We have been in regular discussions with HBV and others, and have recently received more suggestions from HBV as part of our 2018-19 budget process. I am happy to consider your suggestions as part of that process.


Thanks again, David

[Messenger]

I sometimes wonder whether PB draws really hurt the chances of horses seen to be a class above their opposition and consequently sent out long odds-on
In a field of 9 which is about all we see nowadays - how many 'bad' barriers are there anyway

I see the effect of PBD's as more a case of making some slim chances look a little more attractive and somewhat a snake oil sold to punters

I am only referring to when there is a class standout in a race - not all those times when we have ridiculous odds on faves - half of whom get beat

[arlington]

R10 Kilmore tonight a $7k C0 only a field of 6 !!!!
Did the 3yo's scare them off ????
The small field were ALL 3yo's

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=KI170418&fromstate=vic#KIC17041804

Yep

[aussiebreno]

Hi Brendan,


The data I provided was for Nov 2015 which would have included multiple runs for odds on horses, and similarly for the PBD data over twelve months for 2016-17. In short, there are less odds on favourites and those that are, get beaten more often. Most people on this forum and others, would be very happy with that outcome. Your suggestions that we should just let short-priced favourites win and not allow outsiders to win in order to retain them in a lower grade, is the opposite of what the industry wants and needs. Most people want an even playing field and a chance for their horse to win a race. We can't keep giving gifted horses a free kick.


Cheers, David
David,
I do want evenly matched races. Best way to get evenly matched races is having evenly matched fields. Instead of artificially keeping back classy horses in lower grades get them in their right class quicker and we will have more competitive races. Instead of gifting underclass horses wins who find upper class racing too tough and are uncompetitive allow them to race in their right grade longer and lengthen their career.
Its all good to say on any given day a PBD race creates less odds on faves. Thats correct. But its the flow on effect that hurts.Having horses who get a couple easy lead/sprint lane wins make it to C4 are done and dusted and lead to small fields in those events. While having the good one sit 3 wide the last lap get beat a length just means they will be back at shortish odds again next week. The PBD system just causes future headaches.

[David Martin]

David,
I do want evenly matched races. Best way to get evenly matched races is having evenly matched fields. Instead of artificially keeping back classy horses in lower grades get them in their right class quicker and we will have more competitive races. Instead of gifting underclass horses wins who find upper class racing too tough and are uncompetitive allow them to race in their right grade longer and lengthen their career.
Its all good to say on any given day a PBD race creates less odds on faves. Thats correct. But its the flow on effect that hurts.Having horses who get a couple easy lead/sprint lane wins make it to C4 are done and dusted and lead to small fields in those events. While having the good one sit 3 wide the last lap get beat a length just means they will be back at shortish odds again next week. The PBD system just causes future headaches.


Thanks Brendan, I understand your view. It seems we're in agreement about the need to separate horses into their right races, but may have different views on how that is best achieved. I suspect we will agree that we shouldn't have elite 2YOs coming back in as 3YOs to have easy wins in C0 races. That's one of the most common complaints that I hear. If races were conditioned so that those elite horses were required to run against like horses, then that would resolve your concern (i.e. get them to their correct grade quickly). Even better would be a progression of the national handicapping system which would resolve this and other issues with the current system. Cheers, David

[arlington]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgGvd1UPZ88

Autumn, could be time to reseed http://www.harnessracingforum.com/showthread.php?451-Possible-Barrier-Draw

[gutwagon]

Personally I think sprint lanes are causing many of the issues with bad barrier draws not being a handicap anymore. Regardless of where the best horse draws it just moves to the death and then the leader just gives up the lead because they know they will get a chance to go up the sprint lane. Without the sprint lane they would risk being stuck there and not even running a place, thus they would be more likely to keep the lead and make the better horse work harder making the better horse use different tactics.
Sprint lanes were introduced to keep punters happy, they used to complain about being boxed in and not getting a chance. But they have lead to very boring racing with more favorites winning, especially in small fields like we have today. Before sprint lanes many more moves were made in races and the drivers needed to use tactics much more. Some tracks in America have identified this problem and are closing the sprint lanes. I think we should look at this here. Our sport has been going down hill since they were introduced, of course it's impossible to work out how much of this is due to sprint lanes.

[Messenger]

I agree Rick

[arlington]

I agree Rick

Just in time for at least one round of sprint lane-less Inter Dom heats? :)

[gutwagon]

I notice that Victorian authorities are using the success of the Gloucester Park Inter as a reason for running heats at different venues. Why not use this same reasoning to close the sprint lanes. Gloucester Park has no sprint lane and they closed the lane at the other venue for the heats. The racing was great during the whole series. As a result turnover was good and many favorites were beaten. Strange how they can ignore the obvious .

I get the feeling that they really don't like to admit that one of their ideas has not worked and just continue with it even if it is causing damage to the industry. Look how long it took them to shift our main meeting back to Saturday nights. Participants have been calling for this from the day they shifted them to Friday night.
Gallops and Greyhounds do not have sprint lanes and they are doing much better than our industry. They don't have any extra integrity issues due to this. It would cost almost nothing to close the sprint lanes.
How about we have a 6 month trial and see how turnover is effected.
It's good to try new ideas but once you realize they are not working you need to change back to the old trusted way.

[Messenger]

R10 Kilmore tonight a $7k C0 only a field of 6 !!!!
Did the 3yo's scare them off ????
The small field were ALL 3yo's

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=KI170418&fromstate=vic#KIC17041804

Another one last night

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BN200418&ms=vic#BNC20041806

But I received an interesting email pointing out that this race with Higherthananeagle paying $1.04 and $1.01 fixed, $1.04 and $1.00 tote had the biggest Win and Place pools of the meet!

The poster wondered whether it could be because some preferred TAB customers (based on how much they punt) get different prices to the rest of us. Maybe 5% higher than us. So could that be the answer - they get a nice little 5% return on these races when the rest get nothing

https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2018-04-20/BENDIGO/M/H/4

ps Also heard that Lenny may have been going around last night but the noms fell over once he nominated

[Amlin]

Thanks Brendan, I understand your view. It seems we're in agreement about the need to separate horses into their right races, but may have different views on how that is best achieved. I suspect we will agree that we shouldn't have elite 2YOs coming back in as 3YOs to have easy wins in C0 races. That's one of the most common complaints that I hear. If races were conditioned so that those elite horses were required to run against like horses, then that would resolve your concern (i.e. get them to their correct grade quickly). Even better would be a progression of the national handicapping system which would resolve this and other issues with the current system. Cheers, David

We have a C0 in Warragul at June, 4YO and older, no more than 2 lifetime wins. Worth $10,000 plus every trainer with a starter gets one ticket into the draw to win a sulky. Specifically programmed to give the "battler" a go at good money. Given trainers hate running into good 3YOs in C0 events, surely this race will achieve maximum nominations.

[Messenger]

Another one last night

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BN200418&ms=vic#BNC20041806

But I received an interesting email pointing out that this race with Higherthananeagle paying $1.04 and $1.01 fixed, $1.04 and $1.00 tote had the biggest Win and Place pools of the meet!

The poster wondered whether it could be because some preferred TAB customers (based on how much they punt) get different prices to the rest of us. Maybe 5% higher than us. So could that be the answer - they get a nice little 5% return on these races when the rest get nothing

https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2018-04-20/BENDIGO/M/H/4

ps Also heard that Lenny may have been going around last night but the noms fell over once he nominated

Another $1.04 favourite race that had the days biggest turnover at Yarra Valley today

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=YG260418&ms=vic#YGC26041807

https://www.tab.com.au/racing/2018-04-26/YARRA-VALLEY/YVL/H/4

Are the pro's manipulating the system?

[Messenger]

6 favourites < $1.70 at Bendigo tonight

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BN260418&ms=vic

[gutwagon]

Wasn't this tiered system a trial ? When does it end because I think most would agree that it isn't working for anyone but the TAB and SKY.

[teecee]

Post 7 suggests it started somewhere around 18 months ago (Sep 2016).
I guess someone thinks its working or too frightened to suggest not.

[Danno]

Post 7 suggests it started somewhere around 18 months ago (Sep 2016).
I guess someone thinks its working or too frightened to suggest not.

Teecee,

Just another wholesome example of the numerous inept attempts by people of all sorts of questionable qualifications and ability to"help" harness racing. The game has just about been "helped" into it's bloody grave by a procession of well meaning morons and self serving industry advocates from my observations over the last 48 years.

[gutwagon]

Post 7 suggests it started somewhere around 18 months ago (Sep 2016).
I guess someone thinks its working or too frightened to suggest not.
Just read that article again. No way has it lead to more even racing and less odds on favorites ! We currently have the most uneven fields that I have ever seen. Especially with no standing start handicaps. And with the big stables raiding the cheap races I don't see many more battlers winning races.

[arlington]

From Western Australia - Handicapped on win only earnings:-

http://www.rwwa.com.au/home/racing/industry-feedback-on-new-harness-business-model-7118.html and http://www.rwwa.com.au/home/racing/horse-pool-hwoe-7104.html which includes a pdf when you click on an example Race Program here (http://www.rwwa.com.au/home/documents/har01/Tiered%20Racing%20Template%20for%20Website.pdf)

I believe, here in Victoria, a couple of $ earnings handicapping proposals have been put forward.

All states are still working toward a national system?

[Messenger]

Melton Favourites today

$1.50 $1.60 $1.50 $1.40 $1.40 $2.30 $1.50 $1.40 $2.40 $1.20

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX020518&ms=vic

[Richard prior]

Those odds aren’t my idea of fun

[Messenger]

Does Vic have a general odds on problem or is it really just one stable?

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX110518&fromstate=vic

[Messenger]

Never to be 1/25 again

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SP160518&ms=vic#SPC16051803

[Richard prior]

How could Gilty Hanover start at $1.08?? They are Superstar odds and I was wondering if I missed something so I scrolled back and looked at it’s recent runs, Nothing really caught my eye

[Messenger]

How could Gilty Hanover start at $1.08?? They are Superstar odds and I was wondering if I missed something so I scrolled back and looked at it’s recent runs, Nothing really caught my eye

$1.04 down here!

[Messenger]

Four Walls $1.10 fav and winner in a $3,500 TR1 at Melton today is IMO what is wrong with the system at present
At her previous start 11 days before she won a $14,000 final at Melton

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX300518&fromstate=vic#MXC30051806

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX190518#MXM19051809

[Richard prior]

Agree Kev, That race seemed a backward step and maybe should have been ineligible for that

[aussiebreno]

$1.10 fave may not be a great result but its hard enough to find a good horse, are the owners entitled to get their fair share of pictures hanging up on the wall before the horse hits it mark?
A 2nd placing to Emma Stewart is just as good as a win and it was just last week Gilty Hanover got beat in a C1 after 'winning' a $40,000 race. If the all conquering Stewart stable wasn't around and there was some form of prizemoney handicapping then Gilty Hanovers race career would be over. Got beat in C1 how would it go in higher grade?
Ending careers prematurely is worse than $1.10 fave imo. Let the owners get their wins!

[aussiebreno]

Maybe we should we be doing all we can to avoid $1.10 faves I just find it hard on owners who finally have one capable of winning races to rush it up in grade.

[Richard prior]

Very true Breno and owners we need to encourage, I need to think about the big picture before posting sorry

[Messenger]

$1.10 fave may not be a great result but its hard enough to find a good horse, are the owners entitled to get their fair share of pictures hanging up on the wall before the horse hits it mark?
A 2nd placing to Emma Stewart is just as good as a win and it was just last week Gilty Hanover got beat in a C1 after 'winning' a $40,000 race. If the all conquering Stewart stable wasn't around and there was some form of prizemoney handicapping then Gilty Hanovers race career would be over. Got beat in C1 how would it go in higher grade?
Ending careers prematurely is worse than $1.10 fave imo. Let the owners get their wins!

Although you are talking about a completely different horse Breno, I will have a go as I don't think you chose a good example for comparison
Gilty Hanover did not win the start before the C1
She did however win the race before that so I don't think they will pull the pin on her yet unless it is to get her ready for the breeding barn
The C1 was a $7,000 race not a $3,500 race which is the problem I have with Four Walls
GH was $1.04 fav beaten a HFNK in the C1 and received a QUER and VXAR

I am worried about the other horses trying to get a win in the $3500 race having their careers ended prematurely - so we are actually on the same page

[Messenger]

The better 3yo's continue to pillage the lower C class races. There were 3 that they could target in Vic today and they won them all.

[Bonnie]

I think the term ' pillage ' is a little bit harsh Kev. Once a 3 year old has won 2 races there is very little programmed for them in their age group. They are classed as 3C2 C0. Open 3 year old races are almost non existent and the majority of C0 races are programmed as 4 year old and older. It is extremely difficult to find a suitable race for these 3 year olds who have ONLY won 2 races! The Vicbred Sires series heats are imminent and good luck to those that have found a lead up race . Most of our horses have been spelling for that reason and I would rather be at the races because that's why I' m a passionate owner , breeder and horse lover .
The Emma Stewart stable has 22 horses trialling at Melton on Tuesday , many returning from spells.
Also , the fields for Swan Hill on Wednesday were released today. There are 6 races on the program offering very good prizemoney ; 4 races at $7K , 1 race at $5K and 1 at $10,000K. Two races have 7 starters , two have 6 , and 2 have 5. A total of 36 starters ! The punters are HRV 's priorities but how can this meeting return a satisfactory result? . Maybe a review of the tiered system , handicapping and programming are urgently required.

[Messenger]

You're right Anne LOL - pillage is a bit strong. I noticed on that same day there were three 3C0 races but no alternatives for the better 3yo's. David or programmers, if you are reading - how about more open 3yo races

[Bonnie]

Thanks Kev.

[Dot]

" From my interactions with many people, there is a strong desire to retain the no penalty 3500 races. Most attention focuses on the $5000 races where a penalty is incurred, so as we prepare plans for 2018/19, that will be an area to review."

Above is an extract from a post from David Martin, and below a link to a press release announcing an increase in prizemoney from $3500 to $4000 for restricted races, and an increase in the number of restricted $4000 races. Perhaps David could drop in and advise what is happening with C class races, particularly $5000 races, now only $1000 more then a restricted race and at the cost of a country penalty.

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/media-releases/july-9-prizemoney-increase-for-restricted-class-races-in-2018-19/

[Bonnie]

Totally agree Dot. $5000 races should be abolished and Country Penalty Races a minimum of $7000. Losing a Country penalty for a $1000 difference is ridiculous.

[Dot]

I agree Ann, and have to say that from my interpretation of David's previous comments this press release raising prizemoney for restricted events ahead of addressing the inequity of losing a restricted penalty for wining a $3500 race ( non penalty race is a common misnomer used when describing restricted races, they aren't penalty free but don't incur a country penalty) and losing a country penalty and a restricted penalty for winning a $5000 race took me by complete surprise.

[arlington]

Can see where you're coming from Dot, address the 5K before the bottom up races. But I don't think it was cart before the horse. The increase to R has been on the cards for a while, just waiting for HRA to accept/allow an increase. It may well be addressing the 5K may/would depend on how the 4k, more so the increase in number, will fund the increase to 5K races.
I guess you could wait and announce simultaneously.

[arlington]

Thoughts on just R $4000 and C $8000, or whatever the maximum the budget allows, across the board?

[Dot]

May have been on the cards for sometime Wayne but to me it is putting the cart before the horse. All participants, call them what you may are effected by $5000 C class races, and the penalties incurred for winning one, R races are often restricted entry forcing grassroots participants to nominate for C class. I am for supporting the grassroots but I don't see how this is doing it. Surely higher prizemoney in restricted grade and only a restricted penalty incentivises participants considered higher then grass roots to nominate for restricted grade, and in my twenty years as a grassroots trainer the calibre of the opposition in R races and the probability of winning one has been of greater concern to grass roots trainers then the actual prizemoney.

In this day and age there can be little doubt that new owners are difficult to come by, I fear that this focus on increasing restricted prizemoney will back fire and drive them further away rather then incentivise new owners to become involved. In my view country front prizemoney should have been increased to a higher minimum first, say $7000, even if that meant reducing the number of $10,000 C races, and clearly differentiated from restricted race prizemoney.

I doubt we can attract new owners focussing on restricted grade races and it should be country front racing with a minimum level of $7000 that we market as the "normal" entry level for new owners or participants entering the industry. From this position there are two ways to go, up to Metro and feature level racing, and a fallback position of participation at restricted level.

In time as hopefully our financial position improves then increase prizemoney for both, even if it is just a $100 at a time but maintain a clear distinction between the two.

[arlington]

I agree with a lot of your thoughts Dot, hence my post, Thoughts on just R $4000 and C $8000, or whatever the maximum the budget allows, across the board? In posting that, and as a hobbyist, I'd have no qualms at all if R remained at $3500 and max the $C. C$5000 doesn't incentivise anyone, new or existing.

I'd be surprised if the focus was on R racing, but point taken in announcing this increase first. I wonder if the trainers and drivers association welcoming the R increase might be conditional to an increase to C5K? Whilst the VTDA doesn't represent owners it/they do realise who butter's their bread? Or was it the association/club that represents owners having the push behind the increase to R?

Quoting you,
I doubt we can attract new owners focussing on restricted grade races and it should be country front racing with a minimum level of $7000 that we market as the "normal" entry level for new owners or participants entering the industry. From this position there are two ways to go, up to Metro and feature level racing, and a fallback position of participation at restricted level.
100% agree, echoed my thoughts as a current owner and has more influence on me looking at a sales or stallion catalogue in the future.

Having said that, HRV's number crunching that led to the R increase would have also included keeping current horse numbers on the track, hence the new distribution of the 4K. Short sighted or reactive to the health status of the sport?

[Dot]

Id be happy with 4 and 8k are the end goal Wayne but the $5k C front needs to be done away with, no one should lose a country penalty for only a few hundred dollars more then they would receive winning in R class, and yes if R class needs to remain at $3500 for a while more to do it then so be it.

If the focus hasn't switched to a greater volume of R racing at slightly higher stakes at the expense of C racing then this is a poorly worded press release and should not have been published in isolation. I don't know what organisation were consulted, and this press release appears to fly in the face of David Martins earlier comments on this forum. At the risk of offending someone the VDTA response reads as organisational head nodding at something is better then nothing type stuff.

I am a breeder as well Wayne and a country harness racing economy based on $4000 restricted races will certainly have me rethinking joining mares in spring. Simply cannot justify the costs involved to produce to sell or pay training fees in a $4000 race economy.

No doubt the increase in restricted races has bought horses that were in the paddock back to the track, but how many more of these are there out there? How will $4000 races bring back more then $3500 races did, there are only so many of these horses that can be mobilised before the supply is exhausted. To offset or prevent a continuing fall in racing numbers then more horses need to be bred, there is a three year lag minimum in getting them to the track, addressing this has to start now, and for mine a guaranteed minimum country front goal of $7000 is the starting point to doing so.

The press release was big on stating this was about getting the money to the people that need it most, but is this really the way to do it, and who are the people who need it most. Seems as if only the raw total for R races have been taken into account and not the distribution to participants.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but all races have prizemoney to 5th and then the starters subsidy to each additional starter, so races with the most number of starters provide the poorest level of return to the greatest number of participants. From my observations R races often have less starters then C races, so in fact many R race level participants may be receiving a higher level of return ( not necessarily easier to win but easier to be in the places and earn prizemoney in a small field rather then the subsidy) then many C class participants racing in larger fields are. Those racing trotters appear to be most hard done by as these are often the largest fields. After $5000 C fronts are gone, maybe the next thing to do is to link the number of places paid out in a race to the number of starters and share the spoils around more evenly then occurs now.

HRNSW is building a new track in Wagga and they have stepped ahead of the rest of us with the introduction of prizemoney handicapping in Metro racing at Menangle and now mares racing. If the expansion of this format continues it is easy to see our C class horses at least in Northern Victoria after they have won their bonus racing at Wagga where the prizemoney handicapping format will see them "recycled" and their earning opportunities improved, unless we have a strong C class racing format that entices them to stay and that funnels them through the to Metro class at Melton.

I appreciate that the new board and David Martin took over at a difficult time and first priority had to be to plug the holes to stop the ship from sinking. But there comes a time where the ship must get back underway even if it is not entirely pristine and water tight yet, for it will take considerable time to build back up to full steam ahead.