Uncoupled horses in New york

[zico20]

I thought that if a trainer had two horses that he owned and co owned they had to be coupled. Saturday Jacobsen in the fifth race has the 2-5 ML that he owns outright and the 6-1 second choice that he co owns. I didn't think that was allowed. There are two different jockeys listed so I assume they both are planning on running. Does anyone know if they are both eligible to run or will one of the two get scratched.

Thank you

[Stillriledup]

here's a thread with me moaning and complaining about couplings. I know this isn't really your question, but there may be some info in here you can use.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106515&highlight=nyra+coupled

[biggestal99]

One of the good things about exchange wagering is no coupled entries, i am really looking frward to that.

Allan

[Stillriledup]

One of the good things about exchange wagering is no coupled entries, i am really looking frward to that.

Allan

Lets hope they get around to it while we're still young.

[Robert Goren]

I have very mixed feelings about uncoupled entries. It leads to all sorts of speculation when the higher odds horse wins. That does not happen all that often, but still...... For the enterprising handicapper who keeps track of which trainers pull this stunts, there are rewards. The bad thing is the part-time small bettor who the industry desperately needs right now is going feel cheated when this happens. It may be good for me, but it is bad for the industry. Unfortunately with trainers getting larger and larger stables, this going to pop up more. And it will drive more newcomers from the game.

[Stillriledup]

I have very mixed feelings about uncoupled entries. It leads to all sorts of speculation when the higher odds horse wins. That does not happen all that often, but still...... For the enterprising handicapper who keeps track of which trainers pull this stunts, there are rewards. The bad thing is the part-time small bettor who the industry desperately needs right now is going feel cheated when this happens. It may be good for me, but it is bad for the industry. Unfortunately with trainers getting larger and larger stables, this going to pop up more. And it will drive more newcomers from the game.

The funny thing is that it should lead to speculation when the SHORTER priced horse wins simply because if the speculation is that there was a "betting" coup, the longer priced horse winning would essentially show there was no shenanigans going on, the horse with less money won.

Also, i don't think the industry should be catering to the part time small bettor at the expense of the serious bigger bettor who has put a lot of his or her skin into this game from the betting side of things.

The right thing to do is take care of the best customers because what inherently grows businesses is word of mouth and racing is a HUGE "word of mouth" business, if current hard core players aren't happy, they're not going to recruit newbies and show them the ropes.

[pandy]

I just wrote a column about this for American Turf Monthly. Surveys have proven that the majority of bettors do not like entries. The biggest problem is that ultimately they are bad for bettors.

A classic example was this year's Travers. Trainer Jimmy Jerkens had two horses in the race. One was 5-2 second choice Wicked Strong, the other was the winner. V. E. Day who paid $41.00. If you were a horse player who was a fan of V. E. Day and looking to bet him, and the Jerkens horses were coupled, you probably would have not bet the race and watched V E Day win knowing that you could have made a big score if the horse had not been coupled. Big scores are the only way to win in the long run, and anything that makes it tougher to score on a longshot is bad for business.

As for the entry this Saturday, one of the horses will be scratched.

[cj]

I just wrote a column about this for American Turf Monthly. Surveys have proven that the majority of bettors do not like entries. The biggest problem is that ultimately they are bad for bettors.

A classic example was this year's Travers. Trainer Jimmy Jerkens had two horses in the race. One was 5-2 second choice Wicked Strong, the other was the winner. V. E. Day who paid $41.00. If you were a horse player who was a fan of V. E. Day and looking to bet him, and the Jerkens horses were coupled, you probably would have not bet the race and watched V E Day win knowing that you could have made a big score if the horse had not been coupled. Big scores are the only way to win in the long run, and anything that makes it tougher to score on a longshot is bad for business.

As for the entry this Saturday, one of the horses will be scratched.

This was the original intent of the rule. Nobody is playing games to cash a ticket in G1 stakes races. But claimers, that is another story. The rules were changed to help tracks have bigger fields, not help bettors, as I'm sure you are aware.

[zico20]

I have very mixed feelings about uncoupled entries. It leads to all sorts of speculation when the higher odds horse wins. That does not happen all that often, but still...... For the enterprising handicapper who keeps track of which trainers pull this stunts, there are rewards. The bad thing is the part-time small bettor who the industry desperately needs right now is going feel cheated when this happens. It may be good for me, but it is bad for the industry. Unfortunately with trainers getting larger and larger stables, this going to pop up more. And it will drive more newcomers from the game.

I remember back in the very early 90s in Chicago I kept track of this stat. If my memory recalls correctly the uncoupled big favorite lost to the higher priced I believe 23 times in a row. The favorite beat the higher priced horse only about 5% of the time over a two year period. Now, I didn't count when they ran 9th and 10th obviously. It was so crooked that even today I believe all horses with the same trainer should be coupled. I just can't get over how fixed those races were 25 years ago.

[pandy]

This was the original intent of the rule. Nobody is playing games to cash a ticket in G1 stakes races. But claimers, that is another story. The rules were changed to help tracks have bigger fields, not help bettors, as I'm sure you are aware.

I don't think it was to create bigger fields. I believe the rule was implemented to protect the bettors. Several racing writers have said that in print. In today's sport, with a shortage of horses, entries limit betting choices so it makes the field smaller. No?

My scenario still plays out in claiming races. Let's say that I see a horse make a big move down the backstretch then get cut off on the turn and the chart caller misses it. I put the horse on my stable watch, and it shows up in a spot where it would be 15-1, but because it's entrymate is the favorite, it's 8-5. The horse wins and I'm screwed out of a $32 winner.


Maybe I'm missing something but I've never heard one good reason why there should be entries. The "protecting the bettors" reasoning is ridiculous. It's gambling. If a horse is racing, the odds on that horse should be the odds on that horse, period.

[ubercapper]

[QUOTE=zico20]I thought that if a trainer had two horses that he owned and co owned they had to be coupled. Saturday Jacobsen in the fifth race has the 2-5 ML that he owns outright and the 6-1 second choice that he co owns. I didn't think that was allowed. There are two different jockeys listed so I assume they both are planning on running. Does anyone know if they are both eligible to run or will one of the two get scratched.

I recall being told that it was the percentage of ownership. I believe it was 25% or more that required the entry to be coupled.

[OTM Al]

Here is the full rule

§ 4025.10. Limitations on entries.
(a) A horse whose managing owner is a partnership cannot be entered or run in the name, whether real or stable, of an individual partner unless that individual's interest or property in the racing qualities of that horse is equal to at least 25 percent.
(b) All horses in common ownership as defined in section 4026.2(e) of this Title (i.e., having any common managing owner) or section 4026.3(c) (i.e., in which there is a 25 percent commonality among nonmanaging owners) must be coupled and run as an entry.
(c) Not more than two horses trained by the same person shall be drawn into any overnight race, or on the also-eligible list, to the exclusion of another horse.
(d) All horses trained by the same trainer must be coupled and run as an entry.
(e) The commission steward may require any horses entered in a race to be coupled for betting purposes prior to the commencement of wagering on-track and off-track, if such steward finds it necessary in the public interest.
(f) All horses trained or ridden by a spouse, parent, issue or member of a jockey's household shall be coupled in the betting with any horse ridden by such jockey.
(g) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions (b) and (d) of this rule, no entry shall be coupled by reason of common ownership or training in any race in which the gross purse is $1,000,000 or more, provided however that the provisions of subdivision (e) of this section shall continue to be applicable in any such races. In any race subject to the provisions of this subdivision, the racing secretary shall have the authority to establish a mutuel field and coupled entries in any race with more than 14 starters.

I do not know why (d) does not seem to be followed in many cases.

[onefast99]

[QUOTE=zico20]I thought that if a trainer had two horses that he owned and co owned they had to be coupled. Saturday Jacobsen in the fifth race has the 2-5 ML that he owns outright and the 6-1 second choice that he co owns. I didn't think that was allowed. There are two different jockeys listed so I assume they both are planning on running. Does anyone know if they are both eligible to run or will one of the two get scratched.

I recall being told that it was the percentage of ownership. I believe it was 25% or more that required the entry to be coupled.
I raced in the Ladys Secret at MP in 2007 with the :1: and :1a: I didn't realize that they could have been uncoupled?

[Fingal]

One of the good things about exchange wagering is no coupled entries, i am really looking frward to that.

Allan

In the meantime you should bet on California racing. We haven't had an entry out here in too many years to remember.

I think the most extreme was a few years ago in one of those 2 year old filly stakes at Hollywood Park- 5 horse field & Baffert trained 4 of the entries. Back at one time that would have meant only 2 betting interests, i.e. the lone entrant vs. a 4 horse Baffert entry.

So no entries increases the number of betting options in a race.

[Stillriledup]

I don't think it was to create bigger fields. I believe the rule was implemented to protect the bettors. Several racing writers have said that in print. In today's sport, with a shortage of horses, entries limit betting choices so it makes the field smaller. No?

My scenario still plays out in claiming races. Let's say that I see a horse make a big move down the backstretch then get cut off on the turn and the chart caller misses it. I put the horse on my stable watch, and it shows up in a spot where it would be 15-1, but because it's entrymate is the favorite, it's 8-5. The horse wins and I'm screwed out of a $32 winner.


Maybe I'm missing something but I've never heard one good reason why there should be entries. The "protecting the bettors" reasoning is ridiculous. It's gambling. If a horse is racing, the odds on that horse should be the odds on that horse, period.

I kind of agree with CJ, this wasn't really to protect bettors, tracks aren't really in the business of caring what bettors think, want or need. They might have SAID its to protect the public, but really, its to create more betting interests and more money for them.

If they really cared about the bettors, they could pass rules that limit one entry per trainer per race, that way, there wouldn't be the need for uncoupling, but of course, they didn't do that and put the onus on the bettor.

[Stillriledup]

I remember back in the very early 90s in Chicago I kept track of this stat. If my memory recalls correctly the uncoupled big favorite lost to the higher priced I believe 23 times in a row. The favorite beat the higher priced horse only about 5% of the time over a two year period. Now, I didn't count when they ran 9th and 10th obviously. It was so crooked that even today I believe all horses with the same trainer should be coupled. I just can't get over how fixed those races were 25 years ago.

Would you be opposed to THIS idea. Instead of coupling, have the judges actually watch the races and mete punishment accordingly if there are 'shenanigans' going on? You know, any race with an uncoupled situation that gets a few complaints to the judges and racing commissions gets looked into, betting patterns are reviewed, surveillance cameras are checked out, bank accounts as well as ADW accounts are reviewed for anyone suspected of wrongdoing as well as actual real life US legal system prosecution to the 'fullest extent of the law' for wrongdoers. I mean, if convenience stores can prosecute kids who steal candy bars to the 'fullest extent' per their signs on the wall, the racing industry can prosecute race fixers.

OR

Would you rather just have the onus put on the bettors while the racing commissions and stewards just look the other way, don't review betting patterns, don't review surveillance footage and sort of just pretend none of it ever happened?

[cj]

I don't think it was to create bigger fields. I believe the rule was implemented to protect the bettors. Several racing writers have said that in print. In today's sport, with a shortage of horses, entries limit betting choices so it makes the field smaller. No?

My scenario still plays out in claiming races. Let's say that I see a horse make a big move down the backstretch then get cut off on the turn and the chart caller misses it. I put the horse on my stable watch, and it shows up in a spot where it would be 15-1, but because it's entrymate is the favorite, it's 8-5. The horse wins and I'm screwed out of a $32 winner.


Maybe I'm missing something but I've never heard one good reason why there should be entries. The "protecting the bettors" reasoning is ridiculous. It's gambling. If a horse is racing, the odds on that horse should be the odds on that horse, period.

The reason entries were eliminated in most cases was to increase betting interests. I misstated that as field size. I wasn't talking about the reason for having entries in the first place.

As for protecting bettors, trainers have an inside edge already, allowing them to have inside information on two (or more) competitors in the same race is really not fair to bettors. But, as we know, few really care about that. Anybody thinking trainers don't play games with uncouples entries is probably being naive.

One example I've seen many times is an uncoupled entry featuring two speed horses. One goes, the other does not even try for the lead. Clearly there was a plan that only the trainer and riders were privy to before the race. How is that fair to bettors?

[pandy]

I'll see if I can find some of the columns written by DRF writers and others about entries. Bill Finley also wrote a column about entries not long ago. I could be wrong but I believe that they were created because of a near riot years ago.

I did find one excerpt where Finley said that the coupling rule was put in to protect the bettors. Finley also thinks its antiquated.