NBA's 3 Point Problem Can Be Easily Fixed

Three point shooting is getting out of hand in the NBA. This year there have been 37.5 three point attempts per game compared to 22.4 attempts per game 10 years ago. Three point shots are exciting when they go in but really boring when they don't, and that happens around 64% of the time. 

 With ratings down this year, the NBA just isn't going to sit back. They are very proactive when it comes to rule changes. They proved that when they basically eliminated take fouls a couple of years ago. But I still don't get the significance of the Emirates Cup but at least they are trying. 

As a fan, I think I can live with 22 three point attempts per game, but how does the NBA achieve it? Eliminate the corner three? The corner three 3 point line is 22 feet from the basket, while the distance for a three pointer is at least 23 feet nine inches elsewhere. Eliminating this easier shot, should decrease three pointer attempts, but by how much, time will tell. One other good thing will come from getting rid of the corner three and that is stepping on the line which seems to happen once or twice per game. It is embarrassing for the player, but I think it irritates fans. 

Another tweak, eliminate the corner three and make the three point line 24 feet or further elsewhere. How about limiting the amount of 3's a team can take per game or per quarter? Lets go with 3 attempts per quarter per team. We'd probably see only quality threes being attempted which is another bonus. Of course, to give teams a chance for exciting comebacks, there should be unlimited threes allowed in the final two minutes of a game (Limit attempts to 2 the first 10 minutes of the final quarter). Once the three attempt quota occurs, a team can still attempt 24 foot shots, but they only count as twos. 

Finally, they can limit the amount of 3s that count, maybe 4 per half per team. I think eliminating the attempts is better though because it will lead to more quality shots. There is a downside cutting back threes and that is possibly more injuries because of fiercer action under the basket. More fouls too, which isn't the greatest thing when it comes to keeping the game entertaining. 

Anyway, I expect the NBA to do something this summer.

Tanking Doesn't Have A Future In A Legalized Sports Betting World

 I always had a problem with teams losing a game on purpose, let alone a series of games on purpose.  I've always believed that you always try your best to win, no matter what.  Somehow some way it has become acceptable for a team to lose as many games as it can for the reward of potential future star via a top draft pick that may or may not pan out.

Last I looked, fans pay top dollar to watch their teams play.  But now, legalized gamblers have entered the picture too.  Yes, gamblers can take into account that certain teams want to lose a game, but think about, how silly does it sound?  And what about integrity?  Are passes dropped on purpose?  Are run plays called when a team needs to pass?  Are shots missed on purpose?  Is taking a fall acceptable in 2022?

The revelations that Brian Flores was offered $100,000 for each game he threw isn't unbelievable.  We saw first hand the Toronto Raptors tank on purpose last year in order to get a high draft pick.  Was Nick Nurse, who coaches like he never wants to lose any game anytime given a bonus to not play several of his starters as the season winded down? I hate to think he was, I hate to think he made decisions during the game to ensure a loss.  But it was clear as day what the Raptors were up to, and it was completely accepted, even by the majority of the fans.

Can it be acceptable anymore?  Not in the NFL, that is for sure, now that the genie is out of the bottle thanks to the allegations by Flores.  

The NBA may take a little more time to catch up.  They let players rest.  Having to rest players, sometimes 4 or 5 at a time, is an admission that your season is too long.  Fans paying good money to see stars, many times don't see them.  But now with sports betting entering the picture, odds fluctuations caused by late scratches and late rest announcements are going to give gamblers too much to complain about.  They got away with resting this year because of Covid, next year, I don't think so.

Currently, the NBA has to let teams like Portland and Oklahoma tank this year because their draft lottery rules are already in place.  So maybe the Commish will step in and change the rules next year.  

I expect to see the NFL do away with their current rules where the worst team gets the first pick ASAP.

The best way to keep fans and gamblers happy is to put all the teams that don't make the playoffs into a hat, and give them all an equal shot at the first through 20 picks in the NFL and first 14 picks in the NBA. As for the teams that make the playoffs, let them have an equal chance at the rest, or even a lottery, because I'd like to think that a team in the playoffs won't look to throw a game or a series for a better lottery pick.

Since this is mostly a horse racing blog, I feel like giving a horse racing angle to this.  Back in  the day when horses were magically able to run 20 or 30 times a year, it was often felt that the odd horse was stiffed to get better odds next time out.  Probably doesn't happen much in thoroughbred anymore.  The good old days when you drugged a horse to make it run slower.  It wasn't accepted by the masses then, but we accepted the Raptors tanking last year like it was part of the game.  This is gonna end.

Has Arlington Park Solved Horse Racing's Jackpot Problem?

 Unfortunately for horse racing, Arlington Park may be no more in the near future, but in the meantime they may have come up with a way to rid the betting world of the mostly unproductive Jackpot wagers which have now reached plague like proportions.

In its infancy, I was for Jackpot bets.  In 2010, Beulah Park was put on the map, a C track, was temporarily competing for wagers with Churchill Downs on Kentucky Derby day, attracting over $700,000 in new money, as bettors were chasing the $400,000 carryover in the mandatory Fortune 6.

Since then, more and more and more racetracks have put Jackpot wagers on the menu.  So much that Jackpot wagers make up the overwhelming majority of carryovers offered.  Today for example, 9 out 32 carryovers are Jackpot bets (and four of the nine non Jackpot bets are offered at Arlington). Most days the ratio is worse than that.

There are huge problems today with Jackpot bets.   

 First, very few smaller tracks get to offer a huge payday to the lucky individual bettor, and even if they do, it takes an awful long period of time to get there.  

Secondly, Jackpot bets ties up oodles of potential churn money.  Every gambler is different, however, collectively, the typical gambler is all about staying in action while frequently or infrequently being rewarded for being right.  Some gamblers are compelled to go after the big score, so dangling a possible large payout tempts them to take a shot at the Jackpot wagers.  Gamblers do like the dream of the big score, that makes betting fun, but I contend, not as much fun as actually cashing other wagers frequently, at least for most horse players.  Jackpot bets, because they are everywhere, hinder the maximum potential fun a horse player can have.

Finally, the smart money generally comes into play on mandatory payout days.  This is because many horse players like value.  Mandatory payout days usually turn into pools that make for a positive takeout situation (or at least close enough).  And the non value hunters will still be attracted to the big pool expectation regardless, hoping to be one of the potentially very few to hit it. This shows tracks need to cut to the chase quicker or look for wagers that will attract the same or more that Jackpot bets do, without the Jackpot.  

It is refreshing to see NYRA going back to the traditional Pick 6, hopefully more racetracks will follow, but here is where Arlington comes in:

Arlington offers a slew of gimmick bets. A Pick 6, a Pick 7, a Jackpot Hi 5, and a Pick 8.  Too many, if you ask me, but they may be onto something with a non Jackpot Pick 8.

It is a 20 cent base with a 15% takeout. Most of what is wagered is carried over if no one gets 8 winners. Those who hit 7 winners (or 6 winners if nobody hits 7) get a consolation payout.  I think their consolation prize ratio should be higher than it currently is, but that is different story. 

Assuming the average winner's chance of finishing first being at 4-1 (varies with field size), it is 25 times more difficult to hit than a Pick 6.   

The carryover currently stands at over $70,000.  The thing is that nobody has had 8 winners for 8 consecutive racing days.  This kind of proves the degree of difficulty.  A carryover pool of over 50k attracted almost $25,000 in new money yesterday. Over 120,000 of combos that didn't have 8 winners.

  I'm thinking handle numbers could be much higher if the Pick 8 wasn't just unique to Arlington and horseplayers became used to the wager at various other tracks.  Also, if Arlington were rid itself of the Jackpot Hi 5 which ties up lots of potential churn as well as their Pick 6 and Pick 7 which don't seem to gain much build up or traction.

Surely, you'll start seeing some huge carryovers in no time from some of the A tracks.  And the B and C tracks can offer something more reasonable than Jackpot wagers.  A Pick 8 with a decent carryover causes value players to handicap the entire card.  

Without hurting the potential larger carryovers too much, larger consolidation payouts should be considered. Maybe 30% of the new money collectively divided equally to those who have 6 winners and those who have 7.  This increases the potential churn.

This also leads me to an alternative for the Jackpot Hi 5.  I'm all for ridding the racing world of this wager, but if a track wants to offer a potential big payout for an individual wager, make it a less attainable Hexafecta  non Jackpot bet, where the player has to pick the first 6 finishers in the exact order.  This should lead to a lot of carryovers, but it will be hit a lot more than the Jackpot bets finally are, putting money in player's hands a lot quicker.

I'm not concerned about calling the Hexafecta anything but that.  However, I kind of would like the Pick 8 to be called The Spider (Octopus has too many syllables, it doesn't feel right rolling off the tongue).

North American Harness Tracks Takeouts (Updated)

 

Horse Racing Questions (That Have Terrible Answers)

OK, here we go again. This blog post will change nothing, but here are some horse racing related questions that currently have terrible answers: 

Why can the Olympics time each runner accurately to the 1/100th of a second, but horse racing can't? 

Why do run ups exist especially when it comes to dirt/Tapeta racing?  

Why are some trainers still "risking it" with designer drugs? 

Why are there track takeouts north of 15%? 

Why do jackpot bets exist? 

Why are there inquiries that last more than 5 minutes? 

Why does one have to claim a horse prior to a race and not after the race? 

Why are horses allowed to breed before they reach 6 years old? 

Why is it legal for a grown adult to carry a gun in public in Texas, but that same person can't make a legal horse racing bet online? 

Why do big name trainers, who pretty much train in name only at some tracks, not have a reasonable limit to how many horses they can train nationwide? 

Why aren't there universal rules when it comes to fines and penalties, and betting?

Why isn't there a nationwide horse racing lottery?

Why doesn't a national betting exchange exist for win and show bets with a 4% takeout?

Who Is Racing and When Will Racing Start Up Worldwide and some Track Takeout Info (Updated)

Currently the following tracks are racing Updated April 11th:

US Tracks
Fonner Park - season ends May 4th
Tampa Bay Downs - season ends May 3rd
Oaklawn Park - season ends May 2nd
Gulfstream Park - season is year long
Los Alamitos Quarter horses - season is year long
Remington Park Quarter horses - season ends May 30th
Will Rogers - season ends May 23rd

There is no racing going on in Canada, and no harness racing going on in North America

Foreign Tracks
Australia both Thoroughbreds and Harness are continuing to race
Takeout rates: WPS 16.8% ExQuinDD 24.8% SupP3P4 26.3% Tri 27.8%
Sweden Harness racing
Takeout rates: WPS 15% QuinEx 20% Double 25% Tri 30% V75 35%
Hong Kong Thoroughbred Racing
Takeout rates: WPQuinOmni 17.5% Tri 25%
Japan Thoroughbred Racing
Takeout rates: WP 20% P3P4 27% All Other 25%

Now the hard part. When will racing begin again?:

UK Racing is suspended until at least the end of April.
Irish Racing is suspended until at least May 4th.
South African Racing is suspended until at least April 16th. Still no word, and with no entries, expect a further delay.
Singapore Racing is suspended at least until May 4th
France Racing is suspended until at least April 15th, but that date is expected to extended. No update.
South Korea is slated to return April 18th. No update.
New Zealand is suspended to at least least April 22nd No update


North American racing is a complete guessing game. Even though racing without the presence of crowds seems workable, many tracks survive because of gaming revenues. Until casinos are back
in business, horse racing may be further delayed in states like Pennsylvania, New York, Louisiana and Ohio. Those states are currently hot spots as far as the virus goes. The bright side is that states definitely want casinos back as quickly as possible because of the revenues casinos generate, but how realistic is it to open up slots and table games with social distancing going on?

Horsemen have made their case as well. The longer this goes on, the more the bills (unpaid?) mount, and the longer horses will need to train to get into horse racing shape if they are taken out of training for financial reasons.

California should be the first to initiate a new A meet (Los Alamitos is currently running). They are not dependent on casino revenues in California. If a handful of tracks open up in the rest of
the US, they might actually attract enough wagering dollars to pay for the show, but too many tracks running will make it impossible for casino dependent tracks to operate successfully. Once the curve flatten look for A racing to begin at Los Alamitos, Del Mar or Santa Anita. Cal Expo's spring meet has officially been cancelled.

Ontario racing is trickier as funds are already allotted to horse racing in lieu of gaming revenues, as tracks don't need slots to race. Right now, Ontario is in strict lock down, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Fort Erie is planning to open up their backstretch as scheduled on April 12th and they still believe they will be racing live late May. Woodbine looks like they won't start up until at least the middle of June, maybe early July, but that is a fluid situation. Late May might be an achievable date for Ontario harness racing. More than likely, horse racing will happen in Ontario before it happens in British Columbia and Alberta, but once racing does start up in Ontario, the other provinces will be pressured to start up shortly thereafter.

Coronavirus Predictions

When it comes to the Coronavirus, nobody knows for sure, but there sure as heck isn't a shortage of opinions and predictions, so let me join the party.

I think the biggest hint we got was yesterday. And it wasn't from someone hoping churches are filled Easter Day, it was the details of the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit. For a government to dole out $2,000 per affected worker as a one shot deal is a big thing, but to give it out for four months is a huge thing. The government is telling us that much of the economy is going to be in the dumps for at least 4 months. They could have said three months, and many people would have been equally relieved (relative relief that is vs. no bail out).

The Woodbine Entertainment CEO kinda sorta put out an unofficial hopeful date of July 1 as the start up date for Woodbine's thoroughbred season with lots of caveats added. It could be sooner, it could be next year as well. I think that the date will depend on what happens in the UK but mostly in the US. Will Gulfstream and Tampa Bay Downs and Santa Anita continue to run without a major backstretch outbreak of positives (not talking Navarro positives....actually the positives didn't exist because he was using grey area magic to win races....but that is another can of performance enhancer worms horse racing will have to deal with very soon) or a government shutdown order?

Can the backstretch maintain the 6 foot social distancing rule enough? How important is horse racing really? Does it really have the agriculture industry impact it states it has? We'll see if racing starts up again in Ohio and Pennsylvania in April. Many are hoping for early April. I doubt it in most cases. I strongly believe we are going to see some ugly numbers when it comes to Coronavirus casualties just before the flattening of the curve (I really hope I'm wrong, but science is usually right). And factoring in March break returnees and the fact the States were late to react and Canada was even later, I think it might take until the last week of April to see that flattening, maybe a little longer in Canada.

On a more optimistic note, Singapore has found a way to keep their casino open, and I think it is a pretty fair bet that the virus has a better chance to spread in a casino than a horsemen only racetrack. Governments love casinos. If they could keep them open they would. And in a lot of jurisdictions horse racing exists only because of casino revenue. This is making me think that much of the decision to not let races go on without people in the stands is tied into when is a reasonable date to open up the casinos.

I'm predicting late April, early May for racing in North America to wind back in gear without people in the stands. I expect to see the UK back up third week of April. After all, horse racing is the only game in town (too bad even if they were running right now and for those few tracks running, the game just won't catch on because of the high rake mo matter how little competition there is).

With Churchill Downs announcing the Kentucky Derby's September date, I wonder if that opens the door for a later date going forward. Not September but maybe July or August. I think it would be good for the game. More durable horses, more mature horses to choose from, a race with a lot more quality. We might not get the quality this year due to the stoppage, but if this was a normal year with a later Derby, well you get my point.

Where Does Horse Racing Go From Here?

Horse racing has an uphill battle going forward. The biggest problem has nothing to do with horse safety, it has to do with horse racing's inability to attract new Horseplayers.

With a base that is literally starting to die off, there doesn't seem to be many replacements willing to learn the game. After blowing a near monopoly when it comes to online gambling for years and years, I don't see how horse racing can compete with sports betting. Gamblers looking for home runs can take 5 or 6 team parlays instead of betting Pick 4s or Pick 5s.

Horse racing know nothings say things like "the time between races is a deterrent to growth." Yet a football game, with 8-10 minutes of actual play in a game that takes 3 hours to finish, attracts oodles and oodles of action, and it even gets millennials, with their shortened attention spans, to take up gambling.

Know nothings will also say that horse racing is too complicated. When I was 4, I understood what a win bet was. Blue haired ladies without a racing form can figure out how to make and get paid on a show bet. OK, I couldn't figure out how to figure out show prices until I was 10 (this was before net pool pricing made it so you need a degree in math to figure out show prices).

The reason horse racing doesn't grow is really simple. I've stated it on this blog many many many times, but here I go once more: HORSE RACING NEEDS VISIBLE LONG TERM WINNERS IN ORDER GROW.

Of course, it boils down to ridiculously high track takeouts. How can any person reasonably believe that you can make money in a high churn gambling game that takes an average of 20-21% on all monies wagered? Even if you are "lucky" enough to be receiving a 5% rebate, it isn't realistic that one could beat a takeout of 15%. In the past, it might have been possible. Back when it was the only game in town (before lotteries and slots), there was enough dummy money (in the 60s and early 70s, a large chunk of players didn't even use a form when they made a bet) in the pools to possibly eke out long term profits. Today, just about all the money in the daily pools come from handicappers who could pass a university level course in horse racing.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a fix on pricing on the horizon. Probably why I'm so pessimistic. How can horse racing possibly attract new blood without stories of how Johnny Smith made enough money betting on horses that he moved out of his parent's basement and into a detached home in Forest Hill (in Toronto, Google it).

There are a couple of ways keep takeout high on exotics and attract newbies, but lets look at things horse racing is doing now, that won't work.

Jackpot bets don't grow the game. They most likely help kill the game. Tying up money that goes to one big winner eventually kills churn, and therefore whittles away at the Horseplayer's potential fun. It isn't worth the fun of hoping to hit the bet. The reason the Jackpot came along was to attract newbies, it hasn't worked, but now it has evolved as a way to compete with other tracks in getting the Horseplayer to play the track with a big pool. Short term thinking by racetracks at the expense of cutting long term growth has plagued horse racing for decades.

The underhanded whip is going way too far. I'm all for the safety of the horse and jockey, but having jockeys whip underhanded won't cut down fatalities. Horse racing is worried about perception, but changing the way a jockey whips a horse isn't going to attract one new bettor (it is still whipping anyway). The one's on the outside complaining of the cruelty of horse racing wouldn't bet if cyborgs replaced horses. The softer whip and restriction of the amount of times a horse can be whipped is the way to go. It should stop there. And at least give those two new rules a chance to show some long term results before putting jockeys (especially those who have been at it for a long time) in a position to switch the way they are used to doing things. From a handicapping perspective, I have less confidence when I know the jockeys are doing something they are not used to. Just educate the public on the softer whip, end of story.

I do think that changing to artificial surfaces is necessary to keep the game alive. Horse fatalities are an issue that could be the final nail in the coffin for the industry (see Florida greyhound racing). No matter how much one hates to handicap races on Tapeta (I don't mind it), you can't argue that Tapeta surfaces produce less deaths. A soft tissue injury isn't the same thing as a dead horse no matter how you look at it. There is no way to eliminate all deaths in horse racing, but cutting down the number should be a thing to do.

Drugs and super trainers who may be using them on horses hurt the game. Owners bring out newbies to the track. Some could start betting, some could enter the game as new owners in a partnership. When super trainers dominate, owners start to disappear. You can't claim from them, and you don't want to drop a horse in for a win knowing you might face one of their horses who has a great chance of beating you, and to top it off, you lose your horse to the super trainer outfit.

When it comes to drugs and the growing the game with everyday Horseplayers, I don't think overall handle is hurt, but one might stop wagering at one track in favor of others. Eliminating drugs by itself won't help grow the game. Now, if you lower takeout enough to create visible winners, getting rid of drugs will be demanded by the newer players.

What Can Horse Racing Do To Attract New Players?

Here is what I wrote 7 years ago:

NATION-WIDE LOTTERY

A great way to get more customers is to have a nation wide lottery where tickets can be bought at store kiosks, online at ADWs (the races involved must be carried by all ADWs), and at all tracks, there should be no reason why someone who wants to buy a ticket can't. The lottery should go once a week (Saturdays). A Pick 8. Field size must be large in order to possibly have carryovers, so races need to picked with weather reports in mind.

A website should be created with free past performances for all the races involved. A quick sheet giving the top contenders for each race should be available at tracks and store kiosks. Players can do quick picks, contender quick picks, or pick their own. Consolation prizes can be awarded to those who pick the most winners on carryover days, or the second most winners when the pool is won, as well as those who pick the first four or last four winners, thus keeping the player's interest alive for many of the races.

A nation-wide lottery a sure fire way to get more people introduced to horse racing.

If the nation-wide jackpots are high enough, I see no reason why people who have little understanding when it comes to handicapping, won't take a shot at a quick pick, and then eventually some will try to learn a bit more and who knows, maybe bet the odd individual race eventually.

The other way to attract newbies is with a low takeout exchange for win and show wagering. It can't just be Jersey. Liquidity is needed. Horse racing is perfect for exchange wagering. Newbies, you know the ones with the short term attention span will love it. The constant cashing will give the casual player the illusion that long term winning is just a little more work away, and there will be actual long term winners created. I think exchange betting should eliminate parimutuel pools for win place and show in a perfect world. Bottom line on WPS for tracks will most likely increase if done correctly and I believe that it will create more players getting involved in parimutuel exotic wagering as the game becomes more popular.

Horse racing can continue to go with the status quo: shrinking handle, especially taking inflation and population growth into account, or they can get with the program. Unfortunately, if horse racing's history read like a past performance chart, it would appear that a super trainer wouldn't even attempt to touch this horse.

My Two Cents On The Kentucky Derby DQ

The Kentucky Derby is a throw the ref whistle away race. With 19 or 20 young horses going a mile and a quarter, you have to expect infractions. Throw in a wet track, and it is next to impossible not to have cutting off, herding, checking, etc. Watch any Derby replay ever run and find me a race where no infractions occurred. Heck, watch the 18 horse during the first furlong and the havoc he causes.

The Stewards know this is a throw the whistle away race going in. This is why they didn't put up an inquiry, in fact, objections in the Derby are rare. To my knowledge, the Stewards have not initiated any of them.

Had a jockey claim of foul not been made on Saturday, I contend that 99% of horse racing's fans and bettors would be completely content with Maximum Security, the best horse in the race by far, winning the race, even if an analyst or two pointed out that there was a possible infraction. The analysts would be able to say that an inquiry wasn't called because "it is the Kentucky Derby, historically an aggressively ridden race, this year on a sloppy racetrack." And you know what? That would have been fine and true.

Had that happened, the biggest debate among gamblers would be the magical re-breaking of Maximum Security at the head of the stretch. Many might be speculating on the drug results. Not too many people care about that right now. Just an aside, the newbies would be seeing the re-breaking as the signs of a super horse. It would actually be good for horse racing in the short term.

But there was a claim of foul. The jockeys who claimed foul put the Stewards between a rock and a hard place. An obvious infraction in high definition. Believe me, I can't begrudge their decision even though I disagree with it. Now, instead of 99% of people happy with the best horse winning the race, only around 50% are happy what's his name was placed first.

There is a lot of subjectivity going around. Did War of Will herd a horse or two making his way to the outside? Did he initiate contact with Maximum Security causing the shift in the first place? Or did Maximum security shy away from reflections on the track or was he spooked by the crowd? The last two possibilities were obviously not good enough excuses to keep in first place ONCE THE FOUL WAS CALLED.

Again, this decision wasn't cut and dry, that is why it took so long to reach a verdict.

I'm from the school that if a unanimous decision can't be made within three minutes, let the results stand. I know there are quite a few who are in the take as much time as you want to get it right camp, I just disagree. I also disagree with interviewing the jockeys. Do basketball or football refs interview the players when doing play reviews?

So what happens next? I think a pretty rough precedence has been set. More claims of foul are going to be made and more horses are going to be thrown out, even in big races. And the Kentucky Derby could become a big casualty because of the all the infractions that happen in the most exciting two minutes in sports.

The smart thing to do will be to reduce the field size to 14 starting next year. I don't think it will hurt betting by doing that. It might hurt premium seating a bit because 6 less connections will show up on Derby day, but that is a small price to pay to avoid ruining the Derby going forward.

What Is Cheating In Horse Racing?

When I see accusations that a trainer with a high win percentage cheats I have to ask "What Is Cheating?" There is lots of buzz lately, both pro and con, due to a recent Sun article. The article doesn't really define what cheating is or where the line is drawn. It is hard to cheat when you can't define what cheating is. Cheating of course includes overages and jockeys using buzzers, but what else does cheating include?

Let me bore you with my thoughts.

I recently conducted an unscientific poll on Twitter. The results were the opposite of what I expected:

Horse racing has banned substances, but no list of approved substances. If a trainer uses a substance that may enhance a horse's performance but it is not a banned substance, is it cheating?

— Cangamble (@Cangamble) December 17, 2018

This illustrates how subjective cheating in horse racing is.

My definition of a super trainer is someone who wins a very high percentage of races. I'll go one step further. I've watched thousands of races in my lifetime and the one thing I've noticed about recent super trainers is the way their horses tend to have a second wind during the stretch run, as if they were buzzed or as if an oxygen tank was turned on mid stretch causing the horse to rebreak.

I've written about super trainers as far back as 9 years ago. It is a fact that some (many?) trainers push the envelope and try new things, things that aren't tested for. We know that, because some have been "caught" doing that. But where is the line when it comes to cheating?

Trainers can use non banned supplements to build a horse up. Is that cheating?

Trainers can use drugs that aren't being tested for to do the same. Is that cheating?

Trainers can use hyperbaric oxygen chambers to build up a horse. Is that cheating?

Trainers can use shock waves or acupuncture to lessen pain. Is that cheating?

What about using plant derivatives to kill pain or increase red blood cell counts? Is that cheating?

I hope you see where I'm coming from. Here is where I'm getting at:

I'm not sure about just going the hay and oats way, but in order to curb "cheating" there has to be a definitive list of approved drugs and treatments. Anything not on the list would count as cheating.
Will that stop cheating? It depends on the on the consequences when one gets caught. Right now, there isn't much of a deterrence out there. How can there be under today's guidelines and rules?

Harness Racing Track Takeout Chart

This chart was recently published in HANA's free e-magazine Horseplayer Monthly.

Horse Racing Fixes That Won't Happen, Queen's Plate Picks

I've been doing this blog for quite some time. I've identified horse racing's biggest problems and offered numerous solutions but very few take. It is very frustrating, but what the heck, I have a few minutes of spare time, so lets play the broken record again.

TAKEOUT

People have many choices when it comes to gambling, from casinos to lottery tickets to fantasy sports. Let's pretend you didn't have a clue about horse racing and decided to investigate it. With a little sleuthing you found out that for every $100 bet, the track only pays out $79. If you were a sane rational human being, would you need to investigate any further? Even compared to fantasy sports where the takeout is around 11%-12% (it used to be 9-11%), horse racing's takeout is far too high to create any sort of buzz.

Can someone become a professional horseplayer anymore and work their way from their mom's basement to Rosedale mansion? Of course not. Horse racing doesn't even try to give you that impression anymore, they've given up on it because it would be an outright lie. Poker and fantasy sports had their success stories, and those very few success stories brought thousands of new players in. News of success stories in gambling have fizzled out as the house advantage as been forced up in the past few years due to extraordinary costs (legal, state licensing, taxes, etc.) gambling companies have had to endure. This hinders growth considerably.

There is no way any horse racing wager should have a takeout of more than 15%, 12% tops for win place and show. But this will never happen because horse racing execs only think short term, as do horsemen groups which have influence on takeout rates in many jurisdictions. Even players who have no clue what the takeout rate is, look into their empty wallet and realize how quickly it was emptied and how little action they had for their buck compared to most other forms of gambling.

With sports betting (average takeout 5%) on the immediate horizon, horse racing is in a heap of trouble.

LASIX

I watched the entire Congressional Hearings on the Horseracing Integrity Act. I'm still not comfortable with horse racing being one word, but besides that, the hearing was pretty much about Lasix.
Elimination of race day Lasix is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the proper simple case was not made.

Fact is that horses have one third the lifetime starts that they used to before Lasix became widespread legal. There are other factors besides Lasix which have caused the decline in starts, such as trainers who charge more pick and choose races to keep their averages up, good horses retiring way too early, and a weakening of the breed (which can be linked to Lasix and other drugs).

Yes, other methods to prevent bleeding were used in the old days, but they were mostly only used on known bleeders. But lets say that the 5% of horse who really need race day Lasix are taken out of racing altogether. You end up with 90-95% averaging double or triple the amount of lifetime starts they have today. Think of the field sizes and bigger field sizes means more betting.

Lasix and other drugs drains horses. Back in the 60's and early 70's horse could easily race once a week. Not anymore.

And contrary to what some drug dependent trainers and their owners might say, Lasix has been used historically to mask other drugs. Of course, this would be drugs that are tested for. No need to mask drugs not tested for.

Problem is that most of the biggest barns do not want to change the status quo. They are on top, and any changes to what is legal and what isn't will most likely mean they won't be on top anymore.
And of course vets don't want to lose their cash cow. Just administering Lasix on race day is a multi million dollar business in North America on its own, and if you add in the other part of the kitchen sink super trainers like to throw into a horse's system prior to a race, including drugs that may be masked, vets make out very good. It won't be so good, if race day drugs are banned.

DRUGS AND SUPER TRAINERS

Pretty obvious that if a trainer hits at 25% or greater running against field sizes that average 7 or more, they are using stuff that isn't being tested for. There are only so many ways to train a horse, and it only seems logical that a trainer with 4 horses who is putting in the work, should at least be on the same playing field as a trainer who has 100+ horses and rarely shows up at the track where the horse races.

Horse racing "cheaters" seem to be a step above the testers, even though they are a step behind cheating bicyclists and body builders. As long as Lasix is allowed, testing horses after a race is futile. The ones who are knowingly pushing the limits on legal drugs or banned drugs, pretty much know they won't get a positive. Save money, only test the winners. What is really needed is a list of drugs that trainers can use and they have to stick to those drugs ONLY. If caught using anything else, fines and suspensions need to hurt them. There needs to be a deterrent. I also think there should be more money devoted to ANONYMOUS narcs.

Something needs to be done, as owners are getting more and more discouraged when they lose to that guy/gal. We all know who that guy is. Every track has a few that guys. And the thing is that owners are good to grow the game. They bring new people to the track: Potential owners and bettors. I actually think this is one issue that racetracks support.

Ban race day Lasix and stop testing horses that don't win after a race, and maybe use those funds for retired horses and injured jockey. Sounds good to me.

HARNESS RACING

They've had ample chance and time to reduce takeout and try to lure thoroughbred players. Handle generally sucks for most tracks and the overwhelming majority of purse money for these tracks comes from slots. But for some unknown reason, they won't adopt my maximum 15% takeout rule.

What else can be done? Free past performances will help a lot. If every harness track had free past performances with decent speed figures (yeah I know speed figures aren't as good in Standardbred racing, but we are talking crossover gamblers now).

Another thing they can do at 1/2 or 5/8th tracks is to have separate draws for post positions. I've proposed this before as well. Crickets. How this works is horses who finished first at the same class or greater last two races, along with horses who finished 2nd last race same condition or greater and droppers who finished 4th or better last start all draw for the worst post positions while all the other horses draw for the best positions (


QUEEN'S PLATE PICKS

I used to be good at picking the winner in the Queen's Plate. Lately, not so good. I think the last winner I picked was Edenwold back in 2006. This year I'm banking on the Due Theory

I've got the race down to "only" 6 contenders. Here they are in program order:

7. Dixie Moon - beat a tough filly last time out. That race may cause a bounce, and something tells me the distance may prevent a top race by her.
9. Say The Word - looks like one who will like the distance. Speed figs put him right in the mix, and his odds should be more than decent. Trainer Motion knows what he is doing. We might just see a peak performance today.
10. Telekinesis - Lumbered to victory in the Trial. His running style might be compromised with post 10, and the distance might be too far. I don't see value but figs are good enough.
11. Wonder Gadot- Her Kentucky Oaks speed fig destroys this field, but it destroyed the field in the Oaks as well, and she lost. She has had three tough races in a row where she has been the bridesmaid. Do you want to take your chances on a win shy filly in 35 degrees Celsius heat? If she is less than 9-2, probably not.
15. Aheadbyacentury - He was racing for third in the Trial and got it. Galloped out well. The distance shouldn't be an issue, and he has arguably the best Woodbine jockey aboard. With a good trip he could be right there at a really nice price.
16. Rose's Vision - Second best in the Trial. The post position should hurt his chances today due to his running style, but his speed figures give him a chance if he has a peak race in him.

I'm going to go for value and make Aheadbyacentury my pick.