Thoughts on a Match Race: Rachel Alexandra vs. Zenyatta

The latest in a series of guest posts

By Vic Harrison

We've discussed video displays, breakage and outs issues, past posting, starting gates and past performance info.

This week we turn our attention to Zenyatta vs. Rachel Alexandra.

Understatement Department:
"It sure would be a good race."

Obvious Statement Department:
"Rachel (R) is faster than Zenyatta (Z) and, on paper, should be favored and win."

Curious Statement Department:
My bottom line: Z beats R.

My qualifiers:

• Z likely wins at any distance over 1 1/16.
  
• R likely wins at 1 1/16 or shorter distances.
  
• In either case, the races would create a sensation for our industry – a cryin’ shame that it may not manifest.

The intangibles:

• Smart (or not) decisions by the jockeys
  
• Track surface – dirt, grass or synthetic
  
• Track condition
  
• Trouble at the start or during the race
  
• Whether I, Vic Harrison, the favorite killer, wagered on the horse.

I am of the opinion that, generally, the classy older horse beats the younger faster horse.

BLOGGING is not my full-time job. (“Thank God,” I can hear some of you say.) I try to squeeze out a BLOG or two every month or so. I tell you this in an attempt to lend credence to my excuse that I haven’t adequately performed research. I don’t have the time - You do it! Find match races or full field races, even, where two high profile horses square off against one another. I bet you find, in instances where the ages differ, that, more often than not, the classier older horse wins. What does “classier” mean? Honestly, in this case, I don’t know. We could talk consistency, earnings, number of wins – What I’m not saying is that Z is classy while R is not – she’s just, uhhhh…classier.

Too Much Information Department:
I was living in Orange, NJ in 1975 when I was introduced to horse racing by a girlfriend who attended Sullivan County Community College and had become a fan of harness racing at nearby Monticello Raceway. What an introduction she gave me, so to speak – a double-header: daytime Harness Racing at Freehold and evening Thoroughbred action at the Meadowlands. This was my first day ever at the races. All I did that first day was to hook up likely odds combinations in the exacta pools – In the same race, I’d hook up the 6-1 shot with the 9-2 shot and a 12-1 shot with a 3-1 shot and so on. By the end of that day I had $700 additional dollars and became a fan for life. Naturally, I’d spend thousands over the next few years actually learning how to handicap. The point here is, I lived in northern NJ and cut my teeth in the late '70’s at the Big M.

Whilst at the Meadowlands, I saw:

Cam Fella beat It’s Fritz. Both were aged 4 but you would say that Cam Fella was the classier of the two and It’s Fritz was the speedball.

The battle of the FS’s: Forest Skipper beat Falcon Seelster. Again both were 4 YO’s and again Skipper was perceived as the classier and Seelster the faster.

In 2003, Bunny Lake, aged 5, beat Worldly Beauty, aged 4.

These are examples on the Standardbred side that left me with the indelible sense that, all things being equal, class beats fast and Z beats R.

Until next time...

-- Vic

For more information about Vic Harrison, see Contributors on the About tab.

Past Performance Data: Inconsistencies are Handicapping the Handicapper

The latest in a series of guest posts on the business of horse racing.

By Vic Harrison

We've discussed video displays, breakage and outs issues, past posting and starting gates. This week we turn an objective eye to Past Performance info.

PERSPECTIVE:

Q: Does the best horse always win the race?
A: No, there are many contributing factors.

Q: Is the Past Performance info in the 
   Daily Racing Form accurate?
A: Yes.

Q: Is the Past Performance info in the 
   ubiquitous Simulcast Program (SP) accurate?
A: Yes.

Q: Is the Past Performance info in the 
   DRF the same as the PP info in the SP?
A: No.

On any given race day…

My handicapping pal Grant places great handicapping emphasis on class drops. He uses, mostly, purse amounts to determine class. But his wagering choices hinge on the publication he’s reading, either the Daily Racing Form (DRF) or the Simulcasting Program (SP). Yup – he will make his betting choice in a race depending on which publication he is reading. Is this proper, or fair? Is Grant’s return-on-investment higher utilizing the DRF or the SP??

The added purse from, say, the in-state Breeders Association (and shown in the SP) skews Grant’s handicapping choice: Let’s look at a horse named Dobyn’s Novel. The DRF does not show the added money on the PP line; so Dobyn’s Novel’s most recent allowance race appears in print with a purse of $52,325. In the SP, the added money is included in the total purse amount and, for the same date and race, is $59,000. Remember, to Grant, Purse equals Class. Today’s purse is $55,000 – Dobyn’s Novel is not dropping in class as per the DRF. But, utilizing the SP, he’s dropping in class.

I can’t say which publication has is right, but I believe it should be shown identically. There should be consistency in both publications, keeping in mind that wagering newbies are already struggling with racing terminology and convoluted condition races.

And… my pal Grant, whose unfortunate surname is Marnier, also places great emphasis upon moves made by horses within the running of their recent races. If a horse makes two moves in the race, all the better. So, dear reader:

Q:  In this year’s Kentucky Derby, would
   there have been an outcry if Desert Party 
   or Regal Ransom had won the race?

Non-committal A:  
Perhaps, I think so, yep, pretty sure.

Neither horse shows any fractional times, positions or lengths-behind in their three most recent races – all were overseas. Is this proper or fair? In this year’s Derby must Grant toss his handicapping formula/criteria on these two horses? Should he have withdrawn them from his considerations? One could argue that first time starters also have no such PP info. Well, a graded stakes race generally has no such first time starters and…I know I am not likely to part with my money on a FTS in any race, maiden included. We’re trying to grow pari-mutuel handle here by allowing players to bet with confidence.

Related Note: Just today (Wednesday, June 24, 2009) I read a wonderful article by the venerable John Pricci on the veracity of workout times and the underlying issue of such data collection. Mr. Pricci offers that the obvious solution is to track the horse’s movements by utilizing chips in saddle pads. I know there is a cost involved in implementing such systems, but he is absolutely right. There is no other answer, not only for workouts but for live racing as well. This would also solve the problem of having humans posting the running numbers during the race which invariably result in laughable departures from reality. And (he added hopefully) perhaps the saddle-chips can be programmed to trigger the stop-bet command as they break from the gate so this responsibility isn’t left in the hands of the Stewards/Judges (a moot point, in thoroughbred racing, if wagering is stopped as the first horse enters the gate - to be applied uniformly at all North American race tracks – please see my earlier post on this subject.)

Until next time...

-- Vic

For information about Vic Harrison, see Contributors on the About tab.

An Objective (and Humorous) Look at Starting Gates

Fourth in a series of guest posts on the business of horse racing.

By Vic Harrison

We’ve discussed video displays, breakage and outs issues and past posting. This week we turn an objective eye on starting gates:

• Thoroughbred
• Standardbred, and
• Greyhound Starting Boxes and … Rusty!

Thoroughbred Racing
The scene is perfect, idyllic. The early afternoon sun is washing over the graceful thoroughbreds warming up for the upcoming race on the historic racetrack. Time seems to be standing still and then – What’s this - A tractor pull? Yes, a tractor is pulling a long metal contraption across the racetrack. When the horses break from the gate…another tractor pull. Whoopee, two tractor pulls per race! Is there not a better way to begin a thoroughbred race?

Padding notwithstanding, the starting gate is a metal monstrosity – jockeys are hurt being thrown against the tops and sides; horses are rearing up, falling beneath it and getting cast or otherwise entangled. Horses are prematurely bursting through it. All kinds of labor is being thrown at it in the form of assistant starters. And the shouting; there’s always lots and lots of shouting. Watch the replay of the 2009 Belmont Stakes – the shouting is of a high caliber and rowdier than usual – I think the pre-race Belmont Stakes shouting earned a Beyer figure of 97.

We prosecute trainers for riling up their steeds on race day with electric shocks – why bother? Just get a message to the starter that you want a little extra shouting before the race. And, how about all the time and energy expended in schooling our horses in the gate? Can’t we come up with an improvement? Is the current starting gate good for horse’s hocks – exploding from a standing start? There was a recent article on the use of strand-starts in Australia jump-racing trials – that may be problematic for us too but, on the surface, it appears to be much less stressful than our current starting procedures. We could begin exploring alternatives.

Standardbred Racing
The scene is perfect, bucolic. The lazy afternoon sun is cascading over the sturdy harness horses warming up for the upcoming race on the historic race track – much like a Courier & Ives print – the drivers in their colors steering their powerful animals. And then… What’s this? A car is out on the track with the horses! Not just any car but a Plymouth Reliant K Car…Station Wagon…with wings…and advertising.

The ten horses run up to their allotted slots on the wings, which at this point are swaying with the stability of a Slinky. As the race begins, the 10 horse is a quarter of a mile from the rail – if this isn’t illegal it’s probably a disadvantage (something you wise guys should make part of your handicapping criteria – you can thank me later). The car-with-wings races away while retracting its appendages and then tracks the horses all the way around the racing oval which, let’s face it, makes for a distraction on the video display. The same can be said for the ambulance following the thoroughbreds around the track – a reassuring sight for the participants but unsettling to some viewers.

I had the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks scared out of me last fall by the mobile starting gate. It’s moving at 30+ miles per hour, faster really because it follows a path around the outer perimeter of the race track. This is fine at the far and desolate stretches of the race track, but not at the finish line, where families and children (and, worse, me!) are draped at the rail. While the historical driving record of the starting car may be immaculate, whizzing past the finish line at the outside rail is a recipe for disaster – in this instance an exception from the norm, I’m sure, and likely done with good reason… but scary nonetheless.

I acknowledge there is benefit from having the starter, as an extra judge, eyeballing the horses closely during the course of the race and being first to the scene of any mishap, but I believe there may be another better way to start and track harness races. Let’s give it some thought.

Greyhound Starting Box
First Sidebar Greyhound Question: Why are greyhound races run on ovals? Wouldn’t we be all happier with a long gradual curve like a Forrest Gump smiley face? Wouldn’t bettors be more likely to part with their money knowing that their selection won’t be sent rollin’ and tumblin’ (blues reference) away in the first, sharp, turn?

Second Sidebar Question: Why the electronic rabbit? People have been killed and maimed by the third-rail nature of “Rusty.” And…why “Rusty?” It’s no longer funny or cute, and it’s a too real metaphor for the deteriorating state of the greyhound industry. Doesn’t the technology exist to run a harmless but realistic holographic rabbit around the track? Only the smartest dogs will conclude it’s an image, but you could gently persuade those dogs over dinner and a glass of wine and, more often than not, convince them to “pretend” for the good of racing.

Third Sidebar Question: Why don’t we hear about greyhound purses? The purse formula is guarded more closely than the recipe for Coca-Cola. Can someone shed a little light, literally and finally, on this subject?

Original Greyhound Question: Why start greyhound races in wooden boxes? Can’t we use something clear – plexi-glass, say? If they get smeared and opaque we can break out the Scrubbin’ Bubbles. I thought, once in Florida, I saw my dog being put into the box backwards – backwards! Somewhat of a handicap to be sure. Is it too much to ask that, if thoroughbreds can be trained to relax in a claustrophobic metal-starting-gate-with-shouting, and harness horses can win from the penalty-like-10-hole, greyhounds could be trained to start from boxes where they can see out and we can see in.

This entry has more humor (I hope) than usual but, perhaps, there is a kernel of truth to be found here or there, a germ of an idea that may gain traction sometime.

Until next time...

-- Vic

For information about Vic Harrison, see Contributors on the About tab.

Past Posting and In-Race Betting

Third in a series of guest posts on the business of horse racing.

By Vic Harrison

Previously we discussed video displays and then, last week, breakage and outs issues. This week we focus on:

o Past Posting – Betting after the start of the race.
o The Start of the Race – When does it start?
o In-race Betting – Let’s legalize it.

Past Posting – betting after the start of a race – is just awful when it occurs and newsworthy too. Recently, when pools have been so breached, the handle has been refunded to the bettors – a good option – a boon to those who had losing wagers, but cold comfort indeed to those who selected the winners.

The track, the state, breeders, et al, are hurt by the loss of handle and accompanying churn for that race. But, in fairness, bettors usually will bet their wagering allotment by the end of the performance whether or not there are seven or ten races.

At one point in time, when certain state lotteries closed wagering on, say, a lotto pool, the state lottery would further verify the lotto pool closing by attempting to punch tickets on a lottery terminal; they had instant confirmation that the pools had closed, or not. What a simple low-tech solution. The pari-mutuel industry might explore this solution until such time that broader wagering monitoring systems are fully implemented.

Interesting related food for thought: For those among us who loudly criticize the tote companies for falling behind with respect to technology: I issue this challenge to the three major tote companies: publish your accounts receivables. Tote contracts usually call for payment within 7 days – right, 7 days. In reality, some racetracks do pay their tote invoice within 30 days; some pay within 60 days, some within 90 days, and some wait 120 days - or longer - to pay their tote company. Totes are as a rule treated as second class corporate citizens. If a racetrack treated its phone or utility company this way it would be out of business. Perspective: tote companies are paid in basis points; simulcast fees are paid in whole percentage points.

I think legal past posting occurs everyday. I commend Trackmaster for publishing run-up distances – good info, long overdue, for serious handicappers. But, starting poles and the attendant uncertainty surrounding the actual start of a race should be eliminated. The horses breaking from the gate represent the beginning of a race. Too many salient race-shaping events occur between the time the gate opens and the time the horses pass the start pole.

Harness Racing also suffers in the widely differing application of recall-enforcement and there is too much time for technology-savvy bettors to alter (usually cancel) their wagers between the time the gate pulls away and the time betting closes. Too many bettors have had an unfair advantage for far too long over the casual player, mostly with respect to canceling.

Here's an example: Vic attends the harness races with his family. Before the next race, Vic takes his son down to the grandstand for soda and popcorn. He bets $10 win and $10 place on the number 5 horse. He takes his food and tickets upstairs or out to the rail and settles down to watch the trotters as they line up behind the gate. Vic is nowhere near a teller or self-serve machine. As the gate picks up speed, three of the young horses break stride and are hopelessly distanced by the more sure-gaited trotters. This breaking group includes Vic’s selection, the number 5 horse. He watches the race despondently with no shot of cashing his ticket.

Attending the same race is Neo, who has his own betting terminal or his favorite teller. He also bet the number 5 horse. But, due to his proximity to his favorite teller or self-serve betting terminal he had set up his bet on the number 5 to CANCEL. When the horse broke stride before the start of the race he canceled his bet. Is this fair? Is this how we capture new players and turn them into fans? Is this how we protect our odds and win prices?

This is not unique to harness racing. At some Thoroughbred tracks you can infer much from the break from the gate before the betting is stopped. On a related matter, the bet-cancel delay, ostensibly still in place in some jurisdictions to protect tellers from being stuck with a large ticket at post time, needs to disappear entirely.

Late cancel issues and bet-cancel-delay disputes can be eradicated by stopping betting when the first horse loads into the gate in flat racing. Stopping betting when the first horse loads buys us time. We’d pick up about a minute – a minute to take responsible action. In some past posting cases, tote and mutuels are instantly aware that betting did not close. Yet it still takes precious time to takes the steps necessary to close the pools. A minute’s head-start would be priceless. On the Standardbred side there’s got to be a similar answer. Let’s put our heads together.

Can we start thinking about regulating in-race betting? Let’s legalize it. Think of the intensity, the excitement. Offer up a new, say, win pool at the start of a race and keep it open to the halfway point or three-quarters. Let’s start with baby steps – on-track in-race betting only as there may be video and communications lag times engendered by the simulcasting of in-race betting pools that would be magnified by the dynamics of in-the-moment-wagering.

And, circling back, as I like to do, to the ever looming issue of pari-mutuel take-out and state regs, we should begin brainstorming about retooling the minimum payout requirements and minus pool formulas. Over-simplifying this issue: on a nickel slot machine we hit MAX BET at a cost of $.45 and we win a minor reward: $.20. We win but we lose. (I know, one of the nine $.05 bets paid off at $.20. I’m oversimplifying for example purposes only.) I am totally confident that these issues can be addressed by the brighter minds in the industry. Even then, the crucial piece of successful implementation is across-the-board consistency – there can only be unanimity for this to work.

Until next time...

-- Vic

For information about Vic Harrison, see Contributors on the About tab.

BREAKAGE - OUTS - PAPER OR PLASTIC?

Fixing a Broken Pari-Mutuel Model
Second in a series of guest posts on the business of horse racing.

By Vic Harrison

Last week we discussed video displays. This week’s issue we consider:

Breakage (the rounding-down of payouts to the nearest nickel or dime) – never has a concept been more passé.

Outs (uncashed winning tickets) – never has there been a more striking difference between betting at a racetrack and betting on a slot machine. Let’s start bridging the gap.

Plastic Bet Cards or Paper Tickets – Let’s count the advantages of plastic over paper.

As a discussion starting point: One fundamental industry problem is retainage, commission, take-out… call it what you will, but it’s a pari-mutuel model that’s broken and in need of deconstruction and reconstruction. Industry leaders need to tackle this major issue head on. I will address some of its component parts, or lack thereof, here with my pea shooter.

In racing jurisdictions around North America both breakage and outs become the property of the track, the horsemen, the breeders, the ADW companies, the regulators or some other related organization. The money is, I’m sure, put to good use: Here in Virginia, 30% of the breakage goes into a backstretch benevolence fund. We all have our hands out, and we won’t easily relinquish our claim to that money. But, breakage and outs are without a doubt the property of the bettors.

Breakage and outs are the hidden take-outs: In Virginia in 2007 wagering handle in-state was $167,684,685 and breakage was $643,967 -- or .38%. Outs totaled $883,330, or .53%. The blended take-out on all pari-mutuel wagers was 21.27%. You’d think that 78.73% would be returned to the winning bettors. Not so fast…when we add back the breakage and the outs, the effective take-out is 22.18% - only 77.82% is being returned to the bettors.

Breakage – rounding-down a payout from, for example, $7.49 to $7.40 -- made sense in the old days because it sped up the throughput at the mutuel windows by eliminating the handling of pennies if not nickels. Today, the true growth segment of our industry is account wagering – no tellers, no windows. Perhaps we could break to the smallest amount possible, return the additional money to the rightful owners – the winning bettors. I guarantee you they will bet that additional money back into the wagering pools. We’re talking increased handle here. Even breaking to a penny will result in some breakage amount - any breakage money remaining can be redistributed in a creative way to the bettors towards the end of a specific period such as a race meet.

Outs – Here’s a radical idea: Do away with paper tickets. Scenario: You walk in to your race track/OTB. You get a card (anonymous or player-tracking). You put your betting dollars on the card. You bet; you hit a winner. You get credited the winnings automatically, even, say, a convoluted Pick-5 bet with late scratches and post-time-favorite substitutions. How simple: You automatically are credited the winnings. You think you’ve a losing wager but the convoluted consolation payout is nonetheless awarded to your account. You are happily surprised the next time you check your balance and you didn’t have the opportunity to have ripped up a valuable paper ticket in disgust and in error. (For those of us that must absolutely have the security of holding a paper ticket in our hands, paper receipts can be issued with our bets – receipts that have the look and feel of a live ticket but without the bar code/ID number.)

This is an area where slots have an obvious advantage over pari-mutuels: On a slot machine we hit PLAY and the winning result is a bunch of squiggly lines onscreen. The average slot player has no idea how he has won or the meaning of the lines but is totally confident that he is being credited his winnings. He had no opportunity to unwittingly toss his winnings in the trash. As with the breakage, the additional outs money is being returned its rightful owners, the winning bettors, and they will bet that money back into the wagering pools, resulting in increased handle; and some of those subsequent bets will be winners, and those winnings too will be bet back.

Ancillary issue: Tellers – I’m all for job creation and retention, but not when its part of a paradigm that has brought an industry to its knees. (Ask your teller about the concept of “dropping” – not unique to pari-mutuels but certainly prevalent here.) Nonetheless, if you have tellers, there’s no reason why bettors can’t bet at a window with a teller and present the teller with the card instead of cash. In a perfect (and not totally unattainable) world there would be enough card readers at your betting facility that quickly show the balance on the card and most recent wagers.

Circling back now to the much larger issue of pari-mutuel take-out: If outs and breakage are reduced to insignificant levels, we must address the loss of these sources of income to their current recipients: the tracks, horsemen, breeders, ADW’s or regulators. It’s part and parcel of the aforementioned deconstruction and reconstruction. Eventually, it will become a problem the answer to which will be critical to the survival of our industry.

Until next time...

-- Vic

For information about Vic Harrison, see Contributors on the About tab.

We Need More Focus on the Betting Product and Presentation

This Week’s Issue: Video Displays
First in a series of guest posts on the business of Horse Racing.

By Vic Harrison

Greetings from Virginia. There are two things about Virginia that Californians are likely unaware of and may be surprised by: Like you, we make very good wine and, unlike you, our thoroughbred meet is 90% turf racing.

But, no matter how much wine we’ve imbibed, where the grapes were grown or where we race in North America and upon what surface, we might share some similar observations about horse racing and pari-mutuel wagering. How about stepping back from our daily grind for a more objective view of our industry? I don’t claim to have the answers – I’m taking the easy road by asking questions – but, I do believe these to be valid discussion items. During the course of my blogging, and if Mary allows it, I will try to address a few of these issues one or two at a time.

My one disclaimer is: I know a lot of people in this industry, many of whom work in the segments listed below, and I like them all. No personal inferences should be taken.

My overarching observation about the business of horse racing is: There is not enough focus on the betting product and the presentation of that product – we could have 100% compliance on all medication and wagering integrity and monitoring issues (and I hope we will) and still interest would wane and the industry would decline until, perhaps, only a few racetracks remain standing…unless we effect change.

This week’s issue: Video Displays

Am I the only one who thinks it’s laughably bad and almost sad that many race tracks, at the top of the backstretch, completely obscure the viewing of the race by showing a few seconds of blurry Infield Tote Board? The announcer is trying to build drama and you think you can spot that your horse is making a move, and suddenly the horses (and your interest) are interrupted by the scanning camera whizzing across the tote board. Now the horses show up again and you’ve got to try to relocate your betting choice.

Perhaps it would make sense, if you’ve a large infield tote board or other infield obstruction, and if the cost isn’t too dear, to put a camera on the backstretch – one that your video guy could pan to when the horses reach the obstruction point. If not, at least use the pill system on your video display (that a bettor can pan to on his own). Every race has a start, middle and a finish and it all should be shown without exception and without interruption.

I also read recently that technology may exist to highlight each horse in the race with a specific onscreen color a la the yellow yardage stripe on a televised football game. This would be a boon to every racetrack’s video presentation regardless if there’s an infield obstruction – the saddle pad colors and numbers and jockey’s silks are often, currently, indistinguishable on a TV screen.

Until next time… and I hope you bet the Preakness winner (don’t overlook Terrain).

--Vic

For information about Vic Harrison, see Contributors on the About tab.