CRIST: Changes dilute Cup's appeal

[letswastemoney]

If they did that 4% takeout thing at a major circuit track (SA, Hol, Bel, Churchill), I believe it would work. I just don't like Ellis cards because I'm not familiar with the horses or the jockey and trainer patterns.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

If they did that 4% takeout thing at a major circuit track (SA, Hol, Bel, Churchill), I believe it would work. I just don't like Ellis cards because I'm not familiar with the horses or the jockey and trainer patterns.

Exactly. For players that dont follow the circuit, (and Ellis is mostly made up of lower tier KY horses, Indiana horses and Fairmont horses)the takeout is not appealing because they have no clue about what is going on. I'm sure if Saratoga during that time period had the same bet with the same takeout it would have been a big success. Plus for lower takeout to truly be effective it must be in effect for a long period of time.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I couldn't blame anyone for not betting Ellis Park if they offered free bets. Even though a lot of fans read the form and dont really know what they are doing, at least they can read unlike the vast majority of the NASCAR fan base (sorry Cajun and Slotdirt)

Cajun is really good at looking at the pictures though

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Payson Dave

Cajun is really good at looking at the pictures though

At Beulah

[Danzig]

i feel so stupid.

i didn't really think about why the BC officials added these new races. i didn't think about why they wanted to run on a friday-i figured that they wanted to give the fans more-and there's the difficulty of fitting races into a one-day schedule.
i just was doing some catching up on my reading, and am on page 965 in the feb 16 bloodhorse. it's the dan liebman (editor in chief) article that he does.....bear with my typing from this article, which discusses the bc going to cali two years in a row.


'churchill is not happy with the financial arrangements whereby Breeders Cup takes most of the handle and simulcasting revenue, leaving the host track with, basically, just another big Saturday. One thing tracks could count on was a nice spike in on-track business the day before the BC. But, with the BC races now also on Friday, much of that handle also flows to BC, not the host track.(my italics).'

also says in the article that monmouth lost money on the bc last year--weather didn't help of course, but they lost millions.


seems that liebman points the blame for churchill not getting the deal next year on the ky track. but with the current state of the bc race schedule--what's in it for churchill really?

so, all about money. BC wanted the friday money too, rather than just saturday. and the sponsorship dough. and now they want a sponsor for the whole event, not just for each race.

does everyone remember what happened to the golden goose at the end of the story?

[Phalaris1913]

I may not agree with the exact lineup, but generally I feel a star can be born in any race.

Herein lies the problem.

Breeders' Cup races should not be a place to expect stars to be born.

The Breeders' Cup is a celebration of the greatest horses in our sport; not a place to look for future talent among obscurities.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Herein lies the problem.

Breeders' Cup races should not be a place to expect stars to be born.

The Breeders' Cup is a celebration of the greatest horses in our sport; not a place to look for future talent among obscurities.

That's a great point.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i feel so stupid.

i didn't really think about why the BC officials added these new races. i didn't think about why they wanted to run on a friday-i figured that they wanted to give the fans more-and there's the difficulty of fitting races into a one-day schedule.
i just was doing some catching up on my reading, and am on page 965 in the feb 16 bloodhorse. it's the dan liebman (editor in chief) article that he does.....bear with my typing from this article, which discusses the bc going to cali two years in a row.


'churchill is not happy with the financial arrangements whereby Breeders Cup takes most of the handle and simulcasting revenue, leaving the host track with, basically, just another big Saturday. One thing tracks could count on was a nice spike in on-track business the day before the BC. But, with the BC races now also on Friday, much of that handle also flows to BC, not the host track.(my italics).'

also says in the article that monmouth lost money on the bc last year--weather didn't help of course, but they lost millions.


seems that liebman points the blame for churchill not getting the deal next year on the ky track. but with the current state of the bc race schedule--what's in it for churchill really?

so, all about money. BC wanted the friday money too, rather than just saturday. and the sponsorship dough. and now they want a sponsor for the whole event, not just for each race.

does everyone remember what happened to the golden goose at the end of the story?

"does everyone remember what happened to the golden goose at the end of the story?"

they cut her open to get to the ordinary eggs inside.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

"does everyone remember what happened to the golden goose at the end of the story?"

they cut her open to get to the ordinary eggs inside.

nope, rather than being happy with her laying a golden egg at a time, they got greedy and killed the goose. no gold, no more eggs.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

nope, rather than being happy with her laying a golden egg at a time, they got greedy and killed the goose. no gold, no more eggs.

the goose was made out of gold, though.

right?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

the goose was made out of gold, though.

right?

no, just a goose. her eggs were gold.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, just a goose. her eggs were gold.

so she was an ordinary goose that laid golden eggs?

i think her name is deceptive.

just cause my kid does something doesn't make me the golden cock.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

Herein lies the problem.

Breeders' Cup races should not be a place to expect stars to be born.

The Breeders' Cup is a celebration of the greatest horses in our sport; not a place to look for future talent among obscurities.

Right. And instead of what was just a short time ago a chance to see many of these best horses race against each other in the same race, we now have more and more opportunities for them to NOT run against each other.

--Dunbar

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by letswastemoney

If they did that 4% takeout thing at a major circuit track (SA, Hol, Bel, Churchill), I believe it would work. I just don't like Ellis cards because I'm not familiar with the horses or the jockey and trainer patterns.

1. You don't have to be NEARLY as familiar with the local conditions when you are trying to beat a 4% vig compared to trying to beat a 20% vig.

2. Do you think the capping competition at Ellis is as tough as at SA, Hol, Bel, Churchill? Maybe it is, but I doubt it.

3. If horse bettors were so bright, they would have collectively realized that if the 4% Ellis experiment was successful, other tracks would have noticed and tried similar things. Instead, what the other tracks noticed was a 4% takeout that did not bring in nearly enough action to justify the low vig.

Even if you knew nothing about the track, a random Ellis pick 4 costing $100 would have been a $4 investment in the future of the game. Despite the fact that the vast majority of bettors, including those here, are losing far more than 4% of their total bets in the longterm, not many bettors supported the Ellis venture.

--Dunbar

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

so she was an ordinary goose that laid golden eggs?

i think her name is deceptive.

just cause my kid does something doesn't make me the golden cock.

.....

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

so she was an ordinary goose that laid golden eggs?

i think her name is deceptive.

just cause my kid does something doesn't make me the golden cock.

well, i apologize that in my haste at typing earlier that i called her the golden goose. she was just a goose.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

1. You don't have to be NEARLY as familiar with the local conditions when you are trying to beat a 4% vig compared to trying to beat a 20% vig.

2. Do you think the capping competition at Ellis is as tough as at SA, Hol, Bel, Churchill? Maybe it is, but I doubt it.

3. If horse bettors were so bright, they would have collectively realized that if the 4% Ellis experiment was successful, other tracks would have noticed and tried similar things. Instead, what the other tracks noticed was a 4% takeout that did not bring in nearly enough action to justify the low vig.

Even if you knew nothing about the track, a random Ellis pick 4 costing $100 would have been a $4 investment in the future of the game. Despite the fact that the vast majority of bettors, including those here, are losing far more than 4% of their total bets in the longterm, not many bettors supported the Ellis venture.

--Dunbar

All of what you say is probably true but Ellis is such a pile of crap especially when you are competing against Saratoga, Del Mar and even Arlington. I have yet to find a horseplayer who plays for the good of the game even if it will in the long run possibly help them. Most players, even here, follow the sport and wager in a part time fashion and I just dont see those people having much interest in handicapping Ellis regardless of takeout. I tried to play some of the Ellis pick 4's because i thought it was a great idea. But honestly after a few miserable attempts I threw in the towel. Well I may just suck as a handicapper but thats another story.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All of what you say is probably true but Ellis is such a pile of crap especially when you are competing against Saratoga, Del Mar and even Arlington. I have yet to find a horseplayer who plays for the good of the game even if it will in the long run possibly help them. Most players, even here, follow the sport and wager in a part time fashion and I just dont see those people having much interest in handicapping Ellis regardless of takeout. I tried to play some of the Ellis pick 4's because i thought it was a great idea. But honestly after a few miserable attempts I threw in the towel. Well I may just suck as a handicapper but thats another story.

Yeah, CS, there is a bit of a Prisoner's Dilemma aspect to expecting folks to "play for the good of the game". I did do just that, however, because I thought it was that important. I was vacationing during almost all the promotion, and would normally have spent zero time making horse bets. (it was Hawaii, after all!) But I took about a half hour each morning to create a $200-$400 ticket. If there were another 100 people in the entire country doing that, it would have had an impact. If there were 300 people doing that, every track would have taken notice. My "expected loss" was about $12/day, assuming my capping was completely clueless. (an assumption that I could not easily reject, as far as the Pick 4's went) As it turned out, I did considerably worse than a dart thrower with my Ellis bets, but that doesn't really change the way I look at it.

--Dunbar

[Round Pen]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I understand about the people working but there is lots of advance time and if you are traveling to get there you would not be working on Friday anyway. Plus Saratoga, Keeneland and Del Mar do awfully well on weekdays. I am just disheartend by a supposed championship event being run by people who dont have any clue and ithe fact that they may make changes that make these seem pedestrian

I think Bill Farish has Pretty good Ideal of what is going on in Racing Probably more so than you.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Round Pen

I think Bill Farish has Pretty good Ideal of what is going on in Racing Probably more so than you.

Chuck has a better idea of what is really going on in every facet of the game than anybody on that commitee.

That's no insult to Will Farrish.....it is what it is.