Em's Article and Mixed Breeds

[J K Rowling]

Regina, I've sent several mares (and not lousy mares, either) to second tier studs every year and have little to nothing to show for it. There are some lousy first gens on the dams side of some of my decent runners, but that was most likely caused by a combination of sire power and luck in getting a mare with a decent BS comment. I think its interesting that you used Ohio Charmer as an example for casual breeding considering he's Buckeye x Days of Gold which is one of the nicest crosses out there.

The problem is that raising stud fees will just make the rich get richer. I could jack all of my stud fees up 100-200% and spend all of that money sending all 100+ paint mares I have to the best 4 sires of every division. The people who lose are those without a large bank account. Am I annoyed that my scary, well-bred colts can't win a race when they run 80s every week? Heck yeah. But promoting monopolies isn't my style.

[Talia Ichinari]

I think some are not considering that people without the money to breed to higher-priced studs will then give the lower priced ones a chance. Might find a diamond in the rough.

That's one of the values I see with more diverse stud fees -- if the proven or more exciting just retired horses are higher, then those who have to watch their money will select lower priced studs. Otherwise, the lower priced studs have no chance at getting mares. And then everyone would breed to the same few high-priced sires, and there wouldn't be any diversity in the bloodlines.

This was the point I was trying to make. If your top 1% stallions are at only $15,000 its very hard to competitively price a second tier stallion. I don't think every stallion's stud fee should be raised (in which case you would see issues like people dropping "good" broodmares) but I do think that if the top 1 or 2 stallions were higher you would see more people using other stallions. Particularly in cases where there is a clear top 1 or 2 stallions. And certainly less people would use those top stallions but if they had proven that they could consistently get foals that earned their stud fee or higher people would still use them.

If we'd done that early on, Arabian routers like Ghalib and Ahearn and Samri might have been found sooner. They were mostly sent bottom of the barrel mares since the better studs were almost always within 5k of their fees. Then when we found out late they were actually pretty decent, they were gone and all we can do is hope that their bloodline would continue. Samri got lucky with a few nice sons, but there's got to be other diamonds in the rough who weren't flashy runners but could contribute diversity to the bloodlines of the breed as a whole if the really nice stallions in the divisions had pricepoints farther away. They might get fewer mares, but it all tends to even out if they're as good as their fee. I don't think raising every horse's fee is a good idea, but addding a wider range of fees could be better for the breed as a whole. Gives more incentives to try something else, even I am guilty of using a well known 5k stud who's really good over an unknown rarely used stud just because for the price it's not worth it to avoid better.

[Talia Ichinari]

Regina, I've sent several mares (and not lousy mares, either) to second tier studs every year and have little to nothing to show for it. There are some lousy first gens on the dams side of some of my decent runners, but that was most likely caused by a combination of sire power and luck in getting a mare with a decent BS comment. I think its interesting that you used Ohio Charmer as an example for casual breeding considering he's Buckeye x Days of Gold which is one of the nicest crosses out there.

The problem is that raising stud fees will just make the rich get richer. I could jack all of my stud fees up 100-200% and spend all of that money sending all 100+ paint mares I have to the best 4 sires of every division. The people who lose are those without a large bank account. Am I annoyed that my scary, well-bred colts can't win a race when they run 80s every week? Heck yeah. But promoting monopolies isn't my style.

But it's well known that people wont throw so many mares if the prices go up. So the rich wont get richer from that. They've already got monopolies in a sense with their top stallions being the same price as a lower tier stud. It of course depends on division too. Also I notice a lot of big mixer stud owners tend to have richness in broodmare stock as opposed to actual money or are involved in TBs heavily.

[Louise Bayou]

My two cents: I don't understand the need to reduce numbers SO bad. Its a fake horse game! Raising fees on the better studs will do a couple of things, the worst is pushing smaller players out or having to use 2nd and 3rd tier studs. I just don't think that is fair. Just because raising a stud fee 10-15k doesn't affect me doesn't mean I think its right.

I don't see how wanting to reduce the numbers so bad is profitable for the Sim either. I spend (gulp) probably $2k on hypo and equipment checking horses. Force me to reduce the number of horses I breed only hurts the Sim bottom line. And I am not just equ checking Scary/Wow, I pretty much check everyone.

Sorry but I just don't get it. AND my horses are not going up.period.end of story.

[Gigi Gofaster]

It won't affect how I manage my Pacers - at least in the near future. Would I like to charge more for them, yes. And I think my top 3 are worth more. But with the current Pacer climate, stud fee earnings and stallion stats come second to ensuring that more than one person in the SIM has a shot at owning a competitive Pacer.

Indeed. I have my reasons for standing Hog, DoC, and Combo at 5K when they are all certainly worth more. Do I like losing to bajillions of other players who now have top notch racers by my boys, and other arguably 'cheap' but quality trotter studs? You bet I do.

[Chris Everett]

I have no intention of lowering or raising up Indian Scout or Qairan's fees. I never wanted Scout's fee lower because of the reasons Em stated. People were still willing but I definitely want the best mares, those that are very sure they want a top stallion for their top mares. At this point in the game, sending to a bad stud is just a bad idea and you get a bad horse no matter if the mare is a blue hen or not. If he doesn't have a lot of horses that's fine. Just remember it was your choice to bred to a crud stud. Scout's first crop has 6 stakes winners and his avg/runner is 27k so I could probably put him up to 25k. I won't but I could.

[Laura Ferguson]

I know I was already quoted in the article, but a couple of things.

Just because a stallion stands for more doesn't automatically mean he is "off limits" to poorer/newer players. I have received, and continue to get, requests from players for discounts on my higher priced stallions. I've done a number of discounts on Andre, who stands for $60,000. If you have a good mare, or a decently bred mare that was an underachiever on the track, I'll try to work with you, especially if I find it a good cross. I find that my best racers come from breedings that I've actually thought about. I've been keeping track, and the last 10 mares I breed each year, when the deadline is looming, I'm burned out, and don't have a lot of time/patience to think things through, end up being horses that I eventually cull. So, this year, when I'm debating over those last 10, I'm putting them up for grabs - if someone wants to lease them, great, if not, I'll save the money on stud fees and the annual frustration when they don't pan out as a yearling. Honestly, I think the Steward's point was less about less horses, but two different approaches - one is where you focus your time and effort on fewer mares, and the other is more of a scattershot approach, where you send a lot of mares of varying quality to a good, but cheap, stallion, and hope one or two of them pan out, and cull the rest. There are pros and cons to both approaches.

I find this whole thread very interesting, because I think there are some similarities, and some differences, between mixers and thoroughbreds. To me, there was a whole developing the breed process, which is still going on to some extent, where the purses aren't big (with a handful of QH races as the exception), and you want to encourage other players to enter the market. At the same time, by making some of those top stallions so cheap, in some divisions, now you're in a world of hurt when it comes to diversity. For example, with my Arabian routers, I have tons of Sayit, Pillar of Creation and Why Me blood, and it starts getting tricky to breed something that doesn't end up with more of the same. I love Kalri, mentioned by Talia, but for diversity's sake, I try to limit how many times I use him, and try not to default into, he's cheap and great, so why would I go somewhere else. I'm really excited about retiring Sheikh at the end of the year for that reason - he's an outcross for the majority of my routers. I'd hate to think how much worse it would be if the Steward didn't add all those new bloodlines at the end of the year. I make a point of trying to get several different bloodlines for my thoroughbreds, which is easier to do, since they're more established; I try to do the same thing here.

It also isn't necessarily a matter of going to a "second tier" stallion. Sometimes, when a top, proven stallion is standing for cheap, it's an easy default, and it's hard to justify going to somebody else. But that somebody else may be just as capable of producing a good horse.

[Lisa Strummer]

I've been thinking about this and while I totally agree with what the Steward said in the article, I feel like raising fees where appropriate would really only effect those with large broodmare barns and/or bankrolls of six figures or less.

I just don't think many players that are fortunate enough to have seven and eight figure bankrolls stop and think about whether a mare is "worth" sending to a stallion standing for 50 or even 100K. They are more interested in trying to "breed up", hoping to score a Wow+ yearling at all cost. There are exceptions of course, but in general the fact that we are not paying for these fees with real money makes it much easier to spend it. I rarely keep track of how much I spend on stud fees every year, but I know it's a million or more.

Now if that was real money I probably wouldn't spend that much (or breed as many mares) because the loss you face breeding a sim foal is minimal with relatively inexpensive board, day rates and vet bills. Then we can eventually just dump them if the turn out unsatisfactory. Players with bigger bankrolls don't need to count on those unsatisfactory yearlings' future earnings like smaller players do. Once a player breaks into the seven figure bankroll zone it's easier to maintain it as long as you have a few nice, stakes caliber horses and/or a successful stallion to provide a steady flow of cash.

I don't know how much I spent on fees for my 2yo crop, but it was a lot (a million plus) I only have twenty 2yo winners, four of them are stakes winners, but one of those is a QH named Knob Creek, who has won two G1s and earned $1,291,000 so far. He is by Makers Mark who at the time stood for 45K which was the highest QH stud fee at the time. Would it have effected me if Knob Creek turned out to be a dud and never earned back the stud fee? Not in the least. Would it effect a player with a bankroll of less than 500K? Possibly. Fortunately for me Knob Creek has essentially covered most of my stud fees for my entire 2yo crop. That's the kind of thing that keeps the bigger players sending almost any mare to the better stallions who nick and produce well, no matter what their fee, while smaller players may have to consider more carefully how much they spend on their mares.

[Alleyne Torres]

IDK I mean last year I sent most of my 400 yard Paint mares to either Streak of Rock (10) or Hockey Mafia (4), both the most expensive available at $15,000. And I will probably do the same this year (...send mares to whoever I feel is best/nicks best, I don't necessarily need any more SoR ), because my 400 yard herd still needs improving and I have $2,000,000 to spend.

The winning horses are more valuable to me than the equivalent fake money. Maybe that is an argument for raising stud fees since the produce is so valuable. But on the other hand, as a stud owner myself that would just be circulating the money between me and the others who already have the money.

[Regina Moore]

Honestly, I think the Steward's point was less about less horses, but two different approaches - one is where you focus your time and effort on fewer mares, and the other is more of a scattershot approach, where you send a lot of mares of varying quality to a good, but cheap, stallion, and hope one or two of them pan out, and cull the rest. There are pros and cons to both approaches.

I'm the one who started my first post talking about horse population. If one reads the article, Em doesn't ever say anything about horse population. But that's what I was interpreting between the lines, when she says, "here is how I feel about current stud fees and why I think they are not only incredibly important, but also a lot of the current problem in the game. To me, "a lot of the current problem" often comes down to too many horses, when you trace back various complaints in SIM to their root cause.

She also later says, "Now, breeders often employ a 'Throw every possible mare at a stallion' technique." Maybe I interpreted wrong, but I felt she was disapproving, and would rather see breeders make careful decisions.

[Matt Feldman]

I'm the one who started my first post talking about horse population. If one reads the article, Em doesn't ever say anything about horse population. But that's what I was interpreting between the lines, when she says, "here is how I feel about current stud fees and why I think they are not only incredibly important, but also a lot of the current problem in the game. To me, "a lot of the current problem" often comes down to too many horses, when you trace back various complaints in SIM to their root cause.

She also later says, "Now, breeders often employ a 'Throw every possible mare at a stallion' technique." Maybe I interpreted wrong, but I felt she was disapproving, and would rather see breeders make careful decisions.

I took Em's point to be more about parity than raw numbers. If every horse is sent to a great sire, then too many horses end up being wow's, and when wow equals average, wow horses are devalued. Conversely, if great sires were more expensive, wows would be rarer, and maybe you could actually win a stakes race with one.

I don't know about the other breeds, but parity is a HUGE problem with trotters, and its taking a lot of fun out of the breed for me. Yes, with such low stud fees its almost impossible not to make at least a little money on every wings+ horse (meaning the faster wings on up, though they are running in claiming races to have a chance), but I personally would rather have more fun and less $im.

I'm also not sure if raising the fees of the better stallions would fix the parity issue, but I hope something would.

[Regina Moore]

then too many horses end up being wow's, and when wow equals average, wow horses are devalued. Conversely, if great sires were more expensive, wows would be rarer, and maybe you could actually win a stakes race with one.

Yes. And, if that were the case -- fewer wows and scarys -- then the wings and htts would actually have some value, because somebody needs to win the allowance and claiming races. That can't happen when there's more horses than there are players who want them.

[Jo Ferris]

I took Em's point to be more about parity than raw numbers. If every horse is sent to a great sire, then too many horses end up being wow's, and when wow equals average, wow horses are devalued. Conversely, if great sires were more expensive, wows would be rarer, and maybe you could actually win a stakes race with one.

I don't know about the other breeds, but parity is a HUGE problem with trotters, and its taking a lot of fun out of the breed for me. Yes, with such low stud fees its almost impossible not to make at least a little money on every wings+ horse (meaning the faster wings on up, though they are running in claiming races to have a chance), but I personally would rather have more fun and less $im.

I'm also not sure if raising the fees of the better stallions would fix the parity issue, but I hope something would.

This is definitely a problem with paints, HTT's are basically worthless even with the added claiming races because that is where the wings and most wows are racing.

I'm pretty sure raising the fees would help a little at least, especially with mid paints, for example Falcon Nine stands for $10,000 (5k less than Streak of Rock and Hockey Mafia, 2.5k less than Em Pee Vee and a mere 5k more than most 2nd tier sires) so obviously if you have a mare that you don't know whether or not she has potential to give you a good foal you'd probably default to him since he's cheaper than the other good sires but not pricey enough that you'd hesitate using him with a not so great-ok mare so the combination of the great sire to a not so great-ok mare results into a average-halfway decent horse, put that into gallop comments and the foal would be wings-wow. But if Falcon Nine, Hockey Mafia, Streak of Rock and Em Pee Vee stood for 20k-30k, (not that i'm encouraging this, at least not until i have my own studs so i don't spend a bazillion dollars in stud fees!!!) you'd hesitate breeding a not so great-ok mare to them and use a 2nd tier sire instead. Sorry, i kinda went on a rant, long story short, rising fees would make people with okish mares use 2nd tier sires.

We could also do a major game wide culling of mares, but i doubt anyone would go for it (I'll take place as the first person to refuse to cull my mares! I like breeding too much)

[Lisa Strummer]

then too many horses end up being wow's, and when wow equals average, wow horses are devalued. Conversely, if great sires were more expensive, wows would be rarer, and maybe you could actually win a stakes race with one.

Yes. And, if that were the case -- fewer wows and scarys -- then the wings and htts would actually have some value, because somebody needs to win the allowance and claiming races. That can't happen when there's more horses than there are players who want them.

I've been saying this for awhile now. Whether it's stud fees or too many mares being bred that probably shouldn't, the fact we can dump everything wings or below and many do, I doubt anything can or will change. Wings and below horses are virtually worthless to most players except for some fillies with great pedigrees.

I don't know what can be done to change it and even if there was most players won't want that change.

[J K Rowling]

Another thing to consider with mixers is that even 1st and 2nd tier studs share mostly the same bloodlines (probably half of Paint mids are Belleview x Splash Works) so you're not even gaining that much diversity. As someone who has $15mil to burn on Appy and Paint breeding this year, I could send my entire band of ~275 to 35k studs and spend 9.6 mil. If I get 7 mil in earnings every year and I get income from Streak of Rock and a few 2nd tiers then I'm set. I have that many more chances of getting a freak while others are left crossing their fingers over a sire like Dutton.

It's come to the point in the game where raised fees just won't happen unless we're forced to. Auto assigned fees according to their sire power. The change will have to come from the back end, which will certainly be an adjustment and lead to complaining.