Horse Racing Fantasy Community

We need to fire the current vet and replace him with a new one! haha

I don't think the vet is a good idea IMO but that still does'nt stop me trying to turn one of my stable bums into a star! Lol! IMO if your not having luck with the vet then don't do it,just find a blue or retire the horse! I have had mixed results vetting but mostly negative! I agree with Frelance that the horse should not come back from the vet with a lower sr than it had originally but i suppose it is a gamble and no one forces you to do it!

I agree with you freelance.
Vetting should not produce a lower quality horse.
I think HRF makes a lot of money by doing it the way they do it, so I don't see them making a change for the better.
My opinion.
Dusty

Retiring is very expensive, $4.50 per horse. I know i've vetted a 140 of them, 99 in the old game, 19 came back better. In the new game 41 vetted, 12 came back better. All 109 were all retired. 31 improved out of 140 not a good %.
Frelance

I reserve judgement on the vetting as I have only vetted 4 horses out of the 4 I have vetted 2got worse 1 gained 2 sr overall and then I got a superstar sr of 130 from a 94 so as I have not had much experience with it yet I will agree that they should not get worse when vetted but I am happy so far with my results.

Add one more vetting failure for me
Frelance

You say you got a 130 ?? Very good for a new player. Mod and all you other non-believers, are you watching ???

~~ Defending the integrity of the game. Enter low, and the community shall know. ~~

I agree with you 100%. I don't vet. Haven't vetted for almost years. Bad investmint, in my opinion. Lasix sometimes helps your horse, but I don't see the vet helping at all. This is from my limited experiences and listening to others. Personally, I think HRF should rethink how vetting works. Or, should I say, doesn't work. JMHO

You can blame the hammer or the hammerer.
After a time you might wonder if the problem isn't the nail.

Do what?
Frelance

Especially when it goes up or down a point.

The biggest improvement I've had is a horse that's sr improved by 12.... from a 79 to a 91.... Not much help there.... I've only vetted 7 horses thus far, 3 improved (the other 2 each improved by 1 sr), 3 dropped in sr, and one came back exactly the same. So as a small stable, I find it very hard to justify doing this for my lower sr horses. It's easier to just retire them because none of them have trained well enough to enter the blues and the vet isn't helping much. - Joe

You must remember that by vetting a horse it is like breeding a brand new horse from the same parents so it may be good or it may not be...its the chance you take by breeding a new horse. If you vet a pairing that is not a currently hot do you really think it will be improved? Percentages are not good. You need to be smart about which ones to vet and when its time to just move on to new parents. (my opinion)

-ModGraphix Stables-

Modographix is correct. When you "vet" all you are really doing is getting a totally different, and new horse. The name, sex, bloodline and color stay the same, while his racing traits are all totally brand new. Where Flyingdaaka disagrees with Mod is the percentages. Why purchase a new horse for 25000 points when you can do the same thing by "vetting" your horse for 17500. You are basically getting a new horse for 7500 points cheaper. Flyingdaaka disagrees with Mod, in that if you are about to retire the horse, you should vet it first. This is especially true for new players. Many new players have reported great success from vetting, as seen earlier in the thread. If the horse comes back from the "vet" as poorly as prior to the vetting, just introduce it to Uncle Shotgun, which you were about to do anyway before vetting.

~~ Defending the integrity of the game. Enter low, and the community shall know. ~~

It's obvious that the odds of getting good Vet visit results are very low and to add to this your horse loses (ages) one Tournament of its racing career (double whammy!). Vetting low SR horses that won't improve much is not worth it.

Vetting decent horses SR115's and up and you are at risk of destroying your horse, with higher odds against any horse getting better. I actually think the odds are actually for your horse to get worse than better. I would like to see no loss of BSR at the very least and HRF can continue with the random + SR increases of + .1 to what they currently are. At least this way some horses may be kept in the game regardless of the (injury to insult) Vet visit.

Trainers must also remember that the Vet Visit will also alter the Performance Report, horse traits, likes and dislikes and peak age of your horse. Just things to consider.

I agree. The vet is not welcome in my barn. He will be shot on sight.
_____________________________________________________
I hope that after I die, people will say of me: 'That guy sure owed me a lot of money.'

It's a NEW horse so how can you say it needs to improve. If you breed the same pairings do you still say the next horse better improve from the previous horse you just bred???? As for destroying a 115 (haha) it would be shipped over to Daaka for a lil shotgun adjustment (LOL) Vetting is no worse then breeding...you have the same chance of getting a good horse but you need to be smart about vetting and breeding to parents that give you low BSR at the time either is done. Since the training game started i have vetted about 90% and will continue...just be smart about it :D

-ModGraphix Stables-

I see what you're saying, Mod. I have just vetted random horses. I will take into account the pair that the horse was bred from when I decide on vetting and see how that works, but I have a feeling Uncle Shotgun will still be pretty busy with me. - Joe

I have made a 98 into 124.8 and a 105 into 87.1 more bad than good I don't vet unless I am having luck with the cross....Stan

Whaley's Stables
Home to some of the World's Finest Gin
"At Least Temporarily"

Exactly what i'm saying...if your not having luck breeding with the pairing then most likely vet will be the same.

-ModGraphix Stables-

Your points are well taken. I've never thought of it this way. Makes sense. Something to think about.

A new horse is not the way it should be. You should get a little improvement from the vet visit. As I said before, Unless the horse is about dead the vet usually heals the horse and they come back a little better but thats real life vets.
Frelance

everything said.
I think the only use for the vet these days is, is that it's a cheaper way to buy a new horse.
With the red, and now the blue, tournys, there is a race and a spot for practically every horse that comes out of the hayshed. I guess, if you have done your dash in those tournys as well, well then it's probably time to visit the vet and try your luck. Or to shoot it!! :P LOL
Regards, Wombat.
Eats,Roots,Shoots and Leaves" :)

If you like the bloodline and have had good luck with it by all means vet... The appearance of the horse won't change but everything else will... Infact my understanding of it vetting is exactly the same as going back to the shed and taking the next breeding from the same pair only at a reduced price... That is something I do anyway. If you try out your breeding luck with 3 horses from a pair and get 3 low Srs you just blew 75K cp.... If you vetted one of the first two you got the same results but saved some points in the process.

If you looked at breeding like buying cards from a deck would you rather take 2 cards and pay full price for each or take the first for full price and the 2nd at a discounted price ?? That is what vetting is. Don't look at it like it was wasted points when it was actually points saved because you'ld got the same results at full price otherwise.

~~~CalifOkie Stables~~~

I keep seeing there is a BLUE tournament for all horses so dont retire them. That only applies if they are particulalry good at 6F, 8F OR 10F on Dirt Fast or Turf Firm. Not much point unless they excel at one of these distances, so the VET could help. Its a joke, I an new to this and have vetted 15, all of which have gone lower apart from 1 which amazingly increased by 1 whole point.
Live and learn and keep breeding, lol

Which means I too see everybody's point.

From HRF's stanpoint, if they changed the vetting to where only the traits might change and the BSR might increase on rare occasions, then more people would vet. If the BSR never went down and only increased at about the same rate as 130+ horses are bred, then people would probably vet close to 100%.
But when the vet destroys a horse, the player is likely to retire it and breed another.

Just two ways to look at it from HRF's perspective. Which scenario would be more profitable?
A certain increase in vetting revenue vs a possible decrese in breeding?

Of course,as a player, I would prefer a vet that doesn't butcher.

Here's something I've been pondering lately. What if HFR worked into horses formula/model the aspect of breaking down, or going lame during a race?
If they actually did this, then perhaps this would be another good example of when to vet, with the assumpion that the vet will get the horse back to his winning ways.
I'm talking about a proven great horse who for no apparent reason stops being competitive, even with continued drops in class.
I'm just thinking out loud, but I suppose anything is possible. A programmer would have no problem writing code to have a horse go lame, or even fall if they were asked by HRF to do so.

Oh yeah right, sure Soundofrum. If Royal Danish went lame, we wouldn't ever hear the end of it. You would post on it every day for the next six months. You still haven't totally gotten over the horse, in a normal procedural move, seeming to have his BSR lowered. If Royal Danish went lame and came back in a lesser form from the vet, you would turn this site into a nuclear waste zone.

~~ Defending the integrity of the game. Enter low, and the community shall know. ~~

maybe we could see some jockeys get maimed, too.
Call it NASHORSE.

I have done quite a bit of vetting and have kept good records on it. I have had some good results with the vet as far as SR improvement goes. However, it seems that those horses that improve greatly in SR never live up to the new SR. My best results with vetting came when working a "hot combo" . One of the better vettings I have is with my horse Ynot Tryit Again who started with a 98.9. She went up over 20 points and has succeeded on the track as well.

Flyingdaaka has vetted 15 times in his career. Only one time did the SR come back more or less than 10 points from original birth SR. (it came back horrible and was about to retired anyway).

~~ Defending the integrity of the game. Enter low, and the community shall know. ~~

I would like to vet these jockeys.

And Rumbo, from what i've witnessed and heard, i don't know if they CAN programme some horses to run any worse!?
A lot of people think thier horses ARE lame and fall over halfway through the race, already!! :P LMAO

Did you ever hear about the crazy man that flushed himself down the toilet? Take a hint.

It is better and cheaper to just bred (but not too many per day) and retire horses. Veted horses that are super successful, Lord Outstanding etc. are very few and far between. I don't believe Mike will change this games vetting rules as it produces too much $$$ for the game. Also my experience with the horses that I veted is that they are not as flexible to different surfaces and distances and once their flame goes out they can not be recharged or re-veted. I know there are exceptions to this but those super veted horses are less than 1 % of all veted horses I am guessing. Tell me how you feel about vetting as this is just my experience. I veted 100's of horses and only got 2 in the sr 130's range and neither one is a super star.type horse. This is just my experience and others may be more successful at it than me.

The current vet program should be scrapped.

Try to understand that everyone has their own experiences in this game and are entitled to air their opinions and ideas. Community is what it is just that. Vetting does appear to be throwing good money after bad, from my experiences with it. Better to bred and retire or you can run your misfit horses in lower level tournaments, which ever way you want it. Not a good idea to vet a really good horse unless you like to gamble and mostly lose. The great Flying one is trying to tell you something but apparently your ears must be turned off.

Microwave on High for 10 seconds and it mainly produces burnt out, genetic misfit freaks, but there are those few exceptions, oh Lord. Anyway, speed ratings are not the only way to judge your new fantasy horse. Courage, stamina, conditions etc are all players too. My funky 111 can beat some of my 130's almost every time. Every horse over 100 or even a little lower can be a player if you can find the optimal conditions and racing distance for the old plug.

The way I see it through my foggy lenses is that it's the $$$ vs the pony players, so I am Betting To Win-98 % sure it's the $$$ that will win. Zap there goes another one and darn, it has smoke coming out of it's ears. Over cooked again

Zap there goes another one and darn, it has smoke coming out of it's ears. Over cooked again.

My record vetting is so unbelievably bad that I had stopped it entirely. However, I now feel that if I don't have a good fit for any of the Blue levels, I have a lot better chance of getting one that does fit well than I did of getting a good horse before. I'm vetting again. Where's the clinic for the jockeys?

I've vetted a lot of horses I'll have to say it's 50 50 up or down but
getting a great horse I've never got and I've had a bag of mixed results
horses going down in SR but they have more courage, to me the SR is about
70% of horses true ability your horse can be a 130 SR moonwalker if it
doesn't have courage then i find consistency to be another facter if you vet
a horse and it comes back with a lower SR but more courage i'll take that everyday
i've had a 98 comeback as a 118 thats 20 points and it was a donkey

my 2 cents

Vetting an NN is 17,500 points but what does it cost to vet a PN horse and an FN horse? Couldn't find the information in the Get Help section.

You do not want the answer to that question (LOL)

-ModGraphix Stables-

Thanks.

-ModGraphix Stables-

Shizen! LMAO :P

35K & 70K

Your better off retiring and taking your chances on a new horse. They need to send the vet to the doctor, better yet, fire him. I will never use the vet again.........

Ive had two horses improve dramaticly after vetting. So im hooked lol. Now I just figure it
in as a cost of doing business. I have to vet a low performing horse before I retire it. I
just cant help it lol. Its in my nature :p

Have fun guys

Sam