V.E. Day irony

[pele polo]

I know most of us all though it but....

Ironic how Giant Killer, Jr. does it to himself .


Well done though.

[Stillriledup]

I know we most of us all though it but....

Ironic how Giant Killer, Jr. does it to himself .


Well done though.

If there was a dead heat, he would have had TWO Travers winners added to his resume.

[TJC]

Aren't uncoupled entries just great?

[Stillriledup]

Aren't uncoupled entries just great?

Yes, and they're especially great if they tell you before the race that you have the ability to bet on either horse!

[TJC]

I was being sarcastic.

[pandy]

Aren't uncoupled entries just great?


Yes. Imagine if you liked V E Day and you got 5-2 instead of 19-1. I hate all entries and the entire idea of them. A gambler should never have to take short odds on a horse that should be long odds.

[TJC]

Then why do some tracks still have entries?

[jk3521]

Love Tom Durkin's comment..... "Who won the Travers?,Jimmy Jerkins!" :D

[reckless]

I believe the winning owners of V E Day also own a share in the Centennial Farm syndicate that owns Wicked Strong.

I would have thought that such an arrangement should have made a V E Day-Wicked Strong a coupled entry.

It would have been a mandatory coupling in the 'old days' but this is today's game of racing :).

[TJC]

I am sure that the bettors that had Wicked Strong in the double, pick 3, pick 4, and pick 6 are just thrilled that they got beat by V. E. Day, a horse trained by the same trainer and possibly partially owned by a common owner.

Is the reason, there are uncoupled entries like this, primarily for purposes of increasing betting handle?

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

Is the reason, there are uncoupled entries like this, primarily for purposes of increasing betting handle?

No, the main reason is that is an antiquated custom from the days of trainer declarations that diminishes the field sizes and makes horses like the winner pay about 10% as much to those that truly liked him.

Do those pissed off people think that their rider didn't try, that the horse ran poorly, or what? That they stiffed the good one so they could cash some tickets in the Travers? I don't get the complaint. Two honest efforts, big efforts, the best effort won and paid a lot better than it would have if they were coupled.

[reckless]

I am sure that the bettors that had Wicked Strong in the double, pick 3, pick 4, and pick 6 are just thrilled that they got beat by V. E. Day, a horse trained by the same trainer and possibly partially owned by a common owner.

Is the reason, there are uncoupled entries like this, primarily for purposes of increasing betting handle?

I had a Pick 3, Pick 4 and DD going in with Wicked Strong and two others, but honestly, it didn't bother me so much that the 'other half' of the Jerkens' entry won.

What really bothered me to no end was that I originally had V E Day in all those bets but changed my mind, subbing V E Day with Mr Perfect instead.

I believe the general industry wide shortage of horses over these past many years is a major reason why there aren't many coupled entries for the most part. And that reflects overall handle as you correctly suggested.

[jk3521]

Do those pissed off people think that their rider didn't try, that the horse ran poorly, or what? That they stiffed the good one so they could cash some tickets in the Travers? I don't get the complaint. Two honest efforts, big efforts, the best effort won and paid a lot better than it would have if they were coupled.[/QUOTE]

How do you stiff a horse to lose by a head? :D

[TJC]

I never said that any horse was stiffed or didn't try.

And thanks...I always thought I was antiquated.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Thanks...I always thought I was antiquated.

:D

I didn't mean to seem edgy with the post, but as someone that once thought that decoupling was a bad idea, I've gone 180 the other way.

If the point was at one time to discourage shenanigans - at best it seems to have outlasted its usefulness.

I've seen more ridiculous strategic entering as a result of coupling and the accompanying rules everywhere I've been that allow you to scratch either without penalty as POE since they are one betting interest than I've ever seen from decoupling common ownership.

It's safe to say, that had they been coupled and had Wicked Strong held on to win, there'd be an outcry about getting a short price on him thanks to the casuals that go for the old two fer the price of one adage and that other nag that just cost them money.

When you stack all the pros and cons - and this is purely my opinion - decoupling is just so much more sensible than the preservation of the common interest coupling.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I never said that any horse was stiffed or didn't try.

...

I didn't say that either - but you inquired as to how someone would feel holding tickets on Wicked Strong as though they had been wronged. How? The only way they could have been somehow wronged is if they had been deceived. Everything is there and black and white, the entries were listed as shown long before they placed a wager. I just can't understand why someone would feel anything other than disappointed they got beat.

[pandy]

Then why do some tracks still have entries?


Because ions ago some idiots got mad at a NY track and they put these stupid rules in. Now, it's already been proven that the majority of horse players do not want entries. Entries make no sense. Horse racing is a gamble, and you should be able to wager on the horse you like at the odds the horse is going off at.

[TJC]

"I am sure that the bettors that had Wicked Strong in the double, pick 3, pick 4, and pick 6 are just thrilled that they got beat by V. E. Day, a horse trained by the same trainer and possibly partially owned by a common owner."

I never said they were wronged.

You see, I wagered at Fort Erie for many, many years where you could bet a 1/1 exactor and I can't tell you how many times the 1/1 exactor came in when I had the winner with the third horse. I believe that you can no longer make the 1/1 exactor bet.