Hollywood's First Cushion Track Meet

Originally Posted by philcski

Bullsh!t Oracle. This meet was a significant improvement field-size wise over previous years (even leaving out last year's debacle.) The cushion track brought the runners out, there is no debating that.

FACT: The average daily handle was up 16% over last year. Turf racing or not, that's significant. Some people don't like wagering turf racing (like me), ever thought about that?

The overall handle has been represented as up 19% from last year. Now please, explain what fuzzy math can be used to create the concept that average handle was up 16% a day when they ran 9 more racing days than last year. This I have to hear. Its a mathematical impossibility or one of us is using an article with incorrect numbers being cited.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by oracle80

The overall handle has been represented as up 19% from last year. Now please, explain what fuzzy math can be used to create the concept that average handle was up 16% a day when they ran 9 more racing days than last year. This I have to hear. Its a mathematical impossibility or one of us is using an article with incorrect numbers being cited.

14%.

19% * 27/36 = 14%.

No fuzzy math there.

Originally Posted by philcski

Should say 14%. From the BH article (did you read it?): "All sources handle averaged $9.8 million, up 14% from $8.6 million in 2005."

Explain to me this please, simple math here. How could they be up even 14% daily average and have that equate to a 19% bump when you had 9 extra racing days as compared to last year?

Originally Posted by philcski

14%.

19% * 27/36 = 14%.

No fuzzy math there.

Then how could the handle only be up 19%? With 9 extra days?

Originally Posted by philcski

14%.

19% * 27/36 = 14%.

No fuzzy math there.

Ok Phil I see what you are saying and I get THAT equation just fine.
But the thread started with a post that said handle was up 19% without specifying whether it was a daily average or overall increase based on the previous meet's total handle. Do you see what I am saying?
In other words, if the handle was only up 19% for the meet TOTAL and not on an average basis, then its tragic. If its up 19% daily, then its good and in line with what you would expect with turf racing returning.
And you may hate turf racing but you must realize that you are the exception rather than the rule. Any track will tell you the more turf racing they have the better their numbers do.
Could someone please post the link as to teh exact numbers here, as I think Euro misstated or didn't clarify in his post what 19% increase in handle means.
WHen I read it stated like Euro wrote it, I think 19% overall boost in total handle. he didn't state that it was a daily average stat. Which is another thing altogether and would make my previous numbers completely invalid.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Then how could the handle only be up 19%? With 9 extra days?

ALL SOURCES handle was actually up from $232.2MM in '05 to $352.8MM in '06. The 19% figure is CDSN's average daily handle... ($6.5MM from $5.5MM)

[philcski]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Ok Phil I see what you are saying and I get THAT equation just fine.
But the thread started with a post that said handle was up 19% without specifying whether it was a daily average or overall increase based on the previous meet's total handle. Do you see what I am saying?
In other words, if the handle was only up 19% for the meet TOTAL and not on an average basis, then its tragic. If its up 19% daily, then its good and in line with what you would expect with turf racing returning.
And you may hate turf racing but you must realize that you are the exception rather than the rule. Any track will tell you the more turf racing they have the better their numbers do.
Could someone please post the link as to teh exact numbers here, as I think Euro misstated or didn't clarify in his post what 19% increase in handle means.
WHen I read it stated like Euro wrote it, I think 19% overall boost in total handle. he didn't state that it was a daily average stat. Which is another thing altogether and would make my previous numbers completely invalid.

I don't hate turf racing, I just prefer dirt. All I'm saying is stop the bashing, we know what your opinion is. I hadn't even LOOKED at a Hollywood fall meet race in the last 4-5 years because the racing was so pathetic. This year, I bet a couple days because the field sizes were worthwhile. Cushion Track is just fine in my book.

Originally Posted by philcski

ALL SOURCES handle was actually up from $232.2MM in '05 to $352.8MM in '06. The 19% figure is CDSN's average daily handle... ($6.5MM from $5.5MM)

Thank You Phil. Stated like that it totally changes the math. The original poster didnt specify average, and it was stated to lead me to believe it was an overall 19% increase.
I'd say then it was nowhere as bad as I thought it was originally, and you can understand my premise before that working off only a 19% total incease as opposed to daily.
Its about what you would expect with the return of grass races and the turf festival.
I'd say in reality then, it wasn't disastrous, but wasn't great either.

Originally Posted by philcski

I don't hate turf racing, I just prefer dirt. All I'm saying is stop the bashing, we know what your opinion is. I hadn't even LOOKED at a Hollywood fall meet race in the last 4-5 years because the racing was so pathetic. This year, I bet a couple days because the field sizes were worthwhile. Cushion Track is just fine in my book.

I'll bash what I want thanks very much. I personally think grass racing is great.

To be honest, I sort of agree with Oracle that the numbers should have been a tad better, but not that much. When comparing the 2006 Fall Meet to the Fall meets of 2005,2004,2003,2002,2001,2000 and 1999, the numbers for the 2006 Fall Meet are better than all the year individually. Also, the numbers os starters per race also increased year over year individually. In addition, the purses for the 2006 Fall Meet were the higest of all the years. To me, the most telling difference is the avg amount wagered day over day. In 2005 $5.5 million was the daily avg. In 2006 it was $6.5 mm. The number of racing days doesnt matter with this figure, however the cancellation of the turf festival does. BUT, the $6.5mm figure is the highest dollar amount over a 6 year period.

Please Oracel, look at a 5 year period and not just 2005-2006.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Thank You Phil. Stated like that it totally changes the math. The original poster didnt specify average, and it was stated to lead me to believe it was an overall 19% increase.
I'd say then it was nowhere as bad as I thought it was originally, and you can understand my premise before that working off only a 19% total incease as opposed to daily.
Its about what you would expect with the return of grass races and the turf festival.
I'd say in reality then, it wasn't disastrous, but wasn't great either.

I'd love to see a per-race handle to see if turf racing or dirt racing generates more interest. I honestly have no idea. I'd guess it's completely correlated to field size rather than surface...

Originally Posted by oracle80

Ok Phil I see what you are saying and I get THAT equation just fine.
But the thread started with a post that said handle was up 19% without specifying whether it was a daily average or overall increase based on the previous meet's total handle. Do you see what I am saying?
In other words, if the handle was only up 19% for the meet TOTAL and not on an average basis, then its tragic. If its up 19% daily, then its good and in line with what you would expect with turf racing returning.
And you may hate turf racing but you must realize that you are the exception rather than the rule. Any track will tell you the more turf racing they have the better their numbers do.
Could someone please post the link as to teh exact numbers here, as I think Euro misstated or didn't clarify in his post what 19% increase in handle means.
WHen I read it stated like Euro wrote it, I think 19% overall boost in total handle. he didn't state that it was a daily average stat. Which is another thing altogether and would make my previous numbers completely invalid.

Reason 123 as to why you couldnt make it in the business world.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

To be honest, I sort of agree with Oracle that the numbers should have been a tad better, but not that much. When comparing the 2006 Fall Meet to the Fall meets of 2005,2004,2003,2002,2001,2000 and 1999, the numbers for the 2006 Fall Meet are better than all the year individually. Also, the numbers os starters per race also increased year over year individually. In addition, the purses for the 2006 Fall Meet were the higest of all the years. To me, the most telling difference is the avg amount wagered day over day. In 2005 $5.5 million was the daily avg. In 2006 it was $6.5 mm. The number of racing days doesnt matter with this figure, however the cancellation of the turf festival does. BUT, the $6.5mm figure is the highest dollar amount over a 6 year period.

Please Oracel, look at a 5 year period and not just 2005-2006.

Euro read my other post. The way your original thread starter is worded, it would lead the reader to believe that the overall handle increased 19%. usually when speaking of averages, the word average is included.
Since it was an average increase. I'd say it was not disappointing, and it was not great either. I think the AVERAGE increase cited would be almost exactly in line with what I would expect based upon the circumstances of last years meet as opposed to this one.
In other words, the jury is still out on the success of synthetic in Cali on handle. In light of the clarification of the stat being an average, I couldn't really interpret it to fit good or bad.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Reason 123 as to why you couldnt make it in the business world.

What in the world are you talking about now?

Originally Posted by oracle80

Euro read my other post. The way your original thread starter is worded, it would lead the reader to believe that the overall handle increased 19%. usually when speaking of averages, the word average is included.
Since it was an average increase. I'd say it was not disappointing, and it was not great either. I think the AVERAGE increase cited would be almost exactly in line with what I would expect based upon the circumstances of last years meet as opposed to this one.
In other words, the jury is still out on the success of synthetic in Cali on handle. In light of the clarification of the stat being an average, I couldn't really interpret it to fit good or bad.

To be serious, I really think we need about 4 years of data and then compare that to the last 4 year of dirt. You also have to take in effect all sorts of circumstances when analyzing two time periods. You just can't look at the numbers without looking at other circumstances. My 100% opinion on synthetic surfaces will not be complete until the year 2009.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

http://calracing.com/stable_notes.ph...97b8b7e79e5cad

Fact is the trainers like their horses to be at HWD PARK.By their actions,you will see that this is simply the more popular surface(than dirt.)I don't expect fans to particularly like this surface yet.This was a very difficult surface to cap for,but what new surface wouldn't be? Fact is we had a lot of horses running in these races,and a lot of horses hanging around this track,because of the more forgiving surface.You would have to be the opposite of a genius to be able to think this meet was not a success.I live here.I know what this meet use to be like.It was incredibly difficult to get decent sized fields to line up in November,and especially in December.It is not a perfect surface,but it is the most fair(and safe) I have seen in 25 years.I felt very little inside/outside bias at the meet,and that is a huge step forward.I have little doubt that this surface will extend the careers of a lot of horses that would otherwise be retired(horses who simply can't stay healthy on dirt,and aren't competitive at all on turf.) The important thing is that horses like this surface.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://calracing.com/stable_notes.ph...97b8b7e79e5cad

Fact is the trainers like their horses to be at HWD PARK.By their actions,you will see that this is simply the more popular surface(than dirt.)I don't expect fans to particularly like this surface yet.This was a very difficult surface to cap for,but what new surface wouldn't be? Fact is we had a lot of horses running in these races,and a lot of horses hanging around this track,because of the more forgiving surface.You would have to be the opposite of a genius to be able to think this meet was not a success.I live here.I know what this meet use to be like.It was incredibly difficult to get decent sized fields to line up in November,and especially in December.It is not a perfect surface,but it is the most fair(and safe) I have seen in 25 years.I felt very little inside/outside bias at the meet,and that is a huge step forward.I have little doubt that this surface will extend the careers of a lot of horses that would otherwise be retired(horses who simply can't stay healthy on dirt,and aren't competitive at all on turf.) The important thing is that horses like this surface.

Good info Scuds and thanks

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Good info Scuds and thanks

Only part that Oracle is right about is that it was hard to cap.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Only part that Oracle is right about is that it was hard to cap.

Very hard to cap. But I think I have some good notes. If you ever want to talk about capping the Wood let me know.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

The funny thing is that the same stubborn old man(Headley) who wouldn't race at Hwd is the one guy that has the fast horse that people are so interested in seeing run.He ran around one turn at this last Winter/Spring meet at Anita,but haven't seem him since.Can't remember his name.Kev will help me there.The infatuation is strong.He was a3 year old of 2005(I think,)and ran in some 2 turn stakes the Summer of that year.Maybe if he wasn't so stuck on Anita his horses wouldn't be on leave so much.Anyways,he should win a ton at this Anita meet.Talk about fresh horses.This guy would have them.He and Baffert should be on fire early in this meet.