lamour

Make Harness Racing Great Again

49 posts in this topic

Calling for ideas about how to improve the future for our industry.  Starting off one idea I have is abolish pick six and make it pick 8.this will increase number of jackpots leading to punters chasing bigger pools.  Lotto spend always goes up when large jackpots on offer.  Why isn’t racing allowed to have large jackpots also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get HRNZ to develop a coherent business plan in conjunction with NZRB or its successor if one occurs post Messara report and MAC recommendations.

More penalty free races for juniors

More F and M races with tighter ratings bands

A re-look at rating system taking into account different quality of horses competing at the various venues i.e  metrop versus country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current rating system favours slow R40 horses, which as an owner and breeder I find disillusioning.  Goodness knows how punters think. Somehow we must do more to foster our young and better horses so they are profitable to race in NZ. Eg I part own a sound honest trotter who is stuck on a R100+ rating even though he hasn't paid a dividend since Feb 2018. He's costing us to race as 4th and 5ths in Group races don't cover training costs and nomination fees. I don't mind the rating as that's the class he is: what gets me is having to be handicapped behind and being beaten by horses earning much more than him but because place earnings don't count, the handicaps stay the same. It would make economic sense to sell him.

I believe those putting race fields together should make more use of conditions that take into account recent earnings. Eg have race nominations for 60-70 band horses but have field splits/draws/hcps based on earnings in last 5 starts. This would mean a horse with a string of 'Auckland' placings could get handicapped or start in harder fields relative to an out of form or 'Cambridge' horse. A novice winner would not automatically get the worst preferential draw against a field of seasoned multi win horses. Having more conditioned racing throughout NZ may even allow the rating system to be simplified and become more transparent for punters, owners and trainers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When all is analysed, unless you have the racing numbers, talking about conditions systems and the like are really irrelevant.      Owners want their horses to race, but what can you do if insufficient stock on offer - can the races every week or race them together over a wide handicap range.      Urgent need must be given to breeding - less expensive stock, more affordable stock - and tough to the big commercial breeders.     Many broodmare owners every year not bothering to breed simply because of the cost.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eljay said:

When all is analysed, unless you have the racing numbers, talking about conditions systems and the like are really irrelevant.      Owners want their horses to race, but what can you do if insufficient stock on offer - can the races every week or race them together over a wide handicap range.      Urgent need must be given to breeding - less expensive stock, more affordable stock - and tough to the big commercial breeders.     Many broodmare owners every year not bothering to breed simply because of the cost.        

Breeders will always be there for the " lets get out of here"  sale to Ozzies. Gallops no different except they don't have AI and thus options to sell to different markets at different price points.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it favours rating 40 horses I'll give u runcle as long as u pay training fees for a year.in fact it  is the opposite, a horse like runcle in a true rating system would be 30 ish.so always at least 20 points out of the handicapwhat should happen is horses should be able to go to their correct mark instead of stopping at 40.another class or classes would be created like with like .horses would have more longevity and would help alleviate the shortage in north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tim vince said:

If it favours rating 40 horses I'll give u runcle as long as u pay training fees for a year.in fact it  is the opposite, a horse like runcle in a true rating system would be 30 ish.so always at least 20 points out of the handicapwhat should happen is horses should be able to go to their correct mark instead of stopping at 40.another class or classes would be created like with like .horses would have more longevity and would help alleviate the shortage in north.

Thank god someone else has hit the nail on the head re making more horses competitively rated so they can compete and win $$$$ for owners to pay the bills. They downgrade dogs and horses dont they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tim vince said:

If it favours rating 40 horses I'll give u runcle as long as u pay training fees for a year.in fact it  is the opposite, a horse like runcle in a true rating system would be 30 ish.so always at least 20 points out of the handicapwhat should happen is horses should be able to go to their correct mark instead of stopping at 40.another class or classes would be created like with like .horses would have more longevity and would help alleviate the shortage in north.

In my opinion Tim you are 100% wrong about what the actual problem is, and how to fix it.

The real problem is that there are not enough horses progressing through the grades. There are two parts to that statement - not enough horses and progressing through the grades.

The answer is not to keep dropping the poor horses back, but to progress the better ones forward. In other words spread the ratings out, not clog them up.

Everyone complained that the previous system clogged up the C0 and C1 races with good 2 and 3yo's to the point where an average horse couldn't win a race. Well now we have a system that has clogged the lower grades up even further with a massive percentage of horses rated between 40 and 50 - lower than a first starter!

And you want to create even lower grades? To achieve what? Move the clog 10 or 20 points further south!

No doubt your view of the current situation is somewhat biased towards the lower rated horses as that's mainly where you're racing, but for the good of the industry we need to be move the better horses up the ratings instead of catering to the lowest common denominator ie the struggling 40 raters, or before long they'll be all there is left to race as the better ones will all be sold overseas because there aren't enough of them left to make a race.

Alexandra Park are already down to 5 and 6 horses field quire regularly. What next 3 horses fields to entertain the breeders looking down from the committee room?

As for not enough horses, well that's a story for another time!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For trotters I say get rid of the tape, this is such a prehistoric way of starting, do lights laser anything but a bloody tape and don't give me the crap about educate your horse,( then lets all be on the unruly the whole 16 odd of them wouldn't that be fun to see ha ha )  horse  don't go near the tape it bites but go to the races and you gotta get close if i was a horse Id say bugger off..   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JackSprat said:

In my opinion Tim you are 100% wrong about what the actual problem is, and how to fix it.

The real problem is that there are not enough horses progressing through the grades. There are two parts to that statement - not enough horses and progressing through the grades.

The answer is not to keep dropping the poor horses back, but to progress the better ones forward. In other words spread the ratings out, not clog them up.

Everyone complained that the previous system clogged up the C0 and C1 races with good 2 and 3yo's to the point where an average horse couldn't win a race. Well now we have a system that has clogged the lower grades up even further with a massive percentage of horses rated between 40 and 50 - lower than a first starter!

And you want to create even lower grades? To achieve what? Move the clog 10 or 20 points further south!

No doubt your view of the current situation is somewhat biased towards the lower rated horses as that's mainly where you're racing, but for the good of the industry we need to be move the better horses up the ratings instead of catering to the lowest common denominator ie the struggling 40 raters, or before long they'll be all there is left to race as the better ones will all be sold overseas because there aren't enough of them left to make a race.

Alexandra Park are already down to 5 and 6 horses field quire regularly. What next 3 horses fields to entertain the breeders looking down from the committee room?

As for not enough horses, well that's a story for another time!

 

Could you ever possibly accept that some 40 rated horses are at their highest rating at that point and will never get any better. Thus they have a chance in say rating  35-40 races and continue to race for their owners and punters alike cos they still have a chance to earn stake money. Without that sort of option you either sack them or flog them off to Oz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The rationale of dropping the baseline lower and lower is totally flawed. You'll always have your worst horses and the aim has to be to encourage improvement in the quality of the product. To cater more and more to the worst of the worst is doing nobody any favours, especially the poor suckers being encouraged to keep paying the bills for horses that are too slow to pay their way, in the vain hope that they'll one day sink to the level of others who are equally slow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would do the clubs in the north a favour.betting relies on competivness. If you play me at tennis and u are a very good player and I'm not .no betting.if we are even stacks of betting. I bet u have had bets with mates on heaps of sport with friends oreach other. U don't have to be any good. Horse population is a pyramid.few at top. Few more as u go further down.vast majority at bottom. Do we dump them. They don't in USA or Australia.

We had some legendary games of golf tennis ten pin bowling etc in auckland years ago. Huge money changed hands.some of those involved well known in racing game.stanley st on a Sunday.onebloke played with a cricket bat and took on all comers. He played in the wimbledon juniors. Standard not high but betting was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JackSprat said:

No. The rationale of dropping the baseline lower and lower is totally flawed. You'll always have your worst horses and the aim has to be to encourage improvement in the quality of the product. To cater more and more to the worst of the worst is doing nobody any favours, especially the poor suckers being encouraged to keep paying the bills for horses that are too slow to pay their way, in the vain hope that they'll one day sink to the level of others who are equally slow.

 

It's a successful model that is employed by most overseas countries.

If the slow ones, as you put it are evenly  rated  a good punting spectacle ensues elsewhere. Why is NZ and different. You see a version of it at most non metrop mid week  meetings.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree JS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the worst betting win pools of all time was when elsu won a big race  Auckland,cup interdomsnot sure.his dominance put people of betting that race.if we follow the logic of good horses means good betting look at Auckland turnovers compared to a grass meeting on a Saturday.mot methven whatever.i haven't looked but I would bet the latter are much bigger.turnover is the  lifeblood of the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What nobody seems to get is that the answer is to spread the rating, not compress them. That philosophy has proven itself not to work yet again.

We need to get horses moving in a natural progression up the rankings according to ability.

The main complaint with the previous system was that the C0 and C1 grade were clogged up with horses that should not have been there.

What have we replaced it with? A system that is clogged up with 40 - 50 rated horses. Same thing.

And the answer is to move the clog further down the drainpipe by creating a group below rating 40?

Until we create a system that encourages horses to rise in the ratings all that will happen is people will hang on to their "Runcles" and plead for help to make them competitive, when the goal should be to create more and better opportunities for more and better horses.

The long term effect of catering to the lowest common denominator is that's what you get left with. The decent horses have been leaving the country in droves for many years. The reason is simple - other countries provide more opportunities for the better horses, and leave those that are flattered by a 40 rating for the pet food truck to collect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tim vince said:

If it favours rating 40 horses I'll give u runcle as long as u pay training fees for a year.in fact it  is the opposite, a horse like runcle in a true rating system would be 30 ish.so always at least 20 points out of the handicapwhat should happen is horses should be able to go to their correct mark instead of stopping at 40.another class or classes would be created like with like .horses would have more longevity and would help alleviate the shortage in north.

I think the problem Tim is that the rating system is not being used the way it was designed for.    For instance,  at Oamaru this weekend there are about 16 pacers rated 40 - 42.but instead of putting on a race for those horses they get mixed in,  in several races,  with horses up to rating 50.  

What is the point of having horses drop back to a rating 40 if they don't get to race against other horses of a similar rating..

If the club had carded a rating 40 -42 they would have easily had the numbers for a full field and created an  opportunity that would result in 3 horses filling a place that will always struggle otherwise.   They could have made 3 sets of owners very happy.

Not to knock Oamaru specifically as all clubs not using the system properly in my opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JackSprat said:

What nobody seems to get is that the answer is to spread the rating, not compress them. That philosophy has proven itself not to work yet again.

We need to get horses moving in a natural progression up the rankings according to ability.

The main complaint with the previous system was that the C0 and C1 grade were clogged up with horses that should not have been there.

What have we replaced it with? A system that is clogged up with 40 - 50 rated horses. Same thing.

And the answer is to move the clog further down the drainpipe by creating a group below rating 40?

Until we create a system that encourages horses to rise in the ratings all that will happen is people will hang on to their "Runcles" and plead for help to make them competitive, when the goal should be to create more and better opportunities for more and better horses.

The long term effect of catering to the lowest common denominator is that's what you get left with. The decent horses have been leaving the country in droves for many years. The reason is simple - other countries provide more opportunities for the better horses, and leave those that are flattered by a 40 rating for the pet food truck to collect.

Agree to a point with you JS.    It is vital horses progress to their level of ability.   The problem occurs when they progress to their level of inability.

I'm all for horses rising through the grades but we need some system of identifying when when they have reached a level where they are competitive but not dominant and let them stay at that level.

I don't think you and Tim need to disagree,  you both raise valid points and they are not mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lamour said:

I think the problem Tim is that the rating system is not being used the way it was designed for.    For instance,  at Oamaru this weekend there are about 16 pacers rated 40 - 42.but instead of putting on a race for those horses they get mixed in,  in several races,  with horses up to rating 50.  

What is the point of having horses drop back to a rating 40 if they don't get to race against other horses of a similar rating..

If the club had carded a rating 40 -42 they would have easily had the numbers for a full field and created an  opportunity that would result in 3 horses filling a place that will always struggle otherwise.   They could have made 3 sets of owners very happy.

Not to knock Oamaru specifically as all clubs not using the system properly in my opinion.

 

You make the same points i made earlier. this is a club race  programming issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lamour said:

Agree to a point with you JS.    It is vital horses progress to their level of ability.   The problem occurs when they progress to their level of inability.

I'm all for horses rising through the grades but we need some system of identifying when when they have reached a level where they are competitive but not dominant and let them stay at that level.

I don't think you and Tim need to disagree,  you both raise valid points and they are not mutually exclusive.

While there is a chronic shortage of horses in the North it is impossible to have like v like so all horses are competitive.

The main race  at Auckland this week has a 71 horse  and a 76 rated horse racing Group 1 horse Jacks Legend [ rated 100+] in a mobile  start.

Whats the point in this.

My own recent experience is that this type of situation has led to two horses I had shares in being sold overseas when personally I was OK with them battling away trying to find races where they had a chance which was often away out of the area where the owners are.

When you own less than 50% you go with the majority.

With the high costs involved most folk these days bail out particularly when races canned ,and this even happens with 2 yr old races.

My two horses had both won about 6 races ,and rated over 70 which would pit them v Jacks Legend this week.

Prior to that another 2 horses I had a small share in won 4 and 7 races mostly on the grass and were basically uncompetitive on hard surfaces so they too finished up. [One sold to Aussie]One was still rated 59 after maybe one third in lowly race in last 15 starts.

Owners like to see their horses in a race with some chance.....its an expensive hobby for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic, why is it that clubs refuse to make any real effort to get young people back on course. You see them all turn up at Cup week for example yet no-one is there promoting the club and racing post those events. Where are the Apps and the inducements to get them back on track on other dates. For me , all clubs should have mandatory under 30 areas with lots of promos . Bands , reasonably priced F and B as well as say a few easy bets to help the newbies.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with you JJ Flash! A couple of months ago I took 2 young friends to my local meeting to watch my horse race as a treat for them. We weren't allowed to actually go near the horse as they hadn't done the required course to enter the stabling area (thankfully the trainer brought him over to the barrier so the boys could pat him) The facilities were dirty and run down and the majority of signage was to let you know that you were in an area of great hazards! The food offering was minimal and over priced and there was absolutely nothing to entice you to want to go back although in saying that the racing was good as was the quality of the horses.Young people get bored very quickly and they need stimulation sadly not a lot of this was on offer. Like it or not the younger crowd are the ones we have to look to to keep the sport going wether it be by betting or ownership. It doesn't have to centre around drinking but we do have to make it enticing - family days,competition both on and off the track like the brothers in arm series that Oamaru run or the inter provincial series that Invercargill run. Involve some celebrities or local stars (god know most of them would turn up at the opening of a paper bag if their was publicity involved) but most of all make in interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MalcolmH said:

Totally agree with you JJ Flash! A couple of months ago I took 2 young friends to my local meeting to watch my horse race as a treat for them. We weren't allowed to actually go near the horse as they hadn't done the required course to enter the stabling area (thankfully the trainer brought him over to the barrier so the boys could pat him) The facilities were dirty and run down and the majority of signage was to let you know that you were in an area of great hazards! The food offering was minimal and over priced and there was absolutely nothing to entice you to want to go back although in saying that the racing was good as was the quality of the horses.Young people get bored very quickly and they need stimulation sadly not a lot of this was on offer. Like it or not the younger crowd are the ones we have to look to to keep the sport going wether it be by betting or ownership. It doesn't have to centre around drinking but we do have to make it enticing - family days,competition both on and off the track like the brothers in arm series that Oamaru run or the inter provincial series that Invercargill run. Involve some celebrities or local stars (god know most of them would turn up at the opening of a paper bag if their was publicity involved) but most of all make in interesting.

Excellent post, you are not get round the H and S issue you raise as it reduces trainers ACC payments,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now