Hollywood's First Cushion Track Meet

Originally Posted by oracle80

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=30884

Last year they cut racing days to 27 from 31 and only averaged 8 races per day. That and no grass races and a total cancellation of the turf festival.

Lets call a spade a spade, the TURF FESTIVAL races alone should have bumped the handle up huge. Factor in the return of grass races, and it should have bumped it up tremendously.
Spin doctors can work this anyway they want to. It was NOT a success in terms of looking at all the relevant factors.

Yawn, compare handle going back over a 7 year period, not just one year.

Just wanna point out what a dismal failure this past meet was, I would say it was borderline disastrous.
Fact 36 racing days this past year, as compared to 27 days last year(thats 33% more racing days)
AN increased number of races averaged on those days due to last year being reduced to 8 a day average because of no turf course.
Turf racing returned accounting for a big bump in field size as realtewd to last year and a HUGE bump in handle with the big races of the Turf Festival being back.
Bottom line is this, anyone who attempts to spin a 19% increase in handle when you had a 33% increase in racing days and a return of grass racing and the turf festival is pretty funny. It was tragic.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Just wanna point out what a dismal failure this past meet was, I would say it was borderline disastrous.
Fact 36 racing days this past year, as compared to 27 days last year(thats 33% more racing days)
AN increased number of races averaged on those days due to last year being reduced to 8 a day average because of no turf course.
Turf racing returned accounting for a big bump in field size as realtewd to last year and a HUGE bump in handle with the big races of the Turf Festival being back.
Bottom line is this, anyone who attempts to spin a 19% increase in handle when you had a 33% increase in racing days and a return of grass racing and the turf festival is pretty funny. It was tragic.

YAWN - and this coming from a person who couldnt make it in the business world.

[Rupert Pupkin]

DRF.com has an article about the Hollywood meet that just ended. Here it is:

http://drf.com/news/article/81354.html

Originally Posted by oracle80

Just wanna point out what a dismal failure this past meet was, I would say it was borderline disastrous.
Fact 36 racing days this past year, as compared to 27 days last year(thats 33% more racing days)
AN increased number of races averaged on those days due to last year being reduced to 8 a day average because of no turf course.
Turf racing returned accounting for a big bump in field size as realtewd to last year and a HUGE bump in handle with the big races of the Turf Festival being back.
Bottom line is this, anyone who attempts to spin a 19% increase in handle when you had a 33% increase in racing days and a return of grass racing and the turf festival is pretty funny. It was tragic.

The Pick 6 pools seemed lackluster.

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

The Pick 6 pools seemed lackluster.

Pillow I've been going over these numbers here for a while now and I truly can't believe this. This is far worse than I even stated earlier, and although many will think I'm just doing this to bash poly, its the pure stats that I find incredible.
You have 36 racing days as opposed to 27(33% more races run), you have a boost in the avg number of races per day(about 38% more races run), you had the return of grass racing(big boost for handle and field size) and the return of heavily bet featured graded stakes race in the turf festival that wer not run last year. Then Euro cites incresased average field size as well, this is significant because increased field sizes usually mena increased handle.
Now you factor all that in an they only went up 19%. MY god, the increased race dates and races should bump you 35% alone. The return of grass racing and stakes races should bump you at least another 8-10%. So just on increased number of dates and racing and return of grass you would have to expect in the neighborhood of 44% increase in handle. Factor in the trend of tracks having increased handle this year, and its even higher. 19%? Are you kidding me. This was a complete disaster, and nothing short of tragic.
Near as I can tell, this may be the biggest disaster I ever saw, and really proves that people did not wanna bet cushion track. I suppose I should have seen this coming, as I always thought once the novelty wore off, that disgruntled cappers would avoid it like the plague. But this is shocking, and I'm not exaggerating. YOu can run these numbers yourself, its all out there in plain sight, no secrets.
If I was a Hollywood Park management type, I'd have cold sweats right now.
Does anyone here see this any other way? And if so what am I missing or not taking into account in my analysis of the situation?

Originally Posted by oracle80

Pillow I've been going over these numbers here for a while now and I truly can't believe this. This is far worse than I even stated earlier, and although many will think I'm just doing this to bash poly, its the pure stats that I find incredible.
You have 36 racing days as opposed to 27(33% more races run), you have a boost in the avg number of races per day(about 38% more races run), you had the return of grass racing(big boost for handle and field size) and the return of heavily bet featured graded stakes race in the turf festival that wer not run last year. Then Euro cites incresased average field size as well, this is significant because increased field sizes usually mena increased handle.
Now you factor all that in an they only went up 19%. MY god, the increased race dates and races should bump you 35% alone. The return of grass racing and stakes races should bump you at least another 8-10%. So just on increased number of dates and racing and return of grass you would have to expect in the neighborhood of 44% increase in handle. Factor in the trend of tracks having increased handle this year, and its even higher. 19%? Are you kidding me. This was a complete disaster, and nothing short of tragic.
Near as I can tell, this may be the biggest disaster I ever saw, and really proves that people did not wanna bet cushion track. I suppose I should have seen this coming, as I always thought once the novelty wore off, that disgruntled cappers would avoid it like the plague. But this is shocking, and I'm not exaggerating. YOu can run these numbers yourself, its all out there in plain sight, no secrets.
If I was a Hollywood Park management type, I'd have cold sweats right now.
Does anyone here see this any other way? And if so what am I missing or not taking into account in my analysis of the situation?

I bet the Los Alamitos deal comes back into play next year. I can't see Bay Meadows Land Co. keeping Hollywood open when they can make a fortune developing the land.

[Gander]

I find it very annoying when Vic Stoffer says "And so and so is charging down the center of the cushion track".

Why does he have to remind everybody that polycrap (cushion) has been installed.

Its also very weird to look up at the track condition and see:

Turf: Firm
Track: Cushion

Why not just call it fast?

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

I bet the Los Alamitos deal comes back into play next year. I can't see Bay Meadows Land Co. keeping Hollywood open when they can make a fortune developing the land.

I was thinking the same thing. Wonder what they will do with 10 million bucks worth of cushion? I bet you could get a real good deal on it this coming year for your niece.

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

I bet the Los Alamitos deal comes back into play next year. I can't see Bay Meadows Land Co. keeping Hollywood open when they can make a fortune developing the land.

No kidding. But dont they have to keep Hollywood open for like 3 years or so? But that land is worth much more than the racetrack. Didnt Pegram want to develop Los Al?

[philcski]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Just wanna point out what a dismal failure this past meet was, I would say it was borderline disastrous.
Fact 36 racing days this past year, as compared to 27 days last year(thats 33% more racing days)
AN increased number of races averaged on those days due to last year being reduced to 8 a day average because of no turf course.
Turf racing returned accounting for a big bump in field size as realtewd to last year and a HUGE bump in handle with the big races of the Turf Festival being back.
Bottom line is this, anyone who attempts to spin a 19% increase in handle when you had a 33% increase in racing days and a return of grass racing and the turf festival is pretty funny. It was tragic.

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?

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?

How could the average handle be up 16% on a daily basis genius? The overall handle was only up 19% and they ran 9 more racing days.
Get real will you? Better check those stats again.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by oracle80

How could the average handle be up 16% on a daily basis genius? The overall handle was only up 19% and they ran 9 more racing days.
Get real will you? Better check those stats again.

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."

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

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

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.

And one other thing about the cushion at Hollywood.

"No fatalities were recorded on the main track during racing although three were reported during morning training. During the 2005 meet, seven fatalities were recorded, four in the afternoon."

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

And one other thing about the cushion at Hollywood.

"No fatalities were recorded on the main track during racing although three were reported during morning training. During the 2005 meet, seven fatalities were recorded, four in the afternoon."

You sure about that? Seems almost impossible to have a meet where no horses are euthanized on the main track as a result of the races being run.Churchill had one death,and another serious injury in the same race.Totally unrealated to each other,and (of course) neither incident had anything to do with their track there.Things just happen,but you're saying things didn't "just happen" during the main track races on the cushion??