HORSEPLOP.COM
General Category => Harness Racing => Topic started by: theokodjak26 on September 06, 2023, 07:39:11 PM
-
Ok I know back when letters and numbers dominated the conditions, a lot of people said the Racing Secretaries were corrupt and could be bought. But when I see this week that at Monticello Raceway 15 of 20 races we won by odds on horses I just want to throw up. Maybe over 70% is not the norm but near 50% is. I don’t recall this high of a win percentage back when RR, MR and YR used the old method. I do see Ploppers who complain about that Race Secretaries today write conditions to favor certain trainers so is this method just as bad? Since we have a bunch of trainers on this site I would like to hear what they think as well as our fans.
-
Ok I know back when letters and numbers dominated the conditions, a lot of people said the Racing Secretaries were corrupt and could be bought. But when I see this week that at Monticello Raceway 15 of 20 races we won by odds on horses I just want to throw up. Maybe over 70% is not the norm but near 50% is. I don’t recall this high of a win percentage back when RR, MR and YR used the old method. I do see Ploppers who complain about that Race Secretaries today write conditions to favor certain trainers so is this method just as bad? Since we have a bunch of trainers on this site I would like to hear what they think as well as our fans.
I think they should bring it back as long as it has consistent rules. That will leave it out of the race secretary's hands. eg. You move up if you win. Three consecutive out of the money races you move down. Are guys gonna stiff horses at the small tracks -- of course but that's gonna happen anyway. I saw a condition the other day for n/w 4051 last 4. That's just not right. I know it's hard to fill races -- but... Also write more claimers.
-
I loved the classified system. Classified and claimers. Should always be the case.
-
I loved the classified system. Classified and claimers. Should always be the case.
I don't think we will ever see that system again. Some tracks are going with that Track Master program.
-
Agreed. We will never see it again, but ultimately I feel it was best. Hated how a horse could be written into a spot under the NW format using weird AEs I also feel it was simpler for the average bettor under the classified/claimer format.
-
this only helps trainers who dont know how to classify their horses makes the race office do all the work
-
this only helps trainers who dont know how to classify their horses makes the race office do all the work
laughable response I wont even bother responding beyond that
-
As just a young fan I liked the letter and number classification. It was so easy to understand. Compare this to not only harness classification but try it against thoroughbred conditions. Thoroughbreds classification can be straight forward but not often. Even claimers can have multiple secondary conditions. Don’t even try to understand allowance race conditions. What a quagmire this can be. But back to harness as a newer owner I used to get po’d at Yonkers Steven Starr for taking his sweet time to drop a horse for our group versus the big barns. He was hard to trust from my point of view.
-
Agreed about that miserable bastard and coke addict, I might add, Steve Starr. Miserable bastard.
-
Print out the original conditions sheet and then compare it to the final race conditions. Zingo you have a horse that finishes 1,2 depending on post positions. Race secretaries handicap some races by post position. Lesser horses get the inside posts where at many tracks the 4 or 5 posts have the highest win %.
The TM rating is terrible. If your horse is beaten by 3, 4, or 5 lengths it stays in the same class and the horses that are 1, 2 stay where they are and beat you every week.
-
A-B-C will never happen. That means the secretary will piss off people with his classifications. Everyone will say their class is too high. Isn't bitching about classification the norm for almost all trainers and owners. They would much rather use a Trackamster rating system which absolutely makes no sense. "That's your TM rating and that's his/her class"
-
There are very, very few race secretaries anymore. They write conditions and make horses fit them. You can find a conditioned sheet from several , if not many, years ago and all that has changed is the date and probably the purse.
Tracks are multi million dollar operations and they turn the racing fairness over to a (maybe) $40,000 employee.
-
There are 2 big reasons on why you can't have the ABC classification. One is there are not enough horses. It needs far more horses than a track like Monticello has. Number two is the race secretary &/or racing directors. Tad Stockman (i think was his name) & Peter Koch were clueless at the Meadowlands. Alex Dadoyan is a paycheck collector. Every place he goes the handle goes down. The race secretary was a no show for how many years at Yonkers?
We know Harrahs Phil & Pocono casinos don't care. I believe they hire cheaper & people who are barely qualified.
It is sad how far the game has fallen. I agree about the favorites winning to much. At one time i considered myself a lifer. For many years now i rarely bet & often just look at results for stakes cards. When the Breeders Crown was in the afternoon years back i saw 3 or 4 races live. Canada, Red Mile, & LBJ i look at results & sometimes watch a replay.
I will give the Meadowlands credit. Their biggest cards did have some longshots. I don't follow closely, bet small, & was not able to catch any of the bombs.
-
At the real Meadowlands, Joe Defrank and Warren Desantis were excellent race secretaries and good men. Defrank but the Meadowlands by inviting top young drivers like Campbell, Lew Williams and Greg Wright out there, among others.
-
Imagine if PJ was given this power at Saratoga 73cv.2
-
Imagine if PJ was given this power at Saratoga 73cv.2
Defrank built....
-
There were far far less oddds on horses under the old clsssification system then in the NWx$xStarts system. And for the most part it was fair. Of course you had folks trying to milk a connection by running second or third each week; it was always fun when a horse got bumped up without having won a race at the lower classification. And it did give al ot of power to the racing secretaries, which I am sure pissed off the horsemen. But it was a lot more digestibkle for the less experienced fans than the current systems.
But the current NWx$xStarts is just a joke. It incentivizes horsemen to run out of the money in order to get a lower classification. It also does not account for purse level differences between tracks. And using the Trackmaster ratings...just ridiculous.
Less competitive racing may be good for the horsemen but it does not help the bettors and in the end the health of the industry. I made it out to the Meadowlands and Saratoge Tbreds this summer and as an old guy the thing that surprised me the most in comparison to the days of my mispent youth was the number of completely crap races filled with crap horses. These are two of what should be the premiere meets in the country and the quality of the betting product was not there. The Meadowlands especially, 30 years ago there seemed to be multiple good horses in each race, now it is like trying to decipher who is the least worst.
-
There were far far less oddds on horses under the old clsssification system then in the NWx$xStarts system. And for the most part it was fair. Of course you had folks trying to milk a connection by running second or third each week; it was always fun when a horse got bumped up without having won a race at the lower classification. And it did give al ot of power to the racing secretaries, which I am sure pissed off the horsemen. But it was a lot more digestibkle for the less experienced fans than the current systems.
But the current NWx$xStarts is just a joke. It incentivizes horsemen to run out of the money in order to get a lower classification. It also does not account for purse level differences between tracks. And using the Trackmaster ratings...just ridiculous.
Less competitive racing may be good for the horsemen but it does not help the bettors and in the end the health of the industry. I made it out to the Meadowlands and Saratoge Tbreds this summer and as an old guy the thing that surprised me the most in comparison to the days of my mispent youth was the number of completely crap races filled with crap horses. These are two of what should be the premiere meets in the country and the quality of the betting product was not there. The Meadowlands especially, 30 years ago there seemed to be multiple good horses in each race, now it is like trying to decipher who is the least worst.
-
Fantastic post. perfect desription of the current failed system and why the old ABC was far better, for the bettor, especially. Good job, Hambo!
-
I agree with Fug. Hambo wrote a great position paper.
-
tmbz1
I agree with Fug. Hambo wrote a great position paper.
tmbz1 to my friend, Kodjak