FLIP OVER FOR MARCH 7 ISSUE NUMBERS GAME A Deeper Look at Trainer Stats Special Section XXX Declining XXX XXX Exotic XXX Payoffs XXX + 2014 Purse Review
$20,000 Breed Secure $15,000 LFSN At 2 Second Highweight at 123 lbs WINNER OF 3 RACES IN 4 STARTS At 3 Winner of the Grade 1 Cigar Mile AGAINST OLDER HORSES IN 1:33 4/5 At 4 Winner of the Grade 1 Woodward Stakes DEFEATING MUCHO MACHO MAN Gainesway Farm 859.293.2676 / Michael Hernon 859.621.6295 Neil Howard 859.621.6273 / Brian Graves 859.621.6270
To Honor And Serve defeating eventual BC Classic Winner Mucho Macho Man LGB, LLC 2015 /Photo: Adam Coglianese
Unlock your mare s greatest potential... This comprehensive report considers your mare s entire pedigree all male and female ancestors and identifes the key ancestors to seek out or avoid in the pedigrees of stallions in prospective matings. Visit TrueNicks.com/ KeyAncestors for details and a sample report. Watch the video: Byron Rogers and Ian Tapp explain new features: TrueNicks.com/KeyAncestors Facebook.com/TrueNicks Twitter.com/TrueNicks TrueNicks.com 800.582.5604
IN THIS SECTION SKIP DICKSTEIN BENOIT PHOTO ANNE M. EBERHARDT ANNE M. EBERHARDT 6 TRAINING ON STATISTICS 10 A TOUGH GAME GETS TOUGHER 14 PURSES DROP, BUT SO DOES NUMBER OF RACES 17 VIEW FROM THE TOP The racetrack is the focus for this month s special section of MarketWatch: the trainers who prepare and saddle racehorses, the purses for which those horses compete, and the winning parimutuel payoffs distributed to horseplayers who wager on races. We begin with the NTRA s National Handicapping Championship (NHC) Players Committee chairman Christopher Larmey, who looks at trainers from the perspective of the horseplayer. Larmey explains scenarios where horseplayers use statistics on trainers and suggests how other industry players owners, breeders, and even trainers themselves might benefit from using a similar statistical approach to their decision making. Moving from a horseplayer s methods to a core issue affecting all horseplayers, Frank Angst addresses declining exotic payoff returns. Examining 20 years of North American exacta and trifecta payoff data, Angst identifies several factors that are contributing to the trend. In a review of 2014 North American purses, Tom LaMarra discusses the racetracks that saw their purses increase last year. LaMarra notes that the tracks most successful in growing purse money benefitted from alternative revenue sources amid industry-wide shrinking of parimutuel handle, the traditional source for purses. Our annual review of trainers compares the past 15 years of statistics on all trainers with the top 1% of trainers. We wrap up the section with in-depth tables on the top 100 North American trainers of 2014. Thanks for reading, and we hope you enjoy this MarketWatch special section. Ian Tapp Cover illustration by Katie Taylor Photos by Anne M. Eberhardt (trainer); Tracy Gantz (horse working) Vol. CXLI, 10 The Blood-Horse (ISSN 0006-4998) is published weekly except for the first week of June, the first week of July and the fourth week of December, plus two special issues, one in July and one in December by The Blood-Horse Inc., 3101 Beaumont Centre Circle, Lexington, Ky., 40513. Periodicals postage paid at Lexington, Ky., and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to THE BLOOD-HORSE, P.O. Box 911088, Lexington, KY 40591-1088. Combined issues count as two subscription issue s. One-year subscription surface rates: United States, $99.00 (plus sales tax where applicable); Canada, $172.20 (including GST); all others, $269.00 payable in U.S. funds drawn on a U.S. bank. Optional air expedited service available $394.00 US dollars. Send subscription orders, change of address requests, or inquiries to: THE BLOOD-HORSE, Circulation Dept., P.O. Box 911088, Lexington, KY 40591-1088; or for fastest service call in the U.S./Canada: (800) 582-5604. All others may call (859) 278-2361. Hours are Mon.-Fri., 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST/EDT, except holidays. Fax us at: (859) 276-6743. Include copy of mailing label for address changes. Allow 4-6 weeks for arrival of first copy or for address change to take effect. Send Letters to the Editor and all other correspondence to: THE BLOOD-HORSE, P.O. Box 919003, Lexington, Ky., 40591-9003. (859) 278-2361. Canada Post International Publications Mail Product (Canadian Distribution) Sales Agreement 40028969. Canada GST registration R128871423. Printed in the United States. Data provided or compiled by The Jockey Club Information Systems Inc. generally is accurate but occasionally errors and omissions occur as a result of incorrect data received by others, mistakes in processing and other causes. The Jockey Club Information Systems Inc. disclaims responsibility for the consequences, if any, of such errors, but would appreciate their being called to its attention. Information as to races, race results, earnings and other statistical data for races run subsequent to Dec. 31, 1990, was obtained from Equibase Company and is utilized only with permission of the copyright owner. Such information for periods prior to Jan. 1, 1991, was obtained from the Daily Racing Form Inc. Copyright 2015 by BLOOD-HORSE LLC. All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the prior written permission of BLOOD-HORSE LLC. MarketWatch / 5
Trainer Stats SKIP DICKSTEIN Training on Statistics BY CHRISTOPHER LARMEY Thanks to new technologies including the Internet, smart phones, and big data, the pace of change is rapidly accelerating in all walks of life even the often slow-to-change racing industry. When it comes to getting an edge on the competition, breeders, owners, and trainers might actually learn a lot from the way horseplayers use information. Locked in an ongoing battle that is parimutuel wagering, horseplayers are constantly looking for new sources of information to uncover and exploit hidden value in wagering pools. As the wagering menu expands, what was once novel and valuable information, such as speed figures and trip notes, quickly becomes commonplace, which reduces its value and forces horseplayers to find other ways to gain an edge. One great example of this is statistical information about trainers. If you look back at the past performances for a particular horse in a Daily Racing Form from 30 years ago, the only information you will find about the What might we learn from horseplayers? trainer is his name. The one possible exception might be the training standings for the current race meet, which was often shown on one of the back pages of that day s DRF edition. In those days, racing was primarily local and the wagering menu relatively simple. Horseplayers, therefore, could learn the tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses of a relatively small group of key trainers at their local circuit while focusing primarily on win/ place/show bets. Most worked from memory alone, but some kept careful notes and a few even tracked self-collected statistical data on trainers. Contrast that with today: Horseplayers daily make exotic wagers on races all over the world involving literally thousands of different trainers. Clearly, the sport is no longer primarily local and most horseplayers cannot 6 / MarketWatch
Trainer Stats personally track information about all those trainers. Fortunately, they now have easy, online access to multiple sources of detailed information on trainers. New handicapping products, enhanced PPs, and interactive trainer ratings allow the horseplayer to slice, dice, and filter data in multiple ways. Such tools are a far cry from your father s DRF. Interestingly enough, this same information is being used or could be used by owners and trainers to make better decisions and get better results. We will start by taking a look at the Jan. 31 Las Virgenes Stakes (gr. I) for 3-year-old fillies at Santa Anita. Trainer Bob Baffert had two horses entered in the race: the favorite, Maybellene, a seasoned runner, stakes-placed in her two previous starts, who had raced at a mile or more; and Callback, who was making her fourth lifetime start and stretching out to a mile for the first time. As most racing fans know, Baffert is a very successful trainer (the table below shows his overall stats for the last five years). He wins at a hefty 25% clip (an owner s dream) and shows a reasonable but not as impressive (to a horseplayer) negative ROI of $1.71 for every $2 bet. Category Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff All starters, Baffert 469 2,530 25% 56% $1.71 $5.20 A closer look shows how Baffert performs in conditions more specific to Callback s in this race. We note that Callback was making her first try over a route of ground, so let s see how Baffert does with 3-year-old runners in their first route races on dirt. Under these conditions, his stats escalate to an impressive 38% winners with a positive ROI of $2.16. Category 3YO, dirt, first route, Baffert Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff 63 63 38% 60% $2.16 $4.80 Finally, we note that Baffert was taking the blinkers off Callback, so we can drill down into this scenario even further to see how he does with 3-year-olds in their first route races on dirt and racing with blinkers off. The sample shrinks to only 22 starters, but the win percentage skyrockets to 55% with a positive ROI of $2.14. We can also consider the list of those 22 starters, which includes top stakes runners Bayern, Midnight Hawk, Midnight Lucky, Paynter, Plum Pretty, Secret Circle, The Factor, and Zee Bros. With these powerful, specific, relevant stats in hand, Callback looked to be great value, going off at odds of 5-2 and was clearly the better play of the Baffert entrants. Category 3YO, dirt, first route, blinkers off, Baffert Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff 22 22 55% 77% $2.14 $3.10 Also in the Las Virgenes, another top trainer, Jerry Hollendorfer, saddled four of the nine starters. Three of the four were seasoned runners with multiple efforts at a mile or longer, including the one most fancied by the wagering public, Majestic Presence, who was coming in off two solid performances in which she had finished about two lengths behind 2014 champion juvenile filly Take Charge Brandi. Similarly to Baffert s Callback, Hollendorfer had also entered Light the City a lightly raced filly stretching out to a mile for the first time. Hollendorfer s overall stats are similar to Baffert s. He wins at a 23% clip and generates an ROI of $1.66 for every $2 bet. Category All starters, Hollendorfer Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff 840 5,503 23% 56% $1.66 $5.40 As we did with Baffert, let s dig a little deeper and see how Hollendorfer does with 3-year-old runners routing on dirt for the first time. The sample size shrinks to only 18 starters but the win percentage jumps to 50% with a through-the-roof positive ROI of $3.92 for every $2 bet to win! Again, based on these somewhat limited statistics, Light the City looked like the best play among the Hollendorfer entrants, particularly given that Majestic Presence had post time odds of 7-2 while Light the City went off at over 7-1. Category 3YO, dirt, first route, Hollendorfer Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff 18 18 50% 78% $3.92 $4.40 Given this insight, Callback and Light the City both looked like the primary contenders in the race and appeared to be good value at the post time odds. Sure enough, when the gates opened, Callback shot to the front and was tracked closely by Light the City. The two continued to battle throughout the stretch while well clear of the rest of the field. At the wire Call- Definitions of terms used in the tables Category Specific characteristics describing the sample of horses selected Horses Total number of the trainer s horses that made starts in the sample selected Total starts by the trainer s horses in the sample Win % - The percentage of starts won by the trainer s horses in the sample WPS % - The percentage of the trainer s starters finishing first, second, or third in the sample $2 ROI - The average return on investment (ROI) per $2 win bet on each starter in the sample Med. Payoff - The median $2 win payout for the trainer s winning starters in the sample MarketWatch / 7
Trainer Stats your own risk, but consider taking a stand against a 3-year-old first-timer since it will probably be significantly overbet. Category 2YO, dirt, firsttimer, Pletcher 3YO, dirt, firsttimer, Pletcher Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff 341 341 33% 65% $2.18 $5.20 178 178 20% 40% $1.38 $5.60 Callback (right) and Light the City, both routing for the first time, ran one-two in the Jan. 31 Las Virgenes back was in front by a shrinking half-length, giving Baffert another grade I win and returning to Callback s backers $7.20 for the win and $25.40 for every dollar wagered to those who played the Callback-Light the City exacta. This is just one example of the predictive power of trainer stats and demonstrates why they are key tools used by many top handicappers. The previous example shows how trainer stats might be used to uncover good value plays. Another effective use is to find horses from top barns that are good candidates to bet against. This is sort of like looking for holes in the swing of a top MLB hitter. Because of Baffert s past successes, his runners are typically bet down to favorite or near-favorite status in many races. So, anytime you can find conditions where stats indicate that a Baffert runner is unlikely to win, you have probably found a good betting opportunity. We see how impressive Baffert is in general and more specifically with 3-year-old runners stretching out in distance, but how does he do with 3-year-old runners on turf? The answer: not nearly as well. His win percentage drops to a pedestrian 15%, and his ROI plummets to a measly $0.95 for every $2 wagered to win. Clearly, his winning reputation carries over to turf racing and his turf runners are heavily bet, but they don t perform nearly as well as his runners on dirt; therefore, his turf runners are usually great bets against. BENOIT PHOTO Up until now, we have been using trainer stats from the perpective of the horseplayer, but it does not take a lot of imagination to envision how these same metrics could be used by owners or even trainers themselves. Say you are an owner or trainer who plays the claiming game and a quick return on investment is your goal. If you race in New York, you have to figure out what to do with horses trained by David Jacobson. He is king of the claimers. In the past five years he has started 1,408 horses in claiming races on dirt in New York and has won 351 (25%) of those races. He spots his horses aggressively, often boldly dropping in-form horses down in class to capture purses and maintain that high winning percentage. Almost every racing circuit has its version of Jacobson, so this is not a challenge unique to New York. Category Claimers, dirt, NY, Jacobson Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff 520 1,408 25% 60% $1.77 $5.80 What should you do when you see that Jacobson has just entered a horse that, based on its current form, looks like it could be a solid claim? Let s look at horses claimed from Jacobson and see how they did in their next starts. Surprisingly, they did quite well. There were 240 such starters that won at an impressive 20% clip with a positive ROI of $2.61. However, you might want to lay off a Jacobson high-priced claimer. Only one of the 19 horses claimed from Jacobson for more than $40,000 won its next start. Of course, other tools such as speed figures, racing history, physical appearance, and inside information can also help with such decisions, but from a purely statistical standpoint Jacobson claimers actually appear to offer some value, particularly when they are Category Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff 3YO, turf, Baffert 62 113 15% 44% $0.95 $5.20 Similar holes in the swing of successful trainers include Todd Pletcher, who is known for hitting at a high rate with first time starters. The reputation is justified for 2-year-old runners as he wins an incredible 33% of the time with a positive ROI; however, his 3-year-old first-timers do not perform nearly as well, winning 20% of the time with the ROI dropping all the way down to $1.38. So bet against a Pletcher 2-year-old at Stats help uncover holes in the swing of even the best trainers BENOIT PHOTO 8 / MarketWatch
Trainer Stats dropping in class. Doing similar analysis on any trainer from whom you are considering claiming a horse could help improve such decisions. Category Claimers, dirt, NY, first start after claimed from Jacobson Horses Win % WPS % $2 ROI Med. Payoff 221 240 20% 49% $2.61 $5.80 So far we have talked about using data readily accessible in commercial handicapping products, but for a racehorse owner they are of limited use. Owners want to maximize the return on investment from their horses and to do that they should evaluate which trainers are the most productive. So let s get creative and think beyond the statistical information readily available today. Such innovative thinking has revolutionized management in professional sports. For example, baseball executives now look past old-school stats such as batting average (hitters), wins (pitchers), and fielding percentage (position players) and instead focus on modern metrics that better assess the true value of players, such as on-base percentage plus slugging (OPS) for hitters, walks plus hits per inning pitched (WHIP) for pitchers, and Range Factor for fielders. What might similar next generation statistics look like for assessing the performances of trainers? We will start with the metric most often used to assess trainer performance win percentage. Is this the best way to assess a trainer s performance from the perspective of an owner? What sort of behaviors does it reinforce? Is there a better metric? To approach these questions from a financial perspective, owners are investing capital in horses and would like to get a good return on that investment (and also have some fun along the way). So, for a particular horse (i.e. investment) over a given period of time, owners are looking to maximize the following: net profit return on invested capital (ROIC) = invested capital For our purposes, we are going to focus on horses in training (HIT) and consider a horse to be in training in a given month if it shows at least one published workout or start in that month. A new metric we will call ROICHIT for a given horse will equal the following: [ 12 months earnings during the year x months horse was while under the trainer in training under the trainer during the year investment value of the horse while under the trainer With this in mind, let s look at a simple hypothetical example. Horses Alpha and Beta both were purchased for $100,000 and have equal talent/ability. Both horses are healthy and in training for all 12 months of the year. Alpha is trained by [ JOSEPH DIORIO New metrics might better identify trainers who maximize an owner s return on investment Johnny Highpercentage, who is well regarded thanks to his stellar win percentage of 25%. Beta is trained by Jane Runsalot, who is not nearly as well known and has a win percentage of only 10%. Alpha makes four starts during the year, wins one race, and places in another race for earnings of $50,000. His ROICHIT would equal: 12 months $50,000 x [12 months = 0.5 $100,000 Beta runs 12 times, wins a race, but also places five times and earns $100,000. His ROICHIT would equal: $100,000 x 12 months [12 months $100,000 = 1.0 [ [ Which horse would you rather own: Alpha, who won at a 25% clip, or Beta, who won only 8.3% of his starts but produced twice the return of Alpha? Now let s change our example somewhat. In this example, Alpha was purchased for $1 million while Beta was purchased for $100,000. This time both horses made an equal number of starts (eight), won the same number of races (two), and earned the same purse money ($100,000). But the ROICHIT for Alpha (0.1) is only one-tenth of the ROICHIT for Beta (1.0). Again, which horse would you rather own? These examples have only scratched the surface as to how training stats might be used to improve decision-making across various industry roles including owners, trainers, and, of course, horseplayers. Racing information providers continue to innovate as even more detailed data become available and data storage, analysis, and reporting tools become ever more sophisticated. Those in the industry who fail to get onboard with these changes are very likely to be left far behind in the never-ending race to success. MW Christopher Larmey is the chairman of the NTRA s National Handicapping Championship (NHC) Players Committee. MarketWatch / 9
Exotic Payoffs Average exacta, trifecta payoffs have declined steadily over the past 20 years ADAM COGLIANESE/NYRA A Tough Game Gets Tougher Horseplayers who believe that even when they re winning they re losing may not be far off the mark. A MarketWatch study of pari-mutuel payoffs in the U.S. and Canada since 1995 reveals the average winning exacta payoff has fallen 18% and average trifecta payoff has plummeted 33%. Particularly troubling for players is that even when races of equal field sizes are compared during that time frame, the average exacta payoff has fallen 7.8% and the average trifecta payoff is down 7.9% (see Chart 1). What s causing declining exotic payoffs? The overall declines point to the importance of field size, which since 1995 is down 4.3% to 7.85 starters per race. For bettors, though, smaller fields at least mean an easier proposition that should result in more frequent wins. It s easier to hit a trifecta in an eight-horse race than in one with 12 starters. More concerning for horseplayers, track executives, and horsemen interested in growing pari-mutuel wagering the sport s economic engine are the payoff declines when field size is eliminated as a factor. With racing facing more competition from other gambling options than ever before, pari-mutuel wagering has BY FRANK ANGST become less attractive. Experts point to increases in pari-mutuel takeout, the money retained by the sport largely for the track and horsemen; an increased percentage of smart money in the pools, including players who set up computer-robotic wagering (CRW) programs using time-tested algorithms to extract value; a more predictable wagering product; and lower minimum wagers as reasons for declining payoffs. While the experts don t completely agree on the reasons for declining payoffs, they do agree that unless pari-mutuel wagering is made more attractive, it will struggle to attract new players and keep current bettors. The Horseplayers Association of North America also has tracked winning payoffs and has seen declines similar to the findings 10 / MarketWatch
Exotic Payoffs of the MarketWatch study, including drops in win, place, and show returns. HANA president Jeff Platt believes increased takeout is a big reason for declining payoffs. Platt points out that a winning exacta wager that would return $100 at Belmont Park under its 18.5% takeout would return just $94.80 at Santa Anita Park, which has a takeout rate of 22.68% (see Table 1). That Santa Anita payoff is 5.2% lower than Belmont s. Platt s group has brought attention to the detrimental effects of increased takeout for players, most recently in 2011 in California when exacta and daily double takeout was increased from 20.68% to 22.68% and exotic wagers with three or more betting interests went up from 20.68% to 23.68%. Last year HANA members boycotted Churchill Downs tracks when the flagship Louisville track upped its win, place, and show takeout from 16% to 17.5% and all other wagers from 19% to 22%. Absolutely as takeout goes up, payoffs go down, Platt said. There s no way to get around that. Sanford Orlando Kennel Club general manager Mike Newlin, who has worked in pari-mutuels at horse and dog tracks, believes CRW bettors are acting as an added takeout for most horseplayers. He believes their programs that scan potential payoffs and can fire hundreds of wagers in an instant to act on those findings are an unfair advantage and that they should be prohibited. However, not only does the industry continue to welcome CRW action, it rewards these high-volume players with lucrative ANNE M. EBERHARDT Increased takeout, robot players present challenges for the average handicapper rebates (10% or more) that many CRW players acknowledge make the difference between winning and losing. In 2014, robot players accounted for a higher percentage of total handle than ever before, reaching a low-end estimate of $1 for every $5 in the pools. Newlin believes players who once profited or made enough to view their losses as entertainment are being driven from the game. In examining settlements winnings that host tracks pay to outlets that wager into their pools Newlin sees a few CRW players turning profits and nearly everyone else taking it on the chin. (They re winning) at the expense of the average Joe handicapper, Newlin said. It s something that never should have been allowed in the first place, and I don t know how you stop it now, other than individual tracks deciding to stop it. Robot players are found at numerous ADW companies in the U.S. with Racing and Gaming Services and Elite Turf Club being two of the largest. Even track-owned ADWs such as Churchill Downs TwinSpires.com CHART 1 Trend in North American Exacta & Trifecta Payoffs, 1995-2014 Based on a composite of payoff averages for field sizes 6-10 4.0% 2.0% Change since 1995 0% -2.0% -4.0% -6.0% -8.0% -10% -12% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 - Exacta - Trifecta MarketWatch / 11
Exotic Payoffs and The Stronach Group s XpressBet.com are in on the act. Many CRW players are syndicates. Some are based in North America, but others are international accounts set up to wager into North American pools. While CRW players pumped about $2.1 billion into U.S. pari-mutuel pools on Thoroughbred racing in 2014, U.S. handle has declined in seven of the past eight years and the nearly $10.6 billion wagered on U.S. races in 2014 is down 28% from the $15.2 billion wagered in 2003. Tracks, especially those without the buttress of added gaming, have struggled or failed. Tracks often pave the way for rebates by offering low fees on their signal to high-volume outlets that include CRW players. But beginning Jan. 1 Newlin put a new policy in place that not only required ADW companies to prohibit robot players from Sanford Orlando s pools but required a higher fee, 10%, for the signal. As he expected, Newlin saw few ADW companies willing to accept the new terms, and the track s ADW outlets dwindled from 20 to four. But Newlin already is seeing some positive trends. Since we ve done this, most of the brickand-mortar places the old school places you see their settlements being more evened out, Newlin said. In the past, there were five or six ADW outlets that used robotic wagering and had the settlements in their favor more often than not. Those computer-assisted players were scraping money from the average Joe, whether he s wagering $20,000 a day at an OTB in Connecticut or a $20 player coming to Sanford Orlando Kennel Club. These few ADWs were beating the masses on a regular basis. Over time this just grinds the normal guy out of the game. Newlin notes that while a 10% drop in trifecta payoffs may not sound like much, it means Reductions in total starters and field size may result in more predictable outcomes COURTESY EVANGELINE DOWNS TABLE 1 Takeout Rate s Impact on Exacta Payoffs 1. A compelling field of horses attracts exactly $300,000 of handle into an exacta pool. 2. When the race is made official it is discovered that exactly 2,445 winning $1 exacta tickets were sold. Track Pool Amount payoffs that should be $200 are now $180, shorting players $20. He thinks if more on-track players and simulcast bettors loyal to the track s signal received that money, it would be bet back into the track s pools known in the gambling business as churn. We re getting the live handle back. We were up 15% in live on-track handle in January while still being up 20% on guest handle. What we are seeing is that our on-track patrons are winning much more often, Newlin said of the new policies. That settlement money isn t being shipped out to some ADW in Oregon. It s going back to old school ideas how it worked back then was through churn. Players betting on Sanford are getting a little more back. If they re winning more often, it s going to become their favorite greyhound track. Two Thoroughbred tracks that have made efforts in recent years to curtail CRW action are Oaklawn Park and Tampa Bay Downs. Since 2007, Oaklawn s trifecta payoffs (when field size is accounted for) are higher than the North American average every year. Tampa s trifecta payoffs were similar to the average but slightly ahead in most years since 2007 (see Chart 2). Exacta payoffs at Takeout Rate Winning Tickets $1 Exacta Payoff Belmont Park $300,000 18.5% 2,445 $100.00 Keeneland $300,000 19% 2,445 $99.30 Churchill Downs $300,000 22% 2,445 $95.70 Santa Anita Park $300,000 22.68% 2,445 $94.80 Courtesy Horseplayers Association of North America Oaklawn and Tampa since 2007 fluctuated above and below average. Platt believes there should be a place for CRW players. He notes that while it is a different kind of wagering, they are taking a risk with each wager. He believes the game is tougher because the percentage of smart money in today s pools has never been higher, and he said the industry needs to find ways to bring back more casual bettors. You go back to the 1990s when there was more on-track attendance and you walked into an OTB or simulcast facility; there was just more people at all of those places, Platt said. At some tracks, it was a party atmosphere; I know it was at Turf Paradise where I went back then. I m sure that was the same everywhere. You had people betting $2 on their birthday (numbers). That s how it was when I started betting racing; there was a lot more casual money in the pools. If you look now, the casual money isn t in our pools anymore. It s at the casinos with the same type of atmosphere of 20- and 30-somethings partying, having some drinks, and gambling some money. Curtis Linnell, Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau director of racing analysis, notes a huge reduction in casual money took place in December 2010 when New York City Off-Track Betting closed its doors. That outlet routinely pumped about a billion dollars into pari-mutuel pools $750 million even in its final year. With many New York City OTB patrons approaching race-wagering as one might approach a lottery, New York City OTB also typically registered the biggest losses in the country providing added value for every other horseplayer. MarketWatch numbers show exactas were slightly down in 2011-12 but started to come back up in 2013-14. Trifecta payouts were 12 / MarketWatch
Exotic Payoffs down slightly in 2011-12, up slightly in 2013, and back down in 2014. With only very knowledgeable bettors in the pools, Platt doesn t see things getting any easier. It s tougher than it ever was, Platt said. Beating the game can still be done, but it s an amazing amount of work. You have to work harder and harder and harder to do it. Linnell said with casual money from outlets such as New York City OTB drying up, robot players in U.S. pools often are playing against each other. That eventually could impact their model. Some CRW players increased North American play after leaving or reducing play into Asian and Australian pools because of heavy competition among robot players in those locations. With the reduction of casual money in the pools, Platt believes the impact of CRW and other sharp players is being more noticed as they ve come to represent such a large handle percentage. You look at Aqueduct (in the) winter, there s no one actually at the races but they do big handle, Platt said. It s from guys like me who think they know something, other guys who think they know something, computer-robotic players and syndicates, and barns that bet because they think their horse is ready to go. Smaller issues may also be impacting winnings. Platt believes the reduction in total starters, even beyond field-size impact, has adversely affected payoffs. He thinks this reality makes it easier for top horses to dominate races and easier for players to spot them, resulting in more predictable outcomes. ANNE M. EBERHARDT Many tracks have lowered minimum wager prices from $2 to $1 for exactas and from $1 to 50 cents for trifectas With fewer and fewer available horses, the degree of chaos (unpredictability) in races is being reduced, Platt said. The more chaos in a race, the higher the average payouts (are) from those races. As you get fewer and fewer horses available, the typical eight-horse field now has less potential for chaos than the field from five or six years ago. Another factor contribut- ing to payoff declines is decreased minimum wagers. Many tracks initially offered $2 minimum wagers for exactas, and for years $1 minimums were the standard for trifectas. But in recent years tracks have moved to a $1 minimum for exactas, and many have gone to a 50-cent minimum for trifectas. The lower minimum prices have proved popular, but they may be resulting in lower relative payoffs because bettors are covering more possibilities on their tickets. Such reductions to the minimum price of wagers have largely been embraced by bettors, at least the ones that remain. MW CHART 2 Composite $2 Trifecta Payoffs: Oaklawn Park, Tampa Bay Downs & North America, 2007-14 Composite of $2 trifecta payoff averages for field sizes 6-10 $600 $580 $560 $540 $520 $500 $480 $460 $440 $420 $400 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Oaklawn Park Tampa Bay Downs All North America MarketWatch / 13
2014 Purses Review 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% Purses Drop, But So Does Number of Races BY TOM La MARRA Percentage Change in Purses 91 92 93 94 95 96 9 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Though there hasn t been any consistent growth in Thoroughbred purses in North America since the period from 1994-2008, last year s numbers, though down, weren t that bad considering the loss of more than 2,000 races. Largest gains at tracks with alternative revenue sources 2014 PERFORMANCE & EARNINGS METRICS, SIRES OF 2-YEAR-OLDS 21,886 - Number of named 2YO registered foals 2,199 - Number of stallions represented with registered foals 10 - Average number of foals per stallion 1,165 - Stallions with 2YO starters 8,115-2YO starters 7.0 - Average number of 2YO starters per stallion 3.1 - Average number of 2YO starts per starters 2.1 - Average number of 2YO winners per stallion 652 - Stallions with 2YO winners 513 - Stallions without 2YO winners 2,495 - Number of 2YO winners 3,024 - Number of 2YO races 5,620-2YO starters which did not win 5,322-2YO non-winners which earned money 298-2YO starters which did not earn money $130,602,804 - Total purse distribution for 2YOs $16,039 - Average earnings per 2YO starter $42,110 - Average earnings per winner 341 - Number of 2YO stakes races 260-2YO stakes winners $38,223,017 - Earned by 2YO stakes winners 6.8% - Percentage of 2YO races to all races 15% - Percentage of 2YO starters to all starters 11% - Percentage of 2YO purse distribution to all purses Thoroughbred purses in 2014 totaled $1,170,700,796, down 1.1% from $1,183,970,000 in 2013. But the number of races last year 44,640 dropped 4.6% from 46,810 the previous year. In turn, average earnings per starter increased last year to $21,208, up 4.1% from $20,367 in 2013. Horses that collectively earned the largest share of total purses (24%, or $277,679,273) fell in the $25,000-$49,999 earnings range. The most lucrative month for total purses paid in North America last year was August, with $136.7 million, good for 12% of the combined 12 months. May, which features the $2 million Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands and the $1.5 million Preakness Stakes (both gr. I), was second at $120.53 million, or 10% of the total. As for distribution of races by purse, races in the $15,000- $24,999 range were the most prevalent with 10,380. Total purses of $198.1 million in that category, however, trailed the totals of both the $238.1 million for races valued at $100,000 and up and the $222.4 million for races in the $50,000-$99,000 purse range; those two categories combined had 4,448 races in 2014. Meanwhile, the status quo hasn t changed much in terms of leaders by average daily purses paid, with tracks in New York, Kentucky, and California dominating the top 10. Saratoga Race Course led the way with an average of $1,035,540 over 40 days, followed by Kentucky Downs ($948,905 over five days), Belmont Park ($788,164 over 92 days), Keeneland ($631,724 over 32 days), Del Mar ($607,861 over 51 days), Woodbine ($489,588 over 133 days), Santa Anita Park ($481,878 over 132 days), Aqueduct Racetrack ($467,763 over 114 days), Churchill Downs ($447,127 over 74 days), and Pimlico Race Course ($412,629 over 35 days). With pari-mutuel handle the primary source of purse money continuing its annual decline, alternative sources of revenue helped keep total purses above the $1 billion mark on the year. The top 10 racetracks by percentage increase in purses from 2013-14 receive revenue from something other than traditional pari-mutuel pools: casino-style gaming, either on site or off site; historical race wagering devices; and card clubs. ThistleDown Racino near Cleveland, Ohio, registered the highest increase in purses among racetracks with extended pari-mutuel meets. ThistleDown, which employs video lottery terminals to supplement purses, averaged $116,525 per day in purses over 121 days, up 37% from $84,918 for 122 days in 2013. Kentucky Downs, the all-turf track that had the second-largest purse gain at 15%, has historical race wagering, also known as Instant Racing. Others in the top 10 by percentage purse increase are Tampa Bay Downs in Florida (13%), Oaklawn Park in Arkansas (12%), Sunray Park in New Mexico (11%), Belmont Park in New York (11%), Laurel Park in Maryland (10%), Canterbury Park in Minnesota (10%), Wyoming Downs (9.7%), and Albuquerque Downs in New Mexico (9.3%). The list exemplifies the different ways racetracks derive alter- 14 / MarketWatch
2014 Purses Review native revenue. Oaklawn and the New Mexico tracks have on-site gaming devices; Tampa Bay has a card club; Belmont and Laurel receive a state-legislated share of VLT revenue from off-site casinos; and Wyoming Downs has historical race wagering machines. And then there s Canterbury, which has the most unusual and perhaps most stable system to supplement purses. The track began raising prize money in 2012 as part of a multi-year $75 million joint marketing and purse-enhancement agreement with the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community that operates the nearby Mystic Lake Casino Hotel. The deal came about after Canterbury agreed not to pursue legislative approval for slot machines, which would have competed against Mystic Lake. The unprecedented deal is for 10 years with options for an extension. Last year it allowed Canterbury to pay an average of $176,132 per day in purses over a 67-day meet, up from $159,991 in 2013. The agreement is structured so track management, Minnesota horsemen, and the tribe can plan purse payouts over the long term. Not all tracks with alternative revenue sources experienced 2014 PERFORMANCE & EARNINGS METRICS, ALL SIRES 3,662 - Stallions represented by starters 2,510 - Stallions represented by winners 1,084 - Stallions represented by non-winning earners 68 - Stallions represented by non-earners 15.1 - Average number of starters per stallion 7.4 - Average number of winners per stallion 12.2 - Average number of wins per stallion $319,689 - Average purse distribution per stallion 6.2 - Average number of starts per starter 26,917 - Number of winners 1.7 - Average number of wins per winner $21,209 - Average earnings per starters $9,232 - Median earnings per starter 30,110 - Starters which earned $7,500 or more 55% - Percentage of starters which earned $7,500 or more 13,308 - Starters which earned $25,000 or more 24% - Percentage of starters which earned $25,000 or more purse growth in 2014. Some state legislatures have shifted or continue to shift gaming funds statutorily earmarked for purses and breed development to other state programs to cover budget shortfalls. All three Pennsylvania Thoroughbred tracks they accounted for 486 racing programs last year registered declines in average daily purses. Parx Racing was down 8.9%, Presque Isle Downs & Casino was down 5.6%, and Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course dropped 3.0% from 2013. The tracks have slot machines. West Virginia, where revenue from racetrack VLTs and table games goes to purses, offered 387 racing days in 2014. Average daily purses at Mountaineer Casino, Racetrack & Resort dropped 5.6% from the previous year while Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races experienced a decline of less than 1%. Because of weather-related cancellations at Charles Town and a West Virginia Racing Commission-approved plan by Mountaineer to vacate its December dates, the tracks combined raced 44 fewer days, or 10% less, than in 2013. Woodbine, Canada s flagship racetrack, did quite well in 2014 given the provincial government s decision to end its slots-at-racetracks program a few years ago and instead award bridge funding to the horse racing industry in Ontario. Woodbine still has slots but no longer receives 10% for purses and 10% for operations. Though Woodbine raced 133 days last year, it averaged a solid $489,488 per day in purses, down 3.6% from $507,952 for 132 days in 2013. In total, North American purses in 2014 were at their lowest point since 2000 ($1.164 billion) with one exception: 2010 purses totaled $1.163 billion. The high point for purses was 2007, when they totaled $1.328 billion. MW CHART 1 1,400 Gross North American Purses, 1991-2014 Nominal vs. inflation-adjusted dollars Nominal vs. inflation-adjusted dollars 1,300 Millions of Millions dollars 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 - Nominal Gross Purses - Inflation-Adjusted Gross Purses MarketWatch / 15
Track 2014 Dates (Chg. 13-14) 2014 Starters 2013 Starters 2014 Median Purse % Chg. Median ( 13-14) 2014 Daily Purse % Chg. Average ( 13-14) ARIZONA Turf Paradise 141 (-11) 7.72 7.52 $6,600 6.5% $71,006-1.8% Rillito 14 (-1) 7.02 6.85 $2,100 5.0% $9,221-1.6% Santa Cruz County Fair @ Sonoita 2 (--) 6.43 6.50 $2,000-2.4% $9,800 1.6% ARKANSAS Oaklawn Park 53 (-1) 8.96 9.02 $24,000 15% $390,280 12% CALIFORNIA Golden Gate Fields 152 (-3) 6.90 7.39 $13,158 9.2% $147,995 4.8% Los Alamitos 133 (-14) 6.13 6.40 $8,000 $25,199-6.3% Santa Anita Park 132 (38) 7.91 8.24 $45,250 23% $487,879 6.4% Del Mar 51 (14) 8.66 8.79 $57,500-24% $607,862-6.9% Los Alamitos Race Course 31 (31) 7.44 $20,250 $321,698 Santa Rosa 13 (--) 7.08 7.67 $13,025-7.0% $141,671 7.8% Oak Tree At Pleasanton 12 (--) 7.53 7.70 $14,465 13% $154,270 15% Fresno 9 (--) 6.40 7.13 $12,405 $121,429 7.4% Sacramento 7 (-1) 6.45 7.24 $11,905 8.2% $114,852-5.4% Ferndale 6 (-2) 6.03 5.87 $8,050 3.9% $44,959 12% Stockton 6 (--) 7.10 8.19 $9,948-6.4% $87,788 13% COLORADO Arapahoe Park 35 (-4) 7.47 8.49 $8,100 2.5% $80,085 5.4% DELAWARE Delaware Park 80 (-1) 7.11 6.99 $17,453-20% $185,250-19% FLORIDA Gulfstream Park 177 (45) 8.60 8.63 $20,875-24% $316,188-13% Tampa Bay Downs 92 (--) 8.29 8.35 $15,125 13% $177,629 13% Calder Race Course 79 (-50) 6.86 7.33 $10,520-12% $120,616-29% Gulfstream Park West 44 (44) 8.64 $17,050 $244,583 IDAHO Les Bois Park 31 (2) 6.99 6.28 $6,000 107% $40,705 68% Black Foot 4 (1) 5.89 3.29 $1,500-52% $6,063-5.3% Sandy Downs 3 (1) 4.67 4.00 $1,200-8.6% $1,217-7.3% ILLINOIS Arlington 89 (--) 7.63 7.91 $19,830-9.9% $265,320-9.4% Hawthorne 85 (-16) 7.72 7.59 $12,490-11% $157,890-13% Fairmount Park 52 (-16) 6.67 7.42 $6,000 3.4% $56,494-1.2% INDIANA Indiana Grand Race Course 113 (-1) 8.17 8.60 $19,060 12% $215,868-8.6% IOWA Prairie Meadows 67 (--) 7.36 7.82 $15,336-13% $212,357-4.3% KENTUCKY Churchill Downs 74 (-1) 7.79 8.16 $29,145 15% $447,127 1.9% Turfway Park 47 (-2) 8.57 9.13 $7,680-20% $123,458-8.4% Keeneland 32 (-1) 8.75 9.61 $55,474 4.7% $631,724 7.2% Ellis Park 28 (-1) 7.31 8.15 $13,750 18% $158,900 5.7% Kentucky Downs 5 (--) 10.18 9.96 $88,186 2.6% $948,905 15% LOUISIANA Delta Downs 86 (-5) 8.87 9.00 $17,000 7.1% $264,746 2.4% Evangeline Downs 84 (--) 8.90 9.02 $13,000-13% $173,638-5.7% Louisiana Downs 84 (--) 7.85 8.25 $11,000-7.6% $134,594-13% Fair Grounds 82 (1) 7.90 8.14 $20,090 $298,895-6.7% MARYLAND Laurel Park 107 (-2) 7.79 7.84 $26,490 15% $299,279 10% Pimlico 35 (-1) 7.81 7.47 $30,632 13% $412,630 8.6% Timonium 7 (-3) 6.17 6.49 $14,000 7.7% $174,343 18% MASSACHUSETTS Suffolk Downs 65 (-16) 7.17 7.24 $9,300 3.1% $106,572 1.4% MICHIGAN Hazel Park 38 (38) 7.01 $8,500 $80,421 MINNESOTA Canterbury Park 67 (-2) 8.20 8.36 $16,300 13% $176,133 10% MONTANA Great Falls 4 (--) 6.16 6.25 $3,100 48% $25,087 69% Miles City 2 (-1) 4.50 6.14 $3,100 24% $3,100-50% NEBRASKA Fonner Park 29 (1) 8.23 8.51 $5,317-0.7% $68,397-0.3% Columbus 15 (-1) 6.68 7.30 $5,000 $45,902 4.1% Horsemen s Park 3 (--) 7.50 8.00 $17,250 4.5% $91,517-4.2% 2014 Purses at North American Tracks Track 16 / MarketWatch 2014 Dates (Chg. 13-14) 2014 Starters 2013 Starters 2014 Median Purse % Chg. Median ( 13-14) 2014 Daily Purse % Chg. Average ( 13-14) NEW JERSEY Monmouth Park 57 (-4) 7.99 7.56 $24,390-2.4% $391,687-0.4% Meadowlands 8 (-1) 8.75 9.96 $17,992-5.0% $120,178-3.0% Atlantic City 5 (-1) 9.67 9.84 $18,000-22% $112,600-13% NEW MEXICO Sunland Park 76 (2) 8.64 8.93 $13,280-2.4% $141,759-5.4% Zia Park 55 (-1) 7.18 7.45 $16,000 0.6% $160,883-3.2% Albuquerque 53 (-1) 8.43 7.41 $12,100 75% $97,920 94% Ruidoso Downs 51 (-1) 6.78 7.37 $7,400 0.8% $56,500-6.1% Sunray Park 35 (-4) 7.53 7.61 $9,108 15% $72,678 11% NEW YORK Finger Lakes 158 (-3) 6.89 7.14 $9,000 $115,472-6.9% Aqueduct 114 (8) 7.37 7.57 $48,725-2.6% $467,764-5.6% Belmont Park 92 (-1) 7.73 8.01 $60,760-2.0% $788,164 11% Saratoga 40 (--) 7.97 8.14 $78,000 1.3% $1,035,540 3.7% NORTH DAKOTA Chippewa Downs 8 (--) 6.68 7.34 $2,100 2.4% $12,561-8.9% North Dakota Horse Park 6 (3) 7.89 5.94 $2,300-23% $18,219-23% OHIO Thistledown 121 (-1) 7.87 7.70 $10,300 29% $116,525 37% Belterra Park 100 (100) 7.46 $7,500 $83,136 Beulah Park 53 (-99) 5.78 6.63 $3,300-18% $34,691-13% Mahoning Valley Race Course 21 (21) 8.57 $7,500 $85,625 OKLAHOMA Remington Park 67 (1) 9.29 9.07 $15,938 4.1% $226,640 2.2% Fair Meadows 33 (-1) 7.39 7.29 $6,600-5.2% $41,543-11% Will Rogers Downs 30 (-2) 8.23 8.27 $10,920-4.5% $131,619-4.3% OREGON Portland Meadows 31 (-10) 7.74 7.74 $5,200-1.9% $46,749-2.8% Grants Pass 9 (--) 5.38 5.58 $2,300 4.5% $15,250 15% Crooked River Roundup 4 (--) 5.67 5.41 $2,300 $16,563 13% Tillamook County Fair 4 (--) 5.62 5.41 $2,200 4.8% $18,625 5.7% Eastern Oregon Livestock Show 3 (--) 5.69 5.31 $2,200 $12,250-3.3% Harney County Fair 3 (--) 6.53 5.27 $2,000-17% $14,167 19% PENNSYLVANIA Parx Racing 199 (4) 7.24 7.47 $26,600-2.4% $280,666-9.0% Penn National 187 (-10) 7.20 7.61 $16,200-2.1% $174,174-3.0% Presque Isle Downs 100 (--) 7.10 7.67 $17,820-5.3% $184,848-5.6% TEXAS Lone Star Park 50 (--) 8.24 8.29 $12,000 9.1% $142,510-1.0% Sam Houston Race Park 32 (-1) 7.93 8.76 $10,000 $164,165 0.1% Retama Park 25 (-1) 8.61 9.15 $7,500-6.3% $100,452 0.8% Gillespie County Fairground 8 (1) 7.52 8.50 $4,300-4.4% $16,050-25% WASHINGTON Emerald Downs 73 (-2) 6.28 6.66 $7,295-2.1% $96,659 2.3% Sun Downs 6 (--) 5.28 6.33 $1,500 $6,792 1.9% WEST VIRGINIA Mountaineer Casino Racetrack & Resort 195 (-15) 7.64 8.11 $9,000 $118,925-5.6% Hollywood Casino At Charles Town Races 192 (-29) 8.06 8.14 $14,000-1.4% $171,920-0.9% WYOMING Wyoming Downs 15 (13) 7.64 5.00 $5,000 100% $12,727 97% Sweetwater Downs 3 (-4) 6.00 5.62 $7,400 85% $6,267-23% CANADA Northlands Park 73 (-5) 7.44 7.39 $9,363-2.7% $107,132-3.4% Lethbridge 36 (-2) 6.73 6.35 $3,034-7.4% $12,277-4.1% Grande Prairie 21 (-4) 5.74 5.68 $2,784-4.4% $10,963-9.9% Alberta Downs 2 (--) 7.83 5.14 $3,430-29% $17,174-8.0% Hastings Racecourse 54 (-9) 6.78 7.12 $12,076 10% $129,323 3.8% Desert Park 2 (--) 4.17 5.70 $2,946 1.4% $9,847-38% Assiniboia Downs 58 (-2) 6.16 6.98 $7,072 2.0% $67,320-13% Woodbine 133 (1) 8.52 8.70 $41,983-9.6% $489,589-3.6% Fort Erie 37 (-4) 6.88 7.27 $9,893 0.2% $103,395-10% Marquis Downs 24 (--) 7.24 7.36 $3,400 0.9% $30,146-2.1% PUERTO RICO Camarero Race Track 248 (-12) 6.44 6.66 $4,950-10% $39,305-16%
Top Trainers View From the Top Gap narrows between elite, average trainers BY IAN TAPP WALLY SKALIJ The following tables provide annual statistics for all North American trainers since 2000 as well as the top 1% of trainers (by earnings) who had at least 20 starts. (The filter on starts helps to exclude international trainers who target only select North American races such as the Breeders Cup.) The trainers who comprise the top 1% vary from year to year, but nine have managed to finish in the top 1% each year since 2000: Tom Amoss, Steve Asmussen, Bob Baffert, Christophe Clement, Jerry Hollendorfer, Graham Motion, Bill Mott, Todd Pletcher, and Dale Romans. It s widely recognized that the best trainers typically get the best horses, so many of the stats differentiating the top trainers from the overall population are predictable. Average win odds, win percentage, average finish, average purse, and earnings per start all reinforce the quality advantage held by the top barns. The statistics in the following tables include performance statistics for trainers in North America from 2000-14. The below table includes only trainers in the top 1% by North American earnings with 20 or more North American starts. The top table on page 18 includes all trainers with at least one North American start. ROI is the average win payout for a $2 bet per start. FTO (first time out) refers to first-time starters. Year Trainers Top 1% of North American Trainers With 20 or More, 2000-14 Wins (% ) Earnings/ Start Purse Finish Win Odds ROI Days Btw FTO FTO Wins (% FTO ) FTO Finish GS GS Wins (% ) GS Fin. DNF (% ) 2014 34 21,181 4,230 (20%) $11,893 $80,856 3.99 3.18 $1.60 32.83 1,924 315 (16%) 4.58 1,922 289 (1.4%) 4.65 156 (0.7%) 2013 37 22,103 4,589 (21%) $11,520 $75,052 3.91 2.99 $1.65 33.50 2,113 345 (16%) 4.58 1,783 285 (1.3%) 4.41 147 (0.7%) 2012 39 23,460 5,020 (21%) $10,803 $67,495 3.84 2.86 $1.63 32.36 2,129 312 (15%) 4.56 1,659 288 (1.2%) 4.37 160 (0.7%) 2011 40 21,925 4,880 (22%) $10,167 $64,147 3.81 2.74 $1.66 32.07 1,973 337 (17%) 4.54 1,602 265 (1.2%) 4.41 151 (0.7%) 2010 42 24,477 5,211 (21%) $9,288 $58,489 3.87 2.91 $1.67 31.79 2,170 299 (14%) 4.68 1,616 269 (1.1%) 4.40 158 (0.6%) 2009 43 26,703 5,588 (21%) $8,778 $55,962 3.89 2.92 $1.63 31.19 2,102 329 (16%) 4.65 1,687 279 (1.0%) 4.42 162 (0.6%) 2008 44 26,830 5,436 (20%) $10,070 $65,661 3.94 3.05 $1.61 31.88 2,412 314 (13%) 4.86 1,931 304 (1.1%) 4.44 148 (0.6%) 2007 46 27,588 5,570 (20%) $10,089 $62,032 3.94 3.12 $1.67 31.22 2,386 349 (15%) 4.74 1,821 311 (1.1%) 4.30 156 (0.6%) 2006 47 24,807 5,292 (21%) $9,891 $61,770 3.86 2.97 $1.71 30.80 2,153 308 (14%) 4.81 1,752 289 (1.2%) 4.44 148 (0.6%) 2005 48 25,174 5,329 (21%) $9,478 $58,454 3.89 2.99 $1.73 30.25 2,122 330 (16%) 4.64 1,720 283 (1.1%) 4.37 189 (0.8%) 2004 50 25,091 5,212 (21%) $9,525 $56,750 3.94 3.08 $1.72 29.83 1,951 291 (15%) 4.82 1,770 312 (1.2%) 4.24 203 (0.8%) 2003 50 25,116 5,285 (21%) $9,302 $54,825 3.92 2.98 $1.68 29.25 1,926 277 (14%) 4.75 1,647 284 (1.1%) 4.22 176 (0.7%) 2002 50 24,198 4,746 (20%) $9,352 $58,010 3.99 3.15 $1.61 28.66 1,869 254 (14%) 4.89 1,738 276 (1.1%) 4.36 160 (0.7%) 2001 51 24,038 4,919 (20%) $9,348 $55,219 3.93 3.04 $1.68 28.05 1,677 237 (14%) 4.87 1,582 281 (1.2%) 4.19 186 (0.8%) 2000 51 22,132 4,468 (20%) $9,376 $57,675 3.99 3.15 $1.68 27.90 1,639 215 (13%) 4.96 1,714 270 (1.2%) 4.33 183 (0.8%) MarketWatch / 17