Barn Dispersals

[Lucas Davenport]

This is a game. Over and over we are told it is a game you can play the way you want to play it. Yet over and over we are being herded into playing the game "the way it is supposed to be played." Keep your horses until they are five; you can't buy more than three Steward-breds less than three years old. You can't pension certain horses. Etc., etc. etc. And pay more money to play the game "The correct way." It is a game, it is supposed to be fun. Why do we have to be more selective in buying and breeding? Because that is the right way to play the game? Not if you don't want it to be. Not if you don't want to spend a hour figuring out a breeding that just has to work, only to get a claimer. Been there, done that. So I'll try to continue to play the game for fun, but as the noose tightens around the game play, trying to make it "More realistic," I'm a lot more likely to say it isn't fun anymore, and not worth it to me.

[Kenneth Prater]

This is a game. Over and over we are told it is a game you can play the way you want to play it. Yet over and over we are being herded into playing the game "the way it is supposed to be played." Keep your horses until they are five; you can't buy more than three Steward-breds less than three years old. You can't pension certain horses. Etc., etc. etc. And pay more money to play the game "The correct way." It is a game, it is supposed to be fun. Why do we have to be more selective in buying and breeding? Because that is the right way to play the game? Not if you don't want it to be. Not if you don't want to spend a hour figuring out a breeding that just has to work, only to get a claimer. Been there, done that. So I'll try to continue to play the game for fun, but as the noose tightens around the game play, trying to make it "More realistic," I'm a lot more likely to say it isn't fun anymore, and not worth it to me.

Very interesting post. I find it hard to disagree with.

[The Steward]

I want to reiterate once again that we will never ever limit the number of horses you can own or breed. I know there have been whispers that that is coming, but it's not.

[Laura Smith]

This is a game. Over and over we are told it is a game you can play the way you want to play it. Yet over and over we are being herded into playing the game "the way it is supposed to be played." Keep your horses until they are five; you can't buy more than three Steward-breds less than three years old. You can't pension certain horses. Etc., etc. etc. And pay more money to play the game "The correct way." It is a game, it is supposed to be fun. Why do we have to be more selective in buying and breeding? Because that is the right way to play the game? Not if you don't want it to be. Not if you don't want to spend a hour figuring out a breeding that just has to work, only to get a claimer. Been there, done that. So I'll try to continue to play the game for fun, but as the noose tightens around the game play, trying to make it "More realistic," I'm a lot more likely to say it isn't fun anymore, and not worth it to me.

The "noose" (your words, not mine) isn't there in the name of realism. In real life, I could buy as many fancy yearlings as I wanted at Keeneland, and AJ could pay me a dollar a pound for my crappy racehorses of any age. It's there as a reaction to people bending or skirting the rules, or doing things that might negatively impact the game in general.

I think the sliding scale I mentioned earlier in the thread would be helpful. Would allow all of us to get rid of some "oopsies" while still discouraging mass ditching of horses based on one gallop comment.

[Tammy Stawicki]

I don't see the new GP thing as just waiting until horses have the chance to improve. As others have mentioned gallop changes aren't THAT common. However, there are plenty of horses that were being GPd that while not super stars were useful as is yet were just being discarded. There seems to be this prevailing attitude that nothing below an allowance galloper is worth anything but at least in the divisions I race in I've got everything down to claimers out there picking up checks. So when you are trying to build up cash and paying all this money in stud fees and then just throwing out horses that could earn at least some of that back without even giving them a chance you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot. And sure I can see the more established players with larger barns saying I don't have time to race all these horses so I'm just going to race my best, but as others have mentioned they can afford to just park those horses at their own farms until they are old enough to GP so the rules don't really hurt them. I have a new paint sprint stallion and none of his allowance gallopers have raced, all but one isn't even named. Those horses could almost certainly money if they hit the track. Interestingly a number of his Productive - Claimer gallopers have ran and every single one of them has picked up a check.

Also, I've recently learned that horses can improve with time even if their gallop comments don't. I used to run everything regardless of gallop comment as soon as I was able and would simply drop the horses into claimers and lower and lower claimers if they weren't performing. I lost many a nicely bred filly that way. So a few years back I started sitting on my nicely bred fillies with disappointing gallop comments. I have yet to see one improve in comment but what I have seen is if I sit on them for a while and let the nicer horses work through their conditions they become competitive in MSWs and NW races. Case in point Dalan she was actually an allowance galloper but really struggled in MSW company her 2yo year, so I parked her. Brought her back out at 3 she did better, earned $35,000. When she started struggling again moving to have to face older horses I retired her and found out she was a blue hen. So her gallop comment never improved but I'm glad I didn't GP her.

So I personally don't see the new GP rules as some horrible penalty to newer owners (though I can see the argument for waiving the fee for New/Junior players if this is not already the case as they are learning the ropes and learning what horses are truly useless). As mentioned earlier in this thread the dispersal auctions for everyone is new so that could be why we are suddenly seeing so many. I would also imagine there is probably a regular loss of newer players over a long break as if you aren't fully invested in the game and not thinking about it for a while I could see wandering off to other things. And I am also sure some just quit over change because of the idea of change before actually seeing how it affects them (indeed it would be too soon for players to be leaving because this new rule was actively harming them as it has only been in place a few sim weeks and you need to be inactive awhile before you are disbanded). I am sure the powers that be are monitoring things and will make adjustments as needed.

PS: I will gladly take anyone's allowance galloping Acarus foals off their hands for free.

[The Steward]

Also, I've recently learned that horses can improve with time even if their gallop comments don't.

This alarmed me, because it occurred to me (for the first time) that people may not know that... horses can improve or regress within their gallop comment, of course. "Low stakes" and "high allowance" are just millimeters apart!

[Laura Smith]

...there are plenty of horses that were being GPd that while not super stars were useful as is yet were just being discarded. There seems to be this prevailing attitude that nothing below an allowance galloper is worth anything but at least in the divisions I race in I've got everything down to claimers out there picking up checks. So when you are trying to build up cash and paying all this money in stud fees and then just throwing out horses that could earn at least some of that back without even giving them a chance you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot. And sure I can see the more established players with larger barns saying I don't have time to race all these horses so I'm just going to race my best, but as others have mentioned they can afford to just park those horses at their own farms until they are old enough to GP so the rules don't really hurt them. I have a new paint sprint stallion and none of his allowance gallopers have raced, all but one isn't even named. Those horses could almost certainly money if they hit the track. Interestingly a number of his Productive - Claimer gallopers have ran and every single one of them has picked up a check.

This this this.

[Kaine Saracen]

Also, I've recently learned that horses can improve with time even if their gallop comments don't.

This alarmed me, because it occurred to me (for the first time) that people may not know that... horses can improve or regress within their gallop comment, of course. "Low stakes" and "high allowance" are just millimeters apart!

I am n surprised it is not public knowledge, I see the examples almost weekly. Near on everyone refers to broodmares as a single rating, but using the hypo's it is pretty clear to me that there appears to be at least three hypo levels per "comment". Then the obvious posts through out the forum referring to low, mid and high level stakes... No doubt, that would correlate to all gallop levels. The problems here are multiple.
A) Not everyone reads the forums.
B) People focus to much on the direct comment because it is the visible attribute, the hidden variables can't be seen to get assessed.

Naturally of course, I think the gallop comment itself should be tied to the horses race results. Calling a horse a stakes horse when it can't run it's way out of a wet paper bag in it's division is misleading to say the least. Same as the broodmares, a blue hen that has 5 foals with zero earnings or progeny that can't produce a horse capable of winning a claimer is anything but a blue hen. Just my opinion of course.

[Dave Trainer]

There are less gallop ratings for chasers so they must have wider ranges than flat horses.