3 Horses Per Race

Any information from the Steward
Forum rules
Do not to post anything abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or sexually-orientated.
Do not post anything negative about any player.
No advertising other games.
The management reserves the right to delete or lock threads and messages at any time.
Read the complete SIM rules and legal information.
User avatar
Danny Derby
Hall of Fame
Posts: 3660
Joined: 14 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Danny Derby »

Throwing another thought out. First three horses enter as normal. Every horse beyond that incurs an additional $500K entry fee per horse. Then people can decide if it's worth it to them or not, and places a giant financial disincentive on being a jerk and entering just to shut someone else out.

Really I'm open for whatever mechanic would be best for it, but I just want to make sure a horse who belongs in a race on merit gets to enter that race.
User avatar
Laura Ferguson
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6534
Joined: 18 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Laura Ferguson »

Danny Derby wrote: 4 years ago Throwing another thought out. First three horses enter as normal. Every horse beyond that incurs an additional $500K entry fee per horse. Then people can decide if it's worth it to them or not, and places a giant financial disincentive on being a jerk and entering just to shut someone else out.

Really I'm open for whatever mechanic would be best for it, but I just want to make sure a horse who belongs in a race on merit gets to enter that race.
If you care so much about merit, there's an easy fix right now - lease it to someone else to run in that one race. If you care about maximizing your chances to win, which is what I really think this gets to, that's another matter entirely. Pick which three you think are most likely to win - save the fourth for the Baltimore Crown, or the Queen's Plate or that G1 in Puerto Rico. Odds are, assuming you even have four contenders, they're not going to be equal - one will have earned points without giving any indication that he wants to go further than 1 1/8 miles, or one is maturing slowly and is really more a Midsummer candidate. It's not that difficult.

The combination of unlimited entries paired with ability to sponsor G1 races on relatively short notice to earn points to qualify for said race just lends itself to potential abuse and hard feelings. To me, it's not worth going there. If I have four contenders, I can pick my three most likely and go try to win something else with the fourth, while some other player gets the fun and anticipation of having a Derby contender.
User avatar
Darcy McBride
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2587
Joined: 12 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Darcy McBride »

Laura Ferguson wrote: 4 years ago
Danny Derby wrote: 4 years ago Throwing another thought out. First three horses enter as normal. Every horse beyond that incurs an additional $500K entry fee per horse. Then people can decide if it's worth it to them or not, and places a giant financial disincentive on being a jerk and entering just to shut someone else out.

Really I'm open for whatever mechanic would be best for it, but I just want to make sure a horse who belongs in a race on merit gets to enter that race.
If you care so much about merit, there's an easy fix right now - lease it to someone else to run in that one race. If you care about maximizing your chances to win, which is what I really think this gets to, that's another matter entirely. Pick which three you think are most likely to win - save the fourth for the Baltimore Crown, or the Queen's Plate or that G1 in Puerto Rico. Odds are, assuming you even have four contenders, they're not going to be equal - one will have earned points without giving any indication that he wants to go further than 1 1/8 miles, or one is maturing slowly and is really more a Midsummer candidate. It's not that difficult.

The combination of unlimited entries paired with ability to sponsor G1 races on relatively short notice to earn points to qualify for said race just lends itself to potential abuse and hard feelings. To me, it's not worth going there. If I have four contenders, I can pick my three most likely and go try to win something else with the fourth, while some other player gets the fun and anticipation of having a Derby contender.
You can't say it better than this. 3 entries per race per owner for the said selected races is more than generous. There appears to be enough abuse of the system as there is, imo, without adding more opportunities. Unlimited entries, revamping the point schedule, etc. is just ludicrous.

It's a game meant for entertainment and to enjoy. It would be much more enjoyable if people quit beating the fun out of it.
DM: AMERICATION MISCHIEF & JAMBOREE
TM: NIGHTWATCH
DS: SINISTER MISTER/THE HELLHOUND/DARKANDSTORMYNIGHT
AWR: TUSCANY GOLD
QH DS: EL RAY SOL
QH DM: MARK ME CHROMED
User avatar
Dylan Christensen
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2297
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Dylan Christensen »

Dave Trainer wrote: 4 years ago
Danny Derby wrote: 4 years ago
Rochelle Zahacy wrote: 4 years ago I never thought I’d agree with Dave, but here we are.

I was coming here to say just that. Having a race where it’s possible for 4 people own all the horses, there is no fun in that.

I also don’t understand why anyone would want to set up 1-4 horses to lose?
Because it’s the Derby. I’d gladly let 3 horses finish 18th-20th if I also had the winner.

If the top 20 3-year-olds by some chance happen to be owned by only four people then those are the only four people that should be running in the Derby that year. This is an extreme example of course, but I think it’s wrong that any contender with enough points be barred from running just because their trainer has other legit contenders as well.
Taken to its logical conclusion then, if the top 20 3 year olds were all owned by one person by some chance then they should have the race to themselves.
I think that’s exactly right, you’ve earned it if you have the top 20, plain and simple to me
yeah
User avatar
Danny Derby
Hall of Fame
Posts: 3660
Joined: 14 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Danny Derby »

Laura Ferguson wrote: 4 years ago
Danny Derby wrote: 4 years ago Throwing another thought out. First three horses enter as normal. Every horse beyond that incurs an additional $500K entry fee per horse. Then people can decide if it's worth it to them or not, and places a giant financial disincentive on being a jerk and entering just to shut someone else out.

Really I'm open for whatever mechanic would be best for it, but I just want to make sure a horse who belongs in a race on merit gets to enter that race.
If you care so much about merit, there's an easy fix right now - lease it to someone else to run in that one race. If you care about maximizing your chances to win, which is what I really think this gets to, that's another matter entirely. Pick which three you think are most likely to win - save the fourth for the Baltimore Crown, or the Queen's Plate or that G1 in Puerto Rico. Odds are, assuming you even have four contenders, they're not going to be equal - one will have earned points without giving any indication that he wants to go further than 1 1/8 miles, or one is maturing slowly and is really more a Midsummer candidate. It's not that difficult.

The combination of unlimited entries paired with ability to sponsor G1 races on relatively short notice to earn points to qualify for said race just lends itself to potential abuse and hard feelings. To me, it's not worth going there. If I have four contenders, I can pick my three most likely and go try to win something else with the fourth, while some other player gets the fun and anticipation of having a Derby contender.
Obviously it's both merit and maximizing ones own chances, why should they be mutually exclusive? I don't think it's selfish to say that I'd rather be the one to campaign a horse I've put time and effort into rather than letting someone else reap the benefits. And why should someone be forced to point for a G1 in Puerto Rico with a horse that they've campaigned in such a way that it's qualified to run in the Derby? What if I've misjudged my horses, and one that I'd pegged as wanting only 1-1/8 would really have thrived with an extra furlong?

Sponsoring G1s to earn points for the Derby isn't some magical way to automatically earn enough points either. A G1 race would be on the schedule at least a week in advance and open to all other three year olds. Picking up points for winning that race would hardly be a gimme. I just don't see this as being a problem.
User avatar
Laura Ferguson
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6534
Joined: 18 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Laura Ferguson »

Actually, you can sponsor a G1 on five real life days' notice (10:59 pm EST Sunday for 11:00pm EST Friday, or on Wednesday for a Monday race), not at least a week. Many players enter and never check back for sponsored races, so plenty of those draw weaker fields than their regularly scheduled counterparts.

Look, points are an arbitrary way to measure merit anyway. Right now, there are graded stakes races Week 11 that are essentially jacked-up maiden races, but have way more points. I ran Marvel in a TBS-restricted sprint stakes that was a walkover and earned points that count towards determining whether he gets into the Triple Crown. Triple Crown points are not tied to points earned routing, or points earned in graded stakes. Every year, some late bloomer has to sweat it out on the bubble, even though everyone can see if the horse gets in, he'll be a serious threat. And in the sense that there's got to be some way to sort out who gets in and who stays on the sidelines, points is one way to do it - everyone knows the rules in advance, and it's probably better than a subjective committee making the call. I played another game where the point system caused a battle for this reason - they ended up having points roll off after a year, and points earned sprinting/miling downgraded (I forget whether they counted half as much for routing or quarter/half - there was a similar adjustment for points earned on another surface). So there were six sets of rankings - dirt sprint, dirt mid, dirt route, turf sprint, turf mid, turf route. At the same time, there was a rule added that sponsored G1s had be created further out than other sponsored races (a month? three weeks?). Another way to measure merit would be to base it on speed figures and get points out of it entirely.

I'll also note that there doesn't exactly seem to be a groundswell of demand for this idea. Honestly, this is a once in a blue moon occurrence anyway - maybe Eric had this happen one year? But I just see all sorts of ways to manipulate "merit" under your proposal - for example, paying $500k to enter a sprinter/turf horse that has no shot of winning, but plenty of points earned in his proper division to bump off the 20th horse on the list, who is a late blooming monster, to ensure that your other three have a better shot of winning (but certainly doesn't ensure that the race draws the best field possible). I think the three horse limit does a good job of balancing the various player interests under a system where point totals certainly aren't the be-all/end-all measurement of a horse's overall merit, but ARE the system that determines who gets in the starting gate.
User avatar
Danny Derby
Hall of Fame
Posts: 3660
Joined: 14 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Danny Derby »

Laura Ferguson wrote: 4 years ago
I'll also note that there doesn't exactly seem to be a groundswell of demand for this idea. Honestly, this is a once in a blue moon occurrence anyway - maybe Eric had this happen one year? But I just see all sorts of ways to manipulate "merit" under your proposal - for example, paying $500k to enter a sprinter/turf horse that has no shot of winning, but plenty of points earned in his proper division to bump off the 20th horse on the list, who is a late blooming monster, to ensure that your other three have a better shot of winning (but certainly doesn't ensure that the race draws the best field possible).
Has this ever happened before? Because if it’s something that would be abused, it could be just as easily abused with the current limit. Everything you’re pointing out is a problem that already exists and probably should be addressed on its own if necessary.

For the record, I’m not expecting four potential derby starters this year, next year or anytime soon (not that
I’d complain). I just subscribe to the theory that you throw everything with a chance at the biggest races, and this has always felt like an arbitrary limit.
User avatar
Dylan Christensen
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2297
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Dylan Christensen »

Laura Ferguson wrote: 4 years ago
Danny Derby wrote: 4 years ago Throwing another thought out. First three horses enter as normal. Every horse beyond that incurs an additional $500K entry fee per horse. Then people can decide if it's worth it to them or not, and places a giant financial disincentive on being a jerk and entering just to shut someone else out.

Really I'm open for whatever mechanic would be best for it, but I just want to make sure a horse who belongs in a race on merit gets to enter that race.
The combination of unlimited entries paired with ability to sponsor G1 races on relatively short notice to earn points to qualify for said race just lends itself to potential abuse and hard feelings.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe derby trail points are only earned by the races listed here. Simply go off of the TCT points and exempt sponsored races, no abuse and every horse deserving gets in the race.
yeah
User avatar
Laura Ferguson
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6534
Joined: 18 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Laura Ferguson »

Dylan Christensen wrote: 4 years ago
Laura Ferguson wrote: 4 years ago
Danny Derby wrote: 4 years ago Throwing another thought out. First three horses enter as normal. Every horse beyond that incurs an additional $500K entry fee per horse. Then people can decide if it's worth it to them or not, and places a giant financial disincentive on being a jerk and entering just to shut someone else out.

Really I'm open for whatever mechanic would be best for it, but I just want to make sure a horse who belongs in a race on merit gets to enter that race.
The combination of unlimited entries paired with ability to sponsor G1 races on relatively short notice to earn points to qualify for said race just lends itself to potential abuse and hard feelings.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe derby trail points are only earned by the races listed here. Simply go off of the TCT points and exempt sponsored races, no abuse and every horse deserving gets in the race.
Trick with that is TCT excludes 2yo races, including the Stewards' Cup Juvenile-G1, the 2yo Marathon and a host of other route graded stakes weeks 13-16. It also excludes filly races. If none of those races count towards the Triple Crown, and you have everyone starting with zero points Week 1, everyone is going to go with two prep races, and it's going to decimate the end of the year 2yo races, since there'd be a huge incentive NOT to run Week 16. It seems like an awful lot of work to fix something that doesn't seem particularly broken right now and for what is probably a hypothetical situation at best.

As for Danny's comment - yes, some of these flaws exist in the system right now, but because there's a limit on how many horses you can enter, and many years, the 20 horse limit hasn't been hit, so entering an extra horse wouldn't bump anyone (and is how the infamous Zipless II got to compete in the Derby), so it hasn't been worth doing. Without the limit on how many horses you can enter, the analysis changes.
User avatar
Stormy Peak
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6743
Joined: 17 years ago
Location: Idaho

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Stormy Peak »

This thread just proves to me that the saying "Give them an inch and they want a mile" is pretty accurate. Instead of being happy that our major races allow not 2 but 3 entrees per owner...there are complaints and some people want to see an increase in that. I think there are more reasons to Keep it as it is, than to change it up and allow more entrees per owner...given it's probably...Probably...going to be the richer stables that can have more than 3 entrees and can manipulate things in ways suggested here.

As it stands...a person with a single good horse has a good chance of making the field, and as Laura stated, those owners with more than 3, can chose who they think are the best, and run their other horses in other Graded stakes elsewhere.

Stormy
SIRES: Turf Routers - Each multiple G1 winners

Tuck Everlasting
Fee $30,500

Wolfman Jack
Fee $18,000
User avatar
Dylan Christensen
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2297
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Dylan Christensen »

Stormy Peak wrote: 4 years ago those owners with more than 3, can chose who they think are the best, and run their other horses in other Graded stakes elsewhere.
They can, but why should they have to? If they have horses good enough to run in these races they should get to. You never know what can happen, especially with 3 year old routers. All this is coming from someone who will likely never even have a horse in these races.
yeah
User avatar
Glenn Larson
Listed Stakes Winner
Posts: 550
Joined: 10 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Glenn Larson »

Dylan Christensen wrote: 4 years ago
Stormy Peak wrote: 4 years ago those owners with more than 3, can chose who they think are the best, and run their other horses in other Graded stakes elsewhere.
They can, but why should they have to? If they have horses good enough to run in these races they should get to. You never know what can happen, especially with 3 year old routers. All this is coming from someone who will likely never even have a horse in these races.
How many times does this really happen? Rarely, I would think. Danny, I mean Dylan, why would you pick up this crusade ??
Glenn Larson
Stallion Rosters

Thoroughbred Stallions

Mixer Stallions
User avatar
Dylan Christensen
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2297
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Dylan Christensen »

Glenn Larson wrote: 4 years ago
Dylan Christensen wrote: 4 years ago
Stormy Peak wrote: 4 years ago those owners with more than 3, can chose who they think are the best, and run their other horses in other Graded stakes elsewhere.
They can, but why should they have to? If they have horses good enough to run in these races they should get to. You never know what can happen, especially with 3 year old routers. All this is coming from someone who will likely never even have a horse in these races.
How many times does this really happen? Rarely, I would think. Danny, I mean Dylan, why would you pick up this crusade ??
Exactly, it doesn’t happen very often so why take away a trainers chance if they do have more than 3 great horses in a year, that’s a once or twice in a lifetime opportunity. And as for picking up this “crusade”, I picked it up because I agree with Danny and as long as no real fighting happens I don’t mind debating the topic, debate is always going to be good for improving the SIM as long as it doesn’t go to far and become actual fights.
yeah
User avatar
Stormy Peak
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6743
Joined: 17 years ago
Location: Idaho

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Stormy Peak »

Dylan Christensen wrote: 4 years ago
Glenn Larson wrote: 4 years ago
Dylan Christensen wrote: 4 years ago

They can, but why should they have to? If they have horses good enough to run in these races they should get to. You never know what can happen, especially with 3 year old routers. All this is coming from someone who will likely never even have a horse in these races.
How many times does this really happen? Rarely, I would think. Danny, I mean Dylan, why would you pick up this crusade ??
Exactly, it doesn’t happen very often so why take away a trainers chance if they do have more than 3 great horses in a year, that’s a once or twice in a lifetime opportunity. And as for picking up this “crusade”, I picked it up because I agree with Danny and as long as no real fighting happens I don’t mind debating the topic, debate is always going to be good for improving the SIM as long as it doesn’t go to far and become actual fights.
And where does it end?
You get 4, then you want 5. ??? Then 6 ???

Limits are a good thing at times...it helps create a fair and balanced environment for the Majority of the players...rich or poor. There are way more people who might have 1 horse - as stated in other responses - that might have an excellent shot at winning, but they are maybe not as sound and couldn't race as often, or they didn't mature as fast and so didn't do as well as 2 year olds...etc.

If a higher number of people have horses like that...why should the rules bend to support the oddball who got lucky 1 year and ended up with 4 good horses. And I Seriously doubt that a person can get 4 good horses and not look at them and decide that at least 1 of them isn't 'quite' as good as the other three. But even if it happened...you still go in with 3 horses...over that of those who have only 1 entry.

Stormy
Last edited by Stormy Peak 4 years ago, edited 1 time in total.
SIRES: Turf Routers - Each multiple G1 winners

Tuck Everlasting
Fee $30,500

Wolfman Jack
Fee $18,000
User avatar
Dave Trainer
Grade 1 Winner
Posts: 942
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: 3 Horses Per Race

Post by Dave Trainer »

Dylan Christensen wrote: 4 years ago
Stormy Peak wrote: 4 years ago those owners with more than 3, can chose who they think are the best, and run their other horses in other Graded stakes elsewhere.
They can, but why should they have to? If they have horses good enough to run in these races they should get to. You never know what can happen, especially with 3 year old routers. All this is coming from someone who will likely never even have a horse in these races.
Danny could always give you one of his 4 for being so vociferous on his behalf.
Post Reply