|
|
#1
5th March 2009, 02:29.35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Horseplayers Impact
Frustrated with being treated like cannon fodder by the racetrack industry?
Mayo and others have posted an idea to encourage horseplayers to become easily and painlessly involved with taking action - no dues, credit cards, membership or anything like that. The idea is easy for everyone to get active with because all you have to do is bet a few bucks on a designated race. Read more here for an explanation and stay tuned. Don't be cynical, anything is worth trying. http://blog.horseplayersassociation....-we-stand.html
__________________
km |
|
#5
5th March 2009, 05:28.23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Good people with selfless goals working for us.
Officers: Jeff Platt, President John Swetye, Vice President Theresia Muller, Treasurer Dean Towers, Secretary Advisory Board: Cary Fotias Dr. William Ziemba Nick Mordin Barry Meadow
__________________
Dan G ======================== “We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” ~ George Bernard Shaw |
|
#6
5th March 2009, 06:10.18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
RACING
Phantom is in!
Now here is my feedback! Once we get more information on this and know what Track and Race Card,then we pick a horse to Bet on that we all agree on!Example [TRACK]---[LRL]---[RACE]--[4]---[HORSE] [5]--$100 to WIN on [ 5] Now were not looking at the odds,just the WIN! You take about 20 or 30 members doing this then the Track will take notice!If we as members of HTR can put this together and maybe KEN and RICK can jump in with there ideas,just maybe we can be a part of help Racing ! I know that I can pick at lease 8 WINNERS out of 9 at most East coast Tracks! What betting venu do we use? Gus
__________________
Gus |
|
#7
5th March 2009, 09:35.46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ken and Mike,
We had similar discussions over a year ago on the Thorograph board. I am all in, as this is one of the few way's us bettors will finally get noticed. If you want I could try to introduce this back over there if there is interest. Not sure what has already been discussed behind the scenes. NC Tony |
|
#8
5th March 2009, 10:59.31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
NC and everyone: Please post the link to the letter on any other bbs or chat board you frequent - thanks
Phantom, they will announce the track.date.race for the "all in" bet after getting the message out to more people
__________________
km Last edited by km; 5th March 2009 at 11:00.57 PM. |
|
#9
6th March 2009, 04:52.56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wanted to thank everyone who has responded so far. I must say that since I have released this idea publically I have had only ONE negative response. All others have been absolutely positive and everyone has said they wanted to participate.
Let me tell everyone what Ross and I have come up with so far. We participated in a conference call this past Wed night with the Board of Directors of Horseplayers Association of North America (HANA) at their request. The discussion was very positive and upbeat by all who were on the call. This group is very informed about our industry and seems up to date on just about anything that is going on. They knew about the MEC bankruptcy filing for the next day before it actually happened. Ross and I agreed to let this group run with this idea because they already have a website and have about 650 members. Our goal was to use the email databases from HTR, Horseplayer magazine, and Public Handicapper and direct everyone to the HANA site to read the letter and sign up with HANA if they were interested (it is FREE to sign up). At the end of my letter is a link to sign up with HANA which will in turn get you in the database to participate in this idea. We have not exactly decided who and how we will select the track and race each week. That will be discussed next Wed night on the Board of Directors conference call. The Board at HANA wanted to wait and see what kind of response was generated by this idea. Everything that has come through so far as been absolutely great and more people are signing up daily. I encourage as many people to sign up in the next two weeks as we hope to move forward and use WEDNESDAY APRIL 1 ( and no this is no APRIL FOOLS JOKE) as our first betting day. I can tell you we will bet the small tracks first to keep the individual bets at a reasonable amount and allow our group to grow. This will also allow us to have an immediate impact which will be noticeable to the selected track. As we grow we will be able to move to the larger ones. Right now we want to keep this POSITIVE and help the smaller individual track operators with a bump in their handle. The good folks at HANA have already compiled a list of target tracks for the first few weeks. We want to keep this kind of quiet with the track operators until we get this ball rolling. I encourage each of your to send this link or the HANA link to as many fellow horseplayers that you know. Some non members of HTR may not read this post but will want to participate. After all, no matter what software or publication any of us use, we are ALL in the same boat as horseplayers. Thanks again Mike Mayo |
|
#10
7th March 2009, 01:06.39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sounds like a great idea. Far, far easier to make a dramatic positive impact on a pool than it is to have a substantial negative effect.
I'm kind of of the same mindset as Tomcat. It's important to me to understand what the desired end result of this effort would be. What type of changes would we as a group be seeking? The committment to the weekly pool is an easy one to make, but if this proceeds as planned our group will actually need to assume a much tougher committment if we actually want our desired changes to take root. |
|
#11
7th March 2009, 03:56.37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As I explained in the letter, we want to try and keep things positive at first. As the group grows, as well as the block of MONEY, we can then make just about any impact we want either positive or negative. Our ultimate goal is to get to a Million $$ a week in block money as well personal money that members want to bet outside the block. All of us realize it will take a while and more recruitment of members over a year period or so to get to our goal. We do believe with time and good publicity that is very attainable. A million a week is significant and could easily influence the pools of any single race at most race tracks. That is why we are targeting the small tracks first because we want to have an immediate impact with smaller amounts of money until our group grows. This will certainly help them and hopefully get them interested in our movement. Perhaps these race tracks could offer inducements such as lower takeout on certain bets etc in order for our membership to continue to bet these tracks with our dollars outside the group. The larger tracks would then have to take notice and perhaps follow suit. ALL HORSEPLAYERS KNOW THAT LOWER TAKEOUT MEANS LARGER HANDLE. This fact seems to have slipped the mind of track operators or they just choose to ignore it. We could use Maryland as an example. They just raised the takeout to 25% on all pk3 and pk4 wagers up from 14%. Now is that encouragement for any of us to continue to bet those pools. I think NOT.
That is just one example of how we could make an impact. There are many other negative impacts (creating negative show pools etc) we could have with a half a million to a million dollar block of money. However that is not our ultimate goal and we certainly hope we are not forced to do something like that. If things grow as hoped over the next 3 months or so and we can prove the positive impact, I feel sure the word will get out and we can get good publicity from the DRF and other racing publications as well as the tracks which we have helped. This is in turn should bring in more members to our group. I hope this has answered some of the questions anyone may have. Sincerely, Mike Mayo |
|
#12
7th March 2009, 07:48.49 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is not a negative post - its just that I'm thick.
So, let me get this straight. You are asking horseplayers to play $100 to win in a race starting with small tracks so that, should the horse actually win, we stand to make a buck or two. If the horse loses, oh well. You are asking this in a tough economy when $100 may be more than some (many) horseplayers budget for a day at the track. Okay, let's say I'm all in favor of horseplayers having their voice heard, but let's say I'm cheap (actually, there's no "let's say" about it - i am cheap). So I say, "go Mayo" "go everybody". I want to reap the rewards of what you are doing but I just ain't all that inclined to spend $100 a week for the privilege of being a part of it all. Me thinks I may not be the only bloke who takes that approach. Without these blokes such as myself - and there are probably more of them than there are those with $430 to invest each month "for the greater good" - can this plan succeed? Anyway, what this thick brain can't figure out is - how is this better than an organized boycott where the absence of betting highlights the bettor's actions rather than the presence of, shall we say, excessive betting? Heck, even the underemployed guy can go along with that gameplan. And, what about the whales? What if they felt the same way about a horseplayer's coalition? What if they could be talked into boycotting a stakes race or two - or better yet, refusing to fund a guaranteed $500,000 pick four or two? So, this is basically an inquiry - help me out here Mayo - how does this plan appeal to the horseplayer who is fretting about coming home at the end of the day and telling the wife (or the husband), "sorry honey, not a good day at the track" and then sitting down with the bills and parceling out a minimum payment on a credit card here and there? Does he look forward to the next week end when he gets to spend another $100 to help the horseplayers' cause? |
|
#14
7th March 2009, 08:38.45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
One bettor SCREAMS for attention. A thousand bettors DEMAND attention. The BIG picture is to show the powers that be that there is a UNIFIED force dedicated to positive change. As I write this, the powers that be can do what they want and things will NEVER change. They know this. If we SMACK them in the head with our collective actions we CAN make a POSITIVE change in the sport that we all love even if some/all lose a few dollars in the process. MONEY moves this sport and our combined money WILL make a difference. We ALL lose money chasing a long shot. We all have different spending limits. Some of us can help make this work without spending a penny. It's all about UNITING for CHANGE. We ALL MUST play a part. Collectively, we can turn this long shot into OUR favorite. The BIG picture should be our goal. The alternative is the SAME crap---DIFFERENT day. I vote for change.
__________________
Eddie Last edited by Wright Stuff; 7th March 2009 at 09:08.20 PM. |
|
#15
7th March 2009, 08:41.30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Henry,
I would hate to see your negative response if this one is not. However since you asked me to help you out I will certainly try. I am pretty sure I have explained this thing pretty clearly and I do not remember saying everyone had to bet $100 to win on any race. In my original letter I explained that everyone certainly has their own betting threshold or confort zone. It was never the intention for anyone to deviate from that. The numbers used were simply for math purposes to show how our money bet together would add up. The way this thing will eventually be set up is most everyone can bet whatever amount ($10, 20, 50, 100 or more per race) they want and any way (wps, exacta, trifecta, etc) they want as long as it is in the designated race for that week. We certainly do not want to have everyone bet the same way or to bet more than they are comfortable with. That is obviously what our sport is about. Again I am trying to keep this thing in a positive mode. Boycotting is certainly not positive. That is something that could be done down the road if a certain situation dictates. This was simply an idea that was put out to see if there was enough interest to make it work. Based on the responses so far, I would have to say yes, it is very probable. If you or anyone else has a better idea to truly help our sport then I am all ears and will certainly listen. If you wish to participate then we would be glad to have you. If not, then we certainly understand. Again, I thank you for your opinion and certainly respect it. I hope my explanation helps. Sincerely, Mike Mayo |
|
#16
7th March 2009, 09:05.32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I like the idea of a Procott and was in on the original meetings for HANA. They are good people and need to just stick to their guns, rather than try to make everyone happy.
One race per week should allow all of the information vendors to post FREE information for that race and maybe even get some new business out of this. Perhaps on a single web page, the race is listed, the vendors post links to their stuff, and the people participating click some link with their name and "amount they pledge" to bet in that race. Perhaps this all can be done on the HANA site, but my impression of that group is there is too much "bending over backwards" for certain people, rather than trying to move the group forward and leave the few malcontents behind. One race per week is a great idea in my opinion. Everyone bets whatever they want in that race and handle has to increase. There should be some goal set before the effort and a notice sent to Track management of our intention to HELP them. Keep going with this idea, it is a good one! Jim |
|
#17
7th March 2009, 10:20.18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I like your idea NJ, our "selections" forum would be a great board for dissecting the chosen race and everyone could chime in with their analysis - then we could bet anything from $1 to $100 to help the Procott depending on our finances. It would make it more exciting for all of us.
We could even make a group bet for those that only have a few bucks, i'll take a $5 or $10 from those with PayPal and put in a larger superfecta or something. Pooling a wager would make it more fun as a group. Exposure is the important aspect to this. All good ideas evolve and change with feedback. But we have to start and do something. For that I appreciate Mayo's initiative. My vote is for TUP for the first track. No slots-small handle-try hard for fans and they would be responsive to the effort. Later, EMD would be a perfect choice for night time. Someday we might find some tracks inviting us to participate. That is the ultimate goal.
__________________
km |
|
#20
8th March 2009, 12:15.59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm seeing it more Henry's way, too
I'm thinking that if we took a running start on a word of mouth campaign, and passed it along word of mouth at the tourneys, and told our friends to tell their friends that horseplayers were going to boycott a MAJOR race on the calender, that that is the approach that would be more likely to succeed in getting noticed. The last thing a venue will want is to have their premier race boycotted by the bettors. The tracks already think horseplayers are just throwing money at them anyway (what are they doing to attract our action anyway?), so why should they pay you any more attention when they get a random 30k handle in one race every once in a while? What's that net out for track management, $1500-2000? On the other hand, let them know what you are planning to do months in advance and then do it. Cost them $5M handle on one race on one day. That just may get their attention. That might even get us a seat on the TRA board. Or are we so hooked on playing every single big race that we just can't help ourselves? In which case the tracks are right.
|
|
#21
8th March 2009, 12:38.22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I wonder why you cannot see the other side of this. If you think bettors can withhold that much money, why wouldn't you think they can bet that much money? Isn't that just the other side of the coin? |
|
#22
8th March 2009, 08:25.00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mayo, really? you thought my post was a negative response to your proposal? If so, I apologize, it was not intended as such. Actually, I'm all in favor of something to show the owners that horseplayers should be listened to. Heck, I'm a union kinda guy. I just misunderstood what seemed to be an important component of the proposal and I guess I was mistaken in that I thought that raising an innocent question about that component would not be perceived as an attack against the proposal itself.
Perhaps it was the following that gave me the wrong idea of the "betting minimum" that seemed to be an important part of the proposal: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The greater point, however, is not whether a procott is preferable to a boycott. Instead, its whether any question raised should be perceived as a negative that should be avoided at all costs. Its been my experience that horseplayers are a pretty varied lot with a lot of diverse opinions. If counterpoints are perceived as negative simply because they are raised I fear that any plan will have a tough time generating sufficient enthusiasm to have the desired impact. I really don't want to be the naysayer guy in this discussion but given my general belief that working out the details is best done BEFORE a plan moves forward than midway through the exercise of that plan, let me go out on a limb here and raise another question. Hopefully this will not be perceived as a negative. Okay, lets say this plan works in the sense that the participants grow to the 3 to 5 thousand members that you referred to in your initial letter and the movement has the ability to impact a track's handle by something like $200K in a single race. Now you want to actually use that new-found voice and bring about a change. What is the primary objective that the movement is attempting to accomplish? Is it lowering take out and do we therefore threaten to withhold action until a track lowers take out? Or is it testing for drugs and publishing the results of those tests and we threaten to withhold action until both steps are taken? Or is it dealing with the issues related to tracknet and other ADW's? Or is it a myriad of other issues? Who decides? And what happens to that portion of the movement that may have had a different idea of what the primary objective of the movement was? One final question. You close the letter on the Horseplayers Association blog with the discussion of the use of a boycott to accomplish our objective once our voice is heard. Thus, there does not appear to a fear of using that tool to accomplish the movement's objective. I am not sure I understand how a boycott changes from a boycott simply by prefacing that boycott with a procott. If the objective is to have sufficient numbers so that the boycott we will ultimately rely on will actually have an impact, how does asking horseplayers to pay before joining the movement accomplish that objective faster than simply organizing for the boycott itself? |
|
#23
8th March 2009, 09:25.31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mike, I'm with you and HANA either way you want to go. In theory, mine anyway, a show of pool strength followed by a withdrawal of handle may backfire. It smacks of coitus interruptus, and may prove as ineffective.
The debacle our leveraged economic malfeasance has wrought seems to heighten a business's willingness to promote a less greedy stance. The remarkable ADW menu availability of late is a prime example. I think our recession and likely depression offers horseplayers a rare opportunity to exhibit and "force" all we ever wanted, a level playing field. It may not sound like it but please count me in. |
|
#24
8th March 2009, 11:19.26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Folks,
Thanks to Mike for the link; I get to follow along here. Things went down as Mike said in his post. Ross, himself, along with us had a nice chat about Mike and Ross’s idea. We thought it was something worth looking at. Since we started HANA one thing we know is true, horseplayers have individuality and strong opinions. We hear of many ideas at HANA and a lot of them are simply not realistic or workable. We all want to change the game for the better, but things have to be achievable. We thought Mike’s idea was doable and we think it may do some good. As another poster mentioned, betting $50 a week or whatever is real money. But who knows. Over a year if you can get a 0.90 ROI on these bets it is only a $5 a week thing. For $5 a week I think it might turn out to be a solid investment. For example, what if this worked? Like Mike spoke about, I am sure a lot of you know that exotic takes in Australia are mandated at a 16% takeout - it is a law that takeouts can not be higher than that. What if this worked and each track here, say next year, made one bet per track a 16% takeout bet in response to this? Maybe each horizontal bet, like a pick 4 and pick 3. If you or I hit one or two pick 4's and threes a week at a 16% take instead of the weighted average 26% take racing has, it might put $100 in our pocket to rebet a week, maybe much more. Over 52 weeks the $5 we spend now, could come back many times over. And non-selfishly - it would grow the game of racing. From speaking with Mike everything is in the early stage, and the end result is up in the air. No one knows what racing does if it succeeds, but we think it is better than just accepting what they have given us over the past year: Calder raised takeouts, Maryland raised takeouts, horseman fought with tracks shutting off signals, Las Vegas and racing fought. All for more of a shrinking pie at the horseplayers and racings expense. This has to stop or this game will not be here as we know it; and I applaud Mike and Ross for trying to get something going. If you choose to climb aboard and see where this takes us, and maybe have a little fun along the way with a bunch of like-minded horseplayers handicapping a race a week, give it a try. You can sign up here : http://www.jcapper.com/HANA/SignUp/H...m.asp?source=1 If you don’t mind, just pop a note in the comments box that you are signing up for Mike’s idea. That will help us with next steps and allow us to build a list specific for this purpose. Thanks fellas and thanks to Ken for allowing this on he board and being behind it. Dean |
|
#25
8th March 2009, 01:35.28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
 Sometimes it takes going to the gym to fully understand what is going on. All of a sudden while working out it occurred to me that what Mike was suggesting was not, as alluded to in phantom's post, the idea that everyone would bet on the same horse in the same race. Rather, it was that we would all just bet into the pool of a specific race. In fact, that is exactly what Mike's original letter stated. Sonofagun. Now I understand a little better. I still have questions but this happens to make a lot more sense than what I had thought previously. |
|
#26
8th March 2009, 07:03.45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply to NJ Curveball
The fact is on big race days (Derby, Preakness, Belmont, Travers, BC) horseplayers bet many, many multiples of $5M on a single race. The income from these day and these races is budgeted. A threat to these cash flows becomes a major issue. A planned boycott discussed and passed alone for months starting with a seed group of national handicappers can produce a result of this magnitude. How many of you will play $1000+ on one of these races? I think a committed, planned one day boycott can find 5,000 mid to big players to sit out a big race for once in their lives. These races are a focal point to begin with. A boycott would utilize that focus and turn the event into a political statement.
On the flip side, a procott asks players to play a race they might never have noticed, at a track they may never play, on a date they probably have other things planned, and with new betting capital (other than their normal play). The impact of making an action bet on a random race will be much less than withholding play on a major race on which most spent months forming an opinion and look forward specifically to watching and playing that race. The ability to get people's attention and have them understand what you are doing is the key to having a political impact with either a procott or a boycott. The random bump of a procott is much less likely to get either the players attention or the tracks. On the other hand, you have everyone's focus when it comes to the premier races, including, and maybe especially, the media's. Of course, when the Bloodhorse, TB Times, and Form come asking why you are boycotting this race, you better have a very good, concise, and valid answer. A procott may generate better feelings and make fuzzier goals more acceptable by the industry journalists, but you'll be lucky to get half a column on page 5 after the third attempt. While a national betting boycott of a major race will get noticed, probably well outside our insular community. How about this for an idea, boycott BC Friday, it's a bad idea anyway. |
|
#27
8th March 2009, 07:48.07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I do like your thinking, so again I have to ask. If you could have this much clout to withhold money, why not put it to a positive use and tell everyone to bet Beulah for one day and increase their handle ten fold? If I were in the position to bet $1,000 on the Derby and thought I could win $10,000+ there would be no way I would pass the race. WHY? The Derby is a once a year opportunity. So even if you had 5,000 heavy hitters agree, I doubt come race day you would do anything important. Seriously. The Derby handles 115 million from all sources. You take out 5 million and Track Management just says it was a down year. Now you have 5,000 people who won't help the next time. That is the exact thinking I read all the time in the HANA threads and why I gave up on HANA after a few meetings. They listen to a loud few, rather than just going forward for the silent majority. |
|
#28
8th March 2009, 09:01.04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
NJC
Quote:
|
|
#29
8th March 2009, 10:21.07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I see the same attitude in other forums trying to do something positive. That is why I usually stay out of these threads. You go ahead and pick a race and I wish you luck. As an investor if I see prices that are overlays, I will always be jumping in. Sending a positive message will get people noticed. A negative one will get them ignored quickly. Good luck to you! Jim |
|
#30
8th March 2009, 11:31.34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I really need to stop reading all of the HANA posts. Now they have turned this whole idea into a donation to charity.
Perhaps horseplayers will never agree on anything, but organizing people to give money away and then shake your finger at Track Management and say "na na na na" this could have been yours is bordering on Insanity. Shame that great ideas break down like this. I will now just "lurk" again and if I see a Procott I will do my best to join in. Wasn't that the original idea? 
|
|
#31
9th March 2009, 10:57.57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim,
There are close to 700 members and those members will post from time to time. Sometimes they do not like an idea, sometimes they do. Some have their own ideas. But please be careful labeling anything you read on the Internet as "HANA's idea" when one member advocates it. If a HANA member posts that the moon is made of green cheese it does not mean that HANA believes that. This idea of Mike's has received about 85/15 support in the way he laid it out, very similar to the ratio on this board. To get 85% of horseplayers to agree on something other than that a 1-9 shot will show is pretty good. So far the idea seems workable and interest is there. We'll see what happens from here. But please disregard any tangential things on the net from one person stating his/her opinion. We like opinion, anyway. Racetracks have been accused of not letting the customer be heard. If a horseplayer group's Board of Directors starts trying to shut up members who might disagree with them, we are no better than the racetracks. Let me reiterate, this was one members post, and in no way does HANA support, or will support giving money to a thoroughbred charity and saying it could have been used for handle in some sort of PR stunt instead of Mike's idea. We are 100% working on Mike's idea. Dean Last edited by DeanT; 9th March 2009 at 11:17.04 AM. |
|
#32
9th March 2009, 12:42.29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good to see you on this side of the tracks Dean; don’t be a stranger and thanks for all your efforts.
__________________
Dan G ======================== “We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” ~ George Bernard Shaw |
|
#33
9th March 2009, 12:57.12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Seriously, I love some of the data stuff you post and it is always super-interesting. Thanks for the support, too. We're trying. |
|
#34
9th March 2009, 01:04.52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I want to echo what Dean has said about everyones opinion. At the bottom of my original letter dated March 1, I asked for feedback and opinions, knowing full well that there would by many, both pro and con. They are all certainly welcome. That is what makes this great game such that it is. We can all have a different opinion about each and every race we look at. However, I think each and everyone of us (who play this game at any level) can agree that the sport of horse racing is loosing the fans it has and certainly not attracting many new ones. I believe we can also agree that most everything involving our sport (at least as of late) has been very negative. No matter what topic (about it) we choose to discuss. We also know, (by using simple math) that no two or more negatives will EVER result in a positive.
That is why I chose to take the approach that I did and keep this in a positive tone. Is it a quick fix? Absolutely NOT. Will it take time for this plan to work? Absolutely YES. Hopefully we can all agree that adding another negative to the many that are already in place will certainly not make things any better. Individually, none of us have a voice. We can only vent to each other and perhaps someone we know (in management) at a certain track. But what does it really get us. NOTHING. However, as a large group, we can have a voice and with a little time, hopefully a VERY LARGE ONE. At that point, we can begin to address the many issues that we all fight everyday in this game. As a large group, we can then lobby for the changes that we all want, and be in a position (as customers) to be heard, loud and clear. I am only asking that each of you give this thing a chance to work. Whether you bet big or small, every day or only occasionally, it does not matter. We as HORSEPLAYERS and CUSTOMERS, are all in the same sinking boat. In the end, we are the only ones that can right this ship. Any participation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mike Mayo Last edited by Mayo; 9th March 2009 at 01:07.17 PM. |
|
#36
9th March 2009, 01:27.35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A month later when it came time to get it done, there was a meeting where only the regulator, the tracks and the horsemen were invited. During the meeting the idea was shelved and the tracks and the horseman group took all the money for themselves. In 2009 or 2010 we do not want to see this ever happen again. If they have a meeting like this horseplayers need to be invited to the table. And they need to hold feet to the fire. It has to stop, and I think Mike's idea to get some like minded people together, say enough is enough, and try to grow and be a force is exactly what we need to be invited to the table. It is what we have advocated from day one with the HANA group. Just my opinion, but I know I have had enough and I would love if people climb aboard to help force change in a proactive way. We don't have to agree on all of the details, but if we agree on the broader vision, things can get done. Dean |
|
#37
9th March 2009, 07:49.35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting story Dean about the leftover money distribution - not surprised at the outcome.
The same short-sighted decision making had occured in California regarding rebates. Instead of giving the players back a percentage or two, the horseman's position was essentially - "give us that money - screw the players, we need it more than they do". Was there no voice of reason to suggest that goodwill incentives can go a long way toward increasing business and everyone gains in the long run when customers are happy. No need for an organized boycott. The natural boycott has been occurring for a decade or longer, people losing interest and finding other forms of gambling or entertainment. And why shouldn't they if they are ignored, over taxed, and treated with disdain by this industry.
__________________
km |
|
#38
9th March 2009, 08:11.31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Typically, uncashed tickets are by law, a source of state income.
see item #3 on the following page: http://www.txrc.state.tx.us/agency/c...n/finances.php This is not unique to Texas either, the above is just an example.
__________________
http://horseplayersassociation.org |
|
#39
9th March 2009, 08:32.44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A few years ago, a good friend of mine from Ky sent a lengthy letter to the one of the Lexington newpapers (Courier Journal I think), explaining his idea of utilizing breakage, uncashed ticket monies and suggested that these left over monies could be used to help the disabled jockeys fund, which was a hot-issue at that point in time. Those receiving his letter supposedly were very interested in his idea, however the concept was not pursued past the initial contacts. Sounded like a noble cause and would have been a wonderful gesture that the tracks could have extended to the disabled jockeys and their families.
|
|
#40
10th March 2009, 12:47.25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Personally I commend Mike and Ross on the idea. Although the past few months it has been almost impossible to look at anything in the financial arena as positive for me, I do believe the positive approach is the way to go. I guess I am really a person that likes to look for the sunny side of the street. But for those in a position to participate in their suggested plan of target wagering on a specific track and race I do think this would bring a positive notice from a track - especially if smaller tracks are initially targeted. There is NOT one track that does not zero in on handle each day they operate. Just from the stand point of contests, look what more tracks are doing - Live money tourneys to get more $$ thru windows. My suggestions is particular race is identified and players play any amount/wager they are comfortable with. We constantly see HTR names on contest leaderboards not always the same. Also in these same contest we have HTR players that do not make the leaderboard - may in fact be at the bottom of the list. We do not always make the same picks but we have the same goal - we want a winner. We want to be winners by being invited to the table of decisions re horse racing.
At the Dec. LA State Racing Commission meeting among the agenda items was a representative of jockeys to present changes they wanted, the President of the state HBPA with HBPA concerns, as well as a representative of every track management in LA. There was NO voice for the horseplayer. Although the racing industry is a multimillion dollar industry it would not be around without the horseplayer. We need to start somewhere as a group. The first steps may involve a few stumbles but we will never know until we take the first steps. This is not mandatory participation and certainly I do respect anyone that has an opinion that I may not share completely but I do think this is one of the first "grass roots" effort to bring horseplayers together to get on the same page to be noticed and respected. I would welcome the idea of emailing 4 or 5 horseplayer friends and asking them to make a wager on a particular race. (It is amazing how the internet has been a fire storm for communication) Hopefully this would involve many more players than HTR but I would love to see some of our members give brief analysis of identified races posted. I view handicapping an on going learning process and welcome hearing other handicappers view of races. To Mike or who ever is responsible in identifying a target race I think varying the races, claiming, sprints, routes, turf, dirt, maiden would give us a variety that would get to everyones handicapping strengths. I do feel the more well known better races would not be races to choose as for the most part you have larger pools naturally. Whatever decision is made I want to be included in adding to giving the horseplayer a stronger voice. JWW |
|
#41
10th March 2009, 07:50.36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
JWW,
Excellent post! I posted a notice about Mike and Ross's idea blog post on PA and immediately got a post from a person who was very negative, saying that has been tried, didn't work (Procott) and went on to say that the ONLY thing that will work is a boycott. I totally disagree with the negative approach! I, too, try to live my life from the positive side of the fence. And, you know what, I truly believe POSITIVE people are in the majority. There are always going to be the negative persons who only can see one approach to solving a problem. But, I believe that a positive approach will be noticed in a positive light. Regards, Bob G |
|
#42
10th March 2009, 08:34.57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Could one of the supporters of the procott answer a few questions?
First, what is the first issue that will be addressed with the procott? Second, how will that issue be addressed once a sufficient number of horseplayers are on board with the procott? Take drug testing for example. Lets say that issue is chosen as the first issue to be addressed. What is the objective - is it along the lines of what CD has implemented for their spring meet? Or are we not happy unless reporting of the results also occurs so that we know which trainers have been caught with their hands in the drug jar? Do we also want owners penalized? How do we know that the positive procott is not working and the time has come to move from the positive procott approach to a negative boycott approach to make our voices heard? Third, who makes the decisions regarding the questions that I raised in the preceding question as well as determining the direction of things as other myriad issues arise as this thing goes forward? (I thought I would edit this post to make sure that folks realize that these questions are in no way intended to be negative in tone. Rather, they are simply innocent questions that a potential participant would like to have answered before committing to this movement.) Last edited by dehere; 10th March 2009 at 10:00.05 AM. |
|
#43
10th March 2009, 11:58.37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi dehere,
I don't know about this idea of Mikes and what he thinks/envisions, but as a HANA person I can tell you our method of op with these things. We were incorporated in September of 2008 on the foundation of our mission statement. This statement had several key issues we wanted addressed, like takeouts, rebates, ADW access, drugs in racing etc. We did not know what to tackle first, but for the first bit we looked at growing membership, and then if one of our issues popped up we would offer a point of view from the horseplayers at HANA. We did this with the ADW issue in California for example. When the TOC and tracks were fighting Jeff got on the phone with Liebau, Couto and others, we issued a press release and so on. Because we did not have a big enough membership or could mobilize them properly at that time, we simply wanted to let racing know we were there, and we were watching. Racing knew it, because we were a part of it. We do things in an ad hoc way at this early stage. For example, one thing we have been doing due diligence on is uniform reporting of payouts and probables. We have been in contact with some and think it is doable (full disclosure; although we have long thought about the idea and getting it done, a horseplayer guest article in Horseplayer Mag got us really thinking). So in a phrase, we know what we want to do, however we have to do due diligence on something to make sure it can be done and is not improbable, we have to make sure horseplayers are behind it, and we have to set the table and work on getting it done with industry contacts who are sympathetic to horseplayers. We have been building on this since day one, recruiting membership, blogging, sending out Press releases and so on. I think it is a good way to go about things. Asking for the improbable, undoable, or screaming about something without an audience or support is a futile pursuit (imo). Just our opine on things. Dean |
|
#44
10th March 2009, 01:03.28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good Questions Henry.
Obviously there are many areas in this sport that need to be addressed. Some items can be done at the track management level while others involve State governments. My thinking was we probably form a committee from our group and come up with a list of items and concerns in order of importance. We would first target the areas that could have the biggest impact on the Horseplayers. My first thinking would obviously be TAKEOUT. Track management has the right to lower takeout below the state maximums any time they want. That is were perhaps a small boycott (for those who like that idea) could come into play. We simply ask track management to lower takeouts on certain wagers. If they refuse, we as a group as well as members individually, could then choose to NOT bet that track until something is done. I personnally do not bet Maryland Pk3 or Pk4s for that very reason. Track management just raised the takeout from 14 to 25% on these wagers effective March 1 I used to bet them, not now. Many other things require changes by State racing commissions. Best case would be to have a member/members from our group to attend racing commission meetings in the various states and voice our concerns about issues such as medications, reporting of equipment changes (front bandages) etc. This is obviously where we would enter into the political arena and we could certainly use members of our group who have some influence in their respective States. Our group block of money would obviously come from our members all across the country. However, when we as a group or as individuals make a wager at a certain track, our money goes into that State's coffers. If we are big enough as a group, the track and that State will certainly feel it in the form of lost revenue. We now have a voice in the political arena and should be able to use that voice to bring about some of the changes we want. I also like the idea of targeting Owners and Trainers who continually are involved in excess drugging of horses. They need to be run out of the sport and perhaps subject to criminal prosecution. This is another area we could target to propose change. We could certainly find support for this from many different groups. As I have previously stated, ALL of this will take time, but much of this can be done. Hope this helps Mayo |
|
#45
10th March 2009, 01:58.33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would think that as a group we would attempt to limit the types of changes we push for to those that (at least in theory) have a more immediate, direct cause/effect relationship. While I certainly agree that drug testing or lack thereof has an effect on mutuel handle through lack of bettor confidence, I don't think that the correlation is quite obvious or direct enough to be readily understood and quantified by the larger groups we are trying to send a message to.
Again, I'm not arguing that drug testing does not affect handle, I just think that the relationship between that facet of the industry and handle is a bit more difficult to objectively link the end results of our efforts to. If we limit our issues to aspects that are more obviously and intuitively directly related to betting and handle (breakage, takeout, rebates, wagering options etc.) then we give ourselves a much greater chance of being effective in our initial effort(s) (since the turnaround time for getting these types of changes in place would be much quicker). An action item directly related to wagering that could potentially result in a "quick win" would be an important consideration, and would likely bolster our membership ranks. If we seek to effect broader change too early in the group’s existence, then I would think the protracted nature of such an effort would result in a fair amount of attrition within our ranks. Of course, there would be an incredible irony if we chose to make lower takeout rates an action item. As a group, we (label us "Serious Horseplayers who Beat the Takeout", abbv SHBT) make up somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15% of all people who wager on horse racing. Said effort would be somewhat ironic in that by becoming more skilled, SHBT has done more to raise the effective takeout on the other 85% of players than the vast majority of racetracks have ever thought of doing. So, SHBT now asks the racetracks to lower the takeout, fully understanding that if Desperation Downs drops their takeout 4% from 18% to 14% the handle will have to increase 23% for DD to get back to square one and break even. So we all jump into the pool and knock heads with each other in a collective effort to keep the DD boat afloat and prove that lower takeout does indeed result in sufficiently higher handle to make the effort worthwhile. Let's take it a month or two down the road, and assume that as a group SHBT is truly committed and we all stay in that pool together, taking our lumps in the form of individual financial losses, in the hopes that the bigger tracks will notice and eventually follow suit. Besides, part of the SHBT strategy is the theory that lower takeout will eventually attract the casual bettor also, and eventually this pool we are all in together will get a little less salty. But the casual fan never comes to the pool because our presence insures that the benefits of the lower takeout never finds it's way into the casual player's hands. This is what makes this particular game, and fixing it such a tough endeavor. While we all complain about the tracks, the industry and the unbelievably myopic, self-serving stances each facet takes, we as SHBT, to a great extent do the same thing. Horse Racing is a pari-mutuel (among ourselves) game of skill. It is not a pari-mutuel game of random outcomes. It is not a non-pari-mutuel game of skill. If either of the latter two definitions were accurate, the fixes would be much easier, and the theoretical effects of lowering takeout would play out as they did in their test environments. Lowering takeout can potentially grow the game, but not as a single action. The truth is that while we (SHBT) have labeled ourselves as the lifeblood of the game, we are far from it. We are fully dependent on the presence and continuing participation of the player who loses (far) more than the legislated pari-mutuel take. However, we are the most powerful single active entity within the entire industry. Unfortunately, labeling ourselves as and acting as if we are the actual lifeblood of this industry has been a severe impediment to our effectiveness. Whether it be rebates, tournaments, the NHC Tour or any other issue/action item that has been the brainchild of SHBT as a group, the end result has been to provide our own demographic with an additional, exploitable advantage over those who do not beat the takeout. In short, we are every bit as myopic and self-serving as the industry we continually chastise. How does this relate back to the growth potential I mentioned 3 paragraphs above, and to the irony I alluded to a verbose eon ago? The potential effectiveness of lowering the take as an "economic stimulus" of sorts is directly related to the degree to which we (SHBT) do NOT take advantage of it. SHBT as a group literally has the power to reduce a 4% reduction in legislated takeout to a less than a 1% effective takeout reduction by the time it trickles down to the (by definition) average horseplayer if we were to fully leverage it. The sinister part is that if you factor betting-level rebates into the equation, a legislated takeout reduction could actually manifest itself as an effective takeout increase by the time it trickled down to the average horseplayer. It's both encouraging and daunting to think of how much power SHBT actually has within this industry when one looks at the results we can effect by not acting, or acting with great restraint. The casual fan is still the most powerful force in the industry, and as alluded to above by KM, they have been reacting quietly for the better part of 20 years and the affect has been profound. It's scary to think just how powerful an entity there could be if we were to combine the pro-activeness of SHBT with the quiet reactivity of the much larger group. SHBT needs to acknowledge their complete reliance on the much larger group and stop labeling ourselves as the "lifeblood". When our combined reactions to the changes we are looking for reflect this reliance, then we can actually begin to rationalize that our proposed changes are of benefit to the industry as a whole. Until then I'd have to say that the industry has us profiled pretty accurately, and their lack of acknowledgement concerning our requests is an appropriate response. After all, isn't it at least in part a reflection of what we do to the tier below us? |
|
#46
10th March 2009, 04:31.15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks DeanT, Mayo, MVM. All of that helps considerably.
While I personally may be a stronger advocate for dealing with the drug issue relatively early in the process - and I don't necessarily believe there needs to be a correlation between handle and the issue we attack for the issue to be worthy of attention - you guys' comments at least provide a framework for the direction you would take. In short, the clarification is most helpful. |
|
#47
11th March 2009, 05:54.09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My two cents.
I haven’t read the posts elsewhere, so this is something of a guess, but perhaps what the “negative” poster was referring to was the first thing that came to my mind, namely the much publicized “procott” effort that took place not long ago. My imperfect recollection is that it involved targeting wagers to one or two of the New Mexico tracks, and that the result was a decent percentage increase in handle, although the increase in raw numbers wasn’t sufficient to get the attention of any of the major tracks. My conclusion at the time was that the effort may very well have accomplished the opposite of what was intended.
That said, I like the idea conceptually, but for the reasons set forth below and reflected in some of the questions, I’d ask that the organizers carefully consider the possibility of coordinating their efforts with the major initiative which is already underway. Like dehere, I’m also in the camp of those who believe that one’s chances of success are increased if the goals one hopes to achieve are defined in advance. Hence, based on what I thought was considerable input, as of last September I was of the understanding that the two highest realistic priorities for the majority of players were: (1) eliminating or at least drastically reducing drug cheating; and (2) wagering and pool integrity. Based on that understanding, which was shared by Mike Maloney, those were the two areas we focused on when we made presentations to all of the “major” and a solid majority of the “minor” tracks. For what it’s worth, my perhaps prejudiced take on the scientifically conducted fan research seemed to me to support our thinking. The reasons I did not address confiscatory takeout rates, which I personally think should be a top priority of players, were two. The first is that they are not, in most states, something tracks alone can do anything about. The second is that horseplayers as a whole have not, despite what say, demonstrated through their conduct that takeout rates have as much of an impact on their betting patterns as one would think. I think that explains why the tracks in Maryland rescinded their rate reduction on pk3s and pk4s, although the failure of the 4% pk4 at Ellis is to me an even more dramatic example. If for no other reason than to put pressure on takeout rates elsewhere, I would have thought that a 4% takeout rate on any bet would have generated an overwhelming response from players, which is what I told Ron before he decided to both reach into his own pocket to subsidize the bet, and undertook the complicated process of getting the necessary approval from regulatory authorities. The unfortunate reality is that the bet was not supported at the windows, and ended up being an overall money loser almost from day one. As Mike Mayo points out, racing is regulated on a state by state basis. That, in my estimation, has always been the biggest fundamental obstacle to progress, and to further complicate matters, most tracks seem to operate on a pretty much stand alone basis, no matter their ownership or affiliation. The net result is that if you do achieve your goals at one track or in one state, you’re still left with the daunting task of replicating what you’ve achieved many times over, which makes the chances of achieving anything approaching uniformity very close to zero. In my view, the best solution to this fundamental problem is the one which was proposed by Alex Waldrop and which is the linchpin of the NTRA’s Safety and Integrity Alliance, and which has already been agreed to---in writing---by 55 tracks. The basic concept is one which has been in use for many years in the health care industry, which is also regulated on a state by state basis, but which to a large degree has been able to use a self-imposed accreditation model to successfully implement industry-wide standards for hospitals. As CDI noted in its press release, the NTRA program is what led to its “Safety from Start to Finish” initiative, which will be implemented at CD, Arlington, Calder, and Fairgrounds. It includes, among many other items, both “supertesting” and the freezing of samples for retroactive testing. Moreover, earlier this week the NTRA identified the specific standards which a track has to meet to gain accreditation, and announced that the accreditation process has already started or will soon begin at Keeneland, Pimlico, Belmont, Delaware, and Hollywood. For those here who seem to me to base a lot of their judgments about the NTRA on ancient history which took place long before Waldrop arrived, note that whether or not a track is objectively determined to have met the standards will be determined not by the NTRA, but by an entirely independent monitor, who will publish his findings. One of the core assumptions behind the NTRA program is that like players, like health care consumers, will “procott” tracks which have been accredited. Thus, the first thing I would ask the organizers of this effort to consider is only having the weekly race at accredited tracks. Given where things currently stand, I also think the organizers should consider, along with any betting action, an announcement or announcements that HANA and other players groups intend to do what they can to convince players to limit their action to accredited tracks. I believe that taking these steps offers the best chance of achieving your goals, whether they are already part of the NTRA program or not, since if there’s one overriding conclusion I’ve reached over the years it’s that there’s never going to be meaningful industry wide change until there's a central authority which can actually make things happen. The tracks have been told many times that the train is leaving the station, and that there will undoubtedly be consequences for those who are not on board. While the NTRA has already solicited more player input for this program than for any other non-contest program I know of, I nonetheless think it’s time for as many players and player groups as possible to make sure that they too have a seat on the train where I’m convinced that, for the foreseeable future, most of the important decisions which affect them and the industry are going to be made. |
|
#48
11th March 2009, 07:31.13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heads UP!!!
Here is a idea that I like to get a feedback on!
Why can't we have a Presentation Call on what ever night,Monday or Thursday night with a Ph & Pin# This can be done at no cost and we can have the members from HTR-HANA and PACE on the call! 9:45 PM-EST--8:45 PM-CST--7:45 PM--MST--6:45 PM--PST! There is a lot of Racing issuess that we could cover plus HC questions if need be!A person from HANA or Ken,Rick,Dan,Donnie can host the call! I'm sure that we would get a lot of Horse Players with our members on the call ! I also think that this will bring the HTR members into 2009 with anything new with HTR an Ken can do his magic on a call with us on our computer following his ever word and asking questions! I might be sticking my neck way out here but I think everyone has been on a Presentation at one time or another and did get something out of the call! Phantom [Gus]
__________________
Gus |
|
#49
11th March 2009, 09:47.32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
When TWO CENTS equals a DIME
Wow Mall.....That was more than two cents worth if you ask me. I'm glad you got your money's worth out of that post.
Respectable idea to link the betting initiative to the "accredited tracks". I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you working publicity for the NTRA? That was quite a stump!! NC Tony |
|
#50
12th March 2009, 07:59.07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, although if budgets weren't as tight as they are and it wasn't me, I'd be in favor of hiring at least one additional person to do just that, since I've never been convinced that putting information on a website and sending out emails are effective ways to communicate what you're doing and want to do.
As an aside, since it applies more to the NHC/Tour, I'm also not convinced that those who use the drf spend much if any time reading the ads, since I can't remember doing so much myself before I had an interest in their content. If there is one aspect of the NTRA program which I didn't emphasize much in my long post but which I personally found persuasive, it's that they have set concrete standards, and whether or not those standards have been met is something which will be objectively and transparently measured. I'm all ears when a person or organization tells me to judge them by what they actually do, as opposed to what they say they're going to do or intended to do, since that's the approach I'll be taking in any event. |
|
#51
12th March 2009, 11:58.41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mall
To be completely objective, I have to say I like what I'm seeing coming out of the NTRA over the past few months. Setting performance standards and criteria for race tracks is a great start. The fact that CDI tracks plus Kee and NYRA, (plus a few others mentioned above) are adopting AND complying to those standards is great and about time. In my business, meeting ISO and newer EHS and TS versions and standards of ISO is a requirement to do business. You cannot be a supplier to the semiconductor industry unless you conform and comply.This principle is not any different than what is used through out the chemical industry. We are independently audited every year for compliance by an outside third party, and this is at our companies expense. WITHOUT THE CERTIFICATION, WE CANNOT BE A SUPPLIER . It Would be a good idea to have a list of those complying tracks and those that will not or simply refuse. I hope other tracks comply, or, we as consumers, will not purchase the un-certified product so to speak. Also have to say I like what I see as it relates to the changes made to the tour in 09 vs 08 as well. I really think the new live bankroll contests limited to the tour members is an excellent concept and gives us all a chance to get a bigger bang for our tour buck. I try to call them as I see them> Last edited by NC Tony; 12th March 2009 at 12:16.08 PM. |
|
#52
26th March 2009, 10:08.29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
GROUP HANA RACE.
Wanted to let everyone know that our first race date for the group bet will be Tuesday, March 31 at Will Rogers Downs. The selected race will be announced late Saturday or early Sunday as soon as the entries are drawn. I will post it here and it will be posted on the HANA website.
We have selected this track because they currently only handle about 30K per race and we could have an immediate impact with them. After about two or three weeks we will evaluate our progress and move to a different track. They do have 10-12 horse fields in their thoroughbred races. We will select a full field non-maiden race for the first one. Most all of the ADWs take WRD, especially on a Tuesday. I wanted to herhaps clear up a misconception about the way the race is to be bet. This is NOT a donation. Each person is to handicap and bet the race just as you would any other race in your normal routine betting. A wagering amount has been discussed and it was decided that a range of somewhere between $25-$75 would be optimal. However no one should feel obligated to bet outside of their comfort zone. A wager of any type and amount will be appreciated. For all HTR users, Ken has advised that you will need to download the WRD race files through the website. WRD will not show up in the download area of the HTR program. I appreciate everyone's comments and interest in this little project. Hopefully, given a little time, it will grow into something that can help us all as horseplayers. Sincerely, Mike Mayo |
|
#54
26th March 2009, 01:01.47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
After the WRD race is selected, (and after permission from HDW) Rick will make the file available to everyone here on the bbs with a quick download link, so even non HTR subscribers can take it and run the race through the HTR software.
Rick = can you please isolate WRD last 365-days into a separate folder and run a LEARN MORE report from Robot2 on it - and paste it here. Thanks.
__________________
km Last edited by km; 26th March 2009 at 05:14.11 PM. |
|
#56
26th March 2009, 01:47.27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
This is 1 Mar 08 thru 28 Feb 09
Code:
Learn More Report Factor Plays Winners Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AvgM High I.V. 03/26/2009 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Play All 00097 00025 26% 39% 55% 0.94 0.92 0.96 $7.3 $20 2.49 JAN 00000 FEB 00004 00000 00% 00% 25% 0.00 0.00 0.43 $0 0.00 MAR 00041 00012 29% 46% 59% 1.19 1.03 1.03 $8.1 $20 2.91 APR 00032 00005 16% 34% 53% 0.53 0.99 0.90 $6.8 $11 1.46 MAY 00020 00008 40% 40% 55% 1.27 0.76 1.02 $6.4 $12 3.90 JUN 00000 JUL 00000 AUG 00000 SEP 00000 OCT 00000 NOV 00000 DEC 00000 2.0-5.0f 00003 00001 33% 33% 67% 0.50 0.37 0.78 $3.0 $3 2.78 5.5f 00038 00006 16% 32% 47% 0.66 0.80 0.81 $8.4 $20 1.55 6.0f 00030 00010 33% 47% 57% 1.26 1.08 1.05 $7.5 $12 3.28 6.5f 00000 7.0-7.5f 00000 8.0-8.3f 00022 00006 27% 41% 59% 0.86 0.89 0.98 $6.3 $11 2.55 8.5f 00004 00002 50% 50% 75% 1.98 1.38 1.73 $7.9 $11 4.75 9.0-9.5f 00000 10.0-14.0f 00000 Dirt Fast 00082 00024 29% 43% 54% 1.07 1.02 0.94 $7.3 $20 2.83 Turf 00000 Artf Surf 00000 Wet Dirt 00015 00001 07% 20% 60% 0.21 0.33 1.08 $6.2 $6 0.64 EPR 85-89 00043 00014 33% 49% 58% 1.44 1.38 1.16 $8.9 $20 3.49 EPR 90-94 00040 00006 15% 30% 55% 0.41 0.55 0.86 $5.4 $8 1.34 EPR 95-99 00013 00005 38% 38% 46% 1.00 0.58 0.68 $5.2 $8 3.20 EPR 100-104 00001 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 EPR 105-109 00000 EPR 110-115 00000 VI 15-17 00001 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 VI 18-19 00003 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 VI 20-21 00009 00001 11% 22% 33% 0.32 0.44 0.63 $5.8 $6 1.25 VI 22-23 00004 00000 00% 25% 50% 0.00 0.53 1.00 $0 0.00 VI 24-25 00006 00003 50% 50% 50% 2.35 1.60 1.47 $9.4 $12 5.33 VI 26-27 00014 00004 29% 43% 50% 1.03 0.95 0.96 $7.2 $11 2.88 VI 28-29 00014 00008 57% 64% 79% 2.44 1.44 1.45 $8.5 $20 6.08 VI 30-31 00018 00003 17% 22% 56% 0.46 0.40 0.87 $5.5 $7 1.57 VI 32-33 00009 00002 22% 44% 56% 0.63 1.39 0.82 $5.7 $7 2.10 VI 34-35 00007 00001 14% 43% 57% 0.76 1.19 0.96 $10.6 $11 1.24 VI 36-37 00003 00001 33% 100 100 0.93 2.70 1.67 $5.6 $6 2.33 VI 38-39 00004 00002 50% 50% 75% 0.93 0.55 0.86 $3.7 $4 3.25 VI 40-42 00002 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 VI 43-45 00001 00000 00% 100 100 0.00 1.60 1.05 $0 0.00 VI 46-50 00002 00000 00% 00% 50% 0.00 0.00 0.85 $0 0.00 LAY 2-10 00000 LAY 11-20 00004 00001 25% 50% 50% 0.98 0.95 0.83 $7.8 $8 2.56 LAY 21-28 00016 00004 25% 31% 44% 0.56 0.53 0.60 $4.5 $6 2.23 LAY 29-65 00023 00006 26% 43% 61% 0.84 1.01 0.98 $6.5 $11 2.36 LAY 66-165 00032 00005 16% 28% 50% 0.54 0.57 0.86 $6.9 $11 1.53 LAY 166-999 00014 00004 29% 43% 57% 1.05 1.48 1.34 $7.4 $12 2.94 Age 2 00000 Age 3 00022 00009 41% 64% 77% 1.46 1.45 1.31 $7.2 $11 4.31 Age 4 00034 00011 32% 44% 53% 1.26 1.13 0.98 $7.8 $20 3.15 Age 5 00026 00001 04% 08% 42% 0.08 0.10 0.71 $4.4 $4 0.35 Age 6 00007 00002 29% 57% 57% 1.33 1.57 1.20 $9.3 $11 2.69 Age 7 00004 00002 50% 75% 75% 1.15 1.25 1.04 $4.6 $6 4.13 Age 8 00001 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 Age 9 00002 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 Age 10+ 00001 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 Fld Sz < 5 00000 Fld Sz 5 00001 00000 00% 100 100 0.00 1.60 1.05 $0 0.00 Fld Sz 6 00004 00001 25% 25% 75% 0.38 0.28 0.94 $3.0 $3 1.50 Fld Sz 7 00013 00002 15% 31% 54% 0.38 0.71 0.80 $5.0 $6 1.08 Fld Sz 8 00012 00003 25% 50% 67% 0.59 1.12 1.11 $4.7 $6 2.00 Fld Sz 9 00010 00003 30% 40% 60% 0.87 0.70 0.89 $5.8 $7 2.70 Fld Sz 10 00017 00005 29% 41% 47% 1.26 1.32 0.98 $8.6 $12 2.94 Fld Sz 11 00019 00007 37% 47% 63% 1.37 1.09 1.32 $7.4 $12 4.05 Fld Sz 12 00021 00004 19% 29% 38% 1.02 0.64 0.67 $10.7 $20 2.29 K 113-115 00000 K 110-112 00001 00001 100 100 100 2.00 1.20 1.05 $4.0 $4 9.00 K 108-109 00005 00002 40% 60% 80% 1.00 0.94 1.05 $5.0 $6 3.28 K 106-107 00007 00003 43% 57% 71% 1.17 1.00 0.98 $5.5 $8 3.55 K 104-105 00005 00002 40% 80% 80% 0.88 1.10 1.05 $4.4 $4 3.76 K 102-103 00011 00001 09% 18% 45% 0.28 0.34 0.78 $6.2 $6 0.83 K 101-100 00007 00002 29% 43% 57% 0.56 0.83 0.97 $3.9 $4 2.69 K 097-099 00019 00004 21% 42% 63% 0.91 1.03 1.14 $8.6 $11 2.12 K 094-096 00013 00005 38% 46% 69% 1.44 1.21 1.33 $7.5 $11 3.64 K 092-093 00004 00002 50% 50% 75% 2.45 1.35 1.65 $9.8 $12 4.75 K 090-091 00006 00001 17% 33% 50% 1.02 2.13 1.53 $12.2 $12 1.64 K 088-089 00004 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 K 085-087 00007 00002 29% 29% 29% 1.83 0.70 0.40 $12.8 $20 3.14 K 080-084 00005 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 K 055-079 00003 00000 00% 33% 33% 0.00 0.90 0.60 $0 0.00 FC 90+ 00002 00000 00% 00% 50% 0.00 0.00 0.90 $0 0.00 FC 88-89 00001 00000 00% 100 100 0.00 4.70 2.30 $0 0.00 FC 86-87 00014 00005 36% 43% 50% 0.93 0.63 0.75 $5.2 $8 3.06 FC 84-85 00003 00000 00% 00% 33% 0.00 0.00 0.40 $0 0.00 FC 82-83 00008 00002 25% 38% 50% 0.61 0.64 0.60 $4.9 $6 2.34 FC 80-81 00011 00001 09% 18% 73% 0.35 0.35 1.43 $7.8 $8 0.91 FC 76-79 00013 00003 23% 54% 69% 0.63 1.15 1.01 $5.5 $8 2.11 FC <= 75 00025 00006 24% 32% 40% 1.03 0.92 0.82 $8.6 $12 2.39 ML< 2/1 00001 00000 00% 100 100 0.00 1.60 1.05 $0 0.00 ML 2/1 00006 00002 33% 33% 67% 0.70 0.38 0.76 $4.2 $4 2.50 ML 5/2 00012 00006 50% 58% 75% 1.20 0.91 1.10 $4.8 $8 4.88 ML 3/1-7/2 00015 00004 27% 53% 73% 1.04 1.13 1.31 $7.8 $11 2.58 ML 4/1-9/2 00003 00001 33% 67% 67% 1.23 1.37 1.00 $7.4 $7 3.00 ML 5/1 00009 00001 11% 22% 44% 0.23 0.48 0.73 $4.2 $4 1.05 ML 6/1-7/1 00009 00000 00% 11% 33% 0.00 0.30 0.50 $0 0.00 ML 8/1-9/1 00002 00000 00% 50% 50% 0.00 1.05 0.85 $0 0.00 ML 10/1-12/1 00030 00009 30% 33% 47% 1.28 1.06 1.07 $8.5 $12 2.96 ML 15/1 00005 00002 40% 60% 60% 2.56 1.92 1.02 $12.8 $20 4.00 ML 20/1-25/1 00003 00000 00% 33% 33% 0.00 0.90 0.60 $0 0.00 ML 30/1+ 00002 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 Odds 0.1-1.4 00014 00008 57% 64% 79% 1.15 0.94 1.09 $4.0 $5 4.78 1.5-3.4 00032 00011 34% 56% 72% 1.14 1.08 1.09 $6.6 $8 3.36 3.5-5.9 00020 00005 25% 35% 60% 1.43 1.17 1.43 $11.4 $12 2.49 6.0-7.9 00003 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 8.0-9.9 00009 00001 11% 22% 33% 1.12 0.77 0.58 $20.2 $20 1.12 10.0-14.9 00011 00000 00% 18% 36% 0.00 1.01 0.86 $0 0.00 15.0-19.9 00003 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 20.0 UP 00005 00000 00% 00% 00% 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 0.00 Unlisted 00097 00025 26% 39% 55% 0.94 0.92 0.96 $7.3 $20 2.49 PL-5 Razor Sharp Workout K= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HTR= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RS= F E P S R N QP= 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N ALW/STK CLM MSW MCL 2yr 3yr 3up/4up Males Females Open State-Breds Purse<10k Purse 10k+ Any Vi Any Surface Any Distance All Tracks |
|
#57
26th March 2009, 02:11.54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
WRD 1 Mar 08 - 28 Feb 09
Code:
Learn All Report Factor Plays Winners Win W+P ITM WROI PROI SROI $AvgM High I.V. 03/26/2009 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Play All 03212 00337 10% 21% 31% 0.56 0.71 0.72 $10.7 $95 1.04 Favorites 00352 00142 40% 61% 72% 1.00 1.04 1.01 $4.9 $9 3.83 Odds < 3/1 00506 00180 36% 56% 70% 0.94 0.98 0.99 $5.3 $8 3.29 Odds 8/1 up 01883 00040 02% 08% 15% 0.35 0.58 0.58 $32.8 $95 0.22 Odds 20/1 up 01035 00008 01% 04% 09% 0.24 0.52 0.50 $63.4 $95 0.08 ALW/STK 00522 00067 13% 26% 39% 0.57 0.63 0.70 $8.9 $28 1.04 CLM 01526 00163 11% 21% 32% 0.58 0.75 0.73 $10.8 $95 1.04 MSW 00517 00048 09% 19% 28% 0.44 0.62 0.64 $9.5 $49 1.01 MCL 00647 00059 09% 18% 27% 0.61 0.75 0.79 $13.4 $71 1.01 2yr 00000 3yr 00209 00019 09% 18% 27% 0.55 0.79 0.79 $12.2 $57 1.01 3/4up 03003 00318 11% 21% 32% 0.56 0.70 0.72 $10.6 $95 1.04 Males 01907 00198 10% 21% 31% 0.51 0.67 0.72 $9.9 $57 1.04 Females 01305 00139 11% 21% 32% 0.63 0.77 0.72 $11.9 $95 1.04 Open 02327 00248 11% 21% 32% 0.55 0.72 0.72 $10.3 $95 1.04 State Breds 00885 00089 10% 20% 30% 0.60 0.69 0.72 $11.9 $60 1.03 Purse < 10k 01124 00110 10% 20% 29% 0.58 0.75 0.75 $11.8 $95 1.02 Purse 10k+ 02088 00227 11% 22% 33% 0.55 0.69 0.70 $10.2 $60 1.04 VI 15-25 01055 00100 09% 19% 28% 0.57 0.79 0.73 $12.1 $95 1.02 VI 26-32 01561 00157 10% 20% 30% 0.55 0.69 0.73 $11.0 $71 1.02 VI 33-37 00403 00051 13% 25% 38% 0.60 0.65 0.72 $9.4 $52 1.04 VI 38-50 00193 00029 15% 30% 45% 0.48 0.54 0.65 $6.4 $26 1.02 Dirt Sprint 01749 00180 10% 21% 31% 0.56 0.69 0.72 $10.9 $95 1.04 Dirt Route 00895 00097 11% 22% 33% 0.52 0.61 0.67 $9.6 $54 1.03 Turf Sprint 00000 Turf Route 00000 Wet Sprint 00430 00045 10% 21% 31% 0.67 0.80 0.77 $12.9 $60 1.04 Wet Route 00138 00015 11% 22% 33% 0.50 1.32 0.86 $9.2 $26 1.01 Artf Sprint 00000 Artf Route 00000 K=1 00337 00103 31% 51% 65% 0.83 0.94 0.97 $5.5 $16 2.91 K=2 00337 00071 21% 40% 52% 0.83 0.88 0.86 $7.9 $34 2.01 K=3 00337 00052 15% 30% 43% 0.68 0.81 0.79 $8.8 $20 1.47 K=4 00337 00040 12% 22% 37% 0.81 0.66 0.76 $13.6 $39 1.13 K=5 00337 00032 09% 20% 34% 0.70 0.81 0.84 $14.7 $71 0.91 K=6 00333 00018 05% 14% 24% 0.54 0.71 0.73 $20.0 $54 0.52 K=7 00315 00006 02% 09% 17% 0.24 0.53 0.57 $25.5 $41 0.19 K=8 00277 00005 02% 07% 13% 0.31 0.55 0.53 $34.2 $60 0.18 K=9 00602 00010 02% 05% 10% 0.28 0.57 0.54 $33.4 $95 0.18 HTR=1 00356 00108 30% 48% 63% 0.92 0.96 0.97 $6.1 $20 2.89 HTR=2 00350 00051 15% 34% 46% 0.62 0.82 0.87 $8.5 $35 1.40 HTR=3 00328 00058 18% 33% 48% 0.97 0.87 0.95 $11.0 $28 1.68 HTR=4 00352 00047 13% 24% 38% 0.86 0.86 0.86 $12.9 $52 1.28 HTR=5 00331 00034 10% 20% 34% 0.65 0.76 0.80 $12.6 $68 0.98 HTR=6 00322 00014 04% 14% 22% 0.39 0.56 0.61 $17.9 $60 0.41 HTR=7 00324 00007 02% 10% 18% 0.18 0.55 0.55 $16.7 $54 0.21 HTR=8 00266 00009 03% 09% 15% 0.41 0.63 0.54 $24.2 $71 0.34 HTR=9+ 00583 00009 02% 05% 10% 0.23 0.49 0.47 $29.3 $95 0.17 RS= F 00133 00022 17% 38% 46% 0.62 1.01 0.82 $7.5 $20 1.57 RS= E 00788 00098 12% 26% 37% 0.63 0.76 0.82 $10.1 $95 1.21 RS= P 00933 00109 12% 21% 31% 0.60 0.65 0.68 $10.3 $52 1.15 RS= S 00904 00084 09% 20% 31% 0.55 0.82 0.78 $11.9 $71 0.92 RS= R 00246 00012 05% 11% 22% 0.37 0.50 0.53 $15.4 $54 0.48 RS= N 00208 00012 06% 10% 15% 0.37 0.33 0.43 $12.8 $23 0.64 QP=0 00342 00030 09% 17% 30% 0.55 0.63 0.67 $12.4 $39 0.86 QP=1,2 00983 00068 07% 16% 26% 0.38 0.71 0.67 $11.1 $71 0.70 QP=3,4 00826 00104 13% 22% 32% 0.79 0.73 0.71 $12.6 $95 1.23 QP=5 00359 00044 12% 24% 36% 0.45 0.63 0.79 $7.4 $35 1.17 QP=6 00273 00044 16% 30% 40% 0.84 0.98 0.88 $10.4 $60 1.55 QP=7 00180 00022 12% 31% 43% 0.39 0.73 0.87 $6.3 $14 1.17 QP=8 00068 00014 21% 47% 60% 0.80 1.12 1.05 $7.8 $15 1.82 QP=N 00181 00011 06% 10% 17% 0.40 0.37 0.48 $13.1 $23 0.68 Fr1=1 00339 00066 19% 34% 45% 0.89 0.96 0.91 $9.1 $60 1.86 Fr1=2 00335 00039 12% 26% 38% 0.56 0.79 0.87 $9.7 $52 1.11 Fr2=1 00339 00046 14% 30% 43% 0.61 0.86 0.85 $9.1 $68 1.29 Fr2=2 00339 00051 15% 29% 45% 0.74 0.96 0.94 $9.9 $71 1.44 Fr3=1 00337 00054 16% 30% 43% 0.80 0.91 0.82 $10.0 $49 1.53 Fr3=2 00338 00048 14% 27% 43% 0.61 0.63 0.77 $8.6 $36 1.35 E/P=1 00340 00066 19% 34% 46% 0.87 0.89 0.92 $9.0 $68 1.85 E/P=2 00336 00053 16% 34% 46% 0.63 1.13 1.04 $8.0 $34 1.50 A/P=1 00337 00095 28% 44% 57% 0.95 1.01 0.94 $6.7 $20 2.69 A/P=2 00337 00064 19% 34% 48% 0.80 0.80 0.84 $8.4 $28 1.81 S/P=1 00337 00090 27% 41% 54% 1.02 0.90 0.90 $7.7 $28 2.55 S/P=2 00337 00055 16% 36% 47% 0.77 1.05 0.86 $9.4 $49 1.56 F/X=1 00337 00085 25% 38% 48% 0.95 0.82 0.80 $7.5 $28 2.40 F/X=2 00337 00060 18% 36% 49% 0.83 0.88 0.87 $9.3 $52 1.70 L/V=1 00337 00066 20% 36% 51% 0.82 0.97 0.90 $8.4 $28 1.87 L/V=2 00337 00058 17% 30% 43% 0.71 0.77 0.74 $8.3 $49 1.64 VEL=1 00349 00097 28% 43% 56% 0.95 0.99 0.93 $6.8 $28 2.65 VEL=2 00350 00066 19% 35% 47% 0.79 0.81 0.83 $8.4 $28 1.81 PAC=1 00374 00076 20% 35% 49% 0.94 0.90 1.02 $9.3 $68 1.94 PAC=2 00355 00057 16% 33% 45% 0.62 1.05 0.94 $7.8 $34 1.53 PER=1 00407 00116 29% 44% 58% 1.01 0.98 0.94 $7.1 $26 2.71 PER=2 00367 00052 14% 30% 44% 0.59 0.73 0.76 $8.4 $28 1.37 FC=1 00344 00075 22% 36% 51% 0.95 0.89 0.90 $8.7 $39 2.08 FC=2 00399 00059 15% 26% 39% 0.81 0.80 0.89 $11.0 $71 1.41 CLASS=1 00336 00072 21% 36% 49% 0.98 0.82 0.89 $9.1 $71 2.04 CLASS=2 00327 00059 18% 33% 51% 0.76 0.85 0.93 $8.4 $41 1.71 TRN=1 00341 00077 23% 39% 51% 0.74 0.79 0.80 $6.5 $18 2.15 TRN=2 00339 00057 17% 32% 45% 0.68 0.75 0.81 $8.0 $35 1.61 JKY=1 00339 00082 24% 42% 55% 0.73 0.86 0.90 $6.0 $15 2.30 JKY=2 00337 00045 13% 34% 49% 0.55 0.96 1.02 $8.3 $26 1.28 PED=1 00341 00048 14% 27% 40% 0.66 0.79 0.84 $9.4 $52 1.34 PED=2 00340 00051 15% 29% 42% 0.68 0.76 0.83 $9.1 $41 1.43 WK=1 00337 00057 17% 28% 40% 0.71 0.69 0.74 $8.4 $54 1.61 WK=2 00337 00061 18% 32% 45% 0.95 1.01 0.95 $10.5 $49 1.73 ESP=1 00337 00069 20% 35% 46% 0.91 0.98 0.95 $8.9 $60 1.95 ESP=2 00337 00046 14% 28% 39% 0.57 0.81 0.86 $8.4 $34 1.30 ATT=1 00351 00056 16% 30% 47% 0.64 0.86 0.92 $8.0 $28 1.51 ATT=2 00368 00062 17% 31% 45% 0.75 0.76 0.80 $8.9 $71 1.61 RES=1 00395 00090 23% 36% 51% 0.87 0.77 0.86 $7.7 $28 2.18 RES=2 00345 00063 18% 34% 47% 0.93 0.89 0.84 $10.2 $49 1.73 TOT=1 00358 00093 26% 42% 58% 0.87 0.93 0.95 $6.7 $20 2.47 TOT=2 00348 00063 18% 34% 48% 0.66 0.80 0.85 $7.3 $25 1.74 $ 00280 00016 06% 15% 25% 0.50 0.66 0.64 $17.5 $52 0.58 $$ 00373 00038 10% 21% 33% 0.65 0.84 0.88 $12.7 $60 1.00 bo 00046 00005 11% 13% 22% 0.69 0.44 0.44 $12.7 $19 1.15 bx 00023 00002 09% 26% 35% 0.32 0.63 0.60 $7.3 $10 0.91 L1 00195 00015 08% 13% 18% 0.46 0.48 0.49 $12.0 $23 0.84 L2 00190 00016 08% 16% 21% 0.47 0.74 0.54 $11.3 $60 0.89 FTS 00181 00011 06% 10% 17% 0.40 0.37 0.48 $13.1 $23 0.68 2TS 00181 00014 08% 14% 17% 0.46 0.60 0.47 $11.8 $60 0.84 3TS 00172 00019 11% 23% 33% 0.62 0.75 0.88 $11.3 $57 1.17 FT Surface 00152 00010 07% 11% 17% 0.42 0.39 0.51 $12.8 $23 0.74 FTi >50 00041 00002 05% 22% 22% 0.29 0.83 0.62 $11.8 $20 0.49 TRN 400+ 00083 00022 27% 51% 60% 0.75 0.99 0.91 $5.6 $13 2.51 Trn Change 00353 00031 09% 20% 29% 0.44 0.73 0.66 $10.0 $24 0.88 T+J 30%+ 00148 00032 22% 44% 55% 0.78 1.04 0.97 $7.3 $19 2.10 JKY 350+ 00153 00034 22% 45% 61% 0.64 0.92 1.01 $5.8 $15 2.08 Jky Switch 01848 00166 09% 19% 28% 0.57 0.73 0.71 $12.8 $95 0.90 Jky Won w/Hor 00610 00100 16% 31% 44% 0.71 0.79 0.80 $8.7 $52 1.45 Apprntc Jocks 00080 00000 00% 01% 10% 0.00 0.04 0.39 $0 0.00 WK 85+ 00149 00029 19% 32% 44% 0.69 0.78 0.84 $7.1 $14 1.83 PED 450+ 00294 00050 17% 28% 41% 0.78 0.83 0.83 $9.2 $52 1.63 FC 85+ 00325 00079 24% 38% 54% 0.98 0.85 0.89 $8.0 $39 2.28 Fr3>=50.00 01415 00191 13% 25% 37% 0.62 0.69 0.72 $9.2 $52 1.28 Fr3>=53.00 00243 00046 19% 33% 47% 0.91 0.89 0.81 $9.7 $28 1.71 Bad Fr3 01078 00085 08% 18% 28% 0.54 0.79 0.79 $13.7 $95 0.80 Big Loser 00356 00012 03% 06% 11% 0.31 0.58 0.38 $18.3 $60 0.35 Chronic Loser 00210 00011 05% 12% 21% 0.37 0.43 0.57 $14.0 $39 0.55 Bad Trainer 01209 00066 05% 13% 21% 0.43 0.65 0.63 $15.9 $95 0.56 Cold Trainer 00102 00008 08% 17% 28% 0.42 0.44 0.56 $10.8 $25 0.76 Bad Jockey 01123 00051 05% 12% 19% 0.37 0.67 0.58 $16.2 $71 0.46 Bad T+J 00091 00014 15% 25% 36% 1.31 0.99 0.83 $17.1 $60 1.59 Bad PED 00410 00022 05% 12% 19% 0.28 0.73 0.54 $10.4 $28 0.56 Bad Favorite 00041 00009 22% 27% 39% 0.74 0.63 0.66 $6.7 $10 2.19 Front Wraps 00683 00079 12% 23% 34% 0.54 0.82 0.76 $9.4 $52 1.13 Won Last 00347 00055 16% 32% 44% 0.74 0.82 0.77 $9.3 $68 1.39 2nd Last 00317 00072 23% 40% 53% 0.86 0.92 0.89 $7.6 $49 2.19 Beaten Fav 00182 00038 21% 39% 52% 0.67 0.82 0.85 $6.4 $16 1.99 Claim Last 00049 00007 14% 37% 43% 0.62 1.02 0.89 $8.7 $21 1.32 1st Tag 00100 00008 08% 19% 28% 1.02 0.96 0.84 $25.4 $60 0.84 Just Gelded 00023 00002 09% 13% 22% 0.98 0.77 0.57 $22.5 $24 0.95 Big Drop 00094 00012 13% 21% 34% 0.51 0.47 0.61 $8.0 $20 1.28 Cr Dbl Fig Adv 00007 00002 29% 57% 71% 0.51 0.90 0.97 $3.6 $5 2.57 Big Speed 00135 00028 21% 44% 54% 0.74 1.11 0.99 $7.1 $21 1.92 Razor Sharp 00097 00025 26% 39% 55% 0.94 0.92 0.96 $7.3 $20 2.49 Top EPS Life 00338 00095 28% 44% 56% 0.94 0.92 0.93 $6.7 $21 2.68 Top EPS 363D 00338 00090 27% 44% 56% 0.89 0.89 0.90 $6.7 $21 2.54 Bid but Hung 00066 00013 20% 32% 45% 0.95 0.82 0.88 $9.7 $28 1.93 Stretchout 00389 00033 08% 17% 28% 0.37 0.56 0.67 $8.7 $28 0.82 Turn Back 00206 00019 09% 17% 26% 0.64 0.66 0.66 $13.8 $71 0.94 Chaos 00358 00032 09% 18% 27% 0.59 0.85 0.78 $13.2 $60 1.01 Not Chaos 02854 00305 11% 21% 32% 0.56 0.69 0.71 $10.5 $95 1.04 Rule 50 00128 00012 09% 19% 28% 0.42 0.56 0.59 $8.9 $18 1.01 Not Rule 50 03084 00325 11% 21% 32% 0.57 0.72 0.73 $10.8 $95 1.04 Unks in Race 01261 00117 09% 19% 28% 0.48 0.67 0.69 $10.4 $60 1.01 No Unks in Rc 01951 00220 11% 23% 34% 0.61 0.74 0.74 $10.9 $95 1.04 HF/K110+ in Rac 00626 00068 11% 22% 33% 0.47 0.63 0.68 $8.7 $68 1.05 No HF/K110+ in 02586 00269 10% 21% 31% 0.58 0.73 0.73 $11.2 $95 1.04 Bad Fav in Race 00613 00061 10% 20% 30% 0.51 0.70 0.68 $10.2 $54 1.02 No Bad Fav in R 02599 00276 11% 21% 32% 0.57 0.71 0.73 $10.8 $95 1.04 Races w/Spr Trn 01047 00110 11% 21% 32% 0.56 0.75 0.71 $10.7 $68 1.04 NO Supr Trns 02165 00227 10% 21% 31% 0.56 0.69 0.73 $10.7 $95 1.04 Q6 = 0 00770 00079 10% 21% 31% 0.63 0.71 0.73 $12.3 $95 1.04 Q6 = 1 00980 00102 10% 21% 31% 0.56 0.71 0.72 $10.7 $71 1.04 Q6 = 2 00784 00086 11% 22% 33% 0.60 0.76 0.74 $10.9 $60 1.05 Q6 = 3+ 00678 00070 10% 21% 31% 0.45 0.66 0.70 $8.7 $35 1.04 PL-5 K= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HTR= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RS= F E P S R N QP= 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N ALW/STK CLM MSW MCL 2yr 3yr 3up/4up Males Females Open State-Breds Purse<10k Purse 10k+ Any Vi Any Surface Any Distance All Tracks Last edited by Rick; 26th March 2009 at 02:16.03 PM. |
|
#59
27th March 2009, 09:39.04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would like to help out, but no WRD in Jersey. The link for the simulcast calendar is below.
http://www.njsea.com/sharedimages/awcurrentcalendar.pdf Looks like we have Portland Meadows and Sunland, but no WRD. Good luck fellas! Jim |
|
#60
29th March 2009, 04:57.59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Target Race Facts and PP's
The target race is Race 6.
Distance: 1 mile 70 yards Age: 3 Year Old and up Class: Clm 7500n2L Purse: $8,500 Field Size: 11 Post Time: 5:30 EST Exotics: Exacta/Quinella/Trifecta (.50 Min)/Superfecta (.10 Min) PP Link: http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/brisw...re_summary.htm Scroll down to the sire More Than Ready/March 31
__________________
Eddie Last edited by Wright Stuff; 29th March 2009 at 07:20.37 PM. Reason: Added message title |
|
#61
29th March 2009, 05:59.16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As you all can see. The race for the this week is WRD race 6. I realize some of you may be shut out, as some outlets do not take this track. We were not sure how many when we selected this track. Now that we know this can happen, we will do our best to select a track that covers as many outlets and horseplayers as possible. We want everyone to participate, so rest assured this will be discussed and researched before the following weeks race. Possible thinking is perhaps Sunland as a first choice and Turf Paradise as a second option. I believe these are both available in Vegas and most all ADW outlets.
Again, thanks for your participation and GOOD LUCK with your wagers this week. Sincerely, Mike Mayo |
|
#62
29th March 2009, 08:08.04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sunland is only taken on Tuesday's in Las Vegas. Turf Paradise is taken every day that they run. ________ David |
|
#63
29th March 2009, 08:44.32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Will Roger Downs Tuesday 3/24 Race 6 Stats
Mutuel Pool 10,174
P3 Pool 622 EX Pool 6186 QU Pool 390 TX Pool 7181 SFX Pool 4,099 Payouts 4 7.40 4.80 3.20 2.70-1 3 7.20 4.40 6.20-1 2 25.40 69.60-1 $2 Ex 56.40 $2 Qu 61.40 $2 Tx 1058.40 $1 Sfx 5192.30 $2 P3 103.60
__________________
Eddie Last edited by Wright Stuff; 29th March 2009 at 08:45.39 PM. |
|
#64
30th March 2009, 11:41.50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey folks,
I just wanted to note that on the Horseplayers Assn blog (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/) we will have some capping tools up including free platinum PP's and FAST sheets from Trackmaster, some figures from pacefigures, hopefully some Jeff Platt numbers, and a link back to the HTR stuff here (I hope it is ok to mention other products here on the board). It would be good to get that done today on there. If all goes well I think those companies/cappers will participate with these tools for the other tracks chosen as well. Jerry Brown at t-graph has also lent his support. Anyhow, send people there if they need capping info and PP's etc, and check there for updates, which I am sure Mike will relay here as well. Thanks for the support everyone. Dean |
|
#65
30th March 2009, 12:02.07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
WRD file for 31 Mar 09
To look at this file you need to have HTR2 installed. You can save this file anywhere you like. Then run HTR2 and point it to this file. Easiest way is to just download it to C:\htr\. That is where HTR2.exe gets installed to. If you need to install HTR2 go here http://www.homebased2.com/km/index.htm Last edited by Rick; 30th March 2009 at 12:11.40 PM. |
|
#67
30th March 2009, 01:55.16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
HANA Race WRD.
Wanted to let everyone know that this thing is really getting lots of BUZZ. HANA's site has gotten over 5000 hits as of this morning since the race was announced. I also got a call from Bill Findley from ESPN.com and he is going to bet tomorrow, as well as put up a positive article on ESPN.com. It will be up tonight or first thing in the morning. This thing may grow much faster than any of us imagined.
I will meet with the HANA board via conference call Wednesday night and we should have a good idea of how much handle we generated. I will post after the call Wed. night. Good Luck tomorrow. Mayo |
|
#68
30th March 2009, 01:58.18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Freebies are now on the blog at HANA. Most of us get free PP's etc, but if someone was interested there it is to forward to whomever. Thanks to all the folks who offered stuff free. If this works well they have offered to do this for each of the races.
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/ |
|
#70
30th March 2009, 06:55.14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#71
30th March 2009, 07:43.24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
__________________
km |
|
#72
30th March 2009, 08:18.04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Love the ESPN piece. Time for a change. Horseplayers get it. Espn gets it. Now we just need the tracks to get it. Props to the people at the top of HANA and all its members. I am proud to be part of this movement. Thanks to all that made this possible.
|
|
#73
31st March 2009, 05:43.42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
JUst a suggestion - it would be helpful if the designated race was at a track where sheets data (TG, RAG) is available. A possibility is BEU which, in addition to having more data available, is one that seems to already support the horseplayer to a certain extent with the big NHC contest each fall.
|
|
#76
31st March 2009, 05:57.09 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A good first step and something to learn from.
Considering all the willing participants who couldn’t bet it’s a realistic number. There was certainly trust in those that did participate. I wouldn’t have invested in that race with monopoly money if HANA wasn’t behind it. NJ, Canada, Nevada / someone said Philly Park didn’t allow it…that’s a pretty big chunk of our base and that’s not to mention the players who would consider WRD “beneath them” and wouldn’t join in. (and they were out there; believe me.) BTW: Another testament to the simulcast dump. A good 60% of the pool came in after the latch sprang.
__________________
Dan G ======================== “We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” ~ George Bernard Shaw |
|
#77
31st March 2009, 08:55.45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
WRD Race 6,
Total Handle Tues. 3/24 -- $31,652 Total Handle Tues. 3/31 -- $50,452 An increase of $18,800 from last Tues. A fair start, but now we have to pick a track where we can all participate in the wagering. ________ David-LV Last edited by David-LV; 1st April 2009 at 03:40.48 AM. |
|
#78
31st March 2009, 10:01.44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks to Mike and Ross for getting this off the ground. Bryan and I both made wagers (contributions) because we are 500% supportive of the cause/effort. Being honest I am a bit disappointed in the pool - was hoping to see a bigger difference but Rome was not built in a day!! We will be on board with your next race selection and support HANA.
BTW Mike I hope you made your flight out of N O after contest. JWW |
|
#81
1st April 2009, 06:41.22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is a scene in Godfather II when Michael Corleone watches a Cuban rebel / who rather then be captured explodes a grenade he had hidden. Later when telling Hyman Roth this story Roth asks him; “What does this tell you?”. Corleone replies…”That they can win”.
We have a live grenade in this game; if were willing to collectively pull the pin.
__________________
Dan G ======================== “We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” ~ George Bernard Shaw |
|
#83
1st April 2009, 09:13.15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Big Thank YOU to everyone who participated yesterday. Just got off the phone with Ross and the HANA Board and we all realized that several horseplayers were shut out yesterday (VEGAS Included). We all came to the conclusion that we want everyone to have the opportunity to participate. We have decided that next Tuesday, April 7 will be TAMPA BAY DOWNS. However, we have decided to target a specific pool. We are going to play a PK3 somewhere in the middle to late in the card. The 3 races will be decided sometime late Saturday or early Sunday morning for the Tuesday card.
Yesterday was a big success considering the fact several players were shut out. Most all of the responses have been very positive and FUN. Many players are asking WHEN IS THE NEXT RACE. Everyone realizes, this will not happen over night but there are many committed to the effort. There is absolutely NOTHING negative about any of this. There are no losers here. Let us all keep this thing going. WE WILL ACHIEVE OUR GOALS AND MAKE SOME NOISE. STAY TUNED FOR TAMPA ON TUESDAY. Thanks Mayo |
|
#85
2nd April 2009, 10:08.22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks!
Thanks to everyone here, including Rick and Ken for posting that free stuff. I am running through the address book again, hoping to get all the figure guys and program guys to offer things out again, so if you know someone let them know Tampa (races tbd) is the spot.
We'll update everything on the blog as usual. The first post announces Tampa. We will also have an extra email or two this week, the last of which will remind post time about an hour before, so no one forgets (apparently some guy named Mike Mayo almost lost track of time last week ). So I hope we dont bother you too much via the email, but this is important and we do not want to lose any potential players for the race.http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org We also have stats from last week there on the blog if anyone is interested. I believe NYRA was out of the loop as well, in addition to the ones Dan mentioned. Onward and upward and thanks again! 
|
|
#86
2nd April 2009, 12:55.07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I havent read all of the posts in this thread, and I havent read anything over on the PA, so I don't know if its been suggested.
Why not have HANA sponsor a PICK 3. Get our friend Jeff Maday at CBY to convince management to lower the takeout on a particular PICK 3 sequence one night and call it the HANA PICK 3. Just a thought. Keep up the good work. Didnt even know we were supposed to play 6th WRD tuesday night. Havent been following much. It doesnt matter because my offshore book doesnt take WRD (just kidding) Ill be firing next week at TAM. Thanks for all the hard work. |
|
#87
5th April 2009, 02:15.01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Target Tampa Tuesday
Race 6 is the target - the pick 3.
Full PP's, figs and more on the blog if y'all want to have a look and pass it around. http://blog.horseplayersassociation....ck-3-free.html |
|
#88
7th April 2009, 11:18.41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just wondering if everyone has remembered that today is the day for The HANA Track Attack...?? Haven't heard much about it as of late....or am I missing a thread somewhere?
Gotta keep the focus!! |
|
#89
7th April 2009, 11:35.12 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Dan G ======================== “We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” ~ George Bernard Shaw |
|
#90
7th April 2009, 12:52.53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hey Donnie,
I think Mike is busy so probably has not been posting here because of it. As for our end, we have had very good feedback this week and have a few more people on board. Everyone signs up for HANA who plays in our group, so they get an email on Sunday sending them to PP's et al on the blog and one more reminder this morning. I think Ross is working things from his end. Traffic on the blog has been good so we hope the momentum carries forward to today. Dean |
|
#94
7th April 2009, 02:03.43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am also out after 1st leg.
|
|
#96
7th April 2009, 02:17.45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No one alive? Sheesh, this could be a hell of a score for someone if the players ponied up today.
|
|
#97
7th April 2009, 02:19.41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it needs to be a weekend guys; I show just a 9-10k bump. (after II that at WRD?) It’s not chicken liver, but I KNOW we can do better.
__________________
Dan G ======================== “We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” ~ George Bernard Shaw |
|
#98
7th April 2009, 02:25.43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spent $64 on p3 TAM 6-7-8, 30/1 bomb in the first leg wiped that out in a hurry,
2nd leg another big price, but that was $$ "Price Play" in HTR and i used it on my ticket. Maybe it will pay 2/3 today!
__________________
km |
|
#100
7th April 2009, 02:33.04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Best of luck Spike!
__________________
Dan G ======================== “We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” ~ George Bernard Shaw |
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
