Hollywood's First Cushion Track Meet

The first cushion track meeting at Hollywood produced larger fields, larger purses and an increase in handle. Hollywood experienced at 19% increase in wagering. The avg field size was up 13% which equates to 8.5 starters per race. This increase reversed a 7 year per race starter decline. There are more numbers in the article in bloodhorse.com; below is the link to the story.

So far every meet with a synthetic surface has produced increase handle and increase starters per race. I, for one, could not grasp handicapping Hollywood but I did get some pretty good notes and I think I will be wagering Hollywood in the summer. I think we have some good "testing" tracks for the synthetic surfaces. Lets see how these tracks do in the next 2-4 years and then we can decide if a synthetic surface is a good idea or not.

[cmorioles]

In 2-4 years, it may not matter if it is a good idea or not, as it seems most will have them by then.

Was waiting for this, tee hee.
SMART people don't just recite stats, smart people examine the circumstances!!
Umm, Euro, you wanna tell me what Hollywood's handle crashed and burned so badly last year at the corresponding meet?
You wanna tell me why Hollywood's field size got clobbered last year?
Or don't you pay attention to "minor details" like that?

[Gander]

I could care less about stats, in my opinion the racing at Hollywood has been ruined. I use to like this meet and now I cant even watch a race unless its on turf. Thank god Santa Anita is only a few days away and that is still real dirt, at least for now.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Was waiting for this, tee hee.
SMART people don't just recite stats, smart people examine the circumstances!!
Umm, Euro, you wanna tell me what Hollywood's handle crashed and burned so badly last year at the corresponding meet?
You wanna tell me why Hollywood's field size got clobbered last year?
Or don't you pay attention to "minor details" like that?

Well smart people go back further than one year to examine circumstances. The increase in field size reversed a 7 year trend (not an 1 year trend). For 7 years in a row, field size has been on a decline until this fall meet at Hollywood. So I am not looking at 1 year period. I tend to believe the workmans compensation problems in Cali have contributed greatly to the decline in starters year over year. And I believe they have that figured out. The decline in starters last year was because of the turf problems I believe.

So Oracle, what is your reasoning as to why there has been a 7 year decline in starters at Hollywood?

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Well smart people go back further than one year to examine circumstances. The increase in field size reversed a 7 year trend (not an 1 year trend). For 7 years in a row, field size has been on a decline until this fall meet at Hollywood. So I am not looking at 1 year period. I tend to believe the workmans compensation problems in Cali have contributed greatly to the decline in starters year over year. And I believe they have that figured out. The decline in starters last year was because of the turf problems I believe.

You cited a bump as compared to last year.
And lets face it, racetrack handle was up at the fair circuits huge this past year, and has been a trend all year.
19% bump off the worst meet in history circumstance wise is not even what I expected.
I've been waiting for this data, and was expecting you to be the first to post about it, but I was expecting a 25-30% bump. The 19% shocked me as very low.
Increased number of dates and average races per day, the return of grass racing, and a huge trend with upwward handle this year.
Trust me, it can be spun anyway you want, But I'm sure they expected a greater increase.

Originally Posted by oracle80

You cited a bump as compared to last year.
And lets face it, racetrack handle was up at the fair circuits huge this past year, and has been a trend all year.
19% bump off the worst meet in history circumstance wise is not even what I expected.
I've been waiting for this data, and was expecting you to be the first to post about it, but I was expecting a 25-30% bump. The 19% shocked me as very low.
Increased number of dates and average races per day, the return of grass racing, and a huge trend with upwward handle this year.
Trust me, it can be spun anyway you want, But I'm sure they expected a greater increase.

You didnt answer my question. How do you explain the reversal from a 7 year pattern?

Originally Posted by cmorioles

In 2-4 years, it may not matter if it is a good idea or not, as it seems most will have them by then.

Well lets hope not. I think Arlington should be the last to install a synthetic surface for awhile. Lets see how these tracks and surface do after a 2-4 year time.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Well lets hope not. I think Arlington should be the last to install a synthetic surface for awhile. Lets see how these tracks and surface do after a 2-4 year time.

Delmar, Bay Meadows, Golden Gate will for now.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Delmar, Bay Meadows, Golden Gate will for now.

Yeah, I am not real happy about that. I would like to see Hollwood and Bay Meadows until they get some data on the surface.

[cmorioles]

Whether this is good or not, a big part of the reason for the bump in field size is the success turf horses had running on the fake stuff. Those type horses never ran on dirt, but were more than happy to run on the new surface where the had at worst a fair shot, and probably an edge.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Whether this is good or not, a big part of the reason for the bump in field size is the success turf horses had running on the fake stuff. Those type horses never ran on dirt, but were more than happy to run on the new surface where the had at worst a fair shot, and probably an edge.

Exactly correct CM. Turf horses now have two options. If they dont get in a race on the turf, they can go in one on cushion. There are many factors to the increase in field size, but the fact that turf horses have more options is a major factor.

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Delmar, Bay Meadows, Golden Gate will for now.

Throw Presque Isle in with those. Dirt is on the way out.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Delmar, Bay Meadows, Golden Gate will for now.

no, delmar and goldent gate. bay meadows is looking at developing, not remaining a track.

[Danzig]

from bloodhorse article:

development of Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park by the Bay Meadows Land Co., which owns the two tracks. The company has not made a commitment to race at Hollywood Park beyond 2008 and it wants to develop Bay Meadows before then.

Thanks for the info. How much for 10 lbs of Poly?

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

Thanks for the info. How much for 10 lbs of Poly?

You think this rocket scientist even realizes that last year Hollywood had to cancel grass racing for the entire meet? That they had to cancel the turf festival completely and lost all that handle on the stakes races?
YOu think he realizes that grass racing produces the greatest number of full fields(wrecked the field sizes last year without it) and large percentage of handle?
Actually I was expecting a 25% increase at least, and I'm not kidding.
I would consider it a disappointment.
But there I go using facts again, I'm such a disappointment.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleind...e.asp?id=30841

gee, i wonder why the handle and field size were up?

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.