Inflated fields – assessing the consequences about to unfold

The new racing season will be an opportunity to assess the impact of RacingNSW paying at least $3,500 for horses running down to 10th in most races on Saturdays.

That the intention to inflate the size of race-fields will be achieved is beyond question – the issues are about the consequences.

Horses not ready to do their best will be having preparatory runs in races rather than in trials.  This matters if, as often, can’t-wins clutter and disrupt the fair running of a race, impeding the free-running of favoured horses.

It is beyond question that the losers in this deal will be most punters and the owners of the better horses – most punters will find that the form guide is less relevant and owners there to win will run into interference from those not.

The beneficiaries, of a contrived policy to inflate fields, comprise a de-facto cartel – it ranges through administrators taking more money from increased TAB and bookmaker betting turnover; corporate bookmakers (now racing sponsors) taking fixed-odds bets from punters more likely to lose; trainers and jockeys having expanded employment opportunities;  owners of low-grade horses getting a better chance of recovering costs; syndicate betting operations given rebates to plunder TAB pools and, not least,  state governments feeding racing-tax revenues, that first belong in the public purse, directly to racing -- including to subsidize racing in rural areas that has no chance of covering costs.

The mantra of ‘too much racing being never enough’ is flawed.

The consequences of this consensus assault on the pockets of most punters will unfold as the $3,500 inducement to ‘just give a horse a run’ kicks in.

Wait for it: more race outcomes will become ‘rough’ and dividends declared for many race outcomes will look more like a lotto-strike than a race running true to form – especially for trifecta, first-four and quadrella bets.

The way these predictably unfair outcomes unfold in NSW will be told every Saturday – as they have been for Melbourne metropolitan racing for some time now.

My prescient ‘cautions for Melbourne’ now embrace ‘cautions for Sydney’.

Yet again Mair displays his lack of knowledge regarding racing

There are no entry fees for races below black type -- at most there is a fee of $200 for a scratching.

Peter

I have been involved in bookmarking for a long while and your premise is wrong on 2 counts

1. Every year our worst performing tracks in terms of revenue are small tracks. Punters are better able to map and are harder to betat. Margin is always best at Randwick, Flemington and Eagle Farm.

2. Punters want BIG fields.

They have voted with their wallets. We always hold mor money and write more bets in fields ofv12 plus. Under 8 horse fields and people don’t bet.

Peter

I have been involved in bookmarking for a long while and your premise is wrong on 2 counts

1. Every year our worst performing tracks in terms of revenue are small tracks. Punters are better able to map and are harder to betat. Margin is always best at Randwick, Flemington and Eagle Farm.

2. Punters want BIG fields.

They have voted with their wallets. We always hold mor money and write more bets in fields ofv12 plus. Under 8 horse fields and people don’t bet.

That is probably because it is shoved down their throats there is more value in big fields when we all know that is not necessarily the case.

Wily is my saviour

The rumour that I am paying the wily-one to promote common sense is not true.

                                 ..... inexplicably he has dedicated his influence to endorsing what I say.

Why are big fields better,

The answer is the take out.

In big fields the chances of parts of the market being incorrectly priced goes up and it is this error area that gives punters a chance of profit.

The smaller the field the the less chance for errors.

There is a strong possibility that the more jammed packed the days racing program is the more chance of errors in the market as well.

As long as a punter concentrates on their niche, jammed packed racing days of big fields helps them make a profit.

Fours

This is true

In big fields the chances of parts of the market being incorrectly priced goes up and it is this error area that gives punters a chance of profit.

The problem is that the 'punters' taking advantage of any miss-pricing are the big-betting, rebate-getting syndicates that do while the 'most punters' are disadvantaged.

That's why it is important that TABs show the distribution of TAB pools by the  class of punter -- big and small --that get which share of the dividends, in total and proportionate to the value of bets staked.

...... big fields are the nemesis of  time-precious punters relying on the form guide -- and a Santa Claus for the professionals.

[ .......... as for the wily-one ...... today was a remarkably good day for those betting at what is usually a vale-of-tears.........one day among few.]

An inept and lazy one observes

Compared to the results for the comparable meetings in SY and MN there is no reason to be especially wary -- but 'straight' and 1400m races at Flemington are always risky.

My experience is that TAB is 'best' when tempted to bet in the pre-post fixed odds market.

It seems that the corporates are scared to be exposed until late in the day when the market is being fine tuned.

Even then it is rare to get more than a marginal advantage with a corporate just shading the TAB offers -- for that reason Iam inclined to say that the corporates should be 'taxed' at TAB rates lest they just make profit at the expense of all others.

TAB v other corporates

Thank you Arthur.

My concern with the 'others' is the poor odds before Saturday until the market firms.

At that point, the 'others' can see their book and blow out the prices on longshots -- but TAB, needing to pretend they all have a chance, encourages punters to put some of those longshots in their exotic bets.

There are problems in mixing 'tote' and 'fixed odds' betting  -- the big problem being the shift to inflated fields and rough results benefiting bookmakers and syndicates.

The 'worry races' are the three 'straight races -- 2, 5 & 7 -- and the three 1400 m races -- 3,4 & 8 -- with inflated fields when barriers are important.

Well, will Mair attempt to put his case forward in an honest manner.

One doubts his ability to.

R3 saw the barriers of no relevance and a trouble free race with the best horse on the day winning

R4= a trouble free race with punters cheering home the 4-1 2nd favourite

R8= Another trouble free race making a joke of Mairs claims.

Ditto the straight races that proved to be a punters delight as they clean up again

so you agree that the 1400m races had no interference that affected the result despite your claims pre race meeting