Some people would complain that NYRA, by hiring Roberts, has placed an expensive and unnecessary step between them and the fans that they serve. Other people would incorrectly assume that the highly-paid executives of NYRA should know what to do because of their own capabilities. Still others might argue that there are plenty of professionals already suited to serve Roberts’s purposes right under their noses – Sheikh Mohammed restored Greentree with local talent. And there are others, specifically those who have tried to bring much-needed change to a place where change isn’t wanted, that are perfectly comfortable with NYRA’s decision to bring a stranger in – in fact, they are thankful.
“Until you know that you don’t know, you don’t know,” was the advice of Aristotle, the father of metacognition. John W. Santrock, a professor and the former chair of Psychology at the University of Texas at Dallas, defined metacognition as “knowing about knowing.” Wisdom comes only after we become wise enough to understand that we don’t know everything. Having someone on the outside to fill you in on what you don’t know is a practice that’s prudent. On the other hand, not knowing squared produces compounded stupidity.
One issue that’s been wrought by intellectual narcissism is the debate over takeout. Many gamblers, having scant idea of how much money it takes to run a racetrack, are convinced that the handle would grow and shed bigger proceeds for operating the track if less money was taken from the pari-mutuel pools. They use examples where this has been true for short periods of time to make their argument. But they refrain from explaining how the benefits that flow from a buck bet are to be met if their proposition is faulty.
The argument over exchange wagering provides a similar example. Opponents of exchange wagering worry that the popular scheme will scalp the pools that exist, leaving the tracks even more wanting than they are from the rake that they take from wagers made away from their premises. Proponents rightfully say that exchange wagering is the boost that the sport needs to attract young people, provide a fairer shake to the faithful, and make horse racing a more attractive alternative to games of chance that subtract dough from their players slower. Both proponents and opponents would be better off by leaving the decisions to experts.
Granted, the experts haven’t always performed expertly. Horse racing’s behind the times, fraught with entanglements caused by its own doing and appearing unable to reach consensus on anything – a little like Washington, perhaps. But takeout rates, exchange wagering, casino partnerships, legislation liaison and a plethora of other preoccupations that get the public’s ire up are not petty annoyances that will disappear at the wave of a wand. Coincidentally, it’s worth noting that a lack of intelligence and experience was not the cause of these troubles. It is, for the most part, a short-sighted view to make money at any cost that threatens the sport with extinction.
Malcolm Gladwell, the author of Outliers, wrote that 10,000 hours of practice are needed before you can claim to have mastered a field. Even geniuses in the three fields where child prodigies exist – mathematics, music and chess – require long periods during which they are deeply immersed in a subject before becoming fully developed in it. It is ridiculous to believe that people with experience on only one side of an issue can provide dogmatic positions with ultimate confidence on issues that have many sides.
The changing landscape of what constitutes sport, including horse racing, has created a news environment that’s made practitioners stretch beyond their experience. Last week, Alex Waldrop trotted out an old NTRA research study that claimed one of four US adults are fans of the sport and that five million unique individuals visit a track or an OTB facility twice monthly – a mathematical conclusion that no research professional or fool with an abacus could support. Turf writers, with the sufficiently-developed skills to break a horse race down, interview its participants or recognize the stories that would intrigue readers, often veer recklessly into debates about business, legislation, finance and marketing for which they’re unprepared to participate. Bloggers, thrilled by the ability to have their own voices heard, produce monologues that amount to white noise, rarely accepted with respect because they lack depth and substance.
Aside from publications such as The Blood-Horse and Thoroughbred Times, where the wherewithal exists to hire a specialist to cover the business side of the industry, the breeding side and the racing side, there aren’t many public forums where an opinion on all these topics are legitimate. Reckless opinions fly like flak, wounding those who happen to be targets. The cacophony of a million words colliding in cyberspace has become content for the masses - who, like the character George VI in The King’s Speech, say a mouthful when they can’t hear themselves think.
Vic Zast posts bits about horse racing and other things on Facebook and Twitter.



14 Feb 2011 at 07:54 am | #
Speaking of experts, I’m no expert on literature, but allow me to paraphrase Shakespeare. “A Psycho Talk by any other name would smell as rancid.”
Those who believe that so called experts tell the truth about what they believe, when they have financial entanglements where their very existence is at stake, are fools. True experts are few and far between, and of those men, finding those who will risk their livelihood by speaking the truth, are fewer and further between. I read somwhere that the definition of an expert, or specialist, is knowing more and more about less and less, and it seems, in this layman’s opinion, that from the majority of persons holding themselves out as experts in the racing industry, much less.
Certainly, opinions are like anal orifices, everybody has one, but if you are looking for the truth, you can most often find it from a man whose love of money has not perverted his love of the truth, and I personally have found more truth from unknown persons on the internet, than from pedantic, pompous, vituperative writers with slightly above-average vocabularies.
Received an e-mail from Equibase yesterday advocating a big carryover at Santa Anita. Query, are their any individuals out there with financial entanglements with Equibase that have been advocating the Santa Anita boycott? If so, shame on you.
Hopefully, there are individuals out there who will put this information in their paddock, and saddle it.
TTT
14 Feb 2011 at 08:41 am | #
On occassion, I am drawn to this blog only to read the comments made by TTT.
Because, I don’t think the primary writer of this blog, ( yes, sir you are a blogger too!) has logged his 10,000 hours anywhere near a race horse.And I don’t mean sitting in an office at a racetrack.I could be very wrong and if so, please set me straight.
With that,I wish you, in all your splendid metacognificence, a fine Valentine’s Day and a splendid week!
14 Feb 2011 at 09:45 am | #
The game has been guided by “experts” for decades. And it is swirling down the toilet.
You state that those who are asking for low takeout pretty much have no empirical evidence. Well, this is sort of true, unless you use common sense. Blended takeout has risen over the past 15 years (with supers and tris in almost every race), and handle is dropping off the map.
You state that those who are asking for low takeout can only shrug their shoulders if this approach fails in the long term.
Well, the current approach of seeing higher blended rates certainly is not working and is leading to less handle, less purses, and less racing.
Those with experience in horse racing for the most part are those who have experience in having a short sided view (using your own terms).
We need “experts” looking at the game long term. And racing quite frankly is void of those individuals. So who exactly is supposed to fix horse racing?
14 Feb 2011 at 10:34 am | #
What creates an expert, specialist, or a skilled turf writer in the Thoroughbred racing industry? A seat in the press box, a blog, having been employed by a newspaper? One adroit in writing, clearly not using the dialect of a veteran OTB lowlife?
Well anyway, Thoroughbred racing is declining in popularity rapidly not from takeout issues, not from to much racing, not from the quality of the horse races, not from the lack of ‘stars’, not from the weather, not from the economy, not from run-down facilities, not from rude management/employees, not from the quality of food/service on-track, but from competition for the gambling dollar - specifically casino gambling - and from the inability of racetrack management to promote itself as a gambling venue, management preferring to live in a dream world still believing that the horse is the attraction, not the betting window (I know, I have said all this numerous times at HRI already; unfortunately I am a no-body, not an expert, and OTB lowlife, so it is impossible for me to be right - so say one, so say all).
So, until the first day in May Thoroughbred racing will promote itself by extensive commentary on the potential Kentucky Derby entrants, while a national marketing/advertising program challenging casinos for the gambling dollar remains dormant, and each racetrack goes about its business as if it were the only racetrack in existence.
And the beat goes on .....
14 Feb 2011 at 12:06 pm | #
As TTT so eloquently points out, experts, especially in this arena, often have financial incentives to promote certain viewpoints.
But even if they didn’t, and even if horse racing weren’t in trouble, isn’t continual questioning the very essence of finessing any product, to make it the best it can be?
Scrutiny and questioning usually comes *not* from within. The public has long been the most powerful source of scrutiny in all matters.
Those outside the problem - amateurs, consumers, the naive (incidentally, in racing, the same people to whom the experts must sell the product) - those who do not know everything, are often uniquely qualified to provide the most simple and often the most insightful opinions and questions, if the experts are willing to hear them.
Not to mention, change in racing comes rarely, even at the hands of the pros, let alone as a result of singular outside or public opinion(s).
“It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers.” - James Thurber
14 Feb 2011 at 12:37 pm | #
Someone mentioned earlier on this thread that horse racing has lost its fans to casinos. I can’t imagine a handicapper leaving the game to mindlessly tap a slot machine, or participate in table games facing a a certain house edge on every play. The fans left because of filthy facilities, overpriced concessions, unfriendly employees, but mostly because it is too expensive to bet. The hard core horseplayers I know who no longer participate now wager on sports, mostly with off shore bookmakers. The average take betting horses is about 20 percent, compared with 4 1/2 percent for most sports, and less than 2 percent for baseball. I don’t know how the author seems to know that lower takes will not work, when they have never really been tried. Sure, there have been a few experiments, mostly with on gimmick a day or the like. I do remember when Keeneland wanted to reduce their take on all bets to 16% for a meet, and a group of mid-Atlantic simulcast venues refused to take their signal because their share would be reduced. I would like to see NYRA take at least one half of slot funds they will be getting soon, and use it to reduce take, drastically, on all bets. Try a flat 12 percent on everything for one meet, maybe Saratoga, and see when happens. Why are the fans always left out? Doesn’t Parx Racing currently offer purses of $22,000 for restricted $7500 claimers, and take 31% from tri and super pools? I completely support the boycott of Santa Anita, with their absurd takeout increase in order to offer higher purses for their 4 and 5 horse fields.
14 Feb 2011 at 12:50 pm | #
Vic wrote:
“One issue that’s been wrought by intellectual narcissism is the debate over takeout. Many gamblers, having scant idea of how much money it takes to run a racetrack, are convinced that the handle would grow and shed bigger proceeds for operating the track if less money was taken from the pari-mutuel pools. They use examples where this has been true for short periods of time to make their argument. But they refrain from explaining how the benefits that flow from a buck bet are to be met if their proposition is faulty.”
Vic, are you serious with this paragraph?
You’re basically saying that Horseplayers are ignorant degenerates who should shut up and bet no matter what the cost of a bet is.
Vic, are you familiar with the Dunce Cap? Today you wear it well.
A dunce cap is a conical paper hat, frequently marked with either the letter “D” or the word “dunce,” and formerly used as a method of punishment through public humiliation in classrooms. Students who were slow, lazy, or considered to be stupid were forced to sit in the corner of the classroom with a dunce cap, often on a high stool after being punished physically as well. In some schools, the slower students would also be separated out to a “dunce table,” so that they would not interfere with other students. In most modern schools, students who have difficulty learning are identified as needing special attention, and are usually referred for further evaluation rather than being humiliated with a dunce cap.
The history of the dunce cap is quite interesting, as the cap was originally worn by a group of esoteric philosophers. The dunce cap is related to a 13th century philosopher, John Duns Scotus, native to Scotland. Scotus’ philosophy was extremely complex and difficult to comprehend, but he had a loyal band of followers who came to be known as Dunsmen. In the 16th century, advances in philosophical thought led to a general rejection of the teachings of Scotus, and his followers, the Dunsmen, were ridiculed. The term “dunce” came to be synonymous with “idiot.” Many of his followers resisted advances in thought, leading to the association of obstinateness and slowness with dunces, as well as idiocy.
Thanks,
Andy
14 Feb 2011 at 02:27 pm | #
VZ,
My complaint last week was the absence of style. This week, in my opinion, it is substance that is lacking. Still, your work has inspired your audience to respond with even greater elegance, so perhaps entertainment is more important than enlightenment.
TTT,
Your superb comment above is the latest in a string of outstanding contributions here at HRI. If only your emails were as impressive. The one you sent out today wasn’t exactly a valentine.
AA,
What can I say? You never fail to amaze. Maybe if the dunce-capper were also a handicapper he would prefer dialogue to monologue. How will we ever recognize experts if we don’t interact with them?
14 Feb 2011 at 02:48 pm | #
Vic,
This “white noise” you are referring to just may help save this crumbling industry. That is if the so called “experts” wake the heck up and pay attention.
Without this “white noise” this sport would be dying a slow death. Just be thankful there are still enough “bloggers” to give a crap. There may not be in the near future.
14 Feb 2011 at 03:07 pm | #
Mike, forget the “white noise”. Get the smelling salts out for Vic.
Vic, instead of “let them eat cake” you should just say “let them eat corned beef on rye”.
Now we’re getting somewhere. LOL
14 Feb 2011 at 04:21 pm | #
Dear Indulto:
I’m sorry, at times my anger gets the better of me, but I have stopped beating my wife, so I’m making some progress.
Don’t get me wrong, I love First Dude; my only regret is having used his name in the e-mail, and I hope he will forgive me, and anyone else that I offended.
Also, don’t get me wrong, I’m a horseman’s advocate first and foremost; higher purses are imperative to keep owners, trainers and breeders in the game, but stealing from the public is not how to go about it, and the fascist “take what they give you and shut your mouth attitude” from the CHRB, and their advocates, will probably cause me to lose my temper again, and if unchallenged, will only lead to them raising the takeout again. I guess I’ll leave the diplomacy to the “Experts.”
TTT
14 Feb 2011 at 05:27 pm | #
Who has been running your race tracks if it was not the “experts”
I guess you like the way things are going and advocate more of the same.
I think your “Comments” people are better informed than you are… They can speak for me.
Roger Way
14 Feb 2011 at 07:03 pm | #
I would like to give Mr. Corrow some props today, it being valentine’s day and all. Even though he is a self-confessed broken record, the point he makes (over and over) about competition for the gambling dollar is a valid one. Granted, most sane handicappers never toss money into the mindless sinkhole that is a slot machine, but the MASSES, yes, the mythical masses, the ones in the 1930s-1970s that poured through the turnstiles of race tracks across america (and remember there were far fewer then , and they were not open year round, or offering simulcasting), and bet their $2 on the nose, had only a few other options for gambling--the neighborhood bookie and the back room poker game.
So, yes, Mr. Corrow, stand up on your roof tonight and yell that you are mad as hell because all the turf writers and half their readers just don’t get it.
eric s,
15 Feb 2011 at 01:54 am | #
eric s: Thank you for agreeing with my repetitous and redundant comment that appears at HRI continuously. Like Sinatra sang, I keep butt’in that damn.
What has happened to Thoroughbred racing is so obvious that it is mind-boggling; that the same ole’, same ole’ continues on year-after-year is beyond belief as Thoroughbred racing continues its slide to oblivion.
I wish Mr. Zast and Mr. Christian, and just about all the other turf writers out there, would go to an OTB or racebook and sit-down with the degenerate, lowlifes (the people supporting racing) and ask them what they think of the commentary by turf writers on a) the road to the Kentucky Derby, b) the Eclipse Awards, c) the Travers/Pacific Classic, d) the Breeders’ Cup, and e) the incessant commentary of HOTY; they would have a rude awakening, and probably be interrupted by the comment, “Who do ya like in the next race?”
I know that Mr. Pricci gets it (that racing’s sole attraction is the ability to gamble) but he has been reporting for years on Thoroughbred racing’s owners, trainers, jockeys, thoroughbreds, and stake races to suddenly change direction.
Doubtingthomas: Today, like never before, racetrack facilities are in the best shape ever. Just about all racetracks today are very modern and pristine, as are pretty much all OTB’s and racinos. As eric c infers, the masses departed virtually overnight once Atlantic City came into existence. An excellent example is my daughters, who followed racing with me at one time, but left racing forever once they discovered they could gamble elsewhere. I, and numerous other hardcore horseplayers, still prefer to gamble on the ponies as I have yet to find another gambling vehicle that gives me more enjoyment day-in and day-out.
I cringe daily when I constantly read that Thoroughbred racing needs ‘stars’, and the constant turf writer commentary at websites and in racing newspapers is about a few trainers and their thoroughbreds, when racing (and the ability to gamble) at all racetracks is virtually the same.
16 Feb 2011 at 06:57 am | #
TTT,
Kudos for subsequently trying to play nicer with others. Having also responded there in outrage, myself, I can appreciate your passion. I agree the BS meter was on max as the “Dude” is unlikely to compete for any initially increased overnight purses. However, with one terrifically tenacious terrier already on guard there, certain parties left unmolested by players might find their way to the negotiating table sooner than later.
wmc,
Sadly, your half-hearted first attempt to show turf writers how they might go about promoting racing at all levels and locations (in response to my challenge) was unconvincing. While I agree with – and concede that there has been increasing vocal support for—your contention that gambling is the primary attraction of horse racing, I’m still waiting for the next poster to agree with you that 1) no one can—or be taught how to—tell whether they are watching the running of a G1 stakes race or a lower-level claiming race, 2) today’s readers would actually believe turf writers who continuously promoted all brick and mortar bet-takers as equal opportunity financial health care providers much less shining examples of facility management, and 3) most so-called hard-core bettors have no interest in the Triple Crown or Breeders’ Cup events and their preps which, I believe, is where the “sport” still exists.
I suppose it isn’t surprising that you ignore our fellow broken-record HRI poster, ME, when he contends that gambling on races can’t be successfully promoted without visible winners, and --- you guessed it – the higher the takeout, the fewer visible winners. Expertise or common sense?
I will agree that bettors do not appear to share the same enthusiasm as non-bettors for the arguably excessive emphasis on subjective honorary awards for animals, or the exploits of the most entrepreneurial equine conditioners, but this column might be the least hospitable place at HRI to pursue such discussion.
VZ,
I assume you’re not ignoring the generally negative reaction to this column, but are busy preparing another assault on racing outsiders who dare to challenge the status quo. I know you agree that reform is necessary. Why not explain to us what groups besides players have sufficient motivation to seek reform and how they might go about doing so with your blessing?
16 Feb 2011 at 08:46 am | #
Indulto: A maiden claiming thoroughbred, with a healthy sheen, will look no different than Uncle Mo or Zenyatta in the saddling area or during the post parade. Ten maidens leaving the starting gate will also look no different than ten stake horses departing; accordingly, all thoroughbred races are virtually identical to the human eye. As stated numerous times already, no human can determine how fast a race is being run without the aid of an artifact: a timer or watch. If you can determine from simply watching, without having read or heard that the next race is a claimer or a stake race, then you possess supernatural powers.
People, by the thousands, influenced by casino marketing/advertising willingly venture to the nearest casino to sit, mindless, in front of slot machines; there hopefully to win a bundle of money. Every casino is an equal opportunity financial health care provider, so why can’t every racetrack be one also? Why are turf writers so selective?
BTW, are there visible winners at casinos? Got names at the tip of your tongue?
I, and my group of sharpies, have yet to notice a difference between any two races, I hold no higher regard for a Triple Crown race than a claiming race, nor do I see racing as a sport.
I do believe that the pendulum is swinging, ever so slowly, toward more emphasis on gambling; things would speed up dramatically if there were a national marketing program informing the public what gambling on the ponies offers.
But, we are into another year of the same ole’ same ole’, with just about all the turf writer commentary centered on Pletcher, Asmussen, Baffert, et cetera - what a waste of ink! And who reads all the ink? Existing horseplayers, not the unknowing and the casual bettor.
(I know, I have written all of the above many times already. Aren’t turf writers repetitious also?)
16 Feb 2011 at 09:04 am | #
There is a huge difference in the mindset of a Horseplayer and a casino player. Visible winners are not needed in mindless casino games, it is a quick fix, and players still have visions of the big money being wagered in Bond films.
Thinking persons games like blackjack have had visible winners. Card counters.
Horse racing is a whole different animal. You need to invest countless hours of learning to be any good at it. Why even make put in the second hour when you look around and see no visible winners?
I don’t play craps because I didn’t learn the game because I don’t know any winning players. I’m sure I can learn the game in an hour, but I have zero interest in it.
If I didn’t start going to the track with my parents in the 60’s, I would not pick up today and learn horse racing. The game was beatable then and there were visible winners. And players lasted a whole lot longer as there were few exotics and only 8 races a day to play (high churn). A lot of people got hooked thanks to that.
If I were in my teens to today or early 20’s and I wanted a thinking person’s gamble, I would learn poker or bet sports. What would be my incentive to learn how to play horses?
16 Feb 2011 at 02:49 pm | #
Maury Erza: What does having visible winners have to do with your choice of what venue to gamble on? What is this about having to invest countless hours in understanding now to pick winners of Thoroughbred horse races?
Gambling on the horses is, for me, more profitable than all other gambling options: Blackjack, craps (though I love craps), slot machines, poker, et cetera.
I, personally, don’t give a damn if the takeout rate is 10% or 30% (of course I would like the 10%), as I know, repeat know, that I can still win.
Why are you so down on betting on horse races? Reading the past performances in not difficult; understanding that there are probably twenty variables that come into play in every race should assuage you to realize that much of a horse race outcome is out of your control.
Your incentive to play the horses should be to win, to make money, while recognizing that you are up against variables out of your control. So be it.
Most serious handicappers pick winners at about a 33% rate; go with favorites, the percentage climbs to a bit over 50%. What is wrong with that? With the exotic wagering available today, the odds of cashing ‘big time’ has increased dramatically. Wager evenly and you will have profitably days and losing days, and also have a great time gambling.
I believe I have control of my gambling when wagering on the ponies, not so with card games, or sporting events. What other gambling vehicle lets you decide how and when to wager, after using your brain to select choices?
And, I really don’t give a damn what the odds are on a horse, if the horse is going to win bet it! So what if you get $3.20 instead of $12.80 - at least you cashed (a few commentators in the past at HRI want to book my bets, after having made this comment previously). Well, I have had three bookies (back in the 60’s and 70’s, prior to OTB’s, head south. In fact, I had to go to Florida to corner one - he paid!.
In summary, and the following should be made clear to the unknowing and the casual bettor, there is nothing like having your horse in contention deep in the stretch while holding a ticket in your sweaty paw - do you find this feeling at a card table or at a sports event? All commentary on Thoroughbred racing is about, currently, Pletcher, Asmussen, Baffert, et cetera, and their horses in training for the Kentucky Derby. The the fact that Thoroughbred racing is all about gambling, about cashing tickets, about winning not mentioned.
All people who gamble want to win, they also want to have an exciting time while doing so; sitting at a card table or watching a sporting event cannot compare to watching a horse race. Damn shame that the public isn’t so informed.
16 Feb 2011 at 02:54 pm | #
Wm Corrow, you don’t even understand betting, and you fall in the category of those who bet without a clue.
You said something that made sense but you don’t even understand why it made sense when you mentioned that horse racing isn’t competing properly with other forms of gambling.
The reason it isn’t competing is because it is priced too high.
As for your assertion you could make money at a 30% takeout, all I can say is that there isn’t one person who understands gambling who will value your opinion or believe you for that matter.
16 Feb 2011 at 03:02 pm | #
I need to add that favorites, even though they win at 30% plus give you a rate of return of around 82 cents to the dollar. Those betting favorites will lose money, they may win money 33% of the time, but they will lose money in the long run, and it all has to do with takeout.
Saying it doesn’t matter if a $12 shot pays $3.40 instead has to be the most idiotic thing I’ve read in a while.
As for sports betting, it is exactly the same as a horse race as you determine how much you want to bet, and you have as much control in how the game is played as the race is run.
C’mon Wm. try thinking this out.
Young gamblers want a chance to win LONG TERM in order to invest the time it takes to learn a game.
This is why poker took off, and horse racing is plunging. Nothing more, nothing less. We need visible winners and we need players who don’t win lasting longer.
16 Feb 2011 at 03:05 pm | #
Maury Erza: Well, Maury, I guess I have been gambling without a clue for five decades. Yes, gambling on the nags is priced to high, but, personally, I don’t give a damn. As long as I can get a bet down on a horse that I think will win a race that will pay more than I wagered, I am content. It’s about picking winners, not the odds!
16 Feb 2011 at 03:08 pm | #
Wm, yes you have been gambling without a clue for 5 decades. It happens. You are living proof.
18 Feb 2011 at 12:26 pm | #
The comment by wmcurrow is even more brain dead than the original article. Doesn’t care what the takeout is or the odds on the horse? This mid-evil thinking reminds me of the guy who raised the take to 30 percent at Hialeah and ruined the track in two years. I think his name was Brunetti. I recall him saying, “An eight dollar horse is still an eight dollar horse, they won’t know the difference.” Is it any wonder that horse racing is in this suicial downwards spiral?