Perth racing with another race card with 3 seven horse racesWest Australian Racing

[DeletedUser]

Again we come to the weekend the biggest turn over day of the week saturday and perth racing have served up 3 seven horse races.Now this industry is driven by turn over thats a fact these days.The programming for many years in the west has not been looked at well enough.Clearly u have the horses each and every wensday they have full fields on a day when turn over is about half if not less.Yet when we come to saturday were most are punting and u serve up with respect crap that has no interest to the rank and file punter who drive turn over its a cup of tea race for the most part.When are the people in charge over there going to get it and look at the programming.I am tired of hearing its time of year its kal its end of season.Get with the program these other race meeting are a fact of life.I think we have got to a stage were if u run a few low rating races it better mixed in and far more interest so y does someone in charge over there get in to real world and start to have a look at these issues and not try and be the same as a melb or bris the fact is u are not.U are more lower tearer hoses thats clear from the size of fields during week and as we know its turn over is your life blood of race clubs u are biting the hand that feeds u and only half wits would do that or am i missing something.

Unknown

dont bet on them...simple

super.impose

so you want perth racing to tell ownrs and trainrs with sat horses they cant run on sats in august because they running all wed type races.every club has small sat fields in quiet times of year.dont have a bet if you dont like the fields.anyway when did perth last have 3 races of 7?doesnt happen every week does it?
rosehill got 6 in a million dollar group 1 on sat?maybe they should change it for a midweek race too?

H-BOMBER

Funny, because I thought the races in question (race 1, 3 and 4) looked actually good little races with many winning chances, and were probably more ofn the competitive races on the card. Outside of Barakey in the first race who should bolt in, that is a very competitive field, and while race 3 and 4 has mostly last start winners or saturday place getters.

I actually prefer quality over quantity in my racing and wouldnt expect turnover to be any different on theses 3 races

[DeletedUser]

All have a differnt view point thats fine i will have mine its a forum u dont have to agree but with respect i dont share your views.

thefalcon

To put it bluntly what we are trying to say is that there are many more chaff burners going around than better performed Sat. class horses.
Look at the provincials...5 or 6 maiden races, capacity fields in a 8 race programme.
Only a spendthrift with a sense of humour would waste petrol money.. :shock:
We are right in saying that its winter, Kal. is on, etc...in the next month or so the ones we have forgotten about will reappear.
Just have a look at the trials...

[DeletedUser]

I take your points on board they are well made i guess just not a big fan of small fields my self work with what u got when punting.

Arlo

I agree with mailman, whatever your point of view, small field races on our premier day is not a good look. It is a bit like the group races we see in Ireland with 6 runners, they are a joke. Surely seeking to improve programming to encourage better fields for Sat racing is in the best interest of racing in WA. It is not because horses aren't available, there are plenty going round mid week!

dungy

said:

dont bet on them...simple

Good point PB

Fastmoney

Basically comes down to poor programming.

When RWWA took charge thoroughbreds averaged 10.1 starters per race. Last years industry report showed it had increased to 10.4 starters per race. Hardly a significant increase.

While some individuals may prefer small fields, the total turnover on these races (particlarly novelties) is poor.

If this one issue could be improved it would produce a significantly increased return to the racing industry.

Fairly simple change to improve income, however in 7 years it has been beyond the capabilities of those in charge.

super.impose

small fields dont happen often on sat at asc/bel.if happened every week be worried.but now and then no different to everywhere else.why panic?a couple of small meetings in winter and some want to change all programing.

carey

said:

I agree with mailman, whatever your point of view, small field races on our premier day is not a good look. It is a bit like the group races we see in Ireland with 6 runners, they are a joke. Surely seeking to improve programming to encourage better fields for Sat racing is in the best interest of racing in WA. It is not because horses aren't available, there are plenty going round mid week!

it's well known that optimum field size for turnover is 14, so yes, mailman is probably correct in that regard.
more money in pool, then the more some people can bet, because they are only limited by pool size on how much they can put on.
also not so long ago rwwa dumbed down the midweeks and provincial "a" venues to try and force more horses into saturday meetings.
don't know if it worked or not, as have not been following wa.
although i do notice the place that i am working on at the moment, is infinitely less variable than wa is.....which tends to confirm what i have always suspected about wa, and why i decided it was time to move on for the time being.

[DeletedUser]

Just out of interest what state did u pick carey.

super.impose

finaly found industry report i thnk you refer to on racingwa website.in 05-06 there was 21327 starters for 2228 races and in 09-10 23093 for 2204 races.on my math that is ave of 9.6 in 05-06 and now 10.5 in 09-10.That is whole of wa so would include all ctry non tab meting so be higher for only tba.

Fastmoney

Super

..............Starters....Races......%....
03/04......21740.......2152.......10.10
09/10......23093.......2204.......10.47

Think my maths is right.

The issue is the lack of improvement in 7years.

There was non-tab back then as well.

Rodent

Before ratings based handicapping, horses were on a one way trip through the grades. There was always a flow coming through to Saturday class. The horses not deemed competitive would be shipped off to the bush. The others would have no place to race except on Saturdays in town.
Now, unless a horse holds form, it may drop back to the lower grades which are already bursting at the seams. We don't need any more lower class horses.
If RBH is to stay, then we need to throw a 56-68 race in on Saturday. I reckon if it were a 30k race, you'd get the best up and comers taking part.
Under the current set up, we have to see horses like Rubitawny running around midweek at $1.50 until they have enough ratings points to justify running on a Saturday.
Similarly, Barakey raced at the midweeks twice before moving to a Saturday. Why? He was clearly Saturday class but Jim Taylor likes to take them through the grades. So why not lower the bar to capture all the promising horses and drag them into the Saturday fold? Of course the good horses would rather run in a 56-68 for 30k than a 56-68 for 17.5k midweek.
The 56-68 could take the place of the current 40k 62-74, saving 10k. Adjust the 68-80 to 66+ to offer an out for those 66 raters who don't carry weight too well. Similarly adjust the 80+ to 78+
Thoughts?

Unknown

said:

Before ratings based handicapping, horses were on a one way trip through the grades. There was always a flow coming through to Saturday class. The horses not deemed competitive would be shipped off to the bush. The others would have no place to race except on Saturdays in town.
Now, unless a horse holds form, it may drop back to the lower grades which are already bursting at the seams. We don't need any more lower class horses.
If RBH is to stay, then we need to throw a 56-68 race in on Saturday. I reckon if it were a 30k race, you'd get the best up and comers taking part.
Under the current set up, we have to see horses like Rubitawny running around midweek at $1.50 until they have enough ratings points to justify running on a Saturday.
Similarly, Barakey raced at the midweeks twice before moving to a Saturday. Why? He was clearly Saturday class but Jim Taylor likes to take them through the grades. So why not lower the bar to capture all the promising horses and drag them into the Saturday fold? Of course the good horses would rather run in a 56-68 for 30k than a 56-68 for 17.5k midweek.
The 56-68 could take the place of the current 40k 62-74, saving 10k. Adjust the 68-80 to 66+ to offer an out for those 66 raters who don't carry weight too well. Similarly adjust the 80+ to 78+
Thoughts?

agree

there are certainly a few things they can look at in the quieter times

super.impose

my work is all on wa rcing.mdn winner is usually 62 so can go strght to 62-74 or opn 3yo which are 62plus on sats and sit just on min wght.i alwys wonder why horse like barakey race on wed for under $20k when can race on sat for dbl that and not give away pts.must be othr reasons trainers like to stay on wed.maybe experence or confidence

GLAMOUR

Allways find feilds tappering off this time of year,as a lot are freshening up for Ascot,this has been a regular thing

carey

said:

Just out of interest what state did u pick carey.

somewhere in a land far far away.

Rodent

said:

my work is all on wa rcing.mdn winner is usually 62 so can go strght to 62-74 or opn 3yo which are 62plus on sats and sit just on min wght.i alwys wonder why horse like barakey race on wed for under $20k when can race on sat for dbl that and not give away pts.must be othr reasons trainers like to stay on wed.maybe experence or confidence

What about females and their 2kg (4 ratings points) allowance?
Rubitawny won her maiden and became a 58 rater.
There are always a heap of maidens. What is wrong with allowing horses to debut on a Saturday without costing them too many points. There will always be enough horses running in maidens. We should harvest the best maidens for Saturdays. 54+ races for females and 58+ for males would achieve this.
Barakey debuted in a 54-64. Jimmy could have debuted him in a Saturday 58+ if it existed.

super.impose

i not sure dumbing down sat races because a prblem with field sizes comes up few wks a year is step forward.you right on 58 for filies and mares but giving way few pnts for them if wining dbl money to mwk shouldnt be worry

super.impose

said:

Allways find feilds tappering off this time of year,as a lot are freshening up for Ascot,this has been a regular thing

agree.happens same here in vic too.just diff time of yr to perth.put lower races on sat will give bigger fields but also have to tell ownrs of true sat hrses there is no race for them for few wks.look am mwk mtg at bel yday.only full field was 3yo mdn.obviously less horses around this time of year and many going to kalg.all be bck to normal in few wks when you back at asc.

Fastmoney

Suggestions that things were better in the past aren`t backed up by the statistics.

Unfortunately those within the industry can`t see any alternative to what has happened in the past.

The "it happens every year" comment acknowledges there is an issue but no one wants to make significant changes to improve the situation.

I can`t understand how an industry that is basically funded by Tab turnover does not see improving the number of starters per race as an important issue.

As a comparison harness average 10.13 starters per race.

super.impose

all think diffrent i guess.do you want bet on lesser hrses on sat in bigger fields and not allow better horses to run for a sevral wks at end of bel and asc seasons each yr or accept sat racing is for sat horses and fields will be smaller for few wks each yr as rest of ctry does.maybe instead of having sun mtg at bel after kalg cup thre should be no metro mtg at all so hrses not strtched so thin this wk?

Rodent

said:

i not sure dumbing down sat races because a prblem with field sizes comes up few wks a year is step forward.you right on 58 for filies and mares but giving way few pnts for them if wining dbl money to mwk shouldnt be worry

I don't see it as dumbing down. You're not excluding anyone, just giving an option to include extra horses.
Look at this Saturday. You have 2 1400m races, one for 74+ and the other for 62-74. The 74+ has 7 runners whilst the 62-74 has a capacity field with emergencies.
If the 74+ was changed to a 69+ and the 62-74 became a 56-68, the 6 highest weighted horses in the last race on Saturday would be forced into the higher rated race, taking the field to 13 and even without extra horses taking part the last race would still have 12 runners.
Of course Philby would get 61kg but probably claim 3kg and still carry less weight than what it will in the 4th race tomorrow.
This example doesn't dumb things down, it just redistrbutes the horses to get more consistent field sizes.
Besides, if the last race was a 56-68 like I suggest, Rubitawny would probably have run in it and the meeting would have been better for it.

Northerly

I think the issue isnt so much in the class of the races more so the penalty if horses win a race out of there class. For example if a 64 rated won a 74+ they go to 78. I say if they can win it so be it, get there rating to 68 or even 69 and then they are eligible for the same race in a fortnight. The penalty is just too high for winning a race out of your class, and hence the reason why lower rated horse (in which there is an abundance) don't often contest races of higher ratings. If you win you throw away a number of wins and prize money in the process.

Rodent

Good point Northerly. Perhaps there could be a limit imposed on how much you can get penalised. 4 points is standard so perhaps they could limit it to 8?
That way you'd only be giving up 1 win in a lower prizemoney race. Of course it could work against horses trying to get their rating up for a feature race.

super.impose

So hrse can win then race next start in same class agnst same hrses with 53 still.so no penalty?be good way to end up with plenty of ods on fav and end up like trots

carey

said:

Good point Northerly. Perhaps there could be a limit imposed on how much you can get penalised. 4 points is standard so perhaps they could limit it to 8?
That way you'd only be giving up 1 win in a lower prizemoney race. Of course it could work against horses trying to get their rating up for a feature race.

NO, if you win out of your class you SHOULD pay the price , it has always been this way and has nothing to do with the ratings, in fact wa tends to penalise far less than they should for horses winning/placing out of their class.
if they want the prize then they should have to accept the consequences.
if i was the boss the ratings system would get the flick.
basically it was only designed to keep horses racing longer, so the tabs can program ever more races.
i don't believe you should be able to drop after you have won x races at this class level, you should be permanently restricted, from going back down.

DamienWyer

Sitting back watching this debate from a land far far away, and it prompts me to say that the WA ratings seem artificially high. In that when WA horses travel, they for the most part seem over rated by comparison to their East Coast counter parts.

This idea of attracting a minimum of four points for a win and sometimes eight or more depending on racing outside of your class, is just a collective group hug to make some feel that we have in fact a higher quality of horse than what in fact we actually have.