Vic Tiered Racing

[Messenger]

All good points Wayne.
I had not considered the times when a trainer might want to opt for an easy tier, early in a prep
And I think you are right about 'throwing it out there' providing more feedback

[Amlin]

It will be interesting to see how much difference Tiered Racing makes in the new season
Tonight at Ballarat 8/9 races Odds On favs

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...A260716&ms=vic

The new stakemoney arrangements kick in on Sept 1 - you can preview the draft programs here...


http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-ca...2016&state=VIC


It appears that the various levels will be spread across meetings where practical, with consideration given to particular clubs locations, strengths, weaknesses in attracting fields etc.


The original document had stated that particular stake levels would be staged "predominantly" on particular days etc.


I believe this is something the Industry Advisory Council pushed for to avoid an "us and them" situation between bigger and smaller clubs. They're all here for the same purpose in reality.


It will be interesting to see how the new arrangements go.

[Messenger]

Interesting stuff Kyle

You only need to look as far as Ararat on Sep 6 for a meet where the C0 is the richest race on the program (and it is not due to all the other races being Restricted class)

It took me until Sept 26 Hamilton to find a meeting where there are 2 races for the same class of horse (C1) with pretty much the same conditions for different prizemoney whereby trainers will ultimately be deciding 'how high to aim'

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-pr...&fromstate=vic

[arlington]

The new system could be good for the smaller clubs in that if punters warm to tiered racing they will punt irrespective of where the meeting is held...of course, turnover days will still be greatly dependant on things like pay day and when discretionary income is exhausted.

You have to think about programming on a regional basis Kev, not so much a particular meeting. In the example you've given, even though harness horses are more likely to race over various distances rather than specialise, it's significant those two races are over different distances and we do have a big C1 pool.
In referring to regional, and considering the horse pool, you'd look at the races programmed for a particular class of horse in the 7-10 day period around that date within a region e.g Stawell, Ballarat etc when picking a race for your horse.

It will be very interesting to see if punters really like the opportunity of the possibility of less odds on favourites. I wonder what the computer modelling looked like on exotic bet forms?

[Amlin]

Interesting comments Wayne. A good example re regional programming this weekend where about 15 of the 75 odd starters at Cranbourne are from the immediate region.

[Messenger]

The new system could be good for the smaller clubs in that if punters warm to tiered racing they will punt irrespective of where the meeting is held...of course, turnover days will still be greatly dependant on things like pay day and when discretionary income is exhausted.

You have to think about programming on a regional basis Kev, not so much a particular meeting. In the example you've given, even though harness horses are more likely to race over various distances rather than specialise, it's significant those two races are over different distances and we do have a big C1 pool.
In referring to regional, and considering the horse pool, you'd look at the races programmed for a particular class of horse in the 7-10 day period around that date within a region e.g Stawell, Ballarat etc when picking a race for your horse.

It will be very interesting to see if punters really like the opportunity of the possibility of less odds on favourites. I wonder what the computer modelling looked like on exotic bet forms?

I realize it is a regional thing - I see the same horses race at Horsham, Hamilton, Stawell etc but I was too lazy to do such comprehensive research.
I did my research so quickly I did not even look at distances but I must say that I see very little difference between 1660 and 2160 at Hamilton
The duplication is only ever likely to be for C0's and C1's at the same meet
Am I right in thinking that the majority of C1's interested in this meet would nominate for both races.
It would have been interesting to find a program where there was an even bigger discrepancy eg a $3500 and a $7000 race.
In those circumstances I think there could be a risk of the higher race not holding up if a top class horse nominated and the dual nominators all then opted for the lesser stakes race

[arlington]

Quoting Kyle, "It will be interesting to see how the new arrangements go", and not in a negative mindset, we'll just have to suck it and see.

I wouldn't imagine the Cranbourne meeting being a Saturday night meeting would make any difference to Cranbourne but with Warragul Kyle, have you noticed a difference with professional/non professional trainer ratios for a midweek versus weekend? I guess Sunday meetings would be mainly R meetings and I haven't looked that deeply into post Sept 1 programming but as it is now professional trainers do target R meeting which may change with the tiered system? Pro trainers will travel to $10,000 races irrespective of when and where.

Not sure where you're coming from Kev, "I must say that I see very little difference between 1660 and 2160 at Hamilton"?

A lot of existing field selection criteria will remain Kev. In the case of dual nominating, I assume, you will still have the option of preferencing races you nominate for but it's not a given your choice will be acted upon. In short, you don't really have the choice of pulling out of one race once the nominations have closed so it might be more pertinent to consider dually nominating in the future. In the past horses, in part, were multi nominated due to having low field selection points in the hope of getting a run irrespective of distance but I reckon many would have preferenced their preferred distance.

You've picked an interesting program Kev, the C/R0's as well. The devil is in the detail of the 'other conditions'. Besides field selection points the programming is trying to address the incidence of imported, relatively well credentialled NZ horses starting at odds on in lower class races. Also it entices the 24 points horses to have a go at the higher prize money race with the liklihood of them trying to "sneak" into the lower prize money race by dual nominating they'll probably end up in the higher race anyway as the low could have excess noms.
Not sure how often the option of $3500 v $7000 on the one program will happen, more likely to be within a region.

Here's an example of picking your races which I imagine will be replicated, Shepparton C/R0's September 11-16, heats of $3500 leading to a final of $5000 the same meeting as a $10000 race. Considering the 'other conditions' if you were fortunate in winning a heat and the final not a bad pick up rather than running in the $10000. Being early in the season may not give a good indication of how this programming will stymie the number of odds on favourites with the better 3yo's turned out early in their open career but I'm sure there'll be a few nice 3C0/NZ import C0's treading water for this one.

We just have to hope when we do give the punters a longer priced favourite they jump on board. I wonder if we could crystal ball what average price punters would be happy with, meaning our turn over increases? The programming document may well need to be fluid. Even though HRV's budget is under the pump I hope the petty cash account had a few bucks to send Vaughn on a holiday next month. A bit of inflight music for Vaughn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxNSjppLWeQ

[Amlin]

Not sure what % are hobbyists as opposed to full time.

It seems about two thirds visitors to one third local horses at most Wgl/Crb meets.

Obviously the key is to get the 33% up to around 40/45% which can only increase field sizes and participation levels.

[Amlin]

Around 2.20 - 2.30 would be the desired favourite SP

[Messenger]

Some more thoughts on Tiered Racing that someone sent to me:

Tiered Racing sending the wrong message?

Looking through the tiered racing programs on the calendar the races with the reduced prizemoney are primarily targeted at the most poorly performed of low grade horses with as I expected the "conditions" of the race being the prime determinant of eligibility making the "tiered" prizemoney redundant.

These low prizemoney conditioned races may lead to a reduction in short priced favourites in that race which is desirable but how does rewarding the connections with lower prizemoney and still losing a country penalty encourage people with poorer performing horses to keep them in the game for the longer term or new connections and another trainer trying to improve them when they have the same assessment as better performed more talented horses

Seems that we have not been able to get past the racing tradition of better rewarding better performers to increasing the earnings of poorer performers in order to keep them in the racing pool. Whilst the sport of racing will always recognise and reward superior performers we are now in the era of the business of racing and that means that even the least talented of the horse pool needs to be adequately rewarded to ensure their long term contribution to the wagering pool.

Maybe a better rewarded and more comprehensive " R" tier with conditions excluding better performed horses ( only horses who haven't participated in "C" class or have established poor form in "C" class races can drop back to "R" class races) a better option then "C" class races with varying prizemoney. Win, prizemoney or speed criteria could be added to "R" class to compel the better "R" class horses to race in "C" class if their owners weren't willing to step them up themselves.

Perhaps one of the traditions of racing that needs to change in this country to reduce short priced favourites is the practice of trainers racing higher quality performers ( as evidenced by earnings and previous participation in group level events ) against lesser performed horses in "C" class races expecting to win money enroute to metro and or feature races rather then preparing through trials.

In the U.S. Stakes level horses seldom ( usually only if their form has gone off during the season so that they have become eligible) step out in "overnight " and "conditioned" races which are their bread and butter level but instead prepare using qualifiers ( trials) before stepping out straight back in stakes grade.